Given everything that happened during the leadup to the election, just what could one possibly blackmail Trump with which would cause outcry among his supporters?
It turns out he loves Mexican rapists, doesn't really like pussy, and is planning to move the entire populations of Syria, Iraq, and Somalia into American white suburban neighborhoods?
Given how leaky the government has been, I think I trust Trump's private security more than the government investigators.
I agree with you, I'd like the phone and everything around the President secure, but the government's been a sieve. Let's get that government squared away first with the leakers prosecuted/purged, and then secure the President's devices.
A) I doubt you've ever spent any time talking to Muslim immigrants in this country. Saying they cant move beyond primitive religious practices ( or have any desire to engage in such) is like saying Christians cant but then our Christian based western societies have.
I've argued theology for many many hours with American muslims. That and reading the Koran and the Sunnah are how I've come to understand their individual and group behavior so well.
Their individual desires are not particularly relevant because the systems of group control (death for apostasy, etc) are so strong in Islam. Much stronger than in Christianity.
But "wait!" you're bound to say, the fact that they havent moved beyond is proof beyond all doubt of their degenerecy! Except it's not. Behavior like this is a function of wealth or the lack thereof. The poorer a society the more prone they are to engage in religious radicalism.
Saudi Arabia is wealthy as fuck. They still behead gays, support terrorism and are spreading Wahabbi extremism throughout the world. In the absence of oil wealth they'd still be poor goatfuckers because their behavior results in poverty and goatfucking. You have cause and effect backwards...you think wealth results in behavior when in fact behavior translates into wealth. Same thing in American inner cities. It's not the poverty that creates the crime it's the crime that creates th poverty.
It would be fine if when the muslims fled the shithole countries they stopped following the beliefs and behaviors that made their home countries shitholes, but they don't. We took some former Nazis after WWII, but we didn't let them keep their Nazi ideology, put their kids in Nazi school, read them their Nazi books, have everybody get together for Nazi meetings where they get Nazi lessons from the Nazi teacher and then never ever criticize their Nazism and shout down as an evil Naziphobe anyone who thinks maybe this is all a bad idea. If we had done that, it's pretty likely their kids would grow up and think "ya know, there's a lot more of us Nazis here now...exterminaten das juden, eh?!" But that's what we do with muslims. It will not work out well, but when the civil wars start in France (15% of teens are muslim), in Germany (40% of kids are of "immigrant backgrounds") in a decade or two just like in Lebanon I expect you to say "gosh, who could have ever seen this coming!"
B) As for Ukraine, there's no proof of US involvement. There were however elections that were held a bit later that garnered 60 percent of the population where no pro Russia candidate showed any impressive standings. This certainly suggests a wide spread distaste for the prior government.
Yeah there is, we have leaked documents from Soros-backed NGOs that show collusion with the State department, which is basically C&C for the CIA. It's all plausible deniability...part of the same many-headed monster. "Oh, we didn't do this, it was these non-profit humanitarian groups that we just happen to converse with and trade intelligence with and they just helped express the will of the people as dictated to the people by mass media outlets who happen to be owned by the same conglomerates that donate massive amounts of money to these same NGOs and political campaigns."
Ukraine was in trouble and about to roped into the western/EU/IMF/World Bank austerity debt slavery trap, instead they elected a populist leader who thought they could develop a working economy with the ascendant Russia instead of the failing EU. But the bankers can't let their precious precious debt slaves get away, so we get a coup, and then an "election" after the pro-Russian Crimeans are already gone. The western media tells you it's all about "muh democracy" and "le ebil Putin" and you believe this. Sucks for the Ukrainians, though. They went from being slaves to the Soviet Union to slaves or the European Union.
At least the Crimeans got away. They will not be going back to Ukraine, so keeping the sanctions is pointless. Sucks the way it happened, but, well, the west shouldn't have overthrown the Ukrainian government in search of more and ever more debt slaves.
In what way have I been conned? Trump is doing everything I wanted. I'm very happy with what Trump has been doing since the election, and I'm getting pretty much everything I've ever wanted. 10/10 would get conned again. Stay mad bro.
Again, I suggest you offer us a quote from "the headline and first paragraph" that establishes that Pewdiepie is an anti-Semite.
Is "establishes" different than "states?" How does one "establish" that one is an anti-Semite who does not come out and explicitly state that they're an anti-Semite? Would you perhaps do it by accusing them of making anti-Semitic statements? After all, that's among the things anti-Semites do, right?
You've called Trump a racist plenty of times. Has Trump ever stated "I am a racist?" No, you accuse of him of making racist statements, which thereby establishes he's a racist.
