Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

JPNelsforearm

robindch wrote: »

While RT doesn't appear to have invented this particular story, the primary aim of RT overall is to denigrate and disparage the US, the EU and NATO, in that order.

In terms of overall trustworthiness, it's well beneath the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and other propaganda rags.

Is what they said incorrect?


Also, as we have seen with the immigration "crisis", the "papers of record" are little better than EUrocrat internationalist propaganda rags. The EU needs disparaging, if RT is that vehicle, so be it.


So long as the info is correct, source is irrelevant in this day and age.

robindch

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Is what they said incorrect?

As a rule, when publishing a propaganda article, of which this is one good example, RT generally don't provide much context to any comments and instead, just present some apparently damning sentence or two, several paragraphs of supporting bile and venom, then release the story into wild so that the subject of the story can be executed by the RT media consumer base, and hopefully, wider social networks.

In this case, most of the "article" condemns Romson, but in fairness, just before two irrelevant negative comments at the end, RT has taken the trouble to copy'n'paste a comment from a separate media outlet, in which Romson clarifies that she did not mean what she was interpreted to have said.

Given that this minor politician does not believe what RT has quoted her as claiming, do you feel that your comment about "standard off the wall leftism" still stands?

JPNelsforearm

robindch wrote: »

As a rule, when publishing a propaganda article, of which this is one good example, RT generally don't provide much context to any comments and instead, just present some apparently damning sentence or two, several paragraphs of supporting bile and venom, then release the story into wild so that the subject of the story can be executed by the RT media consumer base, and hopefully, wider social networks.

In this case, most of the "article" condemns Romson, but in fairness, just before two irrelevant negative comments at the end, RT has taken the trouble to copy'n'paste a comment from a separate media outlet, in which Romson clarifies that she did not mean what she was interpreted to have said.

Given that this minor politician does not believe what RT has quoted her as claiming, do you feel that your comment about "standard off the wall leftism" still stands?

She said what she said, then when called out, "clarified", that was not actually "what she meant". Look at what she said, "olycka", look at the myriad of translations, none of which correspond to her "clarification"

Its well covered by other news outlets
https://www.google.ie/search?q=%C3%85sa+Romson&rlz=1C1AVNE_enIE674IE674&oq=%C3%85sa+Romson&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=%C3%85sa+Romson&tbm=nws


My comment stands, she chose her words and the context in which she put them. Its standard leftist victim blaming, nothing more, that RT covered it as opposed to the IT is immaterial.

robindch

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

She said what she said, then when called out, "clarified", that was not actually "what she meant". Look at what she said, "olycka", look at the myriad of translations, none of which correspond to her "clarification" [...] My comment stands, she chose her words and the context in which she put them. Its standard leftist victim blaming, nothing more, that RT covered it as opposed to the IT is immaterial.

In an interview live on telly she used what I presume is the Swedish word for "accident". She was correctly called out on it and she clarified that the 9/11 attacks were "vile acts of terror". I don't really see the problem here other than that she should probably have said that under the pressure of a live telly interview, she used one word when she should have used another.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

My comment stands, she chose her words and the context in which she put them. Its standard leftist victim blaming, nothing more [... ]

I don't quite see how referring to the 9/11 attacks as "vile acts of terror" in any way blames the people killed on 9/11 - could you clarify?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

[...] that RT covered it as opposed to the IT is immaterial.

On the contrary, as RT is little more than a well-funded anti-EU, anti-Europe, anti-US and anti-NATO propaganda outlet, when it publishes a negative story about a European politician, one should be immediately suspicious and much more suspicious than one would need to be if the same story appeared in the IT.

And naturally, on closer inspection, it seems that Romson does not believe what RT has gone to some trouble to claim she believes - topic closed, I'd have said.

JPNelsforearm

robindch wrote: »

In an interview live on telly she used what I presume is the Swedish word for "accident". She was correctly called out on it and she clarified that the 9/11 attacks were "vile acts of terror". I don't really see the problem here other than that she should probably have said that under the pressure of a live telly interview, she used one word when she should have used another.

I don't quite see how referring to the 9/11 attacks as "vile acts of terror" in any way blames the people killed on 9/11 - could you clarify?On the contrary, as RT is little more than a well-funded anti-EU, anti-Europe, anti-US and anti-NATO propaganda outlet, when it publishes a negative story about a European politician, one should be immediately suspicious and much more suspicious than one would need to be if the same story appeared in the IT.

And naturally, on closer inspection, it seems that Romson does not believe what RT has gone to some trouble to claim she believes - topic closed, I'd have said.

