Slashdot Mirror
False News, Absurd Reality Present Challenges For Satirists (apnews.com)
Between reality and the bubble of fantasy news stories, these are tough times for satirists. From a report on AP, submitted by several readers: The New Yorker magazine recently took steps to distinguish Andy Borowitz's humor columns from politically motivated false stories circulating online. His editor said the New Yorker was getting email asking if there was a difference between the two. So they changed the tagline for "The Borowitz Report" from "the news, reshuffled" to "not the news" on the magazine's website. When the stories are shared online, they are more clearly identified as satire, said Nicholas Thompson, editor of NewYorker.com. Borowitz's columns take the form of news stories, like one headlined this week, "Trump fires attorney general after copy of Constitution is found on her computer." One story last week: "Trump enraged as Mexican president meets with Meryl Streep instead." Thompson admits: "It's a weird problem to have."
Real news lately look like a version of The Onion.
As a German satirist recently remarked, the US should look to Germany, they already did all of it.
They voted for a Chancellor that promised better infrastructure and he actually built many Autobahns and military airports. He made Germany great again, even bigger than their previous borders, at least for a couple of years. He had yuuuuuge approval numbers (on pain of death) and everybody liked him, if they were asked.
They also tried religious discrimination like nobody else, ever.
They also have done the Wall-building thingie a bit later, throughout the whole country and they even got the Russians to pay for it. (If you're lucky, you can even bid for a piece of that wall on eBay.)
Related links list down below:
Donald Trump Wins US Presidency
VC, Entrepreneur Says Basic Income Would Work Even If 90% People 'Smoked Pot' and Didn't Work
Yelp Employee Posts Open Letter About Cost Of Living And Low Wages, Gets Fired
Universal Basic Income Programs Arrive
Russia Unveils 'Satan 2' Missile Powerful Enough To 'Wipe Out UK, France Or Texas'
'nuff said.
On April 28, 1945, the Italian people killed their fascist leader and then desecrated his corpse in a public square.
You are welcome on my lawn.
When the going gets weird, the weird turns pro.
Along those lines, I think it may be time to return to the grotesque, detailed art that came from Zap Comixs, R. Crumb, and the other underground creators. Those are going to be the people closest to the metal (so to speak) in what the crowds are feeling. Hopefully the shocking expressions will be enough to get people unsettled enough to keep up the protests and calling their congress critters.
It does make a difference.
I believe the term is now "alternative fact therapist", not satirist.
Trump sleeps through attack on consulate and Bannon tells troops to stand down and not defend the action then throws Michal Moore in jail for a youtube video claiming it incited the attack.
Trump disregards federal judges order that his immigration actions are unlawful and continues his immigration strategy?
Trump orders Jeff Sessions to not defend federal law he personally disagrees with?
Do you mean that kind of satire?
Every time the Borowitz Report comes out, I have to correct a handful of outraged friends who share it seriously. We are, altogether, no longer skeptical readers.
Poe's Law is all fun and games, until both major parties totally and completely fail, to the embarrassment of everyone, to nominate real candidates. They had a race to see who could lose the worst, and the Democrats won. The obvious problem, is that everyone now has to live with it.
Let this be a lesson to Democrats and Republicans: never trust your party again. Democracy means you have to do something; you can't just assume someone else will take care of things. "They won't let that happen," should never come out of your mouth. Either force your party to run a real candidate next time, or leave them and join a part that better represents your views. People say that's a way to lose, but remember: you also lose if you don't do it (ask any Republican), and if enough people do it, you can win.
This is not a problem for satirists. I would say that this is a golden age for satirists.
This is a problem for news outlets that also have a satire column.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
for peddling their fake news and attempting to pass them off as the truth.
NY Times headline:
“Berkeley Cancels Milo Yiannopoulos Speech, and Donald Trump Tweets Outrage”
Kinda leaves out the fact that the speech was cancelled because leftist thugs rioted and torched things.
That kind of "false"?
The best satire today is simply to publish official communications verbatim. Some good examples are:
McSweeneys "My very good black history month tribute to some of the most tremendous black people"
or Tina Fey as Sarah Palin
The politicians are writing the material. The satirists just need to point out how rediculous it is by republishing it.
It's distasteful that so many people are bashing Trump and talking about Fake News at a time when events like the Bowling Green Massacre take place every day.
Can we all come together please, forget our partisanship and different religions, and agree to offer a prayer to all those that died in Bowling Green like good Baptists. May they rest in peace and go to Baptist heaven.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I know "fake news" is getting us all worked up right now, but
"...fake news did not change the result 2016 presidential election, according to a study by researchers at Stanford and New York University released Thursday. ..."
Story: http://thehill.com/homenews/me...
Study: https://web.stanford.edu/~gent...
Like the "Russia hacked the election" story the original threat being discussed was specifically hacking of electronic voting machines. When that was proved ridiculous, the phrase was re-framed to something more vague, saying that Russia "manipulated" the results by media...you know, exactly like the Martin Sheen "dump Trump" video attempted to do (and failed). https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
-Styopa
True satire can't exist in an environment where no one can take a joke.
Even Jerry Seinfeld realized two years ago that comedy and the perpetually offended crowd can't mix. Now think how much worse it's gotten in those two years.
Between the crazed liberal snowflakes and the persecution complex on the right, I'm surprised comedy clubs aren't looked at the same as Klan meetings by now.
People just need to relax and realize that life really isn't this serious.
Looking at some headlines from https://www.reddit.com/r/notth...
we find
"Stop making memes of our dead gorilla, Cincinnati Zoo pleads"
"Spotify offers Barack Obama a job as 'President of Playlists'"
"People have paid a company more than $80,000 to dig a hole for absolutely no reason"
"Venezuela's currency value depends largely on one guy at an Alabama Home Depot"
"Anti-Defamation League Declares Pepe the Frog a Hate Symbol"
"Pilot 'congratulates' passengers for drinking all alcohol on plane"
"Nebraska flag flew upside down at Capitol for 10 days and 'nobody noticed,' says senator who wants design change"
etc.
