B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

That's kind of amazing or boldface profiteering and polictical BS. Networks again covering Trump crap in detail because it drives rating. The networks made YUUGE profits off the Trump reality show. Several CEO (like Moonves) even stated it in the open...something to the effect, "He might be bad for the country but he's making bank.". Utter bullbleep and typical corporately own media.

Who would win a The Most Arrogant Punchable Face Contest, the Alt Catholic or Savannah?*



*Naturally, a woman winner of the contest would be punched by Cyborg

ducky23 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'd recommend watching the full, uncut video of the incident:




My takeaways:

1. There wasn't any violence here, just some chanting and ranting.
2. It's a stretch to say Phillips got "in the kid's face" as some conservatives have claimed. He walked near the crowd and kept banging his drum, then one of the kids with a MAGA hat decided to stand very close to him (hence the photo op).
3. The kids DO start doing some racist stuff as the drumming continues, including the damned Tomahawk Chop. They might not have been dangerous, but they do seem to be ******bags.
4. The Black Israelites (not "Black Muslims" as the kid's mom thought) are also considered an extremist religious group by the SPLC and shouldn't be considered any friend of the left.

---

I agree with a lot of this
1.) There's nothing wrong with wearing a MAGA hat but if you do that in DC you are going to catch some ***** You are either going to have to own that, fight or leave. The "chaperones" are f$cking clueless in preparing these kids.




I

---

This is my biggest takeaway as well. I've said it before, but I don't blame the students as much as I blame the parents/teachers etc

Look, you want to go as a school for a pro-life rally, go ahead. You even want to wear a pro-life t-shirt, by all means.

But a MAGA hat represents a lot more things than just being pro-life, especially in DC. And by wearing those hats, those kids know EXACTLY what they are doing (just like they know exactly what they're doing going to a game in black face).

A bunch of white kids don't go around wearing MAGA hats
unless they are looking for attention. Are looking to troll people.

And you know what, they are kids. That's somewhat understandable (though completely misguided)

What's not forgivable is what the hell are the parents doing? If you care at all about the safety of your kid, do you allow them to parade around DC chanting and wearing MAGA hats.

Sure they have a right to do so. But is it smart? Is that what a responsible parent does? Would I allow my kid to wear a Malcolm X hat around the south?

---

MAGA hat in Berkeley equals a Malcom X hat in Alabama? Right.

blungld said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

blungld said:

---

Whoever started or whatever the surrounding context, all I need to see is that kid's face. I could write an entire essay on what that face symbolizes and the dangerous psychology it embodies, but this is a better job than I could do. The line that his face says "I will always win" nails it: That face.

I can only hope that he some day reaches a place of true shame about his younger self.

---

The Slate article you've linked is grossly misrepresenting what went down:

Quote:

---

A video clip of a white teenager harassing a Native American elder instantly became one of the most viscerally enraging images of an era that has offered no shortage of them.

In the clip, captured during the Indigenous Peoples March in Washington on Friday, an elderly Native American man beats a drum and quietly sings, and a small group of activists and allies can be seen in the crowd behind him

---

Slate is clearly lying, they imply that the elderly man was quietly beating a drum and got accosted by a bunch of racist white teens, when in fact the video posted above showed that it was the drummer and his group that came up to the crowd of teenagers, and that the drummer invaded the personal space of the kid with the MAGA hat, propping up his drum and stroking it an inch or two from the kid's face. This was a pretty confrontational move on his part, his group was seeking confrontation with the pro-life HS kids.

The kid was also confrontational in a passive-aggressive way, standing his ground and smirking, but he did not initiate this face-off, nor did he or his mates block the group of protestors that came up to them.



When you say "all you need to see is the kid's face" in order to decide who is guilty, it really shows your personal prejudices; the white flyover Trump supporter kid is of course automatically guilty.

Here's the statement from this kid, Nick Sandmann, about this incident, he actually comes across as a pretty well-adjusted young man:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/20/us/covington-kentucky-student-statement/index.html?ofs=fbia

---

My statement wasn't about who is "guilty" or who "started it." I thought I made that clear. I don't know that. What I do know is how the kid presented himself and what that body language and smirk means. No after the fact press release changes what he thought was appropriate in the moment, what it meant to his boys, and the other options he chose not to pursue. You can say all sweetly that I was just standing there, but no he wasn't just standing there. Like the third grader who claims "I'm not touching you" isn't just not touching you.

