The recommended, new diary titled “BREAKING: Podesta to Mills….” contains comments linked to Infowars. Just an FYI.
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
and………..
It contains a link to an entire wikileak e-mail that was hosted on their page. So……
disgraceful. Absolutely disgraceful. That’s your excuse?
LOL Pure ignorance and Google led me astray.
Pure ignorance of what? Don’t play dumb with me like you don’t know who Alex Jones is and what InfoWars represents. Just tell the truth: you’re willing to get in bed with fascists if it suits your narrative.
OK. You’re nuts.
Seabe is nuts, and Trump is a garden variety Republican.
Man, for real, fuck you with your playing dumb. Alex Jones and the Der Trumper Fascist Brigade has captured the imagination of my mother. My girlfriend is not white. Do you fucking understand what this election is doing to my relationship and my family?
Gospel truth….I do know who Alex Jones is. I had no idea that was his page, as I had never had occasion to visit it before. The single page I linked is my entire exposure to his site, ever. I went there from a google search as you could demonstrate for yourself.
But don’t let the facts get in your way….
Judith Miller, the NYTimes, WaPo, etc. captured the imagination of millions of Americans. Do you know what that did to millions of families in Iraq? Families in Syria and Jordan as well. And let’s not overlook all the splitting apart of American families where millions of family members were predisposed to believe lies promulgated by those media sources and the USG.
I’m confident that everyone here empathizes with your personal distress over what Trump, etc. has unleashed in your family. However, those actors didn’t create the weak minds that are vulnerable to irrational appeals. Short of censoring what people may see and hear, demagogues of various stripes will remain among us and censorship gives certain other demagogues more power than they would otherwise have; so, that’s no solution.
You know, Naked Capitalism had to get their Thomas Franks link from DRUDGE!!!!!!!! today. He was talking about those deplorable “Deplorables” again and the bloom is OFF THAT ROSE for the MSM. Did NC pick up cooties from that link?
Does Savonarola still live?
So Drudge and Infowars are part of the Brave New Alternative to mainstream media? Yeah, well i guess they are for many millions. I just never thought those millions included you, me, or other readers of this blog.
Savonarola? Had to read up on him. He doesn’t seem to have been a Boy Scout. Unclear what’s the point of menptioning the guy.
It was either your link to Infowars or someone else’s that included a graphic of what one might call jackbooted thugs. Point of that? Reminded me of all the unhinged stuff about UN troops coming to lock up Patriotic Real Americans.
He was a BIG book burner.
Books are being burned here? Or heretics?
The thing is, raising the specter of book burning is a red herring, because you as much as I do in fact draw the line somewhere: some sources are just beyond the pale for you, too. You’re not citing Mein Kampf or The Turner Diaries, are you?
Is there anything wrong with the information that I posted from his link? It consisted of an exact copy of a wikileaks e-mail, no? He editorialized a bit in his header, which I DID NOT COPY as my hyper-link, if you noticed.
So if I quoted the Lord’s Prayer from Mein Kampf, assuming it were present, I should be stoned? That is the standard you are using, no?
“Consider the source” pertains to original material, or it should. Not quoted material from a second source that has no connection to the first. Can you see the distinction?
Frankly, the context of the entire e-mail is more positive for Dems than the use of the bolded section alone that has been widely quoted.
But enjoy your blog swarm.
Booman Tribune ~ Comments ~ Infowars comes to Booman Tribune
It did so far as I can see. Actually, it even contained a link to the right mail on wikileaks.
WikiLeaks – The Podesta Emails
A tip to find the originals on wikileaks if their own search engine fails you is to use site:wikileaks.org among your search terms.
Bill Ivey wrote our political epitaph.
There are sites that really should be off-limits. Infowars seems like it would be pretty obvious. Surely one could construct an argument and find evidence utilizing more legitimate resources than either Infowars, Drudge, or any of a number of known right-wing sites.
Just google…Podesta e-mail dumb down electorate… and see what shows up. I wanted the entire text, not the snippet going around because the full one seemed to change the context.
Why I should bother to lie about my ignorance of that site is a mystery to me.
Do you have a problem with the content of the linked email? Was it altered?
