This past weekend I learned

[Underdog 28457]

36 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Don’t forget, he’s the same dude that made a sock account to go back and pos rep his own posts that were negged by other people.  Internet rep is serious business for him.

 

[mchookem 16225]

if you've been here a while, are a good poster, people enjoy your content and generally like you, mean old Penelope and the negger brigade shouldn't make a shit. but you also have to not be a big giant baby.

if you haven't participated enough or earned enough posrep bc you suck and keep getting banned and have to start over, or generally make people dislike you, maybe quit being a shitty poster.

 

[cactusflinthead 27594]

10 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

literally pulling stuff from Russian sources and trying to post it as news (well, one

Not him. I'm referring to what is happening in the House. How long would blacklab let a discussion of the useful idiots holding up aid to proceed? If there's a stark difference between how we view Russia it's within the Republican party. Mearsheimer didn't change. The party of Reagan did.

None of that discussion happens in DT. Because it's going to get messy.

[Captainant 27467]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Don't understand why it's not considered that the particular article was pretty fair, and that the rag still is a piece of shit.  Unless, there's something else.  Fox news probably let's a milquetoast reading sports article out every now and then, don't believe it that would change anyone's views on the publication in general, or cause them to come and throw negs and stan for the publication in a game thread of all places.   
 

If you think fox news and NYT are in the same realm of journalism, then you need to disengage from the #bothsides machine. Fox owes over a BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS for libel and defamation, by jury verdict, that's been upheld across multiple appeals. And they're staring down the barrel of billions MORE in judgements. 

 

You're on a completely different plane of existence to equivocate the two. 

[fattyflattie 4636]

11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

If you think fox news and NYT are in the same realm of journalism, then you need to disengage from the #bothsides machine. Fox owes over a BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS for libel and defamation, by jury verdict, that's been upheld across multiple appeals. And they're staring down the barrel of billions MORE in judgements. 

 

You're on a completely different plane of existence to equivocate the two. 

I wouldn't give af if both were Thanos'd tomorrow.  I used Fox as the example from the right.  You can convince yourself however you want to feel better about what the political bent and readership of the NYT is.  I couldn't care what conclusion you draw from that exercise either. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

Put the troll on ignore 

[Captainant 27467]

Well at least the fascist sympathizers are honest that they don't give a shit about empirical fact and a history of fucking lying to prop up a fascist coup attempt. 

Look, NYT sucks dick. They have been at the heart of many yellow journalism incidents, and frequently "sell their soul" for access to power. Maga Haberman sends her regards and all that.

However, fact still remains, fox is an instrument of the fascist movement. Using fox as a totem to equivocate ALL media as bald face fucking liars is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. 

[4th&Five 41461]

54 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Put the troll on ignore 

And don’t quote them. 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

I wouldn't give af if both were Thanos'd tomorrow.  I used Fox as the example from the right.  You can convince yourself however you want to feel better about what the political bent and readership of the NYT is.  I couldn't care what conclusion you draw from that exercise either. 

Good lord, the NYT is not even remotely a left wing publication.   How fucking old are you?

[fattyflattie 4636]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Good lord, the NYT is not even remotely a left wing publication.   How fucking old are you?

Let me guess. Another former republican who still doesn't like to be called a Democrat?  

[jimmyjazz 45560]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Let me guess. Another former republican who still doesn't like to be called a Democrat?  

I've never been a Republican.

I've never been a Democrat.

You, however, are too easily duped to be allowed a vote.

[bolverk 29405]

@fattyflattie @slorch

The WSJ is the rough conservative equivalent of the NYT as a news source.

 

Now, imagine if someone had posted the exact same headline and story from the WSJ? Do you think anyone (even the many liberals) on this site who also frequent the football board would've outright refused to read it and said any of the following?

Quote

 

"that rag"

"sketchy journalism"

"Fuck the WSJ"

"Nobody cares or reads the Wall Street Journal"

"Wall Street Journal? lol"

"People still take WSJ seriously?"

 

And we absolutely know why those posters, in particular, dismissed it outright. The source was "liberal". Don't even fucking try to deny it. But, yeah, it's only liberals who are infecting the rest of the board with their hot political takes.

