By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Macron Wants To Ban 'Fake News' During Elections

Aeolus451 said:
o_O.Q said:

you forgot to add that CNN doxxed the 15 year old creator of that gif

I did forget about that. That makes it ten times as worse. They overreacted to a meme....

the ironic thing is that their actions were a lot closer to being fascist at that time than anything i've seen in this thread

over as you've said a silly meme



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
WhatATimeToBeAlive said:

But where did I state that USA hasn't done anything wrong? I was talking about the wrongdoings and lies of Russia, and provided you multiple sources (also Russian (RT)) that prove that Russia straight up lies about these things. And your argument is "but USA...". How does it justify the wrongdoings of a country if some other country has also done bad things? Russian trolls also use this "argument" very often when they don't have other means to defend the said country.

And where is the evidence that USA destabilized for example Tunisia or Libya? In Tunisia the ruling dictator was overthrown peacefully by the people, and in Libya USA and NATO airforces intervened only when Gaddafi (dictator) sent the army to destroy the protesting people who wanted to end the dictatorship. And Russia gave its approval for the intervention (maybe Putin foresee that the removal of Gadaffi would allow the refugee-wave from Africa to reach Europe).

In Syria USA started to support the opposition when Al-Assad (dictator) ordered the army to destroy the protesting people who wanted to end the dictatorship, and after the situation has escalated to a civil war. Isis and other fundamentalist-groups appeared in Syria long after the civil war started, and there is no evidence that USA has supported them. But that is clear to everyone that Russia has supported this terrible dictator from the start and has itself bombed cities indiscriminately.

In Iraq USA supported Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war (both were dictarorships) during the 80's. This was because USA wanted to restrain Iran's influence in the area. But USA didn't support Saddam after the war when he started to use chemical weapons against civilians, and attacked Kuwait. Russia on the other hand has supported almost all dictatorships, especially during the Cold War. Just look at the military equipment that these countries used, which is mostly made in Russia.

But the main point in all this is that Russia has solely supported dictatorships but Western countries don't do that very often, and when they do, they do it reluctantly, not because they want to promote dictatorship (for example Saudi-Arabia is an ally of USA, because its oil resources are so important to the world economy). But when has Russia/Soviet Union encouraged democracy? Russia doesn't even have any allies that are democracies. And all this is because Russia itself is not a democracy (yes, there are elections, but that was the case also in Soviet Union). But you think that Russia is "good" and USA (and other Western countries?) are "bad"? You seem like a conspiracy theorist.

 

"provided you multiple sources (also Russian (RT)) that prove that Russia straight up lies about these things. "

i've said it before and i'll say it again, i do not buy the coverage of the ukraine conflict that is being pushed... so don't bother with it

 

"In Syria USA started to support the opposition when Al-Assad (dictator) ordered the army to destroy the protesting people who wanted to end the dictatorship"

what really gave the us the justification to get more involved was the chemical weapons attack, guess who the cause was?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22424188

https://sarahabed.com/2017/08/16/carla-del-ponte-blames-the-rebels-for-chemical-weapons-attack-yet-wants-to-falsly-convict-assad-of-war-crimes/

https://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-france/frances-macron-urges-military-intervention-if-chemical-use-by-assad-proven-idUSL9N1GD016

 

...can you guess what the aim of these rebels was?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23139784

to spread sharia in syria... these rebels were aligned with ISIS and were backed by the us

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-syria/trump-ends-cia-arms-support-for-anti-assad-syria-rebels-u-s-officials-idUSKBN1A42KC

this "Isis and other fundamentalist-groups appeared in Syria long after the civil war started, and there is no evidence that USA has supported them."

is absolute bullshit

 

" where is the evidence that USA destabilized for example Tunisia or Libya? In Tunisia the ruling dictator was overthrown peacefully by the people, and in Libya USA and NATO airforces intervened only when Gaddafi (dictator) sent the army to destroy the protesting people who wanted to end the dictatorship. "

lol as they have in every middle eastern conflict they started by supporting rebels in a country

if i had a rich nation and decided to fund and support antifa and the communists itching to destroy the us now and i painted it as if america is a dictatorship would that be accurate?