I’m sure not saying you should lie about a goddamned thing. Did I state so anywhere in my comment? No. Case closed. My point still stands.
It’s a rhetorical trick: B critiques A. A responds by taking umbrage about something that B never in fact wrote.
Yep. Figured as much. And when challenged, there will be either silence or further deflection. In this case, it appears we get silence (which in this instance is golden).
Worth discussing. For example, Russia Today is an unreliable site for just about anything one wouldn’t cite as authoritative mainstream news but you might if the appearance of some statement or allegation on RT is the news. So let’s say, Russia and the US are sparring in the media, like around Turkey, Aleppo or the MAS17 shoot-down, it seems reasonable to cite RT on current events in the context of their known bias or aspirations.
I might have cited Infowars here, for example, to quote from a Roger Stone interview, which can be newsworthy itself or at least notoriously insightful.
Is that not OK? I question the blanket embargo but I am also happy to accept the majority view on this. I realise Mino has made his mea culpas in this case but it touches generally on my state as well. I have been more inclined to cite Right sites in the past year as the fragmentation of the GOP becomes more interesting; it seems newsworthy.
For me it’s context.
Let’s say a certain part of the community have shown they LOVE some Clinton scandal. No hint of scandal is beyond putting links to get the ‘truth’ out. Health, email, Clinton Foundation, Syria, etc. Some going back twenty years or more.
That is the context. Eventually that part of the community gets cut no slack. Right now we have two new members, with consecutive registration numbers, that both created diaries critical of Clinton on virtually their first day. Then links to Drudge appear by the surrogates.
Sorry, it’s not a coincidence. ‘Oops, I am just stupid’ is not an excuse they allow Clinton. How about we now use the same standard for the Trump surrogates that post here as they allow Clinton?
.
.
Surely agree a partisan site has a right to establish partisan standards and accept that standard is established by the host, if not the community. The response from the community seems a bit dysfunctional, however, so I guess I’ll just have to take my chances.
Your scenario strikes me as different from how these websites have been used by a subset of the active posters here. If the intent is simply to dampen enthusiasm for HRC sufficiently to throw the election to Trump or to guarantee a GOP dominated Senate, because HRC is insufficiently “left” and committed the cardinal sin of being a politician, then I simply have no interest in even considering whatever point the poster may be trying to make. Quoting sites that are in the business of misinforming is merely muddying the waters. Nothing new gets learned. No minds get changed. It’s just one big turnoff, especially when the main goal is to make sure that a right-wing nationalist candidate gets nowhere near the Oval Office. In other words, context matters here.
Unless this site has a much larger readership than I realize, the possibility that anything published here could “throw the election to Trump” strikes me as vanishingly unlikely from a mathematical point of view.
As for how much enthusiasm you can maintain for your candidate, that would seem to be your business.
We’ll just say that every time the naysayers and doomsayers on this site speak, I donate a bit more money and volunteer time to my candidate. Make of that what you will. Readership varies on this site. Tends to be highest during election seasons and tails off afterwards. Only Booman can answer right now as to the number of hits he’s getting, but my guess is it’s still doing okay. May not be DailyKos, but it probably does well enough.
How much enthusiasm are you maintaining for your candidate, and who might that be?
… My enthusiasm for Jill Stein experienced some dampening along the way in the face of hostile comments about wi-fi and vaccination. But not enough to keep me from marking my mail-in ballot for her as soon as it arrived. As long as she’s against militarization and domestic spying, I’m With Her.
Relevant to the current diary, someone said a while back – as evidence of Stein’s Total Craziness – that she had gone on… Infowars! Assuming it was true (I don’t read that site), I sighed and reminded myself that a third-party candidate is obliged to consist on whatever media scraps they can get. I would have laughed at the idea that I deserved to be shielded from such criticism.
But as I was writing this, I thought I had better check. The nearest thing I found just now was this:
http://www.infowars.com/jill-stein-issues-new-hillary-ww3-warning/
To spare the delicate among you from having to click on that, it reads:
In other words, someone with an Infowars camera crew walked up to her and asked her a question. And like someone running for President, she responded with her views on the issues affecting the nation.
I haven’t watched the video. But I assume this pull-quote was the Craziest thing she said.
