Readit NewsDead Comment
Dead Comment
Similarly, the NYTimes and Washington Post are usually pretty critical of Trump (unless he's bombing people, in which case they love him) and the WSJ are somewhere in between.
Then, consider that Americans are increasingly not getting their news from these sources and podcasts, blogs, social media, etc. are becoming the primary source of news for many people.
All this to say, to claim 97% of media is critical of Trump is a wild fantasy of victimhood that has no basis in reality.
It was just the opposite, like 20 minutes straight of "Russia Gate," just endlessly hyping up and trying to validate the scandal. If Fox is a friend of Trump's, he doesn't need enemies.
Similarly, the NYTimes and Washington Post are usually pretty critical of Trump (unless he's bombing people, in which case they love him) and the WSJ are somewhere in between.
Then, consider that Americans are increasingly not getting their news from these sources and podcasts, blogs, social media, etc. are becoming the primary source of news for many people.
All this to say, to claim 97% of media is critical of Trump is a wild fantasy of victimhood that has no basis in reality.
96% Negative Spin from the main 3 networks.
>Silent on Economic Success: Despite record highs in the stock market and a fifty-year low in the unemployment rate, the President’s handling of the economy was given a stingy 4 minutes, 6 seconds of airtime during these six weeks, or less than one percent of all Trump administration news (645 minutes).
Dead Comment
The core tenants of BLM are that CURRENTLY black communities are policed in a radically different way than white communities. BLM activists want everyone to have a just and fair policing.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/black-lives-matter-ra...
Should you get fired? Or is that free speech?
Isn't that one of the core tenants of the BLM campaigns? "Separate but equal" community policing for African American neighborhoods..
I feel that you're entitled to your opinion that transwomen are men but why shouldn't you be subject to the opinion of other people? If Reddit decides it's not the sort of content they want to allow on their site then I see nothing wrong with them removing it. You're free to register transwomen-are-men.com or get-the-blm-facts.com where you can discuss your beliefs to your heart's content with others who share your opinion. Finally I would point out that "womaness" is a mental and social construct so I'm not sure what facts there are to quibble about. If people were claiming that transwomen are of the female sex then that is obviously factually incorrect.
For now... there have been other domains whose registrars have been repeatedly banned / revoked for "hate speech", Daily Stormer comes to mind.
You can't seriously think that "the only people we can believe are people who openly call CNN hacks". That's just an admission that you only believe people who agree with you.
Put another way: there was a recent article on HN about using sources who you had uncertainty about, because those sources give you the most information (in a bayesian sense, they cause you to update your priors the most). The source listed gives me no reason to update my priors, because I could predict the result from the source.
So were you able to find a "academic source" that audited the media in this way?