That's why this thread exists. Most conservatives seem to have a blind spot about how often they spread their politics all the time all over the board. Fuck, just go into the Lol Pic thread. Right now, there's an altered photo of a woman in a bathing suit to take a shot against trans folks. That kind of shit happens a helluva lot and most often gets a pass.

_____________

Let me finally add I think a lot of posters, like Penelope, fling around neg too much, but that's her perogative. My personal rule is to keep them for lies and bigotry. 

But I do admittedly have a high count because of personal fatwas directed at GRhorn's many sock accounts from when he was actively spreading disinformation about Covid and the efficacy of the vaccine since it was a life/death deal.

And, guess what, I lost my dad because he began to believe all the lies about Covid being "not a big deal" after previously being cautious, so I feel vindicated in every single one I ever gave to that piece of shit.

[Guest]

Alright y'all proved it.  The NYT is a centrist rag.  

That's why Penelope, the centrist and other surly ( self diagnosed)centrists are jumping out there to defend its centricity.

Never stop.  Please.

and to be fair, I'd put FoxNews way the fuck farther to the right.

Edited January 6 by slorch

[Captainant 27467]

1 minute ago, slorch said:

Alright y'all proved it.  The NYT is a centrist rag.  

That's why Penelope, the centrist and other surly ( self diagnosed)centrists are jumping out there to defend its centricity.

Never stop.  Please.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Yep, but every time we post a political spectrum thread, where do most of you fuckers fall?   Well, not not all of em, because some are shocked by their own results and don't share them.

[fattyflattie 4636]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I've never been a Republican.

I've never been a Democrat.

You, however, are too easily duped to be allowed a vote.

And yet, we are afforded the same vote.  Womp. 

[G650 14108]

27 minutes ago, slorch said:

Alright y'all proved it.  The NYT is a centrist rag.  

That's why Penelope, the centrist and other surly ( self diagnosed)centrists are jumping out there to defend its centricity.

Never stop.  Please.

and to be fair, I'd put FoxNews way the fuck farther to the right.

Not gonna answer my question huh

Edited January 6 by G650

[Captainant 27467]

I really doubt there would be this much acrimony towards NYT if trump had not targeted them so relentlessly. Because genuinely, I haven't heard a single addressable complaint aside from the usual "well they're just a RAG, ok??? MANY PEOPLE ARE SAYING!!"

If y'all had something more than boohoo victimhood it would be much more interesting 

Edited January 6 by Captainant

[bolverk 29405]

56 minutes ago, slorch said:

Alright y'all proved it.  The NYT is a centrist rag.  

That's why Penelope, the centrist and other surly ( self diagnosed)centrists are jumping out there to defend its centricity.

Never stop.  Please.

Never said it was centrist, and you're still missing the point. The point was that it was openly attacked, dismissed, and vilified on the FOOTBALL BOARD solely on the false notion that it's some out-of-the-mainstream, leftist publication worthy of scorn.

There is a shit-ton of conservatives who allow their politics to infect benign topics and who never dare allow their privileged opinions to be challenged either in here. They just assume that everyone agrees with them; hence, the Overton Window. They don't know how reactionary they actually are.

I understand I'm a liberal, and I've never hesitated to post my results from the political spectrum grid. And I've seen plenty of liberals do the same. But I haven't seen hardly any of this board's conservatives post their results (you're one of the few who ever did). Maybe THEY'RE the ones who were ashamed to show themselves as far-right authoritarians.

Edit: If you need a refresher on seeing who was actually willing to post their results:

https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/topic/11802-the-political-compass-thread/

 

Edited January 6 by bolverk
Too bad we can't go back and see the original results from Shaggy.

[nbmishoid 941]

5 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

I wouldn't give af if both were Thanos'd tomorrow.  I used Fox as the example from the right.  You can convince yourself however you want to feel better about what the political bent and readership of the NYT is.  I couldn't care what conclusion you draw from that exercise either. 

And what national newspaper would you recommend?

[G650 14108]

9 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

And what national newspaper would you recommend?