Well, that’s just a fact. If Clinton supporters have no defense to their candidate’s warmongering except to stick their fingers in their ears and go “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU”, then I must oblige them to stick it.
Oddly enough, one can find quote of Stein making very similar arguments on more mainstream news sites such as Slate. But heck, since Alex Jones has been trying to cozy up to anti-war protesters of one sort or another since at least the start of Bush’s “war on terror”, I’m never surprised to see that some actually got hooked.
Sadly, her platform of…
http://www.jill2016.com/plan
… something that would be regarded as simple common sense in any of the civilized countries of Europe, is considered Alex Jones-level lunacy by the Democratic Party and its loyalists.
Until the intellectual poison of American Exceptionalism is beaten out of us, we will never know peace or prosperity.
My point was simply that one could do a google search on what Stein said and do so without resorting to any Alex Jones or any other alt-right website as a a source, and that there is damned good reason to refrain from clicking on such sites. If you wish to manipulate that into something else, knock yourself out.
So Infowars is actually doing journalism?
Look, if you wish to support Stein, be my guest. I’m actually registered Pacific Green in Oregon and voted for some of their candidates, but also for Hillary Clinton. I’d be thrilled to see a Green Party that was competitive. I’m unwilling to take any chances on winding up with Trump, however. If you wish to lump Clinton and Trump together, go ahead, i just think you’re seriously misguided.
I’ve looked at Infowars, too, but citing it as a source on this blog is pretty clearly a deliberate provocation. Quit pretending to be brave, unlike the rest of us who would wilt at the sound of Alex Jones.
Submit a diary making your case for Jill Stein.
Breitbart: Hillary Clinton Says She Was in New York City on 9/11 (She Wasn’t)
Breitbart has a video there in which Hillary does indeed say that she was in NYC on 9/11. And the article gives a narrative according to which she was actually in Washington, DC at the time and only went to New York on the day after.
Should the progressive blogosphere ignore a news report like this by right-wing media? In the best of all possible worlds, the progressive blogosphere would prove that a news report like this is false.
This has already been debunked.
No, it wasn’t — according to Snopes – Oct 13, 2016:
Awkward phrasing on the part of Snopes. Should have read: Guiliani was literally correct that Secretary Clinton wasn’t in New York City on September 11, 2001. But he used that to (say, imply, and/or etc) that she wasn’t fully responsive to the event as the Senator from New York
And she repeats that literally false claim:
USAToday Nov 1, 2016
(I’ll remove the downrating of your comment as soon as the others that accepted your lazy ass check of Snopes was correct and downrated Abalbrand comment remove their downrating of his/her comment.)
I have no control over who downrates what, so I am sure you will do what you must. Knock yourself out.
In the meantime, mutually assured destruction. I’ll remove my downrate of your comment when you remove yours of mine. Fat chance of that happening on your side, I’m sure. But let’s see if any semblance of trust can be built here. Your move.
As I am unaware that you downrated my comment and then removed it, you are current comment is a threat “I’ll downrate your comment if you don’t remove your downrating of my comment.” Threats aren’t kosher.
Your comment deserved downrating. For three reasons. 1) Adalbrand referred to a Nov 1 event which even Breitbart got right. Before the fact debunking is a slightly weird claim which should have tipped you off to read carefully.
No source is a substitute for critical thinking skills. I read the NYTimes and WaPo in the lead up to the Iraq War and for me their reporting fell so far short of a half-assed case for war that I used whatever other date/info sources (and a fair amount rational interpretation of data) I could find to get a clearer and more accurate picture of Iraq. My conclusion was the Iraq didn’t have nukes and its military capacity had been severely downgraded since the Gulf War and it hadn’t been all that robust before then. I use this example because the consequences of getting this one wrong were much too high for US citizens to laze out.
These aren’t games regardless of how much Rush, Fox, MSNBC try to make them just another form of entertainment. There aren’t many reasons for downrating a comment but attacking another person for specious or faulty reasons would be an acceptable reason to downrate. Threats, particularly smarmy threats, would be another reason. Since I’m a generous person that rarely downrates comments that warrant downrating, I left a message in this instance for those that had downrated Adalbrand and also uprated your comment — a message that you are perfectly capable of transmitting to those people. Instead you threaten me? Is that something the old Don Durito would have done?
