There's a term for this in psychology, but for the life of me, I forget what it's called. Basically... someone says they're doing something for a specific reason, but in reality, it's for a completely different reason. It's not a lie... because they actually try to convince you why they're doing it, and to an extent... actually convince themselves of it as well. In this case, I'm referring to Rachael Maddow not showing Trump's victory speech... which any reasonable media presence would show.
This is NOT unlike the situation that's been going on with Twitter/X over the past year. Democrats are absolutely incensed that Elon Musk bought Twitter, and that he is allowing Republican content, unfiltered, and unregulated. They'll give you nonsense arguments like wanting to stop "hate speech" or "misinformation." But we know that in reality, they fear the open exchange of Conservative view points because they're afraid it will lead to people changing their minds. They're afraid their ideas will lose. Of course, they'll deny up and down that this isn't what it's about, but any reasonably sane person can tell that in fact... that's exactly what it's about.
And they're not wrong... Democrat registrations are the lowest they've ever been in modern history. Fewer percentage of people today identify as being Democrat than at any point in history... only 27% of those registered to vote call themselves Democrats. So the big question is why? Why can't Democrats be honest with themselves? It's because their politics in fact become a religion to them. Rejection of their politics becomes a rejection of them personally...
This is completely different than people like you and me who could give two shits what the party is called...
Why can't Democrats be honest with themselves? It's because their politics in fact become a religion to them. Rejection of their politics becomes a rejection of them personally...
If there's anyone with whom politics has "in fact become a religion to them"... it's you! My gawd, step back and re-read your posts in P&R. You are absolutely obsessed!
If there's anyone with whom politics has "in fact become a religion to them"... it's you! My gawd, step back and re-read your posts in P&R. You are absolutely obsessed!
Ok, you've trashed T/A..... Now are you going to comment on the state of journalism in the modern era?
Ha! Rinse knows better than to expect his posts to be praised here in P&R... although I don't know why he bothers to try and enlighten the usual suspects. They seem content in their belief that the earth is flat.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
You don't want a fair and rational discussion. You just want to hear comments backing up whatever it is you lead with.
Another tactic these people use is changing the subject, for example, when they don't have a legitimate argument on anything "free", they simply attack anyone that posts a view that doesn't fit their narrative.
It's sad really.
I'm not a smart person and even I can see this every single time they do it.
Absolutely not. Breitbart is a prominent example of what is often called a "rag," in the context of newspapers and news reporting. Breitbart is a "crock" that is reliably filled to its top with the worst sort of misleading offal and refuse. Joy Reid should sue Breitbart for defamation, simply for including her photograph in an edition of Breitbart.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-30-2024).]
So you didn't read the article or listen to the video clip, or read her apology.
You are a tool of the LWNJ media that shills for the "Progressive" Left Wing Nut Jobs.
What makes you think that? Actually, I did. First, I read the article. Then, after you came back again, I perused the brief video clip.
It's a puzzling remark. Was she expressing the idea that if Biden "closed the border," that would be tantamount to "Biden starting a war"..? That's all I can make of it.
I don't think it was intentional. I see some of "The ReidOut with Joy Reid" during almost every weekday that passes, but I've not seen a "hot mic" moment with profanity like that before. Not that I remember.
Why do you think it's such a big deal? The ReidOut with Joy Reid slots into the last hour before weekday prime time. It's not like she's particularly the "face" of MSNBC, any more than Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Jen Psaki, Alex Wagner, Lawrence O'Donnell or Stephanie Ruhle. Or Ali Velshi, Ari Melber, Nicolle Wallace or Katie Phang, for that matter. Or even some others who are hosts on MSNBC, like former RNC chairman Michael Steele. I can't remember any of them ever having a "hot mic" moment with profanity, or even just a "hot mic" moment that left enough of an impression on me for me to remember it.
I think olejoedad is "whining."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-30-2024).]
I remember when Taibbi started releasing this information on Twitter as part of the agreement with Elon Musk. He was immediately crucified by Democrats. Not just by Democrat zealots, and never-Trumper Republicans, but by people in the main stream media ... all for doing the right thing. They wanted him cancelled for revealing what any decent journalist would consider the story of a life time. It exemplifies how for many... their political ideology is not simply a concept of (in their opinion) better governance, but of religion idolatry. They protect the party at all costs... even though "the party" isn't their employer, their family, or anything they have sworn allegiance to. Understandably, this is why we refer to their politics as a religion... because in all sense of the word, this is what it is. The Democrat party is their "higher being," and defines their version of the golden rule. It's completely crazy...
You look at people like Taibbi... he is 100% a Democrat. Hates Trump, absolutely believes "to promote the general welfare" is a clause for instituting more welfare policies in America. But he's principled, and finds what Democrats have done completely abhorrent. This is the kind of person you'd want working for you, or watching your back on the battle field. This is what true character looks like. Someone who's willing, on principle, to do what's right.
quote
Originally posted by Fats:Another tactic these people use is changing the subject, for example, when they don't have a legitimate argument on anything "free", they simply attack anyone that posts a view that doesn't fit their narrative.
