Now please allow me to help you understand:
How do those laypeople (who, BTW, form the court of public opinion) get their information?
Considering a person innocent until proven guilty = GOLD STAR GOOD!
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The Democrat Primary Race Is Filling Up
- Thread starter ArcadiaGP
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
How do those laypeople (who, BTW, form the court of public opinion) get their information?
Considering a person innocent until proven guilty = GOLD STAR GOOD!
Where do the laypeople get their info if not from the "media". Help me understand the difference between the media and "information in the public sphere".
When you go looking for information in the public sphere, what are your top 3 places to find it?
I go to CNN for my news.
I know that the truth will be the exact opposite of what they report.
Quoted For Truth!
From a variety of sources, all of which are readily available, and those sources can then be used to discuss the information. You are really stretching with trying to catch me out here. If you cannot see the difference between a media organization with a reach of millions of readers, and a much smaller number of laypeople discussing something then I can't help you.
Where do you think people are going to get their information from? Is anything reported by the media about a public figure now fruit from the poison tree? What purity test do you have for the dissemination of information?
Thank you for your bravery is sharing an completely uncontroversial opinion, which has been contested by precisely zero people in this discussion. So stunning and brave.
Read the entire piece that you quoted again. I didn't say that the media could not be trusted, or that somehow what the media produces is not information in the public sphere. I said "using the media to attack a public figure". You can still have information in the public sphere that has been properly vetted through a variety of sources to corroborate the information prior to publication. Think of the Kavanaugh case. We had a significant number of accusations that were not vetted, that the media repeated and amplified, generating more media attention, and people came through with more salacious accusations that were not verified prior to publication. That was a trial by media.
The media could have reported that much differently, and still provided information to the public sphere that could be discussed, without all the unverified (and obviously false) claims. This is a challenge when some media organizations exist for entertainment rather than information.
This isn't a hard concept to grasp, unless you think you're going to trip me up, and you want to read to respond rather than to understand.
To answer your question on my top 3 places to find information, the answer is that it depends. I'll read a variety of sources to get a broader understanding of the issue, and help filter out what is opinion from what is fact. If there is anything technical I'll look for an authoritative source (technical documents, peer review sources, a variety of expert opinions)
I'd like to understand how some can take what they read in the media or see a news reader recite or read in a self-serving book or op-ed and conclude that Trump is a bumbling idiot or lacks intelligence et cetera without any first hand knowledge of what is really going on behind the scenes or having ever met the man. OMG, sometimes they dare to psychoanalyze him without professional qualifications or even an ivy league pedigree!
But let someone else dog face their chosen pony soldier, based similarly on what is showcased in the media, and suddenly such material does not meet their exacting standards of proof, all said without a trace of irony or reflection
hypocrisy
noun
a situation in which someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe, or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time:
There's one rule for him and another rule for everyone else and it's sheer hypocrisy.
Saying someone is a "bumbling idiot" or "lacks intelligence" is a far cry from saying someone is a sexual predator.
The latter is determined by a court of law and gets you prison time.
You can write article after article accusing someone of the former without regard for libel suits.
(FTR: I think that Biden is the bumbling idiot.)
Slow pitch. Given the facts in evidence, can I or can I not espouse the opinion that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator? I say I can
Does it matter that he has not been charged and convicted? I would say no
I always try to look at the people in the background, they make a lot of the decisions particularly if the candidate is more of a figurehead. Big banks and credit card companies I'm betting will be a large fraction of the behind the scenes players.
I think the women's movement has accomplished its objectives here, towit: accuse all men in power of sexual misconduct and abusing women in one fashion or another.
I don't necessarily disagree that men have misused women in many ways over the millennia. But I also know women to use sex and manipulation as their form of power.
To the extent that anyone "buys" into a 3 decade old claim of rape or assault by a political candidate of either party is to further the agenda of the women's movement. There are statutes of limitations for important reasons. The press doesn't care, but that does not mean we shouldn't.
Women almost destroyed this country with the 18th amendment. They are again attempting to destroy the status quo. This isn't about a guy "breaking the rules" on sexual activity. There really aren't any rules. One woman's love of bad boys is another woman's worst nightmare.