well that is what had happened in most of the conflicts in the middle east -

i supplied two videos showing first off that the us created probably the most significant problem in that area to ironically fight russia

secondly that the wars destroying the region were planned... did you not watch the video? lybia was one of the named countries... to then come back with this silly narrative about the poor people begging america to bomb their countries into oblivion is nonsense

with regards to lybia:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/22/libya-and-the-myth-of-humanitarian-intervention/

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/obamas-worst-mistake-libya/478461/

 

"In Iraq"

i have nothing more to say about iraq


"But the main point in all this is that Russia has solely supported dictatorships but Western countries don't do that very often"
to be frank, you're a joke... you really need to wake up... you should should probably start by entertaining the idea that a lot of the "russian propaganda" you talk about is actually the truth and that the beliefs you currently have are actual the propaganda

"i've said it before and i'll say it again, i do not buy the coverage of the ukraine conflict that is being pushed... so don't bother with it"

So you don't buy the coverage stated in those links I posted? Why is that? They contain the Russian narrative, so you shouldn't have a problem with them. One of them for example shows a satellite image that shows how a fighter jet shoots at a passenger plane. The only problem is that the image is fake (the plane in the image would be about 1 km long in real life, because they fucked up the scale) and Russia itself has already abandoned that narrative.

There is no obvious truth about who is behind the chemical attacks in Syria, but majority of the evidence points to Syrian government who have/had those weapons and the planes used to deliver them. Russia for example vetoed an initiative in the UN that would have allowed a proper examination of the latest chemical attack (in addition to that plane-incident mentioned above).

But all this aside, you haven't answered the main points:

How does it justify the wrongdoigns of a country if some other country has also done bad things?

and

Why do you defend dictatorships and bash democracies?

 

Or will you come up with something like this: "North Korea is in reality a good place to live and the people there have the ability to influence how the country is run. But South Korea on the other hand is more like a dictatorship and the people there live in a lie."

 

You must have it all figured out. Can I be part of your "wice club"?

9/11 was an inside job (jet fuel can't smelt steel beems). Did I get it right?   



"The rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

- Single-player Game

WhatATimeToBeAlive said:
o_O.Q said:

 

"provided you multiple sources (also Russian (RT)) that prove that Russia straight up lies about these things. "

i've said it before and i'll say it again, i do not buy the coverage of the ukraine conflict that is being pushed... so don't bother with it

 

"In Syria USA started to support the opposition when Al-Assad (dictator) ordered the army to destroy the protesting people who wanted to end the dictatorship"

what really gave the us the justification to get more involved was the chemical weapons attack, guess who the cause was?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22424188

https://sarahabed.com/2017/08/16/carla-del-ponte-blames-the-rebels-for-chemical-weapons-attack-yet-wants-to-falsly-convict-assad-of-war-crimes/

https://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-france/frances-macron-urges-military-intervention-if-chemical-use-by-assad-proven-idUSL9N1GD016

 

...can you guess what the aim of these rebels was?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23139784

to spread sharia in syria... these rebels were aligned with ISIS and were backed by the us

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-syria/trump-ends-cia-arms-support-for-anti-assad-syria-rebels-u-s-officials-idUSKBN1A42KC

this "Isis and other fundamentalist-groups appeared in Syria long after the civil war started, and there is no evidence that USA has supported them."

is absolute bullshit

 

" where is the evidence that USA destabilized for example Tunisia or Libya? In Tunisia the ruling dictator was overthrown peacefully by the people, and in Libya USA and NATO airforces intervened only when Gaddafi (dictator) sent the army to destroy the protesting people who wanted to end the dictatorship. "

lol as they have in every middle eastern conflict they started by supporting rebels in a country

if i had a rich nation and decided to fund and support antifa and the communists itching to destroy the us now and i painted it as if america is a dictatorship would that be accurate?

well that is what had happened in most of the conflicts in the middle east -

i supplied two videos showing first off that the us created probably the most significant problem in that area to ironically fight russia

secondly that the wars destroying the region were planned... did you not watch the video? lybia was one of the named countries... to then come back with this silly narrative about the poor people begging america to bomb their countries into oblivion is nonsense

with regards to lybia:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/22/libya-and-the-myth-of-humanitarian-intervention/

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/obamas-worst-mistake-libya/478461/

