First Conservapedia, Now QubeTV

[Lemur]

Extremist "conservatives" seem to be intent on building their own parallel universe (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3137127&page=1). It's kind of sad when a movement cannot engage with the mainstream without screaming "bias" repeatedly. "We fly the conservative flag here at QubeTV (http://www.qubetv.tv/), and we will not be about banning or deleting conservatives." A free forum, so long as you agree with them, eh?

Do conservatives aspire to be separate but equal? What on earth is "conservative" about that?


Lord and Gerow both agree that this entrepreneurship is a risky one. Gerow has leveraged his PR firm to undertake this operation. “There are a lot easier ways to make money than to set up something like Qube TV,” said Lord. But they both remain true believers: “This takes a lot of steely nerve and a considerable amount of sheer guts.”

There is no comparison between YouTube and Qube TV, Lord feels. “I’m sure the people who invented it are good folks. What they are not, however, are conservative activists,” he said alluding to the fact that YouTube was recently bought by Google where Al Gore resides as a board member. For example, in October of last year, YouTube banned a video by columnist Michelle Malkin claiming “inappropriate content.” She questioned them on its “inappropriateness” but received no response back. Ironically, Jihad propaganda videos have allegedly been found on the site.

[Vladimir]

Apparently you haven't heard of Air America. That's OK, most people haven't.

That's rather harsh criticism for just opening up another video sharing site. Maybe you'll attack the 'blogisphere' next?

[HoreTore]

For example, in October of last year, YouTube banned a video by columnist Michelle Malkin claiming “inappropriate content.” She questioned them on its “inappropriateness” but received no response back. Ironically, Jihad propaganda videos have allegedly been found on the site.

I loved that part!

"Hey, I overheard a friend of mine talking about his friend who said he had heard someone say that Osama videos are on Youtube!".

Six months later: "Hey, Youtube is aiding Osama bin Laden! They're terrorists!"

[Adrian II]

Do conservatives aspire to be separate but equal? What on earth is "conservative" about that?I guess they select items that (seem to) confirm their world view. Lefties do this all the time, with equally problematic results. Take for instance the Information Clearinghouse (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/), a site that pretends to bring 'news you won't see on CNN and FoxNews'. Yet they list all sorts of items from mainstream media - including CNN and FoxNews..

[CountArach]

lol, that site is scary Lemur. What I don't understand about Conservatives is that they seem to have this feeling that they have to be different. I mean, they already control most Governments in the western world, why do they feel the need to start their own media outlets? Oh yes, I'm sure Conservatives are going to be able to give us a fair and balanced media report [/sarcasm]

[Crazed Rabbit]

So setting up sites geared towards one political side is new, now?

Huh. Seems kind of overblown to me.

CR

[Meneldil]

So setting up sites geared towards one political side is new, now?

Huh. Seems kind of overblown to me.

CR


Well, I think we can all agree that most sites and TV channels are more or less oriented toward one side of the political spectrum.

However, there are 2 disturbing things here :
What's the point of creating a media that not only appears to be oriented, but also openly claim so ? Any people right in his mind would think that since they present themselve as die hard conservatives (or liberals, for that matter), all their info would be either totally biased or made up of crap.
Yet, apparently, a lot of people think it's fine to be brainwashed by FoxNews and co.
To sum it up : a media that presents itself as neutral and unbiased = might be good
a media that presents itself as oriented toward a political side = can only be bad
Of course, some medias supposedly neutrals are in fact strongly conservatists or leftists, but if, from the beginning, you admit to be biased toward one side, something is screwed up.

Secondly, I fail to see why conservatives from all over the world have the feeling they're being censored and threatened. These people litterally rule the whole world, be it in the US, in Europe, in Iran, yet, they always feel the need to have their own things, and to act as if they were persecuted.

[Lemur]

Secondly, I fail to see why conservatives from all over the world have the feeling they're being censored and threatened. These people litterally rule the whole world, be it in the US, in Europe, in Iran, yet, they always feel the need to have their own things, and to act as if they were persecuted.
Frankly, it has me worried. The Republicans managed to maintain a constant tone of persecution and victimhood for the six years they dominated all branches of government. Just imagine the shrillness if they lose both the executive and the legislative.

