Jump to content
270soft Forum

Next update thread


Anthony_270
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

I agree it's both parties, but you must admit how biased the media/tech is against conservatives. I can say it's both parties but conservatives get a lot more unfair treatment, but liberals can't admit that. That's the difference.  

The media bias tends to change over time. Look at how it was in the Reagan and both Bush Administrations, and how large chunks of it viciously attacked Clinton and Obama when they were in office. I believe it's just a dog-and-pony show for a greater ulterior motive in the many areas the two Duopoly agree in and cooperate in - including most of the greatest and atrocious crimes of U.S. Government, domestically and abroad - and is probably a long-term divide-and-conquer scheme of some sort, for some nefarious end. Of course, now that I've said that, both Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. will label me a conspiracy theorist and tell me to go sit with Chomsky, Bannon, Jones, and Icke - but it won't be the first statement I've made that would get such a reaction.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

The media bias tends to change over time. Look at how it was in the Reagan and both Bush Administrations, and how large chunks of it viciously attacked Clinton and Obama when they were in office. I believe it's just a dog-and-pony show for a greater ulterior motive in the many areas the two Duopoly agree in and cooperate in - including most of the greatest and atrocious crimes of U.S. Government, domestically and abroad - and is probably a long-term divide-and-conquer scheme of some sort, for some nefarious end. Of course, now that I've said that, both Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. will label me a conspiracy theorist and tell me to go sit with Chomsky, Bannon, Jones, and Icke - but it won't be the first statement I've made that would get such a reaction.

I thought the media was pretty negative towards W Bush, no? I heard countless times how he was the worst president in history. 

I don't think Obama was attacked viciously either. 

 

And yes, there is definitely some collusion between the two parties on certain issues. Look at the recent Gamestop stock market thing as the best example. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PoliticalPundit said:

I thought the media was pretty negative towards W Bush, no? I heard countless times how he was the worst president in history.

That was mostly post-office. And he was the worst U.S. President to ever hold office. I'm absolutely no fan of his. He was a war criminal, a liar, a manipulator, and showed utter contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the concept of human rights (let's face it, only sick, sadistic animals who don't belong in civilized society - like Tomas de Torquemada and the Marquis de Sade - ever think torture is at all acceptable or defensible), and he had no honour or ethics at all. Plus, the Iraq War as a blatant scheme to enrich Haliburton (which Cheney was on the board of directors of) and big oil companies owned by personal friends in Texas was pretty transparent. You shouldn't have gotten me started on Bush... :S

 

5 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

I don't think Obama was attacked viciously either. 

Ah, yes, he was. He was put through the damned ringer by many. The Birthers, the "Islamic Sleeper Agent," and, "Anti-Christ," crap, actually saying he was, in any way, shape, or form a Communist or Socialist (which is laughable, ideologically), etc. You must have missed that - despite it taking up a LOT of bandwidth in the media at the time.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Patine said:

That was mostly post-office. And he was the worst U.S. President to ever hold office. I'm absolutely no fan of his. He was a war criminal, a liar, a manipulator, and showed utter contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the concept of human rights (let's face it, only sick, sadistic animals who don't belong in civilized society - like Tomas de Torquemada and the Marquis de Sade - ever think torture is at all acceptable or defensible), and he had no honour or ethics at all. Plus, the Iraq War as a blatant scheme to enrich Haliburton (which Cheney was on the board of directors of) and big oil companies owned by personal friends in Texas was pretty transparent. You shouldn't have gotten me started on Bush... :S

 

Ah, yes, he was. He was put through the damned ringer by many. The Birthers, the "Islamic Sleeper Agent," and, "Anti-Christ," crap, actually saying he was, in any way, shape, or form a Communist or Socialist (which is laughable, ideologically), etc. You must have missed that - despite it taking up a LOT of bandwidth in the media at the time.

I'm not a fan of Bush either. I'm just saying when the media paints the same narrative as, "evil, worst person alive, worst president of all time, kills people (mainly referring to Romney" for three consecutive Republican nominees... it starts to lose its effectiveness. You don't think Cruz or Rubio would have dealt with similar, "They are fundamentally evil people and will be the worst president of our lifetime if elected" vs. Clinton or Biden? I personally do.

