David Icke Shatters The Antifa Left Alt Right Paradigm

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The problem is that small minority are the group that copy/paste/share links like they work in a fucking warehouse in India, spreading the ad revenue of the media outlets like wildfire. So they print "news" that apeals to those small groups sensibilities and triggers.

If you actually printed informative news about real life, then people would read it on their own time, think "Hmm, interesting" and go back to work/sleep/life outside the system. Thus reducing the revenue of the media outlets by thousands of %

If facebook/twitter wanted to stop hate speech, or end racism like the ALTleft wants it to so bad, they wouldnt ban nazi's or hate speek or TRUMP from their social media outlets, they'd ban the ability to share any media on their platform. No vox, no jezzebelle, no CNN, no fox, no media.

Or charge a premium fee for their services.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Or charge a premium fee for their services.

This isnt actually a solution, you see it wont stop the same number of retards from sharing news the way they do now.

Like, this is already a thing and it has had no effect.

not to mention the fact that because the loudest voices tend to skew the conversation and opinion of the largest groups, all the outlets that do this now are just as pandery.

The economist had a picture of trump talking to his constituents all wearing KKK hoodies this month.

When you pay for news, and 90% of your co-workers dont, and you hear them chattering about the bullshit they read on social network, you wonder, why isnt my pay to read news oulet covering these things?

Also when you are a media outlet the bottom dollar is the only thing that matters, so why would you have TWO staff writing teams? one that prints news for the public eye and one that writes news for the private? that's an obscene waste of money, why not just give the pay to read people the same bullshit that the public reads, saving you a ton of money AND your readers wont send you letters about why you dont cover the hot button issues.

The only solution is to prevent the bottom from using their voice on social as a marketing platform for the manipulative media.

A simple trick that makes social media a billion times better is to go through and hide the news outlet's from each post one of your politically loud friends shares, over a few days, you'll have blocked all media outlets from your social network feed and youll be back to only seeing updates from friends about life events of their own, instead of ones they're reading about.

If facebook added a "block media" button that did this, I think the vast majority of people would click it, and it would change the way news is written, the way facebook changed the way news was written over the last 10 years.

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The problem is that small minority are the group that copy/paste/share links like they work in a fucking warehouse in India, spreading the ad revenue of the media outlets like wildfire. So they print "news" that apeals to those small groups sensibilities and triggers.

If you actually printed informative news about real life, then people would read it on their own time, think "Hmm, interesting" and go back to work/sleep/life outside the system. Thus reducing the revenue of the media outlets by thousands of %

If facebook/twitter wanted to stop hate speech, or end racism like the ALTleft wants it to so bad, they wouldnt ban nazi's or hate speek or TRUMP from their social media outlets, they'd ban the ability to share any media on their platform. No vox, no jezzebelle, no CNN, no fox, no media.

Their are a lot of problems with this arguement. First of all, lets point out that the mainstream media is dying or argubly already dead. Less than 20% of people get their news from T.V. anymore. Over half the population get's their news exclusively from the internet. This trend continues and the big networks are unable to capture internet news consumers.

Secondly, News producers like Rupert Murdoch (a billionaire British propagandist that owns newcorp -> Fox News) commonly interfere with the way news is reported. They litterly will pick up of the phone and say "I want to see more about this Ted Bundy Guy." Or perhaps "Martin Bashir talks too much about the wealthy and not enough about race." So this hand's off idea that they are just in it for the news sales money is retarded. Generally News corporations lose money but are still useful for big owners.

Finally, news does change the way people act. That's why the entire media is now owned by about 7 different richer families that aggressively expand despite that it makes little finical sense. There's not even such thing as local news anymore -- no joke. Those outlets are owned by parent companies that dish out the same unpopular, bland, horseshit that is regurgitated on the national stage. If anything like the radical press of Enland in the early 20th century popped up -- it would be a problem for the news owners.