I guess the reason I come down harder on conservatives is that much of their ideology is agreeable to me. Mostly the parts they utterly ignore and destroy once they're in power. You know, fiscal responsibility, caution, prudence, conservatism. That stuff.

I have much lower expectations of the Dems, so they usually leave me less disappointed.

[Ronin]

this hardly seems necessary

have these people never seen Fox News??? :laugh4:

it that´s now "conservative TV" I don´t know what is...and frankly I´m a bit scared at the idea of something even worse than that...:help:

[CrossLOPER]

OK, so more conservative activists figured out how to use the internets. How is this new or worrying?

[Hosakawa Tito]

OK, so more conservative activists figured out how to use the internets. How is this new or worrying?

Bush Dance. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cKWS9PF4vM)

Don't quit your day job. No, wait....

[CrossLOPER]

Bush Dance. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cKWS9PF4vM)

Don't quit your day job. No, wait....
Please clarify what you are trying to say.

[Adrian II]

Please clarify what you are trying to say.I guess he means beating war drums is the guy's day job.

[CrossLOPER]

OK, I kind of get it now... Slow night.

[Lemur]

I guess he means beating war drums is the guy's day job.
I think our friend A2 is kidding. The implication of the joke was "don't quite your day job" (which is President of the United States, and then a realization that he's doing terribly at his day job, so maybe he should quite, hence the) "No, wait."

Jokes, like hamsters, die when dissected.

[CrossLOPER]

Jokes, like hamsters, die when dissected.
You mean vivisection, and I wasn't sure how it related to my quote.

[Adrian II]

I think our friend A2 is kidding. The implication of the joke was "don't quite your day job" (which is President of the United States, and then a realization that he's doing terribly at his day job, so maybe he should quite, hence the) "No, wait."

Jokes, like hamsters, die when dissected.Um, I was answering a quip with a pun. In Backroom chess this is known as the Gregoshi-variant to the Hosakawa gambit.

I know, I know, this joke is now officially dead.

[Goalie]

Hmm, interesting how liberals declare bias on anything that does not agree with the norm, the media being liberally biased. So untill the majority of the media can report unbiasedly, you have no ground to critize sites such as these.

[Lemur]

Hmm, interesting how liberals declare bias on anything that does not agree with the norm, the media being liberally biased. So untill the majority of the media can report unbiasedly, you have no ground to critize sites such as these.
As I've said to others, there are creams and pills that can cure even the most extreme case of dualism. Some of us aren't interested in the echo-chambers of the extreme left or right. One thing we can count on, though, is that the extremists will declare everyone who is not involved in their partisan agenda must be part of that other side.

It's not even a two-dimensional world view; it's one-dimensional. Left to Right, Right to Left, and heaven forfend there are any other directions.

[Goalie]

As I've said to others, there are creams and pills that can cure even the most extreme case of dualism. Some of us aren't interested in the echo-chambers of the extreme left or right. One thing we can count on, though, is that the extremists will declare everyone who is not involved in their partisan agenda must be part of that other side.

It's not even a two-dimensional world view; it's one-dimensional. Left to Right, Right to Left, and heaven forfend there are any other directions.

Yes it maybe, but you only critize one way, if you really feel that way why do you convienantly choose to leave out the other side?

[Ironside]

Hmm, interesting how liberals declare bias on anything that does not agree with the norm, the media being liberally biased. So untill the majority of the media can report unbiasedly, you have no ground to critize sites such as these.


When we began QubeTV, barely two months ago, the idea that such a thing as a “conservative version of YouTube” could successfully be built by conservatives themselves was laughed at. And in truth, constructing a site specifically designed to showcase the entire American conservative movement is in fact both a financial and technical challenge. But as conservatives ourselves we were convinced that there was a demand for a site like QubeTV – and judging by the sudden rush of visitors to Qube obviously you agree! Thank you Mr. Drudge!

Although I'm not 100% sure that this isn't a joke (they seem to have developed some kind of humour), the point isn't bias by itself, it's the counter measures.

QubeTV is to counter YouTube and Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page) is to counter wikipedia, aka a video site and dictionary, not exactly known as heavily editored news outlets, driven by thier creators political agenda. Unlike these "proud to be a conservative" networks.

[Hosakawa Tito]

You mean vivisection, and I wasn't sure how it related to my quote.

