Hang on, so the story was supposed to be a hit job against Starlink? And it was fake? And then the times put up a followup just to say you should be more media literate, let us show you da whey?
I'm... wow. Sure, this isn't their lowest, but this might be one of their saddest moments.
Sounds similar to the Trump lawfare where they designed the story to hurt the individual but the people at large look past that to hit the system.
With Trump, it's the judicial system that looks A LOT worse as a result, with this false story, it's the porn industry and Internet promotion of it that looks bad not the service providing it so that's probably why we hear the truth about it now.
you'd think that after GG people, around here especially, would be slightly skeptical of the mass media. skeptical of what they read online. looking for original sources and verified facts. but here we are, people just listening and believing.
Pretty much all smear stories against Elon are fake. The Emerald mine thing is fake. The whole pedo diver thing was BS (the diver was a pedo). Him destroying twitter (unfortunately). And of course every single Common Sense Skeptic youtube video is fake.
The diver thing was really funny because there's not even a 1% chance that an old British guy retires to Southeast Asia for any other reason, but you still had media literacy guys being very smug about it.
First I'm hearing about the diver actually being a pedo.
I considered retiring to Thailand or another SE asian country when I get old myself, if only because of the cheap cost of living. I'm pretty sure the chance is over 1%.
They don't. Freedom of the press refers to the creation of news, not some class of people. They don't have any extra protection legally America has incredibly lax libel and slander laws.
The "extra protection" comes from other journos not relentlessly attacking people like this.
Oh? So the Washington Post didn't hire terrorists and get off Scot free? CNN didn't commit felony blackmail against an American citizen on the fourth of July and not suffer any consequences? The New York Times didn't do, hell, all the awful shit they've done and yet they're still doing it, while they're owned by a goddamn foreigner?
If you or I had done a tiny fraction of the shit that even a single one of these so called "press" have done publicly we would die in a windowless cell.
Don't tell me they don't have untold privileges compared to real people.
Edit: first you claim they don't have legal privileges. I list half a dozen examples of them having legal privileges to commit crimes that would put anyone here in prison. Seems like you think that is just hunky dory, and if that is the case then to be frank you're a complete idiot.
It is the height of faux intellectual cuckoldry to defend the goddamn media on this website of all things. The press is the enemy, full stop.
Oh and here's the cream of the crop, I forgot this one briefly.
The power to commit espionage live on TV and never see a day in court over it. MSNBC.
The press are the enemy, simple as that. When the fighting starts it's going to be a jump ball as to whether them or the judges start getting clipped first.
Not literal legal protections? Publishing Bradley Manning's stolen intel cost servicemen's lives, and they knew the damage it would have, did it anyway and they were never punished. They have the literal power to commit espionage live on camera.
As long as they claim "protecting a source" they can get away with crimes that regular people would never see the light of day again for. It's formally codified in about two dozen states, and has been successfully claimed in federal court many times. Especially in the last thirty years.
Same with Assange's password-protected State documents, even if you don't think they were as damaging. He didn't actually leak anything to the public - the media did.
While that faggot should never have been in the military and protections for leakers should be applied evenly, those protections also cover things like the biden laptop, and more importantly the Snowden leaks.
Dudes unhinged, so much so he's advocating for what the journos want. They want to be a separate class of people who get more rights and he unknowingly wants to give it to them
I don't think he's unhinged, he's citing examples of corrupt institutions getting away with unethical shit. Hating how sick the american media is, is normal. But his solution, reducing freedom of speech, is not correct.
Other examples being how AJ is getting treated vs. media that slandered Covington kids and others, or the White House Press Corp - which is a totally essential function of a free press that courts will step in to defend when barred from the WH - but which can also be carefully curated to be hand-picked members from preferred establishment organizations.
It is not, the fact that you want to curtail freedom because of bad actors is commie thinking. You're saying the exact same shit they're saying, thinking it would be used against them and not us you absolute fucking buffoon.
As the days go by, I'm waiting for him and similar other members to start espousing that "the Founders were wrong", if some haven't already. I've been seeing an increasing number of "conservatives"/traditionalists going down that dark path these past few years.
The tranny problem is proof that porn addiction is real. But feminists intentionally overstate the magnitude of the problem because they feel threatened by men having a sexual outlet that they don't control. Maybe they should ask themselves why men would choose such an inferior substitute over putting up with their shit.
Trannies have nothing to do with porn, if anything they're a symptom of male loneliness.
