Moonbox

No, you said you hoped they did. ?

As opposed to you...howling about the stolen election conspiracy and Trump losing in 2020. ? Regardless, what does that have to do with the Polish nationalist government falling this week? The European Union is failing, you say...as it expands its membership and pro-EU governments keep getting elected. You make a fool out of yourself every time your fingers hit your keyboard.

Who cares? If winning the most votes is what matters, then Hilary Clinton would have been president in 2016. ?

From the article you posted: If the exit polls are correct, then Donald Tusk's Civic Coalition has a better chance of forming a coalition. Donald Tusk...former president of the European Council, set to in, with over 80% of votes counted in the Polish election with the biggest turnout since the collapse of communism...again from your article. Congratulations on posting another link you barely read, and not understanding what it said. Congratulations, again, on saying things are happening when the opposite is true. TRump won! MAGA!

Like in Poland...where the nationalists just lost the election? ?

In your clownworld reality only. ?

It's about using descriptive language, rather than subjective and judgmental language, and leaving the moralizing to the audience. When the BBC explains this, it makes more sense. Given the CBC's lack of impartiality and biased journalism in general, it's a harder pill to swallow. I'd suggest giving the BBC's explanation I posted earlier an honest read, because it makes sense there, especially in the context of how they reported on the Nazis. For the CBC, the idea of staying unbiased and using neutral language seems more...aspirational. ?

West while writing this gem of a post:

Doesn't mean it should never be used, but that also doesn't mean it needs to be used, and that its lack of use implies some hidden approval or sympathy. The Nazis were evil, but the BBC didn't call them evil in WW2 for the same reason, and not calling them evil didn't mean the BBC sympathized with them. Nobody is saying they're not terrorists. ?‍♂️

That's the problem. The inability/unwillingness to think without defaulting to heuristics is one of the symptoms of what's wrong with today's discourse and exchanges of information. Hamas deserves no respect or sympathy, and I don't agree calling them militants or fighters offers that. If BBC or CBC were calling them freedom fighters, then maybe I'd have an issue with it. The distinction between militants/fighters and proper soldiers is implied, and when you're describing the atrocities they commit, there's no room for interpretation. The reason I can get behind the BBC on this one (and I use them because they're a globally respected brand whereas the CBC is barely even a Canadian brand) is that they recognize that overly used and emotionally charged terms like "terrorist" have been so cheaply used by demagogues and dictators so ubiquitously to describe people they disagree with that it's easy to tune it out. When you're using emotionally charged language, you make it easier to dismiss what you're saying as biased/unreasonable/unfair etc.

Describing the specific violence doesn't do a good enough job of that? Reporting on beheadings, babies being murdered, women being raped and grandmothers getting shot 40+ times in their homes isn't sufficiently informative? ? I would argue the opposite. The descriptions themselves are far more effective than frivolously used and emotionally charged language to which the world has grown numb and dismissive.

That's the point. The term is emotionally charged and therefore not very informative. It's thrown around frivolously and meant to rile people up and little else. Not using the term isn't supporting terrorists. It's refusing to peddle in lazy heuristics, as you so often do. See: When you can't really articulate your point, you revert back to generalizations about the "other/them". In your case that's the "left". Nobody's questioning whether it's terrorism, just like the BBC wasn't sympathizing with the Nazis by not calling them evil. The assumption here is that when the CBC reports on women and children being murdered in their homes by militants, you're intelligent enough to make the conclusion yourself.

I know what you're saying, and I can point out when it's foolish. I see Hamas as a terrorist group. I think they're evil. I don't need the CBC or BBC to tell me that, or to rant about how bad it is to kill grandmothers carrying cookies in the street. Fox News and CNN have a procession of personalities who will step out and provide the rants you desire. It's not good news, but it's more entertaining for certain types. ?

Since when have you cared so much about what's been officially declared? ? Terrorist isn't worth much as a word anymore. It's been bandied around by leaders all over the world to basically label anyone that opposes them as "the bad people". It's a slogan. The Turks call the Kurds and the Armenians terrorists. The Indians call the Sikhs terrorists. The Kremlin complains about Ukrainian terrorist attacks on their infrastructure. It's just a word meant to make you angry now. Now that's moronic, because not aping the words like everyone else does isn't the same thing as giving Hamas legitimacy. I suspect if you read the CBC you'd see them unequivocally condemning Hamas and doing very little to criticize Israel's response. Your response here highlights the problem - ranting, not thinking.

Here's why. They're taking a page out of the BBC, which has metric tons more credibility than the CBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67083432 Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.

The only thing these fragile, spastic responses do is demonstrate what's going on in your head. Keep derailing your own threads with your aggressive stupidity though. ??

Your the one spamming caps. exclamation markets and emotes, muppet. ?

No. Everything about this thread was brilliant. I'm 10/10 entertained.

I have this genius on ignore, but boy am I glad I read this. ? Don't do drugs, kids.

A record deficit fueled economy, that helped drive inflation coming out of it. All Biden’s fault though, according to your smooth brain. ?

Muslim’s haven’t been around for 3000 years, nor have “Arabs” as we know them. The fact that Israel can and has got along with a number of its neighbours for decades (even former enemies) proves that the sweeping generalizations are attractive heuristics but that don’t really hold water.

If any of the above were remotely true, you wouldn't need to keep repeating it like an incantation. As we know: The same can be said about all of your limp boasting. It's not really clear who you think you're convincing. All you're doing is confirming your low self-esteem. Thanks for the laughs, as usual. ?

I don't have to imagine what you do all day. This is what an actual observation looks like. ?

If we're talking about emotional damage, let's consider the obvious and gaping hole in your life that has you sitting at your computer all day, every day, shitting up every corner of the forum and insisting to people how you're making them "insanely butthurt." Go get a job, or at least a hobby...just something...anything. ?

Par for the course for this fool. He needs to go to Indian garbage news sites to find things that line up with his clownworld perceptions. ?