Absolutely!

Looking at the articles on media matters home page it seems like less a media outlet and more a propaganda outlet. I don’t want to derail the thread on that but I’m not saying barstool is perfect, I’m sure they have their flaws, as does everyone, but they are clearly funny and entertaining as so many other users here said when describing their reaction to how they ran the bowl game broadcast. If they do something criminal then have the authorities deal with it. If you don’t like something then say, say why you don’t like it and why. If people don’t like what they are doing then don’t watch. But just because you don’t like what they’re doing doesn’t mean other people don’t, and you can’t cancel someone just because you don’t like them. Let the people who do like them enjoy it and go about your own business or contact the law or say something if needed. Activist should have bigger things to be up in arms about then a silly sports betting company. They might make a bad joke trying to be funny but who hasn’t done that. My first grade teacher once said sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. Lots of people getting mad about words vs getting mad about actions.

You've unironically referred to someone as a "woke writer" who "does nothing but divide" and are now calling Media Matters propaganda because you disagree with their criticisms of. . .Barstool Sports. You might want to take a deep breath, man.

This is exactly what's happening, and yet you're railing about propaganda, wokeness and cancel culture. Barstool just sponsored and hosted a Bowl Game. They haven't been cancelled, and the suggestion they have been is ridiculous.

What's your view here, exactly? That MediaMatters shouldn't write about them because you disagree with what they think?

Activists? What are you talking about? MediaMatters is a publication that covers the media. Barstool is a media company. I guess MediaMatters shouldn't exist because Barstool isn't as important as world hunger?



You are, by far, the most worked up about words. We're so through the looking glass here, it's hilarious. You just called a media source propaganda because you're offended by their ideas, and think you're the one crusading against cancel culture.

It's exceedingly easy to not think twice about a year old article about Barstool. And any logical view makes clear they haven't been cancelled by a woke mob. The insistence otherwise is just more of the perpetual victimhood Americans have become addicted to.

I enjoyed it as did those watching with me. Sophomoric at times? Yup. So? A lot of fun. Even the commercials were a trip.

Distorting other people's words is one of the things BLSS does best. In his mind he's won every single discussion (err . . . argument) he's ever had on BA. He will always get the last word. One of his all time classics with me is telling me I'm weak on my nearly absolutist First Amendment stance because I oppose teaching 3rd graders about transgenderism. The fact that we are talking about children in a manditory attendance environment were crucial factors in my argument that he completely dismissed with his smarter-than-though language. He will never grant that you've made a significant point, or one that he should consider as in the slightest way changing his preconceived ideas. He'll rip me for what I've just said, but I'm beyond caring about anything he says at this point.

OCF just makes shit up.

You're right, sorry. I missed the original comment about the "activists" -- I thought you were referring to MediaMatters as the activist. My bad.

For what it's worth, I agree with this. Hence my point that Barstool's far from cancelled. Their content's popular, and I don't even think it's particularly controversial.

This is where I take issue with your characterization. Do you really think you're using the phrase "propaganda" correctly here, or is that a hugely loaded phrase that you're using for effect?

Also, c'mon dude. "As I just lied about"? We're talking about MediaMatters solely in the context of a link somebody posted about Barstool. That you glanced at their homepage and have concluded it's all "one sided" is overly simplistic, and betrays your own bias. Are you really suggesting that there's literally nothing of merit offered my MediaMatter and that they've never approached a story without "propaganda" in mind?

I mean, how many MediaMatter stories have you read?



I quoted your words and replied to them. It makes that one poster whose name I can't remember very annoyed when I quote people, but it's the reason I do it. Which ones did I twist?


I agree with all of this.


It seems like you had a pretty big problem with criticism of them, given that you called MediaMatters "propaganda" and "woke writers who do nothing but divide."

I completely agree protests against Barstool would be ridiculous. But when you saw valid criticism of Barstool -- and it is valid, even if ultimately insignificant -- you attempted to dismiss the entire outlet as propaganda. What's your stance here, exactly? That you're "totally fine with criticism of them but in this case, it's woke propaganda and so is everything else MediaMatters published?"

It seems your actual stance is more that Barstool does and says some things that people might find problematic, but ultimately it's entertaining and not meant to harm people, and on the balance it's fine. I agree with that. But there's no doubt that some of what Barstool has done is shitty. You and I both know it.

And given that, there's gonna be criticism, and that criticism isn't just "propaganda" -- it's real reporting about real things that happened, and people can decide for themselves how much it matters to them.

Yeah, I didn't. And I provided proof in the form of links to the actual conversations. That you want to ignore those says everything that needs to be said.


I'm so intellectually dishonest that I provided links to what I said and asked for evidence. And you -- the intellectually honest person -- refuse to look and provide evidence for your accusation.

Adds up.

I truly have no idea what you're talking about. Medical credentials? When did I claim to have medical credentials? I've talked plenty about what I do here when it's been relevant, and it has nothing to do with medicine. Or are you saying SBH made up his resume? Truly my man, I have no idea what you're talking about.


Edit: Oh, I pieced it together despite your senility. You're referring to the dude that thinks I'm Bobcat Love? I'm not. You asked me that once, in fact. I gave you the answer. It was the honest answer, and continues to be the honest answer. That you've made up some weird conspiracy about me just underscores how oddly obsessed with me you seem to be. I'm happy to talk and have a conversation off the internet so you can understand I'm a real person who just happens to disagree with you on things. But just like the link to our previous conversations and the offer of a charitable donation (which, by the way, would be made in my name and further prove I'm not making up my resume), I know you won't take me up on that.

Why? Because you're intellectually dishonest and afraid to face just how wrong you are about all of these things.

OCF, just re-stating the offer. It's a real offer, and I'll send you the receipt.

$1000 to the charity of your choice. I'm partial to the Joe Burrow Hunger Relief Fund, but it's up to you. All you need to do is click the links I provided above and quote where I said that you're "weak on [your] nearly absolutist First Amendment stance because [you] oppose teaching 3rd graders about transgenderism."

You keep saying I said it, so it should be easy to find. $1000 to the Joe Burrow Hunger Relief Fund. What do you say? 3 minutes of your time to help food insecure Appalachian families.

Seems very weird that you wouldn't do it, given the impact it would have. And as an added bonus, the receipt will have my name on it so you'll also get to to the bottom of your other very weird accusation about "my resume" at the same time.

In this forum you're suggesting, will OCF do 3 minutes of work to get $1000 over to the charity of his choice? If so, I'm down.

That's an excellent false dichotomy.