Jump to content

This past weekend I learned


pyrohornIII

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Assuming you weren't in the thread, that's pretty much what happened.  Dumb but balanced article about UT and Bama fielding "the best teams money can buy" that goes into their respective use of NIL (as if 3 of the 4 teams they discussed aren't the bluest of bloods or anything).  Some poster says NYT sucks, not reading that (sensitive #1).  Then NYT stans come in football board negging posters (sensitive #2, 3,4)  Then back and forth (snowflakes abound on new years!!!!1!)    Second thread gets created about it days later to call other side snowflakes.  Fin. 

The point is, that board has spoken loud and clear there is a super fucking thin line on what it will take accept in terms of political posting.  The football board feel CR about how 9.95 feels about the football board.   Notwelcomehere.forrest.gif

This is a good summation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Don’t forget, he’s the same dude that made a sock account to go back and pos rep his own posts that were negged by other people.  Internet rep is serious business for him.

I missed that or lost interest too quickly.  Completely tracks though.  Funny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Don’t forget, he’s the same dude that made a sock account to go back and pos rep his own posts that were negged by other people.  Internet rep is serious business for him.

tenor(5).gif.50118ca57bb835eab4c84e8414f5d7e7.gif

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you've been here a while, are a good poster, people enjoy your content and generally like you, mean old Penelope and the negger brigade shouldn't make a shit. but you also have to not be a big giant baby.

if you haven't participated enough or earned enough posrep bc you suck and keep getting banned and have to start over, or generally make people dislike you, maybe quit being a shitty poster.

 

tenor (11).gif

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

literally pulling stuff from Russian sources and trying to post it as news (well, one

Not him. I'm referring to what is happening in the House. How long would blacklab let a discussion of the useful idiots holding up aid to proceed? If there's a stark difference between how we view Russia it's within the Republican party. Mearsheimer didn't change. The party of Reagan did.

None of that discussion happens in DT. Because it's going to get messy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

If you think fox news and NYT are in the same realm of journalism, then you need to disengage from the #bothsides machine. Fox owes over a BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS for libel and defamation, by jury verdict, that's been upheld across multiple appeals. And they're staring down the barrel of billions MORE in judgements. 

 

You're on a completely different plane of existence to equivocate the two. 

I wouldn't give af if both were Thanos'd tomorrow.  I used Fox as the example from the right.  You can convince yourself however you want to feel better about what the political bent and readership of the NYT is.  I couldn't care what conclusion you draw from that exercise either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well at least the fascist sympathizers are honest that they don't give a shit about empirical fact and a history of fucking lying to prop up a fascist coup attempt. 

Look, NYT sucks dick. They have been at the heart of many yellow journalism incidents, and frequently "sell their soul" for access to power. Maga Haberman sends her regards and all that.

However, fact still remains, fox is an instrument of the fascist movement. Using fox as a totem to equivocate ALL media as bald face fucking liars is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

I wouldn't give af if both were Thanos'd tomorrow.  I used Fox as the example from the right.  You can convince yourself however you want to feel better about what the political bent and readership of the NYT is.  I couldn't care what conclusion you draw from that exercise either. 

Good lord, the NYT is not even remotely a left wing publication.   How fucking old are you?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Let me guess. Another former republican who still doesn't like to be called a Democrat?  

I've never been a Republican.

I've never been a Democrat.

You, however, are too easily duped to be allowed a vote.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright y'all proved it.  The NYT is a centrist rag.  

That's why Penelope, the centrist and other surly ( self diagnosed)centrists are jumping out there to defend its centricity.

Never stop.  Please.

and to be fair, I'd put FoxNews way the fuck farther to the right.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, slorch said:

Alright y'all proved it.  The NYT is a centrist rag.  

That's why Penelope, the centrist and other surly ( self diagnosed)centrists are jumping out there to defend its centricity.

Never stop.  Please.

and to be fair, I'd put FoxNews way the fuck farther to the right.

Not gonna answer my question huh

Edited by G650
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really doubt there would be this much acrimony towards NYT if trump had not targeted them so relentlessly. Because genuinely, I haven't heard a single addressable complaint aside from the usual "well they're just a RAG, ok??? MANY PEOPLE ARE SAYING!!"

If y'all had something more than boohoo victimhood it would be much more interesting 

Edited by Captainant
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, slorch said:

Alright y'all proved it.  The NYT is a centrist rag.  

That's why Penelope, the centrist and other surly ( self diagnosed)centrists are jumping out there to defend its centricity.

Never stop.  Please.

Never said it was centrist, and you're still missing the point. The point was that it was openly attacked, dismissed, and vilified on the FOOTBALL BOARD solely on the false notion that it's some out-of-the-mainstream, leftist publication worthy of scorn.

There is a shit-ton of conservatives who allow their politics to infect benign topics and who never dare allow their privileged opinions to be challenged either in here. They just assume that everyone agrees with them; hence, the Overton Window. They don't know how reactionary they actually are.

