This is now very little ability to disagree with the Left

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

Apparently the belief that a 300lb 'person' with a beard shouldn't be allowed to compete in womens sports is 'hate'.

How is this belief promulgated exactly? I haven't seen a pamphlet in the post office, no emails or posters.  Mind control ray's?  CNN/deepstate directive? Vaccination?

[Moonbox]

12 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Stop with the idiocy already moonbox. 

You know what my criticism of our PM's ridiculous boner for shutting down the oil sands was. You must surely understand how devastating that would be for Canada's economy yet you pretend that we'll be fine because we have "a super GDP" and the nail tech & hair-cutting sector of our economy is so solid. 

I know that you don't like it,  and not that it matters to you but neither do I.  I'll even agree with you that our oil sands are an important part of the Canadian economy and should be promoted and fought for rather than stonewalled at every opportunity.  That being said, you still seem to exaggerate its importance, downplay the importance of other sectors, all while nattering about catastrophic scenarios that will never come to pass and not understanding how the economy even works in the first place.    

12 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

FYI we will NOT be a world leader in the manufacture of any green technology, at all, ever. There's no replacement on the horizon for the exports that we are shutting down, at all. Trudeau, May, Singh and Blanchet are truly retarded and its sad that they are able to suck so many people in. 

Though I don't think Trudeau has done enough to protect and promote the Alberta oil sands, he's hardly in the same camp as May, Singh and Blanchet.  Also I live in Ontario so I know well the folly of diving head first into the "green" economy.  

12 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

We'll be importing cheap clothing and household items from everywhere, tech from everywhere, cars from everywhere, toys from everywhere, and our net exports will be down by 25% under your awesome plan, but you think that we're not gonna miss a beat. 

IF the oil sands all of the sudden just shut down...for some reason....which they wouldn't.  Your doom and gloom scenario is nonsense.  

12 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Oh cry me a river moonbox.How much talk did we ever hear about investigating the Seth Rich murder? If it was completely unverified and made up, shouldn't it go on for 3 years like Russia, Russia, Russia did? Shouldn't they have been able to get some FISA warrants issued for that, and lock some Dems up for kiddie porn but say that they're in jail because of the "Seth Rich assassination"?

We didn't hear much about Seth Rich after the initial week before Fox had to retract the story for the same reason that we didn't hear about how Trump ordered Epstein murdered to make sure he didn't reveal their pedophile ring.  It was because it was made up - a 100% fabrication.  

12 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You're talking about mental gymnastics, it takes some world-class backtard flips to be hoodwinked by all the clown shows that CNN is running and yet be completely apoplectic about a brief discussion involving why Seth Rich died at such an opportune time in such a weird way. That's some next-level hypocrisy. 

I wish I could laugh moonbox, but the depths of leftist stupidity is no laughing matter.

I don't even watch CNN, but that's your fall-back argument for pretty much anything/everything.  NO! FAKE NEWS!  FAKE NEWS!  YOU'RE A LEFTY!  MSM DEEP STATE!  FAKE NEWS!  

The funny part about Seth Rich conspiracy was that literally the whole conspiracy is made up.  He didn't die at an "opportune time", because he wasn't involved in the DNC leaks in the first place.  That part was made up, and so the whole story makes no sense.  You WANT it to be real, and so you'll twist your brain into a pretzel making it so.  

[Shady]

13 hours ago, eyeball said:

How is this belief promulgated exactly? I haven't seen a pamphlet in the post office, no emails or posters.  Mind control ray's?  CNN/deepstate directive? Vaccination?

Why do you continue to play dumb?  Does it help you feel better acting like a child.  Advocacy journalism isn’t a new concept.  It happens all the time, through the segments that networks decide to air, or the guests they decide to have on, to the stories or editorials picked to run in newspapers.  Grow the fuck up already.

[Moonbox]

13 hours ago, Independent1986 said:

Yes, but who determines what is blatant misinformation ? I mean blatant misinformation was the story that went around about Jussie Smollet for days and days, is it ok when CNN does it right ? but when others on the other aisle do it, is not ok. My argument is that is the same coin, but different side. Limited exposure of the mind to people that want to control it is the key to freedom. 

