Slashdot Mirror
Attacks on the Media Are a Threat To Democracy, Justin Trudeau Says (www.cbc.ca)
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told a press freedom event in Paris Sunday that one of the bulwarks protecting democratic governments from being undermined is also an institution under stress -- a free-thinking, robust media. From a report: "If a democracy is to function you need an educated populace, and you need to have an informed populace, ready to make judicious decisions about who to grant power to and when to take it away," Trudeau said. "When citizens cannot have rigorous analysis of the exercise of the power that is in their name and they have granted, the rest of the foundation of our democracies start to erode at the same time as cynicism arises." The press freedom advocacy organization Reporters Without Borders has developed a six-page international declaration on information and democracy to establish basic principles for the "common good of mankind." The organization hosted a small event on the sidelines of the Paris Peace Forum late Sunday afternoon where five presidents and prime ministers, including Trudeau, offered endorsements for this declaration. The Paris Peace Forum, intended to be an annual gathering of political, business and civil society leaders to explore peaceful solutions to the world's problems, was hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron to coincide with this weekend's events marking the centenary of the armistice agreement that ended the First World War.
Trudeau, addressing the audience at the press freedom event without a prepared text, also talked about the risk if too many citizens become too cynical about public institutions. "Attacks on the media are not just about getting your preferred political candidate elected," he said. "They're about increasing the level of cynicism that citizens have toward all authorities, toward all of the institutions that are there to protect us as citizens." Citizens are feeling "very real anxiety," Trudeau said, because their jobs are transforming as globalization increases competition around the world. When that anxiety is exacerbated, it undermines trust in institutions and increases cynicism. "One of the bulwarks against that, and one of the institutions that is most under stress right now, is a free-thinking, independent, rigorous, robust, respected media," the prime minister said.
Trudeau, addressing the audience at the press freedom event without a prepared text, also talked about the risk if too many citizens become too cynical about public institutions. "Attacks on the media are not just about getting your preferred political candidate elected," he said. "They're about increasing the level of cynicism that citizens have toward all authorities, toward all of the institutions that are there to protect us as citizens." Citizens are feeling "very real anxiety," Trudeau said, because their jobs are transforming as globalization increases competition around the world. When that anxiety is exacerbated, it undermines trust in institutions and increases cynicism. "One of the bulwarks against that, and one of the institutions that is most under stress right now, is a free-thinking, independent, rigorous, robust, respected media," the prime minister said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
People have a low opinion of them because of the way so many of them have repeatedly been shown to behave when they're held accountable.
"One of the bulwarks against that, and one of the institutions that is most under stress right now, is a free-thinking, independent, rigorous, robust, respected media," the prime minister said.
Interesting how he left out "honest," yet threw in "respected" like it's some obligation on the public.
Wait.. your above comment makes it sound like you *approve* of the media being throttled, controlled, and lacking a robustness? Like, you're on board with reducing the ability for the media to provide strong advice to voters, etc?
Because, you say "we're even then", as if you're on the side of "the media sucks, it should be silenced" or some such.
Or is it just that, like many people today, you see "THREAT!! NOT MY TEAM! ATTACK LEADER!", regardless of what the story says?
Realistically, you're the problem.
Here's how to fix your broken brain. Never, ever decide an issue is right or wrong, based upon the party, politics of the person saying it, etc. No party gets it right all the time, and no party gets it wrong all the time.
EG, pretty much every party out there says "murder is bad". Using your method of response, if party $x or representative $x said "Murder is bad!", you'd say "No, you suck, it's good!"
Because that's what you did right here.
One problem here is that governments in general cannot be trusted. Their own actions are slowly starting to backfire.
Governments mostly care about bookkeeping and economic growth. They - mine included - don't give a d*mn about the the civilian. Instead of the gov serving the public, we only appear to exist to serve the nation and enrich the few % wealthy.
It has little to nothing to do with internet (as Tim Berners-Lee suggest) itself, it has little but maybe something to do with information and disinformation but any mass media is guilty of that, it's not limited to internet. It has directly to do with the attitude and the actions of governments and officials who treat people as crap. It's no wonder that people get upset.
Add in some propaganda machine's, ranging from populists to anti-populists, and more and more people realizing this is all propaganda. Why is it so hard to deal with fake news? Because the line between fake news and propaganda is blurring. And the civilian? Can choose between getting brainwashed or become cynical.
The future comes by either evolution or revolution. If gov's actually would start listening and acting in favor of their on population. But i doubt they do, as most gov's are steered by a few multinationals and other wealthy influences than can afford dozens of lobbyists. The independent parliamentarian is something from last century.
https://openmedia.org/en/ca
#DeleteFacebook
Huh... it's good to know about the sources people cite.
The Rebel Media (officially The Rebel News Network Ltd.,[1] stylized as THEREBEL.media, and shortened to The Rebel) is a Canadian far-right[2][3][4][5][6] online political and social commentary media website. It was founded in February 2015 by former Sun News Network personalities Ezra Levant and Brian Lilley. It has been described as a "global platform" for the anti-Muslim ideology, also known as counter-jihad.[7][8][9]
Former Sun News reporter Faith Goldy later joined the outlet.[10] Gavin McInnes, founder of the far-right men's organization Proud Boys, was also a contributor. Lilley, Goldy, and McInnes have all since left the project.[11]
Many of The Rebel's contributors announced their departure – or were fired – in the second half of August 2017, following Goldy's prominent coverage of the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and her interview with The Daily Stormer.
The Rebel Media broadcasts its content on the Rebel Media website and its YouTube channel, which previously peaked on August 16, 2017, at 873,800 subscribers, however with the August departures, it had fallen to a minimum of 842,200 as of August 31. In September–October 2017 the channel resumed its growth. On August 15, 2018, it had over one million subscribers.[12]
The Rebel Media has been described as part of the alt-right movement,[13] although it rejected the term after the Charlottesville rally.[14]
It seems to be a one-stop-shop for racism and Islamophobia.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Media has been devolving into internet clickbait for some time. There is little trust left.
I think it's tough. Trudeau is a typical politician.
He says journalism is important to democracy yet he doesn't mention how media outlets being concentrated in the hands of a few large corporations isn't.
He also was against stopping all arms sales to Saudi Arabia after their government assassinated a journalist.
So I remain confused.... I personally don't consider 90% of journalists real journalist.
Most are just reporters who take popular stories off the wire and repackage it or get a bit more (in fact checked ) information off the internet and social media and use it as sources.
State funded media = propaganda factory.
Free market funded media = clickbait mill.
Tycoon funded media = lobbying tool.
How can media become independent and unbiased?
Huh... it's good to know about the sources people cite.
Notice that you didn't dispute anything the articles had to say. Instead, you attacked the messenger.
Wait.. your above comment makes it sound like you *approve* of the media being throttled, controlled, and lacking a robustness?
While I'm not the GP, I believe he was implying (badly) that people should feel free to attack (i.e. strongly criticize) the media if they feel that the media deserves it. If a media outlet is mostly objective and honest then it will probably survive such a trial by fire, but if not, well, good riddance. As Trudeau is saying that the media should deserve respect because they're the media, I call bs and counter by saying that he's a shitty PM defending a shitty media (or at least, the shitty elements of it) because it's on his side, and now they're both reaping what they've sown.
Subscriber funded media, more or less without ads? Minimizes dependency on single copy (or single article) sales, and minimizes the risk of not being able to criticize major advertisers. Also, a culture of investigativeness, correctness, high ethical standards and keeping opinions to the editorial page is useful.
Strong independent (important) public service media, with independently secured funding, is quite important too.
We have had some reform of public service financing in Sweden (a friend and colleague of mine is the member of parliament that drafted the proposal) with even more focus on stable financial independence (in this case, a fixed tax going directly to the TV / radio, bypassing the budget process) and on making it impossible for any administration to directly have any bit of influence on either public service leadership or content.