I know, I know. There are appropriate boundaries now that everyone is "woke". But, there really are fewer boundaries. There seems to be a lot more sex happening in a casual fashion than existed when I went to high school. If I listen to modern songs, I hear a lot less about love than I can point to in any top 40 chart from their inception until the 2000's.
What does this have to do with Creepy Joe or Kavanaugh? Everything. If you don't understand why, you are part of the problem.
I don't necessarily disagree that men have misused women in many ways over the millennia. But I also know women to use sex and manipulation as their form of power.
To the extent that anyone "buys" into a 3 decade old claim of rape or assault by a political candidate of either party is to further the agenda of the women's movement. There are statutes of limitations for important reasons. The press doesn't care, but that does not mean we shouldn't.
Women almost destroyed this country with the 18th amendment. They are again attempting to destroy the status quo. This isn't about a guy "breaking the rules" on sexual activity. There really aren't any rules. One woman's love of bad boys is another woman's worst nightmare.
I know, I know. There are appropriate boundaries now that everyone is "woke". But, there really are fewer boundaries. There seems to be a lot more sex happening in a casual fashion than existed when I went to high school. If I listen to modern songs, I hear a lot less about love than I can point to in any top 40 chart from their inception until the 2000's.
What does this have to do with Creepy Joe or Kavanaugh? Everything. If you don't understand why, you are part of the problem.
The difference here is I don't see Kavanaugh routinely getting in trouble for sniffing women's hair or getting excessively handy with women in front of cameras.
In fact, I can't think of any politician that looks as bad in this regard as Biden does. So when an allegation comes out, and he's already in hot water for this stuff, it looks much worse than other instances.
I can't think of anyone else that has had to do this either:
[video=youtube;tNqtmoZT6vE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNqtmoZT6vE[/video]
Normally I'd throw out the me too thing, it's just Biden had already had his 3 strikes of plausible deniability revoked by his own actions. And when he's the front runner for the party responsible for the me too movement, it's just added fuel to the fire to be critical of.
My experience of sexual harassment training during 30 years as a Federal employee.
In our first sexual harassment training, it was made clear that no woman ever makes an unfounded complaint. The only question would be whether the man was allowed to undergo counseling or would just be fired.
During our second training, they said a woman didn't need to say anything was wrong. If she thought she was being harassed, she could quit, and say that was the reason, and sue.
The third round was after the Clinton/Lewinski debacle. Previously, a big deal had been made about powerful men oppressing helpless women. At this time, it was made clear that anything was permissible if the woman was agreeable.
The fourth training was amateurish in the extreme. They presented video examples of differing standards for men and women and the printed handouts had frequent grammatical errors. When the language used is "He done the wrong thing," and "We was having lunch," it's hard to take things seriously.
In our first sexual harassment training, it was made clear that no woman ever makes an unfounded complaint. The only question would be whether the man was allowed to undergo counseling or would just be fired.
During our second training, they said a woman didn't need to say anything was wrong. If she thought she was being harassed, she could quit, and say that was the reason, and sue.
The third round was after the Clinton/Lewinski debacle. Previously, a big deal had been made about powerful men oppressing helpless women. At this time, it was made clear that anything was permissible if the woman was agreeable.
The fourth training was amateurish in the extreme. They presented video examples of differing standards for men and women and the printed handouts had frequent grammatical errors. When the language used is "He done the wrong thing," and "We was having lunch," it's hard to take things seriously.
You've just proved that "they've won".
I used to be a scout. In college, I was a Big Brother. As an old guy, I've got extra time and I could get involved in the community helping kids.
Do you think I would in this day and age? **** NO. I wouldn't put myself at risk.
The standards have changed, and you've bought into the program.
Good for you.
I only apply it to the people who try to apply it to others.
If they want to pretend they hold the moral high ground, then I'll selectively hold them to their own set of beliefs.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...18c532-badd-11e8-a8aa-860695e7f3fc_story.html
Joe Biden is specifically telling you to believe his accuser. He wants this, he can have it.
- Status
