Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Meanwhile the main disinformation unit continues on


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 2,922 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 25 May 2021 - 12:32 PM

Like they stated in the article, there was enough for people to be upset about that day that the media needed not try to fabricate a lie for political reasons. Is this an example of misreporting being twisted to serve political gains? Or simply reporting gone wrong and a failure to acknowledge it.

 

Anyway this article does a good job at criticizing the MSM my favorite little darling. I was going to post it from another source but I felt they all basically copied this article anyway so here it is. The article edits strange and without the fancy pictures it seems like downgrading so just a link sorry.

 

https://greenwald.su...ggerated-claims

 

 

The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot Insisting on factual accuracy does not make one an apologist for the protesters. False reporting is never justified, especially to inflate threat and fear levels.

 

Here is a new site I found today,  apparently trying to practice some objectivity in observing the way the news publications report it

 

 

 
NYT-bias.jpg?itok=2wNIfJ4f

Earlier this week, it emerged that Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick suffered two strokes and died of natural causes a day after the January 6 riot at the Capitol, according to a ruling by the District’s chief medical examiner.

The ruling means federal prosecutors will likely be unable to bring homicide charges in connection with his death. Two men have already been charged with assaulting Sicknick by spraying him with a chemical irritant.

Sicknick’s death was reported on extensively following the Jan. 6 event, in which Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in protest of purported election fraud. Running off of a report from The New York Times (Lean Left), many media outlets, such as MSNBC and CNN, continually reported that rioters bludgeoned Officer Sicknick to death with a fire extinguisher. The report turned out to be untrue, and the whole story from start to finish has shown clear media bias from the left and right, with the right more likely to call out the left media for repeating the claim.

AllSides took a look at the media coverage of the medical examiner’s ruling this week to see how outlets differed, as well as which outlets mentioned claims that the initial media reports constituted an intentional disinformation campaign.

Background: Sicknick’s Death, Early Media Coverage, and Corrections Issued

After being part of the responding force to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, Officer Sicknick reportedly went back to his office. Some hours later, he collapsed and then later died.

In this week’s ruling, the medical examiner said he found no evidence of an allergic reaction to chemicals, which would have caused Sicknick’s throat to quickly seize. In addition, the examiner did not find any evidence of internal or external injuries.

Like all the events of that day, Sicknick’s death gained widespread media attention in January. It all began when the New York Times initially said that Sicknick was “struck by a fire extinguisher,” citing two unnamed law enforcement officials.

The now-updated Times article was headlined, “He Dreamed of Being a Police Officer, Then Was Killed By a Pro-Trump Mob.

The Times described the purported event: “Then on Wednesday, pro-Trump rioters attacked that citadel of democracy, overpowered Mr. Sicknick, 42, and struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support. He died on Thursday evening.

NYTarticlesicknick.png

Image source: Glenn Greenwald, Substack

Yet The New York Times updated their initial report a month later, adding a disclaimer: "New information has emerged regarding the death of the Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick that questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police." The headline has also been changed to “Capitol Police Officer Dies From Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage.

There's no golden rule for corrections/retractions that all news outlets abide by, but the expectation is generally that corrections will be made transparently and visibly; the outlet explains the errors that led to the incorrect information, the process of getting the right information and making the change, the date the correction was made, and includes something akin to an apology to cap it off.

The fire extinguisher story quickly spread in the press. The Associated Press (Lean Left), The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristoff (Left), and others ran with the story on Twitter, some noting Sicknick was “clubbed to death.”

sicknicktweets.png

Image source: Glenn Greenwald, Substack

The New York Post (Lean Right) reported the false story on Jan. 7, running the headline: “Capitol Police officer dies after being hit in head with fire extinguisher during DC riots.” The Post said this had “reportedly” occurred, but did not cite a source; a Jan. 10 Post article said Sicknick was “fatally bludgeoned” and that he was “murdered.”

In addition, the tale was oft-repeated on CNN and MSNBC cable news (AllSides does not rate cable news, but CNN and MSNBC online news are both rated Left).

A video compilation that aired on Tucker Carlson Tonight (Right bias) shows anchors on MSNBC and CNN repeating that Sicknick was “bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher.” They state that Sicknick “died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher” and that Trump supporters “beat a Capitol police officer to death with a fire extinguisher.” AllSides didn’t find any videos showing Fox News channel reporting this falsehood (is there one we missed? Email us.)

Fox News’ (Lean Right) report on the incident didn’t mention a fire extinguisher; it said Sicknick “was injured during a physical altercation with rioters … and collapsed after returning to his division office;” another report cited a Fox News reporter who said Sicknick was “hit by a piece of metal.”

