aluminiumtrioxid

Implying that every the foundation of any civilization is meaningless, heritage meaning nothing and cohesion of a society is not based common virtues and values of it's people. National identity as we understand it hasn't really been a thing for much of human history. Implying that a rejection of nationalism is synonymous with a rejection of the basic building blocks of society is woefully ignorant at best, and outright manipulative at worst.

Of all the people on this forum, I think you have the least right to lambast others for their kooky conspiracy theories

I don't find that to be a meaningful distinction as far as the libertarian argument goes.

Seems dumb to say, but nothing worth getting arrested over to me. Wouldn't happen here. Well I respectfully retain my reservations about this being a direct consequence of the BBC's existence, regardless

Maybe should a little - http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newsevents-pressreleases/newsevents-pressreleases-item.htm?id=324265 So basically she was arrested for spreading hate speech ("She was arrested under section 19 of the Public Order Act which relates to the display of written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention of stirring up racial hatred, and for producing malicious communications."). Isn't that something most civilized countries tend to frown upon?

Unfortunately, it wouldn't take a conspiracy to go from well-intended "state-sponsored perspective [as] just another voice", to restrictions on competing media and deterioration of free speech in general. I weep for the terrible deterioration of free speech in Britain. Nevermind that it hasn't really happened in the 93 years since BBC was founded, it's just inevitable! That's the nature of things under the tutelage of the government!

A fair observation, but also orthogonal to the point.

For all his supposed rationality and unbiased outlook, he seems to be really fond of the "just wave a wand with 'FREE MARKET' printed on it, and it'll somehow make everything better" kind of weird magical thinking that's so characteristic of many libertarians.

And this is the problem with "the media should be just another commodity on the free market!". People like to feel validated. "Fair and impartial", in the long run, is probably not going to sell over "reinforces the worldview and biases of the consumer". It's going to sell to some people. As long as there are audiences which value the product of ethical journalism, some media outlets will attempt to supply it. As we can see with the great amount of new gaming news outlets staffed with competent and impartial reviewers popping up in the wake of the gamergate scandal, to supply outraged consumers with the information they so clearly yearn for. Oh wait, that's a thing that hasn't happened. Oops. Moreover, you seem to have missed the point entirely. As for the snidely passive-agressive personal attack, I'll just let it slide without comment because at this point, really, why bother.

That's somewhat ironic to hear right after the post where you treat academia as some kind of a mythical cabal acting as a single entity. Just sayin'. So is the idea that any single person has the time and/or energy to comb through all of those news outlets. No, scratch that. The idea of the two models being even comparable is what's ridiculous. They're completely different and consequentially come with different strengths and drawbacks.

And this is the problem with "the media should be just another commodity on the free market!". People like to feel validated. "Fair and impartial", in the long run, is probably not going to sell over "reinforces the worldview and biases of the consumer".

Dude, have you ever read an Ineth post? He wants to hear exactly that, and moreover, a detailed screed on how everybody who disagrees with him can only do so because they're ignorant and biased Don't be such an antizionist. I'm afraid that reference flew right over my head.

You continue to astonish me with how you can simultaneously hold a vast knowledge about how rational thinking doesn't come naturally to the human mind, yet when faced with the inevitable effects of this on media consumption, you just shrug ineffectually, "eh, what can we do?".

That's entirely possible.

That's such a weird viewpoint. The amusement value lies in the perceived hypocrisy, I guess? But on the other hand those crying hypocrisy have so many reasons why those lives don't really matter. "Oh I guess it's just a part of life there." "You can't seriously expect the media to report on events that manifestly don't interest viewers." And in the end, the message that emerges from these rationalizations is "your lives don't matter; take your tragedies elsewhere, we're not interested". The problem is, this has been the message since forever. The "hand wringing", as you so charmingly put it, is a reaction to this. You can't really expect people to give a **** about yours after decades of you not giving a **** about theirs. It's the "you claim to be tolerant, how come you're not willing to tolerate intolerance?" problem all over again. Of course people won't extend a courtesy to you which you've amply demonstrated you're unwilling to reciprocate. Yes, but the target of that not-indifference can't really be determined solely by the fact that there is booing.

I don't think anybody is upset over it, more like "not seeing the reason to be upset at people who don't care about it".

Dude, have you ever read an Ineth post? He wants to hear exactly that, and moreover, a detailed screed on how everybody who disagrees with him can only do so because they're ignorant and biased

I thought Shamus wrote for the Escapist and therefore counts as a gaming journalist?

Personally, I blame christianity

Well yes, the idea isn't practical, and as Fighter pointed out, mildly problematic on its own, but it fits LoZ rather well.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure "every Link is a different one, they just happen to have the same name Because Reasons" is canon.

#notallgamejournalists

"LOOK AT WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!" When you sound like an abuser in search of excuses, maybe it's time for some introspection, eh? When you're setting the stage for something horrible, maybe its not appropriate to be surprised when it happens? In the scenario you envision ("if Europe goes back down the road of fascism..."), conservative voters choose to align with literal nazis rather than the left. You may have intended that to come across as an indictment of the left, but I'd say it paints a rather grim picture of those voters instead.

Well StB and I am sure that KGB said the bolded thing the whole time as well I am sorry to tell that, but I really do not know, if I should laugh or facepalm about your naivity. Infinite power corrupts infinitely, and mass surveillance of your own citizens is a pavement made out of sweet talks and fearmongering into the acquiring infinite power... The real problem with using mass surveillance to fight terrorism is that the very idea hinges on an insanely paranoid projection regarding the number of domestic terrorists. With the population of the US, if there aren't tens, maybe even hundreds of thousands of terrorists working on domestic soil, the number of false positives you get is certain to drown out any relevant information you could possibly gather. "LOOK AT WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!" When you sound like an abuser in search of excuses, maybe it's time for some introspection, eh?

My problem is more along the lines of "Thinking in-character, both of these figures sound like a massive liability to keep around, much less trust them with my life. Why would I ever want to hang around with such horrible people?"