**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

No actually, Infowars quite demonstrably does NOT practice anywhere near the same standards as CNN and HuffPo. I hate both of those outlets with a deep and undying passion, but that Infowars story is a spectacular absurdity in the world of journalism, and you need to stop equivocating all forms of bad media. Not everything is fake news. Hell, even that Infowars story (as hilariously atrocious as it is) wasn't fake news. Using accurate words matters.

I didn't say they are on par. InfoWars is definitely worse. My comment was because I have put a lots of words to how bad the MSM is and I wanted to point out that InfoWars is also bad in the same way. InfoWars is also worse. MSM sometimes reports on things they shouldn't. InfoWars constantly reports on things they shouldn't.

Ever since you've been bit by the "fake news" bug, you've basically been exactly as bad as the SJWs who call everything that is in some way or another potentially offensive to someone non-white "racist."

Please explain.

[surviva316]

Please explain.

Don't feel like doing a whole thing right now, but I basically just mean always immediately going to the nuclear word. Credibility of a news story is a whole spectrum and there is a whole variety of ways it can be compromised. Cherry picked information, conjecture, rumor, single unreliable source, single reliable source, single unvetted unreliable source, multiple reliable but unnamed sources, unvetted information, totally fabricated information, bias in presentation, bias in selection, bias to the point of intellectual dishonesty, honest mistake, typo, information taken out-of-context, deceivingly edited quotes, clickbait, exaggeration, you can go up and down and back up the list again. Everyone is different and needs to be treated differently by the media consumer. Only one of them is outright fake news and only one of those should be treated like fake news should be treated.

[surviva316]

Some highlights:

“I wondered how fake news starts so I quickly set up a fake account, didn’t bother following anyone, used a stupid picture of a bad guy from a film … and sent him a message. I didn’t think he’d get back to me, because it was ludicrous.”

And my favorite:

BuzzFeed News contacted Watson to ask why he published the content of the DMs without checking whether the information was real. He replied only: “BuzzFeed is cancer. BuzzFeed is fake news.”

[BananaStand]

I certainly understand the human instinct to fill in answers where there are none. It's obviously a forceful compulsion. I mean, how many billions of people on this earth believe in religion?

For me, the missing piece in all this is "Why did this story get so much legs"? Occam's razor would say "cause it's true". Dismissing that, I need to fill in the answer some other way. And my personal opinion, with absolutely no evidence to support it, is that the story got legs because the mainstream media let it get legs. Or...possibly even helped it along.

I think it helps their credibility if the term "fake news" can be tied to such an obviously contrived story. It makes their own "fake news" sins seem so much less serious by comparison. I mean, so what if Brian Williams made up a story about a helicopter attack. At least he's not accusing a former president of human trafficking.

The MSM has spent the better part of a decade pushing their narrative, and using some pretty underhanded tactics to do it. Tactics that would normally get them branded as "fake news". But instead, people now have this pizza-headed monster to associate with the term, and that makes things like the editing of Zimmerman's 911 call, or Susan Rice's video-blaming tour seem really small by comparison.

[wufwugy]

But instead, people now have this pizza-headed monster to associate with the term, and that makes things like the editing of Zimmerman's 911 call, or Susan Rice's video-blaming tour seem really small by comparison.

I doubt what goes on with pizzagate would change any of that. Nobody cared about the MSM lying about these things before. Indeed, it may be because of the whole fake news accusation by the MSM and people like Cernovich turning it around on them that people are even looking at the MSM fakery with scrutiny now.

It's like Crichton said, the media has unearned credibility. They've been caught in lies many, many times, and yet nobody cares.

[BananaStand]

I doubt what goes on with pizzagate would change any of that. Nobody cared about the MSM lying about these things before. Indeed, it may be because of the whole fake news accusation by the MSM and people like Cernovich turning it around on them that people are even looking at the MSM fakery with scrutiny now.

It's like Crichton said, the media has unearned credibility. They've been caught in lies many, many times, and yet nobody cares.

That was true maybe two years ago. Now we have social media, particularly in the form of a President who will challenge every media inaccuracy by tweeting directly to the general public.

Game-changer, no?

[wufwugy]

That was true maybe two years ago. Now we have social media, particularly in the form of a President who will challenge every media inaccuracy by tweeting directly to the general public.

Game-changer, no?

Could be.

[surviva316]

Ong, just out of curiosity, why do you care so much? Is this part of your Hillary hatred, or is it just a side interest?

If I were to find out Kellyanne Conway were a serial killer, this wouldn't move the needle much for my beliefs on Trump.

I mean, if there is a harem of sex-trafficked boys in the basement of Comet Ping Pong, I hope they are freed and whoever is responsible is thrown in jail for a long looong time, but like beyond that, I don't really care ...

[OngBonga]

Ong, just out of curiosity, why do you care so much? Is this part of your Hillary hatred, or is it just a side interest?

What makes me care if paedophilia is systematic within our political class? Are you really asking me that question?

[surviva316]

What makes me care if paedophilia is systematic within our political class? Are you really asking me that question?

I was asking if you cared so much specifically because it's Hillary's campaign manager.

[OngBonga]

I was asking if you cared so much specifically because it's Hillary's campaign manager.

I see. Let me assure you the world does not revolve around Hilary. I don't have some irrational hatred for her, like she's a tiny little spider and I'm a silly girl. She's just part of the system, she failed to get the top job and will now quietly fuck off into obscurity, whoring herself to after-dinner speeches, remaining as corrupt as she ever was. I couldn't give a fuck about Hilary any more.

Although, I would give a fuck about her if there was credibility to the claim that she is part of a peedo ring at the highest level of power.

People saying "lol it's a hoax, stfu" over and over again does not change the fact that it at least warrants an open investigation. Jimmy Fucking Saville showed us that at the very least it's allowed to happen. We need to know if it's rampant throughout the system, because, quite frankly, I don't want to be ruled by peedos any more than I want to be ruled by Hitler.

[BananaStand]

People saying "lol it's a hoax, stfu" over and over again does not change the fact that it at least warrants an open investigation. Jimmy Fucking Saville showed us that at the very least it's allowed to happen. We need to know if it's rampant throughout the system, because, quite frankly, I don't want to be ruled by peedos any more than I want to be ruled by Hitler.

