Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Shermhead

Fake News

Fake News  

80 members have voted

  1. 1. Is there fake news?

    • Yes, I believe there is some politically biased mainstream news channels
    • No, I believe mainstream news is legitimate and honest
    • I believe there's both honest and dishonest news, with some hiding their bias better than others
    • All mainstream news is bullsh*t
    • Other


Recommended Posts

sivispacem
9 hours ago, Spaghetti Cat said:

Should have provided those links earlier, just ran out of time. Enjoy.

So you're going to completely gloss over the vast majority of my post, utterly ignore you getting caught red-handed posting articles from a literal fake news site in support of your entirely incorrect assertions, and instead...repeat the same incorrect assertion you got ridiculed for in the first place, whilst posting third hand quotes and links that don't actually validate your statement.

 

If CNN supports Antifa, you should have no difficulty in finding multiple articles on their own site in which they do so. Not guest editorials, articles written by permanent CNN employees.

 

Given your recent display of dishonesty, I'm not entertaining any further contributions by you in this thread until such a time as you provide "from the horse's mouth" evidence to support this assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat
Posted (edited)

You're right, should have posted the original source from Politico rather than a secondary source. Fixed it in the follow-up post. What's the BFD?

Also the Hill provides the video for the CNN stuff, again BFD?

Glad that clears everything up.


**EDIT** Appears that the Hill article had the video removed due to some sort of copyright protection. This is what happens when I don't have my flash turned on lol. Had a hard time finding a video, and this is the best I could come up with on quick notice. If anyone has a better quality vid plz let me know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koQlTbalQTE

**END EDIT**


There was a good series of articles from an actual journalist who was reporting on Antifa, and their backers, over at National Review.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/12/31/whose-streets-indeed/

Interesting detail on how many Democrat staffers and campaign officials joined in with the march:

"As the blackshirts marched through Portland on the evening of the 2018 midterm elections, Democratic-party workers and campaign flunkies wearing official IDs on lanyards around their necks stepped out of the Hilton and the other places where Democratic grandees gathered to watch the returns, pumping their fists and chanting along with Antifa, sometimes looking around at one another a little guiltily. Nice young well-scrubbed college-educated political professionals and volunteers cheering on a mob of masked terrorists explicitly committed to a campaign of political violence."


And here is a follow up on that report:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/kevin-williamson-antifa-movement-portland-cover-story/

and the money quote:

"The thing about places like Portland and San Francisco is that they aren’t nice. They have a reputation for being wooly and hippieish and silly, but they are in fact very angry places, full of very angry people. They are also highly segregated places in ways that the South and Southwest really aren’t. Angry white people with money make the world go ’round, apparently."

Isn't that the truth.

So you have two CNN personalities voicing their support for Antifa and members of the Democrat Party marching with them. That's pretty clear from their words and deeds. Trying to obscure that fact is foolhardy.

Edited by Spaghetti Cat
Additional info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
27 minutes ago, Spaghetti Cat said:

You're right, should have posted the original source

But you still haven't posted the "original source". That would be CNN, which you haven't cited once.

If you want to claim that CNN "supports antifa", you need to post some actual evidence from CNN indicating such support.

Not third- and fourth-hand bits from Politico and The National Review, none of which actually support this assertion.

 

27 minutes ago, Spaghetti Cat said:

There was a good series of articles from an actual journalist who was reporting on Antifa, and their backers, over at National Review.

Strongly Conservative-aligned magazine editorialising, without any actual proof, about how "Democrat staffers" cheering on Antifa?
No mention of CNN in either article? A first one that doesn't even exist?

 

27 minutes ago, Spaghetti Cat said:

That's pretty clear from their words and deeds.

Hardly. The fact you're relying on editorials from right-wing publications and misrepresenting people's comments to make your arguments shows you have no actual evidence to support your claims, other than simply parroting right wing dogma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

Please see the edit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

The progressive mainstream as you could call them, don't really actively support Antifa. But their lack of condemnation of Antifa, compared to the strong condemnation they have of anything far right, is a soft support. They seem to have a tolerance of Antifa, and intolerant leftism more generally. They don't condemn it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
19 minutes ago, Spaghetti Cat said:

Please see the edit.