> crazed liberal snowflakes and the persecution complex on the right
The liberal snowflakes make far more noise than their numbers would suggest. The persecuted righties far outnumber them. Both camps are annoying purity trolls and [FLAME BAIT] there are disturbing elements of truth floating around both their commodes of discourse.
she's not good. She's a partisan hack.
When I heard, at first cursorily, about the Berkeley riots *against* free speech, I was certain someone was describing a new South Park plot or Onion jibe. Imagine my surprise...
Headlines for all real news articles need to be appended with the phrase, 'NO BULLSHIT!' That should settle the matter once and for all.
Back in 2013 I knew someone who was 100% convinced that Obama called Putin a jackass in public. I don't suspect that Borowitz was actually trying to fool anyone with this, but the distortion was so high for some people at the time that they would believe almost anything that was damning about the POTUS.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I you like your satire, you can keep your satire.
Those of us with broader and more inclusive minds will say "no thank you" to your attempts to femsplain the overton window.
You don't get to be free from the consequences of your speech. Free Speech only means the government can't (or legally shouldn't) censor you. It does not mean that if you speak Nazi-like remarks that you won't get a fist thrown at you.
Why is this so hard for conservatives and Trump voters to understand?
Shes really sharp, and i dont even like her comedy.
Good-bye
Im sorry, i thought this was a nation of laws. What happened to 'I may hate what you say, but i will defend to the DEATH your right to say it'. The consequences you mention are supposed to be CIVILIZED REACTIONS, not barbarism and lawlessness. If you throw a fist at me, I might toss hot lead back at you. Maybe we should just be civilized and agree to disagree instead of someone getting hurt.
Good-bye
Hitler breathed air. You breathe air. Therefore you are literally Hitler. [...]
First, I think you need to look up the definition of the word "literally" (though I heard it has changed recently). Unless there's been a break through in human cloning.
Second, there is a point to be made about fascism more generally:
When Italian author Umberto Eco wrote “Ur-Fascism” for The New York Review of Books in 1995, he sought to give the world a guide to recognize the ideology when it reared its ugly head again. [...]
For Eco, fascism wasn’t a concrete political system, but a collection of behaviors that, taken together, forged something vile. “Fascism was a fuzzy totalitarianism,” he wrote. “A collage of different philosophical and political ideas, a beehive of contradictions.”
Fascism adapts and changes, but some things remain constant. [...]
Despite the fuzzy nature of fascism, it does have features that distinguish it from other political ideologies. Eco described them in his essay. Trumpism lines up with all 14 of Eco’s features of eternal fascism.
* https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a-fascist-heres-the-checklist-1920ad4d8163
* http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/
Completely agreed. So why do you think the protesters wanted to stop the speech? (Certainly not all of them did, but enough). I'd prefer to let the rat bastard speak - to an almost empty house - and get booed. After all, ideas cannot, in and of themselves, be dangerous. Allowing that a-hole Milo to speak would not have harmed anyone. Nobody listening to him would be swayed to his cause unless they were already pretty much in that camp. Does the guy suck? Damn right. Should we defend his right to free speech? Yes, yes we should. Should a college provide a microphone and a hall for him? Well - that's where it gets iffy. They really should provide exposure to all types of thought - even the ones most find abhorrent.
I continued on to point out that none of the other things that it was mentioned that Hitler did were of the things that were clearly wrong.
Imagine if you will, a haystack. That haystack represents all the 'information' flowing from various 'news' sources on the Internet. Inside of that haystack are needles - that represent stories about the Trump administration: several gold needles - real news stories, several silver needles - bona fide comedic satire, and rusty needles which appear to be real news stories - but are fake...click bait and possible propaganda.
People are so overloaded with the cruft coming inbound from so many sources, some of this being retweeted or relinked stories (facebook) - they are losing track of what is real and what is not. It becomes even more difficult when news outlets that are ostensibly real, end up addressing the fake stories as well - either through mistakes and presenting as real news, or to debunk. Ultimately it is a news blitz caused by the confluence of a number of things: Trump's propensity to tweet and countertweet, his administration's rate of deployment of changes, confusion about sharing information from the administration (mixed messages), overlayed with all the satire and click bait.
Clearly indicating what is and is not satire will go a long way to avoiding satire bubbling up through multiple layers as true news stories.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
I don't actually think that Trump is a white nationalist, but it's a little weird that he hangs out with and is so chummy with people who are.
His past discrimination against blacks in housing, his treatment of our first black president (the "birther" nonsense), and, as you noted, the company he keeps, all suggest otherwise. Actions speak louder than words, and all his actions indicate deep misogyny and racism at the very least, and are very suggestive that he is, in fact, a white supremacist.
Along with most of the cavalry in the First Unicorn Brigade.
Cry for me, America!
Cry for all the rainbow unicorns who died that day!
#NeverRemember
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I was attempting to illustrate that his assertions were as nonsensical as the assertions I made and were similar to something out of the mind of someone who would say unironicly, "literally Hitler".
I agree with you. I work near the Berkeley campus, and it's awful what happened.
However, nearly all of us have been conditioned from a very young age that Nazis need to be destroyed at all costs, or the world only gets worse. I wonder how many video game Nazis I've killed in my lifetime? If you're going to demonize people on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual preference, as Milo does regularly, then it shouldn't be a surprise to be compared to a Nazi and have people trying to stop you at all costs. Either figure out why you're coming across that way to others and alter your message to convey what you really intend (whatever that is, I don't actually even know), or continue to be an asshole provocateur and be prepared to receive the conflict you've elicited.
All people come to power using questionable means. The means Hitler used to come to power has more to do with the nature of the ganeral tools of rising to power than it does about the general outcome of the situation after any given person rises to power.
On April 28, 1945, the Italian people killed their fascist leader and then desecrated his corpse in a public square.
As if you got the balls
A Message to the Angry Leftists from an American Infantryman
...
I see you there, in Portland In Chicago In San Francisco In Bumfuck Directional School Liberal Arts College You’re having your temper tantrums because ever since mommy dropped you off at Daycare 20 years ago you’ve been throwing them to get your way. Now you’re super pissed about the results of a presidential election where the other guy (and the only guy in the race for that matter) won.