No, Snopes was apparently referring to an earlier accusation in which Giuliani only got the part right that she not there on 9/11, but was wrong about her not visiting the site. She apparently got it wrong in a speech weeks after that Snopes article was published.
I did leave a 2 for you. It is the only rating on a comment above this one. Tell you what. I’ll find a comment where there are a few ratings and put a downrate there for you instead if that will make you happy. Heck, maybe I’ll even escalate a little. That was no idle threat. It was in fact a simple retaliation for an action you most likely did because you apparently believe I am in control of some downratings happen around here. You said so yourself.
And yes. You appear to be right that later on HRC has apparently said something about being there on 9/11 in one of many speeches she has no doubt given. Still does not take away from the larger point that she was there very shortly thereafter touring the scene with other leaders. Given the source where that had come from by Dunwoody (one of the alt-right sites), and given that particular website’s rep for either rehashing old garbage or just making crap up, can you not see how the conclusion that this was more garbage in and garbage out is an expected one?
As for the rest, if you really want to spend your time being outraged about whatever scandal your peers can dig up on Breitbart or Infowars, be my guest. I’d rather not waste the time.
Do whatever floats your boat. However, your excuse making when the facts are clear is tiresome. To wit:
If in haste or laziness I had made such an error, I would have owned it and apologized for it. If I didn’t own or apologize for it, it would be proper for others to downgrade my bullying based on a factually challenged claim.
This is a tiny example of what I’ve come to loathe about partisan politics. Republicans and Democrats shooting the messenger for whatever factually correct report that they can’t handle and precipitating fights with those that support the truth over partisanship. Back in the noughts it appeared that Democrats inhabited a reality based space while Republicans lived in la-la-land. That appears to have been an illusion and was only a consequence of Democrats being out of power at the federal level. I choose not to live in a la-la-land.
Adalbrand and not Dunwoody. My apologies to the latter. Yes, as I said in my reply to you a moment ago that it does appear that she made the statement in question very recently, long after the whole Snopes thing. Fine. I duly noted that. Make of it what you will. At this point, I suppose it really doesn’t matter. If your intention is to be outraged, you will be outraged.
What I find contemptible is not whatever “discussion” if we can call it that, we are having here but the fact that you decided to punish me for someone else’s troll ratings. I have absolutely no control over what any other poster here does. In fact I have about as much influence as a blade of grass does over a lawnmower on matters such as ratings made by others. But you went there anyway. That will be forever unforgivable, especially in light that you refuse to acknowledge that it was a jerk move on your part to do so, and that you refuse to remove the downrate.
Spin away however you wish. The bottom line is you did what you did. At least you appear to own it. But we’re done here. My downrates for you will stand. Bye.
And for the record, I do not approve of the troll ratings made to Adelbrand’s posts or to Shaun’s posts. Whatever quarrel with Shaun is between me and him. There was no need for a third party to go in and effectively make things worse. You’ve made your choice to see the worst in me apparently, and there I shall not forgive or forget.
The road to hell is patrolled by petty hall monitors with an inflated sense of their own judgement and wisdom and innocence of nuance or history. Context, subtlety… Ah, f*ck it… Ban the lot and let FSM sort them out. Good work, one step closer back to the dark age. Isn’t it bad enough as it is?
You write:
At the very least, on the evidence of the Judith Miller “reporting” pre-Iraq War the NY Times should most certainly be on that list…as should every other mainstream site that cooperated in the build-up to that totally fictitious war.
But NOOOooo…
You swallow that mainstream shit uncomplainingly.
Enjoy your meals.
AG
It’s Got Electrolytes…
You really don’t know me at all. Never did. I critically read from a variety of sources within and without the US. If I were to rephrase what I had posted earlier I would likely amend it to state that there are certain sites that I consider off limits if one wants me to seriously consider their argument. Link to them or not. Doesn’t make a lick of difference. I make my own judgments accordingly. It’s just that you and I are likely on opposite sides on most things. Doesn’t make a lick of difference either. Maybe for different reasons we share some cynicism about leftism in the US. But I don’t see after several years of history at this point that we have all that much to talk about really. So it goes. Hasta la vista.
I repeat:
Like dat.