The fact that there have been cases of corruption, doesn't mean that we get to open investigations into every outrageous claim that gets thrown out there. There needs to be evidence, witnesses, victims, corroboration, SOMETHING other than a ridiculous assertion that suggests since 'cheese pizza' is internet slang for baby-fucking, then we need to investigate pizza restaurants because they all represent 'the perfect cover'.

A lack of evidence to a crime, is not evidence of a cover-up.

We used to use your kind of logic to open investigations. We used the exact same standard of evidence, and opened investigations into every baseless accusation that was rendered.

Google "Salem MA, 1692" if you want to see how well it worked.

[OngBonga]

What have you seen that confirms it's not a hoax? Can you point to one credible piece of evidence that isn't steeped in conjecture?

Yeah, the logos. That alone should be enough to warrant an investigation.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, the logos. That alone should be enough to warrant an investigation.

You mean the logos that vaguely resemble each other?

Do you really think that pizza place (that isn't even the same one as Cosmic whatever Pizza) is retarded enough to knowingly put a pedo symbol in their logo? Or is it more likely the resemblance is purely coincidental?

[OngBonga]

I mean what do you care if Hitler killed 6 million Jews? Did he kill you? No!

[wufwugy]

Of course I should probably investigate further before opining since Jizzfeed is equally unreliable.

[BananaStand]

Wait, whut?

"could be true" = "credible"

[Poopadoop]

I think he misspoke.

[Poopadoop]

"could be true" = "credible"

I take it this is sarcasm.

For the record:

credible
adjective

able to be believed; convincing.
synonyms: acceptable, trustworthy, reliable, dependable, sure, good, valid

[wufwugy]

I take it this is sarcasm.

For the record:

credible
adjective

able to be believed; convincing.
synonyms: acceptable, trustworthy, reliable, dependable, sure, good, valid

Yep. It is very convincing to some and in some ways. Its overall credibility is very low. A better word to use is "plausible" since by connotation "credible" tends to mean "highly credible".

[Poopadoop]

Yep. It is very convincing to some and in some ways. Its overall credibility is very low. A better word to use is "plausible" since by connotation "credible" tends to mean "highly credible".

plausible
adjective

(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.

synonyms: credible, reasonable, believable, likely, feasible, probable, tenable, possible, conceivable, imaginable, within the bounds of possibility, convincing, persuasive, cogent, sound, rational, logical, acceptable, thinkable;

I think the word you're looking for is 'possible'. Or possibly 'irony'

[wufwugy]

plausible
adjective

(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.

synonyms: credible, reasonable, believable, likely, feasible, probable, tenable, possible, conceivable, imaginable, within the bounds of possibility, convincing, persuasive, cogent, sound, rational, logical, acceptable, thinkable;

I think the word you're looking for is 'possible'. Or possibly 'irony'

Possible also works.

The confusion here is about normative usage. We don't normally think of "credible" in terms of degrees even tho it is and we normally think of "possible" (in this context) as being a low degree, while in some technical settings "possible" is typically associated with a degree.

Basically we're using the words differently and both are correct.

[wufwugy]

It's not like its credibility is high. It's very low.

[OngBonga]

Or maybe you already had a rock solid alibi. You were in the US running the most expensive presidential campaign in history.

I hope he's not using that as an alibi for an event that happened a decade ago or whatever.

If a girl went missing somewhere where I was recently on holiday, and the police issued an efit that vaguely resembled me, and I became aware of this through media, then yes, of course I would get in touch, because maybe they have some important questions to ask me. Maybe I can help them. It's not just about eliminating oneself from their enquiries. I'd be concerned about the welfare of the missing girl.

That fact was mentioned only because the source that made the claim is the ONLY source linking podesta to portugal.

I really don't think that's the only source. From what I can tell from a quick bit of googling, Suffolk Police (UK) were looking into whether Sir Clement Freud (yep, Sigmund's peedo grandson) had any involvement, since he owned a property nearby, and was a peedo. They concluded Clement was not in Portugal at the time, but had loaned the use of his property to the Podesta's.

If ALL Christians were basing their faith in god on the claims of that one man, and that one man proves to be fantastically un-credible. Then yes, they should ALL reasses their theological position.

But noone I'm aware of is basing their faith in that one man that thinks the queen is a lizard. There might be a lot of people giving it credit because it was part of a wikileaks dump, but that's a different story. I don't see wikileaks saying anything about lizard queens.

So I've always wondered who buys those rags at the grocery checkout running headlines about subterranean mole people blackmailing the mayor of new york so they can get HBO in their sewer hideout. Now I know.

lol I'm not stupid enough to pay for that sort of shit, that's what the internet is for. That's rather like assuming that because I like Japanese lesbian porn, I'm buying wank mags from motorway service stations.

I'm really not familiar with the Savile case, but if you want an example of real systematic pedophilia, just look at the Catholic diocese in Boston MA. That shit REALLY happened. But that doesn't mean that I now believe that every accused predator who is found to be innocent is being "protected".

Look into the Savile case if you want to know what I mean by "protected". I don't assume every accused predator is protected. I assume those at the top who compromise themselves will be protected, people like Sir Jimmy Savile and Sir Clement Freud. Note both were sirs. Note both are dead. Note neither went to prison for their crimes. "proetection" is as real as the Vatican nastiness.

[Poopadoop]

If a girl went missing somewhere where I was recently on holiday, and the police issued an efit that vaguely resembled me, and I became aware of this through media, then yes, of course I would get in touch, because maybe they have some important questions to ask me. Maybe I can help them. It's not just about eliminating oneself from their enquiries. I'd be concerned about the welfare of the missing girl.

But presumably you know nothing about the missing girl. How does the coincidence of you resembling the efit make you in any way an asset to the case? You'd just be wasting the cops' time and opening yourself up to the possibility of false accusations.

True story: The cops stopped me driving at a check point one time, and said they were looking for a serial rapist. They showed me a sketch and to my surprise (and horror) it looked a lot like me (though younger). I knew nothing about any serial rapist and had no information for them about this guy. Are you saying I should have told them 'hey that kinda looks like me? Please take me in and question me because that coincidence might mean I can be helpful somehow.'

You're really smoking too much weed if you're seeing meaningful connections between things that are only coincidences.

[OngBonga]

You're really smoking too much weed if you're seeing meaningful connections between things that are only coincidences.

You don't smoke enough because you still take me seriously when I go off on a tangent with some stupid anology.