This is the kind of dismissive handwaving TheImpossible1 always did when this topic is brought it. I'm sure there's several other social factors at play, even more than pornography, but there's most likely a connection. Probably depends on the type of porn and when they started watching. Most trannies don't actually castrate themselves either because they want to remain functional enough to have their fetish.
All you have to do read what they post on the internet to see that it usually starts with a sissy porn addiction. As you mention there's other factors at play but AGP is the one thing that the TERFs are correct about.
Probably depends on the type of porn and when they started watching.
It doesn't help that the algorithms all lead to tranny shit eventually.
Without constant saturation of sexual media, fetishes are more likely to stay fetishes instead of progressing into lifestyles and identities.
And how many men would've still gone down that path if they hadn't tricked themselves into thinking that looking like the top 0.0001% of trans pornstars was obtainable?
I do wonder what have happened if social media had exploded before Internet porn. Maybe just being able to find like-minded people and create echo chambers from a scattered minority would have been enough.
Given that one of the most major commonalities in male troons is being massive degenerates, and the fact that trooning is a fetish (autogynephilia) for the majority of them, you are demonstrably incorrect.
Some people are not capable of making clear mental distinction between fantasy and reality. Give them an unfiltered internet connection and they destroy themselves.
What a scumbags. But what can you honestly expect from the feminist-run NYTimes. Scumbaggery is part of the DNA of those slack-addicted overeducated hacks.
[...] speak a language which is on the Internet and have any context as to how to explore the Internet for the things that they supposedly found[?]
A reader could imagine they were scarcely educated on a language, computer navigation and typing, then haphazardly given email, twitter and Amazon accounts. From there, the reader might rely on a presumption that anything you want on the internet is pretty easily accessed (or perhaps accidentally found).
Hang on, so the story was supposed to be a hit job against Starlink? And it was fake? And then the times put up a followup just to say you should be more media literate, let us show you da whey?
I'm... wow. Sure, this isn't their lowest, but this might be one of their saddest moments.
Sounds similar to the Trump lawfare where they designed the story to hurt the individual but the people at large look past that to hit the system.
With Trump, it's the judicial system that looks A LOT worse as a result, with this false story, it's the porn industry and Internet promotion of it that looks bad not the service providing it so that's probably why we hear the truth about it now.
you'd think that after GG people, around here especially, would be slightly skeptical of the mass media. skeptical of what they read online. looking for original sources and verified facts. but here we are, people just listening and believing.
Pretty much all smear stories against Elon are fake. The Emerald mine thing is fake. The whole pedo diver thing was BS (the diver was a pedo). Him destroying twitter (unfortunately). And of course every single Common Sense Skeptic youtube video is fake.
The diver thing was really funny because there's not even a 1% chance that an old British guy retires to Southeast Asia for any other reason, but you still had media literacy guys being very smug about it.
First I'm hearing about the diver actually being a pedo.
I considered retiring to Thailand or another SE asian country when I get old myself, if only because of the cheap cost of living. I'm pretty sure the chance is over 1%.
Might as well be the Philippines. They speak English well enough there, if nothing else.
Freedom of the press was clearly a mistake.
As opposed to government controlled press? Not sure you thought that one through.
No as opposed to the press having the power to lie and slander endlessly and claiming it's their inherent right to do so.
They should have absolutely no additional freedom, privilege or protections than any other citizen.
They don't. Freedom of the press refers to the creation of news, not some class of people. They don't have any extra protection legally America has incredibly lax libel and slander laws.
The "extra protection" comes from other journos not relentlessly attacking people like this.
Don't talk like a commie.
Oh? So the Washington Post didn't hire terrorists and get off Scot free? CNN didn't commit felony blackmail against an American citizen on the fourth of July and not suffer any consequences? The New York Times didn't do, hell, all the awful shit they've done and yet they're still doing it, while they're owned by a goddamn foreigner?
If you or I had done a tiny fraction of the shit that even a single one of these so called "press" have done publicly we would die in a windowless cell.
Don't tell me they don't have untold privileges compared to real people.
Edit: first you claim they don't have legal privileges. I list half a dozen examples of them having legal privileges to commit crimes that would put anyone here in prison. Seems like you think that is just hunky dory, and if that is the case then to be frank you're a complete idiot.
It is the height of faux intellectual cuckoldry to defend the goddamn media on this website of all things. The press is the enemy, full stop.
Oh and here's the cream of the crop, I forgot this one briefly.