Which, even if it were a defence of Antifa specifically (which it isn't, by the way), still wouldn't support the assertion that CNN as a platform supports Antifa. It is, after all, an op-ed- the very thing you've already claimed isn't tantamount to journalism when performed by right-wing figures you support.

 

You're going to have to do a lot better than that.

 

Whose the other CNN figure you're purporting to have voiced their views anyway? The only other person you've quoted, Kevin Williamson, is employed by The National Enquirer. Those are his words; not a CNN employees 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel
11 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

The progressive mainstream as you could call them, don't really actively support Antifa. But their lack of condemnation of Antifa, compared to the strong condemnation they have of anything far right, is a soft support.

Maybe because far-right groups tend to kill people and there are real far-right terrorist groups in the US. Antifa is essentially a response to them, and as such they're fundamentally a defensive organization rather than an offensive one. Their main goal is to disrupt far-right activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
Posted (edited)

It's antiliberal to give soft support to aggressive thugs that vandalize, intimidate and attack ideological opponents. In a liberal state you don't curb ideological opponents by intimidating them, but by winning over the public and having faith in the democratic process.

 

Consider the fact that Trump condemning both sides at Charlottesville was interpreted as support for the far right, though anyone who considers themselves a supporter of the constitution and classically liberal ideas should condemn both the far right and the radical left.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
31 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

It's antiliberal to give soft support to aggressive thugs that vandalize, intimidate and attack ideological opponents. 

You're conflating a lack of impact/caring for soft support, though. Whilst I don't doubt there are some people who actively support violence against the far right, I think it's fairer to say the vast majority simply don't care. It has no effect on me. It does not impede the democratic rights of anyone or anything I care about. Some Nazis getting the sh*t kicked out of them is below cats getting stuck in trees in the list of things I care about. 

 

I'm not going to get indignant about the rights of white supremacists to espouse their violent ideology because I don't believe that unlimited free speech is an inalienable right in the first place. And frankly nor does anyone else- even people who claim to. They just set the bar somewhere else.

 

41 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

Consider the fact that Trump condemning both sides at Charlottesville was interpreted as support for the far right

I think that had more to do with his apologism for a group of people that literally murdered someone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, sivispacem said:

You're conflating a lack of impact/caring for soft support, though. Whilst I don't doubt there are some people who actively support violence against the far right, I think it's fairer to say the vast majority simply don't care. It has no effect on me. It does not impede the democratic rights of anyone or anything I care about. Some Nazis getting the sh*t kicked out of them is below cats getting stuck in trees in the list of things I care about. 

Either the constitution applies to everyone, or only to people you sympathize with to the right extent (so not). Intimidation by regressive leftists doesn't just apply to Nazis, but also to people wearing maga hats, Trump supporters more generally, conservatives more generally like Ben Shapiro, or pseudoconservatives like JBP. The type of vile intimidation that is practised is no way to conduct a democratic process in a free society and should be condemned by anyone with a spine and a modicum of moral principles. And a large share of the mainstream doesn't condemn but either actively sympathizes or refuses to criticize antiliberal behavior coming from the left.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel
1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

It's antiliberal to give soft support to aggressive thugs that vandalize, intimidate and attack ideological opponents. In a liberal state you don't curb ideological opponents by intimidating them, but by winning over the public and having faith in the democratic process.

 

Consider the fact that Trump condemning both sides at Charlottesville was interpreted as support for the far right, though anyone who considers themselves a supporter of the constitution and classically liberal ideas should condemn both the far right and the radical left.

Trump didn't want to condemn his base. Even after they murdered someone. It wasn't a "soft support". No one who paid attention expected Trump to attack racists and Neo-Nazis. He's that obvious. Ignoring Antifa in the media has more to do with the fact that they're simply not interesting enough or scary. Giving them more credit than they deserve would be fearmongering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

Either the constitution applies to everyone, or only to people you sympathize with to the right extent (so not). 

