Basically trying to nostalgia bait people but buddy saw right through it and went in for the kill.
-“Snow is pretty”
-“Mmhmm, so private equity owns…”
A+ for staying on message.
They did streisand this effect very nicely without even trying.
She was trying to do a fluff piece interview, and he was trying to drop hard facts. I’m glad he didn’t back down on his points.
Haven’t watched it but sounds like someone with strong convictions and an idea why things are the way they are. Hopefully eventually enough people recognize the fact that we need a functional society that allows the random person to feel comfortable. Cause if you get enough itchy people things get scratched.
Haven’t watched it
It’s a 30 second clip mate
30 seconds of sound when you’re pooping on the toilet at work, is 30 seconds too much sound. Hypothetically speaking.
You sit idly pooping while so much of the housing stock in the US is owned by hedge funds?
TPUSA
Good to see that used in the correct context.
I’ve been next to lads in the stalls where they’re dropping bombs and on the phone on the same time. No shame. Barely stopped to grunt. Truly Gods among men.
Pretty much I don’t care for random audio, I prefer text articles or comments to get the jist of things. I actually hate noise unless it’s for entertainment or another person (well sometimes I don’t care for that but polite society and all).
A 30 second video would be a nice short article.
Legend. Came back to his point with a friendly smile, and plenty of grace
With a climate change kicker thrown in
As unhinged as social media gets, this is pretty much why so many end up trusting it over traditional media. The internet broke the veil of commercial reporting/journalism - media in general. Broke the trust on accepting public personas and not being suspicious of them behind the scenes. Sell out reporters/journalist/artists/etc are like scabs to labor strikers
Sounds like NBC needs to study and read socialist theory. Seriously! https://redsails.org/
They probably did, but decided to pick the side of the billionaire class/got told by their owners (the billionaire class) that they were to pick the side of the billionaire class in order to facilitate the continued exploitation of ordinary people
Gee, would’ve been a shame if NBC gets split and then to the workers who would then collectivize it. Seriously!
The news reporter wanted a feel good puff piece regardless of how inappropriate it is. The interviewee wanted to report the actual news.
The company that owns that NBC affiliate wanted a feel good puff piece. I doubt she had a say in the matter.
Yeah, she’s just following orders.
We all know how good “just following orders” and “just doing my job” turns out.
But it wasn’t inappropriate…
To the holding company it is.
hoarding company*
🤌🏼
A misunderstanding on your part I thinks. I believe they are saying it was inappropriate to attempt to sanitize reality so they could release a “feel good puff piece”.
Was it live? Probably not. That means they left it in on purpose.
Did you watch the clip?
Yes. But if they aired it, they aired it on purpose. Clips like that are rarely actually live. So they made a show of not continuing to give him airtime, but they gave him enough to get his message out - twice.
It’s says “Live” in the upper left hand corner.
They often lie about that. It’s usually pseudo live, as in, recorded just a short while before.
It really makes you wonder how these reporters are trained. What else can they not talk about on air?
Anything that goes against the values of Sinclair or NexStar would be off the table.
So general common sense like fuck ICE and free Palestine?
Pretty much everything that isn’t on their script, IIRC.
Can’t let people say the truth, it would inconvenience your masters.
Crazy how fast she pulled back on that. Like she has been trained to not allow that sort of talk. It was almost instant.
From
to 
in an instant!A dog watching another dog bite the hand that feeds her.
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
Careful with that quote, it’s by Kevin Alfred Strom a Neo-Nazi from an 1993 essay in the national Vanguard, a white nationalist publication and it refers to the antisemitic trope of world Judaism.
I’m not criticizing you, just want to contextualize it because it could be misconstrued to be a antisemitic dog-whistle, especially in the context of the linked article.
It’s an axiomatic truism. It’s logic is self contained.
To learn who is wet, simply find out who is in the water.
Logic self contained within nature’s perfect geometry, a circle.
Why does that preclude it from being in the zeitgeist?
Because it’s literally a white supremacist talking point?
You and I are in agreement; the user I responded to seemed to be implying otherwise.
Edit: I think it’s a bit strong to say it’s “a literal white supremacist talking point.” Your average boomer is going to mistakenly associate it with Voltaire. I think folks that are some level below terminally online have seen one of the many pieces pointing out its origin. Away from the author, it could stand on its own merits which is why “kids with cancer” is a funny response to it. In the US, at least, I haven’t seen a lot of discussion from the white supremacists who run the government on this quote which further makes me question if it’s a literal talking point. Perhaps you are aware of groups that are actively pushing it? If not, it’s a bit more reasonable to say what the first response in this thread said. Be careful.
the user I responded to seemed to be implying otherwise.
Not really. I’m just saying the quote isn’t particularly insightful upon analysis, source notwithstanding.
Is it? I haven’t studied philosophy (but I have studied math) - it seems to me that the Wikipedia article on Truism demands the statement to be true for it to be a truism. But it’s not true though?
The way I see it, the statement can be construed as:
I’m not allowed to criticize X -> X rules over me
But, perhaps because “allowed” and “criticize” are subject to interpretation, there are plenty of groups you will be socially penalized for criticizing (see jokes about kids with cancer below the comment with the quote - I can’t figure out how to link to them). Many countries also protect minorities by making hate speech illegal, and yet those minorities are not ruling the country (though that’s probably exactly what the quote was originally meant to imply). If anything, the truism would be the ‘opposite’ implication:
X rules over me -> I’m not allowed to criticize X
Yet even this isn’t categorically true, like in democracies (which I guess brings in the interpretation of “rule”, as well).
Well, that just means he has experience ruling over people, and not allowing them to criticize him.
That means it’s valid.
I knew it was the kids with cancer all along!
Damn, Adolf. Is your name a unit of measurement for bad-but-good jokes. That one gets ya right in the Schmitler, ya know?
Yeah! Those little brats have had it too easy for too long!
Well not that long EACH, but you know 🤷
Didn’t a literal Nazi coin that phrase while talking about jews?
Hey, just because the wrong guy spoke it first, doesn’t make it wrong in itself.
Removed by mod
Let me guess - you have a Final Solution for it.
Can someone federate it?
Here is a tweet https://t.co/gUEj8HeHkF of the loops,video clip that is linked in this page https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/legend-yorker-turns-local-news-210000274.html
And this is why legacy media is legacy media.
