Media Bias

[Joe]

I can't quantify it. I don't keep track. But, I have been critical of him. In fact, everyone here knows that he wasn't my first choice for President, and I did not think he had much of a chance to win. I criticized him throughout the campaign.

I just know that when people ask me, I give my view, and often I have given unsolicited negative views on Trump. I would ask you to apply the same criticism to others - who support politicians other than Trump - as you apply to me. How often do you quiz folks who don't support Trump in this manner?

You can quantify it if you're willing to do the work. It's not like your posts have disappeared. The question is how willing are you to fact check yourself. It's a PITA, but could be a useful exercise in self-awareness.

Anecdotally, I recall your criticisms pale next to the volume of your defenses, but that doesn't mean anything. If I cared enough to express an opinion, I'd review a month or two of your posts mentioning Trump to check my perception. But that's just me.

As for your first choice for President, everyone here doesn't know. I wasn't here then, and I doubt superuniverse does either. Since Incitatus wasn't in the running, I hesitate to guess.

Well, I'm absolutely not willing to go back and sort my posts in order to itemize how many times I've admitted to a criticism of Donald Trump. I'm as willing as anyone to fact check myself, and I don't know anyone who would do what you're suggesting I do.

Yes, my criticisms pale next to the volume of my defenses. I support the guy. I side with him on a lot of issues. I also have seen him vilified here, and mindlessly attacked without evidence by those who wouldn't say a single nice thing about him for any reason.

How many of the anti-Trump people here have volumes of crticisms of the politicians they support which match their defenses? I would submit, nobody. Not a one. Not you, for example. Which politician did you support in 2016? Did your criticisms of the one you supported not pale next to your defenses?

What does reviewing a month or two of my posts about Trump tell you? Do you think the only way I can be self-aware is if that month or two of posts was well-balanced with both criticisms and defenses? Why? Do you apply that test to Hillary Supporters? Bernie supporters? AOC supporters? I doubt it.

Go through your posts in the last several months and locate all the times you took issue with those on this forum who are 100% anti-trump. have you called on them to balance their criticisms with defenses? Why not?

Trump wasn't my first choice when the field was large, but when it boiled down to Trump or Hillary, my choice was clear - Trump all the way.

Actually, you do know people who would do something like that, and have. Moreover, that's nothing next to what the best historians, researchers, and reporters do to get at the truth.

So, do you know who Incitatus was?

[Forty Two]

I'll take an answer to my question above, first -- How many of the anti-Trump people here have volumes of crticisms of the politicians they support which match their defenses? I would submit, nobody. Not a one. Not you, for example. Which politician did you support in 2016? Did your criticisms of the one you supported not pale next to your defenses?

And, how many times have you tried to challenge others on their "criticism to defense ratio?"

"Who" incitatus was, lol. I've used the Caligula reference several times on these boards. I know what it was.

And, talking on a forum message board is not historical research - I don't owe you anything, nor is my "criticism to defense ratio" relevant to any issue under discussion. I've already said that my criticisms here of Trump do pale in comparison to my defenses. That's to be expected, because I support the guy. However, I do criticize him, and I have. The thing is, there is no shortage of criticism of Donald Trump - the norm here is not only to criticize him, but to vilify him, mock him and to do the same to anyone who supports him. Threads are created at will to attack him, but if you try to create a thread to either laude him or to even just dispassionately discuss Trump related issues, they get resounding objections to their very existence - the moderators require all Trump related discussions that aren't mockery and ridicule and criticism to be placed in omnibus threads, making it difficult to discuss ideas and events in a focused way. However, mockery and ridicule can occupy thread after thread almost without limit. So, it's no wonder the couple folks here who are either supporters of Trump or even relatively neutral, have to pretty much constantly defend the guy.

I ask you, again, how often do you go out asking those who ridicule and criticize Trump how often they defend him? I bet they rarely if ever do, even when he does something they think is good. And, how often do you require some sort of "balance" of other people in relation to their preferred candidates? I doubt you've inquired that of anyone else.

[Joe]

If you want an answer to your question, I invite you to look at my posts. If I were running for office, that's what a reporter would do. Surely, you can muster as much effort as those you mock and demean.

BTW, I wasn't here in 2016 when you expressed your preference of Caligula's horse to any of the candidates, but "somehow" knowing that you did, I mentioned incitatus as a little joke. You seemed a little verklempt at the idea of reviewing your output.

[Cunt]

Joe, have you got something to contribute about media bias? Or should we ask to have your threads moved to the Trump thread?

[Forty Two]

If you want an answer to your question, I invite you to look at my posts. If I were running for office, that's what a reporter would do. Surely, you can muster as much effort as those you mock and demean.

BTW, I wasn't here in 2016 when you expressed your preference of Caligula's horse to any of the candidates, but "somehow" knowing that you did, I mentioned incitatus as a little joke. You seemed a little verklempt at the idea of reviewing your output.

