you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Thought policing is way worse.

I'd rather pay taxes and be unhappy about it, than pay taxes and not understand why I'm giving my money away. That's the optimistic view. It could get much darker.

Like hating immigrants and blaming them for the problems with society.
Immigrants aren't trying to take anyone's guns.

Edit: I haven't read a single argument supporting the thought police over taxation.
I'm calling it:
Tax man wins the least-worse award!

Edit 2: The previous verdict was premature. Read on!!!

[–]OldManCorley 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

and blaming them for the problems with society.

Above directly blaming immigrants for societies problem is the understanding that unchecked illegal immigration could lead to problems in society.

Much in the same way that above "orange man bad", there's actually arguments against president Trump.

Fundamentalizing and removing nuances in the debate IS the result of the though police.

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

I thought it was (partially) because of the media wanting stories to be read, and sensationalising them to the point of meaninglessness.

[–]OldManCorley 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I agree, but what stories get sensationalised?

One very obvious example to me would be the media coverage of trump vs Clinton.

Would you say the media were pouncing on every opportunity for a sensationalised scandal for both parties or would you say the candidates were treated differently when it comes to press coverage?

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Whatever they think will work. If there are a lot of things, whatever empowers their particular political stance.

Why not both?

[–]OldManCorley 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Why not both?

Yes, why not both. Would you say both candidates were treated equally from the press??

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Which candidates?

Yes I would say both candidates were treated equally by the press.

Both Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein were treated equally terribly.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Exactly.
And Gary Johnson, and all candidates that are excluded by the duopoly.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

And McGoofy.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The medias were pouncing on every opportunity for a sensationalised scandal, each organisation with a different agenda, and some were taking it further than others. I didn't really follow it though; all I got from it was that all candidates were terrible people.