There is a difference between saying that x and y statements are inaccurate (and here is evidence that they are inaccurate) or relevant information z has been left out which gives an unbalanced impression and saying [media organisation] is an enemy of the people/country/whatever.
The former is valid criticism which gives the media organisation the chance to defend their assertions and editorial choices or correct the record and generally doesn't put anything beyond reputations at risk. The latter is straight out of the playbook of personality cults and tinpot despots. Rather than being an attempt to bring the facts to the fore, it is a vulgar use of raw power to attempt to crush perceived opponents. As it is leveraged power rather than facts in dispute it is very difficult to defend against and does put people in real danger - as we have seen very real examples of. Notable users of this tactic to to destroy opposition include Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the Nazis Rather than encouraging a robust public debate it holds a gun to the head of any free speech that does not conform to the views of power.
Trial by facts and evidence should what the media has to deal with. Anything beyond that is straying into very dicey territory.
Citing Wikipedia is considered an attack, now? Are we supposed to trust the word of all sources equally? After all, your own links accuse CBC of bias - wouldn't you agree it's helpful to know where this alleged "news" is coming from?
How about when those sources are clearly just opinion pieces that don't bother with details like "evidence" to prop up their rants? There nothing there worth responding to.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
It seems to be a one-stop-shop for racism and Islamophobia.
Okay, serious question time: What's wrong with being against a movement that is against you?
I don't know about you, but me and most people see nothing wrong in being anti-$FOO if $FOO is anti-$ME. And don't give me that crap about how only fringe Muslims are anti-$ME, the last global survey found that the clear majority of muslims in non-muslim countries want to replace current law with sharia law.
I see nothing wrong with anti-$FOO people, just like I see nothing wrong with groups who counter anti-$FOO people.
Finally, I'm also seeing no evidence for your "racist" claim - is that something you automatically trot out whenever you have no facts?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
The issue is that the GP selected a very disreputable source for their claims. If those claims were true then it would seem wise to select a source with a good reputation and history of accurate reporting.
It's similar to how Wikipedia has banned Brietbart and the Daily Mail as sources. They could waste time evaluating every single citation, but it's easier to just ban sources with extremely poor levels of accuracy because if the story is true there will certainly be better citations available.
Thus it is worth discussing the reliability of sources, because if we see someone who relies exclusively on Rebel Media we know we should apply extra scrutiny, if not simply ignoring them. Time is limited, and citing sources like Rebel Media is worse than citing no sources at all.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
A "disreputable source" is one you disagree with, and do not consider as being part of the sainted Media.
Notice that the site provides no source or citation for their exceptional claims, aside from further links to their own website (going by the few pages I read). It's difficult to rebut vague claims in short articles with no source containing more details. Furthermore, it strains reasonability to attempt to do so, given how quickly bullshit can be made up by an experienced bullshitter.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Citing Wikipedia is considered an attack, now
When it's used to smear the messenger instead of debating the content of the article, then yes.
Are we supposed to trust the word of all sources equally?
No, of course not, and that's the crux of the issue. Wikipedia has a set of "trusted" sources. When this set is heavily biased in one manner, Wikipedia will also be biased. These same "trusted" sources will go out of their way to smear anybody that goes against their bias.
After all, your own links accuse CBC of bias - wouldn't you agree it's helpful to know where this alleged "news" is coming from?
Sure, but that alone cannot be a proxy for truth.
How about when those sources are clearly just opinion pieces that don't bother with details like "evidence" to prop up their rants?
The stories contain facts and links. What facts stated there do you dispute? As for opinion, it's obvious where the opinion lies in the "trustworthy" news sources in how they report and what they choose to report.
The article didn't provide any support for the claim made therein. It links to a previous story about a man returning from the middle-east to Canada and then throws out the following claims:
Not only is the number itself not sourced anywhere in the article, neither is the claim that these men are all 'battle hardened terrorists'. People travel to conflict areas to for numerous reasons (remember, people do have family and friends still in there) and to work in numerous capacities, including as aid-workers and the people who do end up fighting fight on both sides of the conflict. There are volunteers from the west who've been fighting against the terrorists in Syria for example.
The idiocy then continues:
Well that settles it then doesn't it. If the author of the article doesn't believe it, then clearly it must not be the case right? Utter BS.
The unfounded claims then continue, with the author throwing in this:
Yet again no factual support for either of the claims made, they're simply thrown in there and the reader is expected to believe that they're true.
Yet another repetition of an unfounded claim.
Because in a nation with laws, you need evidence of a crime to prosecute someone. The author seems to be suggesting that simply visiting a conflict area is enough to serve as a basis for prosecution, which it isn't.
Because I'm guessing most if not all of them are Canadian citizens and a country cannot deport its own citizens and again even if they're foreign nationals deporting them means there has to be evidence that they're guilty of something other than just travelling to the middle-east and back.
This is not a news article of any sort, it's a blog/opinion piece by an outlet that clearly has an agenda and doesn't provide basic facts about the situation but simply throws out assertions. That's not a 'messenger', that's a propaganda-outlet, and they're quite upfront about it. Similar rhetoric is always used when defending unfounded claims. The net is full of conspiratorial blog-sites masquerading as news outlets posting all kinds of wild unfounded BS and the counter-argument from fans is always 'why are you attacking the source and not the claims' when the real question should be 'why is anyone believing such claims to begin with with little to no evidence?' On top of that, these sites themselves don't dispute claims with facts, but hand-waive them with statements like 'I don't believe this', so they themselves are simply choosing to attack the messenger instead of using facts to even try and support their arguments.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Better read your Constitution again. No-one is entitled to a platform.
The media is ALREADY controlled. Not by the government. But by the corporations that own them, their political leanings and the ever-present drive for clicks/views/market share.
And the portion of the media being throttled are independent journalists. Because the large news corps simply CAN'T accept any competition. Nobody's throttling the MSM.
And the MSM has lacked robustness for more than two decades now. They've ceased being NEWS and become PROPAGANDA outlets.
Again, nobody's stopping the MSM from providing ANY sort of advice to voters that they wish to.
They are stopped short by election interference laws of course.
And they can be stopped by their own violations of civility.
People's heads are exploding because Jimbo Acosta was ejected from the White House press corps.
And these same people CHEERED when Obama had a similarly obnoxious reporter ejected from the press corps greetings during his term.
Fuck this "One rule for me and another for thee" shit.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
It's disreputable because left-leaning people say it's disreputable. By that logic CNN is disreputable because right-leaning people say it's disreputable.
Anyway, didn't you hear what the PM said? You're not allowed to criticize them; they're media! Where is the respect???
the last global survey found that the clear majority of muslims in non-muslim countries want to replace current law with sharia law.
Really. And what global survey was that? It took me about one minute to find a respectable survey that says even in most muslim countries most muslims don't want sharia law.
Cite your sources. (I'm not holding out much hope that you will or can)
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
A "disreputable source" is one you disagree with, and do not consider as being part of the sainted Media.
A "disreputable source" is one which an emotionally reactive and intellectually dishonest person disagrees with, and does not consider as being part of the sainted Media.
FTFY. There ARE people who manage to set emotions aside and analyze the news and its sources as objectively as they can given the extant resources. BTW, your pejorative attitude toward the phrase "disreputable source" is uncalled for. While reputation, (good or bad), is no guarantor of propriety, (or impropriety), it is a useful and appropriate pre-screening criterion.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
And that's not even factoring in that he's a politician and therefore an inveterate liar by definition.
"They're about increasing the level of cynicism that citizens have toward all authorities, toward all of the institutions that are there to protect us as citizens."
I think you just validated his point quite nicely!
It's disreputable because left-leaning people say it's disreputable.
