PrivacyFollow

Weird and ultimately irrelevant place to start considering at no point did anyone say you start threads. Still, which is it? Do you read or watch things and just stay silent about them or do you not read and watch things because you feel they negatively influence your ability to come to your own opinion? Nice, you actually thought this red herring was your way out. Groovy. Your not creating threads doesn't absolve you of your constant and obvious repetition of talking points and absolutely hilarious transparency in your hypocrisy when it comes to your positions, nor does it somehow magic your flimsy stories trying to rationalize how you come to them. An easier pattern is your still trying to distract from your alleged pattern changing from media related to forum related. Pretty easy when there's a decade and a half worth of posts proving the charge. Hell, there's an example of you doing it yesterday. Of course ou don't need to, but you certainly are going out of your way to try. At the same time you really couldn't since the facts simply don't support your assertion that you're not a politically bias parrot with no real opinion of your own that is absolutely horrible at keeping his stories straight. You have a problem with people who cling to facts and truth. Not news. It's a statement of fact, not an argument. Kind of like how "water is wet" isn't an argument. But sure, it's such a "weak argument" that you had to ramble on and on about it. Not a hard pattern to spot.

No, I was responding to the media section of your pattern. Like I've mentioned multiple times now.

Funny. I see "media" at least twice and "posters here" at least zero times in that paragraph.



tl;dr: You're a liar and a douche.

I didn't ask about the forums. I asked about the media portion of your statement.

Oh. And let me be absolutely clear. When I use the word "media", I'm not just referring to news sources. Media is any method in which information travels. That could be social media. It could be news media. It could be entertainment media. And yeah, it can even include forums like this one (although perhaps more active).

It can also be in a form that isn't someone directly telling you about something, but merely using dialog (or even subject matter choice) to project an opinion or position on some social or political issue. This can be a subtle but effective way of influencing people's opinions. Did anyone notice in Agent's of Shield this week, Coulson's labeling of the evil Hydra controlled government's propaganda as "alternative facts"? I wonder why they chose to put that line is his dialogue? I'm sure there's no ulterior motivation at all. Also not surprising that they failed to label it "fake news", right? Oh wait. It's not surprising. This happens all the time. Most of you are probably not aware of it, and if it happens to align with your own personal belief and narrative, laugh at it and move on, happy in the warm glow of positive validation from your TV set.

BTW, this is the kind of stuff that infuriates conservatives. The constant drumbeat of inserted digs at conservative positions, ideology, and public figures in all manner of media around us is like nails on a chalkboard. When you wonder why we keep calling the media biased, this is just one small part of the problem. It's not just a little bit skewed, it's massively skewed. And if you wonder why we're so alarmed when liberals propose things like the Fairness Doctrine, it's because the primary form in which they get their message out is not covered (since they don't even consider it political speech), while the sole media format in which conservative messages can even be heard would be massively curtailed (which, you know, is actually the whole objective).

It's why things like JournoList were so alarming as well. It showed that these things were not just randomly happening. Each liberal source wasn't just putting their own message out there as they felt, but rather they were coordinating their message and deciding among themselves what slant to take on any given issue. Then they'd go off and insert that slant into whatever form of media they had an outlet into. Even in the face of denials of this, the mere fact of having a discussion about an issue will tend to influence how it's reflected to the public by each participant. And frankly, many of those discussions were pretty straight up calls to kill this story, or to hype another. We can debate to what degree this actually impacted coverage, but it's still quite alarming. Or at least, it should be.

And honestly, the scariest part is that most of the liberals who do this don't even think they're being biased. They think they're just "telling the truth". So their speech isn't biased and should not be infringed (free speech!), but conservative speech is biased, and bigoted, and "evil", and should be blocked wherever possible. And that very concept seeps into every aspect of the media that they largely control and thus impacts how the consumers of that media view things as well.

So yeah. I notice when people react to what they hear and how they react to it. Again, it's not a hard pattern to see. No harder than noticing the dog drooling when you ring the bell.

I've never said I don't watch the media. I said that in this case, I have not read or seen or heard anything about this specific story except what has been written or linked to in this thread (and the actual text of the original regulation change). That's not the same thing.

What lolgaxe was getting at, in his own annoying manner, was a play on an old "gotcha" where I said "I don't get my news from anywhere", which, if you actually followed the thread in question, was me making the mistake of repeating an abbreviated term that Joph used (in this case "news" was short for "opinion from news media"). He was arguing that I get my positions from conservative news sources, but kept using the word "news" in place of that. I made the mistake of using that same word, one time, in response. Which, of course, got immediately pounced upon and is still repeated to this day (sans all context of course).

Of course I watch the news. Of course I consume media. What I don't do is just lift my positions and opinions from what is said there. I use those as one source of data among many, which I then use to form my own opinion. Which, you know, is how we should do things.



Yeah. Right. Again, the pattern is pretty easy to see. Media makes a big deal out of something, and it's suddenly repeated all over the place by the usual liberal suspects.

"News" is information about current events, regardless of the source.

Although, sources that can be verified are trustworthy whereas unverifiable "news" is not news at all.


Edited, Apr 27th 2017 11:27pm by Bijou

Then it isn't a pattern. According to you this means I win the argument. Their lies not being accepted blindly? So you're a liberal now? What I'm getting at is that if you can't correlate your claim then it isn't a pattern. Seems like maybe you should accept the guy who wrote something when he tells you directly what he meant when he wrote it. Otherwise, things just get silly.

I didn't think we paid journalists anymore.

No. The you screaming "in the media, in the media!" and when presed on the point claimed that "the media!!" meant "this forum".

Your "explanation' was "You guys should have magically known I meant this forum".


And...nothing else.


Or are I and lolgaxe and other just, like, soooo dumb we can't understand your superior writing?