Twitter is an "echo chamber" that doesn’t reflect how most Americans think
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 12, 13, 14  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 29336

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:17 am    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
adkindo wrote:


and you should admit that the left has acted in bad faith on immigration for decades, and continue to use it as a political issue just as much as anyone of the right. It was GW Bush that fought hard for real immigration reform, and it was the Democrats that refused to negotiate because they felt if passed under a Republican administration, it could have long term effects in elections. It was the Democrats and big labor that long opposed immigration...for decades. Only recently the strategy has changed when the Democrats decided the demographics have changed enough where they could use it as a potential winning political issue.

I will be clear....if you actually think that Mitch McConnell or Chuck Schumer (as representatives of the two parties) give two craps about poor immigrants trying to enter the US.....then you are very foolish.


Where did you read the bolded? Cause this is what I just found.

Quote:
The bill was the fruit of months of negotiations by a group of Republican and Democratic senators and the White House.

But the president was unable to overcome fierce opposition from fellow Republicans who said it was an amnesty that rewarded illegal immigrants. A majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives also opposed the Senate bill.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration/senate-kills-bush-immigration-reform-bill-idUSN2742643820070629


Yeah, it didn't pass because many on both sides hated it. But, that's not what was reported on Fox News so....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 36530
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:20 am    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
adkindo wrote:


and you should admit that the left has acted in bad faith on immigration for decades, and continue to use it as a political issue just as much as anyone of the right. It was GW Bush that fought hard for real immigration reform, and it was the Democrats that refused to negotiate because they felt if passed under a Republican administration, it could have long term effects in elections. It was the Democrats and big labor that long opposed immigration...for decades. Only recently the strategy has changed when the Democrats decided the demographics have changed enough where they could use it as a potential winning political issue.

I will be clear....if you actually think that Mitch McConnell or Chuck Schumer (as representatives of the two parties) give two craps about poor immigrants trying to enter the US.....then you are very foolish.


Where did you read the bolded? Cause this is what I just found.

Quote:
The bill was the fruit of months of negotiations by a group of Republican and Democratic senators and the White House.

But the president was unable to overcome fierce opposition from fellow Republicans who said it was an amnesty that rewarded illegal immigrants. A majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives also opposed the Senate bill.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration/senate-kills-bush-immigration-reform-bill-idUSN2742643820070629


read it? I lived it. The final vote count was nothing but political maneuvering. I did not say all or most Republicans supported the bill. I said the Democrats acted in bad faith. Negotiations started out strong with Bush and a group led by Ted Kennedy....similar to the group that worked to pass the education bill. The Democrats made a strategic decision to turn it into an amnesty bill without sufficient border control.....and aligned their votes to allow members who needed to support it could vote for it, but make sure it failed. The early framework of the bill which was primarily the White House and Ted Kennedy would have got bi-partisan support, and majority approval of the public.....but Harry Reid made sure that legislation was destroyed.

The issue has basically became non-negotiable now, and it is not far movement by the Republicans, but the Democrats. Now, the Democrats can not get much support for anything unless it includes expedited citizenship...which was not supported by either party a decade ago. Democrats know Republicans would never go for that, so the like it as a political issue....just like some on the right do. It is bs, most of the Mexicans crossing the border do not even want to be American citizens in the last polls I saw....they are proud Mexicans that want to come here to work and be able to return home....then back to work, etc., but the Democrats have no use for the cheap labor, they want the votes....so Citizenship remains a demand. Again, Democrats only make a big deal out of immigration when they are not in power.....when they had both houses of congress and the White House....they forgot immigration reform was an issue.
_________________
Rondo / Bradley / Caruso / Cook
Green / KCP / Daniels / Horton-Tucker
James /
Davis / Kuzma / Dudley
Cousins / McGee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 36530
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:23 am    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
Yeah, it didn't pass because many on both sides hated it. But, that's not what was reported on Fox News so....


sucks that nobody watches CNN or MSNBC, because then we would know what they reported.....if a tree falls.....
_________________
Rondo / Bradley / Caruso / Cook
Green / KCP / Daniels / Horton-Tucker
James /
Davis / Kuzma / Dudley
Cousins / McGee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26207

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:32 am    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

I don’t agree but ok. Do you find the statement perfectly acceptable?


