All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[achilles]

This horrible thing happened, and now the hospital will have to pay through the nose. Personally, I think criminal charges against both CPS and the hospital personnel are warranted. Kidnapping, for one. This sort of thing happens, more frequently than you'd want to think. What happens is that nurses, doctors, and others at the hospital are tired and pissed off for other reasons, then are confronted with a non-obvious problem they don't understand, and then they get nasty and blame the patient, patient's parents or caregivers, whatever. Sometimes they go this far. Hospital will of course appeal it, but they deserve to lose again.

I think for me, the fact that they contended that the Ketamine treatment was unnecessary WHILE cheerfully billing the family for said treatments was one of the keys. Just out of curiosity, I wonder if they ruled out a Red Widow bite? That spider lives in the palmetto woods in Florida, and has the charming ability to bite you, and have the incredibly painful effects of its venom continue to come back for the rest of the victim's life. This case was the subject of a Netflix documentary, but similar cases play out without media scrutiny across the country.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/children-...022148426.html

[Tendrin]

I saw a bit about that story. What a nightmare.

[JCAll]

A crowded field of spoilers:
With Cornel West abandoning the Green Party line to try to run for President of the United States as an independent, 2016 candidate Jill Stein has stepped up to fill the void and filed FEC paperwork to run in 2024

Oh good, I was worried Putin wouldn't have a candidate running this time. Happy for him.
/sarcasm

[Mister Mets]

How does it hurt the media's credibility?

Fair question.

In general, stories about reporters are rather insular, feeding into the impression that the media loves to talk about itself.

There isn't the suggestion of an alternative to make sure that Hamas doesn't benefit from using Palestinians as human shields. Whatever the solution is, a government endangering its citizens should not be a cheat code in an international conflict.

And then there is the difference between how this topic is covered, and other topics are covered. We don't see journalists writing letters when the media gets things wrong in a left-coded way.

I don't think it's fringe at all. The satirist guy who Piers Morgan interviewed multiple times and has 10 million views denied the horrid acts that Hamas did to babies. How many people refuse to believe that the rocket that hit the hospital was from PIJ? I think that if you go to any of these protests and ask people if they believe what Hamas did, they'll either deny it or say that it's justified. Because if they acknowledge that Hamas is as bad as it is, and that they caused the death of the Gazans, they would acknowledge that they're protesting the wrong people. If you ask them if they want Israel abolished, nearly everyone there would say yes. There are many reasons why all of this is antisemitic. But one reason that isn't frequently mentioned. These people talk about how Israel is a colonialist project, when it is actually the opposite. But how many colonialist projects do these people get upset about in the Middle East. Places where way more people are killed. Magnitudes higher. Israel is a tiny place with a ton of Muslim states surrounding it. So, people opting to only be upset about the one Jewish state are indeed engaging in antisemitism.

I'd distinguish between skepticism of the source of the rocket and claims that the victims are crisis actors.

The former view is wrong, but within normal parameters.

It's rare for someone on camera to say something that absurd. They may do so on occasion, but it remains a fringe position.

He probably means that the territory was part of British and before that Ottoman Empire colonies and became an independent country after the foundation of Israel.

It's an unusual example of a colonial power giving territory back to a group that views it as part of their heritage.

I still think that Manchin & Sinema were not really Democrats . Yes on some issues they voted with Dems , but you couldn't count 100% on them .
If West Virginia is stupid enough to elect a Republican to the Senate , then they're voting against their best interests .
I read that Manchin , received about $12 Million from Coal & Gas companies . If that's not bribery then I don't know what is .
Time for the Democratic party to scout some Red states or Purple to get more Congressman & Senators .

The idea that a party should able to count 100% on a standard legislator represents an interesting challenge.

They're supposed to have agency, and should be willing to express disagreement.

[Mister Mets]

It did -- and you have nothing factual to say in defense of your support for a racist, fascist, homophobic political party.



If he wants evidence that Republicans will attempt to overturn same sex marriage at the first opportunity he knows where to find it.

The same applies to their continued attacks on the civil rights of the LGBT community in America.

But then he couldn't lie about being "attacked" by facts and repeat his line about others needing to be "polite" to him while he asks loaded questions.

These misleading techniques make it very clear why an individual like Trump was able to completely take over the Republican party in such a short period of time.

The party has no real moral or ethical base to speak of at this point -- Trump suits them perfectly.

If you have a question, ask it politely non-loaded way. Otherwise, criticizing me for being evasive doesn't make sense because you're not willing to clearly express your views and understanding.

When I have a question, I can address facts.

We can take a look at what I said, and your response.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...ge#post6636601

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6636826

It seems you're going after me for having different conclusions than you do. If you have no interest in how I came to a conclusion, then it doesn't make sense to call me out for not talking about things you don't want me to talk about.

When I post quotes of you being unreasonable, you ignore them to claim I'm insulting you. I post evidence that The Week lied and you say you don't see it. I post evidence that you correct people when you are factually in the wrong, and you double-down instead of accepting you are in the wrong. You say you post evidence, but I still see none posted to back up your wild theories about The Week's reporters contacting anyone, no evidence of how the GoP's Bigotry is exagerrated/overblown, nothing about how you "Think" so many subjects aren't what the evidence says they are, or any evidence that actually excuses The Week's transphobic claim when you consider the study's Data.

You Gaslight, Sealion, and outright Lie without the slightest guilt or hesitation. The proof has been posted time & time again, but just keep on doing it so the only "fair" thing to do is keep pointing it out.



At this point it's just necessary to point out the dishonesty, since there will be no changing from the 'Moderate' republican who's going to keep voting for, supporting, and defending the GoP until they implode.

If you think I've ignored a polite part of a comment, you could ask it again instead of going to estimates.

If this is something I do frequently, you should be able to provide ample evidence.

When it comes to requests for evidence, I do think it's valid if someone has a confident claim and/ or decides to get personal. In those case, it shouldn't take long to find the evidence to support your interpretation, so the other person knows exactly we're you're coming from.

I don't think you've established that The Week lied. I've expressed my opinion on that multiple times.

Let's consider the possibilities.
1. A writer for a mainstream periodical did basic due diligence covering a controversial topic.
2. A writer for a mainstream periodical made a very obvious mistake.
3. A writer for a mainstream periodical lied about a controversial topic.

I think #1 is most likely since I haven't seen evidence of major pushback from scientists involved in the study or pro-trans groups.

You believe that #3 is so obviously true that anyone who disagrees should be insulted. You've used this as pretext to insult me for years. Your attitude reminds me a lot of 2020 election deniers who see something suspicious and jump to a conclusion based on limited evidence.

I do invite others who have seen the back and forth for years to chime in. How confident are you that the writer of the article lied?

[aja_christopher]

If you have a question, ask it politely non-loaded way. Otherwise, criticizing me for being evasive doesn't make sense because you're not willing to clearly express your views and understanding.

When I have a question, I can address facts.

We can take a look at what I said, and your response.

You keep positing the lie that this about "asking" you for something instead of addressing Republican behavior -- further proving your dishonesty in this discussion.

Individual views and understanding of the Republican party have been clearly expressed on this forum -- as well as backed by substantial evidence.

Moreover, there was more to the response on same sex marriage than just what you quoted -- once again you are being dishonest and misrepresenting others.

You were even given a direct link to it in a previous post -- further proving that providing you with relevant information is simply a waste of time.

And likewise is a reminder of why people shouldn't humor your "loaded" questions.

If you can't address those responses with all of the evidence provided -- given the time that others have taken to address your queries -- then it proves your lack of concern for the opinions of others. This conversation could have been informative but you have spent the majority of the time ignoring the information you requested and instead trying to demean those whom you asked for input.

Your incessant demands that others ask you "politely" and according to your biased and limited viewpoint is little more than deflection and just another expression of unwarranted arrogance as no one has to ask you to address Republican bigotry: to the contrary your unwillingness to address it without being "asked" to do so proves that you lack the will to address unethical behavior when it is Republican in origin.

Remember -- you are the one getting upset because others are calling you out for supporting Repubican racism, fascism, and homophobia.

You can address those issues without being asked or complaining about accountability -- you simply lack the facts or the desire to do so.

