What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The price of embracing right wing media (1 Viewer)

rockaction said:
Anyway, I'm not getting hung up in this thread. This sounds like another one of your harangues about media bias and the MSM. We do this to death every day. I've written extensively on these boards about the danger of only watching the right-wing news outlets. They're utterly preposterous. It's fact-free stuff in right-wing land. But the MSM is barely better. When an event's facts counters their accepted narrative, they shove the story into the narrative like a square peg in a round hole. Or they omit facts.

It's at crucial levels. You should ask "What is the price of the mainstream media's need to put things into leftist narratives?" Because it's a high price to pay, IMO.
Click to expand...
Leave it to tim to make media bias a purely right wing issue.

 
jon_mx said:
The danger is blindly accepting propaganda.  I am becoming more and more convinced the tech giants control of the distribution of information is the biggest threat to losing our freedom of speech that we have ever faced.  And this idea that we must accept what the media tells us is utter nonsense straight out of the mouths of the likes of Joseph Goebbels.  
Click to expand...
Exactly.  This x 1,000.  

 
BladeRunner said:
I can honestly say I've never seen anyone fight so hard FOR the MSM.  If we didn't know any better, one would think Tim literally works for the NYTimes, WaPo or CNN.

If the MSM were to actually start producing real truth and facts (and just the facts, ma'am), my guess is the Liberals would be up in arms and outraged and they would then be calling the MSM "Fake News".  That's how different it would be.  The left has had cover and protection and "their truth" for so long, I don't think they realize what real news is anymore.  To them, the current MSM IS real news.  It ain't.
Click to expand...
Tim’s belief that there is no Liberal bias in the MSM is one of the most severe cases of cognitive dissonance I’ve ever seen in my life. Honestly it’s embarrassing.  One thing we can all agree on is that no amount of polling or studies will change his mind.  He will carry this viewpoint to his grave, come hell or high water.

 
Let me guess.  Believe the left leaning media and ignore the right leaning media?  And the left leaning media makes mistakes and the right leaning media intentionally misleads?

 
I watch "right wing" media mainly because they report what the "left wing" media refuses to report.

If you really watch, you will see that this is what they spend most of their time doing....reporting what the left wing will not report....or pointing out the parts of their reported stories that were "cut because of time constraints".

 
Opie said:
I watch "right wing" media mainly because they report what the "left wing" media refuses to report.

If you really watch, you will see that this is what they spend most of their time doing....reporting what the left wing will not report....or pointing out the parts of their reported stories that were "cut because of time constraints".
Click to expand...
There's a lot to this.  

 
jon_mx said:
More utter nonsense as I know you accuse me of this.  I haven't consumed any mainstream media since January 6th.  My exposure to it is mostly in this forum.  My obsession with it is only because how horrible it at misleading people and drumming up the race war..  it is nothing but a cancer to our society. 
Click to expand...
What sources do you consume and trust?

 
Alex P Keaton said:
What sources do you consume and trust?
Click to expand...
I don't consume any source.  Usually if a story interests me from something I see here, I will search out facts from any source.  Look for facts, ignore rhetoric and conclusions. Then are skeptical of facts.  Try to verify facts and fill in holes that seem to not make sense with the given narrative being presented. 

I generally dislike all sources because they shape the story to fit an agenda.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
The Commish said:
This is a wonderful question, but just take a brief perusal of damn near any thread here and there are people absolutely obsessed with our ####ty media pissing and moaning about it 24x7 all the while willfully consuming it like a crackhead on payday.  
Click to expand...
More utter nonsense as I know you accuse me of this.  I haven't consumed any mainstream media since January 6th.  My exposure to it is mostly in this forum.  My obsession with it is only because how horrible it at misleading people and drumming up the race war..  it is nothing but a cancer to our society. 
Click to expand...
I made no mention of you :lmao:

You're telling on yourself both by assuming I am talking about you and then the bold :lol:    This forum isn't the MSM.  It provides links sure.  You are only exposed if you click those links or read the articles if posted.  Not that complicated.  I don't really give the smallest #### WHY you are obsessed with it.  I just wish you guys would quit feeding the beast.  :shrug:  

 
timschochet said:
Allow me to express my objection to Ivan’s assertion. Yes there is very good information there if you are a discerning reader. Yes sometimes the information is more complete than you’ll get in the mainstream media, and sometimes it even contradicts the mainstream media (though not all that often.) All this is to the good. 
But it’s surrounded by an incredible amount of ignorance, science skepticism, and politicizing which makes the thread unreadable at times. So no, it’s not superior to the MSM. It’s far far worse IMO. 
Click to expand...
um....no.  Even the usuals are squashed out pretty quickly when they come in with their nonsense.