 

"In Iraq"

i have nothing more to say about iraq


"But the main point in all this is that Russia has solely supported dictatorships but Western countries don't do that very often"
to be frank, you're a joke... you really need to wake up... you should should probably start by entertaining the idea that a lot of the "russian propaganda" you talk about is actually the truth and that the beliefs you currently have are actual the propaganda

"i've said it before and i'll say it again, i do not buy the coverage of the ukraine conflict that is being pushed... so don't bother with it"

So you don't buy the coverage stated in those links I posted? Why is that? They contain the Russian narrative, so you shouldn't have a problem with them. One of them for example shows a satellite image that shows how a fighter jet shoots at a passenger plane. The only problem is that the image is fake (the plane in the image would be about 1 km long in real life, because they fucked up the scale) and Russia itself has already abandoned that narrative.

There is no obvious truth about who is behind the chemical attacks in Syria, but majority of the evidence points to Syrian government who have/had those weapons and the planes used to deliver them. Russia for example vetoed an initiative in the UN that would have allowed a proper examination of the latest chemical attack (in addition to that plane-incident mentioned above).

But all this aside, you haven't answered the main points:

How does it justify the wrongdoigns of a country if some other country has also done bad things?

and

Why do you defend dictatorships and bash democracies?

 

Or will you come up with something like this: "North Korea is in reality a good place to live and the people there have the ability to influence how the country is run. But South Korea on the other hand is more like a dictatorship and the people there live in a lie."

 

You must have it all figured out. Can I be part of your "wice club"?

9/11 was an inside job (jet fuel can't smelt steel beems). Did I get it right?   

"So you don't buy the coverage stated in those links I posted? Why is that?"

because there's evidence of the united states plotting to put a puppet leader in the ukraine as they have in iraq, in lybia, etc etc etc

meaning that just as they have allied themselves with rebel groups in those areas to overthrow the government, evidence points to them doing so with regards to this situation also

 

"There is no obvious truth about who is behind the chemical attacks in Syria, but majority of the evidence points to Syrian government who have/had those weapons and the planes used to deliver them."

...so you ignored the links i posted? lol

https://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-un-mission-report-confirms-that-opposition-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-against-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139

even the us admits it was the rebels... wtf lol

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-22/us-now-admits-syrian-rebels-have-used-chemical-weapons

and they admit that the rebels were ISIS supporters WAKE UP!

https://www.salon.com/2016/07/11/u_s_backed_syrian_rebels_committing_war_crimes_torture_abductions_imposing_harsh_sharia_law_report/

 

"How does it justify the wrongdoigns of a country if some other country has also done bad things?"

it does not but to compare the us destroying like 8 countries in the past year to a single conflict between russia and ukraine (which the united states has a part in anyway ) is ridiculous lol

to even try to compare the two shows a ridiculous amount of delusion

 

"Why do you defend dictatorships and bash democracies?"

now you're making laugh, you probably don't even realise that democracies often evolve into dictatorships... that you present the two terms as if they are polar opposites is hilarious to me

but regardless what dictators? lybia was one of the richest countries in the region for example... are you aware of its current state?

are you aware of the current state of iraq? etc etc etc

hasn't the united states been the worst dictator of all time to these countries by killing their people and destroying their infrastructure?

do you know why they call assad a cruel dictator? because of the chemical attacks that they framed him for

with regards to saddam i already posted a link showing that the CIA colluded with him on some of the attacks he waged against his people

with regards to Qaddafi i'm quite sure that the some type of framing occured there also because anyone who is being rational can see an obvious pattern  

 

" North Korea is in reality a good place to live and the people there have the ability to influence how the country is run."

i don't know the history, but i wouldn't be surprised if north korea started out as a democracy



Aeolus451 said:
EricHiggin said:

Who validates the sources? who validates the validators? How many sources will be legally created just to be able to cite a source?

What you will also end up with is left vs right media constantly trying to discredit each others sources, just as much if not more than the political candidates themselves. What's the point in having a 'reliable' source if your opposition is able to constantly point out, that source isn't always reliable and has other dark secrets that may or may not be related to the political topic? What you can end up with is information sourcing citizens/companies being destroyed over politics, whether they are telling the truth or not. This can then lead to less people willing to do that job/work, which means less information in future elections, and only getting partial information can lead to even greater corruption, and usually does.

ugh. I prefer what we have now (leaving it up to people to what they listen to) versus giving the government more control over information. Only certain kinds of governments want that kind of control over people and it never leads to something good.  