[Poopadoop]

You don't smoke enough because you still take me seriously when I go off on a tangent with some stupid anology.

You're again smoking too much by not realising I'm just trolling you back.

[OngBonga]

You're again smoking too much by not realising I'm just trolling you back.

Checkmate.

[surviva316]

What distinction are you using to call one outright fake and the other not?

Just to use CNN as an example. Again, I hate them, probably tuned into them once since the Obama/Romney election and that was on November 8th. I do use their website for their exit polls, but other than that, I don't use them, they suck, they are sensationalist with very little journalistic integrity and if the channel and website fell out of existence, I'd be better off for it.

But if we're comparing their standards to fake news? If we're setting the bar all the way down there? Then Christ. Just take the dossier as an example. If they had written that themselves (maybe stitching some half-truths together from some random shit they've heard on various grapevines) and then published it, that'd be fake news. They didn't fabricate the dossier. They got it from a source. In fact, they were able to verify that the source was a member of the UK intelligence community. They tried to verify the legitimacy of the source beyond that. They were able to do so circumstantially when they learned from multiple sources that the CIA was briefing the standing POTUS and the president elect on the contents of a dossier that was likely to be the one they held.

... and it still didn't meet their standards for publication (I think a few people, including the president elect, got a little confused between them and Buzzfeed).

Am I patting them on their back? No. But if we're starting at ground zero and working our way up, we are far up from the ground.

This goes back to throwing the baby out with the bathwater with this whole anti-establishment thing. You should absolutely be skeptical of information you receive. You should carefully read what the source is, what other outlets are corroborating it, what the other side's rebuttal would be, etc. But when people shout "fake news" at everything, they aren't being skeptical. They're not using their critical thinking faculties at all. They're just blanket ignoring information for lazy and convenient excuses.

[BananaStand]

They didn't fabricate the dossier. They got it from a source. In fact, they were able to verify that the source was a member of the UK intelligence community.

Former member of the UK intelligence community, hired as a private investigator by democratic operatives supporting Hillary Clinton, to drudge up dirt on Trump. As far as I can tell, this "dossier" of "sources" is really just a journal of rumors compiled by a guy who was paid to compile a journal of rumors.

You make it sound like CNN showed some kind of restraint by not running the story. There was no story.

[surviva316]

You make it sound like CNN showed some kind of restraint by not running the story. There was no story.

I damn near doubled the word-count of my post trying to make it as clear as possible that I don't think CNN deserves a Pulitzer for not publishing the dossier.

I'm saying if we're comparing it to the lowest-of-the-low standard of publishing totally fabricated information (or hell, even unvetted information), then CNN is well above that (absurdly low) standard. Not all shit news is fake news.

[wufwugy]

Just to use CNN as an example. Again, I hate them, probably tuned into them once since the Obama/Romney election and that was on November 8th. I do use their website for their exit polls, but other than that, I don't use them, they suck, they are sensationalist with very little journalistic integrity and if the channel and website fell out of existence, I'd be better off for it.

But if we're comparing their standards to fake news? If we're setting the bar all the way down there? Then Christ. Just take the dossier as an example. If they had written that themselves (maybe stitching some half-truths together from some random shit they've heard on various grapevines) and then published it, that'd be fake news. They didn't fabricate the dossier. They got it from a source. In fact, they were able to verify that the source was a member of the UK intelligence community. They tried to verify the legitimacy of the source beyond that. They were able to do so circumstantially when they learned from multiple sources that the CIA was briefing the standing POTUS and the president elect on the contents of a dossier that was likely to be the one they held.

... and it still didn't meet their standards for publication (I think a few people, including the president elect, got a little confused between them and Buzzfeed).

Am I patting them on their back? No. But if we're starting at ground zero and working our way up, we are far up from the ground.

This goes back to throwing the baby out with the bathwater with this whole anti-establishment thing. You should absolutely be skeptical of information you receive. You should carefully read what the source is, what other outlets are corroborating it, what the other side's rebuttal would be, etc. But when people shout "fake news" at everything, they aren't being skeptical. They're not using their critical thinking faculties at all. They're just blanket ignoring information for lazy and convenient excuses.

I can see that. The "fake news" thing is a culture war right now. Each side is fighting to pin that label to the other side. Reasoning like the type you explained gets lost in the noise of battle.

Regarding my claim that CNN is fake news, I have seen them on more than one occasion change something Trump said to make it look like he said something else (I couldn't source this again if I tried though). From the perspective you are arguing, I can see how the case can be made that CNN reporting something like "hands up don't shoot" isn't fake news since they reported on what they were told. But that isn't necessarily the reason people call it "fake news." Some call them fake because of how readily they reports on things that support their narrative that end up being fake. Perhaps a way of thinking of it is that different media organizations that engage in fakery do so in different ways.

[Poopadoop]

I can see that. The "fake news" thing is a culture war right now. Each side is fighting to pin that label to the other side. Reasoning like the type you explained gets lost in the noise of battle.

Regarding my claim that CNN is fake news, I have seen them on more than one occasion change something Trump said to make it look like he said something else (I couldn't source this again if I tried though). From the perspective you are arguing, I can see how the case can be made that CNN reporting something like "hands up don't shoot" isn't fake news since they reported on what they were told. But that isn't necessarily the reason people call it "fake news." Some call them fake because of how readily they reports on things that support their narrative that end up being fake. Perhaps a way of thinking of it is that different media organizations that engage in fakery do so in different ways.

CNN changed his tweet from 'blah blah crooked Hillary' to 'blah blah Hillary'. That's hardly on the level of fake news, but I would agree if you said it's cheesy and dishonest reporting.

Fake news to me is more like 'Trump found passed out in a ditch with hookers after inaugaration bender!'.

Another way to argue it is that news is fake if if you report something that didn't happen, or if you dramatically change the meaning of what someone said. Taking out 'crooked' from a tweet about 'crooked Hillary' isn't so much fake as just dumb.

[surviva316]

I can see that. The "fake news" thing is a culture war right now. Each side is fighting to pin that label to the other side. Reasoning like the type you explained gets lost in the noise of battle.

From a historical perspective, this is somewhat revisionist. What happened was mainstream journalists broke a story about people writing fake news and distributing it through social media sites. That is: fake news with no quotes. Like, people were just totally making shit up and spreading it all over the place. The right (conservative media and Trump himself) being the cunning folk that they are, adopted this to fit their own narrative that the MSM is all fake bullshit that should totally be ignored and just tried to pin the stink on them. Sort of a "No fake news! No fake news! You're fake news!"