There is no singular paper, or media source for that matter. The only way to consume information is by following specific journalists who are credible, and constantly reevaluating their credibility. Every news source is going to have legitimate people as well as clowns

[956 Worldwide 34444]

I recommend reading The Economist, in paper form and carrying it with you.  Then asking people if they have seen the latest article in The Economist (doesn’t matter what the topic is). 
 

If you are in Miami you can substitute The Financial Times. 

[nbmishoid 941]

Sure, there is none unilaterally the best.  I like Wapo but can’t get it in my remote place.  So I do read the NYT every morning.  Yes, it’s lib in the New York sense, but it is not rife with false bullshit.   Not at all.

[G650 14108]

9 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

If you are in Miami you can substitute The Financial Times. 

Don't be bad talking my main paper

[G650 14108]

7 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

Sure, there is none unilaterally the best.  I like Wapo but can’t get it in my remote place.  So I do read the NYT every morning.  Yes, it’s lib in the New York sense, but it is not rife with false bullshit.   Not at all.

I'm not saying it is, but you can't just credulously read something because it's in a particular paper. Saying it's in the NYT or WaPo doesn't mean anything

[Neonmoon 38127]

It’s not what you read, it’s how you read it. You have to use critical thinking skills. Of course, if you had these to begin with, you would naturally tend to read more credible news sources. 

When you read a Fox News article, and it states “reports say Hunter Biden was being paid by China”, and you click on “reports” because it is linked. If it links you back to another Fox News article that says “Sean Hannity says Hunter Biden is paid by China”, it means it’s made up bullshit and you should stop reading a website that lies to you. 

Oh, here’s a fun example, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-mocked-for-appearing-confused-after-anti-trump-speech-lost-again

A “news article” is written because a social media account of the RNC tweets something negative about Biden. This is the news equivalent of my dog licking his balls. 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Don’t forget, he’s the same dude that made a sock account to go back and pos rep his own posts that were negged by other people.  Internet rep is serious business for him.

That was a demonstration of the ‘value of rep’ assigned by others. They said it was pretend internet points, until all of the sudden it wasn’t. Then they lost their shit while suggesting I might be mentally ill- go back and read the thread- it’s ridiculously stupid. The exercise resonated mightily, as you still remember it…but it’s worthless internet points. 
Again, I take a neg as a confirmation of triggering happening, not an indictment of the post. It’s a reason I don’t feel the need to use them  

Carry on.

 

Edited January 6 by slorch

[InkaUtexas 25523]

Read the economist, WSJ, and the Guardian. BBC because they track places a lot won't. Another good one is AFP. Also, read Al Jazeera. Know they might have a slant, but if you want another perspective they do offer one.

[nbmishoid 941]

Agreed on BBC, and Al Jazeera.

[bolverk 29405]

18 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Read the economist, WSJ, and the Guardian. BBC because they track places a lot won't. Another good one is AFP. Also, read Al Jazeera. Know they might have a slant, but if you want another perspective they do offer one.

Yeah, stick to this area for reliable reporting, and I think you generally should be safe from bias accusations (at least from any rational or objective person). 

 

The interactive version shows many more websites, publications, and TV stations.

https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/

Edited January 6 by bolverk

[nbmishoid 941]

1 hour ago, G650 said:

I'm not saying it is, but you can't just credulously read something because it's in a particular paper. Saying it's in the NYT or WaPo doesn't mean anything

Agreed.  My language was shorthand for I have a lot of experience with both papers.  What I read is based on, well, decades of experience.  Didn’t use to matter, unti the RWmedia machine reached full tilt.

[nbmishoid 941]

18 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Yeah, stick to this area for reliable reporting, and I think you generally should be safe from bias accusations (at least from any rational or objective person). 

 

The interactive version shows many more websites, publications, and TV stations.

https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/

And I don’t care about accusations of bias, when they are uninformed.   I care about the content, what I think about it, not what others think.  

[Captainant 27467]

1 hour ago, G650 said:

I'm not saying it is, but you can't just credulously read something because it's in a particular paper. Saying it's in the NYT or WaPo doesn't mean anything

Being WaPo or NYT doesn't mean it's golden, but it's also at least sourced reporting and not the "people are saying" bullshit. 

