Pioneer1

Daniel Lol, I don't know about YOUR household man, but we didn't have roaches in OUR house! "I'm not sleeping. I'm just resting my eyes."

Daniel Kamala raised bail money 💰 for BLM "Really....Daniel?" But Kamala didn't make speeches that incited a racist mob to loot, vandalize, and murder. That's what Kamala DIDN'T do.

Del Every Soul is worth saving, but not every soul is worth buying. I can't recall who said this. I don't either. But if YOU'RE quoting it...I'm pretty sure it was from some White man with glasses, LOL "Does not knowing the size of the Universe invalidate it's existence? Does not having an erection since highschool invalidate the need for a penis? Questions worth discussing......" Troy Then why did you even write the statement?! To make a point. OK, it is painfully obvious that you can not explain how this guy used social media to successfully boycott a store. You don't know even know what this guy's reach is. This could have been all be made up as far I can tell. Can you at least share a tweet, or Facebook post, the guy made so that I can see the engagement. Your asking me questions about his methods and how many followers he has and I'm telling you that it doesn't matter because whatever the answers are....IT WORKED. You can't see the forest because you're focused on a couple trees and a woodpecker flying back and forth between the two. Who cares how many people he reached....he reached ENOUGH. The man used social media to HELP him reach a critical mass of supporters for his mission to shut down a racist gas station. Now could he have done it WITHOUT social media? Probably. But it would probably have been much harder because he would have had to find another way to reach a large audience without those platforms which also would have taken him much longer. As far as him making him up, I highly doubt that....but if he did I could replace HIS example with 15 dozen others of people who have successfully used social media to reach massive amounts of people. Again, this is why we need GOOD JOURNALISM! YOU need good journalism. I need FACTS, and when I get them I can make up my own mind and come to my own conclusions.

Troy What I was trying to point out was that people can view the same information completely differently, in much the same way you and Danielle view trump differently. I already understood this and agree with you; and going by that SAME LOGIC do you see the potential problem that arises when ALL your news comes from journalists who also have THEIR OWN views and style of presenting information? We need alternative sources. Why do you think that is? Wishful thinking is part of human nature. As far as me and @daniellegfny.... Our differing views can EASILY be explained by differing IQ's, lol. This is what Trumps says too. This is why he has so many followers and this is why we need good journalism. People who use social media as their primary news source will be confused and can easily draw completely different conclusions and THIS is the problem I'm lamenting. JUST because Trump says something, doesn't necessarily make it wrong. Trump also says we need to support our families and protect the children...should we NOT support that or agree with it simply because Trump says it? Does the following accurately explain your position @Pioneer1? We are better severed getting raw information provided by the general public via social media for us to judge individually, than we are getting vetted, fact checked, thoughtfully reported information from trained journalists. Journalists "spin" stories, tell us how to think, and we don't really need them. Does that sum it up? No, that view takes us to the OTHER EXTREME. That sounds like a quote from one of those right-wing blogs. I'm not against ALL journalism nor do I feel like journalism is the ONLY way to go...I prefer a BALANCE from multiple (including alternative) sources. Start dismissing news you get from social media and pretty soon AfroAmerican news sources will be called in-credible and not worthy of consideration. Only corporate owned mega-media outlets (half owned by am*zon and the other half by Wal-Mart the way things are going) will give you your ALL your news.

Troy Then at least show me how you know that the tweet was viewed by 20 million people. I can't show you....because I don't know it. Your question focuses on specific data. My point focuses on the PRINCIPLE (of mass communications). Whether he reached 20 million or 20 thousand...he reached ENOUGH through social media to be effective!

