'Murica! (117 Viewers)

[JuveMkd]

I imagine NPR, CNN and the likes deleted the tweets themselves. Wasn't really fake news either.

Maybe it was deleted by NPR, CNN or someone else who tweeted it, but what I meant that twitter are hypocrites, if someone from the right tweets something dubious they flag it immediately but if it's someone from their side they leave it as is. I'm not saying they should't flag fake news and misinformation which are misleading I'm saying they should do it consistently and on both sides.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Seven]

This is a relatively primitive comparison technique though. 90% of people who receive infractions or bans on the Tuz follow the same whine: "So-in-so said this bad word in the Zlatan thread, so how come he isn't banned?" as if to deflect from their own culpability.

Actually it's different.

In the example you posted, one could say it is implied no one is breaking the rules. If so and so said this and did not get banned, why would I have to expect to get banned for something similar?

This is different from what some Republicans do.

They're saying: both sides contributed.

Any lawyer worth his salt knows what such a statement would mean in court. While you cannot admit guilt on behalf of someone else, you most certainly can on behalf of yourself. If you say 'both sides contributed', you admit your own contribution.

So, legally, it doesn't deflect from your own culpability at all. In fact it's an admission of guilt.

 

[il brutto]

Maybe it was deleted by NPR, CNN or someone else who tweeted it, but what I meant that twitter are hypocrites, if someone from the right tweets something dubious they flag it immediately but if it's someone from their side they leave it as is. I'm not saying they should't flag fake news and misinformation which are misleading I'm saying they should do it consistently and on both sides.

Their side? I don't know what Twitter's protocol is but I'd imagine they only consider flagging a post once enough people have reported it. Would be slightly weird if Twitter started flagging NPR for example. The likes of NPR will themselves retract and fix any mistakes they've made in their reporting. In this case for example they were premature to report about the passing of the police who in time of the initial reporting was in critical condition.

It's a bit different to flag some right wing loonies spreading conspiracies than it is to flag reputable news organisations for small mistakes in their reporting.

 

[swag]

They would be right in raising that concern, so long as it doesn't excuse their behaviour. The same principles should apply to everyone equally, otherwise it's an injustice.

That's just a false equivalency though, isn't it? Nowhere did I express that these thugs were right and justified in storming the Capitol just because the Antifa mob burnt shit down back in June. I merely said that the media and the president-elect should treat both incidents equally for what they are, instead of blantantly propagating their evident left-wing biases to the population.

But injustice claims can be a smokescreen for responsibility. Own up for what you just did, first and foremost. Fingerpointing about the past can come later.

Biden is wholly right to condemn a clown posse coming in to trash a house of federal government that hadn't been violated since a war in 1814.

Whining that he didn't condemn similar actions 6 months ago is 6 months late and an attempted distraction about what's in front of everyone's faces right now. What you wrote when you wrote it comes off as suggesting he has no right to condemn what happened at the Capitol, because he lost that right 6 months ago for a very different but similar-in-some-ways circumstance.

Actually it's different.

In the example you posted, one could say it is implied no one is breaking the rules. If so and so said this and did not get banned, why would I have to expect to get banned for something similar?

This is different from what some Republicans do.

They're saying: both sides contributed.

Any lawyer worth his salt knows what such a statement would mean in court. While you cannot admit guilt on behalf of someone else, you most certainly can on behalf of yourself. If you say 'both sides contributed', you admit your own contribution.

So, legally, it doesn't deflect from your own culpability at all. In fact it's an admission of guilt.

Oh, Tuzzers break rules and they know it. They ain't that stupid.

 

[JuveMkd]

Their side? I don't know what Twitter's protocol is but I'd imagine they only consider flagging a post once enough people have reported it. Would be slightly weird if Twitter started flagging NPR for example. The likes of NPR will themselves retract and fix any mistakes they've made in their reporting. In this case for example they were premature to report about the passing of the police who in time of the initial reporting was in critical condition.