I challenge you to offer a quote from the "headline and first paragraph" that does anything like that.
Emphasis mine. Okay, so "anything like that." Here you go:
"Disney Severs Ties With YouTube Star PewDiePie After Anti-Semitic Posts."
Emphasis mine. This is the headline from the story. Saying that someone made anti-semitic posts would be included in "anything like" establishing someone as an anti-Semite, would it not?
So do I win the challenge?
Ultimately, though, the challenge is pointless. You're arguing over technicalities, and technicalities are meaningless compared to narrative. Forests, trees, that kind of thing. You will be drowned by a flood of right-wing culture that is substantially correct while panicking over irrelevant technical details.
The fact that the WSJ didn't explicitly state "PewDiePIe is a nazi" is irrelevant compared to the truth of the overarching narrative: The WSJ unfairly portrayed PewDiePie as a nazi and you and left-wing bullies like J.K. Rowling love it.
I read the headline and the first paragraph. Which is all most people read, and all you need to see to understand the narrative the WSJ was establishing: that PewDiePie is shilling anti-Semitism, and therefore is an anti-Semite. And I saw the rest of the media pile-on, the result being lots of people having the clearly false impression that PewDiePie is a nazi. When that's essentially the worst thing in the world in the eyes of 99.9% of the public, that's incredibly irresponsible "journalism."
While PewDiePie's actions were insensitive, the media's behavior was reprehensible. And you're taking the side of the weaselly slandering media because they didn't technically say "PewDiePie is a nazi," they just heavily implied PewDiePie is a nazi, and gosh if people come away with that idea it could never be their fault!
If PewDiePie wasn't a right-winger before (I have no idea what his politics are or if they're even relevant) boy he's getting pushed that way now. The left is losing the culture war. When the choice is between "massively popular and by all indications very nice and amiable YouTuber who was insensitive" and "slimy lying slandering corporate media" you're choosing "slimy lying slandering corporate media."
The left is doomed. By not holding the media to a higher standard the left is driving 53 million young people right the welcoming arms of Breitbart.
Are you actually too stupid to understand media manipulation or are you just pretending to be? I'm guessing pretending. There's no way someone's too stupid to understand media propaganda after it's been pointed out to them as many times as it has been to you in the past few years. But then you'd also have to realize you're not fooling anyone here. Which leads me back to no, you're really just that dumb.
I don't have access to the WSJ article. And I didn't say they called him a nazi, I said they smeared him as one.
"I mean, I'm not saying Obama is a Kenyan Muslim socialist, but why won't he show us his birth certificate?" This and calling Obama a Kenyan Muslim socialist is a distinction without a difference.
"Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990?" This and smearing Glenn Beck as a rapist murderer is a distinction without a difference.
"Disney Severs Ties With YouTube Star PewDiePie After Anti-Semitic Posts. Move came after the Journal asked about videos in which he included anti-Semitic jokes or Nazi imagery." This and smearing PewDiePie as a Nazi is a distinction without a difference.
Oh, and when it comes to the media as a whole, you've got the whole media amplifier system working, too. We need to come up with a name for that pheonmenon, where the NYT publishes "PopeRatzo Said Something That May Be Considered Racist About Japanese People," and then WaPo says "Is PopeRatzo a Japaphobe? A NYT Article Raises Questions" and then CNN piles on with "PopeRatzo Reels Under Accusations of Racism as Reported in NYT and WaPo." And then WaPo cites CNN "Does PopeRatzo Favor Internment Camps?" and NYT follows up with "PopeRatzo: A Profile In Frothing Hatred of the Japanese." Given people's attention spans and the manner in which they consume news, what percentage of the populace is now convinced PopeRatzo thinks two nukes weren't enough? Oh and good luck explaining you're not really an advocate for Nippon Genocide...your refusals sound exactly like something a hateful Japaphobe would say to hide his murderous intentions.
the court cases are well documented and often available to the public
This is among the other things that woke me up to media misinformation. I'm very interested in law and legal reasoning, my father is a lawyer, and we made a habit of reading Supreme Court decisions and discussing them. On controversial issues the difference between what the justices would write and what the media would report are staggering. Beyond simple failures to comprehend legal arguments but out and out lies.
Mark Twain was right. A man who doesn't read the newspaper is uninformed. A man who reads the newspaper is misinformed.
I don't have any clue if PDP is an anti-Semite or Nazi.
So you agree the WSJ is out of line for smearing him as one? I'd think you'd want a pretty decent burden of proof before declaring someone the worst thing in the world, pure evil wrapped in human flesh that it's perfectly okay to violently attack on sight, no?
