Now, I read the Atlantic a lot. I consider them to be one of, if not the most, balanced, smart, important news sources out there right now. So I was a little surprised to see such a self-serving article from them, since they've never shied away in the past from a little introspection and critical thinking. But it seems they've bought into a larger narrative regarding the media: That they aren't to be blamed for producing news that people want to see. People, after all, are customers. And the media is providing a service. So if people want to see All Trump All The Time, they'll provide.
I see many problems with this explanation.
1. The corporatization of the media and the profit motive inherent in that means journalists are no longer neutral players. In the old days the media division of a major network lost money, guaranteed, but that was fine because it was considered more of a public service. That allowed journalists incredible amounts of latitude in what they could do, say and pursue. Now, however, news divisions are expected to not only break even but produce profit. That means the news people might NEED to hear but don't want to watch must take a backseat to the news people want to hear but might be damaging, vapid or not even really news in the traditional sense.
2. Journalists have been replaced with stenographers. Journalists rarely seem to push back. They rarely do any sort of in-depth reporting or fact-checking or investigative journalism. Sure it still happens, but it's the exception or special case now instead of the norm. Now they mostly exist as mouthpieces to parrot politicians words back and forth with little critical weight as to which might be more worthy of our attention. This is a problem because the media still has an imprimatur of legitimacy. If the media says something, most people still assume it must be true or have some truth to it. But they're rarely adding caveats to outright and obvious lies. They're just passing things on and letting people make of it what they will.
3. They're incredibly lacking in self-awareness or responsibility. They don't understand the power they wield or the consequences of what they do. They got in insane number of important details wrong with regards to the Orlando shooter. A lot of what was initially reported has since been proven false. But since people tend to believe the first thing they hear and are very hard to move off of that, the media cannot effectively come back with new information. As soon as they said ISIS, the entire story was about ISIS. All of the information that came out later was rendered useless. That robbed us, from its early moments, of any opportunity to really understand what happened and take valuable lessons away from it. It also seriously empowers ISIS. It gives them much more reach and capability than they really have, and that hampers our ability to make good, smart, fact-based decisions. But the media just cruises along as if they weren't to blame. They were just reporting the information as it came to them. Just passing it along to the people who were eager to eat it up. No filters or thoughts as to how that information is absorbed or how it affects the nation. Just passing it along.
4. We have a dangerously uninformed society. I think we've learned this most acutely recently, but there are no longer any penalties whatsoever in America for lying as a politician. Donald Trump is the most dishonest person to run for president in decades. But he's rarely called on his lies (more lately, but only after he had months to cement his lies in people's minds). Hillary Clinton has been rated by several fact-checker groups as one of the most honest candidates this cycle, but she's considered a pathological liar. Now I'm not upset about that because I support Hillary and despise Trump. I'm upset about it because of what it means for society as a whole. The media are completely abrogated their duty to correctly frame our politics. Their need to present everything as more or less equal without ever calling either side on their lies or bull leaves us with the impression that both sides must be presenting factual accounts. As a result we're more polarized and more paralyzed than ever.
So I think that's the problem. And even news sources that I trust and rely on like The Atlantic can fall prey to it. So what's to be done? I really don't know. Public funding for the media to remove the profit motive? Public boycott of the major news media sources until they change their ways?
I'm really at a loss. All I know is that it's getting worse, not better.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I"m reminded of the TV show "The Newsroom" where Jeff Daniels explains that television news was supposed to be a public service that the TV networks provided in return for which they were allowed to use specific frequencies. Except that they forgot to make the networks promise that the news should be sponsor free.
For awhile, even with sponsors, it worked, but it wasn't possible to predict cable TV.
There was an alternative in public television (and radio), but now they've become a pawn in the "money is control over everything" war.
We need to fully fund public media, and we need to return to the fairness doctrine. But even that's not nearly enough.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had to stop watching "The Newsroom" after a season. It depressed the hell out of me. I can still get through The West Wing without my naive nostalgia overwhelming my sense of despair, but Newsroom is too on point.