I also know you’re a coward.
I know this because you keep screaming, and blogging, and protesting, and even rioting but you won’t start this “uprising” you keep going on and on about. If you really believe that your cause is just, that the majority supports you, and that the United States needs to be overthrown to make way for your Progressive social utopia of sunshine and free shit pick up a gun and start your revolution like every other communist group in history. See, I come from an organization that spent the better part of the last century training to fight a bunch of little commie heathens, and I have a pretty healthy respect for any Ivan who was willing to pick up an AK47 and parachute onto the continent ready to overthrow the USA. That takes some guts. You’re not like him though. You’re quite different actually. Ivan was in shape. You’re a bunch of ‘fat acceptance’ advocates who complain airline seats are too small for your 9,000 calories per day diet. Ivan was a proud masculine man. You have drag queens and fat feminist women with green hair. Ivan grew up mining coal and hunting wolves in the Urals. You want socialism because you’re upset that you can’t get a 6-figure job at age 24 with the bullshit arts degree you spent all that loan money on and haven’t done a day of physical labor in your life. Ivan was a veteran of Stalingrad, Afghanistan, and a dozen bush wars. You think “Call of Duty” is too violent and sexist. Ivan packed an AK47 and knew how to use it. Those among you leftists now who even have weapons ditch them after you rob the liquor store or 7/11 and go hide out at your aunt’s Section 8 housing. You don’t have the discipline Ivan did, at least he used the sights. Ivan killed jihadists by the thousands. You make excuses for them and want to invite them into our country.
Well We’re waiting. Shit or get off the pot.
Well, PopeRatzo...
SHIT OR GET OFF THE POT
Do it. Grow a pair. REALLY fight for what you feel is right and what you claim everyone else wants.
Or just STFU.
Why do the liberals hate gays so much?
It seems every time a gay speaks up for Trump (Milo or Thiel) or any other Republican they are the most evil person on the planet, according to liberals.
Are liberals the most intolerant people in the country? Seems that way with how I see them treating gays.
You don't get to be free from the consequences of your speech. Free Speech only means the government can't (or legally shouldn't) censor you. It does not mean that if you speak Nazi-like remarks that you won't get a fist thrown at you.
Because if free speech means, to your example, getting beaten by a mob then it isn't very free. Redefining free speech to fit your mob justice mentality is just an example of a lack of critical thinking. If speaking your mind means you get fired, beaten, black listed, or other serious consequences then speech isn't very free now is it? There was a time when the prevailing logic was everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You didn't have to agree with other's opinions but it was their choice and it was considered rude to insist others think exactly like you. Now we live in times of fear, when any stray comment may get you into trouble. This will only go on so long before it boils over.
Why is this so hard for conservatives and Trump voters to understand?
I guess I could ask why following the law and keeping your hands to yourself is so hard for liberals to understand. Or why a competing view is so threatening that you must attack it with violence. My observation is that violence is the first resort of the ignorant. Your observation is that it is a fitting form of enforcing your group think. Is that really who you are and what you want to be known for xevioso?
If by sharp you mean "lives in a deluded fantasy world" then yes.
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
Man... Slashdotters can't congratulate themselves enough on their witty Trump bashes.
Too bad they were too busy to do something that actually matters, like vote again him in the general elections.
Keep them zingers comin'!
If you're going to demonize people on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual preference, as Milo does regularly, then it shouldn't be a surprise to be compared to a Nazi and have people trying to stop you at all costs.
So anyone who demonizes, for example, a white Christian male who is straight must be a Nazi. I think the Huffinfton Post has at least two articles a day demonizing this demographic. I guess the left really are Nazis based on your criteria. I always suspected ;-)
>>Free Speech only means the government can't (or legally shouldn't) censor you. It does not mean that if you speak Nazi-like remarks that you won't get a fist thrown at you.
Correct. But about a dozen other laws will get you tossed into jail if you throw a fist at me because you disagree with what I am saying. Not to mention all the fire-starting, window-smashing and random property damage.
Now that I think about it... geez... why is everyone on the Left so violent? Left-wing thought has *owned* college campuses for the last 40-50 years. Are you guys really so fragile and insecure that one guy giving voice to a different point of view throws you into a tailspin? If y'all are trying to move past that "snowflake" stereotype, pepper-spraying people with whom you disagree is really the wrong approach...
That being said, universities, within reason, should be places where free exchange of ideas happens in an environment free of overt violence or threat of violence. I find Milo to be a vile and evil human being, but that being said, he has as much right to say his piece as I do mine, and the fact that a pack of spoiled malcontents would transform themselves into a liberal version of Brown Shirts means as repugnant as Milo is, they're all the worse.
Seriously, what could Milo have possibly said that would have justified this idiocy? And in the end all these moronic protesters did was to give Milo the kind of legitimacy and influence he craves. A better response would have been just not to show up. If the room was half-filled, that would have sent a far better message than being a bunch of goons.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Precisely. If everyone had just stayed away, then Milo would have largely ended up talking to himself.
Unless, of course, the protesters' real fear is that the house would have been packed, and the violence wasn't as much about preventing Milo from speaking as it was to prevent anyone who wanted to listen from hearing (maybe even some of them). I find the latter in some ways far more disturbing than the former.
As for myself, I'm secure enough in my own views that I can go to right-wing online forums and read the posts, though I don't really often contribute. As much as I find many of the ideas expressed range from the naive and absurd to the outright vile and bigoted, I think it's still important that I not be utterly ignorant of what other people believe. And it does happen that you will find someone who is intelligent on these forums and he'll present an actual challenge to my preconceptions, that forces me to re-evaluate my own views. The fact is that no ideology has an absolute lock on the Truth.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I consider myself a civilized person. I am not violent and prefer a "live and let live" lifestyle. I'm straight and do not smoke but I have no problem if my neighbors were gay and smoke marijuana every night in their house.
:)
What I don't like, and what really boils my blood, are public acts of ignorance towards the world we share. In my head, I would love the chance to smack around some of these people that perpetuate lies. Remember as kids, when we did something wrong we'd get spanked? Why can't we do the same thing with adults?
