Giving Credit to Fox News

[Teenwolf]

It's a pejoritive, it's racist and sexist, because white males are specified. They do not come much clearer.

BTW I purchased "pejorative" at the library sale. I got it with "erudition" and "stochastic" in a 3/$5 bundle.


I'm glad you blue tinted glasses are working well for you. It's still funny that anyone capable of typing the post would consider the WH press corps to be cheerleaders of Trump.

J

Re-read "stochastic", then tell us all again about Project Veritas! You're an unfunny joke.

[Teenwolf]

So here's something Fox News posted that I found interesting. An article titled "Was the Unabomber Right?" It promotes Ted Kaczynski being a prescient genius, whose ideas should be taken seriously, then what looks like the editor just bolded certain phrases to avoid being legally responsible for promoting terrorism. Pretty fucked up that they know some lunatics could act on their words, but they publish it anyway, because "Hey, The Unabomber hated lefties as much as us, let's promote his ideas!"

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/was-...uYRzwb1M2wGR5Q

He saw the political “left” as embracing these technologies with special fervor, because they were in keeping with the “leftist” ideology that centralized power was the way to govern men.

He saw these “leftists” as psychologically disordered—seeking to compensate for deep feelings of personal disempowerment by banding together and seeking extraordinary means of control in society.

Well, Kaczynski, while reprehensible for murdering and maiming people, was precisely correct in many of his ideas.

It was a super fucked up read from the biggest provider of "news" in America. Whatever modicum of normalcy this thread is giving Fox credit for is completely dashed by articles like this.

[Fresno Bob]

I see snowflake get tossed much more at "soft headed avo toast eating liberals" than "angry white men"

[DMT]

So here's something Fox News posted that I found interesting. An article titled "Was the Unabomber Right?" It promotes Ted Kaczynski being a prescient genius, whose ideas should be taken seriously, then what looks like the editor just bolded certain phrases to avoid being legally responsible for promoting terrorism. Pretty fucked up that they know some lunatics could act on their words, but they publish it anyway, because "Hey, The Unabomber hated lefties as much as us, let's promote his ideas!"

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/was-...uYRzwb1M2wGR5Q



It was a super fucked up read from the biggest provider of "news" in America. Whatever modicum of normalcy this thread is giving Fox credit for is completely dashed by articles like this.

Truly fucked up

[Ken]

You have nothing to contribute of value here, only your personal grievances.

Gross.

[B-Fly]

So here's something Fox News posted that I found interesting. An article titled "Was the Unabomber Right?" It promotes Ted Kaczynski being a prescient genius, whose ideas should be taken seriously, then what looks like the editor just bolded certain phrases to avoid being legally responsible for promoting terrorism. Pretty fucked up that they know some lunatics could act on their words, but they publish it anyway, because "Hey, The Unabomber hated lefties as much as us, let's promote his ideas!"

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/was-...uYRzwb1M2wGR5Q



It was a super fucked up read from the biggest provider of "news" in America. Whatever modicum of normalcy this thread is giving Fox credit for is completely dashed by articles like this.

Holy hell? Fox News published this under the byline "Fox News" - so this is the opinion of their editorial board? That's outrageous and disgusting.

Edit to add: As I look closer, I see this was published in 2013 and updated in 2015. I still think it's disgusting, but that time context is important.

[Ken]

I see snowflake get tossed much more at "soft headed avo toast eating liberals" than "angry white men"

Yes, that's the only connotation I had heard of that term before seeing it here, which is why it was odd to see it attempted in the other direction. It honestly doesn't fit the narrative at all. The "angry white men" are accused of being insensitive, not the inverse.

I think it is used here in the opposite direction as at attempt to deflect, but it doesn't fit at all.

There's a common theme here if you argue that something is not appropriate or crosses boundaries that you are too sensitive. That's ridiculous, to be frank.