I should be clear that the MSM was not trying to pin fake news on large conservative media outlets: not Fox News, not Breitbart, not Infowars. There was no cultural war in their eyes. They were just breaking a story about people making shit up and proliferating it on the internet.

Now, if we're talking about what's going on right now, I obviously can't speak for every member of the left (and there are a lot of idiots) but I still don't even mean to remotely imply a left-news versus right-news thing when I say fake news. To emphasize again, for as shitty as that story was I linked, that does not make Infowars fake news. It means they're nothing more than a rumor mill (a shitty one at that, and that's saying something), but there's still an important distinction between making shit up and passing along things you've heard on the grapevine.

Which brings me to my next point:

Some call them fake because of how readily they reports on things that support their narrative that end up being fake. Perhaps a way of thinking of it is that different media organizations that engage in fakery do so in different ways.

The difference goes beyond different kinds of fakery. Even when CNN runs away too fast with a story that has a questionable basis and even when it eventually proves to be false, it does not mean they fabricated information. Fabricated information has--at best--zero value. It's simply untrue bullshit. Speculative information from questionable sources still has value. It is insider knowledge that often proves to be true. As two people who play games of imperfect information, we should both be able to level on this point pretty easily.

This is also an easily understood concept in sports journalism, perhaps because it's much more of a closed system and perhaps because the stakes are smaller. No matter what year it is, I can guarantee you that on July 31st, I will be on MLBTradeRumors.com. Pretty much everything that's posted on there is unnamed, single-sourced information, and quite a lot of the more nascent information proves to be misleading or outright wrong. And yet, I'm there every year. And yet, I routinely have a better beat of who's going where than people who wait for AP to break the news.

Adam Schefter's probably a better example because he both Tweets breaking stories while they're still in the rumor phase, and he writes legitimate sports journalism. Just because he's been wrong a few times about Frank Gore signing with the Eagles (or whatever) doesn't mean that I should shout FAKE NEWS and X out of a totally story he wrote that gives multiple reputable, named sources.

Maybe I'm off in the weeds at this point. Point is, CNN still sucks, I still have no intention of using them for anything, but you can't shut down your critical thinking faculties and dismiss everything that comes from them.

[wufwugy]

From a historical perspective, this is somewhat revisionist. What happened was mainstream journalists broke a story about people writing fake news and distributing it through social media sites. That is: fake news with no quotes. Like, people were just totally making shit up and spreading it all over the place. The right (conservative media and Trump himself) being the cunning folk that they are, adopted this to fit their own narrative that the MSM is all fake bullshit that should totally be ignored and just tried to pin the stink on them. Sort of a "No fake news! No fake news! You're fake news!"

I should be clear that the MSM was not trying to pin fake news on large conservative media outlets: not Fox News, not Breitbart, not Infowars. There was no cultural war in their eyes. They were just breaking a story about people making shit up and proliferating it on the internet.

Now, if we're talking about what's going on right now, I obviously can't speak for every member of the left (and there are a lot of idiots) but I still don't even mean to remotely imply a left-news versus right-news thing when I say fake news. To emphasize again, for as shitty as that story was I linked, that does not make Infowars fake news. It means they're nothing more than a rumor mill (a shitty one at that, and that's saying something), but there's still an important distinction between making shit up and passing along things you've heard on the grapevine.

Which brings me to my next point:



The difference goes beyond different kinds of fakery. Even when CNN runs away too fast with a story that has a questionable basis and even when it eventually proves to be false, it does not mean they fabricated information. Fabricated information has--at best--zero value. It's simply untrue bullshit. Speculative information from questionable sources still has value. It is insider knowledge that often proves to be true. As two people who play games of imperfect information, we should both be able to level on this point pretty easily.

This is also an easily understood concept in sports journalism, perhaps because it's much more of a closed system and perhaps because the stakes are smaller. No matter what year it is, I can guarantee you that on July 31st, I will be on MLBTradeRumors.com. Pretty much everything that's posted on there is unnamed, single-sourced information, and quite a lot of the more nascent information proves to be misleading or outright wrong. And yet, I'm there every year. And yet, I routinely have a better beat of who's going where than people who wait for AP to break the news.

Adam Schefter's probably a better example because he both Tweets breaking stories while they're still in the rumor phase, and he writes legitimate sports journalism. Just because he's been wrong a few times about Frank Gore signing with the Eagles (or whatever) doesn't mean that I should shout FAKE NEWS and X out of a totally story he wrote that gives multiple reputable, named sources.

Maybe I'm off in the weeds at this point. Point is, CNN still sucks, I still have no intention of using them for anything, but you can't shut down your critical thinking faculties and dismiss everything that comes from them.

Lots of quality stuff.

It looks to me like the MSM points the finger at smaller media that are lax with their fact-checking and calls them fake, and then the MSM turns around and does it themselves yet not as frequently.

[BananaStand]

From a historical perspective, this is somewhat revisionist. What happened was mainstream journalists broke a story about people writing fake news and distributing it through social media sites. That is: fake news with no quotes. Like, people were just totally making shit up and spreading it all over the place.

If we're taking a 'historical perspective' then I think you're the one guilty of revisionism. This climate where unsubstantiated rumors, conjecture, and outright concoctions can be published as 'news stories', didn't just come about all of a sudden during this election season. For almsot two decades now the MSM themselves have gradually lowered the bar of journalistic integrity.

Seems like ancient history now, but the media was friggen brutal to George W. And back then, celebrities and left wing elites were not forced to contain their outrage to 140 characters. They got face time on 60 minutes. And as the internet took hold, the culture of sensationalism came into vogue. Suddenly the news cycle got shorter, standards went down, and stories got out there that were either complete nonsense, or they were opinions disguised as news stories.

Remember Dan Rather? That was definitely 'fake news'. He wasn't doing anything different than many other journalists. He just got caught. So he fell on the sword, and the MSM was elevated after they had appeared to have dumped their dead-weight.

