'Fake News' Now Means Whatever People Want It To Mean, And Legislating It Away Is A Slippery Slope Toward Censorship
from the truth-is-whatever-I-say-it-is dept
The discussion about "fake news" certainly began with good intentions, with participants earnestly focused on how disinformation, shitty journalism and bullshit clickbait were filling the noggins of a growing segment of the public for whom critical thinking was already a Sisyphean endeavor. The solution for this problem was never as clean and easy as most of the conversations suggested, especially given that Americans -- thanks in large part to our struggles with education quality and funding -- have never been particularly adept at spotting disinformation, much less understanding how you expose, undermine and combat it at scale.
None of these problems are new. Bad journalism and propaganda have plagued publishing and governments for thousands of years. Donald Trump's violently-adversarial relationship with facts and Vladimir Putin's warehouses full of paid internet trolls have simply taken the conversation to an entirely new level in the internet age. But it's becoming increasingly clear that many of the folks who believe they can somehow legislate this problem away may be doing more harm than good.
In fact, much of the moral panic surrounding the initial fake news conversation has quickly degenerated into something that vacillates quickly between comedy and terror. As we've consistently pointed out, a growing number of countries have moved to make fake news illegal -- even before they've taken time to understand what it actually is. Germany's potential plan to make publishing fake news illegal teeters dangerously close to censorship. Letting politicians define "fake news" (with an obvious incentive toward defining it in their favor) should be a fairly obvious slippery slope.
We've already watched as Donald Trump and his supporters have whined endlessly that absolutely any information they don't like should be mindlessly deposited into the "fake news" bin -- without the pesky and annoying effort required to intelligently analyze each piece of data or reporting on its merits. Even over in Syria, Bashar al-Assad has found the term useful when trying to dodge accusations of systemic torture and massive executions:
Syria's Assad calls mass-execution allegations 'fake news,' @YasmeenSerhan reports https://t.co/qSZQjOAII6 pic.twitter.com/yO4xIeYezd
— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) February 10, 2017
And while lies and disinformation are the obvious refuge of authoritarians (or worse), Democracies shouldn't believe they're above the fray when it comes to the fight against fake news being bastardized and weaponized. The line between fighting disinformation and depressing dissent is, as the Washington Post recently noted, significantly thinner than many of our supposedly civilized Democracies would like to pretend:
"Of course, Europe’s established democracies have little in common with the Soviet Union or other illiberal regimes. But the legal tools proposed by European politicians to suppress fake news sound alarmingly like those used by authoritarian governments to silence dissent. This is dangerous. Not only are such measures incompatible with the principle of free speech, but also they set precedents that could quickly strengthen the hand of the populist forces that mainstream European politicians feel so threatened by."
And while there's this belief that these legislative assaults on fake news will somehow put the seedier, more truth-averse news outlets in their place, there's a very real threat of the exact opposite happening (something you could argue is already happening in many countries):
"Above all, rather than strengthening established media institutions, banning fake news might very well undermine them in the eyes of the public. If alternative outlets are prosecuted or shut down, mainstream media risk being seen as unofficial propaganda tools of the powers that be. Behind the Iron Curtain, nonofficial media outlets had more credibility than official media in spite of the fact that not everything they published was accurate or fact-checked. The hashtag #fakenews could become a selling point with the public if it were banned rather than rigorously countered and refuted."
Meanwhile, both the United States and Russia continue to lead the world when it comes to showing how having government dictate what media coverage is or isn't true is a losing proposition for all of us. In Russia, while one arm of the government is busy pumping out propaganda twenty-four hours a day (and denying it), another wing of the government has begun more seriously deriding stories and facts Putin doesn't like. This week, Russia launched a new section of the government's website dedicated to highlighting "fake news" with a giant red stamp:
"Just in case anybody missed the point, each article on the Foreign Ministry website carried a big red label reading “FAKE” in English and a line saying that the information in the article “does not correspond to reality." Russia actually announced something of a fake news double whammy, since the defense minister, Sergei K. Shoigu, told Parliament on Wednesday that the military had created a special task force assigned to wage information warfare, although he did not provide any details."
