Page 31 of 66

The MSM

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:22 pm
by TheCatt
Vince wrote: I see this as a version of "she was asking to be raped, just look at the way she was dressed".
I don't comprehend that perspective at all. There's no implication. It's just "Hey here's background on US citizens living in Mexico, since you might find that odd" Inference is yours and the snowflakes.

The MSM

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:29 pm
by Vince
Allow me to apologize. As I walked the dog it occurred to me that the deleted tweet the AP had promoting this story was what really set me off. It set up the whole thing as a victim shaming piece. Reading the article by itself you don't get that sense. And it may very well be the case that the writer didn't have that feeling, but the Tweet author did.

It's kind of like saying, "Good God, did you see her nose? A lovely lady", then clipping everything up to the "A lovely lady" part.

So my apologies.

The MSM

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:33 pm
by TheCatt
Vince wrote: Allow me to apologize. As I walked the dog it occurred to me that the deleted tweet the AP had promoting this story was what really set me off. It set up the whole thing as a victim shaming piece. Reading the article by itself you don't get that sense.
I never read the tweets. I appreciate that I did not get your perspective, and only saw the article part. Anyways, we can move on to arguing about other things :)

The MSM

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:34 pm
by Vince
TheCatt wrote: I never read the tweets. I appreciate that I did not get your perspective, and only saw the article part. Anyways, we can move on to arguing about other things :)
But of course.

And for the record, you do have a shoe fetish ;-)

The MSM

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:44 pm
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote: It's information about a story and explains to many who didn't know already who these people are and why they were in Mexico, which I bet was a pretty popular question.
A lot of people would ask a lot of questions that were in poor taste to ask.

The MSM

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:44 pm
by TheCatt
Vince wrote: And for the record, you do have a shoe fetish
You'd be disappointed. My # of shoes has gone down dramatically in the past 15 years. I have 2 pairs that I wear 99% of the time. Got rid of all my cleats, and shoes I don't wear cuz my knees don't like them, etc. Have 2 pairs of shoes, then 1 additional pair of dress shoes, and 1 pair of boots.

The MSM

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:46 pm
by GORDON
Since I've become a more active person, hiking, kayaking, etc, I've grown dismayed at the number of shoes I own, now. Because it seems like a lot.

The MSM

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:48 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote: Since I've become a more active person, hiking, kayaking, etc, I've grown dismayed at the number of shoes I own, now. Because it seems like a lot.
Now you're Mr. Shoe Fetish.

The MSM

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:49 pm
by GORDON
I may be. I have like ten pairs now. even bought a pair I didn't need for next year's hiking season, because they were on sale. Still in the box.

The MSM

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 2:19 pm
by Vince
TheCatt wrote: You'd be disappointed. My # of shoes has gone down dramatically in the past 15 years. I have 2 pairs that I wear 99% of the time. Got rid of all my cleats, and shoes I don't wear cuz my knees don't like them, etc. Have 2 pairs of shoes, then 1 additional pair of dress shoes, and 1 pair of boots.
That seems much more appropriate for a he/him pronouner. How many pairs were you lamenting (one might argue whining) about losing in your apartment fire? For some reason the number 50 got stuck in my head, but you might have said it was 20. I just remember being kind of shocked that a dude had that many pairs of shoes.

The MSM

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 2:43 pm
by TheCatt
Vince wrote: How many pairs were you lamenting (one might argue whining) about losing in your apartment fire? For some reason the number 50 got stuck in my head, but you might have said it was 20.
It was probably 20. I had a bunch of Chuck Taylors in all different patterns back when I could wear them, but that was probably around 10 pairs. Plus running shoes, dress shoes, boots, cleats, etc.

The MSM

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:15 pm
by Vince
Going back to the media, I do find it interesting the things they decide are important for the reader to know for background and the things they decide aren't. We get this kind of background on these victims, but during the Mathew Sheppard trial they didn't think it important to mention he was a gay prostitute, meth dealer and user, and had had a sexual relationship with one of his murderers. Who was also a meth using and selling gay prostitute.

That seemed kind of relevant to the case.

The MSM

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:41 pm
by TheCatt
Vince wrote: Going back to the media, I do find it interesting the things they decide are important for the reader to know for background and the things they decide aren't. We get this kind of background on these victims, but during the Mathew Sheppard trial they didn't think it important to mention he was a gay prostitute, meth dealer and user, and had had a sexual relationship with one of his murderers. Who was also a meth using and selling gay prostitute.

That seemed kind of relevant to the case.
That seems to be debated...
The Book of Matt
Main article: The Book of Matt
Stephen Jimenez, the producer of the 2004 20/20 segment, went on to write a book, The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard, which was published in September 2013. The book said that Shepard and McKinney—the killer who inflicted the injuries—had been occasional sex partners and that Shepard was a methamphetamine dealer.[39][40][41] Jimenez wrote that Fritzen told an interviewer "Matthew Shepard's sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn't the motive in the homicide...".[42]

Many commentators have criticized Jimenez's views on the attack as being sensational and misleading; those views were shared by gay advocacy organizations and cultural critics.[43][44][45][46][39] Some commentators, however, have spoken up to defend it.[47] Some police who were involved in the investigation have criticized Jimenez' conclusions,[48][49] while other police said that there was evidence that drugs were at least one factor that led to the murder.[10]
from his wikipedia page...

The MSM

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:14 pm
by Vince
Yeah, debated by those groups that have the most grift to lose if this gets found out. Grifters criticize his book, but no one refutes the testimony of the people he talked to writing it. Even the cops that criticize his conclusions don't dispute his facts. That at least raises questions that the press never raised initially.

Worth pointing out that Jimenez is a gay man.

The MSM

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:45 pm
by Vince

The MSM

Posted: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:02 am
by Vince

The MSM

Posted: Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:36 am
by TheCatt
The GOP used to stand for something.

The MSM

Posted: Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:12 am
by Leisher
TheCatt wrote:
The GOP used to stand for something.
I don't know who is in charge of the party, but they absolutely suck at their job. The party is a complete mess from top to bottom. Their platform is inconsistent and antiquated. They really need a wake up call at the next RNC.

"Hey dipshits, stop lying about stuff. The Dems' platform is a fucking disaster, you don't need to make up lies about it. Stop talking about women's issues unless you're a woman. Stop bringing Jesus into everything as that turns off a large percentage of voters, even religious ones. Stop saying "immigrants" and instead ALWAYS say "illegal immigrants" when discussing your opposition to immigration."

And so on...

The MSM

Posted: Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:30 am
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote: Their platform is inconsistent and antiquated. They really need a wake up call at the next RNC.
I think we're in the midst of another party change, like we had back in the 60s with Civil Rights. Those being left behind by internationalization + technology are moving Republican. It's a weird mix of rich/business + poor. There's a lot of frustration there that I would have thought as natural breeding ground for unions, but they've been unable to capitalize on it, and Trump took it to the bank.

The MSM

Posted: Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:45 am
by Vince
I think you guys missed the point of the fact check. There was video. From the debate. All the candidates on that stage raised their hands that their healthcare plans would cover illegals. To say this claim is "mostly false" is absurd. Even Mayor Pete's explanation that says they can "buy into" the program he's talking about how they're already paying sales taxes, etc (which are not federal taxes, but state and local) to justify spending taxpayer money on them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-QP5TBTVhY