She initially referred to it as "an accident" and "a tough time for young muslims", when pushed on it after the fact, she clarified it "as a vile act of terror". They are two differing sentiments, two differing statements.

Her initial statement that it was an accident and a tough time for young muslims is victim blaming, going back and saying something different after the fact doesnt change her initial victim blaming statement.

Of course Romson does not believe what RT reported her as saying, but that is irrelevant, she still said it, she hasnt denied saying it, only she blames RT for "misinterpreting her", only her "correction" is a totally different statement to what she initially said.

When the papers of record have abdicated their responsibility to deliver hard hitting coverage as regards Europe, that RT steps in is irrelevant. The EU is an anti European institution, Irish and most European newspapers are pro EU. Balance and fair coverage is needed. As of the "migrant crisis" and the streams of lies flowing from the IT, its not a paper to be trusted, it is not concerned with fact, but with dancing to the EUrocrat agenda


Was RT's coverage of her initial statement wrong, yes, or no?

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

..........


Was RT's coverage of her initial statement wrong, yes, or no?

Yes, it's being obtuse for the sake of point-scoring. She later clarified her statements so I'm unsure why you are still carrying on with the notion.

Do you genuinely believe that she thinks the attack on NYC was an accident?

robindch

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The EU is an anti European institution

Comments like that are best backed up with some supporting evidence, or else made over the wall here.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Balance and fair coverage is needed.

A "balance" between truth and falsity contributes nothing - see this excellent example of false balance from RT a few days ago.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Of course Romson does not believe what RT reported her as saying [...] Was RT's coverage of her initial statement wrong, yes, or no?

As I said above somewhere, RT's coverage of this story is the same as much of the rest of its propagandized output - take something small, then remove any context, distort it, blow it up then stand back and watch things fizzle.

Anyhow, I'm happy to see that you now accept that RT's original article is dishonest - progress!

recedite

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

https://www.rt.com/news/340219-sweden-scandal-tv-scandal/

Following the backlash, Romson later told Aftonbladet newspaper that the “accidents” comment was actually aimed at the debate on integration that followed the attacks – not about the attacks themselves.

I wouldn't call that a "clarification", I'd call that a damage limitation U-turn.
Its far from clear what she was referring to, if not the attacks themselves.
How could a debate be described as an accident? She is clutching at straws.

Lurkio

recedite wrote: »

I wouldn't call that a "clarification", I'd call that a damage limitation U-turn.
Its far from clear what she was referring to, if not the attacks themselves.
How could a debate be described as an accident? She is clutching at straws.

You might explain what you think she was actually saying in the original statement....?

MrPudding

I seem to be completely missing the issue here,nap please correct me if I am wrong. There are two prongs to the problem here the first, her use of the term accident and the second, her saying it was a tough time for young Muslims. Taking the second point first, it was a tough time for young Muslims. There was a lot of anger and hostility after these attacks, and I don't it is controversial to suggest some of it was misplaced and young Muslims felt that hostility, irrespective of their views on the attacks. And not just young Muslims, I think anyone that looked one of muslimish.

The first point seems to me to be a bit of a mountain out of a molehill. Sometime under pressure one can use a word that, with a little more time to reflect, wouldn't be used. Is that not all this is? Accident is a frequency misused word. If someone gets drunk drives their car and kills an innocent third party, did that third party did in an accident? To me a accident is something where there was no purpetrator, the twins towers was no accident, but I can understand why some e might mis-use the word. And having made an error (giving the benefit of the doubt) how does one fix it without being accused of not providing clarification but simply trying to limit damage? How can we separate the "mistake followed by a correction" from the "meant to say it, need to limit damage"?Not really seeing a major problem here.

MrP

JPNelsforearm

robindch wrote: »

Comments like that are best backed up with some supporting evidence, or else made over the wall here.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395/

A "balance" between truth and falsity contributes nothing - see this excellent example of false balance from RT a few days ago.As I said above somewhere, RT's coverage of this story is the same as much of the rest of its propagandized output - take something small, then remove any context, distort it, blow it up then stand back and watch things fizzle.

Actor says something, media covers it, RT is hardly alone in this.

Anyhow, I'm happy to see that you now accept that RT's original article is dishonest - progress!

Nope, was RT incorrect in their reporting of her comments?

JPNelsforearm

MrPudding wrote: »

I seem to be completely missing the issue here,nap please correct me if I am wrong. There are two prongs to the problem here the first, her use of the term accident and the second, her saying it was a tough time for young Muslims. Taking the second point first, it was a tough time for young Muslims. There was a lot of anger and hostility after these attacks, and I don't it is controversial to suggest some of it was misplaced and young Muslims felt that hostility, irrespective of their views on the attacks. And not just young Muslims, I think anyone that looked one of muslimish.