But I agree with you that it would be better. I think NPR is far from perfect, but is basically a very good news organization. And the local NPRs that take on state and regional issues are also very good. Most of them exist with very, very little state funding.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Naw, I've lost faith in NPR after Mara Liasson did the article about the Democratic primaries, didn't mention Sanders once, and said that Hillary was "running against herself." NPR has gotten a lot of funding from the Koch brothers (or one of them), so you can be pretty sure that's having an influence.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Naw, I've lost faith in NPR after Mara Liasson did the article about the Democratic primaries, didn't mention Sanders once, and said that Hillary was "running against herself." NPR has gotten a lot of funding from the Koch brothers (or one of them), so you can be pretty sure that's having an influence.
I listen to a lot of NPR when I'm driving and I haven't really noticed much of a dropoff in quality. Granted most of what I'm listening to is Michigan Radio rather than the national radio, but the national programs I listen to are still pretty on point.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I had a roommate who watched Fox News 24/7...I couldn't hang out in the same room.
I have friends who are radically on both sides of the aisle and I've had to stop following them on FB because of the extremist posts they continually share.
My wife and friends do a solid job keeping me in the loop (usually). However I definitely need to acquire a trust worthy news source. I had a thread about it...gods my life is on it's ear atm...says he working on deadline on father's day.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 3. They're incredibly lacking in self-awareness or responsibility. They don't understand the power they wield or the consequences of what they do.
I would never trust and rely on any news source... Except maybe my own eyes and ears, but even those may deceive me at times. Good thing I never intended to become a political leader...
Posts: 366 | Registered: May 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 3. They're incredibly lacking in self-awareness or responsibility. They don't understand the power they wield or the consequences of what they do.
I would never trust and rely on any news source... Except maybe my own eyes and ears, but even those may deceive me at times. Good thing I never intended to become a political leader...
I was still a kid when it came out and it sort of came and went pretty fast. I know the idea behind it, but never saw it.
I mean, I never rely on a single news source. But I feel like if you pull from a diverse enough array you can come up with something approximating reality. But only a fool would rely on a single news source as trustworthy.
At the same time, you can't not trust ALL of them 100%, otherwise you literally have nothing to work with.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: At the same time, you can't not trust ALL of them 100%, otherwise you literally have nothing to work with.
Which is why I did not choose politics as my field of work. In my humble case, I believe I need only know what I can change - which almost exclusively are things I can also see with my own eyes - and work on that. Thus I will never be a political 'global player', but I never intended to.
But yes, I do understand how frustrating it must be to have to rely on the media to give you the information upon which to base your decisions when you actually are in a position in which your decisions matter. Which is why OSC gave Peter a network of reliable private contacts to gain the information he needed.
posted
Pan, is it your opinion that only those who pursue a career in politics need to pay attention to current events?
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for asking instead of assuming, Jake. I see how my previous statement could have been mistaken to mean just that. Let me clarify:
How much attention you pay to current events depends largely on two factors: Your intention of using that information to change something, and the amount of time you want to/ can dedicate to that. The latter also determines how far your political education reaches, geographically as well as historically.
Then, merely paying attention is of little use if you don't intend to act upon what you learn. It is then merely a hobby, and a voluntary choice, and your opinion does not matter, because it remains purposeless. That changes, obviously, when you " actually are in a position in which your decisions matter". Which does not necessarily mean you pursue a career in politics. Basically, to fit that description it is enough to have people listening to you. So I believe it is VERY important for authors, teachers, bloggers, artists and the like, if EVER they intend to talk about or even give an opinion on any political happening.
Concerning large parts of world politics I find myself in the former position - I have neither the means to change their course nor the time to establish myself to a position which would grant me those means. So I choose to dedicate my time to 1st my very time-consuming job, 2nd my family and recreation, and 3rd the select causes that matter to me most - concerning which I actively pursue information to further my work of changing the respective current situation. As for the remaining 'current events' I trust that time will do what it has always done: Sift through the 'news' and discard that which is not truly important. And the relatively small percentage that will truly matter, affect me or anything I care about, that I will gladly learn after the sieving is done.
