Are You A Hate Agent?

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by OWM, Jun 14, 2019.

  1. OWM

    OWM Well-Known Member

    3,231
    846
    113
  2. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    Three comments:

    1-- I wouldn't put a lot of faith in an anonymous tipster giving this information to Breitbart, who runs it exclusively with no other (and no more credible) news agencies or outlets getting involved.

    Breitbart is itself a very partisan political news organization that serves only to be propaganda for the right wing. I would take anything that they broadcast with a grain of salt, particularly anything that they have come up with on their own or from an anonymous source that cannot be vetted or verified by others.


    2-- I think the idea of identifying political or religious extremists, haters, basically just horrible antisocial evil people, and kicking them off Facebook and all other social media platforms, is a great idea. If (and only if) the owners of this private property electronic forum have come up with fair and reasonable rules to identify who these dangerous or troublemaking extremist are...

    ...and then enforce them the policy fairly. Kick off as many Christian lunatics as you have Islamic Jihadists. Kick off the left wing AntiFa people as well as the skinhead neo-Nazis and Klansman. Ban people for disseminating slanderous and libelous lies against popular right wing political figures and those who do the same thing against left-wing political figures.


    3-- But my support for the idea of private (non-governmental ) censorship as expressed above may only be based on theory, not practice.

    In practice, I don't know if you can ever trust any entity to be fair in how it applies such rules to those that disagree with it. True neutrality among organizations is like neutrality among governments --there really isn't any. Whoever's in charge of the company or the government always has political and religious opinions that, consciously or not, it wants to promote to others. On the flip side, it will often see contrary ideas as more threatening than they really are.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2019

  3. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    On a related note, here's an article discussing how right-wing journalism has questionable ethics and does not follow standards of journalistic integrity. A specific example of a fake news story being disseminated, first with Breitbart and then picked up by other right wing news agencies after Breitbart published it, is given here and explained in detail how it came to happen.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw2QRlzaUbIQnKGsRrdPulEs&ust=1560599376651325
     
  4. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,831
    505
    113
    Simple solution, don't use Facebook. How is this so complicated?
     
  5. OWM

    OWM Well-Known Member

    3,231
    846
    113
    CNN or MSNBC would have been much more credible?

    On Two and three we are on the same page.

    Right Wing Left Wing they all step in it.
     
  6. OWM

    OWM Well-Known Member

    3,231
    846
    113
    That is so good that it needs posting again.
    However as I am sure you know face-crap and google-crap tract you while on the web regardless of whether you have an account or not.
     
  7. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,608
    1,704
    113
    Have an open mind for a moment.

    Assume that this anonymous employee and his accusations are legitimate. Do you think he's going to offer his info to the Washington Post or the New York Times? His story would never see the light of day. I can't recall were Breitbart has published anything that wasn't legitimate. Of course they're partisan. That was Andrew Breitbart's mission. To counter the partisan left wing media.

    Do you recall James Damore who was fired by Google? He wrote a sexist manifesto explaining why there were fewer women employed in high stress positions in Google. It showed up first on Gizmodo, not exactly the Chicagp Tribune, and then eventually picked up by the legacy MSM.
     
  8. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,608
    1,704
    113
    And knowing all the crap we know about Facebook (and Google, Twitter, etc) now, why would we not accept that it's something Facebook would do to its users?

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2019
  9. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    Partisan reporting can still have integrity --you only publish true stories that are vetted and verified knowing and expecting they will have the effect of building up your supporters and tearing down the morale or reputation of your political adversaries.

    What Breitbart does, however, is promote fake news, lies, innuendo, false assumptions, misleading news, and rumor, as if it were fact.

    I gave you a link to a story where Breitbart took a rumor and ran it as a major headline! A question or comment from some other journalist speculating about something became the "source" of a news story about Democrats cuddling up to organizations that openly support terrorism.
     