You don't think CNN and MSNBC and NYTimes etc are getting ready to paint Josh Hawley or Tom Cotton as "an evil despicable person with horrible beliefs etc" for 2024? 

 

A lot of the Obama things you referenced were from the far right. The Today show was not covering Obama being an "Islamic Sleeper Agent" you know? Like most articles on Obama were VERY positive of him despite (won't get into it) and remain remarkably similar to the start of Biden's press coverage. "What's your favorite ice cream flavor? Joe Biden has a cat! The amazing career of First Lady Jill etc.."

We may just agree to disagree bc I truly don't think Obama dealt with much backlash from the media in comparison to let's say him running against Romney in 2012 who for the most part seems like a decent kinda guy. 

 

I don't think believing the mainstream media is biased against Republicans is a hot take lol. If Democrats would just admit it I don't think it'd lead to the angst some Conservatives feel about being treated "unfairly" on a. whole different scale. It just plays into the narrative when Liberals act blind to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

I'm not a fan of Bush either. I'm just saying when the media paints the same narrative as, "evil, worst person alive, worst president of all time, kills people (mainly referring to Romney" for three consecutive Republican nominees... you start to notice patterns. You don't think Cruz or Rubio would have dealt with similar, "They are fundamentally evil people and will be the worst president of our lifetime if elected" vs. Clinton or Biden? I personally do.

 

A lot of the Obama things you referenced were from the far right. The Today show was not covering Obama being an "Islamic Sleeper Agent" you know? Like most articles on Obama were VERY positive of him despite (won't get into it) and remain remarkably similar to the start of Biden's press coverage. "What's your favorite ice cream flavor? Joe Biden has a cat! The amazing career of First Lady Jill etc.."

We may just agree to disagree bc I truly don't think Obama dealt with much backlash from the media in comparison to let's say him running against Romney in 2012 who for the most part seems like a decent kinda guy. 

 

I don't think believing the mainstream media is biased against Republicans is a hot take lol. If Democrats would just admit it I don't think it'd lead to the angst some Conservatives feel about being treated "unfairly" on a. whole different scale. It just plays into the narrative when Liberals act blind to it. 

I'm not sure Romney's "a decent guy." Certainly not "evil and the worst person alive," and a far cry from Bush, but he struck me as highly elitist, aristocratic, detached, and only in it for the rich - a true, blue-blooded plutocrat. But that, too, is another one of the big crimes of the Duopoly - bottlenecking to two "viable," candidates, every election (because Third Party and Independent candidates are institutionally suppressed - albeit not as overtly or brutally as political opposition are in elections in countries like Russia or Zimbabwe, but it's there, if more subtle), and ballot access and all other electoral laws are stacked against them and they're "starved, deliberately, for media oxygen"). And, in every U.S. Presidential Election where I would have been able to vote had I been an American citizen and voter (starting with 1996), I don't honestly think any of them had a Democratic OR Republican candidate in the GE I could truly stand behind voting for.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PoliticalPundit said:

 if you'd add a feature in your game (on/off) where no matter what conservative candidate wins in 2020/2016/even 2012 arguably they get extremely negative press coverage.

Yes, it's a good idea to have overall media bias. We'll see. There's been an obvious overall bias in American media for awhile ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Anthony_270 said:

Yes, it's a good idea to have overall media bias. We'll see. There's been an obvious overall bias in American media for awhile ...

 

8 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

You wouldn't need a "hard mode" if you adjusted for media bias against Trump 🤣

Except, as I said, Trump's not actually ideologically conservative. He needed Pence to play "pied piper," to lead conservative voter who wouldn't otherwise vote for an utter iconoclast and the most amoral and irrelegious person to EVER be U.S. President right up the garden path, down the road to Hell, and to the ballot box for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I'm not a heavy hitter here, and I've tried to stay out of the drama, but could we maybe move persoanl talk to another thread and keep this one strictly focused on discussing the next update? I'm referring to everyone including myself when I plead this. Don't give me any "oh shut up" or "oh you don't know what <username> said to me" or whatever. This thread is now 14 pages long and I guarentee that 70% of them has been dedicated to this pointless back-and-forth sniping and bickering.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

I agree :) I thought political talk was banned that was unrelated to the games, but I agree that if any is being brought up it should probably be moved to other threads. 

