But that is mostly due to the fact that we rather read an article that matches our opinion, than one that does not. We rather spent time with people who share the same opinions, than with those that do not.
Before the internet and the social media this was kind of hard, because the number of TV channels or papers was limited and those with fringe opinions were simply not available, which meant that in your normal newspaper you would often read an opinion that you did not agree with. And that was good because it was the input to rethink your opinion.
Today people do not rethink their standpoint, they simply switch the website, blog, youtube channel they follow and even for the weirdest opinion you will find some matching it. And the more the old media outlets are discredited the worse things will become.

So imho today you do need to know how your brain works and you must spent the effort not only to read opinions different to your own, you must also try and understand the line of thought that is driving the people with that opinion. Sadly not many people are willing to do this, but today you should approach everything convinced that your instinctive position is wrong.

MikeDrop wrote:

You lost me at http://www.nytimes

This is no longer a relevant or credible source. They have hired racists onto their editorial board while at the same time condemning others whose racism isn't up to their standards.

They are unapologetic about their racism.

If you want to have a rational discussion about current issues you are going to have to find some credible sources.

Mike Drop

You respond to a post about fake news by shouting "FAKE NEWS!".

Pretty much par for the course these days, sigh.

Revelation wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

You lost me at http://www.nytimes

This is no longer a relevant or credible source. They have hired racists onto their editorial board while at the same time condemning others whose racism isn't up to their standards.

They are unapologetic about their racism.

If you want to have a rational discussion about current issues you are going to have to find some credible sources.

Mike Drop

You respond to a post about fake news by shouting "FAKE NEWS!".

Pretty much par for the course these days, sigh.

Not really. Clearly you are making up the part about fake news - That was not anywhere in my post. Seems that you are deflecting the point of the NYT not being credible because of unapologetic racism by saying "fake news"

sigh


Mike Drop

MikeDrop wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Compare and contrast to the following, from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/tech ... ernet.html

.

You lost me at http://www.nytimes

This is no longer a relevant or credible source. They have hired racists onto their editorial board while at the same time condemning others whose racism isn't up to their standards.

They are unapologetic about their racism.

If you want to have a rational discussion about current issues you are going to have to find some credible sources.

Mike Drop

??? Are you talking about Sarah Jeong? If so, you've (willfully) fallen victim to the Alt-Right's tactics: https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/17644704/s ... ash-racism

If YOU want to have a rational discussion about current issues, you need to do a little digging and fact checking before just accepting as fact everything the alt-right tells you.

MikeDrop wrote:

Not really. Clearly you are making up the part about fake news - That was not anywhere in my post. Seems that you are deflecting the point of the NYT not being credible because of unapologetic racism by saying "fake news"

sigh

Mike Drop

Well, you did not literally yell "FAKE NEWS" yet you metaphorically did.

You said you didn't read the article because the composition of its editorial board made you distrust them.

This equates to saying NYT is "FAKE NEWS" and you're going to ignore each/every contributor to it because the composition of its editorial board.

Par for the course.

I’ve seen the liberals on this forum do the same thing many times over. It’s frustrating when anyone does it.

2122M wrote:

??? Are you talking about Sarah Jeong? If so, you've (willfully) fallen victim to the Alt-Right's tactics: https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/17644704/s ... ash-racism

If YOU want to have a rational discussion about current issues, you need to do a little digging and fact checking before just accepting as fact everything the alt-right tells you.

So according to your source, her overt racism against white people is OK because:

vox.com wrote:

Jeong is a venerated tech culture journalist with a broad range of expertise, known for everything from authoring a book on systemic online harassment to reporting on major internet case law. (She’s currently a senior writer at Vox’s sister site The Verge, which she’ll be departing for the Times.)

Surprise surprise! Vox is defending one of their own. Instead of answering the question - Why did Vox and its sister site, The Verge, allow this racist to spew her filth with no repercussions. I guess its just easier to blame the "Alt-Right" for even bringing it up.

and

vox.com wrote:

"The screencapped tweets painted a picture of Jeong sarcastically engaging in the same hyperbolic ranting rhetoric employed by alt-right internet groups like Gamergate."

and because

vox.com wrote:

"she had been engaging “in what I thought of at the time as counter-trolling.”

and

vox.com wrote:

"Jeong’s detractors removed this type of context, and began to circulate her old tweets in curated roundups that quickly went viral:"

So, to summarize, this "source" that you have provided

1) Has a vested interest in making sure that she is not branded a racist, because they allowed it while she was working for them. Or they agree with her racism, or both
2) Claims that overt racism is OK as long as you are using hyperbole and sarcasm while you are posting your filth.
3) Claims that overt racism is OK as long as you are counter trolling.
4) Claims that racism is OK if there is a context behind it (without providing the context).

This is complete and utter horsesh#t. If you allow her racism to stand then you are going to have to accept these same rules for all racism, not just racism against white people.

This bullsh#t is not in the best interest of our society. The fact that you are defending her racism exposes you as a racist. You are on the wrong side of history when you support racism.

Mike Drop

P.S - That was a very weak source you provided - do better next time - and please try not to defend racism in the future - its not a good look for you.

MikeDrop wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

This made me laugh.... count / pointer count..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sVlZ_SaKnk

Mike Drop

As the old saying goes, time will tell.

I really wasn't trying to make a point with the video- I just found it funny.

Mike Drop

I was aware of that. One of my favorite sayings, "Time will tell" in everything eventually. Only thing we cannot change or stop, good old Father Time. Death and the passage of time is where we are all really equal on this earth.

MikeDrop wrote:

2122M wrote:

??? Are you talking about Sarah Jeong? If so, you've (willfully) fallen victim to the Alt-Right's tactics: https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/17644704/s ... ash-racism

If YOU want to have a rational discussion about current issues, you need to do a little digging and fact checking before just accepting as fact everything the alt-right tells you.

