The State of the Mainstream Press

Moderators: I am nobody, Deku Tree

Post Reply
User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28106
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:11 pm

Being defensive when called a Nazi is pretty normal.

User avatar
The Missing Link
Posts: 21402
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:00 am
Location: New Hyrule, VIC, Australia
Contact:

Post by The Missing Link » Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:15 pm

Claiming that the media is trying to take down your career isn't exactly the textbook definition of defensive.
Carpe Pullum Domesticum! (Seize the Cucco!) Image

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8703
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia
Contact:

Post by Bad Dragonite » Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:36 pm

Really one of the better videos on the subject was done by Phillip DeFranco.
[MEDIA=youtube]DtlDC1sZFSg[/MEDIA]
STORIES:
PewDiePie, My Original Coverage: https://www.facebook.com/DeFrancoNati...
PewDiePie Response: https://youtu.be/lwk1DogcPmU
MSM Coverage of PewDiePie This Week:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-s...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/p...
http://time.com/4671429/pewdiepie-dis...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentis...
http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/14/146...
http://www.dailydot.com/upstream/pewd...
http://www.polygon.com/2017/2/15/1461...
Coverage After Response Video:
http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/16/146...
https://www.cnet.com/news/pewdiepie-a...
http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/16/youtube...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/ma...
http://www.polygon.com/2017/2/16/1463...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maddieber...
http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/...
Pewds Statement on Hate Groups:
http://pewdie.tumblr.com/post/1571608...
Wired Article w/ Title Changed:
https://www.wired.com/2017/02/pewdiep...
https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/83...
Microsoft’s Project Murphy:
https://www.projectmurphy.net/
PewDiePie Subscriber Numbers Live Count:
http://socialblade.com/youtube/user/p...
http://socialblade.com/youtube/user/p...

All the articles were released within a very close time frame to each other in a similar way to the "Gamers are Dead" articles of gamergate. There appears to be an organized effort here.


EDIT: Also if you're looking for the newest response video after all this it's on Pewdiepie's channel under the title, "How About That..."
-I'm Vgfian

User avatar
X-3
Moderator
Posts: 23236
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:00 am
Location: noiɈɒɔo⅃
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by X-3 » Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:46 pm

and it backfired
[citation needed]

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8703
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia
Contact:

Post by Bad Dragonite » Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:49 pm

His subscriber count continues to grow and had a huge spike after the articles dropped, that kinda shows me that you didn't actually take in the video considering the very end is specifically dedicated to showing just how fast his subscriber count was growing directly after all that. So yes, it backfired and citation was literally given in the quote filled with sources and in the video itself.
-I'm Vgfian

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28106
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:07 pm

[QUOTE="X-3, post: 1623614, member: 27765"][citation needed][/QUOTE]

Translation:

[I don't want to believe it]

User avatar
X-3
Moderator
Posts: 23236
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:00 am
Location: noiɈɒɔo⅃
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by X-3 » Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:19 pm

Cool, does this brief sub growth make up for the two contracts he just lost? In the longterm, no, it will not. Just more conspiracy mongering from BD.

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8703
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia
Contact:

Post by Bad Dragonite » Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:36 pm

Actually, again it's more a negative for the other people involved in the Red series rather than him himself, he's still the biggest Youtuber (and growing much faster than he was now) he's making even more money now from ad revenue, and is a free agent. Along with that alot of people now respect him as a sort of "Symbol of free speech" so in a way yes it makes up for it.

If you read even half of those articles you know that they've been falsely painting him a certain way and they all took him out of context all within a day or so. There's no need for mongering they've exposed themselves here. Hell, they took his response video talking about how they took him out of context, out of context itself. I don't even have to make them look bad, they seem to be doing a fantastic job of it themselves. Even more liberal individuals like DeFranco agree.

So I've proven in this thread that the mainstream left television outlets will silence people who speak out against their candidate and that the published outlets will take people out of context and outright lie to get to the ends they want.
-I'm Vgfian

User avatar
CaptHayfever
Supermod
Posts: 37020
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 1:00 am
Location: (n) - the place where I am
Has thanked: 11 times
Contact:

Post by CaptHayfever » Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:58 pm

[QUOTE="Bad Dragonite, post: 1623630, member: 32425"]So I've proven in this thread[/QUOTE] :lol:

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28106
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Thu Mar 02, 2017 12:01 am

Are you guys just triggered by Pew?