Enter Obama, and the MSM does a 180. Now their bias is 'friendly' to the government, and a popular president. In that light, their lack of ethics and integrity doesn't seem so sinister. For example, they gave TONS of play to Harry Reid making baseless, false, and completely fabricated claims about Mitt Romney's taxes. Wouldn't that be considered fake news? Instead of demanding sources, facts, or evidence from Reid, the MSM went after Romney and put the burden on him to disprove the garbage that Reid made up.

The right (conservative media and Trump himself) being the cunning folk that they are, adopted this to fit their own narrative that the MSM is all fake bullshit that should totally be ignored and just tried to pin the stink on them. Sort of a "No fake news! No fake news! You're fake news!"

This is where I think you're losing the historical perspective. The left wing media has slowly, over the course of almost 20 years now, compromised their own integrity. You make it sound like the conservative media and Trump were merely opportunistic. You use the word "cunning" in a way that makes them sound disingenuous. As if it's part of their agenda to smear a neutral and fair media.

I don't think it's unfair to "pin the stink on them". This climate where unsubstantiated rumors can become news didnt' just come about overnight.

I think conservatives were willing to put up with it for a long time. I think they thought that whining about an unfair media made them look weak. But eventually, not fighting back made them look even weaker. So now they are. It's not conservatives fault that the MSM degraded to this point. So it's not really fair to call them opportunists if they've finally decided to fight back.

I'm trying to think of a good analogy, but I can't. So here's a bad one. Your house's foundation has a water leak. A slow one. Your house is still fine. It's standing, but you should really fix the leak before something extra bad happens. However, you don't, and the leak grows a little bigger. Still not threatening, but it's definitely more obvious now that you have a problem.

Then one day there's a flash flood and your foundation cracks. It's really not fair to say "the house would have been fine if not for this flood".

[wufwugy]

That is one but it's not the big one. I don't remember exactly what the real big one is but I remember them editing what he said to make him sound racist (IIRC it was of the anti-Semitic variety of waicism).

[Poopadoop]

That is one but it's not the big one. I don't remember exactly what the real big one is but I remember them editing what he said to make him sound racist (IIRC it was of the anti-Semitic variety of waicism).

I never heard of that one. Are you sure the reporting of that story wasn't fake?

[CoccoBill]

News media outlets run businesses, they want to make profits. In this day and age this means online articles, money is made by clickbait headlines. If you want a successful business, you need to have big headlines and fast, and a lot of them. Consumers aren't interested in investigative journalism, so there's no point for the media to invest in them. This "fake news" thing affects every single media outlet out there who have this business model, to varying degrees. Capitalism fail.

[wufwugy]

News media outlets run businesses, they want to make profits. In this day and age this means online articles, money is made by clickbait headlines. If you want a successful business, you need to have big headlines and fast, and a lot of them. Consumers aren't interested in investigative journalism, so there's no point for the media to invest in them. This "fake news" thing affects every single media outlet out there who have this business model, to varying degrees. Capitalism fail.

I agree with everything (cept the capitalism part, you know me). Despite the many and deep flaws now, it's much better than it used to be, which has happened through capitalism. What we're looking at is lots of (mostly partial) failures within a capitalist system that ultimately contribute to growing robustness of the system.

You're totally right about how the clickbait incentives are driving the day-to-day, and how (almost) nobody is unaffected. AFAICT, gotnews.com is not clickbaity and has a stellar track record of breaking stories accurately. I don't know everything about them tho.

[surviva316]

I was talking specifically about the use of the term "fake news."

I already know you feel that the MSM is less than credible. I'm talking about fabricated information, not a general change of tone in coverage between a Rep and Dem president, or publishing a poorly vetted document thirteen years ago, or going into circlejerk mode when the Senate Majority Leader drops a juicy rumor (as if CNN wouldn't be reporting on pizzagate if Paul Ryan came out and said he heard from his friend who used to work in the kitchen at Comet Ping Pong that the owner used drag 10-year-old Haitians into the basement all the time).

I've already said a half a thousand times that the cable news outlets suck runny shit water. Try to stay on subject.

[BananaStand]

I was talking specifically about the use of the term "fake news."

It's like you're trying to come up with a hard and fast definition for "fake news", that requires outright fabrication, and differentiates it from other misleading, biased, or partisan reporting. I guess if you want a militantly literal definition of "fake", then fine. You're not wrong. But you're somewhat out of touch in my opinion.

The term "fake news" is now a colloquial phrase, used as a scarlet letter, to label anything that's spun, incomplete, biased, or somehow less than entirely factual. I'm not saying that's a great situation, but that's the world we live in.

The KKK can hold meetings, distribute propaganda, and discuss hatred day in and day out. That's protected by the 1st amendment. If one member goes out and actually commits a hate crime, that's obviously not ok, and on a different level. But you're being really naive if you draw a line and say that one had nothing to do with the other.

If the media has allowed it's standards to degrade to the point where unsubstantiated lies can be published and distributed, then it's somewhat on the media if one of there members goes out and does just that.

[JKDS]

The term "fake news" is now a colloquial phrase, used as a scarlet letter, to label anything that's spun, incomplete, biased, or somehow less than entirely factual. I'm not saying that's a great situation, but that's the world we live in.

You've missed the entire point of surviva's many posts.

[surviva316]

The term "fake news" is now a colloquial phrase, used as a scarlet letter, to label anything that's spun, incomplete, biased, or somehow less than entirely factual. I'm not saying that's a great situation, but that's the world we live in.

So you agree my definition is more technically correct and that the way we've started to abuse it now is harmful. Seems like we're closer to agreeing than disagreeing?

I'm not out-of-touch with the reality of the situation. I understand exactly what's going on, and I'm saying it's pernicious and speaking out against it.

Just to bring this discussion back full circle, in the paragraph I quoted, replace the term "fake news" with the word "racist" and replace spin, bias, etc with "use of the n-word by a non-black person, making off-color jokes," etc. DUCY?

[BananaStand]

So you agree my definition is more technically correct and that the way we've started to abuse it now is harmful. Seems like we're closer to agreeing than disagreeing?

Maybe. I'm really not about to debate the "technically correct" definition of a made-up word though. But I do know that there are technically correct definitions of the words "started" and "now". And on that, we completely disagree.

I'm not out-of-touch with the reality of the situation. I understand exactly what's going on, and I'm saying it's pernicious and speaking out against it.

Again, if we're going with technically correct definitions of words, "pernicious" is not apt. A 'pernicious' media bias has existed for as long as I can remember. The media invited this scrutiny. They created the climate where "news" is a dubious term. Seems kinda late in the game to be defending them against a scarlet-letter tactic that only came about in response to their own pernicious behavior.