I don't understand why, as Americans, we feel the need to always voice our opinions as if they are fact. As someone who has traveled a significant amount around the world, I would always argue against the ignorant American stereotype by saying the average American is no more or less ignorant than the average _____ (fill in the blank of the local nationality).. however the average American just likes to let everyone know when they are ignorant on a specific subject.
Ignorance is the social norm, now. We no longer defer to those with experience or knowledge.. everyone believes themselves to be experts on everything.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
"I don't understand why, as Americans, we feel the need to always voice our opinions as if they are fact. "
Why do you accept what they have to say as fact? People are going to be ignorant, we cant change that, it hasnt changed in 4000 years. Even Einstein gave up on humanity's ignorance, and i consider him a profound humanist. Asimov had some choice words on anti-intellectualism too.
Good-bye
I don't see them specifically demonizing them for being white, christian and male. They're demonizing them for what they're saying and their behaviour. Very different.
"Taxes should be lower" vs "Taxes should be higher" is grounds for debate. "Taxes should be higher" vs "You should be ethnically cleansed" is grounds for a beating.
No, the First Amendment only applies to the government. Free speech, the concept, also includes non-state actors, and it is antithetical to free speech to say "the government won't throw you in jail, but you'll get your ass kicked". In addition, many of the people who were assaulted or whose property was destroyed at Berkeley were *not* saying anything Nazi-like, nor were they even trying to attend Milo's talk.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
First, to all the liberal progressive mods, if you are so right in your beliefs, write a post and show where I am wrong. -1 Overrated is not your personal censorship tool for views you disagree with. You are supposed to champion tolerance of others, live it. I am not a huge fan of Trump, I voted against him in the primary, but as a rational human being, the cognitive dissonance from the progressive left wing is too massive to let go unchallenged.
So Trump upholds the constitution, appoints a constructionist supreme court judge who will protect the constitution and bill of rights as written (not an activist judge who believes that the constitution can mean whatever the hell he wants it to), and you are comparing him to Hitler? You are taking the few good things that Hitler did for the Germans, like building roads and airports (many other good leaders have also built roads and airports for their countries the world over) and using that as justification to compare Trump to Hitler? By your logic Dwight D. Eisenhower was just like Hitler, because he championed the US interstate freeway system. Please tell me you are not really this stupid?
Take a look at the list of actions he has taken thus far and tell me which ones have hurt you (not traumatized you emotionally based on Democrat demagoguery). Which of these actions send brown shirts to your house in the middle of the night? Which ones force everyone to like Trump (have you turned on a TV in the last year, hatred for Trump is on 90% of the channels), or outlaw a religion (as far as I know, only the progressive left and Obama tried to attack freedom of religion by forcing Little Sisters of the Poor to support abortion and Christian bakers to support homosexual marriages or lose their business). (It is interesting that this was not tried with a Muslim bakery, I wonder why). Which executive actions authorize incarceration of innocent people? (Sorry, illegal aliens are criminals, by entering the country without permission they have committed a crime, no mater how hard you wish that were not the case.)
Trump has signed executive orders to:
- Kill TPP
- Protecting LGBT from workplace discrimination
- Banned fed officials from becoming lobbyists for 5 years
- Lifetime ban on WH officials becoming lobbyists for foreign countries
- 120 day travel ban (not permaban) on visitors from terrorist hotbeds (Obama banned travelers/refugees from the same countries for 6 months after they found to terrorists had made it through the vetting process)
- Authorized the border "wall" that democrats voted for many years ago but never funded, a wall similar to walls all non-island nations have to protect their borders. Check out how Mexico treats illegal entry at it's southern border.
- Approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, so you don't have to pay $4/gal for gas like you did under Obama, which was essentially a tax on poor working people who have to commute longer on average
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
If popular support for unpermitted immigration was so high, progressives could easily change the laws to eliminate our borders completely, but only the loonytoon left wants that. Every country must control its borders. The US still allows over 1,000,000 immigrants a year, the most immigrants of any nation on the planet. Australia won't accept any illegal immigrants and it takes its illegal immigrants and detains them indefinitely on an island with conditions so bad that they are setting themselves on fire. (But there is no moral outrage on the left for this apparently, only that Trump doesn't want to take in potential terrorists that Australia doesn't want).
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
Hardcore Islam is at war with America, we for
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Ok, how about this? A man stands up and talks to a cheering crowd about fucking young children, raping animals, and blowing up your house.
He's allowed to say *whatever* he wants, right? How about when a critical mass of those people gets together and eventually decides that it's normalized and ok to fuck children and animals, and blow up your house.
They decide to pass a law making it ok to do all these things.
It's legal now. What are you gonna do, buddy?
You're ignoring the SPIRIT of the law in favor of the LETTER.
Harboring a culture of hatred, letting it be acceptable to let those kinds of ideas flourish, ones in which someone wants to kill people (entire races of people, in fact), is not acceptable. It is not what this country was founded on or was ever intended to defend. It's been shown time and again in countless parts of history how destructive that idea is, and you're here to defend it?
Harboring a culture in which violence and hatred can foment is not honoring the SPIRIT of the country. It is hewing to a very narrow interpretation of the LETTER of it, though.
That is why it is acceptable that this person got punched. If someone isn't going to stand up and draw a line in the sand, then we're in for a lot more bloodshed than a namby-pamby fist-fight.
-
Does Milo demonize people based on race or sexual preference? He's a gay Jewish man with a black boyfriend. He's certainly demonized women for their gender, and he regularly demonizes Islam, but I hadn't seen race/sexual preference before. Admittedly, I also try to avoid him in general, so it's certainly possible I missed it.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Why do you hate freedom?
"You should be ethnically cleansed" is grounds for a beating.
No it's not. You're full of shit. All censorship is evil. That is an absolute. Attempting censorship is definitely grounds for a beating, or even a killing. Fuck you...
Yes it is. And you attempting to saying that I deserve a beating (or a killing) deserve a beating. Fuck you harder.
Do you not see the irony in you saying that he/she deserves a beating, or even a killing for censorship because he/she says that people advocating ethnic cleansing should be beaten by censoring them for saying it?