So according to your source, her overt racism against white people is OK because:

vox.com wrote:

Jeong is a venerated tech culture journalist with a broad range of expertise, known for everything from authoring a book on systemic online harassment to reporting on major internet case law. (She’s currently a senior writer at Vox’s sister site The Verge, which she’ll be departing for the Times.)

Surprise surprise! Vox is defending one of their own. Instead of answering the question - Why did Vox and its sister site, The Verge, allow this racist to spew her filth with no repercussions. I guess its just easier to blame the "Alt-Right" for even bringing it up.

and

vox.com wrote:

"The screencapped tweets painted a picture of Jeong sarcastically engaging in the same hyperbolic ranting rhetoric employed by alt-right internet groups like Gamergate."

and because

vox.com wrote:

"she had been engaging “in what I thought of at the time as counter-trolling.”

and

vox.com wrote:

"Jeong’s detractors removed this type of context, and began to circulate her old tweets in curated roundups that quickly went viral:"

So, to summarize, this "source" that you have provided

1) Has a vested interest in making sure that she is not branded a racist, because they allowed it while she was working for them. Or they agree with her racism, or both
2) Claims that overt racism is OK as long as you are using hyperbole and sarcasm while you are posting your filth.
3) Claims that overt racism is OK as long as you are counter trolling.
4) Claims that racism is OK if there is a context behind it (without providing the context).

This is complete and utter horsesh#t. If you allow her racism to stand then you are going to have to accept these same rules for all racism, not just racism against white people.

This bullsh#t is not in the best interest of our society. The fact that you are defending her racism exposes you as a racist. You are on the wrong side of history when you support racism.

Mike Drop

P.S - That was a very weak source you provided - do better next time - and please try not to defend racism in the future - its not a good look for you.

Sarcastic and snarky responses to gamergate trolls isn't racism. Its not that hard to understand that.

Anyway, its hard to find another source because no-one but the far right (Washington Times, Brietbart, Rush etc..) seems to care about a few off-color jokes from years ago.

DL717 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/08/07/poll-43-percent-of-republicans-say-trump-should-be-able-to-shut-down-media-outlets/23497924/

Can this be possible? Can any American really think this way?

I think many are just fed up with turning the news on and having every talking head on every network telling them basically that they are wrong on every issue on the planet because it doesn’t fit the narrative. Everything is editorialized and the reporting in general is incredibly poor. The media has gone from watchdog to lap dog for agenda promotion. The fourth estate has done it to themselves, now they want to cry foul. How about going back to just being a watchdog? Walter Cronkite was a total liberal, but you wouldn’t know it in his reporting because he had some goddamn integrity.

I agree, cable 24 hour a day news is the culprit, saturation for the sake of money. A Fox newsman of nine years just resigned because of too much news by forum, committee, panel, talk, bullshit what ever and not enough real news coverage for reporters. That is what he said anyway, the real reason? Who knows?? By the way he also said many others on Fox news feel the same, I agree wit him.

2122M wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

2122M wrote:

??? Are you talking about Sarah Jeong? If so, you've (willfully) fallen victim to the Alt-Right's tactics: https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/17644704/s ... ash-racism

If YOU want to have a rational discussion about current issues, you need to do a little digging and fact checking before just accepting as fact everything the alt-right tells you.

So according to your source, her overt racism against white people is OK because:

vox.com wrote:

Jeong is a venerated tech culture journalist with a broad range of expertise, known for everything from authoring a book on systemic online harassment to reporting on major internet case law. (She’s currently a senior writer at Vox’s sister site The Verge, which she’ll be departing for the Times.)

Surprise surprise! Vox is defending one of their own. Instead of answering the question - Why did Vox and its sister site, The Verge, allow this racist to spew her filth with no repercussions. I guess its just easier to blame the "Alt-Right" for even bringing it up.

and

vox.com wrote:

"The screencapped tweets painted a picture of Jeong sarcastically engaging in the same hyperbolic ranting rhetoric employed by alt-right internet groups like Gamergate."

and because

vox.com wrote:

"she had been engaging “in what I thought of at the time as counter-trolling.”

and

vox.com wrote:

"Jeong’s detractors removed this type of context, and began to circulate her old tweets in curated roundups that quickly went viral:"

So, to summarize, this "source" that you have provided

1) Has a vested interest in making sure that she is not branded a racist, because they allowed it while she was working for them. Or they agree with her racism, or both
2) Claims that overt racism is OK as long as you are using hyperbole and sarcasm while you are posting your filth.
3) Claims that overt racism is OK as long as you are counter trolling.
4) Claims that racism is OK if there is a context behind it (without providing the context).

This is complete and utter horsesh#t. If you allow her racism to stand then you are going to have to accept these same rules for all racism, not just racism against white people.

This bullsh#t is not in the best interest of our society. The fact that you are defending her racism exposes you as a racist. You are on the wrong side of history when you support racism.

Mike Drop

P.S - That was a very weak source you provided - do better next time - and please try not to defend racism in the future - its not a good look for you.

Sarcastic and snarky responses to gamergate trolls isn't racism. Its not that hard to understand that.

Do you really want to set that standard? That so long as it is couched as sarcasm it can’t be racist. Think long and hard about that first.

Also, not all of her racist tweets involved gamergate.

WarRI1 wrote:

I was aware of that. One of my favorite sayings, "Time will tell" in everything eventually. Only thing we cannot change or stop, good old Father Time. Death and the passage of time is where we are all really equal on this earth.