But to get back to "snowflake", honestly the initial usage of it towards liberals is disgusting. Reminds me of the white trash southern idiots I see on facebook and twitter posting "Those damn snowflake liberal morans want my guns just try 'n come an' take 'em"

[B-Fly]

Yes, that's the only connotation I had heard of that term before seeing it here, which is why it was odd to see it attempted in the other direction. It honestly doesn't fit the narrative at all. The "angry white men" are accused of being insensitive, not the inverse.

I think it is used here in the opposite direction as at attempt to deflect, but it doesn't fit at all.

There's a common theme here if you argue that something is not appropriate or crosses boundaries that you are too sensitive. That's ridiculous, to be frank.

But to get back to "snowflake", honestly the initial usage of it towards liberals is disgusting. Reminds me of the white trash southern idiots I see on facebook and twitter posting "Those damn snowflake liberal morans want my guns just try 'n come an' take 'em"

I definitely agree with your final line about the initial/primary usage. I've more recently seen it used/flipped when conservatives cry "racism" in response to complaints about white racism/nationalism. In either case, it doesn't really advance discussion or understanding.

[Teenwolf]

Holy hell? Fox News published this under the byline "Fox News" - so this is the opinion of their editorial board? That's outrageous and disgusting.

Edit to add: As I look closer, I see this was published in 2013 and updated in 2015. I still think it's disgusting, but that time context is important.

Interesting, I hadn't realized the publishing dates... even more scary to realize how long it's been out there. I saw it posted by a lefty on Facebook, but it's there for radicalized righties to justify terrorism, and I'm sure it's been spread in those circles for up to 5 years now...

I honestly wonder if the recent mail bomber has stumbled across this article. Not saying 1 article could push a lunatic to act, but it certainly connects the dots for them. Even the way their condemnations are bolded makes it seem like 2 different voices writing the article. You could read the bolded voice as the pussified-PC opinion to be ignored. Very easily in fact.

It concludes: "Well, I would rather be correct, than politically correct. And it is time for people to read “Industrial Society and its Future,” by convicted serial killer Ted Kaczynski. His work, despite his deeds, deserves a place alongside “Brave New World,” by Aldous Huxley, and “1984,” by George Orwell."

[baldgriff]

Interesting, I hadn't realized the publishing dates... even more scary to realize how long it's been out there. I saw it posted by a lefty on Facebook, but it's there for radicalized righties to justify terrorism, and I'm sure it's been spread in those circles for up to 5 years now..."

OK - and Mein Kampf has been in the library available for a quick read since 1945?

There is all sorts of shit out there, either on line or in the actual library, that will justify a lefty or righties position. Respectfully, now you seem to be advocating getting rid of writings that you disagree with.

[B-Fly]

OK - and Mein Kampf has been in the library available for a quick read since 1945?

There is all sorts of shit out there, either on line or in the actual library, that will justify a lefty or righties position. Respectfully, now you seem to be advocating getting rid of writings that you disagree with.

Does it trouble you that the piece was published under the byline "Fox News"? Yeah, it's old now, but that's kind of a shocking editorial board piece for them to have greenlit.

[Teenwolf]

OK - and Mein Kampf has been in the library available for a quick read since 1945?

There is all sorts of shit out there, either on line or in the actual library, that will justify a lefty or righties position. Respectfully, now you seem to be advocating getting rid of writings that you disagree with.

I thought you agreed with me in the far right extremist thread that we should pay more focus to right wing extremists, so I'm confused by your pushback. That's exactly who this is written for, angry right wingers vulnerable to radicalization. By publishing it on Fox News, it adds legitimacy that isnt deserved. I would expect these articles exist on more far right sites, but coming from Fox News is scary. This poison shouldn't be legitimized, that's my point. If it's on Info Wars, then at least it's only reaching the already mentally compromised intended audience.

[baldgriff]

Does it trouble you that the piece was published under the byline "Fox News"? Yeah, it's old now, but that's kind of a shocking editorial board piece for them to have greenlit.