  10. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,811
    819
    113
    Democrats routinely do that. They just want inclusion (of everyone who agrees with them) and money. Mostly money.

    We all know this.

    Nemo
     
  11. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,831
    505
    113
    I don't use either one.

    Use DuckDuckGo and disable third party cookies in your web browser. Problem solved.
     
  12. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,608
    1,704
    113
    Of course partisan media can have integrity. If its editors and reporters have any integrity of their own. Show us where CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post or any other left biased media have any. Which media kept running the Mueller investigation dog & pony show for two years with full intent to remove Trump from office? And which media are continuing to perpetuate the Mueller farce?
     
  13. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,608
    1,704
    113
    The Atlantic? :rotfl2:
     
  14. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    At least they don't run fake news as "news." They offer left-wing opinion pieces and editorials.
    Here's what a NEW YORK DAILY NEWS reporter found out that Brietbart's website did:

    --------------------------------------------
    this happened to Dan Friedman of the New York Daily News:
    When rumors swirled that Hagel received speaking fees from controversial organizations, I attempted to check them out. On Feb. 6, I called a Republican aide on Capitol Hill with a question: Did Hagel's Senate critics know of controversial groups that he had addressed? Hagel was in hot water for alleged hostility to Israel. So, I asked my source, had Hagel given a speech to, say, the "Junior League of Hezbollah, in France"? And: What about "Friends of Hamas"? The names were so over-the-top, so linked to terrorism in the Middle East, that it was clear I was talking hypothetically and hyperbolically. No one could take seriously the idea that organizations with those names existed -- let alone that a former senator would speak to them.

    Or so I thought. The aide promised to get back to me. I followed up with an e-mail, as a reminder: "Did he get $25K speaking fee from Friends of Hamas?" I asked. The source never responded, and I moved on. I couldn't have imagined what would happen next. On Feb. 7, the conservative web site Breitbart.com screamed this headline: "SECRET HAGEL DONOR?: WHITE HOUSE SPOX DUCKS QUESTION ON 'FRIENDS OF HAMAS'" The story read: "On Thursday, Senate sources told Breitbart News exclusively that they have been informed one of the reasons that President Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has not turned over requested documents on his sources of foreign funding is that one of the names listed is a group purportedly called 'Friends of Hamas.'" The author, Ben Shapiro, wrote that a White House spokesman hung up on him when he called for comment.
    *************************

    emphasis added
     
  15. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,608
    1,704
    113
    Another left leaning media outlet. Why are you becoming an apologist for the left of late? If the past nearly 3 years have shown us anything, it's that the left leaning media will push the establishment narratives as far as they can even if they occasionally do produce something unbiased. Which is rarely. I don't think you're going to change anybody's mind here.
     
  16. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,608
    1,704
    113
    I'll bet you really believe Iran placed those limpet mines on those tanker ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Because John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and the vaulted US intelligence services said so. And they have video too!
     
    EJR914 likes this.
  17. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,811
    819
    113
  18. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,608
    1,704
    113
    A credible diplomatic approach would be firing Bolton (who's never seen a country he wouldn't hesitate to bomb into the stone age) and Pompeo (who wants to be like Bolton when he grows up).

    Reigning in the stupidity at our "intelligence" agencies (military & civilian) would be a good idea too. Tens of billions of dollars annually for intelligence that is lackluster at best and outright lies at worst. "Saddam has WMDs!" "The Taliban are on the run!" "Iran is an existential threat to the world!"
     
  19. OWM

    OWM Well-Known Member

    3,231
    846
    113
    "If Mr. Trump genuinely wishes to avoid further escalation, he should pursue a credible diplomatic outreach to Iran, perhaps in concert with the Europeans — and he should set goals that are achievable. De-escalation by both sides would be a good start."

    Sort of like the Munich Agreement. That really worked well did it not?
    “peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time.” said Chamberlain
    Then as now you don't negotiate with the Devil.