If you haven't seen Charlie Wilson's War, I highly recommend it. If you are a fan of "Time Will Tell", you'll appreciate this scene from that movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2L1-TgfKb4

VTKillarney wrote:

2122M wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

So according to your source, her overt racism against white people is OK because:



Surprise surprise! Vox is defending one of their own. Instead of answering the question - Why did Vox and its sister site, The Verge, allow this racist to spew her filth with no repercussions. I guess its just easier to blame the "Alt-Right" for even bringing it up.

and



and because



and




So, to summarize, this "source" that you have provided

1) Has a vested interest in making sure that she is not branded a racist, because they allowed it while she was working for them. Or they agree with her racism, or both
2) Claims that overt racism is OK as long as you are using hyperbole and sarcasm while you are posting your filth.
3) Claims that overt racism is OK as long as you are counter trolling.
4) Claims that racism is OK if there is a context behind it (without providing the context).

This is complete and utter horsesh#t. If you allow her racism to stand then you are going to have to accept these same rules for all racism, not just racism against white people.

This bullsh#t is not in the best interest of our society. The fact that you are defending her racism exposes you as a racist. You are on the wrong side of history when you support racism.

Mike Drop

P.S - That was a very weak source you provided - do better next time - and please try not to defend racism in the future - its not a good look for you.

Sarcastic and snarky responses to gamergate trolls isn't racism. Its not that hard to understand that.

Do you really want to set that standard? That so long as it is couched as sarcasm it can’t be racist. Think long and hard about that first.

Also, not all of her racist tweets involved gamergate.

Do I think context is important? Yes.

2122M wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

I was aware of that. One of my favorite sayings, "Time will tell" in everything eventually. Only thing we cannot change or stop, good old Father Time. Death and the passage of time is where we are all really equal on this earth.

If you haven't seen Charlie Wilson's War, I highly recommend it. If you are a fan of "Time Will Tell", you'll appreciate this scene from that movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2L1-TgfKb4

I will look for it on Demand, thanks.

seahawk wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Censorship, suppression of free speech and restrictions on freedom of the press are ideas that are supported by and advocated by liberals and the Democratic Party in this country, not conservatives. I always find it hysterical when liberals try to act like the think otherwise. Republicans firmly believe in freedom of the press, freedom of expression and that an individual has the right to say and believe what they want, even if that viewpoint is not something they agree with.

True, how often has Obama called the press "the enemy of the people" and how often have his spokepersons refused to clarify the support of his administration for a free press.

Not a very difficult task when the press is your own personal cheerleading squad. But there was this of course. Oops.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/president- ... -fox-news/

WarRI1 wrote:

DL717 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/08/07/poll-43-percent-of-republicans-say-trump-should-be-able-to-shut-down-media-outlets/23497924/

Can this be possible? Can any American really think this way?

I think many are just fed up with turning the news on and having every talking head on every network telling them basically that they are wrong on every issue on the planet because it doesn’t fit the narrative. Everything is editorialized and the reporting in general is incredibly poor. The media has gone from watchdog to lap dog for agenda promotion. The fourth estate has done it to themselves, now they want to cry foul. How about going back to just being a watchdog? Walter Cronkite was a total liberal, but you wouldn’t know it in his reporting because he had some goddamn integrity.

I agree, cable 24 hour a day news is the culprit, saturation for the sake of money. A Fox newsman of nine years just resigned because of too much news by forum, committee, panel, talk, bullshit what ever and not enough real news coverage for reporters. That is what he said anyway, the real reason? Who knows?? By the way he also said many others on Fox news feel the same, I agree wit him.

Perhaps we will see the same at CNN or MSNBC. Not holding breath. They’re all in for the left.

MAH4546 wrote:

Censorship, suppression of free speech and restrictions on freedom of the press are ideas that are supported by and advocated by liberals and the Democratic Party in this country, not conservatives. I always find it hysterical when liberals try to act like the think otherwise. Republicans firmly believe in freedom of the press, freedom of expression and that an individual has the right to say and believe what they want, even if that viewpoint is not something they agree with.

Nonsense. The right is far more likely to support authoritarianism than the left. The Republicans you describe are now called libtards by the far right who’ve hijacked the Republican Party.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... in-common/

In the 1980s the Republicans were the party of censorship. That has flipped. The left is now far more comfortable with censorship than the right. It fits nicely with identity politics. Identity politics demands someone who needs to be told to shut up just because of a characteristic of their birth.

MikeDrop wrote:

Revelation wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

You lost me at http://www.nytimes

This is no longer a relevant or credible source. They have hired racists onto their editorial board while at the same time condemning others whose racism isn't up to their standards.

They are unapologetic about their racism.

If you want to have a rational discussion about current issues you are going to have to find some credible sources.

Mike Drop

You respond to a post about fake news by shouting "FAKE NEWS!".

Pretty much par for the course these days, sigh.

Not really. Clearly you are making up the part about fake news - That was not anywhere in my post. Seems that you are deflecting the point of the NYT not being credible because of unapologetic racism by saying "fake news"

sigh


Mike Drop

Fake news has been found to be an overwhelmingly right wing phenomenon. There’s a reason why those who spread fake news target conservatives. They’re naive enough to believe it.

Any source not fitting your world view is fake.

CitizenJustin wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Censorship, suppression of free speech and restrictions on freedom of the press are ideas that are supported by and advocated by liberals and the Democratic Party in this country, not conservatives. I always find it hysterical when liberals try to act like the think otherwise. Republicans firmly believe in freedom of the press, freedom of expression and that an individual has the right to say and believe what they want, even if that viewpoint is not something they agree with.

Nonsense. The right is far more likely to support authoritarianism than the left. The Republicans you describe are now called libtards by the far right who’ve hijacked the Republican Party.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... in-common/

Says someone that supports the party of “shout people down who don’t agree with you”.