If you want to 'speak out against it', wouldn't it be better then to put the onus on the actual media. Hold them accountable for what they print and say? Maybe challenge them to fix their own mess, rather than cast them as the victim?

Just to bring this discussion back full circle, in the paragraph I quoted, replace the term "fake news" with the word "racist" and replace spin, bias, etc with "use of the n-word by a non-black person, making off-color jokes," etc. DUCY?

Not really. It's 2017. If you use the n-word, jokingly or otherwise, you deserve whatever criticism you get. As I posted a few days ago, in my opinion, old people kinda get a pass on this, but not much of one. And I do realize that opinion is not widely accepted.

[surviva316]

I see we've entered the quibbling phase of our dialog.

Maybe. I'm really not about to debate the "technically correct" definition of a made-up word though.

TIL "fake" is a made-up word. I'd been using it for years, decades even. I didn't realize how ahead of my time I was.

But I do know that there are technically correct definitions of the words "started" and "now". And on that, we completely disagree.

I was talking about when the abuse of the phrase "fake news" started. I think it's fair to say this started sometime around late October/early November: https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=fake%20news.

I wasn't talking about when various levels of gaps in credibility started. That probably started sometime around when hominids developed language to the point they could started telling tales about sleeping with hot cave bitches. Maybe it's just me, but I think it's pretty clear that that's not what I was talking about.

Again, if we're going with technically correct definitions of words, "pernicious" is not apt. A 'pernicious' media bias has existed for as long as I can remember.

Again (for the ~basquillionth time), I'm talking about the abuse of the phrase "fake news." As in the entire fucking topic of this conversation. This has always been what I've been talking about. You have been the only one going into asides about the days of yore of when media bias first came about.

If you want to 'speak out against it', wouldn't it be better then to put the onus on the actual media.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, I've spent this entire conversation saying that CNN "sucks runny shit water" while also criticizing how people abuse the phrase "fake news."

Hold them accountable for what they print and say? Maybe challenge them to fix their own mess, rather than cast them as the victim?

They should be held accountable for what they print and say. You and I and wuf and Infowars should all be calling CNN out on their shit. But we should be accurate in how we critique them.

Not really. It's 2017. If you use the n-word, jokingly or otherwise, you deserve whatever criticism you get.

Not sure you're following the analogy. Using the n-word is wrong and deserves criticism, just like spinning news stories is wrong. Using the n-word (jokingly or otherwise) doesn't automatically make you a capital-R-Racist that should be used as a scarlet letter against you and delegitimize absolutely everything about your personhood, just like being biased doesn't automatically make you "fake news" that is sewn onto your organization and delegitimizes absolute every news item you ever print.

[BananaStand]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...b5X?li=BBnb7Kz

So here's an example of what appears to be a perfectly 'harmless' story. I cringed at this passage though...

Sharpening the human drama even more are allegations from the U.S. intelligence community that Russia intervened in the campaign to help Trump.

While it's now common knowledge that Russia hacked the Podesta and the DNC, any suggestion as to motive, is pure speculation. There isn't a single shred of evidence that says they did it "to help Trump". I don't think it's clear that Putin 'wanted' Trump to win. In fact, such a conclusion defies logic. If you were Putin, would you rather negotiate with Trump, or Hillary? What's more logical, is that Putin simply wanted to weaken an incoming president Clinton.

Yet, this narrative that Putin was on Trump's side keeps getting rolled out there, over and over, in ways that are both overt, and sometimes very subtle.

Science has proven the power of repetitive thought. Constantly beating the drum over and over eventually causes people to believe what they are hearing. So subtly slipping in a suggestion toward a popular opinion, presented as fact, enough times, will eventually shape the nature of people's beliefs and public discourse.

Take the narrative that Trump is racist. Any intelligent person can see that the "mexicans are rapists" line was taken completely out of context. He was a little offsides when he went after the gold-star muslim family and talked about the wife being silent. Trump could have been more diplomatic there, but his comments hardly rise to the level of "racism". Other than that, I'm having a really hard time coming up with something I've heard Trump say, or seen him do that would suggest he believes in white supremacy.

Yet, the "trump is a racist" drumbeat continues, and look how many people believe it!

[Poopadoop]

Other than that, I'm having a really hard time coming up with something I've heard Trump say, or seen him do that would suggest he believes in white supremacy.

Yet, the "trump is a racist" drumbeat continues, and look how many people believe it!

Really? So the fact that he got in trouble for not renting to blacks is meaningless? Or that he preferred jews counting his money to blacks? Or referring to Ms. Universe as Ms. Housekeeping? How about hiring Bannon? Or referring to black people as 'the blacks', as if they're a monolithic entity?

And insulting the muslim guy's wife like 'she's not allowed to say anything.' That's blatantly offensive.

In fact, it's easier to conjure up things that make Trump look racist than things that make him look not racist.

[wufwugy]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...b5X?li=BBnb7Kz

So here's an example of what appears to be a perfectly 'harmless' story. I cringed at this passage though...



While it's now common knowledge that Russia hacked the Podesta and the DNC, any suggestion as to motive, is pure speculation. There isn't a single shred of evidence that says they did it "to help Trump". I don't think it's clear that Putin 'wanted' Trump to win. In fact, such a conclusion defies logic. If you were Putin, would you rather negotiate with Trump, or Hillary? What's more logical, is that Putin simply wanted to weaken an incoming president Clinton.

Yet, this narrative that Putin was on Trump's side keeps getting rolled out there, over and over, in ways that are both overt, and sometimes very subtle.

Science has proven the power of repetitive thought. Constantly beating the drum over and over eventually causes people to believe what they are hearing. So subtly slipping in a suggestion toward a popular opinion, presented as fact, enough times, will eventually shape the nature of people's beliefs and public discourse.

Take the narrative that Trump is racist. Any intelligent person can see that the "mexicans are rapists" line was taken completely out of context. He was a little offsides when he went after the gold-star muslim family and talked about the wife being silent. Trump could have been more diplomatic there, but his comments hardly rise to the level of "racism". Other than that, I'm having a really hard time coming up with something I've heard Trump say, or seen him do that would suggest he believes in white supremacy.

Yet, the "trump is a racist" drumbeat continues, and look how many people believe it!