Troy True, that was the opinion of the morning drive time DJ here in Tulsa, based upon reporting. Yes, which is my point! You're lauding reports laced with OPINIONS as an example of why we need professional journalism. I'm using those SAME reports as an example of why we don't. I don't need them to tell me whether the brother "deserves" a medal or not. Just report what he did and show us the video and let US make up our minds as to what he deserves. Absolutely! I was not there. I do not know enough to provide context. I have not done any research, interviewed witnesses, video the incident, nit have you what make me wonder why you think you know so much? I don't. It's not about how much I don't know or do know because my issue with them isn't over who knows the most. My issues with the mainstream media are: 1. Manipulating information about an event 2. Telling me how I SHOULD feel about an event.....i.e. telling us the brother "deserves" an award for his behavior. If you know what happened, simply TELL ME THE TRUTH about it and MOVE ON to the next story. I don't need you to stand there with a mike in your hand holding a 5 minute monologue about the motivation for the event, whether or not it will help Trump get elected, and who you think was behind it. I could not help but do it because she was gonna argue with me about something I experienced and something she obviously know little about. Again people get an idea in their head and they do not let go of it -- despite access to better information -- indeed the reject it. Oh? So NOW anecdotal reports are acceptable...lol. After all these years of arguing with me over the relevance of anecdotal evidence, your story just made my point. WITNESSING and EXPERIENCING events tend to be more reliable than simply believing reports from those who neither experienced nor witnessed them but are just PARROTING information (that often is inaccurate) they got from other sources. Hummm again this is not based upon any evidence, just your opinion to justify your world view. Well, without providing any evidence let me just ask the question.... Do you believe that some people who deny climate change actually DO believe in it but are being paid or otherwise compensated to push a certain narrative? Everything you've written is an example of the concrete thinking that @Delano described. Delano gives Tarot card readings and believes astrology will tell him the future...lol. Anything OUTSIDE of his imaginary world will be seen as "concrete thinking" to him because being GROUNDED in reality is too "concrete". On the flip side, the philosophical ramblings of those Caucasians he recently posted is likely an example of this "conceptual thinking" he so admires...lol. Changing your mind based upon better or new information is not a sign of weakness man. It is, if that information is false or comes from dubious sources. If you believe everything people tell you, you'll get labeled as a sucka...lol.

Delano Well done. It is neither my job nor my responsibility to reduce your ignorance. You have helped me answer a question I had today. How to respond to people, who assume they are in the right and I that am mistaken or some how misguided. Unlike Troy I no longer want to make an effort to communicate ideas with concrete thinkers, it is too hard. Lol..... You can't even post a LINK in this forum properly....but you want to accuse others of being ignorant? You didn't answer my question because you COULDN'T answer it...and you knew it. Accusing me of being "ignorant" is just your excuse to deflect and duck out of the challenge. "I know Kung Fu and Akido but I don't want to waste my time on you so I'm hiding my true stength." Troy I do too but not in the face of people more informed on a subject. Journalism is about reporting on recent events...which tend to change from day to day. Generally they are no more informed on those events than the viewers they're reaching (often times not AS informed). Their only job should be to REPORT THE FACTS and not delve deeper into opinion and speculation behind those facts. Show me or tell me what happened and leave it at that. I don't need to hear a back-story or a long a list of inappropriate ADJECTIVES mixed in with it. I find foreign media like the Guardian, Al jazeera, BBC's to be superior to American Media. If they are it's not because of their superior writing skills but because they offer the public more FACTS that pertain to the event and less opinion and fluff. I'm not missing your point because you've failed make one. How exactly did the social media save energy? If you fail to see how putting out a tweet to be viewed by 20 million is more efficient and saves a person a lot more energy than going outside in the cold and personally looking for 20 million people to talk to...I'm not sure what else to tell you, lol. You are equating the reach of some unknown dude on Twitter (is that the platform right?) with that of Don Lemon on CNN?! I'm equating the same PRINCIPLE of mass communication. In this instance I'm not talking about professionalism, journalism, or even accuracy of the facts....I'm talking about MASS COMMUNICATION and the ability of social media to reach MILLIONS of people with a particular message (good or bad).

Daniel The Antifa/BLM cost Billions of dollars. Over 25 people died. More evidence of the disinformation campaign be waged against Trump. You quoted from Loretta Lynch, Chris Cuomo, Ayanna Pressley, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters. NONE of the people you listed (most of whom are AfroAmericans....which I find interesting) belonged to Antifa or BLM. Nor has any direct violence been linked to them or anything they've said. You're trying to CONFLATE things in order to muddy the waters.

