The Media Industry

Garmel said:
Well, we know one thing. Antifa will be there starting the violence again.
Click to expand...

That's a good narrative but I'm not sure it's sticking given the quotes by the local police that pointing to how armed the neo-nazi's were and the abhorrent Alex Fields' actions. I'm not sure anyone could claim the Heather Heyer was antifa by any stretch.
 
Seattle Husker said:
That's a good narrative but I'm not sure it's sticking given the quotes by the local police that pointing to how armed the neo-nazi's were and the abhorrent Alex Fields' actions. I'm not sure anyone could claim the Heather Heyer was antifa by any stretch.
Click to expand...

The Nazis had a permit to march, Antifa didn't. The incident started with Antifa throwing rocks/bottles and it escalated from there. Antifa came there with baseball bats in their hands. Check out some of the clips from CBS reporters. Fields' car was bashed by these idiots with rocks and bats. We still don't know if he panicked or it was deliberate. According to some of the cops there they think he panicked.
 
Garmel said:
The Nazis had a permit to march, Antifa didn't. The incident started with Antifa throwing rocks/bottles and it escalated from there. Antifa came there with baseball bats in their hands. Check out some of the clips from CBS reporters. Fields' car was bashed by these idiots with rocks and bats. We still don't know if he panicked or it was deliberate. According to some of the cops there they think he panicked.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you can definitively claim who started it. Both sides seem to be prepared for "battle".

 


Let's examine why. Trump's initial remarks were vastly insufficient for any sitting POTUS when challenging nazi-ism. He has a real problem is calling out groups that are small subset of his foundational support that any rational person would admit is an abhorrent ideology.

Then later when he reacts he calls it "fake news".

John Oliver stated it best when he said (paraphrasing) "White supremacists are like cats, if they like you it's probably because you are feeding them."
 
Seattle Husker said:


Let's examine why. Trump's initial remarks were vastly insufficient for any sitting POTUS when challenging nazi-ism. He has a real problem is calling out groups that are small subset of his foundational support that any rational person would admit is an abhorrent ideology.

Then later when he reacts he calls it "fake news".

John Oliver stated it best when he said (paraphrasing) "White supremacists are like cats, if they like you it's probably because you are feeding them."
Click to expand...


Trump is right. Both sides are haters and both are a problem. However, if you want to be this picky I don't remember Obama calling out radical Islam when one of them killed. Yes, white supremacists are attracted to Trump. You know why? It's because he's right of center. Nation of Islam is attracted to the democrat party. You know why? It's because they're left of center. It isn't any more complicated than that. Quit trying to nitpick ridiculous nonsense.
 
Garmel said:
Trump is right. Both sides are haters and both are a problem. However, if you want to be this picky I don't remember Obama calling out radical Islam when one of them killed. Yes, white supremacists are attracted to Trump. You know why? It's because he's right of center. Nation of Islam is attracted to the democrat party. You know why? It's because they're left of center. It isn't any more complicated than that. Quit trying to nitpick ridiculous nonsense.
Click to expand...

This article examines the differences between Obama's rhetorical strategy and Trump's.

But the issue here is substantially larger than mere hypocrisy. Obama carefully measured his rhetoric in the war against Islamist terrorism because he hoped to avoid inserting the U.S. into the middle of an internecine struggle consuming another civilization. But the struggle in Charlottesville is a struggle within our own civilization, within Trump’s own civilization. It is precisely at moments like this that an American president should speak up directly on behalf of the American creed, on behalf of Americans who reject tribalism and seek pluralism, on behalf of the idea that blood-and-soil nationalism is antithetical to the American idea itself. Trump’s refusal to call out radical white terrorism for what it is, at precisely the moment America needs its leadership to take a unified stand against hatred, marks what might be the lowest moment of his presidency to date.
Click to expand...
 
mchammer said:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/13/google-code-jam-finalists-are-all-men-for-14th-year-in-a-row/
Click to expand...
If you ask me, this is roughly equivalent to the large percentage of black men playing in the NBA. There are certain endeavors where certain groups have that small% of something that gives them the advantage and makes them elite. Black men have 2-3% greater, speed, jumping ability etc that make them the best at basketball as a group. White dudes can play basketball also, we're just not going to win when at is basketball at the uber elite level. I think the same thing exists in academic pursuits (like a global coding competition). There may be some races and/or genders that have inherent advantages in intellect/analysis. I'm sure there are competitions in some skillsets where women would dominate the field, I just don't think coding is one of them.