Subtle.
None of this is to say we shouldn't work tirelessly to help truth regain a foothold. Obviously, teaching classroom critical thinking in the new global media age should be a priority, since actually being able to identify propaganda has never been a U.S. forte (especially if it's originating from the States, a well-versed expert on the subject). And many of the efforts by Facebook and others to cull obvious bullshit from news feeds while adding fact-check systems could prove useful. People also need to simply pause and realize that the internet is still relatively new, and it's going to take media -- and the truth -- time to find its footing in the face of oceans of digitized bullshit.
That said, it might be a good idea to make sure we're not making things worse as we learn. And it shouldn't require too much pesky critical thinking to realize that the efforts to combat "fake news" can be subverted to aid those trying to rip truth from its very foundation, or that letting politicians define what truth is may only expedite our Orwellian descent toward chilling legitimate expression.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, fake news, journalism
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not sure what could be causing that, unless it's something about the imgur embed...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trump is following Putin's Playbook
This is unfortunate, but this playbook works. Deny Deny Deny even when you are backed into a corner. Throw out enough propaganda and astroturf in social media channels to derail debate and wait it out... unfortunately our short attention spans will forget and move onto the next outrage starting the cycle over to play out indefinitely :/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So...
Yea, no... they were always biased, the problem is that everyone is becoming more comfortable with the notion that the press should be controlled for "reasons". Not that the "help a specific party" mass media is helping their cause, but that is more besides the point.
As an independent I have noticed forces on BOTH sides trying to marginalize media sources they "disagree" with as faux news. It's funny how people tend to sabotage their own efforts. But like I have constantly tried to tell the left. You cannot achieve equality by creating rules of Inequality to combat them, and like I tell those on the right that you cannot improve the safety of society or nation by handing your liberty over to the police.
But... they will not learn. From time to time, the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. The vigilance of "The People" has been weak, biased, or apathetic and rarely has it been virtuous or stalwart!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Details of the German ban law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I am pretty certain that the Presidency is not fake. If you truly believe it is, then your duty (if you are a US Citizen) is to go and put it down is it not? Meanwhile, go ahead and run your mouth like a twit! You and the President should be twit buddies at the rate you both like to "run mouth".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fake!
If the Administration does manage to hurt the media , and at this point it looks like they will fail them the internet will become the only place people get there news and it will be verified with links to facts and videos and documents that cannot be created in a newspaper... Once people find some of the reliable websites that do not have their own opinions of the news but just good investigations into what is in the headlines the administration will be outed as the fakes they are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Trump is following Putin's Playbook
Also although there are those that will eventually accept lies as fact there are way more people that will not be as dumb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Sports and other achievements tainted by some unusual conditions get noted with an asterisk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have found his lies to be about the same rate as the previous 2 administrations. It seems to me that the only disqualifier for Trump is that he does not have a D behind the name. Bernie might have been the most honest candidate from the D party but he got pushed aside like a chump. I think the D's are a little behind the 8 ball by comparison to the R's in trying to get their party back.
But, neither side will ever get their party back because they never had them to begin with. A political party's purpose is nothing other than to usurp the will of the people. The lambs are lead to the slaughter where they mistakenly believe that their vote will be sacrificed for the greater good. Once a candidate joins a party, they are beholden to the party, NOT the people. all they need to do is throw enough crumbs to their "voters" to keep being voted back in. Once that baseline has been achieved, then it is bad to the business of corruption as usual.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Remember kids: Drugs are bad. If you start seeing those around you as farm animals and begin to make animal calls in an attempt to communicate with them, this is not normal and probably a good indicator that something has gone horribly and/or hilariously wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, Breitbart might actually get it right once in awhile. So does the National Enquirer. But both are wrong enough that neither should have any value in a rational discussion on any issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I mean... you do know what happens when you run around intentionally picking a fight right? You are going to get a fight. Just as George wrote in his farewell address, the alternating dominance of one party over the other will sharpen the spirit of revenge and will result in a despotism.
