CNN and MSNBC making a big mistake?

[Rodimus]

Are they making a huge mistake by not talking about QAnon? The QAnon movement may be spreading farther and faster because The national Media is not openly talking about QAnon.

 

[candycorn]

Are they making a huge mistake by not talking about QAnon? The QAnon movement may be spreading farther and faster because The national Media is not openly talking about QAnon.

no

 

[Foxfyre]

no

I know very little about Qanon other than their 2020 prophecies, proclamations, predictions all turned out to be empty air and everyone I've met who associated with this group have some pretty weird ideas and beliefs. Flat Earthers and other. But I have not sensed they were sinister, evil, dangerous in any way. Just weird and strange.

And they're out there still I guess though they're really quiet on social media these days. But the fact they're out there and that there seems to be quite a few of them makes them newsworthy. Therefore, any responsible competent news organization should report any news they make whether or not they approve of them.

Good journalism reports who, what, where, when, why and how whether it's Democrats, Republicans, Independents or any specific group without prejudice or editorializing. It's damn hard to find even halfway good journalism these days though.

 

[Synthaholic]

Are they making a huge mistake by not talking about QAnon? The QAnon movement may be spreading farther and faster because The national Media is not openly talking about QAnon.

QAnon is a Michael Flynn psyop.

 

[candycorn]

I know very little about Qanon other than their 2020 prophecies, proclamations, predictions all turned out to be empty air and everyone I've met who associated with this group have some pretty weird ideas and beliefs. Flat Earthers and other. But I have not sensed they were sinister, evil, dangerous in any way. Just weird and strange.

And they're out there still I guess though they're really quiet on social media these days. But the fact they're out there and that there seems to be quite a few of them makes them newsworthy. Therefore, any responsible competent news organization should report any news they make whether or not they approve of them.

Good journalism reports who, what, where, when, why and how whether it's Democrats, Republicans, Independents or any specific group without prejudice or editorializing. It's damn hard to find even halfway good journalism these days though.

Covering radical fringe loons just breeds more radical fringe dwellers.

No need to shed more light on them.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Nut jobs.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Are they making a huge mistake by not talking about QAnon? The QAnon movement may be spreading farther and faster because The national Media is not openly talking about QAnon.

Really?

In what universe?

 

[Rodimus]

I know very little about Qanon other than their 2020 prophecies, proclamations, predictions all turned out to be empty air and everyone I've met who associated with this group have some pretty weird ideas and beliefs. Flat Earthers and other. But I have not sensed they were sinister, evil, dangerous in any way. Just weird and strange.

And they're out there still I guess though they're really quiet on social media these days. But the fact they're out there and that there seems to be quite a few of them makes them newsworthy. Therefore, any responsible competent news organization should report any news they make whether or not they approve of them.

Good journalism reports who, what, where, when, why and how whether it's Democrats, Republicans, Independents or any specific group without prejudice or editorializing. It's damn hard to find even halfway good journalism these days though.

I'm concerned about attacks against the Jewish people. In Conversations With Nostradamus by Dolores Cannon, Nostradamus predicted the Nazis would return. We must make sure that does not happen.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm concerned about attacks against the Jewish people. In Conversations With Nostradamus by Dolores Cannon, Nostradamus predicted the Nazis would return. We must make sure that does not happen.

Well again I know very little about Qanon, but I'm quite certain that none of the people I know who are or who have been associated with it are absolutely not Nazis or anything close to that ideology. They might be a bit weird. But they are not militant in any way.

 

[Rodimus]

Well again I know very little about Qanon, but I'm quite certain that none of the people I know who are or who have been associated with it are absolutely not Nazis or anything close to that ideology. They might be a bit weird. But they are not militant in any way.

we need to be responsible with information or knowledge. we may have knowledge that someone is evil but we cannot physically attack someone because of that knowledge or information. I support the beliefs and cause of QAnon but not the attacks on the Jewish people by Anti-semitic people.