Troy Again this is a consequence of the web, reporters say the Brother deserves a medal and you call it "spin." The key word in your statement is "deserve". They think he DESERVES a medal isn't a report of FACTS but a report of FEELINGS and DESIRES. It's pretty much them giving their opinion i.e. their SPIN on it. When journalists can't be trusted at all, and people debate reality the republic is in jeopardy. And this illustrates the difference between your and my position. You believe that others can GIVE you a more accurate assessment of reality than you can give yourself. The only thing I expect for a "good" journalist to do is give me as many FACTS (not opinions) as they can muster up and then let me decide for myself how to feel about a situation. This is why so many people don't believe the election results, climate change, or the effecacy of the vaccine. Journalism or the lack thereof has nothing to do with the majority of those who deny these issues. Did the fact that they really DO believe in the truth of them but PRETEND not to in order to hide their true intentions -ever cross your mind? In other words.... Did it ever occur to you that most of those who stormed the Capitol the other day claiming they did it because Trump was cheated out of the election REALLY DIDN'T BELIEVE IT AND KNEW HE LOST but were just looking for an EXCUSE to be violent and raise hell against? Same with climate change. Many people KNOW it exists but they deny it for various reasons that prove to be more beneficial to them like being paid NOT to admit to it...lol

Delano "There are two dictionaries that I would consult. Oxford and Merriam-Webster. Start there and let me know how you go. Otherwise I have nothing to say concerning your request." Well.... It appears that this is YOUR WAY of admitting you can't answer the question, so I'll move on........ Troy Yes that is why we need people to dig deeper, for what you and I "see" is largely driven by or biases and attitudes -- none of which has anything to do with what actually happened. Do you see why we need trained journalists? I can see why YOU need trained journalists...lol. You obviously don't trust yourself to believe what you can clearly see and need to have it "explained" to you. I find that this is not the case for me MOST of the time. I trust my observation skills and reasoning. Come on man, that goes without saying. Why would you even say something like that unless you are trying to say, like Trump, that all journalists lie? I don't believe all journalists lie but I believe most people have NARRATIVES and AGENDAS that they push depending on their perspectives and who's paying them. That's why you have certain publications KNOWN to be Conservative and others KNOWN to be left-leaning. How can you trust the stories will be given to you fairly from institutions well known and established for their social and political leanings? You know successful boycotts existed long before social media was invented right? That said, on the surface, it seems unlikely that social media was only or even the primary reason the boycott was successful. I suspect he was physically there discouraging people from using the gas station and shared what he was doing on social Am I missing anything? You're missing my point...... It's not about whether or not social media is responsible for his success, it's the role social media played in making it EASIER and MORE EFFICIENT for him to reach the masses. This equates to him having to put in less work and expend less energy..which is usually a good thing. OK, how? By the same principle Don Lemon of CNN doesn't have to personally knock on the doors of 53 million Americans to sit down in their living rooms and tell them the news face to face. All he has to do is broadcast it from the wide reaching platform called CNN and one show will reach tens of millions. Social media operates on that same principle of mass communication. "Ladies and gentlemen, if there's ANY man who is such a turn-off he could actually make me STRAIGHT.....I just found him."

Daniel Infiltration has been a common practice over the last two years. That's like saying racists have to "infiltrate" a lynch mob...lol. Why would people infiltrate an organization made up OF those with their mentality? That crowd was angry, racist, and violent...no need to infiltrate or aggrevate them. All they needed was the spark or the "go ahead" to do what they did and Agent Orange gave it to them. Only one of these was considered violent and hateful... Because only one of them led to violence that left over 4 people dead and millions of dollars worth of damage. Wanna take a lucky guess WHO the prize goes to? The head of state doesn’t have a rebellion or insurrection against himself. That's why it's called INCITEMENT. You don't do it YOURSELF, you get OTHERS to do it for you while you sit stand back from a far off roof top and a long black coat watching with an evil smirk on your face....lol "I'll show 'em. I'll show everybody!"