Which does not mean I intend to impose that position on anyone. Like amassed knowledge in most every other field, in depth political knowledge impresses me. But as they say: "You can do anything, but you cannot do everything."
posted
The trouble as I see it with your expressed philosophy on being informed of current events and politics, Pan, is anecdotal but for me significant. While I have met many people who do don't care to discuss politics or current events (at all, not simply with me;)), I have met very few whom I would say don't care to become informed, whether for time or inclination or both, who *also* are willing to accept a corresponding loss of respect for their opinion and their perspective on a given issue.
Put another way, while it's not true that the better informed side of an argument is correct, or that the lesser informed side should be disregarded, it's also true that 'common sense' ignorant of facts and context generally isn't worth very much. It's also true that it simply isn't very difficult or time-consuming to be at least a little informed even of complicated issues in current events and politics. In 2016, it can literally take a matter of minutes. Not enough to be an expert by any means, but at least to avoid the more obvious 'common sense' pitfalls and to recognize them when others use them. As for putting such knowledge to use, I suppose that also depends on whether or not one intends to vote. And to be blunt, I don't care how busy one is, it isn't too onerous that once every year or two or God forbid four year to educate one's self on political issues of the day.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... I have met very few [...] who *also* are willing to accept a corresponding loss of respect for their opinion and their perspective on a given issue.
Oh, but I do. In fact, I avoid to GIVE an opinion on topics I know not enough about, regardless of whether they are political or otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And to be blunt, I don't care how busy one is, it isn't too onerous that once every year or two or God forbid four year to educate one's self on political issues of the day.
I have seen woods torn down in many parts of the world and landscapes blemished by mountains of rubbish in Egypt and rivers so dirty you cannot bear to look upon them without guilt in Thailand. I work to change that. I have seen interracial separation with my own eyes in Africa and America and Europe and I very strongly advocate for a united human race. I have seen animals suffering with my own eyes in every country I've traveled - including America. I work to change that, both locally and internationally. I have seen humans starving with my own eyes - on every continent. I work to change that. I have seen people hurt badly, dying of injuries. And I work hard to save their lives.
So - to be blunt - I don't think I need the 'daily news' to tell me what I am fighting for, or how to prioritize.
That said, I agree with you that if your country allows for voting, you definitely should.
Posts: 366 | Registered: May 2016
| IP: Logged |
I couldn't parse the first remark-could you put it another way, please?
As for the rest, it feels to me like you read my post in a much more confrontational tone than I intended. I think I was specific that I was referring only to a precise event-namely, voting-in reference to how well one should work to be well-informed about politics and current events. I also didn't suggest anywhere that, even at those times, that that was the only way to be a good person or that it should always have the highest priority, or that it was the only way to do good in the world.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
@Rakeesh: Sorry for being unclear. Not a native speaker and all that...
quote:Originally posted by PanaceaSanans:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... I have met very few [...] who *also* are willing to accept a corresponding loss of respect for their opinion and their perspective on a given issue.
Oh, but I do. In fact, I avoid to GIVE an opinion on topics I know not enough about, regardless of whether they are political or otherwise.
Oh, but I do accept the corresponding loss of respect for my opinions concerning politics. In fact, I avoid to GIVE an opinion on topics I know not enough about, regardless of whether it's a political discussion or a discussion of any other topic I lack knowledge about.
posted
If pressed to guess, I would've said English which is about 95% of the language I do speak.
As for the rest, it would be silly to suggest that 'learn about current events and politics' was the only, or the most effective, means by which to make the world a better place, whether in and of itself or as part of a process. And since you don't want the credibility on such matters without any of the effort, I've no beef with you.
Coming at it from the other direction, with respect to some of the realities you mentioned, someone who works with say Doctors Without Borders to help the injured in places where there is a desperate need for help, they get all the respect in the world, whether they're working with that organization or others or just volunteering on their own.