The first point seems to me to be a bit of a mountain out of a molehill. Sometime under pressure one can use a word that, with a little more time to reflect, wouldn't be used. Is that not all this is? Accident is a frequency misused word. If someone gets drunk drives their car and kills an innocent third party, did that third party did in an accident? To me a accident is something where there was no purpetrator, the twins towers was no accident, but I can understand why some e might mis-use the word. And having made an error (giving the benefit of the doubt) how does one fix it without being accused of not providing clarification but simply trying to limit damage? How can we separate the "mistake followed by a correction" from the "meant to say it, need to limit damage"?Not really seeing a major problem here.

MrP

But in the context of both statements, in that they were part of her train of thought, that sept the 11th was an accident and a terrible time for young muslims, that is the issue, rather than any (mis)use of word. Its a common theme among her ilk. Witness Chomsky blaming racism and Belgian colonialism for the Morroccan muslims who blew up Brussels airport.

Its standard leftist discourse that she was engaged in.

recedite

MrPudding wrote: »

how does one fix it without being accused of not providing clarification but simply trying to limit damage?
MrP

She could have apologised and said she was wrong. Instead she tried to pretend she was talking about something else.

If I said that a rape had been an unfortunate accident and then started sympathising with the rapists family, because they were having a terrible time due to the adverse publicity, you would rightly be annoyed. Surely then the murder of thousands of people is worse than a rape?

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Nope, was RT incorrect in their reporting of her comments?

In total, yes, as they misrepresented what she said, much as you continue to do so.

Lurkio

recedite wrote: »

She could have apologised and said she was wrong. Instead she tried to pretend she was talking about something else.

If I said that a rape had been an unfortunate accident and then started sympathising with the rapists family, because they were having a terrible time due to the adverse publicity, you would rightly be annoyed. Surely then the murder of thousands of people is worse than a rape?

You might paraphrase for us exactly what you think she was trying to say, based on her own words, rather than come out with dubious comparisons.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

In total, yes, as they misrepresented what she said, much as you continue to do so.

How so? She said exactly what RT reported.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

How so? She said exactly what RT reported.

She made an error in speech and they (and you) seem hell bent on misrepresenting it.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

She made an error in speech and they (and you) seem hell bent on misrepresenting it.

What is there to misrepresent? She was fairly clear in her sentiments. And in light of the prevailing groupthink her ilk engage in, its not out of the ordinary, the only difference is this was picked up and remarked upon by non PC news outlets and commentators.

The context of her remarks was her defending a muslim colleague who has recently been forced to resign for *shock*, *horror* extremism. In the course of defending her colleague, she said "'He [Kaplan] has been chairman for Swedish Young Muslims in tough situations like around the September 11 accidents and similar.'

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

What is there to misrepresent? She was fairly clear in her sentiments.

Really? Then you might tell me, as the other poster has not, what you think her sentiment was exactly.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

Really? Then you might tell me, as the other poster has not, what you think her sentiment was exactly.

Her words, taken literally and in context(of defending a muslim colleague and the "good" work he did), that to me reflects her sentiment.

Sentiment, which reflects Europewide left wing dual themes of white guilt and islamic terrorism apologism/minimisation.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Her words, taken literally and in context(of defending a muslim colleague and the "good" work he did), that to me reflects her sentiment..

Sorry, I might have been unclear in the way I phrased that. What did you think she meant by what she was saying?

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

Sorry, I might have been unclear in the way I phrased that. What did you think she meant by what she was saying?

I think she meant that muslims were also victims on sept the 11th, if you take into account the context of the conversation, that was her main point. As far as an accident....

Look at her past actions, statements and judge was this an out of character statement. We can judge of her own mindset from her past actions and statements imo. Eg donning headscarves to "fight islamophobia", crying over immigrants. Saying that "we" are not doing enough on the immigration "crisis", that, “we are … turning the Mediterranean into the new Auschwitz.”

She's a headcase

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

Does she view 9/11 as an accident? Look at the video below, read the transcript.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBjIQA4B0sk

I would say, yes, but not in the traditional sense, eg that the hijackers took a wrong turn. She could view it as an accident for the muslim community in that it has led to "islamophobia" etc, that is a kind interpretation. Read muslim and leftist apologism for 9/11 that exists online, that is the environment she comes from. She views it as a tragedy in that it hampered integration and let to a rise in islamophobia, a blip in the integration process, that was the general gist the conversation on her side anyway.

I cannot say what she meant obviously, but if you look at her background, previous idiotic statements and politics, you can make a judgement.

Links234

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

...crying over immigrants.

That monster!

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

........................

I cannot say what she meant obviously, but if you look at her background, previous idiotic statements and politics, you can make a judgement.

So you have no idea what she meant, but are willing to spend time and effort attributing to her every sort of half arsed cliché of the left as portrayed by Brietbart et al, on behalf of a news station run by a very dubious regime.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

So you have no idea what she meant, but are willing to spend time and effort attributing to her every sort of half arsed cliché of the left as portrayed by Brietbart et al, on behalf of a news station run by a very dubious regime.

Obviously, non one can know what someone "means", but you can look at their previous political statements and backgrounds, and shock, horror, it turns out she meets every half arsed self loathing leftist cliche, so why wouldn't her latest statement just be a further manifestation of that particular psychosis.

Links234 wrote: »

That monster!

She's pathetic, there are seven billion humans on the planet, she needs to get a grip and sense of perspective. If she wants to sponsor someone and pay for their upkeep, thats her business, she can keep her ethno-masochism and virtue signalling out of the public sphere and public pocket.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Obviously, non one can know what someone "means", but you can look at their previous political statements and backgrounds, and shock, horror, it turns out she meets every half arsed self loathing leftist cliche, so why wouldn't her latest statement just be a further manifestation of that particular psychosis..

No, you're just making it up to suit yourself.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

She's pathetic, there are seven billion humans on the planet, she needs to get a grip and sense of perspective. If she wants to sponsor someone and pay for their upkeep, thats her business, she can keep her ethno-masochism and virtue signalling out of the public sphere and public pocket.

And here we get to the true motivation - your hate. It's not of her, of course, but the stereotype you created in your own mind to fit your own preconceived notions, most of which seem to be second hand imports from various rightwing "rage" sites, judging by the phrases used.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

No, you're just making it up to suit yourself.

Fine, she made a mistake, her previous statements and political bent would usually make one skeptical, but obviously not, if you agree with her policies.

And here we get to the true motivation - your hate. It's not of her, of course, but the stereotype you created in your own mind to fit your own preconceived notions, most of which seem to be second hand imports from various rightwing "rage" sites, judging by the phrases used.

No hate or rage on my part, merely realism, instead of misplaced emotion and the illogical, emotion driven policy/thought that prevails in the western world. Humans are not an endangered species by any measure, if she was crying over a Sumatran Tiger, I could understand and empathise and agree with her, however, we are not.

As for my phraseology and motivation, how does that indicate "hate", seeing as how we are, ironically, in the midst of a discussion where one cannot ascribe meaning to someone elses words, other than what that person ascribes themselves?

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Fine, she made a mistake, her previous statements and political bent would usually make one skeptical, but obviously not, if you agree with her policies.




No hate or rage on my part, merely realism, instead of misplaced emotion and the illogical, emotion driven policy/thought that prevails in the western world. Humans are not an endangered species by any measure, if she was crying over a Sumatran Tiger, I could understand and empathise and agree with her, however, we are not.

As for my phraseology and motivation, how does that indicate "hate", seeing as how we are, ironically, in the midst of a discussion where one cannot ascribe meaning to someone elses words, other than what that person ascribes themselves?

More ranting? Seriously - people occasionally say something in a less than clear way. You've hopped in on it with every sort of rightwing buzzword the internet can supply, and essentially have no interest in finding any objective truth that contradicts your pre-conceived notions.

recedite

What do you think she meant <snip>
I think that in her own mind, the blame element had been removed from her own memory of the 9/11 events.
Similar to the way I might refer to a collision between two cars as an accident.
If I knew that one driver had deliberately rammed the other, I would not use the word accident. But if the murderous driver was someone close to me, I might be tempted to think of it as an accident. It would require me to compartmentalize my mind to some extent, but that is how some people handle things, when they are faced with a reality they would rather not face up to.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

More ranting? Seriously - people occasionally say something in a less than clear way. You've hopped in on it with every sort of rightwing buzzword the internet can supply, and essentially have no interest in finding any objective truth that contradicts your pre-conceived notions.

You cant be any more concise than saying "the 9/11 accidents were a tough time for young muslims"

Whatever about the literal meaning, the sentiment is clear, you dont really need any pre conceived notions to gauge how that person views islamic terrorism. Forget about "accident" entirely and it still has the same sentiment.



What is the "objective truth", seeing as how a hateful, raging individual such as myself, is clearly unable to discern the true meaning of "the 9/11 accidents were a tough time for young muslims"