No, it's disreputable because reputable sources who have investigated formed a consensus that it's disreputable. In the face of that, you would need a pretty powerful argument to show that it wasn't the case.
You're not allowed to criticize them; they're media!
He means attacking reputable media organizations, claiming they are part of some leftist conspiracy, calling them fake news and banning their staff from the White House for trying to get answers to difficult questions.
Just calling yourself a journalist, setting up a glorified blog and publishing complete rubbish does not elevate you to the same level as an established news organization with editorial standards and a reputable history. The alt-right knows that, which is why they try to drag such organizations down to their level by denigrating them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Do you consider all sources reputable, or is that your standard for deciding which ones are disreputable?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
the last global survey found that the clear majority of muslims in non-muslim countries want to replace current law with sharia law.
Really. And what global survey was that? It took me about one minute to find a respectable survey that says even in most muslim countries most muslims don't want sharia law.
Cite your sources. (I'm not holding out much hope that you will or can)
Maybe you should read your own links; from your link, "Survery of muslims in 39 countries" (Chart "median % of population who favour enshrining sharia"):
South Asia: 84%
South East Asia: 77%
Middle East/North Africa: 74%
Sub-saharan Africa: 64%
Southern Eastern Europe: 18%
Central Asia: 12%
Most Muslims, worldwide, want sharia law. That link of yours agrees.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Agreeing that X is great and should happen is different from actively working against you to make X happen. IIRC Sharia law is pretty similar to English common law because it helped influence it; procedurally, it's not that bad of a legal system. More likely you're referencing how women are considered less credible witnesses, and the particular laws prescribing stoning for various infractions (adultery, most infamously). However, Sharia law can be modified to eliminate these specific issues. In practice, in most locales doing any changes required to make the legal system more Sharia-like would require a Constitutional amendment, which wouldn't happen anywhere that doesn't have a Muslim supermajority, as it'd be extremely unpopular with non-Muslims. It's likely that Congress/Parliament would be replaced with a Theocrat before that happened, in which case you'd already know what kind of nation you're living in.
Sharia law being forced upon a democratic non-Muslim-majority nation is an irrational fear, i.e. a phobia. Islamophobia, one might say.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
> Like, you're on board with reducing the ability for the media to provide strong advice to voters, etc?
Yes. Propaganda outlets provide advice. Journalism is suppose to inform. The media is now a full bore propaganda machine and our democracy is being poisoned by it.
Oh wait. Wait. The media attacks Trump. Sorry I guess they're the good guys again. Let the neiliberalusatuon continue.
I am shocked - SHOCKED - that you, or anybody, would have the stones to say these hard-hitting journalists have anything less than a sterling reputation.
I didn't claim to be afraid of implementation, I claimed that I see nothing wrong with being against a group of people that are openly against me.
More specifically, what's wrong with being anti-muslim? I've been anti-christian all my life and yet people haven't called me christianophobic.
It's okay to be anti-muslim because they are anti-you. There's nothing wrong in that.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Ah, sorry, my fault
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
The biggest threat to democracy is the media and the government colluding together. Having them be enemies is better for the people because the media might actually expose the corruption and incompetence of the government. When the government and the media get along, you know they are both scratching each other's backs. Look at how the press was treated back in the early days of the United States by officials and how the press treated the officials... Heck, fringe whatever wing rags talking shit about the king were the spark that started the Revolutionary War.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
The fate of this man shows clearly what Islam is about
Still there is an option to take a high road, and there's something to be said for taking it.
When firefighters are risking their lives to put out a wild fire the high road is to wish them luck, not call them losers. When a Jewish temple was a victim of a anti-semitic attack, the high road is to keep them in your prayers, not tell them they had it coming for not having armed guards.
It's really not such a tough position to take, unless you are an absolute fucking douchebag.
There is a difference between governments and criminal gangs attacking and threatening journalists, and people criticizing how a particular journalist behaves or the inherent bias in a news organization. Conflating the two is disingenuous, but Trudeau goes even further. He equates criticism of journalism as eroding trust in public institutions. So politician is sad that the public is calling out public institutions and the press for their venality?
You pretty much never see the same extent anywhere else in the world, besides countries ruined by American influence in recent decades.
Many European countries are going down the same road. The center is dying. Everything gets more radicalized, no-compromise, "you're 100% with us or literally Hitler" bullshit.
I mean you could argue that this is "American influence" because our media is imitating the US media, i.e. they're becoming more radical themselves and driving a wedge between the populace.
That depends on how you look at it. He's saying that journos need protecting because "freethinking" safeguards democracy. I'm saying those journos have long ago stopped being "freethinking" and so that battle is well and truly lost already.
To be halfway believable he should urge the journos to be that independent freethinking safeguard again that they once were. I say that takes at the very least replacing all the journos hired in the last decade or three with new ones, AFTER we revamp journalism school to be less about regurgitating press releases and more about that, you know, critical freethinking and all that. I haven't seen any of that in the mainstream press for at least a score years.
In that sense he's completely failing to adequately address the problem that caused all that bad cynicism from those bad bad bad citizens against the good good good institutions he and his friends the journos represent. That just doesn't work.
I'm not seeing that he understood the problem or is trying to fix it. From where I sit, he's just complaining the elite is losing the citizenry's support and yet he's still not willing to admit where that actually comes from. Fine, be like that. But don't expect those "levels of cynicism" to start dropping any time soon.
He couldn't stop the arms sale contract without incurring penalties that Canadian tax payers would be on the hook for.
Of course, this ridiculous contract was signed by conservatives.
"If a democracy is to function you need an educated populace, and you need to have an informed populace, ready to make judicious decisions about who to grant power to and when to take it away," Trudeau said."
Well, it's functioned for 242 years w/o an educated populace, why start now? (awaiting pendants who will inform us all that we don't live in a democracy).
Just another day in Paradise
You claimed this: "the clear majority of muslims in non-muslim countries want to replace current law with sharia law". Which is absolute unsupported and unsupportable bullshit.
Even in muslim countries it's split.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I have my own standards, not based on political tribalism, for deciding which sources consistently provide the most reliable information.
neiliberalusatuon
With that one word, you've managed to declare yourself to be a a right-wing conservative who can't criticize the left without resorting to kindergarten level name calling.
The hilarious part is that you're probably patting yourself on the back over how clever you are, completely oblivious to how childish you look to everyone else.
Not only is the number itself not sourced anywhere in the article
True enough, but it's easily sourced elsewhere with a quick search:
"Nearly 180 Canadians are known to have travelled overseas to join extremist groups. About 60 have returned to Canada, according to government figures released in 2016."
Because in a nation with laws, you need evidence of a crime to prosecute someone. The author seems to be suggesting that simply visiting a conflict area is enough to serve as a basis for prosecution, which it isn't.
Perhaps. On the other hand, Trudeau hasn't shown any backbone when it comes to confronting Islam -- quite the opposite.
This is not a news article of any sort, it's a blog/opinion piece by an outlet that clearly has an agenda and doesn't provide basic facts about the situation but simply throws out assertions.
I agree, it was not a good article. On the other hand, The Rebel has done plenty of in-depth reporting not covered by other outlets. And there's plenty of shit put out by the mainstream that doesn't pass muster.
We really don't need media or politics promoting misdirection. We need proper business as the founders of the US intended so... http://3seas.org/ a work order to give the people bottom line voice in their business of government, The media needs to stop with all the dirty reporter tricks of deception as they are fu&'in up the needed feedback loop of moving forward.
And can you share these standards with us?
Also note that the standards I laid out were not based on political tribalism either, you invented that bit yourself. Which is itself political tribalism.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I can see why gratuitous attacks on journalists can be dangerous but sadly at this point I have to assume, based on statistical evidence, that anyone presenting themselves as a journalist is nothing of the sort, until there's proof to the contrary. Everything seems to be about feelings and gut reactions, which has its place but cannot replace facts and critical thinking.
