shape
carat
color
clarity

POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Criticism

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,306
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

Elliot86|1486223147|4124220 said:
Last I checked Sarah Silverman isn't taunting Muslim women while wearing a bulletproof vest at shows.

No, she just makes up (and was caught) lies about gender wage gaps, uses racial slurs about blacks & Asians, and mocks starving children in African villages. Yes, she is such a poster-child for 'civilized' behavior.

She is NO better or worse than Milo. The content may change, but the message is the same. You just choose to defend the one who prescribes to your "platform" and falsely label others (for the same) when they don't.

And you wonder why Chump was elected ... :think:
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,306
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

wildcat03 said:
And now the left is watching the rights of others be trampled. So I'm not sure why you think it's ok to tell us to sit quietly and watch it happen or expect that we will.

And don't even get me started on conservative hypocrisy...

I never said "sit quietly & watch". If you don't want your rights trampled, the act of any other citizens rights being trampled SHOULD garner your support, lest it be you on the receiving end one day/again. This is something we should ALL stand up for regardless of the individual or our party; not be selective in defending rights being trampled to only our 'friends'.

I find Madonna repulsive personally, and I don't condone her WH comment, but if she had been on that stage, and spoke (non-violently) about her beliefs ("I want equality for all, let us decide our reproductive needs," etc), and some conservative 'whack-jobs' stormed the stage, caused a riot, and prevented her from speaking, I would join in the outrage over her rights being violated. THAT is fairness despite a difference of opinion.

I never said there aren't hypocritical conservatives, but all anyone here does is post such obvious, blatant examples of 'liberal' offenders. I don't make the news; I just comment on it. :naughty:
 

jaaron

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2016
Messages
877
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

JoCoJenn|1486224133|4124227 said:
Maria D|1486222347|4124214 said:
JoCoJenn|1486164648|4123914 said:
lovedogs|1486163189|4123895 said:
I couldnt watch the entire video--got about 30 seconds in of him blaming the left for being "anti free speech", and then looked up his disgusting writing. That told me all I needed to know about him as a person.

Maybe you can overlook all the commentary and just listen to what he says. :wavey:

Are you saying that you overlook his words when you listen to his interview? Do you feel that he doesn't deserve criticism for his written work because he is able to verbally articulate ideas that you agree with? I'm seriously confused.

THAT was actually MaryPoppins' advice (in defense of an anti-Chump article she posted) to anyone who might be 'put off' reading something they disagree with so they can still get the overall message.

mary poppins|1486080766|4123511 said:
Ignore the commentary in the article like I did and all that's left is a transcript of the speech.

I might be confused--as a liberal I understand that I can't possibly be fair and objective--but I believe Mary Poppins was suggesting you ignore the commentary added by the website and only read the transcript of the actual speech. In this instance, you seem to be suggesting that the subject's own writings are the commentary that should be ignored? So in this case, we are to listen to what he says, in one instance, and ignore what he has written, in many instances?

Um. Ok.
 

wildcat03

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
904
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

JoCoJenn|1486226274|4124241 said:
I find Madonna repulsive personally, and I don't condone her WH comment, but if she had been on that stage, and spoke (non-violently) about her beliefs ("I want equality for all, let us decide our reproductive needs," etc), and some conservative 'whack-jobs' stormed the stage, caused a riot, and prevented her from speaking, I would join in the outrage over her rights being violated. THAT is fairness despite a difference of opinion.

I'm curious as to what "rights" of Madonna's you think would have been violated in that case? I explained last night that this is NOT a First Amendment issue.
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,306
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

wildcat03|1486226504|4124243 said:
JoCoJenn|1486226274|4124241 said:
I find Madonna repulsive personally, and I don't condone her WH comment, but if she had been on that stage, and spoke (non-violently) about her beliefs ("I want equality for all, let us decide our reproductive needs," etc), and some conservative 'whack-jobs' stormed the stage, caused a riot, and prevented her from speaking, I would join in the outrage over her rights being violated. THAT is fairness despite a difference of opinion.

I'm curious as to what "rights" of Madonna's you think would have been violated in that case? I explained last night that this is NOT a First Amendment issue.

Ummm, she would be preventing from speaking freely her views.

And it seems the ACLU does not exactly support your interpretation.
https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/free-speech-protests-demonstrations

2. FREE SPEECH IS FOR EVERYONE

Young or old; anarchist or evangelical; pacifist or hawk; Mormon or Muslim; these rights apply to you. It doesn't matter whether you're a U.S. citizen, whether you're of voting age, or whether you speak English. Free-speech rights are for everybody. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
 

OreoRosies86

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
3,463
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

JoCoJenn|1486225518|4124236 said:
Elliot86|1486223147|4124220 said:
Last I checked Sarah Silverman isn't taunting Muslim women while wearing a bulletproof vest at shows.

No, she just makes up (and was caught) lies about gender wage gaps, uses racial slurs about blacks & Asians, and mocks starving children in African villages. Yes, she is such a poster-child for 'civilized' behavior.

She is NO better or worse than Milo. The content may change, but the message is the same. You just choose to defend the one who prescribes to your "platform" and falsely label others (for the same) when they don't.

And you wonder why Chump was elected ... :think:

Do you understand that Sarah Silverman does not represent a political platform, and that Milo does? Do you really not understand this?
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,306
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

jaaron|1486226449|4124242 said:
I might be confused--as a liberal I understand that I can't possibly be fair and objective--but I believe Mary Poppins was suggesting you ignore the commentary added by the website and only read the transcript of the actual speech. In this instance, you seem to be suggesting that the subject's own writings are the commentary that should be ignored? So in this case, we are to listen to what he says, in one instance, and ignore what he has written, in many instances?

Um. Ok.

If you read my original post in this thread, I noted I didn't even read the Faux News article, and why. I watched the video of the interview.

With regard to his writings (which I only read the one or two posted in this thread), I am saying - by adopting Mary's suggestion - one might overlook the "fluff" (editorializing, personal slant/opinion) and digest the substance or point of the story. I am not suggesting I or anyone else would agree with that 'substance'; that's why you read/watch it - to decide for yourself.
 

wildcat03

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
904
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

JoCoJenn|1486227425|4124246 said:
wildcat03|1486226504|4124243 said:
JoCoJenn|1486226274|4124241 said:
I find Madonna repulsive personally, and I don't condone her WH comment, but if she had been on that stage, and spoke (non-violently) about her beliefs ("I want equality for all, let us decide our reproductive needs," etc), and some conservative 'whack-jobs' stormed the stage, caused a riot, and prevented her from speaking, I would join in the outrage over her rights being violated. THAT is fairness despite a difference of opinion.

I'm curious as to what "rights" of Madonna's you think would have been violated in that case? I explained last night that this is NOT a First Amendment issue.