I understand I'm a liberal, and I've never hesitated to post my results from the political spectrum grid. And I've seen plenty of liberals do the same. But I haven't seen hardly any of this board's conservatives post their results (you're one of the few who ever did). Maybe THEY'RE the ones who were ashamed to show themselves as far-right authoritarians.

Edit: If you need a refresher on seeing who was actually willing to post their results:

https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/topic/11802-the-political-compass-thread/

 

Edited by bolverk
Too bad we can't go back and see the original results from Shaggy.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

I wouldn't give af if both were Thanos'd tomorrow.  I used Fox as the example from the right.  You can convince yourself however you want to feel better about what the political bent and readership of the NYT is.  I couldn't care what conclusion you draw from that exercise either. 

And what national newspaper would you recommend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

And what national newspaper would you recommend?

There is no singular paper, or media source for that matter. The only way to consume information is by following specific journalists who are credible, and constantly reevaluating their credibility. Every news source is going to have legitimate people as well as clowns

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recommend reading The Economist, in paper form and carrying it with you.  Then asking people if they have seen the latest article in The Economist (doesn’t matter what the topic is). 
 

If you are in Miami you can substitute The Financial Times. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, there is none unilaterally the best.  I like Wapo but can’t get it in my remote place.  So I do read the NYT every morning.  Yes, it’s lib in the New York sense, but it is not rife with false bullshit.   Not at all.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

Sure, there is none unilaterally the best.  I like Wapo but can’t get it in my remote place.  So I do read the NYT every morning.  Yes, it’s lib in the New York sense, but it is not rife with false bullshit.   Not at all.

I'm not saying it is, but you can't just credulously read something because it's in a particular paper. Saying it's in the NYT or WaPo doesn't mean anything

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Don’t forget, he’s the same dude that made a sock account to go back and pos rep his own posts that were negged by other people.  Internet rep is serious business for him.

That was a demonstration of the ‘value of rep’ assigned by others. They said it was pretend internet points, until all of the sudden it wasn’t. Then they lost their shit while suggesting I might be mentally ill- go back and read the thread- it’s ridiculously stupid. The exercise resonated mightily, as you still remember it…but it’s worthless internet points. 
Again, I take a neg as a confirmation of triggering happening, not an indictment of the post. It’s a reason I don’t feel the need to use them  

Carry on.

 

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the economist, WSJ, and the Guardian. BBC because they track places a lot won't. Another good one is AFP. Also, read Al Jazeera. Know they might have a slant, but if you want another perspective they do offer one.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Read the economist, WSJ, and the Guardian. BBC because they track places a lot won't. Another good one is AFP. Also, read Al Jazeera. Know they might have a slant, but if you want another perspective they do offer one.

Yeah, stick to this area for reliable reporting, and I think you generally should be safe from bias accusations (at least from any rational or objective person). 

image.png.0a8b134ea8b6ddb771e4b4a75840fd34.png

 

The interactive version shows many more websites, publications, and TV stations.

https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/

Edited by bolverk
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, G650 said:

I'm not saying it is, but you can't just credulously read something because it's in a particular paper. Saying it's in the NYT or WaPo doesn't mean anything

Agreed.  My language was shorthand for I have a lot of experience with both papers.  What I read is based on, well, decades of experience.  Didn’t use to matter, unti the RWmedia machine reached full tilt.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Yeah, stick to this area for reliable reporting, and I think you generally should be safe from bias accusations (at least from any rational or objective person). 

image.png.0a8b134ea8b6ddb771e4b4a75840fd34.png

 

The interactive version shows many more websites, publications, and TV stations.

https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/

And I don’t care about accusations of bias, when they are uninformed.   I care about the content, what I think about it, not what others think.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, G650 said:

I'm not saying it is, but you can't just credulously read something because it's in a particular paper. Saying it's in the NYT or WaPo doesn't mean anything

Being WaPo or NYT doesn't mean it's golden, but it's also at least sourced reporting and not the "people are saying" bullshit. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

And I don’t care about accusations of bias, when they are uninformed.   I care about the content, what I think about it, not what others think.  

I agree about seeking quality content.

The problem is there are a lot of uninformed, misinformed, or brainwashed posters on this site. Recall that one primary reason this thread exists was the simple citation of the NYTimes for a piece about how NIL changes the nature of college football. The "content" of the article, no matter how accurate or how good the quality (it was decent), was getting drowned out by a gaggle of posters acting like complete dicks because they were triggered by the name of the publication.

This is a message board where we often have conversations about the content posters cite. We can't have good discussions if posters react the way that they did, because they hate the NYTimes for political reasons in the FOOTBALL section of the board. Unfortunately, they were largely successful in quashing any back-and-forth about the variations in how NIL is structured among the four football teams in the playoffs. 