Why is it such a shock that a company like Disney might not want to be associated with that?
I'm not shocked at all by Disney's decision. I'm critical of the WSJ.
PewDiePie's 53 million subscribers are not going to see this incident and think "Oh no, I've been supporting a Nazi! I will unsubscribe now. Thank you Wall Street Journal for opening my eyes." They're going to say "This is fucking bullshit, the WSJ took a bunch of shit out of context and smeared this guy I've been watching for years as literally the worst thing imaginable. Fuck the media." And the next time Trump calls CNN "very fake news" and Jim Acosta clutches his (fake) pearls about "delegitimizing the media" a not insignificant portion of these young soon-to-be voters are going to remember what the WSJ did to their Pewds.
Yes, very poor taste. Also, I don't know about the Hitler video, but I did see the end of the "death to all Jews" clip and he's clearly horrified by it. If anything he's propagandizing to his viewers that "the proper emotional reaction to such speech is horror." That's good, right? That's what we want the kiddos watching to believe and feel? You understand documentaries about the holocaust are there to impress upon people how bad it was, so it doesn't happen again, and are not masturbatory material, correct?
The issue (as far as I'm concerned anyway) isn't Disney, but the WSJ.
PDP: The worst thing anyone can say is "death to all Jews." Watch how horrifying it is when someone says this. WSJ: This man hates Jews and is a Nazi! Shun him and ruin his livelihood!
Wat. When asked "what's the worst thing you can say?" no one who hates Jews would think "death to all Jews." They wouldn't think that's a bad thing at all.
So, the WSJ smeared a man who's the opposite of an anti-Semite, as an anti-Semite. That's fucked up. Trump is right, the media is out of control.
It's not even about the joking. The "joke" was in poor taste and offensive. The WSJ smearing him as a nazi is yet another example of the horrid state of journalism today.
PDP: The worst thing anyone can say is "death to all jews." Watch how horrifying it is when someone says this. WSJ: This man hates Jews! Shun him and hate him!
Wat. If you ask someone "what's the worst thing you can say?" and they come back with "death to all Jews," wouldn't that indicate he's the exact opposite of an anti-Semite? No anti-Semite thinks so saying "death to all Jews" is a bad thing. They would probably have said something like "Kill all the white people" is the worst thing you can say.
So the WSJ smeared a man who is the opposite of an anti-Semite as a racist Nazi, and lots of people in these comments think it's just swell. Better pray the media never turns its gaze on you.
You think it makes it better because he paid someone else to make jokes about killing Jews?
I agree that it's offensive, and in poor taste, and he probably shouldn't have done it. The problem is the WSJ assassinating his character as an anti-Semite for it. The fact that when pondering "what's the worst, most awful evil thing I can think of to say" he came up with "death to all Jews," would seem to indicate the exact opposite. No one who hates Jews would think saying "death to all Jews" is a bad thing at all, and certainly not the worst thing one can say.
PDP: The worst thing anyone can say is "death to all Jews." WSJ: This man hates Jews!
I agree with you that many of these terms are ill-defined. But your online sparring partner was right, the US is nothing like a free market for healthcare. It is massively, massively regulated in a tug of war between physicians, insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, and government interests. Occasionally maybe those pesky patients get a say, too.
So when your online pal was arguing for some kind of "free market system" he was arguing for a newly invented system that does not exist anywhere in the world one can point to.
At the end of the day, the story is true enough -- he had Nazi material on his show, and for many -- that's enough for them to not want to be associated with it
Sure, that's fine, Disney can do what they want. But the WSJ went way beyond "he had anti-Semitic statements on his show" to "he is an anti-Semite." In fact he was using "death to all jews" as an example of the worst thing one can say. It's tasteless, sure, and Disney may not want to be associated with that, but for the WSJ to spin a narrative that he's an anti-Semite when if anything his choice of subject matter would indicate the exact opposite.
PDP: The worst thing you can say is "death to all jews." WSJ: This man hates Jews!
What?
Ultimately I think this will work out for the best. PDP's 53 million young subscribers (who know he's not a racist anti-Semite because they've been watching him for years and like him) are now acutely aware that the media completely makes shit up. When Trump calls CNN "very fake news" they're going to agree with Trump instead of clutching pearls about "undermining the legitimacy of the press." The press undermined their own legitimacy a long, long time ago.
You are saying that once a service becomes popular, once the inertia sets in, that service must be forced to publish and force to silence its criticism.