Is it too soon to talk about the Bowling Green Massacre? So many lives lost. Trump will avenge us.
Being a white Christian straight male, I assume you don't know what it is like to be actually demonized. "Being demonized" is not the same thing as being called out on your bullshit. It's getting arrested after being stopped for speeding because that car is too expensive for you to have been able to afford. It's getting hung for having a relationship with another human being. Or people calling you cracker, lily, honky, snow flake, any other derogatory term for walking down the street.
I don't see them specifically demonizing them for being white, christian and male. They're demonizing them for what they're saying and their behaviour. Very different.
They are demonized for being exactly what I stated and if you don't see it then it's because you are willfully blind. Maybe I'll jokingly call this your "PC privilege" is blinding you to the obvious. You can tell yourself that you are not targeting them for having different beliefs than you but you're only fooling yourself AC.
"Taxes should be lower" vs "Taxes should be higher" is grounds for debate. "Taxes should be higher" vs "You should be ethnically cleansed" is grounds for a beating.
You really like beatings as a method of communication. Is your favorite leader Stalin or Mao?
Unfortunately, this isn't new. Read actual history as opposed to what they teach in elementary/high school. Trumps voters are a resurgence of the Know-Nothings. It's claimed that this is due to an intentional conspiracy of powerful people, but the only real evidence that this is truer than usual is that he was elected...and that could be reasonably laid at the foot of continued economic problems, just as in 1930's Germany. Much of the rhetoric seems to have been swiped from the Know-nothings, but I suspect (due to reports that Trump idolizes Hitler) that it has a more recent vintage.
Expect things to get worse. Automation is increasing to the point that Chinese workers are being priced out of jobs. China is reported to be intending to compete on the international market by using increasing amounts of automation, aspiring to become the most roboticised country in the world. (Currently that's South Korea. The US is reportedly 7th...and prices of robots are dropping, and their capabilities are increasing.)
These tensions are a part of the lead-up to the Technological Singularity. May we survive it. I suspect that this is a major constituent of "The Great Filter". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The problem is, the alternatives appear worse.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
>>Harboring a culture of hatred, letting it be acceptable to let those kinds of ideas flourish, ones in which someone wants to kill people (entire races of people, in fact), is not acceptable
See, and I call that Abortion Culture, and there are millions like me, but if I walked up onto the platform during the Abortion March a few weeks back and expressed my opinion by punching creepy old Madonna, I'd have been arrested. As would be proper. Because this is a nation of laws, and we do not end one form of barbarism by resorting to another.
I wasn't there, I haven't read the coverage, but...
If someone is trying to stir up a mob to kill/molest/injure you or someone you are defending, what do you suggest? Law doesn't enter into this, though ethics and morals do, and reasonable estimation of results.
P.S.: I am opposed to censorship by those with power, but that's because there is so much history where analogous organizations have misused the capability. This doesn't mean I think it should be defensible to, say, publish the simple steps for releasing a dangerous plague...it's that I don't trust the potential regulators.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The reason that there are so many violent characters on college campuses is that about half of them are young males. Political orientation is nearly irrelevant here.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
If "civilized" consequences for irresponsible, harmful speech existed, then barbaric ones would be less likely. What recourse do people have whom witness irresponsible/evil actors corrupting and manipulating the ignorant and naive? We have laws against physical corruption, but precious few for intellectual.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
You mean pointing out statistics related behavior/beliefs that give witness to their being endemic within certain demographics? In other contexts we'd call that first steps to troubleshooting.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
True. However Berkeley is a university, the goal of which is to educate people, prepare them for the real world, and so forth. Prohibiting free speech flies against that principle. You MUST learn about different viewpoints to be well educated, if you live in a bubble of only comfortable thoughts that you already agree with then you will be very poorly educated. It is better to debate ideas one disagrees with than try to shut down out.
Can you point to one such article from the Huffington Post that demonizes white Christian males?
Im sorry, i thought this was a nation of laws. What happened to 'I may hate what you say, but i will defend to the DEATH your right to say it'. The consequences you mention are supposed to be CIVILIZED REACTIONS, not barbarism and lawlessness.
Yes, and we have completely separate laws to deal with uncivilized reactions.
As xevioso said, Free Speech simply means the government cannot censor you. It doesn't mean people are required to provide you a venue to speak your mind, listen to your viewpoint, or like your viewpoint. The consequence of hate speech might be that someone punches you, but that person is not "infringing on your first amendment freedoms" -- they are assaulting you, and we have laws against assault. Same as if you got into an argument in a bar about sportsball and a fight broke out. We also have laws against property damage that have nothing to do with the First Amendment or Alt-Right.
Milo Yiannopoulos is just pissy that his speech was cancelled as a result of the rioting. Berkeley didn't have to cancel it, but they didn't have to host him to start with, either. And even if they had continued people didn't have to come listen. Berkeley owes him nothing and Yiannopoulos doesn't understand what the First Amendment really means.
What happened to 'I may hate what you say, but i will defend to the DEATH your right to say it'.
Nothing's happened to it. You still have the legal right to say whatever the heck you want.
Other people may throw punches at you, but we still have a legal system which will (attempt to) apprehend them and charge them with assault and throw them in prison for it.
If you're expecting people on the street to rush to your defense so you can spout hate speech, good luck with that. We, as a society, employ police and prosecutors and judges and corrections officers to hold the punchers accountable, and it's their job to deal with that. That's as far as we're going to go though. Just like I'm not going to get personally involved in a husband-and-wife squabble in public, and will leave the police to take care of that, I'm not risking myself for some neo-nazi either, and will leave the police to take care of that too. If some people decide to shoot the neo-nazi, there again I'll let the police take care of that. I really don't care about the neo-nazi and am not going to risk myself for him, the way I would for a group of innocent children being threatened by someone violent when a policeman isn't around.
why is everyone on the Left so violent?
It's not just the far left that's violent. The Bundy incidents have shown that the right wing is far more violent. When the leftists get violent in the US, some neo-nazis get punched, and some windows get broken, and there's some noisy protests. When right-wingers get violent, they organize into militias with heavy weaponry and take over public places at gunpoint.