> Sharia law being forced upon a democratic non-Muslim-majority nation is an irrational fear, i.e. a phobia. Islamophobia, one might say.
Oh, my. Please tell that to Israel, who face the threat of genocide and removal from the face of the Earth by the Muslim nations that surround them every day. And the idea that a nation can be immune from abuse resulting from Sharia law by being a majority non-Muslim is not re-assuring to the neighbors of the new Muslim refugee communities throughout Europe and the USA. Many of the "specific issues" you've referred to are fundamental to Sharia law. These include the subjugation of women, the murder of homosexuals, the murder of people who leave the Muslim faith, and the murder of those who criticize Allah or Mohammed. These are all supported by the nations from which many of these Muslim refugees are arising, and adherence to them is a real concern for their new neighbors.
Other religious communities have had these issues. The genocide, slavery, and abuse of others inherent in the Torah and the Old Testament have been real foundations for murder and abuse throughout Christian and Jewish history. The Muslim community has its own strong memories of the Crusades that ravaged Jerusalem and their community. But please do not simply wave aside concerns about fundamental religious practices with a claim that "it could not happen here!"
If you are still maintaining that the video was not doctored then you are lying and trying to gaslight us. You are quite simply dishonest.
Thanks for demonstrating just how dishonest the media is. Either you were fooled by their phony narrative, or you are lying yourself. The video was not sped up. It was not doctored. Here's the lefty BuzzFeed:
"There's no evidence that the video was deliberately sped up -- but the change in format, from a high-quality video to a low-quality GIF, turns the question of whether it was "doctored" into a semantic debate."
"Watson, however, categorically denies doctoring the video. He told BuzzFeed News that the video was "not edited - it's just zoomed in." He also explained that he took the original footage directly from a GIF posted to the Twitter account of the website the Daily Wire.
"Fact is, Daily Wire put up a gif, I download a gif, zoomed in saved it again as an mt2 file - then converted it to an mp4," Watson said over direct message. "Digitally it's gonna look a tiny bit different after processing and zooming in, but I did not in any way deliberately 'speed up' or 'distort' the video. That's just horse shit.""
Acosta lied when he said he did not put his hands on the intern. Why isn't the media talking about that, instead of trying to reframe the narrative?
You lied when you said Acosta was banned for asking tough questions. He was banned for not giving up the mic and physically preventing a young, female intern from retrieving the mic.
Why don't you and the rest of the "reputable" media acknowledge that Acosta was out of line for refusing to allow the next reporter to ask questions, and acting like he has a right to ask as many questions as he wants?
There's a quaint notion in the US that the media was balanced and fair.
In the UK we always knew that media wasn't fair. It was rabidly partisan.
What's more... it doesn't matter... but only as long as you have lots of different viewpoints.
In the last 30 years, the media collapsed down into a few corporations all selling the same views. This was terrible for democracy.
The internet came along and put the media back in to the hands of people. Literally anyone could have a worldwide audience. Masses of varying views.
Once the corporate media realised what this truly meant ... that they lost their place as the establishments messenger and were being humiliated in ratings and people getting out the real videos (not the edited ones on the corporate media)... they started attacking it as "fake news" and demanding it be regulated.
The big media is suffering from upstarts coming from the internet. To compete they have become them. The result is click bait articles and extremist journalism. All the while the enormous, multi-billion dollar media industry tries to paint itself as some form of victim? Right.
Your link confirms that the video is misleading by virtue of the timing being screwed up. So even if we accept that the change was the result of the format shift (which seems unlikely because it's uneven, most of it is at the correct speed except for the moment when his arm comes down) that still leaves the fact that the result is misleading and was used to make a false allegation.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Perhaps? What is even slightly in question with the statement you're replying to?
That they were merely "visiting a conflict area". There's plenty of evidence that they went over their to fight via social media posts, interviews with reporters, etc. Trudeau has chosen the hugs and monitor approach, rather than aggressively prosecuting. Trudeau has also foolishly invited them into his country in the first place, pretending that there's nothing wrong with Islam.
What's wrong with being against a movement that is against you?
Nothing, but that's not what islamophobia is. We don't call opposition to aspects of the Islamic faith islamophobia, because we recognize that it's legitimate, same way as we don't call opposition to aspects of Judaism antisemitism. For example, you can be opposed to male genital mutilation without being antisemitic.
Islamophobia is a general hatred of or bias against Muslims, regardless of their individual beliefs and values. Just like how you have a range of people calling themselves Christians, some who think that homosexuality is a sin and that another crusade is a good idea, and some who are just want a Church wedding and a bit of socializing at Christmas/Easter.
Rebel Media takes the view that Muslims are "invading" the west with the goal of "Islamifying" it, and that all Muslims living in the west are a problem. That is islamophobia, a literal fear of Muslims.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
and, at least in the US, few have any sympathy for them. They like to play the victim card over how terrible they're treated but, the reality is, they have few to blame other than themselves.
The news / media have long since ceased being a source of reliable / unbiased information and have, instead, turned into political attack dogs of whatever party they are affiliated with. As a result, I don't even bother to watch, listen or read anything other than the weather from any of our usual news sources. It's simply a waste of my time.
I would agree with Trudeau in that the news / media -should- be free from attacks and criticism, but only if news / media return to their principles and start acting as the professionals they are -supposed- to be. Not the three ring circus they have become.
Lose the bias, sensationalism, personal agendas and personal attacks against political parties and / or people they dislike and just report the damn news.
Returning to their professional roots will go a long way in re-establishing some credibility as journalists and "news" as a whole.
If not . . . . . well. . . . when you engage in mud-slinging, you're bound to get just as dirty.
Don't whine about it when no one hands you a towel.
Your link confirms that the video is misleading by virtue of the timing being screwed up.
No it doesn't. It only talks about compression artifacts and having fewer frames. While that may give the appearance of movement being faster, there's no evidence it was deliberately sped up, and that wasn't the point of the video.
So even if we accept that the change was the result of the format shift (which seems unlikely because it's uneven, most of it is at the correct speed except for the moment when his arm comes down)
That's your own fantasy. Again, from lefty BuzzFeed: "There's no evidence that the video was deliberately sped up"
that still leaves the fact that the result is misleading and was used to make a false allegation.
No, it was CNN that lied. Rather than admit that, you and the rest of the lying media are trying to reframe the narrative.
Here's the true sequence of events:
Sarah Sanders: "President Trump believes in a free press and expects and welcomes tough questions of him and his Administration. We will, however, never tolerate a reporter placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern..."
CNN producer Allie Malloy: "This is a complete lie. The woman grabbed Jim's arm repeatedly. He never once touched her. In fact at one point @Acosta tells her politely "pardon me, mam" as she's yanking on his arm."
Paul Joseph Watson: ""He never once touched her." That is a complete lie. He clearly did. Is whatever you're paid by CNN really worth making a total fool out of yourself for the world to see?"
And he posts the video in question. Then you clowns turn it into a "doctored" video conspiracy theory instead of acknowledging what the story was really about: CNN lying and Acosta being a douche that refused to give up the mic after asking several questions and having them answered, including using his arm to block the young intern from retaking the mic. He only gives up the mic after Trump looks like he's signaling to security to haul his ass out of there. It's the White House Press Conference, not the "Jim Acosta Show".
Anybody can watch the full exchange and see what happened.
Attacks on the media are always justified, if the media is not doing its job of properly informing the populace. A one sided media is the enemy of democracy by not properly disseminating information.
As he said. An uninformed populace...
You claimed this: "the clear majority of muslims in non-muslim countries want to replace current law with sharia law". Which is absolute unsupported and unsupportable bullshit.
Even in muslim countries it's split.