No one has to be forced. But you can identify someone's culture by their actions. But politics (and law) is downstream from culture.
People who value free speech say "I don't want to stop anyone from saying what they want to say, nor do I want anyone to stop me from saying what I want to say. I'm glad we have the 1st amendment to protect my cultural value of free speech. Personally, if someone says something I don't like, I will argue with them, or simply ignore them." Others (largely on the political left. Or Muslims) say "Grrrr, I wish I could shut up my political opponents, but I can't get the government to do it becuase of this stupid first amendment. I know, I'll get private entities to do it, or harass their employers to get them fired, or shout over them, or dress up in black and beat them with flag poles and set shit on fire! This makes it okay because it's not the government doing it." These are not people who have a cultural value of free speech, and given enough time and control of the political system they will eliminate the first amendment, because they don't actually believe "hate speech" should be allowed. As an example, if a magic portal sucked every non-Muslim in the US out into space, it wouldn't take long for the now exclusively muslim United States to change the first amendment to not protect drawing images of the Prophet or slandering Islam. They fundamentally don't believe that should be allowed, and should be punished by government. So the rules of the government would follow their cultural belief that speech against Islam should not only not be protected but should be punished, by the state.
And this is fairly common. Almost nowhere in the world do the people really value what Americans think of as "free speech" (that you can say anything that's not an immediate and unignorable incitement to violence). It doesn't exist in China, it doesn't exist in Russia, it doesn't exist in the Islamic world, it doesn't exist in Canada, it doesn't exist in Europe or the UK.
People get so appalled by Trump/right-wingers calling CNN "fake news" but I don't understand how anyone can defend CNN when they do shit like this. It's not usually this blatant but it's almost always there. Real "facts," completely made-up context.
I would say the case is the same with PewDiePie here. He clearly wasn't encouraging people to kill Jews. He was actually trying to come up with the very worst thing someone could say, and that's what he came up with. So his actually belief ("The very worst thing you can say is 'kill all jews'") is turned into "PewDiePie wants to kill all Jews." The MSM's context is the exact 180 degree opposite of PewDiePie's stated belief.
The good thing to come out of this is Pewd's 53 million young subscribers who have been watching him for years and know he's not a racist/anti-Semite have now been given an extremely relevant and personal example of how the media lies. Kids critically examining the bias/falsehoods of the mainstream media sounds pretty good to me.
No, anti-Zionist is a political opinion whereas anti-Jewish is religious bigotry.
Eh, I think you'll find most anti-Jewish sentiment in the west is more about ethnic conflict than religious conflict. People don't complain about the over-representation of Jews in media and finance because they're pushing a religious agenda, but because they think they're pushing a Jewish ethnic agenda on the white majority.
There's no doubt in my mind that peace could have been achieved long ago, if Israel had acted with more decency and integrety.
Not really. The Muslims want the Jews dead, period. It doesn't matter what Israel does, they're surrounded by half a billion people who are taught from childhood to hate them.
That article was written by Milo Yiannopoulos, and I don't think he's very interested in sleeping with women. It's also a hyperbolic headline for an article that was both funny, and true.
I suppose that's a result of pandering for eyeballs.
Partly. It's also that there's six corporate conglomerates who own all the major media in the US. Naturally, these organizations have similar interests. These are also the interests that fund the politicians. So the job of the media is to propagandize the public to accept the political agenda of the elite. Not to inform. It's a media-run state rather than a state-run media.
Because the Twitter/Youtube economy is about clicks and views, regardless if you find the content compelling or appalling.
Didn't we all spend the last 20 years heaping scorn on the 24/7 cable news circus? That easy system of manufactured outrage that turns every minor event into a worldwide crisis? Remember the "summer of the shark" when for some reason or another the national media started reporting every shark attack in the US and people thought the sharks were going crazy? Even though there were fewer shark attacks that summer than most. It happens when you have several hundred millions of visits to the beach across an entire nation that 14 times or something during a summer a shark is going to take a nibble...but 14 out of half a billion is pretty good odds. But put the harrowing tale of a new shark attack survivor on TV every week for a summer and people get a very distorted view of reality.
The media was never compelling and always appalling. Just now there are side channels whereby we can call them out for their awful behavior, the legacy media is clutching their (fake) pearls, and the only people mad about it are either mouth breathing thralls who were never smart enough to realize they were always watching garbage, or political ideologues blinded by their hatred for the people who've succeeded in exposing the media's dishonesty. Kill the messenger why don'tcha?
Slashdot Mirror
Given everything that happened during the leadup to the election, just what could one possibly blackmail Trump with which would cause outcry among his supporters?
