The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: disputeone on March 20, 2018, 06:13:02 PM
-
What do you guys think? Could this allow one family to have a monopoly on the media in Sweden and the information most people have access to?
Do you support monopolies?
Can monopolies inhibit transparency and fairness?
Is this a form of a capitalist dictatorship outside the elected government?
What do you guys think?
-
I think that because anyone on the planet can read the Zimbabwe Gazelle at any time of day
it doesn't matter who sells stories.
-
Following that to its conclusion then. Would you support a one world media owned by one family?
-
Following that to its conclusion then. Would you support a one world media owned by one family?
That is not possible.
-
It's quite possible.
One family owns 80% of global finance in the west, why not 80% of the worlds media?
-
One family owns 80% of global finance in the west,
Before I ask you to back that up, let me ask you to explain 'global' v. 'west'.
-
http://www.theeventchronicle.com/finanace/three-countries-left-without-rothschild-central-bank/
-
http://www.theeventchronicle.com/finanace/three-countries-left-without-rothschild-central-bank/
Seriously? You are a sucker for this sort of stuff, it's not even hard to disprove, try to think critically and ask yourself "Is it true?"
-
http://www.theeventchronicle.com/finanace/three-countries-left-without-rothschild-central-bank/
Ask yourself "Is this on the mainstream press"
Do you claim that 80% of Sweden's media isn't owned by one family also?
Or is that just another funny coincidence?
-
Before I ask you to back that up, let me ask you to explain 'global' v. 'west'.
So, instead . . .
http://www.theeventchronicle.com/finanace/three-countries-left-without-rothschild-central-bank/
I didn't ask you to prove you have internet access.
I didn't ask you to point to where you were told what to think.
I didn't ask you to obfuscate.
I didn't ask you to introduce a new argument.
I asked you to explain 'global' v. 'west'.
-
Actually the topic is in the thread title.
The West is western countries, confusing, it can be because some aren't geographically west.
Australia, New Zealand, England, Canada, England and parts of Europe.
Global being of the globe.
If you want to win at semantics you can have the win, take it. Some western countries aren't geographically western.
You win man.
Hooray for Bullwinkle.
-
Let's celebrate.
Edit.
I danced.
-
What exactly does that 80% figure mean? 80% of revenue from media? 80% of sales of media products? 80% of companies (and subsidiaries)? 80% of consumers?
They do not have monopoly on anything. They just have a ton of subsidiaries. They are Swedens biggest media company, but I can only see the 80% figure be even remotely close to being correct if we're only talking about magazines and books, with a focus on recreational media.
-
http://www.theeventchronicle.com/finanace/three-countries-left-without-rothschild-central-bank/
Really? That's a fucking daft one, even for you.
-
Ah, a quick google shows us why d1 is suddenly so interested in swedish media plurality....and where the 80% claim comes from.
“Jews Control Swedish Media” MP Quits (http://newobserveronline.com/jews-control-swedish-media-mp-quits/)
Dem damn joos again! Probably taking swedes slaves as we speak.
-
Ah, a quick google shows us why d1 is suddenly so interested in swedish media plurality....and where the 80% claim comes from.
“Jews Control Swedish Media” MP Quits (http://newobserveronline.com/jews-control-swedish-media-mp-quits/)
Dem damn joos again! Probably taking swedes slaves as we speak.
Fucking hell, they did it again. "No company, ethnicity or family may own more than 5% of a media". Depending on what you will count as an ethnicity, it's completely unrealistic or flat out impossible, you'd need at least 20 different ethnicities. The company/family one sounds like it'll work on paper, but that relies on at least 20 different companies being able to stay in the same relative size with the same relative quality of service and similar sized consumer base.
Oh, and of course no source for the 80% claim given by her, just a whole bunch of their subsidiaries are listed. They can have as many subsidiaries and other small companies as they want, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll have a greater market share, and they certainly do not have 80% of the market share, not even close.
Oh Sverigedemokraterna, what a bunch of clowns.
-
Ah, a quick google shows us why d1 is suddenly so interested in swedish media plurality....and where the 80% claim comes from.
