SPLC Says Army Bases Are Confederate Monuments That Need To Come Down

[Dashinka 23,235]

1 minute ago, IAMX said:

I think this is interesting (for a rational discussion) because many probably wonder how a stupid organization like this gets funding, but as someone who has worked in corporate management, I'll happily share my knowledge...

 

So there's two reasons a large business would want to engage with scummy SPLC, which also goes into any other organization:

- They've had to settle a lawsuit or court case involving some form of discrimination or corporate misconduct (main originating premise behind shams like anger management, sensitivity training, et al.)

- They're trying to prime their CSR image

 

They don't really waste a lot of time doing effort to research the background of the organization they're giving funds to, they're looking merely to advance their own image.

 

So in much like a portfolio fashion, either funds are spread around a swath of organizations, or they're more targeted.

 

SPLC got its clout in the last handful of years (despite being around for-like-ever) because the Obama administration partnered with it. A corporate researcher who feels like being lazy and using cursory information would see that this organization superficially seems reputable. 

 

So that's one way.

 

Another way is just extremely rich millionaires and billionares like Soros and co. who didn't get their way in the election so want to toss money around and wreak havoc.

I agree.  Most corporations probably fall into both categories you mentioned.  Corporations generally like to play both sides of the fence politically as they usually do not want to alienate any side and eliminate personal spending directed at them from any group.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

When SPLC named Ben Carson a hate monger they lost the little credibility they had left.  They have a long history of only labeling Extreme Right groups as hate groups all while ignoring the Extreme Left groups.  There was a rep from SPLC on Christ Matthews a week or so ago defending Antifa.  When Chris actually pressed her on their fascist actions she clammed up and said she was not an expert on Antifa.  Looked really stupid, but what else would one expect from a Left Wing political organization like SPLC.

 

As far as the Dailycaller, I think they have as much credibility as any other news source out there considering the themes an narratives they are all pushing so feel free to go anywhere, NYTimes, WaPo, CNN, AP for all your fake news.

 

   Some people keep saying that, as if repeating it over and over will somehow make it true. It won't.

[Dashinka 23,235]

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Some people keep saying that, as if repeating it over and over will somehow make it true. It won't.

Like what keeps being repeated about the Dailycaller, or FoxNews.  It is perception which is the same standard being used by the Left for the Right leaning publications.  Face it, if you don't like the political message, the plan is attack as fake regardless of the voracity of the claim.  The Nation published a fascinating article about the supposed DNC hack a few weeks ago, since it didn't fit the narrative politically the mainstream Left Wing publications are pushing it is ignored or decried as fake new.

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Like what keeps being repeated about the Dailycaller, or FoxNews.  It is perception which is the same standard being used by the Left for the Right leaning publications.  Face it, if you don't like the political message, the plan is attack as fake regardless of the voracity of the claim.  The Nation published a fascinating article about the supposed DNC hack a few weeks ago, since it didn't fit the narrative politically the mainstream Left Wing publications are pushing it is ignored or decried as fake new.

 

 

     The problem with some on the right is the propensity to refer to anything to the left of themselves as "left wing". There are many centrist publications. If someone is so far right that the middle looks like the left to them, that's their problem, not someone else's. 

 

    As far as the Daily Caller in particular, I don't see why the pretense. No surprise a media site created by Tucker Carlson would present a extremely conservative bias. They are not even pretending to be fair and balanced. I have no problem with someone consuming fluff. The issue is when they don't recognize it. 

 

   

  

[Dashinka 23,235]

26 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

     The problem with some on the right is the propensity to refer to anything to the left of themselves as "left wing". There are many centrist publications. If someone is so far right that the middle looks like the left to them, that's their problem, not someone else's. 

 

    As far as the Daily Caller in particular, I don't see why the pretense. No surprise a media site created by Tucker Carlson would present a extremely conservative bias. They are not even pretending to be fair and balanced. I have no problem with someone consuming fluff. The issue is when they don't recognize it. 

