• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Daily Beast Doxxes, attacks, day-laborer in defense of Pelosi

Visbek said:
And the modern right.

Anyone who comes to public attention for any political issue will be virtually tarred and feathered. It is ludicrous to assume this is the exclusive purview of any specific ideological or political orientation.
Click to expand...

Bull****, no one on the left is being doxxed and there are doctored clips about Trump all over the place. Maybe you should examine the facts before you plant your foot in your mouth.
 
Hari Seldon said:
As long as you're okay with people receiving death threats because of those types of memes.
Click to expand...

So we are just supposed to buy into the two being linked?

I think its entirely possible to separate the two and say it is wrong to doxx people and its also wrong to send death threats, videos and memes do not spawn hate in people. They make a conscious decision to do that, enough victim mentality, personal responsibility should play in somewhere.
 
A bit more info on this story.

The Daily Beast Doxxes Man Who Allegedly Posted “Drunk Pelosi” Viral Video

The Daily Beast Doxxes Man Who Allegedly Posted "Drunk Pelosi" Viral Video

What a time to be alive — the press is outing and destroying private citizens over political satire

Remember when the media was supposed to function as the fourth estate, protecting the people from the government? It was great while it lasted. Now media, in this case The Daily Beast, is thrilled to announce they sought out a private citizen who posted a viral video portraying Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a not so flattering light.

The video, which is clearly doctored, slowed down Pelosi’s speech, making it sound as though she’s drunker than a skunk. And it’s funny. At least it is to those of us who’ve miraculously maintained a sense of humor in the Age of Outrage ALL the Things.

But why? How does it advance the story, what purpose does it serve to out someone with a decent sense of humor poking fun at our totally ridiculous mockworthy political state? It doesn’t. Yet here we are.

Facebook refused to remove the video, so good on them… kind of. Because according to The Daily Beast, Facebook is the one that confirmed which individual posted the video!
 
Hari Seldon said:
As long as you're okay with people receiving death threats because of those types of memes.
Click to expand...

There is no proof for such a coloration to be drawn, and I have no power over what anyone says on the internet. Especially if it doesn't breach any articles of free speech.

I honestly wouldn't abide any group doing what is culpable to political terrorism, on any free citizen of the country. But seeing as you're completely fine with that, It's good to at least see that the sharp downfall that the political left has been suffering. Is at least at a good constant pace.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Bull****, no one on the left is being doxxed and there are doctored clips about Trump all over the place. Maybe you should examine the facts before you plant your foot in your mouth.
Click to expand...

With how bad the infighting is on the left. You'd most likely find that it's another member of the left that is doxxing another leftist as well.
 
Phys251 said:
You are dodging an important point I just made. Deliberately producing anti-democratic [sic] propaganda is not an innocent action.
Click to expand...
1. Mocking a politician is not anti-democratic. If anything, celebration of the ability to do so is quite Liberal (in the classic sense).

2. I said the guy seemed to be a sleazeball in post 15. Dodging? Not hardly. Your point simply isn't as germane as you think. Dressing like a slut doesn't, actually, justify your rape.

3. Nor does that change the fact that you are victim blaming, in an attempt to shift opprobrium from what the Daily Beast did.


Just because someone isn't in your political tribe doesn't justify abusing them.
 
Last edited:
Gondwanaland said:
"knowing she could have been raped, why did she deliberately dress with a low cut blouse in the first place?"
Click to expand...

We already have someone who tried this game. Nice try though. :)
 
cpwill said:
1. Mocking a politician is not anti-democratic. If anything, celebration of the ability to do so is quite Liberal (in the classic sense).

2. I said the guy seemed to be a sleazeball in post 15. Dodging? Not hardly. Your point simply isn't as germane as you think. Dressing like a slut doesn't, actually, justify your rape.

3. Nor does that change the fact that you are victim blaming, in an attempt to shift opprobrium from what the Daily Beast did.


Just because someone isn't in your political tribe doesn't justify abusing them.
Click to expand...