If you had either you would have done so already rather than constantly trying to lie about being "attacked" instead of defending your support of Republican bigotry. You're not even discussing the question that you asked or Republican homophobia in general -- just trying to dictate to others how to address the issue with you when you lack any authority whatsoever.

You keep talking about how you utilize facts and evidence yet provide none in these exchanges.

Because there are no "facts" that you can utilize to defend your support of Republican immorality, deception and unethical behavior.

-------

Which Republican politicians do you think are lying about their support for gay marriage (or at least their willingness to push to have it reversed)?

My impression on this specific question is that politicians are evasive rather than lying.

You asked a loaded question and even telegraphed your bias in said question.

In response you were given links to many Republican politicians arguing and voting against the SC decision to legalize gay marriage -- all of which you ignored.

You had a question -- you didn't address facts.

Facts about the Republican party aka The Party of Trump, Facts about reporters and authors who print Transphobic lies, Facts about T-Shirts & Signed Nazi Memorabilia, even Facts about posting habits online . . . it's easy to provide them and have a fact-based argument if that was the goal.

It's clear at this point Mets has no desire to discuss the truth about the Republican party with those who hold them accountable for their actions.

If he truly had "facts" on his side he would be posting them instead of complaining about them and ignoring them.

[achilles]

This has surfaced. It raises serious ethical concerns, which I think the news outlets understand, given their response, both defensive in nature, and "we promise not to do it again".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67375667

[Jack Dracula]

He's a Democrat in name only. West Virginia has been trending Republican for years now; he's held onto his seat due to name recognition, and the fact that his voting record is conservative. Frankly, I think he only stayed a Democrat for the past few years because it gave him an absurd amount of leverage in the Senate.

There are many WV Democrats who will be glad to see him gone.

[Dalak]

To be fair, I don't think it'll be that big of a concern among his potential conservative supporters. He's made a big deal of portraying himself as a well behaved good Christian, yet unmarried... I think more of them were worried that he was a closeted gay man.

Look at Hersel Walker and what happened when people started looking into his past. A big stink was made of the fact that he was running as conservative but had multiple affairs, was a deadbeat dad and pressured some woman into getting an abortion, but I don't think it was really talked about that many of these women were white.

It wasn't thrust into the faces of racists as strongly as bringing out your hot white GF on stage, plus as he's running against Trump (or for his VP spot putting him a heartbeat away from the Presidency) I think that will be more important than it was with Hershel Walker.

Breaking news: Israel has agreed to daily 4 hour pauses in fighting

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...76a645b39&ei=8

This is a step in the right direction.

A crowded field of spoilers:
With Cornel West abandoning the Green Party line to try to run for President of the United States as an independent, 2016 candidate Jill Stein has stepped up to fill the void and filed FEC paperwork to run in 2024

Joy . . .

Just heard that Joe Manchin will not be seeking re-election to the Senate.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. On the other hand, you know his seat will probably now go to a Republican.

As he's pondering a presidential run too my above Joy is magnified.

Hundreds of journalists sign letter protesting coverage of Israel

This has surfaced. It raises serious ethical concerns, which I think the news outlets understand, given their response, both defensive in nature, and "we promise not to do it again".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67375667

I think these 2 quotes are important to look at side by side, as it shows a direct attack on the Media from the Media about coverage of Israel being rather lopsided, followed by an accusation of Israel that the media had to have known about 10/7 beforehand because freelancers sold them pictures. These things aren't the same, but to me it shows how there's alot not being said that could be and Israel's Government and their supporters are trying to silence any dissent or complaint about it's actions by any means they can. I think that regular people finding themselves caught up in this should take a minute to calm down, put on a pair of Fake Vulcan Ears, and look at things coolly & logically while they wait to see how things shake up. If the 4 hour a day thing is expanded upon that will be a sign that things are getting even better IMO, but aggressive attacks back and forth aren't going to do anyone any good.

https://us.yahoo.com/news/far-hosts-...192544213.html

I never thought I would be encouraged by anything Taylor Swift was involved in, but that just goes to show you.

How does it hurt the media's credibility?

I think the media calling itself to task is more supportive of Journalistic integrity than how it's been portrayed.