They are all “halfway there.”
So it goes. Hasta el último espectáculo.
Could be any day now.
Aaaany day now…
AG
We also have two new posters with consecutive registration numbers, both have posted right wing links.
Of course the usual surrogates are enjoying themselves with the links.
.
I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise.
I don’t know about registration numbers, but anyway, are you willing to provide the relevant usernames?
If you’re referring to Adalbrand I agree but I want to keep him because I think he’s a Russian. That would be so cool having a Russian troll here.
Who’s the other one? Maybe he’s a Russian too. It’s like collecting Pokemon.
Attacking the source of a link is the equivalent of the ad hominem fallacy.
I don’t find it persuasive.
Cool. Well maybe you’ll find this persuasive: citing an InfoWars link and I will troll rate your comment.
A disturbing prospect, to be sure.
But should the need arise, I will have to proclaim my independence and take the hazard.
In the past I have cited Red State, Breitbart, Infowars, Drudge, the US Chamber of Commerce and Reince Priebus twitter account. Troll me.
Actually it’s not. See for it to be Ad Hominem the source of the info would have to have no bearing on the info being presented. When the value of the message is affected by the messenger, the credibility of the messenger becomes fair game for debate and discussion.
In this case, the fact that it’s Alex Jones, a known psychopathic serial liar and conspiracy theorist, who you are expecting us to take their reporting at face value (You know, the whole point of citing them as a source!) it strains credulity that you think pointing out the truth about Alex Jones is not relevant to accepting the credibility of your source!
Oh, there you are, out in daylight. Blinking.
Is the transcript of a Roger Stone interview from Infowars out-of-bounds?
There is no such thing as ‘Out-of-Bounds.’ There is however, as my actual point establishes, an incredulity in trying to pass off Alex Jones and InfoWars as a credible source.
As to your point, there is a huge difference between citing a place/organization like InfoWars, and quoting them. A huge monumental difference. One asks us to trust the information being conveyed by someone on that site as being trustworthy and factual, the other just asks us to believe that someone said the thing in question on that site. Which is a fundamental difference in how you present information when you cite or quote.
In this particular case, InfoWars was cited as being a reliable source of accurate information to convey the Wikileaks leaked e-mail. Basic High School English courses will tell you that’s a fail on multiple levels. One cites the source of the information, Wikileaks, not the 3rd hand postings of InfoWars. Go the the original.
Your actual point, such as it is, troll-hunter, eludes me. Are you saying that the transcript of a Roger Stone interview on Infowars is “citing” or “quoting”? Unclear.
What’s so hard to understand? If InfoWars is the source of the transcript, of course it’s ok to cite it. It’s the source!
Then in the land of simple and respectful discourse a simple “no” from you above would have sufficed.
Apparently not because things need to be spoon fed. That we even have to answer such absurd questions is insanity in itself. Everyone knows context is everything.
So which sites am I not allowed to cite here, then? Or do you reserve the right to amend those rules as you choose in future?
Line went dead.
And for the record, I have frequently (and will continue) to uprate comments that have been troll rated simply out of disagreement. That’s not happening with some comments here. People are playing stupid, and it’s really irritating.
Stupid? I’ll bet you have no idea what you are talking about.
Accusations of stupidity then crickets.
I’m sure a lot of this bickering, and worse, is the by-product of anonymity. Another factor IMHO is the way that the purveyors of the Clinton scandal du jour announce their moral superiority with great regularity.
The thing about the anonymity or pseudonymity is that it is often borne of necessity. Some of us don’t really have the luxury of using our real identities on public forums like this. The drawback though is deindividuation, which as I recall leads to all sorts of antisocial behaviors. Add to that a sense of moral superiority through which one can dehumanize their “inferiors” (which is what the usage of terms like “Hillbot” “Pod People” and other epithets amount to in a relatively mild sense) and we have one heck of a toxic stew. So it goes.
You recommended this diary? Why?
Simply because I am fed the fuck up. Straight up that’s the reason. You don’t like it? Too bad.
So your new rule is no citations from… Oh, wait… Where’s your blacklist?
Clinton’s curse, surrounded by nothing but feckless plodders and enemies.
If you had paid attention to my comments in this diary, you would have a decent list of my blacklist. Apparently, that did not happen. So it goes. Carry on.