1. Viewed as an isolated incident, it could seem that way. But anti-democracy propaganda is not a collection of isolated incidents. There is a big difference between making fun of a politician (which I support the right to do regardless of who the target is) verses creating a propaganda video designed to deliberately mislead the American people. Fake videos of real politicians are a growing threat to our public discourse. That kind of agitprop is not just hostile to a democratic [sic] politician but to democracy itself. If that video had been a cartoon or something, I would have considered it nothing more than obnoxious political banter and well within the realm of free speech.

2,3. See above.
 
Phys251 said:
1. Viewed as an isolated incident, it could seem that way. But anti-democracy propaganda is not a collection of isolated incidents. There is a big difference between making fun of a politician (which I support the right to do regardless of who the target is) verses creating a propaganda video designed to deliberately mislead the American people. Fake videos of real politicians are a growing threat to our public discourse. That kind of agitprop is not just hostile to a democratic [sic] politician but to democracy itself. If that video had been a cartoon or something, I would have considered it nothing more than obnoxious political banter and well within the realm of free speech.

2,3. See above.
Click to expand...
So, yes. You are fine with what the Daily Beast did, because you don't like the man they did it to.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
So, yes. You are fine with what the Daily Beast did, because you don't like the man they did it to.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You and I both know that your reading comprehension is not that weak, Will. Go back and reread what I actually said and not what your mind is telling you that I said.
 
Phys251 said:
1. Viewed as an isolated incident, it could seem that way. But anti-democracy propaganda is not a collection of isolated incidents. There is a big difference between making fun of a politician (which I support the right to do regardless of who the target is) verses creating a propaganda video designed to deliberately mislead the American people. Fake videos of real politicians are a growing threat to our public discourse. That kind of agitprop is not just hostile to a democratic [sic] politician but to democracy itself. If that video had been a cartoon or something, I would have considered it nothing more than obnoxious political banter and well within the realm of free speech.

2,3. See above.
Click to expand...

You seem to be forgetting that one video was obviously a meme, while the other one that wasn't edited. Was basically posted with the caption "I's Pelosi drunk". In response to the way that she already slurs her own speech.

It's just a meme and the people who make it out to be more than what it is, should really find something more productive to care about.

I also want to know where you, or the daily beast are getting the information that this video was designed to "deliberately mislead" anyone.
 
Last edited:
Oborosen said:
You seem to be forgetting that one video was obviously a meme, while the other one that wasn't edited. Was basically posted with the caption "I's Pelosi drunk". In response to the way that she already slurs her own speech.

It's just a meme and the people who make it out to be more than what it is, should really find something more productive to care about.
Click to expand...

Thanks. The internet needed your opinion.
 
Phys251 said:
Thanks. The internet needed your opinion.
Click to expand...

Much like it needed yours all the same.

Can you at least show me where the information is that you, or the daily beast seem to be getting the idea that the video was intentionally made to mislead the American people came from?
 
Phys251 said:
You and I both know that your reading comprehension is not that weak, Will. Go back and reread what I actually said and not what your mind is telling you that I said.
Click to expand...
Seems pretty clear. But feel free to correct by explaining how and why you think they are wrong

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Visbek said:
And the modern right.

Anyone who comes to public attention for any political issue will be virtually tarred and feathered. It is ludicrous to assume this is the exclusive purview of any specific ideological or political orientation.
Click to expand...

Leftist:

Here's a random guy who said something I don't like, GET HIM!

Rightist:

Here's a meme making fun of a politician.

Reasonable Centrist (tm):

whAT's thE DiFfEREnCe?

bomberfox said:
You would be a bit more credible if you posted actual instances instead of hypotheticals. Bothsiderism solves absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

"Learn to code" was a joke on Twitter making fun of journos losing their jobs. Journos got so upset over people merely joking about threats to their employment, that they successfully lobbied Twitter to ban the joke.

cpwill said:
Cycles of revenge using mobs to intimidate or attack political opponents are how Republics self-destruct.
Click to expand...

War is bad, therefore countries that are attacked shouldn't defend themselves.

This is David French level reasoning.

I really think, however, that their groupthink is so strong, they wouldn't even recognize the comparability with what they'd done. They'd honestly see it as something new and horrible that it happened to them, which is totally different than when it happens to - you know - Them.
Click to expand...

