Information icon.svg The 2019 RMF board election has started!
We are electing 3 board members for the 2019-2021 term.
Vote here and read their campaign slogans here!

Talk:Yahoo! News

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Pointless?[edit]

The only information being conveyed here is that some unnamed right-wing scolds think Yahoo! News is part of the librul media and that the comments section is awful. Neither of these is really useful or missional. (The latter may be, but then we'd need an article about the comments section of just about every website) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Meh, it's a part of the media and I don't see it as any worse than the Yahoo Answers page. The reason their comments section is particularly notorious is because a)the site itself isn't that biased so it's just weird, b)the site, unlike WND, is very popular, and c)there seem to to so many of them. The article is most useful as a debunking of the idea that Yahoo is part of the liberal media conspiracy theory, and since debunking conspiracy theories is kind of our thing...
The comments section is also one of the most well known places to most casual internet users for its easily viewed racism, homophobia, climate change denial, (insert wingnuttery here) so it seemed worth commenting on in case they were seeking an explanation for why it's that way. ClothCoat (talk) 07:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It only seems strange to the authors because, unlike most news sources, Yahoo doesn't edit comments for viewpoint. This is what a substantial group of the American people have to say when they aren't threatened by the loss of their jobs, email accounts, or public shaming. Americans are increasingly segregated by viewpoint and divided. Liberals don't talk to conservatives much, and vice-versa. Civility is decreasing, and hostility is rising. Eventually it will break out in violence, and liberals like the ones who wrote this article will wonder where all these guys with rifles came from. Right before they are hustled away, not to return.72.191.196.183 (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Yahoo doesn't edit comments for viewpoint. This is what a substantial group of the American people have to say when they aren't threatened by the loss of their jobs, email accounts, or public shaming." You equate moderating to censoring, it seems and you seem to link this to the theme of conservative being persecuted for their viewpoint, which if that's what they believe it should make them reflect about when gay people were threatened to lose their job, as that's one of the positions represented here. All part of the poor unlistened white people persecuted by the pc police? But this part Sounds like a threat "Eventually it will break out in violence, and liberals like the ones who wrote this article will wonder where all these guys with rifles came from. Right before they are hustled away, not to return." as he's specifically talking about the oppressed conservatives violating the non aggressive principle and persecuting the liberals, supposedly in return to their oppression :). This is the kind of comment which can take many upvotes and that's frustrating. Are we supposed to debunk it phrase by phrase while it's clearly not worth it? The Donald subreddit bans people as well. What I hate about it is how it starts hypocritically calm, to explode into an apocalyptic scenario and, very kindl, almost as if they's coldly stating a fact, hints at its perceived opponent being "hustled away" not to return. Now "hustle away", I checked, means something like, being brushed away with force, but here it's phrased in a way that makes it sound like obliterating and exterminating. But the tone is also that of a condescending concern trolling. It's a trash of a comment, but I noticed that reactionary concepts are sometimes held up on the sheer merit of being offensive. The inductive reasoning goes like it's offensive to a liberal, might have struck a nerve, being offensive doesn't make it wrong, which goes full circle up to making it acceptable purely on that ground, being an offensive truth censored by the liberal media. It's to force you to ignore the implication and debate the "facts" so the message is that the hateful conclusion is ok if it's somehow related to the facts. I'm aware that I can't come to a conclusion and this is becoming a stream of consciousness. Casually all those "truths" accurately avoid challenging hierarchies and the status quo or even punhing up in any form and lament how one is shamed for punching down on minoritie for their problems78.15.195.158 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
@78.15.195.158 You do realize you're responding to a comment made 4 years ago, right? TheEOE (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Eoe, I can see why you ask this as some people genuinely don't realize how old is a comment they respond to and can be irritating. I realized that, but chose to comment anyway and when I do that it's usually for specific reasons, but I should have specified being aware of that as I usually do with "I know, old comment". One of the reason is if I think the comment holds some actuality to our days and seems to transcend its datation. I was well aware this comment was before the Trump era, which is what made it worth replying. It was more of an analysis, a modest contribution from me for the deconstruction of the fake rational but actually bilious and outraged reactionary comment, all elements were there, crying censorship and oppression, fake equivalency with homophobia and racism and at the end the millenarist apocalyptic projection of a violent world, the implication that liberals are pushing it. Very weasely.--78.15.195.158 (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)