[The Soup Nazi]

OK, clearly I got carried away before — I was hoping for a real revelation and this turned out to be less revealing than 2016's "single-page" leak. Can we get Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton and Rachel McAdams to investigate this shit and come up with real results, please?

[Severian]

Originally Posted by evollove

Yeah, 12 years ago he made a lot of money and paid a bunch in taxes. I'm sure they're cleaning a room in prison for him right now.

Yeah, the story and its execution turned out to be a dud. Maddow actually let me down by milking the "reveal" for all it was worth before engaging in time-buying speculation for the rest of her show.

Bad move. I'm disappointed.

Now not only does it like the tax returns were an overhyped issue (enough for his supporters to cast off any doubt anyway), but it also looks even more like the media is gunning for Trump unfairly. Oh, and we now know that he paid more than he strictly needed to in 2005, and also made a shit fuck ton of money. So that makes him look good in three different ways.

I feel like the story could have been reported ... you know... objectively. It could have been like "This just in, we have Trump's '05 return and here's the information."

Instead it was loaded, full of editorializing bullshit, and ultimately self-defeating.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi

Yay Maddow. Hey, somebody in the media's gotta do their fucking job...

I didn't notice this part of your post before, but yo — plenty of people in "the media" are doing their jobs, thank you very much. Unfortunately, last night, Rachel Maddow was not one of those people.

[evollove]

There are some good reporters.

But I'm not sure I can watch press briefings anymore. Spicer is really good and the reporters really suck. Quite a few of them anyway. Some don't even understand proper procedure and end up asking fucking ignorant questions. Spicer just says "That's not how it works" and moves on.

Some try to catch Spicer somehow. "Isn't it hypocritical of the administration to..." as if Spicer will say "Yep. You got me."

Some ask the exact same question that was asked five minutes ago.

Props to the three or four of them who seem to have actually gone to journalism school and bothered to learn how government operates.

[The Soup Nazi]

Originally Posted by Severian

I didn't notice this part of your post before, but yo — plenty of people in "the media" are doing their jobs

Well, sure: The New York Times, The Washington Post, smaller newspapers with real investigating zeal, VICE (which is technically Canadian ). Forget I incorrectly said "the media"; what I meant was MOTHERFUCKING TV NEWS, still the main news source for most Unitedstatesians (it is a word, Americans), although quickly following printed media's dodo-path as more and more mooks choose Fakebook or just get their shit information from their shit neighbor.

I think one of the best things that could have happened to TV newscasts (and us) was the fact that the BannonTrump hydra declared war on 'em on day one; had Drumpf been shrewd and tried to cosy up to them, they would have fallen for it big time because they're SUCKERS, as proven by the lovely reception to his speech before Congress (a short-lived good reception, but that's Trump's own fault again). Instead, the attack made them react in a more-or-less combative way like I'd never seen from these jokers... but it's still not near enough. Pretty boy Anderson Cooper mildly questions Jeffrey Lord's nightly lies. I know Cooper's show and Bill Maher's are not in the same realm, but Maher recently interviewed Lord on Real Time and in the middle of it told him, "Sir, everyone in Washington says you're a nice guy, but DON'T BULLSHIT ME". [Cue the flameposts from the Bill Maher haters on this board. ] So the real revelations —if they continue, fingers crossed— will keep reaching us through journalists like Glenn Greenwald. Can you imagine a serious whistleblower contacting Wolf fucking Blitzer to make a story public?

[ilduclo]

Scott Pelley called him unhinged the other night.

[The Soup Nazi]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

Scott Pelley called him unhinged the other night.

Called whom unhinged? Trump? Spicer? Lord? Maher?

The possibilities...

[ilduclo]

trump, it was an interview he was doing with Leon Panetta about a week ago. I found the interview on line, but the intro where Pelley said unhinged was missing, now I also note that Pelley hisself is also AWOL?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/pol...wtO/story.html

[Severian]

Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi

Well, sure: The New York Times, The Washington Post, smaller newspapers with real investigating zeal, VICE (which is technically Canadian ). Forget I incorrectly said "the media"; what I meant was MOTHERFUCKING TV NEWS, still the main news source for most Unitedstatesians (it is a word, Americans), although quickly following printed media's dodo-path as more and more mooks choose Fakebook or just get their shit information from their shit neighbor.

