BBC to set up team to debunk 'fake news' stories

[ivan134]

10 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Why do you guys think there is this giant push to discredit any attempt to verify news stories?  Verifying news stories, and even correcting false stories reported in error, is the status quo for many news outlets; the reputable ones anyways. 

 

Corporate news is more often guilty of omitting relevant stories because of business interests, not making fake news.

 

I think the crazies are using the internet to a very unwelcome affect.  It was bad enough with just the corporate news shilling, now we have full blown crazy to deal with as well.  

Pretty much this. A lot of people here are having a hard time differentiating between telling half truths and flat out making up shit.

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

Pretty much this. A lot of people here are having a hard time differentiating between telling half truths and flat out making up shit.

It is like "SJWs", except now the "SJWs" would have an "SJW" in the white house. 

 

Sorry, I don't like using that term but it might resonate a bit with some here.

[Misanthrope]

39 minutes ago, stconquest said:

I was not disagreeing with @Misanthrope.  I was just wondering why he would mention the religious left (a.k.a. moderate, passive...mostly) and not include a much more intrusive religious right. 

 

I was not changing the subject.  I was being critical of your idea that the left

I feel I must stop you right there: Not only have I twice made the point that the religious right in the west would be just as bad as their counterparts in the east if they had the same political power and control, but this is also not my position at all: Secularism is a principle that is not married to either "left" or "right" bent political views: Both Liberals and Libertarians advocate for secularism as this is very simple: Theocracies are almost universally an excuse for establishing authoritarian goverments.

 

Religious dogma is morally absolutist which is diametrically opposed to individual freedom and principles of majority consensus and Democracy: it seeks to declare their own rules regardless of consensus because "God said so" Anybody who believes in Individualism and thus, personal freedom, should advocate for Secular States since it's the best way to ensure Authoritarianism in the covert form of religious fundamentalism doesn't corrupts the systems of democracy and the principles of personal freedom for all individuals.

 

And not just because I speak of the religious right it means that there aren't other right wing people who oppose them like Libertarians. 

[ace_cheaply]

2 hours ago, stconquest said:

Abortion = Murder  <<until a life is capable of living outside the womb, it is effectively a parasite

Lol.  Can't believe some of the crap the left says.  Oh, yeah, it's effectively a parasite huh... Unbelievable.  So if you can't live without assistance you should be killed, right?  Everyone on life support is a parasite. I'm not a religious person, I've been an atheist my whole life, but it's pretty damn obvious it's killing a baby. 

[ivan134]

6 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

Lol.  Can't believe some of the crap the left says.  Oh, yeah, it's effectively a parasite huh... Unbelievable.  So if you can't live without assistance you should be killed, right?  Everyone on life support is a parasite. I'm not a religious person, I've been an atheist my whole life, but it's pretty damn obvious it's killing a baby. 

Yes, that is the actual medical term. Pregnancy is actually considered a medical issue in case you didn't know. Truth is not a bias. I'm not sure what leftists had to do with anything.

[Delicieuxz]

BBC is a state-owned-and-operated propaganda station, with the hosts having to do pre-show prep to make sure they aren't going to contradict government positions on issues, so this should be interesting.

[stconquest]

9 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

Lol.  Can't believe some of the crap the left says.  Oh, yeah, it's effectively a parasite huh... Unbelievable.  So if you can't live without assistance you should be killed, right?  Everyone on life support is a parasite. I'm not a religious person, I've been an atheist my whole life, but it's pretty damn obvious it's killing a baby. 

I am not the left.  I am a single entity.  It is what I said.

 

What I was inferring is that that the life, and livelihood, of the mother is just as important as the unborn child and more.  To deny a path to a necessary medical procedure by calling a fetus, or zygote or w/e, a baby is disingenuous.  My statement stands:  an unborn life that cannot sustain it's life outside the womb is effectively a parasite. 

 

The mother of said parasite should have a path to the medical procedure.  The only problem with the path to abortion is that some might abuse it and use it as a form of birth control.  That can be dealt with separately.