The official statement on Officer Sicknick’s death by Capitol Police on Jan. 7 was: "Officer Sicknick was responding to the riots on Wednesday, January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol and was injured while physically engaging with protesters. He returned to his division office and collapsed. He was taken to a local hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.”

Some right-wing media outlets, such as Red State (Right bias) and The National Pulse (Right bias), issued reports early on claiming the mainstream media narrative may be untrue, with the latter arguing CNN was not aggressive enough in correcting the story when new information emerged. The Daily Wire’s (Right bias) early coverage mentioned an ABC News (Lean Left) report that stated “the fire extinguisher attack has not been confirmed by law enforcement.”

The Capitol police officers’ union said 140 officers were injured during the riot, and other deaths were either linked to or directly caused by the event. Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran, was shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer during commotion in the Speaker's Lobby. Two others died of complications from heart disease and one death was accidental; two other officers, one from Capitol Police and another from MPD, died by suicide in the days after the event, local police said.

Did Coverage of the Medical Examiner’s Ruling Include Claims of Disinformation?

 

AllSides took a look at the media coverage this week. We were curious which outlets mentioned the false fire extinguisher narrative and which pointed to New York Times as a source of that information.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald (Center) has been covering the story since February, and has argued the media was “echoing false claims in order to render the event more menacing and serious than it actually was.” This week, he continued to accuse the media of irresponsible reporting:

“As I detailed over and over when examining this story, there were so many reasons to doubt this storyline from the start. Nobody on the record claimed it happened. The autopsy found no blunt trauma to the head. Sicknick's own family kept urging the press to stop spreading this story because he called them the night of January 6 and told them he was fine — obviously inconsistent with the media's claim that he died by having his skull bashed in — and his own mother kept saying that she believed he died of a stroke.”

In its writeup on this week’s ruling, The New York Times piece (which was written by a different writer than the original piece) doesn’t mention its initial report nor its correction. It does speculate about the reaction of the other side: “The determination by [medical examiner] Dr. Diaz is likely to be used by supporters of former President Donald J. Trump and others who have tried to downplay the storming of the Capitol.” This is an analysis statement presented as fact, a type of media bias.

An article by BBC (Center bias) mentions all aspects of the story — that the ruling means homicide charges are unlikely, and that the New York Times initially reported a falsehood. BBC also labels that falsehood specifically as disinformation, writing, “Speculation over Officer Sicknick’s death was the source of widespread disinformation after the New York Times reported erroneously that protesters had bludgeoned him with a fire extinguisher - a claim the newspaper later retracted.”

 

The Associated Press (Lean Left) mentions the fire extinguisher theory, attributes it to investigators, and doesn’t mention that it was oft-repeated by the media. (In its initial report on the story, AP also attributed the fire extinguisher theory to two anonymous officials; it is unknown whether these were the same two officials who spoke to the Times.) A Politico (Lean Left) story also mentions the false theory, and also does not mention any media outlets specifically, just noting “initial reports” were untrue. The Washington Post (Lean Left) mentions the New York Times story specifically.

Reports from The Wall Street Journal (Center) and Reuters (Center) do not mention the fire extinguisher theory.

On the other side, right-rated media outlets were likely to note the false story, to say it was used in impeachment trial proceedings, and/or to make it a central part of its coverage on the ruling. Fox News, for example, noted that the fire extinguisher story was “an idea perpetuated by The New York Times in a February report that was quietly updated one month later.

The Epoch Times (Lean Right) mentions the false media narrative, pointing to “The New York Times and other sources” as spreading it; they also mention “the allegation that Sicknick was murdered by protesters was invoked numerous times during the Democrat-led impeachment against former President Donald Trump.The Daily Caller (Right) also mentions the impeachment trial allegations, as well as the Times story.

TheBlaze (Right bias) mentions incorrect “initial reports,” but doesn’t link them to The Times or the impeachment proceedings. In its coverage of the medical examiner’s ruling, The New York Post, which initially carried the fire extinguisher story, blamed the early false narrative on Capitol Police, not the Times.

Finally, Breitbart (Right bias) ran an opinion piece titled: “Nolte: Corporate Media’s Brian Sicknick Hoax Debunked by D.C. Medical Examiner.” This opinion piece makes the debunked theory the lede: “Without evidence, America’s corporate media spent weeks hoaxing the American public with the lie Capitol Hill Police Officer Brian Sicknick died after an anti-vote-fraud protester smashed him in the head with a fire extinguisher during the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Disinformation, or Honest Mistake?

