Media Event!! Jan 6th Propaganda!! Tonight!! Official Thread!!

[avoiding injuries 1,587]

11 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So why was 2016 so important? 

It makes no sense. Look at it logically. Why would Russia rather have Trump, a pro-American no nonsense on foreign affairs president over Biden, who has decimated our country’s economy, energy independence and military in less than 2 years? If you were a foreign leader, who would you rather want running a rival country?

[craftsman 1,045]

The liberals know they look stupid. But they went way too far down this road and they simply can't allow themselves to turn back, so they pull a George Costanza. "I'm all in baby!!"

Plus, they don't have anything else to do. They are running out of things to ruin in this country.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,457]

16 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

It makes no sense. Look at it logically. Why would Russia rather have Trump, a pro-American no nonsense on foreign affairs president over Biden, who has decimated our country’s economy, energy independence and military in less than 2 years? If you were a foreign leader, who would you rather want running a rival country?

And why would you want a pro domestic energy guy like Trump when like Russia, your whole economy is based on exporting energy? It never made sense from the beginning. Still waiting for someone on the left to tell us what benefits Russia got by Trump winning? Lower oil prices? That didn’t help them. 

[dogcows 1,030]

4 hours ago, TimHauck said:

They do censor right posters far more than the left, but I think it’s mostly the ones with big followings.

It’s depressing to me to see the amount of extreme right wing crazies on twitter though (sure I guess some could be bots, most only have 100 followers or so), blaming pretty much every death on the vax, etc

They “censor” people who break rules such as posting dangerous disinformation or calls to violence. Which just happens to be those on the right most of the time.

The right-wing complaints are like when one team’s DB holds a receiver on every play, then the coach calls the refs unfair for flagging his team more than the other team. Yeah, you got more flags, but you deserved them. It’s not rigged.

Of course, if somebody has data to the contrary, I’d like to see it.

[TimHauck 2,881]

2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

It’s depressing? Really? You care that much?  Lol.  Buck up little camper. It gets better. 

A little.  Mass Formation Psychosis is real

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

Bannon sentencing is this morning.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,457]

2 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Bannon sentencing is this morning.

When is Eric Holders? Oh that’s right. Democrats don’t get prosecuted for bullshit. Or anything for that matter.  Choir boys. 

[jerryskids 6,805]

12 hours ago, dogcows said:

It’s a “given” that social media is biased against the right? Sorry, I don’t accept stuff as given unless there’s some pretty solid evidence. Research shows that the bias is from the users, not the platform itself.

https://research.impact.iu.edu/key-areas/social-sciences/stories/social-media-platform-bias.html

If one looks at Facebook, its most popular posts are dominated by right-wing content (the quote below is from 2020). That doesn’t square with the idea that they’re being censored.

Here’s the rest of that discussion from the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54698186

I’d love to see more evidence that social media is biased towards anything other than making the maximum amount of money. Not talking about a couple of anecdotes, but some actual data.

I think the following captures the situation well:

Quote

Now, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale and the University of Exeter have released the first study that I’m aware of that takes an independent, empirical look at the bias claim. Twitter, they found, does tend to suspend Republican users far more frequently than Democrats. But that’s not necessarily because of partisan favoritism. Instead, it’s just as likely that Republicans were suspended because they tend to spread far more misinformation. 

The researchers identified 9,000 politically engaged Twitter users in October 2020, half Democratic and half Republican. They tracked the sample for seven months after the November 2020 election. During that period, Twitter suspended 7.7 percent of the Democrats. In contrast, the platform suspended 35.6 percent of the Republicans — a more-than-fourfold difference. 

Evidence that Twitter tilts against the right? Not so fast, the researchers said. 

 

The study team scrutinized their subjects’ appetite for sharing misinformation, meaning provably false content such as phony COVID-19 cures or QAnon conspiracy theories. The researchers found that the Republican Twitter users shared “substantially more news from misinformation sites.” (Misinformation sites had been labeled as untrustworthy by either professional fact-checking organizations  or surveys of politically balanced and demographically representative laypeople.)  

“Critically,” the researchers said, “we found that users’ misinformation sharing was as predictive of suspension as was their political orientation. Thus, the observation that Republicans were more likely to be suspended than Democrats provides no support for the claim that Twitter showed political bias in its suspension practices. Instead, the observed asymmetry could be explained entirely by the tendency of Republicans to share more misinformation.” 

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3273956-musk-says-twitter-is-biased-against-conservatives-facts-say-otherwise/

It's all in the definition of "misinformation," which the Left controls, and not coincidentally is comprised of information they don't like.