Regardless of liking or hating a candidate, you should avoid such foolishness. You are either a sore winner or a sore loser, and it really looks like you are a sore loser. If you see your fellow man as an enemy because their vote went to the likes of Trump, then you justify their animosity towards you for having NOT voted for the likes of Trump. Like revenge, in preparation for it, first dig two graves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Yep, I would say we are long past that point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
All arguments against CNN, Fox, ABC, Breitbart, or CBS all smack of the ole, my shit don't stink but yours does, logic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You, on the other hand, are saying shoot the messenger and ignore the message, true or not.
It's your responsibility to discover the veracity of the message. If you leave it to others to do for you, you have no one but yourself to blame when you don't like the results.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You can make an argument that building a wall along our border is the right thing to do to protect this country. You can also argue that is racism.
Milo raises some very good points, being gay in a Muslim nation usually doesn't work out that well. That could also be considered racism.
The media doesn't report news, it injects its opinion, which is the why in the "5 W's" of every complete article. Do we know why Trump wants to build a wall? That is all opinion, he says it is for security, others say it is because of racism.
Today the why is more important than the first four w's (the who, what, where, when.) Today the first four w's don't really matter, it is the why that counts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, you could declare Obama to be the same as the previous administration. There'd be some truth there, as he kept most of the same policies and didn't prosecute those who turned the country into a torture state. On the other hand he do anything on the scale of the lies and deception used to drag the country into a decade+ long war.
But declaring Trump to be in the same league? Take Obama's worst lie and put it into a Trump speech. It would go entirely unnoticed, overshadowed by far worse Trump claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the Difference..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump Lying More
However you are correct that he is lying BADLY. Not only badly but just plain about stuff that does not even matter. Most politicians are much better at picking when and how to lie. Probably comes from all the practice they get from being called out on the stupid lies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Details of the German ban law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Why is it OK for other country's including Mexico but not the U.S.? Well except for the globalist who want no boarders anywhere in the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: So...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh-huh.
I now pay more then half the cost of my house mortgage on my Health care Premium every month for just ME!!!
That's pretty meaningless without stating how much your mortgage is.
I still have a $2500 deducible.
So then you're no worse off than before?
Just look at the stock market. How can you be hurting? Or are you just whining like a typical Trump bitch?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Interesting timing
Bruce Schneier has a piece this morning titled A Survey of Propaganda. For me, the most interesting part was his conclusion:
Where have we heard that before? The best argument against speech you don't like is not suppression or censorship, it is more speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gee, I hope that no terrorist groups got started in Iraq because of premature withdrawal of troups, nor that such things will happen in other places like Syria or Libya!
But I'm sure "The Most Transparent Administration EVER!" wasn't a lie itself. Or ask all the leakers who found out the hard way the real truth.
Politicians lie. Trump lies. Obama lied and Gruber brags about having had Obama do it knowingly as a well to sell bad policy. What's funny is that the press has become nearly a monoculture politically so that they only seem to be outraged when someone of a different ideology than theirs lies. The (tiny) right wing press is defending Trump's "alternative facts", while the Obama-loving MSM tied themselves in knots trying to avoid calling Obama's whoppers lies (Bengazi movie anyone?).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A significant factor is the failure of any effective anti-trust/monopoly controls- media ownership is catastrophically condensed- it doesn't take conspiracy for this to be detrimental, ambition and chilling effects will suffice; No one wants to bite the hand that feeds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obama did lie (or least got it wrong) about keeping your doctor and keeping your plan. But it's helped 20 million get insurance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: So...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Healthcare costs were skyrocketing long before ObamaCare. The most it could do is slow the rise in costs and get more people covered. And it did.
None of which would even be noticed next to the lies in the average Trump speech. (Remember "I have a plan, a very secret plan, to defeat ISIS in 30 days"? It's now Day 38.)
