Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

Nodin

recedite wrote: »

It won't be treated the same no, because the moderator of this forum is a fan of the BBC but not of the KKK, so the link would be removed..

Sorry, but why are you giving equivalence to David Duke and the bbc?

recedite wrote: »

But if Duke was making an argument in his back catalogue and you wanted to refute it in a logical way, you would have to argue your position in the same way as if you were disagreeing with a BBC report about Bloody Sunday from 1972.

But we aren't in 1972, the argument over Bloody Sunday is - largely - over via the inquiry, so why would I be arguing with discredited accounts published via the BBC? Racism and religious bigotry are discredited arguments from history.

recedite

Nodin wrote: »

why would I be arguing with discredited accounts published via the BBC?

Now you are starting to understand the concept of an ad hominem. BBC had a particular slant, but the source of an argument neither proves nor disproves the argument itself. Only the facts can do that.

Nodin

recedite wrote: »

Now you are starting to understand the concept of an ad hominem. BBC had a particular slant, but the source of an argument neither proves nor disproves the argument itself. Only the facts can do that.

David Duke is an anti-Semite and racist. It is therefore obvious that on the subject of Jews and race he is unreliable. Its fairly simple.

orubiru

Nodin wrote: »

David Duke is an anti-Semite and racist. It is therefore obvious that on the subject of Jews and race he is unreliable. Its fairly simple.

I have to agree with Nodin here.

Yes, it could be that David Duke could make a factually correct statement about Jews. However if he frequently shown to be an unreliable, untrustworthy, or biased source then we are probably not going to trust his information.

I'd look elsewhere first in order to corroborate what he is saying. I'd look for a more reliable source.

Even if we do admit that they make some valid points we can understand that these factual and honest points are being used to push a dishonest agenda.

I opened that 10news.dk link and, honestly, I wouldn't rely on them as a source because it seems like they are only interested in using facts in an insidious way. As a kind of "gateway" into some more questionable stuff.

Eventually a source can become so toxic that it's barely worth sifting through the mountain of poisonous junk just to get to that tiny nugget of truth at its heart.

JPNelsforearm

How can one use facts in an "insidious way", facts are black and white. Labeling their usage as "insidious" is down to them not agreeing with your orthodoxy rather than any problem with the information conveyed, or the medium for hosting said information.

orubiru

Links234 wrote: »

I think we're both going to take very different things from that article.

As I see it, it's rather condemning of one side that they need to create strawmen to attack and make their point, and it's not just this guy, there's been plenty of other elaborate false-flags. This is quite literally what Joshua Goldberg did. It's what James O'Keefe did. It's what the twitter user Comfortably Smug did. There's been more that I can't even think of right now. There's a lot of spoofers and fakers on the right, and rather than expose the ills of the left, it exposes their own underhandedness and insecurities that they need to manufacture the very arguments they're railing against.

Sorry for not quoting the entire post. I'm trying to save us all from seeing huge walls of text.

On Feminist Frequency, I think that they do a lot better when they just stick to reviews because there really is a lot more value in hearing a review from another groups perspective. It's certainly better than being lectured too about how everything is sexist or whatever. I've never thought about butts in games before now so I'm really not that bothered by it. Especially not when the person lecturing all of us on how butts are objectified or whatever is not responding to objections.

I'll be honest, I think that the mainstream "narrative" on Gamergate was more than a little dishonest. The whole thing though was just a total disaster for gaming and a total disaster for how people discuss gaming or movies or atheism or anything online.

The fallout from that is that people online have become a lot more disingenuous and a lot less trusting overall. I think.

What I took from the article actually is not only that it shows Poe's Law in full effect but that more and more mainstream websites are willing to promote ridiculous views because that's what brings in the revenue. You literally have a guy sitting there thinking "well what would the stereotypical crazy feminist say" and then you have feminist-leaning websites paying him money for his made up articles.

I'm not even sure that anyone is honestly trying to expose the ills of the left, or the right, anymore. It seems like all of it is underhand. Certain messages get certain amounts of views and so it makes sense to just chase those views to make some money.

Even this Trump stuff. I don't trust his supporters OR his detractors. Nobody is being honest, nobody really seems to care, everyone is just looking for attention.

It's just one big barrel of Catfish right now.

KomradeBishop

orubiru wrote: »

Eventually a source can become so toxic that it's barely worth sifting through the mountain of poisonous junk just to get to that tiny nugget of truth at its heart.

Yes, this exactly - this is one of the big reasons why it's bad to expose yourself to any source that is known for putting out lies/propaganda - nobody is smart/resilient enough, to avoid being affected by it.

