Defunding The Police

[RamblingMad]

Has it occurred that there is a chance you are tainting protesters by constantly using the term to include criminals? I have not noticed this problem on your posts involving police and individual officer who commit crimes.

Is it possible protesters don't have to be criminals just as all police don't have to be murders?

What do you think of CHEZ/CHOP in Seattle? Is that criminal?

 

[JimMIA]

actually hate speech is not allowed. You can think what you want but you aren't allowed to spew it everywhere technically.

That's incorrect. Hate speech IS protected, and I would make the argument that it is one of the most important types of speech to protect.

I want haters on a podium spewing their hatred for all to see and understand. There is no better way to oppose hate than to let it shine!

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

What do you think of CHEZ/CHOP in Seattle? Is that criminal?

Deflection is not an answer

 

[JimMIA]

Hate speech is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed., 2014) as: “Speech that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, such as a particular race, esp. in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence.” It is state to state but where I live, falls under disturbing the peace. Similar to you can't yell fire in a non-emergency.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

actually hate speech is not allowed. You can think what you want but you aren't allowed to spew it everywhere technically.

One of my favorite parts to the American President movie is his ending speech. Relevant to your comment is the following: "It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

Wiki definition of Supreme Court information--"Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising."

It's part of our fundamentals in our society--there are limitations but intentionally not complete control. There may be varying laws regarding what qualifies as hate speech but I get the sentiment the other posters were going for. There is also a difference in what the government is prohibiting and what a business will allow or a school will allow, etc.

I def. heard what some could consider hate speech depending on how someone viewed it on my college campus and while I did not like hearing someone's views on the LGBQT+ community I appreciated that it was allowed. Counter discussions occurred at times but so did just flat out ignoring the abhorrent rhetoric.

 

[shelemm]

Hate speech is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed., 2014) as: “Speech that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, such as a particular race, esp. in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence.” It is state to state but where I live, falls under disturbing the peace. Similar to you can't yell fire in a non-emergency.

I don't have a problem with the dictionary definition, but when you say it is "state to state" then I will note that no state law can survive a successful Supreme Court challenge.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

That's incorrect. Hate speech IS protected, and I would make the argument that it is one of the most important types of speech to protect.

I want haters on a podium spewing their hatred for all to see and understand. There is no better way to oppose hate than to let it shine!

This is true in nearly every case. The idea of letting facebook or twitter decide what can be discussed should scare all of us. The conflicting lies of CNN and foxnews are just part of the system working.

It is incumbent on anyone wanting to contribute to see that by constantly referring to one side (the other tribe) as including criminals while studiously avoiding that with their own tribe to learn and stop. The value of the contribution is impacted by the obvious prejudice.

 

[Queen2PrincessG]

View attachment 503794

YES, because being called a racial slur is what everyone wants in their life? I seriously don't get your viewpoint. You want things to return to normal, but you kinda understand that the normal wasn't working for everyone, but you don't like the protest, but you also understand that funding for schools and other vital programs would be helpful but you don't want to see police departments lose money? So then are you ok with hire taxes to form better societal programs that would lower crime?

 

[Queen2PrincessG]

That's incorrect. Hate speech IS protected, and I would make the argument that it is one of the most important types of speech to protect.

I want haters on a podium spewing their hatred for all to see and understand. There is no better way to oppose hate than to let it shine!

fine so now people are speaking up, and the first group Law Enforcement. SOOOOOOO

 

[JimMIA]

YES, because being called a racial slur is what everyone wants in their life?

NO, of course not. But why hide their hatred?

LET THEM SPEAK. Let people see who and what those folks are...and then destroy their nonsense with facts and logic and good will.

 

[RamblingMad]

NO, of course not. But why hide their hatred?

LET THEM SPEAK. Let people see who and what those folks are...and then destroy their nonsense with facts and logic and good will.

People aren’t rational. You need to figure out a narrative that you want to push and spin what’s going on to change public opinion. In a world of social media, influencers can utilize psych warfare. It’s really effective.

 

[shelemm]

The conflicting lies of CNN and foxnews are just part of the system working.