Ummm, she would be preventing from speaking freely her views.

And it seems the ACLU does not exactly support your interpretation.
https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/free-speech-protests-demonstrations

2. FREE SPEECH IS FOR EVERYONE

Young or old; anarchist or evangelical; pacifist or hawk; Mormon or Muslim; these rights apply to you. It doesn't matter whether you're a U.S. citizen, whether you're of voting age, or whether you speak English. Free-speech rights are for everybody. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

You're missing the point. Yes, free speech is for everyone. But the First Amendment ONLY addresses free speech with regards to its restriction by government, not with regards to restriction by private citizens.

Example: my husband owns his own business and the building in which it operates. He can kick anyone off the premises for expressing anti-Trump views and can have them forcibly removed by police. Does that infringe upon that person's free speech rights?
 

Maria D

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
1,948
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

jaaron|1486226449|4124242 said:
I might be confused--as a liberal I understand that I can't possibly be fair and objective--but I believe Mary Poppins was suggesting you ignore the commentary added by the website and only read the transcript of the actual speech. In this instance, you seem to be suggesting that the subject's own writings are the commentary that should be ignored? So in this case, we are to listen to what he says, in one instance, and ignore what he has written, in many instances?

Um. Ok.

yep, that was my confusion as well.
 

jaaron

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2016
Messages
877
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

JoCoJenn|1486227820|4124249 said:
jaaron|1486226449|4124242 said:
I might be confused--as a liberal I understand that I can't possibly be fair and objective--but I believe Mary Poppins was suggesting you ignore the commentary added by the website and only read the transcript of the actual speech. In this instance, you seem to be suggesting that the subject's own writings are the commentary that should be ignored? So in this case, we are to listen to what he says, in one instance, and ignore what he has written, in many instances?

Um. Ok.

If you read my original post in this thread, I noted I didn't even read the Faux News article, and why. I watched the video of the interview.

With regard to his writings (which I only read the one or two posted in this thread), I am saying - by adopting Mary's suggestion - one might overlook the "fluff" (editorializing, personal slant/opinion) and digest the substance or point of the story. I am not suggesting I or anyone else would agree with that 'substance'; that's why you read/watch it - to decide for yourself.

Right, but still confused. The writings others were talking about in relation to him and this video, weren't whatever editorialising/personal slant/opinion might have been done by Fox News to accompany the interview. They were the subject's own writings.

You can watch an interview/read a transcript and separate that from editorial content.
You cannot watch an interview/read a transcript and separate that from the subject's own viewpoints presented in his own writings. Those writings are equal substance to the interview.

Comparing this instance to the other is surely apples and oranges?
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,306
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

jaaron|1486230557|4124267 said:
Right, but still confused. The writings others were talking about in relation to him and this video, weren't whatever editorialising/personal slant/opinion might have been done by Fox News to accompany the interview. They were the subject's own writings.

You can watch an interview/read a transcript and separate that from editorial content.
You cannot watch an interview/read a transcript and separate that from the subject's own viewpoints presented in his own writings. Those writings are equal substance to the interview.

Comparing this instance to the other is surely apples and oranges?

:wall: :wall: :wall:

Take the BC article someone posted - Milo mocked women, their bodies, psyche ... That is his slant/opinion or as some here might say "him being a 'mysoginst'". But his point with the article is the impact BC has on one's body/life, and he linked 'evidence' of those points. THIS is why it's important to understand WHAT you are reading.

I didn't personally research those points/evidence to determine if they were credible or not because it wasn't something I cared to do ... I didn't post the article. But I am capable of reading an opinion piece, parse opinion from objective, and infer the writer's points - even if I disagree with them. I am not saying I agree with his points, mind you, but I did find it interesting & entertaining because yes, we women CAN be/do some of the things he noted, and ironically, also mocked by women comedians.

It's all part of the concept of being open to & tolerant of others positions, perspectives, experiences, etc. Or you can choose to read/surround yourself ONLY with those you agree. Your choice/prerogative - but it doesn't make "you" right, and Milo or any other entertainer/artist wrong.
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,306
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

Elliot86|1486227607|4124247 said:
Do you understand that Sarah Silverman does not represent a political platform, and that Milo does? Do you really not understand this?

Yes, she DOES represent a political platform - a VERY liberal platform. She appeared in several tv ads and produced her own discriminatory leftist propaganda.Do you REALLY deny that?

My earlier post proving that was deleted, which is fine and I respect mod's decision to do so.

Without intending to imply PS feels one way or the other on the subject, it's removal further proves my earlier point about just how UNcivilized she is, and how she really is on par with Milo.
 

partgypsy

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
6,622
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

Ok, let's just say it. The liberals or lefts have always been on the side of free speech and a free press. Another side is always complaining about the free press. Complaining when there are peaceful protests (by pointing to the few who do criminal acts and try to paint all protestors with the same brush) and try to get people to mistrust their eyes and ears by producing so much fake or frivolous news, that real concerns are buried. I swear, Mr 45 would love another terrorist attack, so he has a reason to suppress people's rights, maybe even martial law. So while you are complaining about poor Milos treatment, thousand of refugees are turned away, and people with valid visa and green cards are stranded. What about their civil liberties? Btw. Even the ACLU defended the kkks right to march. And it's still legal for others to protest their marching (well, so far) as well.
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,306
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

part gypsy|1486235600|4124298 said:
Ok, let's just say it. The liberals or lefts have always been on the side of free speech and a free press. Another side who is always complaining about the press. Complaining when there are peaceful protests (by pointing to the few who do criminal acts and try to paint all protestors with the same brush) and try to get people to mistrust their eyes and ears by producing so much fake or frivolous news, that real concerns are buried. I swear, Mr 45 would love another terrorist attack, so he has a reason to suppress people's rights, maybe even martial law.

So while you are complaining about poor Milos treatment, thousand of refugees are turned away, and people with valid visa and green cards are stranded. What about their civil liberties? Btw. Even the ACLU defended the kkks right to march. And it's still legal for others to protest their marching (well, so far).

Part Gypsy - I read the first part of your post a few times, but I cannot respond. I think a couple fragments might have been accidentally cut or deleted (happens to me sometimes when on my tablet), so I don't want to assume your intent or misinterpret your comments. Also, my head is a bit loopy (don't anyone run with that :naughty: :lol: ) as I've been sick, so it could just be me. Just didn't want you to feel like I was ignoring it. ;-)

On the second part, I didn't suggest that Milo is suffering any more or less than others. But there are threads dedicated to those topics. :wavey:
 

partgypsy

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
6,622
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

JoCoJenn|1486236455|4124302 said:
part gypsy|1486235600|4124298 said:
Ok, let's just say it. The liberals or lefts have always been on the side of free speech and a free press. Another side who is always complaining about the press. Complaining when there are peaceful protests (by pointing to the few who do criminal acts and try to paint all protestors with the same brush) and try to get people to mistrust their eyes and ears by producing so much fake or frivolous news, that real concerns are buried. I swear, Mr 45 would love another terrorist attack, so he has a reason to suppress people's rights, maybe even martial law.