Okay, so I was wrong. It's not all muslim countries, countries in Southern Eastern Europe and Central Asia it's less than a fifth of muslims. Everywhere else in that survey it's "the clear majority of muslims".
Speaking of absolute unsupported and unsupportable bullshit, how about your claim for
It took me about one minute to find a respectable survey [pewresearch.org] that says even in most muslim countries most muslims don't want sharia law.
Do you even read your own links? Do you even know what "most" means? Your assertion that "most muslims don't want sharia law" is an excellent example of "absolute unsupported and unsupportable bullshit."
I have to admit, I do enjoy how people who complain about islamophobia get angry when the stats are revealed.
Once again, I have to ask (because you dodged the question the first time around), why is it not okay to be against someone who is against you?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Rebel Media takes the view that Muslims are "invading" the west with the goal of "Islamifying" it, and that all Muslims living in the west are a problem. That is islamophobia, a literal fear of Muslims.
And what exactly is wrong with it? You make it sound like a good thing, considering both islam's currently stated goals as well as the fact that muslims immigrants almost completely fail to acclimatise into the new culture, instead creating pockets of their culture within their new country.
"Islamophobic" sounds like a compliment, like calling someone "egalitarian".
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
And Trudeau is a whiny and inadequate leader who is a threat to all of Canadian society because of his inability to make proper decisions or lead the country in any positive direction so I guess we're even then.
What does that have to do with a robust free press? How are we "even"?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Nothing, but that's not what islamophobia is. We don't call opposition to aspects of the Islamic faith islamophobia, because we recognize that it's legitimate
Who is "we"? And which critics of Islam have you deemed to not be "Islamophic"? Would it be the ex-Muslim that the SPLC gave a multi-million dollar settlement to after he sued them for smearing him as an "Islamophobe"?
Islamophobia is a general hatred of or bias against Muslims, regardless of their individual beliefs and values.
That's a lie. Anybody that criticizes Islam gets labeled "Islamophic", even when they go out of their way to only critique the religion and violent acts, and explicitly acknowledge it's not "all Muslims".
Rebel Media takes the view that Muslims are "invading" the west with the goal of "Islamifying" it, and that all Muslims living in the west are a problem.
I can almost guarantee you'll never find a statement out of Rebel Media to that effect. It's not "all Muslims", it's the mass migration. If we had a magic wand that could determine the intent of individuals, we'd use it. But we don't.
When did Europe start needing "diversity barriers" to protect their Christmas markets? When did Sweden start having grenade attacks? When did New Years Eve in Cologne become a place for mass sexual assault and gang rape? When did we have to start censoring ourselves about Islam for fear of inciting violent reprisals?
"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers..."
They're talking about useful idiots like you.
Was he an asshole? Yes.
Did he disrupt the press conference? Yes.
Did he touch the young woman? Yes.
Did he whine like a bitch after he got punished for all the above? Yes.
Is he a real journalist seeking truth to inform the public or a partisan hack? *giggle*
"... if they feel that the media deserves it"
No. You can't just "feel" that they deserve criticism, you have to THINK that they deserve it, and based on factual evidence. Feelings aren't good enough; you need facts. Too many people today go about their lives just feeling and wishing, instead of thinking critically and making evidence-based decisions.
Maybe that is what you meant to say.
In general I trust science in evaluating technical news, the more well-established the better. And by not denying science, I emphasize not denying anyof the sciences, and their known-good implementations in engineering. For non-technical news, I go with sources that have proven accurate in the past.
Should be: Media's Attacks Are a Threat To Democracy
This man has no business being in any kind of freedom of the press event. This man who has shut down media in Canada for being against the government. He's passed laws which gives the government carte blanche to jail people for being the wrong kind of media, without legal representation in rotating-door permanent prison sentence without access to the red cross. His laws interfere with private conversation on newsworthy topics by making saying certain things, and has made studying certain areas also illegal. This is the same man who has presided over a government that has used fake news, propaganda in order to limit the ability of our media to make sense of the world, and who wants to engage in a war on math to make sure we can't even *hide* our news gathering, and news dissemination activities from the government. And don't get me started about the state run CBC and how badly they fail us.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
The MSM is an agent of that left. At least in America, they view themselves as an unofficial 4th branch of government. They're not, and the can fuck off and do their job, unbiased. Not just just in what they report, but also in what they hold back and don't (omit).
The MSM, an agent of the left? The anti-corporate left? The pro-socialism left? The left that wants to reduce the influence of money in politics?
You think the MSM, owned and controlled by large corporations, is an agent of the people who rail against large corporations? Get your head out of your ass. The MSM is an agent of profit and the status-quo. They are risk-averse, and so will shun anything that threatens their revenue streams. That includes the far-left and the far-right. The far-right is just the threat du jour, with all the overt racism and aggression. The right is scaring away the ad revenue. That's why they are being silenced by the MSM; not because of some left-leaning attitudes. on the part of media owners.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
....is anything he does NOT strident virtue-signaling?
I'd submit that the general public are smarter than politicians give them credit for. As news media has devolved into echo-chambers of obvious bias & winner-picking, with less and less actual simple reportage and more of a piranha-like frenzy to chase after whatever just popped up on twitter, people have naturally devalued "the media" commensurately.
-Styopa
AmiMoJo is demonstrably not one of them and who that comment was directed towards.
There's a difference between 'complaining' and attempting to censor or control.Once governments start controlling what the media can say then an important check and balance is lost. Fox News are free to report whatever tripe they like, but people are free do call them out for it and do so quite regularly.
It's the basic divide and conquer method. People fight against themselves instead of grouping together. And while they're busy fighting against each other they don't fight the government.
#DeleteFacebook
The problem is that the main stream media is not doing its job. Journalists are supposed to report facts and not have an agenda. If they did this, there would not be a low opinion of journalism today. The problem stems from the bald fact that media is ruled by people with left leaning ideology. At some point, so called journalists had decided to shape the story to a narrative, instead of reporting facts and allowing the reader to shape the narrative.
This is evident in the number of major media figures who had to resign for being publicly caught manufacturing stories. For example, I am looking at you Dan Rather. He is not alone.
As the internet developed, it was no longer possible for a few gate keepers to spin the story so people only see convenient facts. Sadly, the response of the main stream media has not been to self correct. Instead of eliminating institutional bias and increasing diversity of thought in news selectors, the modern journalist has doubled down. They simply call anyone who disagrees with their narrow prism of events as "Fake news." Judging by these forums, that has been, tragically for civilization, effective.
So, the assault on democracy is not people pointing out that journalists are not doing their job. It is coming from journalists who say they are questing for the truth, doing the opposite, and eroding belief of all but the most partisan.
Ps. Sorry to be an AC. I forgot my password, and I am at work.
It's Justin Trudeau.
Does anyone seriously believe he wants to see mainstream journalists do a rigorous and robust analysis of (say) the "wage gap," instead of simply parroting the establishment narrative like they always do?
Who is "we"?
I mean the widely accepted meaning of the word in the English language. Like if you look it up in a dictionary, or what most people would understand if someone used it.
Anybody that criticizes Islam gets labeled "Islamophic"
Perhaps, but people keep telling me I'm a leftist Nazi SJW too. You can't react to them all, they are just idiots or trolls and basing your ideas on their nonsense is a bad idea. Look, I'm talking to you now, I'll happily criticise Islam for the practice of MGM and for many other things, and I'm not going to worry if some asshat uses their personal definition of islamophobia to label me.
It's not "all Muslims", it's the mass migration.
France has the largest proportion of Muslims in Europe and the most pessimistic projections suggest that it will reach a whopping 14% by 2050. At the moment only around 20% of Muslims in France claim to attend a Mosque regularly, and by 2050 that will likely decrease with time.
https://www.thelocal.fr/201712...