I'm not claiming neo-Nazis don't have a right to free speech in the US, I'm staring I don't care if they get attacked for it, the same way I don't care if people graffiti trains, squat in abandoned buildings or hold raves in the woods. 

 

I don't personally believe that anyone should have the right to broadcast an either implicitly or explicitly violent ideology, under which I would include white supremacism and white nationalism as well as neo-Nazism. By the same token, I don't think that Antifa or the black blocs have any right to, or excuse for, attacking people regardless of how vile the ideology they support. I just don't really care when it happens.

 

1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

The type of vile intimidation that is practised is no way to conduct a democratic process in a free society

I'm ambivalent. Neo-Nazis and white supremacists, by the very nature of their views, don't want to be part of a free society with democratic processes. Nor do many subversive individuals involved with black bloc type disorder. In one sense, the two of them duking it out gives me no greater emotional feelings than some idle amusement at the footage. Neither are really part of the societal systems you refer to.

 

I do agree that harassment and intimidation of people with views that don't amount to "smash the state and replace it with (whites-only fascism/no centralised government, delete as appropriate)" is reprehensible, but it's hardly isolated to these two groups, and pretending it's solely an Antifa phenomenon rather than simply a reflection of the general state of political discourse in the West strikes me as either misguided or intentionally misleading.

 

That said, if you put a gun to my head and asked me to choose between a bunch of thugs trashing shopfronts, vandalising cars and throwing bottles at the police, and a bunch of thugs shooting up African-American churches, murdering politicians and planning massacres in gay clubs, give me the bottle-throwers every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hayduke
On 1/2/2019 at 10:15 PM, Eutyphro said:

The progressive mainstream as you could call them, don't really actively support Antifa. But their lack of condemnation of Antifa, compared to the strong condemnation they have of anything far right, is a soft support. They seem to have a tolerance of Antifa, and intolerant leftism more generally. They don't condemn it.

Not condemning a group that opposes fascism? What a bunch of bastards!

 

The mainstream media does condemn antifa by the way, and as a totally separate point if this has not been mentioned, 'antifa' isn't a specific group with a organised set of ideologies, it is a banner term opposing fascism. If you think that is a bad thing then you probably need your priorities straightening out. As for 'antifa' damaging property well f*ck private property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Hayduke said:

Not condemning a group that opposes fascism? What a bunch of bastards!

 

The mainstream media does condemn antifa by the way, and as a totally separate point if this has not been mentioned, 'antifa' isn't a specific group with a organised set of ideologies, it is a banner term opposing fascism. If you think that is a bad thing then you probably need your priorities straightening out. As for 'antifa' damaging property well f*ck private property.

Repeating the same old boring cliches, failing to engage with counterargumentation, and general immature nonsense, doesn't really move the discussion further.

As for Sivis reply, I think it has some plausible arguments, but it also misses the point that intolerant leftists such as Antifa don't merely intimidate Nazis, but many types of right wing and conservative groups/pundits, and that many of the mainstream media conglomerates quite generally have no interest in condemning intolerant leftists, or framing intolerant leftism as a significant recurring societal problem in their reporting, which it clearly is.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel
3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

or framing intolerant leftism as a significant recurring societal problem in their reporting, which it clearly is.

No it isn't. And it hasn't been for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
5 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

...it also misses the point that intolerant leftists such as Antifa don't merely intimidate Nazis, but many types of right wing and conservative groups

I don't think this is anywhere near as common as you seem to suggest. The significant rally's and events that have seen direct action from Antifa have almost universally been neo-Nazi or white supremacist.

 

Are you trying to suggest that Antifa, as a movement, routinely physically harass general Republican or Conservative aligned political events? If so, what's your evidence? Or is this about something else entirely, like the virtual harassment which is basically the norm for pretty much any prominent figure or vocal representative of any point of view at all on social media?

