Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Not good to try and dodge blame. You seem to be arguing that someone was fired by CNN for doing a town hall with Trump. What are you saying about it? Not what Sebby is saying , he’ll get his chance.

Licht was fired from his role running CNN because his strategy was an incoherent mess, and was yielding bad ratings. His town hall with Trump was a journalist mess and emblematic of the larger strategy, even though it got high ratings. The reasons why Licht was fired are detailed at length in the Atlantic article that gave a rich history of his mismanagement, and which directly led to his firing days later. Key features of the saga -- competition between media outlets, efforts to move CNN to the right to please a rich owner -- contradict the silly things Sebby was saying about the media.

eta: It is true that Licht fired people at CNN, including people left-of-center, and it is true that this was mentioned in the Atlantic article. And the article got him fired. Saying that the former was the primary cause of the latter is silly.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Points of agreement:


1. The mainstream media and social media have historically been and remain staffed disproportionately with left leaning sorts (I think Ty may disagree somewhat with this. He seemed to disagree more with the assertion that this group of left leaning people had real power within media organizations, but I don't recall him weighing in on the specific point that media types predominantly lean left. But given it is pretty obvious, with the exception of Fox, Breitbart, etc., I'm comfortable saying this assessment is not controversial to anyone and so should be deemed neutral).

I have no idea who the "mainstream media" are or what that phrase means. MSNBC isn't mainstream, it's solidly left leaning, just as Fox is right leaning. I don't think there is a cable channel that doesn't have some alignment.

Maybe the NYT or Washington Post might qualify, but the left has as many beefs with them or more than the right. Certainly the NY Times editorial page, with people like Brooks, Douhat and Dowd, and the front page, with politics dominated by the likes of Maggie "her emails" and Peter "normalize Trump" Baker are dominated by right wingers, even if they (occasionally) try to be more subtle about it than fox. And don't get me started on the WSJ.

On line, the Cambridge Analytica and Russian operations made sure social media has had enormous organized right wing slants and if you go look at news feeds on facebook and other social media sites you'll see a propensity for "national enquirer" style coverage.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

, and consequently there can be no successful libertarian news programs, as both the right and left detest that sort of dispassionate viewpoint.

Also, thanks for the laugh.

It's really pretty clear by now that most of the people who call themselves libertarians are just white assholes with testosterone imbalances who just want to be able to yell "nigger", "fag" and "cunt" at people (see, eg, Musk and Volokh).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

and the front page, with politics dominated by the likes of Maggie "her emails" and Peter "normalize Trump" Baker are dominated by right wingers, even if they (occasionally) try to be more subtle about it than fox.

Maggie and Peter aren't right wingers. They are just terminally "both sides" because they think that is what objective means (it does not).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's really pretty clear by now that most of the people who call themselves libertarians are just white assholes with testosterone imbalances who just want to be able to yell "nigger", "fag" and "cunt" at people (see, eg, Musk and Volokh).

You forget about their desire to fuck children.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Maggie and Peter aren't right wingers. They are just terminally "both sides" because they think that is what objective means (it does not).

You can't spend eight years building up Trump without crossing to the dark side.

Maggie may posture as a hip Manhattanite, but she's pure outer borough wingnut. I should know, I've got plenty of them in the fam.

[LessinSF]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/11/busin...ts/index.html:

Separately, there has been a backlash against a statement released by the president of the NYU Student Bar Association saying Israel “bears full responsibility for this tremendous loss of life.”

That statement had immediate consequences, with law firm Winston & Strawn promptly pulling a job offer to the NYU student who previously served as a summer associate at the firm.

“These comments are profoundly in conflict with Winston & Strawn’s values as a firm. Accordingly, the Firm has rescinded the law student’s offer of employment,” the law firm said in a post on X. “Winston stands in solidarity with Israel’s right to exist in peace and condemns Hamas and the violence and destruction it has ignited in the strongest terms possible.”

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Also, thanks for the laugh.

It's really pretty clear by now that most of the people who call themselves libertarians are just white assholes with testosterone imbalances who just want to be able to yell "nigger", "fag" and "cunt" at people (see, eg, Musk and Volokh).

That's simply not true, or even defensible.

In regard to freedom of speech, libertarians do not argue for the right to use slurs without consequence. They are argue for the right to use slurs, and then they argue for the right of people who'll deliver consequences for such slurs to do so. Libertarians are some of the staunchest defenders of the principle that platforms can do as they like to people who choose to post on them. Cancellation is just the market doing what the market wants to do.

It's right wingers who want the right to use slurs and face no consequences.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You forget about their desire to fuck children.

You got a Venn Diagram of NAMBLA and Libertarians you're hiding?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/11/busin...ts/index.html:

I side with Israel 100% here because what Hamas did is not war. It's ISIS level shit and cannot be argued to be anything close to accepted conduct of war under Geneva Conventions.

But... Maybe it's a bit extreme and counterproductive to "punish" people for wrong think. Maybe the better idea is to make the clueless little darlings debate their position against some actually well lettered experts on Israel and Palestine.

Sunlight remains the best disinfectant.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/11/busin...ts/index.html:

Need to cleanse the colon at the end.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I side with Israel 100% here because what Hamas did is not war. It's ISIS level shit and cannot be argued to be anything close to accepted conduct of war under Geneva Conventions.

But... Maybe it's a bit extreme and counterproductive to "punish" people for wrong think. Maybe the better idea is to make the clueless little darlings debate their position against some actually well lettered experts on Israel and Palestine.

Sunlight remains the best disinfectant.

I side with Israel 100% because they're an ally.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You got a Venn Diagram of NAMBLA and Libertarians you're hiding?

In a lot of ways, neither of those things really exists.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

I side with Israel 100% because they're an ally.

Can we at least be at least a little uncomfortable about bombing civilians who are essentially trapped in an open air prison?

There are victims of Hamas on both sides of the border.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's simply not true, or even defensible.

In regard to freedom of speech, libertarians do not argue for the right to use slurs without consequence. They are argue for the right to use slurs, and then they argue for the right of people who'll deliver consequences for such slurs to do so. Libertarians are some of the staunchest defenders of the principle that platforms can do as they like to people who choose to post on them. Cancellation is just the market doing what the market wants to do.

It's right wingers who want the right to use slurs and face no consequences.

So where do we find these mythical libertarians? Because the ones that keep getting in my face don't fit your description.