(01-30-2019, 03:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Motives obviously don't matter to you because you said they were being disrespectful.

Most people consider it disingenuous to condem people for saying the exact same thing you say yourself, BUT TO EACH HIS OWN.

(01-30-2019, 05:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Fred Logic:

bfine uses the word motive to illustrate the difference between act and intent

Fred ignores the use of the word motive and makes feeble claim bfine contradicted himself (only Fred knows for what purpose)

bfine points to his use of the word motive

Fred asserts the word motive doesn't matter to bfine

(01-30-2019, 06:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Bfine says boys were being disrespectful.  He even brags about being the first one to say it.

Bfine turns around and claims the boys were NOT being disrespectful and anyone who claims they were being disrespectful "looks ignorant".

And absolutely no one is surprised.

(01-30-2019, 07:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Please share the post where I stated the boys making the chopping movement were not being disrespectful.

(01-29-2019, 07:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We have no idea if the kid's motives were to be disrespectful or join in using a gesture they've seen used at sporting events. Context.

Easy for an adult to say "mocking" especially if they have an agenda. 

(01-30-2019, 07:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here




First you said they were being disrespectful.  Then you did a 180 and claimed they were not being disrespectful but were instead were just doing a sports cheer.

(01-30-2019, 08:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Still didn't see where I stated they weren't being disrespectful;

(01-30-2019, 08:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I said "we don't know if their motive was to be disrespectful". If you don't know the difference I cannot help you and I know no one else will. 

(01-30-2019, 08:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well you can help me with this.

Why is it okay for you to say they were disrespectful, but if anyone else says it then they "look foolish"?

Or are you admitting that you also look foolish for saying they were disrespectful?

(01-28-2019, 06:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What makes this interesting?  Your first article bemoans that one time pariahs became heroes without referring to the horrendous reporting that made them pariahs.

This one is interesting only if you haven't heard a liberal speak in the last twenty-five years.  

(01-28-2019, 09:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It’s not critical or analytical. They chose a side and wrote accordingly. Did either of them give any accountability to Phillips?  You can’t possibly think these are critical and analytic. Defending Sandmann is hyper political right wing manipulation. Defending Phillips is critical and analytic.

(01-30-2019, 11:21 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Fred, why didn't you respond to my previous post in this thread?

(01-30-2019, 10:58 PM)Dill Wrote: Finally back on the computer.  I am going to answer this response first today, to explain what makes it "interesting" for me.

In 2016, as Trump began his successful run for president, longstanding concerns about the cumulative political effects of alternative (right-wing, non-MSM) media suddenly became more urgent, creating a spike in publications by philosophers, historians, ex-military and intelligence analysts,  social scientists of all stripes, and even conservative never-Trumpers examining the damage to social authority, democratic institutions, and public discourse as the promotion of spectacle has displaced logical, fact-based inquiry into social and political issues in news and social media--to the point that MILLIONS of voters comfortably accept, for example, Trump's view of ISIS or Iran or Russia or NK or the southern border over professional intel assessments by our intel community.  

One element of this larger response to fragmenting authority and trust in public institutions has been the attempt of journalists seeking both to describe the logic of the new mediascape and to combat its ill effects by increasing critical media literacy.  This has been a largely losing battle as, for example, Trump's definition of "fake news" has come to dominate public discourse even in this barely liberal leaning forum, rather than the more useful and critically limited one which journalists originally coined to refer to the use of fake news sites purveying outright lies--not real news produced by real news organizations which can be mistaken or slanted or just anti-Trump. 

So it is in the context of this general effort of journalists and others seeking to get a handle on how the media "works" today that I read all three of the articles I posted on the Covington HS incident. Their value for me is whether how well they advance our understanding of this new media environment. The Covington boys are best the secondary object of critique in these essays, which are focused on media response and the dialectic between "left" and right media.

What you've dismissed as more "liberal speak" in Molly Roberts article appears to me as yet another of these efforts to describe the logic of the new media, this time in response to the Covington HS moment and focused primarily on what many would call the "liberal" or MSM.  The first version of the video is "concocted" with help of "inauthentic internet actors."  She acknowledges the deplorable "hate mobbing" that followed the first video version of the event. That is no defense of "horrendous reporting" at least.   

