# Why is the world so divided?



## Hudson (Nov 19, 2020)

I understand the basic reasons, power, greed, land and resources.

Why is the world so full of fuckery for so long? What can we do to resist the bullshit?


----------



## Desperado Deluxe (Nov 22, 2020)

Educate ourselves on how we should live and better our lives. Teach others to do the same.


----------



## rivervictor (Nov 22, 2020)

be vulnerable and real, listen, care. create pockets of happiness. radical mental health. reach out pick a few people to really be there for, and really be there for them. have time for people, by not working.


----------



## Coywolf (Nov 22, 2020)

@Hudson I mean, are you talking about like, recently? Or like, since modern day society became a thing?

Human beings (particularly white anglo-saxon ones) are probably one of the worst species to exist on this planet....ever.

I really wish the whole 'hunter-gatherer Nomadic' culture would have persisted throughout history. The age of agriculture was the beginning of the end of this planet.

As you can probably tell, I care more for the Planet than I do for Humanity. This is why I am engaging in, and promoting Pagan-type belief systems. Early teachings that consider the relationship between humanity and the land sacred. To treat everything with respect, and only take as much as you need. To show humility, and appreciation for what you receive. To rely more on trade/barter rather than a currency.

Some causes in my mind, of the fuckery? Consumerism, Capitalism, the concept of money (not trade), Organized Religion, Class-Cast systems, the lack of knowledge of basic human survival skills...which is purposefully implemented to increase reliance on government and corporations.....small buisness is fucking gone after the COVID thing is over.

I have been reading this book, 'God is Red' which is about the history of Native American oppression and assimilation into 'American' society....it also talks about how NA's view spirituality and 'God' compared to christianity, and how fucked up it was for their people to have to encounter white colonialism.

It relates alot to this thread. It has really cast a very dark shadow on this country for me.

How are we going to fix it? We cant. Short of an ACTUAL global semi-extinction event (next one will be climate change), there is no way in hell we are going to be able to get along with one another enough to enact global, or even National, change.

I mean, look at the last 4 years...we actually succeeded in getting WORSE, we almost damn near reinstituted fascism for god sake.

It's on the individuals now, it's on everyone to make their own changes, IMO. That will be a saving grace, if there is any. Use less, live more, dont accept the reality that is given to you, make your own.

I hate hearing people say, 'oh man, I really wanted 'X' in life, but I'm stuck with 'Y'....whaddya gonna do? That's life.'

Nah. Fuck that. That, right there, is exactly what this current system wants to hear, to cement and further its grip on humanity.

We also need to further our fight for equality and human rights. They are slowly running out of ways to keep us bigoted/divided as a species. 

Oh. And stop having kids. People can stop having so many fucking kids. Seriously. I just heard a story about a woman in Idaho who is on her 12th. That should be illegal.

Woof....that was alot. Rant over.


----------



## Beegod Santana (Nov 22, 2020)

Because everyone's an asshole... Just kidding, because .oo1% of the population has created a system where they not only stay rich, but actually become massively richer by doing absolutely nothing and it fits their interests to have the rest of us fighting each other instead of demanding a 90%tax rate on capital gains.


----------



## Maki40 (Nov 24, 2020)

There is nothing you can do about it. You can't control the world around you but you do control yourself. This is why I became a hobo. It's my way of dealing with this fucked up world. To quote the great George Carlin the planet has been here for billions of years and will be here billions more. WE are fucked!


----------



## mikepetti76 (Dec 2, 2020)

In my opinion, we are mostly divided because of the media being controlled by one party. That party don't like free speech. Journalist have become activist.


----------



## Coywolf (Dec 3, 2020)

mikepetti76 said:


> In my opinion, we are mostly divided because of the media being controlled by one party. That party don't like free speech. Journalist have become activist.



I can see Trump's rhetoric is alive and well. If the media is controlled by one party....how do you explain the difference between NPR and FOX?

And of course many journalists are activists....its called passion, and its made some of the best journalism in the world.

And youre right. That party dont like no free speech. Especially when its comes from women, people of color, people of any other religion besides christianity, LGBTQ people, or immigrants....god damned anti-'murican.