 

5 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

many of the mainstream media conglomerates quite generally have no interest in condemning intolerant leftists

Why would they? Their readership and viewership are at least as disinterested as I am; they have far better things to be waisting word count or airtime on-site things their consumers actually care about.

 

It's akin to accusing Muslims who don't expressly, automatically and without prompting condemn whatever Salafist terrorists attack happens in some far flung part of the world of being "complicit".

 

Assuming complicity from indifference is a dangerous position to maintain- I'm sure I can think of a whole raft of things you've never expressly condemned that I can, by your logic l, accuse you of providing "soft support" for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hayduke
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

Repeating the same old boring cliches, failing to engage with counterargumentation, and general immature nonsense, doesn't really move the discussion further.

As for Sivis reply, I think it has some plausible arguments, but it also misses the point that intolerant leftists such as Antifa don't merely intimidate Nazis, but many types of right wing and conservative groups/pundits, and that many of the mainstream media conglomerates quite generally have no interest in condemning intolerant leftists, or framing intolerant leftism as a significant recurring societal problem in their reporting, which it clearly is.

Frankly my man, there's nothing of what you've said to discuss. You are repeatedly making blatantly incorrect assertions. I don't know what is cliché about stating an anti-fascist group are anti-fascist but in any case I'd rather speak in clichés than utter falsehoods. I mean you're making a suggestion that neoliberal media corporations would for some bizarre reason be implicitly supporting a lose collective with ties to anti-capitalist movements so I hope you don't find it too hyperbolic to suggest that your ardent attacks on an anti-fascist movement are signs of tacit support for fascism. It certainly is if you think that there is equal criticism to be given in what happened in Charlottesville. Defending people from fascists is not the same as murdering people because you are a fascist. 

 

Anyway blah blah yes there is a neoliberal bias in the media because capitalism is an ideology pushed by people in power, not the natural state of things and extensive studies have reviewed the role of media as a propaganda tool for the state and authority in general something something Chomsky

 

Addendum: there are practically no 'leftists' in mainstream society what a ridiculous claim there is not a leftist in the Whitehouse causing a rampant rollback on the mediocre social and economic progress of the country, Brazil didn't vote in a  radical leftist, they voted in a fascist whose first policy allows the direct genocide of indigenous people, leftists didn't plot a coup of the neoliberal structure of the European Union in  order to gain more power for  corporations and private entities, at the same time weakening rights for individuals. The only significant recurring social problem is the rebirth of fascism in the world and the cryptofascists such as yourself who support it.

 

 

also there's no such thing as intimidating a nazi but even if there were the notion that it is a bad thing is maddening to consider.

Edited by Hayduke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi
10 hours ago, Hayduke said:

As for 'antifa' damaging property well f*ck private property.

And that's where you lose me and most everyone else. You'll be hard pressed to find someone outside of far right circles who will lose a night of sleep over a nazi getting punched in the face, but looting, vandalising and burning down random shops and cars of people who have f*ck-all to do with whatever far right event is ongoing - just because "f*ck private property waaaawaaa" is where "anti-facist movement with some semblance of legitimacy" becomes little more than violent mob of criminal scum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel
2 hours ago, Raavi said:

And that's where you lose me and most everyone else.

Speak for yourself. I love it when thugs break my expensive sh*t. Can't get enough of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango
On 1/3/2019 at 10:57 PM, Eutyphro said:

And a large share of the mainstream doesn't condemn but either actively sympathizes or refuses to criticize antiliberal behavior coming from the left.