In order for the mass migration theory to hold, those numbers have to be obfuscated. For example, by talking abut 4 million Muslims in France, and not differentiating between them. 60% of British people identify as Christian, but the majority of British people also support same-sex marriage, gender equality and many other things that mainstream Christianity in the UK does not.
By the way, Muslims make up 4.4% of the UK population. Christians are not in any danger of being outnumbered in the next few centuries.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I go with sources that have proven accurate in the past.
That's what I said. My whole post was about the reliability of services in the past being a useful predictor of accuracy.
For some reason you interpreted it as considering sources I disagreed with as disreputable. So, I have to ask, is that what you mean by the quoted statement? Or do you actually agree with me?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
islam's currently stated goals
Citation very much needed. This is like saying "Christianity's stated goals", as if there is a single authority that represents all forms and all followers.
muslims immigrants almost completely fail to acclimatise into the new culture, instead creating pockets of their culture within their new country.
This is also untrue. Studies have found that they aren't any worse than other immigrants. How many cities have a Chinatown? How many parts of the US are predominantly African American or Latinx? And in America, how much of that is the immigrants not wanting to integrate and how much is the people already there not wanting them to integrate?
I'd also point out that the Muslim populations of Europe are relatively small. In the UK it was 4.4% in 2010 (last census) and about 80% of them don't attend a mosque regularly. For reference 60% of the population identifies as Christian.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I think it's tough. Trudeau is a typical politician.
He isn't a typical politician, he's a puppet. He won the Liberal Party nomination not because of his ideas, or skills, or forward thinking, or anything to help Canada. He won it because of his last name. The media propped him up, went out of their way to silence issues, and refused to carry other issues. Here's a good one, "carbon tax" the previous election the Liberals and NDP lost exactly on this issue. The media went out of their way to soft-pedal it, or even openly state that it wasn't a liberal party agenda item. This is after Trudeau Jr., said that he wanted to implement it.
Want to know where the real power lies in Canada? Look up G.M. Butts. He's the same person who was behind many of Kathleen Wynne's(Liberal Party of Ontario) ideas during her tenure as Ontario's Premier. I'll now remind you that the Ontario Liberal Party is so small after that tenure, that it can fit into a 1996 Ford minivan and is no longer an officially recognized political party.
Om, nomnomnom...
You mean corporate media. And that's in no danger of being throttled.
Unless he's defending Julian Assange and calling out the United States for silencing a journalist, it's all propaganda....
I'm talking about how people use the word, including people like you
Despite the fact that I've just told you it does't mean that and I don't use it that way.
That you're a social "justice" idiot isn't debatable.
Okay, clearly it's not worth continuing this because no matter what I say you will just ignore it and assume I'm this imaginary SJW. Can you not see that your mind is so closed you can't even respond to what people are saying to you, only what you imagine they must think?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Despite the fact that I've just told you it does't mean that and I don't use it that way.
What you and others say when challenged versus how it's actually used is a whole 'nother ballgame. Have you backed up your claims about what the Rebel says regarding "all Muslims"? Did you acknowledge how the SPLC had to pay out millions for their smears against an ex-Muslim? Did you cite one example of a critic of Islam that wasn't called an "Islamophobe"?
Okay, clearly it's not worth continuing this because no matter what I say you will just ignore it and assume I'm this imaginary SJW.
Clearly you're running away, because unlike you, I've responded to all your arguments and don't rely on labels alone.
Can you not see that your mind is so closed you can't even respond to what people are saying to you, only what you imagine they must think?
Can you not look in a mirror?
[Goes back to watching RT and Al Jazeera]
Have gnu, will travel.
He wasn't 'against stopping all arms sales' because he supports the Saudi regime. He was against burdening tax payers with the debt that would cause, as am I.
You are spewing more Fake News to fit your "whatabout" "I'm confused" "but, but but..." narrative.
I don't think most critics want to shut down media. They want to be free to criticize it when it's obviously spouting bullshit.
Trudeau's being criticized because, whether he realizes it or not, he's implying the media shouldn't be criticized when broadcasting approved propaganda. The fact he spun it as 'cynicism' is a perfect example of why it is important to be able to criticize them. The soviets spun critics of their media as 'cynics' and 'dissenters' as well.
Criticism of institutions when they fuck up is critical to maintaining a free society. It does not matter if they're public, private, local, regional, foreign, or domestic.
What you and others say when challenged versus how it's actually used is a whole 'nother ballgame.
Do you have an example of me using islamophobia in a way that is not consistent with the definition I gave you?
Have you backed up your claims about what the Rebel says regarding "all Muslims"?
Note that I gave an extended explanation of how, without using those specific words, they try to give that impression or consider all Muslims when producing statistics. This article is an example: https://www.therebel.media/mus...
Some of the numbers are just false, such as the bold "66% of France's prison population is Muslim" statistic. Note also how none of their numbers add up, e.g. 102% total of Syrian refugees (who are not all Muslims) and the 110% of violent criminals in The Netherlands. Those numbers are bogus anyway.
You can of course keep asking for more and more citations. You will doubtless want a reference for the 66% figure being wrong, even though you could just google it and the first result would be what you are asking for. I'm not getting into that game.
Did you cite one example of a critic of Islam that wasn't called an "Islamophobe"?
Yes, myself. Of course, it's impossible to prove a negative in any general sense. And as I also said, ignore the idiots who bandy that word around, they can't change what it really means.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Dude, I've read what you write, you clearly think that women are people, and should be treated as if they have minds and feelings and are real. That's literally the definition I'm using of SJW, so you're an SJW, now I'm changing it to mean "Someone who is screechy and wants black one-legged lesbians to rule the world" so as you're an SJW I feel compelled to point out that you think that black one-legged lesbians should rule the world.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You may come out of journalism school all bright eyed and bushy tailed, ready to take on the world, but I bet it doesn't last long. The fact is, the "information age" changed the profession of journalism by requiring fewer journalists. Also, while large newspapers were expected to keep "real" journalists on staff, readership of newspapers has fallen, and they've had to move to content online, and readers won't pay for online content (in general). That means media companies are less dependent on subscriptions and more dependent on ad revenue (and thus clicks). So if you're a new journalism graduate, the metric your employers are looking at isn't Pulitzer prize winning prose, it's how many clicks you bring to the table. Doesn't matter if you're a great journalist, you'll lose that position to a person willing to put anything sleazy in a headline.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Ah okay, you got me. I do really want the one-legged lesbians to be in charge. It's only fair.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
While that may be true in France in the US this would be like saying the 9 or so corporations that own all media outlets are the democracy.
You will doubtless want a reference for the 66% figure being wrong, even though you could just google it and the first result would be what you are asking for. I'm not getting into that game.
Yes, I generally expect people to provide citations when they make explicit claims, or to do so when asked, especially when claiming somebody else is factually wrong. That's not a "game", that's basic protocol in logical debate.
However, I noticed that the Rebel article does not have a citation, so I went looking for myself. Presumably the article you're think of is this one, where it says:
"I emailed Prof Khosrovkhavar, who rejects the 70% figure altogether and says that he reckons a true figure is 'around half' - 40%-50%. But (he stressed) these are just estimates, because the French government does not record these things.
The closest thing to an official figure is the number of French inmates who registered for Ramadan -- 18,300 out of a total prison population of 67,700, or 27%, back in 2013 according to Agence France Presse. Prof Khosrovkhavar suggests that this could be an underestimate, because some Muslims will fear being 'noted' by the intelligence services. A Brookings Institution report says that "Muslims are greatly overrepresented in prisons and within the eighteen- to twenty-four--year-old age group in particular: they make up only 8.5 percent of that age cohort in France, yet 39.9 percent of all prisoners in the cohort." Nobody seems to know for sure.
