Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 10:37:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2017 7:42:06 GMT
When someone says I've had it and I'm coming for you, I am not expecting we're carpooling to dinner and a movie. I'm thinking I better duck. Preceded by her saying we're fed up with the media showing a clear and present bias for one side, and her response is WE'RE GOING TO CALL YOU ON IT, point by point and hold you accountable? I would think they're coming for me metaphorically in that they're going to point out every instance where I get it wrong as a journalist. I wouldn't think they want to commit violence against me. Does that "context" everyone's always throwing at me only count when you need to be right? And absent that, the "critical thinking skill" I'm often accused of not having could be put to use here. Do you really think a group is going to create an ad, for public viewing that is stating we're going to come shoot you? Or whatever it is you think she's saying here.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Aug 7, 2017 10:37:14 GMT
If I see a word as a post, (not emojis) then yes, I take that as their response. If I see an emoji, then I might think otherwise. : crazy :
looks much different than Crazy. You're not seriously trying to claim that you don't understand that all the random words in posts that look like : laugh : : blink : : crazy : are emoticons? You think I said : crazy : to you, so do you also think that when you were responding to allipeas she just randomly said : blink : in the post you responded to? I also used other emojis in this thread. Do you think I just randomly stated : roll eyes : in a post? Even when YOU post and you yourself, do use a lot of emojis. When it shows up for you as : laugh : or : smile : or whatever you use and you know you didn't type those words, are you saying from your own experience with your own posts showing words instead of the emojis and you know it's an emoji, are you seriously going to say that you don't recognize it as an emoji when you see it anywhere else? Already answered.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 10:37:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2017 19:17:40 GMT
And as to the NRA ad if you don't "see it" then it's on you and no amount of explaining is going to change that. Yes, if it exists, then it will. Which part of that is threatening violence? What do you think she means by the bolded part? What do you think this would mean to the more radical members of the NRA. The comment is vague and didn't specify what was going to happen when they came for them. Without being specific it could mean different things to different people. There are a enough nut cases that could take "we're coming for you" as a call to violence against reporters from the New York Times. Especially since The NY Times seems to be trump's favorite whipping boy.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 10:37:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2017 20:02:25 GMT
: crazy :
looks much different than Crazy. You're not seriously trying to claim that you don't understand that all the random words in posts that look like : laugh : : blink : : crazy : are emoticons? You think I said : crazy : to you, so do you also think that when you were responding to allipeas she just randomly said : blink : in the post you responded to? I also used other emojis in this thread. Do you think I just randomly stated : roll eyes : in a post? Even when YOU post and you yourself, do use a lot of emojis. When it shows up for you as : laugh : or : smile : or whatever you use and you know you didn't type those words, are you saying from your own experience with your own posts showing words instead of the emojis and you know it's an emoji, are you seriously going to say that you don't recognize it as an emoji when you see it anywhere else? Already answered. Yes. You've made it clear that you tried to use that excuse to throw yet another character attack at me by trying to "prove" I called you a name, when in fact I did not. That is the epitome of every one of your responses to me (and a few others on your hit list). You do something similar every time you respond to me. But now it's out there for everyone to see who you actually are. And when you're bored and I'm not involved in a thread, you call my name in it to start something with me. We see you.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 10:37:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2017 20:10:11 GMT
Yes, if it exists, then it will. Which part of that is threatening violence? What do you think she means by the bolded part? What do you think this would mean to the more radical members of the NRA. The comment is vague and didn't specify what was going to happen when they came for them. Without being specific it could mean different things to different people. There are a enough nut cases that could take "we're coming for you" as a call to violence against reporters from the New York Times. Especially since The NY Times seems to be trump's favorite whipping boy. That she'll be fact checking them. You know that "critical thinking skill" that you often accuse me of not having, could be put to use here by you. Do you really think a group is going to create an ad, for public viewing that is stating we're going to come shoot you? Or NRA members go shoot the NY Times? Or whatever it is you think she's saying here. Seriously?