 

No, it is not killing a baby.  That is a load of poop.

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

1 hour ago, Memories4K said:

And?
I'm not a fan of affirmative action, i see the hypocrisy in it, but that doesn't make what i said any less true.

Well, I just spent about twenty minutes crafting a really good counter-argument and when I posted it, the site derped and deleted it, so I'll simplify to this: You said, "men are not being paid less and/or hired less because of their gender." This is false because affirmative action leads to a woman of equal or lesser qualifications being hired to fill a gender equality quota.  This means that a man is being excluded because he's male.  Also, the pay gap can be chalked up to women requiring more flexibility in the workplace and women's natural inclination to being more timid, making them less likely to ask for raises.

Sources:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/263122/?client=ms-android-verizon

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_56ab93b2e4b00b033aaecdf6

 https://www.google.com/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/?client=ms-android-verizon

[ace_cheaply]

3 minutes ago, stconquest said:

I am not the left.  I am a single entity.  It is what I said.

 

What I was inferring is that that the life, and livelihood, of the mother is just as important as the unborn child and more.  To deny a path to a necessary medical procedure by calling a fetus, or zygote or w/e, a baby is disingenuous.  My statement stands:  an unborn life that cannot sustain it's life outside the womb is effectively a parasite. 

 

The mother of said parasite should have a path to the medical procedure.  The only problem with the path to abortion is that some might abuse it and use it as a form of birth control.  That can be dealt with separately.

 

No, it is not killing a baby.  That is a load of poop.

Why is it double homicide if you kill a pregnant woman? No, the mother's life is not more important if she is not having the baby for reasons of convenience.  Rape babies, yes. Health reasons yes. But killing a child because it is inconvenient is evil.

[stconquest]

On 1/14/2017 at 5:02 PM, ace_cheaply said:

Why is it double homicide if you kill a pregnant woman? No, the mother's life is not more important if she is not having the baby for reasons of convenience.  Rape babies, yes. Health reasons yes. But killing a child because it is inconvenient is evil.

I agree with you.

 

As long as there is a path to the procedure for women that actually need to have one... even including economic reasons. 

 

A pattern of using abortion as a counter to getting pregnant is the only problem, and that can be dealt with separately.

 

Many states in the USA are actively restricting the path to abortion even though it is federally legal.  This is the problem I have and the reason I take a cold turn.  I would rather have women abusing the path to abortion so as to have that option available to women that need it, than to have it banned for all cases.

 

Bannon, O'Keefe, Project Veritas... the content they created is directly tied to Trump and his campaign.  If this has any teeth, it might be eye opening to some of you.  Apparently, a Veritas operative was attempting to solicit the services of an "agent" that was performing a sting/counter-sting.  It seems the Veritas affiliate was attempting to disrupt the inaugural for the president elect, or trying to cath a "liberal" on tape accepting money to cause trouble.

 

I have fast forwarded to the short clip that is released.  The full video is not available, to my knowledge; maybe for legal reasons.

Veritas is an example of the production of fake news.  Breitbart is an example of a fake news propaganda outlet, although I think they might try to go legit.

 

I am always skeptical and even though I want this to be real, I am not wholly sure... yet.  I know Brietbart and Veritas are garbage outlets for information, so I have that bias against me.

 

 

I would want to see the raw footage.  I see cutting in the clips available.  Ironically, this is the way Veritas releases video... all cut up.

 

[Misanthrope]

Why are we discussing pregnancy as an inconvenience? As a parent I can tell you something like a c-section cripples you for at least 2 weeks or more. 

 

Sorry but until you have to deal with not only the regular sleep deprivation but being so weak you need to be carried in arms to the bathroom on top of being clinically depressed, describing pregnancy as an "inconvenience"  it's almost as inhumane as the abortions you are demonizing. 

 

I don't necessarily agree with no questions asked for late term abortions but why shouldn't it be case by case even when it's not a rape or known medical risk? 