CNN reported on claims that Jussie Smollet made.  They reported on his story of what happened to him, which is all they can really do and then they roasted him after it turned out HE made it all up.  I'm right with you in that I think CNN (and other outlets) were overly quick to grab on to this story and promote it, but this is an issue of editorial bias. They reported the information they had and were clear about where it came from.  

Misinformation is something altogether different.  This is the deliberate spread of fake stories, claims and theories in an attempt to persuade (primarily) gullible people.   The Seth Rich conspiracy falls into that category.  There was no basis for the story whatsoever.  It came out of thin air.  

Going back to Facebook and other social media, the insidious thing about these platforms is how they can be so successfully micro-targeted towards dumb and ignorant people and how there's no accountability for it.  At least Fox News or CNN can be sued for deliberately promoting slander/libel.  When a purpose-built shadow-corp is promoting conspiracies on Facebook, nobody can do much about it.  Unfortunately there are a lot of uneducated and loudly opinionated fools that get their news from Facebook, so there's an obvious problem there.  

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I don't even watch CNN, but that's your fall-back argument for pretty much anything/everything.  NO! FAKE NEWS!  FAKE NEWS!  YOU'RE A LEFTY!  MSM DEEP STATE!  FAKE NEWS!  

The funny part about Seth Rich conspiracy was that literally the whole conspiracy is made up.  He didn't die at an "opportune time", because he wasn't involved in the DNC leaks in the first place.  That part was made up, and so the whole story makes no sense.  You WANT it to be real, and so you'll twist your brain into a pretzel making it so.  

Dude I can catch CTV and CBC lying every day.

I can catch them lending credibiity to groups like Anifa and OBLM every day.

I can catch them downplaying the effects of Trudeau's disastrous failure against covid every day.

Pick your mainstream media source that you trust out of NBC, CTV, CBC, Global, MSNBC and CNN. Pick whatever show you want from their whole lineup.  

I'll PVR the show of your choosing, and you can PVR Tucker Carlson (opinion show), Brett Baier (News), Hannity or the Five (discussion). Let's play spot the lies moonbox. 

You should have the advantage, you get to choose any show you want from 6 major networks. I gave you 4 shows to choose from on a single network. You can even watch all 4 if you want and I'll just watch one show of your choosing.

[Moonbox]

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

How is this belief promulgated exactly? I haven't seen a pamphlet in the post office, no emails or posters.  Mind control ray's?  CNN/deepstate directive? Vaccination?

I think the belief is implicitly "promulgated" by the continued participating of trans-women in female sports.  It does seem to be a point that the right-side of the debate really hones in on and exaggerates, but don't be disingenuous and pretend it's not happening.  That it's unfair to have transgender men clobbering female athletes in competitions is obvious, so the arguments supporting their inclusion are ideological whereas (in a real twist) the arguments against them are both scientific and objective.  

Regardless, you really, really don't have to look hard to find examples of LGBT advocates piling on to people who speak out against trans men participating in women's sports.  "Transphobia" is the usual rallying cry.

[Argus]

17 hours ago, Independent1986 said:

You have to give it to @Argus, I don't agree with half of what he is saying but makes you think with arguments about his position. As Marcus Aurelius said it: "Stand straight, don't be held straight". 

Your excessive tribalism though makes you loose opportunities to co-operate with individuals that have different backgrounds but respect and contribute through hard work to this great country. I know people from the Middle East that pay more taxes than the white students defacing statues in the streets.

I'm not sure who I'm supposed to cooperate with, or how. When I talk about policy I'm speaking on a macro scale. It's not entirely relevant that 'some' of a given group might agree with much of what I say when most of it does not. You know I was watching a talk with Johnathan Haidt the other day and he said that tribalism was instinctual in all of us. But he suggested it comes out most often when people feel as though they or 'their tribe' come under attack. So if people feel that what they are attached to, such as 'peace order and good government' and the traditions and values of the society in which they were raised are being attacked, they're most likely to feel antipathy for those attacking them.

