Quote from: Teki no Sukottorando on June 04, 2017, 10:10:53 PM

Quote from: LC on June 04, 2017, 10:02:53 PM

Quote from: Teki no Sukottorando on June 04, 2017, 09:57:05 PM

Quote from: LC on June 04, 2017, 09:47:38 PM

Quote from: Teki no Sukottorando on June 04, 2017, 09:43:58 PM

Quote from: LC on June 04, 2017, 09:39:41 PM

Quote from: Teki no Sukottorando on June 04, 2017, 09:26:35 PM

Quote from: LC on June 04, 2017, 08:51:47 PM

still wondering why conservatives weren't outraged when stuff like this came up during the obama administration

they were

source: I live around a lot of rednecks with bumper stickers and paint on their trucks talking about killing obama and people like WWII vets and younger, more level headed (and frankly better educated) conservatives in the area would often vocally and publicly berate them for their disrespect.

of course FOX NEWS never covered it though, what do you expect?

Information that is fair, and at the same time, is somehow balanced?

a couple people in your hometown are irrelevant. it's obvious i'm talking about something larger than just a few scattered individuals

Clearly this sentiment is neither isolated nor unique to one town.

the lack of any kind of media (traditional or otherwise) outrage tells me that the condemnation of those acts wasn't as wide spread as you believe.

based on samples from varied conservative communities in a selection of southern states including Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas that I spent time in during the Obama presidency and witnessed this phenomenon I'd say human decency isn't a completely radical concept.

But hey, that may sound nuts to a liberal.

your argument is pretty much the equivalent to the invisible intangible pink elephant. the only proof you have that it was widespread and common is your word that it was there. you even admitted yourself that conservative media and leaders didn't comment on it and they would have if there was a noticeable public outrage over these acts in the conservative community. they wouldn't want to jeopardize their sheckles/chances at reelection after all.

At some level every account is a firsthand account, and therefore the forensic idea that eyewitnesses are the least reliable form of evidence does not apply to broader anthropological studies or journalism, and in fact makes the firsthand account a mainstay of journalism in sharp contrast the heavily publicized sentiment that witnesses are unreliable.

that's nice, but you could at least give me some tangible evidence for this elephant of yours

Tangible evidence or what is considered 'hard proof' is largely irrelevant outside of the advent of photojournalism. Even then, misconstrual of evidence often so vague as a photograph blurs lines of true and false without an accompanying account from the witness (ie: the photographer). Corroboration is the only sure method of verification.

So sure I could call up my old running buddy and ask him to tell you about the elderly gentleman at mcdonald's in the MAGA hat who yelled at a guy who hooted in agreement with the sentiment professed by the hat and then turned to his friend and made a grim remark about how he'd like to get rid of Obama sooner and would take the matter into his own hands if need be, at which point the older man demanded he show respect for the incumbent of the highest office in the world, but that would require me to bring him here.

Ultimately, since we're looking at this from the point of view of the media, I can generate a quote from him on my own and claim he said it to me when I asked him to confirm my account.

If I had a television show the account I created on his behalf without his knowledge would be considered a fact, (heck, my the friend I credit isn't even real, who gives a shit) and would be widely accepted, and even if it was later proven to false a strong sentiment believing that this person exists and confirmed my story would remain.

In other words if you can't accept that someone who contrasts you may have a point then you definitely shouldn't believe anything you see on the news.

i dont get it

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on June 04, 2017, 10:34:05 PM

cmd what did you reply to me with

Just saying that Clangserk is the best comedy show of all time.

um
that's not how you spell Mike Tyson Mysteries

Quote from: Teki no Sukottorando on June 04, 2017, 10:32:01 PM

the difference between news media and you being that they generally give some form of evidence to back up their claims and you just say this happened because i said this happened

like i'm not even asking for much proof here since a top trending twitter hashtag would have even been enough

Do people use social media still?

I thought it was just for politicians.

Quote from: Teki no Sukottorando on June 04, 2017, 11:43:10 PM

Quote from: LC on June 04, 2017, 11:37:46 PM

Quote from: Teki no Sukottorando on June 04, 2017, 10:32:01 PM

the difference between news media and you being that they generally give some form of evidence to back up their claims and you just say this happened because i said this happened

like i'm not even asking for much proof here since a top trending twitter hashtag would have even been enough

Do people use social media still?

I thought it was just for politicians.

um

yeah, social media is pretty normie dude

okay

so politicians and fast food chains

so what the fuck did i miss