And Bundy was a cattle rancher who believed the government was taking his land. It was a legal property dispute, not an ideological debate. Most importantly, neither Bundy nor anyone who took up his cause hurt anyone or destroyed anything! You're just proving my point with that citation, son. Thanks for playing...
I'm quite sure Voltaire believed that humans were fundamentally good, and would never imagine that someone would stand up and deliberately spread lies and deceit. I'm very skeptical to him offering to fight to the death for the "right" to spread darkness instead of enlightenment.
I love how people think they can break the rules (deliberate lies and deceit, sorry, alternate facts isn't civilized behaviour), but still expect to receive all the benefits from them. Funny people.
"What happened to 'I may hate what you say, but i will defend to the DEATH your right to say it'."
The majority of you assholes just sit at your computers and do nothing effective, which eroded the shit out of our rights, so guess what only recourse is left for those that aren't sitting behind a keyboard?
Your 'words' sure haven't changed the direction this country was headed. Too bad you can't even think of something that logically simple.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
Looks like the founders of this country had more brains than most of you sitting at your keyboards. They knew words weren't going to get your ass anywhere.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
One pee pee tape goes a long way to prevent history from repeating itself.
"Most importantly, neither Bundy nor anyone who took up his cause hurt anyone or destroyed anything!"
That's a lie as the next standoff proved, where they destroyed Indian artifacts. Keep on cherry-picking, though. I'll be right here to make sure you swallow the pit.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
You mean like this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/a... Yet if I turn the tables and ask for a free space from black people then I'm a horrible racist. Another example is my Google search turned up a slew of "Dear White People" style articles. There's even a movie. These types of things are only directed at white people in general as all other people are protected classes. I wonder what would happen if there was an article like "Dear Black People, stop murdering at 7x the rate of everyone else" (fact if you're curious) or "Dear Gay people, stop adding ever more letters after your special interest groups". Hmm, probably would get called every bad name in the PC playbook. I'm a fairly simple person, one set of rules that everyone uses sounds pretty reasonable. If saying a given thing about one group would be racist then saying it about another should be held to that same standard.
The Pope covered that a while back, in that, while you should never get punched, there are situations in which you can expect it.
Also, not all crime victims are sterling citizens. Some invite the crime to benefit from the results.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I often state my opinions as fact because it's simpler that way. Even I sometimes feel the desire to eliminate meaningless words. If you don't agree with me, well, you're wrong, but other than that I don't see it's any big deal.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
All people come to power using questionable means.
Neither Hitler nor Trump came to power using questionable means. The only thing questionable is the result of their actions [long] after they came to power.
You really like beatings as a method of communication. Is your favorite leader Stalin or Mao?
Maybe it's this guy.
I heard a lot of people are inspired by him. Believe it or not, not everybody is an idiot, unfamiliar with the Bible.
There's even a movie.
There's another movie you should see.
Well, actually, it's a documentary about a movie.
Watch it, I dare you.
I wonder what would happen if there was an article like "Dear Black People, stop murdering at 7x the rate of everyone else" (fact if you're curious) or "Dear Gay people, stop adding ever more letters after your special interest groups".
There are dozens of those articles, some people make it a business to take advantage of the rich and prolific market for ears that want to hear that sort of thing. Yeah, sure you'd be competing with Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, but there's plenty of business there.
You could write a book. Be famous. Do interviews. Rake in the dough. It's VERY popular.
Hmm, probably would get called every bad name in the PC playbook.
And? You'd get called every bad name in the anti-PC playbook if you wrote the opposite article. Call for reparations. Point out racism in the right-wing. Denounce conservative bullshit.
Watch the letters roll in. Death threats. Insults. Hate mail.
You could still make money though, it IS lucrative.
I'm a fairly simple person, one set of rules that everyone uses sounds pretty reasonable. If saying a given thing about one group would be racist then saying it about another should be held to that same standard.
That's cute. Too bad for you, the world is very complex, and its set of rules is very difficult to fathom. In fact, saying a given thing, doing a given thing, can be totally different, all depending on a variety of circumstances.
Sorry, you'll have to wise up. You've spent a long time in this thread playing your own "victim card" but I suspect you don't realize that the only people who validate it are the ones who have serious problems with their own conduct.
Robot Santa was a chump. And real St. Nicholas looked nothing like a certain Fox News personality purported.
Indian artifacts? Really? Well, gosh, I guess that makes everything even-Steven then, doesn't it...?
In a nation of laws, students DO get to oust obnoxious hate-mongers and if they won't leave, use such force as necessary
No first amendment issues involved.
Too tough for you to grasp?
Lie of course
NO censors involved, no censorship
There is NO government intrusion here, why lie about it?
Sweeping assertion with no support whatsoever. If any part of his business empire does business with foreign or domestic governments, he's violating the Constitution. (This doesn't apply to foreign private citizens or corporations, although a state-owned corporation probably counts as government). He's awfully secretive about his finances for a guy who didn't put his assets in a blind trust.
Hint: The Supreme Court nominee $YOU agree with is going to protect and enforce the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The one #YOU disagree with will trample on it. A casual statement like yours strongly suggests that you're being highly partisan.
I'm a white cis straight upper-middle-class male of northwest European descent and Protestant heritage. Aside from screwing things up in general, Trump's not going to hurt me any time soon. However, I'm of the "First they came for the Muslims, and I said 'Not this time, motherfucker!'" persuasion.
Um, you do realize that Hitler took some time to consolidate power, don't you? Trump's been in office two weeks, and the situations are somewhat different.
So you're telling me that legitimate visa holders from all countries were allowed to leave the airport and go about their business? A person from the Middle East with a US visa has been vetted up the wazoo already.
Odd that no citizen of any of the listed countries has killed anyone in a terrorist act in the US, then, while citizens of similar countries not on the list have. Also, Obama delayed the granting of visas. He didn't suddenly arbitrarily and possibly illegally block normal entry into the US of people who had visas.
Which has nothing to do with Trump's actions, since every person he barred entry has been checked thoroughly and found not to be a significant threat - otherwise, they wouldn't have visas.