The power to commit espionage live on TV and never see a day in court over it. MSNBC.
The press are the enemy, simple as that. When the fighting starts it's going to be a jump ball as to whether them or the judges start getting clipped first.
All of that is corruption provided by the current regime, not actual legal protections.
We all hate the journo goblins, but "freedom of the press" is not what you're referring to.
Not literal legal protections? Publishing Bradley Manning's stolen intel cost servicemen's lives, and they knew the damage it would have, did it anyway and they were never punished. They have the literal power to commit espionage live on camera.
As long as they claim "protecting a source" they can get away with crimes that regular people would never see the light of day again for. It's formally codified in about two dozen states, and has been successfully claimed in federal court many times. Especially in the last thirty years.
Same with Assange's password-protected State documents, even if you don't think they were as damaging. He didn't actually leak anything to the public - the media did.
While that faggot should never have been in the military and protections for leakers should be applied evenly, those protections also cover things like the biden laptop, and more importantly the Snowden leaks.
Dudes unhinged, so much so he's advocating for what the journos want. They want to be a separate class of people who get more rights and he unknowingly wants to give it to them
I don't think he's unhinged, he's citing examples of corrupt institutions getting away with unethical shit. Hating how sick the american media is, is normal. But his solution, reducing freedom of speech, is not correct.
Other examples being how AJ is getting treated vs. media that slandered Covington kids and others, or the White House Press Corp - which is a totally essential function of a free press that courts will step in to defend when barred from the WH - but which can also be carefully curated to be hand-picked members from preferred establishment organizations.
Literally no you wouldn't. Have any of the people on the internet that doxxed and blackmailed by internet randos have those internet randos arrested?
People do shit they do all the time, the only "protections" they get are from each other not from the law.
Oh? So if I went and stole Biden's tax returns I wouldn't be jailed for it? Or Pelosi?
Dude they sent the secret service after a company that used a meme picture of Biden's face for an energy drink.
There is absolutely a gigantic double standard here and ignoring it is suspicious as hell on your part.
It is not, the fact that you want to curtail freedom because of bad actors is commie thinking. You're saying the exact same shit they're saying, thinking it would be used against them and not us you absolute fucking buffoon.
As the days go by, I'm waiting for him and similar other members to start espousing that "the Founders were wrong", if some haven't already. I've been seeing an increasing number of "conservatives"/traditionalists going down that dark path these past few years.
The tranny problem is proof that porn addiction is real. But feminists intentionally overstate the magnitude of the problem because they feel threatened by men having a sexual outlet that they don't control. Maybe they should ask themselves why men would choose such an inferior substitute over putting up with their shit.
This is the kind of dismissive handwaving TheImpossible1 always did when this topic is brought it. I'm sure there's several other social factors at play, even more than pornography, but there's most likely a connection. Probably depends on the type of porn and when they started watching. Most trannies don't actually castrate themselves either because they want to remain functional enough to have their fetish.
All you have to do read what they post on the internet to see that it usually starts with a sissy porn addiction. As you mention there's other factors at play but AGP is the one thing that the TERFs are correct about.
It doesn't help that the algorithms all lead to tranny shit eventually.
Without constant saturation of sexual media, fetishes are more likely to stay fetishes instead of progressing into lifestyles and identities.
And how many men would've still gone down that path if they hadn't tricked themselves into thinking that looking like the top 0.0001% of trans pornstars was obtainable?
I do wonder what have happened if social media had exploded before Internet porn. Maybe just being able to find like-minded people and create echo chambers from a scattered minority would have been enough.
They're a symptom of pedophilia and lack of moral hygiene, not loneliness.
Given that one of the most major commonalities in male troons is being massive degenerates, and the fact that trooning is a fetish (autogynephilia) for the majority of them, you are demonstrably incorrect.
Some people are not capable of making clear mental distinction between fantasy and reality. Give them an unfiltered internet connection and they destroy themselves.
Sounds like Elon has microplastics in his balls!
(another dubious story meant to distract everyone and humiliate men)
Good lord the passive voice. The Times did it, wait that's us, uh... The story just spiraled out of control on its own!
What a scumbags. But what can you honestly expect from the feminist-run NYTimes. Scumbaggery is part of the DNA of those slack-addicted overeducated hacks.
A reader could imagine they were scarcely educated on a language, computer navigation and typing, then haphazardly given email, twitter and Amazon accounts. From there, the reader might rely on a presumption that anything you want on the internet is pretty easily accessed (or perhaps accidentally found).