Bret Weinstein's podcast Dark Horse was demonetized by Youtube for discussing Covid-related things like the value of vitamin D.  According to Bret, Youtube still plays their pods and runs ads on them, but doesn't provide any money to him.

https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1409683806471155712

Of course we also have the banning of the NY Post twitter account for running the Hunter Biden laptop story.  I won't even bother with a link to that.

So, "misinformation" includes anything which questions the government's Covid positions, and anything which put Biden at risk of winning the election.

 

[RLLD 4,237]

8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

So, "misinformation" includes anything which questions the government's Covid positions, and anything which put Biden at risk of winning the election.

This.

I do not want CNN, MSNBC or any others silenced for the lies they deliver to us.  We can hold them accountable by no longer watching. The government should NEVER have a say over what information we have access to in the public forum.......EVER.....PERIOD

[dogcows 1,030]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

I think the following captures the situation well:

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3273956-musk-says-twitter-is-biased-against-conservatives-facts-say-otherwise/

It's all in the definition of "misinformation," which the Left controls, and not coincidentally is comprised of information they don't like.

Bret Weinstein's podcast Dark Horse was demonetized by Youtube for discussing Covid-related things like the value of vitamin D.  According to Bret, Youtube still plays their pods and runs ads on them, but doesn't provide any money to him.

https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1409683806471155712

Of course we also have the banning of the NY Post twitter account for running the Hunter Biden laptop story.  I won't even bother with a link to that.

So, "misinformation" includes anything which questions the government's Covid positions, and anything which put Biden at risk of winning the election.

 

Your post started with data: The data above shows that right-wing accounts generate much more misinformation.

You then went to two anecdotes to try and show that most misinformation isn’t actually misinformation.

You claim that “the Left” controls the definition of misinformation. You also claimed that misinformation is decided by the government. Neither claim is backed up by data.

The only data-backed part of your post actually supports the idea that the right is pushing more misinformation than the left… and therefore is not being unfairly targeted.

[jerryskids 6,805]

4 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Your post started with data: The data above shows that right-wing accounts generate much more misinformation.

You then went to two anecdotes to try and show that most misinformation isn’t actually misinformation.

You claim that “the Left” controls the definition of misinformation. You also claimed that misinformation is decided by the government. Neither claim is backed up by data.

The only data-backed part of your post actually supports the idea that the right is pushing more misinformation than the left… and therefore is not being unfairly targeted.

I am dumber for having read this post.   

[Fnord 2,280]

Just now, jerryskids said:

I am dumber for having read this post.   

Dude you're better than this. You literally just posted a study that made a rational, data driven conclusion. In the same post, you came to the opposite conclusion based on no data whatsoever. Just anecdotal stories that YOU BELIEVE are evidence supporting your position. 

[jerryskids 6,805]

34 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Dude you're better than this. You literally just posted a study that made a rational, data driven conclusion. In the same post, you came to the opposite conclusion based on no data whatsoever. Just anecdotal stories that YOU BELIEVE are evidence supporting your position. 

I already explained it.  Here, I'll repeat myself:

It's all in the definition of "misinformation," which the Left controls, and not coincidentally is comprised of information they don't like.

We aren't going to agree on this:  you, like DogCows, seem to think that there is an impartial arbiter of misinformation, and since that arbiter fits your world view, you see no problem.  I see Matt Walsh getting suspended for saying that biological men aren't women, Jordan Peterson for comments about Elliot Page (which I disagreed with BTW, but he has the right to say it), Dave Rubin for commenting on Peterson's comments.  If you don't buy into the Left's version of reality, it is misinformation.  

The Left used to be the party of liberals, of encouraging discourse to uncover truth.  Now, disagreement is misinformation.

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

Bannon gets four months!!!!

[OldMaid 2,130]

9 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Bannon gets four months!!!!

It’s a start.

[Mike Honcho 5,283]

12 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Bannon gets four months!!!!

He should get a haircut.

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

26 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

He should get a haircut.

And go on Noom. 

[dogcows 1,030]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

I already explained it.  Here, I'll repeat myself:

It's all in the definition of "misinformation," which the Left controls, and not coincidentally is comprised of information they don't like.

We aren't going to agree on this:  you, like DogCows, seem to think that there is an impartial arbiter of misinformation, and since that arbiter fits your world view, you see no problem.  I see Matt Walsh getting suspended for saying that biological men aren't women, Jordan Peterson for comments about Elliot Page (which I disagreed with BTW, but he has the right to say it), Dave Rubin for commenting on Peterson's comments.  If you don't buy into the Left's version of reality, it is misinformation.  