You don't agree?! WTF?!
Quote:
Last fall, he retweeted a graphic with fictitious crime statistics claiming that 81 percent of white homicide victims in 2015 were killed by blacks. (No such statistic was available for 2015 at the time; the actual figure for 2014 was 15 percent, according to the F.B.I.)

In January and February he retweeted messages from a user with the handle @WhiteGenocideTM, whose profile picture is of George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of the American Nazi Party.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/02/donald-trump-star-of-david-tweet-hillary-clinton#img-1

Quote:
Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

I hope the Mexican judge is more honest than the Mexican businessmen who used the court system to avoid paying me the money they owe me.


I find it as acceptable as the "is America ready for a black President" polls conducted before 2008. And it was alot more than 2 people polled who said no.


I don't agree that a white person who tweeted that they're selection for president would be based on the fact that the candidate was also white, wouldn't get suspended or banned by Twitter.

And fine, you might find those questions acceptable, but a lot of people do not.

Which is why Mary Bubala was fired. Even though, IMO, her question seemed phrased that way but based on her response after, I don't believe was the intent.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bs-fe-zontv-wjz-bubala-babj-20190506-story.html

I think much of the problem is that we have no consensus on what is ok and what is not ok. And because of that -- Twitter, and sites like it, are having a hard time being consistent on how they moderate, thus creating the echo chamber that was the original focus of this discussion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26207

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:37 am    Post subject:

Also, on the illegal immigration debate. I do agree, I think most liberals are opposed to illegal immigration.

But my issue is that they don't say it. What they do is, they let the conservatives say it, and then when they do, they pull the -ist -phobe card.

Rather than saying ok, we all agree illegal immigration is a problem to be dealt with so let's work together to find a solution. Instead they just say your solution is immoral and that's it.

So what happens then is you get this tribal conversation where it's either racism or open borders and that's just not constructive at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 36530
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:37 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
are having a hard time being consistent on how they moderate, thus creating the echo chamber that was the original focus of this discussion.


good point....and I would offer my apologies in my significant role in taking the thread off course away for the intended topic/discussion. The original topic of discussion is important for everyone to discuss and reach their truth on....because it is a topic that is likely only going to become more complex in the future. The issue, whatever you perceive the issue to be....is not going away, and will not simply resolve itself.
_________________
Rondo / Bradley / Caruso / Cook
Green / KCP / Daniels / Horton-Tucker
James /
Davis / Kuzma / Dudley
Cousins / McGee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26207

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:41 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
are having a hard time being consistent on how they moderate, thus creating the echo chamber that was the original focus of this discussion.


good point....and I would offer my apologies in my significant role in taking the thread off course away for the intended topic/discussion. The original topic of discussion is important for everyone to discuss and reach their truth on....because it is a topic that is likely only going to become more complex in the future. The issue, whatever you perceive the issue to be....is not going away, and will not simply resolve itself.


yeah, well, when discussing Twitter in the context of an echo chamber, it is very difficult I think for things not to stray into the political arena.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 29336

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:42 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
Also, on the illegal immigration debate. I do agree, I think most liberals are opposed to illegal immigration.

But my issue is that they don't say it. What they do is, they let the conservatives say it, and then when they do, they pull the -ist -phobe card.

Rather than saying ok, we all agree illegal immigration is a problem to be dealt with so let's work together to find a solution. Instead they just say your solution is immoral and that's it.

So what happens then is you get this tribal conversation where it's either racism or open borders and that's just not constructive at all.


Non-Liberal border security experts think building the was would be an immense waste of time and money. Non-Liberal people don't think caging children and separating them from their parents is a moral thing to do. But, that's the Republican policy right now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26207

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:52 am    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Also, on the illegal immigration debate. I do agree, I think most liberals are opposed to illegal immigration.

But my issue is that they don't say it. What they do is, they let the conservatives say it, and then when they do, they pull the -ist -phobe card.

Rather than saying ok, we all agree illegal immigration is a problem to be dealt with so let's work together to find a solution. Instead they just say your solution is immoral and that's it.

So what happens then is you get this tribal conversation where it's either racism or open borders and that's just not constructive at all.


Non-Liberal border security experts think building the was would be an immense waste of time and money. Non-Liberal people don't think caging children and separating them from their parents is a moral thing to do. But, that's the Republican policy right now.


