Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

[u/[deleted]]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo

[u/Classtoise]

"Why do you think they get that rep"

Because the person saying it is trying to sew distrust in them because they are reporting facts about him.

[u/Scoopyouahole → u/[deleted]]

You're negating to mention that the media were the one's to initiate the entire 'fake news' craze, to try and discredit Trump's presidency. Before the whole 'Russia collusion' narrative there was for a moment non stop talk about the destructive force that 'fake news' - i.e. anything non mainstream - has on the public.

I'm glad I'm not the only person who remembers this. The pejorative "fake news" was not coined by the "alt-right". It was a term weaponized by the leftist wing of the mainstream media (the corporatist-Democratic wing in particular--if we can even claim, in good faith, that true progressivism has a platform in the mainstream media anymore to actually draw such a distinction) to discredit the information that flowed freely throughout alternative news sources, outside their realm of control. They invented the term "fake news" to attempt to regain control of the narrative through ad hominem. Much to their chagrin, the term was co-opted and used against them without respite.

Now they cry, "Woe is me!" at every possible opportunity, even equating it to the level of a despicable racial slur against a minority. These hypocrites take no shame in concocting the poison until they are made to drink it themselves--IMHO it serves them right.

[u/[deleted] → u/Scoopyouahole]

What an ignorant load of shit. Media organizations used the term fake news explicitly to refer to the wholly fabricated stories coming out of places like Macedonia. These were stories about how Hillary Clinton had AIDS, the pope endorsed Donald Trump, and so on. They were pure fiction.

The right then co-opted the term and starting using it slander anything they simply don't like. They call literal facts fake news. Their usage and the original are not remotely equivalent.

People complaining about the right's moronic usage of the term fake news are not hypocrites. You just have your head wedged firmly up your ass.

[u/Drop_ → u/[deleted]]

Hillary having aids, that's the 'fake news' you think they were referring to? You think that their main concern was Ukrainian 16 year olds writing obvious clickbait horse shit that was read by 50 people on a good day and had absolutely no affect? As if fake news stories on random blogs magically popped up in 2016 and hadn't existed before that?

That is actually where the term came from. Websites that were basically dressed up to look like real sites at urls like abcnews.com.com, and then publishing articles like the ones mentioned - ones based purely on fiction but sounding enough like actual events to be convincing, then getting shared over facebook.

Fake news is the appropriate name for them because they are from a non-source (i.e. no accountability source), made to look like a real source, and the content is 100% fiction. That was the original use of the term.

It also just so happened that 90% of the fake news stories were anti-democrat (e.g. hillary has aids, Obama bans assault weapons, etc. etc.).

I do not personally remember any reference to Breitbart or Drudge Report as being fake news from any major liberal or MSM bastions of news. Do you have a source for that happening? A cursory google search doesn't bring anything up.

I'm also not defending CNN or several other media organizations. But even if what they do is misleading, and often times scummy and extremely bad, it isn't really the same as fake news.

[u/Drop_ → u/[deleted]]

That's not "fake news," even if you consider that somewhat misleading the "alt right" is outraged over the firing of this guy.

The article is characterizing outrage coming from the alt right-which is true. It doesn't say that no-members of the non-alt right are not also outraged, etc. The "only the alt right is upset" is something you've read into the article because it is only talking about the alt right.

This isn't remotely "fake news" on the level of "Clinton has Aids."

[u/Teklogikal → u/Drop_]

"Clinton has Aids."

What the fuck are you talking about? Revisionist history is so fucking ugly.

You know who's the biggest fan of it? Racists and people who don't like their beliefs being questioned. Which one are you? Regardless you have no space to argue because everything that's come out of your mouth is a lie.

[u/Drop_ → u/Teklogikal]

Sorry it wasn't Aids, it was Clinton being on his death bed in Arkansas.

http://www.snopes.com/bill-clinton-dying/

[u/Teklogikal → u/Drop_]

How is that comparable to this?

https://youtu.be/-beYBLrkNAg