Troy If I were to speculate it looks like he was communicating with fellow officers which is probably why he had back up at the end of the video. That's fairly obvious the way he kept clicking on the radio. However that's not ALL he was doing; he was also trying to keep them back while trying to get the hell away from them at the same time. I think he was justified in drawing his weapon and firing on people who deliberately failed to comply with his instructions. He could only hope blasting a couple of people would have gotten the others to disperse, You would think that. Atleast based on OUR (not being trained police officers) reasoning. Not only was it a large hostile crowd coming towards him and disobeying order but some of them had weapons on them and were threatening him. Some Caucasian officers have killed unarmed AfroAmericans for LESS than that. He also had MACE which would have been a pretty good deterrent for most of them and probably would have kept them from advancing....not sure why he didn't use it. he did was probably what he was trained to do. See, I'm not sure about that one. Many officers are trained to NOT allow themselves to get put in a position where they are helpless and their weapons could be TAKEN from them and used either against them or someone else. If he had a deadly weapon and refused to use it against those who WOULD use it against him or on someone else, and those people got him in a vulnerable or unconscious position who know what damage could result from that. Again good reporting would have explained all of this. I rather wait for that reporting. Has any been released? You mean "good reporting" would have EXPLAINED IT AWAY. Instead of letting us see the raw video of him retreating (for whatever reason) we would be getting the spin we're getting now that he was making a "strategic move" to direct them away from the Senators and how he deserves a medal for bravery. Give me a break...lol.

Troy Consider the video that you watched of the brother running from the mob who stormed the Congress, you felt the brother was running away in fear and worthy of ridicule. While the truth is that he is a hero, who led an angry mob away from the senators. NO...I don't think the brother should be ridiculed (not by me). I don't know what I would do if I were in that brothers position (but then again....I'm not a trained police officer) so I'm not going to clown on him. But the VISUALS of it makes it looks as if it's just another scared Black man running from White men. Even when he has a uniform and weapons..he'll run. That's not MY attitude but those are the conclusions some will come to based on what they saw. Someone posting cell phone video on social media is a pathetic replacement for professional reporting. True..... However I'd take an unsophisticated and raw TRUTH over a polished and well dressed LIE. I don't care how professional and well polished a person is, if the information they're giving you is INCORRECT....how can you make proper decisions with it? would you just summarize what the brother did, to use social media in the meaningful way, as described in the video I listen to the first few minutes of it and it was really kind of hard, I can't tolerate a whole hour of that kind of content. LOL....what is it..too much cussing? Or are the behavior of the men speaking too ghetto acting to tolerate? You know the host is Willie D a pretty popular rapper from the Geto Boys of the late 80s and early 90s. But the brother he was interviewing was basically saying how he used Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social media to bring attention to and galvanize support for boycotting and shutting down a gas station that was disrepecting his community. The focus of the show wasn't social media, but as I was listening to him the other night and he mentioned it a few times I thought about our conversation and decided to use it as an example of the POSITIVE aspects of social media. Also explain how what he did could not have been done without social media. It COULD have been done without social media. Dr. King organized a much bigger boycott down in the Deep South back in 1955 before social media was a thought in the minds of most. Social media didn't make it POSSIBLE for him to galvanize and organize, it just made it MUCH EASIER and more efficient (which is a plus).

Troy I've heard many people say that and I'm trying to figure out how they arrived at that conclusion based on what they saw in that video. It's clear he was trying to discourage them from going further and trying to get away from them not trying to "direct" them in any particular direction. Let me also say that I don't know what I would do if I were in HIS situation so I'm not trying to be too hard on the brother, however..... Regardless of his INTENTIONS most people around the world who see this video will see it as a Black man in uniform RUNNING from a mob of angry White men. Those are the visuals. Most men around the world are going to see him as running. At any rate.... Here's the video of what he was doing, you tell ME what it looks like he was doing:

An example a POSITIVE use of social media: He managed to get a racist gas station to shut down by using social media to expose what was going on and gather support.

Daniel Covert operation??? How "covert" could this have been when Trump was out there clearly inciting that crowd of 30,000 + people riling them up and instructing them to go down to the Capitol and raise hell?