---

He was just standing there, that much is clear in the videos.

You're basically accusing that kid of facecrime, which is in Newspeak, the act of being guilty of a thought crime based on his facial expression.

kelly09 said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'd recommend watching the full, uncut video of the incident:




My takeaways:

1. There wasn't any violence here, just some chanting and ranting.
2. It's a stretch to say Phillips got "in the kid's face" as some conservatives have claimed. He walked near the crowd and kept banging his drum, then one of the kids with a MAGA hat decided to stand very close to him (hence the photo op).
3. The kids DO start doing some racist stuff as the drumming continues, including the damned Tomahawk Chop. They might not have been dangerous, but they do seem to be ******bags.
4. The Black Israelites (not "Black Muslims" as the kid's mom thought) are also considered an extremist religious group by the SPLC and shouldn't be considered any friend of the left.

---

I agree with a lot of this
1.) There's nothing wrong with wearing a MAGA hat but if you do that in DC you are going to catch some ***** You are either going to have to own that, fight or leave. The "chaperones" are f$cking clueless in preparing these kids.




I

---

This is my biggest takeaway as well. I've said it before, but I don't blame the students as much as I blame the parents/teachers etc

Look, you want to go as a school for a pro-life rally, go ahead. You even want to wear a pro-life t-shirt, by all means.

But a MAGA hat represents a lot more things than just being pro-life, especially in DC. And by wearing those hats, those kids know EXACTLY what they are doing (just like they know exactly what they're doing going to a game in black face).

A bunch of white kids don't go around wearing MAGA hats
unless they are looking for attention. Are looking to troll people.

And you know what, they are kids. That's somewhat understandable (though completely misguided)

What's not forgivable is what the hell are the parents doing? If you care at all about the safety of your kid, do you allow them to parade around DC chanting and wearing MAGA hats.

Sure they have a right to do so. But is it smart? Is that what a responsible parent does? Would I allow my kid to wear a Malcolm X hat around the south?

---

MAGA hat in Berkeley equals a Malcom X hat in Alabama? Right.

---

I'm not quite sure what your argument is. And I also don't know where I said a MAGA hat in Berkeley equals a Malcolm x hat in Alabama, but I digress.

In the early 90's (right after the movie came out) Malcolm X hats were extremely fashionable and socially acceptable. http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-22/news/vw-159_1_x-cap Half the people wearing them didn't really know who Malcolm X was, but that does not change the fact that the hats were socially acceptable.

Now if a bunch of white kids wore a MAGA hat in Compton, how long do you think they would last? (Someone wearing a Malcolm x hat in Compton may not last long either, not cause anyone would be offended by a Malcolm x hat, but because wearing one would be so passe.)

No matter what you personally think of trump or Malcolm x is not the issue. It's how they are perceived in different cultures and environments. And I don't think anyone can argue a white MAGA hat wearing kid is not going to be well received in certain neighborhoods. Just like someone wearing a Malcolm x hat probably wouldn't be well received in certain neighborhoods.

The point being, you may view a MAGA hat much more benignly than a Malcolm x hat. And some other person may view a Malcolm x way more benignly than a MAGA hat. Different strokes for different folks man.

I hope O'Kelly09 doesn't get too much black paint on his brown shirt!

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'd recommend watching the full, uncut video of the incident:




My takeaways:

1. There wasn't any violence here, just some chanting and ranting.
2. It's a stretch to say Phillips got "in the kid's face" as some conservatives have claimed. He walked near the crowd and kept banging his drum, then one of the kids with a MAGA hat decided to stand very close to him (hence the photo op).
3. The kids DO start doing some racist stuff as the drumming continues, including the damned Tomahawk Chop. They might not have been dangerous, but they do seem to be ******bags.
4. The Black Israelites (not "Black Muslims" as the kid's mom thought) are also considered an extremist religious group by the SPLC and shouldn't be considered any friend of the left.

---

I agree with a lot of this
1.) There's nothing wrong with wearing a MAGA hat but if you do that in DC you are going to catch some ***** You are either going to have to own that, fight or leave. The "chaperones" are f$cking clueless in preparing these kids.

