Trump

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Post by fiksal » Sat, 15. Sep 18, 06:37

BugMeister wrote:so, as it appears I am no longer welcome here
I shall take my leave

goodbye..
stick around, bugs
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Sat, 15. Sep 18, 07:19

I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Sat, 15. Sep 18, 08:30

My big brother

This is the America the rest of the world believes in.
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Sat, 15. Sep 18, 19:07

BugMeister wrote:read it here - I haven't time to write it all out..
http://www.nationalmemo.com/stolen-memo ... peachment/
TLDR: Democrat says Kavenaugh had to have known about some Democratic talking-point notes that were stolen from her office by someone else while Kavenaugh was serving in the Bush White House. Claims that his denials are "implausible" and that is enough to impeach him because he has denied knowing anything about these stolen documents.

"Implausible."

That's a pretty big stretch of the word to force it to serve as grounds to reject/impeach him as a judge.

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Post by Observe » Sat, 15. Sep 18, 19:31

I wonder what we'd be left with, if we could filter out the hyperbole from all sides. Silence?

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Sat, 15. Sep 18, 19:39

Observe wrote:I wonder what we'd be left with, if we could filter out the hyperbole from all sides. Silence?
Golly! I don't know... They'd.. Well, maybe they would have to say something of "substance?" Not sure, since that word isn't normally associated with politicians.

""Substance," do you speak it?"

"Wwwhat?"

"SAY "WHAT" AGAIN! SAY "WHAT" AGAIN! I DARE YA. I DOUBLE-DARE YA @$%@-@$%$! SAY "WHAT" ONE MORE @@%$$%@$% TIME!"

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Post by Mightysword » Sun, 16. Sep 18, 05:50

BugMeister wrote:so, as it appears I am no longer welcome here
I shall take my leave.

goodbye..
I won't tell you to leave or not to leave, rather I will ask you: why leave? Sure, you had come under a bit more scrutiny recently, but comparing to people like #Masterbagger or #Skism, these two are antagonized with just about everything they posted, especially the latter had to face outright hostility (often undeserved). Yet they're still here, just as they should. As long as they don't break any rule, they can post what they want, defend their POV if they care enough, or ignore all criticism as if they don't exit, and so can you. No one can make you leave ... except the mods with their banhammers. But leave only if because you want to, and not because any other people want you to. Be ready to accept challenge, criticism and even scrutiny is something we all have to accept before making our post, and not after it. :)

And unlike the charismatic Morkonan or Observe who seem to get most people response to them politely even over disagreement, my comment was called idiotic just a few page back, and I'm fully aware there is a certain someone here who can't help but constantly throwing indirect jab and shade at my posting style ... but I'm still here. I talk to him when I want, and don't when I'm not in the mood. I have always said the main reason I post is not to seek agreement or endorsement. Yes, it's nice when you get people to agree with you and stink a bit when too many don't at the same time, but above all I do it for myself. :D
Hank001 wrote:@ BugMeister
Mind if I join you?
When Breitbart starts being considered journalism it's time to opt out.
Next they'll comparing their tinfoil hats... :roll:
Mind if I ask who include in this they you are referring to? Seem this bugged you enough that you had to throw shade at it even when posting in a different thread, calling this they "trolls", again, using plural form. I wonder if you're talking about that one particular link posted by Skism in response to your two other links. Yes, one link, posted by one person. So far there is only one response to it (from me), in which the post was clearly and explicit rebuking that Breibart article. Btw, I rebuked simply due to the quality of the writing, that article would get the same score from me anywhere it appears. That post got a couple of nods, so I would assume they agreed with my assessment. Actually, there was another post in response to the Breibart's link from a different poster, who also denounced it. What your posts (here and in the other thread) seem to imply that there are a lot of people linking Breibart's articles left and right or giving it their endorsement. So ... dramatic much? Or ...