The thesis of your argument here gets to the final point I want to make on the subject. In a micro sense, a lot of what Surviva says is correct -- the MSM often is not flat out fabricating stories -- therefore they're not "fake news" in that sense. But I think we should also examine them in the macro sense. Here's an example on the macro level that I argue shows they are engaging in fake news:

How many people believe that there is an epidemic of black people being unfairly executed by cops? Many, many millions. And most of them believe it because of how the MSM (and lots of smaller companies) have covered related issues for years. Yet, the whole thing is a scam. It's not true. Black people are not being unjustly killed at greater rates, and the evidence of corruption by the police regarding race is infinitesimal. In the micro sense, CNN et al may be telling the "truth" in each individual story that they report inasmuch as they are relaying things thought to be credible, but they are certainly egregiously misleading their viewers. The fakery of the MSM is systemic, and consumers of their products come away believing things that are fake at alarming rates.

[OngBonga]

While it's now common knowledge that Russia hacked the Podesta and the DNC...

I stopped reading your post right here, because you're talking bollocks.

[OngBonga]

use of the n-word by a non-black person

You can't say nigger, that's racist!

Why?

Because you're white!

[BananaStand]

You can't say nigger, that's racist!

Why?

Because you're white!

Right. Do you need this explained to you?

[OngBonga]

Right. Do you need this explained to you?

Yes, please do explain it to me.

[BananaStand]

Yes, please do explain it to me.

I mean, I don't even know where to start. I'm not a black person, so I can't speak for them. But I don't think I'm far off when I say that it conjures up feelings of oppression and subjugation. It's also connected to historical atrocities like segregation and slavery. When a white person says it, even in a way that's not *meant* to be harmful, they are ignoring the hardships and sacrifice that black people have endured in order to be considered equal.

That word was used for a long time to denote a different class of citizen. You can't just decide to neuter it, detach it from it's historical significance, and pretend it's just a word. Even worse, you can't then expect an entire race of people to accept your newly-neutral definition of such a significant word.

Another example is the gay f-word. In the UK, it can mean cigarette, but everywhere else, it means something different.

Hundreds and hundreds of years ago, people believed in witchcraft. They accused women, tried them on flimsy evidence, and sentenced them to burn at the stake. Those fires were started using bundles of kindling wood called faggots. At that time, homosexuality was also a crime punishable by burning. However, it was a crime considered so heinous and evil, that the accused were not even allowed the dignity of being tied to a stake. They just tossed them on the fire with the other "faggots".

So, by definition, calling someone a faggot is equal to saying "you're so worthless and devoid of consideration that your life is as expendable as kindling wood".

Most people don't know the history there, and why the term is so offensive. But that doesn't mean that it should be received by a gay person any less hurtfully.

[OngBonga]

Not really. It's 2017. If you use the n-word, jokingly or otherwise, you deserve whatever criticism you get.

What if I'm a rapper?

[OngBonga]

Just to be clear, I don't go around throwing that word about casually, as though it's a god given right. I just feel that it's either an unacceptable word for everyone, or it's acceptable for everyone.

Because, equality, yo.

When you start saying black people can say this but white people can't, well that's what racism is. It makes no difference what colour my skin is, if we're all to be treated the same, then we're all bound by the same rules.

[BananaStand]

When you start saying black people can say this but white people can't, well that's what racism is. It makes no difference what colour my skin is, if we're all to be treated the same, then we're all bound by the same rules.

No, not even close. You are presuming we all experienced history the same way.

[CoccoBill]

If you commit a crime, should your children be punished for it?

[BananaStand]

If you commit a crime, should your children be punished for it?

Who's being punished?

[CoccoBill]

Who's being punished?

Ok fine. Just for the record, I'm with ong and surviva on this one. Words should not be taboo. Words, especially ones with extremely strong historical connotations should be used with extreme care, but context and meaning is what matters, not syntax. A word is just a word, and this circling around using "the n-word" when it's clearly obvious what word we're talking about is ridiculous. Any words can be used offensively, just like they can be used inoffensively. Banning the use of words sounds medieval to me.

[wufwugy]

Ok fine. Just for the record, I'm with ong and surviva on this one. Words should not be taboo. Words, especially ones with extremely strong historical connotations should be used with extreme care, but context and meaning is what matters, not syntax. A word is just a word, and this circling around using "the n-word" when it's clearly obvious what word we're talking about is ridiculous. Any words can be used offensively, just like they can be used inoffensively. Banning the use of words sounds medieval to me.

Big time.

Tabooing words is one of the most childish and deleterious things adults do.

[surviva316]

Okay, I guess I just invite a bit more nuance into my worldview.

I don't happen to think Louis CK's entire personhood is written off because of his "That nigger made the shit out of my coffee" joke, I don't think Chris Rock is--by extension--a traitor to his race for being a long-time collaborator with him, and I don't think I'm automatically a terrible person for typing the word out just now, but I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

May you go off and write off large swaths of people and media outlets and whatever else based on individual instances of improprieties.

[OngBonga]

I'm not a black person, so I can't speak for them.

I mean this really does beautifully illustrate the problem.

I'm not black. So what? I'm a human. I thought we were all humans and skin clour was irrelevant? Isn't that what we're told? Why then is it different when it comes to sensetivity?

Racism will always exist so long as there are social differences between black and white people. You are highlighting a social difference.

But I don't think I'm far off when I say that it conjures up feelings of oppression and subjugation.

I sincerely apologise for the actions of white people, especially the British, against black people, over the course of history. Of course, I must take responsibility for this and treat black people nicer than white people, in particular by turning a blind eye to their racism while condoning ours.

/sarcasm

There is no "them and us" from my pov. I'm as much a victim of slavery as anyone else who has never themselves been a slave. That's because I'm a human being and slavery is terrible for the human race. In fact it's probably worse that my ancestors were slave owners, rather than slaves, because I don't have historical oppression to worry about, I instead have shame. I bear a greater weight because it's my ancestors who were in the wrong.

When a white person says it, even in a way that's not *meant* to be harmful, they are ignoring the hardships and sacrifice that black people have endured in order to be considered equal.

Why does this not apply to black people? If it doesn't apply to black people, how can we say we are equal?

That word was used for a long time to denote a different class of citizen. You can't just decide to neuter it, detach it from it's historical significance, and pretend it's just a word.