So while you are complaining about poor Milos treatment, thousand of refugees are turned away, and people with valid visa and green cards are stranded. What about their civil liberties? Btw. Even the ACLU defended the kkks right to march. And it's still legal for others to protest their marching (well, so far).

Part Gypsy - I read the first part of your post a few times, but I cannot respond. I think a couple fragments might have been accidentally cut or deleted (happens to me sometimes when on my tablet), so I don't want to assume your intent or misinterpret your comments. Also, my head is a bit loopy (don't anyone run with that :naughty: :lol: ) as I've been sick, so it could just be me. Just didn't want you to feel like I was ignoring it. ;-)

On the second part, I didn't suggest that Milo is suffering any more or less than others. But there are threads dedicated to those topics. :wavey:


Sorry if I was unclear. My main point, is that "liberals" are on the side of a free press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, organizing in unions, as well promote people's right to vote, (versus voter suppression). As other people have correctly pointed out, Milo stating that his "freedom of speech" was hindered, is a misinterpretation and misunderstanding, perhaps a deliberate misundestanding of that right. He has the right to say what he wants, but again as the ACLU (those horrible liberals) have supported even the KKK their right to march, in turn private citizens have the right to protest and use their freedom of speech as well. I don't think anyone supports the actions of anarchists rioting and causing damage. In fact it is regrettable because it cancels out the large number of people lawfully protesting his speech.

And my second point, while this in itself is not fake news, it is really a propaganda piece and distraction from more fundamental issues.

A huge amount of news is really not news anymore, but editorials. It can cause people while consuming a lot of "news" to actually be quite ignorant of all the sides of the issues (can I say Fox news?).

We had the Fairness Doctrine since 1949, where broadcasters if they were presenting "controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, which it was believed to have been under pressure to do from Ronald Reagan, then President of the United States, and in August of 2011, the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine." (Wikipedia)

Since then there has been a spawning of "faux" news sites including internet sites. Look at whos behind funding these sites, or OKing mergers so that more and more media outlets are owned by a few? Why do I think this happened? Because an ignorant public, or a misled public is a more easily manipulated public.
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,306
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

part gypsy|1486241897|4124318 said:
Sorry if I was unclear. My main point, is that "liberals" are on the side of a free press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, organizing in unions, as well promote people's right to vote, (versus voter suppression). As other people have correctly pointed out, Milo stating that his "freedom of speech" was hindered, is a misinterpretation and misunderstanding, perhaps a deliberate misundestanding of that right. He has the right to say what he wants, but again as the ACLU (those horrible liberals) have supported even the KKK their right to march, in turn private citizens have the right to protest and use their freedom of speech as well. I don't think anyone supports the actions of anarchists rioting and causing damage. In fact it is regrettable because it cancels out the large number of people lawfully protesting his speech.

And my second point, while this in itself is not fake news, it is really a propaganda piece and distraction from more fundamental issues.

A huge amount of news is really not news anymore, but editorials. It can cause people while consuming a lot of "news" to actually be quite ignorant of all the sides of the issues (can I say Fox news?).

We had the Fairness Doctrine since 1949, where broadcasters if they were presenting "controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, which it was believed to have been under pressure to do from Ronald Reagan, then President of the United States, and in August of 2011, the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine." (Wikipedia)

Since then there has been a spawning of "faux" news sites including internet sites. Look at whos behind funding these sites, or OKing mergers so that more and more media outlets are owned by a few? Why do I think this happened? Because an ignorant public, or a misled public is a more easily manipulated public.

:wavey: No worries; I frequently have to edit stuff because I miss my tablet autocorrecting and such.

I don't disagree that the left has largely support/defended those things. I don't find fault in that. But re: what Wildcat posted, I think - because this event happened on the campus, and the school receives Federal funding - there could be a legal argument about the school's actions (with regard to the level of security as well as cane lint the event) could be viewed as (I think it's called) a "public/state actor", which means they could be viewed as violating free speech. I was reading some cases to that effect that assigned that "role" to otherwise non-government entities by virtue of them receiving Federal funds. I am not a lawyer, so of course no expert. It's a matter for the courts if/when it gets to that point. Also, I don't know if Milo's speech could or would be considered "the press" if he wasn't there in that "capacity"; I don't know how that gets parsed out. :read:

On your second point, I agree wholeheartedly about editorials vs news (I started a thread about this not long ago). I admittedly don't know much about the Fairness Doctrine history (not that I refute what you wrote); I guess it's just a slippery slope trying to draw a line. HuffPo is another example ... fairly opinionated/biased reporting. I guess all we can do/agree on is this: it's going to be interesting to watch unfold in the coming months/years as "journalism" take a on a whole new meaning from what it has historically been.
 

partgypsy

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
6,622
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

I agree with what you said about Huffpo, it is very slanted. That's why when I want to get the "news" I go to New York Times, Reuters, BBC, also Washington Post, others before hand. I used to like CNN, but they switched to be almost all videos versus articles/text, which for one I can't look at at work, and two the information level is much lower than an article.

I disagree with penalizing Berkeley for what is an unfortunate incident. Otherwise I do feel it will be a slippery slope to denying federal funds from any entities that the Big "G" finds troublesome. I would hope everyone would find this loose interpretation troubling, because in actuality it can be used to supress the type of free discourse that does happen in the university setting.
In Nazi Germany, there were many laws, so there was always recourse people were following the "law". When in fact the law was only selectively applied to suppress political enemies or groups of people.
 

Maria D

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
1,948
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

JoCoJenn|1486234052|4124288 said:
jaaron|1486230557|4124267 said:
Right, but still confused. The writings others were talking about in relation to him and this video, weren't whatever editorialising/personal slant/opinion might have been done by Fox News to accompany the interview. They were the subject's own writings.

You can watch an interview/read a transcript and separate that from editorial content.
You cannot watch an interview/read a transcript and separate that from the subject's own viewpoints presented in his own writings. Those writings are equal substance to the interview.

Comparing this instance to the other is surely apples and oranges?

:wall: :wall: :wall:

Take the BC article someone posted - Milo mocked women, their bodies, psyche ... That is his slant/opinion or as some here might say "him being a 'mysoginst'". But his point with the article is the impact BC has on one's body/life, and he linked 'evidence' of those points. THIS is why it's important to understand WHAT you are reading.

