I'd Be Okay With This

Adjust content blocking

nonowgetout

next random Comment

I'd Be Okay With This. .. I personally think that FOX isn't all that bad until they discuss politics.

+1288

Views: 67521 Submitted: 11/24/2013

Hide Comments

Leave a comment Refresh Comments (285)

First 2 3 4 5 Last Next

[ 285 comments ]

Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest

Realtime Comments: On

asd

#1 - uhmericafuckyea

Reply +131 123456789123345869

(11/24/2013) [-]

I personally think that FOX isn't all that bad until they discuss politics.

#6 to #1 - metalmind

Reply -3 123456789123345869

(11/24/2013) [-]

Or what they call "news".
Or anything but entertainment shows.

#252 to #1 - richardw

-1 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#5 to #1 - SILENCEnight

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/24/2013) [-]

**SILENCEnight rolled a random image posted in comment #29 at Triple meme Triangles ** THey used to show kirby.

#10 to #1 - nervaaurelius

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Well if you talking about the company in general yeah but most people refer to the news channel when they talk about fox.

#67 to #1 - DanLacasky

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

so just Seth MacFarlane?

#122 to #1 - sinisterlion

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Case in point: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLawWmSyakg

How ******* hypocritical. He's saying all that ******** and then 20 minutes later they'll be showing the stupidest, most ****** up ****.

Just compare some of their live feed narration to other networks and stations. The most unprofessional and provoking **** I've ever heard on a news program. It's ******* ridiculous; at times makes me cringe

pic although related to FOX, should not have ever been

#198 to #1 - captnnorway

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Did FOX make FOX kids? That tunred into Jetix or some crap ? If so I like FOX as well.

#199 to #1 - nigeltheoutlaw

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

They canceled Futurama and Family Guy (back when it was good), then made gave two more shows to Seth McFarlane after Family Guy was all played out. They are bad.

#221 to #1 - kurbeh

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Or videogames.

#178 to #1 - jukuku

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

"WAR ON CHRISTMAS WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!!!"

They're retarded 100% of the time.

#259 to #178 - ironsoul

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Watch Andy Levy beat down Chris brown in his apology statement. They are only retarted 99.999% of the time.

#3 to #1 - dafiltafish

Reply +23 123456789123345869

(11/24/2013) [-]

Just like any other news network.

#4 to #1 - admiralen

Reply +52 123456789123345869

(11/24/2013) [-]

theyve cancelled futurama more than once, thats how ******* bad they are

#41 to #4 - bann

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

if more people watch it it wouldn't have been canceled sorry buddy

#51 to #41 - treefox

Reply +11 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

I believe they cancelled Firefly after showing all of its episodes out of order. And they were wondering why nobody understood what the hell was going on.

#107 to #41 - neverforgetthedick

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Blame Fox for giving the show ****** time slots...

#43 to #41 - admiralen

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

it still hurts you know...

#108 - Orangepeel

Reply +80 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Ima just leave this here

#202 to #108 - nigeltheoutlaw

Reply -2 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

I won't deny that MSNBC is biased as ****, but FOX is a far larger news network that reaches far more people, so it's bias does a lot more damage.

#157 to #108 - guymandude

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Jokes on you

I stopped watching the news the minute I finished my U.S. Gov class a year ago and I never looked back. people have to tell me ******* everything. Didn't know about the **** in the philipines until like 5 days after

#133 to #108 - fantomen

Reply +5 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

MSNBC literally claimed that pro gunners and the NRA were responsible for the Boston bombings. I'm not making this **** up.

#248 to #133 - sexuality

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Remember that one time that Fox News attacked the movie "The Lorax" and said it was Obama's friends in Hollywood that he had hired to alienate the 1%?

Good times, both are **** news sites, I watch BBC.

#114 to #108 - reginleif

Reply +10 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Nothing is truth

Everything is biased.

Except GLORIOUS science!

#148 to #114 - worried

Reply +7 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

glorious science you say?

#95 - RJHammerCock

Reply +29 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Personally I think MSNBC is 10 times worse than FOX....