But the guy who gives an infinitesimal fraction of his income sometimes and then makes sure to mention how he helps, he frankly gets an eye roll. It's the difference between the person who is out, or lobbies politicians, or participates in protests, or votes regularly in elections large and small, who speaks out regularly against hate crimes and solicits signatures for petitions, on gay rights-these are shades of the sort of action you discussed for other issues that you've taken part in in your life. Someone who has your level of effort and investment in causes like that deserves and gets respect. The man or woman who wants credit for supporting gay rights because he or she wasn't actively opposed gets none.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's the difference between the person who is out, or lobbies politicians, or participates in protests, or votes regularly in elections large and small, who speaks out regularly against hate crimes and solicits signatures for petitions, on gay rights-...
I'm curious...what other humanitarian efforts have you personally contributed to, beyond being mean to ppl on line? Serious question. Rakeesh, you seem highly judgemental of other people's contributions, I would love to hear the resume that elevates you to judge & jury of humanitarian contributions!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see Pan's point, and I see the merits of his argument from a time management perspective. He'd rather put what little free time he allots himself into the things he can make concrete impacts on personally.
But I would argue that it is a citizen's duty not just to make things better on a micro level, but also to realize that, at the end of the day a Democracy is the macroscopic impact of many millions of tiny decisions. An informed electorate, as a macroscopic organism, has a huge impact on what kind of country you're going to have. Even if my knowing what I know specifically doesn't change things directly, my knowing and spreading that knowledge in conjunction with hundreds of millions of other people knowing makes for a very different country than if none of us knew anything at all.
I would also argue that direct participation in democracy also requires more than voting every four years and the 20 minutes of Googling typically involved in making that decision.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has it been established that PanSan is a he? I might have missed it, but I was under the impression to the contrary.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apologies, I don't think we established a gender.
And I just proved I'm apparently bad at male gender normativity. Either that or I assumed it was a man based on the substance, which seemed more masculine than feminine to me (women being more likely to be more in tune with current events because they care more maybe? I don't know), which means I'm bad at gender role assumptions.
quote:It's the difference between the person who is out, or lobbies politicians, or participates in protests, or votes regularly in elections large and small, who speaks out regularly against hate crimes and solicits signatures for petitions, on gay rights-...
I'm curious...what other humanitarian efforts have you personally contributed to, beyond being mean to ppl on line? Serious question. Rakeesh, you seem highly judgemental of other people's contributions, I would love to hear the resume that elevates you to judge & jury of humanitarian contributions!
It doesn't surprise me that you recognized yourself in my description, but failed to get the point beyond 'he's mean!' As usual. My point isn't and hasn't ever been 'I'm so rad', and it's never been about being 'mean' to people in general. Though it also doesn't surprise me to hear you conflate 'stone_wolf' with 'people in general'.
The point in this case was to criticize and heap scorn on a way of thinking that says 'I mean well and that's enough', especially when that view goes so far as 'I did nothing except didn't stand in the way, so the people who did the work should be grateful'. That's the part where you identified yourself correctly, btw.
Pan had a fair objection, though. He-and for me it was a slip of thinking of the mythical figure Pan, and Peter Pan, as male-pointed out that there are other ways one can make a positive impact, and he mentioned some of them. So to him I said, respect.
But even if I had done nothing to help anyone outside of my family ever, I would *still* not be barred by consistency from criticizing someone who does nothing and still wants credit for the successes of others.
Anyway, if you insist on me providing bona fides I have little doubt you would freely disbelieve if it suited your purpose, email me. That sidesteps your transparent attempt to get me to brag, at least.
To sum up: the point isn't now and never was 'I'm so great, and you're such a jerk', stone_wolf. The point is: a deliberately uneducated opinion isn't worth much at all, and a claim to moral authority such as you have made is worth as much as you've actually done to deserve it. In the case of gay rights, that turned out to be nothing, not even voting.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I want to see what gives you the right to pass muster on who can count themselves a humanitarian and who ain't.
And...as I said...I sent in my ballot.
Also you have NO idea the scope of my chairity...which is fine, but don't think you kno...you never bothered to ask.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or, since you're the one making the useless challenge-since you'll believe or disbelieve or disregard any effort I might claim at your own convenience-you're free to email me. As I said already. You really do write yourself a license simply to not listen when you don't like the tone of what is said, don't you? For most people it's unavoidable and something to work against, myself included, but for you it really is consistent.
Anyway, to correct a few of your latest lies about what I have said: I haven't claimed or suggested that I get to determine who is a humanitarian and who isn't. I certainly did no such thing with Pan, in fact I said what he had done was worthy of respect. In fact my criticism was for *you* based on what you have said about yourself in a few areas. Again, you lie about that and insist I'm asserting some blanket right for everyone, based on nothing. But in the land of Stone_Wolf facts matter less than intentions, so because you *feel* like I'm being unfair and your intentions are good, what I actually said doesn't matter.
For example: I made no mention of you with respect to humanitarianism at all. The only references I was making to you when I was speaking to Pan were about not voting and claiming credit for gay rights because of a lack of opposition.
Those are two criticisms based *entirely* on your own remarks about yourself. Just because you vote now doesn't mean you get to claim to be a good citizen in general over time because you vote. And you did say that if it weren't for people like you, who did nothing except not oppose gay rights, the movement would not be where it was today.
So if my remarks about that are ridiculous and expressing contempt, well, there's a reason for that. It ties in very closely with the other discussion with Pan, about wanting respect for an opinion that is not backed up by any significant effort to become well informed on the subject. This is basically a theme with you in a way that it isn't with Pan, who focuses his efforts on other areas of making the world a better place and doesn't insist on respect he hasn't done anything to earn.
For example I'll bet if I asked questions of Pan about water pollution, he'd have both anecdotal and source information about it. He probably wouldn't have any chickenshit laziness about how he relies on his family and friends to keep him informed, and while he doesn't actually know even the most basic facts of the topic at hand, he's got an opinion you should really pay attention to.
I imagine he might say some variation of, "I'm not well informed about that subject." Just a guess, but I think it would be born out.
That's not what you do, Stone_Wolf. You want to talk about the mass shooting in Orlando but you don't know who it targeted, whether there were armed guards, basic facts about the shooter, I'd be surprised if you could tell me the date and time it happened without looking. Which is fine, in fact! It's a busy world and other, closer obligations may very well be more urgent and more able to be resolved by your efforts than 'gun deaths in the United States.'
But that ain't enough for you. You want your talk about *pointy sticks* to be taken seriously. You want to talk about armed guards without having known there were armed guards there, and then you just say-as though you hadn't just exposed more profound ignorance-oh we needed more.
The only times you've actually become informed about a discussion here, someone else provides it for you. God forbid you do it on your own, without resorting to transparent lobbying sites. You're too busy.
Unless it's time to lecture someone else about being mean to you. Then suddenly there's a goddamned gap in your schedule. So yeah. You act like a lazy, entitled jerk, and you get called on it. Then whine about it. Again.
I know I'm not one of the people you'll listen to. Basically ever since I'm so mean. But one of the people you've admitted *is* is pointing out how poorly reasoned your claims are, and goddamned if it's not water off the duck's back. Shocker. But! It's still diverting to me. Even from you I wouldn't have expected to hear about pointy sticks. I don't think I heard that sort of reasoning since high school debate class, and even there it didn't rate well.
That's actually the purpose of Sam's thread: to marvel at what some people, yourself now included, will say.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's bs that you judge us publicly & then want your own cred to be eyes only...but I await your reply
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who is 'us'? I judged *you* on the basis of what you said about yourself. And only on very narrow grounds: voting, gay rights, and insisting on respect for uninformed opinions. By your own words until recently you didn't vote, you claimed credit for the status of gay rights in this country because people like you hadn't opposed it, and you make a habit of having very little information about a given happening in current events before commenting on it, such as basic facts about the attack on the Pulse club in Orlando.