It turns out he loves Mexican rapists, doesn't really like pussy, and is planning to move the entire populations of Syria, Iraq, and Somalia into American white suburban neighborhoods?
Given how leaky the government has been, I think I trust Trump's private security more than the government investigators.
I agree with you, I'd like the phone and everything around the President secure, but the government's been a sieve. Let's get that government squared away first with the leakers prosecuted/purged, and then secure the President's devices.
A) I doubt you've ever spent any time talking to Muslim immigrants in this country. Saying they cant move beyond primitive religious practices ( or have any desire to engage in such) is like saying Christians cant but then our Christian based western societies have.
I've argued theology for many many hours with American muslims. That and reading the Koran and the Sunnah are how I've come to understand their individual and group behavior so well.
Their individual desires are not particularly relevant because the systems of group control (death for apostasy, etc) are so strong in Islam. Much stronger than in Christianity.
But "wait!" you're bound to say, the fact that they havent moved beyond is proof beyond all doubt of their degenerecy! Except it's not. Behavior like this is a function of wealth or the lack thereof. The poorer a society the more prone they are to engage in religious radicalism.
Saudi Arabia is wealthy as fuck. They still behead gays, support terrorism and are spreading Wahabbi extremism throughout the world. In the absence of oil wealth they'd still be poor goatfuckers because their behavior results in poverty and goatfucking. You have cause and effect backwards...you think wealth results in behavior when in fact behavior translates into wealth. Same thing in American inner cities. It's not the poverty that creates the crime it's the crime that creates th poverty.
It would be fine if when the muslims fled the shithole countries they stopped following the beliefs and behaviors that made their home countries shitholes, but they don't. We took some former Nazis after WWII, but we didn't let them keep their Nazi ideology, put their kids in Nazi school, read them their Nazi books, have everybody get together for Nazi meetings where they get Nazi lessons from the Nazi teacher and then never ever criticize their Nazism and shout down as an evil Naziphobe anyone who thinks maybe this is all a bad idea. If we had done that, it's pretty likely their kids would grow up and think "ya know, there's a lot more of us Nazis here now...exterminaten das juden, eh?!" But that's what we do with muslims. It will not work out well, but when the civil wars start in France (15% of teens are muslim), in Germany (40% of kids are of "immigrant backgrounds") in a decade or two just like in Lebanon I expect you to say "gosh, who could have ever seen this coming!"
B) As for Ukraine, there's no proof of US involvement. There were however elections that were held a bit later that garnered 60 percent of the population where no pro Russia candidate showed any impressive standings. This certainly suggests a wide spread distaste for the prior government.
Yeah there is, we have leaked documents from Soros-backed NGOs that show collusion with the State department, which is basically C&C for the CIA. It's all plausible deniability...part of the same many-headed monster. "Oh, we didn't do this, it was these non-profit humanitarian groups that we just happen to converse with and trade intelligence with and they just helped express the will of the people as dictated to the people by mass media outlets who happen to be owned by the same conglomerates that donate massive amounts of money to these same NGOs and political campaigns."
Ukraine was in trouble and about to roped into the western/EU/IMF/World Bank austerity debt slavery trap, instead they elected a populist leader who thought they could develop a working economy with the ascendant Russia instead of the failing EU. But the bankers can't let their precious precious debt slaves get away, so we get a coup, and then an "election" after the pro-Russian Crimeans are already gone. The western media tells you it's all about "muh democracy" and "le ebil Putin" and you believe this. Sucks for the Ukrainians, though. They went from being slaves to the Soviet Union to slaves or the European Union.
At least the Crimeans got away. They will not be going back to Ukraine, so keeping the sanctions is pointless. Sucks the way it happened, but, well, the west shouldn't have overthrown the Ukrainian government in search of more and ever more debt slaves.
In what way have I been conned? Trump is doing everything I wanted. I'm very happy with what Trump has been doing since the election, and I'm getting pretty much everything I've ever wanted. 10/10 would get conned again. Stay mad bro.
Again, I suggest you offer us a quote from "the headline and first paragraph" that establishes that Pewdiepie is an anti-Semite.
Is "establishes" different than "states?" How does one "establish" that one is an anti-Semite who does not come out and explicitly state that they're an anti-Semite? Would you perhaps do it by accusing them of making anti-Semitic statements? After all, that's among the things anti-Semites do, right?
You've called Trump a racist plenty of times. Has Trump ever stated "I am a racist?" No, you accuse of him of making racist statements, which thereby establishes he's a racist.
I challenge you to offer a quote from the "headline and first paragraph" that does anything like that.