 

   

  

I don't disagree with the fact that the DailyCaller is conservative, but to use your analogy how does this represent the entire Right Wing?  So it seems both sides like to generalize about the other which is what usually happens in a political debate.  The problem with  what has happened recently is those publications you might describe as centrist (WaPo, or NYTimes) have demonstrably shifted to the Left since the campaign and the election at least politically, and honestly this has hurt their credibility and put them in the same journalistic category as all the others such as DailyCaller, HuffPo, Salon, DailyBeast, Breitbart, etc.  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I don't disagree with the fact that the DailyCaller is conservative, but to use your analogy how does this represent the entire Right Wing?  So it seems both sides like to generalize about the other which is what usually happens in a political debate.  The problem with  what has happened recently is those publications you might describe as centrist (WaPo, or NYTimes) have demonstrably shifted to the Left since the campaign and the election at least politically, and honestly this has hurt their credibility and put them in the same journalistic category as all the others such as DailyCaller, HuffPo, Salon, DailyBeast, Breitbart, etc.  

 

    Hurt their credibility? Yes to varying extent. Put them in the same category as Breitbart? Not even close.

 

    I started a new topic on this, since it's not central to this topic.

    

      

[Dashinka 23,235]

Just now, Steeleballz said:

 

    Hurt their credibility? Yes to varying extent. Put them in the same category as Breitbart? Not even close.

 

    I started a new topic on this, since it's not central to this topic.

    

      

Yep, read the new topic.  A lot of effects, but no discussion of the causes.

[IAMX 3,055]

49 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I don't disagree with the fact that the DailyCaller is conservative, but to use your analogy how does this represent the entire Right Wing?  So it seems both sides like to generalize about the other which is what usually happens in a political debate.  The problem with  what has happened recently is those publications you might describe as centrist (WaPo, or NYTimes) have demonstrably shifted to the Left since the campaign and the election at least politically, and honestly this has hurt their credibility and put them in the same journalistic category as all the others such as DailyCaller, HuffPo, Salon, DailyBeast, Breitbart, etc.  

There's a perception among lefties with no concept of neutrality that NYT, CNN, and WaPo, for example, aren't biased news reporting. It even shows when looking at Wikipedia where they refuse to categorize obvious left wing slant correctly. If you go to Wiki and search for Daily Caller, Breitbart, Common Dreams, Daily Kos, etc., they will rightfully show the slant. So in the case of these sites, while its fun to slam them for their obvious bias, at least, in their defense, they don't present themselves as unbiased or neutral. The fake news lefty MSM on the other hand does.

 

And that's clearly what ruffles the feathers of the left. The left try to liken their views to "fact", even though its clearly emotion-driven, and biased as all **** (not a bad thing when people acknowledge it). They like to cite "fact checkers", who themselves are most blatantly biased (re: Snopes, Politifact, etc.), because lefties like to mindscrew themselves into believing their subjective views are fact (and associate their views with fact, science, etc.) when its not, and clearly damages the reputability of all those things they associate themselves with. 

[Dashinka 23,235]

6 minutes ago, IAMX said:

There's a perception among lefties with no concept of neutrality that NYT, CNN, and WaPo, for example, aren't biased news reporting. It even shows when looking at Wikipedia where they refuse to categorize obvious left wing slant correctly. If you go to Wiki and search for Daily Caller, Breitbart, Common Dreams, Daily Kos, etc., they will rightfully show the slant. So in the case of these sites, while its fun to slam them for their obvious bias, at least, in their defense, they don't present themselves as unbiased or neutral. The fake news lefty MSM on the other hand does.

 

And that's clearly what ruffles the feathers of the left. The left try to liken their views to "fact", even though its clearly emotion-driven, and biased as all **** (not a bad thing when people acknowledge it). They like to cite "fact checkers", who themselves are most blatantly biased (re: Snopes, Politifact, etc.), because lefties like to mindscrew themselves into believing their subjective views are fact (and associate their views with fact, science, etc.) when its not, and clearly damages the reputability of all those things they associate themselves with. 

That is really the issue isn't it?   One side seems to be able to see and acknowledge the political slant of the media that leans their way and the other side ignores, or turns a blind eye to the slant of the media sources that lean their way.  I would like to know why that is, but the study in the other thread doesn't really touch on that aspect.

 

I also agree about the fact checkers point.  If that isn't the fox guarding the chickens I don't know what it is.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Bill & Katya

[IAMX 3,055]

18 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

That is really the issue isn't it?   One side seems to be able to see and acknowledge the political slant of the media that leans their way and the other side ignores, or turns a blind eye to the slant of the media sources that lean their way.  I would like to know why that is, but the study in the other thread doesn't really touch on that aspect.