The people calling for widespread changes are, for the most part, emotionally overactive morons with very little knowledge. BLM is actually a very good example, for despite their name their goals involve eliminating Capitalism, Christianity, and the nuclear family' among other things. And even the likes of Trudeau and his followers seem determined to flood Canada with so many foreigners so quickly that Canada's home-grown values, traditions and customs are swept away.

That the Left has adopted identity politics as a religion, and that the more influential members are wild eyed zealots filled with hatred towards anyone who disagrees with them, means they are quick to attack any aspect of traditional society and western values. There is no dialogue possible with such people. Even a mild mannered man like Haidt didn't think there could be any meaningful compromise with them, and he felt violence was in the offing.

[Michael Hardner]

24 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

1. It does seem to be a point that the right-side of the debate really hones in on and exaggerates, but don't be disingenuous and pretend it's not happening. 
2. That it's unfair to have transgender men clobbering female athletes in competitions is obvious, so the arguments supporting their inclusion are ideological whereas (in a real twist) the arguments against them are both scientific and objective.  
3. Regardless, you really, really don't have to look hard to find examples of LGBT advocates piling on to people who speak out against trans men participating in women's sports. 
4. "Transphobia" is the usual rallying cry.

1. Given that eyeball was responding to exactly that kind of exaggeration, I think he is aware.
2. Right - so have that discussion and don't make any arguments on the other side into evidence that there is no "ability to disagree"
3. That's what advocates do, they advocate.
4. Are you allowed to argue in favour of trans women in women's sports ?  If not, then maybe there is some transphobia.

Let's find some people who can discuss the issue intelligently and let them debate.  Then we can reflect and see what we have learned.  It's a strange time for those of us who grew up when trans people were invisible.  Let's recognize that, firstly, then determine what we want to do.  The finer points of debate follow all of this.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Given that eyeball was responding to exactly that kind of exaggeration, I think he is aware.
2. Right - so have that discussion and don't make any arguments on the other side into evidence that there is no "ability to disagree"

Try to disagree on much of social media - which is the new public square -  and your accounts will be immediately banned. Try to give a talk in real life where you disagree and angry mobs will show up to silence you. People will call your employer and try to get you fired. You'll get death threats. Try to disagree in the UK and you'll find the police at your door. This is not about arguments. This is about threats, and about a belief by the the most influential elements of the  Left that their social views have the status of sacred texts and anyone who disagrees is not simply wrong, but literally evil. You cannot have a dialogue with people who are filled with hate for anyone who disagrees with them. Just ask Meghan Murphy - a far left feminist who is now constantly threatened and de-platformed and accused of being a Nazi because she opposes the trans agenda activists.

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. That's what advocates do, they advocate.

When that advocacy involves threats and determined efforts to silence opposition it's considerably more than advocacy.

 

[Moonbox]

 

23 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You should have the advantage, you get to choose any show you want from 6 major networks. I gave you 4 shows to choose from on a single network. You can even watch all 4 if you want and I'll just watch one show of your choosing.

Except for the fact that you're operating on an entirely different plane of reality - one where your mind-bending powers of rationalization allow you to exaggerate and make huge leaps in logic for any information that (you feel) supports your world view, and then also to make excuses for and downplay any that could potentially weaken it.  

Your comments on the Seth Rich conspiracy tell us everything we need to know.  I brought up one of the dumbest, most blatantly dishonest and biggest screw-ups in Fox News history, and you spun your wheels trying to justify it.  If you'll attempt to rationalize even the most obvious nonsense, there's zero hope of any sort of intelligent, informed debate with you.  

 

 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Shady said:

Advocacy journalism isn’t a new concept.  It happens all the time, through the segments that networks decide to air, or the guests they decide to have on, to the stories or editorials picked to run in newspapers.

That's right it does but it's just about impossible to take the right wing's fear of this deliberate advocacy seriously when it looks at it like it was some BIG conspiracy of MSM outlets against it.

It's the same same stupid play book we've seen for decades; Head for the hills...Commies...Hippies....Socialists...Muslims...Enviro's...Terrorists...Libruls or did I already mention Commies?

...snore...