I don’t think you know what Authoritarianism is. You should google it.

https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.com/da ... tives.html

CitizenJustin wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

Revelation wrote:

You respond to a post about fake news by shouting "FAKE NEWS!".

Pretty much par for the course these days, sigh.

Not really. Clearly you are making up the part about fake news - That was not anywhere in my post. Seems that you are deflecting the point of the NYT not being credible because of unapologetic racism by saying "fake news"

sigh


Mike Drop

Fake news has been found to be an overwhelmingly right wing phenomenon. There’s a reason why those who spread fake news target conservatives. They’re naive enough to believe it.

Any source not fitting your world view is fake.

No, the NYTimes has lost all credibility. My worldview can handle many things that I don't agree with or like.

I'm just not going to read any material from that organization any more.

Mike Drop

I don't know how these questions were phrased or asked, but I don't doubt there are people on the right who support this, and there are also people on the left who would support this if a Democrat was in the oval office. They are both wrong. The first amendment clearly guarantees the right to a free press, and the free press is necessary as a check on the people in power, even if its not always executed that way.

If you are a republican and support this, go to Russia, China, or Iran where there is no free press, and try to get the other side of whats reported over there. Good luck, and if you try to report it, I hope you have a good bodyguard.

I am right leaning and haven't voted blue since Kerry was the nominee. But I don't limit my news to just Fox. I try to read the Huffington Post, CNN, the Washington Post, Newsmax, and other similar sites. The democratic party always boasts of being the party of diversity. How about Diversity of ideas? I fill my head with them with the news I read. Lets all do the same.

WarRI1 wrote:

2122M wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

I was aware of that. One of my favorite sayings, "Time will tell" in everything eventually. Only thing we cannot change or stop, good old Father Time. Death and the passage of time is where we are all really equal on this earth.

If you haven't seen Charlie Wilson's War, I highly recommend it. If you are a fan of "Time Will Tell", you'll appreciate this scene from that movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2L1-TgfKb4

I will look for it on Demand, thanks.

Its worth watching. Did I ever tell you the story of the zen master?

DL717 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Censorship, suppression of free speech and restrictions on freedom of the press are ideas that are supported by and advocated by liberals and the Democratic Party in this country, not conservatives. I always find it hysterical when liberals try to act like the think otherwise. Republicans firmly believe in freedom of the press, freedom of expression and that an individual has the right to say and believe what they want, even if that viewpoint is not something they agree with.

Nonsense. The right is far more likely to support authoritarianism than the left. The Republicans you describe are now called libtards by the far right who’ve hijacked the Republican Party.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... in-common/

Says someone that supports the party of “shout people down who don’t agree with you”.

I don’t think you know what Authoritarianism is. You should google it.

Those who spread hatred, verifiably false information and promote violence should be drowned out. History shows us the destruction, unimaginable cruelty and death that results once these people are given power. In my opinion, these uneducated, narrow minded buffoons represent an existential threat to humanity and deserve no respect. The right is all about fear, demonizing minorities and convincing everyone an unfortunate group is the source of all their problems. This type of thinking should be rejected outright because it has serious world changing consequences.

You didn’t read the article I linked. It also spoke about the problem of left wing authoritarianism. I recently read an article that found 40% of people who voted for Obama would have voted to extend his presidency, while 60% of Trump voters would also support an extension of his presidency. This is unthinkable and the numbers prove that a strain of authoritarianism exists amongst both parties.

In any case, I think we can agree that the founding fathers would not want this.

2122M wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

2122M wrote:

Sarcastic and snarky responses to gamergate trolls isn't racism. Its not that hard to understand that.

Do you really want to set that standard? That so long as it is couched as sarcasm it can’t be racist. Think long and hard about that first.

Also, not all of her racist tweets involved gamergate.

Do I think context is important? Yes.

How about the context around Rosanne Barrs totally unacceptable and racist tweets? The context there was that it was unacceptable and she lost her job. Unfortunately so did many many other people who had nothing to do with her racism. Nobody thought that perhaps having her do some penance and actually atone for her misdeeds while not firing the dozens or hundreds of people working on her show was acceptable then. Why should Ms Jeong be able to keep her new job now. The NYT came out very hard in support of the cancelling of Ms Barrs show. Is it because MS Jeongs racism was acceptable to those who hired her? That is really the only conclusion any logical person can make from this.

The double standard that the NYTimes is unapologetically implementing will take us backwards as a country. They will regret the role that they played in the years to come.

Mike Drop

Jouhou wrote:

Definitely proving his point. A republic is a form of democracy. The right recently has been fed rhetoric that a republic isn't a democracy, and are buying it. Because the right apparently doesn't fact check anything they've been told. It's meant to whip up hatred for "democrats" by making people think Democracy = bad, Republic = good. Nevermind the party was originally called the Democratic-Republican party prior to splitting into two.

Ha, that's like saying an American is a form of a Briton because the American also speaks English.

No matter how many times you say it, it won't make the lie that the US is a democracy any more true. The US is a Constitutional Republic. It just so happens to use democratic principles in some areas of its Republic. But just like how speaking English doesn't make you a certain nationality, using democratic principles doesn't make a nation a democracy.

tommy1808 wrote:

You vote, you are a democracy. Period.

That the US is a Republic, not a democracy is the lie you have been brainwashed to believe. The US is a republic and a democracy, just like Germany or France.

dictionary wrote:

]democracy
dɪˈmɒkrəsi/
noun
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
"a system of parliamentary democracy"
synonyms: representative government, elective government, constitutional government, popular government; More
a state governed under a system of democracy.
plural noun: democracies
"a multiparty democracy"

best regards
Thomas

No offense, but maybe you should stick to telling others about your own country, instead of inaccurately trying to tell a foreigner what their country is.