 
FairWarning said:
I'm lucky I have IPTV.  Most others are offered McDonalds or BK for options, so that is what they know.
Click to expand...
And that's part of the problem.  If I'm so lazy that I'm going with McD's when a whole food farmer's market is right next door because I don't care enough to make that small effort to see what is right next door, then that's on me too.  The internet is FULL of great resources.  Hell, people throw them out here all the time.  PLENTY of "just the fact ma'am" sources out there, but it MIGHT be three clicks instead of two :shrug:  

 
timschochet said:
Allow me to express my objection to Ivan’s assertion. Yes there is very good information there if you are a discerning reader. Yes sometimes the information is more complete than you’ll get in the mainstream media, and sometimes it even contradicts the mainstream media (though not all that often.) All this is to the good. 
But it’s surrounded by an incredible amount of ignorance, science skepticism, and politicizing which makes the thread unreadable at times. So no, it’s not superior to the MSM. It’s far far worse IMO. 
Click to expand...
You're thinking of the PSF version of the covid thread.  The FFA version has been great and contains mostly none of the stuff you mentioned.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
You're thinking of the PSF version of the covid thread.  The FFA version has been great and contains mostly none of the stuff you mentioned.
Click to expand...
What percentage of Americans a) spend the time to seek out these types of sources, b) are capable of parsing through competing information, c) arriving at a rational perspective from this sort of exercise?

I seriously doubt most of my extended family are capable of doing what you suggest.   They need a consistent, reliable source of accurate info.

Maybe I’m jaded.  Maybe I’m too pessimistic.  Maybe I’m flat out wrong.  

 
Alex P Keaton said:
IvanKaramazov said:
You're thinking of the PSF version of the covid thread.  The FFA version has been great and contains mostly none of the stuff you mentioned.
Click to expand...
What percentage of Americans a) spend the time to seek out these types of sources, b) are capable of parsing through competing information, c) arriving at a rational perspective from this sort of exercise?

I seriously doubt most of my extended family are capable of doing what you suggest.   They need a consistent, reliable source of accurate info.

Maybe I’m jaded.  Maybe I’m too pessimistic.  Maybe I’m flat out wrong.
Click to expand...
We all need a consistent, reliable source of accurate information.  But I don't believe it's a question of ability.  It's a question of desire.  Hell, i've even done the work for my family, but they like their shows that fit their narrative.  It's like they're in some sort of "#### it....I'm old and don't care about challenging myself anymore"  mentality.  My BIL and I talk about this all the time comparing the parents who raised us to the parents we are now taking care of.  They couldn't be more opposite.  

 
Alex P Keaton said:
What percentage of Americans a) spend the time to seek out these types of sources, b) are capable of parsing through competing information, c) arriving at a rational perspective from this sort of exercise?

I seriously doubt most of my extended family are capable of doing what you suggest.   They need a consistent, reliable source of accurate info.

Maybe I’m jaded.  Maybe I’m too pessimistic.  Maybe I’m flat out wrong.  
Click to expand...
Most people are unwilling to do this sort of stuff.  These are the folks who are most harmed by the MSM imploding upon itself. 

 
timschochet said:
For years now I have warned my conservative friends, both in this forum and elsewhere, not to reject the mainstream media: If you find errors, fine, point them out. If you find bias at times, fine, point it out. But do NOT replace the MSM with right wing talk and right wing journals. It’s dangerous to reject reality, and there would, I predicted, be a huge price to pay. Now we are paying it: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/04/05/more-than-half-of-republicans-believe-voter-fraud-claims-and-most-still-support-trump-poll-finds/amp/

A majority of Republicans believe Biden stole the election against all evidence. 
Click to expand...
I’ll take my chances not watching msm lying to me so I possibly hear the real story somewhere else.  I’m not a Republican and didn’t vote for trump.  

 
timschochet said:
With regard to this question: since I don’t agree with your take, obviously I don’t think there is ANY price to pay. But- in the first two posts I offered 3 real time examples of the price of rejecting the MSM: believing Trump won the election, rejection of COVID solutions, rejection of climate change. These aren’t theoretical; they’re actually happening. If you have real time examples to prove your point above please provide them. 
Click to expand...
What take do you not agree with, that the MSM has liberal bias?  For The NY Times anyway, their own editors have owned it for decades, so you might as well also.