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

CNN reported on claims that Jussie Smollet made.  They reported on his story of what happened to him, which is all they can really do and then they roasted him after it turned out HE made it all up.  I'm right with you in that I think CNN (and other outlets) were overly quick to grab on to this story and promote it, but this is an issue of editorial bias. They reported the information they had and were clear about where it came from.  

Misinformation is something altogether different.  This is the deliberate spread of fake stories, claims and theories in an attempt to persuade (primarily) gullible people.   The Seth Rich conspiracy falls into that category.  There was no basis for the story whatsoever.  It came out of thin air.  

Going back to Facebook and other social media, the insidious thing about these platforms is how they can be so successfully micro-targeted towards dumb and ignorant people and how there's no accountability for it.  At least Fox News or CNN can be sued for deliberately promoting slander/libel.  When a purpose-built shadow-corp is promoting conspiracies on Facebook, nobody can do much about it.  Unfortunately there are a lot of uneducated and loudly opinionated fools that get their news from Facebook, so there's an obvious problem there.  

When was Jussie Smollett ever truly 'roasted' by CNN?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/12/us/jussie-smollett-indictment-case-unfold/index.html

Quote

The announcement Tuesday that Jussie Smollet has, again, been indicted by a Chicago grand jury is the latest twist in a headline-grabbing case that has taken numerous turns in the year since the actor said he was the victim of a racist and homophobic attack.

What he actually did was fake a hate crime try to stir up hatred and division. They refer to it as 'headline-grabbing" etc, but they never say how divisive his story truly was.  His quote from the alleged 'attackers' who committed the crime was:

Quote

He said he was approached by two men who yelled racist and homophobic slurs and “This is MAGA country,” beat him, poured an unknown chemical substance on him and wrapped a rope around his neck.

This is a direct attempt to smear Trump/GOP supporters, and to create division. CNN is completely ignoring the elephant in the room.

There's a big difference between "He just did it because he wanted attention" and "He was intentionally sowing fear and division in the entire country". One is pathetic, the other is sinister. The reference to MAGA hats makes this sinister and there's no way around that.

He didn't just make a sob story, he made a sob story with an extremely defamatory accusation against a specific group of people as a fundamental part of it. 

He committed an actual hate crime himself, not just a dirty trick that was just a waste of the police's time. 

Quote

Johnson said Smollett, who is gay and black, wanted to take "advantage of the pain and anger of racism to promote his career."

Sure Jussie. Why would we take the word of a huge liar like yourself, when your accusation goes too far and is too specific against a certain group of people?

When has he ever apologized to the MAGA community?

Can you show me where CNN "roasted him" for his own hateful bigotry and fear-mongering? Let's be honest, that's what it was. 

[Moonbox]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Given that eyeball was responding to exactly that kind of exaggeration, I think he is aware.
2. Right - so have that discussion and don't make any arguments on the other side into evidence that there is no "ability to disagree

3. That's what advocates do, they advocate.
4. Are you allowed to argue in favour of trans women in women's sports ?  If not, then maybe there is some transphobia.

Let's find some people who can discuss the issue intelligently and let them debate.  Then we can reflect and see what we have learned.  It's a strange time for those of us who grew up when trans people were invisible.  Let's recognize that, firstly, then determine what we want to do.  The finer points of debate follow all of this.

There's no doubt that you can argue in favour of trans women in sports - the fact that they're allowed to participate makes that explicit.  

What's not so clear, however, is the ability to argue against it without being labeled as transphobic.  The pile-on of Martina Navritolova is a good example of this, and far from the only one.  Though Martina ventured a little too far into rhetorical scenarios when she originally spoke out (and gave ammunition to her critics), her argument was pretty straightforward and clearly demonstrated the unfairness of the current environment.  

If transwomen are not allowed to compete in women's sports, there's certainly a question of where would they compete, but then there's also the question of why should their feelings and needs take precedence over the women in sports that they displace or unfairly compete against?  

 

[WestCanMan]

25 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

Except for the fact that you're operating on an entirely different plane of reality - one where your mind-bending powers of rationalization allow you to exaggerate and make huge leaps in logic for any information that (you feel) supports your world view, and then also to make excuses for and downplay any that could potentially weaken it.  