I think one of the best things that could have happened to TV newscasts (and us) was the fact that the BannonTrump hydra declared war on 'em on day one; had Drumpf been shrewd and tried to cosy up to them, they would have fallen for it big time because they're SUCKERS, as proven by the lovely reception to his speech before Congress (a short-lived good reception, but that's Trump's own fault again). Instead, the attack made them react in a more-or-less combative way like I'd never seen from these jokers... but it's still not near enough. Pretty boy Anderson Cooper mildly questions Jeffrey Lord's nightly lies. I know Cooper's show and Bill Maher's are not in the same realm, but Maher recently interviewed Lord on Real Time and in the middle of it told him, "Sir, everyone in Washington says you're a nice guy, but DON'T BULLSHIT ME". [Cue the flameposts from the Bill Maher haters on this board. ] So the real revelations —if they continue, fingers crossed— will keep reaching us through journalists like Glenn Greenwald. Can you imagine a serious whistleblower contacting Wolf fucking Blitzer to make a story public?

Hey, I saw that episode of Maher! I have mixed feelings about him. Truly mixed. He's funnier than he'll about ½ the time, the other ½ he comes off as crass for the fuck of it, like an intellectual ladder rung or two above Howard Stern.

His questioning of Lord was satisfying, but talking to the guy that way just wasn't necessary to get his point across. He could have said anything other than "Don't bullshit me" (like, "Answer me honestly") and it would have had less of an echo chamber effect, for instance; rampant cheers from the Magee crowd, but he's not really accomplishing anything because he's playing for the folks who already watch and enjoy Bill Maher, so.. fuckit!)

Also his whole stance on religion frustrates the fuck out of me. He's one of the main reasons I'm agnostic, and think bad thoughts when I hear the word "atheist." He's just as convinced of his own nonfalsifiable belief in that things don't exist as Christians are in their certainty that the very same things do. And his entire bullying way of shitting on people for their beliefs is only a few steps away from its own form of religious extremism.

But he's fucking hilarious, so I can't stay mad at him.

However... back to the whole "print media" thing...
actually I have to save that for later because I'm busy working in print media right now. Anyway, the long and short of it is, I'm probably going to take some level of umbrage if you disparage journalists, specifically print journalists. There are thousands of kickass newspapers out there that do their damndest every single day, and yeah, a lot of the more major outlets have resorted to more editorializing than I think is proper, and have shied from straight up objective fact reporting in favor of writing twenty new columns every goddamn day.

But. Whatever.

[Severian]

Honestly though, I do understand why "The Media" (it's easier to use than the alternatives... like "the mainstream news industry," or "mainstream news outlets that don't think Trump's the tits") is fucking pissed, because you're right, he did declare war on an entire, vaguely defined profession. Everyone from Slate to Vice to Bill O'Reilly to Howard Stern to Peter Griffin to HBO to Spotify and Apple... has every right to be pissed.

They have every right to retaliate too as long as they do so within the parameters of the law. So no libel, but editorializing like crazy? Sure! It's not the call I would make, but I do get it.

What would the lodging industry do if he -- for some Fucking reason -- declared war on it? Chainsaws, that's what. Strikes, that's what.
What about the NRA? What if he declared the NRA the "enemy of the people?" Ohhhh buddy. Watch out.


If he declared the energy industry the "enemy of the American people" he'd wake up dead as fuck the next morning. Or maybe he'd get lucky and they'd just put a horse head in his bed and frack his back yard. (No shit, you do NOT want to duck around wth those guys. They are seriously, genuinely, terrifyingly dangerous, even though the independent billionaires among them donate to charity and shit to look good and community-minded, they sit down and eat their own fucking children for dinner... with white whine. Don't fuck with energy Assholes. 4 real.)

Computer programmers would hack the White House and post memes of Trump Fucking an elephant all over the world.

