The MSM is Actively Lying, Censoring, and Spying

[Jdsizzleslice]

I'm sorry but before no one is claiming discrimination would be legal in CA (but you), it's crazy talk bro.

Discrimination in the workplace is illegal under CA law, nothing about prop 209 changes that in any way. Students on either side of this are probably already preparing discrimination lawsuits regardless of how it goes, and they have been filing discrimination suits for 30 years since prop 209 was passed in the 90's, there is nothing new or particularly scary about that. It's a red herring, and wherever you got this, they are either lying and/or grossly exaggerating what this would mean. It's just about school admission policy, 'affirmative action' if you will. And if your against that just say that, but don't go claiming discrimination would be legal in CA, because it wouldn't and that is NOT subjective.

Hell you can even argue about the definition of discrimination, and who is being discriminated against and deserves protection. CA law itself is crystal clear, however you define it it's illegal.

I'm not claiming it would be legal either. All I'm saying is that eventually some yahoo is going to make a case that it is because the language is being removed. That's all I'm saying, is that it has the potential to open doors that should remain shut.

And that's the same parallel I am drawing to Section 230. Right now we have MSM companies controlling the legal speech on their platform because the language used in Section 230 is very vague and subjective. The door for restriction of speech is open, and I think we should close it.

Completely removing or striking down a law is definitely deregulation.

Modifying an existing law might result in a less regulated outcome... but the act itself is regulation. You are defining/modifying the field in which companies must operate... that is regulation.

I’m not saying regulation in and of itself is good or bad.... I definitely believe we need regulations in society. It;s all about where and how they are applied.

Striking through a law or repealing a law is modifying a law. In the two instances I have presented, the result would be deregulation. Prohibition is another example that could be made. The addition of the 18th Amendment was banned (regulated) on alcohol. The addition of the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment and unbanned (deregulated) alcohol.

Please point to where I have resorted to name calling.

Since you asked, I looked into different topics where we have "discussed" (I use that term very loosely) our ideas (not including this topic): One. Two. Three. Four. Five. From what I gather, your behavior hasn't changed over the past year.

Name Calling/Insulting/Arrogance:

I am limiting my engagement, and will ignore your dumb questions... but continue to point out your factual errors when it suits me.

You don’t apparently understand English. Go back and reread what I wrote about avoiding negative people.

I’m not missing your point. I understand your point. I’m just ignoring your point.

I just explained to you how you are mistaken. Please read what I typed with an open mind.

I’m pretty sure I not only made an argument, but also won it. I’m sorry you’re not able to follow.

... and f**k y*u both...

This is Standard Operating Procedure for Trolls in this Forum, though his execution is not as good as mrswdk or Nomad.

I’ve been down this road before with other close-minded Trolls.

Are you sure you’re not Nomad under another name?

I didn’t even bother reading the rest of your dumb ass questions.

Explain this or GFY because if you won’t reply to my points i’m done.

Blanket Statements/Assumptions/Absolutism:

When your talking points mirror Fox and other Right-Wing MSM sources, it’s not a big leap for me to assume that’s where you get your info.

When all your comments mirror Fox, it’s hard to not make this assumption.

Watch something other than Fox and you would’ve seen all this at the time the Mueller Report was released.

Apparently you haven’t read a word of it and are just taking your talking points from Fox.

You are clearly ‘going after’ me now, which only works when i engage you, so bye.

I NEVER deal in absolutes.

I suspect he’s in his late 20’s early 30’s and he’ll realize I was right in 15-20 years.

I don’t need to understand. I already do.

I DON’T NEED STATISTIC OR STUDIES OR DATA TO MAKE THIS POINT.

I don’t need studies... as I’ve said the statistics that prove my thesis are the same numbers you’ve cited.

There absolutely is systemic bias. You can’t debate it. Math is math, facts are facts.

You’re condemning African Americans to systemic poverty by your failure to acknowledge it.

His questions are meant to derail and distract. When I provide evidence for most but make an error on one, he’ll ignore the evidence for the 5 I get right and focus on the one typo or subjective point... using that to ‘prove’ I’m wrong.

I could go on if I sat here and thought about it... of course you’ll deny all this anyway.

Here you’re just digging for something to argue with me about.

Said the pot to the kettle.

His extrapolation is faulty due to limited life experience and closed-mindedness.

Now I don’t believe conservative = racist... but maybe there’s some overlap?

You are hammering on this dumb point and ignoring life!

