Metal Reviews

No, truth is truth.
Is the article lying?

Truth is truth, black metal is black metal, opinion is opinion.

See the original post you quoted for my opinion on whether the article is lying or not. It is designed to elicit a specific response.

So they are"reinforcing" the truth, because that is what the readers want to read?
Seems to me the content (truth) is actually the relevant part here.
what difference does who said it and who heard it make? Doesn't change the content a bit.
So, if I tell you the sky is blue, it is only true if you agree with me?
Give me a break.

At any rate, rio, your original post is a classic circumstantial ad hominem / guilt-by-association tactic.
Is the article false? That's the question.

I'm not saying this. I admit, I'm being purposefully cryptic because I'm fed up of arguing in this thread (see my post of a couple of pages back) and don't want to get into it. Especially as I don't have especially strong opinions on the issue of Obama and the UN.

But essentially, I'm just saying the following. The Telegraph has a readership who generally have a certain set of opinions. It makes money by reinforcing those opinions. As it makes money it becomes more powerful and hence more and more people accept those opinions as truth. In effect, it makes its own "truth" for it and its readers.

Now, that article is a comment piece and on close reading has very few objective facts in it to go on. What it does have is a lot of buzz-phrases and pantomime villains. The notion that China and Saudi Arabia will be "passing judgement" on US human rights, etc. Unless we are to accept that those countries are to have any hand on Arizona immigration law (I don't accept that this will be the case), that's not truth. It's not even precise: it's a vague appeal to "us" that we might be playing into the hands of "them".

Now, the point I suppose I am making : in my view, the way in which media sources (from whatever perspective, of course) construct these ideas, villains, buzz-words is extremely manipulative, it frames the lenses through which people will interpret the world around them. For better or worse, that process to me is a more consequential "truth" than the actual content of a lot of articles and certainly this one, which when stripped down to the actual facts it conveys is really quite underwhelming. (NB: this is not something I expect many people to agree with, but it is a rock solid conviction I have developed over several years)

Though it may surprise you to hear it, I largely agree on the issue of local vs international sovereignty. But I don't think this article represents any kind of smoking gun- instead, as I said, it's primary purpose is to elicit a certain response from its readership.

Anyway, that's my opinion on the article, I don't feel the need to take the matter any further.

Hopefully the previous clears this up. I am not attacking the writer or necessarily saying it is wrong because it has a certain bias. I'm saying that the purpose of the article is less to reveal truth and more to construct a narrative. And that that to me is actually more significant than the particular question of this report to the UN.

Not sure.
But if so, the irony of a country like China / Iran / Mexico, etc. censuring us on this is absurd.
Not to mention the UN is a sad joke to begin with.

OK.

I think that the idea that such a thing could happen as a result of this (outside of those countries making PR hay out of it at home, which they will do anyway) is extremely improbable. And if it does happen it will be much more a result of bigger processes (i.e. the more general rise of Chinese power) which would happen with or without Obama.

Yeah.

imo this is bad and should stop.

Just brought a TV licence. Yes, the BBC forces you to buy a licence for TVs, non-British people. Yes, I have to pay for nearly a full year despite it being fucking September. And yes, this happens even if you never watch any BBC channels. Still, now I can legally watch Blair being a slimy toad online whilst it happens!

I literally have not watched a television show in nearly five years, outside of UFC Unleashed and the PPV's.
Oh and I own seasons 1-12 of The Simpsons on DVD, but that's it.
Do not miss it one single bit.

More Tea Party fumbles. This time from the President of the Montana Big Sky Tea Party, Tim Ravndall.

Via Facebook referring to the torture and murder of Matthew Shephard by the mention of Wyoming:



http://jaysays.com/2010/09/tea-party-fi ... m-ravndal/

Then a Congressional candidate defends his comments:
http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83 ... 970b-800wi

http://helenair.com/article_96ecb76c-ba ... 002e0.html

Pretty foolish of them. There seems to be a section of libertarian thought that is, for some reason, very homophobic, I've noticed it with certain British bloggers etc as well. Probably due to the links with right-wing conservatism, and explainable away with them exercising rights to free speech, but troubling all the same.

Claiming to want to hang/crucify homosexuals is incitement to violence hence not free.

Eh, it just falls on the 'bad jokes' side, I think. A facebook discussion between (I assume) friends doesn't/shouldn't come under incitement to violence.

Plans to build a cultural center are an incitement to violence. I think a hateful comment made by the leader of an organization could be deemed that. Imagine what Hitler would've said if he had a facebook.

Well, obviously plans to build a cultural centre =! incitement to violence, either. They've booted said leader, right?

And Hitler's Facebook would make a great Deathcore band name.

Plans to build a cultural center are actually an incitement to violence insofar as people are getting attacked, a taxi driver was stabbed in the neck, by buffoons who feel that this cultural center is a reason for violence.

The Montana TP leader was booted, yes. The guy who replaced him probably advertises how his ancestors once owned slaves in a positive light.

Matthew Shepard graduated from the same high school I graduated from. Sadly enough, not a single plaque exists anywhere, and no one ever mentions his existence. The chairwoman of the board is a creationist, homophobic, condescending moronic bitch, and I think she's managed to stifle all memory of Shepard.