I have that suspicious feeling again in which you just skimped over the post, misread it as an endorsement and jump the gun ... again :D

Btw, for your benefit and since I'm bored on a Saturday night, I went back 20 pages of this thread to see if there is another Breibart article anywhere ... but nada.


Setting that aside though, I don't know what Breibart is or why you hate it. But giving the fact that only one person had posted one link from it, and that one occassion still manage to trigger you enough to feel that you want to leave the thread ... given you're sympathetic to Bug, maybe you would understand why people has been reacting in a certain way after months and months of daily youtube links? Again, understand yourself will help you understand others people. It is what it is, right? :)

User avatar
Chips
Posts: 4873
Joined: Fri, 19. Mar 04, 19:46
x4

Post by Chips » Sun, 16. Sep 18, 11:25

Brietbart has been referenced to several times in the forum to offer up opinion pieces that support someone's opinion - which isn't *that* surprising - except it's being considered a news source. It isn't, it is entirely presented with the biased opinion of the reporter rather than just reporting news.

Again, different strokes different folks.

You can read wikipedia for a fairly succient explanation about it. You can check out Steve Bannon (familiar I'm sure), Milo Yiannopoulos and many other names associated with the place too.
Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and some of its content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and many traditional conservatives alike.[11] The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories,[12][13][14][15][16] and intentionally misleading stories.[17][18]
^ Wikipedia.

And what sort of "news organisation" has this:
On November 30, 2016, Breitbart News announced plans to boycott the Kellogg's brand after its decision to stop advertising on the site because Breitbart is not "aligned with our values".[61] Later, Breitbart News announced they would be willing to go to "war" with Kellogg's over its decision to remove ads from the site.
Not a news website :P

Basically, if Brietbart is your only source to support an argument, then it's pretty weak, and you're likely seeking confirmation bias. Realistically it should be easily news substantiated by most recognised, respected, media outlets.

It's hard to formulate any meaningful discussion when Brietbart is the retort - so why waste energy doing so. No opinion is going to shift.

Likewise, I could be accused of being close minded by not bothering to engage if Brietbart is the substantiating source. I'm comfortable with that, mainly as I do read a wide variety of publications and sources across the political spectrum. Except Russia Today - that's just comedy gold :D

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Sun, 16. Sep 18, 23:49

Chips wrote:Brietbart...Not a news website :P ..
Correct.

youtube - Obi Wan on "Brietbart"

Retiredman
Posts: 795
Joined: Fri, 4. Sep 09, 02:35
x3ap

Post by Retiredman » Mon, 17. Sep 18, 16:52

BugMeister wrote:so, as it appears I am no longer welcome here
I shall take my leave

goodbye..

Gee.. Don't go, it no fun when you pick on Masterbagger.
(He makes funny sounds when punched :P )

I would volunteer but I already make the normal old geezer sounds every evening.
You think a hero is some weird sandwitch and not a guy attacking a Xeno J with a kestrel.

Sir.. I said .. A guy attacking a J with a kestrel is the sandwitch.

User avatar
clakclak
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sun, 13. Jul 08, 19:29
x3

Post by clakclak » Mon, 17. Sep 18, 22:08

Mightysword wrote:[...]

Setting that aside though, I don't know what Breibart is or why you hate it. [...]
I am happy to see that you managed to avoid it so far, altough I am fairly suprised as one of its co-founders, Steve Bannon, held a pretty important position in the Trump White House for some time. Breitbart is basically a propaganda website for Bannon and like minded people. I explicitly say propaganda because they resort to pretty lazy lies. My favourite one was (and I think I mentioned this before), when they took a picture of world cup winning footballer Lukas Podolski and implied hey was a refugee arriving illegally in Europe via jetski.
"The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn't have the weight of gender expectations." - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Post by Observe » Mon, 17. Sep 18, 22:24

It's really quite an interesting world we live in. People get to make stuff up. The word 'research', is often applied to the process of gathering information to support what we already believe.