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times

New York Times Editors' Comments on Bias

In 2004, Daniel Okrent, the then-public editor of The New York Times, wrote an editorial in which he explained that when covering some social issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage, the paper did in fact have a liberal bias. 

The New York Times public editor (ombudsman) Elizabeth Spayd wrote in 2016 that "Conservatives and even many moderates, see in The Times a blue-state worldview."

Times public editor Arthur Brisbane wrote in 2012, "When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper's many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times."

Times executive editor Dean Baquet stated, "We have to be really careful that people feel like they can see themselves in The New York Times. I want us to be perceived as fair and honest to the world, not just a segment of it. It's a really difficult goal. Do we pull it off all the time? No.""

Since Eisenhower ran for president in 1956, the New York Times has not endorsed a single Republican nominee for president, but has endorsed every other Democratic candidate.
Click to expand...
If you click into my link each of the above has links to the assertions given.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
You're thinking of the PSF version of the covid thread.  The FFA version has been great and contains mostly none of the stuff you mentioned.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. 
 

But again you’re not the problem. @The Commish is not the problem. The choice, for most conservatives, is not being made between the mainstream media and better informed sources, be it the FFA, or Reuters or the BBC. The choice is between the MSM and Hannity, or the MSM and Tucker, or the MSM and Breitbart. And polling suggests they’re making the wrong choice. 

 
And nobody here has countered the original point of this thread: these folks believe the election was stolen. They’re not getting that from the mainstream media. If they listened to the MSM they would know that Trump’s claims are bogus. But they’re not listening, they don’t trust it. These are the consequences of distrusting the MSM. It’s a catastrophe. 

 
timschochet said:
For years now I have warned my conservative friends, both in this forum and elsewhere, not to reject the mainstream media: If you find errors, fine, point them out. If you find bias at times, fine, point it out. But do NOT replace the MSM with right wing talk and right wing journals. It’s dangerous to reject reality, and there would, I predicted, be a huge price to pay. Now we are paying it: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/04/05/more-than-half-of-republicans-believe-voter-fraud-claims-and-most-still-support-trump-poll-finds/amp/

A majority of Republicans believe Biden stole the election against all evidence. 
Click to expand...
  There's such a disconnect from reality with people who consume such editorialized and opinionated media.  To see the attack by many on the Trump Right against FOXs news desk (not the Hannity style shows which people treat as news shows) is amazing.  

 
timschochet said:
And nobody here has countered the original point of this thread: these folks believe the election was stolen. They’re not getting that from the mainstream media. If they listened to the MSM they would know that Trump’s claims are bogus. But they’re not listening, they don’t trust it. These are the consequences of distrusting the MSM. It’s a catastrophe. 
Click to expand...
While I agree that it is dumb to believe the election was stolen when there is no credible evidence showing this, the rejection of the mainstream media is not just a conservative thing.  I know many centrists like myself and some liberals who do not trust the MSM.  And you know why? Because they cannot be trusted. 

Edit: And if you are someone who only trusts networks that lean towards your political affiliation, I don't consider that someone who trusts the media, even if they say it when polled.  If a conservative only trusts Fox, then they do not trust the MSM; they trust Fox (who leans heavily right).  If a liberal only trusts MSNBC, then they do not trust the MSM; they trust MSNBC (who leans heavily left). 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
And nobody here has countered the original point of this thread: these folks believe the election was stolen. They’re not getting that from the mainstream media. If they listened to the MSM they would know that Trump’s claims are bogus. But they’re not listening, they don’t trust it. These are the consequences of distrusting the MSM. It’s a catastrophe. 
Click to expand...
You sound like a 2 year old screaming that your opinion is the only right opinion and everyone else is wrong for not agreeing with you.  Perhaps the MSM should quit fabricating stories, quit twisting the facts, and just report the news.  But they will never do that because they have their own biases they want to push.  Anyone with intelligence can see that.  

