Topics > Media Bias/Media War

Breitbart's Ben Shapiro Launches "Truth Revolt" against media

(1/5) > >>

IronDioPriest:
I s'pose this is a thing. I tend to be skeptical of conservative claims at "new and groundbreaking" tactics, operations, strategies, organizations, etc. I guess I've been too optimistic in the past when people have made such claims, and then disappointed when they panned out to be so much less than expected.

Still, it should be noted on these pages, that while the irreplaceable Andrew Breitbart is gone and sorely missed, those carrying on in his name seem to be trying their best.


--- Quote ---BREITBART.COM'S BEN SHAPIRO: TRUTHREVOLT WILL MAKE MSM 'PAY' FOR LIES, CHANGE 'NATURE OF MEDIA'

On Sunday, Breitbart News Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro discussed the launch of a new website that will seek to "change the nature of media" by exposing the donors and advertisers that enable the mainstream media to distort the truth and push their agendas with no accountability, especially when it comes to their bottom lines.

Shapiro will lead TruthRevolt.org, which will launch on Monday to expose the mainstream media and “unmask leftists in the media for who they are, destroy their credibility with the American public, and devastate their funding bases."
--- End quote ---

Libertas:
Let us review this effort with eyes wide open and see what we shall see.

ToddF:
Nothing short of making people ashamed to quote low information media, will ever change low information media.  As long as it's cool to act the moron, people will be acting moronic, quoting low information journalism.

This new effort will be one big non factor.

I will continue to be the army of one, in implementing effort number 1.

Pablo de Fleurs:
What it is, is one more tool, in an arsenal of tools with which to combat falsehood. One problem with the way most people think is that there exists a killer blow, an all-powerful argument, that so stuns the enemy that they fall over, despairing & defeated. But that blow doesn't exist (not with men @ least).

The solution is proper education: interacting with people in the s-l-o-w process of tinkering with their worldview…for that’s the battle in which we’re engaged: opposing worldviews. The Christian conservative filters through Christ & faith – and those led by the father of lies (who, btw, are for the most part, unaware of him) filter through a humanistic perspective. The other side believes the distorted truth OR, have so wrapped themselves in an existence dependent upon sin that they convince themselves that they are somehow righteous in their rebellion; that they are on “the right side of history.”

One of my favorite phrases is “If there is no God, then nothing is wrong.” Everything & anything is permissible because there is no metric for discerning between good & evil…only pragmatic subjectivism (what’s best for ME, right NOW?). What’s left on the other side is a moral relativism that sees us as misguided zealots pushing antiquated notions from an ancient tome.

So let’s see where it goes, while we keep on keeping on.
To paraphrase Bobby Flay: “To all you believers out there, keep on doing what you’re doing, but ask yourself this: Are you ready for a throw-down?”

Weisshaupt:

--- Quote from: Pablo de Fleurs on October 08, 2013, 09:05:01 AM ---The solution is proper education: interacting with people in the s-l-o-w process of tinkering with their worldview…for that’s the battle in which we’re engaged: opposing worldviews.
--- End quote ---

Sorry, its got to be better than slow. We don't have the time, nor am I convinced that "slow" works either.
I have spent that last 10 years with my Mother, sister and Father, escalating continually.  All of them decided it would be better to not see me or my children than confront even the smallest inconsistency in their world view.  Add to them co workers, friends from grade school, etc.  I even created an exam that literally makes them go berserk.
 
Their "worldview" is that anything contradictory to their worldview is a lie. Or, more accurately that " If there is no God, then nothing is wrong." - they reject the very idea of objective truth.  If I say that the sky is blue  that is "my truth", unique and separate from their equally valid  "truth" - and their truth is anything that advances them - anything that strokes their ego, anything that makes them feel secure, happy or noble. What Dave Sim said about women being fundamentally "emotional beings"  is true of the lefty as well - and the reason for the lefty emphasis on the Demasculinization of men - they want them to act like most women - they want to make them emotional beings..


--- Quote --- I don't know what you would call it. It wasn't communication in any meaningful sense of the term as I understand it. It was a kind of “emotional badminton.” I acted happy, sympathetic, interested and cheerful and then it was her turn to act happy, sympathetic, interested and cheerful and then it was my turn, etc. She might accidentally say something interesting where I could, with sincerity, say that I found what she had just said interesting. This temporarily escalated the level of her cheerfulness but, alas, that is all that it did: whatever was being said ranking a very distant second to maintaining and escalating the level of cheerfulness. A very, very distant second. I realized that this is where the “henhouse cacophony” originates. If “communication” within a group of women is working properly (as women see “working properly”) everyone should be talking faster and faster and faster and in a higher and higher musical range – either portraying themselves or being (the two states being deemed interchangeable in the female world) cheerful, more cheerful, “cheerfulest” – until, maximum cheerfulness having been achieved, a glass breaks or something.
--- End quote ---

This is what the average liberal wants from you and everyone else around them. Its what S I Hayakawa called "the language of social cohesion"


--- Quote ---What complicates problems of interpretation is the fact that informative uses of language are intimately fused with older and deeper functions of language.. this presymbolic talk for talk's sake is, like the cries of animals, a form of activity. We talk together about nothing at all and thereby establish friendships. The purpose of the talk is not the communication of information, as the symbols used would seem to imply, but the establishment of communion....The togetherness of the talking, then, is the most important element in the social conversation, the subject matter is only secondary. There is a principle at work, therefore, in the selection of subject matter. Since the purpose of this kind of talk is the establishment of communion, we are careful to select subjects about which immediate agreement is possible... Having agreed on the weather , we go on to further agreements... which each new agreement, no matter how common place or obvious, the fear and suspicion of the stranger wears away and the possibility of a friendship enlarges
--- End quote ---

Lefties are basically children.. people stunted at the emotional level of 5 year olds.  They believe wealth needs to be shared equally because they have a Kindergarten  mindset. Wealth is always distributed by "adults" No one works to get what they have, and its important  to share, because the Adults don't want to deal with the tantrums. A kindergartner is going to be far more aware of an adults emotional tone in what they are saying than the content.  A adult upset about Obamacare and yelling about it is only seen by the child to be angry.  The child has no idea what characteristics of Obamacare have the adult upset, and they really couldn't comprehend them even if the adult made an effort to explain it. All lefties are like that- stunted at five years old and simply unable to comprehend anything but the pre-symbolic qualities of any given speech. Therefore, when you disagree with them ALL THEY HEAR is "I don't want  to be your friend" -

 Back to Sim:


--- Quote ---With an emotion-based being, your only choices are to narcotize her with a steady stream of cheerful, musical expression or manufacture a chaotic mixture of emotional portrayals to “wake her up” (“awake” being a purely relative term, of course, in referring to emotion-based beings). You can try being sensible and reasonable but all you're going to get back is an emotion-based portrayal of sense and reason having nothing to do with sense and reason. An emotion-based being just attempts to reflect and/or portray what little emotion she can discern in sense and reason (“sombre,” “serious,” “earnest,” “non-musical”) and attaches the portrayal to an arbitrary stream of musical vocalizations having nothing to do with the subject at hand. This invariably provokes extreme impatience in the non-emotion-based being, to whose impatient expressions the emotion-based being will invariably respond: “Why are you getting so angry?” Impatience is not a happy emotion, but an identifiable one for an emotion-based being: “I was singing your sombre, serious, earnest, non-musical song with you and now you're angry. Why don't you just sing a cheerful song instead so we can both be happy?” To the emotion-based being, this makes perfect sense
--- End quote ---

My Mother still periodically emails me and asks why we "can't be a family" after she voted to hold a gun to my head,  violate my rights, and steal from my children. This is why. Every statement, every fact, every reasoned argument has been heard and interpreted as "I don't want to be friends"  - She is seeking a way to "sing my sad song " with me. They only emulate and copy those of us who are rational.  Maybe in some small facets of their lives they are capable of being rational - areas where their egos and identity are not so invested - but when it comes to big issues - they want tribal unity. They want a Chieftain to tell them what to do and what to think, and whatever that authority decides is "right"- and following the authority makes them "good" and guarantees being accepted by others. 


--- Quote ---Anyway, I just found that I couldn't live that way. A woman is going to do whatever makes her cheerful at the moment and that, in my experience, is the extent of her perception of ethics. In order to maintain a relationship with an emotion-based being it is necessary to be cheerful about anything that makes her cheerful. Coupled with a “woman's right to choose” as central ethic – or, rather, “ethic” – this involves a wide and variegated spectrum of feminist actions and behaviours and opinions.
--- End quote ---

 We are evil for the simple reason that we don't want to belong to their tribe and sing the "happy songs", and instead make our own decisions. The whole thing is fully alien to them.

So, in my humble opinion, winning the media war will do little to help us.  These people have been stunted, either naturally or artificially, in their growth to act as Kindergartners.  It is my experience that once this happens they are stuck in never land. They can never grow up. They WANT "Authorities" to take care of them. They want to Share equally. They want to feel safe and protected.   They want to fell like they belong, and that they are better than other people- that they are special. The won't  understand complex topics and won't  want to learn, especially if doing so interferes with any of the above which is the primary focus of their lives and souls. So instead a rejection of a lefty ( "I don't want to be friends") is treated with grade school taunting and attempts at bullying.  Its easy to feel pity for them, till you realize that you have an entire classroom of kindergartners who have voted to give themselves  guns and have started demanding free candy of the adults .

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page