I didn't personally research those points/evidence to determine if they were credible or not because it wasn't something I cared to do ... I didn't post the article. But I am capable of reading an opinion piece, parse opinion from objective, and infer the writer's points - even if I disagree with them. I am not saying I agree with his points, mind you, but I did find it interesting & entertaining because yes, we women CAN be/do some of the things he noted, and ironically, also mocked by women comedians.

It's all part of the concept of being open to & tolerant of others positions, perspectives, experiences, etc. Or you can choose to read/surround yourself ONLY with those you agree. Your choice/prerogative - but it doesn't make "you" right, and Milo or any other entertainer/artist wrong.

Sorry JoCo, no matter how much you bang your head against the wall you really don't make much sense on this. Jaaron already explained the difference between yours and mary poppins' statements and you haven't addressed that at all.

Instead, you are saying you read an essay and were able to separate the entertaining-to-you opinions from the items that seem like they may be facts. But you don't know if they are indeed facts because you don't care to research them. It doesn't matter to you that these "facts" only exist in this essay to support the writer's opinions. They can't be separated; it's all one piece.
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,306
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

Maria D|1486246765|4124337 said:
JoCoJenn|1486234052|4124288 said:
jaaron|1486230557|4124267 said:
Right, but still confused. The writings others were talking about in relation to him and this video, weren't whatever editorialising/personal slant/opinion might have been done by Fox News to accompany the interview. They were the subject's own writings.

You can watch an interview/read a transcript and separate that from editorial content.
You cannot watch an interview/read a transcript and separate that from the subject's own viewpoints presented in his own writings. Those writings are equal substance to the interview.

Comparing this instance to the other is surely apples and oranges?

:wall: :wall: :wall:

Take the BC article someone posted - Milo mocked women, their bodies, psyche ... That is his slant/opinion or as some here might say "him being a 'mysoginst'". But his point with the article is the impact BC has on one's body/life, and he linked 'evidence' of those points. THIS is why it's important to understand WHAT you are reading.

I didn't personally research those points/evidence to determine if they were credible or not because it wasn't something I cared to do ... I didn't post the article. But I am capable of reading an opinion piece, parse opinion from objective, and infer the writer's points - even if I disagree with them. I am not saying I agree with his points, mind you, but I did find it interesting & entertaining because yes, we women CAN be/do some of the things he noted, and ironically, also mocked by women comedians.

It's all part of the concept of being open to & tolerant of others positions, perspectives, experiences, etc. Or you can choose to read/surround yourself ONLY with those you agree. Your choice/prerogative - but it doesn't make "you" right, and Milo or any other entertainer/artist wrong.

Sorry JoCo, no matter how much you bang your head against the wall you really don't make much sense on this. Jaaron already explained the difference between yours and mary poppins' statements and you haven't addressed that at all.

Instead, you are saying you read an essay and were able to separate the entertaining-to-you opinions from the items that seem like they may be facts. But you don't know if they are indeed facts because you don't care to research them. It doesn't matter to you that these "facts" only exist in this essay to support the writer's opinions. They can't be separated; it's all one piece.

I'm not sure what point it is you think I missed. Jaaron said above that I can't separate a writers' bias from the point of his own editorial/opinion. I outlined how, in fact, I can and did above. Perhaps we just have different levels of reading comprehension. I don't know what else to tell you or him/her. Would you like to choose another editorial to test my seemingly magic abilities? :lol:
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,306
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

PS - the reason I didn't bother researching the links in his BC piece is because it (proving him right or wrong) wasn't specifically of interest to me, nor pertinent to the discussion; if I was interested in determining any validity to his theories, then I would.
 

jaaron

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2016
Messages
877
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

JoCoJenn|1486250046|4124349 said:
Maria D|1486246765|4124337 said:
JoCoJenn|1486234052|4124288 said:
jaaron|1486230557|4124267 said:
Right, but still confused. The writings others were talking about in relation to him and this video, weren't whatever editorialising/personal slant/opinion might have been done by Fox News to accompany the interview. They were the subject's own writings.

You can watch an interview/read a transcript and separate that from editorial content.
You cannot watch an interview/read a transcript and separate that from the subject's own viewpoints presented in his own writings. Those writings are equal substance to the interview.

Comparing this instance to the other is surely apples and oranges?

:wall: :wall: :wall:

Take the BC article someone posted - Milo mocked women, their bodies, psyche ... That is his slant/opinion or as some here might say "him being a 'mysoginst'". But his point with the article is the impact BC has on one's body/life, and he linked 'evidence' of those points. THIS is why it's important to understand WHAT you are reading.

I didn't personally research those points/evidence to determine if they were credible or not because it wasn't something I cared to do ... I didn't post the article. But I am capable of reading an opinion piece, parse opinion from objective, and infer the writer's points - even if I disagree with them. I am not saying I agree with his points, mind you, but I did find it interesting & entertaining because yes, we women CAN be/do some of the things he noted, and ironically, also mocked by women comedians.

It's all part of the concept of being open to & tolerant of others positions, perspectives, experiences, etc. Or you can choose to read/surround yourself ONLY with those you agree. Your choice/prerogative - but it doesn't make "you" right, and Milo or any other entertainer/artist wrong.

Sorry JoCo, no matter how much you bang your head against the wall you really don't make much sense on this. Jaaron already explained the difference between yours and mary poppins' statements and you haven't addressed that at all.

Instead, you are saying you read an essay and were able to separate the entertaining-to-you opinions from the items that seem like they may be facts. But you don't know if they are indeed facts because you don't care to research them. It doesn't matter to you that these "facts" only exist in this essay to support the writer's opinions. They can't be separated; it's all one piece.

I'm not sure what point it is you think I missed. Jaaron said above that I can't separate a writers' bias from the point of his own editorial/opinion. I outlined how, in fact, I can and did above. Perhaps we just have different levels of reading comprehension. I don't know what else to tell you or him/her. Would you like to choose another editorial to test my seemingly magic abilities? :lol:

I have to say, that no matter how much you condescend to attempt to explain to me how to analyse news (I guess you are going for the difference between primary and secondary sources and hard news vs. opinion) and no matter how any times you bang your head against the wall, your argument still makes absolutely zero sense. And I am actually annoyed enough--and worried enough that all the head banging will damage your reading comprehension even further, that I have gone back through this thread and the Black History Month thread to try to present some non-alternative facts. You did say in the other thread that you "LIVE for details and facts", so I am going to try to oblige.

Above, you say, "Jaaron said above that I can't separate a writers' bias from the point of his own editorial/opinion. I outlined how, in fact, I can and did above. Perhaps we just have different levels of reading comprehension. I don't know what else to tell you or him/her. Would you like to choose another editorial to test my seemingly magic abilities? :lol: "

No, that's not what I said, and I find your abilities not even close to magic. My initial point was that the two situations (this and the MaryPoppins one) are not analogous. That MaryPoppins' point, in the other thread, was that primary sources are essentially facts of record. A transcript of a speech is a primary source, a record of fact. An article that discusses the speech is a secondary source. Secondary sources can be either factual or editorial/opinion in nature. She suggested in the first instance, that you go straight to the primary source and ignore the opinion. You made the same suggestion in this instance. What we are trying to explain is that the interview and Mr. Yiannopolous's essays are both primary sources. They speak for themselves. There is nothing--no fluff, no editorializing--around them that we need overlook. They do speak for themselves.