So, was the fire extinguisher theory intentional disinformation to make the riots look more deadly than they were, or an honest mistake made in the midst of a chaotic event — which would make it misinformation, rather than disinformation? Was the media’s spreading of the false story worth highlighting more in coverage of the examiner’s ruling, or not? And finally, was the false report something that should be forgiven as journalists engage in a tough job with many moving parts, or was it a failure of reporter ethics, fact-checking, and properly alerting audiences to the error?

There isn’t concrete evidence the spreading of this false story was intentional rather than an honest mistake. Yet definitive answers to all these questions will be virtually impossible to come by. At the very least, the reporting around the Sicknick story highlights just how quickly false reports can spread. It also shows how it can be hard to determine if something is disinformation (false reports spread intentionally) or misinformation (incorrect information spread by mistake). It also shows how people are more or less willing to label something as disinformation depending on whom the story hurts or serves and what their own bias is.

Check out our Red Blue Dictionary definition of disinformation to get a better understanding of how this word is used on the left and right — and always be sure to read news across the spectrum in order to spot falsehoods.

Julie Mastrine is the Director of Marketing at AllSides. She has a Lean Right bias.

This piece was reviewed by Henry Brechter, Managing Editor (Center bias) and Joseph Ratliff, Daily News Specialist (Lean Left bias).

 

 

 



#2 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,683 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 26 May 2021 - 09:45 AM

What's the author's point? Did that analysis prove that Sicknick would've died that day anyway, therefore Capitol-storming mobs are not so bad after all?

 

Or were they just pointing out that the "fog of war" applies to reporting on smaller-scale conflicts too, which seems like it should be self-evident? Focusing on details that conveniently advance a partisan narrative is par for the course. It's not a NY Times problem, it's a media problem. But it's not an equally-distributed problem.

 

There is video of at least one flying fire extinguisher hitting cops in the head (in one case bouncing off two cops' helmets) but no indication that either of them were Sicknick.

 

So blunt force trauma was in fact being inflicted, and at least one fire extinguisher was involved (there are no disputes about the veracity of reports about the cop who got stuck and almost crushed by a door or the one who got dragged down the steps and beaten with the flag pole) so the intent to assault the police with such weapons was clear and obvious since it was being done on camera.

 

All the dots were in fact present even if the AP or NY Times connected them wrong in the case of Sicknick, so it's not a significant "gotcha!" moment to point that out since it doesn't change anything about the big picture.

 

I'm guessing that no one goes to that kind of trouble to disprove a Breitbart or Fox News (or OANN, or Newsmax) narrative since it's commonly understood that they're always advancing a partisan agenda (because were created with the specific intent to do so) while the Times arguably still has moments of actual Journalism, depending on the reporter.

 

Do the more accurately-described details of Sicknick's death change anything significant about the insurrection as a whole? Or is it mostly just a distraction?

 

All it does IMO is possibly change what some of the charges a couple of the pinheads would face, downgrading them from murder to whatever the rest of the mob is facing. Still, I'd expect to be charged with murder of a police officer if one died trying to stop me while I was committing an armed robbery or more "conventional" violent crime even if the Coroner ruled it was a heart attack or stroke since that's how DA's and Prosecutors tend to roll in any other context where violent crimes are being committed and one or more cops die during such incidents. So maybe everyone who entered the Capitol should be charged with attempted murder of police and government officials since that's what they were intent on doing. Erecting gallows is not a diplomatic gesture.

 

The intent of the mob was clear even if they were incompetent bumbling idiots in the execution (so to speak) of their plan. So Sicknick coincidentally dying of natural causes during the mob attack changes nothing about what is and should be happening to the pinheads who stormed the Capitol.


  • shiftingshadows likes this

#3 GORF

GORF

    Mycotopiate

  • Free Member
  • 588 posts

Posted 26 May 2021 - 11:06 AM

Its friday morning pep rallies and both teams cheer leaders are chanting about killing the other team.

God but politics is stupid
  • pharmer likes this

#4 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 2,922 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 26 May 2021 - 01:07 PM

Well I think it is all about language and how it is used to manipulate people. Perhaps that is the point in all this, getting people to realize that all the news is agenda and profit driven. The idea that the NY times is some puritan outlet that does not engage in partisan style narrative twisting is just not true. Furthermore it wasn't just the NY times rather they started the story. It goes back to the same idea how they all lock step "independently" confirm things these days. Like all that Russian bs the news was fed for years. Independently confirms could mean as little as they both talked to the same uncorroborated source, like in the instance of sicknick.