Exactly. The Gov has a place, but that space is much smaller then what it has become. Larger Gov control simply means all the more reason to try and sway it's decisions in your favor, and all the more chaos that comes out of that entire process for everyone else. A smaller Gov that has less control leads to a more natural free market, where a Country and it's people actually have to compete, and where progress is truly made. The free market isn't perfect either and has it's flaws, but the difference is the people's freedom of choice to constantly bend the market to their will, and punish it easily as well. The major media Corps after the last American election is the perfect example of this. They tried to control the message to such an extent, that the people saw through it and punished them for it. The Gov also saw change as a result, but it was more so the free market and it's tools that made this happen. If you do what Macron is thinking of trying, and you remove the free market and it's tools, it will most likely work highly in the Gov's favor. While much more unlikely, it can also backfire and completely blow up in your face. Depends on how strict the rules are and enforced, and how rebellious the French people are/can be.



spurgeonryan said:
So....most comedy news would do what? just be on hiatus?

Nope lies must be spread and as many people need to be hurt as possible, thats the only way amirite?  That way we can protect comedians!  Thats what really matters in the long run. More important that our rights as citizens I believe. 



Around the Network
Louie said:

I agree with this in principle but I think it's quite naive to assume political outlets would ever do that. Politics is a battle of ideas, just as much as a battle of facts. You can never have absolutely objective politics, it doesn't work. Also, you seem blinded by your political - wait for it - agenda. You talk about Fox News doing propaganda and I absolutely agree with that. But left-wing media also does that and in Germany (where I live) the two biggest TV channels are run by a committee put in place by the biggest political parties. Did you see the example where some news outlets reported Trump committed a Faux Pas while feeding Japanese fish - even though Trump followed the example of the Japanese Prime Minister (which those news outlets conveniently cut out of the picture)? Or my other example about Huffington Post distorting studies about domestic violence, by basically saying "women only hit back, so it doesn't count"? Both sides do it equally and assuming "reality" is biased against one side is just not true. A conservative could simply say the same - which one of you would be right? It's just that you are blind to the distortion of facts of "your" side - just like any conservative is, as well.

What seems fair and unbiased to you is not fair and unbiased to a conservative person because conservative people value different things: left-leaning people value fairness more than anything else, while right-leaning people put more emphasis on things like structure and order. Neither of this is "correct", it is a matter of personal belief and opinion.

Edit: Oh and about Clinton's odds in the election - it depends on your interpretation of the facts! If you thought the "Blue Wall" was real (which could be backed up by statistics from the last 25 years) then a chance higher than 90% for Clinton absolutely made sense. I mean, that's the point really: We are not just dealing with simple numbers here! There's dozens of variables going into these estimates like which pollster is biased in which way and how to interpret past elections and the data collected in them or predictions to be made like how the black vote will turn out if a white woman runs for president compared to the years before. You can't just look at this stuff in hindsight and say these outlets were lying. It was way more complicated than that and the mainstream media outlets - the ones you defended in your post! - all believed Clinton's chances were a lot closer to 99% than 60%.

The problem here is that News outlets are not supposed to be political outlets. News isn't supposed to present the ideas or arguments (at least not themselves). 

I have no idea how German politics works so maybe it is different in your country. The Trump fish thing was propaganda, by omission of important facts. The Huffington Post article was on point. People who defend themselves against domestic violence are not guilty of domestic violence regardless of gender. 

Both sides do not do it equally. At least not in the U.S. Fox News' overwhelming bias has been well documented for years. 

Your second paragraph admits that conservatives are interested in propaganda more than they are interested in real news. It basically says that liberals and conservatives will never agree on what's fair and unbiased, because conservatives don't value being fair and unbiased. 

Yes, mainstream media is capable of lying too. The odds of either Trump or Clinton winning shifted as the election came near. Anybody saying that Clinton had a 90% or higher chance of winning the day before the election was either lying, or not able to understand the data. According to various polls around the midwest both of the blue wall states that Trump took had around a 33% chance of going to Trump. He only really needed one of them to stand a good chance of winning the election. 