[dafier]

I approve this thread.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Their are a lot of problems with this arguement. First of all, lets point out that the mainstream media is dying or argubly already dead. Less than 20% of people get their news from T.V. anymore. Over half the population get's their news exclusively from the internet. This trend continues and the big networks are unable to capture internet news consumers.

why should I read your post when in the first paragraph you totally make it clear oyu did not understand my argument, while saying there are flaws in my argument.

I am not talking about television media you dolt

im talking about social media's influence of media SPECIFICALY on the internet, or do you get all your 'social media' from television?

you.

dolt.

l2read

ya libtard

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

why should I read your post when in the first paragraph you totally make it clear oyu did not understand my argument, while saying there are flaws in my argument.

I am not talking about television media you dolt

im talking about social media's influence of media SPECIFICALY on the internet, or do you get all your 'social media' from television?

you.

dolt.

l2read

ya libtard

understand and agree are different things. he seems to take issue with your contention that social disorder is the fault of troublemaking media entities rather than societal conditions.

my good homonom

[maskedmelonpai]

i not really given it much thought for long time, but i feel that social disorder just a result of pervasive idiocy throughout the social/political spectrum afflicting dullard and prodigy alike. one thing i come to understand with time is that smart people are often as equally indiscriminate in their indifference to truth and untruth as dullards are. free will is bogus. choice is probabilistic based on experience, but always a random die is cast. man has arrested his own evolution I preservationist his least desirable traits for longterm survival :c

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

understand and agree are different things. he seems to take issue with your contention that social disorder is the fault of troublemaking media entities rather than societal conditions.

You're right, A well-informed electorate ISNT a prerequisite for democracy.... [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As Icke says in OP's video, you progressive boys and girls are just so far behind when it comes to actually knowing history or about the reality that you argue against.

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

why should I read your post when in the first paragraph you totally make it clear oyu did not understand my argument, while saying there are flaws in my argument.

I am not talking about television media you dolt

im talking about social media's influence of media SPECIFICALY on the internet, or do you get all your 'social media' from television?

you.

dolt.

l2read

ya libtard

There might have been some editing involved but it was this statement"

If you actually printed informative news about real life, then people would read it on their own time, think "Hmm, interesting" and go back to work/sleep/life outside the system. Thus reducing the revenue of the media outlets by thousands of %

I took issue with. You are implying that the news is done the way it is done because it is more profitable this way -- and if we had reporters explaining how the RNC and DNC are corrupted -- profits would shrink because news is currently giving people what they want.

But people -- in mass -- hate the fucking news and what its become. This wasn't always the case. LBJ once said: “If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America.” Then decided not to run based at least partially on that reporters opinion!

T.V. doesn't make a lot of money anymore...so no one wants to spend anything making it good. That simple. This is a lot more of the story than anything about the people deciding they want shitty news.

And you also appear to be naive about why people own news networks...it is rarely because it directly gives them better returns than other investments would. It's because it can be indirectly used to get higher returns on other holdings.

This is all typical Gen X nihilism though. People are stupid because they are born that way and that's why everything is going to shit. There's nothing we can do about it except point it out so we can feel superior.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There might have been some editing involved but it was this statement"



I took issue with. You are implying that the news is done the way it is done because it is more profitable this way -- and if we had reporters explaining how the RNC and DNC are corrupted -- profits would shrink because news is currently giving people what they want.

But people -- in mass -- hate the fucking news and what its become. This wasn't always the case. LBJ once said: “If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America.” Then decided not to run based at least partially on that reporters opinion!

T.V. doesn't make a lot of money anymore...so no one wants to spend anything making it good. That simple. This is a lot more of the story than anything about the people deciding they want shitty news.

And you also appear to be naive about why people own news networks...it is rarely because it directly gives them better returns than other investments would. It's because it can be indirectly used to get higher returns on other holdings.

This is all typical Gen X nihilism though. People are stupid because they are born that way and that's why everything is going to shit. There's nothing we can do about it except point it out so we can feel superior.

dude are you stupid? you are just repeating the same thing that I said, while calling me naive. Like verbatim. You are saying exactly the same thing.

L 2 READ