 

How many times did we hear the lines like "the deadly pro trump rioters". But the truth is the mob didn't actually kill anyone no matter how hard the media tried to spin it. You can dismiss it as meaningless due to other instances of aggression that day, but I would argue that there is great meaning in the killer narrative. For if a crowd is deadly, swift public recourse is warranted. It gets people paying attention

 

 One can still be against what happened that day and take issue with the way to media tries to spin it. The sicknick death was the narrative to hold onto so they could reference the crowd to committing intentional murder. That was the smoking gun in the public eye if you will. Ever notice how they never really talked about him being killed by a person or two, it was somehow the entire crowds fault. I thought it would have been a great moment in history to sit down and look at how that all happened. To discuss the effects MSM and propaganda can have, but instead we got the #whitesupremecy, and conspiracy theories are bad narrative. Not really a surprise considering to undergo such an analysis would require the MSM to look at themselves objectively. Good luck getting them to admit years of weak journalism and wrong doing. This was a good instance of their lack of interest in correcting issues, we all know it was a deadly mob, except it wasn't! The facts don't really matter once the narrative is laid, rather the facts would detract from the push for more censorship and enforcement of right wing political groups.

 

I can tell you one thing, all this censorship and attacking our neighbors is not leading us anywhere we want to go. As far as I can tell is just seems to exacerbate the problem. It pushes those conversations deeper and deeper into the background until they exist outside of the mainstream thought process altogether.  It leads to more hate and division when we stop talking.

 

You are not wrong in saying that correcting the death plays into the whole partisan narrative. It might be a waste of time to engage in it all, but is it not concerning that the truth only matters when it serves one's interest?

 

Nobody really cared about sicknick so much as the picture they could paint with his death. Today someone said, "a person must be careful in what way they use political stories like this". Are you using it to win an argument, to be right. Or are you interested in something like his family having the true story of his death? A pursuit of the truth. Not sure where I would place myself in that regard, but it sure gets you thinking about why we argue about some of the stuff we do. I fear too often it is just to be right, I mean who doesn't like winning.

 

I know I sound like a broken record but I believe in my heart to be true. As long as we have main stream outlets that are self appointed arbiters of the truth, spewing political propaganda that is championed as the truth. Confusing the fuck out of everyone by reporting only one side, we cannot hope to get anywhere but further apart. Nobody has a problem calling out the right wing outlet's for spreading disinformation, or being partisan. Why such a resistance from the left? Maybe they are supposed to be the gold standard? Once one has this realization of self serving corporate news, it only seems to stack the pile higher on bullshit mountain. I suppose it is easier to simply resist it and engage in tribalism

 

Remember when the news was respected and was trusted to give you the whole story? Ya me either


Edited by FLASHINGROOSTER, 26 May 2021 - 01:13 PM.


#5 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,683 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 27 May 2021 - 10:33 AM

Its friday morning pep rallies and both teams cheer leaders are chanting about killing the other team.

God but politics is stupid

 

Stupid, but relevant and consequential nonetheless.

 

The shit that many people eat who lose the rigged game we're all forced to play is very real, and occasionally literal.

 

Same goes for the calls to kill the demonized Others. Not everyone interprets such rhetoric as hyperbole, and not all such incitements are rhetorical.

 

And none of it has to make any rational sense; e.g., there are people who consider themselves "pro life" who without a hint of irony are also willing to murder doctors who perform abortions in defense of life. That's pretty fucking stupid AND consequential. So "politics" in a nutshell, basically.

 

Politics is usually tedious and exhausting, but that's nothing compared to being stuck eating shit all the time, or at chronic risk of being fucked with because of who you happen to be, look like, believe, or not-believe, or most importantly how much money you have, or appear to have.

 

So putting up with stupid, tedious, and exhausting politics for as long as it takes to change things is a small price to pay to stop eating shit. Or so I'd imagine if I were among those stuck eating shit most of the time, which I'm not. But I can listen to the stories of those who are and try to understand and empathize to the best of my ability, which is Civilization 101 stuff we seem to be abandoning in favor of retreating into the wagon-circling of divisive identity politics that only serves to maintain the status-quo (at our existential peril).

 

Giving up on politics is probably why it's being increasingly dominated by the worst elements of human depravity and divisive rhetoric.

 

I imagine it's why we've got a surreal mix of hypocritically-pious pseudo-religious charlatans, unhinged reactionary lunatics, and proud sex traffickers dominating so much of the public discourse now instead of being laughed out of the room (or arrested and criminally charged... yet).