|
|
|
Post by thundergal on Aug 7, 2017 20:27:06 GMT
Even the Harvard study showed a clear and present media bias and as Far as Fox News, according to the study, they provided the most even-handed coverage, with 52 percent anti-Trump coverage to 48 percent positive. This is why I feel our country is so so so so monumentally screwed. I despise Fox.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 10:37:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2017 20:46:18 GMT
What do you think she means by the bolded part? What do you think this would mean to the more radical members of the NRA. The comment is vague and didn't specify what was going to happen when they came for them. Without being specific it could mean different things to different people. There are a enough nut cases that could take "we're coming for you" as a call to violence against reporters from the New York Times. Especially since The NY Times seems to be trump's favorite whipping boy. That she'll be fact checking them. You know that "critical thinking skill" that you often accuse me of not having, could be put to use here by you. Do you really think a group is going to create an ad, for public viewing that is stating we're going to come shoot you? Or NRA members go shoot the NY Times? Or whatever it is you think she's saying here. Seriously? Vague - of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning. Thinking or communicating in an unfocused or imprecise way." We're coming for you."See I said no amount of explaining would make a difference with you. In your narrow little mind you have already made up your mind on what the ad meant. And as such you were not open to any other view. That because she was so vague in that one statement above others might put their own interpretation on what she meant and it could result in a violent outcome. The entire tone of that ad is set by that one sentence. Especially since it was coming from a gun organization. Believe it, don't believe it that is entirely up to you.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 10:37:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2017 21:10:53 GMT
That she'll be fact checking them. You know that "critical thinking skill" that you often accuse me of not having, could be put to use here by you. Do you really think a group is going to create an ad, for public viewing that is stating we're going to come shoot you? Or NRA members go shoot the NY Times? Or whatever it is you think she's saying here. Seriously? Vague - of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning. Thinking or communicating in an unfocused or imprecise way." We're coming for you."See I said no amount of explaining would make a difference with you. In your narrow little mind you have already made up your mind on what the ad meant. And as such you were not open to any other view. That because she was so vague in that one statement above others might put their own interpretation on what she meant and it could result in a violent outcome. The entire tone of that ad is set by that one sentence. Especially since it was coming from a gun organization. Believe it, don't believe it that is entirely up to you. Does that "context" that your buddy is always throwing at me only count when you need to be right? Why is it suddenly not being applied by you in this situation? Who wasn't open to any other view? Was it me that said anyone having a different opinion makes them not worth engaging? No Was it me that said asking for clarification and trying to see your point of view was nothing more than stirring shit? No Was it me that shut down a differing view with personal attacks vs. discussion? No
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Aug 7, 2017 21:20:29 GMT
But the problem with ads like this is that they are alienating the very people who could be on their side. Like myself, a good bit of my family, friends...some of who may have been NRA members in the past. It isn't that I don't think that other people's opinions are wrong; but I do, however, think that people like me have opinions that need to be listened to. We are the people who used be their base and now want nothing to do with that batshit crazy. And there are a whole lot of us out there. You may not think other people's opinions are wrong, but the post I responded to flat out said if you don't agree with the one single approved opinion you're not worth engaging. And that's not a lone statement, not even by a long shot. It's the prevailing thought here, complete with personal attacks aimed at anyone who objects. "Other" opinions are aggressively steamrolled here. I've issued the challenge many, many, many times to show a single thread where the facts/opinions of the Right have NOT been "shown/proven" to be wrong. So far no one has been able to come up with a single example. According to threads on this board, those on the Right have NEVER been correct for countless (often bogus) "reasons". What I saw in that video is someone who is fed up with the media showing a clear and present bias for one side, and her response is we're going to call you on it and hold you accountable. What is it specifically that you see differently, or that she said in that video that you believe is alienating people? I wanted to think about how I answered this, so it has taken me a day or two but... We all know that just as important as what people say is how the message is delivered. It can be delivered with smiles, or flowers or hearts and happy music. Or it can be with scowls, frowns and ominous music. In this case, the words themselves are not the only message. Take for example 'we are coming for you.' If a high school football team said to a rival team 'we are coming for you' as part of their pre-game trash talk, we would frame it in normal sports high school pre-game hijinks. But in this case, you have a scowling woman who is a spokesman for a large pro-gun lobby in a commercial with the 'atmosphere' that isn't all warm and fuzzy and we now frame the phrase in a more threatening way. It stops being just the spoken words and veers off into something that we are uncomfortable with. When written, the commercial is vaguely uncomfortable. But add in the atmosphere and becomes something that people feel threatened by. We know that a whole lot of money goes into advertising, and how people perceive commercials. How this one sends it's message is no accident. They want to speak to a demographic. They want people who see to feel a certain way. Does that make sense?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 10:37:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2017 21:25:45 GMT
Vague - of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning. Thinking or communicating in an unfocused or imprecise way." We're coming for you."See I said no amount of explaining would make a difference with you. In your narrow little mind you have already made up your mind on what the ad meant. And as such you were not open to any other view. That because she was so vague i n that one statement above others might put their own interpretation on what she meant and it could result in a violent outcome. The entire tone of that ad is set by that one sentence. Especially since it was coming from a gun organization. Believe it, don't believe it that is entirely up to you. Does that "context" that your buddy is always throwing at me only count when you need to be right? Why is it suddenly not being applied by you in this situation? Who wasn't open to any other view? Was it me that said anyone having a different opinion makes them not worth engaging? No Was it me that said asking for clarification and trying to see your point of view was nothing more than stirring shit? No Was it me that shut down a differing view with personal attacks vs. discussion? No Like I said believe it, don't believe i, it's your choice. The rest of the stuff your spouting... .