But those idiots will be happy to discuss what a bunch of very biased sports analysts personalities blabber about for an hour on their YouTube channels. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect to the media, print or otherwise, one item often overlooked is the inability of readers to not only read the article from start to finish (we'll set aside critically for the time being) but most importantly to examine the article, whether print or online, to note: is this in the editorial or OPINION section versus the factual AP type news. While even the fact based news articles have a 'slant' to them (I.e sources cited but perhaps some sources 'ahem' omitted), there has been a decline in readers paying any attention whatsoever to whether an article is, in essence, the platform of someone whom the newsagent has allowed to publish under the aegis of free speech.

Regardless of an inherent 'slant' of a specific publication, the appearance in the opinion column does not necessarily give legitimacy and any reader with an education beyond the eighth grade ought to know this. Alas, points earned for the team or to confirm biases and rationalizations matter more than actually, you know, what the article truly conveys, which in some cases is just blathering nonsense. When one repeats that nonsense, then we have, you know, a whole lot of hot air.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, G650 said:

Why don't you explain how it's politics, using something besides "it just is"

Poster virtually never posts in a football thread.

Poster has known posting tactics in CR. She disagrees= neg.

Poster shows up to defend NYT, again, LOFL, but yeah, with 16 negs across a football thread in which pretty much nobody GAF about said tactics.

Absolutely political.  The pedantic bullshit asking how it could be politics is just hilarious.    You see what you want to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Captainant said:

If you think fox news and NYT are in the same realm of journalism, then you need to disengage from the #bothsides machine. Fox owes over a BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS for libel and defamation, by jury verdict, that's been upheld across multiple appeals. And they're staring down the barrel of billions MORE in judgements. 

 

You're on a completely different plane of existence to equivocate the two. 

Point of order.  The bolded is not true.  FN voluntarily paid that settlement, ostensibly because the jury verdict would have been worse.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, slorch said:

Poster virtually never posts in a football thread.

Poster has known posting tactics in CR. She disagrees= neg.

Poster shows up to defend NYT, again, LOFL, but yeah, with 16 negs across a football thread in which pretty much nobody GAF about said tactics.

Absolutely political.  The pedantic bullshit asking how it could be politics is just hilarious.    You see what you want to see.

Keep whining. I neg because I prefer to do that than actually engage idiots and trolls.  It's amazing how a big tough man like you is hurt by internet rep points. Jesus, get a life.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Keep whining. I neg because I prefer to do that than actually engage idiots and trolls.  It's amazing how a big tough man like you is hurt by internet rep points. Jesus, get a life.

 

I was simply answering the question from another poster.

Thank you for the confirmation of you being triggered, snowflake.

neg all you want.  It's who you are.  Political Princess.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

Not him. I'm referring to what is happening in the House. How long would blacklab let a discussion of the useful idiots holding up aid to proceed? If there's a stark difference between how we view Russia it's within the Republican party. Mearsheimer didn't change. The party of Reagan did.

None of that discussion happens in DT. Because it's going to get messy.

You misspelled political. Which is why that discussion doesn’t belong in the CR. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2024 at 7:05 PM, 956 Worldwide said:

My serious response to the “too big and diverse”, assuming I accept the reasoning (I don’t) is—- so what? What’s the alternative?  Let’s talk about how to address challenges inherent to governing a large, diverse nation. 
 

Do we want to talk about devolution and subsidiarity? Ok, let’s talk about that.

Or are we going to break up the country? Kick out all the “others.” Introduce the strong hand of authoritarianism? (Usually this is where this is going). Sorry but all those things are worse. “America is too big and diverse for democracy so let’s be autocratic” is a shit fucking take. 
 

image.thumb.jpeg.f37a5edad0748074c6232e5759b66d59.jpeg

I posted this in DT and joked that Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour is responsible for continued American economic primacy. It’s almost the truth though. 

In everything from human capital to physical plant to resources to institutions it is almost comical how advantaged the United States is over any nation on earth. Talking about American decline is absurd.

 The amount of wealth and power we have is simply incomparable. It is beyond me why we want to squander it and actively try to jettison our advantages.  I think too many of us got too comfortable and so silliness is a change of pace. 
 

Or since Biden took over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trumpers are nihilists. It’s not that they believe in nothing; they don’t believe in what exists.

Their point is they don’t have point. Their cult leader praises their lead-addled brains—so they worship him. They adore “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

They are the lumpen-proletariat; the dismal tide. They celebrate the end of our fragile republic and welcome an authoritarian state.

They shall not pass.

IMG_0962.webp.e5ef80ce464c3f2f229e2d72923450b6.webp

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, slorch said:

Poster virtually never posts in a football thread.

Poster has known posting tactics in CR. She disagrees= neg.

Poster shows up to defend NYT, again, LOFL, but yeah, with 16 negs across a football thread in which pretty much nobody GAF about said tactics.

Absolutely political.  The pedantic bullshit asking how it could be politics is just hilarious.    You see what you want to see.

Literally nothing you listed is "politics"

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...