Journalists are supposed to not retaliate? Well, that's fucking bullshit.

But in order to retaliate, and slip in their negative coverage and editorials, they have to play the game and say nice things about him every once in a while because the industry is by necessity private, and needs to stay in good standing financially with their parent companies and such.

Teachers probably have it even harder, but at least they get to unionize.

What would medical doctors do?

The possibilities are endless. Hopefully he pisses off the real enemy of the people soon... the Republican Party. And I can even see him doing that. Banking on his public support and calling his own party "bad guys" and "so-called" thises and thats.

That would be charming. Great way to move into spring.

I'm going to stop before I end up on a terrorist watch list.

But go easy on print journalists. They NEED their jobs, NEED their industry to survive to keep those jobs. Many don't have the skills to make the leap to full time digital shit. So, read some local newspapers and get a feel for how they're quietly, and diplomatically, fighting Trump with information, plain and simple.

[The Soup Nazi]

Originally Posted by Severian

[...]the other ½ he comes off as crass for the fuck of it, like an intellectual ladder rung or two above Howard Stern.

That's a gargantuan exaggeration. Don't shit outside the bowl.

Originally Posted by Severian

His questioning of Lord was satisfying, but talking to the guy that way just wasn't necessary to get his point across. He could have said anything other than "Don't bullshit me" (like, "Answer me honestly") and it would have had less of an echo chamber effect, for instance; rampant cheers from the Magee crowd, but he's not really accomplishing anything because he's playing for the folks who already watch and enjoy Bill Maher, so.. fuckit!)

"Answer me honestly" would have gotten loud cheers as well. Now, on that show oftentimes the audience's response does indeed drown out the "rival" interviewee and seem to prevent the conversation to move along. But let's not kid ourselves: the real problem is that most of the time the conversation has no place to move along to, because all the person being interviewed has to offer are euphemisms for bullcrap anyway.

Originally Posted by Severian

Also his whole stance on religion frustrates the fuck out of me. He's one of the main reasons I'm agnostic, and think bad thoughts when I hear the word "atheist." He's just as convinced of his own nonfalsifiable belief in that things don't exist as Christians are in their certainty that the very same things do. And his entire bullying way of shitting on people for their beliefs is only a few steps away from its own form of religious extremism.

This line of thinking REALLY irks the living FUCK out of me. You're taking part in an egregious false equivalency. Maher himself has said that irreflective atheism mirrors the blind conviction of the religious believer, which leads me to my personal stance (not unshared, hopefully; otherwise Rotten was dead right and there actually is no future): since we simply don't know whether there's any kind of afterlife, the only sane, rational thing to be is agnostic... in principle. In practice, when it comes to dealing with anything regarding this subject that's unproven but stated as fact or even trivial ("I dunno... I just believe that..."), you can't be anything but an atheist — ALL religions, cults, sects (synonyms, in the end) are based on the notion that somebody at some point knew what's "on the other side", THE greatest lie in mankind's history. You know how I know? Because I don't know. And whoever started each of these bullshitfests were nothing but other humans who didn't have any superabilities I don't possess. Worse yet, in 99% of these cases the scriptures and commandments and creeds, which are incalculably, unfathomably ridiculous and contradictory to say the very least, were written and rewritten by generations of ignorants who weren't even remotely aware of the atom or the DNA, let alone the Higgs boson: shit, everything science has discovered and keeps discovering and working on.

If one makes it all the way to this point in a conversation with a believer (seriously doubtful; they shut down way before), it's at this juncture when they admit they're believing in a lie (not that they'll ever use that word). So their answer turns to the lowest possible argument: "Well, if believing in the supernatural will make someone feel better about this terrible world, what's the harm?" "What's the HARM?" Gee, let us count the ways: the systematic rape of children, 9/11, the subjugation of women and all sorts of minorities, centuries jam-packed with abject carnage beyond imagination, want me to keep going? If you're selling something but nobody's buying, you're forced to sell off, and nothing better could happen to humanity — sell all your fucking temples and cathedrals to McDonald's for all I care. Nah, don't do that; keep them as music venues. The acoustics on some of those joints are just heavenly...