Emphasis mine. Okay, so "anything like that." Here you go:
"Disney Severs Ties With YouTube Star PewDiePie After Anti-Semitic Posts."
Emphasis mine. This is the headline from the story. Saying that someone made anti-semitic posts would be included in "anything like" establishing someone as an anti-Semite, would it not?
So do I win the challenge?
Ultimately, though, the challenge is pointless. You're arguing over technicalities, and technicalities are meaningless compared to narrative. Forests, trees, that kind of thing. You will be drowned by a flood of right-wing culture that is substantially correct while panicking over irrelevant technical details.
The fact that the WSJ didn't explicitly state "PewDiePIe is a nazi" is irrelevant compared to the truth of the overarching narrative: The WSJ unfairly portrayed PewDiePie as a nazi and you and left-wing bullies like J.K. Rowling love it.
And yet here we are. Where do we go from here?
I read the headline and the first paragraph. Which is all most people read, and all you need to see to understand the narrative the WSJ was establishing: that PewDiePie is shilling anti-Semitism, and therefore is an anti-Semite. And I saw the rest of the media pile-on, the result being lots of people having the clearly false impression that PewDiePie is a nazi. When that's essentially the worst thing in the world in the eyes of 99.9% of the public, that's incredibly irresponsible "journalism."
While PewDiePie's actions were insensitive, the media's behavior was reprehensible. And you're taking the side of the weaselly slandering media because they didn't technically say "PewDiePie is a nazi," they just heavily implied PewDiePie is a nazi, and gosh if people come away with that idea it could never be their fault!
If PewDiePie wasn't a right-winger before (I have no idea what his politics are or if they're even relevant) boy he's getting pushed that way now. The left is losing the culture war. When the choice is between "massively popular and by all indications very nice and amiable YouTuber who was insensitive" and "slimy lying slandering corporate media" you're choosing "slimy lying slandering corporate media."
The left is doomed. By not holding the media to a higher standard the left is driving 53 million young people right the welcoming arms of Breitbart.
Are you actually too stupid to understand media manipulation or are you just pretending to be? I'm guessing pretending. There's no way someone's too stupid to understand media propaganda after it's been pointed out to them as many times as it has been to you in the past few years. But then you'd also have to realize you're not fooling anyone here. Which leads me back to no, you're really just that dumb.
I don't have access to the WSJ article. And I didn't say they called him a nazi, I said they smeared him as one.
"I mean, I'm not saying Obama is a Kenyan Muslim socialist, but why won't he show us his birth certificate?" This and calling Obama a Kenyan Muslim socialist is a distinction without a difference.
"Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990?" This and smearing Glenn Beck as a rapist murderer is a distinction without a difference.
"Disney Severs Ties With YouTube Star PewDiePie After Anti-Semitic Posts. Move came after the Journal asked about videos in which he included anti-Semitic jokes or Nazi imagery." This and smearing PewDiePie as a Nazi is a distinction without a difference.
Oh, and when it comes to the media as a whole, you've got the whole media amplifier system working, too. We need to come up with a name for that pheonmenon, where the NYT publishes "PopeRatzo Said Something That May Be Considered Racist About Japanese People," and then WaPo says "Is PopeRatzo a Japaphobe? A NYT Article Raises Questions" and then CNN piles on with "PopeRatzo Reels Under Accusations of Racism as Reported in NYT and WaPo." And then WaPo cites CNN "Does PopeRatzo Favor Internment Camps?" and NYT follows up with "PopeRatzo: A Profile In Frothing Hatred of the Japanese." Given people's attention spans and the manner in which they consume news, what percentage of the populace is now convinced PopeRatzo thinks two nukes weren't enough? Oh and good luck explaining you're not really an advocate for Nippon Genocide...your refusals sound exactly like something a hateful Japaphobe would say to hide his murderous intentions.
the court cases are well documented and often available to the public
This is among the other things that woke me up to media misinformation. I'm very interested in law and legal reasoning, my father is a lawyer, and we made a habit of reading Supreme Court decisions and discussing them. On controversial issues the difference between what the justices would write and what the media would report are staggering. Beyond simple failures to comprehend legal arguments but out and out lies.
Mark Twain was right. A man who doesn't read the newspaper is uninformed. A man who reads the newspaper is misinformed.
I don't have any clue if PDP is an anti-Semite or Nazi.
So you agree the WSJ is out of line for smearing him as one? I'd think you'd want a pretty decent burden of proof before declaring someone the worst thing in the world, pure evil wrapped in human flesh that it's perfectly okay to violently attack on sight, no?