In the Black History Month thread, MaryPoppins posted a link to President Trump's now infamous 'Frederick Douglass' is my best bud speech. That link was to the website Deadspin. The site had a full transcript of the speech, with the only commentary a small note at the top that President Trump had given a speech for Black History Month, and explaining the method of transcription.

You responded by posting a link to a transcript of the African American History Month Listening Session. Shortly thereafter, you pointed out: "The source quoted to start this thread is 'DeadSpin'... a satire & sports website; not exactly what anyone considers 'the press' when looking for ethics, facts, etc. To MaryPoppins' defense, she may not have been looking for 'serious', 'facts', etc. I get it, we all have non-serious stuff we browse. But come on..."

MaryPoppins then came back, explained that she was not previously familiar with the particular website, but assured you that the speech was real. She then linked to a Guardian article that also linked to a transcript of the speech. The Guardian article, on my bowser, at least, is clearly labelled "Opinion" at the top.

You then said that the writer did not report facts, but editorialized, 'in other words, laced his/her story about the event with three incidents of personal opinion. That is not IMO an unbiased account of the event. Yes the event is real, but it wasn't a 'speech' (prepared/scripted comments)."

Giving the benefit of the doubt, I am going to assume you were speaking at cross-purposes-- The Guardian and almost everyone else on the thread were referring to the prepared speech, and you were referring to the remarks at the listening breakfast.

There was a bit more backing and forthing, and then MaryPoppins wrote: "I didn't tell you there was new 'news', and the purpose of the linked article was to show that the speech was indeed factual and not satire. It was not to influence anyone's opinion about what Trump said. Ignore the commentary in the article like I did and all that's left is a transcript of a speech. It's factual what Trump said."

Ok. So those are the facts so far.

In this thread, you opened with a video of Milo Yiannopolous being interviewed by Tucker Carlson on Fox News.

Bunnycat then linked an article written by Mr. Yiannopolous on what he perceives as the negative effects of birth control, and which ends with the conclusion that women should practice no birth control as we need the kids if we're to breed enough to keep the Muslim invaders at bay.

Lovedogs then posted a link to another of Mr Yiannopolous's think pieces, this one apparently containing a redacted link to faculty photos at Ohio University, who are apparently middle aged man-haters because they're ugly.

Subsequently, Lovedogs posted that she couldn't watch the entire video, looked up his 'disgusting writing', and that told her all she needed to know about him. That conclusion was based on two sources: the interview and the subject's own writings.

In response to that, you posted: "Maybe you can overlook all the commentary and just listen to way he says :wavey: "

Lovedogs replied: "I did that when I read his own words. He is a vile, hateful, sexist, racist piece of garbage."

Maria D then asked: "Are you saying that you overlook his words when you listen to the interview? Do you feel that he doesn't deserve criticism for his written work because he is able to verbally articulate ideas that you agree with? I'm seriously confused."

You replied: "THAT was actually MaryPoppins' advice (in defense of an anti-Chump article she posted) to anyone who might be 'put off' reading something they disagree with so they can still get the overall message."

*NB - I think her point was not that at all, but, simply to point out the fact, since that you could find a transcript of the speech in the article, it was possible to base your opinion on what was actually said rather than the opinion surrounding it.

Maria D replied: "JoCo, I'm even more confused than before, It sounds like your 'ignore the commentary' remark was then mild sarcasm because mary poppins said something like that in another thread? Maybe your motivation here is general debate?"

As I was equally confused, I then said, "I might be confused--as a liberal I understand I can't possibly be fair and objective--but I believe Mary Poppins was suggesting you ignore the commentary added by the website and only read the transcript of the actual speech. In this instance, you seem to be suggesting that the subject's own writings are the commentary that should be ignored? So in this case, we are to listen to what he says in one instance, and ignore what he has written, in many instances? Um. Ok."

You responded with: "If you read my original post in this thread, I noted I didn't even read the Faux News article, and why. I watched the video of the interview. With regard to his writings (which I only read the one or two posted in this thread), I am saying - by adopting Mary's suggestion - one might overlook the 'fluff' (editorializing, personal slant/opinion) and digest the substance or point of the story. I am not suggesting I or anyone else would agree with that 'substance' ; that's why you read/watch it - to decide for yourself."

Well, ok. So then I responded with: "Right, but still confused. The writings others were talking about in relation to him and his video, weren't whatever editorialising/personal slant/opinion might have been done by Fox News to accompany the interview. They were the subject's own writings. You can watch an interview/read a transcript and separate that from editorial content. You cannot watch an interview/read a transcript and separate that from the subject's own viewpoints presented in his own writings. Those writings are equal substance to the interview. Comparing this instance to the other is surely apples and oranges?"

You then responded with the head banging post, and Maria D responded with the post above. Etc, etc.
 

lovedogs

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
18,029
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

Jaaron, I appreciate your well thought out (and researched!) Post. Unfortunately, I think we are at a point where facts are irrelevant, and people will continue repeating things that simply don't make logical sense, all while insulting and belittling others.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
53,978
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

Yes I agree with lovedogs. Jaaron, I enjoy and appreciate your intelligent political posts. Thank you.
 

jaaron

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2016
Messages
877
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

missy said:
Yes I agree with lovedogs. Jaaron, I enjoy and appreciate your intelligent political posts. Thank you.
lovedogs|1486263335|4124397 said:
Jaaron, I appreciate your well thought out (and researched!) Post. Unfortunately, I think we are at a point where facts are irrelevant, and people will continue repeating things that simply don't make logical sense, all while insulting and belittling others.


Thank you Missy and Lovedogs- I'm just so tired of this constant game that seems to be being played by the Trump camp and followers right now, where every legitimate question is answered with a cry of "But the Martin Luther King bust!" and then, when that doesn't work with the twisting of facts and cries about the lack of logic of liberals/the media/ivy leaguers/East Coasters/whoever. I'm sick of this post-fact era already.