The Left used to be the party of liberals, of encouraging discourse to uncover truth.  Now, disagreement is misinformation.

All I asked for was data that the ‘left” decides what misinformation is. I haven’t seen it... just a small handful of high-profile suspensions or bans of controversial people known for pushing the boundaries, and the infamous NY Post ban that Twitter admitted was a mistake.

I don’t trust the social media companies, and I don’t have an account with any of them. They invade users’ privacy and sell that data to the highest bidder.

But I haven’t seen any evidence that they discriminate based on political viewpoint. As mentioned earlier, right-wing media figures dominate the top 10 posts on FB almost every week. How can you look at that and think they’re being censored? 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

3 hours ago, Fnord said:

Dude you're better than this. You literally just posted a study that made a rational, data driven conclusion. In the same post, you came to the opposite conclusion based on no data whatsoever. Just anecdotal stories that YOU BELIEVE are evidence supporting your position. 

Skids has been in a mental tailspin all week. His reading-comprehension skills have tanked, and a disconnect chasm for him is widening and deepening. 

 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

Jan. 6 panel subpoenas Clownzo!

https://news.yahoo.com/jan-6-panel-issues-subpoena-174634461.html

Here's your shot, buddy! 

[Mike Honcho 5,283]

11 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Jan. 6 panel subpoenas Clownzo!

https://news.yahoo.com/jan-6-panel-issues-subpoena-174634461.html

Here's your shot, buddy! 

I'd go as much as 79.99 on  PPV to watch Liz destroy him.  

[Hardcore troubadour 15,457]

8 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I'd go as much as 79.99 on  PPV to watch Liz destroy him.  

She’s brilliant.  I can see why you’re so confident. 

[jerryskids 6,805]

3 hours ago, dogcows said:

All I asked for was data that the ‘left” decides what misinformation is. I haven’t seen it... just a small handful of high-profile suspensions or bans of controversial people known for pushing the boundaries, and the infamous NY Post ban that Twitter admitted was a mistake.

I don’t trust the social media companies, and I don’t have an account with any of them. They invade users’ privacy and sell that data to the highest bidder.

But I haven’t seen any evidence that they discriminate based on political viewpoint. As mentioned earlier, right-wing media figures dominate the top 10 posts on FB almost every week. How can you look at that and think they’re being censored? 

The "evidence" is in that Hill article; > 4X suspensions for Republicans.  But wait! you (and the article) say.  It's not bias, it's misinformation!

We all like to make fun of the other party and call them stoopid, but objectively there is a distribution of intelligence in both parties.  So ask yourself:  how is it that simply by believing in conservative values, statistically I am 4X more likely to post "misinformation?"  It is beyond credulity to believe there is such a knowledge gap; it is statistically impossible.  

Occam's Razor says that the answer is that the definition of "misinformation" aligns with beliefs held by conservatives.   

[Mike Honcho 5,283]

5 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

The "evidence" is in that Hill article; > 4X suspensions for Republicans.  But wait! you (and the article) say.  It's not bias, it's misinformation!

We all like to make fun of the other party and call them stoopid, but objectively there is a distribution of intelligence in both parties.  So ask yourself:  how is it that simply by believing in conservative values, statistically I am 4X more likely to post "misinformation?"  It is beyond credulity to believe there is such a knowledge gap; it is statistically impossible.  

Occam's Razor says that the answer is that the definition of "misinformation" aligns with beliefs held by conservatives.   

I think you are low-balling yourself at only 4X! 

[craftsman 1,045]

1 minute ago, Mike Honcho said:

I think you are low-balling yourself at only 4X! 

Liberals are soooo stupid....

[dogcows 1,030]

46 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

The "evidence" is in that Hill article; > 4X suspensions for Republicans.  But wait! you (and the article) say.  It's not bias, it's misinformation!

We all like to make fun of the other party and call them stoopid, but objectively there is a distribution of intelligence in both parties.  So ask yourself:  how is it that simply by believing in conservative values, statistically I am 4X more likely to post "misinformation?"  It is beyond credulity to believe there is such a knowledge gap; it is statistically impossible.  

Occam's Razor says that the answer is that the definition of "misinformation" aligns with beliefs held by conservatives.   

The most simple answer is that misinformation is spread 4x more by right-wing social media accounts.

It isn’t hard to imagine that a group of people told constantly there is a “liberal media” lying to them would be more likely to believe things from right-wing accounts with less skepticism. The data back this up.

https://shorensteincenter.org/combating-fake-news-agenda-for-research/

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/partisan-fb-pages-analysis#.clJa1ewQz

We also have poll data, such as 46% of Trump voters in Dec 2016 believing Hillary ran a child sex ring, or that only 33% of Republicans believed Obama was born in the U.S., months after his birth certificate had been released.