“Jews Control Swedish Media” MP Quits (http://newobserveronline.com/jews-control-swedish-media-mp-quits/)
Dem damn joos again! Probably taking swedes slaves as we speak.
Shocking.
-
http://www.theeventchronicle.com/finanace/three-countries-left-without-rothschild-central-bank/
A very quick search proved this to be bullshit. The federal reserve is not really owned by anyone. It is a system of banks that have to buy in and is run by a board nominated by the president and approved by the senate.
The Bank of Canada is owned by the government of Canada.
Those are just the first two I looked up. Do you ever actually research this stuff or do you just take as fact whatever some conspiracy website says?
Let's look at a couple more at random.
Bank of India. Owned by government of India.
Central bank of Iceland - owned by the state.
Central bank of Israel - owned by state of Israel.
-
Central bank of Israel - owned by state of Israel.
See? I KNEW the Jews were behind this!
-
Central bank of Israel - owned by state of Israel.
See? I KNEW the Jews were behind this!
lol
-
What do you guys think? Could this allow one family to have a monopoly on the media in Sweden and the information most people have access to?
Do you support monopolies?
Can monopolies inhibit transparency and fairness?
Is this a form of a capitalist dictatorship outside the elected government?
What do you guys think?
No, it is not acceptable at all. It is definitely a "very very great" problem.
About twenty years ago, there was a patron of the media has about 90% of all Turkish media: "Aydin Doğan"(his media group as Doğan media group). it was as influential as that it made any party to government or downs a government.
Dogan media, was in Turkey for many years demonize everything outside their lifestyle, using the media. we have criticized it for years, but we have not got a result.
eventually a politician, Erdoğan has began to demonize them as a rival. he has critized both his political opponents and Doğan media as oppenets. the people who hate both the government and the Doğan media ultimately supported this person. Erdogan took the rest of the media in his early years. he could not win the battle with the Doğan media but he managed to put it under pressure. Finally, the Doğan media was bought by someone close to Erdoğan.
Now, the media about 99% is under one man; Erdoğan.
Now he is the president, military chief of general staff, prime minister, head of all funds, head of all entrepreneurs, leader of all professors, top of all judges, the leader of everything that might come to your mind. And now he is the leader of the media.
no sound, no criticism, no appeal, no objection, no proposal. nothing without What Erdoğan says, it does. I do not think this is what he wants. at least, he did not need so much. If we think what is causing this, we see that; the end result is that the media is in the hands of a single group. it has always been strengthened by targeting the one media group, and it is enough to put a single group under pressure to control the country.
I'm not a supporter of Erdoğan but not an opponent. I try to tell the truth no matter what happens. The hardest thing these days is to criticize Erdogan. this should not happen. because critics show the truth to man. one of the main reasons why this situation arises is the lack of polyphony in the media.
the solution here is to spread the media to different groups of capital. it will become impossible for the ruling power, the army or the judiciary to put the entire media under pressure. so that the free thought will recreate.
my recommendation is that every one of the group of capital should be at least one newspaper and a television channel absolutely. otherwise the country can be seized by a single voice force. Swedishes must take action about the risk of to be a second Turkey.
-
Mfw Intikam makes the only intelligent post on the thread.
-
Mfw Intikam makes the only intelligent post on the thread.
Well, I'd guess I'd have to agree it's somehow far more intellient than yours, except for some bandwagoning.
-
Enjoy Sweden Evar. I've heard it's a nice place to live, or at least was.
Seems Swedish men weren't willing to defend their women and children. Now here you are.
I'm not surprised. Gender is a social construct after all.
-
Fyi, the 80% figure has no known source, it seems to be a random figure that is either made up or lied about by a member of the political party Sverigedemokraterna, where the top politicians on many occasions have been proven to make explicit racist comments, and during a particular scandal a couple of years ago a couple of the top politicians were drunk on the town hunting down a person they called a wog-lover with iron pipes in their hands. Another of the top politicians publically denounced a news site and forum as being neofascist, while he himself was active there under a false name and recommending their articles to his collegues with a positive attitude towards the site content. It's hard to fathom that you could had picked a worse source for the situation on Sweden's media.
-
Naturally.
-
Enjoy Sweden Evar. I've heard it's a nice place to live, or at least was.
Seems Swedish men weren't willing to defend their women and children. Now here you are.
I'm not surprised. Gender is a social construct after all.
It's a very nice place to live. The men sure are willing to defend their women and children, but we are also willing to save other people as well. But man, i really feel that we could do with being able to freely abuse anyone who isn't a pure-bred swede and those fascist leader styles seem so amazing, don't they? Maybe the Sverigedemokraterna are really right.
-
Naturally.
You seem to have a talent for it.
-
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape
Tell your women and children you won't protect them Evar. Tell them you are scared of being called names so you turn a blind eye to the rape and abuse of your women and children.
Tell them it's ok because you are a real man who's scared of being called names so he lets his women and children be raped and abused.
Reminder you started the ad-homs.
Now go protect the male immigrants who think it's their right to rape your women while Swedish men stand by and do nothing.
Again gender is just a social construct. Right?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4813870/MP-shares-Twitter-post-telling-abuse-victims-shut-up.html
-
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape
Tell your women and children you won't protect them Evar. Tell them you are scared of being called names so you turn a blind eye to the rape and abuse of your women and children.
Tell them it's ok because you are a real man who's scared of being called names so he lets his women and children be raped and abused.
Reminder you started the ad-homs.
Now go protect the male immigrants who think it's their right to rape your women while Swedish men stand by and do nothing.
First of all, pretty much none of the sources linked to in the article are available, so the whole thing might as well be a bunch of made-up stuff. However, of course there are sources for the increase in rape-rates:
Second of all, some really.... weird details. The article claim that the majority of rapists are immigrants in denmark (don't know what that has to do with seden, but ok) and links to another article. This article opens up trying to seriously pass a claim that 100% of rapes in oslo are performed by immigrants, and links to a youtube-video (that is not available) as a source. Then they go on to claim that 51.5% of all danish rapes are done by immigrants according to official statistics, and link to yet another article that has no idea what numbers are. They open up with "recently 32 people were convicted for rape, 27 immigrants and 7 descendants of immigrants, all in all they were 34" and give no source. Then they say that 156 of 450 convicted rapists since 2004 (the article is from 2012) have immigrant background. 156 out of 450 is not a majority, and no sauce is given for the numbers anyways. I guess this is the "official" statistics?
Other than that, they really only have the old 50-60 reported rapes per 100 000 inhabitants statistic. And the fact that in a lot of cases the rapists are set free, which is a problem that is separate from the immigration issue: the rapist is often favoured because "the victim probably wanted it without knowing it" or "they were actually sending signals that they wanted sex", in combitation with the innocent until proven guilty principle.
For the reported rapes, you already know that there are multiple possible explanations. And I don't see how an increase in rape rates equal less will to protect the victims. I'll agree that the immigration can be handled better, and that is what most people are calling for here in sweden. And if we were afraid of convicting immigrants, then how can you be claiming that the apprehension and conviction rates are so high for them specifically at the same time? Wouldn't that mean that we aren't afraid of apprehending or convicting them?
There's not a lot of, well, logic behind that article, unsurprisingly.
-
It's well known that Gatestone is a haven for looney right wingnuts like John Bolton. To link to anything they publish is to link to a pack of lies and fake outrage stories.
The way it works is, take a story with some element of truth, and add in a gang rape by somalis or moroccans, to trigger the fake outrage.
The remedy is, if you think you are being played, and the article is trying to generate click-baity outrage then chances are you are right, you just got played.
-
Mfw Intikam makes the only intelligent post on the thread.
You didn't like how I pointed out that your link about who owned the central banks was wrong?
-
Don't tell me d1 isn't thoroughly vetting his sources? ::)
Confirmation bias is a terrible thing.
-
Don't tell me d1 isn't thoroughly vetting his sources? ::)
Confirmation bias is a terrible thing.
How could someone behave like this, never thinking critically for themselves?
-
Don't tell me d1 isn't thoroughly vetting his sources? ::)
Confirmation bias is a terrible thing.
How could someone behave like this, never thinking critically for themselves?
The funny part is these are the same people who accuse others of never thinking for themselves.