[Trik'Stari]

My thoughts on this:

 

On 1/14/2017 at 5:33 PM, stconquest said:

Bannon, O'Keefe, Project Veritas... the content they created is directly tied to Trump and his campaign.  If this has any teeth, it might be eye opening to some of you.  Apparently, a Veritas operative was attempting to solicit the services of an "agent" that was performing a sting/counter-sting.  It seems the Veritas affiliate was attempting to disrupt the inaugural for the president elect, or trying to cath a "liberal" on tape accepting money to cause trouble.

 

I have fast forwarded to the short clip that is released.  The full video is not available, to my knowledge; maybe for legal reasons.

 

Veritas is an example of the production of fake news.  Breitbart is an example of a fake news propaganda outlet, although I think they might try to go legit.

 

I am always skeptical and even though I want this to be real, I am not wholly sure... yet.  I know Brietbart and Veritas are garbage outlets for information, so I have that bias against me.

 

 

I would want to see the raw footage.  I see cutting in the clips available.  Ironically, this is the way Veritas releases video... all cut up.

 

If you look for it, you can find just as much evidence of the left hiring people to go to "protests". They ship them in on buses, and then have a few of their own people get violent to make it seem worse than it is. Both parties are guilty of social engineering in this way.

 

Nothing is clear anymore. As they intend it to be.

 

 

Give him a watch. Very intelligent, includes sources, used to be apart of "the machine" of politics

[stconquest]

2 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

If you look for it, you can find just as much evidence of the left hiring people to go to "protests". They ship them in on buses, and then have a few of their own people get violent to make it seem worse than it is. Both parties are guilty of social engineering in this way.

 

Nothing is clear anymore. As they intend it to be.

 

Give him a watch. Very intelligent, includes sources, used to be apart of "the machine" of politics

Does your assertion that the left commits "illegal" operations to disrupt the political landscape have anything to do with what Breitbart and Veritas have done?  No.  This is not a right vs left thing.  If you are referring to the Veritas video of that guy talking in a bar, I have watched that footage twice over and still have no idea what was really going on.  Who is that guy in the video?

 

I spent much of the holiday watching Sargon's content, Rubin and a few others as well.  Ultimately, I don't value his analysis that much.  I found a lot of his content interesting, but that began to tail off... after 10+ hours of him. 

 

The video you posted about the media lying: 

 

1.  Cherry-picking.  Cutting a clip to promote a narrative, then a retraction from CNN days later.  He got them good.  /s

 

2.  Gate-Keeping.  I have to admit, that was hilarious.  Yeah.  I already knew that most main corporate news outlets had it in the bag for Clinton. 

 

3.  Wilful ignorance.  I get much better analysis of the MSM bubble from TYT.  Sorry but this was weak.

 

I watch enough political content already.  Sargon will not be part of that most of the time.  I don't like his slant, but I do value his attempts to get to a unpopular truth.

 

Now pay attention:  No matter how bad the major news outlets perform, the new crazy and total bullshit stream of misinformation is just more crap to sift through.  The problem of verifying stories just got worse now.  It was bad enough that people had to really dig for news in the past, now they have to dig even further.

 

Trump is a promoter of bad news.  This is your president... elect.  Fake news promoter from the top down.  Good luck! 

[Memories4K]

4 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

BBC is a state-owned-and-operated propaganda station, with the hosts having to do pre-show prep to make sure they aren't going to contradict government positions on issues, so this should be interesting.

Listen buddy, so long as i get my weekly dose of Professor What and Shirley Homes, i don't care what the BBC does

7 minutes ago, stconquest said:

I spent much of the holiday watching Sargon's content, Rubin and a few others as well.  Ultimately, I don't value his analysis that much.  I found a lot of his content interesting, but that began to tail off... after 10+ hours of him. 

Rubin, i really love Dave Rubin.
Glad he got away from the nutjobs @ TYT (who i hear recently hired Talcum X)

Though i do wish his audience was more open to hearing left-wing, even regressive, opinions just for the sake of hearing people out. Videos where he interviews regressives get noticeably more dislikes despite the fact Rubin interviews them well.