User avatar
The Missing Link
Posts: 21402
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:00 am
Location: New Hyrule, VIC, Australia
Contact:

Post by The Missing Link » Thu Mar 02, 2017 12:07 am

I personally don't care about PDP. I don't watch him. I haven't watched the joke. I haven't watched his apology. I've merely just read a lot of information--both pro and con--on the subject. As it's a subject I'm knowledgeable in, I feel like I have the capacity to inform and contribute to the discussion.
Carpe Pullum Domesticum! (Seize the Cucco!) Image

User avatar
CaptHayfever
Supermod
Posts: 37020
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 1:00 am
Location: (n) - the place where I am
Has thanked: 11 times
Contact:

Post by CaptHayfever » Thu Mar 02, 2017 12:23 am

I'm triggered by somebody writing the rough draft conclusion of his 10th-grade-English-class persuasive essay in this thread.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

User avatar
е и ժ е я
Supermod
Posts: 41066
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Enough. My tilde has tired and shall take its leave of you.
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 8 times
Contact:

Post by е и ժ е я » Thu Mar 02, 2017 2:20 am

[QUOTE="The Amazing Tazy Ten, post: 1623481, member: 19345"]So by pointing out that Liberals aren't pure good I'm "minimizing the crimes of the far right" and "whining". You could always make an actual point on what I've actually said instead of trying to make me answer for other people's conversations and character assassinate me.

This just in: I have to conduct large scale studies and enlist corporate spies to find info that no one releases if I want to make political conversation on Vee Gee Eff dot com. I supplied my argument with sources to back me up and if all you have to say in response is "Tazy's a whiner unless he supplies me with numbers from the SPJ proving his point" then whatever bar you're setting is too high even for you. You supplied no numbers or context and you know it. All you did was demand s**t from me.

And what's happening in Sweden that you have to bring it up here? That someone went on the Bill O Reilly show and lied? No. You mean a grenade attack in a Swedish suburb... Okay.
[/QUOTE]
No. "Minimizing crimes of the far right" is about your ignoring that they endorse the proliferation of weapons so they can stroke their rebel fantasies some more. They villify minorities and use extensive thought-traps to rationalize the maligning of anyone who does not fit the archetype of the fictional nuclear family unit. They claim that by reducing taxes on the wealthy, a class defined by their economy rigging and profit skimming, that they are creating economic growth, even while their mainline philosophy is the reduction of spending which decreases economic activity. They attack, reduce, and dismantle the public health care systems. They promote distrust and separatist ideals through media, including racial and nationalist segregation-ism. The result of policies is that you have an impoverished, unhappy bottom class with wholesale access to weapons and growth in mental disorders which go untreated both because they cannot afford to and because their social discordance is now the only conflict over which they have control. Conservative American politics foster an environment which causes psychotic breaks. Psychotic breaks result in public violence. Some people run out of choices and decide to mug someone or hold up a store. Some feel trapped and maligned and attack the public as they perceive it. This results in school shootings, workplace shootings, all manner of terror attacks, etc. Conservatism then promotes hostile response, which sustains the hostile environment.

This is not an indictment of people who identify as conservatives. It is a big-picture assessment. Conservatism as it appears now in the US is narrowly focused, it is tunnel-vision, it is blinders-on. You cannot solve big picture problems like hostility by throwing hostility at it. A person cannot draw lines and say they are promoting peacefulness when all they are doing is stating their intent to attack someone who crosses it. Your assessment, while attempting to illustrate your lack of subjective bias, only makes your bias more obvious. American Liberalism is not a perfect philosophy. It's not even the opposite of Conservatism, save for it actually being based in some semblance of sympathy for the human condition. Conservatism says we must prepare for war at any moment. Liberalism says we must engage in peace at every opportunity or peace is already lost. These are not just differing philosophies, one has meta concessions for the very notions of philosophy and humanity. The people you consider 'Liberals' are often centrists with a skew toward conservatism. The Democratic party has become the centrist party.

I do not expect you to conduct large scale studies. I expect you to actually have evidence. I ask you to realise that your condemnation of the media as a whole is based on a false equivalence and a simplified notion of rights. You are being very very conservative with your application of Constitutionally guaranteed rights. It is not just a matter of press being honest or dishonest, that is ignoring the larger issue, and that is why I say it is about your feelings. I do not disagree that press is now, thanks to the internet, visibly dishonest and requires verification if we are to believe.

It is a matter of the state department literally sponsoring the dishonest establishment they prefer, one which appeals to and panders to outright push a party agenda. A board founder is in the White House. This isn't something of which I'm exaggerating the urgency. Is it 'technically' legal? We can't even know until it's actually gone to the highest courts and the decision was upheld. I would argue that there is a huge precedence that it is not, but that is a whole essay for which I have no time.