#109 to #95 - powertrooper

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

#196 to #95 - nervaaurelius

Reply +4 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Fox has more than double MSNBC's viewers though so that's why people pay more attention to Fox.

#29 - Ricogator

Reply +5 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Bill O'Reilly? On the Daily Show? That's like a jewish family inviting Hitler over for dinner.

#30 to #29 - rhiaanor

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

it happens quite often, and the other way around too. It's funny.

#31 to #30 - Ricogator

Reply +27 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Hitler invited a jewish family over for dinner?

#46 to #31 - Riukanojutsu

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

invited them oven for dinner*

#33 to #31 - rhiaanor

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Well since I can't think of a gas/food related pun I could use, **** you for no particular reason.

#48 to #33 - rhiaanor

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

**** you too carlsagouin , you're just unamerican

#50 to #48 - carlsagouin

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Fortunately.

#44 to #33 - liquidz

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

You need this

#45 to #29 - reduxalicious

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

They're actually really good friends.

#47 to #45 - carlsagouin

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Yes, precisely.

#13 - Sethorein

Reply +23 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

I kinda see the rationality behind a certain degree of profiling...

I mean if your country is at war with a country primarily composed of a single ethnic or religious group it's not altogether unreasonable to presume that people of that ethnic or religious group are more likely to harbour ill feelings towards your country

It's not nice... but I mean... I dunno if you use Bayesian inference... it makes sense.

#16 to #13 - TheHutchie

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Sometimes right and wrong in morality don't mix with right and wrong in correctness.

What I'm saying is that sometimes it's right to do wrong. I'm sure it also works vice versa.

#18 to #16 - Sethorein

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Well I mean, morality is arbitrary. Bayesian Inference is used to determine the value of an action strictly on the basis of statistical significance.

It looks at the state you were in before, the likelihood of action x resulting in y, the likelihood of y occurring for no reason whatsoever, and the likelihood of a positive indicator on the test for y being correct.

State prior to action might be a lack of terrorist threat. Action x is racial profiling and y is the presence of danger of terrorist attack. With no racial profiling there might be a ratio of 1 used to represent it (like 0.05) and with racial profiling the likelihood might be 0.04.

When danger of terrorist threat occurs, variable z (which might be 0.01) is the value that represents the likelihood that the change in threat is actually a result of taking or not making an action.

It's admittedly harder to apply to racial profiling than something easily tested for like HIV

#20 to #18 - TheHutchie

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

You have to worry about it being too robotic a way of thinking though. I mean, I'd like to think on my deathbed that I've lived my life doing the right things, but we're getting into serious philosophical territory here.

I'm too tired to go into this right now, but I think you'll know where I'm coming from.

#21 to #20 - Sethorein

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

obviously. It's the conflict of utilitarianism and the idea of implicit morality. Even if an action is perfectly logical, if it FEELS wrong people define it as immoral and will hesitate to do it.

#179 to #13 - jukuku

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

"I kinda see the rationality behind a certain degree of profiling... "

I can't even believe I'm seeing this. Do you really not see what is wrong with it?

#200 to #179 - Sethorein

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

not if it's done properly, no. The problem is it is done improperly.

#288 to #200 - jukuku

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/26/2013) [-]

So how does one properly institute a police state where everyone of a certain color or religion is a suspect to be investigated and have their rights thrown out the window?

#289 to #288 - Sethorein

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/26/2013) [-]

That was disgusting Strawman tossed together with a loaded question. Shame on you.

That aside. You do it with bayesian criteria. Bayesian inference is very good at assessing the legitimate threat posed by a specific group. Most of the time a group won't even blip on the radar.

#292 to #289 - jukuku

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/27/2013) [-]

Yeah I was hardly trying to debate you. I don't really see the point in engaging in a discussion with someone who thinks it would be fiscally or morally responsible to profile entire religious groups and immigrants from war torn countries.

