Random Politics & Religion #14

Which...you're being facetious, but there are so many bloody people that 1) actually do think those things or 2) think that anyone using the term thinks those things that it's getting hard to even have a discussion on the topic because people of group #2 think that everyone talking about then is from group #1.

TL;DR: The lizard men can't overthrow humans fast enough.

Sure, those things all exist. It's just hard to have a discussion about it when there is no differentiation in definition from someone who is a legitimate racist, xenophobe, homophobe, etc. and someone who is perceived as exhibiting such tendencies because they hold views that are automatically grouped together with more extreme ones in a weak attempt to discredit them. Until that is resolved, "bigot" is hardly anything more than a neo-Godwin.

We just can't simply dismiss their arguments because we find that they are racist, xenophobic or homophobic. If you really want to stop those things then you need to stop calling them bigots and start understand where they are coming from. Someone who you think is racist, may not actually be racist but may have just said or implied things that you think are racists.

Even then understanding their racism in this case will do much to alleviate it. If you just call them a bigot and shut them out you will do nothing but solidify their opinion if not make it worse.

Bigot has been used terrible and has been very dismissive in the past year, it is nothing but an excuse to gain leverage in an argument that you can't feasibly win. Its context has been nothing but bigotry itself by writing off another opinion without plausible merit.

I dunno, I understand what you mean by legitimate racism, but I think the greater issue I have is conflating something largely insignificant with something outrightly horrific.

For instance pausing for a bit too long looking at a black guy in a hoodie is as bad as wanting slavery reinsituted. Gonna be called racist either way.

Meanwhile using white people as the perpetual whipping post for all social ills is well deserved and not at all racist.

Poor education, lack/wrong kind of exposure to the world outside their bubble, or sometimes low intelligence(or maybe that's often, but I wanna be optimistic about the average human).
But people are usually stubborn in their beliefs, especially when they are linked to emotions(in this case could be hate or fear), so reason will have a hard time making its way through, definetely not from a stranger at least. Sometimes people who are close can have that leverage, but there are also cases of family feuds for these things(cue Lilli's situation if you have read him talking about it).

Also, when someone does something wrong they also have to understand that it is not acceptable. Things should be called with their name and if someone says "black people are inferior to white"(banal example) they have to be told that it's racist.

Well in other non-bigotted news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/politics/jeff-sessions-donald-trump-attorney-general.html


My hope is quickly dwindling. I don't know why I got it up in the first place.

There are legal precedents in place to protect news organizations and journalists in the US for a reason.

Answer my question: who gets to decide what facts I don't like is?

The national enquirer is a sensational organization but they still get it correct sometimes, when other agencies are not looking for the story.

For the past few years (decade~) there has been a lot of talk on both sides about censoring journalists or deciding who is a journalist and who isn't. Are bloggers who report and investigate stories irrelevant? Are major news organizations better because they have more funding or worse?

This is a major problem.

What I think is news and important may not be something that you think is news and important. So who is going to decide who is reporting the important stuff correctly, according to some random definition?

Satire is often confused for news. Should we get rid of satire news sites?

As to surviving in an uncensored world, I need you to expound on that because yes, we have survived and thrived in an uncensored world.

Them's fightin' words.

Guys..guys!!!
I'm trying not to think naughty things here, but you don't help me!

As long as no boobs, genitals, or swears are featured on television.

What's wrong with sessions?

He's fully red pilled, and his MAGA levels are over 9000.

The media is just diving head first into the shallow end trying to set the forest on fire.

Very odd thing. Here in Italy during the 80s and part of the 90s you saw *** and butts in pretty much all tv programmes...now instead it's considered scandalous.

I say bring back boobies, butts and add in penises to the mix too!

Its pretty simple and something I find clear.

facts I don't like is news that is reported as True but as no source or credibility.

Satirical News and Talk shows can be listed differently and should be easy to differentiate from.

Probably more clear if I say that I think that news should be backed by sources rather than "censoring" news.

Don't get too excited Seha.

If I thought Huff Post was satire I would say it's brilliant but I think those people there actually believe what they write...

Yes, that statement and others like it are racist. A vast majority of what I hear being called racist doesn't even come close to that. Disagreeing with Obama, thinking that Affirmative Action is flawed, voting for a white guy, being anti-globalist, promoting stronger national security, patriotism, handing out movie awards to a number of white people that does not exactly mirror national demographics -- these are the types of things that are being called racist. When you (proverbial) can't find a word to distinguish between a person with those views and a Grand Wizard, the word itself becomes a joke.

As a nihilist who am I to say what you do is right or wrong. I'm just here to watch the world burn !

Devil's advocate/counterpoint: there are people who actually engage in racist talking points and act like they're not racist and fall into the lesser categories of issues-tied-to-race-but-not-racist, then lambast people who call them out on it as PC hyperliberals.

My new mental image of you:

That is not say, you're not entirely wrong, but as always, the issue is decidedly not one-sided.

New?

I'll give you points for being reasonable. The exceptions you made in your devil's advocate point don't warrant the current abuse of the term, but there are nuances in every argument worth pointing out.

On topic-ish?

Kanye West: 'I would have voted for Trump — if I voted'

I really have no idea where you are going with this then.

Censorship is not allowing something to occur. It is restricting an entity or person can say do, publish, etc.

Satirical news sites have been referenced as "real" news before. This has happened multiple times and especially on stupid April 1st.

Maybe you are unaware of how many journalists have been threatened or arrested for doing their jobs, reporting on newsworthy events. How bogus DCMA notices are sent out to pull stories off of google when a company, person, or politician doesn't like the content. How politicians discussed arresting reporters who reported on leaked classified information even though this has been protected for decades.

On top of this, the US is only one country in the world. How would you propose regulating what is news or what is opinion with the rest of the worlds journalists when the internet makes it easily available.

Then there is the fact that just because a story uses references or sources this does not automatically mean that this is a completely factual story. Look at almost any article written by journalists who have no understanding on how science/engineering/technology/medicine works and reports on a new study or device. Many get it terribly wrong or completely distort the study.

Or politicians who go on news shows, who are on the science committee, or the technology committee, and who speak as if they are on an expert on a subject that they know nothing about (e.g. cybersecurity, encryption, coding, etc).

Without censorship this is a self-correcting cycle.

Something is reported as fact. Other reporters look into it and someone finds out that is not true.

Sessions pick hits the wire and instantly the reaction is



Just embarrassing.

You say that but...

This is not the first time I hear of something like this, is it old news or just stuff that happened exactly the same way as last time?

This happened a few days ago, same situation

I think it's the latter, but I'm not 100% sure. Most of the time stories like this don't just randomly pop up again, but it was a British woman before too so I'm not sure.

Even if it is the same story, it still means Dubai is a backward shithole of justice.