And you would be hard-pressed to find a major nation without some criminal activity in it, yes 'something' which the super-in-the-loop-but-playing-golf-and-bannon-will-take-care-of-it-anyway President of the U.S. won't even take the time to actually cite any bloody actual events. Yes, somebody fact-checked it. Yes he was lying. Yes, you don't like the media and they are an abstract entity known as 'the media' instead of accountable individuals in your head. Journalists can write in bias, but are they holding office? Do they dictate state policy? Understand the difference. I am sorry to have offended you if I did, but this is an important matter and I cannot allow myself to remain silent.

Do you want to know what my political bias is? Anti-authoritarianism. I even believe in Exceptionalism, but I do not agree with how it is employed. When I see authoritarian action becoming the prime policy of office, when I see nationalism being pushed as a solution, when I see the government being sold off, I am involved. Shane does not want to acknowledge that I do not care when an administration behaves in a vaguely dishonest way inherently, because I am not a bi-partisan and like most Americans he expects me to behave as though one dishonesty equals another. Let me tell you, if someone tells a lie because they do not want Walmart to destroy a local forest, I sympathize. When someone tells a lie because they want to destroy a forest to promote the growth of businesses which can be exploited, I take offense. When that someone is in office, I hold them to higher standards than the average citizen. They represent, by vote, an entire range of persons. If there is a faction of society that is against my interests, I take note. I am an immigrant. I intend to hold dual citizenship. I live in a high-density, peaceful, muslim neighborhood. I am no fool. What do you think is next after blacklisting countries? What information do you believe the US border control should rightly possess? There is an authoritarian political body stepping dangerously close to issues which directly and unjustly may affect me. You damn well better believe I'm interested in whether or not Islam poses a threat to me, in whether or not the government is going to wholesale write me off for interrogation for having sat in the wrong seat. Get numbers first, form ideas second.

Besides, if anything, the administration is so dishonest that its sponsorship of any media entity should actually prove that entity disreputable.
I muttered 'light as a board, stiff as a feather' for 2 days straight and now I've ascended, ;aughing at olympus and zeus is crying

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8703
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia
Contact:

Post by Bad Dragonite » Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:19 am

[QUOTE="CaptHayfever, post: 1623633, member: 25169"] :lol:

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"[/QUOTE]
You can't argue my points or debunk the evidence brought to the table so you cherry-pick parts of my wording from a mobile forum post, done on a glitchy browser, when I'm going on virtually no sleep after two days to point at and laugh, not taking into account that it could be I just simply don't consider arguing with you on this point to even be worth the effort of proof-reading for grammar's sake. I'd say I'm done responding to you on this point and it's time to move on.
-I'm Vgfian

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8703
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia
Contact:

Post by Bad Dragonite » Thu Mar 02, 2017 7:00 am

I don't want to sound like an ******* AI but that's a Strawman of conservatives you seem to have built up just for the sake of argument. Things like the "lower taxes on the rich" are much more nuanced than that and I think you know this. And you say you're bias is to anti-authoritarianism then complain about people saying they want personal ownership of firearms for protection or recreation or any real reason and you minimize it to being "it's just to stroke their rebel fantasy." And when you talk about most American liberals not being "true liberals " then I'd have to agree in the sense that they definitely are far from classical liberalism in the original intended sense and have taken on many negative characteristics that the conservative right had not very long ago, but at the same time I'd say this falls under a "no true Scottsman" fallacy. The people in this group we call the liberals and who call themselves liberals in general don't act in the way you believe that "true liberals" or "true democrats " should. I mean correct me if you believe I'm mistaken, but that's how that part of your post came off, a sweeping generalization of an opposition based off of either preconceived notions or oversimplifying of issues, so you could then prop up the problems of the other party on by saying that the problem individuals in the party are just secretly actually conservative. Otherwise, I generally agree that people SHOULD look at Breitbart and any news with a scrutinizing eye and I agree that the others shouldn't be kept out of any official events (to my knowledge the most recent that they were kept from wasn't technically official but idk for certain) but at the same time I'm just saying from an empathetic perspective I could see why they could potentially have legitimate grievances with some of those news agencies. I still don't really think they should be kept out, but at the same time it's more a response to their past actions.
-I'm Vgfian

User avatar
CaptHayfever
Supermod
Posts: 37020
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 1:00 am
Location: (n) - the place where I am
Has thanked: 11 times
Contact:

Post by CaptHayfever » Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:02 am