----------



## mikepetti76 (Dec 3, 2020)

Coywolf said:


> I can see Trump's rhetoric is alive and well. If the media is controlled by one party....how do you explain the difference between NPR and FOX?
> 
> And of course many journalists are activists....its called passion, and its made some of the best journalism in the world.
> 
> And youre right. That party dont like no free speech. Especially when its comes from women, people of color, people of any other religion besides christianity, LGBTQ people, or immigrants....god damned anti-'murican.


There isn't much difference between fox and npr nowadays. 

Facts make the best journalism in the world, not activism.

I think you might be a bit confused on who is censoring who.


----------



## Coywolf (Dec 3, 2020)

You're high, if you think there isint a difference between those two sources of media. 

It seems the only thing that most people who make this arguement believe in are 'alt-facts', not real ones, such as COVID being a hoax, the election was stolen, the deep state is running a child sex trafficking ring, and that 5G turns people gay.

Sure. I'm confused on who is censoring who. I'm 110% for 'alt facts' being laughed at....as I'm laughing now. That isint censorship, that's what the world USED to be like, before the ridiculousness of the last 4 years. People who had sense were able to root out the bullshit, and make it clear that it is what it is....bullshit.

Take everyone talking shit on science recently. Or if someone is an expert in something, they must be deep state...or a 'career politician' or have ulterior motives....that's ridiculous. Since when did we as a species decide we were going to get dumber? That's the true censorship happening right now, if ya ask me.


----------



## mikepetti76 (Dec 3, 2020)

Coywolf said:


> You're high, if you think there isint a difference between those two sources of media.
> 
> It seems the only thing that most people who make this arguement believe in are 'alt-facts', not real ones, such as COVID being a hoax, the election was stolen, the deep state is running a child sex trafficking ring, and that 5G turns people gay.
> 
> ...


If the 'alt-facts' are not real then why don't they prove them wrong instead of censoring and writing off as conspiracy? There was quite a bit of time and money spent on Russian collusion, General Flynn, impeachment, all without evidence. No censorship for those "alt-facts'. 

They talk about the science, but never show what science they are talking about. When you do your own searching for said science you find all kinds of studies showing all different findings. So then you have different conflicting opinions on the subject. Who's right, who's wrong? Probably both. Then you have the powerful people who bring down mandates for everyone, but ignore said mandate for themselves. Are they above the science they are preaching?


----------



## ali (Dec 3, 2020)

What makes you think that facts are being censored? You say that you are doing your own searching and finding all kinds of studies, so where's the censorship here?

It is true that the media does not report on every scientific study under the sun, mostly because most people don't care about the play-by-play of every scientific issue. Most people are not scientists themselves, so all they are looking for is a quick summary - that's what journalists are paid to do. That doesn't mean science isn't still going on, or that publication of the results is being restricted. If a scientific issue is legitimately important to you, and it seems legitimately important to a lot of people, then you are free set up your own media organization to report on it, or lobby an existing media organization to report on it. That's what freedom of the press is all about.

I am sometimes disappointed with how certain media outlets report on topics that I happen to have expert or first-hand knowledge of. Usually I just roll my eyes and move on, because it really doesn't matter that much. Sometimes I write a letter to the editor to ask for better coverage - sometimes it even gets published! Sometimes an outlet starts so lacking in integrity that I just stop reading it all together. That's a great freedom we have in the US, Canada etc that people in countries like China do not enjoy.

I do agree with your basic notion that the media is complicit in making partisanship worse... but I don't think it's because "one party" controls it. Several large publicly traded companies dominate it. That's problematic. I'm not sure what to do about it, though. Maybe break up big media (including social media) and try to re-localize the news? Who would report on global and national issues, then? It's a hard problem.


----------



## mikepetti76 (Dec 3, 2020)

ali said:


> What makes you think that facts are being censored? You say that you are doing your own searching and finding all kinds of studies, so where's the censorship here?
> 
> It is true that the media does not report on every scientific study under the sun, mostly because most people don't care about the play-by-play of every scientific issue. Most people are not scientists themselves, so all they are looking for is a quick summary - that's what journalists are paid to do. That doesn't mean science isn't still going on, or that publication of the results is being restricted. If a scientific issue is legitimately important to you, and it seems legitimately important to a lot of people, then you are free set up your own media organization to report on it, or lobby an existing media organization to report on it. That's what freedom of the press is all about.
> 
> ...


How many networks are covering the hearing on election fraud? How many times has the president been on tv recently and networks cut him off or don't show it altogether. Social media is suspending accounts everyday for people just giving their opinion or showing news that don't align with certain politics. That is censorship. 

Just because journalist are paid to give you a quick summary doesn't mean they are giving you both sides of the argument to make your own mind up. What they are doing is telling you how to and what to think. Journalist of today are not what they use to be. If you are ok with having the powers that be telling you how to think and what to believe, that's fine too. That is also a freedom you have in this country.

There is a group out there right now that has recorded the CNN 9:00 phone meeting for a couple of months. They are releasing parts of it on a daily biases. It's pretty eye opening and disturbing how they decide what and how they are going to report on for the day.


----------



## ali (Dec 3, 2020)

Why do you think it is so important that all the networks cover "the" (which?) hearing on election fraud? Multiple states have recounted and confirmed their results, in accordance with the law. Many, many lawsuits challenging the results have been thrown out because the plaintiffs have been unable to present any evidence of fraud. There is no story here, aside from the story that as usual Trump is opening a ton of frivolous lawsuits. For many people, this is not interesting or informative news. He's been opening frivolous lawsuits for decades. It's boring.

If you really want to set up a media outlet that reports the play-by-play of every lawsuit Trump opens, you are welcome to do so. Nobody is stopping you.

If you want to claim on social media that the election results are bogus, then you may find your messages flagged. But you are not being flagged because the powers that be are trying to tell you how to think, you are being flagged because you are spreading a lie. There is no evidence that shows widespread election fraud has occurred to the degree that it would change the election result. There is lots of evidence (over 159 million ballots) that shows the actual results are exactly what has been reported by the media.

There might be some things that the media is not reporting accurately, but the results of the election is not one of them.

If you are disturbed by how CNN decides to report the news, then don't watch CNN. It's very simple. Every news room in the country has an editorial team, they all decide how their outlet will report the news. That's not scandalous. That's just how the media works. As I already said - the media doesn't have the time to report every detail of every story, they are being paid to decide on the top stories and summarize. Obviously every media outlet will have its own bias, that is not a surprise to anyone. Editorial teams making decisions about what to report on is not censorship, it's just the business of reporting.


----------



## mikepetti76 (Dec 3, 2020)

ali said:


> Why do you think it is so important that all the networks cover "the" (which?) hearing on election fraud? Multiple states have recounted and confirmed their results, in accordance with the law. Many, many lawsuits challenging the results have been thrown out because the plaintiffs have been unable to present any evidence of fraud. There is no story here, aside from the story that as usual Trump is opening a ton of frivolous lawsuits. For many people, this is not interesting or informative news. He's been opening frivolous lawsuits for decades. It's boring.
> 
> If you really want to set up a media outlet that reports the play-by-play of every lawsuit Trump opens, you are welcome to do so. Nobody is stopping you.
> 
> ...


The networks are the ones saying there is no evidence. They are presented evidence at the hearings. Do you think that might be important or newsworthy? In accordance to the law is part of what is being discussed at the hearings. In most of the cases you say are being thrown out, they are not able to present the evidence. They have the evidence, but the judge will not let them show it. That is why they are having hearing in state legislators as we speak, to show the evidence.

You are proving my point. The MSM is telling you that there is no evidence. I'm watching the hearings showing the evidence. 

I watch a little of all the networks as well as follow people on social media. That's how I come to my own conclusions. The problem is however people still watch the news expecting to not get lied to, and that is just not the case anymore. They are not reporting. They are campaigning. 

What is happening in our country is the same way Mussolini and Hitler came into power in their countries, also how Stalin spread communism across Europe after WWll. Its quite interesting. The History Channel has some cool documentaries about WWll, before and after the war. If anyone gets bored you should check it out.


----------



## ali (Dec 3, 2020)

What would be important or newsworthy is if 1) the plaintiffs can provide evidence, 2) that evidence - which was already thrown out by the courts - is accepted by the legislature, 3) that evidence results in a concrete proposal to change the electoral system and/or (somehow) a change to the 2020 election results. If none of these things happen, I'm sorry, but that story is just not very interesting to me.

I don't care about every detail of every hearing. I just want to to know the outcome. That doesn't mean I'm ignorant or I'm being manipulated, it just means I honestly don't care about the play-by-play of conversations that most likely won't go anywhere. I understand that some people are very interested in this, but I am not, and I think it's fair to say that a lot of people are not, so it shouldn't be a surprise that the media isn't devoting much time to it.

I understand your concern that people are not critical enough of the media. However, I have a fairly boring life, and even someone like me has lived through events which I know from first-hand experience that the media reported inaccurately. I imagine most people have had at least one experience where they know the media reported it inaccurately, so I hope they can learn from that that the media is not a final source of truth, it's just a way to get the basic high level view of a topic. If you are really interested, it is important to do a deep-dive.

Personally, what worries me about the media is not that one party controls it, but that it is by and large controlled by for-profit companies... An individual media outlet might be a loss-leader for those companies, but even still you have to wonder if the editorial teams are making decisions based more on financial reasons than "good journalism" reasons. This has been a problem that journalism has faced since it first existed, but in recent years I think the problem is getting worse. I don't think free countries in the west are headed for a Hitler or Mussolini moment, but I do worry that what pays the bills in the media (sensationalist stories and enflaming tribal conflict like "culture wars" etc) is not good for society.


----------



## mikepetti76 (Dec 3, 2020)

ali said:


> What would be important or newsworthy is if 1) the plaintiffs can provide evidence, 2) that evidence - which was already thrown out by the courts - is accepted by the legislature, 3) that evidence results in a concrete proposal to change the electoral system and/or (somehow) a change to the 2020 election results. If none of these things happen, I'm sorry, but that story is just not very interesting to me.
> 
> I don't care about every detail of every hearing. I just want to to know the outcome. That doesn't mean I'm ignorant or I'm being manipulated, it just means I honestly don't care about the play-by-play of conversations that most likely won't go anywhere. I understand that some people are very interested in this, but I am not, and I think it's fair to say that a lot of people are not, so it shouldn't be a surprise that the media isn't devoting much time to it.
> 
> ...


1)They can and are providing evidence in the state legislator hearings
2)The judges are throwing out the case without hearing the evidence
3)That is yet to be determined because the process hasn't came to a conclusion yet.

That's fine that you don't want to know every detail. That's your right. I didn't say you are ignorant, however you are being manipulated when you state there is no evidence. How did you come to that conclusion? My guess is you heard it from the news or someone told you that the news said it so. That is not reporting that is campaigning. 

What worries me is the level and speed they are flipping. It didn't take long before Germany flipped and became full blown Nazi. Hitler gets out of jail in 1924, in 1933 he's appointed chancellor, and by 1934 the night of long knives and take over of concentration camps by the SS. That' is 10 years of propaganda in the 20's and 30's and they convinced a whole country to exterminate Jews. They had no internet, not many TV's, no cell phones, just a few papers and movies.


----------



## Coywolf (Dec 3, 2020)

mikepetti76 said:


> If the 'alt-facts' are not real then why don't they prove them wrong instead of censoring and writing off as conspiracy?



They do. All the time. Like the election fraud. Proven wrong, time and time again by recounts, and internal investigations by secretaries of state. 

I feel like you are just picking and choosing what you want to listen to



mikepetti76 said:


> There was quite a bit of time and money spent on Russian collusion, General Flynn, impeachment, all without evidence. No censorship for those "alt-facts'.



Uh. What? Evidence or PROOF of all of those things was presented in hours-long congressional hearings that were televised. A few of that I watched. Yet again, you are picking and choosing.



mikepetti76 said:


> They talk about the science, but never show what science they are talking about.



Yes. They do. Like in front of your eyes Corona virus studies and deaths. Picking and choosing again.

Do you believe in Qanon? I want to see some science behind that.



mikepetti76 said:


> How many networks are covering the hearing on election fraud?



Not even FOX is covering that, because everyone knows it's a blatant lie put forth by a narcissist that couldn't tolerate the results of a decision that was out of his control and who was unable to rig himself.


mikepetti76 said:


> How many times has the president been on tv recently and networks cut him off or don't show it altogether.



...what? His ugly mug is everywhere. Yelling about "Fraud this....COVID is a hoax that". I can't wait till I no longer have to hear that fascist idiot.



mikepetti76 said:


> Social media is suspending accounts everyday for people just giving their opinion or showing news that don't align with certain politics. That is censorship.



If I went around on every platform talking about how white people were the one true race, that I have tons of proof, and calling for the next holocaust, how do you think social media platforms would deal with that? Would they leave it up, because, ya know, free speech? 