[bolverk 29405]

25 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

And I don’t care about accusations of bias, when they are uninformed.   I care about the content, what I think about it, not what others think.  

I agree about seeking quality content.

The problem is there are a lot of uninformed, misinformed, or brainwashed posters on this site. Recall that one primary reason this thread exists was the simple citation of the NYTimes for a piece about how NIL changes the nature of college football. The "content" of the article, no matter how accurate or how good the quality (it was decent), was getting drowned out by a gaggle of posters acting like complete dicks because they were triggered by the name of the publication.

This is a message board where we often have conversations about the content posters cite. We can't have good discussions if posters react the way that they did, because they hate the NYTimes for political reasons in the FOOTBALL section of the board. Unfortunately, they were largely successful in quashing any back-and-forth about the variations in how NIL is structured among the four football teams in the playoffs. 

But those idiots will be happy to discuss what a bunch of very biased sports analysts personalities blabber about for an hour on their YouTube channels. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

With respect to the media, print or otherwise, one item often overlooked is the inability of readers to not only read the article from start to finish (we'll set aside critically for the time being) but most importantly to examine the article, whether print or online, to note: is this in the editorial or OPINION section versus the factual AP type news. While even the fact based news articles have a 'slant' to them (I.e sources cited but perhaps some sources 'ahem' omitted), there has been a decline in readers paying any attention whatsoever to whether an article is, in essence, the platform of someone whom the newsagent has allowed to publish under the aegis of free speech.

Regardless of an inherent 'slant' of a specific publication, the appearance in the opinion column does not necessarily give legitimacy and any reader with an education beyond the eighth grade ought to know this. Alas, points earned for the team or to confirm biases and rationalizations matter more than actually, you know, what the article truly conveys, which in some cases is just blathering nonsense. When one repeats that nonsense, then we have, you know, a whole lot of hot air.

 

 

[Guest]

13 hours ago, G650 said:

Why don't you explain how it's politics, using something besides "it just is"

Poster virtually never posts in a football thread.

Poster has known posting tactics in CR. She disagrees= neg.

Poster shows up to defend NYT, again, LOFL, but yeah, with 16 negs across a football thread in which pretty much nobody GAF about said tactics.

Absolutely political.  The pedantic bullshit asking how it could be politics is just hilarious.    You see what you want to see.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

10 hours ago, Captainant said:

If you think fox news and NYT are in the same realm of journalism, then you need to disengage from the #bothsides machine. Fox owes over a BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS for libel and defamation, by jury verdict, that's been upheld across multiple appeals. And they're staring down the barrel of billions MORE in judgements. 

 

You're on a completely different plane of existence to equivocate the two. 

Point of order.  The bolded is not true.  FN voluntarily paid that settlement, ostensibly because the jury verdict would have been worse.

[babysdaddy 2718]

Wapo story. It isn’t going well there

https://puck.news/post-modernism-theories/

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

37 minutes ago, slorch said:

Poster virtually never posts in a football thread.

Poster has known posting tactics in CR. She disagrees= neg.

Poster shows up to defend NYT, again, LOFL, but yeah, with 16 negs across a football thread in which pretty much nobody GAF about said tactics.

Absolutely political.  The pedantic bullshit asking how it could be politics is just hilarious.    You see what you want to see.

Keep whining. I neg because I prefer to do that than actually engage idiots and trolls.  It's amazing how a big tough man like you is hurt by internet rep points. Jesus, get a life.

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Keep whining. I neg because I prefer to do that than actually engage idiots and trolls.  It's amazing how a big tough man like you is hurt by internet rep points. Jesus, get a life.

 

I was simply answering the question from another poster.

Thank you for the confirmation of you being triggered, snowflake.

neg all you want.  It's who you are.  Political Princess.

Edited January 7 by slorch

[fattyflattie 4636]

48 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Jesus, get a life.

Seriously. I can only post so many lines from the song. 