Stop talking about 'us', which is another obnoxious habit of yours, claiming to speak for others. There is no 'us'. I was speaking on the subject to Pan, and only about some again very specific: wanting respect for uninformed opinions. I was explicit in that I *didn't* think 'knowing about politics' was the only or best way to be a force for good in the world. In fact the only outright judgment I made of him was positive.
As for 'eyes only', oh for christ's sake. It's ****ing tawdry to list a series of nice things so for this purpose I'll only mention this once. It varies from month to month, but I send 8-15% of my income to a few charities. Mostly they are under the umbrella of the United Way, but also regularly to the Innocence Project and Doctors Without Borders. Barring work commitments which do come up sometimes I tend to spend 3-10 hrs/week delivering for Meals on Wheels or Habitat for Humanity, though the latter is less regular depending on need and I admit my enthusiasm isn't as strong in high hot, wet summer as it is at other times. On an international scale the only charitable work I've done has been donations of money and sometimes various items such as canned goods ( sometimes) and clothing (more often). I've also kicked a few cell phones down the road over the years.
Of course, though that does amount to more than many it's much less than some, and I can't claim that I value humanitarian efforts more highly than I do my own time to myself, when I'm not working, whether it's uplifting leisure or less high minded such as jabbering on discussion boards.
I think that about covers it, so if you've got any questions take *those* to email. I wouldn't want you to whine about it being 'eyes only', for god's sake. But now I'm wondering, since I have a hard time predicting what will come out of your mouth, are you expecting me to yield up some sort of background check for you or something? I wouldn't have considered that but with you, it's tough to say.
Pointy sticks. More armed guards. The tools don't matter. Ugh.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm suprised you listed the board under personal time tho...I would have figured you for counting that as fighting the good fight.
Ugh all you like...your frustration must be overcome with...something...entertainment?...to keep talking to me after all these years.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, it is. It's a balance between irritation and curiosity and amusement. You're now one of the subjects of Samprimary's 'look at how ridiculous and strange this statement is' thread. And hey, you did vote.
Anyway, stuff your good for yous where the sun don't shine, since none of that was relevant to what I actually posted to you, and the rest of what you said-speaking for others, claiming I was holding myself up as a judge for others, claiming that I was making judgments about you based on hid charitable contributions when I wasn't, well, those were all lies. Hopefully lies you told yourself, at least.
When discussing a mass murder via shooting, obviously a discussion of the tools used matters. That's obvious, especially since guns are the tool of choice for killing whether it's self defense or murder. Your attempts to sidestep with knives and pointy sticks and bombs have fallen flat on their face, both in terms of evidence and simple common sense. Even people who aren't mean to you, whose opinion claimed to respect, have said as much, but the usual stone_wolf obliviousness persists.
The answer is not as simple as 'armed guards' because armed guards were there and have been there before. There is no evidence of any training program that will teach an amateur civilian with a gun to be an aid rather than a drawback in a mass shooting. If there was, even with your glacial pace of informing yourself you could have found one by now.
Unlike pointy sticks, it is at least possible to regulate access to firearms. That is a fact. So pointy sticks are an invalid comparison to make.
Please continue to ignore or lie about these and other points and remain poorly informed about basic facts of this and other mass shootings, all while insisting people are mean if they point out that you're doing this.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, no joke, I'm curious to see if you will ever withdraw or amend your claim that I set myself up as a judge of whether or not you were a humanitarian on the basis of your charitable work, or where I made a point of saying I was an authority because I did so much.
Apparently I do that often, so it should be pretty easy for you to reference an example. I doubt you will, though. No, what seems much more likely to me is that you'll simply behave as if you hadn't ever told those lies, and the closest you'll come to addressing it will be short one-off posts that don't actually address the matter at all. But hey, maybe along with becoming basically informed about the world around you, you can outsource the inch-deep amount of guts it takes to just say, "Yeah, I was wrong about that, my bad," on the Internet to your friends and family too:
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The answer is not as simple as 'armed guards' because armed guards were there and have been there before. There is no evidence of any training program that will teach an amateur civilian with a gun to be an aid rather than a drawback in a mass shooting. If there was, even with your glacial pace of informing yourself you could have found one by now.