Why is it such a shock that a company like Disney might not want to be associated with that?
I'm not shocked at all by Disney's decision. I'm critical of the WSJ.
PewDiePie's 53 million subscribers are not going to see this incident and think "Oh no, I've been supporting a Nazi! I will unsubscribe now. Thank you Wall Street Journal for opening my eyes." They're going to say "This is fucking bullshit, the WSJ took a bunch of shit out of context and smeared this guy I've been watching for years as literally the worst thing imaginable. Fuck the media." And the next time Trump calls CNN "very fake news" and Jim Acosta clutches his (fake) pearls about "delegitimizing the media" a not insignificant portion of these young soon-to-be voters are going to remember what the WSJ did to their Pewds.
Yes, very poor taste. Also, I don't know about the Hitler video, but I did see the end of the "death to all Jews" clip and he's clearly horrified by it. If anything he's propagandizing to his viewers that "the proper emotional reaction to such speech is horror." That's good, right? That's what we want the kiddos watching to believe and feel? You understand documentaries about the holocaust are there to impress upon people how bad it was, so it doesn't happen again, and are not masturbatory material, correct?
Do you think PDP is an anti-Semite, or a Nazi?
What about this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
When Trump says "CNN is fake news," how can I reasonably disagree?
The issue (as far as I'm concerned anyway) isn't Disney, but the WSJ.
PDP: The worst thing anyone can say is "death to all Jews." Watch how horrifying it is when someone says this.
WSJ: This man hates Jews and is a Nazi! Shun him and ruin his livelihood!
Wat. When asked "what's the worst thing you can say?" no one who hates Jews would think "death to all Jews." They wouldn't think that's a bad thing at all.
So, the WSJ smeared a man who's the opposite of an anti-Semite, as an anti-Semite. That's fucked up. Trump is right, the media is out of control.
It's not even about the joking. The "joke" was in poor taste and offensive. The WSJ smearing him as a nazi is yet another example of the horrid state of journalism today.
PDP: The worst thing anyone can say is "death to all jews." Watch how horrifying it is when someone says this.
WSJ: This man hates Jews! Shun him and hate him!
Wat. If you ask someone "what's the worst thing you can say?" and they come back with "death to all Jews," wouldn't that indicate he's the exact opposite of an anti-Semite? No anti-Semite thinks so saying "death to all Jews" is a bad thing. They would probably have said something like "Kill all the white people" is the worst thing you can say.
So the WSJ smeared a man who is the opposite of an anti-Semite as a racist Nazi, and lots of people in these comments think it's just swell. Better pray the media never turns its gaze on you.
You think it makes it better because he paid someone else to make jokes about killing Jews?
I agree that it's offensive, and in poor taste, and he probably shouldn't have done it. The problem is the WSJ assassinating his character as an anti-Semite for it. The fact that when pondering "what's the worst, most awful evil thing I can think of to say" he came up with "death to all Jews," would seem to indicate the exact opposite. No one who hates Jews would think saying "death to all Jews" is a bad thing at all, and certainly not the worst thing one can say.
PDP: The worst thing anyone can say is "death to all Jews."
WSJ: This man hates Jews!
Wat.
I agree with you that many of these terms are ill-defined. But your online sparring partner was right, the US is nothing like a free market for healthcare. It is massively, massively regulated in a tug of war between physicians, insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, and government interests. Occasionally maybe those pesky patients get a say, too.
So when your online pal was arguing for some kind of "free market system" he was arguing for a newly invented system that does not exist anywhere in the world one can point to.
At the end of the day, the story is true enough -- he had Nazi material on his show, and for many -- that's enough for them to not want to be associated with it
Sure, that's fine, Disney can do what they want. But the WSJ went way beyond "he had anti-Semitic statements on his show" to "he is an anti-Semite." In fact he was using "death to all jews" as an example of the worst thing one can say. It's tasteless, sure, and Disney may not want to be associated with that, but for the WSJ to spin a narrative that he's an anti-Semite when if anything his choice of subject matter would indicate the exact opposite.
PDP: The worst thing you can say is "death to all jews."
WSJ: This man hates Jews!
What?
Ultimately I think this will work out for the best. PDP's 53 million young subscribers (who know he's not a racist anti-Semite because they've been watching him for years and like him) are now acutely aware that the media completely makes shit up. When Trump calls CNN "very fake news" they're going to agree with Trump instead of clutching pearls about "undermining the legitimacy of the press." The press undermined their own legitimacy a long, long time ago.
You are saying that once a service becomes popular, once the inertia sets in, that service must be forced to publish and force to silence its criticism.