 

Politics may be stupid, but apathy is potentially fatal, on several levels.

 

I'm not worried about Jewish space lasers setting California forests on fire or 5G-activated nanobots in the vaccines, but I'm a bit concerned about the disturbing number of supposed adults who genuinely seem to be.

 

Politics only got to this surreal level of crazy because sane and rational people let it. 


  • FLASHINGROOSTER likes this

#6 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 2,922 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 27 May 2021 - 12:54 PM

It truly is a quagmire. I think the biggest issue comes down to trust. Nobody trusts the opposition to do the right things anymore. Two sides suspicious of one another, sinking deeper into tribalism. The public has lost trust in the institutions that used to provide the light in all the confusing darkness.

 

Stick you head in the sand and you start to get the FOMO, worried that perhaps your inattention has somehow helped in all this chaos. That may be a bit grandiose and delusional but if everyone stopped paying attention where would that really get us?

 

Then after paying close attention a guy might realize they are being manipulated from both sides of the isle. That realization serves to lead one wanting to stick their head back into the sand. To go off with their friends and family and let it all roll off into the ether



#7 Soliver

Soliver

    Deviant

  • OG VIP
  • 3,385 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 28 May 2021 - 12:11 AM

I still can't believe that only one person (Babbit) was actively murdered / shot during that 'peaceful protest.'

 

If such a protest happened in my front yard, leading into my house, there'd be a lot more bodies. 

 

IMO, the cops / security showed an incredible - I'd almost say criminal - amount of restraint considering the circumstances. 

 

The whole thing still blows my freakin' mind. 

 

Apparently, if one wack-job attacks the capitol, they get taken down immediately.  If several thousand wack-jobs do the same . . .

 

All of those morons should be buried under the jail cells in which they keep non-violent offenders incarcerated.

 

Fuck, I can't even carry a pocket knife into my local podunk courthouse to argue (read:pay) a parking citation.

 

We reserved "Shock and Awe" for the wrong side of the globe.  They should have called in a drone strike.

 

:)

 

soliver


  • TVCasualty, Arathu and Juthro like this

#8 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,683 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 28 May 2021 - 10:58 AM

Yeah, the "Justice for Ashli Babbit!" crowd doesn't want to accept that's exactly what she got, and it's no different than what I would have expected to get if I was trying to bash my way into the U.S. fucking Capitol, especially while members of Congress were present regardless of how corrupt or deserving of whatever almost happened to them they happen to be.

 

 

The staggering dissonance of T****-supporting police officers dying (if not getting killed) during an insurrection of fellow T**** supporters who unironically shout their strident support for the police while assaulting and beating them with whatever is handy is not something that can be rectified through appeals to reason or logic. I can't imagine how such an incoherent mindset can maintain a cohesive and relevant political movement for very long. All it's likely to do is spread chaos until a tipping point is reached after which all there will be left is chaos and everybody loses.

 

The latest dumb thing to trend in politics is arguing for the creation of the new State of "Greater Idaho," which is either the hilarious idea of a foreign troll farm or it's the embarrassing and idiotic plan of reactionary meatheads who don't think things through beyond whatever they think will "own the libs." Someone has already pointed out that "Greater Idaho" would be more aptly named "Broke Oregon," lol.


  • coorsmikey likes this

#9 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 2,922 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 28 May 2021 - 06:18 PM

If it is what I think it is that greater Ohio echo's a silly right wing sentiment cutely named Wexit in Canada. In regards to western provinces feeling under represented by the Federal Government and seeking to separate from Canada. It is purely political. Some think the US would love to have us, I find it all quite ridiculous and counter productive.

 

I understand the sentiment, folk in rural area's feel less and less represented in goverment. The cities become more concentrated area's of similar thought. As far as I can tell that big one in Oregon is currently leading the charge on left wing ideology in the NW. Rural folk tend to be more conservative so the feelings of alienation are real. Not sure how you address that

 

 

I wonder does anyone think the effects police brutality being #2 hot topic behind the Rona had an effect on those police officers on that day. Did they exercise more caution due to this or more likely due to lack of experience. My guess is most days for those guys consisted of walks around the property followed by coffee break and then some more walking around. They went from being mall cops the full on riot police in a matter of a few hours. I have seen the racist narrative in the media, the idea that if it was a black crowd there would be far more bodies. Not sure what to say about that one either, my tendency to dismiss racial ideas in the media is due to critical race theory being pushed so hard. It has clouded my judgement on the issue

 

 

Curious what people think of the massive injection of funding to the capitol police that was just passed. A bit of a side step to the defund the police movement or justified defense spending? Are the elites okay with removing police presence in your neighborhood while increasing funding for their own? Does a break into your home make one feel any less safe than those folk in the capitol building

 

I am not sure what to say about that one. I could see the desire for more protection and nobody wants to see a repeat of that shit.