Troy OK I see the problem you are looking at this from only your narrow self interest. If I looked at the WWW is has been a great benefit to me. It has allowed me to do something I think is relevant and given me some freedom an autonomy, but collectively I wonder if, net-net, society has been disserved by the WWW. What is societal interest....besides a collection of INDIVIDUAL interests? Perhaps what you see is a pathology in society may be seen as entertainment and fun to those engaging in it. I think Gangsta Rap is pathological and promotes violence, disharmony, and drug use. However Ice Cube, Dr. Dre, T.I. and other Gangsta Rappers will differ with my opinion because what I see as a pathology made THEM rich. I fail to see the distinction. The difference between the TOOL called "social media" and the MOTIVATION behind creating that tool can be likened to the TOOL commonly known as gun powder that was developed by the Chinese for the MOTIVATION of celebration but Caucasians found it and used it to make weapons against the motives of the founders. Tools aren't always used in agreement with the motives of those who invent them. Again, I'm talking about collectively. If you took all the people who made money on twitter and factored all the damage it has done, was the trade off worth it to society collectively? For society in general...I would say yes. The good that social media offers the society IN GENERAL seems to outweigh the bad. For AfroAmericans collectively...I would say no. The bad of social media so far has outweighed the good. Is talking on Twitter really than just talking to friends or joining a club? What about the kids holed up in the room swiping through tick-tock rather than going out to play.. Perhaps with what's going on in the world today the kid IS better off in his room communicating on social media than being out exposing themselves to alcohol, abuse, or Covid. No. That is why we need good journalists and better reporting. Some amateur video pushed out onto the web without context is not helpful at all. We've seen many videos of situations that were very misleading, because they did not show everything that happened before. Of course there is the issue of "deep fakes," which can not be ignored. I want the information I see vetted. You're talking about exceptions. I'm talking about generally speaking. Generally speaking when an amateur puts a video of a crime or shocking incident that happens in public out for the world to see they haven't "doctored" it to the point that you can't tell what's going on. You may not get the FULL context of exactly what transpired but if what you see is so shocking like a cop killing a 6 year old unarmed kid....how much context DO you need to see to make up your mind of what happened? One of the worse consequences of the WWW has been the gutting of journalism. It has led the rose of deep fakes, misinformation, and alternative facts. "News" has became a revenue stream and society has definitely suffered as a result. Journalism was jacked up and manipulated long before the advent of social media....lol. Society has been complaining about the editing and censorship of newsworthy material for DECADES. I remember as a kid growing up I'd see something happen in my neighborhood and then run to the television to catch it on the 6 o'clock news and what they report is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from what me and my friends witnessed. Now a days it's harder for them to do that because they never know when a video shot by a citizen on their cell phone might "surface" and blow a hole through their entire story. Yes, Pioneer has a tendency to fixate on minor details and fails to see the bigger picture. Part of the reason I believe is that Pioneer struggles at conceptually thinking is that he focuses on the individual cases, personal experience, and the like. But most people do this, it is human nature, we are moved by personal stories. Also relying on personal experiences and observations helps to guard you from being manipulated by those with agendas to control and steer your thinking. If you put more faith in "data" being presented to you from the media than you do in what you've actually seen with your own two eyes...you are literally being GIVEN your reality instead of experiencing it. Delano @Delano Don't argue with a person that can't think conceptually. Since they can't understand what you are saying. Can you CLEARLY define "conceptual thinking"?

Yeah, they showed that Caucasian officer briefly.... But their FAVORITE clip of that Insurrection and failed Coup attempt was the that Black police officer being chased up the stairs by that Caucasian mob. They LOVE to show that brutha running and looking afraid and confused. They'll show that clip over and over and over again and broadcast it around the world. If there's anything they love more than seeing a Black man being chased by a mob of red-necks, it's a Black man IN UNIFORM with weapons STILL running and being chased by red-necks.

Troy Liberty is a state of being LIGHTLY restricted. Usually only basic laws or rules to protect the safety and privacy of the general public. What most Caucasians have enjoyed in the United States right up until recently was LIBERTY (not freedom) and they're angry because that liberty is in jeopardy. Sometimes it is hard tell the difference between dishonest person, a troll, and someone who is dumb. That's because sometimes they're all rolled into one...lol

Obama was inexperience in holding an EXECUTIVE OFFICE. His only prior experiences were that of legislation and academia.

Stefan No, what I said was an absolute FACT. You literally quoted NOTHING....lol.