Also a lot of the kids actions- the chants- are rituals done because they are out of their comfort zone maybe scared, so they return to familiar rituals
2.) In some ways this is a clash of religion- three of them doing what religions do- yell and spew hate at each other- without any attempt at discourse.
3.) I think Phillips move is consistent with a culture where elders and rituals are revered. But he's in the wrong crowd at the wrong moment. Again, it's here is my thing..believe in it. Funny enough it worked!

The stare down kid's actions were different but I don't read them as menace- just holding ground and posing- kid has some balls but no empathy.

4. The Black Hebrews are racist and anti Semitic but not violent. Also I don't consider them leftists

The biggest takeaway. Mind your own f$ckin business!

---

- From the videos I've seen, the kids were heckled relentlessly by the group of Black Hebrews, a lot of vile and racist insults.They're a bit more aggressive than your basic Sproul characters, they're active in NYC, Philly and DC, so they're not well known in CA.

- This Philips guy is a habitual liar and a professional protestor, more along the lines of a Running Wolf than an honorable Native American activist. He lied about his military background, calling himself a "recon ranger", insinuating that he was in combat, and that he served in Vietnam. He was widely portrayed as a Vietnam vet in the MSM, when in fact he only served as an electrician and fridge repairman in Topeka and Lincoln, Neb.

- Philips also lied about wanting to intercede in order to diffuse the situation, he walked from afar with his group directly into the HS contingent who had been standing at the steps waiting for their bus home, and Philips was in their face along with his companions, some of whom were verbally hostile to the kids, telling them to "go back to Europe". Not exactly the mature, peaceful elder trying to diffuse the situation...

Philips also BSed about being in grave danger among the kids, as reported in the MSM. He never was in any kind of danger, and he was never blocked from disengaging the Covington High contingent. This kind of bull**** is very reminiscent of the type of crap and tactics Running Wolf pulled in the tree protest. Philips has had a history of seeking out confrontation with students, he has had a similar mediatized run-in with Eastern Michigan U. students, who had allegedly assaulted him in 2015.

-The kid that faced off with Philips, Nick Sandmann, did not walk up to Philips, he was standing on the steps and did not move while his schoolmates moved away and parted to make way for Philips and his group, who came towards them. Philips could have gone around Sandmann, he chose instead to pull up his drum in the kid's face and bang it. Sandmann moved away after about two minutes once the verbal altercation between Philips' younger companion and a HS student escalated a bit.

Cal88 said:

---

blungld said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

blungld said:

---

Whoever started or whatever the surrounding context, all I need to see is that kid's face. I could write an entire essay on what that face symbolizes and the dangerous psychology it embodies, but this is a better job than I could do. The line that his face says "I will always win" nails it: That face.

I can only hope that he some day reaches a place of true shame about his younger self.

---

The Slate article you've linked is grossly misrepresenting what went down:

Quote:

---

A video clip of a white teenager harassing a Native American elder instantly became one of the most viscerally enraging images of an era that has offered no shortage of them.

In the clip, captured during the Indigenous Peoples March in Washington on Friday, an elderly Native American man beats a drum and quietly sings, and a small group of activists and allies can be seen in the crowd behind him

---

Slate is clearly lying, they imply that the elderly man was quietly beating a drum and got accosted by a bunch of racist white teens, when in fact the video posted above showed that it was the drummer and his group that came up to the crowd of teenagers, and that the drummer invaded the personal space of the kid with the MAGA hat, propping up his drum and stroking it an inch or two from the kid's face. This was a pretty confrontational move on his part, his group was seeking confrontation with the pro-life HS kids.

The kid was also confrontational in a passive-aggressive way, standing his ground and smirking, but he did not initiate this face-off, nor did he or his mates block the group of protestors that came up to them.



When you say "all you need to see is the kid's face" in order to decide who is guilty, it really shows your personal prejudices; the white flyover Trump supporter kid is of course automatically guilty.

Here's the statement from this kid, Nick Sandmann, about this incident, he actually comes across as a pretty well-adjusted young man:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/20/us/covington-kentucky-student-statement/index.html?ofs=fbia

---

My statement wasn't about who is "guilty" or who "started it." I thought I made that clear. I don't know that. What I do know is how the kid presented himself and what that body language and smirk means. No after the fact press release changes what he thought was appropriate in the moment, what it meant to his boys, and the other options he chose not to pursue. You can say all sweetly that I was just standing there, but no he wasn't just standing there. Like the third grader who claims "I'm not touching you" isn't just not touching you.