It's a bit different to flag some right wing loonies spreading conspiracies than it is to flag reputable news organisations for small mistakes in their reporting.

I specifically phrased it that way because Twitter is leaning a lot to the left. Also those loonies get 5 reads(except for Trump if you can call him that), while the "reputable" news organizations get millions while jumping the gun on multiple occasions and that is damaging. Americans should bring back the fairness doctrine if they want great and impartial news coverage but they don't want to hear that they might be wrong sometimes.

 

[Enron]

Apparently some guy tried to steal a painting and accidentally tasered himself, had a heart attack and died.

This is the best show on tv right now.

A lady was also smushed to death.

 

[maxi]

But injustice claims can be a smokescreen for responsibility. Own up for what you just did, first and foremost. Fingerpointing about the past can come later.

Biden is wholly right to condemn a clown posse coming in to trash a house of federal government that hadn't been violated since a war in 1814.

Whining that he didn't condemn similar actions 6 months ago is 6 months late and an attempted distraction about what's in front of everyone's faces right now. What you wrote when you wrote it comes off as suggesting he has no right to condemn what happened at the Capitol, because he lost that right 6 months ago for a very different but similar-in-some-ways circumstance.

I think you're misunderstanding where I stand on this. Your argument would make more sense if you were addressing someone who stormed the Capitol himself or someone who defended the insurrection and used the BLM riots as justification to do so. I'm not defending that. I'm pointing out the levels of hypocrisy that both the media and Biden have displayed over this. It's even more terrible when you see journalists who initially supported those riots or downplayed the threat they posed but then were in uproar at the scenes on Wednesday.
Biden is wholly right to condemn this thuggish attempt to disrupt the democratic process, but he is also wholly wrong for being silent over one of the most violent series of riots this country has ever seen. We can't change that now, but it's disappointing, to say the least. Especially for someone who claimed he is prepared to unite the societal divide in the US. Not like that you don't.

 

[Enron]

I think you're misunderstanding where I stand on this. Your argument would make more sense if you were addressing someone who stormed the Capitol himself or someone who defended the insurrection and used the BLM riots as justification to do so. I'm not defending that. I'm pointing out the levels of hypocrisy that both the media and Biden have displayed over this. It's even more terrible when you see journalists who initially supported those riots or downplayed the threat they posed but then were in uproar at the scenes on Wednesday.
Biden is wholly right to condemn this thuggish attempt to disrupt the democratic process, but he is also wholly wrong for being silent over one of the most violent series of riots this country has ever seen. We can't change that now, but it's disappointing, to say the least. Especially for someone who claimed he is prepared to unite the societal divide in the US. Not like that you don't.

There are very good people on both sides.

To be fair biden didn’t command BLM to March on America.

 

[Enron]

I specifically phrased it that way because Twitter is leaning a lot to the left. Also those loonies get 5 reads(except for Trump if you can call him that), while the "reputable" news organizations get millions while jumping the gun on multiple occasions and that is damaging. Americans should bring back the fairness doctrine if they want great and impartial news coverage but they don't want to hear that they might be wrong sometimes.

Loonies get waaaay more that five reads.

 

[Seven]

Oh, Tuzzers break rules and they know it. They ain't that stupid.

Lol.

But my biggest point is that if you're using this as a defense, you're already saying you're guilty.

 

[Enron]

I imagine NPR, CNN and the likes deleted the tweets themselves. Wasn't really fake news either.

No, it was just unconfirmed. The police man did die, which sucks.

 

[swag]

I think you're misunderstanding where I stand on this. Your argument would make more sense if you were addressing someone who stormed the Capitol himself or someone who defended the insurrection and used the BLM riots as justification to do so. I'm not defending that. I'm pointing out the levels of hypocrisy that both the media and Biden have displayed over this. It's even more terrible when you see journalists who initially supported those riots or downplayed the threat they posed but then were in uproar at the scenes on Wednesday.
Biden is wholly right to condemn this thuggish attempt to disrupt the democratic process, but he is also wholly wrong for being silent over one of the most violent series of riots this country has ever seen. We can't change that now, but it's disappointing, to say the least. Especially for someone who claimed he is prepared to unite the societal divide in the US. Not like that you don't.

My point is that hypocrisy debates while the Capitol has been invaded is like arguing over the china patterns on the Titanic. Yes, details are important, but why bring this up now?

The only reason I can see using now as the moment to slog Biden's condemnation is to erase his statement or opinion on the matter this week. The more contextually appropriate time to bring that up would be if there were a later civil unrest/BLM incident under his presidency and he didn't denounce the violence. Timing matters a lot here.

I'm also a bit dubious when there are claims over hypocrisy not over what was said or done, but rather the absence of what wasn't said or done. This gets to be like the social media pressures celebrities get when someone they know dies, and then if they don't come out with some bleeding-heart tearjerk post about them then the Internet mobs accuse them of dissing on the dead friend or at least holding some kind of grudge with them. People should be granted the benefit of having to STFU.

It's harder when you're president. But even presidents should be granted the right to STFU. That goes for Biden before he was elected too.

Lol.

But my biggest point is that if you're using this as a defense, you're already saying you're guilty.

It's probably more "guilty but..."

 

[AFL_ITALIA]

Where was Biden's outraged speech on the riots back in June? You know, the riots that caused the deaths of 20+ people, the destruction of private property and small businesses, and 2 billion dollars worth of damage?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...olence-shortly-after-biden-condemns-violence/


So now where does this leave us?

 

[Seven]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...olence-shortly-after-biden-condemns-violence/


So now where does this leave us?

Where was Biden's speech when they dragged Trump's naked body across the streets of Washington D.C. and tied it, in all of its grotesqueness to the Washington Monument so millions could come and spit on the former president?

Wait.

I might be three weeks early.

 

[swag]

Where was Biden's speech when they dragged Trump's naked body across the streets of Washington D.C. and tied it, in all of its grotesqueness to the Washington Monument so millions could come and spit on the former president?

Wait.

I might be three weeks early.

 

[JuveMkd]

Loonies get waaaay more that five reads.

Compared to Trump or news outlets they are. Also there are loonies on both sides.

 

[maxi]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...olence-shortly-after-biden-condemns-violence/


So now where does this leave us?

A charming but reluctant little 10-second segment, which immediately followed up with 20 mins of criticism on the police and Trump. Hardly 'outraged' in the same sense as the dramatic speech he gave yesterday, but hey at least it's something admittingly. A shame most of the media and his colleagues in the Democrat party couldn't give two fucks. "Riots are the voice of the unheard" was the most common justification.

 

[Enron]

Compared to Trump or news outlets they are. Also there are loonies on both sides.

You realize the Trump retweets the crazy people right? Some crazy shit gets millions of retweet’s even without Trump. How do you think Q is a thing?

 

[ALC]

Those uneducated thugs did end up killing a cop after all. Looks like they don’t think blue lives matter

 

[AFL_ITALIA]

A charming but reluctant little 10-second segment, which immediately followed up with 20 mins of criticism on the police and Trump. Hardly 'outraged' in the same sense as the dramatic speech he gave yesterday, but hey at least it's something admittingly. A shame most of the media and his colleagues in the Democrat party couldn't give two fucks. "Riots are the voice of the unheard" was the most common justification.

Moving the goalposts a bit, no? What would qualify then, a 30 second one? But then why not an hour? I guess he could've called them very fine people and said he loves them instead though. "Dramatic speech" , yes forgive people for being a bit more outraged when random fucks storm and breach the fucking Capitol building. Sure it's no Macy's, but I'd say it's pretty important.
Care to share some sources of his colleagues supporting the riots? Here's this, though: https://www.khou.com/article/news/n...ters/507-081d6ef7-3bea-4c1a-97e1-73ff88ae350d

This is pointless deflection.