That's cute. This is a great country, regardless of what Trump says. We'll deal with hardcore Islamists pretty much as we like until one of them manages to kill almost as many people as die in accidents in about a month, and then they'll find out that the US isn't weak at all. Osama bin Laden got our attention, and we invaded his refuge country and eventually hunted him down and killed him. Al-Qaida was mostly ineffective until we invaded Iraq and revitalized them. This is what a great terrorist success looks like: you get your organization trashed, and you hide for as many years as you can while the US hunts you down like a dog. Lucky guys.
Have you ever looked at any history of immigration? This is how it's always worked. There's a lot of nationalities that have been assimilated, but that's because they've been here for generations. We'll assimilate the Arabs just like we assimila
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
How are the anti-Milo demonstrators any different than the anti-Westboro baptist church demonstrators that follow them around? Counterprotests are part of free speech too. And aside from black bloc, those Berkeley protesters was peaceful.
We never did figure out a way to make sure no one beat up Westboro Baptist Church, but if you've got an idea, I'm open to it. Just remember, you can't control the people who show up to protest with you -- that's part of freedom too.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
OK. I'll stand corrected, if that's the case. He's said some provocative things about BLM, but that's not race per se. And I became familiar with him through a video in which he was pretty vicious to a transgender woman, but that's not sexual preference. My bad. I won't back down from his demonization of Islam or women, though.
I just read the one about the AG being fired for having a copy of the Constitution, its NOT good satire...Satire should be funny AND make a VALID point potentially pointing out the absurdity of the REAL situation.
Reading this hit piece you'd be expected to believe that Trump's firing of his AG was over a 'trivial' issue and/or 'just wrong'.
Whatever you believe about Trump's immigration Executive Order the firing of the AG was PROPER. If I go against my bosses wishes I fully expect to be fired, end of story.
The ONLY people who can decide if something is 'constitutional' or not is the Supreme Court. And the ONLY person who can decide if an EO is 'good for the country' or 'proper' such that it be followed by the President's employees is the PRESIDENT.
A PROPER satire column would have been 'AG fires Trump because he ignored her feelings about the color pink.' or some such thing. Of course this would be immediately seen as 'satire' NOT 'false news' because nobody would believe that the AG could fire the President nor even something as trivial as the color 'pink' but rather that the AG had no right to impose her 'feelings' in to this in the first place.
You want to write satire then write good satire & everyone will be able to distinguish it easily from 'fake news'. You want to right a 'hit piece' & pass it off as satire then find a different job.
I couldn't find any credible source for the destruction of indian artificts. Digging a shallow latrine pit does not count, nor does ruffling through some old forgotten box of junk in a basement.
What I find interesting though, is the shear zeal in which leftist media and bloggers bent over backwards to demonize the Bundys and their supporters, using tactics from race-baiting to ridiculing them over their religion. I don't have to share the occupiers ideology or approve of their tactics in order to observe the left's powerful smear machine operate at full force.
So when smug pedants like Khyber use a microscope to point out examples like that, while at the same time ignoring political rallies being shut down by violent (and organized) opposition 'protesters' and voters being filmed being dragged from their car and beaten over a bumper sticker, I always have to wonder at the source behind it.
"while at the same time ignoring political rallies being shut down by violent"
I'm not ignoring shit. When a smug assumptive shit like you starts talking about me like you fucking know me, I have to wonder what bullshit point you're trying to make and prove.
By the way, Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, I hate you all. Given half a chance, I'd Nazi-punch every last one of you ignorant fucks into the ground.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I suppose if you're the guy's wife. Otherwise nothing really changes. My life hasn't really changed all that much the 40-odd years I've lived it.
Then don't attend the speech. They probably think your words are also hate speech. By saying it's ok to punch someone you disagree with kinda proves their point.
That "free speech" that Milo was supposedly going to do was going to involve a lot of outing of, and inciting violence towards, students. Much like Milo does at many of his talks. Plus, an altcuck actually shot a leftie last time and got away with it. Lefties break things. Alt-righty-whities shoot people.
Those idiots in black masks probably prevented something even worse.
But I'm sure Milo will cry about how butthurt silenced he feels in his new book that you can pre-order right now at all good online outlets.
I'm quite sure Voltaire believed that humans were fundamentally good
Don't be. Voltaire wrote Candide, who famously believed that everything was for the best, as a satire. He was an often-bitter, sceptical man who supported individual freedom and free speech, but would certainly have cried foul at the malicious travesties spouted in the Jacobin newspapers, for example.
He was an anti-democrat, who believed that strong leaders were necessary to good governance. Catherine the Great of Russia was a longtime correspondent of his. He was anti-Christian... and anti-Muslim, and anti-Judaism.
He also hated intolerance in all its forms. I don't doubt for a second that Voltaire would have been there in Berkeley demonstrating against Milo, while at the same time decrying anyone who advocated violence against him.
The fear was that Milo was going to do exactly what he said he'd do: out, and incite violence towards, undocumented immigrant students all behind a thin veil of implausible deniability.
If he had any balls he'd post it on Breitbart where he risks getting sued out of existence (like Gawker) if any of his "speech" about those students is factually incorrect.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Seriously, what could Milo have possibly said that would have justified this idiocy?
Based on everything he said in the previous week, it's pretty clear that he was going to out students he thought were undocumented immigrants. And if this went the same way as it did the last time he outed trans students, he knew full well that he would be inciting violence against those students.
Vigilantism breeds vigilantism, basically.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Who are these all knowing guardians of REALITY? Is it Big brother? It scares me when all these mindless drones start there liitle s-r response confirmation bs. Its Ok guys you CAN think differently. What's that you scared to stand out awwww. Ok here go back to abusing trump, or anyone you disagrees with you by calling them Hitler. Does it make you feel better? Now vote for some war mongering cunt who will make plenty of dead and displaced people. Great job done you are a true hero and defender of reality.
I won't back down from his demonization of Islam or women, though.
And there's no reason you should; that's certainly on the record and really easy to verify. I could also definitely see him being transphobic, so that's something you could add in for various reasons to dislike him.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
>(You won't find them on any news site I've found, including CNN, FOX or MSNBC, but you will find a LOT of commentary about them..)