Now what about if I said all the brown people were gonna come into OUR country, rape OUR wives, take OUR jobs, and sell drugs OUR little timmy?! Free speech....?

Our election system is rigged. Voting doesnt matter. Democracy is a sham. Trump shouldn't have term limits. Let's start an armed takeover of the state legislature! Maybe even take out some of those UNAMERICAN liberal SCUM.

...what about that?

COVID is a hoax. All those scientists you trusted last week to protect you from disease are now lying to you. It's a global hoax for enslavement of the masses. I'm not going to wear a mask. You shouldn't either. It's just a minor cold. No one has actually died. It's a hoax.

....you see my point here? Its called disinformation. And it doesnt just affect you, and your group of people who happen to believe the same thing.



ali said:


> If you want to claim on social media that the election results are bogus, then you may find your messages flagged. But you are not being flagged because the powers that be are trying to tell you how to think, you are being flagged because you are spreading a lie. There is no evidence that shows widespread election fraud has occurred to the degree that it would change the election result. There is lots of evidence (over 159 million ballots) that shows the actual results are exactly what has been reported by the media.



THANK YOU! 🙌


ali said:


> Editorial teams making decisions about what to report on is not censorship, it's just the business of reporting.



🙌



mikepetti76 said:


> They have the evidence, but the judge will not let them show it.



No. No they dont. They have hearsay and speculative 'evidence'. That doesnt hold up in a court of law. Go watch them try to present that BS to a judge, and watch them get laughed out of the courtroom. It's in multiple videos online.



mikepetti76 said:


> What is happening in our country is the same way Mussolini and Hitler came into power in their countries, also how Stalin spread communism across Europe after WWll



Ya. You're right. It is. Trump has been doing it for 4 years. We have no seen NEAR the level of authoritarian fascism Trump has blatantly embraced since WW2.

Come on dude. I'm sorry to say it, but you were conned, by a con man. The guy admits it. Look at hin trying to give preemptive pardons to his entire family before he leaves office, for crimes he KNOWS they will be charged with after hes out. Fucking disgrace of a human being, and I hope they throw the book at him the second he steps off the White House lawn.


----------



## ali (Dec 3, 2020)

I think the difference in perspective here is what constitutes "evidence". I think in everyday speech, what most people understand to be evidence is forensic evidence, i.e. scientific evidence. An example might be video logs of tens or hundreds of thousands of ballots being destroyed or falsified en masse. I am not aware of any of this sort of evidence being provided to the courts, and I very much doubt that a judge would throw it out if it was there.

Another type of legal evidence is witness testimony. This is not really something I think most people would refer to as "evidence" in everyday speech. In my opinion it's especially less relevant in the context of American elections. Because the election count is massively decentralized, there would need to be hundreds or thousands of conspirators across hundreds or thousands of precincts, all working together to affect a significant change in the result. If we only have a few witnesses, they may only be able to testify to amounts of fraud so tiny as to not make an impact on the result. Obviously zero fraud would be ideal, but every election there are very tiny amounts of fraud - 5 votes here, 5 votes there... That's not worth dedicating a news cycle to.

Personally, I think that the worry about "we're just steps away from Hitler" reporting is far more damaging to the country than "there's nothing much going on at this hearing" reporting. And, for sure, the media has been going on for 4 years about how fascism is just around the corner. That was some epic BS, in my opinion. But that's what people want to hear makes money. This idea that the country is at war with itself, bla bla bla. In my experience, in the real world (i.e. not on the internet) most people are still pretty compassionate toward one another. So, if anything, i would say the media should quit with the fascism analogies (especially when we have actual fascist countries already existing in the world that are far more authoritarian than anything in the west) and focus instead on real problems affecting real people... Poverty, addiction, health care, housing etc.


----------



## mikepetti76 (Dec 3, 2020)

Coywolf said:


> They do. All the time. Like the election fraud. Proven wrong, time and time again by recounts, and internal investigations by secretaries of state.
> 
> I feel like you are just picking and choosing what you want to listen to
> 
> ...


