QAZ said:
That is the problem. The spirit of civil society, as you speak of is the voice of political correctness. That is the very thing that a REPUBLIC form of government was designed to defend against. As much as you may not like the reality. 
Can you give some examples of this political correctness, which you find harmful?
With the San Bernadino terrorists the husband was making bombs in his parents garage and some neighbors suspected this but didnât report it because they were afraid of being labeled âIslamophobic.â
How about this one 
With the San Bernadino terrorists the husband was making bombs in his parents garage and some neighbors suspected this but didnât report it because they were afraid of being labeled âIslamophobic.â
That doesnât show âpolitical correctnessâ being an actual issue. Democratic public officials arenât trying to outlaw âislamophobiaâ.
That wasnât your question. It was can you show where PC was harmful ? Here people died because the neighbors were afraid of being labeled. I didnât mention Democrats.
qaz there are hundreds of examples found with a simple google search. I donât see why we have to do the work for you, really.
For instance, I googled âexamples of political correctnessâ and the first result was this:
infowars.com/19-shocking-ex ⌠g-america/
Take some initiative and read those and then if you arenât happy, read the other few hundred results.
Well, this forum thread is like the story, âGoldilocks and the 3 bearsâ.
Some like to sleep, in the papa bear bed (i.e. right wing) - which Goldilocks finds too hard.
Some like to sleep, in the mama bear bed (i.e. extreme left) - which Goldilocks finds too soft.
And she ends of sleeping, in the baby bear bed (i.e. somewhere in the middle - like I am). Which she finds just right.
And those taking the extreme bed positions - just keep on complaining 
and those taking the extreme bed positions - just keep on complaining
Truth be told âunfairâ is a leftist mantra! Part of the social justice movement. Not that iâm against social justice but the left has there own version.
Their vision is âequal outcomeâ whereas mine is âequal opportunity.â
BTW iâm laughing my âOssoff.â
"Fake news has come to mean a lot of things these days. But the definition that the right and the left can both agree on is sites that just make up things for money. NPR pursued the âgodfatherâ of some of these fake news sites and discovered that heâs a lefty whoâs doing this to undermine conservatives.
The sites include NationalReport.net, USAToday.com.co, WashingtonPost.com.co. All the addresses linked to a single rented server inside Amazon Web Services. That meant they were all likely owned by the same company.
âThe whole idea from the start was to build a site that could kind of infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction,â Coler says.
So weâve got sites hosted by a company run by the owner of the Washington Post which are run by a guy whose stated goal is to plant fake news stories to undermine the right.
NPR eats this up with a jumbo spoon, but the underlying admission is that the fake news problem has the same source as the mainstream mediaâs fake news problem. Hostility to conservatives.
While the mainstream media pushes fake news to liberals, guys like this plant fake news on the right to sow chaos and undermine conservative news consumers. The fake news problem, from the top down, is a left-wing propaganda problem. " - frontpagemag.com/point/26706 ⌠greenfield
While the mainstream media pushes fake news to liberals, guys like this plant fake news on the right to sow chaos and undermine conservative news consumers. The fake news problem, from the top down, is a left-wing propaganda problem. " - frontpagemag.com/point/26706 ⌠greenfield
Definitely a left wing tact. I get these tweets almost daily with 90% of it being false, really âfalse newsâ is a better description and as you said itâs about the money! What does the bible say about âmoney?â
Fake news is like scams. Suppose i get a call, from the IRS. They say I owe some back taxes. They will take me away in handcuffs, if I donât pay via debit card.
Well, I never heard of this. And the IRS normally sends several letters - by mail first.
Now I canât find this IRS procedure, on either social media or a Google search. So itâs fake news. And costly too - if I send the phony IRS agent some money.
Now I read a supermarket tabloid story. It says Trump took a ride - in a UFO. Well, I donât buy into it. But if ALL supermarket tabloids, were running variations of the same story. Guess what? I might say, itâs in the realm of possibility.
Same goes for a story, in the New York times, CNN, etc. If one station or newspaper runs it - itâs probably fake news. But if everybody runs it (including the international news sources - like the BBC). Guess what? Itâs within the realm of possibility.
What I look at - is this. The number of news sources (both nationally and internationally), are reporting variations of the same story. Meaning they are approaching, a bell shaped curve. Which means that both liberal and conservative news bodies, should be fact checking it.
Itâs now a part of my framework. Or my existential, phenomenological perspective.
If later some fact or aspect, renders the story incoherent - guess what? I alter my framework or my existential, phenomenological perspective - ever so slightly.
The funny thing about the truth is - itâs true.
Fake news is not news - it is lies. Itâs often what someone wishes were the truth, what they feel MUST be the truth - but, even considering the oft-quoted âtruth is a slippery conceptâ (think Hillary) - what is true is what counts. Nowadays we have to work to get it.
Same goes for a story, in the New York times, CNN, etc. If one station or newspaper runs it - itâs probably fake news. But if everybody runs it (including the international news sources - like the BBC). Guess what? Itâs within the realm of possibility.
Yes it is but not a slam dunk because they often just copy each other and ask questions later! This is a new behavior mode because of instant news, nobody wants to be left holding the chair!
Obamacareâs opacity was a deliberate strategy
Gruber made an argument that many of Obamacareâs critics have long made, including me. Itâs that the lawâs complex system of insurance regulation is a way of concealing from voters what Obamacare really is: a huge redistribution of wealth from the young and healthy to the old and unhealthy. In the video, Gruber points out that if Democrats had been honest about these facts, and that the lawâs individual mandate is in effect a major tax hike, Obamacare would never have passed Congress.
âMark [Pauly] made a couple of comments that I do want to take issue with, one about transparency in financing and the other is about moving from community rating to risk-rated subsidies. You canât do it politically. You just literally cannot do it, okay, transparent financingâŚand also transparent spending.â Gruber said. âIn terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay inâyou made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, okay. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to passâŚ
-https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/11/10/aca-architect-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-led-us-to-hide-obamacares-tax-hikes-and-subsidies-from-the-public/#161c8f047c05
Well, nothing is a slam dunk. But I will run with it. Same with ideas in theology, philosophy and science. If some piece of info comes,⌠to question my existential, phenomenological field of perceptionâŚor my intellectual framework - Iâll reevaluate it.
Take some of the theological ideas - presented here. And I am NOT talking about universalism. Maybe one of the far-out theologies presented here - is right. And those that aprpoach, the bell shaped curb - are wrong. Iâm sure God will inform me, at the end of time. And God wonât fault me, foll following bell-shaped curb theologiesâŚfollowed by the majority of mankind.
I just need to follow - the yellow, brick road.
And stay away from anything - that deviates me from my journey.
Yeah, better to rely on reliable news sources with a penchant for veracity like The Blaze, Breitbart, and infowars for factsâŚ
qaz
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am
Well i do like The Blaze and a new one CRTV with Mark Levin AKA âthe great oneâ and of course Fox & One America News & Newsmax. Somebody has to counter Rachel Madcow at MSNBC!
It was nice watching CNN announcing Ossoff losing, it was like watching CNN talking heads heading to a funeral.
Well, first of all, I will ask you qaz does any of this political talk and banter, change your view of what Christ had done for humanity? 
Thereâs a BBC story from today entitled Donald Trump talks up solar panel plan for Mexico wall at bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40363390.
Well, while folks on this forum, have been in a heated debate (pro and con), regarding climate change - guess what? I have advocated a pragmatic approach. Let me benefit, from all the energy saving technology and research. It looks like Trump, is also showing some pragmatism.