This doesn't excuse workplace discrimination because, let's face it, the vast majority of our jobs don't require elite intellect or skills. For most of us and most of our jobs, all you really need is a decent education and job specific training.

But if we aren't willing to accept that white men are allowed to be elite in something and win straight up based on performance and merit, then we should start requiring the NBA to lower the rims...just to be fair. I've got a mean 360 slam on a 9 ft goal.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
Any time you quote John Oliver as a relevant source of unbiased and reasoned discourse, your IQ drops 20 points.
Click to expand...

John Oliver like his predecessors is a comedian first, a political commentator 2nd. I don't agree with him on many issues but that quote crystallized what is wrong with Trump's response to the white supremacist movement. They are a small yet very powerful subset of his base that he happily accepts their support and only distances himself from them when forced. He's perfected the dog whistle for them that has allowed them to come out of the shadows.
 
Oliver's argument is completely ridiculous, based totally on his own prejudices and assumptions.

Also, what power exactly do you think the white supremacist movement has? The left has given them any power that they have - no one cared about them until you guys started to try and link them to mainstream conservatives. If they believe they're popular or have a voice, it's not because conservatives have courted them. It's because you guys have made it a point to tell them that Trump, Sessions, Cruz... anyone you wanted to beat in an election had ties to them and approved of what they were doing. They weren't getting that message from conservatives.

I'll be honest: any time I hear someone use the phrase "dog whistle", it's a "dog whistle" for me. It says "I don't care what they're saying or what they claim they mean. I KNOW that it REALLY means whatever I want it to mean, and I'm going to tie it to whomever I want and whatever behavior I want whether I have any proof of it or not.

Basically we live in a climate now where when someone talks about making America great or putting U.S. workers first, everyone on the left screams "white supremacist." IF they're conservative, that is. If Elizabeth Warren had run on that platform, Democrats would have hailed her as the savior of the people. Granted, she would have been in bed with every left wing special interest group around, so no danger of her being tied to an alt-right nationalist group.

And I still think Trump's a buffoon, just so there's no confusion on that.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
Oliver's argument is completely ridiculous, based totally on his own prejudices and assumptions.

Also, what power exactly do you think the white supremacist movement has? The left has given them any power that they have - no one cared about them until you guys started to try and link them to mainstream conservatives. If they believe they're popular or have a voice, it's not because conservatives have courted them. It's because you guys have made it a point to tell them that Trump, Sessions, Cruz... anyone you wanted to beat in an election had ties to them and approved of what they were doing. They weren't getting that message from conservatives.

I'll be honest: any time I hear someone use the phrase "dog whistle", it's a "dog whistle" for me. It says "I don't care what they're saying or what they claim they mean. I KNOW that it REALLY means whatever I want it to mean, and I'm going to tie it to whomever I want and whatever behavior I want whether I have any proof of it or not.

Basically we live in a climate now where when someone talks about making America great or putting U.S. workers first, everyone on the left screams "white supremacist." IF they're conservative, that is. If Elizabeth Warren had run on that platform, Democrats would have hailed her as the savior of the people. Granted, she would have been in bed with every left wing special interest group around, so no danger of her being tied to an alt-right nationalist group.

And I still think Trump's a buffoon, just so there's no confusion on that.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying every Trump supporter is a "white supremacist" so please kindly put away that strawman. Heck, we'd be having a much different conversation if 63M people fell into the white supremacist crowd.

The "dog whistle" is the consistent moral equivocation. Claiming those that are pro-hate are the equivalent of those protesting against hate. The claim of "let me get all the facts before commenting" whenever a hate crime occurs by a white man (see Portland incident) while he never "waits for the facts" for any other issue before leaping to twitter to comment. The "dog whistle" is that he refuses until forced to condemn a dangerous ideology that POTUS since FDR would have condemned in a heartbeat.

One thing is clear with the Unite the Right movement, these confederate statues and other remnants of the South are symbols of a dark group of people. They may have stood for a proud Southern heritage at one time but they've now been coopted by a heinous group of people.

I'd strongly urge you to watch this video before continuing any moral equivocation the alt-right movement.
 