Thanks for the assist, Lemur. As you said, if ya gotsta 'splain it...well,don't give up your day job, no, wait...~:wacko: :laugh4: :laugh4: ~:wacko:

Sorry for the Yogi Berra (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-EZf56AfYc) moment, Crossloper. My humor sometimes goes places that even I have a hard time following.~:wacko:

[Lemur]

Yes it maybe, but you only critize one way, if you really feel that way why do you convienantly choose to leave out the other side?
You appear to be a Republican partisan. So, to you, I appear to only criticize one way. Ask the vanishingly few socialists on the board how I appear to them.

I also disagree with the entire premise that balance and neutrality are a lie, and that the only way to get at the truth is to have blatantly biased sources for our news. It's a common meme among "conservatives," along with the never-ending sense of alienation and victimhood. Frankly, I find it all annoying. YouTube is in desperate need of a "conservative" counterweight? ORLY? Wikipedia is a mouthpiece for the liberal elites? ORLY?

[Goalie]

"ORLY", it is sad that you use that when trying to have an intellegent debate.

Yes I would fall under the conservative category. However, I am not selectively blind as you claim. I was responding to your one sided critizism with the opposite one sided critizism. We could go back and forth all day doing that. I could say that it is common "meme" for Democrats to be short minded and have a penchant for playing the blame game rather than doing anything of worth. Frankly I find all of that annoying. I never even commented on the actual sites, much less endorsed them. I was simply replying to your one sided presentation.

[AntiochusIII]

Gee, Lemur, you really need to open your eyes. It's obvious to everyone that wikipedia is a pinko-liberal god-hating site that needs some putting down, and YouTube a conspiracy by left-wingers to show the world only from the communist perspective.

Oh wait.

Obviously somebody missed the whole "wikipedia is for everyone to edit" and "You can upload almost everything on YouTube" part. That or the left is grossly overrepresented on the 'net, which leads me to wonder what in the world are these ultraconservatives doing in such a wasteful cyber world so far from God and home...

And here I was thinking only black people self-victimize. Or was it Hispanics? Women?

[Goofball]

it is sad that you use that when trying to have an intellegent debate.

Yes I would fall under the conservative category. However, I am not selectively blind as you claim. I was responding to your one sided critizism with the opposite one sided critizism. We could go back and forth all day doing that. I could say that it is common "meme" for Democrats to be short minded and have a penchant for playing the blame game rather than doing anything of worth. Frankly I find all of that annoying. I never even commented on the actual sites, much less endorsed them. I was simply replying to your one sided presentation.

Let me get this straight.

You are scolding Lemur because he pointed out that a website that admits to being driven by a conservative agenda is driven by a conservative agenda?

[CrossLOPER]

It is sad that you use that when trying to have an intellegent debate.
It's a gaming forum.

Yes I would fall under the conservative category. However, I am not selectively blind as you claim. I was responding to your one sided critizism with the opposite one sided critizism. We could go back and forth all day doing that. I could say that it is common "meme" for Democrats to be short minded and have a penchant for playing the blame game rather than doing anything of worth. Frankly I find all of that annoying. I never even commented on the actual sites, much less endorsed them. I was simply replying to your one sided presentation.
So you support sites like Qtube and Conservapedia, which border on absurd and quite amusing, because you believe that all media is biased?

Anyway, I don't think Lemur really deserved scolding on that account seeing as that he was speaking against extremism in general.

[Goalie]

If you can make a post without being sarcastic through the majority of it I would be glad to respond to it AntiochusIII


Let me get this straight.

You are scolding Lemur because he pointed out that a website that admits to being driven by a conservative agenda is driven by a conservative agenda?

I think scolding is a bit harsh, but yes, I am critizing him for only for presenting one side of the arguement. There are sites out there very similair to these extreme sites only on the other end of the political spectrum if one simply looks. I dont support either of these extremes, however it is unfair to say or imply that conservatives are the only ones guilty of it. I actually prefer that sites come out and say that they are biased either way rather than trying to hide it or deny it.



It's a gaming forum.

So you support sites like Qtube and Conservapedia, which border on absurd and quite amusing, because you believe that all media is biased?

Anyway, I don't think Lemur really deserved scolding on that account seeing as that he was speaking against extremism in general.