It has not been proven wrong yet. Media is telling you that. Proving my point
There is more to info than death count. 
I don't believe in Qanan.
Fox is not the fair and balanced it claims. These people have signed affidavits under *penalty of perjury. More than Russian collusion.
They cut him off when he starts talking about the evidence.
The scientist go back and forth about everything. Can't be trusted. Got to show me the evidence at this point.
They don't censor the iran leader when he starts talking about killing jews.
They don't censor most of that you are talking about. 
They censor direct challenges to the political belief they are pushing down your throat.

Got to sign off right now. I'll hit the rest of this tomorrow. 
Thanks*


----------



## ali (Dec 4, 2020)

To get back on topic: what can we do to resist the bullshit? I think being compassionate and engaging in good faith is an important step.

If you hang out a lot in left wing circles, this might be an interesting watch. It's an early talk with
Ashiyat Akanbi, whose other interviews and articles are also worth checking out. She is known for speaking out against cancel culture and promoting a more constructive dialog.



Another person on the left who has talked about how to engage well is Loretta Ross. She's being doing some mainstream media appearances in the US because she has a book coming out on exactly this topic. Here's a quick NYT intro: What if Instead of Calling People Out, We Called Them In? - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/19/style/loretta-ross-smith-college-cancel-culture.html

People coming from a more libertarian or mildly conservative background might be inspired by checking out Coleman Hughes, who does a YouTube series where he has some thoughtful political dialog with interesting people: https://www.youtube.com/c/ColemanHughesOfficial/

Here's an old TED talk about the value of listening to one another's stories and keeping an open mind...



TLDR: don't be an asshole.


----------



## ali (Dec 4, 2020)

One more, George Carlin...


----------



## mikepetti76 (Dec 4, 2020)

Coywolf said:


> THANK YOU! 🙌
> 
> 
> 🙌
> ...


Sorry about that. I'm back. Now to finish my response.

According to the evidence being shown it isn't a lie. 

It's not hearsay. Are you saying eyewitness testimony is not admissible in court? There is forensic evidence, video evidence, eyewitness testimony of laws being broken. There is unconstitutional mandates put in place days before the election to facilitate the fraud.

I've heard of this fascism of Trump before, now I'm not saying he's not, but can you please give me some examples? 

What type of crimes are you referring to? Spying on a elected official, selling illegal weapons to drug cartels, authorizing warrantless wiretapping, direct the IRS to target people and business with a different political view than his? Which won of these crimes should be prosecuted?


----------



## mikepetti76 (Dec 4, 2020)

ali said:


> I think the difference in perspective here is what constitutes "evidence". I think in everyday speech, what most people understand to be evidence is forensic evidence, i.e. scientific evidence. An example might be video logs of tens or hundreds of thousands of ballots being destroyed or falsified en masse. I am not aware of any of this sort of evidence being provided to the courts, and I very much doubt that a judge would throw it out if it was there.
> 
> Another type of legal evidence is witness testimony. This is not really something I think most people would refer to as "evidence" in everyday speech. In my opinion it's especially less relevant in the context of American elections. Because the election count is massively decentralized, there would need to be hundreds or thousands of conspirators across hundreds or thousands of precincts, all working together to affect a significant change in the result. If we only have a few witnesses, they may only be able to testify to amounts of fraud so tiny as to not make an impact on the result. Obviously zero fraud would be ideal, but every election there are very tiny amounts of fraud - 5 votes here, 5 votes there... That's not worth dedicating a news cycle to.
> 
> Personally, I think that the worry about "we're just steps away from Hitler" reporting is far more damaging to the country than "there's nothing much going on at this hearing" reporting. And, for sure, the media has been going on for 4 years about how fascism is just around the corner. That was some epic BS, in my opinion. But that's what people want to hear makes money. This idea that the country is at war with itself, bla bla bla. In my experience, in the real world (i.e. not on the internet) most people are still pretty compassionate toward one another. So, if anything, i would say the media should quit with the fascism analogies (especially when we have actual fascist countries already existing in the world that are far more authoritarian than anything in the west) and focus instead on real problems affecting real people... Poverty, addiction, health care, housing etc.


They have forensic evidence. They have video. You are not aware of it because they choose not to report it. It's all in the state legislation hearings.

It's legal signed affidavits under threat of perjury, like "Yes, I was there and I saw Mr. Whoever stick a gun to her head and pull the trigger".

I disagree, they aren't reporting the news about the fraud they are campaigning. When the news organizations quit reporting and start campaigning, then it becomes very damaging.