60 minutes edits video to do a hit piece on DeSantis and hardly a word from liberals.  If Hannity did that to a democrat, you would lose your ever loving mind.  

You replacing sho as the source police now?

 
ekbeats said:
Tim’s belief that there is no Liberal bias in the MSM is one of the most severe cases of cognitive dissonance I’ve ever seen in my life. Honestly it’s embarrassing.  One thing we can all agree on is that no amount of polling or studies will change his mind.  He will carry this viewpoint to his grave, come hell or high water.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
ekbeats said:
Tim’s belief that there is no Liberal bias in the MSM is one of the most severe cases of cognitive dissonance I’ve ever seen in my life. Honestly it’s embarrassing.  One thing we can all agree on is that no amount of polling or studies will change his mind.  He will carry this viewpoint to his grave, come hell or high water.
Click to expand...
Embarrassing? 
You may find it so, but it’s not like it’s an outlandish point of view. It’s backed by plenty of evidence and study: 

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/14/eaay9344

 
And here’s more: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/claims-of-ideological-bias-among-the-media-may-be-overblown-135617

Again you may disagree with this but it’s a legitimate point of view based on much evidence. 
 

My own POV is a little more nuanced. I think the majority of mainstream news journalists are liberal, and that this can show up in the way that they present the news, more unconsciously than anything else. 
Nonetheless I strongly believe most of them are extremely fair (sometimes overly so)  and can be trusted. When someone I really respect like @Ghost Rider says the media can’t be trusted, I honestly don’t know what the hell he’s talking about. I’m sure he and others will point to stories they got wrong, like the Ohio shooting or the way Brian Sicknick died, but how would we even know they got the story wrong if they didn’t bother to correct themselves? Has Breitbart ever corrected themselves? Or Hannity? That would honestly surprise me. And this is another reason the MSM can be trusted: because they self-correct. 

 
timschochet said:
And here’s more: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/claims-of-ideological-bias-among-the-media-may-be-overblown-135617

Again you may disagree with this but it’s a legitimate point of view based on much evidence. 
 

My own POV is a little more nuanced. I think the majority of mainstream news journalists are liberal, and that this can show up in the way that they present the news, more unconsciously than anything else. 
Nonetheless I strongly believe most of them are extremely fair (sometimes overly so)  and can be trusted. When someone I really respect like @Ghost Rider says the media can’t be trusted, I honestly don’t know what the hell he’s talking about. I’m sure he and others will point to stories they got wrong, like the Ohio shooting or the way Brian Sicknick died, but how would we even know they got the story wrong if they didn’t bother to correct themselves? Has Breitbart ever corrected themselves? Or Hannity? That would honestly surprise me. And this is another reason the MSM can be trusted: because they self-correct. 
Click to expand...
You trust people who self-correct after getting caught?  You don't know what he's talking about because you talk to much and don't listen enough.  Plenty here are explaining why they can't be trusted.  You just don't want to hear it.

 
timschochet said:
And here’s more: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/claims-of-ideological-bias-among-the-media-may-be-overblown-135617

Again you may disagree with this but it’s a legitimate point of view based on much evidence. 
 

My own POV is a little more nuanced. I think the majority of mainstream news journalists are liberal, and that this can show up in the way that they present the news, more unconsciously than anything else. 
Nonetheless I strongly believe most of them are extremely fair (sometimes overly so)  and can be trusted. When someone I really respect like @Ghost Rider says the media can’t be trusted, I honestly don’t know what the hell he’s talking about. I’m sure he and others will point to stories they got wrong, like the Ohio shooting or the way Brian Sicknick died, but how would we even know they got the story wrong if they didn’t bother to correct themselves? Has Breitbart ever corrected themselves? Or Hannity? That would honestly surprise me. And this is another reason the MSM can be trusted: because they self-correct. 
Click to expand...
Ummmm...Isnt that the same study?

 
The 2016 election was an excellent example of how the media can sometimes go too far in trying to be fair. It was the New York Times who first broke the story of Hillary’s emails, arguably a truly liberal media would have attempted to hide that story. And then it was the nearly the entire MSM who decided that every report of embarrassing things Trump was saying or doing had to be met with equal time devoted to the email scandal. This played a huge part in getting Trump elected. 

 
timschochet said:
Is it? Could be. It was a big story when it came out. 
Click to expand...
From Link 2...

In the summer of 2017, we visited the website or Facebook page of every newspaper in the United States to gather email addresses of political journalists and editors. We collected email addresses for over 13,000 political journalists. We surveyed those journalists and combined what we learned with a separate analysis of newspaper content.
Click to expand...
from link 1

Using this site, a team of four researchers visited the website or Facebook page of every newspaper in each state and searched for the email addresses of political journalists and editors between May 2017 and July 2017. In many cases, this team was able to identify journalists who were explicitly assigned to a political beat. However, in the case that a specific reporter was not explicitly designated as being a political reporter, all reporters were collected. This process resulted in a sampling frame of just more than 13,500 journalists with working email addresses. 
Click to expand...


So can we safely assume you didnt read the 2nd link 😛? 

 
rockaction said:
That there's a price to rejecting the mainstream media. Maybe we have differing definitions of "reject." I still turn to the mainstream media for basic facts, though I do that less and less given the coverage of the Georgia voting law and the recent Columbus shooting. I've totally given up.

I'll only allow AP, Reuters, or any other factual dispatch into my world now. Long gone are the days of assuming any fact printed in the mainstream media. There better be another source verifying. If there is video of the incident, I want to see it firsthand. I also want to scour right-wing media as a counterbalance to that. Longform, AP and Reuters, and dispatches, generally from the WaPo. I haven't even scanned the New York Times in two years. That corporate entity should be embarrassed to call itself a news outlet. They're doing damage to the entire enterprise of journalism. To me, they're about at Fox News level. I've also done a decent job getting multiple points of view in my Twitter feed through whom I can get a quick an accurate take of the news.

That's it. That's all they've earned my trust for.
Click to expand...
See this is great, and I think all that most who are arguing about news sources would want from the majority of people.    Trouble is people seem to post and argue like CNN and Fox are the only places to get info from, and to avoid those you have to go to even worse places.  

IMO the problem isn't that the people who cry about MSM the most have given up and gone down the path bolded above, they get the "real" truth from SM and stuff like OAN.  

 
timschochet said:
And here’s more: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/claims-of-ideological-bias-among-the-media-may-be-overblown-135617

Again you may disagree with this but it’s a legitimate point of view based on much evidence. 
 

My own POV is a little more nuanced. I think the majority of mainstream news journalists are liberal, and that this can show up in the way that they present the news, more unconsciously than anything else. 
Nonetheless I strongly believe most of them are extremely fair (sometimes overly so)  and can be trusted. When someone I really respect like @Ghost Rider says the media can’t be trusted, I honestly don’t know what the hell he’s talking about. I’m sure he and others will point to stories they got wrong, like the Ohio shooting or the way Brian Sicknick died, but how would we even know they got the story wrong if they didn’t bother to correct themselves? Has Breitbart ever corrected themselves? Or Hannity? That would honestly surprise me. And this is another reason the MSM can be trusted: because they self-correct. 
Click to expand...
I'd ask you to consider why it is that many on the right have decided to reject the MSM.  I think we both agree this wasn't always so, so something occurred to change it. 

I don't watch Hannity for news but I can tell you as someone who did watch CNN for their news source in the past that I don't do that anymore.  I think your view that most of the MSM are liberal but try to be fair was in fact the case for a long time.  But I think those days are gone.  CNN today bears no resemblance to the source I followed less than five years ago. 

It is truly a shame people follow someone like Hannity for their news and don't take him as an opinion host, even though he openly will state that on his show that he is giving editorial and not news.  I know people on the right who I feel make fools of themselves on social media believing some wild conspiracies.  Sure, it reflects badly on them.  I don't think low information people are rare no matter their leanings.  But rather than blame them, I blame the ever increasing media bias for driving them to these places.  Not everyone is going to go to the depths some here do to determine the real truth.  Some people see a biased story, or the stories consistently being wrong on one side as opposed to the other, then that makes it easy for them to believe that someone like Hannity who told them the MSM was lying must now have been telling them the truth all along.  The media themselves shouldn't just get a pass on responsibility for perpetuating this.

