Well OK. I was really asking about practical solutions, but yeah I imagine that would work. Trouble is that most effective methods are currently being tirelessly scouted for by a paranoid security apparatus terrified that just such a thing might be coming. You'd think maybe they'd address that by, you know, NOT creating a permanent underclass with motivation to do such a thing, but I guess they don't know how.
Yes, I've used "they" to refer to about half a dozen different groups and subsets interchangably just now. Meh, it's Friday.
Wasn't it the Tea Party that was ruined by Libertarians? I wonder how concerted that was, actually.
Nah, they're basically the same thing and always have been. You have the Libertarians, who are basically a big glob of extreme-right crazies who worship Gold, gold backed currency, or things that function like them economically(like bitcoin) and with a lot of money poured all over them by the Koch brothers. Compared to that you have the Tea Party, a big glob of extreme right crazies heavily funded by the Koch brothers, except they tend to be religious, rather than worshiping gold.
Having some sort of organized structure and a clearly defined list of principles and goals would help, especially with forming something even vaugely resembling a coherent message. As would actively disassociating your shiny new movement from the crazies, preferably through structuring your organization in such a way that it limits their ability to influence your movement away from it's original principles and goals, rather than outright banning them, however satisfying telling them to fuck off might be.
I think keeping your growing movement from being co-opted by a mainstream media owned by a handful of elites is bigger than a breadbox. Even social media is gamed to the teeth. It's no easy feat.
Hand-wringing about the moral high road aside, the facts on the ground are that one "side" is absurdly better equipped to wage those sorts of media-spanning, propaganda-bombing dirty tactics than "we" are.
Hand-wringing about the moral high road aside, the facts on the ground are that one "side" is absurdly better equipped to wage the sorts of media-spanning, propaganda-bombing dirty tactics than "we" are.
Oh come on, dude, the old media conspiracy theory again?
Frankly, if the organization has even a shred of a clue and some vaguely competent spokespeople, they'll be able to get their message out via the media, and with reasonable accuracy to boot. What, Fox News doesn't blow wind up your kilt? Then go to Huffpo, the Guardian, Mother Jones, VICE, any other media outlet. Fuck, even just try calling some vaguely reputable journalists - That is literally exactly how we ended up with the Snowden Revelations. If your story is worth telling, someone will tell it and tell it accurately.
If you don't want the media to report that the group is just a bunch of disorganized, clueless people without a coherent message standing around in a park being irritating and messy, then y'all need to be organized, clued in, and have a comprehensive message ready to go.
Yeah, corporations have a good time with the media - Because they know what they're doing, and they don't screw around hoping that the media will just go with it because they're the "Good" guy. They have spokespeople. They have a message, branding, goals. They can be reached for comment - or at least, have a place that you can reach out to for comment - when necessary.
And if this hypothetical movement can't manage that much, then frankly, they were never going to achieve anything anyway, media intervention or not.
6 conglomerates own 96% of the mass media in the country. Astroturfing covers the rest.
If you want to push a talking point that isn't on somebody's list, good fucking luck. This doesn't require a conspiracy. Don't be condescending.
99.9% of the dialog surrounding Snowden everywhere but The Guardian (which as popular as it is, is read by some vanishing fraction of the world) has been about whether he's a traitor or a coward, not about what he actually leaked. In this same way, every dialog over every key issue is guided into one or more "safe" troughs. No conspiracy required, it's just how the machine works.
Vice, Mother Jones, etc, are in the same boat as the Guardian. Real, laudable journalists that statistically, almost no one pays attention to except through some other party that distorts or sanitizes their message.
The ONLY way for ANY movement to accomplish anything is with media backing. It is the only credible, feasible means of spreading their message on the planet.
If you want to push a talking point that isn't on somebody's list, good fucking luck. This doesn't require a conspiracy. Don't be condescending.
Muppet, I'm a fucking member of the media - which is not something I've ever been particularly circumspect about - you're trying to spin me a tale of media conspiracies to hold the little guy down, and trying to tell me how the media works. To put it bluntly, you started it, mate.
99.9% of the dialog surrounding Snowden everywhere but The Guardian (which as popular as it is, is read by some vanishing fraction of the world) has been about whether he's a traitor or a coward, not about what he actually leaked.
Utter horseshit. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find an organization that didn't report and discuss that information, at length. And you'll also find that the Guardian has not shied away from running stories about people calling him a traitor, either.
Churba, I'm saying over and over that no conspiracy is required, it's just human nature to look for binary positions.
I've also acknowledged that real, rigorous journalism exists. And it bores people, or it alienates them, or it's over their head, or they just aren't aware of it because it's not on CNN, and they don't read it.
The Guardian had articles primarily about the implications of the leaks, along with the charges of traitor and coward and so on. They have to, it's what's going on in the world.
What was the actual dialog that was going on in 98% of the world and on most television screens? Whether he was a traitor, perhaps interspersed with 30 second segments about the actual contents of the documents.
I'm not trying to impugn your work as a journalist, dude, but if you're going to argue that rigorous journalism is the norm in the majority of media that the world (especially the US) consumes... well then yeah, I'm gonna call you out on that one.
Churba, I'm saying over and over that no conspiracy is required, it's just human nature to look for binary positions.
Yes, you can say that, but it's hardly convincing when you then go on to strongly imply that 6 conglomerates are controlling the media for some unexplained purpose, and that what the media doesn't sort out, astroturfing - namely, the intentional manipulation of public opinion - does, therefore implying that you think the big 6 conglomerates that own most of the media are intentionally and covertly manipulating public opinion to some unknown or at least unstated end.
If you want to be taken seriously when you say "There's no conspiracy required", then don't follow it up with something that is a textbook definition of a conspiracy. Not to mention that I'm pretty sure you can't really put any strong evidence to it, which also makes it a textbook conspiracy theory.
I've also acknowledged that real, rigorous journalism exists. And it bores people, or it alienates them, or it's over their head, or they just aren't aware of it because it's not on CNN, and they don't read it.
I think, judging by the proportion of people I've heard express sentiments like that(with the assumption, of course, that they're an exception - otherwise you wouldn't be having a discussion about what's in the news, obviously), compared to the people who don't or express the opposite, then the people described are actually a small minority. It's called, IIRC, the Lake Wobegon effect, but I'm pretty sure there's a proper name for it that I frankly have no idea what it is.
I'm not trying to impugn your work as a journalist, dude, but if you're going to argue that rigorous journalism is the norm in the majority of media that the world (especially the US) consumes... well then yeah, I'm gonna call you out on that one.
Eh? No worries dude, I know this isn't about me at any point, except for the bit where it seems quite a bit like you're trying to teach me how to suck eggs - but that's not part of the argument itself.
But, if I'm going to be called out, I'm going to have to say you first, I'd like to see evidence of your claims - at least, evidence a bit stronger than just pointing out the ownership of various media organizations, because ownership is not proof of editorial interference, nor is the idea that it makes sense.
I'd also like to know which organizations have been avoiding the discussion, but it's not something I can ask for reasonably. I mean, even if I didn't ask for perfect accuracy, that's simply way too much data to wade through trying to figure out who said what and in what proportion.
6 conglomerates controlling the mass media meaning that it's practically a monoculture. 6 hierarchies is too small a field.
I'm certainly not a journalist and I certainly don't have firsthand knowledge of the industry. I can only go by what I see on the television tube, aggregator sites (really the only one large enough to bother with is reddit, maybe fark), and what my coworkers, relatives, and neighbors keep saying. Minority viewpoints don't prosper in global communication, and majority viewpoints are vastly oversimplified.
Anyway Churba, I think you're a pretty swell guy and I dislike when a discussion veers into personal offense. (I know you addressed this above, but still).
I agree that major media outlets have covered more of Snowden than "Snowden, terrorist, or ULTRA-terrorist?" but I think that certain inflammatory memes that drive ratings and web hits get more airtime than others, which don't. As for citations, well, I haven't got 'em. I think somebody did an analysis of CNNs 24 hour news cycle for a week like 3 years ago but fuck if I have that in my back pocket and it still wouldn't prove anything about the global situation.