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 10:37:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2017 21:41:01 GMT
You may not think other people's opinions are wrong, but the post I responded to flat out said if you don't agree with the one single approved opinion you're not worth engaging. And that's not a lone statement, not even by a long shot. It's the prevailing thought here, complete with personal attacks aimed at anyone who objects. "Other" opinions are aggressively steamrolled here. I've issued the challenge many, many, many times to show a single thread where the facts/opinions of the Right have NOT been "shown/proven" to be wrong. So far no one has been able to come up with a single example. According to threads on this board, those on the Right have NEVER been correct for countless (often bogus) "reasons". What I saw in that video is someone who is fed up with the media showing a clear and present bias for one side, and her response is we're going to call you on it and hold you accountable. What is it specifically that you see differently, or that she said in that video that you believe is alienating people? I wanted to think about how I answered this, so it has taken me a day or two but... We all know that just as important as what people say is how the message is delivered. It can be delivered with smiles, or flowers or hearts and happy music. Or it can be with scowls, frowns and ominous music. In this case, the words themselves are not the only message. Take for example 'we are coming for you.' If a high school football team said to a rival team 'we are coming for you' as part of their pre-game trash talk, we would frame it in normal sports high school pre-game hijinks. But in this case, you have a scowling woman who is a spokesman for a large pro-gun lobby in a commercial with the 'atmosphere' that isn't all warm and fuzzy and we now frame the phrase in a more threatening way. It stops being just the spoken words and veers off into something that we are uncomfortable with. When written, the commercial is vaguely uncomfortable. But add in the atmosphere and becomes something that people feel threatened by. We know that a whole lot of money goes into advertising, and how people perceive commercials. How this one sends it's message is no accident. They want to speak to a demographic. They want people who see to feel a certain way. Does that make sense? Yes! It absolutely does make sense, especially because to me, what you described is basically obvious to me that's how some were taking it. What I REALLY would have liked was to discuss that and share my opinion too and possibly get some to see my opinion too -even if they didn't agree with it. Instead what I spent time doing was fending off personal attacks AGAIN and statements that only one opinion was allowed and any other is not worth engaging. Not to parrot you, but does that make any sense? I appreciate your post more than you know and wish their was more like you and less like a certain couple. Thank you for posting your thoughts and I would have loved to hear from you sooner.
|
|
casii
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,525
Jun 29, 2014 14:40:44 GMT
|
Post by casii on Aug 7, 2017 22:47:57 GMT
This doesn't directly address the NRA ad, but is kind of a 'come along side' story that provides me context for what people mean when they say things directly or indirectly.
I live across the street from a city park. Over the course of our time here, we've seen many shenanigans, but in the past couple of weeks, we've had 2 encounters that had us call the police. Same group of young people involved both times.
First time a guy is fighting with what I presume is his girlfriend and her friend is attempting to calm the fight down. He grabs friends glasses and throws them over our fence. Friend and girlfriend are very polite when they knock on our door asking if they can look for her glasses while he's across the street yelling how he's 'coming for you' and he doesn't care who sees. They got the glasses, went back to the park and tried to leave and he's jabbing his finger in their faces and yelling how he's watching them and knows what the real truth is. We called the cops because it looked like it could escalate and they had attracted a large cop. Not 911, but the local dispatch.
A few nights ago at 3:30 a.m., I wake up to a lot of yelling and check out my window. This guy and his girlfriend are fighting across the street. This time he got physical. I called the cops. He said he didn't care who saw what he did and who I told. His car got towed. He said he's going to square it up with me.
He didn't touch me, but I'm still uncomfortable with his 'threats'. He didn't say he was going to shoot me or stab me or ransack my house, but I'm being cautious anyway. The woman didn't say "Hey NRA members, go shoot some leftist journalists." Her tone, body language and verbiage are not just 'game talk' though.
Maybe this is a poor example, but I feel the NRA absolutely means to come across as threatening. And to top if off, yes, opinions are subjective!