Listen, I like an annonymus roast myself online, but an Update Thread really isn't the place for that. I'd understand the rolling of eyes at my interjection, but come on guys. Get a literal room already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hestia11 said:

Because that means you're an idiot snowflake who cant take anything even though you brought on a stupid conversation. Ban super, ban anyone, ban me for all I care. Super was commenting on a topic you had brought up and put his own feelings on the subject. You complain about censorship and then ban him for absolutely nothing. Pathetic. You're nothing more than a far-right Redditor troll who owns a dying forum (that was caused by you too). Just don't melt is the important thing, I suppose. I wanted to stay here to discuss the games as needed. Instead you wanted an echochamber. 

Life is too short to put up with extended, strange, unprovoked personal attacks. That's not wanting an 'echo-chamber'. I welcome diverse opinions on all sorts of topics.

But if you don't like it here, you're welcome to go somewhere else. 🤷‍♂️

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Supreme Incompetent Leader said:

pointless back-and-forth sniping and bickering

I was listening to a talk by the founder of 1-800-GOT-JUNK. He said early in the business, he realized the company culture wasn't heading the way he wanted to. He began firing this person, then that person, but it kept moving back towards the undesired culture. Eventually, he literally fired every employee, did all the jobs himself while hiring new people. Only in that way was he able to reset the culture. Something similar might be the case here too.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything, I'm seeing how libertarian values tend towards naivete again. Trying to have people with different political views discussing (even tangentially) those views civilly on a forum is very tough. You probably need a high level of vetting for people who are mature, open to differing views, don't quickly go on the attack, and so on.

Without that, you basically have to create separate virtual forums (through thread rules, comprehensive blocking features, or what have you) or completely avoid discussion of any topic that might in any way be construed as political, or threads will quickly devolve.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Anthony_270 said:

I was listening to a talk by the founder of 1-800-GOT-JUNK. He said early in the business, he realized the company culture wasn't heading the way he wanted to. He began firing this person, then that person, but it kept moving back towards the undesired culture. Eventually, he literally fired every employee, did all the jobs himself while hiring new people. Only in that way was he able to reset the culture. Something similar might be the case here too.

I don't think that works nearly as well for making niche market computer games as it does for hauling junk. Context! Remember context!

 

3 minutes ago, Anthony_270 said:

Ya, the 'uni-party'.

And it's not a GOOD thing, at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Patine said:

That was mostly post-office. And he was the worst U.S. President to ever hold office.

I agree he was one of the worst Presidents, but the media was pretty hostile to him while he was in office. Obvious left-leaning media bias has existed at least since the 80s (look at media hostility towards Reagan), and probably before then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Anthony_270 said:

I agree he was one of the worst Presidents, but the media was pretty hostile to him while he was in office. Obvious left-leaning media bias has existed at least since the 80s (look at media hostility towards Reagan), and probably before then.

Are you in denial of the strong presence of right-wing biased media outlets in the U.S. that have only started to atrophy in the last year or so? Or are you one of those that view them as, "the credible, respectable, highbrow, minimal-biased reporters of solid news?" :S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Patine said:

Are you in denial of the strong presence of right-wing biased media outlets in the U.S. that have only started to atrophy in the last year or so? Or are you one of those that view them as, "the credible, respectable, highbrow, minimal-biased reporters of solid news?" :S

What do you think has a right-wing bias? Fox News, WSJ ... what else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Anthony_270 said:

What do you think has a right-wing bias? Fox News, WSJ ... what else?

Given I don't get my big sources of news from U.S. outlets at all, I mostly have second- and third-hand accounts and samples on most of them But, I do remember, the right-wing was much more profound in the mainstream and not just incendiary outliers (like Breitbart and 4chan and such), but NBC and New York Post were much more right-leaning in the day, and the NYT, Los Angeles Times, and even CNN were more centrist with right-leaning columnists and commentators on their staff in the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Anthony_270 said:

What do you think has a right-wing bias? Fox News, WSJ ... what else?

Also, Newsweek magazine was notoriously right-wing (worse than McLean's up here), and Time magazine very noticeably leaned to the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...