Aeolus451 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Well for starters, he wasn't democratically elected. 

"Oh but you see we're not a Democracy, but a Republic. The founding fathers didn't want a rule of the majority, so they setup the Electoral College to prevent that!"

Yeah, yeah, X people's votes shouldn't count. It's the rallying cry of every fascist regime ever. China, Russia, and every other tinpot dictatorship around the world is technically a Republic too ya know? Not to mention, the creation of the electoral college was a result of the infamous 3/5ths compromise. Northern states didn't think it would be fair for southern states to be able to count slaves as people towards representation. Southern states didn't think it would be fair to not count slaves at all. Of course, in hindsight, obviously having slaves who were ineligible to vote, being electorally represented, at the ballot box, by the very people who put them in chains, is fascist. But the founding fathers either weren't bright enough to see this due to their cultural bias, or were forced to make a compromise either way. 

Second, his list of travel banned countries was authoritarian. But he's not the only authoritarian president. There have been many starting with Andrew Jackson. The office of the presidency needs to be reigned in massively. 

He was legitimately elected as President and you don't know what authoritarian or fascist means considering how you're using the terms.  

I never said he wasn't legitimately elected. I said he wasn't democratically elected. 

I know what the terms mean. I was just using them loosely. 



Cerebralbore101 said:
Louie said:

 

The problem here is that News outlets are not supposed to be political outlets. News isn't supposed to present the ideas or arguments (at least not themselves). 

I have no idea how German politics works so maybe it is different in your country. The Trump fish thing was propaganda, by omission of important facts. The Huffington Post article was on point. People who defend themselves against domestic violence are not guilty of domestic violence regardless of gender. 

Both sides do not do it equally. At least not in the U.S. Fox News' overwhelming bias has been well documented for years. 

Your second paragraph admits that conservatives are interested in propaganda more than they are interested in real news. It basically says that liberals and conservatives will never agree on what's fair and unbiased, because conservatives don't value being fair and unbiased. 

Yes, mainstream media is capable of lying too. The odds of either Trump or Clinton winning shifted as the election came near. Anybody saying that Clinton had a 90% or higher chance of winning the day before the election was either lying, or not able to understand the data. According to various polls around the midwest both of the blue wall states that Trump took had around a 33% chance of going to Trump. He only really needed one of them to stand a good chance of winning the election. 

I'm not really sure what to say here. Conservatives are definitely not only interested in propaganda and I'm not sure how you read that into my post. Conservative and liberals have different values - but values are not objectively right or now. Your values are not "better" than my values and vice versa. Your argument here is that conservatives are bad - what should I argue here? You advocate for facts but are very emotional about your values and the "other" political side.

The Huffington Post article was absolutely not on point because there was no data to back up the claim that women only hit back. Same goes for campus "rape" rates and other stuff: The studies that argue 1 in 4 women get raped on campus consider it rape when both parties are equally drunk - because the woman can't give consent anymore. But the "consent" rape laws have only even been discussed for the last few years! So there is absolutely more to this than simple statistics - to define what rape is, you have to define gender relations and what is "normal" or "natural" behaviour for men and women. In the case of these feminist studies it is assumed that men always want sex while women only want it after having given consent - but is this true? It's a matter of interpretation. There is more to politics than just numbers. All numbers have to be interpreted. Both sides lie and the conservative side isn't worse here - you just have a predisposition to believe the liberal side (and its supporting studies) because you identify yourself as a liberal. A classic example of confirmation bias. And that opens Pandora's Box! How do we "objectively" weigh interpretation bias or political bias in studies? 

Same goes for your last example: The data journalistic sources you cite interpreted raw data and thus got to the conclusion that Trump had around a 30% chance of winning the election. But there is no "correct" way to interpret data and historical figures. We only call sites like fivethirtyeight clever in hindsight because they got it right (or rather: "less wrong" than other media). But what if Clinton had won the election? Then you would now be arguing that the mainstream media was right and wasn't lying / doing propaganda and I would still argue my point, just from another direction.

But maybe we should just agree to disagree. It has been a decent discussion in my opinion and I had fun arguing.