The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

You're wrong again, you know

I never said it was wrong for you to do it. So I'm not being hypocritical doing it myself. I said you were hypocritical to do so. No more, no less.

You really can't deal with being called out, so my honest advice is to not try and mock other posters' English in future. Your own understanding of it needs work. Take it or leave it, I guess.

Ah, the "Trump provocation". Nice try. I am consistent to berate grammar-mocking via grammar-mocking, as I have done it for years. Do forum search. BEFORE PLANETARY ANNIHILATION WAS PITCHED THROUGH KICKSTARTER, I was doing it. It made me flaccid then, it makes me flaccid now. If anyone even dares bring up grammar in a political discussion, I'll act like they just assumed my pronoun, so help me Cthulhu.

interesting read : https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/rumana-ahmed-trump/517521/

So you consistently ignored the second rule of the forum that was there before planetary annihilation? ... let me remind you it's "Don't be a jerk" ... and mocking peoples lack of grammar of a language IS being a jerk ...
and if that is all that you want to bring to this thread that has absolutely nothing to with this than why should anyone care about what you say ...
i personaly am considering just blocking you by that point and would stop carring about whatever you would have to say be it valid or not ..
just because you were here first, just because you acted this way for the longest time doesn't make it ok at all ...

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/fa...ions-in-us-no-connection-to-swedish-security/

Surreal.

Also Trump blocking a whole group of some major media outlets from a press conference recently. Taking tiny steps towards a dictatorship.

There's two reasons he'd do it. Dictatorship, or "**** those guys, they only piss-wash the conference information to make ratings anyway, I don't HAVE to talk to them".

2nd Rule of the Forum: "ONLY ANTI TRUMP PEOPLE are allowed to mock or belittle anybody. If it's not against Trump or anyone in light of an argument against Trump, then you's banned yo." ~As interpreted by MrTBSC.

I tell you what MrTBSC, Gorbles, ect. When YOU start defending ME when someone does THIS, THEN you might have an argument. Until then, you're complicit to voter suppression, being a jerk, bullying, and hypocrisy, and you're excuse for doing so, is "they were jerks first, they're not piss-taking at Trump so they're automatically wrong, we're just being an army of justice and assaulting the bastion of white supremacy and oppression". Yeah, you're just being a bunch of hostile twits who call "rulebreaking" when anyone tries to defend themselves against hostility.

That's hilarious. First PewDiePie, now the entire country of Sweden.

Jones is a human who is good at pattern recognition. He doesn't make up source facts as much as he makes up connections and patterns. Not much of what he says is especially false, it's just his interpretation and overall conclusions sometimes go beyond what might be considered scientifically reasonable. I like him for that though - in the same way i like an artist who interpretes things in ways that people have never seen.

So when he comes up with something crazy like psychic vampire pedophiles trying to take over the world, I genuinely like listening to it because deconstructing his perspective and recognising where the biases and jumps are is part of the fun. And then there is the off chance that one of his crazy theories might end up being true to an extent - who knows. It would be awfully sobering if pizza gate ended up having any hard truth to it.

For example the first half where he talks about elites, good and bad, lust for power etc. is actually a pretty insightful moral truth that does repeat itself throughout history. The most recent notable example of that would probably be ww2. The problem being he then simplifies it into a factual truth as if he could put names to paper.

The hologram stuff is also based on an assortment of actual science. For example the simulation hypothesis pioneered by Bostrom, and blackholes being like holographic projectors of 2d information that collects on the event horizon by Nobel Laureate Leonard Susskind. The question of the latter being, what if everything we see is a hologram and we are the 3d projection inside of a blackhole. The latter is pretty interesting and you can find some of his lectures on youtube.

I also remember reading some interesting stuff on string theory where gravity is like a higher dimensional force that does infact bleed in, but it was so long ago i forgot the details. etc. etc.

have you seen me mocking you somewhere for anything? no? .. thought so .. and i surely don´t need to defend you to be right on you breaking a existing rule ..

Then ban me, pseudo-mod.

See, this is why you're not one. If you can't be partial and pseudo-ban Tatsu, then you're a pseudo-fascist.