You pretending you don’t realize, this is frustrating AND demonstrates that you don’t have an answer for this PRACTICAL consideration.

I digress.

I contend that we all get our news from MSM, at least in part, and that you just don’t like Liberal MSM.

MSM is biased... biased to make money. That bias leads these companies to develop a niche and following, which accentuates / perpetuates / magnifies the bias politically. All you complaints flow from that. There’s no secret cabal of MSM leaders working together to control how we think.

I don't have a problem with media outlets who claim to have a liberal bias. That's not where I have my gripe. It's the knowing deception that takes place in these outlets.

Also, I never claimed there was a secret group of people hiding in the shadows, rubbing their hands together in an evil genius like manner, controlling everything. Although, it wouldn't surprise me if that were to be true. Illuminati confirmed?

Alls, lumping Tik Tok into the category of MSM is a stretch.

Tik Tok is Social Media. Social Media is part of the mainstream. A lot of people use it. Ergo, MSM.

Also, jdizzle has yet to justify his assertion that TIk Tok refusing to comply with a Chinese government law is proof that Tik Tok is a pawn of the Chinese government.

Actually, you are incorrect. The company claims that they do not give information to the Chinese government. If that is the case then why would they withdraw from Hong Kong? It's because it would discredit their earlier claim that they don't give information to Communist China. If they truly did not give any information to Communist China, then the new security law would have no affect on Tik Tok.

According to the linked page below, Fox News IS the biggest of the MSM. You don't suppose that could mean they are the biggest offender?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/373814/cable-news-network-viewership-usa/

You are correct that Fox News is currently the biggest Cable News Media right now. If they have been caught in active deception or censoring, then please, let me know so I can add it to the aforementioned list of MSM proponents. Personally, I haven't seen anything, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

[The ram]

Example of MSM bias. Islamic slavery good, white slavery bad.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religion ... ry_1.shtml

[mrswdk]

inb4 the ram 'blacks enslave other blacks'

Example of MSM bias. Islamic slavery good, white slavery bad.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religion ... ry_1.shtml

[The ram]

inb4 the ram 'blacks enslave other blacks'

Example of MSM bias. Islamic slavery good, white slavery bad.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religion ... ry_1.shtml

Well done Shimmy that's great, but does the article mention blacks enslaving blacks? I'm afraid not. And still, even if it did, it's not the point. The point here is about how MSM manipulate the truth. And that article is from 2009, just to show how long they've been at it.

[jimboston]

Striking through a law or repealing a law is modifying a law. In the two instances I have presented, the result would be deregulation. Prohibition is another example that could be made. The addition of the 18th Amendment was banned (regulated) on alcohol. The addition of the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment and unbanned (deregulated) alcohol.

I don’t know where you live, but alcohol is still highly regulated where I live.

That said I suppose you can call it deregulation, but I think reduced regulation is more accurate.

[jimboston]

I’m sorry I called you Nomad.

I think tha was the only name-calling... everything else was a direct insult inspired by your prior comments and taken out of context.

... but i’m flattered.

[Jdsizzleslice]

I don’t know where you live, but alcohol is still highly regulated where I live.

That said I suppose you can call it deregulation, but I think reduced regulation is more accurate.

I’m sorry I called you Nomad.

I think tha was the only name-calling... everything else was a direct insult inspired by your prior comments and taken out of context.

... but i’m flattered.

Dude, you asked, so I gathered all the insulting and assuming statements you made. And nothing was taken out of context, I provided links to all threads.

Basically, the way I read this, is that it is OK to insult someone if they INSPIRE you to insult them based off the comments THEY make.

[mrswdk]

inb4 the ram 'blacks enslave other blacks'

Example of MSM bias. Islamic slavery good, white slavery bad.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religion ... ry_1.shtml

Well done Shimmy that's great, but does the article mention blacks enslaving blacks? I'm afraid not. And still, even if it did, it's not the point. The point here is about how MSM manipulate the truth. And that article is from 2009, just to show how long they've been at it.

If the article's old then that doesn't mean it's out of date, it shows the problem has existed for a long time. That's a good one, I'll have to use that in future.

[The ram]

inb4 the ram 'blacks enslave other blacks'

Example of MSM bias. Islamic slavery good, white slavery bad.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religion ... ry_1.shtml

Well done Shimmy that's great, but does the article mention blacks enslaving blacks? I'm afraid not. And still, even if it did, it's not the point. The point here is about how MSM manipulate the truth. And that article is from 2009, just to show how long they've been at it.

