Social Justice Warriors Thread

[nmoore63]

No way there are still people who believe American press isn’t biased.

[Speaker to Animals]

There is no such thing as a free press. There exists the "press", which is the aggregate total of capital goods and resources by which information is broadcast, and then the people who control access to the press.

For centuries small factions controlled the press. It wasn't free. Then the World Wide Web happened. Websites popped up and people could broadcast their own reporting and ideas. Still difficult to get something like that running without capital for a while. Social media came along and completely blew it open. Now you have people like Tim Pool outperforming MSM "journalists" on the regular.

The battle now is whether the social media giants will be able to control social media to control the press in the same way the publishers and media companies controlled the press in the previous century.

The Internet censorship debate is actually a battle over the press. It's about who gets to control it. Everybody or just a few people.

[nmoore63]

Free press means the press isn’t part of the government.

[Speaker to Animals]

LOL

[C-Mag]

Free press means the press isn’t part of the government.

+1

Brevity is the soul of Wit.


Just in the last 10 days we watched video of the FBI directing and working in close concert with CNN on the Roger Stone home raid.

[Speaker to Animals]

The fuck does it matter if the government controls the press or seven mega corporations?

This is shekel cuckery. These people literally don't see the problem when corporations do the exact same shit these people get butthurt over if the government does it.

[The Conservative]

The fuck does it matter if the government controls the press or seven mega corporations?

This is shekel cuckery. These people literally don't see the problem when corporations do the exact same shit these people get butthurt over if the government does it.

When the govt can contrlol the story, people like Hillary go free.

[PartyOf5]

No, you are hopeless at reading comprehension.
This is what I said...

It could be argued that there are so many negative stories about Trump because his leadership has been so dreadful and decisive so any figure about 90% negative is also very subjective.

Note I made no mention of what percentage I consider Trump to be ''bad''.
My point, which you missed entirely, was that a high percentage of ''negative'' stories shouldn't be assumed to be biased. If 90% of stories about Stalin were negative is that a reflection of bias?
90% is therefore subjective, depending on the reader's bias as much as the coverage's bias.

I understand perfectly what you are saying. I'm disputing that. Exhibit A: Russia, Russia, Russia. Add to that the many positive stories that they ignore and any thinking person can figure out the 90% figure is biased BS.

If they were reporting on a sport like baseball, all they would tell you is who struck out and never tell you who hit a home run. You'd be reading their story thinking, man these guys are terrible, all they do is strike out.

[Speaker to Animals]

The fuck does it matter if the government controls the press or seven mega corporations?

This is shekel cuckery. These people literally don't see the problem when corporations do the exact same shit these people get butthurt over if the government does it.

When the govt can contrlol the story, people like Hillary go free.

When anybody can control the story that can happen. It doesn't matter if corporations do it or the government. In any case, what we have now are corporations working in concert with the government.

The problem is not government control of speech. It's any form of control of speech.

[Fife]

There outta be a law.