You can find the text of executive orders on several news sites. I Googled "executive order" and "text of executive order" and sites include Yahoo News, Business Insider, and The New York Times.
"Below you'll find the full text"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pre...
"You can read the full text of the executive order below"
http://www.businessinsider.com...
"The full text can be found here"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
Trumps pick for supreme court is down the line constructionist. You may disagree with constructionist judges, but that is a fact that no one is disputing, unless you are a fringe lunatic. That means he will protect the constitution as written, and as Trump nominated him, that means Trump is also a constructionist. That may mean that imaginary/pulled out of the ass rights like abortion go away unless progressives can get actual laws passed, which is the way that it is supposed to work in our democracy: Legislature passes laws/amendments and the courts interpret them... (see all the other laws and constitutional amendments ever.) I happen to like the plain language of the constitution, progressives have hated parts of it (freedom of religions that they disagree with, freedom of speech they disagree with, right to bear arms by people other than themselves/their bodyguards) and have consistently tried to end run around the constitution by placing activist judges who pull shit out of their ass in their rulings instead of reading the words on the page and doing their job of interpreting them.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfro...
Regarding immigration, the countries temporarily barred from entry have internal records/vetting problems that make the investigations around the visa granting process uncertain (basically all Obama was doing was getting them in a room and asking them if they were a terrorist... obviously they are going to lie if they are).
Furthermore, if you were telling the truth, you would not call it a Muslim ban because there are still dozens of other Muslim countries that are allowed to come and go in the US with a valid visa. It is a ban on immigration from unstable Muslim countries with active terrorism and conditions which make normal visa vetting processes less reliable. The current visa vetting process was not even able to review social media postings of visa candidates (as of the date of the San Bernadino massacre), and consisted primarily of what the home country had in it's records, combined with an interview which consisted of an investigator asking the candidate if they were a terrorist... not exactly up the wazoo as you call it... Further, waiting to get hit with a terrorist attack is what the Clinton and Obama administration did. The current administration does not find it acceptable to wait until American blood runs in the streets to take action. If you can't understand that, I can't help you. The 9-11 attack that Osama Bin Laden perpetrated on the US cost about $3.3 trillion when you take into account the lost productivity of everyone who died, all the added security, lost productivity etc. It would have cost the US a few billion dollars to better screen immigrants from Muslim countries and deny the 911 hijackers entry in the first place.
As far as assimilation goes, it worked in the past because for the most part our immigrants were from European countries who all had similar values. Islam is not just a backwards, violent religion, it is also a form of government, known as Sharia. It is medieval and is fascist, and it supports some very heinous and illegal things such as subjugation of women, rape, statutory rape, honor killings, murder of homosexuals, and the list goes on. It is fundamentally incompatible with our western values and constitution and no amount of time will make it compatible.
Regarding terrorism vs mental illness, those are just the facts. Dont act like a smart ass and then provide zero facts to support any other conclusion. The last real non-Muslim terrorist attack that we had in the US was the Oklahoma Federal building in 1995 in direct response to the murder of over 80 people including women and children at the Branch Dividian compound in Waco, Texas by Janet Reno and the FBI. Every mass casualty event since then has either been driven by Islam or mental illness.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
It does not mean that if you speak Nazi-like remarks that you won't get a fist thrown at you.
You don't get to be free from the consequences of punching someone, either. That's usually known as "assault", and if you actually manage to hit them, "battery" - and is a crime.
When you demonize a whole group of people as "know nothings" I have to say that it is very likely you are the ignorant one.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
There are civilized responses that can be made instead of resorting to barbarism, you could start by using your own free speech to point out the intellectual errors in the other person's speech, and explain why the thought processes involved are somehow wrong.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
So, you are trying to equate being male to being violent? Isn't that kind of sexist?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I find that comparison interesting. Can you please point to the people who were injured in the Bundy incident? Can you point to the property destroyed/damaged in the Bundy incident?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
But, that is not what the protesters were saying. They were calling for his speech to be banned by the government (Berkeley is the government, being a public university), for being insensitive. This is wrong, it isn't speaking against his speech, but trying to prevent him from saying it. Do you see the difference?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
There's plenty of reports of them bulldozing over sacred burial grounds while they were there. But obviously no one got hurt by them, but they really were treated with kid-gloves for some reason; if it had been a group of black militants carrying rifles, do you really think it would have gone so well for them? They should have been dealt with by a military commando team and shot on sight. Armed takeover of federal land is a treasonous offense.
Do you have a citation for this bulldozing event? I never heard anything about this.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I was not able to find any MSM citations for what you talked about, so I looked at Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
During the occupation, the militants illegally dug a new road using a government-owned excavator, expanded a parking lot, dug trenches, destroyed part of a USFWS-owned fence, and removed security cameras.[106][202] Some of the refuge's pipes broke, after which the militants, officials said, defecated "everywhere."[200] Investigators found "significant amounts of human feces" at "two large trenches and an improvised road on or adjacent to grounds containing sensitive artifacts" of the Burns Paiute Tribe.[203] A USFWS spokesperson said that the damage risked "the destruction and desecration of culturally significant Native American sites" and called it "disgusting, ghoulish behavior."[106] The Burns Paiute Tribe condemned the damage;[204] tribal council member Jarvis Kennedy described it as if "someone went to Arlington National Cemetery and went to the bathroom on the graves and rode a bulldozer over them."[205] Two of the militants, Sean Larry Anderson and Jake Edward Ryan, were subsequently indicted for "depredation of government property," an offense that carries a potential ten-year jail sentence.[182][206]
It sounds like you are confusing two separate incidents. They used a bulldozer to expand the parking lot and to dig trenches; and they defecated in a ditch and along a road that goes through the burial site (after the plumbing broke). It does not say that they used the bulldozer to make the road through the site, but that there was a road there.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Here's an NPR article that mentions it:
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/27/...
"When the occupiers took over the refuge last January, the Burns Paiute people watched in dismay. Ancient artifacts stored there were handled and moved. At one point the militants bulldozed through sacred burial grounds while trying to build a road."