It's sad really. I'm not a smart person and even I can see this every single time they do it.
Haha... yes, unfortunately... it's very true. It's primarily Patrick that does this, but I've basically started ignoring everything he says in the politics forum. In this sub forum, you can't find a single post he's quite frankly ever made that actually furthers the discussion. He LOVES... I mean LOVES the back and forth. I don't even know if he's aware that he's doing it, but after a while, I realized every response of his was without content. Instead, the context is always some response about how he's shocked or whatever it is about whomever is posting. Basically... attack the poster, ignore the topic. Outside of here, Patrick gets a bit grouchy (as we all do when we get older)... yelling at the clouds because people don't say what year & engine they have. But he's genuinely a good guy and wouldn't hesitate to give you the shirt off his back if you needed it... it's clear though that his political ideology for him is religion (see response above to Joe). This is just me pushing my religion here, but I hope one day he finds peace in Jesus Christ.
Say what you will about Rinselberg, but I respect the man. He keeps his cool, always willing to have a discussion, and doesn't do the Macarena every time he sees something he doesn't like. I'd hope that everyone here can keep their cool with him and not let their frustration with everyone else get directed at him simply because he's on the "same side" as some of the others on here.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-30-2024).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: There's a term for this in psychology, but for the life of me, I forget what it's called. Basically... someone says they're doing something for a specific reason, but in reality, it's for a completely different reason. It's not a lie... because they actually try to convince you why they're doing it, and to an extent... actually convince themselves of it as well. In this case, I'm referring to Rachael Maddow not showing Trump's victory speech... which any reasonable media presence would show.
This is NOT unlike the situation that's been going on with Twitter/X over the past year. Democrats are absolutely incensed that Elon Musk bought Twitter, and that he is allowing Republican content, unfiltered, and unregulated. They'll give you nonsense arguments like wanting to stop "hate speech" or "misinformation." But we know that in reality, they fear the open exchange of Conservative view points because they're afraid it will lead to people changing their minds. They're afraid their ideas will lose. Of course, they'll deny up and down that this isn't what it's about, but any reasonably sane person can tell that in fact... that's exactly what it's about.
And they're not wrong... Democrat registrations are the lowest they've ever been in modern history. Fewer percentage of people today identify as being Democrat than at any point in history... only 27% of those registered to vote call themselves Democrats. So the big question is why? Why can't Democrats be honest with themselves? It's because their politics in fact become a religion to them. Rejection of their politics becomes a rejection of them personally...
This is completely different than people like you and me who could give two shits what the party is called...
I think one of the biggest problems we have today are the people who believe themselves to be omniscient and have godlike powers to read the minds of other people.
They completely ignore what people actually say and do because they "know" through their magic powers what these other people are actually thinking.
it is pretty much impossible to have any type of logical discussion with a person like that because they do not even listen to what you actually say. they never feel like they have to produce any facts to back up their claims because "EVERYONE KNOWS". It is a logical fallacy made popular by Donald called "argumentum ad populum" or the "common belief fallacy". They just claim "everyone knows" without ever showing any proof that "everyone knows" the truth.
Originally posted by BingB:I think one of the biggest problems we have today are the people who believe themselves to be omniscient and have godlike powers to read the minds of other people.
They completely ignore what people actually say and do because they "know" through their magic powers what these other people are actually thinking.
it is pretty much impossible to have any type of logical discussion with a person like that because they do not even listen to what you actually say. they never feel like they have to produce any facts to back up their claims because "EVERYONE KNOWS". It is a logical fallacy made popular by Donald called "argumentum ad populum" or the "common belief fallacy". They just claim "everyone knows" without ever showing any proof that "everyone knows" the truth.
Would you like to address the content, or should we continue to talk about your feelings?
Haha... yes, unfortunately... it's very true. It's primarily Patrick that does this, but I've basically started ignoring everything he says in the politics forum.
Yeah, Todd ignores me for a millisecond... and then goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on as usual.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
In this sub forum, you can't find a single post he's quite frankly ever made that actually furthers the discussion. He LOVES... I mean LOVES the back and forth. I don't even know if he's aware that he's doing it, but after a while, I realized every response of his was without content. Instead, the context is always some response about how he's shocked or whatever it is about whomever is posting. Basically... attack the poster, ignore the topic. Outside of here, Patrick gets a bit grouchy (as we all do when we get older)... yelling at the clouds because people don't say what year & engine they have. But he's genuinely a good guy and wouldn't hesitate to give you the shirt off his back if you needed it... it's clear though that his political ideology for him is religion (see response above to Joe). This is just me pushing my religion here, but I hope one day he finds peace in Jesus Christ.