---

He was just standing there, that much is clear in the videos.

You're basically accusing that kid of facecrime, which is in Newspeak, the act of being guilty of a thought crime based on his facial expression.

---

I will say it again real slow, I made no accusation of guilt or crime or responsibility or who started it. I described body language and facial expressions as an indication of the person he appeared to be and what he represents. I could be wrong about those things. I am pretty sure that I am not.

Blueblood said:

---

I hope O'Kelly09 doesn't get too much black paint on his brown shirt!

---

Yep, BB< you pegged me....I'm a Nazi.

going4roses said:

---

---

Wow, they really thought this interview was going to come off well for the kid. He looks like a damn robot.

offshorebear said:

---

Both sides(here and everywhere) need to wake up, take a step back from social media, and elevate this conversation.

This is a non story pushed by agents of chaos to manipulate you. The Twitter account that pushed the original video for 2.5+ million views and 15,000 retweets was ostensibly registered to a female schoolteacher from California. But upon inspection, it ends up the account is actually run by someone likely using a VPN to route through Brazil, was created in December 2016, and has tweeted over 130 times per day since the beginning of this year trying to get stories like this to stick. This is the MO of the Internet Research Agency - sowing discord between the left and the right and stoking racial tensions. It could be them or any of a hundred others with the same goals funded by the same or similar groups.

Domestically, the political talking points we are exposed to and think we have arrived at holistically come out of privately funded domestic think tanks - free speech on campuses, antifa, abortion rights, trickle down, Muslim terrorism, stealing our guns, anti drug pronpharma propaganda etc etc - all manufactured in these think tanks and spread by memo through the parties and their mouthpieces in the media and advertising. Foreign actors used to have to infiltrate this system to have influence in the US. Most obvious recent example is Russia infiltrating NRA, which is just one case in 10,000 of this happening.

Now Facebook and Twitter has opened a whole new world for those foreign actors to manipulate us. We know this for a fact. This story is an example. Please stop falling for this.

---

There was a pretty good article the other day on Social Media's impact on democracy's yesterday:

Quote:

---

Social media can certainly help pro-democracy movements at times, but they overall give far-right parties and authoritarians an advantage. These platforms, once seen as democracy's ally, have increasingly become its enemy.

It is easier to spread misinformation on social media than to correct it, and easier to inflame social divisions than to mend them. The very nature of how we engage with Facebook and the rest now helps far-right, authoritarian factions weaken the foundations of democratic systems and even give themselves an easier pathway to seizing power.

It seems we have to admit a somewhat uncomfortable truth: Social media, in the way that it's used now, is an authoritarian medium.

---

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/22/18177076/social-media-facebook-far-right-authoritarian-populism

The article traces how researchers have changed their opinion from the Arab Spring days to today's iteration.

I've always felt that if someone is trying to get you to be angry or emotional they are trying to get you to turn off the logical part of your brain, because they know that when logic is turned off, stupid and rash fills the void.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/controversy-students-mock-native-american-strikes-national-chord?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/how-conservative-media-transformed-the-covington-catholic-students-from-pariahs-to-heroes?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

kelly09 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

I hope O'Kelly09 doesn't get too much black paint on his brown shirt!

---

Yep, BB< you pegged me....I'm a Nazi.

---

Finally, real, not fake, news! But, hey, I'm only joshing you. I think you'd look better in your white hood.

bearister said:

---

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/controversy-students-mock-native-american-strikes-national-chord?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/how-conservative-media-transformed-the-covington-catholic-students-from-pariahs-to-heroes?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

That second link is interesting. You can see how the selective focus works with Cal88's arguments here. Yes, some of what he says is true. Nothing technically false. But also notice that he's somehow completely left out the fact that the Covington kids started doing things like Maori war chants and the literal Tomahawk Chop (this after the Native American activists walked up to them), or some of the other videos that have emerged of them being rude to passing women.

Sure, the narrative has gotten more complicated as more details have emerged. I also wouldn't say the bulk of the videos make the Covington kids look like good kids.

golden sloth said:

---

offshorebear said:

---

Both sides(here and everywhere) need to wake up, take a step back from social media, and elevate this conversation.