If the article's old then that doesn't mean it's out of date, it shows the problem has existed for a long time. That's a good one, I'll have to use that in future.

That answer is complete gibberish Shimmy.

Anyway, did you hear the one about the black boxer that changed his name because he said it was a slave name. He changed it to Mohammed, the biggest black hating slave trader to ever walk the earth hahaha

[jimboston]

That said I suppose you can call it deregulation, but I think reduced regulation is more accurate.

Basically, the way I read this, is that it is OK to insult someone if they INSPIRE you to insult them based off the comments THEY make. [/quote]

OK..... let me get my pencil.

Now, why would I insult someone who INSPIRES me?

[Jdsizzleslice]

OK..... let me get my pencil.

Now, why would I insult someone who INSPIRES me?

"You made me insult you, it's your fault!"

Spare me.

[jimboston]

OK..... let me get my pencil.

Now, why would I insult someone who INSPIRES me?

"You made me insult you, it's your fault!"

Spare me.

wah?

[Dukasaur]

Example of MSM bias. Islamic slavery good, white slavery bad.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religion ... ry_1.shtml

Please quote the line where it says that Islamic slavery is good.

[jimboston]

Example of MSM bias. Islamic slavery good, white slavery bad.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religion ... ry_1.shtml

Please quote the line where it says that Islamic slavery is good.

He’s not gonna do that. He’s gonna say ‘it’s the obvious intent of the article and you have to read between the lines” or some such bullshit.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Anyone see the headlines from the White House Pres Secretary briefing yesterday?

Essentially every MSM organization had the following headline: "Press Secretary says 'The science should not stand in the way of' schools opening."

Every major MSM organization took the quote out of context and framed it to appear as if the White House would disregard science when it came to opening schools.

That could not be farther from the truth. The full context of what she was saying points out that the science indicates that there shouldn't be a problem for schools reopening for the fall.

Watch the full briefing below:



The MSM is such a dishonest bunch.

[mookiemcgee]

Anyone see the headlines from the White House Pres Secretary briefing yesterday?

Essentially every MSM organization had the following headline: "Press Secretary says 'The science should not stand in the way of' schools opening."

Every major MSM organization took the quote out of context and framed it to appear as if the White House would disregard science when it came to opening schools.

That could not be farther from the truth. The full context of what she was saying points out that the science indicates that there shouldn't be a problem for schools reopening for the fall.

Watch the full briefing below:



The MSM is such a dishonest bunch.

Both sides do this, don't try and tell me fox/breitbart ect news didn't do the same thing all the time during Obama admin. Do I like it no, but this isn't evidence of anything but business as usual.

[2dimes]

I don't care about the political angle. Should I mute the audio and watch her talk while listening to Steel Panther?

[Jdsizzleslice]

Both sides do this, don't try and tell me fox/breitbart ect news didn't do the same thing all the time during Obama admin. Do I like it no, but this isn't evidence of anything but business as usual.

Care to share any articles or interviews from Fox during the Obama admin that did just that?

Also, do you mean that this is business as usual to imply that deception has become the new norm in the MSM?

[mookiemcgee]

Both sides do this, don't try and tell me fox/breitbart ect news didn't do the same thing all the time during Obama admin. Do I like it no, but this isn't evidence of anything but business as usual.

Care to share any articles or interviews from Fox during the Obama admin that did just that?

Also, do you mean that this is business as usual to imply that deception has become the new norm in the MSM?

You truly believe Fox was 'fair' to Obama, but CNN is 'unfair' to Trump? Come on brother, you don't remember 2008-2016 or you just weren't watching Fox news?



If you are defining MSM to include all media regardless of which side they take on issues than 100% yes I agree with that statement. If you want to stick to your tired meme that only one side gets victimized by the media distorting things than no, I disagree with you.

[Jdsizzleslice]

You truly believe Fox was 'fair' to Obama, but CNN is 'unfair' to Trump? Come on brother, you don't remember 2008-2016 or you just weren't watching Fox news?

If you are defining MSM to include all media regardless of which side they take on issues than 100% yes I agree with that statement. If you want to stick to your tired meme that only one side gets victimized by the media distorting things than no, I disagree with you.

I never said that Fox was fair to Obama. I believe that they had criticisms of him that were valid and some not valid. The current MSM has criticisms of Trump that are valid and a lot that are not valid. There are a few Fox anchors that see Obama as the Antichrist and Trump as the Savior, which I disagree with (and vice-versa for all of the other MSM outlets). The two shows that I like the most from Fox News are Tucker Carlson (because he criticizes everyone who does wrong) and The Five (because they have both sides of the political aisle on the show). This is something that I have yet to see from other MSM outlets (You can debate whether The Hill: Rising is MSM or not, or whether or not is actually balanced, lol).