CitizenJustin wrote:

DL717 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

Nonsense. The right is far more likely to support authoritarianism than the left. The Republicans you describe are now called libtards by the far right who’ve hijacked the Republican Party.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... in-common/

Says someone that supports the party of “shout people down who don’t agree with you”.

I don’t think you know what Authoritarianism is. You should google it.

Those who spread hatred, verifiably false information and promote violence should be drowned out. History shows us the destruction, unimaginable cruelty and death that results once these people are given power. In my opinion, these uneducated, narrow minded buffoons represent an existential threat to humanity and deserve no respect. The right is all about fear, demonizing minorities and convincing everyone an unfortunate group is the source of all their problems. This type of thinking should be rejected outright because it has serious world changing consequences.

Both sides are about Fear, it just manifests itself in different ways. The left for example uses fear of Authority, fear of being left behind, etc. The right uses fear of big government, fear of Islam, fear of change...etc.

I reject your last two things though. I don't believe that anyone is trying to demonize minorities. What I see is the following. There is a big desire for diversity (which is a good thing), and when too many people from the same group (for liberals it would be Straight, Cisgendered, Caucasian Males) tend to get all the opportunity there is a desire to change that so that other people can get the same opportunity. I get that. Where we usually run into the disagreements is how to solve the problem. One attempt to solve the problem was affirmative action. Here is the problem that some people have with that. Lets say a hiring manager had to hire four candidates. Lets say there were ten applicants. Lets now say they each went through an interview and resume process had had their application as a whole scored on a scale of 100 points. Lets say these candidates scores were as follows. 99, 97, 95, 94, 93, 88, 85, 81, 79, 74. Let's assume that when these were scored, the race and gender of each applicant was unknown to the people scoring. (Sexual orientation should not even be brought up at all imo). With all those factors being considered, any reasonable hiring manager would hire the 99, 97, 95, and 94 scores, and the 93 would be hired if one of the other candidates turned down the job offer. All done right? Wrong. After the hiring manager sends these candidates back to HR, HR says you cant hire the candidate who scored 94, you have to hire the candidate who scored 79. The reason. Because HR has access to the racial information and because of the push for diversity, HR determined that there was no black candidate submitted, so they told the hiring manager he had to take the guy who scored 79 because he is black, even though 8 candidates were more qualified on all the merits than he was. Where this manifested itself most recently was with the Obama administration changing the hiring policies of Air Traffic Controllers, effectively telling people that took out student loans to pay for their CTI training after that was pushed by the FAA, that you are SOL because not enough minorities were getting in. A lot of kids lifelong dreams shattered. This is so unfortunate. You can see why many people, including now a lot of people in the Asian community as well, are upset by what the left is doing, and unfortunately its led to a spike in racism.

The problem is not the minority community. The problem is that both parties have failed the minority community. Trump and the current state of the GOP has been beat to death so I will focus on the other side of this coin. A great example is Chicago. Chicago is a city that to its credit has dumped a lot of resources into education so that every student regardless of background as a chance to succeed. Or so it seems. One issue is that as is well documented, some parts of Chicago have very high crime rates. Instead of resources going to help the poor people in these communities, the money goes to the wealthier parts of the city where Rahms support is. The schools in these parts of Town cant provide the same resources that the schools in the better parts of town can. And these parts of town unfortunately are mostly minority. And it seems like nothing is ever done to help these communities.

You didn’t read the article I linked. It also spoke about the problem of left wing authoritarianism. I recently read an article that found 40% of people who voted for Obama would have voted to extend his presidency, while 60% of Trump voters would also support an extension of his presidency. This is unthinkable and the numbers prove that a strain of authoritarianism exists amongst both parties.

In any case, I think we can agree that the founding fathers would not want this.

No they would not. They would want guys like you and me having these discussions over beer, then living our lives as normal and helping each other out.

VTKillarney wrote:

If you are opposed to Fox News, but are fine with MSNBC, you are part of the problem.

APNews. Ever seen it? It's good, old-fashioned neutral news

WarRI1 wrote:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/08/07/poll-43-percent-of-republicans-say-trump-should-be-able-to-shut-down-media-outlets/23497924/

Can this be possible? Can any American really think this way?

And yet if a Democratic president tried to do the same thing, it would be considered acceptable by liberals. Democrats would love to have government control of the press. To them, freedom of the press means press espousing liberalism.

apodino wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

DL717 wrote:

Says someone that supports the party of “shout people down who don’t agree with you”.

I don’t think you know what Authoritarianism is. You should google it.

Those who spread hatred, verifiably false information and promote violence should be drowned out. History shows us the destruction, unimaginable cruelty and death that results once these people are given power. In my opinion, these uneducated, narrow minded buffoons represent an existential threat to humanity and deserve no respect. The right is all about fear, demonizing minorities and convincing everyone an unfortunate group is the source of all their problems. This type of thinking should be rejected outright because it has serious world changing consequences.

Both sides are about Fear, it just manifests itself in different ways. The left for example uses fear of Authority, fear of being left behind, etc. The right uses fear of big government, fear of Islam, fear of change...etc.

