Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Have the FunnyJunk newsletter e-mailed to you
Rank #3133 on Comments
Level 215 Comments: Comedic Genius
Send mail to legaleliminator
Invite legaleliminator to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Highest Content Rank:
Highest Comment Rank:
Content Level Progress:
Level 126 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 127 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress:
Level 215 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 216 Comments: Comedic Genius
Times Content Favorited:
Total Comments Made:
What people say about legaleliminator
latest user's comments
You gotta admit they tried
You gotta admit they tried
No it's actually just Jojo
Anime vs manga
- Don't present a simple photo edit that could have easily have …
The anti Israel bias
How about the BBC showing footage of the Berkeley pro-Trump free speech rally that was attacked by Antifa thugs and claiming it was a rally against Trump attacked by Trump supporters just two weeks ago?
Can I claim bias now?
"I didn't take long for Facebook to point out the BBC's glaring error..." It took far less time for Facebook to delete every comment denouncing the BBC's lies.
Yeah, you can tell this image gets tossed around a lot too. Look at all the grain and blurry quality,
**bakagaijin used "*roll picture*"**
How about "this is how easy it is to manipulate a picture to push an agenda... only believe half of what you see"
YES, FIGHT THE IDEA OF FACEBOOK SHARED PICTURE NEWS.
I'll present you a problem though, one can edit photos before presenting them and by no means need to show the full picture to anyone. Hell as far as the editors know, that's the reality of whatever they're provided. This is unrelated to what you said.
I remember doing research on photo manipulation and it's some interesting stuff that's really hard to pin down.
Your point however is valid, many of these "sloppy" edits are not the best example because at least some people will see the "real" image. The real issue images are the ones where no one feasibly can see the truth. And pinning those down is pretty hard.
I approve of these simple ones because it opens up people to begin showing some doubt when they see media presentation, and in some cases provide the means for people to ask questions instead of blindly taking what they are given. Anything that promotes critical thinking is great in my mind.
I think the point of contention was that it was "liberal media bias is a thing, just look at this". It is as little a proof of liberal media bias as a caricature saying "I am left/right wing, I am wrong, stupid and badly drawn, look at me" is proof of that political view being factually wrong.
Same incident. If we compare what is being left out, Breitbart never mentions that the girl even accused the man of groping her before she punched him, and while posting the video, barely mentions that she was sprayed afterwards.
CBS on the other hand focuses almost exclusively on the age of the girl and the fact she was pepper sprayed. In their run-through of the incident, they go directly from her accusing the man of groping her to her getting pepper sprayed. Only later is the punching mentioned, and starts out with a police statement, that leaves the punch out.
Are either lying? Or are they simply not reporting on things, that harm their narrative? I find it hard to argue that they weren't either dishonest or jumped the gun in their reporting. And that goes for both sites.
I would argue that leaving out certain information (no matter how much correct information you provide) is considered misinformation and is thus not presenting the "whole truth" of what is being reported on. Sometimes this is because they didn't gather all the info in time, or they missed something (happens a lot actually, I endorse reporters having stronger ethics and putting more effort into figuring everything out before sending it out). Like it or not though, media is a business and they do what is profitable. So they will without question do questionable practice to get more views. It's sad as hell, but it's the truth of the matter.
Cavalry is Here
- Good job Antifa...
- it's funny because she was originally going to be British.
Halo in a nutshell
That would explain why she says "sod off" to guilty spark. Sod off isn't really used in American lingo
I'd say that was so they could put a line with the same magnitude as "fuck off" in the game without using words that are considered swears in America
times and rules might have been different back in 2001, but with an M rated game you traditionally get a little wiggle room in terms of swearing so saying "fuck off" would've been okay once or twice, though not having it set a standard for the rest of the series since they haven't said fuck yet
Well I meant in the sense of it still being what she says. But I think the fact that there's no high-end cursing only expands its player base; the halo games have always been a very soft M.
I know, and personally I think it's because a script writing hiccup considering bungie was still a small team back then. I could see that, yeah; the halo games hardly have any cursing and the M's based more on the violence. Halo 5 however is a T rating
a good example though of players taking cursing into their own hands for halo games is Red vs Blue, particularly the older seasons
Is it really! I didn't play halo 5 but I'm surprised it's T. Standards must have been raised with games like GTA V and GoW on the market.
I haven't played it much either, but to date it's the lowest rated and least well-received halo game thus far. I think its rating came from the fact it has less cursing in it than other games or something, I know halo 2 was also almost a T rated game. Games like GTA V and Gears of War
one more than the other
really prove how much can be allowed for an M rated game, though Gears is from a fuckload of swearing and heavy dismemberment
holy crap ha ha
Show Comments (1)