Oh, ho, junior G-man, if you don’t make a list how will I know if I am in compliance with your new rules? Or is that the idea, you just want a handy bat to beat your enemies up with since you can’t meet them fairly on the field. No argument with a Clinton supporter is complete without them creating new rules.
So far I have Drudge and Infowars. That’s it? What about Breitbart, RT and Sputnik? What about Reince Preibus’ twitter feed?
There is no media outlet with impeccable enough left-wing credentials to defend itself from a charge of anti-Clinton bias if it calls Hillary out on something her supporters can’t defend.
Just keep quiet when Hillary does things you wouldn’t accept from a Republican and you’ll be OK.
What is your deal? What is wrong with being suspicious of info that comes from websites that have a lousy reputation when it comes to being factual? If you really are not willing to do the work on your own, here are some sites that I consider suspect (call it blacklist if you must, since your implication is that somehow I am trying to take away your precious First Amendment rights somehow):
Infowars and other sites owned by Alex Jones
Breitbart
Project Veritas
Telegraph
Daily Mail
Might as well throw in NY Post and National Enquirer as well.
FauxNews since it’s still little more than the GOP propaganda channel
Blogs like Vineyard of the Saker are largely suspect in part because its proprietor has a tendency to use dogwhistle terms like “Anglo-Zionist”.
This is not my blog so I don’t censor a goddamn thing. Booman wants to do that? Up to him. Not me. All I can do is put zeros on comments, but why do that unless it’s obvious spam?
But I do immediately disregard any “information” that uses sites like the ones above as references as they are notorious at spreading falsehoods. If you want to use those crappy sites as your source and actually want me to take you seriously, best to vet the info through Snopes, Politifact, or Factcheck.org. Otherwise, it’s not worth my time. We certainly have plenty of commenters – some on this very diary, who will throw links from all sorts of alt-right sites and act like a bunch of little five year olds about it. You stuck your tongue out at the Cinton supporter? How very big of you. Jeez. And seriously, fuck you for the junior G-man remark. What an asshole.
RT and Sputnik I view as pure Putin propaganda.
Well, as I mentioned below, in this very diary, there are times when a story on either of these sites can be eminently newsworthy. And I reserve the right to cite them without a hall pass from you.
What is my deal? I clearly stated that I cited some of those sites when context made them relevant; you seemed even to acknowledge that.
Disregarding that you now want to impose a blacklist irrespective of context. What’s your deal? Get your story straight you are really starting to piss me off. It all seems so distastefully shallow and unsubtle.
Yes I acknowledged that under the circumstances that you posed, you’d have a case. It would be interesting to look at. However, you’re fooling yourself and others if you are contending that is what most of those citing these sites are actually doing. As I said, I have no interest in or power to censor you and really don’t care. Your g-man comments and your hall pass remarks have essentially told me all I need to know. You are not someone I wish to interact with in the future. Have fun whining about being censored.
I would have a case but I’m an asshole so f*ck me. Brilliant.
Junior G-man was the nicest thing I could think of at the time. Believe me it was a revision.
Believe me, I held back as well. We’re done here. Ciao.
Yeah, your tolerance and plurality are clearly evident.
And the same goes for your little weasel sock-puppet.
No idea what you’re talking about.
And if you are indeed convinced that I am running a sockpuppet, you can always report me and the alleged sockpuppet to Booman or anyone else with admin powers. They can check into that and determine that there is no connection to this user account or any more recently created user account. In fact not only do I invite you to do so, but I dare you. That said, you’ll owe me an apology for that particular accusation once it becomes clear that I am in no way running two accounts just to troll rate other users. I am probably “deplorable” in your eyes already, but that is a line of deplorability I have not and would not cross.
Apologies, I was unfamiliar with the Beahmont account previously. You have a different style. So, sorry for that. Still think your argument distils into:
You really need to think this through. Censorship is a corrosive thing with unexpected and malign consequences.
Apology accepted. Please note that there is a lot of difference between stating that I tend to discount posts relying on certain alt-right sources because I have learned from experience that those sources are not to be trusted and preventing you from using those sources. I have no power nor interest in such power to prevent you from using whatever sources you wish. Oddly enough we seem to essentially agree on one legitimate use of such sites. That instead we are practically in a shouting match over a point on which we agree is a bit crazy making. So it goes.