I reject your last two things though. I don't believe that anyone is trying to demonize minorities. What I see is the following. There is a big desire for diversity (which is a good thing), and when too many people from the same group (for liberals it would be Straight, Cisgendered, Caucasian Males) tend to get all the opportunity there is a desire to change that so that other people can get the same opportunity. I get that. Where we usually run into the disagreements is how to solve the problem. One attempt to solve the problem was affirmative action. Here is the problem that some people have with that. Lets say a hiring manager had to hire four candidates. Lets say there were ten applicants. Lets now say they each went through an interview and resume process had had their application as a whole scored on a scale of 100 points. Lets say these candidates scores were as follows. 99, 97, 95, 94, 93, 88, 85, 81, 79, 74. Let's assume that when these were scored, the race and gender of each applicant was unknown to the people scoring. (Sexual orientation should not even be brought up at all imo). With all those factors being considered, any reasonable hiring manager would hire the 99, 97, 95, and 94 scores, and the 93 would be hired if one of the other candidates turned down the job offer. All done right? Wrong. After the hiring manager sends these candidates back to HR, HR says you cant hire the candidate who scored 94, you have to hire the candidate who scored 79. The reason. Because HR has access to the racial information and because of the push for diversity, HR determined that there was no black candidate submitted, so they told the hiring manager he had to take the guy who scored 79 because he is black, even though 8 candidates were more qualified on all the merits than he was. Where this manifested itself most recently was with the Obama administration changing the hiring policies of Air Traffic Controllers, effectively telling people that took out student loans to pay for their CTI training after that was pushed by the FAA, that you are SOL because not enough minorities were getting in. A lot of kids lifelong dreams shattered. This is so unfortunate. You can see why many people, including now a lot of people in the Asian community as well, are upset by what the left is doing, and unfortunately its led to a spike in racism.

The problem is not the minority community. The problem is that both parties have failed the minority community. Trump and the current state of the GOP has been beat to death so I will focus on the other side of this coin. A great example is Chicago. Chicago is a city that to its credit has dumped a lot of resources into education so that every student regardless of background as a chance to succeed. Or so it seems. One issue is that as is well documented, some parts of Chicago have very high crime rates. Instead of resources going to help the poor people in these communities, the money goes to the wealthier parts of the city where Rahms support is. The schools in these parts of Town cant provide the same resources that the schools in the better parts of town can. And these parts of town unfortunately are mostly minority. And it seems like nothing is ever done to help these communities.

You didn’t read the article I linked. It also spoke about the problem of left wing authoritarianism. I recently read an article that found 40% of people who voted for Obama would have voted to extend his presidency, while 60% of Trump voters would also support an extension of his presidency. This is unthinkable and the numbers prove that a strain of authoritarianism exists amongst both parties.

In any case, I think we can agree that the founding fathers would not want this.

No they would not. They would want guys like you and me having these discussions over beer, then living our lives as normal and helping each other out.

Thanks for your thoughtful post. You make some very good points that I’ll have to ponder over.

MikeDrop wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Compare and contrast to the following, from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/tech ... ernet.html

.

You lost me at http://www.nytimes

This is no longer a relevant or credible source.

Which is really rather sad, I read that paper religiously for years. Now, not every article, but too much of theirs is openly opinionated. The headlines are worse. Another is the WaPo.

At the more local level, seven or eight years ago, the Seattle Times buried a story about a child molester who became mayor because he pushed all the right buttons - liberal and gay. Sickening.

EstherLouise wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

If you are opposed to Fox News, but are fine with MSNBC, you are part of the problem.

APNews. Ever seen it? It's good, old-fashioned neutral news

I can agree with that. Reuters too. A big difference is, they don't have editorial boards.

MSPNWA wrote:

No offense, but maybe you should stick to telling others about your own country, instead of inaccurately trying to tell a foreigner what their country is.

How about you using words correctly instead. If you want to claim the US ain´t a democracy you either deliver your definition of democracy, you can define words whichever way you like as long you use give the definition along side using it, but otherwise you are just wrong.

You elect your representatives, you are a democracy.

But please, do *proof* me wrong with a dictionary or encyclopedia definition under which the US isn´t a democracy.

best regards
Thomas

DL717 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Censorship, suppression of free speech and restrictions on freedom of the press are ideas that are supported by and advocated by liberals and the Democratic Party in this country, not conservatives. I always find it hysterical when liberals try to act like the think otherwise. Republicans firmly believe in freedom of the press, freedom of expression and that an individual has the right to say and believe what they want, even if that viewpoint is not something they agree with.

True, how often has Obama called the press "the enemy of the people" and how often have his spokepersons refused to clarify the support of his administration for a free press.

Not a very difficult task when the press is your own personal cheerleading squad. But there was this of course. Oops.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/president- ... -fox-news/

As I said, the liberals started it and both sides do it. The left aims for a total control of the media to enforce their communist utopia and they are close to controlling the media already and their death squads (armed and violent Antifa) are already waiting to kill every patriotic and conservative American.

all checkboxes triggered!!

2122M wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

2122M wrote:

Sarcastic and snarky responses to gamergate trolls isn't racism. Its not that hard to understand that.

Do you really want to set that standard? That so long as it is couched as sarcasm it can’t be racist. Think long and hard about that first.

Also, not all of her racist tweets involved gamergate.

Do I think context is important? Yes.

But your source provided zero evidence of that supposed context. Where is it? Your source also also notes a similar case with the same newspaper in which they fired the more right-thinking member for basically the same things - old media posts. So the precedent was set but she was given the lefty-pass.

Then there was this - "responding to the oppressive mentality of white culture:" She better get use to it, whatever "it" is, there are a lot of white people in this country. Fortunately, few Asians think like this.

MSPNWA wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

Definitely proving his point. A republic is a form of democracy. The right recently has been fed rhetoric that a republic isn't a democracy, and are buying it. Because the right apparently doesn't fact check anything they've been told. It's meant to whip up hatred for "democrats" by making people think Democracy = bad, Republic = good. Nevermind the party was originally called the Democratic-Republican party prior to splitting into two.

Ha, that's like saying an American is a form of a Briton because the American also speaks English.

No matter how many times you say it, it won't make the lie that the US is a democracy any more true. The US is a Constitutional Republic. It just so happens to use democratic principles in some areas of its Republic. But just like how speaking English doesn't make you a certain nationality, using democratic principles doesn't make a nation a democracy.

tommy1808 wrote:

You vote, you are a democracy. Period.