Your comments on the Seth Rich conspiracy tell us everything we need to know.  I brought up one of the dumbest, most blatantly dishonest and biggest screw-ups in Fox News history, and you spun your wheels trying to justify it.  If you'll attempt to rationalize even the most obvious nonsense, there's zero hope of any sort of intelligent, informed debate with you.  

You're making very serious claims against the integrity of Fox News. They should be really to prove unless you're just a total liar. 

I make very serious claims about the liberal MSM. I cite the links to their lies all the time. 

Take the challenge, or just roll over and admit defeat moonbox. Choice is yours. Don't put your pathetic spin on it to dodge the challenge.  

I gave you a huge advantage. You have about 30 programs to choose from over 6 networks. I gave your choice of all of the main programming on Fox. 

[Moonbox]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

You're making very serious claims against the integrity of Fox News. They should be really to prove unless you're just a total liar. 

I gave you one of the most obvious examples available, and you did a bunch of mental gymnastics to try and rationalize it.  By attempting to rationalize the truly stupid and absurd, you've proven that you're either unwilling (or perhaps incapable) of an intelligent debate, and thus not worth engaging with further (other than for laughs).  

Just now, WestCanMan said:

Take the challenge, or just roll over and admit defeat moonbox. Choice is yours. Don't put your pathetic spin on it to dodge the challenge.  

I'm not going to spend 4 hours watching Fox News and their clown show anchors just to watch you drink your own bathwater.   

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

It does seem to be a point that the right-side of the debate really hones in on and exaggerates, but don't be disingenuous and pretend it's not happening. 

It isn't an exaggeration to 'hone in' on the entire left and declare it's imbued in its entirety with beliefs that are likened to sacred texts?  Look at what right-wingers are writing for crying out loud, It's ludicrous.  It's the same stupid discourse that declared climate concerns were no less than religious beliefs.

I don't think it an exaggeration to say the right-wing has been 'promulgating' this this sort of ridiculous hyperbole for a lot bloody longer than the advent of social media. I'll concede people across a broad spectrum of progressive, liberal, left-wing whatever the hell people want to call it may have made 'better' more widespread use of social media to advocate for their causes but count on the right to 'hone in' on things by believing the entire left can or should be squeezed into a little narrow band known as the far-radical-left.  

[WestCanMan]

Just now, Moonbox said:

I gave you one of the most obvious examples available, and you did a bunch of mental gymnastics to try and rationalize it.  By attempting to rationalize the truly stupid and absurd, you've proven that you're either unwilling (or perhaps incapable) of an intelligent debate, and thus not worth engaging with further (other than for laughs).  

Yeah I saw your childish insults there moonbox, I just ignored them.

You're talking about an inability to engage in intelligent debate but what you're actually doing is blathering until your back is against the wall and then running from the actual proof of the matter.

Quote

I'm not going to spend 4 hours watching Fox News and their clown show anchors just to watch you drink your own bathwater. 

You don't have to watch 4 hours. According to you childish accusations this should take you a few minutes, at most. 

It takes me ten seconds to catch CTV lying. They do it in their opening monologue. "Killed after falling asleep at a drive-thru". "A black man was killed while running from police." Done.

[Moonbox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

I don't think it an exaggeration to say the right-wing has been 'promulgating' this this sort of ridiculous hyperbole for a lot bloody longer than the advent of social media. I'll concede people across a broad spectrum of progressive, liberal, left-wing whatever the hell people want to call it may have made 'better' more widespread use of social media to advocate for their causes but count on the right to 'hone in' on things by believing the entire left can or should be squeezed into a little narrow band known as the far-radical-left.  

Rather than "better" use of social media, I'd instead they've been far more successful in weaponizing it.  

You're explaining tribalism at the end of your post here, but you have to realize that it's equally prominent on both sides of the debate.  Just as the right will dig their talons into a single issue and paint it on the entire left side of the "debate", so too will the "left" take any questioning or disagreement with a social issue and automatically paint it as "hateful".  

[Moonbox]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Yeah I saw your childish insults there moonbox, I just ignored them.

As you ignore any information that doesn't conform to your reality.  

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You're talking about an inability to engage in intelligent debate but what you're actually doing is blathering until your back is against the wall and then running from the actual proof of the matter.

