Do you trust the mainstream media?

Soldato
Joined
9 Jun 2005
Posts
4,694
Location
Wiltshire
Well you behave like one pushing forward far left reasoning as if its the only truth.

Except I haven't, I just posted a video and wiki quote which counters your argument about Assad being a secularist, that's not "hard left" at all, the hard left would probably also call out Christopher Hitchens for hate speech for things he says about religion, Islam specifically.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2006
Posts
8,537
Alex Jones "reported" on weather manipulation in 2005 because, in that same year, the Congress killed the H.R. 2995 (his insane ramblings start from a grain of truth). This is where we differ, Vincent. When you get a piece of information, you have a tendency to determine its validity based on your preconceived ideas. In this case, you believe Alex Jones is a bit of a nutjob but sometimes he is right about certain things so when you read a recent article about weather manipulation you snickered under your mustache, "Aha, the MSM fails yet again!!". It took about 30 seconds of googling and skim reading to get to the truth and I looked into it because your "Alex Jones was right all along" claim tickled my critical thinking senses. I don't let my personal bias (which I am aware of by the way) cloud my judgment.

what possible preconceived ideas could I have about something like weather manipulation, I'd never heard of it until Alex Jones reported on it and at the time you could get very little information from other sources because anyone else mentioning it was mentioning it as a 'look how crazy this guy is' article. Now it's acknowledged as being something that has happened of course you can find plenty of articles which contain a lot more actual info than his original piece. hindsight is 20/20 after all...


So basically your only sources of news reporting are MSM (the Independent and the Guardian). The rest.. tabloids, Russian propaganda and various opinion platforms.

The MSM is very little more than an opinion platform... I don't get your point here.

In fact, the majority of your sources of information are opinion platforms and most of these platforms preach the gospel of the "MSM bias". Therefore, you read/listen to these people because they confirm your ideas.

I really like how you can read a list of very contradictory journalistic sources and conclude that I like hearing my own opinions spoken back to me, I literally listen to and read articles from people spanning the entire political spectrum, from left to right, authoritarian to libertarian.

Don't get me wrong, it is a fact that journalists, in general, lean to the left but the reasons why they do so are quite simple and they have nothing to do with bias. In the US, the current right wing is dominated by a populist/nationalist movement. The ideas that they put forward are often rejected by educated people, particularly educated young people. The majority of journalists have gone through higher forms of education so it's only natural for them to lean to the left. It's not just journalists, scholarly elites orient left, irrespective of academic affiliation. And education isn't the only element that has an influence on political views, this study found that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism4. Your conclusion that Alex Jones was right all along is a perfect example of low-effort thought.

Aside from the fact that you completely misrepresent my 'conclusions' regarding Alex Jones (which I reject in their entirety) because it validates your own opinion (something which you have accused me of attempting to do) you are looking at a chicken and egg scenario and have made an assertion about which came first, others would argue that the situation prevalent on the far right only exists and is exacerbated by the situation on the left. The overton window has shifted so far left and has allowed the left to claim the mantel of the arbiter of justice that it has made it almost impossible for anyone right of the left to voice their opinion which, as you highlight, is particularly frustrating for people who may struggle to express their opinions in a meaningful way because of a lack of 'education'. That's not to say the the right of left lacks scholarly and academic proponents, as I mentioned earlier you need look no further than Christopher Hitchens own brother, but this is a classic example of the assumed knowledge that Locke makes mention of in 'On Liberty'. That you assume those on the far right have nothing to contribute, or whose contribtution lacks the same value as your average BA student, is proof positive of the sneering attitude you have for those whose opinion differs from your own.

In conclusion, good luck with reading/listening to opinion pieces,

As mentioned, opinion pieces are the bread and butter of the MSM, what's your problem?

I'm sure you will enjoy having your views confirmed repeatedly.

complete hogwash again.

I am however skeptical that your approach (which by the way is not Lockean) will bear fruit in the form of knowledge.

and total misrepresentation and lack of comprehension, I'd expect better of a C grade GCSE student. I never said that my approach was Lockean. Read it again.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jun 2003
Posts
3,945
In terms of Trump though, the media's favourite thing to do is write a hysterical story with an inflammatory false headline, and get the desired left-wing outrage from it. Sometimes at the bottom of the page they'll actually refute the headline, by which time people have stopped reading and has had the desired affect, or if it turns out to be false (which is often is) they'll issue a correction hours/days later. Then what happens the fake story has already got circulated, but the correction doesn't.

They're borderline liberlous, and like using "anonymous sources" and usually written by people not remotely qualified to commentate. They construct their pieces with very vague sounding weasal words, couched in possibilities and fed to gullible people looking for anything to validate whatever it is they already believe about him without regards for the truth
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
OP
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,574
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Mr sargon of akad released a video earlier of them at the trump protests in London and tbh he came across as a bit of a douche bag.

a lot of his unrehearsed stuff is very snide, patronising and condescending. Boasting about "I don't care"

Bait worthy stuff goading people to "hit him" and people very childishly and disrespectful to random people, but he doesn't care.

It's a million miles from his YouTube series where I thi k he comes across intelligent and we'll thought out.

I still thinks he right on a ton of issues but he's got this weird side to him I don't rate.

For sure he's a provocateur and i do agree that side of him needs to be toned down a little.

Except I haven't, I just posted a video and wiki quote which counters your argument about Assad being a secularist, that's not "hard left" at all, the hard left would probably also call out Christopher Hitchens for hate speech for things he says about religion, Islam specifically.

I asked because of Christopher Hitchens self identified politics, if you don't like being quizzed about your politics don't put forward people hard-line political views as an authoritative commentator.
 
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
33,018
Location
Panting like a fiend
what possible preconceived ideas could I have about something like weather manipulation, I'd never heard of it until Alex Jones reported on it and at the time you could get very little information from other sources because anyone else mentioning it was mentioning it as a 'look how crazy this guy is' article. Now it's acknowledged as being something that has happened of course you can find plenty of articles which contain a lot more actual info than his original piece. hindsight is 20/20 after all...


.
What sort of weather manipulation?

It's been known for decades that for example you can potentially cause rain to fall earlier by "seeding it" with certain materials (basically to cause the moisture to join with the material and thus fall earlier than it would have done), the Soviets and Chinese were using it in the 50's and 60's to try and stop it raining on their parades (literally), but it only works under specific circumstances (IE the rain is going to fall, you just cause it to call a few miles early*), and was very expensive and obvious to do (IIRC it used a fleet of converted bombers).

There are all sorts of other theoretical ways to affect the weather, but pretty much all of them are massively obvious and either impossible to do with current tech or basically, like cloud seeding not worth it except maybe for vanity or demonstration purposes (there is no earthquake ray, or hurricane gun mounted on a 747).

Jones like moist CT peddlers who make a living out of it tend to have just enough plausibility in their nonsense to make it seem possible, and often there might be a few minor truths that they take out of context and exaggerate (for example the whole "people die around the Clintons" is on a par with the old "the filming of the Poltergiest is cursed, look at this list of people who died"**).
The weather manipulation is a good example, they take the "ooh they made it rain early" (when it worked) and turn it into "they direct hurricanes to attack the poor people in X" or "they cause a drought", as is whole chemtrails nonsense "you see those white trails after jets, they're spraying mind control chemicals, you can tell because it looks like my pappy's crop duster did when he used to fly over our house spraying pesticides whilst I ate my wheetos"


*For example if you've got a huge parade in Moscow and it's forecast heavy rain you might try and seed the clouds so it rained 20-30 miles away.

**Claims that invariably turn out to be without an ounce of truth, or turn out to be based on a complete misunderstanding of normal events, for example when making a film there will be a vast number of people involved, simple stats say X number will die of various things, Y number will likely get married/divorced and Z number will have kids (the Poltergeist myth from memory claimed they had a lot of unusual deaths, when in reality they were within the statistical norm for the number of people, type of jobs and time period involved).
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2006
Posts
8,537
What sort of weather manipulation?

It's been known for decades that for example you can potentially cause rain to fall earlier by "seeding it" with certain materials (basically to cause the moisture to join with the material and thus fall earlier than it would have done), the Soviets and Chinese were using it in the 50's and 60's to try and stop it raining on their parades (literally), but it only works under specific circumstances (IE the rain is going to fall, you just cause it to call a few miles early*), and was very expensive and obvious to do (IIRC it used a fleet of converted bombers).

There are all sorts of other theoretical ways to affect the weather, but pretty much all of them are massively obvious and either impossible to do with current tech or basically, like cloud seeding not worth it except maybe for vanity or demonstration purposes (there is no earthquake ray, or hurricane gun mounted on a 747).

but when I watched him as a teenager it wasn't that the mainstream media said 'Well, theres an element of truth but we want to give you the truth without the CT spin, here it is', It's that they throw the baby out with the bath water and then decades later preach about it as though it's common knowledge.

Jones like moist CT peddlers who make a living out of it tend to have just enough plausibility in their nonsense to make it seem possible, and often there might be a few minor truths that they take out of context and exaggerate (for example the whole "people die around the Clintons" is on a par with the old "the filming of the Poltergiest is cursed, look at this list of people who died"**).
The weather manipulation is a good example, they take the "ooh they made it rain early" (when it worked) and turn it into "they direct hurricanes to attack the poor people in X" or "they cause a drought", as is whole chemtrails nonsense "you see those white trails after jets, they're spraying mind control chemicals, you can tell because it looks like my pappy's crop duster did when he used to fly over our house spraying pesticides whilst I ate my wheetos"

And I completely agree, which is why I haven't watched since I was a teenager. I did try to convey that in my post :p, teenagers will believe anything!
 
Soldato
Joined
26 May 2009
Posts
22,101
what possible preconceived ideas could I have about something like weather manipulation, I'd never heard of it until Alex Jones reported on it and at the time you could get very little information
You mean you never saw the episode of He-Man where he defeated the invincible Grimalkin with rain, by throwing a salt rich boulder into the sky after pausing to explain to the audience that when salt particles are introduced to moisture-laden clouds, rain is produced?

Sad times :( :p

Seriously though this is basic science and it's been done for ~80 years with varying degrees of success (most recent high profile one was Russia using it to condense rain clouds before they reached the Olympic stadium).
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2006
Posts
8,537
You mean you never saw the episode of He-Man where he defeated the invincible Grimalkin with rain, by throwing a salt rich boulder into the sky after pausing to explain to the audience that when salt particles are introduced to moisture-laden clouds, rain is produced?

Sad times :( :p

Seriously though this is basic science and it's been done for ~80 years with varying degrees of success (most recent high profile one was Russia using it to condense rain clouds before they reached the Olympic stadium).

/sigh
 
Back
Top Bottom