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Aug 7, 2017 23:07:08 GMT
Yes. You've made it clear that you tried to use that excuse to throw yet another character attack at me by trying to "prove" I called you a name, when in fact I did not. That is the epitome of every one of your responses to me (and a few others on your hit list). You do something similar every time you respond to me. But now it's out there for everyone to see who you actually are. And when you're bored and I'm not involved in a thread, you call my name in it to start something with me. We see you. You are wrong and the biggest liar of any pea here. You make up shit, are delusional and are purposefully obtuse just to get a rise out of peas. Aren't you the provocative little pea--"my hit list" LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! Calling you out on your bullshit is not a "hit list" sweetheart. You are a joke Gia. "We see you?" Are you kidding me??? LMAO!!! Who is we??? You and your alternate ID's? Are you the Internet police spokesperson for refupeas?? You are ridiculous at best. You're EXACTLY like how Trump and his surrogates act, they do crappy shit, say crappy shit, make up alternate reality, then mirror it back on their victims. Your response to my post was to post "crazy". You say it's an emoji, I don't see an emoji--only the word crazy. But it really doesn't matter because YOUR response STILL was "crazy" no matter how you did it, and here you are, in your best imitation of KellyAnne or Sarah Huckabee, trying to insist on an alternate reality. I'm secure and 100% ok with who I am based on what transpires on this board, and responses to my posting despite your pathetic attempts to discredit me (and many others) here. Save your lame ass excuses and stupid replies for someone else, you lie, make up shit, twist the conversations to the point of no return, and quite frankly, you're just just not relevant any longer.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 10:37:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2017 1:07:33 GMT
This doesn't directly address the NRA ad, but is kind of a 'come along side' story that provides me context for what people mean when they say things directly or indirectly. I live across the street from a city park. Over the course of our time here, we've seen many shenanigans, but in the past couple of weeks, we've had 2 encounters that had us call the police. Same group of young people involved both times. First time a guy is fighting with what I presume is his girlfriend and her friend is attempting to calm the fight down. He grabs friends glasses and throws them over our fence. Friend and girlfriend are very polite when they knock on our door asking if they can look for her glasses while he's across the street yelling how he's 'coming for you' and he doesn't care who sees. They got the glasses, went back to the park and tried to leave and he's jabbing his finger in their faces and yelling how he's watching them and knows what the real truth is. We called the cops because it looked like it could escalate and they had attracted a large cop. Not 911, but the local dispatch. A few nights ago at 3:30 a.m., I wake up to a lot of yelling and check out my window. This guy and his girlfriend are fighting across the street. This time he got physical. I called the cops. He said he didn't care who saw what he did and who I told. His car got towed. He said he's going to square it up with me. He didn't touch me, but I'm still uncomfortable with his 'threats'. He didn't say he was going to shoot me or stab me or ransack my house, but I'm being cautious anyway. The woman didn't say "Hey NRA members, go shoot some leftist journalists." Her tone, body language and verbiage are not just 'game talk' though. Maybe this is a poor example, but I feel the NRA absolutely means to come across as threatening. And to top if off, yes, opinions are subjective! He didn't touch you, but you saw him get physical with her, so that's what made you know they were actual threats. Dana Loesch in the NRA ad did nothing like that. She's pissed at bias in the media, it showed and she said she's going to fact check the media. Nothing more. That's quite a difference than seeing someone be violent with someone and then threaten you after. I hope you reported that and they're watching him or you. Please stay safe. THAT is scary.
|
|
|
Post by megop on Aug 8, 2017 1:17:43 GMT
My take? This argument could go on and on and on. What's most concerning for me, and neither side is innocent, is the ramping up of completely charged speech. There will never be truth found there. Only argument.
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Aug 8, 2017 3:22:44 GMT
Everyone needs to just ignore/block Gia. She only posts on political threads and is always in the pro-Trump camp stiring up crap vs. having an intelligent dialogue with others. She is obviously a lonely person who gets her attention from a message board. Sad really! Yes, and I am beginning to think those who continuously engage are a little unhinged themselves. I resent every fucking thread being thrown off track with nonsense.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 10:37:03 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 6:52:37 GMT
I saw someone who's fed up with the media showing a clear and present bias for one side, and her response is we're going to call you on it and hold you accountable. I don't find that batshit crazy in the least. Very specifically what did she say or do in that video that was batshit crazy? Everything. The media is isn't being bias. It is reporting the crazy shit happening in the USA. What she did was a clear threat. I meant to respond to this the other day and got sidetracked, but the new climate change thread reminded me. Yes, the media IS biased. They do report crazy shit that is true, of which Trump gives them plenty to report on, but there is a clear and present bias in the media. The Harvard study proves it, and despite the wall of text earlier on this thread trying to explain it away and dismiss it, the links I gave shows New York Times editor Liz Spayd saying there's a bias at the NY Times and NY Times’ media columnist, Jim Rutenberg saying that it's there and they don't have to be objective because Donald Trump. NY Times falsely reported Trump refused to shake hands with Angela Merkel. And how embarrassing for US media to have Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull call out the media as fake on their coverage of his phone call with Trump. Now we just had scientists call out the NY Times for lying (again) about someone leaking a climate change report "because they're afraid Trump will suppress it". A report that is public domain, the NYTimes is claiming needed to be leaked, because it could be suppressed. Beyond stupidly absurd. These are just the kind of things that had Dana Loesch "threatening" to fact check the NY Times in particular. It's what got her so riled up that some could just "imagine the spittle flying". Pretty much the same as we see here the way the Peas feel about Trump on a daily basis, numerous times a day, for more than a year now.
|
|