Another brilliant "NO YOU!"  

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It takes me ten seconds to catch CTV lying. They do it in their opening monologue. "Killed after falling asleep at a drive-thru". "A black man was killed while running from police." Done.

So...did Brooks not fall asleep in his car outside of Wendys?  Did he not get shot running from police?  Oops!

You can't even differentiate between editorial bias and outright lying.  This is too easy. 

 

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

As you ignore any information that doesn't conform to your reality.  

I ignore your childish and unfounded allegations.

Quote

Another brilliant "NO YOU!"  

Nice try kid. 

You made an accusation that you've never supported at all.

I've made accusations that I've supported by citing everything from Kavanaugh/ford, Biden-Ukraine, Biden-China, Russian collusion, Sandman, etc. CNN was even successfully sued for their lying by a high school kid.

Your one little cite was "Hannity addressed the possibility that Seth Rich wasn't just robbed (and had nothing stolen from him), he was murdered". Boohoo. That was entirely appropriate.

If Trump's old layer is 'robbed', but nothing was ever stolen from him, and Don Lemon wants to raise the question of whether or not he was murdered does that make him a fake? 

You lose 10,000 - 0.3 and you're claiming that you don't have anything to prove? LMFAO

Quote

So...did Brooks not fall asleep in his car outside of Wendys?  Did he not get shot running from police?  Oops!

You can't even differentiate between editorial bias and outright lying.  This is too easy. 

That's not editorial bias, that's lying. He wasn't "at a drive-thru" he was "in the drive-thru lane passed out drunk", and he wasn't shot after that, he was shot "after firing a taser at an officer from less than 15". You're doing backflips to make that look rational. 

Could a news channel say, in their opening monologue, that Brooks attacked an officer, shot at the officer, and was killed in return fire, and that would be ok with you as long as the story fleshed out the details a bit better? Editorial bias is not a license to lie FYI.

Sean Hannity asking questions about a 'robbery' that doesn't look like a 'robbery' at all is not lying. 

This is too easy.

 

[Independent1986]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's a strange time for those of us who grew up when trans people were invisible. 

It's not strange at all, as an old Jewish saying states from the Talmud: "To each his own path", it might be for you because the way you are lecturing everyone about transfobia & racism it smells more and more that yourself are struggling with this. Do you feel uncomfortable with these kind of issues and by you pretending to be intellectual superior and going into a deep debate for these crucial existential issues is a way to make up for those feelings ? 

What a world we live in man the Russians do have a point when they say our western culture is going into the toilet. Do you imagine after millions years of evolution and the advancement we have made an intellectual debate is regarding transgender issues. Do what you want, if this society does not allow you the freedom to be who you are, where is better ? Russia ? China ? Saudi Arabia ?

Even the Roman Empire fell, we are next  I am more pessimistic day by day when I see the mediocrity that is on the horizon for the future to lead us.

Edited June 30, 2020 by Independent1986

[Argus]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

It isn't an exaggeration to 'hone in' on the entire left and declare it's imbued in its entirety with beliefs that are likened to sacred texts?  Look at what right-wingers are writing for crying out loud, It's ludicrous. 

Do you really consider Jonathon Haidt a right winger? I am echoing his statements. We are, he says, inactively tribal, and what tribes do best is rally around something, some sacred object or text and then fight against other tribes. He believes that elements of the Left have, in effect, made anti-racism, and all that flows with it into a religion. This is their sacred text and what they rally around and fight other tribes with. He's far from the only one who has compared the recent behaviour of (strong) elements of the Left to fanatics guided by a religious like fervour. Thomas Sowell, Douglas Murray and and Coleman Hughes have done the same, as has Peterson

What we are witnessing in the culture wars is not a fight between left and right. Instead, it’s a religious war against the birth and spread of a new secular religion.