I find it odd, yes. Knowing who the Unibomber is, it does seem odd that a National outlet would be publishing the opinion under their byline.

It does start out by stating:
Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber, was rightly imprisoned for life in 1998 for sending bombs that maimed and killed three people and injured 23 more, from 1978 to 1992. No one can excuse his terrorism.

also:
Well, Kaczynski, while reprehensible for murdering and maiming people, was precisely correct in many of his ideas.

and then:

What the Unabomber did was reprehensible. And he was wrong: Killing people to bring attention to his ideas ended up making most people lock up his ideas, along with him. They became unmentionable, for politically correct folks.

The article (not that I agree with it) specifically states multiple times that what TK did was WRONG. I have not read his manifesto (nor plan too), but the opinion piece appears to focus on his opinion: "Kaczynski, who is still alive, wrote that the increasing industrialization of America and the world, and our increasing reliance on technology, would end up short-circuiting the ability of human beings to think for themselves and act on their own ideas and abilities."

I havent read either Brave New World, or 1984 - but dont these books have a concern about technology taking over for mankind?

Again I dont condone TK's actions.
The article specifically states multiple times what he did was wrong
The article makes an equivalency between TK's manifesto and 2 very popular Sci-Fi books.

That all said - it would likely have been better for them to not publish this Op piece.

So I fell for the bait to try and defend an Op piece by FOX news.

Now again - My point was more about the fact that stating that it has been out there for 5 years to support the righties terrorism is very myopic - given that there are hundreds of years of writing retained in both the library and available online (including “Brave New World,” by Aldous Huxley, and “1984,” by George Orwell.) There is all sorts of writing out there to support terror in all sorts of directions for all sorts of causes. The implication that 5 years is a long time and it doesnt need to be out there anymore, smacks of book burning or fascism.

[baldgriff]

I thought you agreed with me in the far right extremist thread that we should pay more focus to right wing extremists, so I'm confused by your pushback. That's exactly who this is written for, angry right wingers vulnerable to radicalization. By publishing it on Fox News, it adds legitimacy that isnt deserved. I would expect these articles exist on more far right sites, but coming from Fox News is scary. This poison shouldn't be legitimized, that's my point. If it's on Info Wars, then at least it's only reaching the already mentally compromised intended audience.

I would agree that we cant legitimize extremism on either side. I push back because you seem to quash the ability of those with a differing opinion of you to speak. The Fox article did state multiple times that the actions taken by TK were not correct, totally wrong, and he deserved to be put in jail for life. They dont condone his actions, they do seem to state that they guy has some ideas that they agree with. They specifically state they dont agree with what he did.

[Sour Masher]

It was a super fucked up read from the biggest provider of "news" in America. Whatever modicum of normalcy this thread is giving Fox credit for is completely dashed by articles like this.

I agree completely, and I'm regretting starting this thread, if the take away for anyone is that it normalizes Fox News as a whole. I was in a conciliatory mood when I posted, and I wanted to express my extreme admiration of Shephard Smith being a calm voice of reason on the caravan issue on a network that was making it sound like War of the Worlds.

I also wanted a space to maybe develop the really disturbing and scary idea to me that the cause and effect on the crazy extreme media we see here is actually reversed from what I'd hoped it would be. That is, Fox News and other such new sources exist because Americans WANT THEM TO. If they didn't, we'd just invent them again. I was reading about a liberal guy who started a parody site that posts the most outrageous claims about Dems and the left, and he does it to play catcha and mock other sites that do it for real. But the thing was, hit site is now a top 5 site for conservatives over the age of 55. Millions of his readers still don't get it is a joke, and his stuff goes viral all of the time on the right. The more absurd his claim, the more it goes viral, despite all the labels on the site of it being a parody. People don't care it isn't real. It fits their outrage narrative, so they spread it. It's scary.