#293 to #292 - Sethorein

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/27/2013) [-]

ooooo that's nice. Appeal to morality. Please tell me how people with different opinions from you are sub-human and thus do not deserve to be approached on an intellectual level

Do you even know what Bayesian inference is? If it were employed, the US most likely wouldn't profile anyone.

#226 to #13 - kanali

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Except in this case it's more like going to war with France and assuming any white people or catholics are hostiles.

#233 to #226 - Sethorein

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

degree of solidarity within a group is very highly correlated with religious conviction. Most french people are secular and have very weak group solidarity compared to the very tight knit islamic community.

#232 to #226 - Sethorein

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Oh and france isn't a theocracy.

#231 to #226 - Sethorein

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

You don't give Bayesian Inference enough credit. It probably wouldn't profile anyone in the states. Look into it. It's a very accurate statistical model of likelihood.

#267 to #13 - InflictorOfPain

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

But we're not at war with the country itself. Mostly against the insurgents.

#284 to #267 - Sethorein

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/26/2013) [-]

insurgents are inhabitants of that country...?

#53 to #13 - schrutebucks

Reply +12 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/muslims-only-carried-out-2-5-percent-of-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html
Terrorist attacks by Muslim extremist on U.S. soil is 6%, 42% is Latino, and 24% is extremist left wing groups. All according to this article that was posted fairly recently. Many people justify the stereotyping of Muslims based on terrorist stats that they believe show Muslims committing a majority of attacks, but in reality, by that same logic we would be even more stereotyping of Latinos, as well as the left wing groups.

TLR The stereotyping of Muslim Americans isn't really based on stats, it's based on pushed views by the media, as well as an aggressive government with ambitions that are ambiguous to the public.

#57 to #53 - lamarisagoodname

Reply +5 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

as a muslim I truly support your enlightenment but we have better things to do than argue with folks trying to lecture us about our own religion on the internet. Some people never change and will never accept the truth really, and world leaders understand the statistics and the impracticality of racial profiling (if it was ever taken seriously)

#64 to #57 - schrutebucks

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

My family is Muslim (I'm still unsure about my personal views at this point) and it always bothers me to see all this negativity towards Muslim Americans due to the acts of small groups of confused extremists. I agree that world leaders often do have their agendas which affect everyone inevitably.

#158 to #64 - guymandude

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

I would say go with the agnosticism, mostly because I have a few friends who are muslim and I feel bad when I see all the **** they won't let themselves do. But then again, those kids are some of the happiest ******* I know. and I'd be some sort of asshole to tell you any sort of way to run your life because I have no idea who you are. So do you man

#182 to #158 - schrutebucks

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Yeah that's what I was leaning towards for a while, lately I've been looking at it in a more New Age sense, like us all being fragments of a single consciousness in the big picture. Believing in something has definitely made me happier than sitting on the fence, that's for sure.

#131 to #57 - myshipsailedwoutme

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

*SOME* people.
But what about the others? Everybody has potential for change and if you can make even one person more accepting with a paragraph on the Internet, isn't it worth it? Of course you can't change people if you have the attitude that you can't.

#188 to #131 - lamarisagoodname

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

You need to login to view this link

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law

all the information and proof against the ideology that "every muslim is a terrorist" is there for everyone to see, so it's not as if we're allowing terrorists to be the only representation of Islam, the majority of people simply want to sit there and push another blind crusade. If that one person that you had spoke to did change their ideology, they would have changed it because they are a smart and rational person, not because of you or me. Had we never spoke to them, they would have found the answer on their own

#287 to #188 - myshipsailedwoutme

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/26/2013) [-]

But many do not look for it. Many do not see that their views are wrong. Why? Media and family. These two factors exert a lot of influence. However, stumbling across arguments on the Internet or listening to a friend comes to them. They don't need to search for it. If we all had to search for the truth every time we found it, we would be very ignorant. Sometimes the truth comes to a person before they even knew they were wrong.
A person does not have to be smart or struggling to change in order to be a good person and make the right decisions. I've met plenty of "stupid" people who were very accepting and kind. Not because they looked around and analyzed every moral issue to its core, but because the right people enlightened them. It can happen. I've seen it happen.
Sorry if this is rambly. I'm in the midst of writing an essay right now and it's dominating my thought process.

#268 to #53 - anon id: 0822c77d

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Lol, "aggressive". You know those stereotypes aren't formed just by what happens on US soil, but in foreign territories too. In Europe, Muslims cause problems. The Middle East itself has a very high rate of violence. US forces aren't allowed to fire unless fired upon. Part of your statement is "omg omg da gubamint n media es evil".

#54 to #53 - Sethorein

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

I approve of accurate profiling. Though, to be fair, it's not muslim Americans, but foreign muslims that are of greatest concern, no?

#59 to #54 - lamarisagoodname

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

why worry about people following a religion if it doesn't have anything to do with the violence? what's the difference between muslims that live in your neighborhood and muslims living in some other country?

Not saying that terrorism isn't a problem (speaking as a muslim here) but if you're going to pin the issue on the religion and thereby vilify everyone following that religion you need to research the belief extensively to decide if it's the cause of the aggression.

#62 to #59 - Sethorein

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

because regardless of the tennets of a religion, it can be used for violence.

#71 to #62 - lamarisagoodname

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

so what exactly is your point here, eliminate anything in a society that can be used for violence? what about all the good religion can be used for? if anything I've seen much more ignorance, cynicism and hate arising from atheism than religion

#76 to #71 - Sethorein

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Why are you trying to make this a religious debate?

I'm simply accepting the rationality of profiling. If you are at war with Afghanistan, or Iraq, or whichever islamic country the US decides is evil then its citizens who are predominantly muslim are more likely to harbour ill feelings towards the states, no?

Ideally we won't need profiling. I like what Israel has started working with. A booth that will detonate any explosives on your person. Until measures like that can be implemented to prevent terror without having to resort to bayesian inference, bayesian is the most logical method to use.

It's not personal. It's just statistics. To be frank, if muslims from a particular region do not present a significant thread by bayesian inference then I'd not approve profiling. If they do, then I do. It's not about being Muslim, it's about being a threat. If it were Greeks, Christians, Jews, Leftists, Rightists, ANY group that presents a statistically significant threat then a degree of profiling makes sense.

#81 to #76 - lamarisagoodname

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

I'm telling you to leave religion out of the profiling and just stick to Iraqi's, afghans, greeks etc because there is no credible evidence that says every single person following this religion is going to be a threat. If you drop a bomb on Iraq you're not going to be hunted and hated by every muslim, you're going to be hunted and hated by every Iraqi

the reason I'm saying this is because this is going to escalate to the point where everyone is going to assume I'm a security threat just because I practice Islam, even though my political and national beliefs reside with the country I stay in. Imagine if your child was assaulted at school just because his parent(s) go on funnyjunk

#82 to #81 - Sethorein

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

I don't support assault.

If the stats don't support the inference than so be it. If your claim that muslims do not identify strongly enough with islamic countries to represent a statistical threat, then the data will prove you right. If the data proves you right then we don't disagree.

I just hate the PC view that everyone is equal and no one is swayed to action by global politics. Certain demographics ARE more dangerous at certain times.

#86 to #82 - lamarisagoodname

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

but your idea of profiling is going to lead to assault, if people start mistrusting people based on their demographic. If 5% of a demographic statistically are violent (lets say 1000 pie eaters) and you lock them all up, you've foiled 50 terrorist attempts but at the cost of incarcerating 950 innocent people. What are you going to say now, "better safe than sorry"? "better them than me"?

I understand the concept but there's no way to apply it effectively

#90 to #86 - Sethorein

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

my idea of profiling is more to do with airport pat down selections.

Inconveniences, not life damaging occurences. Little old white ladies might represent a far weaker threat than... well even little old muslim ladies if they represent the right demographic.

Bayesian inference is very accurate in determining the statistical significance of things. You could be tested HIV positive and Bayesian inference will still only consider you 33% likely to have HIV due to likelihood of false positives and the low likelihood of an average person being tested HIV positive in general.

#60 to #54 - schrutebucks

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

It is mainly a concentrated region where most of the terrorists derive from, but still even then profiling people from that area statistically is a stretch. Rationally speaking I can't really say I agree that this profiling is effective in the context of terrorism prevention.

#63 to #60 - Sethorein

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Also there's the fact that it's easier to be a leftist terorrist than a muslim terrorist due to how aggressively the government pursues islamic terror suspects... I dunno. We need more research.

#66 to #63 - schrutebucks

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Or it could mean that those members of the leftist extremists groups are just that, extremists, while most Muslims are just peaceful people.

#70 to #66 - Sethorein

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

I don't claim that extremists aren't a minority, just that if the minority exists primarily within a specific demographic you ought to consider that.

if 99.9% of muslims are cool, and 99.99% of non muslims are cool, then there's still a significant number of uncool muslims compared to non-muslims.

If it turns out that leftists are likely to be a statistically more extremist demographic then I'd say the same about them too.

#79 to #70 - schrutebucks

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Yes but those leftist groups as well as Latinos have committed a far higher amount of acts of terrorism in this country, I'm saying it's not fair to Muslim Americans to be stereotyped, especially when it's claimed to be done in national defense. That's not fair to the people that have lived their entire lives here peacefully following their faith, that's not what this country is supposed to be about.

#270 to #79 - InflictorOfPain

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

But we (Latinos) do get stereotyped. But on a world scale, Muslims cause more distress. Just saying.

#290 to #270 - schrutebucks

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/27/2013) [-]

Not to offend Latinos but statistically on a globally scale they commit more crimes than Muslims.

#291 to #290 - statistically

0 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#80 to #79 - Sethorein

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Fine, then don't profile Muslims. As I explained below to your particularly more passionate friend, it's about making accurate statistical inference.

If the statistics do not support the profiling, neither do I.

#96 to #80 - schrutebucks

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Yes, and I tried to provide stats showing that stereotyping Muslims isn't really fair compared to other groups.

#97 to #96 - Sethorein

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

That's fine... I'd say you should look up peer reviewed studies through google scholar rather than buzz news sites. They're more likely to skew information.

beyond that, I harbour no resentment to muslims in particular. I only put forward that bayesian inference profiling is rational

#125 to #97 - schrutebucks

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Call it what you want

#127 to #125 - Sethorein

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

...I'm sorry, what?

#61 - vixq

Reply +22 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Alright I'm just gonna take the thumbs down here and point out that nearly every other news station has a liberal bias. CNN may be the most unbiased but you can still see some support of liberals in their articles. Liberals hating fox news is just stupid considering they gain support from almost every other major news station.
Just sayin

#74 to #61 - xxhadesflamesxx

Reply -5 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

that doesn't mean that fox news isn't ******* retarded though

#77 to #74 - vixq

Reply +5 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Fox is the only news station that people bitch about though. They do the same **** the rest of them do except their opinions don't align with yours. I say every biased news station is ******* retarded, but only one takes the ****.

#78 to #77 - xxhadesflamesxx

Reply -7 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

true people do bitch about fox news a lot although its not even their opinions its how ******* biased they are and how stupid they are

#83 to #78 - vixq

Reply +6 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Dude, you're not hearing me here. News stations like CBS and NBC do the same exact **** except they are part of the liberal media. Have you ever seen a post on funnyjunk about the bias of CBS? No, yet they deserve the same treatment that fox news receives for their bias.
You say, "its not even their opinions". Well thats total ********. You only think what they say is "stupid" because you've been influenced by the bias of the prominent liberal media. Even funnyjunk is a form of liberal media.

#88 to #83 - xxhadesflamesxx

Reply -7 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

how do you know that exactly now you are just making baseless claims about me so first of all stfu
and no they have done stupid things on their that isn't based on their viewpoint
now if you respond im not going to respond back I don't feel like wasting my time with an asshole like you

#93 to #88 - vixq

Reply +5 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

#104 to #61 - predictablepeter

Reply -4 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

It's not the slant, it's the blatant LIES they're caught with all the time.

#123 to #61 - reginleif

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

FOX is much more slanted as MSNBC though.

Comparison arguments will only work if the two things are comparable.

Otherwise you just sound like people comparing the US and Nazi Germany as equally moral. [Sorry for the ad hitlerum, but I used it because it's pretty common just use it as an example of different extremes.]

Personally I don't watch MSNBC, or anything that labels itself either liberal or progressive, I don't watch the news to confirm my political views I watch it to get input so I can test my views.

#172 to #123 - anon id: 6cfb46ba

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Martin Bashir suggested that someone should **** in Sarah Palin's mouth. He did this on air.

I've NEVER heard of anything even close to this level of lunacy from any other network.

www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bal-pew-study-suggests-msnbc-really-is-more-partisan-than-fox-20121102,0,7266571.story

#110 to #61 - elbrysobrony

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

So... Wait... I'm kind of confused. I thought news was just to say the things that were going on. Local news would be new events of a local area, national news of new events in the nation, etc. Why, no, HOW can there be a bias in political news? I mean, it's like "Candidate A is promoting X values, Candidate B got Y votes, and Politician C is doing this, that, 'n the other thing."

#119 to #110 - vixq

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

You're right. That's exactly how it should be, purely informational and unbiased. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Every form of media has influential power and use it to sway people into thinking the way they do. Its not lying, is just purely showing information that makes whatever they're supporting look good.

#126 to #119 - elbrysobrony

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Alright. Thanks.

#121 to #110 - vixq

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

fair.org/take-action-now/media-activism-kit/how-to-detect-bias-in-news-media/
here's a link that explains how bias works.

#8 - devildogpratt

Reply +22 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Only 10,000 of that 30,000 are actually homicides, and as you can see the vast majority are by black men, which is ~6% of the US population.

#55 to #8 - anon id: 1ef180f7

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

The number of people who identified as black, either alone or in combination with one or more other races, in the 2010 Census. They made up 13.6 percent of the total U.S. population.

simple google search, man.

#75 to #55 - devildogpratt

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

yes, but black MALES. we can say that's roughly 50%

#9 to #8 - devildogpratt

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Here's another example, specifically of Chicago

#17 to #9 - toadkillerdog

Reply +6 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

though I'll not jump on the "black people are violent" train, it does demonstrate that the single biggest cause of homocide is poverty, since hispanic and black make up the two biggest groups. Essentially poverty and organized crime create murders, much more then anything else.

#23 to #17 - devildogpratt

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

yes, basically the majority of those are probably gang-related (yet you never hear about all of the black on black crime in this country, do you? only the white 20-something males with an AR-15). and where do you think those gang members are getting their guns? For the most part they are using stolen and illegal guns bought on the black market.

really what I'm trying to say is that all of this "NRA and gun owners are responsible for muh chilluns being murdered" is all ******** caused by people ignoring reality

#153 to #17 - schnizel

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Do not look for excuses.

#271 to #153 - pokemonstheshiz

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

that's not an excuse, that's actually looking at the root cause instead of a correlating factor.

#273 to #271 - schnizel

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

******* going to ****
slavs gona slav
brits gona bong
kikes gona kike

#38 to #17 - xdeathspawnx

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Yes but that still raises the question of why the majority of people in poverty and black or hispanic.

#89 to #38 - anon id: 7b6b94ab

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

ummm how about this thing called "History"

#26 to #17 - haeckal

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

"Many people believe that a bad social environment
is a major contributor to crime. They believe
that if people of all races had the same education,
income, and social status, there would be no race
differences in crime rates. Academic research, however,
shows that these differences persist even after
controlling for social variables....The correlation between violent crime and the
percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic
is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and
unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they
are not. In layman’s terms, the statistical results suggest
that even if whites were just as disadvantaged
as blacks and Hispanics the association between race
and violent crime would still be almost as great."