We’ve been labelling its adherents as “progressives”, “liberals” or “leftists”, but these labels are inaccurate and should no longer be used by those opposed to this new faith. There is nothing liberal or progressive about this phenomenon we are witnessing. It can no longer be accurately described as left-wing either, in the same way other systems of belief, like Christianity and Islam, cannot be placed within the left or right-wing paradigm. Even some that were once renowned leftists have come at odds against this new creed. So we need a better term to adequately describe this phenomena and “religion” fits very well.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2019/12/the-lefts-no-longer-a-cause-but-a-new-religion/

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

It's the same stupid discourse that declared climate concerns were no less than religious beliefs.

If you examine the fervour with which progressive activists treat climate change that's not really out of line.

Universities preach the new religion of anti-racism and anti-oppression

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-goal-of-university-is-diversity/

 

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

So...did Brooks not fall asleep in his car outside of Wendys?  Did he not get shot running from police?  Oops!

You can't even differentiate between editorial bias and outright lying.  This is too easy. 

Moonbox, if you want to take stock of the situation here you'll now realize that in order to defend your media sources: 1) you're advocating for outright deceit in media, under the cover of 'editorial bias', and 2) you're completely refusing to watch something which you now know you can't refute just because it will cause you a bit of cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is your friend dude. You'll never really learn if you protect your brain from a bit of necessary stress.

Right now you're the victim in the old adage:

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

Honest to god, just don't let yourself be lied to. It's a really bad habit. Who cares if it gives you a bit of license to (fake) look down on people? Most of those people know that you're just an idiot when you're belching CNN-isms.

The truth is that you already know what's up, but you've got your little hill to die on now. That's why you and all the other libs here will never come out and admit to what your most trusted news source is. Instead you'll just cower and hurl sandbox insults and unsubstantiated allegations against big, bad Fox. 

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You made an accusation that you've never supported at all.

I gave you the Seth Rich conspiracy.  You argued against it and now you're saying...what?  That I never brought up Seth Rich or...something?  Oookay.  

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

That's not editorial bias, that's lying. He wasn't "at a drive-thru" he was "in the drive-thru lane passed out drunk", and he wasn't shot after that, he was shot "after firing a taser at an officer from less than 15". You're doing backflips to make that look rational. 

He can't be in the drive-thru lane passed out drunk without being at the drive-thru.  What you're trying to say here is categorically absurd.  

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Could a news channel say, in their opening monologue, that Brooks attacked an officer, shot at the officer, and was killed in return fire, and that would be ok with you as long as the story fleshed out the details a bit better? Editorial bias is not a license to lie FYI.

What part of that is a lie?  Do you know what lying actually means?  I'm not sure if I'm supposed to laugh at you or cry for you at this point.  

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Sean Hannity asking questions about a 'robbery' that doesn't look like a 'robbery' at all is not lying. 

Except it started at Fox with an  "investigative report" (quotations for mockery purposes) by Malia Zimmerman, referring to  "evidence" that Seth Rich had provided the emails to WikiLeaks.  There was no evidence, of course, but that didn't stop Fox and Friends from running the story, or for the world's dumbest news personality from jumping all over it (that's Hannity btw).  

You're making this worse for yourself every time you reply.  

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Moonbox said:

1. There's no doubt that you can argue in favour of trans women in sports - the fact that they're allowed to participate makes that explicit.  

2. What's not so clear, however, is the ability to argue against it without being labeled as transphobic. 

3.Though Martina ventured a little too far into rhetorical scenarios when she originally spoke out ...

4. If transwomen are not allowed to compete in women's sports, there's certainly a question of where would they compete, but then there's also the question of why should their feelings and needs take precedence over the women in sports that they displace or unfairly compete against?  

 

1. Of course, anyone can argue anything but the question at hand is what is acceptable.  If an activist disagrees with your opinion then apparently you have lost "ability to disagree" as per the OP.  
2. By whom ?  I have been called a cuck because I called out some fake Trudeau news as the garbage it was.  Have I now been "labelled" ?  Can I say that I am being restricted by "the right" ?
3. I hadn't heard about this controversy.  It seems that she apologized for wording in her original statement.  It's hard to come back from such statements, but I don't know what the current environment is.
4. So let's hear the discussion.

It's quite ironic to me that the army of online trolls that comprises the alt-right is deployed on such a topic although they have no interest or stakes in women's rights or trans rights.  It's just stirring the pot for their own entertainment.