 
Shula-holic said:
I'd ask you to consider why it is that many on the right have decided to reject the MSM.  I think we both agree this wasn't always so, so something occurred to change it. 

I don't watch Hannity for news but I can tell you as someone who did watch CNN for their news source in the past that I don't do that anymore.  I think your view that most of the MSM are liberal but try to be fair was in fact the case for a long time.  But I think those days are gone.  CNN today bears no resemblance to the source I followed less than five years ago. 

It is truly a shame people follow someone like Hannity for their news and don't take him as an opinion host, even though he openly will state that on his show that he is giving editorial and not news.  I know people on the right who I feel make fools of themselves on social media believing some wild conspiracies.  Sure, it reflects badly on them.  I don't think low information people are rare no matter their leanings.  But rather than blame them, I blame the ever increasing media bias for driving them to these places.  Not everyone is going to go to the depths some here do to determine the real truth.  Some people see a biased story, or the stories consistently being wrong on one side as opposed to the other, then that makes it easy for them to believe that someone like Hannity who told them the MSM was lying must now have been telling them the truth all along.  The media themselves shouldn't just get a pass on responsibility for perpetuating this.
Click to expand...
I certainly think you make good points, and that the media has created some of this themselves. Do reasonable, thinking conservatives have a gripe against the media? At times they do. Absolutely. 
 

But it doesn’t change anything. Distrusting the media, looking for confirming sources, is fine, even healthy at times. Dismissing the media is dangerous. And my complaint in this thread is that many on the right are dismissing the media. 

 
Alex P Keaton said:
What percentage of Americans a) spend the time to seek out these types of sources, b) are capable of parsing through competing information, c) arriving at a rational perspective from this sort of exercise?

I seriously doubt most of my extended family are capable of doing what you suggest.   They need a consistent, reliable source of accurate info.

Maybe I’m jaded.  Maybe I’m too pessimistic.  Maybe I’m flat out wrong.  
Click to expand...
I agree most people will never put in the time necessary to collect enough perspectives to truly enable themselves to come up with an educated, nuanced opinion on most major stories.

This will be unpopular, but I am still a firm believer that Twitter is the best and maybe only way an individual can truly avoid the narratives so often spun from different news outlets from across the political spectrum. I think anyone who is honest with himself should try to follow as many people and news outlets as possible on Twitter. I follow people I know will absolutely enrage me or make me roll my eyes because I know how they'll land on 99% of the stories they're commenting on, but I do it anyway because it keeps me honest. Even simply seeing how different people and organizations construct headlines is immensely telling and useful.

Even if you think Jack Dorsey and his immediate underlings have too much power, it's hard for them to completely block differing points of view if when you might believe they want to. Admittedly, they are probably sometimes successful in 'censorship' to some degree, but the more people you following, the harder it is for them to 'block the signal'. Probably the most visible example was when they removed Trump from the platform of course, but at least that couldn't be done without virtually everyone seeing them do it in the light of day. I was an early believer and investor in Twitter in hopes more people would realize it's the closest thing available in terms of finding the truth in news and what's occurring in the world. I have to say I've been a bit disappointed in that regard but to me it's still by far the best option available to us.

The endeavor to seek multiple perspectives is hardly a rejection of the mainstream media. One would hope you will confirm the mainstream more often than not, but of course that's not always the case. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Disturbing SPLC Poll On Partisanship & Violence - Rubio Campaign Violently Attacked (6/17/22 10:21 PST)
2
Replies
83
Views
2K
squistion
squistion
GordonGekko
Should Minors Be Legally Banned/Restricted From Using Social Media? (6/11/22 17:47 PST)
Replies
20
Views
748
moleculo
moleculo
GordonGekko
Did "Canceling" Babylon Bee's Political Satire Change The Future Of All Social Media Forever? (6/5/22 12:30 PST)
Replies
18
Views
741
Juxtatarot
Juxtatarot

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top