This has nothing to do with Twitter and the echo chamber. (And liberals don't have any issues with separating children from their parents if the parents are U.S. citizens).

But the reason I brought up that point, is because if nearly everyone is agreed on the issue, then why are people being shamed for saying illegal immigration is bad or whatever? (And don't tell me you haven't heard of anyone being shamed/suspended/banned for this).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 20296
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 11:04 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
kikanga wrote:


Where did you read the bolded? Cause this is what I just found.

Quote:
The bill was the fruit of months of negotiations by a group of Republican and Democratic senators and the White House.

But the president was unable to overcome fierce opposition from fellow Republicans who said it was an amnesty that rewarded illegal immigrants. A majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives also opposed the Senate bill.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration/senate-kills-bush-immigration-reform-bill-idUSN2742643820070629


read it? I lived it. The final vote count was nothing but political maneuvering. I did not say all or most Republicans supported the bill. I said the Democrats acted in bad faith. Negotiations started out strong with Bush and a group led by Ted Kennedy....similar to the group that worked to pass the education bill. The Democrats made a strategic decision to turn it into an amnesty bill without sufficient border control.....and aligned their votes to allow members who needed to support it could vote for it, but make sure it failed. The early framework of the bill which was primarily the White House and Ted Kennedy would have got bi-partisan support, and majority approval of the public.....but Harry Reid made sure that legislation was destroyed.

The issue has basically became non-negotiable now, and it is not far movement by the Republicans, but the Democrats. Now, the Democrats can not get much support for anything unless it includes expedited citizenship...which was not supported by either party a decade ago. Democrats know Republicans would never go for that, so the like it as a political issue....just like some on the right do. It is bs, most of the Mexicans crossing the border do not even want to be American citizens in the last polls I saw....they are proud Mexicans that want to come here to work and be able to return home....then back to work, etc., but the Democrats have no use for the cheap labor, they want the votes....so Citizenship remains a demand. Again, Democrats only make a big deal out of immigration when they are not in power.....when they had both houses of congress and the White House....they forgot immigration reform was an issue.


I think you might have got your news for those events from a biased source. Not saying you are biased overall. Just those description of events.
If you could give me a publication of someone who shares your description I would happily read it. And I'll pick apart that link as opposed to your own post.

Without dates, quotes for Democratic and Republican legislators, facts about the votes counted. I'm gonna believe what Reuters said. Because they have that.
FWIW, Reuters is an international publication with a focus on finance. It isn't known for being biased.

Quote:
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/

This description of Reuters by an independent website is the complete oppsite of how I'd describe you're post. Check out the ratings on other sites if you don't agree the rating is fair.
_________________
Turn your losses into lessons. - Mike "The Situation"


Last edited by kikanga on Thu May 09, 2019 11:06 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 36530
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 11:06 am    Post subject:

^^^a few of us on this board could come up with a reasonable policy for immigration reform and other issues within a week of negotiating (as long as DaMuleRules was not allowed in the room)....and that is the point with many of these divisive wedge issues....nobody is really interested in a solution from either party. Both parties use these issues to accumulate money and power.....knowing our "tribal" responses will give that to them. We all know that we need to tightly control our border and significantly limit entrance through designated locations.....we also know that we desperately need a level of immigration from all socioeconomic classes, and we even have to reserve an amount of immigration for those that need the US more than the US needs them. It is really not that hard to improve the system for everyone if that was the real goal.
_________________
Rondo / Bradley / Caruso / Cook
Green / KCP / Daniels / Horton-Tucker
James /
Davis / Kuzma / Dudley
Cousins / McGee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 36530
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 11:10 am    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
adkindo wrote:
kikanga wrote:


Where did you read the bolded? Cause this is what I just found.

Quote:
The bill was the fruit of months of negotiations by a group of Republican and Democratic senators and the White House.

But the president was unable to overcome fierce opposition from fellow Republicans who said it was an amnesty that rewarded illegal immigrants. A majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives also opposed the Senate bill.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration/senate-kills-bush-immigration-reform-bill-idUSN2742643820070629


read it? I lived it. The final vote count was nothing but political maneuvering. I did not say all or most Republicans supported the bill. I said the Democrats acted in bad faith. Negotiations started out strong with Bush and a group led by Ted Kennedy....similar to the group that worked to pass the education bill. The Democrats made a strategic decision to turn it into an amnesty bill without sufficient border control.....and aligned their votes to allow members who needed to support it could vote for it, but make sure it failed. The early framework of the bill which was primarily the White House and Ted Kennedy would have got bi-partisan support, and majority approval of the public.....but Harry Reid made sure that legislation was destroyed.