That the US is a Republic, not a democracy is the lie you have been brainwashed to believe. The US is a republic and a democracy, just like Germany or France.

dictionary wrote:

]democracy
dɪˈmɒkrəsi/
noun
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
"a system of parliamentary democracy"
synonyms: representative government, elective government, constitutional government, popular government; More
a state governed under a system of democracy.
plural noun: democracies
"a multiparty democracy"

best regards
Thomas

No offense, but maybe you should stick to telling others about your own country, instead of inaccurately trying to tell a foreigner what their country is.

The founding fathers are rolling in their graves. It's a representative democracy. Get a dictionary and look up those two words. You people are destroying the country. If you think democracy, and thus our republic, is so repulsive go move to Russia.

And yes, that disgusting right wing talking point about how we are a constitutional republic but not a democracy is one subject that does "trigger" this "snowflake". And you act so offended when people call you fascists. You know what fascists hate? Democracy.

Jouhou wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

Definitely proving his point. A republic is a form of democracy. The right recently has been fed rhetoric that a republic isn't a democracy, and are buying it. Because the right apparently doesn't fact check anything they've been told. It's meant to whip up hatred for "democrats" by making people think Democracy = bad, Republic = good. Nevermind the party was originally called the Democratic-Republican party prior to splitting into two.

Ha, that's like saying an American is a form of a Briton because the American also speaks English.

No matter how many times you say it, it won't make the lie that the US is a democracy any more true. The US is a Constitutional Republic. It just so happens to use democratic principles in some areas of its Republic. But just like how speaking English doesn't make you a certain nationality, using democratic principles doesn't make a nation a democracy.

tommy1808 wrote:

You vote, you are a democracy. Period.

That the US is a Republic, not a democracy is the lie you have been brainwashed to believe. The US is a republic and a democracy, just like Germany or France.



best regards
Thomas

No offense, but maybe you should stick to telling others about your own country, instead of inaccurately trying to tell a foreigner what their country is.

The founding fathers are rolling in their graves. It's a representative democracy. Get a dictionary and look up those two words. You people are destroying the country. If you think democracy, and thus our republic, is so repulsive go move to Russia.

And yes, that disgusting right wing talking point about how we are a constitutional republic but not a democracy is one subject that does "trigger" this "snowflake". And you act so offended when people call you fascists. You know what fascists hate? Democracy.

Republic vs. Democracy
Potato vs. Potahto
Tomato vs. Tomahto

All I see is one side wanting equality for all and the right crying about the good ole days when whites were in charge and why don't those anti-Americans just conform to what life was like in 1820. Again, as a middle aged white guy, you righties are free to live in compounds in the wilds of Alaska and Montana off the grid because "the gubmin gon take ours rites! becuz look at them running thingz them (insert multiple slurs here)" and no one will care. Except, of course, Alex Jones because "why are they oppressed" and so forth.....

seb146 wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

Ha, that's like saying an American is a form of a Briton because the American also speaks English.

No matter how many times you say it, it won't make the lie that the US is a democracy any more true. The US is a Constitutional Republic. It just so happens to use democratic principles in some areas of its Republic. But just like how speaking English doesn't make you a certain nationality, using democratic principles doesn't make a nation a democracy.



No offense, but maybe you should stick to telling others about your own country, instead of inaccurately trying to tell a foreigner what their country is.

The founding fathers are rolling in their graves. It's a representative democracy. Get a dictionary and look up those two words. You people are destroying the country. If you think democracy, and thus our republic, is so repulsive go move to Russia.

And yes, that disgusting right wing talking point about how we are a constitutional republic but not a democracy is one subject that does "trigger" this "snowflake". And you act so offended when people call you fascists. You know what fascists hate? Democracy.

Republic vs. Democracy
Potato vs. Potahto
Tomato vs. Tomahto

All I see is one side wanting equality for all and the right crying about the good ole days when whites were in charge and why don't those anti-Americans just conform to what life was like in 1820. Again, as a middle aged white guy, you righties are free to live in compounds in the wilds of Alaska and Montana off the grid because "the gubmin gon take ours rites! becuz look at them running thingz them (insert multiple slurs here)" and no one will care. Except, of course, Alex Jones because "why are they oppressed" and so forth.....

Nobody made this about race until you did. This is why Trump won.

VTKillarney wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

The founding fathers are rolling in their graves. It's a representative democracy. Get a dictionary and look up those two words. You people are destroying the country. If you think democracy, and thus our republic, is so repulsive go move to Russia.

And yes, that disgusting right wing talking point about how we are a constitutional republic but not a democracy is one subject that does "trigger" this "snowflake". And you act so offended when people call you fascists. You know what fascists hate? Democracy.

Republic vs. Democracy
Potato vs. Potahto
Tomato vs. Tomahto

All I see is one side wanting equality for all and the right crying about the good ole days when whites were in charge and why don't those anti-Americans just conform to what life was like in 1820. Again, as a middle aged white guy, you righties are free to live in compounds in the wilds of Alaska and Montana off the grid because "the gubmin gon take ours rites! becuz look at them running thingz them (insert multiple slurs here)" and no one will care. Except, of course, Alex Jones because "why are they oppressed" and so forth.....

Nobody made this about race until you did. This is why Trump won.

This thread was actually pretty thought provoking and interesting until the last set of posters came in and started spewing their hate and race baiting. I suggest that you ignore them and only respond to those posters wh actually want to have a real conversation. The qualit of the threads go way up when we do this.