I posted not one or two or three or four or five or six or seven or eight or nine, but ten, from a trusted news source!
This concludes the useful public interactions between Rakeesh and StoneWolf, we now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
posted
You admitted yourself you weren't sure how valid those sources were. Further, single instances do not validate an entire program.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That wasn't a question, Stone_Wolf. Don't email me with such stuff again.
And I reread my post to Panacea, and the only thing I said that was a judgment was 'too onerous'. That was a mistake on my part which I admitted in my very next post. I even clarified that I was only talking about a very specific sort of situation, far from 'judging him as a humanitarian'.
So, yeah. There's no 'us' here for you, so you should stick to speaking for yourself instead of your habit of claiming to defend others. Panacea is certainly more than capable of speaking for himself (or herself, the association in my head with Pan runs really deep apparently), and in any event I clarified my statements to Pan already and promptly.
I asked you to email me again with questions if you had them about a particular topic. Not only was that not a question, it wasn't on the topic. Don't email me again.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You admitted yourself you weren't sure how valid those sources were. Further, single instances do not validate an entire program.
Look again friend.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Islam declared war on civilians. It is the muslim way, after all."
Hey, look what I found when I checked out one of your totally valid sources, stone_wolf? I had to drill real deep to find it, too. I had to go to the very first words in the link that weren't part of a graph of the banner for the website.
Yeah. Ok, obviously it's clear I think you frequently behave in a very lazy, passive-aggressive, insecure and entitled way when posting about current events. But in spite of all of that I don't think you're stupid. Bearing all of that in mind, tell me, so you *really* think that website is credible? Can you even tell me which one it was, or did you even make it past the sexy image of cops geared up with the numbers telling you exactly what you wanted to hear anyway?
Hey, 'friend'. I looked again.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone_Wolf, your emails will be sent to spam now, so I won't be seeing them in the future. As to why I thought you would follow my 'orders' to refrain from sending me emails to my personal address, well I didn't think you would really. That's a foundation-level of civility that typically only mass mailers and stalkers violate. Thank you once again for validating my very poor opinion of you.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Now maybe I have a higher level of skepticism than you do, but for me 'Islam has declared war on unarmed civilians. After all it is the Muslim way' makes me think, "You know, I don't think this is a reputable source of information." But hey. I'm happy to wait for your 'research' on the matter.
As for the wapo article, I'll ask if you read that one like you clearly didn't read the other one you linked, and saw how heavily the writer underlined the uncertainty and subjectivity of his findings. I could find ten examples of someone stopping a gunman with a knife, and by the standards you're using here I could then say, "Hey maybe cops don't need guns."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You posted from multiple sources on your theme that civilians with concealed carry permits are a worthwhile security measure. One of those sources is the one you linked to that I referenced. I was 'snide' about it because one of two things is true: either you were lazy and didn't look past the cool graphic with a couple of numbers to literally the first words in your source, or you *did* read the first words which were 'Islam has declared war on civilians' and yet still thought it might be a credible source.
Your WaPo source is much more ambiguous in the words that the writer used also than you're making out.
Of course if there is a third explanation for the openly bigoted Islamophobic source you referenced, I'm all ears. Seriously. I won't hold my breath, though. Instead you're much more likely to simply behave as though you never linked that, and whine about my being 'snide' in my expression of contempt that you would consider an openly bigoted source as potentially useful.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I told Lyr at the time...the infographic was the only thing I referenced on that page...and the second I saw the source I called it into question myself.
If you set yourself as the in house right fighter, make sure you are right b4 u fight...
Seriously...how do I keep getting pulled back into this mess? Rakeesh...you have ZERO perspective when it comes to me (& vice versa) so just layoff man...I'll do the same for you.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