No thanks. JC needs to focus on tending to his flock, many of whom have gone astray.
I hope somebody comes up with one or more changes to foster some upwards momentum for journalism.
quote
Chan suspects that audiences are experiencing subscription overload—too many streaming services, Substack newsletters, and digital publications chasing not enough would-be customers.
I don't even know what "Substack" is supposed to signify. Why is whatever it is (which I don't even know what it is) called "Substack"..?
I don't think anyone is going to be looking towards me for guidance.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-31-2024).]
This does make me sad... journalism has been hijacked for political ideology. I think it can be repaired, but the problem is that most journalists today view journalism as a means of furthering their political ideology. They view it as a tool for social justice and a political hammer. This is really... at least as it applies to politics, the very last thing it should be. Journalism is supposed to be unbiased. What drives the journalist should be the pursuit of the truth... whether that's very inconvenient for their own ideology, or supports it. The driving force should be fact-finding and uncovering "the story," and not helping to push a narrative... or a "me too" type of writer who attempts to gain notoriety by simply writing gibberish that attempts to piggy-back on other's successful stories.
Big shock, but I have opinions. I do NOT believe MSN, Facebook, Apple, whatever... have the right to simply copy/paste content (even if quoted) into their feeds. I think what they "CAN" do... is provide a sentence or two, a title, and a link. And... they should have to pay per click. That is... when Facebook is the one providing the feed, rather than users sharing links on their walls (or whatever it is they do, I don't use Facebook).
I do hope journalism recovers... because what we largely see, is not journalism. I really like Epoch Times... they are biased towards the right... only in the way that their emphasis is for right-leaning customers. But many of their articles have things (realities, facts, etc.) that I'm not particularly fond of... as in, they go against a reality I'm hoping for, and that's exactly what journalism SHOULD be. It shouldn't simply just be things that reinforce my world view... which is what most of the media has become these days.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I don't even know what "Substack" is supposed to signify. Why is whatever it is (which I don't even know what it is) called "Substack"..?
I don't think anyone is going to be looking towards me for guidance.
Substack seemed to have just dropped out of nowhere, and it became a thing. Like you, I had no idea what it is or what it was. Best way I can really explain it is... "YouTube" for writers... where the content is written articles / content, and not videos. This is the main "domain" site for it: https://substack.com/
You could also more or less compare it a little bit to what a lot of people use WordPress for (but that's more for blogging). Anyone can write and create a "substack," just like anyone can create content on YouTube.
Sorry it went over your head but I WAS discussing the content of the post I quoted.
Just so you know, Fred... for future posts. If I see intentionally retarded posts like this one, I will ignore them. I've started doing this to Patrick, and now I'm doing it to you. You don't have to care, and I don't expect you to. But of all the opportunities and things I have going on in my life, I don't have time to waste when you're not actually willing to have a normal conversation. We have very different views on how things work in this world, and I'm interested in an actual discussion, not a nuanced argument where one person attempts to win through constant goat bleating.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-31-2024).]
We have very different views on how things work in this world, and I'm interested in an actual discussion, not a nuanced argument where one person attempts to win through constant goat bleating.
In other words, Todd is tired of being embarrassed in every "discussion" he's had in P&R, and will now only engage with forum members who share his narrow political beliefs. This should cut down on Cliff's bandwidth requirements for PFF by at least half!
It's somewhat interesting to me that the decline of the printed media comes after so much misinformation has been disseminated by the media. Eventually, people see through the lies and quit using those sources. It's probably just coincidence, right?
In other words, Todd is tired of being embarrassed in every "discussion" he's had in P&R, and will now only engage with forum members who share his narrow political beliefs. This should cut down on Cliff's bandwidth requirements for PFF by at least half!
Oh, and one more thing...
You've got that backwards. Todd has embarrassed you LWNJ time after time, and y'all at too unaware of reality to even see it.
Journalism includes Opinion Journalism or "punditry."
Does Opinion Journalism get any better than this 6-minute segment from a recent TV broadcast? https://youtu.be/q8tdiGNiX0U
I don't know if ray b "does" video links. I think this is something that Patrick or BingB would like, and theBDub—were he to make one of his less frequent appearances in this thread.
The other forum members that have checked into this thread would have to make the decision to expose themselves to Opinion Journalism that isn't rightwing, or MAGA+, or pro-Trump, or anti-Biden, or anti-Democrat... etc.
I say MAGA+, instead of MAGA, because the Opinion Journalist or "pundit" who does the segment has always been careful to distinguish between MAGA that stays within the bounds of legality and sanity, and MAGA that doesn't... so I guess the MAGA that doesn't could be distinguished by appending a + sign, which creates MAGA+.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-02-2024).]
Mega Maga ! All you dempartie fakes out there will shiver in your boots at the sound of the Mega Maga ! The American People are asserting their rights !
My gawd, step back and re-read your posts in P&R. You are absolutely obsessed!