It is incumbent on anyone wanting to contribute to see that by constantly referring to one side (the other tribe) as including criminals while studiously avoiding that with their own tribe to learn and stop. The value of the contribution is impacted by the obvious prejudice.

There is no equivalency between the lies of Fox News and what is being said on CNN. This has been proven many times over, but my favorite examples which have no equivalency on CNN:

Fox interviewed a man who claimed to be a Stanford medical advisor (he had no relation to Stanford and was not a medical advisor) and falsely proclaimed that hydroxy chloroquine had a 100% success rate in a drug trial.

The next example is when the NYU law professor claimed to have expertise in 'theoretical evolution' and pronounced there would be only 500 deaths in the US from COVID. He may be a great legal scholar, but Fox had no business interviewing him and distributing his opinion on a virus.

So if you can find a CNN equivalent to that, go ahead and post it. This will be an interesting back-and-forth as I will not run out of Fox lies for many years to come.

 

[JimMIA]

People aren’t rational. You need to figure out a narrative that you want to push and spin what’s going on to change public opinion. In a world of social media, influencers can utilize psych warfare. It’s really effective.

Changing "public opinion" and changing hearts, minds, systems, and organizations are completely different things.

That's one reason why protests and social media are so ineffective. Swaying the opinions of a bunch of Twits for this moment in time and revamping the way a police department functions day-to-day are vastly different problems...just to use one easy example.

 

[mrsap]

There is no equivalency between the lies of Fox News and what is being said on CNN. This has been proven many times over, but my favorite examples which have no equivalency on CNN:

Fox interviewed a man who claimed to be a Stanford medical advisor (he had no relation to Stanford and was not a medical advisor) and falsely proclaimed that hydroxy chloroquine had a 100% success rate in a drug trial.

The next example is when the NYU law professor claimed to have expertise in 'theoretical evolution' and pronounced there would be only 500 deaths in the US from COVID. He may be a great legal scholar, but Fox had no business interviewing him and distributing his opinion on a virus.

So if you can find a CNN equivalent to that, go ahead and post it. This will be an interesting back-and-forth as I will not run out of Fox lies for many years to come.

Are you for real?! CNN only shows you what they want!!!! They said it themselves!!!!!!!


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...as_hidden_camera_footage_from_inside_cnn.html
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/exposecnnpart1/

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...ists-resign-over-retracted-trump-russia-story
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

Let me know if you need more examples.

Might be time to change the channel and get some real news.

 

[RamblingMad]

There is no equivalency between the lies of Fox News and what is being said on CNN. This has been proven many times over, but my favorite examples which have no equivalency on CNN:

Fox interviewed a man who claimed to be a Stanford medical advisor (he had no relation to Stanford and was not a medical advisor) and falsely proclaimed that hydroxy chloroquine had a 100% success rate in a drug trial.

The next example is when the NYU law professor claimed to have expertise in 'theoretical evolution' and pronounced there would be only 500 deaths in the US from COVID. He may be a great legal scholar, but Fox had no business interviewing him and distributing his opinion on a virus.

So if you can find a CNN equivalent to that, go ahead and post it. This will be an interesting back-and-forth as I will not run out of Fox lies for many years to come.

Together, they create polarity, so that you can keep people distracted. A gridlock maintains the status quo.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

There is no equivalency between the lies of Fox News and what is being said on CNN. This has been proven many times over, but my favorite examples which have no equivalency on CNN:
So if you can find a CNN equivalent to that, go ahead and post it. This will be an interesting back-and-forth as I will not run out of Fox lies for many years to come.

Equivalent is an interesting word, and just to be clear to avoid misunderstandings I am anti trump and was anti HRC. To me the system that gave us that choice is the main issue and is rarely addressed. IMO there is no room to blame anyone for voting against Trump nor is the room to blame voting against HRC. Not that Biden is a better choice than HRC but 2020 is not 2016 and it matters.

So you blame Fox for not sourcing stories well enough. Does that apply to CNN hiring 'pros' who are still employed by the respective campaign? By having full time liars on to the point the CNN "talent" calls the lies and finally refuse to air them?

Does a bad source equate with Anderson Cooper standing and sitting like a world class idiot interviewing Trump on the election and nomination run up, nodding and apparently agreeing with the birther, wall and racism? Cooper was one of the biggest validators of trump, along with CNN in general and the reason was profit. Not truth not justice and not the american way. Money.