The left aren't turning a blind eye. While some of it may be sheer ignorance because many do believe their subjective views are "factual", the truth is they don't care how terrible the lefty MSM looks. They figure, even if it destroys the media, science, etc. along the way, as long as Trump gets impeached (from the sheer blitz of negative media attention), and they get their way, literally nothing else matters. Trump has triggered them so bad they're really that destructive.. you can see this with how insane they're behaving, lashing out at everything, calling everything white supremacists, Nazis, etc. as if anyone but them will listen to that.  Anyone in a rational mindset knows that their behavior isn't winning anyone over. Anyone in a rational mindset knows that Trump's marketing consists heavily of directing people's attention to the lefts behavior. Yet the left keep citing "ratings" as if they matter. Trumps "ratings" as cited by these lefty news organizations throughout the Republican primaries and Presidential campaign, showed Trump's approval ratings was dog doody. Yet he was elected anyways. All he has to do is stick the tantrum throwing left out in front of him and bam, people flee from lefties and go right to him. And the left think doubling down on the crazy and self-delusion will somehow change things in 2018 and 2020.. these people have lost it. 

Edited September 2, 2017 by IAMX

[Steeleballz 7,550]

28 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

That is really the issue isn't it?   One side seems to be able to see and acknowledge the political slant of the media that leans their way and the other side ignores, or turns a blind eye to the slant of the media sources that lean their way.  I would like to know why that is, but the study in the other thread doesn't really touch on that aspect.

 

I also agree about the fact checkers point.  If that isn't the fox guarding the chickens I don't know what it is.

 

   The studies are clear about which sources are not likely to be fact checked - that was the right. If you can't acknowledge that I think it's obvious who is turning a blind eye. I suppose the next step is to call the studies fake. Round round we go. 

 

   

[Jacque67 7,328]

4 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   The studies are clear about which sources are not likely to be fact checked - that was the right. If you can't acknowledge that I think it's obvious who is turning a blind eye. I suppose the next step is to call the studies fake. Round round we go. 

 

   

Remember Mark Twain!

[Dashinka 23,235]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   The studies are clear about which sources are not likely to be fact checked - that was the right. If you can't acknowledge that I think it's obvious who is turning a blind eye. I suppose the next step is to call the studies fake. Round round we go. 

 

   

I certainly acknowledge that the left leaning fact checkers would fact check the right leaning sources more, but the study didn't say why they don't equally fact check the centrist or left leaning mainstream media.  Is it because the fact checkers are left wing themselves?  Certainly not everything coming out of CNN, the NYTimes and WaPo is on the up and up.  We have a thread with many many examples of the supposed unbiased mainstream media lying in their stories.  Heck, after the shooting in Virginia at the baseball practice, the NYTimes brought out the tired Sarah Palin connection to the shooting of Gabby Giffords.  Elsewhere in their own paper they proved this connection wrong, but did that stop them?  Where were the fact checkers?  I guess they were just fine with a conservative woman getting hers.

 

 

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

21 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I certainly acknowledge that the left leaning fact checkers would fact check the right leaning sources more, but the study didn't say why they don't equally fact check the centrist or left leaning mainstream media.  Is it because the fact checkers are left wing themselves?  Certainly not everything coming out of CNN, the NYTimes and WaPo is on the up and up.  We have a thread with many many examples of the supposed unbiased mainstream media lying in their stories.  Heck, after the shooting in Virginia at the baseball practice, the NYTimes brought out the tired Sarah Palin connection to the shooting of Gabby Giffords.  Elsewhere in their own paper they proved this connection wrong, but did that stop them?  Where were the fact checkers?  I guess they were just fine with a conservative woman getting hers.

 

 

 

 

    If there are no right leaning fact checkers, perhaps it's because there are not many facts coming from the right to be checked. I wasn't asking you to acknowledge that though. I don't think that has anything to do with what the studies are discussing thoug.

 

   

[Dashinka 23,235]

15 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    If there are no right leaning fact checkers, perhaps it's because there are not many facts coming from the right to be checked. I wasn't asking you to acknowledge that though. I don't think that has anything to do with what the studies are discussing thoug.

 

   

So you acknowledge that the fact checkers are themselves politically biased?