This horrible thing happened, and now the hospital will have to pay through the nose. Personally, I think criminal charges against both CPS and the hospital personnel are warranted. Kidnapping, for one. This sort of thing happens, more frequently than you'd want to think. What happens is that nurses, doctors, and others at the hospital are tired and pissed off for other reasons, then are confronted with a non-obvious problem they don't understand, and then they get nasty and blame the patient, patient's parents or caregivers, whatever. Sometimes they go this far. Hospital will of course appeal it, but they deserve to lose again.

I think for me, the fact that they contended that the Ketamine treatment was unnecessary WHILE cheerfully billing the family for said treatments was one of the keys. Just out of curiosity, I wonder if they ruled out a Red Widow bite? That spider lives in the palmetto woods in Florida, and has the charming ability to bite you, and have the incredibly painful effects of its venom continue to come back for the rest of the victim's life. This case was the subject of a Netflix documentary, but similar cases play out without media scrutiny across the country.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/children-...022148426.html

This is despicable, in so many ways.

[Dalak]

If you think I've ignored a polite part of a comment, you could ask it again instead of going to estimates.

If this is something I do frequently, you should be able to provide ample evidence.

When it comes to requests for evidence, I do think it's valid if someone has a confident claim and/ or decides to get personal. In those case, it shouldn't take long to find the evidence to support your interpretation, so the other person knows exactly we're you're coming from.

I don't think you've established that The Week lied. I've expressed my opinion on that multiple times.

Let's consider the possibilities.
1. A writer for a mainstream periodical did basic due diligence covering a controversial topic.
2. A writer for a mainstream periodical made a very obvious mistake.
3. A writer for a mainstream periodical lied about a controversial topic.

I think #1 is most likely since I haven't seen evidence of major pushback from scientists involved in the study or pro-trans groups.

You believe that #3 is so obviously true that anyone who disagrees should be insulted. You've used this as pretext to insult me for years. Your attitude reminds me a lot of 2020 election deniers who see something suspicious and jump to a conclusion based on limited evidence.

I do invite others who have seen the back and forth for years to chime in. How confident are you that the writer of the article lied?

-----

3 Trans woman 0.2
4 Trans man 0.3
5 Genderqueer 0.5
6 My identity is not listed 0.5
7 Agender 0.3
8 Genderfluid 0.5
9 Non-binary 1.9
10 Intersex 0.0

can you tell me if they were brought up as boys/girls? Can you tell me how they were assigned at birth? Can you tell me anything other than they were anonymous students who said they were Genderfluid/etc?

As it is impossible to do so from the data provided, you know exactly how The Week inflated their numbers in order to make the transphobic lie quoted here:

Everything else is used to disguise that fact & how you refuse to admit it,

Nothing I've said, haven't said, or am told I said changes those numbers and the information not provided with them which The Week ignored to make up their lie. No turn of phrase or any specific wording will change what those numbers say, what they don't say, and how The Week lied claiming they said differently. No opinion/statement of mine that you have an issue with changes the facts as presented which you still aren't addressing.

The data fits what they reported.

4.2% of students saying they identify outside the gender they were assigned at birth can certainly correspond to the explanation "In surveys by the American College Health Association, the number of students brought up as girls identifying as transgender soared from 1 in 2,000 in 2008 to 1 in 20."

The Week didn't claim they were all brought up as girls.

I still don't see the evidence that the reporter lied. I think you're jumping to conclusions about a topic you don't understand.

-----

I didn't even need to go back 2 weeks to find evidence of you lying, ignoring the evidence posted (By You as well), contradicting the evidence posted without responding with relevant evidence of your own (Example of Irrelevant: Studies/etc The Week didn't cite), and outright contradicting yourself - That's how often you do it. Considering that factual evidence I'm fairly sure that any evaluation you make of what's likelier is highly suspect, as you claim you cannot understand this or even see the evidence laid out in front of you.

I would like to find out if it's just 2 or 3 others who understand this too as the Gaslight is strong with this one, so I encourage replies just as much.

Individual views and understanding of the Republican party have been made more than clear on this forum -- as well as backed by substantial evidence.

There was more to the response on same sex marriage than just what you quoted -- once again you are being dishonest and misrepresenting others.

You were even given a direct link to it in a previous post -- further proving that providing you with relevant information is simply a waste of time.

If you can't address those responses with all of the evidence provided -- given the time that others have taken to address your queries -- then it proves your lack of concern for the opinions of others. This conversation could have been informative but you have spent the majority of the time ignoring the information you requested and instead trying to demean those whom you asked for input.

Your incessant demands that others ask you "politely" and according to your biased and limited viewpoint is just another expression of unwarranted arrogance as no one has to ask you to address Republican bigotry -- to the contrary your unwillingness to address it without being "asked" to do so simply proves that you lack the moral fiber to address unethical behavior when it is Republican in origin.

And likewise is a reminder of why people shouldn't humor such "loaded" requests in the first place.

Remember -- you are the one getting upset because others are calling you out for supporting Repubican racism, fascism, and homophobia.

You can address those issues without being asked regardless -- you simply lack the facts or the desire to do so.

If you had either you would have done so already rather than constantly trying to lie about being "attacked" instead of defending your support of Republican bigotry.

You keep talking about how you utilize facts and evidence yet none have been provided in these exchanges -- just lies and complaints about said facts and evidence.

The bolded is very true, but I still indulge occasionally just to show how little it matters if you do indulge his Sealioning.

There are many WV Democrats who will be glad to see him gone.

I think that there are many Democrats glad to see him gone even if his seat goes R, simply because when they get the Majority back they won't have him hamstringing them when it counts.

[Tami]

Outrage grows after ‘chilling call for genocide’ by Florida Republican

Outrage continues to grow over a public comment made by a Florida state Republican lawmaker calling for all Palestinians to die.

The remarks came during a debate in the state legislature about calling for a ceasefire in Israel’s invasion of Gaza, which has so far killed more than 10,000 Palestinians, many of whom are children. The assault came after Hamas fighters attacked Israel from Gaza, killing at least 1,400 people and taking more than 200 hostage.

In the speech in support of the ceasefire resolution, the Democratic Florida state representative Angie Nixon said: “We are at 10,000 dead Palestinians. How many will be enough?”

“All of them,” Michelle Salzman called in reply.

Nixon acknowledged the interruption and said: “One of my colleagues just said, ‘All of them.’ Wow.”

The Florida state house later voted 104-2 to reject Nixon’s resolution.

Salzman’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

[aja_christopher]

The bolded is very true, but I still indulge occasionally just to show how little it matters if you do indulge his Sealioning.

It's not just indulgence -- previous elections make it clear that Repbublican bigotry and misinformation should be addressed directly.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Manchin knew he likely was gonna lose the Senate spot to Jim Justice. Its why he decided to not run. Now the seat will go full Republican.

[AnakinFlair]

As he's pondering a presidential run too my above Joy is magnified.

If that's true, then he's only slightly less oblivious to reality than Mike Pence. In fact, I think more people like Pence than like Manchin.

Manchin knew he likely was gonna lose the Senate spot to Jim Justice. Its why he decided to not run. Now the seat will go full Republican.

Yeah, that sounds about right. Still, I wouldn't put it past him to run for President as an Independent just to further screw over the Democrats one last time on the way out.

[thwhtGuardian]

Fair question.

In general, stories about reporters are rather insular, feeding into the impression that the media loves to talk about itself.

There isn't the suggestion of an alternative to make sure that Hamas doesn't benefit from using Palestinians as human shields. Whatever the solution is, a government endangering its citizens should not be a cheat code in an international conflict.

And then there is the difference between how this topic is covered, and other topics are covered. We don't see journalists writing letters when the media gets things wrong in a left-coded way.

I'd distinguish between skepticism of the source of the rocket and claims that the victims are crisis actors.

The former view is wrong, but within normal parameters.

It's rare for someone on camera to say something that absurd. They may do so on occasion, but it remains a fringe position.

It's an unusual example of a colonial power giving territory back to a group that views it as part of their heritage.

The idea that a party should able to count 100% on a standard legislator represents an interesting challenge.

They're supposed to have agency, and should be willing to express disagreement.

What left leaning issues do you feel members of the media should be writing about to correct?