Seattle Husker said:
The claim of "let me get all the facts before commenting" whenever a hate crime occurs by a white man (see Portland incident) while he never "waits for the facts" for any other issue
Click to expand...

No different than Obama. The claim of "let me get all the facts before commenting" whenever a hate crime occurs by a muslim man (see multiple incidents) while he never "waits for the facts" for any other issue (the cops acted stupidly, etc).

Do you not see how your complaint applies both ways? Do you not see how that double standard when applied across all of the mainstream media for the last 20+ years drives many (not so intelligent) white people towards an attitude of tribalism, and us against the world thinking? Thus making them much more susceptible to the seductions of race based hate groups like neo nazis?
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
No different than Obama. The claim of "let me get all the facts before commenting" whenever a hate crime occurs by a muslim man (see multiple incidents) while he never "waits for the facts" for any other issue (the cops acted stupidly, etc).

Do you not see how your complaint applies both ways? Do you not see how that double standard when applied across all of the mainstream media for the last 20+ years drives many (not so intelligent) white people towards an attitude of tribalism, and us against the world thinking? Thus making them much more susceptible to the seductions of race based hate groups like neo nazis?
Click to expand...

You clearly have me confused for someone that would defend Obama's actions in condemning the police with that Harvard prof incident.

Blaming the media for nazis...I'll just let that one stand on it's own merits. ;)
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
Nope. I blame the media for making them look more alluring to stupid people.
Click to expand...

Is your strategy to ignore them? I'd argue that's been the problem until now. The alt-right, Pepe...etc was thought to be a novelty but has turned out to be an effective political arm of a dangerous ideology.

Stealing this from a buddy on Facebook: If you think that evil and the people with the guts to stand up to it are the same thing, then you might be a teensy weensy part of the problem.
 
Last edited:
Free speech for me
But not for thee

DHc0CEDUQAA7_NL.jpg
 
Seattle Husker said:
Stealing this from a buddy on Facebook: If you think that evil and the people with the guts to stand up to it are the same thing, then you might be a teensy weensy part of the problem.
Click to expand...

That's becoming a popular slogan and talking point. The problem with it is that it assumes that being against Nazis per se makes you a good guy or makes your methods just. It doesn't. See Josef Stalin. It's possible and in fact very common to be anti-Nazi and not only bad, but horrifically bad.

The Antifa oppose and will "stand up" to neo-Nazis, but they're still haters of the Constitution, haters of liberty, and lovers of violence and evil. To me, that makes them bad, and it's dangerous to cheer them on or do anything that empowers them.
 
Mr. Deez said:
That's becoming a popular slogan and talking point. The problem with it is that it assumes that being against Nazis per se makes you a good guy or makes your methods just. It doesn't. See Josef Stalin. It's possible and in fact very common to be anti-Nazi and not only bad, but horrifically bad.

The Antifa oppose and will "stand up" to neo-Nazis, but they're still haters of the Constitution, haters of liberty, and lovers of violence and evil. To me, that makes them bad, and it's dangerous to cheer them on or do anything that empowers them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure anyone is cheering them on. Clearly, most of the "counter-protesters" in Charlottseville weren't antifa and there simply to shout down evil. Those are the people that I have no problem with. The antifa that hide among that group should be ostracized. Personally, I think the antifa is overblown. Many are simply anarchists (like the Trump admin) that simply live to wreak havoc. That group is evil.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I'm not sure anyone is cheering them on. Clearly, most of the "counter-protesters" in Charlottseville weren't antifa and there simply to shout down evil. Those are the people that I have no problem with. The antifa that hide among that group should be ostracized. Personally, I think the antifa is overblown. Many are simply anarchists (like the Trump admin) that simply live to wreak havoc. That group is evil.
Click to expand...

I've seen Antifa compared favorably with the Allied invasion of Normandy, and I've seen their violence frequently rationalized. They do have plenty of fans and defenders among political commentators. On social media, they have several defenders. In fact, I've been dumb enough to argue with a few of them. It's scary hearing ordinary citizens support the suppression of someone's political speech.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I've seen Antifa compared favorably with the Allied invasion of Normandy, and I've seen their violence frequently rationalized. They do have plenty of fans and defenders among political commentators. On social media, they have several defenders. In fact, I've been dumb enough to argue with a few of them. It's scary hearing ordinary citizens support the suppression of someone's political speech.
Click to expand...
Antifa means anti-FA as in first amendment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top