That said, I will also say, that I might be one of the few liberals I know who believes both that the Berkeley students were right in their peaceful protest and that Mr. Yiannopolous should have been allowed to speak. Don't get me wrong--I think he's one of the most repellent little worms to have crawled out of the dirt in recent years, and that's saying a lot. But I also think he's more a bully and provocateur than an ideologue, and the more we fan the flames, the bigger a platform he and his repellent alt-right adopters gain. I very much suspect that if ignored, he will either go too far and get himself into real trouble, or disappear due to having had his oxygen supply cut off, and then reappear in some new (likely 'woke' and penitent) form.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
53,978
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

jaaron|1486310231|4124532 said:
missy said:
Yes I agree with lovedogs. Jaaron, I enjoy and appreciate your intelligent political posts. Thank you.
lovedogs|1486263335|4124397 said:
Jaaron, I appreciate your well thought out (and researched!) Post. Unfortunately, I think we are at a point where facts are irrelevant, and people will continue repeating things that simply don't make logical sense, all while insulting and belittling others.


Thank you Missy and Lovedogs- I'm just so tired of this constant game that seems to be being played by the Trump camp and followers right now, where every legitimate question is answered with a cry of "But the Martin Luther King bust!" and then, when that doesn't work with the twisting of facts and cries about the lack of logic of liberals/the media/ivy leaguers/East Coasters/whoever. I'm sick of this post-fact era already.

That said, I will also say, that I might be one of the few liberals I know who believes both that the Berkeley students were right in their peaceful protest and that Mr. Yiannopolous should have been allowed to speak. Don't get me wrong--I think he's one of the most repellent little worms to have crawled out of the dirt in recent years, and that's saying a lot. But I also think he's more a bully and provocateur than an ideologue, and the more we fan the flames, the bigger a platform he and his repellent alt-right adopters gain. I very much suspect that if ignored, he will either go too far and get himself into real trouble, or disappear due to having had his oxygen supply cut off, and then reappear in some new (likely 'woke' and penitent) form.


I agree Jaaron. With everything you wrote.
 

bunnycat

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
2,671
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

jaaron|1486310231|4124532 said:
missy said:
Yes I agree with lovedogs. Jaaron, I enjoy and appreciate your intelligent political posts. Thank you.
lovedogs|1486263335|4124397 said:
Jaaron, I appreciate your well thought out (and researched!) Post. Unfortunately, I think we are at a point where facts are irrelevant, and people will continue repeating things that simply don't make logical sense, all while insulting and belittling others.


Thank you Missy and Lovedogs- I'm just so tired of this constant game that seems to be being played by the Trump camp and followers right now, where every legitimate question is answered with a cry of "But the Martin Luther King bust!" and then, when that doesn't work with the twisting of facts and cries about the lack of logic of liberals/the media/ivy leaguers/East Coasters/whoever. I'm sick of this post-fact era already.

That said, I will also say, that I might be one of the few liberals I know who believes both that the Berkeley students were right in their peaceful protest and that Mr. Yiannopolous should have been allowed to speak. Don't get me wrong--I think he's one of the most repellent little worms to have crawled out of the dirt in recent years, and that's saying a lot. But I also think he's more a bully and provocateur than an ideologue, and the more we fan the flames, the bigger a platform he and his repellent alt-right adopters gain. I very much suspect that if ignored, he will either go too far and get himself into real trouble, or disappear due to having had his oxygen supply cut off, and then reappear in some new (likely 'woke' and penitent) form.


totally agree...
 

Maria D

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
1,948
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

jaaron|1486310231|4124532 said:
missy said:
Yes I agree with lovedogs. Jaaron, I enjoy and appreciate your intelligent political posts. Thank you.
lovedogs|1486263335|4124397 said:
Jaaron, I appreciate your well thought out (and researched!) Post. Unfortunately, I think we are at a point where facts are irrelevant, and people will continue repeating things that simply don't make logical sense, all while insulting and belittling others.


Thank you Missy and Lovedogs- I'm just so tired of this constant game that seems to be being played by the Trump camp and followers right now, where every legitimate question is answered with a cry of "But the Martin Luther King bust!" and then, when that doesn't work with the twisting of facts and cries about the lack of logic of liberals/the media/ivy leaguers/East Coasters/whoever. I'm sick of this post-fact era already.

That said, I will also say, that I might be one of the few liberals I know who believes both that the Berkeley students were right in their peaceful protest and that Mr. Yiannopolous should have been allowed to speak. Don't get me wrong--I think he's one of the most repellent little worms to have crawled out of the dirt in recent years, and that's saying a lot. But I also think he's more a bully and provocateur than an ideologue, and the more we fan the flames, the bigger a platform he and his repellent alt-right adopters gain. I very much suspect that if ignored, he will either go too far and get himself into real trouble, or disappear due to having had his oxygen supply cut off, and then reappear in some new (likely 'woke' and penitent) form.

Jaaron, thank you so much for taking the time to write your thoughts. They are crystal clear and even if one didn't agree with them at least they know exactly what they are not agreeing with and not trying to sort through circular logic b.s.

They may not change anyone's mind about anything, and some might say that because of this writing them is a waste of time. I feel strongly that it's not a waste - it encourages those of us who are open-minded and prone to logical thinking to not give up the good fight. There are many intelligent and persuasive people in important positions (Kellyanne Conway is prime example) who excel at twisting facts in such an attractive way that people fall for the swindle. Let's keep up the resistance!
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,306
Getting to your comments and what I assume are your questions/confusion ... I'm breaking this down into 'chunks' (separated by the tilde lines) to make it more 'mentally digestible', as your post - jaaron - was one heck of a 'gumbo' comprising two or more different threads/discussions. :twirl: :loopy:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For the purposes of this post - everyone is wearing the exact same clothes; not a liberal outfit and not a conservative outfit, and we're not men or women, theists or atheists, hetero or LGBTQ, etc.; if you cannot do that, then just excuse yourself now ... because today's lesson isn't about politics or anything else; it's about INTERPRETATION. :read:

And because (contrary to the opinions of some) I am a nice person, here is pie for everyone (who doesn't have me on iggy) to enjoy while you read. :appl: :wavey:


Now, let's get started ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

jaaron said:
I have to say, that no matter how much you condescend to attempt to explain to me how to analyse news (I guess you are going for the difference between primary and secondary sources and hard news vs. opinion) and no matter how any times you bang your head against the wall, your argument still makes absolutely zero sense. And I am actually annoyed enough--and worried enough that all the head banging will damage your reading comprehension even further, that I have gone back through this thread and the Black History Month thread to try to present some non-alternative facts. You did say in the other thread that you "LIVE for details and facts", so I am going to try to oblige.
I was banging my head against the wall - not specifically AT you - but because I worked professionally in journalism for several years; as such - on serious discussions - I'm careful with my words to articulate exactly what I mean; I'm responsible for what I say/write, not how you/others intentionally or ignorantly (meaning 'lacking awareness') choose to interpret it. And keep in mind, this IS the internet; the only way to convey inflection is through the use of emoticons, or posting pictures.