This is a non story pushed by agents of chaos to manipulate you. The Twitter account that pushed the original video for 2.5+ million views and 15,000 retweets was ostensibly registered to a female schoolteacher from California. But upon inspection, it ends up the account is actually run by someone likely using a VPN to route through Brazil, was created in December 2016, and has tweeted over 130 times per day since the beginning of this year trying to get stories like this to stick. This is the MO of the Internet Research Agency - sowing discord between the left and the right and stoking racial tensions. It could be them or any of a hundred others with the same goals funded by the same or similar groups.

Domestically, the political talking points we are exposed to and think we have arrived at holistically come out of privately funded domestic think tanks - free speech on campuses, antifa, abortion rights, trickle down, Muslim terrorism, stealing our guns, anti drug pronpharma propaganda etc etc - all manufactured in these think tanks and spread by memo through the parties and their mouthpieces in the media and advertising. Foreign actors used to have to infiltrate this system to have influence in the US. Most obvious recent example is Russia infiltrating NRA, which is just one case in 10,000 of this happening.

Now Facebook and Twitter has opened a whole new world for those foreign actors to manipulate us. We know this for a fact. This story is an example. Please stop falling for this.

---

There was a pretty good article the other day on Social Media's impact on democracy's yesterday:

Quote:

---

Social media can certainly help pro-democracy movements at times, but they overall give far-right parties and authoritarians an advantage. These platforms, once seen as democracy's ally, have increasingly become its enemy.

It is easier to spread misinformation on social media than to correct it, and easier to inflame social divisions than to mend them. The very nature of how we engage with Facebook and the rest now helps far-right, authoritarian factions weaken the foundations of democratic systems and even give themselves an easier pathway to seizing power.

It seems we have to admit a somewhat uncomfortable truth: Social media, in the way that it's used now, is an authoritarian medium.

---

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/22/18177076/social-media-facebook-far-right-authoritarian-populism

The article traces how researchers have changed their opinion from the Arab Spring days to today's iteration.

I've always felt that if someone is trying to get you to be angry or emotional they are trying to get you to turn off the logical part of your brain, because they know that when logic is turned off, stupid and rash fills the void.

---

I think about this. I'm not sure if it's so much that social media itself ACTUALLY gives an advantage to right-wing populists so much as they've figured out how to game the system more quickly.

I definitely think that social media favors populism in general, but it may be that the left-wing populists just hadn't gotten their s*** together until very recently.

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

offshorebear said:

---

Both sides(here and everywhere) need to wake up, take a step back from social media, and elevate this conversation.

This is a non story pushed by agents of chaos to manipulate you. The Twitter account that pushed the original video for 2.5+ million views and 15,000 retweets was ostensibly registered to a female schoolteacher from California. But upon inspection, it ends up the account is actually run by someone likely using a VPN to route through Brazil, was created in December 2016, and has tweeted over 130 times per day since the beginning of this year trying to get stories like this to stick. This is the MO of the Internet Research Agency - sowing discord between the left and the right and stoking racial tensions. It could be them or any of a hundred others with the same goals funded by the same or similar groups.

Domestically, the political talking points we are exposed to and think we have arrived at holistically come out of privately funded domestic think tanks - free speech on campuses, antifa, abortion rights, trickle down, Muslim terrorism, stealing our guns, anti drug pronpharma propaganda etc etc - all manufactured in these think tanks and spread by memo through the parties and their mouthpieces in the media and advertising. Foreign actors used to have to infiltrate this system to have influence in the US. Most obvious recent example is Russia infiltrating NRA, which is just one case in 10,000 of this happening.

Now Facebook and Twitter has opened a whole new world for those foreign actors to manipulate us. We know this for a fact. This story is an example. Please stop falling for this.

---

There was a pretty good article the other day on Social Media's impact on democracy's yesterday:

Quote:

---

Social media can certainly help pro-democracy movements at times, but they overall give far-right parties and authoritarians an advantage. These platforms, once seen as democracy's ally, have increasingly become its enemy.

It is easier to spread misinformation on social media than to correct it, and easier to inflame social divisions than to mend them. The very nature of how we engage with Facebook and the rest now helps far-right, authoritarian factions weaken the foundations of democratic systems and even give themselves an easier pathway to seizing power.