This, obviously, is not to suggest that France doesn't have a serious problem with integrating Muslim men (in England and Wales, 15% of the prison population is Muslim from a total population of 5%). But the enormous 70% figure is false, and should not be used â" no matter how many reputable-seeming outlets have been taken in by it."
And so the premise of the Rebel article is still valid:
"If you only listen to the liberal media, you're most likely under the impression that there are no problems with Muslim immigration in Europe. However, I'd argue that one of the biggest problems in Europe is immigration, especially from Africa and the Middle East."
Yes, myself. Of course, it's impossible to prove a negative in any general sense.
Your description of the Rebel was over the top. You said they think, "all Muslims living in the west are a problem". They have valid concerns with Islam. You seek to dismiss them without addressing them.
And as I also said, ignore the idiots who bandy that word around, they can't change what it really means.
Like who, the SPLC, an organization with a lot of sway in mainstream circles? There is no serious critique of Islam that isn't labeled an "Islamphobe" by mainstream people who aren't considered "idiots". It's a thoughtless term invented to precisely shut down criticism of Islam.
No, it's disreputable because reputable sources who have investigated formed a consensus that it's disreputable.
And of course "reputable" just means "ones I agree with". That's a cute shell game. Anyone who disagrees with you is disreputable because everyone who agrees with you agrees that they're disreputable!
He means attacking reputable media organizations, claiming they are part of some leftist conspiracy, calling them fake news and banning their staff from the White House for trying to get answers to difficult questions.
Of course he does. And, same as you, he defines "reputable" as left-wing media organizations which agree with him. Those are off limits - no criticism allowed! The right wing organizations which disagree with him? Hell, you can criticize them all you like!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
..and yet you have failed to debunk his supposedly invalid argument. Instead, you focused on the ad hominem by responding with one of your own. Congrats. You are no better.
If you only listen to the liberal media, you're most likely under the impression that there are no problems with Muslim immigration in Europe
That's an example of what I'm talking about.
It makes two dubious claims. Firstly that if you read "the liberal media" you would think there wasn't a problem, which supposes that the mainstream media is liberal (LOL) and that it isn't reporting these issues.
Secondly it says "problems with Muslim immigration", but has failed to establish that there is a specific problem with Muslims that is not common to any other group of people or the population in general. I recall that the same claims were made about non-Muslims from India, about people from the Caribbean, and about Jews long before Muslims became the big threat.
Things like the prison stats are not proof that there is a "Muslim problem", because they don't account for socio-economic status either. When you look at that it becomes more apparent that there is a poverty problem.
The source you found was the one I mentioned, which notes that the only official statistic is 27%, and to get to 50% you would have to assume that half of the Muslims in prison were afraid to openly celebrate Ramadan. That seems extremely unlikely if half the other inmates are also Muslim.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
AmiMoJo is demonstrably not one of them and who that comment was directed towards.
Interesting that you should say that. I sensed an ad hominem attack against AmiMoJo, (whose posts I've usually found to be balanced and reasonable), in the post I was responding to, but chose to ignore it. Now that you've broached the subject, I just did a quick review of his recent posts. My opinion hasn't changed. Would you care to come out of AC stealth mode long enough for your posting history to be examined?
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
It makes two dubious claims. Firstly that if you read "the liberal media" you would think there wasn't a problem, which supposes that the mainstream media is liberal (LOL) and that it isn't reporting these issues.
How is it you can screw up responding to something you are directly quoting? It doesn't say, "mainstream media is liberal" (though I would argue it generally is), it says, "If you only listen to the liberal media".
And no, the media does not pay nearly the amount of attention to problems with Muslim migration versus hijab hoaxes or "refugees". To even suggest there is a Muslim problem or a problem endemic within Islam invites the knee-jerk reflex of "Islamophobe".
Secondly it says "problems with Muslim immigration", but has failed to establish that there is a specific problem with Muslims that is not common to any other group of people or the population in general. I recall that the same claims were made about non-Muslims from India, about people from the Caribbean, and about Jews long before Muslims became the big threat.
You have failed to establish that there is another group with a similar level of problems. I don't recall mass sexual assaults on New Years Eve from any other immigrant group. It's overwhelmingly Muslim grooming gangs that are a problem in the UK, not any other group. It's Muslims running over people in Christmas markets, not any other group.
But again, to even talk about these issues gets you labeled an "Islamophobe".
Things like the prison stats are not proof that there is a "Muslim problem", because they don't account for socio-economic status either. When you look at that it becomes more apparent that there is a poverty problem.
It's a Muslim problem. You can ask why there is such poverty among this population, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a Muslim problem. Of course, that raises another issue for liberals to answer, as all this immigration was supposed to beneficial.
The source you found was the one I mentioned, which notes that the only official statistic is 27%, and to get to 50% you would have to assume that half of the Muslims in prison were afraid to openly celebrate Ramadan.
"Prof Khosrovkhavar suggests that this could be an underestimate, because some Muslims will fear being ânotedâ(TM) by the intelligence services."
Regardless, even you limited yourself to 27%, the figure is multiples of what their population percentage is.
It's seems pretty rare. Why, do you have good examples? I ask, because when Donald Trump announced a top-ten list of examples, they tended to be either (a) innoculous or (b) had people responsible fired. And universally retracted and corrected.
Now, if you mean "politically charged tripe on right-wing propoganda networks", then it's pretty misleading, deceptive or half-true. But there's no retractions, ever.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/... The primary affect of attacking media institutions is to cultivate the idea that all media is "fake" or "biased" and that none can be "trusted". The distortion is dangerous because it removes a vital check on government power and without it, allows corruption. Moreover, this distortion allows citizens to confirm their own bias by consuming the news that fits their worldview while branding contrary news as "fake". This is not true. Not all news is biased, fake, or untrustworthy. Stop repeating this. This is exactly what politicians want you to believe and they are succeeding when you go around spewing this nonsense. Get this "idea" out of your head. It's not true and it is the root cause of atrocities throughout history.
Yeah, agreed. This leads to each media outlet turning into an echo chamber.
The way to ensure an independent and unbiased news media is to bring back all those media ownership rules that the Republicans have weakened or torn down utterly over the past three decades. All of the news quality problems we're having are ultimately caused by having just a handful of companies that own all the news media.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Again, your original claim was about non-muslim countries, are you intentionally ignoring that?
why is it not okay to be against someone who is against you?
Because it makes you an extremist too. Instead, be for the rule of law, and if you are fortunate enough to live in a land governed by the rule of law then be thankful for that. Do your part to ensure it stays that way.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
You forget that the Left isn't SANE (and, arguably, they haven't been sane for a good, long while).
You have corporate Leftists screaming about pulling down corporations.
You have anarchist Leftists screaming for more top-down government control.
And most of all, they ONLY want the restrictions they're screaming for applied to everyone BUT them!
These people are floating on pure, pie-in-the-sky, feel good IDEOLOGY.
They basically damn conventional religions (save autocratic ones like Islam, which they think aligns with their goals). But they ARE a religion at this point. Complete with a doctrine of faith that defines anything BUT the doctrine as evil.
And when I talk about The Left, I'm basically talking about the Far Left, where the current Democratic leadership currently is, and they're tobogganing even further Left as we speak.
Basically anybody to the right of Stalin would currently be considered a heretical New Centrist.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
How does a "protestor" get into a White House Press Corps briefing?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Pardon me for quibbling. There are 50 majority-muslim countries but only eight use sharia for criminal law, the others mostly restrict it to family law, and generally to muslims.
In my opinion, theocracy is always an unsound foundation for the rule of law whatever the religion, and as such, detrimental to the economic well being of a nation. Economics will ultimately prevail, it always does.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
One has confessed to having made it up.
Another's story makes no sense at all (kept going to 'gang rape parties', until it was her turn), is facing charges for lying, along with her shyster.
The third one was very careful to make no claims that could be checked. People did attempt to influence her witness, but she refused to lie for them. Denied knowing the dude, refuting the claim.