#10 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 2,922 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 28 May 2021 - 06:25 PM

Well perhaps some good news in all this cencorship. The Q is fading away

 

[Direct Link]

 

 

" It's my thread and I will double post if I want to, post If I want to, You would double post too if it happened to you"


Edited by FLASHINGROOSTER, 28 May 2021 - 06:27 PM.


#11 Soliver

Soliver

    Deviant

  • OG VIP
  • 3,385 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 28 June 2021 - 03:50 PM

Another interesting / seditious thought:

 

If Babbit was an unattractive dude, s/he wouldn't have made much of a media stir. Lamestream loves it when a hot chick dies, ugly old dudes not so much ...

 

:)

 

soliver



#12 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,683 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 28 June 2021 - 07:31 PM

Another interesting / seditious thought:

 

If Babbit was an unattractive dude, s/he wouldn't have made much of a media stir. Lamestream loves it when a hot chick dies, ugly old dudes not so much ...

 

:)

 

soliver

 

I was going to object, but I guess she qualifies as a hot chick in those circles, so the point stands.

 

The right-wing extremist scene reminds me of the old joke about single women moving to Alaska where the ratio of men to women is a bit ...skewed (and assuming they want to date men): "The odds are good but the goods are odd!" And in a scene like that even the plainest of Plain Janes are treated like unicorns (because they kind of are). But to be fair most men are pretty plain too (if not downright fugly thanks to either genetics or a general lack of maintenance) so it all evens out in the end (meaning almost no one is happy or content, lol).



#13 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,683 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 29 June 2021 - 01:42 PM

Rage is addictive, literally.
 
That sure does explain a lot.
 
An article published by the Boston Globe last year that I just found (I'm slow) explains:

Lost someone to Fox News? Science says they may be addicted to anger
 

 

Anger’s ubiquity, its stickiness, indicates that we get something out of it. Frank Senko’s anger had become a habitual response to perceived threats and cues, a repeated behavior for a specific reward that led him to abandon the values he’d taught his own children and isolate himself to simmer in the vitriol coming over the airwaves. Senko had another way to describe her dad’s behavior: “He was addicted.”

 

PUT SIMPLY, SCIENCE agrees that we can get fixated on our own anger; the actual mechanism of this addiction is fascinatingly complex.
 
When we feel outrage, we’re responding to a potent cocktail of neurochemical reactions, physiological sensations, and conditioned responses. It’s a survival mechanism linked to our deepest, oldest brain system, the limbic system.
 
Any perceived threat — physical, metaphysical, ideological, or imagined — causes the amygdalae, the two almond-shaped bundles of neurons in the medial temporal lobe, to alert the brain to prepare for a fight (or flight). This signal causes the release of the neurotransmitter dopamine, as well as the stress hormones cortisol, adrenaline, and noradrenaline, which kick-start our sympathetic nervous system, causing oxygen levels in the blood and glucose levels in the brain to rise. Our heart rate, blood sugar levels, and blood pressure go up — energizing us for a fight.
 
This rush of neurochemicals has a transformative effect on our behavior. We might yell, clench our fists, or fume, signaling to everyone around us that we’re ready to blow up. At the same time, more subtle changes are happening. Notably, the mix disrupts our ability to think logically and makes a mess of our short-term memories.
...

 
 
The whole article is worth a read IMO. The good news is that like other addictions it can be kicked, too.


Edited by TVCasualty, 29 June 2021 - 01:43 PM.


#14 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 2,922 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 29 June 2021 - 05:40 PM

Has she been in the news lately or something? I see a few articles about her from the start of June. Honestly I thought that was a bit of a under reported story from the get go. Considering the previous summer of de-fund the police and the sometimes violent protests that followed. The worlds attention was grabbed from one mans death, sparking a sea of outrage

 

It really is a bit of a mind boggling thing to see what stories we decide to latch onto and focus on as a society. All of a sudden an unarmed woman getting brutally shot to death by law enforcement turned into, well she got what she deserved... Hypothetically I wonder if the same lack of compassion would have been given to a person who happened to be shot by police when they tried to say burn down a police precinct a few months back. 