It seems we have to admit a somewhat uncomfortable truth: Social media, in the way that it's used now, is an authoritarian medium.

---

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/22/18177076/social-media-facebook-far-right-authoritarian-populism

The article traces how researchers have changed their opinion from the Arab Spring days to today's iteration.

I've always felt that if someone is trying to get you to be angry or emotional they are trying to get you to turn off the logical part of your brain, because they know that when logic is turned off, stupid and rash fills the void.

---

I think about this. I'm not sure if it's so much that social media itself ACTUALLY gives an advantage to right-wing populists so much as they've figured out how to game the system more quickly.

I definitely think that social media favors populism in general, but it may be that the left-wing populists just hadn't gotten their s*** together until very recently.

---

That is a fair point, particularly with regards to populism as it lets you create the 'us vrs them' battle. The only additional point I want to make is with regards to the consumption of misinformation. Right-wing conservatives consume and distribute disproportionately more misinformation than their left-wing counterparts, though really the problem is with old people (which I find ironic as they comprise my parent's generation, who taught me to not believe everything I read).

Quote:

---

The researchers found that the vast majority of users didn't share fake news during the 2016 election only 8.5 percent of the users studied shared at least one link from a fake news site. But 18 percent of Republicans shared fake news, compared to under 4 percent of Democrats. Independents shared about as much fake news as Republicans, and users who identified themselves as "very conservative" shared the most fake news.

When ideology was scrapped and the study just focused on age, they found that older users were much likelier to share fake news. The over-65 group shared almost seven times as many fake news articles on Facebook than users ages 30 to 44, and more than two times as much as users ages 45 to 65.

---

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/10/18175913/facebook-fake-news-2016-election-republicans-trump

Blueblood said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

I hope O'Kelly09 doesn't get too much black paint on his brown shirt!

---

Yep, BB< you pegged me....I'm a Nazi.

---

Finally, real, not fake, news! But, hey, I'm only joshing you. I think you'd look better in your white hood.

---

And you are an *******!

The Grand Wizard of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave has only a slightly lower approval rating than Convington High teen in black face.

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

offshorebear said:

---

Both sides(here and everywhere) need to wake up, take a step back from social media, and elevate this conversation.

This is a non story pushed by agents of chaos to manipulate you. The Twitter account that pushed the original video for 2.5+ million views and 15,000 retweets was ostensibly registered to a female schoolteacher from California. But upon inspection, it ends up the account is actually run by someone likely using a VPN to route through Brazil, was created in December 2016, and has tweeted over 130 times per day since the beginning of this year trying to get stories like this to stick. This is the MO of the Internet Research Agency - sowing discord between the left and the right and stoking racial tensions. It could be them or any of a hundred others with the same goals funded by the same or similar groups.

Domestically, the political talking points we are exposed to and think we have arrived at holistically come out of privately funded domestic think tanks - free speech on campuses, antifa, abortion rights, trickle down, Muslim terrorism, stealing our guns, anti drug pronpharma propaganda etc etc - all manufactured in these think tanks and spread by memo through the parties and their mouthpieces in the media and advertising. Foreign actors used to have to infiltrate this system to have influence in the US. Most obvious recent example is Russia infiltrating NRA, which is just one case in 10,000 of this happening.

Now Facebook and Twitter has opened a whole new world for those foreign actors to manipulate us. We know this for a fact. This story is an example. Please stop falling for this.

---

There was a pretty good article the other day on Social Media's impact on democracy's yesterday:

Quote:

---

Social media can certainly help pro-democracy movements at times, but they overall give far-right parties and authoritarians an advantage. These platforms, once seen as democracy's ally, have increasingly become its enemy.

It is easier to spread misinformation on social media than to correct it, and easier to inflame social divisions than to mend them. The very nature of how we engage with Facebook and the rest now helps far-right, authoritarian factions weaken the foundations of democratic systems and even give themselves an easier pathway to seizing power.

It seems we have to admit a somewhat uncomfortable truth: Social media, in the way that it's used now, is an authoritarian medium.

---

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/22/18177076/social-media-facebook-far-right-authoritarian-populism

The article traces how researchers have changed their opinion from the Arab Spring days to today's iteration.

I've always felt that if someone is trying to get you to be angry or emotional they are trying to get you to turn off the logical part of your brain, because they know that when logic is turned off, stupid and rash fills the void.