~ The Color of Crime (New Century Foundation, 2005), pp.11-12

#272 to #26 - pokemonstheshiz

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

How exactly did they control social variables?
Pretty sure you can't.

#19 to #17 - anon id: c95b85e9

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

so, you're saying we should ban guns.

#161 - soundofwinter

Reply +13 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

This **** again.
A. FOX viewers are probably the people least likely to commit a crime. They're (90% of them) Christian and above 30. They're statistically not going to commit a crime at high levels.
B. Steward counts suicide as a murder. WHAT! He considers someone dying from a terrorist attack the same thing as if I were to shoot myself!
C. O'Riley has a point, though I disagree with it. You cannot write it off with rhetoric. Do you know why all these "idiots" from fox never change their mind. Nobody is willing to have an actual discussion with them. There's what, one liberal on The Five? If you people keep blindly insulting FOX than you're no better than MSNBC.
D. Fox has some good shows such as Red Eye and Stossel that feature Agnostic Libertarians as hosts. Meaning, it's not a network of Christian right winged evangelicals.
E. Always leave the Bulgarians alone

#216 to #161 - certifiedidiot

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Pretty sure their liberal is more a gang tag they gave him and that he isn't actually a liberal.

Also, what if you say that both MSNBC and FOX is ****?

#275 to #216 - soundofwinter

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Are you honestly trying to say Bob Beckel has been faking being a democrat?

#276 to #275 - certifiedidiot

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

After hearing his comments after the boston bombing and where he works, I'd not rule it out entirely.

Ya know, just keeping the possibility of it open.

#192 to #161 - skeptical

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

You're right on all but one account: the idiots tend to be the ones who refuse to continue a conversation once they have been proven wrong, and the smart people have just given up trying to reason with them

#205 to #161 - anon id: 5f693515

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

A. You know who else was Christian? The people who were recently charged with starving their child, and killing and burying another in their back yard.
B. Suicide is one hundred times easier with a gun than anything else.
C. Nobody argues with Fox viewers because ninety percent of Fox viewers don't debate, they argue the same moot points about 'muh freedums'.
D. Red Eye is decent, I've never watched Stossel, but then again, the majority of Fox viewers watch entirely for Bill O'Riley.
E. Indeed.

#244 to #205 - latiel

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

A: Anecdotal fallacy. You can't pick out a single extreme example and call it the norm.
B: People are going to commit suicide with whatever they can use. Guns are not a factor in that.

Don't know enough about your other points to comment.

#253 to #161 - yusay

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Only few times I've seen Stossel I love the guy.

#2 - thesoulseeker

Reply +13 123456789123345869

(11/24/2013) [-]

"Leave the Bulgarians alone and kind of go into the middle east"?! What?

#7 to #2 - hahovec

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/24/2013) [-]

You a Bulgarian?

#34 to #7 - jabzilla

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

im guessing you dont take kindly to their kind?

#277 to #34 - hahovec

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

I am one of "their kind" 0_o

#278 to #277 - thesoulseeker

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

I am one of "their kind" as well, saying that I don't take too kindly to my kind. (Some of them at least)

#279 to #278 - hahovec

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

I know what you talkin' bout!

#280 to #279 - warbob

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

bitches we kind of know the Human kind shouldn't be taken too kindly despite being our own kind

#177 to #2 - niggerballs

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Yeah I don't get that either.

#69 - mrhotwings

Reply -9 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Does no one know that Fox News has lied tons of times about stuff? I'm not going into specifics but they have lied for views, btw if you're reading this, you're beautiful and awesome

#120 to #69 - undeadwill

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Everyone lies, the young turks, fox, cnn, and etc.

#134 to #69 - mrhotwings

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/25/2013) [-]

Ok so it seems people don't understand what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying other news stations haven't lied I have no clue why or how you thought that , I'm saying this because people seem to be defending Fox News as if they weren't bad at all even though they lie a lot. And seriously, can someone point to in my previous comment where I said that other news stations don't lie?