If you expose yourself to garbage/propaganda on a regular basis, sifting for the 1/100 nugget of truth vs garbage, you will take in some of the propaganda by osmosis - nobody is immune to this - and that is exactly the point of many of these sources.

Well documented/researched - it's how advertising/marketing and news media propaganda works.

orubiru

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

How can one use facts in an "insidious way", facts are black and white. Labeling their usage as "insidious" is down to them not agreeing with your orthodoxy rather than any problem with the information conveyed, or the medium for hosting said information.

I don't agree.

For example, it's a fact that almost all of the world's richest and most powerful people are male. It's a fact that more men work in high paying software engineering jobs.

There are some who will take these fact and use them to encourage people to "smash The Patriarchy".

There are some who will buy into that so completely that they are willing to have a guy, working to support his wife and two daughters, fired over some joke he made on Facebook about women belonging in the kitchen.

Facts can be taken and used in an insidious way. In truth, some of the worst and most destructive acts in human history would have been instigated by the manipulation, and dishonest interpretation, of facts.

JPNelsforearm

But saying tech is "male dominated" isnt a problem in of itself, it is viewing that fact as a "problem", or worse, a "white male" problem(eg, when in the States white males are only slightly "misrepresented" compared to Asian males) that needs solving by racial and sexual discrimination where the issue comes in.

There is no problem with the facts themselves, only people lying or cherry picking, which is the same as lying, when dealing with black and white.

Facts are black and white, if someone uses them in a black and white manner, their motivations are irrelevant.

orubiru

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

But saying tech is "male dominated" isnt a problem in of itself, it is viewing that fact as a "problem", or worse, a "white male" problem(eg, when in the States white males are only slightly "misrepresented" compared to Asian males) that needs solving by racial and sexual discrimination where the issue comes in.

There is no problem with the facts themselves, only people lying or cherry picking, which is the same as lying, when dealing with black and white.

Facts are black and white, if someone uses them in a black and white manner, their motivations are irrelevant.

Agreed.

I am saying that some of the sites linked to on the thread are not using the facts in a black and white manner.

I will go further than that and say that these sites are known, notorious even, for using facts in a dishonest way. So when they are linked to I will be somewhat skeptical until such times as I can see those facts coming from a more reputable source.

What happens when the mainstream media are refusing to report certain things? I don't know.

I don't know what the solution is but I know I wouldn't be in favor of the mainstream media outlets reporting in a way that is basically "those immigrants are at it again".

It's not fair to vilify large groups of people and plenty of these sites (on both sides, by the way) are using facts to do just that.

JPNelsforearm

orubiru wrote: »

Agreed.

I am saying that some of the sites linked to on the thread are not using the facts in a black and white manner.

I will go further than that and say that these sites are known, notorious even, for using facts in a dishonest way. So when they are linked to I will be somewhat skeptical until such times as I can see those facts coming from a more reputable source.

What happens when the mainstream media are refusing to report certain things? I don't know.

I don't know what the solution is but I know I wouldn't be in favor of the mainstream media outlets reporting in a way that is basically "those immigrants are at it again".

It's not fair to vilify large groups of people and plenty of these sites are using facts to do just that.

Look at RTE/BBC coverage of the immigration "crisis" vs say that of Breitbart or even the Express lol. Now I would call Breitbart a disreputable source with a clear and obvious bias( Zionist, republican/conservative etc), but on this issue they have outshone the "mainstream" who basically present lies to their viewers every week, reminiscent of the WMDs in Iraq coverage.
RTE/BBC flat out refuse to report on certain things and only cover to suit their own agenda. What can you do then, disregard every article on the issue from Breitbart because its a rag?

I think once the facts are sound, you cant be picky about the purveyor of information, especially in this age of mass online media, "old media" only have a level of respect because of age, no other reason. Is RT less of a propaganda outlet then the BBC or RTE is? They are on par, pick and choose which individual story is bull**** is how you watch either station.

orubiru

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Look at RTE/BBC coverage of the immigration "crisis" vs say that of Breitbart or even the Express lol. Now I would call Breitbart a disreputable source with a clear and obvious bias( Zionist, republican/conservative etc), but on this issue they have outshone the "mainstream" who basically present lies to their viewers every week, reminiscent of the WMDs in Iraq coverage.
RTE/BBC flat out refuse to report on certain things and only cover to suit their own agenda. What can you do then, disregard every article on the issue from Breitbart because its a rag?

I think once the facts are sound, you cant be picky about the purveyor of information, especially in this age of mass online media, "old media" only have a level of respect because of age, no other reason. Is RT less of a propaganda outlet then the BBC or RTE is? They are on par, pick and choose which individual story is bull**** is how you watch either station.

