BF2S Forums Transgender people are now allowed into the military

"We're not going to bend the knee to a bunch of woke execs in California," paraphrased DeSantis.

Very cringe. Here we are again, dragging out tired, ambiguous use of the word woke. Let's invoke Game of Thrones too, that'll get 'em nodding along.

Have you ever considered maybe you have fallen for the liberal propaganda machine yourself?

I don't have the heart to read qa-casualties. My position though isn't as bad as the stuff I've heard about from there though. I am dealing with nobody in any of my circles right now who is defending the Russian invasion. Even my conservative contacts have their limits, I suppose.

Some people still get caught up by apolitical hoaxes. I've gotten one or two chainmailers about that "be on the lookout for scary new spider" or something a few years back that could have been disproven with five seconds on google search. People need to check before forwarding that stuff. I wish I could just say it's the older generations who forget sometimes that they have they're typing on the very tool they can use to fact check, but it's not just them.

@mac the valves on both definitely don't seem opened the same amount. way more right wing propaganda comes across my desk than left wing. some of the "left wing propaganda" is actually reported in propaganda form by right wing media.

left wing propaganda: republican lawmaker's ties to sex crime (alleged by anonymous tweet, clarified in paragraph 4)
right wing propaganda: the liberals are out to take your bathrooms, your guns, your bibles, and are lying to you about covid-19 and climate change

Coming from a 90s and early aughts red background I understand a lot of their stuff just fine, from experience of it being presented by forerunners of the post-Reagan propaganda machine and conservative think tanks. And from many talks hence after I'd flipped blue. "Contemporary American conservatism" is itself a very much hypocritical bubble. "The government should have minimal interference in your life but here's all the little things that make us uncomfortable that it should intervene in." "Oh, but I'm a Libertarian, the Republicans are too liberal for me!"

Yes, it is certainly the liberal America that is living in the metaphorical bubble by comparison.

What even is the liberal equivalent of tinfoil hat Infowars? I'm not convinced there is one. For OAN and Newsmax and arguably some of Fox, the blues have, um, Occupy Democrats? Crooks & Liars? Quite mainstream, you know. Breitbart opposed by what, Jezebel? Otherwise MSNBC and CNN channels, HuffPo, Slate on the left are opposed by Reason, RCP, NYP, Nat'l Review.

There there's a lot of more/less reporting-focused leftish news sources to choose from. NBC, NYT, AJ-E, PBS, but a dearth of ones I can think of from the right, er, Christianity Today? The more or less centrist stuff they accuse of being far left (AP, Reuters probably at the top of the food chain of centrist fact-reporting), only appears that way from a far-right perspective. With this in mind, they cherry pick among the functionally American center, barely left and barely right reporting-focused ecosystem for their Good Sources and Bad Sources. CSM, Forbes, WSJ - these guys are ok. NYT, PBS, NPR - lol wow you really believe that (except when it's an article that agrees with them).

When you are linking to a conservative debate partner, it is important that you choose from the accepted right-skewing sources that, while still sometimes too liberal for their tastes, generally are less bent on opinion and unfair analysis. Deprived of a source, I doubt many could tell whether an article came from one of their approved or shunned outlets. I have had a few satisfying reveals that way when a conservative person has so vibed with the contents of an article and metaphorically I rip the sheet off revealing The Atlantic in all its fancy typeset.

Nuclear option: reveal that the very sensible person, who'd tweeted a suggestion that we follow specific journalists rather than outlets, is none other than AOC.

e: weird turn, one of the guys is super into AJ-E. Maybe it's the perception that they're divorced from the western media ecosystem (writer names like Nigel Wilson really suggest that!) and report with an outsider's perspective. The same notion comes into play when paying attention to RT.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2022-04-10 15:49:22)

CNN TV is definitely more of an analytical channel than Fox TV. A run-of-the-mill Fox-enjoyer is used to selective and unfair content specializing in manipulating a viewer's emotions. Their minds are, in unflattering analogy, stretched and receptive much like the weary orifices of a jumbo dildo enjoyer. It would stand to reason that those avenues would be open to alternative content with enough exposure, especially a source in similar vein to Fox. From there I imagine some of these viewers could be worked up to consuming actual fact-reporting and long form articles from sources like NY/L Review of Books.