The issue has basically became non-negotiable now, and it is not far movement by the Republicans, but the Democrats. Now, the Democrats can not get much support for anything unless it includes expedited citizenship...which was not supported by either party a decade ago. Democrats know Republicans would never go for that, so the like it as a political issue....just like some on the right do. It is bs, most of the Mexicans crossing the border do not even want to be American citizens in the last polls I saw....they are proud Mexicans that want to come here to work and be able to return home....then back to work, etc., but the Democrats have no use for the cheap labor, they want the votes....so Citizenship remains a demand. Again, Democrats only make a big deal out of immigration when they are not in power.....when they had both houses of congress and the White House....they forgot immigration reform was an issue.


I think you might have got your news for those events from a biased source. Not saying you are biased overall. Just those description of events.
If you could give me a publication of someone who shares your description I would happily read it. And I'll pick apart that link as opposed to your own post.

Without dates, quotes for Democratic and Republican legislators, facts about the votes counted. I'm gonna believe what Reuters said. Because they have that.
FWIW, Reuters is an international publication with a focus on finance. It isn't known for being biased.

Quote:
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/

This description of Reuters by an independent website is the complete oppsite of how I'd describe you're post. Check out the ratings on other sites if you don't agree the rating is fair.


ok....not sure why you are acting like this happened in 1942.....this all took place a few years ago. We were adults and know what happened. The article that you posted simply gave out the final results...it does not refute any statement that I made.
_________________
Rondo / Bradley / Caruso / Cook
Green / KCP / Daniels / Horton-Tucker
James /
Davis / Kuzma / Dudley
Cousins / McGee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 20296
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 11:11 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
^^^a few of us on this board could come up with a reasonable policy for immigration reform and other issues within a week of negotiating (as long as DaMuleRules was not allowed in the room)....and that is the point with many of these divisive wedge issues....nobody is really interested in a solution from either party. Both parties use these issues to accumulate money and power.....knowing our "tribal" responses will give that to them. We all know that we need to tightly control our border and significantly limit entrance through designated locations.....we also know that we desperately need a level of immigration from all socioeconomic classes, and we even have to reserve an amount of immigration for those that need the US more than the US needs them. It is really not that hard to improve the system for everyone if that was the real goal.


I edited my previous post. Just to minimize hostility. I don't think YOU are biased. But I think the news adopted and incorporated into your arguments are.

I don't think DMR is a problem. I actually relate to his perspective alot, even when we're on different sides (impeachment). The elephant in the room is Donald Trump. How can anybody talk about reasonable immigration policy when he is the face of 2019 American conservatism? Even his most ardent supporters wouldn't describe him as reasonable.
_________________
Turn your losses into lessons. - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 20296
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 11:20 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
[ok....not sure why you are acting like this happened in 1942.....this all took place a few years ago. We were adults and know what happened. The article that you posted simply gave out the final results...it does not refute any statement that I made.


The article directly refutes the original statement that I responded to.

adkindo wrote:

and it was the Democrats that refused to negotiate because they felt if passed under a Republican administration, it could have long term effects in elections.


I'm asking for a source so I can explain why that source is being hyperbolic/ mis-characterizing events. Instead of saying YOU are being hyperbolic/mis-characterizing events. Besides. If it's the Dems fault immigration reform never happened. I'm sure they'll be 100s of well sourced articles explaining it.
_________________
Turn your losses into lessons. - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 20296
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 11:23 am    Post subject:

I'm sorry if the President and a group led by the Senator of Massachusetts couldn't get their original bill passed.
Like every other bill, it needed the House and Senate to get on board. And that makes sense. We should hear from border states before deciding immigration reform. And at the end of the day. More Dems voted for immigration reform than Republicans.
_________________
Turn your losses into lessons. - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 36530
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 12:12 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
adkindo wrote:
[ok....not sure why you are acting like this happened in 1942.....this all took place a few years ago. We were adults and know what happened. The article that you posted simply gave out the final results...it does not refute any statement that I made.