Because liberalism for most people is just about apologising for business and upholding vague norms of civility. Your 'liberalism' (if it even rises to that level) is just about heckling the left and they don't know about your weird Jordan Peterson narrative where feminism is a collectivist KGB plot to emasculate the Western man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

It's been two years of the same points brought up tirelessly by the same few people. Spaghetti Cat asserts that antifa is some sort of militant wing of the Democratic party and/or the secret army of George Soros--and fully supported by CNN--Euty continues to handwring over 'free speech' and the poor 'conservatives' victimized by 'violent leftists' bent on world destruction, while Raavi bemoans the destruction of property, an institution so sacred that anyone who challenges it is a thug and 'criminal scum' (by the Nine Divines). Each of these points have been addressed thoroughly throughout several different threads. Keep chasing your tails y'all. Maybe 2 years from now someone will bring up something new to address in a different thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
Posted (edited)
On 1/4/2019 at 5:35 PM, sivispacem said:

Are you trying to suggest that Antifa, as a movement, routinely physically harass general Republican or Conservative aligned political events? If so, what's your evidence?

They do. They routinely disrupt and physically harass people at events like Carl Benjamin speaking on campus, Milo speeking on campus, Gavin Mcinnes speakig on campus, Charles Murray speaking (one of the authors of the Bell Curve), Ben Shapiro speaking, Heather Mac Donald speaking, the inauguration of Trump... These are some I can remember from the top of my head, but virtually any conservative with regular speaking events will face far left intimidation, often by Antifa. Remember that none of the people mentioned are Nazis.

 

On 1/4/2019 at 7:18 PM, Hayduke said:

so I hope you don't find it too hyperbolic to suggest that your ardent attacks on an anti-fascist movement are signs of tacit support for fascism.

Because you're actually gullible and dumb enough to think that the only way to oppose fascism is by embracing nihilist black clad revolutionary communist/anarchist thugs. And if you oppose these degenerates then you must actually love Hitler.

As for the rest of what you posted, it is an incoherent rant that has nothing to do with my posts, but projects your petty frustrations and confusion onto me to then slur me as a 'cryptofascist' in absence of convincing arguments. And we see intolerant leftists do this all the time, resort to slurs in absence of convincing arguments. The amount of triggered responses once more aimed at me over some very simple disagreements confirms my point about the societal problem of intolerant leftism.

 

21 hours ago, Clem Fandango said:

Because liberalism for most people is just about apologising for business and upholding vague norms of civility..

Yes, true. The upholding of vague norms of civility leads to an embrace of political correctness, and the embrace of political correctness makes liberal elites susceptible to moral blackmail by antiliberal radical leftists.
 

Quote

Your 'liberalism' (if it even rises to that level) is just about heckling the left and they don't know about your weird Jordan Peterson narrative where feminism is a collectivist KGB plot to emasculate the Western man.

lol

Edited by Eutyphro
I was too bored by the incoherent rant Hayduke posted so had to later edit in a more complete reply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
27 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

They routinely disrupt and physically harass people at events like Carl Benjamin speaking on campus, Milo speeking on campus, Gavin Mcinnes speakig on campus, Charles Murray speaking (one of the authors of the Bell Curve), Ben Shapiro speaking, Heather Mac Donald speaking, the inauguration of Trump..

Sounds to me like you're misrepresenting some of the above as violent when, if you're referring to the Berkeley incidents, they by and large weren't. Case in point- Ben Shapiro speaking, where the only rally which took place was off-campus and peaceful. In fact, the majority of the Berkeley incidents through 2017, which is what you seem to be primarily alluding to here, comprised non-violent action that took place away from where people were speaking. Across 10 days' worth of events from February to late-September, only two- Milo's speech on the 1st Feb and the August 27th Rally Against Hate- saw any notable disturbances. Where disruption did occur outside of this, it was usually at unsanctioned events like the March 4 Trump, and instigated by both sides. Also, given that Kyle Chapman organised much of the right-wing activity at Berkeley, I don't really think it's reasonable to assert there are no Nazi links to these rallys, even if the actual people speaking are not themselves Nazis. 

 

Though those you've named above aren't explicitly white supremacist of neo-Nazi, they are all prominent far-right figures and much of their audience is.

 

27 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

virtually any conservative with regular speaking events will face far left intimidation, often by Antifa.