---

I think about this. I'm not sure if it's so much that social media itself ACTUALLY gives an advantage to right-wing populists so much as they've figured out how to game the system more quickly.

I definitely think that social media favors populism in general, but it may be that the left-wing populists just hadn't gotten their s*** together until very recently.

---

That is a fair point, particularly with regards to populism as it lets you create the 'us vrs them' battle. The only additional point I want to make is with regards to the consumption of misinformation. Right-wing conservatives consume and distribute disproportionately more misinformation than their left-wing counterparts, though really the problem is with old people (which I find ironic as they comprise my parent's generation, who taught me to not believe everything I read).

Quote:

---

The researchers found that the vast majority of users didn't share fake news during the 2016 election only 8.5 percent of the users studied shared at least one link from a fake news site. But 18 percent of Republicans shared fake news, compared to under 4 percent of Democrats. Independents shared about as much fake news as Republicans, and users who identified themselves as "very conservative" shared the most fake news.

When ideology was scrapped and the study just focused on age, they found that older users were much likelier to share fake news. The over-65 group shared almost seven times as many fake news articles on Facebook than users ages 30 to 44, and more than two times as much as users ages 45 to 65.

---

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/10/18175913/facebook-fake-news-2016-election-republicans-trump

---

vox????? Really credible. They are not researchers. Anymore than you would accept real research.

kelly09 said:

---

vox????? Really credible. They are not researchers. Anymore than you would accept real research.

---

Amateur sketch artist here.

kelly09 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

I hope O'Kelly09 doesn't get too much black paint on his brown shirt!

---

Yep, BB< you pegged me....I'm a Nazi.

---

Finally, real, not fake, news! But, hey, I'm only joshing you. I think you'd look better in your white hood.

---

And you are an *******!

---

******* =We know you mean A-lister , asswipe

I do have a question for you, asswipe, do you sleep with your hood on or just a cross?

going4roses said:

---

---

Savannah has just a weeeeee bit of make up on, good god.
She doesn't need it.

This poor kid.
He non-answers the question with double speak.
Doesn't mention apology.
Says he has every right to stand there.
But respects Phillips and would like to meet him.
Wishes they could have resolved it differently.

Duh. 17?
Those are the kinda kids that get drafted to fight wars. Sad.
We should send our 50 year olds into war next time. Either they (we) won't fight because they disagree with the cause, or they really believe and are willing - at least they have an informed opinion and can decide. To throw babes out there just ain't right. This kid is just a kid who is echoing voices in his head.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

The Grand Wizard of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave has only a slightly lower approval rating than Convington High teen in black face.

---

55% said tRump should be put up against a wall.

Honest question: Kelly09, who are your favorite country music singers?

kelly09 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

offshorebear said:

---

Both sides(here and everywhere) need to wake up, take a step back from social media, and elevate this conversation.

This is a non story pushed by agents of chaos to manipulate you. The Twitter account that pushed the original video for 2.5+ million views and 15,000 retweets was ostensibly registered to a female schoolteacher from California. But upon inspection, it ends up the account is actually run by someone likely using a VPN to route through Brazil, was created in December 2016, and has tweeted over 130 times per day since the beginning of this year trying to get stories like this to stick. This is the MO of the Internet Research Agency - sowing discord between the left and the right and stoking racial tensions. It could be them or any of a hundred others with the same goals funded by the same or similar groups.

Domestically, the political talking points we are exposed to and think we have arrived at holistically come out of privately funded domestic think tanks - free speech on campuses, antifa, abortion rights, trickle down, Muslim terrorism, stealing our guns, anti drug pronpharma propaganda etc etc - all manufactured in these think tanks and spread by memo through the parties and their mouthpieces in the media and advertising. Foreign actors used to have to infiltrate this system to have influence in the US. Most obvious recent example is Russia infiltrating NRA, which is just one case in 10,000 of this happening.

Now Facebook and Twitter has opened a whole new world for those foreign actors to manipulate us. We know this for a fact. This story is an example. Please stop falling for this.

---

There was a pretty good article the other day on Social Media's impact on democracy's yesterday:

Quote:

---

Social media can certainly help pro-democracy movements at times, but they overall give far-right parties and authoritarians an advantage. These platforms, once seen as democracy's ally, have increasingly become its enemy.

It is easier to spread misinformation on social media than to correct it, and easier to inflame social divisions than to mend them. The very nature of how we engage with Facebook and the rest now helps far-right, authoritarian factions weaken the foundations of democratic systems and even give themselves an easier pathway to seizing power.

It seems we have to admit a somewhat uncomfortable truth: Social media, in the way that it's used now, is an authoritarian medium.

---

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/22/18177076/social-media-facebook-far-right-authoritarian-populism

The article traces how researchers have changed their opinion from the Arab Spring days to today's iteration.

I've always felt that if someone is trying to get you to be angry or emotional they are trying to get you to turn off the logical part of your brain, because they know that when logic is turned off, stupid and rash fills the void.

---

I think about this. I'm not sure if it's so much that social media itself ACTUALLY gives an advantage to right-wing populists so much as they've figured out how to game the system more quickly.

I definitely think that social media favors populism in general, but it may be that the left-wing populists just hadn't gotten their s*** together until very recently.

---

That is a fair point, particularly with regards to populism as it lets you create the 'us vrs them' battle. The only additional point I want to make is with regards to the consumption of misinformation. Right-wing conservatives consume and distribute disproportionately more misinformation than their left-wing counterparts, though really the problem is with old people (which I find ironic as they comprise my parent's generation, who taught me to not believe everything I read).

Quote:

---

The researchers found that the vast majority of users didn't share fake news during the 2016 election only 8.5 percent of the users studied shared at least one link from a fake news site. But 18 percent of Republicans shared fake news, compared to under 4 percent of Democrats. Independents shared about as much fake news as Republicans, and users who identified themselves as "very conservative" shared the most fake news.

When ideology was scrapped and the study just focused on age, they found that older users were much likelier to share fake news. The over-65 group shared almost seven times as many fake news articles on Facebook than users ages 30 to 44, and more than two times as much as users ages 45 to 65.

---

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/10/18175913/facebook-fake-news-2016-election-republicans-trump

---

vox????? Really credible. They are not researchers. Anymore than you would accept real research.

---

If you spent the time to actually click on the article you would realize within the first two paragraphs that the article is based on research from a joint study between Princeton and New York University that was published in Sciences Weekly. The author then followed up with an interview with one of the main researchers. So yes, it is real research, and yes it is legitimate.

Blueblood said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

I hope O'Kelly09 doesn't get too much black paint on his brown shirt!

---

Yep, BB< you pegged me....I'm a Nazi.

---

Finally, real, not fake, news! But, hey, I'm only joshing you. I think you'd look better in your white hood.

---

And you are an *******!

---

******* =We know you mean A-lister , asswipe

I do have a question for you, asswipe, do you sleep with your hood on or just a cross?

---

The hood. But I wear it backwards so I don't wake up and see your mom.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Honest question: Kelly09, who are your favorite country music singers?

---

Without being asked, I'll give you mine. Too bad the ole ice cube trick up the caboose wasn't able to save him at Joshua Tree.

Most Americans get their news from social media which- as this weekend shows- is mostly biased, targeted, self serving fantasies. Journalism is dead.

From their PR video:

Quote:

---

When you come to Covington Catholic you're going to be a well-rounded individual. When we get those young boys, I like to say, they turn into a young man by the time they leave here."
Robert Rowe, Covington Catholic principal

"If you ask kids who go to public schools, they think that the boys who go to Covington Catholic are at a higher standard. They're polite. They're manerly. They're smart. It sets the bar for how young men should be."
Covington Catholic board member Traci Kautzman

"The goal at Covington Catholic is to develop successful, young, Christian men. The track record is pretty remarkable."
Narrator

When you look at the makeup of our young men and the integrity that they have, day in and day out, that we're producing, I think that separates us from all the other schools"
Principal Rowe

We have students who are truly loving and truly caring truly nurturing who truly want to make the world a better place."
Covington Catholic teacher

---

From Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/covington-catholic-video-783439/

W.T.F. happened to, "Knock that off or you're going to burn in HELL!" Or, "Fly straight or we're going to ground you into the ground.,"

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Honest question: Kelly09, who are your favorite country music singers?

---

George Strait, Buck Owens, Martina McBride,Emmylou and many others. Who do you like?