This is true. They wouldn't grasp the analogy at all. The only benefit to doxing journo-commissars would be deterrence.

Phys251 said:
I'm gonna play devil's advocate and ask this: Knowing that he could have been doxxed, why did he deliberately make the fake video in the first place?
Click to expand...

Knowing that political commissars exist, why dissent?
 
AmNat said:
cpwill said:
Cycles of revenge using mobs to intimidate or attack political opponents are how Republics self-destruct.
Click to expand...

War is bad, therefore countries that are attacked shouldn't defend themselves.

This is David French level reasoning.
Click to expand...

To expand on this, the left has shown that they want power have absolutely no qualms about how they secure it. They will dox people, harass teenagers, wantonly defame anyone who stands in their way, and even celebrate and call for violence against those they disagree with. There is no "cycle" at play here. The modern left will use every means at its disposal to destroy its enemies. It will do this regardless of what conservatives do or don't do in response.

The right has nothing to gain from pretending that there are still bipartisan standards of conduct. The political world that you want to uphold, no longer exists. It's been replaced by a left that desires only victory, and a right that's still debating whether it wants to win or not. So unless you want to end up in the Ocasio-Cortez Re-Education Center, you better hope the right chooses to fight.
 
AmNat said:
"Learn to code" was a joke on Twitter making fun of journos losing their jobs. Journos got so upset over people merely joking about threats to their employment, that they successfully lobbied Twitter to ban the joke.
Click to expand...

I remember that, it was quite entertaining.

War is bad, therefore countries that are attacked shouldn't defend themselves.

This is David French level reasoning.
Click to expand...

and this is an excellent demonstration of exactly the kind of self-destructive instinctive (foolish) decision-making I was describing.

I don't always agree with David French - who, by the way, unlike Commander Bone Spurs, has actually been to war - but if there is one thing he always is, it is well-reasoned.

But please, continue with your low-grade tribal signalling. We don't want to let an excellent point be allowed to stand without throwing poo all over it.
 
Last edited:
AmNat said:
To expand on this, the left has shown that they want power have absolutely no qualms about how they secure it. They will dox people, harass teenagers, wantonly defame anyone who stands in their way, and even celebrate and call for violence against those they disagree with. There is no "cycle" at play here. The modern left will use every means at its disposal to destroy its enemies. It will do this regardless of what conservatives do or don't do in response.

The right has nothing to gain from pretending that there are still bipartisan standards of conduct. The political world that you want to uphold, no longer exists. It's been replaced by a left that desires only victory, and a right that's still debating whether it wants to win or not. So unless you want to end up in the Ocasio-Cortez Re-Education Center, you better hope the right chooses to fight.
Click to expand...

Oh look. it's the exact same thing as I found in this thread, here.
 
cpwill said:
I don't always agree with David French - who, by the way, unlike Commander Bone Spurs, has actually been to war - but if there is one thing he always is, it is well-reasoned.

But please, continue with your low-grade tribal signalling. We don't want to let an excellent point be allowed to stand without throwing poo all over it.
Click to expand...

"The Conservative Case for Surrendering Without a Fight"

For the record, I'm not a Trump supporter at this point. He talked a good game, but aside from a few things like trade, he's utterly failed to follow through on either the spirit or the letter of his campaign promises.
 
AmNat said:
To expand on this, the left has shown that they want power have absolutely no qualms about how they secure it. They will dox people, harass teenagers, wantonly defame anyone who stands in their way, and even celebrate and call for violence against those they disagree with. There is no "cycle" at play here. The modern left will use every means at its disposal to destroy its enemies. It will do this regardless of what conservatives do or don't do in response.

The right has nothing to gain from pretending that there are still bipartisan standards of conduct. The political world that you want to uphold, no longer exists. It's been replaced by a left that desires only victory, and a right that's still debating whether it wants to win or not. So unless you want to end up in the Ocasio-Cortez Re-Education Center, you better hope the right chooses to fight.
Click to expand...

:yawn: low grade paranoid ranting is boring.

People on both sides are becoming vicious, violent, and stupid. Like Daily Beast in this thread. Like the actions of Trump fans in others times and places.


The right likes to boast about how "it'd win an actual civil war" because "it's the side with the guns".

1. I've seen a couple of civil wars. No one wins a civil war. One side suffers horrifically, and only somewhat less than the other. Stop thinking that this cycle ends with you winning. It doesn't.
2. Not least because the cities will likely emerge victorious, you idiots. They are the ones with the ability to mass resources and direct them against diffused rural areas, whom they have always (and probably will always) dominated.



You want to guarantee you lose? Act like you think the opposition does.
 
AmNat said:
"The Conservative Case for Surrendering Without a Fight"

For the record, I'm not a Trump supporter at this point. He talked a good game, but aside from a few things like trade, he's utterly failed to follow through on either the spirit or the letter of his campaign promises.
Click to expand...

:lol: okedoke. I'm gonna go waaaaay out on a limb and say that, if I were to compare David French's life - which has been spent in both the actual fight and the ideological one - to yours, you're going to be the one who looks like a guy hiding behind an anonymous screen name and ****posting online. :)

LOL, I mean, seriously, David French can point to a lifetime of accomplishment in pushing for and furthering the conservative cause. WTF have you done?
 
AmNat said:
General: Mr. President, the missiles are incoming!

President: How many?

General: All of them. We need to retaliate.

President: BuT THat woULd deSTrOY the INteRnatiONAL COmMunIty
Click to expand...

:) The fun thing about that comparison is, I'd bet it's only made by people who've never actually been shot at.


But feel free. If you think this is a war, go start shooting up crowds of people who disagree with you. The Press will have a ****ing field day with you, the left will raise millions off of you, and you will do massive damage to the cause you think you're supporting.


I mean, why not? You don't want to give up without a fight, do you? That's why you're going to march into the Daily Beast headquarters and shoot up the place, right? I mean, you're at war.

And, of course, you will probably lose your life and definitely at least your freedom (if you survive the police response). But - after all - this is war, right? The rules are gone, right? I mean, you're not a coward, are you?
 
cpwill said:
:yawn: low grade paranoid ranting is boring.
Click to expand...

If someone had told you five years ago, that you could lose your job for making the okay hand sign, or that credit card companies would deplatform political dissidents, or that banks would require stores to implement gun restrictions, you'd have called them paranoid (and so would I have).

People on both sides are becoming vicious, violent, and stupid. Like Daily Beast in this thread. Like the actions of Trump fans in others times and places.
Click to expand...

President David French Roosevelt:

Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. But we can't stoop to their level by fighting back.

The right likes to boast about how "it'd win an actual civil war" because "it's the side with the guns".

1. I've seen a couple of civil wars. No one wins a civil war. One side suffers horrifically, and only somewhat less than the other. Stop thinking that this cycle ends with you winning. It doesn't.
2. Not least because the cities will likely emerge victorious, you idiots. They are the ones with the ability to mass resources and direct them against diffused rural areas, whom they have always (and probably will always) dominated.
Click to expand...

All the more reason to fight for political power while things are still (mostly) non-violent.

You want to guarantee you lose? Act like you think the opposition does.
Click to expand...

At this point, the right will likely lose no matter what it does. But probable defeat is a better choice than certain defeat, and there's something better in principle about actually trying.
 
AmNat said:
If someone had told you five years ago, that you could lose your job for making the okay hand sign, or that credit card companies would deplatform political dissidents, or that banks would require stores to implement gun restrictions, you'd have called them paranoid (and so would I have).

President David French Roosevelt:

Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. But we can't stoop to their level by fighting back.
Click to expand...

You know what the funny difference is between you and David French?

David French has actually already killed his enemies :)

So, given relative personal histories, it looks like David French is the one who responded to our modern day pearl harbor by actually going to war... and you.... well.... you buff yourself up on the internet :)

All the more reason to fight for political power while things are still (mostly) non-violent.
Click to expand...

LOL, You're not fighting a thing.


At this point, the right will likely lose no matter what it does. But probable defeat is a better choice than certain defeat, and there's something better in principle about actually trying.
Click to expand...

BS. You aren't trying anything. You are posting under a fake name on a debate forum. French is actually dedicating his life to trying something, and you're sniping at him because he dared to be a better man than you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom