Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Goonerview, Apr 6, 2018.
Do we have a deal or do you retract your statement?
Can you imagine if gangs of white men were raping Muslim girls on industrial scales?
The country would be on lockdown
What's your argument? Pllease state it in as simple a form as possible.
There are no double standards and all races are treated equally by the media.
Is this what you think?
If you believe what you wrote, you'd agree. If you don't, you'd retract, if you have shame.
It's been a relatively short exchange. Go back and read from the beginning.
Read my posts. Respond to what's written in them.
It's not hard.
I want to respond to you, but I want your argument in a clear, concise statement.
My argument is this:
the MSM are blatantly biased to left-wing ideologues that like to create divisions based on race and try to get minories to blame white people for their strife.
downplaying of muslim rape gangs, clock boy, George Zimmerman, hands up don't shoot fiasco, buzzfeed, huffpost, downplaying of South African racism towards whites ... to name but a few ... all of it,
My argument in this thread:
the reason why Crowder, Molyneux etc. get so many views online is because people can clearly see the double standards presented by the MSM.
My argument is the media is broad and diverse and the evidence is not all outlets treat all issues the same.
The reason the individuals you mentioned are popular is not because they are unbiased, but rather they appeal to the lowest common denominator and tribalistic instincts. Example, Crowders views on clkmate change, healthcare, AIDs.
You made a demonstrably false claim in this thread. I'm asking you to stand by it and agree to an account bet if you do, or retract it.
What claim did I make that was false?
The media isn't diverse enough, bbc, cnn, yahoo, all are left wing.
That the BBC didn't cover a certain topic when they did.
I like how you ignored my post though. Good job.
Not one mention of the word Muslim ... NOT ONE!
You seem to think the media is unbiased and impartial.
If the reverse happened, i.e. if white men were raping Muslim women in their thousands, you think the media wouldn't mention their race??
Any youtube channel with a lot of subsribiners would be resonating with a lot of people. That says nothing about the quality of their content though. Britany spears could release a political youtube channel tommorow and get millions of subscribers. Whilst a nobel prize winning economist or world renowed political scienists could create a channel and be lucky to get 100k subscribers. It's dissapointing but that's the way it is. Capitalism rules in our society.
I'm done with you. You refuse to engage with the points raised, but prefer to change topics and ignore the posts you quote.
What is the point of engaging? Seriously?
Good point. Sad but true. I love me some capitalism tho
You can't like it too much though. Government regulation is a great thing. Without a powerful government and regulation you'd have 12 year old girls selling their semi-nude photo's to the highest bidder along with open borders for the capitalists to get cheap labor. That's basically how the libertarian ideology will play out in the real world.
I'm not gonna get into the nuances of libertarian ideology with you. Most libertarians can't even agree with how things would or should look. I'm not even sure I'm libertarian anyways. I don't like any of these labels because people assume way too much about you. The one label I'm willing to give myself is conservative.
What makes you think the government (federal level) needs to be involved with regulating citizens lives?
Wasn't slavery outlawed at the federal level due to states wanting the right to literally own people?
Probably my favorite part of that awesome movie. Good usage too
No. It means women are airheads.
Yep. Is this where you act like I support slavery by supporting states rights to govern themselves?
Separate names with a comma.