"The Resistance" is unhinged

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-10-2018, 11:57 AM)hollodero Wrote: I have to slightly disagree with that. Huffington Post is not a place people should get their information from. They are definitely heavily biased, and even hysterical maybe. But they are not like Breitbart. Breitbart is vile. The articles aside (and those are sometimes awfully close to propaganda hate speech), their comment section is full of absurd conspiracies, racial slurs, calls for taking aut the guns and march and murder etc., and it's all designed that way.

(For the rest, fuill agreement of course. An example for things that might get lost in a media bias debate.)

The comments section is the only way Breitbart is different from HuffPo.  Their comments sections are much more lightly moderated, to be sure.  I've still seen some horribly vile, racist, comments in HuffPo comments sections and articles.  That was ok though, because the racism was directed at white people.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(01-10-2018, 11:05 AM)Goalpost Wrote: He is an enemy of fake news.  

Like I said:

(01-10-2018, 12:14 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: When you make it part of your job to discredit news sources because they do not report on you in an unrealistically positive manner, there is a problem. And when you're the POTUS, and you have a rabid lemming base, that problem can/will result in damage to that freedom. Using a position of power to undermine and discredit the press is scary.

Donald Trump and his creepy little minions think that things are "fake news" just because something doesn't reflect his actions in a positive light. His ability to get a high percentage of his base to distrust media not named Fox News, Breitbart, or InfoWars is easily one of the most damaging things that has happened during his presidency.

[hollodero]

(01-10-2018, 12:10 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Ha...maybe. I originally typed "The left's version of InfoWars", but no, HuffPo is not nearly that insane.  Maybe it isn't even as bad as Breitbart....but it seems like a worthy comparison.  I just must not read enough Breitbart to get the full scale of how bad it is.

Save your time: It's really really bad :)

---- I edit out the rest of my response because

(01-10-2018, 12:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've still seen some horribly vile, racist, comments in HuffPo comments sections and articles.

- So ok, maybe it is that bad then. I trust this judgement and read too little HuffPo myself. I never came across those, doesn't mean they are not there.

(01-10-2018, 12:10 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: As for the comment sections....that's where you'll find the worst of the worst people on both sides. Reading that shit stresses me out.

Sure. But most sites do have some kind of censorship, e.g. delete the really vile stuff. Not on Breitbart. There the vile stuff gets "up votes" from other members and might end up being the first thing one might see. This reward system is unique, and I'd have to guess it is by design. People can rally each other up to extreme lengths, and they do. Scary scary stuff there.

[hollodero]

(01-10-2018, 12:14 PM)Goalpost Wrote: He is an enemy of fake news.  

OK, so you use that derogatory term that originally was used for fake news factories in Russia and Eastern Europe where people would make up refugee stories and such. Since you chose to follow Trump's lead on that one, tell me what major story was "fake news" and just completely made up. 

Please do mind that I and probably many are aware of the mistakes that occurred, and these mistakes were admitted and often did have consequences. But in the end, most news stories do check out. The same could not be said about FOX that Trump loves so much and presents as the truth and model for "non-fake news". They spun a Seth Rich story, an Uranium one story, an "the fraudulent and disproven Steele dossier triggered a fake investigation" story. Trump himself posts these things, plus calls Obama a sick guy wiretapping him, or posts fake videos of radical-right wing Brits. So please do show me an uncorrected MSM story that reaches that level of fake news, and you have a point. If you can't, don't parrot Trump's lines.

[Goalpost]

(01-10-2018, 12:46 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, so you use that derogatory term that originally was used for fake news factories in Russia and Eastern Europe where people would make up refugee stories and such. Since you chose to follow Trump's lead on that one, tell me what major story was "fake news" and just completely made up. 

Please do mind that I and probably many are aware of the mistakes that occurred, and these mistakes were admitted and often did have consequences. But in the end, most news stories do check out. The same could not be said about FOX that Trump loves so much and presents as the truth and model for "non-fake news". They spun a Seth Rich story, an Uranium one story, an "the fraudulent and disproven Steele dossier triggered a fake investigation" story. Trump himself posts these things, plus calls Obama a sick guy wiretapping him, or posts fake videos of radical-right wing Brits. So please do show me an uncorrected MSM story that reaches that level of fake news, and you have a point. If you can't, don't parrot Trump's lines.

After Trump's live meeting yesterday, do you think Trump has dementia?  Cause that made the rounds this weekend to support a 25th amendment removal.  All this because of the book.  Fake news to discredit Trump by illness.  As William Bennett said.  You know how to tell the difference between a crooked stick and a straight one?  Put the two next to one another.  

[hollodero]

(01-10-2018, 01:33 PM)Goalpost Wrote: After Trump's live meeting yesterday, do you think Trump has dementia?

I don't know.

(01-10-2018, 01:33 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Cause that made the rounds this weekend to support a 25th amendment removal.  All this because of the book.  Fake news to discredit Trump by illness.  As William Bennett said.  You know how to tell the difference between a crooked stick and a straight one?  Put the two next to one another.  

Yeah that doesn't constitute "fake news". A book was written, the media reports about that book, sure gleefully at times, but nothing was made up by the press (maybe in the book, but that's something else). That people go on TV and say dementia might be overdoing things for sure, but it is still not "fake news". Fake news would be to say he has dementia and it's factually proven. While this might have been said in opinion pieces (I wouldn't know, but I can imagine because opinion pieces constitute a large part in US media and large parts of the media sure do have an anti Trump bias), it wasn't reported as fact.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-10-2018, 12:35 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you have a problem with the term "oppressor" then take it up with HuffPo, they chose the label.

[BmorePat87]

He certainly has attacked the media and the idea of truth relative to our standards as Americans.


I don't see how he compares to people like Putin, however, who control media outlets.