Between TV and web Fox, TV is definitely more of the mental junk food. If you must baby-steps a Fox brain, steer them away from Fox & Friends and the usual anchors/shows like Tucker and send them the generally better written Fox articles that they'd be open to reading for the namesake. It might be the best you could do for them for the time being.

LMAO

https://boredapeyachtclub.com/#/home

Dilbert_X wrote:

I thought it was important to at least be aware of other people's viewpoints, if you're not it leads to problems, the west was willfully ignorant of Putin's concerns about Ukraine, people like uziq were blindsided by Brexit, etc etc

At various time I used to read all the newspapers and watch many of the news channels, it helps you learn how to spot propaganda.

blindsided by brexit. my own parents and grandparents voted for brexit. i don't think any young person in the UK is unawares of the generational divides of political outlook and opinion. i was LIVING in the country in the run-up to the brexit vote. everyone was talking about it, within households and in the pub. but, yes, i was 'blindsided' and you were super smarts because you were reading 3 papers in australia. you sure understood it better than the british person, living in britain, who voted in the referendum.

what i pointed out repeatedly in the brexit discussions was the misinformation, lying and mendacity of the vote leave campaign. i said they won by extremely shady means and basically premised on lies and duping the people. and YOU here YOURSELF have been posting, over the years, oodles of links that confirms this view: you just posted a fucking link suggesting the brexit team were self-interested capitalist profiteers ffs. THAT WAS MY POINT ABOUT THE ROTTEN DEBACLE all along. 'blindsided'.



amazing. you read a few sources so you're trained to spot propaganda when you see it! but the person with 2.5 degrees in literary studies and, you know, analysing media, the person who works in a career where tailoring messages and communications is part of the core skillset ... hasn't a clue when it comes to propaganda! oh no! i don't know how to read something and think about its author, its context, its subtext, etc, at all. it's not like that's what a fucking english degree even is. hahah

you really outdo yourself sometimes. you're like a little child who has never left his parents' coddling and has started to take their 'number one son' stuff seriously to heart. brilliant little dilbert!

Last edited by uziq (2022-04-10 23:44:54)

but people didn't vote for a 'no deal' hard brexit, did they? that was entirely down to, uh, 2 years of political machinations and 2/3 prime ministers AFTER the vote. people voted for boris on a 'get brexit done' platform because they were absolutely sick of the issue and tired of the boring details, not because they all had a raging ideological hard-on for the most extreme form of brexit possible.

seems your presentation of events is just as dishonest and mendacious as the brexit cronies themselves.

I guess taking drugs at raves didn't really help you connect with the average person

.

you have covid. your brain is in a far worse state than mine. you practically have dementia already. it's science, after all. covid is a scary brain condition.

Last edited by uziq (2022-04-11 00:07:52)

i think i have a better idea considering ... i was in the UK the entire time, have a family who live almost entirely in the UK, have a social life, a workplace, etc, in the UK.

you left the country decades ago and think you 'understand the british people'. extremely smart.

we ended up with hard brexit because of a failure of political process, 2-3 grinding years of intervening events, actually. it had nothing to do with the sentiments of the british people.



if you think you understand the british people emotionally, why not check one of the most recent opinion polls on brexit? doesn't paint the picture of a nation of racists committed to hard brexit, as you keep on fancying it.



you and your 'special touch' of understanding with that totally rational, transparent entity, 'the great british people'!

in 2019 the 'leave' campaign were split between those at that point wanting a no-deal and 2 groups who wanted a variant of a deal.

just as many people didn't know as wanted no deal. yet you're here claiming that brexit was pursued with zeal by the british people because they all felt so passionately about the extreme exit option? lol. sure looks like it.

it was not obvious that no deal was johnson's plan at all. again, you are being mendacious in order to rewrite a history of mendacity. johnson himself said several times that no deal would be a disaster. he was promising the world to the northern irish over their border question whilst at the very same time hurting their chances of ever finding an amenable deal. it was absolutely NOT an explicit campaign for a no-deal brexit from the start. why are you being so fucking dishonest about this?

Last edited by uziq (2022-04-11 00:35:44)

obvious to any observer LMAO. that must be why half of his cabinet resigned as the process wore on, hmm?