Bad Dragonite, post: 1623654, member: 32425 wrote:You can't argue my points or debunk the evidence brought to the table
You mean those 87-minute videos you slap up that you expect us all to waste our time (or even have the time to waste) watching?
you cherry-pick parts of my wording
Wording matters. If you can't take the time to word your argument carefully & don't have the consideration to say so at the time, then you shouldn't be arguing.
from a mobile forum post, done on a glitchy browser
"Sad excuses! Weak! Pathetic! #ImTheBest" ~Herr Leader Trump
I'm going on virtually no sleep after two days
Likewise. Difference is, I don't arrogantly pretend I'm building a solid argument under those circumstances.
not taking into account that it could be I just simply don't consider arguing with you on this point to even be worth the effort of proof-reading for grammar's sake.
Your response to being called out on your arrogance is more arrogance. Well, at least I can't say you're inconsistent.
I'd say I'm done responding to you on this point
Which point? The point of your assumption that you've proven anything & the thread is over? Because that's the only point you were responding to just now.
it's time to move on.
I'll believe it when I see it.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

User avatar
Random User
Posts: 12955
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:54 am
Location: SECRET BASE INSIDE SNAKE MOUNTAIN
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Post by Random User » Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:04 am

[QUOTE="Bad Dragonite, post: 1623630, member: 32425"]Actually, again it's more a negative for the other people involved in the Red series rather than him himself, he's still the biggest Youtuber (and growing much faster than he was now) he's making even more money now from ad revenue, and is a free agent. Along with that alot of people now respect him as a sort of "Symbol of free speech" so in a way yes it makes up for it.[/QUOTE]
Company image is of far, far greater importance than turning a profit. Your company's reputation is literally worth more than the company itself. Considering Pewdiepie doesn't seem to put much thought into the consequences of doing things, companies are likely going to think twice about partnering up with him.

All said, media is all bought by our government's officials. It's disappointing that any major journalists at all are considered clean from this, because they are not. I dislike Trump's method of attempting to silence the media, but it's not much different than every other president's choice of paying them off. I guess at least Trump is honest in his ill intentions.

User avatar
е и ժ е я
Supermod
Posts: 41066
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Enough. My tilde has tired and shall take its leave of you.
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 8 times
Contact:

Post by е и ժ е я » Thu Mar 02, 2017 1:34 pm

Bad Dragonite, post: 1623656, member: 32425 wrote: Things like the "lower taxes on the rich" are much more nuanced than that and I think you know this.
The wealthiest Americans are among the wealthiest persons in the world. The divide in wealth equality in the West has grown to exceed that of feudalism. The wealthy possess riches to the excess of all practical reasoning, and it is once again on par with the type of inequality which lead to the rise of totalitarian socialism in the early 1900s. The American middle class is a concept which has hung around since the post-war 50s era. The industries are not just absent, the top is 'legally' fleecing the bottom class. Between the late 70's and now, with inflation accounted for, the average CEO's pay has grown 1000% - that's ten times - to the average worker's having risen 11%. That's not a typo. CEO pay increased by one-thousand percent. Worker pay increased by eleven percent. Since 1965, the ratio has changed from 20:1 to in excess of 300:1, with a peak in the early 2000's. Is the job market depressed? Are Americans broke? Yes and yes, although they should not be. Yet back in May of last year, when the tax rate on the highest income bracket was 39.6%, Trump said he wanted it dropped to 25%. Does tax actually help recirculate wealth? It can, but not if you're destroying all government services designed to help the bottom class. So yes, it's much more nuanced than simply saying 'lower taxes on the rich' is not just something conservatives call for, it's that they both are only paying as much as the wealthy in other leading nations already, and that the wealthiest are actually people who typically prevent recirculation intentionally, people who buy goods priced far beyond the worth of their materials and construction for the appearance of social prestige. Can the top afford heavier taxes? Don't ask the Republican President, apparently he doesn't pay them anyway.
And you say you're bias is to anti-authoritarianism then complain about people saying they want personal ownership of firearms for protection or recreation or any real reason and you minimize it to being "it's just to stroke their rebel fantasy."
Do people want firearms for protection? Why would I be concerned about the proliferation of firearms? Do I really have to explain this again? In the 10 years between 2005 and 2015, 94 Americans died in terror attacks. Awful, unjust, disappointing, horrifying attacks. Over 301,000 Americans died by gunshot. That's right, over three hundred thousand people were killed. The country's current response? Some people want better control laws. Conservatives are asking to further deregulate weapons. 94 terror attacks, largely unrelated geographically to those targeted by the recent travel ban. Of course, previous attacks cannot be perpetrated by the same individuals any longer - they are typically dead or incarcerated. A ban which has border enforcement on edge and excessively aggressive, and world-disturbing conservative political actions which involve the very public removal of people from their homes, have chilled the world community and caused a staggering 8% drop in US tourism. A single percent drop in this industry often dictates political action and is cause for alarm. 301,000 Americans dead by gunfire in the previous year, weapons are already legal and conservatives have just declared their outright refusal to enforce a law preventing the sale of firearms to the mentally ill, current government action is creating worldwide agitation to the tune of tourism to the US drying up at an absurd rate, and you think I do not have a right to be skeptical of someone who thinks guns should be more accessible? That is some brilliant knee-jerk right there. I do not believe guns should be banned whole-sale. Anti-authoritarian does not mean I'm an anarchist, it means I am wholly against irresponsible and pointless government interference in the otherwise unobtrusive lives of residents. It'd be just the business of weapon owners if they didn't keep shooting themselves and others.
And when you talk about most American liberals not being "true liberals " then I'd have to agree in the sense that they definitely are far from classical liberalism in the original intended sense and have taken on many negative characteristics that the conservative right had not very long ago, but at the same time I'd say this falls under a "no true Scottsman" fallacy. The people in this group we call the liberals and who call themselves liberals in general don't act in the way you believe that "true liberals" or "true democrats " should. I mean correct me if you believe I'm mistaken, but that's how that part of your post came off, a sweeping generalization of an opposition based off of either preconceived notions or oversimplifying of issues, so you could then prop up the problems of the other party on by saying that the problem individuals in the party are just secretly actually conservative.
American politics have the word 'liberal' desperately confused with 'left-wing' on an imaginary, linear political spectrum. I am saying that the Democrats are economically centrist, not leftist, and on social issues they may skew left of center but they also often skew right-ward, but overall they do not deviate very far. It is a matter of the individual in the party. That is not an indictment of the party or any trouble-makers, liars and thieves can claim to be anyone they want - that is their nature. Democrats are not anarcho-communists, which lands largely at the far westward end of my would-be spectrum.

