Sorry to butt in here, but, I think it is adviseable for everyone to take a breather as things seem to be getting very heated.
See previous answer to previous accusation of such.Where's the lie?
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You are one of the biggest trolls on this website. I get that it's all in good fun for you & the spectators, isn't it Rufus? Regardless,I will defend your right to troll while at the same time holding you accountable for the language you use when addressing other human beings. Hold me accountable for when I do the same thing! Please!
There's a working solution for this: regulation of political content in media. Limit the time in which political campaigning can be done, both in and out of mass medias - so, TV, radio, paper ads, etc., regulate it to remove political ads and ensure equality of access for candidates. It works.And that's a side point I felt compelled to address that, honestly, I regret making. It was too combative. My real concern is I will not have you muddying the discussion by claiming the smokescreen tactics used by internet money gifters is mere 'trolling.' Trolling is human-to-human interaction. Headlines & news articles? Media narratives you hear on TV? Politically driven memes? That's propaganda, not trolling. And we have businesses that have made an art of selling propaganda to their audiences, because real news & real journalism doesn't make any money. Selling people a story, confirming their biases, telling them that THERE ARE PROBLEMS that need to be faced for the future of family and country? Just make donations here, support that candidate, brigade this person's inbox, etc. That's not trolling.
Fair enough.See previous answer to previous accusation of such.
I do agree with some of these points. The difficulty is in America, this isn't easy to implement. The argument comes down to 'who gets to decide' and that is something that Americans, as a rule, distrust greatly. For the same reason we distrust our government, because of people like Trump inheriting the power. It will also require legal cases to bubble up to the the Supreme Court, which isn't an overnight solution. This isn't something where a "try democracy for once" answer is going to solve anything.There's a working solution for this: regulation of political content in media. Limit the time in which political campaigning can be done, both in and out of medias, regulate it to remove political ads and ensure equality of access for candidates.
The organized mass media issue has been considered by many countries. The big issue everyone is trying to tackle is the disorganized mass media, internet, and how to avoid some deep shit to keep happening harder and harder without destroying our freedom.
Yes, because there are no Radical Islamic Terrorists outside of ISIS.Yep, you went there as I pretty much expected someone to do, activating my classical trap card: the ones doing the most to fight the islamists like ISIS are... the Muslims, actually. Who do you think has been on the ground, fighting and dying to eliminate these assholes? Who do you think make the bulk of the informers and sources for Western intel agencies? Who do you think has the most victims of islamist terrorism? Them. It's a fun thing to voluntarly ignore, but it shows only the problem in your reasoning.
So, yeah, there would be any modicum of equivalence if ISIS was considered by Muslims as "heh, something we just have to deal with". Which is not the case. They do acknowledge there are some rotten apples, and they act, rather than just saying "meh". Actually not supporting the troll culture as "just some fun and laughs" and questioning oneself would be nice.
It doesn't:It works.
You're being incredibly disingenuous here Rufus, ISIS overwhelmingly targets other muslin groups. It's a matter of survival that they fight against this aggressively expansionist Salafi jihadist proto-state, because if they don't they'll just end up conquered. This conflict says nothing of the moral or ethical fiber of the actors involved.Yep, you went there as I pretty much expected someone to do, activating my classical trap card: the ones doing the most to fight the islamists like ISIS are... the Muslims, actually. Who do you think has been on the ground, fighting and dying to eliminate these assholes? Who do you think make the bulk of the informers and sources for Western intel agencies? Who do you think has the most victims of islamist terrorism? Them. It's a fun thing to voluntarly ignore, but it shows only the problem in your reasoning.
Yes, because there are no Radical Islamic Terrorists outside of ISIS.
-9/11Since said "pro-western" terrorism is killing more people in western countries than is Islamic terrorism,
Who are these "people" you speak of? I've been anti-authoritarian since the womb. Which is why I hate the people that are all "at least Bush wasn't as bad as Drumpf!".And of course the same people who championed the war on terror
Oh, I am definitely not saying it would be easy to implement, but it's something that has to be discussed in detail quickly now because the alternative is pretty ugly. Right now, the internet becomes a resonance chamber for the worst in us all, be it religious, politics, economics, etc., and there isn't much done to stop this trend.I do agree with some of these points. The difficulty is in America, this isn't easy to implement. The argument comes down to 'who gets to decide' and that is something that Americans, as a rule, distrust greatly. For the same reason we distrust our government, because of people like Trump inheriting the power. It will also require legal cases to bubble up to the the Supreme Court, which isn't an overnight solution. This isn't something where a "try democracy for once" answer is going to solve anything.
People with bigger pockets will always have more opportunity to speak regardless of regulation. They can just fund other people who's ideas that align with their own. Would the elite rather have a $10,000 donation from 20 charismatic individuals, or those 20 charismatic individuals constantly putting out narratives that make those elites look good to the masses?
Then there's the grassroots movements, where a lot of this vile white nationalism comes from. It's not like they have big platforms. They're in the weeds. But so are many, many other viewpoints that don't align with them. Do we bring the foot down on all these voices, making it harder for them to be heard, because they're using the same platforms as radicalizing terrorist? I certainly would not want to, because then that amplifies the reach of the powerful statusquotarians who can fund platforms that spread their message.
It doesn't:
Terrorism in France - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I do infer a false equivalency when it comes to portraying a difference in behaviour between the groups. Is there a shining moral superiority anywhere? Fuck no. But I am quite pissed off by the omnipresent excuse of 'it's ironic' and 'it's to trigger the lefties' as a means of waving away the fact that there is a real problem of toxic behaviour that isn't even accepted. It's as if I said, as a Catholic, that there isn't a widespread issue of pedophilia within the Church by using some bad-faith excuse about the numerous cases.You're being incredibly disingenuous here Rufus, ISIS overwhelmingly targets other muslin groups. It's a matter of survival that they fight against this aggressively expansionist Salafi jihadist proto-state, because if they don't they'll just end up conquered. This conflict says nothing of the moral or ethical fiber of the actors involved.
Now I don't believe all Muslims = ISIS, just to be clear, but you can't infer moral superiority from the mear fact this conflict exists.
Issue, most of them aren't even terror attacks, just nutjobs. So it doesn't really work as a retort to their arguement of which is focused on terror attacks. Then there's the population issue but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.Wanna compare with the amount of violence in the States? It wouldn't be nice for you of I start looking at mass shootings.
?Wanna compare with the amount of violence in the States? It wouldn't be nice for you of I start looking at mass shootings.
Right, which didn't impact terrorism. Specially considering NZ isn't part of the StatesThis was about the issues of polarization in general caused by journalism and the media, in which the regulation helps a lot to prevent the worst and to keep political life sane, AKA not being in a state of constant electoral campaign where mass media are increasingly drowned in political ads.
I'm pretty sure he reached maximum edge when he killed several small Muslim children.
This man may actually will himself into /pol/ godhood at this rate.What an asshole.
This man may actually will himself into /pol/ godhood at this rate.
I'd make a joke about how Bubble the love Sponge is planning an amazing honeymoon, but this guy is going to be a neo-nazi VIP in prison.
This man may actually will himself into /pol/ godhood at this rate.
I'd make a joke about how Bubble the love Sponge is planning an amazing honeymoon, but this guy is going to be a neo-nazi VIP in prison.
pol?
I do not know how but I would suggest a group effort to map and codify as much as you can the trends, patterns and systems of Alt-Right meme warfare in a fully anaylized format to be used as a tool in identifying such content on the site.I'll likely apply it to extremist online movements in gen and not name any political grouping.
In terms of per capita, the difference remains staggering, the population argument not working as an argument. And the number of attacks still illustrates pretty well the tensions.Issue, most of them aren't even terror attacks, just nutjobs. So it doesn't really work as a retort to their arguement of which is focused on terror attacks. Then there's the population issue but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
I was answering then a specific post about the level of propaganda and idiocy in US media.?
Right, which didn't impact terrorism. Specially considering NZ isn't part of the States
A festering hole amidst the grid of cyber-infrastructure, filled with things that are not good to eat, @TheRealCelene.