The article directly refutes the original statement that I responded to.

adkindo wrote:

and it was the Democrats that refused to negotiate because they felt if passed under a Republican administration, it could have long term effects in elections.


I'm asking for a source so I can explain why that source is being hyperbolic/ mis-characterizing events. Instead of saying YOU are being hyperbolic/mis-characterizing events. Besides. If it's the Dems fault immigration reform never happened. I'm sure they'll be 100s of well sourced articles explaining it.


I do not have a source for you that nicely lays out the months of negotiations that took place that lead to the final vote that was reported in the article you attached. I am not sure where you would even find a non-opinion piece that would lay that timeline out in a "how the sausage was made" method. How long have you followed politics or the immigration issue? I only ask because it seems like you feel the sides have long held distinct positions and one side is fighting the good fight. This issue has never been about right and wrong at the national partisan level, and both sides positions have been fluid often changing within the decade. Also, lets not forget that Democrats controlled both houses of Congress at the time, and could not get the bill to the Republican President that supported it. If you do not think the votes were strategic on the Democratic side, then explain why every Democratic Senator that was planning on running for President in the Senate (I think there were 6 or 7) all voted for it.....but ultra liberals who did not appear to have higher office ambitions like Bernie Sanders voted against the immigration reform bill....

I will offer you this from a well known partisan source....but one you likely prefer....HuffPost in Kenedy's own words....

Quote:
Kennedy criticized Republican opposition as well as a “constantly tentative” response from Democratic leadership, reserving particularly harsh words for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).


Quote:
“[Reid] was never really interested in it until the very end, and at the very end it was too late,” Kennedy said


Quote:
Kennedy accused Reid, then the majority leader, along with top Senate Democrats Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and “to some extent” Dick Durbin (Ill.), of focusing on the wrong things, such as whether they could avoid being “snookered” with a bad bill and whether blaming Republicans for the failure to pass reform would help Democrats win Latino votes.


Quote:
“We want to do this enough so that we can get the Hispanic votes, but not enough so that we get our people caught in it,” Kennedy said, describing the thinking of Democratic leadership.


LINK
_________________
Rondo / Bradley / Caruso / Cook
Green / KCP / Daniels / Horton-Tucker
James /
Davis / Kuzma / Dudley
Cousins / McGee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 43412
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 1:06 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:


Exactly what her point was. Attempting to paint that comment as hate speech is laughable. She didn't say she hates white people. She didn't say white people are bad. She was making a statement about wanting to vote for a representative who understands what her life has been like and the issues that are important to her. Nothing hate related at all.


You may not consider that hate speech, but if it was a white person who said that as a white person they want to vote for a candidate that is also white, you would consider that ... acceptable? I've seen more innocuous statements than that declared as white supremacy.

There was also a guy who says he wants Harris for the specific reason that she isn't white.


There's nothing unacceptable about feeling you want representation that you feel reflects your own experience and is familiar. It becomes unacceptable when you want that reflective representation because you want that person to go on the attack against other people who don't "look like" you.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 43412
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 1:10 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
kikanga wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Twitter would likely ban the white woman who picked Biden if she said it was because of his skin color. .


No they wouldn't. Trump's tweeted much worse than that. Still didn't get banned.


I don’t agree but ok. Do you find the statement perfectly acceptable?


That's ridiculous. Trump has said many absolutely abhorrent things on Twitter. You know that, yet you once again play your disingenuous games.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26207

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 1:10 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:


Exactly what her point was. Attempting to paint that comment as hate speech is laughable. She didn't say she hates white people. She didn't say white people are bad. She was making a statement about wanting to vote for a representative who understands what her life has been like and the issues that are important to her. Nothing hate related at all.


You may not consider that hate speech, but if it was a white person who said that as a white person they want to vote for a candidate that is also white, you would consider that ... acceptable? I've seen more innocuous statements than that declared as white supremacy.

There was also a guy who says he wants Harris for the specific reason that she isn't white.


There's nothing unacceptable about feeling you want representation that you feel reflects your own experience and is familiar. It becomes unacceptable when you want that reflective representation because you want that person to go on the attack against other people who don't "look like" you.


So just so we are clear — a white person who wants a white person for a particular job, that is ok to you, so long as they don’t attack others.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 20296
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 1:23 pm    Post subject:

Thanks for the link adkindo. I was too young to vote but I staunchly identified with Republicans back in 2007, so I appreciate your perspective.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Is this a fair description?