What kind of muppet mod would watch someone comment on grammar, nod in agreement, then watch as someone retorts on grammar, and decide "grammar was off topic, and it was an unprovoked attack, so now I'll ban them from the forums"? Really?

Yea, there's a lot of political disinfo going around from both sides. Frankly, i don't think it matters a whole lot whether the 'sweden expert' had criminal convictions or not. It's the age old attack the messenger move - same crap with Julian Assange. Should judge the content of what's being said instead. If a convicted drug dealer told me the earth is round and orbits around the sun, it isn't a strong attack to discount the information because he's a drug dealer. I just corroborate it with other sources, like i otherwise would.

Meanwhile on the left, the disinfo is that some media outlets were blocked from attending a press conference. There are two significant problems with this narrative. The first is that in actuality no press conference was given. It was an off camera informal meeting that I assume had the intended effect of sending a polite message to CNN and others that they better step up their game. Judging from the content they put out, I don't think this message was inappropriate. Although honestly, Trump isn't as good at chess as I thought because he's letting his opponents attack him under cover of "integrity of the press".

The second problem with this narrative is that it makes some very dangerous underlying assertions about the fourth estate, who constitutes it, and what rights they have. The press is not just corporate media outlets. It's supposed to include everyone down to the independant blogger. At the heart of it is not some new found moral conviction by these networks, but a cloaked effort to maintain their own power and brand relevancy. They are perfectly happy that an independant blogger doesn't get invited to informal meetings behind the scenes, but cry foul when they don't. Same even goes for official press conferences.

Instead of me blabbing on, it's probably better to leave a question to ponder - who should be allowed to be at a press conference? How should information that a president or government want to release be disseminated into the public sphere?

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest "not via Breitbart".

Drug dealing has nothing to do with astronomy.
What happened is more inline with Fox inviting a person as "expert on Astronomy" and then the person proceeds to explain the viewers how the earth is the center of the universe. The title "expert on Astronomy" here tries to make people believe into lies. The guy has to know his stuff after all he is an expert on the stuff. Except it turns out he isn't at all.

Same when you introduce a person falsely as "Swedish defense and national security advisor" and then have them explain how bad the security in Sweden is you are clearly trying to make people believe into what they see by calling out false titles.

That is arguing semantics.

"step up their game"? Don't you mean "stop criticizing Trump?" Cause that is the "bad" thing the excluded media outlets tend to do.

By your words it seems Breitbart is a better media outlet then CNN, as they were let in. I don't think you believe that, do you?

That is a good and hard question. I dunno. How about the biggest press outlets that reach the most people and represent a wide spectrum of political views. Sadly for Trump that means also some who will throw non-stop criticism at him and he is really bad in dealing with that.


EDIT:

Also the daily "wtf America" is here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...erson-state-department-security-a7598861.html

Leaking information to the media is an issue because it is done solely for political reasons. I am for transparency, but not tattling like five year olds fighting on a playground.

Q: Is Breitbart a conservative news organization?
A: Yes

Therefore, Gorbles will slander it.

Seems easy. I should try this quiz again some time.

Breitbart is the conservative equivalent of The Young Turks. Both are so shitty that neither deserve to be mentioned in normal conversation, but somehow both are popular.

Breitbart being included while CNN was excluded was so uncalled for that Fox defended CNN.

I can concur with Breitbart only being included because "they aren't critical, constructive or otherwise". There were better ones included, and CNN's criticism did dip into the "unconstructive arsehole" depths on occasion, but had Trump been realistic, he would not have included Breitbart and specified that it was because of right-leaning bias as to be fair on the left-leaning bias.

I was just thinking, if patronized, I'd simply probably just tell my staff to handle the media, I simply don't care to get out with the public. We need a first introvert president, there's your real discrimination, we'll have a female president before we have an introvert but it's treated like it's not a disadvantage of any sort yet it's frowned upon greatly.

full vid :

Eh, I figured out this game. See, what I do is, casually leave this lying around coincidentally after each of yours. It's the worst conservative garbage I can find that I still marginally respect.