Thus, if our beliefs are mainstream, we will 'research' main stream publications. If our beliefs are extreme left or right, we will likewise reference those who agree with us.

Media has become the choir that preaches to the already converted. The more media there is available, the more intransigent the masses become in their particular flavor of conditioning.

User avatar
Santi
Moderator (DevNet)
Moderator (DevNet)
Posts: 4046
Joined: Tue, 13. Feb 07, 21:06
x4

Post by Santi » Mon, 17. Sep 18, 23:50

While people tend to read what support their ideals, it is also worth noting the changes that digital news have bring to society.

"news that you may be interested in" "content that you may like" "information based in your preferences" Are the staple of today news, sure, they are at the end of the articles (just above the clickbaits) but it does reinforce the point that the press is trying to manipulate the way you think, or trying to sell you something, so becoming that less trustworthy.

I do not have any problem with bias as I read several papers and news agencies, but I do have a big problem when in any piece of news I do not have the whole of the facts as to make up my mind as to what, I personally think about the matter.

And also when the press goes all out trying to cause mass hysteria or outrage for stupid things.
A por ellos que son pocos y cobardes

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 18. Sep 18, 02:28

clakclak wrote: I am happy to see that you managed to avoid it so far, altough I am fairly suprised as one of its co-founders, Steve Bannon ...
It's just a thing with me ... I never really bother about the "who" detail. I judge the article based not on who wrote it, but its content, in this case the content is simply bad, and would still be bad even if it was published on a different platform. And it's not like I have not seen something just as bad on another platform. I mean ... if you had found that same article on ABC or CNN or FOX ... would you think it will make it ... less bad? :P

Santi wrote: "news that you may be interested in" "content that you may like" "information based in your preferences" Are the staple of today news, sure, they are at the end of the articles (just above the clickbaits) but it does reinforce the point that the press is trying to manipulate the way you think, or trying to sell you something, so becoming that less trustworthy.
The other, and probably bigger problem is how do we define 'news'. I'm very harsh on the current state of mainstream media, but I'm not foolish enough to think they're alone taking the blame. Anyone here still read print newspaper? The thing with them is at the very least, it's plenty clear on a newspaper where is journalism and where is the columnist, basically you can see the line between reporting and opinionated. Now, take a look at CNN front page and sometime I feel HALF of it is opinionated pieces. Sure, they give it different name: opinion, analysis, op-edin ...etc... but ... that's not reporting. The problem from the reader side though, is often when people link or quote something from a news site, they automatically think them as news.

We live in a days and age where we impulsively treats anything on the internet as 'news' as long as we find it agreeable with our point of view while in reality it's just another opinion on the internet. I mean, looking at the history of this thread, links can be found plenty, but do even half of them can be counted as news? ;)

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Post by fiksal » Tue, 18. Sep 18, 06:28

Mightysword wrote:Sure, they give it different name: opinion, analysis, op-edin ...etc... but ... that's not reporting. The problem from the reader side though, is often when people link or quote something from a news site, they automatically think them as news.
Is it hard though?

I see what CNN writes and generally have no issues identifying what's news and what's opinions. If there are uncertainties, there are plenty of other sources to check.

Same with FOX, I can pretty clearly see when it's opinions.

The Breitbart? Everyone knows it's alt right pamphlet. (who knows of them)

Mightysword wrote: We live in a days and age where we impulsively treats anything on the internet as 'news' as long as we find it agreeable with our point of view while in reality it's just another opinion on the internet.
That's not the right way to read news, and neither it was ever the right way to read when it was all printed.

Yellow press had always existed and still does.

Mightysword wrote: mean, looking at the history of this thread, links can be found plenty, but do even half of them can be counted as news? ;)
That depends on a link

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 18. Sep 18, 06:49

@Fiskal, you missed most of the points:

- It's not about how hard to identify them, it's about the ratio. Maybe it's just me, but when I visit a newsite, I would like most of the content are actual news. Because if I want opinion, I would go to a forum, or reading a blog.

- It's not about you or me identifying something as news or not. It's about these days people treating most thing as news. People can link an opinionated piece as a 'citation' for their 'news' when it's merely a bias opinion of someone who just happens to write something on CNN/Fox. It's not conjecture, it's fact, remember we live in an age when people are accepting social platform like facebook/twitter or even youtube as news source.

User avatar
clakclak
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sun, 13. Jul 08, 19:29
x3

Post by clakclak » Tue, 18. Sep 18, 11:19

Mightysword wrote:
clakclak wrote: I am happy to see that you managed to avoid it so far, altough I am fairly suprised as one of its co-founders, Steve Bannon ...
It's just a thing with me ... I never really bother about the "who" detail. I judge the article based not on who wrote it, but its content, in this case the content is simply bad, and would still be bad even if it was published on a different platform. And it's not like I have not seen something just as bad on another platform. I mean ... if you had found that same article on ABC or CNN or FOX ... would you think it will make it ... less bad? :P
[...]
It would not be less bad, but I would certainly approach an article I found on Xinhua a lot differently than one I found on Reuters.

Let me give you an example. These are articles from Xinhua (chinese state media), The Diplomat (an international newspaper with its main seat in Japan) and Deutsche Welle (German state media).

All three of them have a bias but all of them show it in a different way.

If you were only reading the Xinhua article you would come to the conclusion that the meeting went brilliantly, Merkel and Xi were in harmony and that it was about Chinese/German ties only. The article is not badly written. The contend also seems plausible and if you only had that article to go with you may think that this was everything that happend at the meeting.

Now if we got to The Diplomat we suddenly hear about Merkel meeting with human rights activist Liu Xiaobo, wonder why we didn't hear anything about that in Chinese state sponsored media? On a contend level however the Diplomat article shows its bias way more openly than the Xinhua article, by making a dig at Trump not talking about human rights in when he was in China, even though that is utterly irrelevant to the Merkel doing so. In general the article mainly focuses on German-Chinese cooperation as a counter balance to Trumps USA.

If we go to the DW article the first thing you notice is that it is German, so only accessible for people who speak the language or via bad translation via google translate. Now here we also suddenly read about Merkel demanding that access to the Chinese market for Germans be the same as to the German market for Chinese. Donald Trump however isn't mentioned once.


So I do think that it is important to keep in mind who publishes something. You can not always simply judge an article on the content level. Read only the Xinhau article, beliefe it because it seems plausible and never bother to check any other sources and you will get a very different picture than when reading the other two.

Knowing who is responsiable for what is also important when it comes to evaluating if you want to beliefe a certain source. I for example am very careful when it comes to believing Xinhua as the are an instrument of the chinese government. The same is true for Deutsche Welle, Russia Today and similar programs.
"The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn't have the weight of gender expectations." - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Tue, 18. Sep 18, 13:13

Great post clakclak.
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 18. Sep 18, 16:21

clakclak wrote: So I do think that it is important to keep in mind who publishes something. You can not always simply judge an article on the content level. Read only the Xinhau article, beliefe it because it seems plausible and never bother to check any other sources and you will get a very different picture than when reading the other two.
For me I have that part covered by being an extreme skeptic when it comes to the media. Like I said I'm very harsh toward the mainstream media, I'm already not taking anything from them for granted, regardless of the station. Something of such low quality like the article in discussion just earn extra scrutiny, or dismissed altogether.

User avatar
felter
Posts: 6961
Joined: Sat, 9. Nov 02, 18:13
xr

Post by felter » Tue, 18. Sep 18, 18:45

Take three people, show them an event together, talk to them separately and ask them what they witnessed and all three of them will give you a different view on what happened. This is just the same as news, whether it be in print, online or in a video, they will all report on the same thing but each report will be different.
Florida Man Makes Announcement.
We live in a crazy world where winter heating has become a luxury item.

Locked

Return to “Off Topic English”