She argues that NEITHER the liberal nor the "Republican" version capture the truth, referencing the "mess of different segments" of video which can be cobbled together in various ways.  Given this constantly recurring problem of fragmentation and decentering in today's reporting (which, to my knowledge, "liberals" have not been complaining about for the last 20 years) she argues that "context demands more than watching a single event from all possible angles." It requires "understanding the world in which the event happened"--which I take to mean historical/social contextualization of some sort. Thus she still affirms that the loathsome character of boys behavior in the original behavior is unredeemed by later revelations that others were acting badly as well or "they did it first." This is not the same as picking whatever version fits one's ideology and agenda, and then running with that, since there is still the requirement of empirical verification--a requirement ignored in the final liberal assessment of the incident in its hurried response to the right-wing media's accusations of bias.  If I understand her correctly, she is arguing that many versions of the "same" event doesn't mean all versions are equally valid, nor does it mean that constructing and accepting a final version is simply adjusting events to a pre-existing agenda. If liberal media has traditionally been more evidence- and less spectacle-based in the past, it may now be coming unmoored, capable of being knocked out of its lane, so to speak, by the more aggressive right wing media, making for an even more unstable media environment.  That is the central problem Roberts addresses. 

(01-31-2019, 10:42 AM)michaelsean Wrote: First of all, this assignment was due Tuesday night so you're lucky I even read it.  I'm going to have to reread the articles, but you seem to give a lot of credit to the authors here.  When I see the basically complete omission of Phillipps from the dialogue, then I have a hard time believing this is some unbiased attempt to look at the bigger picture.  If I walked into a group of Native Americans, and belted out Dies Irae five inches from some dudes face, and some of them started saying nasty things to me, I doubt I would be all but left out of the conversation of the bigger picture as far as complicity.  I notice a lot of keep your religion in your church people thinking his intervention was just dandy because it was religious.  

(01-31-2019, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Kudos to you for your patience.  Dill is one of those types that believes he is even keel and non-partisan when in reality he is as hyper partisan as anyone on this board.  Anyone reading his laughable example of an "unbiased" article references how the kids hats are clearly triggering and evidence that they were seeking confrontation.  Also, how dare the media get called out for rushing to conclusions instead of actually doing their job and investigating the incident before making a report and conclusion on what occurred?

People like Dill make a lot of hay out of Trump's attacks against the media.  I wholeheartedly agree that he goes too far.  However, the reason the attacks stick, and sting, is there's far more truth to them then people like Dill will ever admit and the incident at hand is a perfect example.  

(01-31-2019, 10:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: There was nothing to respond to.  You neither explained why it was impossible for Sandman to walk up steps or post a video that showed anything different from the one I posted showing young men surrounding him.

(01-31-2019, 12:56 PM)GMDino Wrote:

(01-31-2019, 10:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: There was nothing to respond to.  You neither explained why it was impossible for Sandman to walk up steps or post a video that showed anything different from the one I posted showing young men surrounding him.

(01-31-2019, 01:16 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Incorrect.  

It showed that Sandman had been standing there the entire time.  Meaning that he didn't approach the Native Americans.  I also showed how the students didn't surround Phillips (and were never surrounding him), as you claimed.

(01-31-2019, 01:38 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Also, you claimed that the entire group was doing the chop and chanting at him, which I clearly proved as wrong,

(01-29-2019, 07:15 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: There was two, maybe three kids doing the chop, which, while offensive, they thought they were just playing along with Phillips,

(01-31-2019, 10:42 AM)michaelsean Wrote: First of all, this assignment was due Tuesday night so you're lucky I even read it.  I'm going to have to reread the articles, but you seem to give a lot of credit to the authors here.  When I see the basically complete omission of Phillipps from the dialogue, then I have a hard time believing this is some unbiased attempt to look at the bigger picture.  If I walked into a group of Native Americans, and belted out Dies Irae five inches from some dudes face, and some of them started saying nasty things to me, I doubt I would be all but left out of the conversation of the bigger picture as far as complicity.  I notice a lot of keep your religion in your church people thinking his intervention was just dandy because it was religious.