How does this being a gaming forum change anything? Are you implying that the people who play these games can not have an intelligent discussion or debate? I was under the impression that the Backroom was for more serious matters such as politics.

Could you point out where I say that sites like Qtube and Conservapedia are good? If lemurs' true intention was to speak agianst extremism in general why did he only include the extreme of one end and not the other?

[Lemur]

I think scolding is a bit harsh, but yes, I am critizing him for only for presenting one side of the arguement. There are sites out there very similair to these extreme sites only on the other end of the political spectrum if one simply looks.
Yes, but QubeTV opened up recently and was in the news. That's reason one for talking about it. Reason two is the inexplicable level of victim and minority mentality that the far right manages to maintain in this country, no matter how much power they wield. It's the darndest thing. As irritating as I can find genuine liberals (I have to use a qualifier, since the term "liberal" has been applied so broadly of late), at least they know how to act like a dominant group when they're in power. The never-ending stream of alienation and outrage coming from the right is notable, in my opinion.

I actually prefer that sites come out and say that they are biased either way rather than trying to hide it or deny it.
I can see the merit of that position, in that objectivity and neutrality are ideals, and therefore unreachable. It certainly makes reporting simpler if one simply declares one's allegiance and takes off on a tear. However, there are important things that you lose if you accept partisanship as a base for fact-finding. One of the problems is that all viewpoints are not equally valid.

I'm a pragmatist and a realist. I don't much like ideologies that require leaps of faith, nor ideologies that pretend to explain everything. Show me what's real and true, and I'll form my own strange opinions. But when reporting gets devolved into "there's two sides to every story," including basic, factual issues, well, something important is lost.

Are you implying that the people who play these games can not have an intelligent discussion or debate? I was under the impression that the Backroom was for more serious matters such as politics.
Depends on the time of day, surely.

Could you point out where I say that sites like Qtube and Conservapedia are good? If lemurs' true intention was to speak agianst extremism in general why did he only include the extreme of one end and not the other?
We are well represented on the right side of the spectrum in the Backroom. I don't need to lift a finger to see the Al Sharptons and Rosie O'Donnels of this world shredded into cutlets by my fellow Orgahs. However, for some strange reasons, the Ann Coulters and the Michael Savages get a bit of a free pass with this crowd.

Also, as I said earlier in the thread, I am a bit of a small-c conservative, and I find the big-government Christian-themed socialism of the last six years utterly disgusting. The 109th congress had to be some sort of new low in pork spending and interest group pandering. So at the moment my hackles are rather more raised in one direction than the other.

[AntiochusIII]

If you can make a post without being sarcastic through the majority of it I would be glad to respond to it AntiochusIIIThen surely as you are capable of recognize the sarcasm you are capable of responding to it? Or in your appreciation of my vitriolic tone you miss the statements themselves? :balloon:

I'm sorry if it offends you, but the gist of your post matches the very point Lemur has been trying to make: I don't believe whenever someone criticizes the liberals another will very quickly come out and say, "But you forget the other side!" with such regularity and swiftness as the opposite case. It is such a sad condition, the self-flagellation that spans an entire ideology. Add that to perceived bias favoring the opposites -- everywhere it seems -- reminiscent of the Communists Under Your (Mom's) Bed phenomenon and I can't help but die a little inside.

Me, being the very embodiment of useless trolling that I am, can express but ridicule on that. Alas.

[KukriKhan]

...I was under the impression that the Backroom was for more serious matters such as politics.


You got the correct impression. Gentlemen, please join me in welcoming Goalie to our little Backroom ~:wave:

Because we discuss such weighty matters as life and death, war and peace, and who decides those things, you'll find that the posters here often use humor or sarcasm to "lighten the load" a bit. It's just how things have evolved here.

We also employ the "principle of charity"; when in doubt about whether a poster means well or ill, assume he means well, until proven otherwise. This may seem naive, but we find it helps to keep discussions on-topic versus spinning endlessly out of control over side arguments about posting style(s).

Now that I've side-tracked the discussion :sorry:, fellas: please carry on. :bow:

[CrossLOPER]

How does this being a gaming forum change anything?
It makes it funny when you try to do the "internet is serious business" routine and then fail to properly execute grammar usage, capitalization, or spelling.


Are you implying that the people who play these games can not have an intelligent discussion or debate? I was under the impression that the Backroom was for more serious matters such as politics.
No and yes.


Could you point out where I say that sites like Qtube and Conservapedia are good? If lemurs' true intention was to speak agianst extremism in general why did he only include the extreme of one end and not the other?
I asked, not accused. Lemur is not obligated to find an extremist site from both sides when he is speaking out against extremism in general. Even if he were to criticize conservative extremism, he would not be obligated to criticize liberal extremism if it were not in his interest.

:shrug:

[Ironside]

Could you point out where I say that sites like Qtube and Conservapedia are good? If lemurs' true intention was to speak agianst extremism in general why did he only include the extreme of one end and not the other?

I must say thst I find it interesting that you hold your fellow backroomer to a higher standard on this matter than what you hold any news agency.

[Goalie]

Thanks for the welcome Kurikhan, although I am not exactly new to the backroom. I have posted here a fair amount in the past, but I don't visit this site that often anymore. It doesnt have a lot value for mpers. I just pop in every once in a while to complain about CA and GS' incompetence.


It makes it funny when you try to do the "internet is serious business" routine and then fail to properly execute grammar usage, capitalization, or spelling.


No and yes.


I asked, not accused. Lemur is not obligated to find an extremist site from both sides when he is speaking out against extremism in general. Even if he were to criticize conservative extremism, he would not be obligated to criticize liberal extremism if it were not in his interest.

:shrug:

I never said that the whole internet was for "serious business". It is quite the opposite actually, however I think this particular section, the backroom, was for a bit more serious matters. You do not see many people who are trying to prove a point in something serious by using overwhelming sarcasism. As for grammer and spelling, I will admit that my English skills are aren't great (haven't taken grammar writing yet), however I believe my I still got my point across.

Of coure Lemur is not obligated to do so. However if he was speaking about extremism in general it would probably be prudent to include both sides of the story rather than implying that extremism is exclusive to conservatives.


I must say thst I find it interesting that you hold your fellow backroomer to a higher standard on this matter than what you hold any news agency.

First off, I personally do not hold the media to very high standards today to begin with. Your comment is very similar to that of CrossLoper so my response is pretty much the same. If I were to critize extremism in general, which is what Lemur along with a few others have said was his intention. I would have included both ends of the spectrum.

[KafirChobee]

Inevitable, weren't they? Out of curiousity, is their format solely as a conservative only information outlet? That is the impression I get. Or, is it a disclaimer to any "conservative conspiracy" by attempting to create a site that will only take films with a conservative agenda?

Still, as previously pointed out, we all realize how persecuted conservatives are - they only control 65-80% of media outlets and have convinced most of their think alikes to follow the narrow minded path they are creating for themselves.
It's appropriate justice, imo - by getting one side of any arguement will make anyone biased against those they feel oppose them. By slamming all those they fear to understand or view as a threat, in a sense they become what they claim to be protecting themselves (all of us) from - radical politicists that see only their agenda as being the one true path. By excluding any discussion, or by shouting the opposition down they achieve nothing except their own unwillingness to accept any truths that disagree with their original proposition.

It is not a matter that liberals don't also hold firmly to some principles, but they atleast listen to all the arguements on a given subject - debate it, incorporate, adjust to facts and continue an open debate.

Conservatives seem willing to put on blinkers and stay the course, regardless of the facts on any given issue. Or, call anything that goes against their sponsors as being a "myth", needing further study, or a liberal agenda. Who needs facts when one has their very own propaganda machine?

I must of course subscribe to Qube - though I doubt any messages I post will be met warmly, it ought to be fun.
:balloon2:

[Ironside]

First off, I personally do not hold the media to very high standards today to begin with. Your comment is very similar to that of CrossLoper so my response is pretty much the same. If I were to critize extremism in general, which is what Lemur along with a few others have said was his intention. I would have included both ends of the spectrum.

The critisism of extremism in general extends to that if Liberapedia and LibTV was started they would have a simular thread as well.
Any group that feels that they have to create thier own alternate reality to protect themself from "insert evil group here" will not be treated well in the Backroom.

The only thing that's particular for this kind of conservative movement is the comments about "the victimised right".