A group led by Ted Kennedy and President GWB made a plan for immigration reform.
When sent to Congress the plan was altered and then voted on.
Democrats supported the final bill moreso than Republicans. Since Republicans didn't like the changes made in Congress.
_________________
Turn your losses into lessons. - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Huey Lewis & The News
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Posts: 4704
Location: So what's the uh...topic of discussion?

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 3:19 pm    Post subject:

>a thread where ringfinger and adkindo are attacking harmful media biases and the left™ emerges as the primary perp and the biggest bully


didn't see that coming at all. Let me pose a question to both of you scholars:

Which media entity has done more to damage the world's social and political climate: Fox News or Twitter?
_________________
"All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers."
http://forums.lakersground.net/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=13018
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26207

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 4:04 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
kikanga wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Twitter would likely ban the white woman who picked Biden if she said it was because of his skin color. .


No they wouldn't. Trump's tweeted much worse than that. Still didn't get banned.


I don’t agree but ok. Do you find the statement perfectly acceptable?


That's ridiculous. Trump has said many absolutely abhorrent things on Twitter. You know that, yet you once again play your disingenuous games.


I was disagreeing with his statement that Twitter wouldn't ban a white person who tweeted that Biden would be their pick because he is white.

While I realize it wasn't entirely clear, I'm not at all surprised at the assumption based on this subject matter in this thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 26207

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 4:29 pm    Post subject:

Huey Lewis & The News wrote:
>a thread where ringfinger and adkindo are attacking harmful media biases and the left™ emerges as the primary perp and the biggest bully


didn't see that coming at all. Let me pose a question to both of you scholars:

Which media entity has done more to damage the world's social and political climate: Fox News or Twitter?


I don't think I nor adkindo ever said the left is the primary perp and biggest bully. Did I? Or did he?

We're talking about whether there is an echo chamber on Twitter.

I personally believe there is one. The reason we got into the discussion around media is because someone earlier had mentioned that all the hate comes from the right.

My counter to that, is that that is the perception because of the way "hate" is framed mainly by prominent figures on the left. If you say you want, say, Romney because he isn't black, we'd probably (hopefully) all say that is racist and hateful. But if you say, I want Kamala Harris because she isn't white, only the left does not count that as hate or racism even though it is the exact same statement. And not only do they not count it, they promote that type of thinking and the media is complicit in that as well (I can provide as many examples as you can handle, lol). I'm not sure this point rises to the level of "left is primary perp and biggest bully" but maybe you were referencing something else.

To give you a separate example ... there were articles recently about some conservative, alt-right types who were booted off of Facebook recently. Remember that? The HuffPo article headline says "Facebook Bans Alex Jones, Other Far-Right Extremists"

Can someone explain to me how Louis Farrakhan is a far-right extremist? Isn't he a left wing anti-Semite?

Anyway -- that's how echo chambers are born. You set different rules for different people, and when one of your own breaks the rules, you either ignore it or lump them in with the other folks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 43412
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 4:54 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:


Exactly what her point was. Attempting to paint that comment as hate speech is laughable. She didn't say she hates white people. She didn't say white people are bad. She was making a statement about wanting to vote for a representative who understands what her life has been like and the issues that are important to her. Nothing hate related at all.


You may not consider that hate speech, but if it was a white person who said that as a white person they want to vote for a candidate that is also white, you would consider that ... acceptable? I've seen more innocuous statements than that declared as white supremacy.

There was also a guy who says he wants Harris for the specific reason that she isn't white.


There's nothing unacceptable about feeling you want representation that you feel reflects your own experience and is familiar. It becomes unacceptable when you want that reflective representation because you want that person to go on the attack against other people who don't "look like" you.


So just so we are clear — a white person who wants a white person for a particular job, that is ok to you, so long as they don’t attack others.


Not going to engage you in these asinine games of semantics, conflation and false equivalencies.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 20296
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 5:03 pm    Post subject:

Ban or don't ban?
https://inews.co.uk/news/danny-baker-royal-baby-tweet-racist-twitter-joke-bbc-radio-presenter/
_________________
Turn your losses into lessons. - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 12, 13, 14  Next
Page 8 of 14
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB