Media/Journalism Cringe Megathread - Hot off the Presses

[AnimalNoodles]

There is a rising ecological right. Its very different from the green left tho, and is concerned as much with human environments as with forests.

Guys like WrathofGnon have done a great deal to promote healthy urbanism to the the right in a non-gay, non-feminised, non-hippydippy way.

Tear down the fucking brutalist shit infesting our cities and put up buildings made to last that people want to live in, impose social order so people will be happier to take buses, and build actual affordable neighbourhoods were people can live, shop and work within walking distance. Do this and people will stop fleeing to the white refugee camps we call suburbs. This will greatly improve the physical and social environment of our cities.

The old reaganite "alt.pave-the-world" style conservatism is dead end. Time to return to the true conservatism that existed before the libertarian takeover. This was conservatism that hated the brutalist assault on our cities AND wanted to preserve forests, animals and clean drinking water.

 

[Sobek]

The biggest obstacle to the ecological right is how thoroughly the ecologic left owns the field. Any attempt to do good by the Planet and nature has to go through them and they WILL try and inject their own bullshit into it.

 

[Bacle]

The biggest obstacle to the ecological right is how thoroughly the ecologic left owns the field. Any attempt to do good by the Planet and nature has to go through them and they WILL try and inject their own bullshit into it.

And yet when people like me try to get the Right into the mindset of trying to take the convo away from the Left by actually acknowledging issues, so sane solutions can be presented (instead of the unicorn farces or badly hidden overreach ideas, or racial-justice motivated bullshit more recently), we usually get shouted down for even admitting issues may exist and that they need addressing.

We rarely even get to the point of being able to discuss alternate solutions or methods to handle things, because much of the Right sees any discussion of larger environmental issues that transcend borders as pure rad green territory and kneejerk resist even discussing it, so the Left continues to dominate the discourse around what can or should be done about issues.

Trump was a breath of fresh air in that he was willing to sit down and go 'ok, what can we reasonably or practically do about this or that issue', instead of deny issues existed.

 

[LordsFire]

And yet when people like me try to get the Right into the mindset of trying to take the convo away from the Left by actually acknowledging issues, so sane solutions can be presented (instead of the unicorn farces or badly hidden overreach ideas, or racial-justice motivated bullshit more recently), we usually get shouted down for even admitting issues may exist and that they need addressing.

We rarely even get to the point of being able to discuss alternate solutions or methods to handle things, because much of the Right sees any discussion of larger environmental issues that transcend borders as pure rad green territory and kneejerk resist even discussing it, so the Left continues to dominate the discourse around what can or should be done about issues.

Trump was a breath of fresh air in that he was willing to sit down and go 'ok, what can we reasonably or practically do about this or that issue', instead of deny issues existed.

Again, nothing but nonsense.

The right will engage in discussion on the issue. We have on this thread, but the left (and you still believing their narrative lies) simply refuse to see anything other than accepting their premises and arguments blindly as 'engaging in the conversation.'

And the mainstream media, as usual, trumpets their position repeatedly to the point where it becomes the accepted wisdom for much of the public.


The reason for this is simple; every time the left actually does engage in a debate on this issue (like every other issue), they get completely wrecked, and proven to be at best purveyors of nonsense, and far more often blatant liars and power-mongers. They can't have an honest debate on the issue, because if they do, they lose. So as with their standard operation procedure, they just declare that they won the argument, and start attacking the character of their opponents, regardless of the facts.


The political right hasn't just been willing, but has been having conversations on the issue for decades. We just refuse to call lies the truth, and for that the left will endlessly claim we aren't willing to engage.

 

[Cherico]

Again, nothing but nonsense.

The right will engage in discussion on the issue. We have on this thread, but the left (and you still believing their narrative lies) simply refuse to see anything other than accepting their premises and arguments blindly as 'engaging in the conversation.'

And the mainstream media, as usual, trumpets their position repeatedly to the point where it becomes the accepted wisdom for much of the public.


The reason for this is simple; every time the left actually does engage in a debate on this issue (like every other issue), they get completely wrecked, and proven to be at best purveyors of nonsense, and far more often blatant liars and power-mongers. They can't have an honest debate on the issue, because if they do, they lose. So as with their standard operation procedure, they just declare that they won the argument, and start attacking the character of their opponents, regardless of the facts.


The political right hasn't just been willing, but has been having conversations on the issue for decades. We just refuse to call lies the truth, and for that the left will endlessly claim we aren't willing to engage.

essentally most people in the right tend to see the environment as nuanced issue that's actually pretty fucking complicated with mulitple solutions, while a lot of socialists see it as a black and white issue with themselves as the heroes of their own story.

The later doesn't make for good policy.

 

[bintananth]

essentally most people in the right tend to see the environment as nuanced issue that's actually pretty fucking complicated with mulitple solutions, while a lot of socialists see it as a black and white issue with themselves as the heroes of their own story.

The later doesn't make for good policy.

I wouldn't say left vs. right in this regard. It's more a matter of "smart vs. stupid" and both sides are idiots.

 

[Cherico]

I wouldn't say left vs. right in this regard. It's more a matter of "smart vs. stupid" and both sides are idiots.

I said socialist not left. I admit you have regular democrats that are able to think on the issue.

 

[bintananth]

I said socialist not left. I admit you have regular democrats that are able to think on the issue.

Socialists are not the left or the right imo. They're the ones who say "this cheque needs to be written, here's how much it'll cost, and here's who gets to foot the bill". In my experience most actual socialists won't ever say they're socialists.

 

[Captain X]

Guardian 'Person of the Year' Poll Stopped After J.K. Rowling Takes Lead

An online poll conducted by the staunchly left Guardian newspaper seeking nominations for "Person of the Year" has been turned off because...

www.breitbart.com

 

[Sobek]

"You are not suposed to vote for the wrong people! Play along or we won't let you vote!"

 

[Cherico]

"You are not suposed to vote for the wrong people! Play along or we won't let you vote!"

yeah we have seen a lot of that havent we? real big fans of democracy until they dont get their way.

 

[Bassoe]

Wow. Talk about the reason why we can’t have nice things.

Also why gatekeeping is deadly important in more then just fandoms.

Once again leftoids destroy a perfectly reasonable and good thing. They are chaos cultists in all but name. I have some ideas on how to deal with them, but can't share them.

See also Kopimism. The basic idea is sound, that the weakness of modern wokeism is that it tolerates religions which are against every single other piece of its ideology (so long as they're not Christianity anyway), therefore by camouflaging secular goals in a homemade religion, wokeism can't fight against them without breaking their own rules. It doesn't actually work that well since wokeism doesn't follow its own rules, but the theory is sound.

Anyway, that's the semi-coherent explanation for how we ended up with a bunch of neckbeards dressing in red robes with white cogstooth trim while calling the You-Will-Own-Nothingists hereteks for their attempts at removing backwards compatibility in the name of the subscription economy.

 

[Bear Ribs]

So, The Guardian ran a Person of the Year poll. JK Rowling was overwhelmingly in the lead. As she is now evil and nasty and against all things good and transgender, The Guardian couldn't have that and canceled the poll rather than let someone who dared to say a penised rapist was a man get recognition.

The Guardian Deleted Their ‘Person of the Year’ Poll as J.K. Rowling Took the Lead | TIMCAST

An online poll from The Guardian seeking nominations for their

timcast.com

Here's where it starts getting funny. In an effort to Deboonk the idea that Rowling could possibly have won, Newsweek ran a hit piece explaining that the poll in question never existed, and The Guardian doesn't even do that whole "Person of the Year" thing anyway so this was all just fake news.

No, J.K. Rowling Did Not Win a 2021 'Person of the Year' Poll

The Guardian has dismissed claims that a poll was pulled after it appeared J.K. Rowling was set to win its "Person of the Year" poll.

www.newsweek.com

A Guardian News and Media spokesperson informed Newsweek that there was no poll and dismissed comments from social media.

The spokesperson said: "Contrary to what you may have read on Twitter, there was no poll, and the Guardian does not run a person of the year feature.

Tell us: who is your 2021 person of the year?

Time Magazine chose billionaire Tesla boss Elon Musk – but who would be your choice?

www.theguardian.com

Guardian readers nominate their person of the year

From the frontline of Covid to inspirational sports personalities, our worldwide audience name their choices

www.theguardian.com

#$&! Should have double-checked that all the lies were straight before The Guardian contradicted the deboonkers and let slip what happened. Or, y'know, journalists could tell the truth instead of producing nothing but spin and fake news but that's pretty extreme, really unreasonable to expect from a media news company. But ultimately it's really all about letting the common person have a vote in that poll...

But only as long as people vote for candidates The Guardian approves of... otherwise it's just wrong.

 

[gral]

Tell us: who is your 2021 person of the year?

Time Magazine chose billionaire Tesla boss Elon Musk – but who would be your choice?

www.theguardian.com

Guardian readers nominate their person of the year

From the frontline of Covid to inspirational sports personalities, our worldwide audience name their choices

www.theguardian.com

The funniest thing about this is Time did an internet poll about who should be the 2021 Person of the Year, while hinting the internet choice would be the one Time would choose to feature.

Except the HUEHUE Boys found about the poll.

And Jair Bolsonaro won it by an overwhelming margin.

About 10 days after the end of the poll(during which first it was stridently denied the poll result would count towards the magazine's choice, and later the poll ceased to be mentioned), Time displayed Elon Musk on its cover...

... and The Guardian goes and does the same stupid mistake...

 

[Sobek]

Not the first time Time got outvoted by trolls. Chris Poole won the vote back in 2007 I think because 4chan found out about it.

 

[TheRejectionist]

Saying it was exaggerated is not a denier. Some people have a real warped idea of how many died in "The Holocaust". But don't get me started on soviet purges vs The Holocaust and Jewish victims vs Slavs, the disabled, and those deemed irredeemably insane/perverted like homosexuals. Somehow it's all about Jewish people all the time until you get to actual numbers killed, then they are happy to throw all the other corpses on the pile.

In classes, I knew about the number of the Holocaust.

But I didn't know how many Soviets died in it.

I personally we should talk about that, more than the Holocaust. The latter is/was basically an industry through movies,book,tv shows and other media.

What do Ukranians, Russians, Belarusians, Tatars, Armenians and others get ?

Nothing except the movies they make in their countries.

I am no Stalinist , just to be clear.

B/C the USSR (and now Russia) as well as the CCP spend lots of money to quiet the talk of their purges.

I would say that Russians are very much ambivalent on the subject of the purges. If Russia was a person you would here phrases like this :

• It was like that
• I was terrified
• It was great
• I ended up in a gulag
• If they ended up in a gulag they deserved ! (there is a video that demonstrate this point of mine)
• If they ended up in a gulag , they didn't deserved it ! (even though that one who didn't deserve it was a thief in law)
• I miss the Soviet Union
• I miss the few good things of the Soviet Union

 

[Bacle]

 

[Sobek]

Of course they banned her. Can't have a dissenter among the "enlightened". She still has her Gab, uses it frequently.

 

[Cherico]

Of course they banned her. Can't have a dissenter among the "enlightened". She still has her Gab, uses it frequently.

they banned her but this as per the case against trump might be incredibly illegal.

 

[Sobek]

they banned her but this as per the case against trump might be incredibly illegal.

Doesn't matter that it's illegal when the courts are packed on their favour and no one will sue. Even if they do sue, like mention the packed court and absurd levels of lawyer BS will keep it from doing anything.