 

The enrage to engage formula has become the mainstay of cable news networks for years now. Another neat little trick they learned while tracking all of our behavior. We really should be a little more careful about all the information we casually absorb. Some of it permeates deeper than we would like to believe

 

As far as the hot girl theory well, it's always the hotties that get away with literal murder. I remember hearing about how women were sending the Boston bomber love letters and saying he was innocent because he was so young and cute looking. You would not have to look very far to find a few dudes that would totally bang Casey Anthony either


Edited by FLASHINGROOSTER, 29 June 2021 - 05:52 PM.


#15 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,683 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 29 June 2021 - 07:26 PM

Has she been in the news lately or something? I see a few articles about her from the start of June. Honestly I thought that was a bit of a under reported story from the get go. Considering the previous summer of de-fund the police and the sometimes violent protests that followed. The worlds attention was grabbed from one mans death, sparking a sea of outrage

 

It really is a bit of a mind boggling thing to see what stories we decide to latch onto and focus on as a society. All of a sudden an unarmed woman getting brutally shot to death by law enforcement turned into, well she got what she deserved... Hypothetically I wonder if the same lack of compassion would have been given to a person who happened to be shot by police when they tried to say burn down a police precinct a few months back.

 

Yes, some are trying to make her out to be some kind of martyr again, which is insane.

 

She got what she asked for even if she didn't realize it, and shooting her was absolutely justified IMO given the context (and many explicit warnings). She didn't deserve to die for being naive and gullible (though she probably deserved to lose an arm or something), but what we "deserve" or what's fair clearly has no bearing on what actually happens in life.

 

She was also only unarmed in a technical sense. Being part of a rampaging mob with clearly violent intentions is arguably a very powerful weapon as anyone who has ever faced multiple hostile (but technically unarmed) attackers alone can attest.

 

The people she listened to (the Qanon morons, apparently) who encouraged her and her merry band of useful idiots to do what they did arguably deserved such a fate, however (I'm lookin' at you, Roger, Alex, William, etc.). Funny how their movement's fearless leaders never seem to be on the front lines when the shit gets real, much like the psychopaths who convince others to put on suicide vests.

 

One of the most amazing things about that day to me was the fact that a whole lot more people weren't also shot. In most countries many if not most of the people involved would have been shot on sight or rounded up and summarily executed after the fact for trying to overthrow a government. It's a time-tested method to prevent subsequent attempts.

 

If someone was taking shelter in a police station (cop or not) and someone else was trying to set the building on fire while they were in it then shooting the arsonist would be fully justified, too. But shooting someone who is trying to break into or set fire to an unoccupied (and non-residential) building would not be justified.



#16 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 2,922 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 30 June 2021 - 03:04 PM

Those Q tards sure complicate the discussion, there is really no defending that line of thinking. But I did think it was troubling to see how many people I considered rational folk on the right cling onto the stolen election theory. They genuinely thought a crime had been committed against the American people. It does not excuse what happened but I can rationalize some of the motivation for being there that day.

 

 I suppose the disconnect that I seem to have from others is on some level I could see myself there protesting. I have to admit I may have even got swept up in the chaos but really who knows. That can be the power of a crowd sometimes. If I had any idea I would have been put on a no fly list for protesting I definitely would not have been there. So say outside of that specific event, imagine a world where you genuinely thought an election was stolen. Would you not feel justified in standing up for what you thought was correct? The "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" line. Of course after the dust settled those people  looked foolish and most of the election hot air was let out of the balloon that day.

 

Can anyone honestly say what Ashley's intent was? Maybe she did know that she could get shot that day, and she felt so strong about what she thought was right that she was willing to get shot for it. I do agree that actions have consequences and she is not free from that however

 

I know its not what people want to hear after an event like that, but trying to have some compassion for our political enemies, and trying to understand why they feel the way they do or act they way they do is the only way out of this mess.

 

 

The people she listened to (the Qanon morons, apparently) who encouraged her and her merry band of useful idiots to do what they did arguably deserved such a fate, however (I'm lookin' at you, Roger, Alex, William, etc.). Funny how their movement's fearless leaders never seem to be on the front lines when the shit gets real, much like the psychopaths who convince others to put on suicide vests.

 

Well some people have tried that before, and as we have seen with Tucker Carlson and now Rachell Maddow. When in legal trouble over propagating lies, the defense that won their case was. Well the viewers know that we are spouting bullshit and it is basically on them if they take it seriously. We are here to give our opinions not facts and the viewers recognize that. 

 

I think we all know that the consumers do not separate those two things very easily. Of course if you look up those two court cases the legal jargin is cleaned up but that is the gist of it.



#17 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,683 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 01 July 2021 - 07:51 AM

I guess there needs to be a public discussion about exactly what an individuals' responsibilities are when it comes to determining what is true.