Today Cooper rarely repeats what trump and trump supporters with any degree of accuracy. There is a difference between a word stated and the meaning of that word and the divergence is always anti trump. In regard to trump CNN is as bad as MSNBC. In contrast fox is better on reporting opposition to trump

Has Anderson issued a mea culpa? Or is he again just pursuing the ratings and profit and salary/bonsus money?

You are entitled to try and split hairs. But in my opinion the allegations against trump that relate to "ME2" issues are not better nor worse than HRC vilifying Bill's accusers. They are the same. Cooper working for Trump prior to election, like Mika and Joe and then turning to follow the money is no different from fox being lazy or bad at checking credentials

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

"CNN debate moderator Abby Phillip asked Bernie Sanders in the Tuesday debate in Des Moines:
“CNN reported yesterday — and Senator Sanders, Senator Warren confirmed in a statement — that, in 2018, you told her you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?”
Not “did you say that,” but “why did you say that?”"

"Phillip asked him to clarify: He never said it? “That is correct,” Sanders said. Phillip turned to Warren and deadpanned: “Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?” "

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...0-cnn-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-938365/

 

[Queen2PrincessG]

NO, of course not. But why hide their hatred?

LET THEM SPEAK. Let people see who and what those folks are...and then destroy their nonsense with facts and logic and good will.

Yes, I get that and 100% agree but the threat isn't just the loud. That is a large part of my point. It's the things you don't "hear" like attending a school named after a confederate solider, housing laws, microaggressions, job applications, workforce laws, our justice system, through this post many people have called everyone in jails, criminals, that's just not true. There are people in Rikers who have yet to be charged with a single crime and likely a population as well who aren't guilty of anything but the justice system isn't built to honestly serve the innocent. As much as people keep saying PICK an issue or "central theme", it's hard to do that when there is so much intersectionality. They are all connected and at the root of it is America's lack of ability to deal with racism. So if its overwhelming for you, imagine how its been for BIPoc for the last 400 years. Its rooted in everything this country does. If people really don't understand WHY "Defund the Police" is a movement. It's going to look different city to city and that is the point everyone needs something different. I suggest reading Stamped From the Beginning there is a YA version as well or watching "13th". It will give you some information you've never been presented with, I know it gave me some new ideas to research. I understand that most of the movements occurring are forcing people to look at their personal identity, and that is not easy but staying stuck on the wrong side of history isn't the best option either.

 

[shelemm]

Does that apply to CNN hiring 'pros' who are still employed by the respective campaign? By having full time liars on to the point the CNN "talent" calls the lies and finally refuse to air them?

I'll deal with these one at a time. Most often CNN has oppositional folks on their shows. This is evident to the audience, and their position is well known. It's not hidden. If they tell a lie they can be called out on it immediately. I don't mind opinions, which can be the same thing as complex analysis. I do think it is best to give different opinions an airing out and allow them to give their best arguments.

Cooper was one of the biggest validators of trump, along with CNN in general and the reason was profit. Not truth not justice and not the american way. Money.

A simple Google search shows Anderson Cooper 360 had many times excoriated Trump for birtherism and many other things.

Today Cooper rarely repeats what trump and trump supporters with any degree of accuracy.

CNN is a video-dependent organization and constantly shows video of what exactly someone said. When they launch into a segment, if they have video of it, they go to the video.

Your rant is filled with all kinds of bias and unspecified 'wrongs.' I gave you two very specific and important ways that Fox actively deceives their audience, but there are so many others.

 

[shelemm]

Together, they create polarity, so that you can keep people distracted. A gridlock maintains the status quo.

CNN is not the polar opposite of Fox News. They have conservative voices, hosts (Smerconish, Cupp) on the shows all the time. They have a long list of regular contributors who are highly conservative. And when they need an expert to talk about the CIA, terrorism, etc they get highly credentialed people like Malcolm Nance. The only polar opposite of Fox is that the get people with experience in their field and not just someone who wrote a viewpoint for a think tank.

Meanwhile, how many times does Laura Ingraham rant about the "deep state." Fauci is now part of the "medical deep state" according to her.