Originally Posted by Severian

But. Whatever.

Why do your posts always have to end like this? "Whatevs". "Blah". Put in a little effort, writer.

[The Soup Nazi]

Originally Posted by Severian

But go easy on print journalists. They NEED their jobs, NEED their industry to survive to keep those jobs. Many don't have the skills to make the leap to full time digital shit. So, read some local newspapers and get a feel for how they're quietly, and diplomatically, fighting Trump with information, plain and simple.

It's amazing how many assumptions you can cobble together. First of all, I AM a journalist myself (or, rather, I was until I couldn't stand it anymore in this hellhole I live in); I went to university and graduated and everything. I have not attacked U.S. print journalists in general and it wasn't my intention to. I do read your "local newspapers" when I get the chance — Christ on a stick, didn't I praise "smaller newspapers with real investigating zeal" just, what, THREE posts above? You don't quite strike me as a stoner, so something else is melting your reading comprehension away. Kanye West is my guess.

ETA: One thing about your post does make me glad, though: I never thought your Apple-loving self would ever say "digital shit"...

[The Soup Nazi]

And now, let's be happy for a change and celebrate a significant victory: racist Trumpclone waste of oxygen Wilders lost in the Netherlands election.

https://news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl...7d148ecc9c21bd

France is next; hopefully Marine will go down in flames. AND get CRC.

[ilduclo]

and, 2nd travel ban shot down, take that, haole!

“We’re going to win. We’re going to win so much. We’re going to win at trade, we’re going to win at the border. We’re going to win so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of winning, you’re going to come to me and go ‘Please, please, we can’t win anymore.’ You’ve heard this one. You’ll say ‘Please, Mr. President, we beg you sir, we don’t want to win anymore. It’s too much. It’s not fair to everybody else.’” Trump said. “And I’m going to say ‘I’m sorry, but we’re going to keep winning, winning, winning, We’re going to make America great again.”

[!@#$%!]

ha ha yes i read this morning

so happy

[Severian]

Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi

That's a gargantuan exaggeration. Don't shit outside the bowl.


"Answer me honestly" would have gotten loud cheers as well. Now, on that show oftentimes the audience's response does indeed drown out the "rival" interviewee and seem to prevent the conversation to move along. But let's not kid ourselves: the real problem is that most of the time the conversation has no place to move along to, because all the person being interviewed has to offer are euphemisms for bullcrap anyway.


This line of thinking REALLY irks the living FUCK out of me. You're taking part in an egregious false equivalency. Maher himself has said that irreflective atheism mirrors the blind conviction of the religious believer, which leads me to my personal stance (not unshared, hopefully; otherwise Rotten was dead right and there actually is no future): since we simply don't know whether there's any kind of afterlife, the only sane, rational thing to be is agnostic... in principle. In practice, when it comes to dealing with anything regarding this subject that's unproven but stated as fact or even trivial ("I dunno... I just believe that..."), you can't be anything but an atheist — ALL religions, cults, sects (synonyms, in the end) are based on the notion that somebody at some point knew what's "on the other side", THE greatest lie in mankind's history. You know how I know? Because I don't know. And whoever started each of these bullshitfests were nothing but other humans who didn't have any superabilities I don't possess. Worse yet, in 99% of these cases the scriptures and commandments and creeds, which are incalculably, unfathomably ridiculous and contradictory to say the very least, were written and rewritten by generations of ignorants who weren't even remotely aware of the atom or the DNA, let alone the Higgs boson: shit, everything science has discovered and keeps discovering and working on.

If one makes it all the way to this point in a conversation with a believer (seriously doubtful; they shut down way before), it's at this juncture when they admit they're believing in a lie (not that they'll ever use that word). So their answer turns to the lowest possible argument: "Well, if believing in the supernatural will make someone feel better about this terrible world, what's the harm?" "What's the HARM?" Gee, let us count the ways: the systematic rape of children, 9/11, the subjugation of women and all sorts of minorities, centuries jam-packed with abject carnage beyond imagination, want me to keep going? If you're selling something but nobody's buying, you're forced to sell off, and nothing better could happen to humanity — sell all your fucking temples and cathedrals to McDonald's for all I care. Nah, don't do that; keep them as music venues. The acoustics on some of those joints are just heavenly...