It's a good post.

In a lot of ways I might just be taking a "lesser of two evils" approach here.

It is an issue of trust, ultimately. If I don't feel I can trust the source then I won't. I just feel like some sources are a lot worse than others.

The mainstream media do have a history of silence and/or dishonesty so I can definitely see your point.

pH

Here's a great interview with Ulrik Haagerup, which hits the nail on the head nicely as to what's happening.

Journalism Has Been Hijacked

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br1QnBaPYmI

Obviously a neo nazi facist racist, totally not a hugely well respected Danish journalist, in fact I'm pretty sure he works for Stormfront.

silverharp

Some twisted baked puppies here

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/incest-and-necrophilia-should-be-legal-youth-swedish-liberal-peoples-party-a6891476.html

Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party
'Incest can be considered unusual and disgusting, but the law cannot stem from it being disgusting'

Incest between siblings and necrophilia should be legalised, a branch of the Swedish Liberal People's Party has argued.

The Stockholm branch of the party's youth wing (LUF) voted on the controversial motion at its annual meeting on Sunday.

It called for the repeal of several laws to make consensual sex between brothers and sisters aged over 15 legal, as well as allowing people to "bequeath" their bodies for intercourse after death without fearing the perpetrator would be prosecuted.

Cecilia Johnsson, president of LUF Stockholm, told Aftonbladet counter-incest legislation amounted to “morality law”, adding: “These laws protect no one right now”.

“I understand that [incest] can be considered unusual and disgusting, but the law cannot stem from it being disgusting”.

The LUF also voted to support the legalisation of sexual acts with a corpse, on the condition that the person consented while they were still alive.....

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

Some twisted baked puppies here

They're the 7th largest political party in the Swedish Parliament, making them the equivalent of the Social Democrats in Ireland.


And that folks, is an example of using facts in an insidious way

jackofalltrades

silverharp wrote: »

Some twisted baked puppies here

Who'd have thought there was a "necrophilia vote".

Absolam wrote: »

They're the 7th largest political party in the Swedish Parliament, making them the equivalent of the Social Democrats in Ireland.


And that folks, is an example of using facts in an insidious way

There 7th place result is actually the worst they've ever had.
They seem to average out at being the 3rd/4th biggest party, according to Wiki.
Which would make them very similar to the Labour Party.

But all of the above is rather irrelevant, because the poster never made a claim as to the size or importance of the political party.

Absolam

jackofalltrades wrote: »

They seem to average out at being the 3rd/4th biggest party, according to Wiki.
Which would make them very similar to the Labour Party.
But all of the above is rather irrelevant, because the poster never made a claim as to the size or importance of the political party.

And yet now there's a conversation going.... insidious, eh?

The Black Oil

I see Adam Baldwin's departure from Twitter lasted long... Quelle surprise.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's perfectly on-topic, as it's exactly pointing out how the 'left wing vegan cookies' are often a manufactured controversy, out of nothing.

You won't find me arguing with the notion that some 'PC gone mad!!11!!1' headlines are simply just that, and when you scratch benefit the surface, a story may not sync up in the way the outcry would like you to believe.

However, it cannot be denied that there is illiberal liberalism and it needs to be called out for what it is. No platforming and similar bollocks.

A group of free speech campaigners has strongly criticised the National Union of Students (NUS) by saying it is “deeply concerned” by the NUS’s increasing attempts to silence opinions, including those from feminists, apostates, LGBTI rights campaigners, anti-racists, anti-fascists, and anti-Islamists

So far, almost 60 activists and academics - including the editor of spiked magazine which recently released the Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR), human rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell, and several secularist societies - have signed an open letter featured on the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) website.

Calling on the NUS to revise its no-platform policies, the supporters of free speech have said in the letter: “Educational institutions must be a place for the exchange and criticism of all ideas - even those deemed unpalatable by some - providing they don’t incite violence against peoples or communities.

UK Independent

KomradeBishop

Sure, legitimate problems worthy of criticism exist - and I would say the significance of those real problems is greatly undermined, by those who try to hype up insignificant events into a controversy.

It's a bit like Eirgi taking part in protests - even if the protest is over something worthwhile, people will be dissuaded due to Eirgi's presence - which just takes the wind out of the significance of what is being protested.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

It won't be treated the same no, because the moderator of this forum is a fan of the BBC but not of the KKK, so the link would be removed.

Just to clarify - no link that I can recall has been removed in this thread and neither is any one likely to be, given posters' reactions here to extremist links.