Troy Yes, I know but I'm questioning if the good out weights the bad That's like asking does the good of MONEY outweigh it's bad. Or does the good of ENERGY outweigh it's bad. Tools are tools, it depends on HOW they're being used and WHO is using them. Social media is good for me because it helps me get some of my ideas out and I get to meet people and exchange ideas. I've known some people who've gotten into fights and have legal problems because of their interactions on social media. But so far, despite how good it's been for me and many others....in my opinion social media has been bad for MOST AfroAmericans collectively because it causes to many to engage in un-productive and counter-productive behavior. But again, it's not necessarily social media's fault but the MOTIVATION behind it's creators and it's users. Again I know, but why are the unsubstantiated musings of the average schmos a better? 1. It's usually good for them as an individual (as long as they aren't calling for unjustified violence) to get their frustrations off their chest...kind of like therapy. Sometimes it helps to just talk. 2. Following that previous point, verbalizing their frustrations to a listening audience will release some of that pint up frustration and MAY prevent them from going out and doing something reckless. Still I question whether this incredible tool has done more harm than good. It's highly individualistic. A LOT of people are making money off of Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube...and not just the founders but a lot of average people who are in business who ordinarily wouldn't be in business or wouldn't be making AS much. It has certainly benefited THEM. While at the same time...as I said earlier some people have gotten into fights and legal problems over the content they shared on social media. It's not about good or bad or good over bad it's about good for who AND bad for who. Have the videos you talked about resulted in fewer police killing or more prosecutions? Has the pandemic ranged any less, have we gotten better politicians, has wealth disparity lessened, have the population become better educated, have life expectancies increased, have opiod drug addiction been reduced? Great question: I don't know the answer to it. I will say that I'm certainly glad that I'm able to get raw video in a lot of these cases that would ordinarily have been smothered in a lot of gravy and heavily edited if even talked about AT ALL on mainstream media. Wouldn't you rather have the raw uncut TRUTH so that you can make up your own mind about what's happening in your environment?

I doubt we would have had to deal with 4 years of 45 were it not for social media. Is the ability share memes with friends with the trade-off? Social media is a TOOL...and like most tools they can be used for good or bad. For example..... Besides giving the average person a platform to get their ideas out to the masses (something the average joe couldn't do 30 years ago), another good thing about social media is you have people who can give you more accurate and immediate details about an event as it unfolds BEFORE the mainstream media get's a chance to edit it and spin the story. For the past 5 years or so people have been tweeting pictures and videos of things like unarmed AfroAmericans being killed by the police that in the old days would be covered up or spun in the editing room to make the brother look like the bad guy. If an innocent man is being gunned down on Facebook live and 20 million people see it....it's pretty balsy for Fox News or CNN to turn around and report that people didn't see what they all just saw.

Troy Both posts are lies, but do you see why I approved one but not the other? Yeah... You hate scammers and spammers more than you hate racists, lol. It appears that you may be confusing FREEDOM with LIBERTY. There's a significant difference. Freedom means NO RULES and NO CONSEQUENCES. I don't know of any society (this or anywhere else) where you can say what you feel without any consequences. Does your freedom of speech allow you to threaten public officials? Actually this forum does allow one to block the posts of another user from being seen. I think this defeats the purpose of being in these forums and worsens the experience but it can be done. A lot of platforms carry this feature. I don't find it very appealing, I want to KNOW what my adversary thinks and is saying about me...lol. Nothing anyone has written so far has irritated me to the point that I'd rather just not see their posts or acknowledge their existence. That sounds like a feature a FEMALE would really enjoy...lol. They love "ignoring" people. When I was in my early 20s there was this very attractive woman from Nicaragua I used to work with and every time we got into an argument about something after while she would just turn her back to me and fold her arms. MADE ME ANGRY!!!! Man I couldn't believe how angry it made me! And she KNEW it....lol. Come to find out as I got older it made MOST men angry for women to do that to them...which is why she did it. I've seen her and other women do it to men and smile or giggle with their backs turned KNOWING how frustrating that shit is.....lol. I've been involved with a few women who would do that, although I find the women who do it the most seem to come either from Latin America or the Middle East. As angry as it made me, there was also something attractive and "feminine" about it because I never saw men do that in an argument.

Troy The man (or men) who raise a boy does not have to be the biological father. No, absolutely not. Infact, in the very near future (this year actually) when we begin to build our own communities we will be building new family structures and many if not most of the families will have father who are NOT the biological fathers of the children but will treat them as such. I thought Obama was raised by a grandfather. Yes he was very successful, but based upon your criteria, so was Donald Trump... Success is meeting goals. Doing what you set out to do. Both of them aspired to the highest office in this government and both of them achieved those goals.