I strive to base my positions (opinions) objectively on fact, law and precedent. I read what others post and respond based on those things; not solely because of my personal opinions, but if YOU (collectively) don't read things objectively (e.g. without your own bias), you don't get that. So, it is rather frustrating when others skim something in their mere haste to chew it up eagerly searching for some excuse to further cry about Chump or assume I'm his 'cheerleader' simply because I'm a conservative, then complain that they don't understand, can't follow thought, wash, rinse & repeat.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There IS a difference between 'hard news' and 'opinion'. If you're seriously interested in understanding the differences, perhaps this will help you: http://drc.centerfornewsliteracy.org/content/lesson-5-news-vs-opinion & http://drc.centerfornewsliteracy.org/content/ethics-opinion-journalist

Why should you care which is which can be summed up by the following statements:
The goal of news reporting is to give you the information you need for your role in our democratic society.
The goal of opinion journalism is to help you make up your mind about that information.

Like reporters, opinion journalists should provide facts, using the discipline of verification to tell the stories that help us with the work of self-governance. But the goal of opinion journalists is to use what they’ve learned to suggest solutions to civic problems and promote and provoke discussion by picking sides and arguing forcefully. In other words, Opinion journalism is, by definition, one-sided.
You may be misled if you only hear one side of the situation.
and
Not only is Opinion to be quarantined from news reporting by labels…it must not, in the interest of arguing a side of a debate, misrepresent facts or the context that helps people make sense of facts.

I can NOT stress the latter enough, especially as it pertains to Milo's writings as well as any other 'Opinion' piece someone relies or cites. That doesn't mean "don't read them"; it means "use caution" if you do. I read opinion pieces from several perspectives: the writing as a whole, the points of the writing, and the writer's agenda being fair/objective or biased by beliefs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

jaaron said:
No, that's not what I said, and I find your abilities not even close to magic. My initial point was that the two situations (this and the MaryPoppins one) are not analogous. That MaryPoppins' point, in the other thread, was that primary sources are essentially facts of record. A transcript of a speech is a primary source, a record of fact. An article that discusses the speech is a secondary source. Secondary sources can be either factual or editorial/opinion in nature. She suggested in the first instance, that you go straight to the primary source and ignore the opinion. You made the same suggestion in this instance. What we are trying to explain is that the interview and Mr. Yiannopolous's essays are both primary sources. They speak for themselves. There is nothing--no fluff, no editorializing--around them that we need overlook. They do speak for themselves.

My "magic abilities" comment was a joke; that's why I used this fella --> :lol:

Here, the concept of 'skimming past BS to get the point' is the same. Both of the "BHM" articles and the Milo article re: BC are all editorial/opinion pieces that you can skip over the media/writers' bias and/or BS, get the gist of the position, and move on with life. I actually agree with Mary on that point. The "article" (for argument's sake) that mary first posted was not the complete transcript which included additional details with regard to the overall event, and I think THAT is what you/others are missing, and if you REALLY & TRULY give a darn about facts, truth, etc., you SHOULD make a point to understand this. If you just want to look for something else to bash Chump with then just go to HuffPo and quit reading this now, as I'm making a sincere attempt to help you.

Here is the link to the Deadspin piece, from which Mary copied & pasted the "remarks": (http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/a-full-transcript-of-donald-trumps-black-history-month-1791871370) and here is the actual FULL transcript (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/01/remarks-president-trump-african-american-history-month-listening-session). Her 'version' is missing facts that - again - if you actually care about truth, facts, context, etc., you CAN find in the full transcript.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

jaaron said:
In the Black History Month thread, MaryPoppins posted a link to President Trump's now infamous 'Frederick Douglass' is my best bud speech. That link was to the website Deadspin. The site had a full transcript of the speech, with the only commentary a small note at the top that President Trump had given a speech for Black History Month, and explaining the method of transcription.

No, her Fred Douglass link did NOT go to Deadspin; it went to a site called "one hot mess" (sounds legit :lol:). And it did not have a full transcript of the BHM remarks nor a link to them; it was just about the 'Douglass' debacle.

Her post (minus the satirical tweets for brevity):
mary poppins|1486149152|4123787 said:
Frederick Douglass Opens Twitter Account from Beyond the Grave to Troll President Trump
...
http://onehotmessalaska.blogspot.com/2017/02/frederick-douglass-opens-twitter.html

This link edited/abbreviated the Chump quote to:
"Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice.
followed by all the pretend back & forth between Douglass & Chump.

Now, the actual FULL Chump quote:
I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things. Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice -- Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and millions more black Americans who made America what it is today. Big impact.

Context matters: Chump was talking about the new National Museum of African American History & Culture, as well as the historic figures who are recognized in it. Would you like to guess who one of those "historic figures" is? That's right, Frederick Douglass. :clap:

Contractions matter: "Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice...". Who's is a contraction for "who has", because yes, Mr. Douglass is no longer with us today, may he RIP. And Chump was inferring that Mr. Douglass' legacy is becoming more recognized.

Grammar matters:The above is further supported by Chump's use of the word 'done' vs 'doing' - the first meaning "past" and the latter meaning "present". IF Chump was inferring Mr. Douglass actually was "alive & well" and still doing an amazing job, he would have said "...an example of somebody who's doing an amazing job ...". He did not. And it's troubling to me that there are so many people who lack basic comprehension of very basic grammar concepts, and actually form opinions as a basis for their "beliefs" and vote on such ignorance.

But on the bright side, perhaps those who do not understand contractions and misinterpreted the comment have actually done something good (far more than the BHM thread here at least) - it brought Mr. Douglass' memory to light for those who perhaps were ignorant of his role in history. And THAT is the point of Black History Month. :clap: :clap:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

jaaron said:
You responded by posting a link to a transcript of the African American History Month Listening Session. Shortly thereafter, you pointed out: "The source quoted to start this thread is 'DeadSpin'... a satire & sports website; not exactly what anyone considers 'the press' when looking for ethics, facts, etc. To MaryPoppins' defense, she may not have been looking for 'serious', 'facts', etc. I get it, we all have non-serious stuff we browse. But come on..."

MaryPoppins then came back, explained that she was not previously familiar with the particular website, but assured you that the speech was real. She then linked to a Guardian article that also linked to a transcript of the speech. The Guardian article, on my bowser, at least, is clearly labelled "Opinion" at the top.

You then said that the writer did not report facts, but editorialized, 'in other words, laced his/her story about the event with three incidents of personal opinion. That is not IMO an unbiased account of the event. Yes the event is real, but it wasn't a 'speech' (prepared/scripted comments)."

Giving the benefit of the doubt, I am going to assume you were speaking at cross-purposes-- The Guardian and almost everyone else on the thread were referring to the prepared speech, and you were referring to the remarks at the listening breakfast.

Here's where I'm :wall: :wall: There was NO 'prepared' speech. BOTH the Guardian & Deadspin 'articles' include CHERRYPICKED COMMENTS from the event's discussion. The transcript I posted is the 'event' as a whole; not an edited version through the lens of some biased reporter who has as big a stick for Chump as some here.

Mary 'sold' the Guardian link as 'reliable':
mary poppins said:
Here's a more reliable source so your false accusations about me don't stand and also in case it makes you feel better. And no need to respond with a comment about Al Sharpton. I already know how he is perceived by some.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/02/donald-trump-black-history-month-speech
Perhaps she will read this thread and your own observation of the word "Opinion" on the page and understand what I was saying at that time.

As I noted in the BHM thread - having the FULL transcript IS an important fact to note because it sets the tone for the comments that WERE attributed to Chump in the Deadspin 'article' (that everyone was barfing over), and the Guardian 'article'. But you wouldn't know that if you didn't know or consider the context, neither of which her 'articles' provided. Again - do you want the facts from which to form a fair & objective opinion, or not?

THAT is why I posted the following, highlighting why this was an opinion piece:
Your new 'news' linked article is a biased reporting, and that is evidenced by the very first two sentences:
On Monday Donald Trump marked the first day of black history month with a so-called “listening session”, pulling together about a dozen black Americans, virtually all campaign supporters or administration staffers, to inaugurate the month. The meeting, which was only open to the press for about 12 minutes, resembled most of Trump’s interactions with the black community to date: self-referential and placing style ahead of substance, to the chagrin of civil rights advocates.
Per the links & highlights I shared with you regarding Opinion pieces, and looking at what is bolded here, you can see why this IS an opinion piece with a clear bias (writer intentionally swaying readers to think Chump is a jackhole), and therefore, not an unbiased, objective news story.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

jaaron said:
In this thread, you opened with a video of Milo Yiannopolous being interviewed by Tucker Carlson on Fox News.

Bunnycat then linked an article written by Mr. Yiannopolous on what he perceives as the negative effects of birth control, and which ends with the conclusion that women should practice no birth control as we need the kids if we're to breed enough to keep the Muslim invaders at bay.

Lovedogs then posted a link to another of Mr Yiannopolous's think pieces, this one apparently containing a redacted link to faculty photos at Ohio University, who are apparently middle aged man-haters because they're ugly.

Subsequently, Lovedogs posted that she couldn't watch the entire video, looked up his 'disgusting writing', and that told her all she needed to know about him. That conclusion was based on two sources: the interview and the subject's own writings.

In response to that, you posted: "Maybe you can overlook all the commentary and just listen to way he says :wavey: "

That was actually a joke ... because of what Mary posted in the BHM thread. In hindsight, perhaps I should have used :lol: vs :wavey: I apologize for the misused emoticon. Chalk it up to me having been sick for a few days or an editing error on my part.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

jaaron said:
There was a bit more backing and forthing, and then MaryPoppins wrote: "I didn't tell you there was new 'news', and the purpose of the linked article was to show that the speech was indeed factual and not satire. It was not to influence anyone's opinion about what Trump said. Ignore the commentary in the article like I did and all that's left is a transcript of a speech. It's factual what Trump said."

Ok. So those are the facts so far.
Correction: that was your interpretation of the discussions, which I've corrected and/or clarified above to aid yours or other's understanding. All of that said - not everyone is going to read/hear every single thing to take it 'as gospel', help form solutions to world peace, etc. And that is absolutely their prerogative, but when they are going to use them in a discussion as a basis for 'fact' in defending their position, and it's my opinion they are falsely or ignorantly interpreting it, it's my prerogative to try & help them understand why they may be misinterpreting it. I don't do so to be a jackhole myself; rather, to try & help that person who may not have the background or awareness of how such articles are written & why. PS has people from multiple walks of life, not all of which include PhDs and writing/grammar gurus (such as myself). :wavey:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

jaaron said:
Lovedogs replied: "I did that when I read his own words. He is a vile, hateful, sexist, racist piece of garbage."

Maria D then asked: "Are you saying that you overlook his words when you listen to the interview? Do you feel that he doesn't deserve criticism for his written work because he is able to verbally articulate ideas that you agree with? I'm seriously confused."

You replied: "THAT was actually MaryPoppins' advice (in defense of an anti-Chump article she posted) to anyone who might be 'put off' reading something they disagree with so they can still get the overall message."

*NB - I think her point was not that at all, but, simply to point out the fact, since that you could find a transcript of the speech in the article, it was possible to base your opinion on what was actually said rather than the opinion surrounding it.

Maria D replied: "JoCo, I'm even more confused than before, It sounds like your 'ignore the commentary' remark was then mild sarcasm because mary poppins said something like that in another thread? Maybe your motivation here is general debate?"

As I was equally confused, I then said, "I might be confused--as a liberal I understand I can't possibly be fair and objective--but I believe Mary Poppins was suggesting you ignore the commentary added by the website and only read the transcript of the actual speech. In this instance, you seem to be suggesting that the subject's own writings are the commentary that should be ignored? So in this case, we are to listen to what he says in one instance, and ignore what he has written, in many instances? Um. Ok."

You responded with: "If you read my original post in this thread, I noted I didn't even read the Faux News article, and why. I watched the video of the interview. With regard to his writings (which I only read the one or two posted in this thread), I am saying - by adopting Mary's suggestion - one might overlook the 'fluff' (editorializing, personal slant/opinion) and digest the substance or point of the story. I am not suggesting I or anyone else would agree with that 'substance' ; that's why you read/watch it - to decide for yourself."

Well, ok. So then I responded with: "Right, but still confused. The writings others were talking about in relation to him and his video, weren't whatever editorialising/personal slant/opinion might have been done by Fox News to accompany the interview. They were the subject's own writings. You can watch an interview/read a transcript and separate that from editorial content. You cannot watch an interview/read a transcript and separate that from the subject's own viewpoints presented in his own writings. Those writings are equal substance to the interview. Comparing this instance to the other is surely apples and oranges?"

You then responded with the head banging post, and Maria D responded with the post above. Etc, etc.

This appears to just be your interpretation/recap of the latter part of the thread; did I miss a question? :confused:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Because we're all adults and I like to end things on a positive note ... if you made it through ALL of that, you deserve one or more of these! :wavey:

desserts.jpg

drinks.jpg
 

AnnaH

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
1,262
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

I'll just have pie. :D

Jenn, the Douglas comment criticism is really a stretch. Trump makes actual mistakes, but I guess that's just not enough to keep the haters busy.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,329
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic

Context is YUGE and the media is known for cherry picking or actual misinterpretation.

My favorite has been the comment on the Mexican rapists.

Their and they're. Try it out folks. Sometimes you have to read the words rather than hear them, especially with the booby Trump. I will be making more comments related to this thread later. Gotta go now.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top