I don't think a few cherry-picked examples from prominent activity like Berkeley, which was nearly two years ago now, is anywhere near good enough evidence to support this assertion.

A few alt-right figures are hardly representative of the entire demography of right-wing speakers.

 

How many universities are there in the US? nearly 2,500 4-year colleges.

How many of them will have regular (at least 3-monthly) political speaking engagements? I daresay a fairly high proportion. 

How many of these will be conducted by Conservative figures? Maybe 30% at an absolute minimum.

 

That's a lot of political discourse that's uninterrupted by protest.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Conservative figures who aren't substantively aligned with the far right/alt-right movement- and that's the overwhelming majority of them- receive effectively no "disruption or harassment".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
On 1/4/2019 at 5:35 PM, sivispacem said:

I don't think this is anywhere near as common as you seem to suggest. The significant rally's and events that have seen direct action from Antifa have almost universally been neo-Nazi or white supremacist.

 

9 hours ago, sivispacem said:

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Conservative figures who aren't substantively aligned with the far right/alt-right movement- and that's the overwhelming majority of them- receive effectively no "disruption or harassment".

You see how you are practically moving the goalposts of the discussion? You're suddenly deeming a whole range of people far right or fascist now to fix your previous claim, but it's silly. Ultimately I don't care if you sympathize with Antifa and general intolerant leftism in the culture war against people you don't like. The reason I kept on being forced to respond was because of the continuing agitated badly argued idiotic posts aimed at me.

What were we debating? Spaghetti Cat argued CNN has a policy to side with Antifa. I think this is very unlikely to actually be true, but I do think CNN and other mainstream media conglomerates that are not Fox have a tendency to not be as harsh on intolerant leftism in their reporting, ranging from Antifa to other intolerant leftists routinely trying to deplatform conservatives, as they are on the far right. The radical left can do no wrong because they can morally blackmail any liberal opposing them and call them 'cryptofascist' or whatever term for bigot you might imagine. The CNN side of the mainstream doesn't side with liberal conservatives over illiberal intimidation by radical leftists, because intolerant leftism seems to be a useful tool for its agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
25 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

You see how you are practically moving the goalposts of the discussion?

I'm not at all. The statement that Antifa have been massively more active in disrupting neo-Nazi and white supremacist rallies than they have general "Conservative" aligned events is entirely true. I would also argue that the alt-right movement is intrinsically white supremacist- which, let's be honest, it is. The term "alt-right" was literally created by Richard Spencer to try to artificially distance his "white nationalist" movement from pejorative terms like neo-Nazism and white supremacism. Even though it consists of the same individuals and groups.

 

The actual comment you quoted was directly responding to this statement:

 

10 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

virtually any conservative with regular speaking events will face far left intimidation

Which, aside from a few cherry-picked examples of people who are ait- or far-right, doesn't appear to have any evidence supporting it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

I think some people were debating semantics (Organization vs Activities or support from opinion makers vs newscasters) rather than addressing the real issue at hand. My original comment was something offhand, and I only wanted to clarify and back-up my opinions on the matter. It gets into the weeds a bit, and may be better off in a separate thread, would agree with that. Having said that, I stand proud as one of the few members here that actively points out the violent tactics coming from the left, and this group in particular. Providing actual reporting to back up those statements.


So, if you guys don't mind, I'd like to circle back and update a previous post: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jones-russia.html?module=inline

Quick re-cap:

"The project’s operators created a Facebook page on which they posed as conservative Alabamians, using it to try to divide Republicans and even to endorse a write-in candidate to draw votes from Mr. Moore. It involved a scheme to link the Moore campaign to thousands of Russian accounts that suddenly began following the Republican candidate on Twitter, a development that drew national media attention.

We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet,” the report says."


Turns out there was more going on with this story than previously reported. The reporter who covered this story actually had the info much earlier, back in September, and kept quiet. Buzzfeed continues...

"Last week the New York Times revealed that money from tech billionaire Reid Hoffman was used to run a small disinformation “experiment” aimed at helping Democrat Doug Jones win last year’s Alabama special Senate election. That resulted in Facebook suspending five accounts and Hoffman issuing an apology.