What I am getting at is blatant deception (which the current MSM is being active in). I haven't personally seen a deceptive story/article/interview/etc. from Fox News. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means I haven't seen it. That may be because they don't deceive or don't do it as often/as blatant as compared to other MSM outlets. The links in the OP are just one source for most major outlets. I would be more than happy to place Fox in the list if there is a case to be made they actively lied or censored someone.

[riskllama]

i'd keep looking, Jar Jar...

[Jdsizzleslice]

Apparently, Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter removed a video from all of their platforms regarding a livestream by a Congresman with America’s Frontline Doctors to address COVID-19 information/misinformation. Original story here. Censorship story here.

Facebook has removed a video posted by Breitbart News earlier today, which was the top-performing Facebook post in the world Monday afternoon, of a press conference in D.C. held by the group America’s Frontline Doctors and organized and sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots. The press conference featured Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) and frontline doctors sharing their views and opinions on coronavirus and the medical response to the pandemic. YouTube (which is owned by Google) and Twitter subsequently removed footage of the press conference as well.

The video accumulated over 17 million views during the eight hours it was hosted on Facebook, with over 185,000 concurrent viewers.

“We’ve removed this video for sharing false information about cures and treatments for COVID-19,” a Facebook company spokesman, Andy Stone, told Breitbart News. The company did not specify what portion of the video it ruled to be “false information,” who it consulted to make that ruling, and on what basis it was made.

Facebook’s decision to censor the livestream was quickly followed by YouTube, the Google-owned video-sharing platform. The video had over 80,000 views on YouTube prior to its removal.

Following Facebook and YouTube’s removal of the video, Twitter followed suit, removing Breitbart News’s Periscope livestream of the press conference. Jack Dorsey’s platform also then limited the Breitbart News official account, indicating that tweets containing links to multiple stories about the press conference violate the platform’s COVID-19 policies.

[spurgistan]

Yeah, hydroxychloroquine doesn't work and the right wing sound machine's focus on pretending like it does to make Dear Leader happy has direct health consequences even for those not susceptible to meme science, since people who think they're invulnerable to CV aren't going to take precautions needed to not spread the disease. This is shouting fire in a crowded theater, which would apply if Twitter were the government but it doesn't even rise to that since all the corporations you listed are private entities.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Yeah, hydroxychloroquine doesn't work and the right wing sound machine's focus on pretending like it does to make Dear Leader happy has direct health consequences even for those not susceptible to meme science, since people who think they're invulnerable to CV aren't going to take precautions needed to not spread the disease. This is shouting fire in a crowded theater, which would apply if Twitter were the government but it doesn't even rise to that since all the corporations you listed are private entities.

Specifically mentioned by name in the livestream is Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD, Professor of Epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health. In his recent opinion piece, he mentions hydroxychloroquine is the answer to defeating COVID-19.

[mrswdk]

Having a few clinicians on board isn't enough, unfortunately. The whole anti-vaxx movement was started by an emergency department consultant publishing some shitty 'research' of his (that the Lancet later apologised for publishing before revising their editorial guidelines to make sure they wouldn't publish rubbish like that again). I know a registered nurse who believes 5G is spreading COVID-19. Even clinicians or college professors make mistakes.

In the article you linked, Risch talks about how he recently published a paper 'analyzing five studies' into the efficacy of this malaria drug as a treatment for COVID-19. His paper was based on studies with really small samples sizes. The only one where that he provides much detail of in his paper is a study of only 53 COVID-19 patients who were given the drug, with no control group (which you need to accurately assess whether use of the drug makes any difference compared to non-use). There are responses online from other professors criticising the pieces of research he cites as being based off studies using really small groups of patients, often not tested in any controlled/structured way, and in a range of different settings. Even the research he presents seems to be conflicted and inconclusive (his paper presents studies that found the drug to be ineffective), so I don't know why in the article you linked he is suddenly so certain that he has a solid evidence base. He's probably just digging his heels in because people criticized him.

If 90%+ of subject matter experts agree with each other then whatever they're agreeing on is probably right. If subject matter experts are still having back-and-forth arguments then it's probably safe to say that no one yet has a good enough answer to put any trust in. And this anti-malaria drug seems to fall into the latter category.