There's an extreme degree of polarization in the US on party lines between Democrat/Republican. I feel as though this polarization is encouraged and exacerbated by a mass media that reports in those terms, but then there's the fact of how our entire political system works, etc etc etc, so maybe that's not fair.
I think polarization is an inevitable result of more ready access to national politics, an eschewing of local issues, and a widening divide between young/tech and old/nocomputer.
I think there will be a big and sudden correction away from the far right once the oldest three current generations are extinct. Religion has a pretty steep falloff at that point in the US.
I think the Right is likely to split along financial and religious issues as the geezers die off, and then continue to get worse along one of those axes, but I guess we'll both find out.
Symphony of the Night is not so hard it requires save states... It actually has plenty of save points in it. If you're using save states on the original Castlevania, I forgive you.
Does this really seem like a thing that could happen? I mean, could you really finish severing someone's penis before they could flee, especially if you're a teen girl and he's a grown man with no problem assaulting you?
Seems unlikely, like a gonzo news item.
Good for her, if she managed it. There's no way to know what an assailant's intentions are, so to hell with him.
Well, sort of. There's the suspensory ligament, but that's in behind the base of the penis. You'd just about be sawing pelvis before you were worrying about that. The penis itself is entirely soft tissue. A knife would go through it quite quick and easy, especially if held taut with the other hand, and presuming the knife was decently sharp. Buggered if I know how well it would work when erect, but probably not substantially different.
Surprisingly, Wikipedia has an article about lopping off dongs. There's a surprising number of notable cases of todgers being totaled, and apparently between 1973 and 1980, Thailand saw over a hundred non-consentual dick departures. Not to mention, in Ancient china, shlong severing was, if this is to be believed, one of the five approved punishments, and similar punishments appear in the old Japanese Penal code.
Not to mention, in Ancient china, shlong severing was, if this is to be believed, one of the five approved punishments, and similar punishments appear in the old Japanese Penal code.
I see what you did there. Approve cutting through an engorged penis would be easy, don't know how sharp the knife was, with surgery you're always dealing with a very sharp scalpel.
Approve cutting through an engorged penis would be easy, don't know how sharp the knife was, with surgery you're always dealing with a very sharp scalpel.
I feel this raises questions that I don't really want to know the answer to.
Comments
Yes, I've used "they" to refer to about half a dozen different groups and subsets interchangably just now. Meh, it's Friday.
https://mayday.us/appel/ (Democrat)
https://mayday.us/rubens/ (Republican)
Frankly, if the organization has even a shred of a clue and some vaguely competent spokespeople, they'll be able to get their message out via the media, and with reasonable accuracy to boot. What, Fox News doesn't blow wind up your kilt? Then go to Huffpo, the Guardian, Mother Jones, VICE, any other media outlet. Fuck, even just try calling some vaguely reputable journalists - That is literally exactly how we ended up with the Snowden Revelations. If your story is worth telling, someone will tell it and tell it accurately.
If you don't want the media to report that the group is just a bunch of disorganized, clueless people without a coherent message standing around in a park being irritating and messy, then y'all need to be organized, clued in, and have a comprehensive message ready to go.
Yeah, corporations have a good time with the media - Because they know what they're doing, and they don't screw around hoping that the media will just go with it because they're the "Good" guy. They have spokespeople. They have a message, branding, goals. They can be reached for comment - or at least, have a place that you can reach out to for comment - when necessary.
And if this hypothetical movement can't manage that much, then frankly, they were never going to achieve anything anyway, media intervention or not.
If you want to push a talking point that isn't on somebody's list, good fucking luck. This doesn't require a conspiracy. Don't be condescending.
99.9% of the dialog surrounding Snowden everywhere but The Guardian (which as popular as it is, is read by some vanishing fraction of the world) has been about whether he's a traitor or a coward, not about what he actually leaked. In this same way, every dialog over every key issue is guided into one or more "safe" troughs. No conspiracy required, it's just how the machine works.
Vice, Mother Jones, etc, are in the same boat as the Guardian. Real, laudable journalists that statistically, almost no one pays attention to except through some other party that distorts or sanitizes their message.
The ONLY way for ANY movement to accomplish anything is with media backing. It is the only credible, feasible means of spreading their message on the planet.
I've also acknowledged that real, rigorous journalism exists. And it bores people, or it alienates them, or it's over their head, or they just aren't aware of it because it's not on CNN, and they don't read it.
The Guardian had articles primarily about the implications of the leaks, along with the charges of traitor and coward and so on. They have to, it's what's going on in the world.
What was the actual dialog that was going on in 98% of the world and on most television screens? Whether he was a traitor, perhaps interspersed with 30 second segments about the actual contents of the documents.
I'm not trying to impugn your work as a journalist, dude, but if you're going to argue that rigorous journalism is the norm in the majority of media that the world (especially the US) consumes... well then yeah, I'm gonna call you out on that one.
If you want to be taken seriously when you say "There's no conspiracy required", then don't follow it up with something that is a textbook definition of a conspiracy. Not to mention that I'm pretty sure you can't really put any strong evidence to it, which also makes it a textbook conspiracy theory. I think, judging by the proportion of people I've heard express sentiments like that(with the assumption, of course, that they're an exception - otherwise you wouldn't be having a discussion about what's in the news, obviously), compared to the people who don't or express the opposite, then the people described are actually a small minority. It's called, IIRC, the Lake Wobegon effect, but I'm pretty sure there's a proper name for it that I frankly have no idea what it is. Eh? No worries dude, I know this isn't about me at any point, except for the bit where it seems quite a bit like you're trying to teach me how to suck eggs - but that's not part of the argument itself.
But, if I'm going to be called out, I'm going to have to say you first, I'd like to see evidence of your claims - at least, evidence a bit stronger than just pointing out the ownership of various media organizations, because ownership is not proof of editorial interference, nor is the idea that it makes sense.
I'd also like to know which organizations have been avoiding the discussion, but it's not something I can ask for reasonably. I mean, even if I didn't ask for perfect accuracy, that's simply way too much data to wade through trying to figure out who said what and in what proportion.
I'm certainly not a journalist and I certainly don't have firsthand knowledge of the industry. I can only go by what I see on the television tube, aggregator sites (really the only one large enough to bother with is reddit, maybe fark), and what my coworkers, relatives, and neighbors keep saying. Minority viewpoints don't prosper in global communication, and majority viewpoints are vastly oversimplified.
Anyway Churba, I think you're a pretty swell guy and I dislike when a discussion veers into personal offense. (I know you addressed this above, but still).
I agree that major media outlets have covered more of Snowden than "Snowden, terrorist, or ULTRA-terrorist?" but I think that certain inflammatory memes that drive ratings and web hits get more airtime than others, which don't. As for citations, well, I haven't got 'em. I think somebody did an analysis of CNNs 24 hour news cycle for a week like 3 years ago but fuck if I have that in my back pocket and it still wouldn't prove anything about the global situation.
There's an extreme degree of polarization in the US on party lines between Democrat/Republican. I feel as though this polarization is encouraged and exacerbated by a mass media that reports in those terms, but then there's the fact of how our entire political system works, etc etc etc, so maybe that's not fair.
Solution? Glass parking lot, I guess.
I think there will be a big and sudden correction away from the far right once the oldest three current generations are extinct. Religion has a pretty steep falloff at that point in the US.
Does this really seem like a thing that could happen? I mean, could you really finish severing someone's penis before they could flee, especially if you're a teen girl and he's a grown man with no problem assaulting you?
Seems unlikely, like a gonzo news item.
Good for her, if she managed it. There's no way to know what an assailant's intentions are, so to hell with him.
I mean shit, there's a TENDON in there, right?
Surprisingly, Wikipedia has an article about lopping off dongs. There's a surprising number of notable cases of todgers being totaled, and apparently between 1973 and 1980, Thailand saw over a hundred non-consentual dick departures. Not to mention, in Ancient china, shlong severing was, if this is to be believed, one of the five approved punishments, and similar punishments appear in the old Japanese Penal code.
Approve cutting through an engorged penis would be easy, don't know how sharp the knife was, with surgery you're always dealing with a very sharp scalpel.