[DDD Dad 14252]

12 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

Not him. I'm referring to what is happening in the House. How long would blacklab let a discussion of the useful idiots holding up aid to proceed? If there's a stark difference between how we view Russia it's within the Republican party. Mearsheimer didn't change. The party of Reagan did.

None of that discussion happens in DT. Because it's going to get messy.

You misspelled political. Which is why that discussion doesn’t belong in the CR. 

[TexasEd 8064]

On 1/4/2024 at 7:05 PM, 956 Worldwide said:

My serious response to the “too big and diverse”, assuming I accept the reasoning (I don’t) is—- so what? What’s the alternative?  Let’s talk about how to address challenges inherent to governing a large, diverse nation. 
 

Do we want to talk about devolution and subsidiarity? Ok, let’s talk about that.

Or are we going to break up the country? Kick out all the “others.” Introduce the strong hand of authoritarianism? (Usually this is where this is going). Sorry but all those things are worse. “America is too big and diverse for democracy so let’s be autocratic” is a shit fucking take. 
 

I posted this in DT and joked that Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour is responsible for continued American economic primacy. It’s almost the truth though. 

In everything from human capital to physical plant to resources to institutions it is almost comical how advantaged the United States is over any nation on earth. Talking about American decline is absurd.

 The amount of wealth and power we have is simply incomparable. It is beyond me why we want to squander it and actively try to jettison our advantages.  I think too many of us got too comfortable and so silliness is a change of pace. 
 

Or since Biden took over

[washparkhorn 9935]

Trumpers are nihilists. It’s not that they believe in nothing; they don’t believe in what exists.

Their point is they don’t have point. Their cult leader praises their lead-addled brains—so they worship him. They adore “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

They are the lumpen-proletariat; the dismal tide. They celebrate the end of our fragile republic and welcome an authoritarian state.

They shall not pass.

[G650 14108]

9 hours ago, slorch said:

Poster virtually never posts in a football thread.

Poster has known posting tactics in CR. She disagrees= neg.

Poster shows up to defend NYT, again, LOFL, but yeah, with 16 negs across a football thread in which pretty much nobody GAF about said tactics.

Absolutely political.  The pedantic bullshit asking how it could be politics is just hilarious.    You see what you want to see.

Literally nothing you listed is "politics"

[Neonmoon 38127]

This thread is a microcosm of the main issue in this country and possibly others. Intelligent people and/or good faith actors trying to engage in good faith with disingenuous and/or low IQ people.

Edited January 7 by Neonmoon

[VRHorn 718]

Between blacklab's moderation of DT and posts like imma's in the babbitt thread, it's easy to see why the MAGATs run roughshod over the rest of this site.

Edited January 7 by VRHorn

[956 Worldwide 34444]

If I took article from NYT or WaPo and changed bylines, 99 percent of the people who hate those lib rags would have no problem with the content. The papers aren’t liberal, the people who read them are and that’s what gets folks upset. 

[HornOnTheBayou 8881]

On a somewhat related topic, has the Knigga thread run its course? It's an unfortunate last name for a white kid and the idea of announcers trying to not mispronounce his name is objectively hilarious. But it seems like the thread is now just people trying to be edgy, but toe the line without saying the actual word.

[atomheartbevo 89450]

21 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

It’s not what you read, it’s how you read it. You have to use critical thinking skills. Of course, if you had these to begin with, you would naturally tend to read more credible news sources. 

When you read a Fox News article, and it states “reports say Hunter Biden was being paid by China”, and you click on “reports” because it is linked. If it links you back to another Fox News article that says “Sean Hannity says Hunter Biden is paid by China”, it means it’s made up bullshit and you should stop reading a website that lies to you.

When there are “legitimate” news stories on FoxNews,com that relatives or friends send my way, it’s almost always a licensed Reuters article (and even says “Reuters” in the byline).  I have told many of them to just go read the original source for a lot of actual news stories on FoxNews.com - Reuters, rather than get sucked into clickbait articles about Hunter’s dong or laptop.  Doesn’t happen, Fox News has the clickbait game down as well as any Youtuber or social media influenced.  They are Buzzfeed with a slant.