So, let me get this straight, when I refer you to my past posts, you tell me that it's my duty to research them, tabulate them and create a statistical comparison between criticisms and defenses, because that's what good reporters and historical researchers do. When ask you to do exactly what you've asked me to do, you "invite" me to look at your posts, and do that exercise for your posts, you won't do it on your own. Why is it my job to tabulate my posts, and my job to tabulate your posts. When does your job start?

Again - I would like the courtesy of an answer to my questions. Apparently, you won't.

[Cunt]

I wonder if there is a 'media bias' here, against criticizing those who support religious blasphemy laws.

My time here will probably end, so that everyone can have a muslim-safe environment. I'll miss Forty Two, and rEv (weirdly enough)

[pErvinalia]

What are you on about? No one likes Islam here.

[Cunt]

What are you on about? No one likes Islam here.

I got shit for pointing out that bowing to Islam is indistinguishable from being a true muslim.

It IS the same thing, functionally.

To see who rules you, see who you can't criticize.

[Joe]

If you want an answer to your question, I invite you to look at my posts. If I were running for office, that's what a reporter would do. Surely, you can muster as much effort as those you mock and demean.

BTW, I wasn't here in 2016 when you expressed your preference of Caligula's horse to any of the candidates, but "somehow" knowing that you did, I mentioned incitatus as a little joke. You seemed a little verklempt at the idea of reviewing your output.

So, let me get this straight, when I refer you to my past posts, you tell me that it's my duty to research them, tabulate them and create a statistical comparison between criticisms and defenses, because that's what good reporters and historical researchers do. When ask you to do exactly what you've asked me to do, you "invite" me to look at your posts, and do that exercise for your posts, you won't do it on your own. Why is it my job to tabulate my posts, and my job to tabulate your posts. When does your job start?

Again - I would like the courtesy of an answer to my questions. Apparently, you won't.

No Forty Two, I've required nothing of you. I suggested you review your posts for your benefit. You seem to have been triggered by the idea.

[Forty Two]

I'm not triggered by it. I just told you I wasn't inclined to bother doing it, for reasons I gave.

However, I asked you a question, asking you to review your posts for your benefit. You then invited me to review your posts for you.

Since you said any good researcher, historian or reporter would undergo that exercise, I assumed you would follow your own advice there. I was, as I expected, wrong that you would do that.

Now, what point are you making here? That I defend trump way more than I criticize him? For the third time, I'll admit that. Of course I do. I think the bloke is doing a bang-up job as President, and the fact that he has accomplished so much with the sheer amount of unmitigated attack that he's had to undergo, well, that makes it all the more amazing. He's got 90% of the media against him. He has half the GOP who don't like him. He has the entire Democrat Party against him. He has almost all of the establishment bureaucracy working against him, and he still manages to achieve.

Phenomenal. When he announced his candidacy, I thought it couldn't possibly be real, and he would have no chance of winning, and I said that he would not be able to get anything done and he has been mostly a reality star of late, and it's not a good precedent to set to have him get elected, etc. However, I have only become more impressed by his performance, and I am much more supportive now than I was 2 years ago.

Now, I am under no obligation to criticize him at all, but I do, when he does things that I question. No worries there. Nobody is perfect.

[Cunt]

I wonder what Joe has to say in favour of the Trump accomplishments.

[Joe]

I'm not triggered by it. I just told you I wasn't inclined to bother doing it, for reasons I gave.

However, I asked you a question, asking you to review your posts for your benefit. You then invited me to review your posts for you.

Since you said any good researcher, historian or reporter would undergo that exercise, I assumed you would follow your own advice there. I was, as I expected, wrong that you would do that.

Now, what point are you making here? That I defend trump way more than I criticize him? For the third time, I'll admit that. Of course I do. I think the bloke is doing a bang-up job as President, and the fact that he has accomplished so much with the sheer amount of unmitigated attack that he's had to undergo, well, that makes it all the more amazing. He's got 90% of the media against him. He has half the GOP who don't like him. He has the entire Democrat Party against him. He has almost all of the establishment bureaucracy working against him, and he still manages to achieve.

Phenomenal. When he announced his candidacy, I thought it couldn't possibly be real, and he would have no chance of winning, and I said that he would not be able to get anything done and he has been mostly a reality star of late, and it's not a good precedent to set to have him get elected, etc. However, I have only become more impressed by his performance, and I am much more supportive now than I was 2 years ago.

Now, I am under no obligation to criticize him at all, but I do, when he does things that I question. No worries there. Nobody is perfect.

Whatever you say Forty Two.

So here's a question for you that won't require any upsetting efforts. If you make a joke about a politician you voted for, does that count as criticism or support?

[Cunt]

Nope.

Your opinion on media bias seems to be that turning the conversation away from media bias is the best course.

An unusual position.

[Seabass]

Wtf is this shit? Fox News is a goddamn national security threat.

[Cunt]

Ha! I KNEW it! I guess them dems aren't even good at coups