If the political spectrum as an overall thing remains stationary, but parties are constantly changing, it is not unrealistic to say that Republicans are moving on the spectrum. Take their recent role-reversal on Trade Globalization, for instance.
I muttered 'light as a board, stiff as a feather' for 2 days straight and now I've ascended, ;aughing at olympus and zeus is crying

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8703
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia
Contact:

Post by Bad Dragonite » Thu Mar 02, 2017 3:04 pm

[QUOTE="CaptHayfever, post: 1623669, member: 25169"]You mean those 87-minute videos you slap up that you expect us all to waste our time (or even have the time to waste) watching?
Wording matters. If you can't take the time to word your argument carefully & don't have the consideration to say so at the time, then you shouldn't be arguing.
"Sad excuses! Weak! Pathetic! #ImTheBest" ~Herr Leader Trump
Likewise. Difference is, I don't arrogantly pretend I'm building a solid argument under those circumstances.
Your response to being called out on your arrogance is more arrogance. Well, at least I can't say you're inconsistent.
Which point? The point of your assumption that you've proven anything & the thread is over? Because that's the only point you were responding to just now.
I'll believe it when I see it.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"[/QUOTE]
The videos are under 10 minutes apiece and one is strictly evidence of CNN and MSNBC cutting off people saying inconvenient things while the other is a news video by someone on the left discussing the Pewdiepie situation. I never said the thread was done, I said I'm done arguing with you that the media had an agenda with Pewdiepie. It seems fairly obvious at this point. If you're gonna take the time to be a part of the discussion then just saying "your resources are too looong! " doesn't debunk anything, especially when both are fairly straightforward and when one has evidence to back it up while the other is evidence itself.
-I'm Vgfian

User avatar
Shane
Administrator
Posts: 141018
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 1999 11:42 pm
Location: St. Upidtown
Been thanked: 18 times
Contact:

Post by Shane » Thu Mar 02, 2017 7:08 pm

Pewdiepie is making tens of millions of dollars. Even if this hurt him, a potential side effect of WSJ's primary goal of attempting to make itself relevant again, it's relative. He won't feel it.

I would like to see him go to a competitor because YouTube needs one, but I don't know if that is even realistic.

I would argue that most of the hatred is coming from the left, not the old left that is more like the center now (or even the right because some liberals are moving right to avoid being associated with extremists), but the new pull out a Magic 8-Ball of insults and call anyone them whether they did anything wrong group. I hear words like KKK and Nazi on a regular basis. Their relevance in America is next to zero.
Now I know there's a reason you shouldn't blame others when you do something wrong, and that reason is: you might get caught and have to apologize to a bunch of dumb peasants.

Post Reply

Return to “Politics, Philosophy, and Religion”