But left unmentioned in the Times story was that one of its authors learned about the Alabama campaign when he spoke at an off-the-record meeting organized by the same group who ran the operation. A copy of a confidential report about the Alabama effort, obtained by BuzzFeed News, raises new questions about whether the project was — as the Times said — an “experiment,” or whether it was a straightforward Democratic attempt to replicate the model of the Russian Internet Research Agency.

Scott Shane a Pulitzer Prize–winning New York Times national security reporter, was one of a handful of speakers at a meeting held in Washington in early September by American Engagement Technologies...run by Mikey Dickerson, who previously served in the Obama administration. The organization received $750,000 in funding that originated with Hoffman and spent approximately $100,000 of that on what was dubbed “Project Birmingham.

The report provided to Shane and others at the meeting boasts of the campaign’s effectiveness and positions itself as a serious effort to influence 650,000 Alabama voters. It does not use the word “experiment” to describe the effort.

BuzzFeed News obtained a copy of the report from a source who provided it on the condition that it not be republished in full.

The Birmingham Project report states that between September and December of 2017 the group “ran a digital messaging operation to influence the outcome of the AL senate race.” It claims the effort contributed to high Democratic turnout and a drop in Republican turnout, and says that it “drove write-in votes to a number of candidates.” On one page it says its “sustained targeting” of Republican voters “had enormous effect” on turnout.

The report also takes credit for what it calls a “false flag” operation that involved drawing attention to the fact that Roy Moore’s Twitter account was followed and amplified by thousands of Russian bots. Project Birmingham “tied that botnet to the Moore campaign digital director, making it appear as if he had purchased the accounts,” according to the report.

Shane said he was “shocked” when he watched Dickerson and Hudson detail the operation back in September.

“It was a little breathtaking to hear this was going on in the States, carried out by Americans,” he said."

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/alabama-dirty-tricksters-invited-a-new-york-times-reporter

So here is a good question, how many of you have heard of this operation to sway an election? Sure there are plenty of stories on Trump-Russian collusion, but how about this?


On a side note:

trumpnytfakenewsjimwebb.jpg

Mr. President, with respect, I believe that Mr. Webb would be an excellent choice for SecDef. He was the only Dem Candidate in '16 that I could have voted for. Please take a second look, if nothing else than for the bipartisanship it would offer. He's a good man for the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Spaghetti Cat said:

I think some people were debating semantics

Oh my lord, the irony.

 

How is anyone supposed to take you seriously on this subject when you can't tell the difference between what's real and what's fake? You posted literal fake news websites thinking that they support your arguments. Do you think that you can just get past that like it never happened? That's a big fat nope, I'm afraid.

 

45 minutes ago, Spaghetti Cat said:

Mr. President, with respect, I believe that Mr. Webb would be an excellent choice for SecDef. He was the only Dem Candidate in '16 that I could have voted for. Please take a second look, if nothing else than for the bipartisanship it would offer. He's a good man for the job.

I don't think he posts here. Try the Online section. It's full of morons.

Edited by DareYokel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

After I was done laughing at Spaghetti asserting he'd probably evidenced his claims when he'd absolutely failed to do so, I tried to figure out what was going on with the rest of the post and I'm still totally at a loss.

 

Putting aside the unknown provenance of the report it cites (and unknown content, and unknown author), the apparent disagreement between the NYT and BuzzFeed on the scope and intent based on the same report (?) I don't see anything resembling a coherent explanation of what was even done or the numbers of people direct affected. Even something as basic in determining impact and reach as the number of members the Facebook group had is absent.