 

[Foxfyre]

we need to be responsible with information or knowledge. we may have knowledge that someone is evil but we cannot physically attack someone because of that knowledge or information. I support the beliefs and cause of QAnon but not the attacks on the Jewish people by Anti-semitic people.

I don't know any actual Patriots who are racist or homophobic or any other phobics or anti-semitic etc. etc. etc. But real racism, anti-semitism, etc. is stupid and only stupid people engage in it.

But having said that, the First Amendment allows any citizen the right to be as anti whatever, whatever -ist, whatever phobic as they might be so long as they don't impose these stupid ideologies onto anybody else in a way that violates anybody's rights.

I agree wholeheartedly with you and preach it fervently that Patriots must be careful in what they repeat or state as fact that could be detrimental to others. Accusing/defaming/attacking people without foundation is the leftist M.O. and I never want Patriots to be guilty of even soft libel or slander directed at anybody.

 

[Rodimus]

I don't know any actual Patriots who are racist or homophobic or any other phobics or anti-semitic etc. etc. etc. But real racism, anti-semitism, etc. is stupid and only stupid people engage in it.

But having said that, the First Amendment allows any citizen the right to be as anti whatever, whatever -ist, whatever phobic as they might be so long as they don't impose these stupid ideologies onto anybody else in a way that violates anybody's rights.

I agree wholeheartedly with you and preach it fervently that Patriots must be careful in what they repeat or state as fact that could be detrimental to others. Accusing/defaming/attacking people without foundation is the leftist M.O. and I never want Patriots to be guilty of even soft libel or slander or anybody.

i'm against physically attacking someone, not what someone says. I believe in Free Speech and Free Press.

 

[Foxfyre]

i'm against physically attacking someone, not what someone says. I believe in Free Speech and Free Press.

I think libel and slander are not only illegal--very rarely enforced but they are illegal--but I think bearing false witness against somebody is evil, pure sin.

I will always push back on that, especially when it is hurting people who have no way to defend themselves. How do you prove you didn't do what somebody accuses you of when there is no way to prove it?

The Constitution requires all citizens be provided due process before being declared guilty. But there are a lot of sociopathic people out there who don't seem to have any concept of what due process is and smear and accuse and attack people unfairly and seem to have no conscience about that at all.

But yeah, if they aren't harming anybody and have opinions about whatever I don't agree with, I allow them those opinions.

 

[Blaster]

Are they making a huge mistake by not talking about QAnon? The QAnon movement may be spreading farther and faster because The national Media is not openly talking about QAnon.

QAnon is no threat to society.

 

[Foxfyre]

QAnon is no threat to society.

I don't think so either. From what I've observed, they're mostly weird and somewhat strange in what they're willing to believe, but I've never detected anything suggesting they are violent or advocate violence or anything else illegal.

 

[Rodimus]

I think libel and slander are not only illegal--very rarely enforced but they are illegal--but I think bearing false witness against somebody is evil, pure sin.

I will always push back on that, especially when it is hurting people who have no way to defend themselves. How do you prove you didn't do what somebody accuses you of when there is no way to prove it?

The Constitution requires all citizens be provided due process before being declared guilty. But there are a lot of sociopathic people out there who don't seem to have any concept of what due process is and smear and accuse and attack people unfairly and seem to have no conscience about that at all.

But yeah, if they aren't harming anybody and have opinions about whatever I don't agree with, I allow them those opinions.

Where do we draw the line between free speech and hate speech that causes physical harm to people? Nostradamus said the future is not set in stone and the future can change. I think we can change the future by the choices we make.

 

[Foxfyre]

Where do we draw the line between free speech and hate speech that causes physical harm to people? Nostradamus said the future is not set in stone and the future can change. I think we can change the future by the choices we make.

If I say I have had bad experiences with black people or Jewish people or Asian people or Catholics or Presybyterians or accordion players or whatever, I am invariably accused of hate speech by somebody when it is not hate speech at all. I don't accuse all people of any group for participating in the bad experience. I just relate that it was a bad experience. Definitely my constitutional right to do. Nobody is materially harmed. Nobody's rights are violated. But in today's 'woke' insanity, I would be condemned for hate speech.

