Register, it's (almost) free

Join a laid-back, close-knit community of mixed interests Get a free account!

  1. New Zealand Shooting: Christchurch Mosque Attack


    #1160092019-03-16 00:22:07 *mizlily said:

    New Zealand Shooting Live Updates: Christchurch Mosque Attacks Leave 49 Dead, Australian suspect charged

    March 15, 2019

    For detailed timeline, maps, and visuals:

    www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/world/asia/new-zealand-shooting.html

    • Forty-nine people were killed in shootings at two mosques in central Christchurch, New Zealand, on Friday, in a terrorist attack that appeared to have been carried out by a white nationalist extremist who posted a racist manifesto online and streamed live video of the attacks on Facebook.

    • A 28-year-old man from Australia was charged with murder and appeared Saturday morning in a Christchurch courtroom. Court papers identified him as Brenton Harrison Tarrant. The New Zealand police said he would face additional charges.

    • Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern described the assault as “an extraordinary and unprecedented act of violence,” and promised changes in New Zealand’s gun laws.

    • President Trump, who was cited in the manifesto as a source of inspiration, told reporters he did not see white nationalism as a rising threat around the world and attributed such attacks to “a small group of people that have very, very serious problems.” He also said he had not seen the manifesto.

    https://i.imgur.com/QHmXADh.jpg Note: One victim died after being taken to hospital

    Two mosques are attacked

    The attacker targeted the Al Noor Mosque in the center of the city and Linwood Mosque, about three miles away.

    The country’s police commissioner, Mike Bush, said at a Friday evening news conference that 41 people had been killed at Al Noor Mosque and seven at Linwood Mosque, and that another victim had died at Christchurch Hospital.

    David Meates, the chief executive of the Canterbury District Health Board, said that 48 people, including young children, were treated for injuries at the hospital. Mr. Bush said Saturday morning that two of the victims were in critical condition.

    The police said Friday that three men and one woman had been taken into custody, but Mr. Bush lowered the total number to three on Saturday morning, indicating that someone had been released.

    Ms. Ardern said none of those detained had been on security watch lists.

    Mr. Bush had earlier urged people not to go to mosques anywhere in New Zealand on Friday. He also urged mosques nationally to “close your doors until you hear from us again.”

    Handcuffed suspect appears in court

    In a Christchurch courtroom hearing closed to the public for security reasons, police officers in bulletproof vests brought in the suspect, Brenton Harrison Tarrant. The police said he had been charged with one count of murder but would face additional charges. Mr. Tarrant, 28, short with thinning brown hair, handcuffed and wearing white prison clothing, looked around the courtroom but said nothing as District Court Judge Paul Kellar ordered him held for a further hearing on April 5.

    Regional officials have said Mr. Tarrant is an Australian citizen. Court papers listed his New Zealand address as Dunedin City, which is about 280 miles south of Christchurch.

    Richard Peters, his court-appointed lawyer, said Mr. Tarrant had indicated he might represent himself in the prosecution. Asked how Mr. Tarrant had reacted to what he is facing, Mr. Peters said, “He seemed to be quite aware of where he is and what he’s doing.”

    Video shows part of the shooting

    A 17-minute video posted to Facebook shows part of the attack.

    The clip, which appeared to have been taken from a helmet camera worn by the gunman, begins behind the wheel of a car. A man, whose face can occasionally be seen in the rearview mirror, drives through the streets of Christchurch before pulling up in front of Al Noor Mosque, beside the sprawling Hagley Park.

    [Read more here about the video, manifesto and social media posts.]

    Shooting at Al Noor Mosque

    A live video posted to social media appeared to show the attack at Al Noor Mosque, where 41 people were killed. The clip appeared to have been taken from a camera worn by a gunman.

    https://i.imgur.com/VyYy8Jd.jpg

    He approaches the mosque on foot, his weapon visible, and begins shooting at people at the entrance. What follows is a harrowing nearly two minutes of his firing on worshipers.

    At one point the gunman exits the mosque and fires in both directions down the sidewalk before returning to his car for another gun — which, like the others, was inscribed with numbers, symbols or messages. When he re-enters the mosque, he shoots several bodies at close range.

    After another few minutes, he returns to his vehicle and drives away. “There wasn’t even time to aim, there was so many targets,” he says at one point, as the sirens of an emergency response vehicle blare in the background.

    A white nationalist manifesto

    Before the shooting, the gunman posted links to a white nationalist manifesto on Twitter and 8chan, an online forum known for extremist right-wing discussions. The 8chan post included a link to the gunman’s Facebook page, where he said he would also broadcast live video of the attack.

    The Twitter posts showed weapons covered in the names of past military generals and men who have recently carried out mass shootings.

    In his manifesto, he identified himself as a 28-year-old man born in Australia, and listed his white nationalist heroes.

    Writing that he had purposely used guns to stir discord in the United States over the Second Amendment’s provision on the right to bear arms, he also declared himself a fascist. “For once, the person that will be called a fascist, is an actual fascist,” he wrote.

    Ardern: ‘Now is the time’ to change gun laws

    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, speaking during a Saturday morning news conference, vowed changes to the country’s gun laws. She said that the attacker held a gun license obtained last November and that five guns were used in the attack including two semi-automatic weapons.

    “Our gun laws will change, now is the time,” Ms. Ardern said, though did not elaborate on what such legislation may look like. “People will be seeking change, and I am committed to that.”

    Ms. Ardern said she would be traveling to Christchurch later along with other politicians including members of the opposition. Ms. Ardern also said the attacker had not been known to either Australian or New Zealand officials.

    “While the nation grapples with a form of grief and anger that we have not experienced before, we are seeking answers,” she said.

    Ms. Ardern also detailed a phone call with President Trump, who offered his support. She said she asked for “sympathy and love for all Muslim communities.” Earlier, Ms. Ardern described Friday as “one of New Zealand’s darkest days.”

    Trump condemns attack, says white nationalists are ‘small group of people’

    [Video]

    President Trump said Friday that he didn’t see white nationalism as a growing threat worldwide. A man in New Zealand who appeared to be a white nationalist extremist was charged with murder on Friday after 49 people were killed at two mosques. Mr. Trump condemned the attack.

    President Trump, who was mentioned in the suspected assailant’s manifesto as a source of inspiration, rejected suggestions that white nationalism is a rising menace, although he suggested it might be problem in New Zealand.

    “I think it’s a small group of people that have very, very serious problems,” he told reporters in Washington in response to a question. “If you look at what happened in New Zealand, perhaps that’s the case. I don’t know enough about it yet. But it’s certainly a terrible thing.”

    Asked if he had seen the manifesto, Mr. Trump said: “I did not see it, but I think it’s a horrible event, it’s a horrible thing. I saw it early in the morning when I looked at what was happening, and we spoke, as you know, to the prime minister. I think it’s a horrible disgraceful thing, horrible act.”

    Attacks on mosques and Muslim leaders on rise in the West

    Attacks on mosques and Muslim religious leaders in the West have increased in recent years, according to data from the Global Terrorism Database at the University of Maryland. North America, Europe and Oceania saw 128 such attacks from 2010 through 2017, the latest year of available data.

    Terrorist attacks on other religious institutions, such as churches and synagogues, totaled 213 over the same period.

    Mosque Attacks in the West, 2010-2017

    https://i.imgur.com/Hwekkdq.jpg

    YouTube star ‘sickened’ by being cited in video

    Felix Kjellberg, a polarizing YouTube celebrity known as PewDiePie, distanced himself from the attacks after the man who filmed himself shooting victims at a mosque encouraged viewers to “subscribe to PewDiePie” in a video livestream.

    “I feel absolutely sickened having my name uttered by this person,” Mr. Kjellberg, a Swede, said on Twitter.

    Mr. Kjellberg has courted controversy by performing anti-Semitic gestures, which he calls satirical, in his videos. He has a following of 89 million subscribers.

    https://i.imgur.com/lGkKXlZ.jpg

    Scrutiny of social media postings

    Over the last 18 months, tech companies have promised stronger safeguards to ensure that violent content is not distributed through their sites. But those new safeguards were not enough to stop the posting of a video and manifesto believed related to Friday’s shooting.

    A 17-minute video that included graphic footage apparently of the shooting could be found on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Instagram more than an hour after being posted. While Facebook and Twitter took down pages thought to be linked to the gunman, the posted content was spread rapidly through other accounts.

    In order to evade detection, people appeared to be cropping the video or posting the text of the manifesto as an image — techniques used to evade automated systems that find and delete content.

    Social media companies have heavily invested in those systems, with Facebook reporting last year that more than 99 percent of terrorism content by the Islamic State and Al Qaeda was found and removed through artificial intelligence.

    A Facebook spokeswoman offered condolences to the victims and said the company was “removing any praise or support for the crime and the shooter or shooters as soon as we’re aware.”

    YouTube said it had taken down thousands of videos related to the shooting, and asked users to help flag videos. A spokeswoman for Reddit said it was also trying to remove “any content containing links to the video stream or the manifesto.”

    Still, the tech companies were sharply criticized by Senator Cory Booker, a Democratic candidate for president, who said in New Hampshire on Friday that it was “unacceptable” for the companies to give “a platform to hate.” Video

    Stricken mosques seek help for 49 funerals

    Nasreen Hanif, a spokeswoman for the Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand, said the country’s Muslims were anxious for updates.

    [For Muslims in New Zealand and abroad, the massacre has drawn outrage as a brazen act of hatred borne of anti-Muslim sentiment.]

    Ms. Hanif said the two mosques in Christchurch had asked for help from the rest of New Zealand’s Muslims to arrange 49 funerals.

    President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey said that three Turkish citizens were wounded in the attack; the Palestine Liberation Organization’s ambassador to New Zealand said at least one Palestinian was killed; and the group Syrian Solidarity New Zealand said on its Facebook page that “Syrian refugees, including children, have been shot today.”

    A site managed by the International Committee of the Red Cross listed dozens of people who had been recorded as missing, including people from Egypt, Syria, India, Kuwait, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia.

    Ilhan Omar urges solidarity

    Representative Ilhan Omar, one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, urged all Muslims to attend Friday Prayers and exhorted people of all faiths to join them to repudiate the white supremacist message of the New Zealand attack.

    “I know there was a call for people to not go,” she told reporters after addressing a climate rally in Washington. “But I said to people that is what the terrorists want us to do. That is a win for them, and so we must face the hate and terror with love and with compassion.”

    Ms. Omar also said “everyone should join us in solidarity.”

    The New Zealand police force had called for mosques in the country to close.

    The congresswoman, a freshman Democrat from Minnesota, has been at the center of a political tempest in the Democratic Party over remarks on Israel that critics have called anti-Semitic. She has apologized for those remarks.

    Cricket team ‘saved’ by timing

    Members of the Bangladesh national cricket team, in Christchurch for a match against New Zealand, were en route to Al Noor Mosque for Friday Prayer when the shooting began. They narrowly missed it.

    Mohammad Isam, a journalist covering the team, reported for ESPN that at 1:52 p.m. he got a call from Tamim Iqbal Khan, one of the players.

    “There’s shooting here, please save us,” Mr. Khan said, according to Mr. Isam. At first, he thought it was a prank.

    “But he hangs up and calls again — this time, his voice starts to crack,” Mr. Isam wrote. “He says that I should call the police as there’s a shooting going on inside the mosque where they are about to enter.”

    Mr. Isam ran toward the mosque and saw bloodied and dazed people fleeing. In the chaos, he managed to find several players, and they eventually reconvened at the hotel. The team manager, Khaled Mashud, told reporters that players were about 50 yards from the mosque.

    “Had we reached even three or four minutes earlier, we probably would have been inside the mosque,” he said.

    “Entire team got saved from active shooters,” Mr. Khan wrote on Twitter. Another player, Mushfiqur Rahim, tweeted that he never wanted “to see this things happen again.”

    Murders are rare in New Zealand, but guns aren’t

    Murders are rare in New Zealand, and gun homicides even rarer. There were 35 murders countrywide in 2017. And since 2007, gun homicides have been in the single digits each year except 2009, when there were 11.

    But there are plenty of guns.

    There were 1.2 million registered firearms in the country of 4.6 million people in 2017, according to the Small Arms Survey, a Swiss nonprofit.

    New Zealand law allows any person aged 16 or older with an entry-level firearm license to keep any number of common rifles and shotguns, according to GunPolicy.org, a project hosted by the University of Sydney. Most guns can be purchased without being tracked by law enforcement officials.

    A mass shooting in Aramoana, New Zealand, in 1990 — when a man killed 13 people, including two 6-year-olds, after a dispute with his neighbor — led directly to tightened gun laws, including restrictions on “military-style semiautomatic weapons.”

  2. #1160112019-03-16 05:15:34 *DarkChaplain said:

    "PEWDIEPIE DID IT!"

    The left-wing media is already using this tragedy to further their goals of deplatforming people they don't agree with. The usual suspects are having fits on social media as you'd expect.

    As far as I am aware, the manifesto was intended precisely to inflame what is happening already. The terrorist wanted this current culture war to escalate and cited precisely what would get the press running. He picked the names and causes he supposedly championed deliberately, admitting to it even. It's a pity that modern "journalism" is so click-focused, rather than truth-focused...

    As things stand, reporting on this is doing the guy's job for him. Terrorism wins here by spreading the exact kind of hatred that was intended to be spread, and reinforcing already existing tensions on the political spectrum.

  3. #1160132019-03-16 07:17:42Farris said:

    This ^

    The keyword is Acceleration. It was meant to provoke and stir up more hatred between "opposing groups" in society. It's a madman with gas cans attempting to bring the fire out of control.

    From what I heard Anders Behring Breivik was one of this guy's heroes, not surprising if that is the case. There's is only a tiny minority who drives this insane agenda, you're unlikely to meet a handful of them in your lfie unless you go looking for them.

    I'm sure that 95% of us regardless if we're "left" or "right" agree that this was a horrible event, and we'd prefer if it didn't happen again. Now is not the time to go to war against each other, it's time to discuss these issues we have different views on, and to come to a solution we can agree on.

  4. #1160232019-03-16 22:00:39 *mizlily said:

    @Farris What is the solution anyway?

    If they all had a gun this wouldn’t have happened? But of those people that believe this, there are many who don’t feel too comfortable arming Muslims. So then which comes first, their guns or their Islamphobia? Questions.

  5. #1160272019-03-17 00:01:02Destro said:

    The left wing media is the real evil here! We cant just stand around while the SJW's take away more and more of our freedoms and free speech! Being banned on twitter and youtube thats pretty much hate crime and a massive assault on my constitutional rights where I'm from! Truly both sides are the same and getting more extreme at equal rates so lets not point fingers in any direction at all. Its not like the manifesto was half memes meant to speak exclusively to tickle and excite groups that already largely agree with him on places where he is currently being hailed a hero.

    Let's just ignore how anti-sjw content leads almost directly into more anti-left content and extreme right content. Soon race realism and the threat of the white replacement become more reasonable than the idea that maybe Pewds has been somewhat irresponsible with the types of content hes platformed on the largest youtube channel in the world. No Pewdiepie isn't racist, yes traditional media doesn't quite understand internet culture, but the truth is the anti left/anti-media reaction to Pewds is awful convenient for certain more radical groups with certain political beliefs. Don't take it from me though visit any pol board on any chan and see how much they love any of the shitstorms surrounding pewdiepie.

    https://i.redd.it/dwrbj6whqam21.jpg

  6. #1160312019-03-17 06:36:06Farris said:

    @mizlily While I find your questions to be of little worth of giving a well thought out answer, since it seems like you didn't properly read what I wrote, (or you were too busy thinking about what you consider the hypocrisy of the other side of the political spectrum,) I'll give you a small response:

    @Farris What is the solution anyway?

    See what I wrote:

    it's time to discuss these issues we have different views on, and to come to a solution we can agree on.

    I hardly think that I have enough knowledge to tell you the solution to this issue, it's rather complex. Possible solutions should be discussed, evaluated, and tested. Feelings do not belong when it comes to making laws, this is something we've got to be very careful about. Feelings should instead be left for mourning for those whose life were lost, and those who lost their loved ones.


    If they all had a gun this wouldn’t have happened?

    Who knows? It's a rather bizarre scenario you're describing. I don't see that happening in our world. But, I suspect it wouldn't be beneficial to anyone that everyone has the power to end another person's life on a whim. It's clear that there should be some restrictions.


    But of those people that believe this, there are many who don’t feel too comfortable arming Muslims.

    While the vast majority of muslims aren't terrorists, the vast majority of terrorists are muslim. This doesn't mean that one should view muslims as terrorists... Far from it, talk to them just like you would talk to any other individuals. There is substantial danger of radicalization among muslim communities, that's a problem which muslims are combating, and I sure hope they can sort it out eventually, we should lend them a hand where they need it.


    So then which comes first, their guns or their Islamphobia?

    Depends what they view as the greater danger, doesn't it. Although I find Islam really interesting, and would love to learn more than I know about it, I can understand why some people are afraid of it. It's not entirely irrational fear considering some of the things which are written in the Quran, how those things are interpreted clearly varies, if not then these things wouldn't be a problem.


    That being said, this massacre was not simply Islamophobia, it was a deliberate attempt to increase the tension and be a catalyst to what he, and a few others consider an inevitable and necessary war.

    The media will of course pour out the gas cans he brought with him onto the fire, just as he planned. They'll do so through their milking of this massacre, and their misuse of whatever they consider to be ties to their political enemies. Don't fall for it... Double check, and tripple check, if their accusations actually reflect the reality we live in, and not just their political caricatures of their enemies. The one to blame, is the man who performed the action, not whoever gets thrown into the same "group" as him.

    Those who say that they believe what he did was right, are few, if possible, they should be educated so that they might find a better path. If impossible, they should be kept under close attention.

  7. #1160382019-03-18 15:42:16 *mizlily said:

    @Farris It was a deliberate act of terroism against a specific group of people.

    The fact that you’re saying I’ll only meet a handful of violent racists if I go out looking for them shows just how out of touch some people are and quite frankly, it pisses me the fuck off.

    Why would I go out looking for them? They should just leave people alone. Maybe it’s because I haven’t been shot at yet that I don’t have to worry about them

    I have yet to be mauled by a Muslim, but we’ll see.

    (FYI those were retorical questions, but thank you for taking the time to answer each one)

  8. #1160392019-03-18 17:08:13DarkChaplain said:

    @mizlily

    It was a deliberate act of terroism against a specific group of people.

    It was a deliberate act of terrorism against a specific group of people with the express goal of feeding an ongoing conflict surrounding said group of people and the US-American political landscape precisely the fuel that would burn to the greatest effect, utilizing the exact methods, tools and dramatization of the entire ordeal that would suit the terrorist's own agenda in escalating an already highly tense situation in the socio-political landscape.

    Read his fucking manifesto. The media's reporting and the social media response feed right into what he wanted to begin with.

  9. #1160402019-03-18 17:32:57Destro said:

    @DarkChaplain Imagine being too afraid to talk about motivations and culture that inspired this attack, attacks in the past, and no doubt attacks in the future and thinking that was standing up to terrorism. Imagine reading that 60 page manifesto and using the fear of acceleration as an excuse to stamp out any discussion about all of his other motivations and inspirations. Imagine being the hypocrite who still said "The left-wing media is already using this tragedy to further their goals of deplatforming people they don't agree with" and unironically thinking you aren't part of the problem of the "already highly tense situation in the socio-political landscape."

  10. #1160412019-03-18 17:42:35DarkChaplain said:

    @Destro Are you really that retarded? Equating not sensationalizing and weaponizing this shit with not talking about it at all?

    What's happening in the media isn't discussion. It's attacks against the political other, using 49 dead people and a terrorist's disgraceful acts to further their own political and social agendas. It's clickbait bullshit, pointing fingers, trying to make a quick buck off of tragedy while declaring "we're better than them!".

    It happens on both sides already. Heck, over here, one relatively new right-wing party is trying to use his manifesto's words on climate change as a way to clamor that "climate change isn't real" and that the "panic" around it is resulting in terror - AMIDST EUROPE-WIDE STUDENT PROTESTS to signal that the youth wants climate politics to change drastically.
    In the States, you got fucking imbeciles trying to blame it on video games, the mythical "GamerGate hate mob" and so on, mostly spread via Silicon Valley / San Francisco nutters.

    NONE of this is constructive discourse. None of it is concerned with truth-finding, with making things right, with preventing this shit in the future. It's about money and philosophical purity, nothing else.

  11. #1160422019-03-18 17:56:54Kani14 said:

    @mizlily Why are you worried about getting mauled by a Muslim? It's not like vast majority of western terrorism attacks are done by Muslims, probably.

  12. #1160432019-03-18 18:33:15 *Destro said:

    Oh so you stamping out any discussion about all of the other motivations of this guy, and the rhetoric he used with the excuse of "but-but-but guys, its just what he wanted guys dont fall for it!!" is talking about it? Truly you've been a facilitator of discussion and nuance from the very beginning!

    By the way pointing out the increasingly xenophobic rhetoric and the places where he learned them isn't discussion its vilification, may our thoughts and prayers go to the real victims here; the online, and increasingly more mainstream medias that helped spread these ideas. It's not as though the radicalization of the far right is the source of the fastest growing and most violent terrorism in the US (it is) and that their rhetoric (the extremist right) has gotten increasingly more extreme and has been for years. Sorry pointing that out is simply so purple haired college students can say they're better than them and not at all indicative of any other problems whats so ever.

    The united states is so dumb guys! trying to blame violence on video games and the gamer gates! The dang anti free speech leftys in california are trying censor everybody! by the way i'm not informed of the social climate in other countries via youtube and twitter reactionaries :)

    Also its not as though the anti-feminist rhetoric around gamer gate lead directly to anti-left wing rhetoric and youre certainly not a living breathing example of it; thats a completely unfounded claim! Lets take a break rail against the left wing media and how nutty they are lol xd! It's not as though watching a few anti-sjw videos on youtube puts you on the fast track to recieving more and more extreme content from the likes of people claiming white genocide and other xenophobic claims! By the way the left deplatforms everybody and all of this literal nazi propaganda isn't entirely prolific on social media and easy to find!

    Most importantly of all none of this is constructive discourse because people talking about it on a forum online should immediately be derailed into a conversation about how the media is really bad.

  13. #1160462019-03-18 19:42:25Destro said:

    @Farris https://www.adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Media-Bias-Chart_4.0_8_28_2018-min.jpg

    This is unironically a fairly good chart to check against in order to understand the slants and angles that certain news sites will have. Thats not to say that articles from lower down or farther to the ends are wrong just that you should understand they'll be some spin on their coverage. Its also fair to say that articles from higher up and in the center wont always be perfect either so its good to always be critical. That being said i do like the associated press for coverage and then arguing about things online because no matter what we as individuals will always have bias so its good to hash things out.

    As far as discussion around things that wouldn't normally be considered news such as sjws and internet culture i follow various youtube channels and communities around them. This is hugely important though, no matter how entertaining/ well thought out someone may seem theyre amateurs on the internet so while hearing their perspective can be helpful always be mindful that you arent just soaking everything up as gospel.

  14. #1160472019-03-18 20:39:40mizlily said:

    @DarkChaplain You read the 70-something page horse shit written by this guy. I can guess the gist of it

    -white power -racist -anti immigration -anti Muslims -pro-Christian -pro-trump -pro-gun -pro-white

    Have I scored bingo yet?

    I find it so hilarious that you are against people reporting the news for what it is, a guy killing a whole bunch of Muslims — the title of this article, a literal and accurate description of this tragedy — but seem to have no problem encouraging others to reading the killer’s manifesto and gather insight from it. Which did he intend would spread more hate? He wrote it and he wanted people to read his craziness. Moreover, he wanted people like you to cite it. Next thing you know, Fox News will be telling me I can learn something from it. Oh wait: Counselor Kellyanne Conway

  15. #1160482019-03-18 20:45:19 *mizlily said:

    Also, I don’t think you know how* patronizing you sound to Muslims when say this coverage is a dramatization of the shooting. You would not say the reportings of the Charlie Hebdo shooting which killed 12 people and injured 11 and the demonstrations that followed was a dramatization of “an ordeal.” This mosque shooting doesn’t even have its own dedicated hash tag yet. Killing people for practicing their religion is also censorship you know. The lives that were lost are worthy of being covered, just like how they have been reported in other instances of terrorism.

  16. #1160492019-03-18 21:13:47 *Farris said:

    I checked over the methodology they are using to create this chart, basically what it comes down to is: If you're capable of logical thought you shouldn't need this. www.adfontesmedia.com/how-ad-fontes-ranks-news-sources/

    During this project, we are performing ratings of nearly 2,000 individual articles and TV news shows, which are being conducted by 20 dedicated, trained analysts having political viewpoints from across the spectrum.

    Each of the nearly 2000 individual articles and TV news shows will be rated by four analysts with different political views. This means each analyst will be analyzing about 370 articles and about 17 TV shows, and each analyst will be rating at least four articles from each of the 100 news sources on the chart. As a result, we will have nearly 8,000 individual ratings.

    • What do they mean by "different poltical views"?
      • How different?
    • What do they do when their ratings differ a lot?
      • Do they do an average?

    One thing I found very unclear about it is what constitutes what they judge as facts? It seems to be more of a "is this statement repeated in several news sources of good reputation" which is something every person whose opinion is worth anything at all already checks.

    You also didn't answer my question, unless the answer was: "I use several news sources in the center top and check that the story/facts is consistent between them".


    As far as discussion around things that wouldn't normally be considered news such as sjws and internet culture i follow various youtube channels and communities around them.

    What Youtube channels, and what communities around them? Are you aware of their bias? Are you aware of their political position? Are you aware of their agenda? Are you sure they're not making blanket statements and strawmen? Have you considered listening to what the other "side" has to say? It's important to put everything into the equation.

    This is hugely important though, no matter how entertaining/ well thought out someone may seem theyre amateurs on the internet so while hearing their perspective can be helpful always be mindful that you arent just soaking everything up as gospel.

    Funny how amateurs on the internet can be a shit ton better than the "professionals" at being "professional". There's no reason to take what another person says as gospel. I make up my own mind, based on what evidence I see, what's logical, and make a boundary between "what is true" and "what we can't know for sure".

  17. #1160502019-03-18 23:11:45Destro said:

    @Farris my bad i thought you were genuinely asking not looking for an opportunity to masturbate over how logical you seem to find yourself. The idea that any reasonable person shouldn't need any resource to help discern how non partisan particular sources are is laughable. Especially today where plenty of "reasonable" people are shown to believe and buy into outright lies. "well those people clearly aren't logical like me!"

    Media will always have a slant so getting 20 political analysts of varying opinion to analyze thousands of articles and hundreds of hours of programming to determine if their views were being represented in ways that were more/less skewed is about as objective as one can be when analyzing content such as this. Its even admits how complex this is but goes on to state the rigor and methodology of their study if you want to dive into it and determine how far you want to trust them thats a personal value judgement but from my understanding of the scientific process much of what they're performing seems consistent with the objective of finding objectivity.

    As for your questions I dont think they ever reveal what analysts they have ranking each piece of media which i didn't expect them to if thats a problem for you again thats a personal value judgment.

    "The overall source ranking is a result of a weighted average, algorithmic translation of article raw scores". How things are scored and what goes into weighing them are transparent so if you want to take a moment to see of the factors that go into a score what weighs them the information is available on the page.

    "Note that the ranking here includes whether something is “presented as” fact, analysis, etc. This Expression scale focuses on the syntax and intent of the sentence, but not necessarily the absolute veracity. For example, a sentence could be presented as a fact but may be completely false or completely true. It wouldn’t be accurate to characterize a false statement, presented as fact, as an “opinion.” A sentence presented as opinion is one that provides a strong conclusion" So again the answer to your question is freely provided a fact is defined as the gradeschool definition of fact which is just an objective and provable statement (true or false).

    I think a resource like this is helpful cause i dont have the time or resources to pour over thousands of articles or tv programs to determine how often a certain outlet speaks with objectivity as i would imagine is the same for literally everyone else. So news is something that pops out often whether it be on social media like reddit, twitter, facebook, or just hitting news on your google homepage Resources like the one i provided help offer clarity when clicking on breaking news links to understand where a source generally comes from and how it affects the reporting.

    Onto the amateurs!

    So all the questions you asked are of course things to be aware of but there is a reason why i kept them separate from what i consider to be objective news sources. The people I watch are obviously biased and have strong opinions. There is nothing wrong with opinions as long as you're aware of the fact. I know i have biases and my world views are skewed by all sorts of things as are the people i watch. I also know that everyone has things theyre completely unaware of making them biased and skweing their opinions there is no such thing as a completely objective person nor should we expect it.

    As far as who i watch off the top of my head: Contrapoints, Hbomberguy, Shaun, Three arrows, Some More News, Destiny, Hasan Piker (not TYT) and i'm sure i'm forgetting some. All of them are left leaning in their analysis and opinions.

    What i do is find whatever theyre talking about in objective as a source as possible and then watch some of these guys to hear their take on it.So the equation goes News sources+initial reaction+analysis from people i find entertaining= personal conclusion. Is it perfectly objective? no but noone is expected to have perfectly objective outlooks on life.

    "I make up my own mind, based on what evidence I see, what's logical, and make a boundary between "what is true" and "what we can't know for sure". Should i get you some tissues for how hard you just jerked yourself off?

  18. #1160512019-03-19 00:14:31Farris said:

    @Destro where do you get your news from if I may ask?

    This was half-way genuine, and half-way "What makes you think that there's little (or no) truth to what both DC and I were saying", where's this golden source of information which is filled with the one "true truth".

    Thank you for your answer, what I wrote was not meant to be an attack, nor an opportunity to "masturbate over how logical I seem to find myself." (Thanks, that made me laugh,) I know it sounds arrogant, and could most definitely have been worded better.

    I sincerely believe that reasonable people who are interested in knowing the truth are able to filter through something and see it for what it is. My point was rather that if you're dependant on a chart to tell you what news source which contains the least amount of bias then you probably shouldn't be discussing these things.


    As far as who i watch off the top of my head: Contrapoints, Hbomberguy, Shaun, Three arrows, Some More News, Destiny, Hasan Piker (not TYT) and i'm sure i'm forgetting some. All of them are left leaning in their analysis and opinions.

    Thank you for your sincerity. I know of "Shaun", and I know of "The Three Arrows", I'm not very familiar with them. "Destiny" is a debater, I've gotten the impression multiple times that he doesn't care about the truth of the matter as long as he "wins the debate". Hasan Piker, last thing I heard he had gone full on adoring Marx? I'd be very careful with anything he says, especially since I've experienced him using flawed interpretations data before.


    What i do is find whatever theyre talking about in objective as a source as possible and then watch some of these guys to hear their take on it.So the equation goes News sources+initial reaction+analysis from people i find entertaining= personal conclusion. Is it perfectly objective? no but noone is expected to have perfectly objective outlooks on life.

    A person should not be expected to be perfectly objective, but a fact and a truth are.

  19. #1160522019-03-19 01:21:36 *Farris said:

    @mizlily It's important to know what's making these events more frequent, isn't it? How else are we supposed to stop them, or at the very least make them less frequent? His manifesto provides insight in what problems he sees in society and what his reprehensible solutions are to these problems. There's no doubt at all that there are people who see things the same way as he does. If we're unable to come up with good solutions to these problems, or find reasons to why they're not actually problems, then we're not going to be able to stop it.

    The manifesto is dangerous if the fallacies within it are not exposed. If our society has developed for the better in the last hundreds and thousands of years, then we should hold the real answers to the problems in the manifesto, rather than jumping to the extreme (and very little helpful) "solutions" like the writer did.

    You won't stop "biggotry" by just calling it "biggotry", you won't stop "nazis" by simply calling them "nazis". It's important to have a proper conversation with people, respect them as fellow humans, and then have honest conversations asking why they think this and that, and why they do this and that.

    I have never heard of a racist changing his way after being called a racist. But I have heard of racists and KKK members changing their ways after someone from the "group" they despised showed them respect, and treated them as equals. This is the reason I say it's time for discussions and conversation. If we can't treat another person as an equal even if they aren't treating us as an equal, then we'll never be able to progress past this, and the problem will remain or grow.

  20. #1160532019-03-19 01:51:36Destro said:

    Factually DC hasn't said anything untrue but I think the conclusions on what to do with the information are where we differ. If DC had been making claims that were flat out untrue i'd have been more harsh in my critiques of him as a person but instead our disagreements focus more on how we handle the facts of the situation. Personally I don't think we could get eachother to see eye to eye on this but i think its important that we challenge eachothers respective points. As far as truth is concerned thats very difficult and often times will shift with perspective I'd never try to claim there was one truth that governs everything because i'd be wrecked time and time again.

    If i get the oppurtunity to call something masturbatory i'll take it, thats just who i am. My thing is that I don't really think any individual is truly good at determine whether something is being reported on objectively. CNN and Fox might be easy to see where they're being unfair but subtlety and charisma can make it exponentially more difficult to understand when opinions are being placed alongside fact in equal standing.

    In my mind the chart isn't meant to be a quality assurance that whatever you read from these sources is going to be trustworthy. Rather its more of a guideline to see what narratives certain places tend to fall in line with. I don't have it open all the time to check against I just think its handy to help understand the political climate in the press.

    Yeah man i'm pretty indivdualistic but i cant deny that watching people comment on politics is going to color my outlook so i think the only responsible thing to do is to just lay it out there so its all open to criticism and review. As far as Destiny goes there are definitely times when you can tell he's being stubborn or obtuse on certain takes but his community can be very critical of him for it. In debates however i find his reasoning to at least logically follow a to b to c. Hasan is definetly far left (at least in the US) and is in favor of socialism if not outright communism which i don't think is as problematic as other people would try to lead you to believe. The thing i like about hasan though is that he actually makes an effort to understand internet culture and reach out to an audience that would initially be unresponsive to any of his ideas.Its funny that you mention both Destiny and hasan they've been working together recently and while hasan is very much anti capitalism Destiny is very pro capatalism and its interesting listening to them disagree.

    Facts are absolutely objective things like times, dates, places won't change regardless of who reports on it. The thing is Two people can look at the same set of data and draw wildly different conclusions which is why its important to understand to what ends these conclusions are being made, be aware of them, and then be mindful of them while discussing the harder to interpret details regarding an event.

  21. #1160542019-03-19 03:03:04 *Farris said:

    @Destro Good, good.


    Factually DC hasn't said anything untrue but I think the conclusions on what to do with the information are where we differ.

    Then I suggest you do the same thing as I plan to do eventually, read the manifesto of the culprit, see what his explanation was for his actions. His manifesto should be a better source than any of the media he sought to provoke in order to spread his message. One of the man's idols is Anders Behring Breivik... That's a terrorist we're well familiar with here in Norway.


    The thing is Two people can look at the same set of data and draw wildly different conclusions which is why its important to understand to what ends these conclusions are being made, be aware of them, and then be mindful of them while discussing the harder to interpret details regarding an event.

    While this is true, it's also the case that one is more likely to reflect reality than the other. Both are not neccessarily equally true just because they are interpretations of the same data set. If it's difficult to say what the data sets actually mean, then you're rather making a hypothesis about the correlation between the data sets and reality, you can't really make a proper conclusion about them, further research is needed. The correlation between the data sets and the interpretations should be strong and scientifically undeniable.

    In the specific case I had in mind with Hasan, he was talking about illegal immigration... more specifically the famous "wall"... Let's avoid getting into that further than this example as I have no interest in doing so for now. The point is that he only chose a specific part of the data in a survey which reflected his agenda on the topic. While it is true that the majority of illegal immigrants who come to the US come by plane and overstay their visa (as he said), one also has to take into account that in the same paper it points out that the % of illegal immigrants which are expelled from the country again is by a good margin higher for those who overstay their visa (this he didn't mention at all, I want to believe that he didn't know rather than the alternative).

    The person Hasan doesn't seem like a bad guy, he seems like a very nice person. But, the political Hasan I can't take seriously at all, I do not trust him to present factors which may slightly contradict his opinion, this is by all means very common, and not unique to him.


    Hasan is definetly far left (at least in the US) and is in favor of socialism if not outright communism which i don't think is as problematic as other people would try to lead you to believe.

    While I would love it if humans were perfect enough to establish a marxist utopia (this I truly mean), I know that it will never happen, we're simply too flawed. Every attempt at establishing this utopia has gone incredibly wrong, and every attempt will go horribly wrong. It's important to note that not one of Marx's "prophecies" has been fufilled, in fact it's rather the other way around. Marx is not responsible for the perhaps faulty interpretations of his work, but it's incredibly unlikely that humans will ever become perfect enough for his utopia to come into existence. We're stuck with the perhaps sub-optimal, but at least relatively well-functioning captialism. Another note, I believe Marx's utopia goes too far to the left, just as Ayn Rand goes too far to the right with her ideology, both of them are impossible for humans, for the simple reason of what makes humans interesting, we're different.


    As far as Destiny goes there are definitely times when you can tell he's being stubborn or obtuse on certain takes but his community can be very critical of him for it.

    Wonderful if that's the case, that his community is critical of him, it's a very healthy sign that there are individuals listening, and not simply "followers".

  22. #1160562019-03-19 06:24:04 *DarkChaplain said:

    @mizlily

    You read the 70-something page horse shit written by this guy. I can guess the gist of it

    -white power -racist -anti immigration -anti Muslims -pro-Christian -pro-trump -pro-gun -pro-white

    Have I scored bingo yet?

    Nope, actually, you haven't. Which is why I say read the fucking thing for yourself. He is anti-immigration, that much is clear, but he is so because he considers it an ethnical "invasion".

    -anti Muslims

    He clearly states in his manifesto that he is not anti-muslim - he does not seem to give a shit about their religion or race. He appears to have believed that, as long as they stay in their own countries, same as white people or whoever, rather than mass-immigrating, they can and should do as they please, and as people aren't really different from his own. He even seems to call them nice hosts on his travels and so on.

    -white power -pro-white

    He is a race purist and a nationalist, but doesn't appear hypocritical enough to only want it to work in one direction, or to advocate for white supremacy and extinction of muslims. Besides, he also says that it might not have been muslims in the first place, but they represented an easy target (easy enough both in such a way as for him to change his targets, and to get the media rolling) that exemplified what he objected to - their birthrates outstrip the ones of western white people, which is a big part of his core thesis about white people being supplanted in their own societies due to mass immigration.
    In the end, his manifesto is about perpetuating white people as a race, not about having white people reign supreme. He cites statistics that'd lead one to believe that white society is diminishing due to low birthrates and mixing, and that this is going to destroy European (and he considers his native Australia "European" as well, due to being a former colony) culture by supplanting it. He does not believe in the US's "melting pot pipe dream" and much of his manifesto goes into detail why he does not, and what he hopes the effects of his act will be on it (namely, he hopes for balkanization, rampant xenophobia and a resulting separation of race and culture within the United States).

    Frankly, whether this is a problem is for everybody else to decide on their own, but I cannot say that this diminishing of European values and replacement through foreign customs isn't happening, and hasn't been happening for a good while. It's something that is in fact observable and has been debated before (with the most silly example I can give being that local "currywurst" stands going extinct and replaced by kebab places, sometimes three or four of them in a street). Even if his values and actions are despicable to the core, this seeming replacement of cultures he rages against is something even kids noticed growing up here. Whether it is as drastic as he believes it to be is besides the point - the problem is that his observations, if not his actions, are rooted in a state of reality that has to date not been solved or sufficiently discussed. It is a frequent talking point for nationalist parties around the world.

    -pro-Christian

    He does not align himself with Christianity, or any other faith as far as I could glimpse from the document. In fact, he seems conflicted on the matter of God and strikes me as more agnostic than truly an atheist or theist.

    pro gun

    He's pro gun-control. He makes it clear that he intends his actions to spark another wave of gun control debates in the US and hopes it'll escalate in a civil war if the US government decides to try and disarm the people. A civil war which, again, he hopes will split the country along ethnical lines.

    -pro-trump

    He does not agree with Trump's policies (his reaction in the Q&A section, which you should read, implies that he hates the man), but he is in favor of Trump as an anti-establishment factor that will rile up the political landscape further.

    Read the thing and you'll find that he's pulling in many directions. His influences and beliefs aren't so easy to throw into a colored bin, I'm afraid. Which makes actual confrontation with his subject matter all the more important.
    By the way, the thing is 74 pages, but the second version of his manifesto. His original work was ~240 pages, but he claims to have deleted it in a bout of self-criticism with his writing.

    I find it so hilarious that you are against people reporting the news for what it is, a guy killing a whole bunch of Muslims — the title of this article, a literal and accurate description of this tragedy — but seem to have no problem encouraging others to reading the killer’s manifesto and gather insight from it.

    If they were reporting it for what it is, then you'd have scored your bingo with ease instead of throwing prejudices based on your silly, binary political spectrum at the wall. I'll also advocate for reading fucking TWILIGHT of all things, if you're going to criticise it as the garbage it is. Which I did, with the entire series. Know your enemy isn't just a pop culture phrase, you know? If you don't have the capacity for critical thinking yourself, then maybe stick to buzzfeed or fox news or whatever, sure.

    Which did he intend would spread more hate? He wrote it and he wanted people to read his craziness. Moreover, he wanted people like you to cite it. Next thing you know, Fox News will be telling me I can learn something from it. Oh wait: Counselor Kellyanne Conway

    He was also very aware that few people would give a shit about his writings, or himself, and that he'd be forgotten in a heartbeat. Did he hope to convince people to adopt his line of thinking? Definitely. But so do The Young Turks. Confrontation with neither will magically turn you fascist or kasparian simply because you chose to interface with the words of terrible people. Citing key parts of his writings is utterly important in discussing the matter. In which world do you live, where it is better not to dissect the words of a madman and instead ignore the mental state and belief system that made him commit atrocities?`Oh, right... the United States of America, as is evident by your expectation that people around the globe give a shit about your local political figures.

    Also, I don’t think you know how* patronizing you sound to Muslims when say this coverage is a dramatization of the shooting.

    I don't think you know how the media coverage has cannibalized the victims in favor of blatant grandstanding and financial gain.

    You would not say the reportings of the Charlie Hebdo shooting which killed 12 people and injured 11 and the demonstrations that followed was a dramatization of “an ordeal.”

    No, because that was handled rather differently, and the shooter's motivations were drastically different. That you compare the two shows that you have a poor grasp on both of these beyond the commonality that they were acts of terror with people dying.

    This mosque shooting doesn’t even have its own dedicated hash tag yet.

    ....is that seriously something you bring up? A fucking hashtag campaign? You know how hashtags on social media work, right? But damn, all those dead people would be outraged hearing that their brutal, premeditated murder wasn't even worth a hashtag on Twitter. What madness...

    Killing people for practicing their religion is also censorship you know.

    Problem is, they were not killed for practicing their religion. They simply weren't. He would've done it anywhere, in any context, if he could have expected a high body count of his "alien invaders". A mosque is an obvious location where his intended victims - and zero to very few innocent locals - would gather at predetermined times, and in high concentration. He chose it not because of their religion, but because they presented a high-value target with the largest potential effect he could hope for. He did not give a shit about their religion - and says so clearly - and believes everybody can worship what they want in private, pretty much. What made them targets was that they were of a different racial and cultural background from the native white population, and as such, he saw them as "an invading force", in which he not even believed children to be innocent. To him, them simply existing with the intent of staying (not just for tourism) made them an occupying force that he needed to take action against. He calls his terror attack a "partisan act against an occupying force".

    The lives that were lost are worthy of being covered, just like how they have been reported in other instances of terrorism.

    And nobody is disputing that? Though ironically, the life on one specific victim from a few years ago was part of what drove him into action to begin with.

    ....and before you declare me literally Hitler here, I'm a Centrist voting Left, with more left policies than the US's binary democracy can even account for. I made fun of Nazis when you were a toddler at best :^)

  23. #1160152019-03-16 10:15:15 *Kirn said:

    7.5 billion more around. And the whole thing is not about people, it's about political messages around it and how it can be used.

  24. #1160302019-03-17 00:15:23Destro said:

    Maybe you could make the argument that Kirn was simply trying to expose the hypocrisy of the west when it comes to civilian casualties. Truly when any amount of innocent people die at the hands of our foriegn policy (largely the US) we don't really pay attention or care all that much but when it happens in our borders no matter how many people die its a tragedy. The thing is the more you look at the comment "tl;dr I mean, it's just 49 people" the more i'm inclined to believe that it was a vapid response not really worth paying attention to.

  25. #1160322019-03-17 06:55:58Farris said:

    @Destro We're not psychic, so it's impossible to tell exactly what went through his head while he wrote that... To me it just seemed like a "Oh well, wasn't that many, it's not a big deal".

    Anyways, while I will never defend USA's bombing of civilians in their attempts to kill "terrorists" (which ironically fosters more terrorists), I do think there's a difference between civilian casualities, and a massacre. One is by some sort of law-enforcement which is aimed to kill individuals or a group of individuals but unfortunatly also killed civilians. The other one aims to raise hell against a "group" for whatever reasons deemed fit.

  26. #1160292019-03-17 00:06:40 *Destro said:

    Don't forget the hottest take of all from a big wrinkled brain australian senator if Muslims didnt want to get shot in new zealand they simply shouldn't have existed in new zealand. Also lets just ignore the fact that this wasn't an act of terrorism but rather an act of "vigilantism" because murdering scores of innocent people based solely on their ethnic background is simply taking the law into their own hands.Truly this is all the left wing medias fault guys!

    https://i.redd.it/lfr3nhcm99m21.jpg

  27. #1160362019-03-18 09:15:05wu-se said:

    >imagine being silly enough to think you shouldn't politicize a shooting that was literally performed due to identity politics and racism

    https://i.imgur.com/hmdXOld.png

  28. #1160622019-03-20 00:46:10 *mizlily said:

    I can bet my life that many of those Muslims have already experienced harassment/assault for their race or religion before this attack. For them, this shooting was just a manifestation of that reality.

    @DarkChaplain I can tell you are not used* to living in a place filled with people that are not of your own race because your cultural extinction statement sounds absolutely dumb to me.

    But don’t let me tell you that. Talk to your friendly local Muslim as you have done here and they will tell you that themselves. (But I have a feeling you already know how crazy you sound)

  29. #1160632019-03-20 01:04:13mizlily said:

    I’ve never seem someone free out because a hot dog stand was being replaced by a halal food chart. Not saying you’re one of those people.

    In NYC, halal food charts serve both hot dogs and fries including kebabs, burgers and rice dishes. Diversity is delicious.

  30. #1160652019-03-21 03:45:16Kani14 said:

    Apparently, New Zealand just banned semi automatic rifles. At least they put out buyback scheme on banned weapons. So, all the guns used in that shooting are banned now but, what about handguns? That means they are also available there. Why not ban everything while you're at it.

  31. #1160742019-03-23 13:38:18 *Enami said:

    Going through this thread, a memory comes to mind. When i was more active on here, a straight forward and vocal islamophobe joined the chat and i hoped someone would care or say something against any of what he was saying, but nothing. And this is definitely putting it in perspective for me now as an adult but i'm glad to have now grown up for the better unlike some of you who still think being an edgelord who doesn't value the lives of others is cool and ~logical unlike those silly compassionate human beings who have emotions.

    Have a great day everyone and don't forget! tolerating intolerance either means you're not very bright, or just don't really care for the people hurt by said intolerance.

  32. #1160762019-03-23 20:20:05Farris said:

    Have a great day everyone

    You too, always nice having you around, and I hope you're doing well!


    Going through this thread, a memory comes to mind. When i was more active on here, a straight forward and vocal islamophobe joined the chat and i hoped someone would care or say something against any of what he was saying, but nothing.

    I'm unaware of the event you're refering to, but as long as there's no indication of him/her advocating violence against a group (or individuals) then I don't see the problem. If anything it's probably just an asshole who has some retarded opinions, or it's just a person whom you don't agree with in which case there shouldn't really be a problem at all.


    unlike some of you who still think being an edgelord who doesn't value the lives of others is cool and ~logical unlike those silly compassionate human beings who have emotions.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far there's only one guy in this thread who could fit this "criterion"?

    I think most of us in this thread agree that being compassionate is a natural part of being human. However, we don't seem to agree on what our response should be to this horrible event. Some of us disagree with the notion that one should make laws based on feelings rather than basing them on evidence. There are counter measures which are very much worth considering which do not entail making a new law.


    tolerating intolerance either means you're not very bright, or just don't really care for the people hurt by said intolerance.

    I'm unsure what it has to do with being bright rather than acting like a decent human being.

    I'd say it depends a lot on the type of intolerance and the way people get "hurt" by this intolerance. When violence is in the picture, of course it's not acceptable, and the situation should be dealt with.

  33. #1161042019-03-24 16:53:19DictatorHilton said:

    i'm glad to have now grown up for the better unlike some of you who still think being an edgelord who doesn't value the lives of others is cool and ~logical unlike those silly compassionate human beings who have emotions.

    https://66.media.tumblr.com/e717793294d3bbf03dbff5aa85a8f0fa/tumblr_plik1huA6V1qggjmro1_1280.png

  34. #1161082019-03-24 17:34:53 *DarkChaplain said:

    >Cites the most passive-aggressive section of a post and declares it "a completely unagressive statement

    >Calling @Farris reply hostile and combative

    At this point, I think you may actually have a problem with reading comprehension, @DictatorHilton....

  35. #1161252019-03-24 20:16:11 *DarkChaplain said:

    Slimy, if it was about me, it'd put Enami's reading comprehension into question as well, but I think she's better than that (read: you). Besides, my reply was solely about your reaction image being utterly and completely stupid in this context.