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

Listen buddy, so long as i get my weekly dose of Professor What and Shirley Homes, i don't care what the BBC does

Rubin, i really love Dave Rubin.
Glad he got away from the nutjobs @ TYT (who i hear recently hired Talcum X)

Though i do wish his audience was more open to hearing left-wing, even regressive, opinions just for the sake of hearing people out. Videos where he interviews regressives get noticeably more dislikes despite the fact Rubin interviews them well.

The regressives I find less annoying than the libertarians he obnoxiously welcomes a bit too often. 

[stconquest]

8 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

Listen buddy, so long as i get my weekly dose of Professor What and Shirley Homes, i don't care what the BBC does

Rubin, i really love Dave Rubin.
Glad he got away from the nutjobs @ TYT (who i hear recently hired Talcum X)

Though i do wish his audience was more open to hearing left-wing, even regressive, opinions just for the sake of hearing people out. Videos where he interviews regressives get noticeably more dislikes despite the fact Rubin interviews them well.

Rubin was okay.  My brain is mush now due to pizza ingestion.

 

One thing that stood out was his stance on Isreal/Palestine... I remember him saying something dumb about no political body has an example of two landmasses separate by a another political landmass... referring to the two state solution.  Everyone is wrong from time to time; brain farts and such.  I remember thinking Alaska and how does this guy not clue in.  USA and Canada do not have the same type of relationship that Isreal and the Palestinians though. 

[Memories4K]

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

The regressives I find less annoying than the libertarians he obnoxiously welcomes a bit too often. 

I wish Mark Pellegrino came back, i really loved the talk he had with Rubin.
Kinda was hoping to get more Gary Johnson but wow did Gary just really meme himself during the election, i can't imagine him garnering any respect/support in the coming years.
What libertarians bug you?

[stconquest]

Oh hey, does anyone know who planted the explosives in the WTC buildings yet?  ...or is the popular notion that two planes hitting them caused them to magically implode an hour after impact, still circulated?

 

[Misanthrope]

22 hours ago, Memories4K said:

I wish Mark Pellegrino came back, i really loved the talk he had with Rubin.
Kinda was hoping to get more Gary Johnson but wow did Gary just really meme himself during the election, i can't imagine him garnering any respect/support in the coming years.
What libertarians bug you?

Don't know all of them by name but first name that comes to mind is Molyneux. 

22 hours ago, stconquest said:

Oh hey, does anyone know who planted the explosives in the WTC buildings yet?  ...or is the popular notion that two planes hitting them caused them to magically implode an hour after impact, still circulated?

 

We're on it but Jones has us busy researching the gay bomb and frog homosexuality. 

[ace_cheaply]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

We're on it but Jones has us busy researching the gay bomb and frog homosexuality. 

Damn.  Lucky!   I got lizard people and Obama's birth certificate.  Kenya feel my pain? 

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, ace_cheaply said:

Damn.  Lucky!   I got lizard people and Obama's birth certificate.  Kenya feel my pain? 

At least you're not researching vampires...no that is actually not a joke but a story featured by Infowars. 

[stconquest]

[ace_cheaply]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

At least you're not researching vampires...no that is actually not a joke but a story featured by Infowars. 

But you have to give it to Alex Jones, at least he doesn't hire spitting cobras. 

 

[ivan134]

3 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

If you look for it, you can find just as much evidence of the left hiring people to go to "protests". They ship them in on buses, and then have a few of their own people get violent to make it seem worse than it is. Both parties are guilty of social engineering in this way.

 

Nothing is clear anymore. As they intend it to be.

 

 

Give him a watch. Very intelligent, includes sources, used to be apart of "the machine" of politics

>Intelligent

>Sargon of Akkad

 

Pick one

[stconquest]

6 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

But you have to give it to Alex Jones, at least he doesn't hire spitting cobras. 

 

I thought they were lying about that one... until I saw the vid.  Go spittin' Jimmy!  Jones deserved it... mostly.  Still a SMH moment though.