Even if I say I hate black people or Jewish people etc. etc. etc. or they all are cruddy people or whatever, that is not hate speech. I may be showing my bigotry and narrow mindedness and/or negativity but I am still stating my opinion which is my constitutional right to do. Nobody is materially harmed. Nobody 's rights are violated. But in today's 'woke' culture, I would be condemned for hate speech.

If I say Jewish people are all shysters or all Scots are drunks or something equally stupid and derogatory about any other group, I simply show my mean spiritedness and predjudice but it is still my opinion that I have a constitutional right to express. Nobody is materially harmed. Nobody's rights are violated. For anyone to classify that as 'hate speech' in my opinion violates the constitution, but in today's 'woke' culture I would be condemned for it just the same.

But if I say Rodimus beats his wife or cheats at cards or passes off horsemeat for beef in his store or is a drug dealer or whatever terrible thing I can think up when there is absolutely no proof or evidence for that, I am committing libel if I say that publicly or slander if I write it for public reading. THAT is hate speech. Your reputation and/or your livelihood could be seriously compromised. I should be condemned and liable for damages to you.

If I say publicly that every one should go to Rodimus's house, burn it down and beat you up, I could indeed be endangering you materially and physically and that would absolutely violate your rights. Even a veiled threat that suggests violence to your person or property is not acceptable. That is what hate speech is. That isn't how our leftist government defines it, but that is what hate speech is.

And in my opinion this is hate speech:

 

[Rodimus]

If I say I have had bad experiences with black people or Jewish people or Asian people or Catholics or Presybyterians or accordion players or whatever, I am invariably accused of hate speech by somebody when it is not hate speech at all. I don't accuse all people of any group for participating in the bad experience. I just relate that it was a bad experience. Definitely my constitutional right to do. Nobody is materially harmed. Nobody's rights are violated.

Even if I say I hate black people or Jewish people etc. etc. etc. or they all are cruddy people or whatever, that is not hate speech. I may be showing my bigotry and narrow mindedness and/or negativity but I am still stating my opinion which is my constitutional right to do. Nobody is materially harmed. Nobody 's rights are violated.

If I say Jewish people are all shysters or all Scots are drunks or something equally stupid and derogatory about any other group, I simply show my mean spiritedness and predjudice but it is still my opinion that I have a constitutional right to express. Nobody is materially harmed. Nobody's rights are violated. For anyone to classify that as 'hate speech' in my opinion violates the constitution.

But if I say Rodimus beats his wife or cheats at cards or waters down the liquor he sells or is a drug dealer or whatever terrible thing I can think up when there is absolutely no proof or evidence for that, I am committing libel if I say that publicly or slander if I write it for public reading. THAT is hate speech.

If I say publicly that every one should go to Rodimus's house, burn it down and beat you up, I could indeed be endangering you materially and physically and that would absolutely violate your rights. Even a veiled threat that suggests violence to your person or property is not acceptable. That is what hate speech is. That isn't how our leftist government defines it, but that is what hate speech is.

And in my opinion this is hate speech:

I agree. Thank you for your indepth response!

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree. Thank you for your indepth response!

You're welcome. As a former journalist thoroughly trained in what used to be journalism ethics, I feel very strongly about that. And a huge injustice is done to many who are accused of hate speech when they are simply expressing a personal opinion, observation, or belief that might make them look bad but in no way harms anybody else or violates anybody's rights.

I also did a lot of editing on that post you commented on.

 

[Rodimus]

You're welcome. As a former journalist thoroughly trained in what used to be journalism ethics, I feel very strongly about that. And a huge injustice is done to many who are accused of hate speech when they are simply expressing a personal opinion, observation, or belief that might make them look bad but in no way harms anybody else or violates their rights.

I also did a lot of editing on that post.

You made your point gracefully there. Thank you!