Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

PrivacyFollow

#77 Apr 25 2017 at 8:09 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
If I don't mention something, it's because I have never made a habit of reading or watching something in the news and then coming here and starting a thread about it
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?
gbaji wrote:
Again though, that's an interesting bit of projection, given that it's pretty easy to see that I very very very rarely ever start threads on this forum.
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.
gbaji wrote:
It's not a hard pattern to spot.
An easier pattern is your still trying to distract from your alleged pattern changing from media related to forum related.
gbaji wrote:
But yeah, it does make it hard to honestly level the charge you're making at me.
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.
gbaji wrote:
I don't need to prove anything to you.
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.
gbaji wrote:
I just find it funny how strongly you seem to need to cling to this belief.
You have a problem with people who cling to facts and truth. Not news.
gbaji wrote:
I just find "you're just repeating what someone else said" to be a pretty weak argument by itself.
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.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#78 Apr 25 2017 at 2:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Yeah. Um...his statement has nothing to do whatsoever about you starting threads.


His statement was in direct response to my statement. I was talking about the pattern of thread subjects by posters on this forum, and how they related to how the media reported (or downplayed) any given story. I do find it very interesting that you failed to notice or respond when lolgaxe shifted his response away from what I originally said, but pounced on me when I attempted to rail it back to the correct context.

Let me repeat. I was very specifically speaking about how the reason we didn't have a thread on this forum back when the regulatory changes were made last year was because it wasn't heavily reported in the media as a "bad thing" presumably because it was an Obama regulation and the media loves him, so amazingly enough, there was little or no reporting much less criticism of the changes. Because most of the people on this forum who start threads on political subjects lean left as well, they tend to follow that same trend. Their media sources don't make a stink about something, they therefore aren't aware of it, or don't care enough about it to create a thread.

That's the "pattern" I was talking about. It's that pattern that lolgaxe was responding to. So yeah, it's somewhat hilarious for you to claim that *I'm* the one changing the subject.

Quote:
Are the hornets that nest in your skull screaming again? Are they the ones convincing you that we're so stupid we don't notice when you play these word games?


Um... Yeah.

Quote:
Honestly curious.


Honestly should pay more attention.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#79 Apr 26 2017 at 7:29 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's that pattern that lolgaxe was responding to.
No, I was responding to the media section of your pattern. Like I've mentioned multiple times now.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#80 Apr 26 2017 at 4:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's that pattern that lolgaxe was responding to.
No, I was responding to the media section of your pattern. Like I've mentioned multiple times now.


And that was my explanation for why there was no mention of it on this forum when the regulation was put in place, but there is now when it's repealed. Here, let me quote for you:

gbaji wrote:
Quote:
gbaji wrote:
So I'm not sure why there's massive crying about privacy here, but total silence when the actual harmful regulation was put in place last year.

I've been told I whine too much already. Have to choose my battles, or at least wait for others to go first so I can claim I was caught up in the crowd mentality. Smiley: frown



Fair enough. My Smiley: tinfoilhat explanation is that when things go in the direction the Left wants, very few people in the media make a deal out of it, and they certainly don't write alarming editorials and do news reports on them. But when something goes in the direction the Right wants (or in a direction the Left doesn't want), the media yells and screams, editorials are written, and you hear about them on the evening news (or at least they get tossed into your face online). Which explains why we're hearing about the horrible actions of the GOP repealing the change made last year (and yes, expressed in exactly that way), but heard nearly nothing when the change actually occurred.

It's not like this is a hard pattern to spot.


When you asked how I could spot this when I claim not to get my news from anywhere, my response was:

I wrote:
you wrote:
How do you spot something when you insist you never watch the media that the pattern would be in? 's like you're so used to lying you don't even notice when you're doing it.

The pattern is what the mostly liberal posters on this board think are important enough to create threads about


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.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#81 Apr 26 2017 at 6:49 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
gbaji wrote:
Fair enough. My Smiley: tinfoilhat explanation is that when things go in the direction the Left wants, very few people in the media make a deal out of it, and they certainly don't write alarming editorials and do news reports on them. But when something goes in the direction the Right wants (or in a direction the Left doesn't want), the media yells and screams, editorials are written, and you hear about them on the evening news (or at least they get tossed into your face online). Which explains why we're hearing about the horrible actions of the GOP repealing the change made last year (and yes, expressed in exactly that way), but heard nearly nothing when the change actually occurred.


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.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#82 Apr 26 2017 at 10:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Fair enough. My Smiley: tinfoilhat explanation is that when things go in the direction the Left wants, very few people in the media make a deal out of it, and they certainly don't write alarming editorials and do news reports on them. But when something goes in the direction the Right wants (or in a direction the Left doesn't want), the media yells and screams, editorials are written, and you hear about them on the evening news (or at least they get tossed into your face online). Which explains why we're hearing about the horrible actions of the GOP repealing the change made last year (and yes, expressed in exactly that way), but heard nearly nothing when the change actually occurred.


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


That paragraph is the explanation as to why there was no outcry "here". As in "on this forum". The person I was responding to very clearly understood this, since he (she, whomever) specifically mentioned that they didn't post about it because:

Quote:
I've been told I whine too much already. Have to choose my battles, or at least wait for others to go first so I can claim I was caught up in the crowd mentality


Unless that person qualifies as "media" and not "poster on this forum", then I'm not sure what the heck you're talking about. I started out talking about how no one mentioned it on this forum. A poster responded by saying why they didn't bring the subject up. I responded with an alternative explanation. Specifically that the media didn't make much of a deal out of it. What did you think I was "explaining" in that paragraph?

Read all the words. Not just some of them.

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


You're selectively pulling out one part of a longer conversation and then calling me a liar? That's rich man. There was a reason I quoted all three sections. And if you're honest with yourself, there's a reason why you ignored section 1 and section 3 and just responded to section 2. But I'm the liar? Smiley: lol

Edited, Apr 26th 2017 9:08pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#83 Apr 27 2017 at 8:20 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
And that was my explanation for why there was no mention of it on this forum
I didn't ask about the forums. I asked about the media portion of your statement.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#84 Apr 27 2017 at 4:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And that was my explanation for why there was no mention of it on this forum
I didn't ask about the forums. I asked about the media portion of your statement.


You do get that there are at least two different people asking me two different questions, right? I was answering Bijou's question.

Your question was about how I could comment on the media coverage without having watched it myself. My response is that my statement about the media was I've observed over many years on this forum that what posters choose to start threads about tends to be a reflection of what the media is reporting (and how it is reporting it). Thus, I can reasonably speculate that if no thread is started on a subject, it was likely not covered heavily in the media (or not covered in a way that created interest/outrage among the more left leaning posters here). If a thread is started on a subject (especially a political one), then it likely was covered heavily and in a way that prompted interest/outrage in the same left leaning posters.

And, as I stated at the beginning, it's not a hard pattern to see. Again, the pattern I'm talking about is the relationship between what and how the media reports things and what the posters here create threads about. I was not talking about the media. I was talking about how the posters on this forum react to the media. I get that this may be too subtle for you, but this is seriously like the third time I've explained this to you and you still don't seem to get it.

I'd offer to type slower or something, but I'm not sure how that would help.

Edited, Apr 27th 2017 3:55pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#85 Apr 27 2017 at 5:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#86 Apr 27 2017 at 6:09 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,355 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Your question was about how I could comment on the media coverage without having watched it myself. My response is that my statement about the media was I've observed over many years on this forum that what posters choose to start threads about tends to be a reflection of what the media is reporting (and how it is reporting it)


Flawed Sample Size.

If you don't actually watch the media, how do you know? Maybe we are all cat fishing you? Or even Gaslighting you! Mwuhuhahahahahahahaha!

We're all in a liberal conspiracy to report to this website what we want you to believe is the totality of the media coverage of the world today!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#87 Apr 27 2017 at 7:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Your question was about how I could comment on the media coverage without having watched it myself. My response is that my statement about the media was I've observed over many years on this forum that what posters choose to start threads about tends to be a reflection of what the media is reporting (and how it is reporting it)


Flawed Sample Size.

If you don't actually watch the media, how do you know? Maybe we are all cat fishing you? Or even Gaslighting you! Mwuhuhahahahahahahaha!


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.

Quote:
We're all in a liberal conspiracy to report to this website what we want you to believe is the totality of the media coverage of the world today!


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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#88 Apr 27 2017 at 8:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,355 posts
My posts are always tongue in cheek, I don't expect you to take me seriously! I did it all for the lols and the xp.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#89 Apr 27 2017 at 11:24 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
"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
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#90 Apr 28 2017 at 6:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Apparently we are now the media. Anyone can be the media.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#91 Apr 28 2017 at 7:28 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts

gbaji wrote:
Thus, I can reasonably speculate
Then it isn't a pattern.
gbaji wrote:
I'd offer to type slower or something, but I'm not sure how that would help.
According to you this means I win the argument.
gbaji wrote:
BTW, this is the kind of stuff that infuriates conservatives.
Their lies not being accepted blindly?
gbaji wrote:
And honestly, the scariest part is that most of the liberals who do this don't even think they're being biased.
So you're a liberal now?
gbaji wrote:
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"
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.
Timelordwho wrote:
Apparently we are now the media.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#92 Apr 28 2017 at 7:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
Apparently we are now the media. Anyone can be the media.

Am I getting paid?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#93 Apr 28 2017 at 9:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Apparently we are now the media. Anyone can be the media.

Am I getting paid?


I didn't think we paid journalists anymore.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#94 Apr 28 2017 at 9:13 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Man, I picked a bad time to become part of the media.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#95 Apr 28 2017 at 9:29 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
Lloyd Bridges wrote:
Man, I picked a bad time to become part of the media.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#96 May 02 2017 at 5:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
What I'm getting at is that if you can't correlate your claim then it isn't a pattern.


The claim that the threads on this forum tend to be influenced by external media? Um... The correlation consists of looking at the OP of the threads on the front page of this forum.

Again. It's not a hard pattern to spot.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#97 May 02 2017 at 7:18 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
What I'm getting at is that if you can't correlate your claim then it isn't a pattern.


The claim that the threads on this forum tend to be influenced by external media? .
No. The you screaming "in the media, in the media!" and when presed on the point claimed that "the media!!" meant "this forum".
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#98 May 02 2017 at 8:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
What I'm getting at is that if you can't correlate your claim then it isn't a pattern.


The claim that the threads on this forum tend to be influenced by external media? .
No. The you screaming "in the media, in the media!" and when presed on the point claimed that "the media!!" meant "this forum".


I already provided the complete quote string, in chronological order, which disproves that claim.

My first observation was about people screaming "here", as in "on this forum". The first response to that post very clearly got that I was talking about people posting about a subject "on this forum". This was not confusing or hidden. It was what I was talking about.

I *later* added the point, when that person speculated about the cause of posters on this forum choosing to post one story, but not another, that I thought that people's choices when posting here was influenced by what they see and hear in the media. Again, not confusing, or hidden. It was very clear.

How you guys work so very hard to misinterpret something, seemingly just for the sake of doing so, is beyond me. Why not just accept when I say "this is what I mean", that given that I'm the author, maybe I'm right? Just seems like what you are doing is finding anything to talk about except the subject itself.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#99 May 03 2017 at 12:33 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
What I'm getting at is that if you can't correlate your claim then it isn't a pattern.


The claim that the threads on this forum tend to be influenced by external media? .
No. The you screaming "in the media, in the media!" and when presed on the point claimed that "the media!!" meant "this forum".


I already provided the complete quote string, in chronological order, which disproves that claim.
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?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#100 May 03 2017 at 7:36 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why not just accept when I say "this is what I mean", that given that I'm the author, maybe I'm right?
Tens of thousands of posts of you playing semantics when what you originally write is proven wrong.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 87 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (87)