----------



## Coywolf (Dec 4, 2020)

Dude, I cant believe you believe ANY of what you are talking about in the last two posts. Seriously incredible. It's like trying to converse with a flat-earther.

The eyewitness evidence? What like the people who 'saw' the fraud, and then went back and RECANTED their statements because they made them under duress? Or are you just listening word for word shit that comes from brietbart?

There. Is. No. Evidence. Even if there was, why didnt Trump use that fraud to his advantage? If you can give me one shred, ONE, that is credible about wode spread election fraud I'll eat my hat.


Here is a show that ACTUALLY does REAL journalism and backs up its claims with fact, and how they got them:



As far as examples of Trump being a fascist? No, I'm not doing your research for you. That is WAY to easy to find. Also, if you ARENT saying he is NOT a fascist, why the hell are you backing up his bullshit claims?

That's essentially saying your not, NOT condemning fascism.

Also, I really hope you didnt join this website just for this arguement, because that is currently what it looks like.

Either way, @ali is right, this is derailing the original thread. Back on topic.


----------



## mikepetti76 (Dec 4, 2020)

Coywolf said:


> Dude, I cant believe you believe ANY of what you are talking about in the last two posts. Seriously incredible. It's like trying to converse with a flat-earther.
> 
> The eyewitness evidence? What like the people who 'saw' the fraud, and then went back and RECANTED their statements because they made them under duress? Or are you just listening word for word shit that comes from brietbart?
> 
> ...



You're proving my point. There is video evidence. 

https://www.cbs46.com/news/lawmaker...cle_8404e930-35e5-11eb-8ac3-1fc96e3b52d8.html
https://spectator.us/evidence-actually-rudy-giuliani-voter-fraud/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/nehttpsws...ence-could-overturn-nevada-result/ar-BB1bmhAp
As far as Trump being fascist, that's what I figured you'd say.

I didn't join this site just to talk politics. I enjoy reading about all of these peoples stories.

Sorry if I offended you.


----------



## Bobbas Thomas (Dec 5, 2020)

Not believe all of the bs propaganda we the general public of a first world country are constantly fed. 
Realize that we are all people; everyone you see, meet, etc, on this planet. We all have our struggles, our ups and downs. And we're all in this together. Treat other people, especially strangers, as one of your own and understand that we all have more in common than we usually think.


----------



## Hudson (Dec 17, 2020)

Man how is Chester Cheeto still ruffling feathers. That dude is old news, let him go.


----------



## roughdraft (Dec 18, 2020)

Hudson said:


> Man how is Chester Cheeto still ruffling feathers. That dude is old news, let him go.


sadly it seems like many people just want something to be pissed off about rather than chat about anything literally sensible


----------



## MFB (Dec 22, 2020)

roughdraft said:


> sadly it seems like many people just want something to be pissed off about rather than chat about anything literally sensible


I think it's because our lives are so boring and easy we need to take psuedo-moralistic stances on shit that dont matter so we feel important. Like me with being a vegan. Ha!


----------



## Deleted member 30226 (Jan 18, 2021)

Tribalism. We are all guilty of it. At the end of the day whether it be race, religion, gender ... it is all tribalism --- along with other isms I'm sure. The conservative tribe hates the liberal tribe, the 99% hate the 1%, et cetera ad nauseum. How can we change it? Well, therein lies the rub as the bard would say. Think global, act local is a pretty cool phrase, but it is bullshit. All you can really do is change how you process information. 100th Monkey mentality (kinda a neat read if you research it) isn't going to happen. Locally, I suppose you could do good. I remember, back in the day, the SHARPs took on the Nazi Skinheads --- laces, braces, etc. It rolled for awhile and petered out. I also remember a handful of us riders went to war with some of the FTRA factions and that too died out. The System that is set up to pit the tribes against themselves is designed that way so that they never go after the System (read: government). Oh, sure media is part of the delivery of the message vis-a-vis rhetoric, the reality is that message merely strokes the chords of what has been there all along.

That is because tribalism bisects with attention span. And where the two of those meet there is this pesky thing called Time. The older you get, the more you realize, we are all actors upon a stage and some of us chose to write our own scripts and check out (for example, hopping freights) and others bite the bullet of conformity. There is no serious change coming up on this third rock from the sun. Hope, is just that. Just my two cents ...


----------