Should that change and, in line with this warning, the appearance given that disreputable, fringe-nutter sites like 10news.dk are actually, reliable sources of unbiased news, then the moderators will take action to restore the thread's balance back in the direction of reality.

JPNelsforearm

Consultant is suspended by hospital after confronting surgeon who planned to operate in her hijab despite it being against safety regulations. Hey though, what is MRSA, sepsis etc in the face of someones religious beliefs....

Obviously the first port of call is to suspend him, not the surgeon who refused to follow protocol and left the operating theater in a huff.....

Dr Vladislav Rogozov confronted Muslim surgeon over her headscarf
She was planning on wearing it during operation - breaching strict rules
Complaint was then raised against Dr Rogozov and he was suspended
Hospital probe eventually concluded he was right to ask woman to change

Dr Rogozov claimed colleagues had long-standing concerns but added 'no one dared to highlight this issue because they feared being accused of racism or intolerance'.
Dr Rogozov also spoke of an incident where a male doctor recited extracts from the Koran during surgery, and claimed Muslim staff took prayer breaks during operations

Writing in a blog post on a Czech website, he added: 'If the medics in a developed country are afraid to draw attention to threats to patient safety because of accusations of racism, then it is an example of the absurdity of multiculturalism.'



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3479740/Consultant-suspended-hospital-confronting-surgeon-planned-operate-hijab-despite-against-safety-regulations.html

recedite

A bizarre case, the NHS does not seem to have launched any inquiry into the incident itself? It was only after they heard it was being discussed in the media and on blogs in Czech Republic and Slovakia (like Denmark, these are countries known to be populated by right wing fringe-nutters) that they instigated an inquiry into the leak.
All in the name of political correctness.

recedite

That guys father was some bad-ass surgeon.

Last May Dr Rogozov spoke of how his father, a Russian surgeon, was forced to cut out his own appendix during a Soviet expedition to the Antarctic in 1961.

We need more docs like that, and less of the other type please...

PopePalpatine

The other side of the story. It was a lecturer in Czech Studies at the University of Glasgow who made the complaint, not the Muslim surgeon alleged to have refused to remove their hijab - besides which, the hospital in question doesn't allow headscarves in operating theatres anyway.

recedite

Nobody said the hijab wearing surgeon made a complaint. Why would she?
She broke the rules, and then abandoned the patient because she was "called out" by the anesthetist (someone she probably considered a more junior member of the team). She went off in a huff, leaving the patient abandoned on the operating table.

She should have been fired. Even now there is no mention of her being reprimanded. She is probably trying to negotiate a change in the rules, so that muslim women are not "discriminated against" in this disgraceful fashion, ever again.

The average person living in the Visegrad countries will not be able to understand this nonsense at all.

Asaiah

To be honest as far as I am concerned the Muslim's have to tolorate our culture, not we theirs. I think 99.9% of the public would agree with me but only about 30% have the balls to admit it.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

That guys father was some bad-ass surgeon.
We need more docs like that, and less of the other type please...

Yeah but he knew what he was doing, etc. Not like some:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_surgery

Boston Corbett, the soldier who killed Abraham Lincoln's assassin John Wilkes Booth, had performed self-surgery earlier in life. He castrated himself with a pair of scissors in order to avoid the temptation of prostitutes. Afterwards he went to a prayer meeting and ate a meal before going for medical treatment.

:eek:

In 2000, a Mexican woman, Inés Ramírez, was forced to resort to self-surgery – a Caesarean section – because of lack of medical assistance during a difficult labour: "She took three small glasses of hard liquor and, using a kitchen knife, sliced her abdomen in 3 attempts ... cut the uterus itself longitudinally, and delivered a male infant. Both mother and child reportedly survived and are now well."

:eek: :eek:

Absolam

Asaiah wrote: »

To be honest as far as I am concerned the Muslim's have to tolorate our culture, not we theirs. I think 99.9% of the public would agree with me but only about 30% have the balls to admit it.

Hmmm... 73.6% of statistics used in arguments are made up though.

Trent Houseboat

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

Boston Corbett, the soldier who killed Abraham Lincoln's assassin John Wilkes Booth, had performed self-surgery earlier in life. He castrated himself with a pair of scissors in order to avoid the temptation of prostitutes. Afterwards he went to a prayer meeting and ate a meal before going for medical treatment.

Good episode of The Dollop Podcast about Corbett
http://thedollop.libsyn.com/117-boston-corbett-live-with-patton-oswalt

I wouldn't play it over you PC speakers in work though.

Nodin

Could we get this thread title changed to "Muslims On My Mind"?