 

It's not like BuzzFeed is a paragon of coherent and well informed journalism. I've got no specific view either way on the veracity of that particular piece of reporting simply because I don't think there's even close to enough support evidence actually published to draw any kind of meaningful conclusion.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was true, though. This kind of thing is becoming the new normal for all sides of the political spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

...and the hits keep coming hot and heavy. ANOTHER False Flag "experiment" in the Alabama Race:

"In fact, the Dry Alabama campaign, not previously reported, was the stealth creation of progressive Democrats who were out to defeat Mr. Moore — the second such secret effort to be unmasked. In a political bank shot made in the last two weeks of the campaign, they thought associating Mr. Moore with calls for a statewide alcohol ban would hurt him with moderate, business-oriented Republicans and assist the Democrat, Doug Jones, who won the special election by a hair-thin margin."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/politics/alabama-senate-facebook-roy-moore.html?emc=edit_nn_p_20190107&nl=morning-briefing&nlid=61281955section%3DwhatElse&section=whatElse&te=1


All folded under an umbrella group called Project Birmingham. This from the Post:

"What is known about Project Birmingham comes mainly from the 12-page document labeled “Project Birmingham Debrief,” which was obtained by The Post. It is dated Dec. 15, 2017, three days after the Alabama vote.

The document describes the effort as “a digital messaging operation to influence the outcome of the AL senate race” by targeting 650,000 likely voters with messages on social media platforms such as Facebook, while obscuring the fact that the messages were coming from an effort backing Jones. Jones has said he had no knowledge of Project Birmingham and has called for a federal investigation.

The goal of the effort was to “radicalize Democrats, suppress unpersuadable Republicans (“hard Rs”) and faction moderate Republicans by advocating for write-in candidates,” the document states.

The document also makes bold but unverified claims about the effects of the operation, saying that it provided the decisive margin in an election decided by fewer than 22,000 voters — moving “enough votes to ensure a Doug Jones victory.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/secret-campaign-to-use-russian-inspired-tactics-in-2017-alabama-election-stirs-anxiety-for-democrats/2019/01/06/58803f26-0400-11e9-8186-4ec26a485713_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.496b3daa85b2


Well how about that. So what does a Fake News operation look like? Project Birmingham stirs the waters with the false flag operation claiming Roy Moore was colluding with the Russians (sound familiar?) Then its off to the races. First the local angle:

Russian Invasion? Roy Moore sees spike in Twitter followers from land of Putin. Claimed the Montgomery Advertiser

https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/politics/southunionstreet/2017/10/16/roy-moores-twitter-account-gets-influx-russian-language-followers/768758001/

Then it goes National, this from the Post:

Roy More blames Democrats for fake Twitter followers (He was right wasn't he?)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/10/16/roy-moores-senate-campaign-gets-twitter-to-delete-thousands-of-fake-followers/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.61e6fd6c7510


All of this was financed by Reid Hoffman to the tune of $100,000, the same amount the Russians allegedly used in the 2016 campaign, to a company called New Knowledge. They were the ones sending out the fake accounts.

Buried deep in the Post report is this little nugget:

Hoffman gave $750,000 to a progressive technology start-up called American Engagement Technologies — founded by Mikey Dickerson, a former Obama administration official — that aimed to help Democrats, according to a person familiar with the finances who spoke on the condition of anonymity. This person said Dickerson used $100,000 of that to hire New Knowledge, a Texas-based social media research firm, to work in Alabama in support of Jones during the special election in December 2017.

Dickerson — who is best known for leading the effort to fix HealthCare.gov, the glitchy portal for President Barack Obama’s signature health-care initiative — said in a statement to The Post that he learned of the extent of Project Birmingham only months after it was complete, when he received a report on the operation.

“I received the report in early 2018, which is when I first learned about the false flag and write-in tactics,” Dickerson said in his statement, his first public comment on the controversy.

That report, he said, came from New Knowledge, a company known mainly for its efforts to investigate online disinformation. More recently, it co-authored a report last month on Russian disinformation for the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Well how about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel
Posted (edited)

Of all the hills you could have chosen to die on, I didn't think that defending a pedophile would be the one. But I've learned to expect both moral and intellectual vacuousness from Trump supporters.

Edited by DareYokel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.