 

Acting on your "genuinely held beliefs" might be honest and justifiable as such but when those beliefs are wrong (or batshit crazy) then it can fuck a lot of shit up real bad for everyone, as we're seeing.

 

So at some point there has to be a "fuck your feelings" moment where people holding delusional beliefs are ignored and dismissed, and reality has to be dealt with on its own terms rather than what we'd like them to be, or would like others to believe them to be.

 

Unfortunately the anti-reality forces of disinformation and willful ignorance are so entrenched now that the only way this will likely be resolved is by entropy and Chaos asserting themselves in their uniquely unstoppable, undeniable, and unavoidable ways. It'll be "whataboutism" 'til the bitter end, most likely.


  • FLASHINGROOSTER likes this

#18 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 2,922 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 03 July 2021 - 09:05 AM

This is a tough one, a serious problem that sometimes is addressed but usually ends up being finger pointing about the other side. "Its them, they are the one's watching all the propaganda, they should watch what I watch".  When it comes to those capitol riots this was one of the instances where that went to the extreme. All the left leaning news publications stayed far away from any of Trumps phoney election claims, while the fringe news right used it as an opportunity to gobble up viewers who had a desire for the election to be "stolen". I do see some parallels with the Russia gate stuff. Two sets of viewers that wanted something to be true bad enough that they were willing to believe any old lead or person who would tell a story.

 

A righteous person can be a scary thing indeed, belief can hold great power be they engaged in falsehoods or not. legislation is a nice idea but trying to keep it from being bi partisan would be the trick. Could we even make some crazy vetting process to try to find these ultra neutral people that had no political leanings. Say even if the republicans passed that bill for the capitol investigation commission, how many days would it take to devolve into, "We don't trust them they are bias".

 

What is is about ideas that we cling onto them so desperately? Is it our psyche struggling to find order in a chaotic system. Why do these thoughts that are not our own become part of us, so much so that when the idea is challenged we feel the need to defend ourselves and the idea as one

 

If only it was as simple as something like ad blocker. An app we could turn on that would automatically block all the nonsense. Thankfully ads are not partisan, we can hate them all equally

 

We have to get over the first hurdle, convincing the population at large that mind control is a real thing. Perhaps too strong a word but I think your average citizen treats the term propaganda as either an old war term or some conspiracy nuts idea. It changes everything when we realize how susceptible we are to propaganda, misinformation, disinformation. One thing is sure, if there is a weapon that can be used for political reasons, it will be used. And even if one side feels that it is wrong, they will still use is in order to defeat their enemies. Awareness does not stop it but hopefully leads people to question what they are consuming a little more.

 

The more I think about this subject the more I start to slide down the Carlin fuck it all mindset. What hope is there when most clicks are sucked up by a guy making a ten second tik tok video. Yum yum give me some more of that mental junk food


Edited by FLASHINGROOSTER, 03 July 2021 - 09:06 AM.


#19 Arathu

Arathu

    Dirtmaker

  • OG VIP
  • 6,950 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 06 July 2021 - 07:36 PM

 

What is is about ideas that we cling onto them so desperately? Is it our psyche struggling to find order in a chaotic system. Why do these thoughts that are not our own become part of us, so much so that when the idea is challenged we feel the need to defend ourselves and the idea as one

 Self identification with said idea's I would think.....deep emotional immaturity too.It's bizarre and likely needs medications of some type.....mushrooms might work....

 

But I'm not a doctor and cannot give medical advice......

 

A


  • FLASHINGROOSTER likes this

#20 ElPirana

ElPirana

    Mycotopiate

  • Gold VIP
  • 953 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 07 July 2021 - 01:01 PM

 
What is is about ideas that we cling onto them so desperately? Is it our psyche struggling to find order in a chaotic system. Why do these thoughts that are not our own become part of us, so much so that when the idea is challenged we feel the need to defend ourselves and the idea as one

 Self identification with said idea's I would think.....deep emotional immaturity too.It's bizarre and likely needs medications of some type.....mushrooms might work....
 
But I'm not a doctor and cannot give medical advice......
 
A
What’s really interesting is to discover the really deeply held beliefs that you don’t realize you have.

Clinging to ideas appears to be a process that happens automatically for everyone. It’s not really a problem if you can move out of that phase and let it all go. I’ve begun to wonder recently if that’s what maturity is supposed to be, instead of the culture’s definition which would be something more along the lines of: have a family, buy a house, have a career, save for retirement, etc.
  • Arathu, FLASHINGROOSTER and rockyfungus like this




Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!