Extreme Right-Wing Websites (like cnsnews.com)

[Pardalis]

I made it to page 36 in the comments section

Like I said, you can't find an article from the website, you can only find user comments.

Since when user comments are representative of the website owners or their journalistic staff?

You can find all kinds of wackos commenting on CNN.com, or any news outlets that are open to all to comment, that doesn't mean the website condones those views. This should be simple to understand.

 

[Barber Shop]

Since he doesn't seem to be able to provide example of articles.

Why the snark?

Until very recently I could not post links...This morning I posted my very first.

My OP was pointing out that cnsnews.com has some disturbing stuff and that it opened up my eyes to some of the more extreme right-wing thinking. I was interested in other's thoughts...I wanted to discuss this particular worldview and what perpetuates it.

I do have to go to bed at some point each day... I have to log off at some point. Just because I have not provided articles does not mean I CANNOT. I mean, this thread is not exactly old, so I do not see why you would say that...I though that providing the address to cnsnews.com and saying 'check this stuff out' was adequate.



Other articles that give insight into the more extreme right-wing views (though they are not nearly as out-there the comments that follow....):

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sesame-street-muppet-pitches-government-dependence-free-food-school

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/war-christmas-hits-korean-peninsula

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-welcoming-islamic-group-washington-discussion-tolerance

 

[Pardalis]

Why the snark?

Because you made claims that are irrelevant and untrue.

(though they are not nearly as out-there the comments that follow....):

You still don't get it.

User comments are not necessarily the views of the writing staff of the website.

Get it?

I do have to go to bed at some point each day... I have to log off at some point. Just because I have not provided articles does not mean I CANNOT. I mean, this thread is not exactly old, so I do not see why you would say that...I though that providing the address to cnsnews.com and saying 'check this stuff out' was adequate.

Excuses excuses. You made claims and cannot back them up.

 

[Barber Shop]

Like I said, you can't find an article from the website, you can only find user comments..

I was working on posting links to articles while you were posting this reply. You have to give me some time. As I said, I cannot be logged on 24/7.

I did the comments first and then the articles.

Since when user comments are representative of the website owners or their journalistic staff?

You can find all kinds of wackos commenting on CNN.com, or any news outlets that are open to all to comment, that doesn't mean the website condones those views. This should be simple to understand

I understand it. What makes you think I don't?

What claim did I make that is contradicted here? I did not say 'cnsnews.com supports all of these comments.'


I still don't understand the snark...What have I said that was so wrong?

Finally, my post was not about a particular comment or a particular article...It was about a certain wordview and how it gets perpetuated.

 

[Barber Shop]

Because you made claims that are irrelevant and untrue.


You still don't get it.

User comments are not necessarily the views of the writing staff of the website.

Get it?


Excuses excuses. You made claims and cannot back them up.

I think that 'I WAS NOT ON THE COMPUTER' is a reasonable defense. I cannot post while I am asleep.

Yes, I GET IT. What make you think I do not?

 

[Barber Shop]

Also, the second sentence of my OP states that I was focusing more on the comments.

 

[Pardalis]

I was working on posting links to articles while you were posting this reply. You have to give me some time. As I said, I cannot be logged on 24/7.

And yet you found time to peruse through user comments.

I did the comments first and then the articles.

You still don't get it, the comments are irrelevant. Do I really need to explain this to you a third time?

What claim did I make that is contradicted here? I did not say 'cnsnews.com supports all of these comments.'

Yes you did:

The worldview of these sites is quite strange:

and then you list user comments. The website is not responsible for the comments.

Get it?

Also, the second sentence of my OP states that I was focusing more on the comments.

You still don't get it.

 

[Barber Shop]

Just so everyone is clear: THE COMMENTS MADE ON CNSNEWS.COM DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF CNSNEWS.COM.

Just so everyone is clear: THE COMMENTS HAVE EXAMPLES THAT ARE FAR WORSE THAN ANYTHING IN THE ARTICLES.

Just so everyone is clear: ANY WEBSITE THAT ALLOWS COMMENTS WILL HAVE PEOPLE POSTING OFFENSIVE AND STUPID THINGS.

 

[Pardalis]

Good, then this thread is irrelevant.

 

[Barber Shop]

And yet you found time to peruse through user comments.


QUOTE]

Yes, this morning! When I woke up. When I saw that some posters wanted more direct evidence.

Posters demanded evidence so I took the time to provide. It did take a while.

I listed some egregious comments first.

 

[gnome]

I don't see how it's irrelevant when the claim was that the READERS held unreasonable views... which I think was aptly demonstrated.

 

[gnome]

As a former conservative I have to say that I recognize myself in much of that.

I'm not sure I agree. I remember you when you were more conservative, and you were still refreshingly rational to debate with.

 

[Pardalis]

I don't see how it's irrelevant when the claim was that the READERS held unreasonable views... which I think was aptly demonstrated.

You could find all kinds of conspiracy theorists posting comments on CNN.com for example, does that mean that CNN is a conspiracy theory website?

BTW, who reads user comments anyway?

 

[Barber Shop]

I don't see how it's irrelevant when the claim was that the READERS held unreasonable views... which I think was aptly demonstrated.

Yes, I think it is an interesting topic...How certain extreme views get perpetuated by certain sites.


To the JREF community --- I will make a better effort to provide immediate and direct evidence for my claims in the future. Perhaps if I had waited until this morning when I had the time to list out the comments, rather than just naming the website, some of this dispute could have been avoided.

 

[Pardalis]

Yes, I think it is an interesting topic...How certain extreme views get perpetuated by certain sites.

Here you go again, you haven't proved that this website holds those extreme views, just some of their readers.

You still don't get it.

 

[Pardalis]

I read every day Radio-Canada.ca, but I stopped a long while ago to read user comments because it seems the only ones who bother to comment are idiots.

The problem with user comments is that only the ones who have nothing intelligent to say comment, they have nothing else to do and they feel empowered with this platform, and since it's anonymous they feel can say whatever they want. The most vocal people are usually the ones who crave attention.

Regular rational people don't usually bother to comment, because they have other things to do and don't want to get bogged down with idiot calling them names.

The best way to depress you about the human race is to read user comments on Youtube.

 

[rustypouch]

Regular rational people don't usually bother to comment, because they have other things to do and don't want to get bogged down with idiot calling them names.

I hope I'm not the only one who got a chuckle out of this.

 

[Barber Shop]

Here you go again, you haven't proved that this website holds those extreme views, just some of their readers.

You still don't get it.

Commenters read other people's comments. Sometimes they respond to them. Sometimes they 'LIKE' them.

The comments are NOT coming from the creators of the website, that is true.

But THAT WAS NOT MY CLAIM. I was talking about how a certain insular worldview gets created and reinforced. The comments section fits with that claim. It can support that worldview just as much as the actual articles. These people are dialoguing with each other. The comments are ON the website even if they do not come from the creators of the site.

Please stop telling I do not get something I understand quite well and never disputed.

It does not have to come from the official writers at cnsnews.com to help create that worldview.

 

[Architect]

1) Some of our more extreme right-wingers here on JREF are not just trolls. They actually believe this stuff. They have peers who believe this stuff. Much of what was written on that website sounded EXACTLY like what gets posted here.

This. And remember Steven Hawkings would be dead if he were British.

But, in all fairness, there's nothing to suggest that these nutters are anything other than a small minority. Is it perhaps the case that we're giving them more weight than their numbers merit?

 

[Pardalis]

The comments are NOT coming from the creators of the website, that is true.

But THAT WAS NOT MY CLAIM.

Yes you are, you are saying that the website perpetuates those views.

was not talking about how a certain insular worldview gets created and reinforced. The comments section fits with that claim.

This can be said about any website, but you chose this one because you don't like their politics.

Please stop telling I do not get something I understand quite well and never disputed.

It does not have to come from the official writers at cnsnews.com to help create that worldview.

The website is not responsible for the worldview expressed by their user comments. Just like radio-canada.ca or cnn.com are not responsible for the worldviews expressed in their comments sections

Get it?