Triggered: Stories to make you mad.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I copy and pasted so due to the apostrophes you cannot quote it.

A report prepared for the Senate that provides the most sweeping analysis yet of Russia’s disinformation campaign around the 2016 election found the operation used every major social media platform to deliver words, images and videos tailored to voters’ interests to help elect President Trump — and worked even harder to support him while in office.
The report, a draft of which was obtained by The Washington Post, is the first to study the millions of posts provided by major technology firms to the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), its chairman, and Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), its ranking Democrat. The bipartisan panel hasn’t said whether it endorses the findings. It plans to release it publicly along with another study later this week

I'd be interested in these findings. I wonder how honestly they've presented them.

Like I pointed out prior, I reviewed all the "Russian Propaganda" advertisements from Facebook and categorized them by who they supported ( a site was kind enough to compile the list). It was almost a 50-50 split between support and anti-support for Trump and Hillary with almost overwhelming support of Bernie Sanders.

So unless the report shows that almost half of those Russian propaganda advertisements were also anti-Trump, it can be immediately thrown out as Democratic Party anti-Trump propaganda. It would be a dishonest representation of the facts. AKA, an outright lie.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You shouldn't be putting a relative value on it anyway because it's not a relative value, it's a quantitative value. It's a known quantity and insurance companies have been doing it for centuries. More importantly, governments have been doing it for centuries, as well.

They assign these values and call it a "present value." And have gotten quite good at it. There is room for improvement, however.

https://www.theglobalist.com/the-cost-of-a-human-life-statistically-speaking/

One famous example of human life valuation from 1987:

Remember, the conservatives are making arguments from economics. While you may hate the idea of arguing from how valuable, economically, a human life is, this is the argument being presented for opposition. An appeal to emotion logical fallacy will clearly not work as an argument with them. You must methodically destroy and address their argument at its root.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd be interested in these findings. I wonder how honestly they've presented them.

Like I pointed out prior, I reviewed all the "Russian Propaganda" advertisements from Facebook and categorized them by who they supported ( a site was kind enough to compile the list). It was almost a 50-50 split between support and anti-support for Trump and Hillary with almost overwhelming support of Bernie Sanders.

So unless the report shows that almost half of those Russian propaganda advertisements were also anti-Trump, it can be immediately thrown out as Democratic Party anti-Trump propaganda. It would be a dishonest representation of the facts. AKA, an outright lie.

Yep. The same report being referenced also makes mention of the Russians pushing pro Bernie propaganda. As well as some pro Jill Stein stuff too.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Not really, incredibly sad tbh.

Just the natural stages for these people, before it was "Russia didn't interfere at all, it’s all a Dem lie due to butthurt Clinton supporters"; now that the Russia interference is [mostly] accepted, many of those same people switch to “but it had no effect! So who cares!". I imagine if we had some way of giving an absolute level of affect and it was high, they'd switch to "who cares, we do it too!".

Reality, it clearly had an some effect as these same people where some of the hardest to froth at the mouth over these fake news stories both anti-Clinton and pro-Trump. Though I doubt we'll ever know the exact extent.

We live in a world where social media unfortunately shapes the world around us in part.

Patreon Problem and Solution: Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson

YouTube video

Not sure if it will make a difference, but it's nice to see these guys get involved.

Dave Rubin is Gay so it would be a HomoPhobic Hate Crime to say anything bad or against what He said.....just pointing out...

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Dave Rubin is Gay so it would be a HomoPhobic Hate Crime to say anything bad or against what He said.....just pointing out... [/B]

Ah but you forget the fact that he's doing something conservatives support cancels out any protected status he might have held as a gay man.

Dave Rubin considers himself a "Classic Liberal". So yeah. The Left will DESTROY HIM... Cause the Left is full of HomoHate.

11-Year-Old Boy Dressed In Drag Dances At Gay Bar, Gets Dollar Bills Thrown At Him

"On December 1, an 11-year-old boy dressed in drag danced on stage in a sexual manner at a gay bar in Brooklyn, NY, called 3 Dollar Bill. The child, Desmond Napoles, was dressed as a Gwen Stefani-lookalike — full drag make up, a blonde wig, and crop top included — as he bounced around onstage to No Doubt's "Like a Girl" and collected dollar bills from male adults viewing the number."

Lol, so is this one of those things we aren't allowed to say is disturbing and weird?

Its only Pedophilia when Gay Catholic Priests do it.

It sounds like it should be something you find on "The Onion" as opposed to being an actual news story.

Hypocrisy has may layers... and they all make you cry...just like an ONION!!!!!

Originally posted by Putinbot1
That's if you buy into that mode of valuing life, Noah Harari gives a good, albeit simplistic and derivative explanation as to why it's rather silly in Sapiens. Worth reading tbh.

Like I said, if you wish to make progress in this debate with conservatives, you must communicate in ways that they are willing to discuss.

"I feel that this illegal immigrant is valuable" is not going to get you anywhere. That won't get you anywhere with a significant portion of American Liberals, as well.

"A properly accounted for and managed immigration system increases tax revenue and improves GDP" will get you very far with multiple parties, however.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yep. The same report being referenced also makes mention of the Russians pushing pro Bernie propaganda. As well as some pro Jill Stein stuff too.

I forgot about that. It's been a while but I think 2 of those adverts were for Jill. A few where for Johnson.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I forgot about that. It's been a while but I think 2 of those adverts were for Jill. A few where for Johnson.

Yep, I just don't think russian social media activity is something we should be super worried over. This doesn't mean it's okay.

Lamont Hill Says Hannity And O'Reilly Are As Extremist As Farrakhan

Lol.

Yeah, Hannity is an arse hat who has far to many viewers. So he may not be as extreme but he has to much popularity for the positions he espouses.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Yeah, Hannity is an arse hat who has far to many viewers. So he may not be as extreme but he has to much popularity for the positions he espouses.

Though I'm not exactly sure what his views are that you take issue with...the suggestion that his reach makes him a problem is more grounded in reality then trying to place him anywhere near Farrakhan.

Though look at his popularity in context...his show is #1, but we're talking like 2-3 million viewers out of over 330 million americans.

Sounds like Snowdragon don't like it when people are allowed to think in a way that He don't Approve of.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Sounds like Snowdragon don't like it when people are allowed to think in a way that He don't Approve of. [/B]

I'm of the opposite mind, let him speak. I just think he's an arse, free speech is more important to me than Hannity and his positions.