The problem of Republicans believing lies more easily than others goes back quite a while, and is pretty well documented.

Interestingly enough, the data show this belief of misinformation is generally limited to politics…

https://www.psypost.org/2019/03/right-wing-individuals-are-more-tolerant-of-the-spreading-of-misinformation-by-politicians-53277

[craftsman 1,045]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

The most simple answer is that misinformation is spread 4x more by right-wing social media accounts.

 

Oh good one chim-chim.

[Masshole 642]

Yup, definitely a right wing conspiracy to say media is biased against the right.   This is the NYTs:

 

[RLLD 4,237]

I might suggest that the NY Times is little more than a tabloid along the line of the old National Inquirer etc.....it is FAR from a reliable source of information.  

[dogcows 1,030]

37 minutes ago, Masshole said:

Yup, definitely a right wing conspiracy to say media is biased against the right.   This is the NYTs:

 

It’s an accurate description of Ron at least… During the debate, he claimed the FBI set him up!

He also claimed rioters never entered the Senate side of the Capitol (lots of video showing they did), said climate change is caused by sunspots, etc, etc, etc….

Still, a pretty biased way to frame the debate, but the only thing I’d question: Is Mandela Barnes really a rising star?

[craftsman 1,045]

5 minutes ago, dogcows said:

It’s an accurate description of Ron at least… During the debate, he claimed the FBI set him up!

He also claimed rioters never entered the Senate side of the Capitol (lots of video showing they did), said climate change is caused by sunspots, etc, etc, etc….

Still, a pretty biased way to frame the debate, but the only thing I’d question: Is Mandela Barnes really a rising star?

I believe the FBI sets people up more than I believe a hairstylist set up Nancy Pelosi. 

And the sun has a lot to do with constant climate change. Climate change is not man made. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,457]

Just now, craftsman said:

I believe the FBI sets people up more than I believe a hairstylist set up Nancy Pelosi. 

And the sun has a lot to do with constant climate change. Climate change is not man made. 

You’re arguing with a science denier that thinks men can menstruate.  It’s a fruitless endeavor.  

[dogcows 1,030]

Just now, craftsman said:

I believe the FBI sets people up more than I believe a hairstylist set up Nancy Pelosi. 

And the sun has a lot to do with constant climate change. Climate change is not man made. 

Somebody who believes stuff that dumb shouldn’t be a Senator, but unfortunately: Ron Johnson! Of course Herschel Walker makes Ronnie look like a genius.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,457]

2 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Somebody who believes stuff that dumb shouldn’t be a Senator, but unfortunately: Ron Johnson! Of course Herschel Walker makes Ronnie look like a genius.

Fetterman thinks life long criminals that have murdered people deserve an 18th chance.  What’s dumber? Science! 

[craftsman 1,045]

4 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Somebody who believes stuff that dumb shouldn’t be a Senator, but unfortunately: Ron Johnson! Of course Herschel Walker makes Ronnie look like a genius.

The FBI sent 25 armed agents, weapons drawn, to a man's home to arrest him for pushing someone who got in his face a year earlier. The case even went to court and was thrown out by the judge. 

That's your clean as a whistle FBI for you. They would never do anything underhanded for the liberal nut jobs in power.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,457]

Just now, craftsman said:

The FBI sent 25 armed agents, weapons drawn, to a man's home to arrest him for pushing someone who got in his face a year earlier. The case even went to court and was thrown out by the judge. 

That's your clean as a whistle FBI for you. They would never do anything underhanded for the liberal nut jobs in power.

But they were on that garage pull down rope. Hate crime.

[craftsman 1,045]

13 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

But they were on that garage pull down rope. Hate crime.

Oh jeez. I forgot about that. The whole DOJ needs to be gutted. Completely.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,457]

2 minutes ago, craftsman said:

Oh jeez. I forgot about that. The whol DOJ needs to be gutted. Completely.

Yeah. They aren’t so interested in pregnancy crisis centers being fuckin firebombed though. 

[RLLD 4,237]

On 10/22/2022 at 11:31 AM, craftsman said:

Oh jeez. I forgot about that. The whole DOJ needs to be gutted. Completely.

100%
 

The FBI is too compromised at this time. Ending it would be preferable….

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

Pence calls Clownzo "reckless."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/us/politics/pence-abc-interview-trump.html

Quote

The president’s words that day at the rally endangered me and my family and everyone at the Capitol building.