Unless I'm a rapper writing my latest hip-hop tune, right?

Another example is the gay f-word. In the UK, it can mean cigarette, but everywhere else, it means something different.

Man you can't even type the word faggot? It's an edible item here made from pig's intestines, or something horrible. Fag is indeed a word for ciggie. Still, saying "faggot" doesn't make one homophobic, even if used in the context of an insult. What makes someone homophobic is hating gay people for being gay.

No, not even close. You are presuming we all experienced history the same way.

I'm not. I presuming most people who are offended by the historical meaning of certain words didn't even experience the history in question.

So, by definition, calling someone a faggot is equal to saying "you're so worthless and devoid of consideration that your life is as expendable as kindling wood".

I'm very much glad that I don't apply historical use of words to my everyday language, otherwise I'd have to study the historical meaning of every word, to ensure I don't offend someone.

Most people don't know the history there, and why the term is so offensive. But that doesn't mean that it should be received by a gay person any less hurtfully.

When the term is used to describe someone gay, well why is it an insult? If I were gay, and someone called me a faggot, I'd think "yes, I am indeed a faggot, in the context he is using that word". Why should I be offended by the word "faggot" but not "gay" or "homosexual" when they mean the same thing?

[Savy]

When the term is used to describe someone gay, well why is it an insult? If I were gay, and someone called me a faggot, I'd think "yes, I am indeed a faggot, in the context he is using that word". Why should I be offended by the word "faggot" but not "gay" or "homosexual" when they mean the same thing?

[OngBonga]

What a crock of fucking shit. Shut up and fold, you cock sucker.

[OngBonga]

A word is just a word, and this circling around using "the n-word" when it's clearly obvious what word we're talking about is ridiculous.

Agree. Why is "N-word" any less offensive than "nigger"? They both mean the same thing, we all know what the N-word is, so why censor it? It's purely a way of saying "this word that I refuse to use".

Stop saying "N-word" then, it offends me.

[OngBonga]

If I'm a gay man, and someone calls me a faggot, my assumption is not "he's calling me a bundle of kindling that they burn witches with, how offensive". I'd think "he's calling me gay, which indeed I am".

And if I thought he was actually using the word in its correct historical context, I'd have a little respect for him for knowing such history.

[surviva316]

If I'm a gay man, and someone calls me a faggot, my assumption is not "he's calling me a bundle of kindling that they burn witches with, how offensive". I'd think "he's calling me gay, which indeed I am".

And if I thought he was actually using the word in its correct historical context, I'd have a little respect for him for knowing such history.

Hence the word "ignorance." You live in a society where there's an awareness that a word you use is offensive, and instead of choosing to educate yourself on why that is and seek to understand from your fellow people's perspective why it's offensive, you ignore all that and go on using it.

This is the problem with how we view morals. Everything is either categorically wrong or it's amoral. No, things are varyingly degrees of bad or (as is most ignored) good. One side is dissecting whether every action makes you a fascist shitlord or makes you meh. The other side is concerned about doing just enough to be blameless, and not giving a shit about the rest.

What should be perfectly clear to both sides is that it's good to take the care to know how your words affect others and it's bad to be hurtful toward other people for no reason other than their sexual orientation.

[Savy]

In what context would you want to call someone a nigger?

In what context would you want to call a gay person a faggot?

If I'm a gay man, and someone calls me a faggot, my assumption is not "he's calling me a bundle of kindling that they burn witches with, how offensive". I'd think "he's calling me gay, which indeed I am".

And if I thought he was actually using the word in its correct historical context, I'd have a little respect for him for knowing such history.

It explains why it's a derogatory term. As the clip also implies people very rarely know what they're actually saying.

[OngBonga]

In what context would you want to call someone a nigger?

In what context would you want to call a gay person a faggot?

I call my white friend "nigger" relatively often. I also call him a faggot. He's neither black nor gay.

Would I actually call a black man a nigger, or a gay man a faggot? No, not in person, and not directly on the internet either. Indirectly, for the sake of amusement, sure. If I felt I had actually offended someone, I'd probably apologise, but only out of politeness. Deep down I'd be thinking "don't be fucking offended by a word, you oversensetive nigger/faggot".

[OngBonga]

It explains why it's a derogatory term. As the clip also implies people very rarely know what they're actually saying.

How many words do you suppose you use on a daily basis without having any idea of its historical context?

[OngBonga]

Also, this argument seems to imply that it's not ok to say "faggot", but the word "bummer" is ok, because it has no historical context which makes it more offensive.

[Savy]

I'm not saying you shouldn't use any word. All I've done is provide you some information to give you some context. Both words are fine to use I can just never think of a reason why I'd call a black person a nigger or a gay person a faggot. Nigger isn't really part of my daily vocabulary but I call friends fags in certain contexts but it doesn't really hold the same meaning over in the UK & I'd probably make sure not to do it if one of my friends was gay (I obviously have no gay friends).

How many words do you suppose you use on a daily basis without having any idea of its historical context?

Tonnes, but I don't see your point. If people wanted to put some context on words and phrases I use that'd be fine.

[OngBonga]

(I obviously have no gay friends)

That you know of...

Same here, if we're talking about men. I do have female friends who are lesbians, though. And I have had male gay friends in the past.

Homosexuality is not a problem to me. Neither is the word faggot.

[BananaStand]

Warning, this racist, homophobic diatribe is about to turn sexist too.

If you've ever been in a relationship with a woman, then you KNOW what it's like to say or do something, with totally benevolent, or at least non-malicious intent, and yet still end up with a hurt, offended, blubbering whine bag on your hands.

Feelings don't have to be logical. You don't get to choose how someone perceives or reacts to what you do and say. If you say the n word, I know that a hell of a lot of black people will be offended by it, regardless of how 'logical' you think your context is. You don't get to thump your chest and accuse the listener of not being smart enough to understand your intent. They are entitled to their feelings, and you can choose to be sensitive to them, or not.

Personally, I choose to be sensitive to it, thus I use the term 'n word'. I am choosing to be sensitive to potential misinterpretation by presenting the word in a way that acknowledges it's existence, but pre-emptively removes any offensive connotation. Those hard g's just sound mean.

In regards to Louis CK, and his coffee joke, I think that does impugn his character. Just because he thought of something funny, doesn't mean he's obligated to perform it. He doesn't need that joke.