Cheers,

Mike Drop

MikeDrop wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Republic vs. Democracy
Potato vs. Potahto
Tomato vs. Tomahto

All I see is one side wanting equality for all and the right crying about the good ole days when whites were in charge and why don't those anti-Americans just conform to what life was like in 1820. Again, as a middle aged white guy, you righties are free to live in compounds in the wilds of Alaska and Montana off the grid because "the gubmin gon take ours rites! becuz look at them running thingz them (insert multiple slurs here)" and no one will care. Except, of course, Alex Jones because "why are they oppressed" and so forth.....

Nobody made this about race until you did. This is why Trump won.

This thread was actually pretty thought provoking and interesting until the last set of posters came in and started spewing their hate and race baiting. I suggest that you ignore them and only respond to those posters wh actually want to have a real conversation. The qualit of the threads go way up when we do this.

Cheers,

Mike Drop

Actually, it was and is about race. When your orange god said the neo Nazis, KKK, and white nationalists in Charlottesville were "fine people" and you all started sympathizing with neo Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists, it was about race. It continues to be about race. Sorry (not sorry) you think it is only "liberals" with hate speech and only "liberals" who bring up race. Every time you see a Confederate flag, it is you all who are bringing up race. Every time a "Permit Patty" or "BBQ Becky" or "both sides do it" it is you all who are bringing up race.

If you don't like it, stop giving them positions of power. If you don't like it, stop electing them. If you don't like it, stop them. They vote with your party. If you want everyone to know your party is inclusive of other races, kick out the racists in your party. Just that simple.

A Trump supporter should be VERY comfortable with the left playing the racism card this election cycle. It’s just a rehash of the “deplorable” argument, and we all know how well that worked out. Some people never learn.

VTKillarney wrote:

A Trump supporter should be VERY comfortable with the left playing the racism card this election cycle. It’s just a rehash of the “deplorable” argument, and we all know how well that worked out. Some people never learn.

If they were not actual racists and actually comfortable being racist. Or maybe it is something else

https://thenib.com/fault-right?t=recent

seb146 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

A Trump supporter should be VERY comfortable with the left playing the racism card this election cycle. It’s just a rehash of the “deplorable” argument, and we all know how well that worked out. Some people never learn.

If they were not actual racists and actually comfortable being racist. Or maybe it is something else

https://thenib.com/fault-right?t=recent

This rhetoric is in large part why Trump won. Deplorable 2.0.

VTKillarney wrote:

seb146 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

A Trump supporter should be VERY comfortable with the left playing the racism card this election cycle. It’s just a rehash of the “deplorable” argument, and we all know how well that worked out. Some people never learn.

If they were not actual racists and actually comfortable being racist. Or maybe it is something else

https://thenib.com/fault-right?t=recent

This rhetoric is in large part why Trump won. Deplorable 2.0.

Simple question: Does the Trump presidency appeal to white supremacists or not?

2122M wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

seb146 wrote:

If they were not actual racists and actually comfortable being racist. Or maybe it is something else

https://thenib.com/fault-right?t=recent

This rhetoric is in large part why Trump won. Deplorable 2.0.

Simple question: Does the Trump presidency appeal to white supremacists or not?

That’s the wrong question. The proper question is, “Is it accurate to say that everyone who votes Republican is a racist?”

Saying that just helps the Republicans. Just ask Hillary how her “deplorable” comment worked out.

VTKillarney wrote:

2122M wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

This rhetoric is in large part why Trump won. Deplorable 2.0.

Simple question: Does the Trump presidency appeal to white supremacists or not?

That’s the wrong question. The proper question is, “Is it accurate to say that everyone who votes Republican is a racist?”

Saying that just helps the Republicans. Just ask Hillary how her “deplorable” comment worked out.

Those are two different questions. I'm not claiming that all Trump supporters are racist. I'm asking you, Does the Trump presidency appeal to white supremacists or not?

VTKillarney wrote:

2122M wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

This rhetoric is in large part why Trump won. Deplorable 2.0.

Simple question: Does the Trump presidency appeal to white supremacists or not?

That’s the wrong question. The proper question is, “Is it accurate to say that everyone who votes Republican is a racist?”

I don't give a shit anymore. If you are voting for today's crop of Republicans, it means you are either an out and proud racist, or you are totally cool with racists existing. Spare me your false indignation.

2122M wrote:

Simple question: Does the Trump presidency appeal to white supremacists or not?

Look at the next Trump rally to see all the hundreds of POC standing happily arm in arm with their white brethren.

Darn it, there I go again injecting race where race DOES NOT BELONG. Gotta work on that after my mani/pedi tomorrow.

I don't give a shit anymore. If you are voting for today's crop of Republicans, it means you are either an out and proud racist, or you are totally cool with racists existing. Spare me your false indignation.

Oh, cut them some slack. They’ve managed to perfect cognitive dissonance into a high art form these days. It can’t be easy to ignore absolutely every lie, slur, corrupt practice, and treasonous utterance by Trump, while simultaneously browbeating all who dare question the Czarina. That’s multitasking at its finest!

johnboy wrote:

2122M wrote:

Simple question: Does the Trump presidency appeal to white supremacists or not?

Look at the next Trump rally to see all the hundreds of POC standing happily arm in arm with their white brethren.

Darn it, there I go again injecting race where race DOES NOT BELONG. Gotta work on that after my mani/pedi tomorrow.

I'm not sure that liver failure yellow and congestive heart failure gray constitute being a person of color.

LittleFokker wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

2122M wrote:

Simple question: Does the Trump presidency appeal to white supremacists or not?

That’s the wrong question. The proper question is, “Is it accurate to say that everyone who votes Republican is a racist?”

I don't give a shit anymore. If you are voting for today's crop of Republicans, it means you are either an out and proud racist, or you are totally cool with racists existing. Spare me your false indignation.

Deplorables 2.0. The Republicans can't buy this type of campaigning on their behalf. This is in large part why you got Trump in the first place. I'm just surprised that so many people are happy to double down - especially since they know the consequences.