As I said earlier in this diary to one or your censorious colleagues, “…it seems to me you’re assuming precedent for imposing inviolable rules of behaviour on the entire community without any discussion of context.”
We now seem to be having that discussion, that it is unnecessarily obtuse and convoluted would seem to have been inevitable. So are we agreed then no black-list?
Blacklist was more your term, which I regrettably used snarkily afterwards. I don’t do blacklists, and I am no g-man nor have ever had any interest in such a career. I do ignore posts that use sources I have learned to not trust. But yes, we agree. Of course we are merely guests on Booman’s site and ultimately he makes whatever calls he wishes to make. He doesn’t strike me as the censoring type. Thankfully he tends to be a very gracious host.
Likewise. We are done here, thanks.
Works for me. No worries.
You may not be aware of the background but at sites like MyDD and others during Obama’s first campaign the purity trolling by Clinton supporters was relentless and obnoxious, so please forgive prickishness on this.
But it seems to me you’re assuming precedent for imposing inviolable rules of behaviour on the entire community without any discussion of context.
That cut both ways.
I’m embarrassed to remember the gang-stomping of Clinton supporters I joined in at Kos back then.
I had hoped to have a reply from you.
Crickets.
A sentence is not a diary. This is not an acceptable diary post.
I will leave it up for the comments, but please don’t use the diaries this way.
Apologies.
Please don’t ban all the Russian trolls let’s keep at least one to play with.
If an almost unimaginably objective being came to earth today and did some unimaginably objective research on the lies that have been propagated by the mainstream media over the past say 16 years (largely either knowingly or through totally sloppy and/or ignorant reporting/editorializing) and then compared them with the alt. right media, that being would probably say that the difference between them is largely a matter of subtlety. Sophisticated liars for a sophisticated clientele and not-so-sophisticated for the rubes.
Both lie through their teeth to support their chosen (
gang) leaders, but the mainstream media are slicker and have a culturally more (I won’t say “intelligent” so maybe “entitlemented” might be better.) entitlemented audience that has bought the current PermaGov line along with its many hooks and s(t)inkers. They are also owned by more wealthy corporations than are the alt. right publications and have a wider audience, so their jobs pay better as long as you don’t point out the emperor’s woeful lack of clothes.I won’t use the word “feigning” here because I believe most of you DemCentrists really believe that you are the chosen people, but ladies and gentlemen, I am here to tell you that you been had. Acting all upset that someone quoted from InfoWars is as dumb as some right wing fool being upset that someone would quote from WAPO or the NY Times.
They are all full of shit. Your arguments are just about which odor of shit you most like to smell.
I personally read Google News, The Drudge Report and Counterpunch daily. If I’m gonna have to smell shit I might as well get the right wing, left wing and centrist wing odors of the day, just to see which way the winds are blowing from which barnyard. That way you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the shit’s blowing.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch…
Reanimation attempts continue, however.
Mostly failed.
So far.
But…
They do keep trying.
AG
Like in all other things, the right wing does not hold a monopoly on echo chambers.
AG, in the end, you have one product on offer, and that is nihilism. It’s clothed in a variety of ways, but nihilism it is.
I have only my own perception of the truths of the matter to offer, JDW. Offered a nihilist set of choices, I refuse to play. You choose what you consider to be the lesser of two evils? It’s only a guess. The future is unknowable.
Nihilist?
Here is a post I just offered elsewhere here.
You say nihilism.
I say enlightenment.
As we must.
AG
This thread is so exciting. I’d never heard of Infowars before and am going to link to it as soon as I finish writing this. I’m trembling with anticipation, getting spasms, that something so evidently horrible even exists. It makes the whole election campaign seem almost ‘normal’.
In my view, this one-sentence diary is a case of shaming or, at worst, censorship. Tolerance has been vanished by a cluster of posters here, among others, the author of this diary.
So this is a preview of the Clinton age? Everything is awesome and your citation is nullified.
Methinks you ought to read Bradbury’s novel for a fuller picture of the dystopia he was imagining.
Why would you assume I haven’t?