The best they've got is an uncorroborated 'story', with a bunch of details that appear to be embellishments at best, fairly outright lies (e.g. needed two exits). All of which were rolled out at the 11th hour in hope of delay.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Again, your original claim was about non-muslim countries, are you intentionally ignoring that?
No, it is covered by "everywhere else" in my post. Notice how many continents are listed there? Those are not muslim countries.
why is it not okay to be against someone who is against you?
Because it makes you an extremist too.
You can't very well complain if people don't take you seriously after a statement like that. Being against extremists does not make you an extremist. If that were true then you'd be one as well.
Instead, be for the rule of law, and if you are fortunate enough to live in a land governed by the rule of law then be thankful for that. Do your part to ensure it stays that way.
You mean like immigration law? My part in ensuring it stays that way is not to label others who are against folks who'd like to change it.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Again, your original claim was about non-muslim countries, are you intentionally ignoring that?
No, it is covered by "everywhere else" in my post. Notice how many continents are listed there? Those are not muslim countries.
Please stop slithering. You wrote "the clear majority of muslims in non-muslim countries want to replace current law with sharia law."
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
That is the exact problem with modern media. And how do we tell a reputable source from a disreputable one, other reputable sources tell you that it is reputable. And how do you evaluate those sources? They are verified by other reputable sources. And so on and so forth. The problem with modern journalism, is that just like wikipedia since you cannot verify sources into infinity, they are all cyclic verifications eventually. And more often that not that cyclic verification is only 1 layer deep.
While wikipedia in some cases sources articles that themselves just copied information from wikipedia, CNN, et all "verifies" its integrity, but bringing on politifact experts it itself verifies by calling them experts. Fact checking sites and news organizations feed off each other and the truth quickly spirals into a deep dark pit where the person who is saying something is more important to the factuality of a statement than what they said.
You can spot how bad of an idea this whole structure is, when the same network or fact checking site says self contradictory things, sometimes in the very same paragraph, but other times simply years apart when yesterday's villain has become today's hero.
For me personally, I lost every ounce of respect in all establishment news when I realised that about ~6 years ago, teams of experts brought onto the most respected of news channels verified unequivocally that Clinton created the Obama is a foreigner moment during her time running against him. And those exact same respected establishments, in many cases the exact same reporters, with a whole new barrell of experts verified that she indeed had nothing to do with any such movement and have always fought against such lies during the 2016 political campaign. That whole controversy is also a very good illustration of fact checking websites Snopes is one of my favourite for political facts, it has a pretty good summary of all the pertinent information, but as they all operate when it gets time to write the 1 sentence summary and give it a grade in particular, they are get weasely. As it turns out years before Clinton vs Obama campaign happened a blog with 2 subscribers published an article "othering" Obama, so no Clinton did not START the othering movement.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Why are you quoting completely different statistics? Of course , you might expect the Muslims in muslim minority countries will be more fanatical.
But also that graph shows huge support with like 2/3 of the countries polled responding with 50%-99% in favour. How do you even get 99% of people to agree on anything?
And where are you even getting that statistic. The one graph on Sharia I am seeing shows, like I said, the majority having over 50% support.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
you might expect the Muslims in muslim minority countries will be more fanatical.
No, I do not expect that, and I do not expect that you can produce any credible evidence to support that. This is the simple, time honored principle: moderation breeds moderation while extremism breeds extremism. And I view with contempt the extremist who presents as a moderate with the ill hidden goal of fostering extremism, such as more than one poster to this thread.
Which kind are you?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Rule 43...would you believe there are no one legged lesbians on porntube.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I am just pointing out that you have provided 0 statistics that support your argument. So you go into a big opinionated rant where you attack me and everyone that disagrees with you.
If you have no actual facts, what sort of debate do you expect to have?
Clearly you expect the kind of debate were you sling personal barbs instead of even trying to make an argument.
This is not even a thing worth having an argument over. It is not a political, opinion, or anything. It is just a cold hard statistic. Ask a few hundred Muslims in America what they want and you will have your answer. It is not a debate, it's not an argument, it's a fact. Leave the arguments for the methods.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
First, they came for the journalists.
We don't know what happened after that.
Which statistics did you produce, Mr Holier than Thou?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
The only statement I ever attempted to make is that facts make better arguments than insults. I freely admit that I provided zero statistics to back up that statement. That it is simply my opinion. Disagree with it if you want, I am not sure how I would go about defending it.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Your posts are entirely content free.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Again, your original claim was about non-muslim countries, are you intentionally ignoring that?
No, it is covered by "everywhere else" in my post. Notice how many continents are listed there? Those are not muslim countries.
Please stop slithering. You wrote "the clear majority of muslims in non-muslim countries want to replace current law with sharia law."
From your pewresearch link, countries on the following continents:
South Asia: 84% South East Asia: 77% Middle East/North Africa: 74% Sub-saharan Africa: 64%
So, yeah, not all non-muslim countries, just most of them, and most of the muslim countries too.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I can't say that I've sampled much in the way of Canadian media outlets, but in neighboring U.S.A. being "rigorous, robust and respected" has not been any kind of priority in a long while, and what sheer veil they may have propped in front of that reality for a while they let drop a couple of years ago when a big election went in an unexpected direction. All reporting outlets in the U.S.A. are now wearing their biases on their sleeves. Until media outlets can be forced to staff and promote from the "Left" and "Right" equally, then no individual outlet can be even remotely respected and the best we can do is what we're doing right now, having the two big biases battle it out with their various lies, spins and checks... I don't see how going out and telling us to blindly accept whatever we're told is supposed to be taken as a good thing, or even expected to make the person saying it come off any way other than just dumb/incompetent...
Nearly all of the links in the stories are back to the author's own site. I followed a few, but found almost no links to anything objective.The author makes numerous unsupported claims, but almost never bothers to back them up.
Nonetheless, even assuming the source facts have some basis, it's the conclusions the author tries to draw from those facts that are entirely speculative. Motives are assumed, public statements from public officials are contradicted, people are labelled as "terrorists" or "terrorist sympathisers", accusations are made, and none of it is supported by any evidence whatsoever. It's all pure opinion, and makes no attempt to be objective.
All of this is in keeping with the Wikipedia description, and is pointless to argue about.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
You apparently didn't understand that I'm aware of how ludicrous the concept is.
Yet that's what these mouth-breathers are doing ANYHOW!
Yet we're expected to take them seriously...
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
No.
Yes, such rules are certainly useful too. Forgot the US had slashed them.
We could improve them, too in Sweden and Europe.
Sweden also has a financial support for newspapers, in general for the papers that are not the largest one in a given city. For the same reasons of diversity. It is supposed to be re-worked to be more media neutral. We will how it pans out ...
Overt racism? Source please of where 'the right' is overtly racist. Sure, racists exist but there aren't that many of them.
Now, what the left CALLS racism is very different from actual racism.
Point out verifiable facts that are inconvenient to some minority group and you're racist according to the left. Decide you don't want unfettered illegal immigration because it strains our resources, increases crime, and dare to point out that most illegal immigrants have few marketable skills and use welfare at a much higher rate than citizens or legal immigrants (all facts, not opinions) and you're guilty of spreading racist hate speech according to the left.
Basically with the left, criticizing or even pointing out anything somebody non-white does is racist, even when not accompanied by any mention of race or opinion about race. Criticizing something someone DOES or the way someone BEHAVES is not racism--racism is criticizing someone for a characteristic they have no control over.
Learn the difference. Then teach it to Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. because they sure as hell don't know what it is.
Do you really not know that neo-Nazis identify with the political right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17525860/nazis-russell-walker-arthur-jones-republicans-illinois-north-carolina-virginia
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/29/arthur-jones-nazi-illinois-republicans-686875
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)