Why do your posts always have to end like this? "Whatevs". "Blah". Put in a little effort, writer.

Ok, first off, I am agnostic.
Second, I am agnostic in practice, so I don't HAVE to be atheistic in practice, because I'm not. If I had to be, I would be. But I find I'm perfectly capable of falling back on my agnosticism by conversing with people who are believers and non-believers alike. I challenge both religious zealots and determined atheists. I listen to them give their spiel (usually it involves faithisms from one side, refer boxes to "science" from the other), and I say, "Ok, sure, but none of what you're saying goes beyond your decision to buy into a belief system. None of it is proven, and isn't it a bit arrogant to claim that you know for a fact that someone else is wrong, when it's impossible to know that you are right?"

Unless I'm talking to a real nutso, "Earth's a thousand years old" motherfuckers. There's nothing to be said there.

But for all the referencing of science that atheists do, there seems to be a widespread misunderstanding of the basic premise of scientific inquiry at play in their reasoning. To say "there is no god" and then use a lack of evidence that a western monotheistic god exists in the way that scripture indicates is only an argument against scripture, against follow-the-leader religion. None of it proves or even comes close to arguing that a "god" cannot possibly exist.
The existence of god is a thing that falls outside the realm of science as we know it. It is non-falsifiable. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of a "god," just as it is impossible to prove any negative. One would have to be an omniscient being to effectively argue that omniscience doesn't exist. But you know this already, so... you're an ice guy but DON'T BULSHIT ME

Also there's a fundamental problem with the working definition of atheism. Any atheist should know enough to know that atheism can't work and doesn't make sense if it means believing in "no god." Rather, the whole thing should be rebranded to mean "belief that the God of Abrahamic scripture and other world religions does not exist as he/she/it is written in said scriptures and religions."

If you're saying that you're an "atheist" because you don't believe in the "God" of the Bible, or his equivalents, then that's fine. But nobody should be dense enough to truly believe that they know for a fact thay omniscient/omnipotent beings don't exist. Back to falsifiability. There is none, no test that can prove this is not the case, so being an "atheist" who argues that "there is no 'god'" is, quite simply, just as balls out stupid as a theist arguing that there is.

At least the many theists -- though not enough--admit that their belief comes from "faith," (meaning, no facts behind it. Atheists like Maher aren't interested in discussing possibility. They're interested in making fun of dumb, impressionable people.

I wish Maher would identify as an agnostic, because you're right: it's the only sane thing to be. I'm wary of anyone who claims to know anything absolutely. That's where virtually all the conflict in the history of humanity has come from: certainty.

And I'm not saying "where's the harm?" There's nothing but harm. Anyone who thinks they have anything completely figured out is dangerous.
The same thing to do is to move forward keeping your own counsel, and being open to anything. Science is constantly changing and evolving. In a thousand years, who know — we may have learned that our most fundamental geometric and algebraic principles are totally fucked.

Anyway, "atheism" is just as bullshit as theism. Agnosticism is the best option available given what we currently know, and the information available to us. That doesn't mean we can't write off the Bible. We can and should, except as a nice little set of stories.

But Maher is usually just a dick about it. No reason for that. "Religulous" was shit. It would have been more interesting to see him have discussions with (mostly agnostic) religious scholars and philosophers. Instead he opted to go to the worst places and try to belittle the dumbest fucking people, just so he could be a smug fuck about it. Tell ya what, he's a sharp guy, but I'd have more respect for him if he didn't seek out people to humiliate. It's not like he doesn't have plenty of intellectual equals out there. I doubt many would be willing to talk to him though... he is to atheism what Ted Nugent is to guns n' shit. And he's an absolute Fucking asshole.

But, again, he is funny as hell, and he's a necessary force in American political discourse. I'm just not 'bout his religious beliefs (because that's exactly what all his arguments and smug bumfuckery really is: it's his religious belief system, and he's not doing anything to bridge the gap between blind followers and skeptics when he laughs at actors playing Jesus.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi

It's amazing how many assumptions you can cobble together. First of all, I AM a journalist myself (or, rather, I was until I couldn't stand it anymore in this hellhole I live in); I went to university and graduated and everything. I have not attacked U.S. print journalists in general and it wasn't my intention to. I do read your "local newspapers" when I get the chance — Christ on a stick, didn't I praise "smaller newspapers with real investigating zeal" just, what, THREE posts above? You don't quite strike me as a stoner, so something else is melting your reading comprehension away. Kanye West is my guess.

Whoah buddy. Slow it down.

Most of my last re: Journamism post was just me, pontificating about how the media has responded to Trump's declaration of war. I was reallly offering a counterpoint to my own complaint, further above, that there was too much editorializing and not enough fact-presenting going on in major news media outlets.

All I said to you was:

Originally Posted by Me

Go easy on print journalists. They NEED their jobs, NEED their industry to survive to keep those jobs. Many don't have the skills to make the leap to full time digital shit. So, read some local newspapers and get a feel for how they're quietly, and diplomatically, fighting Trump with information, plain and simple.

I don't think this was much of a leap on my part. You did say print journalists were just behind their TV counterparts. I think the gap is a little wider myself. That's all.

(Then again I've read some really terrible small local newspapers, so I'm really just saying the good guys are out there, even if it doesn't seem like it. Hard to imagine how this would get your hackles up so much since, the way I see it, we pretty much agree on everything from religion to media ethics. It's just that you're kind of a combative dude.

: One thing about your post does make me glad, though: I never thought your Apple-loving self would ever say "digital shit"...

Oh I love Apple yeah. For sure. But I really hate the way reporting has become such a click bait fuckaround in the digital age. I was judging AP entries for 2016 in February, and people would write intros to their submissions where they said "This story was viewed by 12,000 people in 24 hours and re-tweeted 156 times, with an average view time of 1.4 minutes."

What? Really? Wow! What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I'm here to judge the quality of your news reporting. The views tell me nothing about your story's import in the community, and the view time only tells me that the average reader didn't read your story. WHY ARE YOU TELLING ME THIS?

ETA: My point about the digital shit is that some of the best writers I work with — some real, honest to god, good ass journalists, don't even know how to use Twitter. They're in their 60s, and they've laid their dues many times over, but they only last in the field because they found a place to settle, out in 20 years or more there, and their writing is indispensable. If they were to lose their jobs, I'm not sure what they'd do. Start taking classes in social media at a local high school? Sounds like a shitty way to spend one's twilight years.

ETA: Let's leave Mr. West out of this

[ilduclo]

I like Bill M. Funny guy, and he's all about putting it to the hypocrites. Good for him, not enough of it.

[evollove]

Easily the most obnoxious person on TV and a terrible comic. He cannot deliver a line to save his life.

I always skip his monologue, the bit in the middle and New Rules. Yet I watch the roundtable nearly every week, tuning out whatever Bill has to say. To each one's own.

God, I hate that arrogant fuck.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by evollove

Easily the most obnoxious person on TV and a terrible comic. He cannot deliver a line to save his life.

I always skip his monologue, the bit in the middle and New Rules. Yet I watch the roundtable nearly every week, tuning out whatever Bill has to say. To each one's own.

God, I hate that arrogant fuck.

Well then Soup Nazi should be NoSoupForYou!ing you! Haha.

I totally agree that he's arrogant as all hell, but I can't not like him. I get pissed at him from time to time, and I'm just not with him on religion, but he's a funny fuck and I generally like his humor. He's not charming in the way that John Stewart and John Oliver are, and he's a good deal less funny, but I think the left needs more arrogant jackasses like him.

I sometimes just wish he'd at least try to appeal to someone who isn't already totally on board with everything he believes. I feel like Stewart and Oliver both do a better job of saying, "Hey, I don't care if you're an R or a D, but THIS SHIT IS FUCKING BAD, AND THATS NOT A JOKE."