No one has to be forced. But you can identify someone's culture by their actions. But politics (and law) is downstream from culture.
People who value free speech say "I don't want to stop anyone from saying what they want to say, nor do I want anyone to stop me from saying what I want to say. I'm glad we have the 1st amendment to protect my cultural value of free speech. Personally, if someone says something I don't like, I will argue with them, or simply ignore them." Others (largely on the political left. Or Muslims) say "Grrrr, I wish I could shut up my political opponents, but I can't get the government to do it becuase of this stupid first amendment. I know, I'll get private entities to do it, or harass their employers to get them fired, or shout over them, or dress up in black and beat them with flag poles and set shit on fire! This makes it okay because it's not the government doing it." These are not people who have a cultural value of free speech, and given enough time and control of the political system they will eliminate the first amendment, because they don't actually believe "hate speech" should be allowed. As an example, if a magic portal sucked every non-Muslim in the US out into space, it wouldn't take long for the now exclusively muslim United States to change the first amendment to not protect drawing images of the Prophet or slandering Islam. They fundamentally don't believe that should be allowed, and should be punished by government. So the rules of the government would follow their cultural belief that speech against Islam should not only not be protected but should be punished, by the state.
And this is fairly common. Almost nowhere in the world do the people really value what Americans think of as "free speech" (that you can say anything that's not an immediate and unignorable incitement to violence). It doesn't exist in China, it doesn't exist in Russia, it doesn't exist in the Islamic world, it doesn't exist in Canada, it doesn't exist in Europe or the UK.
This is my recent fav CNN edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
People get so appalled by Trump/right-wingers calling CNN "fake news" but I don't understand how anyone can defend CNN when they do shit like this. It's not usually this blatant but it's almost always there. Real "facts," completely made-up context.
I would say the case is the same with PewDiePie here. He clearly wasn't encouraging people to kill Jews. He was actually trying to come up with the very worst thing someone could say, and that's what he came up with. So his actually belief ("The very worst thing you can say is 'kill all jews'") is turned into "PewDiePie wants to kill all Jews." The MSM's context is the exact 180 degree opposite of PewDiePie's stated belief.
The good thing to come out of this is Pewd's 53 million young subscribers who have been watching him for years and know he's not a racist/anti-Semite have now been given an extremely relevant and personal example of how the media lies. Kids critically examining the bias/falsehoods of the mainstream media sounds pretty good to me.
No, anti-Zionist is a political opinion whereas anti-Jewish is religious bigotry.
Eh, I think you'll find most anti-Jewish sentiment in the west is more about ethnic conflict than religious conflict. People don't complain about the over-representation of Jews in media and finance because they're pushing a religious agenda, but because they think they're pushing a Jewish ethnic agenda on the white majority.
There's no doubt in my mind that peace could have been achieved long ago, if Israel had acted with more decency and integrety.
Not really. The Muslims want the Jews dead, period. It doesn't matter what Israel does, they're surrounded by half a billion people who are taught from childhood to hate them.
That article was written by Milo Yiannopoulos, and I don't think he's very interested in sleeping with women. It's also a hyperbolic headline for an article that was both funny, and true.
I suppose that's a result of pandering for eyeballs.
Partly. It's also that there's six corporate conglomerates who own all the major media in the US. Naturally, these organizations have similar interests. These are also the interests that fund the politicians. So the job of the media is to propagandize the public to accept the political agenda of the elite. Not to inform. It's a media-run state rather than a state-run media.
Because the Twitter/Youtube economy is about clicks and views, regardless if you find the content compelling or appalling.
Didn't we all spend the last 20 years heaping scorn on the 24/7 cable news circus? That easy system of manufactured outrage that turns every minor event into a worldwide crisis? Remember the "summer of the shark" when for some reason or another the national media started reporting every shark attack in the US and people thought the sharks were going crazy? Even though there were fewer shark attacks that summer than most. It happens when you have several hundred millions of visits to the beach across an entire nation that 14 times or something during a summer a shark is going to take a nibble...but 14 out of half a billion is pretty good odds. But put the harrowing tale of a new shark attack survivor on TV every week for a summer and people get a very distorted view of reality.
The media was never compelling and always appalling. Just now there are side channels whereby we can call them out for their awful behavior, the legacy media is clutching their (fake) pearls, and the only people mad about it are either mouth breathing thralls who were never smart enough to realize they were always watching garbage, or political ideologues blinded by their hatred for the people who've succeeded in exposing the media's dishonesty. Kill the messenger why don'tcha?