Media Bias

[Brian Peacock]

Are Trump supports supposed to be outraged that Hunter paid for sex now? Or is it just the rest of us?

[Seabass]

But I understand that social media coordinating to suppress a story which might be untrue, is acceptable to you.

[Cunt]

I wouldn't know. I like the looks of his whore, he seems a nice enough chap. It was the stuff he was saying that was of interest.

It's probably a lot safer to just focus on the salacious part. It certainly is funny.

[Hermit]

Twitter, facebook and others blocked the link, suppressing the story. I can't make it any plainer.

Actually, you can't make changing the subject any more obvious. You started off with "I know when corporate media unifies to suppress an idea, they are showing their bias clearly. Like when they all suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story until the election was complete." to social media not showing a video. When you could not get the first one to fly you just started talking about another. It's your standard operational procedure.

[Brian Peacock]

"Oo look - a herring in hot pants!"

[Cunt]

Twitter, facebook and others blocked the link, suppressing the story. I can't make it any plainer.

Actually, you can't make changing the subject any more obvious. You started off with "I know when corporate media unifies to suppress an idea, they are showing their bias clearly. Like when they all suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story until the election was complete." to social media not showing a video. When you could not get the first one to fly you just started talking about another. It's your standard operational procedure.

I have no doubt that you can't see the bias.

Social media suppressing the story to help their pals with the election IS the story you can't accept.

I'm going to dismiss your trolling for awhile. Enjoy your clear rejection of media bias, especially in this thread.
https://nationalfile.com/big-tech-meltd ... ail-story/

Left-wing Big Tech platform Twitter has banned links to a story from the New York Post regarding the Biden family’s overseas dealings. Despite the fact that the New York Post is one of the most prestigious, credible, and mainstream papers of record in the United States, and the story itself is well-vetted and reliably sourced, the damaging political implications for the Democrat Party in the 2020 presidential election have led Big Tech platforms to label the story “potentially harmful” and block users from seeing it.
The news follows a decision from fellow left-wing tech monopoly Facebook to “reduce distribution” of the story, setting the precedent for Silicon Valley censorship of journalism on what appear to be purely partisan grounds.

[rainbow]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... aptop.html

The video was taken down from the Crowder link, but it's still up at daily mail.

Of course, just because he is on video speaking doesn't prove anything, since the drug-addled super-rich Biden (smartest man Joe knows) is just bragging to a whore.

It doesn't even prove that the video is Hunter, and even if it was, that the video hadn't been altered.

Tell me why you think Crowder took down the link?

Are they really part of the "biased media", as you proudly parrot from your extreme Right Wing Crypto-Fascist sources?

[Hermit]

Twitter, facebook and others blocked the link, suppressing the story. I can't make it any plainer.

Actually, you can't make changing the subject any more obvious. You started off with "I know when corporate media unifies to suppress an idea, they are showing their bias clearly. Like when they all suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story until the election was complete." to social media not showing a video. When you could not get the first one to fly you just started talking about another. It's your standard operational procedure.

I have no doubt that you can't see the bias.

From "I know when corporate media unifies to suppress an idea" to my bias via social media not showing a video. Are you sure you're not getting dizzy?

[Cunt]

Twitter, facebook and others blocked the link, suppressing the story. I can't make it any plainer.

Actually, you can't make changing the subject any more obvious. You started off with "I know when corporate media unifies to suppress an idea, they are showing their bias clearly. Like when they all suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story until the election was complete." to social media not showing a video. When you could not get the first one to fly you just started talking about another. It's your standard operational procedure.

I have no doubt that you can't see the bias.

From "I know when corporate media unifies to suppress an idea" to my bias via social media not showing a video. Are you sure you're not getting dizzy?

Keep trolling. It suits you.

[Joe]

Twitter, facebook and others blocked the link, suppressing the story. I can't make it any plainer.

Actually, you can't make changing the subject any more obvious. You started off with "I know when corporate media unifies to suppress an idea, they are showing their bias clearly. Like when they all suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story until the election was complete." to social media not showing a video. When you could not get the first one to fly you just started talking about another. It's your standard operational procedure.

I have no doubt that you can't see the bias.

Social media suppressing the story to help their pals with the election IS the story you can't accept.

I'm going to dismiss your trolling for awhile. Enjoy your clear rejection of media bias, especially in this thread.
https://nationalfile.com/big-tech-meltd ... ail-story/

Left-wing Big Tech platform Twitter has banned links to a story from the New York Post regarding the Biden family’s overseas dealings. Despite the fact that the New York Post is one of the most prestigious, credible, and mainstream papers of record in the United States, and the story itself is well-vetted and reliably sourced, the damaging political implications for the Democrat Party in the 2020 presidential election have led Big Tech platforms to label the story “potentially harmful” and block users from seeing it.
The news follows a decision from fellow left-wing tech monopoly Facebook to “reduce distribution” of the story, setting the precedent for Silicon Valley censorship of journalism on what appear to be purely partisan grounds.

Wow, I don't think I've seen this classification from the Media Bias Fact Check people before. You picked a real winner there, Cunt.



Of course, who cares if social media won't allow posting NSFW content, if the New York Post is covering the story.

As your own source says, they are one of the "mainstream papers of record in the United States," corporate media all the way. That's not suppression.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Back when the left seemed the side of free speech, I was on their side. Now, 'free-speech' is firmly on the right.

Is that what Crowder and Pool told you?

It's bullshit.

'Muzzling America’s Teachers with a Ban on Critical Race Theory is What Orwell Warned Us About'

[Cunt]

I don't know about Critical Racism Theory, I think that's college crap. In school, it's just the Critical Racist Applied Praxis (C.R.A.P.) I did hear Ibram X Kendi (what was his real name?) answer simple questions.

They asked him 'what is racism'. His definition was enlightening. He's a fucking idiot. Feel free to look it up, but basically, he stammered out 'it's when racists are racisming and its racist'.

What's going on in school isn't censorship, unless declining to teach creationism is censorship.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Nice to see that you can justify government censorship by simply claiming that it isn't censorship. Well done, you.

[Brian Peacock]

I did hear Ibram X Kendi (what was his real name?) answer simple questions.

They asked him 'what is racism'. His definition was enlightening. He's a fucking idiot. Feel free to look it up, but basically, he stammered out 'it's when racists are racisming and its racist'.

He's quite clear on the matter:

...

So let’s set some definitions. What is racism? Racism is a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalizes racial inequities. Okay, so what are racist policies and ideas? We have to define them separately to understand why they are married and why they interact so well together. In fact, let’s take one step back and consider the definition of another important phrase: racial inequity.

Racial inequity is when two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing. Here’s an example of racial inequity: 71 percent of White families lived in owner-occupied homes in 2014, compared to 45 percent of Latinx families and 41 percent of Black families. Racial equity is when two or more racial groups are standing on a relatively equal footing. An example of racial equity would be if there were relatively equitable percentages of all three racial groups living in owner-occupied homes in the forties, seventies, or, better, nineties.

A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups. By policy, I mean written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines that govern people. There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups.

Racist policies have been described by other terms: “institutional racism,” “structural racism,” and “systemic racism,” for instance. But those are vaguer terms than “racist policy.” When I use them I find myself having to immediately explain what they mean. “Racist policy” is more tangible and exacting, and more likely to be immediately understood by people, including its victims, who may not have the benefit of extensive fluency in racial terms. “Racist policy” says exactly what the problem is and where the problem is. “Institutional racism” and “structural racism” and “systemic racism” are redundant. Racism itself is institutional, structural, and systemic.

“Racist policy” also cuts to the core of racism better than “racial discrimination,” another common phrase. “Racial discrimination” is an immediate and visible manifestation of an underlying racial policy. When someone discriminates against a person in a racial group, they are carrying out a policy or taking advantage of the lack of a protective policy. We all have the power to discriminate. Only an exclusive few have the power to make policy. Focusing on “racial discrimination” takes our eyes off the central agents of racism: racist policy and racist policymakers, or what I call racist power.

...


Ibram X. Kendi, How To Be an Antiracist. Penguin, 2019 (Amazon link)

[Joe]

I don't know Brian. That's awful long and articulate.