BTW, as John Oliver pointed out last night, Trump has already repeated the "you can keep your doctor" claim about his own ACA "replacement."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NPR interviewed such a person. During the election campaigns he found it easier to sucker Republicans than Democrats.
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a -covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs
For the hard of comprehending, fake news does not mean websites you don't like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Starting off wrong by intentionally misstating facts and then doubling down when your inaccuracies are outed Is NOT how journalism works. That is just propaganda.
That is difference between CNN and Breitbart.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
All news is fake if you know what you're talking about
The first rule of trusting a reporter is to remember that they're the folks who were too incompetent to become English majors. Sure, there are a few who have learned enough to cover a particular subject well, but 99% of them give the other 1% a bad name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
a) Those terrorist groups existed before Obama took power, excepting the occasional Life of Brian-style splintering and renaming. The conditions that created them - including Bush II disbanding the Iraqi army - existed before Obama took power.
b) The "premature withdrawal" was done on a timetable agreed to by Bush II. The new Iraqi government he set up refused to budge on it.
Nor can it be said that Republicans disagreed, since they took to declaring the Iraq occupation "Obama's War" the moment he was elected. Even Trump had gone from supporting the war to opposing it. Heck, by 2012 Republicans were barking and clapping like trained seals when a senile old git ranted at an empty chair about Obama (!) having invaded Afghanistan.
Benghazi? What lie? (Real-life lie that is. As opposed myths made up by the right.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
His press secretary's first official appearance was to lie about the crowd size. That's a good start to set the tone. On both the truthfulness and the topics the administration considers of the highest national importance.
Trump never misses an opportunity to talk up his election victory. When Trump has his first state of the union speech, can we take bets about how many minutes will be reserved for talking about his election victory? Or about how great a businessman he is? Or anything else about the man rather than the nation's business?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't like how divided the country is either. But you have to take a stand. Does the sun rise in the East or in the West, or somewhere in between? In the past, the facts were the facts. We could debate about whether the sun rising in the East was a good idea, or bad. Some would even debate about whether there should be subsidies to fix it. Or some other government action. At some point we got to a point where people would debate about whether congress or the president should change the sun to rise in the West, or whether it could actually even be done. Now we've gotten to the point where the sun rising in the West can be proclaimed from the highest office in the land, and if you disagree, well, you're fake news.
With previous presidents or congress critters that I have disagreed with, I at least had respect. It was just a difference of opinion about public policy.
With the current orange clown in office, it has gone so far from issues of public policy that there can't be any discussion. Maybe we can get back to there. But I doubt it. A war on the media? Really? I don't even know what to say.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey, hey. It's "THANKS, Obama.", not "Thanks OBAMA."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's the best way to refer to a twitter account with a body.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Mostly by Uneducated people that will be sucking up the limited resources we have for our own citizens, no matter the color of their skin!!!
What's your take on abortion, by the way? Just curious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obama, like Bush, like Clinton, like the rest, lied -- and none of us should be happy about that. Sometimes they were small lies, sometimes they were large, sometimes they were lies of omission, sometimes they were lies of commission.
Trump lies and DOES NOT KNOW THAT HE'S LYING. It's pathological. He will say anything that occurs to him, or repeat anything he's heard, or fabricate anything he wishes, without hesitation, guilt, or apology.
Not even Nixon did this. For all of his faults -- and I despised that man until the day he died -- at least he knew when he was lying, and he did so because he had his reasons, whether they were personal or political or otherwise. Trump just lies constantly and randomly because he really, truly, sincerely has no idea what the truth is...other than "what Trump says it is".
So it's not the lying that bothers me the most -- although it certainly does. It's the psychosis.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: All news is fake if you know what you're talking about
The first rule of trusting a reporter is to remember that they're the folks who were too incompetent to become English majors. By the same 'logic', "technical people" are the ones who were too incompetent to become software devs. Don't let Dunning-Krueger go and convince you that you know everything there is to know about another profession.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
http://www.politifact.com/pe rsonalities/barack-obama/
(They've got a section on Bush too, but there's not much there; Politifact started in late '07, near the end of his presidency.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh! Wrong right out of the gate.
There was never nay evidence that people were influenced by fake news on social media. This was just losers trying to delegitimize an election they lost, abetted by a news media trying to rescue its own reputation after a period of transparent dishonesty and partisan manipulation (so brazen most major outlets even admitted it).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obama won with a majority of the vote, twice. Bush won with a majority of the vote once (in '04); his victory in 2000, on the other hand, had some pretty serious and memorable irregularities.
For what it's worth, Bill Clinton never got a majority of the vote, just a plurality.
I agree with your criticism of partisanship. However, it's not partisan to state facts. And it is a fact to say that both Bush in '00 and Trump in '16 won the electoral vote after losing the popular vote, and that there were extremely unusual circumstances in both elections.
It's also a fact that Bill Clinton won the popular vote but never made it to 50%. (And that neither Al Gore nor Hillary Clinton got a popular majority either, though both of them won the popular vote.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
ISWYDT
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Some sources should prompt more skepticism than others.
The National Enquirer occasionally breaks a major story. But if I see a major story sourced to the National Enquirer, I'm going to wait to see it verified by other sources before I believe it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Your English is atrocious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Brands live forever, long after the original company dies. The brand name gets licenced to anyone willing to pay to market their product under it.
I don't want to see Trump have that kind of immortality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
I think you all are proof positive of how much you hammers need everything to be a nail to hit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump Lying More
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I notice this line is only used by the losing side.
-But declaring Trump to be in the same league? Take Obama's worst lie and put it into a Trump speech. It would go entirely unnoticed, overshadowed by far worse Trump claims.-
Lies are a bit like beauty, it is all in the eye of the beholder. Some people can live with a cheating lying spouse, others cannot. Some people can live with a lying cheating President... if they are on their side.
Kinda like how mothers can call their raping and murdering sons misunderstood Angels.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-cove rt-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump Lying More
You are being willfully oblivious. Nobody likes when the president lies. Nobody thinks Obama never lied, or that he was without fault when doing so. The issue with Trump is that he lies constantly, about things that don't matter, as well as things that do, with no particular reason one way or the other.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It will not do us much good to over play Trumps sins, because it will drive his supports into a corner where they have to defend themselves just for survival.
Clinton was bad, Bush was worse, Obama even worse, and Trump worse still. This is not good, and causing trouble. We are more willing to fight with each other and protest in marches than to protest over some very obvious corruption.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's not exactly true. There's a study ( https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fakenews.pdf ) that indicates that fraudulent news stories didn't swing the election, but that's not the same thing as saying people weren't influenced by them. The conclusion is, essentially, that people were far more influenced by TV ads than stories on Facebook. That's a reasonable conclusion, but it doesn't say that there was no influence from the Facebook stories.
I agree, to a certain extent. I think that the Democrats are far too ready to blame external factors -- Comey, Russia, the electoral college, fraudulent news sites, etc. -- to shift the blame away from Clinton herself.
However, while I absolutely believe the biggest reason Hillary Clinton lost is that she's Hillary Clinton, that doesn't mean that those other factors are irrelevant or shouldn't be discussed. Facebook paying more attention to verifying the sources in its newsfeed is a good outcome. Legislative action to crack down on freedom of the press, on the other hand, is not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is good advice. If we want to defeat Trump, we'll almost certainly need people who voted for him to vote against him in the future.
Huh? Did you just say that we're more willing to protest than we are to protest?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Back when the elections were going down, I told everyone that I was going to laugh in their faces when Trump got in. And I did not and still do not like Trump. But the puerile and vagrant childishness of the anti-trump crowd is just out of control. We need to work to ratchet it back and not allow it to spin out of control.
Since I don't like any of the guys, my bias is a general disgust for both parties. But I have found that it has been much easier to talk with and debate those on the right than those on the left. If they are on the left, there is NO conversation, just disgust, hubris, and general vitriol. Or a good old straw man argument where they take something I said to mean something I did not say and then proceed to smack talk that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nothing arrives without bias, and you are doing a far better job of normalizing white-supremacist racism and bigotry than anyone else.
The more you water it down, the harder it is to find the element you seek. Because for you, anything you "disagree" with is "white-supremacist racism and bigotry". You are a "white-supremacist racism and bigotry" hammer, and everything for you is a "white-supremacist racism and bigotry" nail. You cannot be reasoned with, because you have no reason!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Libertarian news sources will cater to their readers.
TD caters to their readers.
Fox caters to their readers.
CNN caters to their readers.
Most of everything I read everywhere mostly leaves me with more questions than any facts or answers. You can make more than enough lies up using facts, just by omitting specific pieces of information. There have been more than enough thought experiments that show how much gravy is in the human mind.
I often refer to the Placebo effect. Because I am independent, I feel that I will never get an honest news report. I view most outlets as sensationalizing and obtuse. I like both John Oliver and Ben Shapiro. They tend to do convincing work with the things they report on. I do not necessarily agree with their finds on everything, but I like what they come up with. I never had a problem with just about any major news outlet either. I don't hate CBS, CNN, Fox, BBC, Al-Jazeera, or any other news agency. I just look at the content and try to learn about what I see based on other sources.
Like most things, everything is outside of my capabilities ore scope of understanding. But many here at TD foolishly think many things are "within" their understand and they simply are not. Most here are armchair generals that know next to nothing, misunderstand what little history they likely don't even know, participate in bashing others for no other reason than to be part of the "in crowd". I have been there, but I stopped that shortly after 1st grade when I told a lie big enough to teach me the value of truth and why having integrity is important. Now, I refuse to join mob crowds looking to head hunt anything. I have found that humans in general are always seeking to form groups and then use that safety to attack others they don't like or disagree with. Being factually right, wise, merciful, or intelligent are not even considered.
You can rob a bank or rape and murder and be welcomed back to society, but you will be forever scared if you are famous (enough) with having uttered any racial slurs for a protected class... and THAT is what is truly sad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anti-intellectualism is the root of the problem. As long as the people in charge are not required to know how to think, Every path is the wrong one. Paths which are ripe for abuse, such as this one, are all the more problematic not because of potential danger but because of inevitable failure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why? Information is just information. A wise detective will not just blindly trust information because it is from a trustworthy source. Honest people can be co-opted into a dishonest narrative by a well constructed deception.
I used to debate a mentally unstable individual. Learning early how easy it is to corrupt a human mind I decided, instead of learning who was right or wrong, I worked to find out the inconsistencies, the cognitive dissonances, the hypocrisy. Once i started looking at those... man, you make enemies fast. No one likes to hear about how wrong they are... humanity just is not able to take it.
I try to work against my own bias and ignorance, it is fucking hard as hell, but every attempt I make to call others out... well, a doubling down on the stupid soon follows.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My own child (who is grown now) Was among some of the first to attend a virtual school. Meaning he had teachers and classes but he met with those teachers and other students through white board classrooms and had phone access to his teacher, counselor and a mentor via phone, email, and chat.
Because of the way we chose to have him schooled, it allowed us as parents to be a bit more active in the subjects he studied. One of the subjects (which wasn't actually a subject through school) that we would have regular discussions on was philosophy. Together we studied and discussed various philosophical topics, because of that I believe he learned some critical thinking skills. It taught him to always question. I believe philosophy is a subject sorely lacking in classrooms and is something all young people should participate in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I should have typed that better.
We are more willing to march in protest over less important stuff while we don't march in protest over more important stuff.
In general, the US government has been massively ignoring the US Constitution at every step and turn. I see no protests. Trump says "grab them by the pussy" and wham... a protest. I am sorry, but Trump will not the last scumbag we have in power. The path to Trump was paved by the past and how we react to things.
I still see a worse than Trump coming, the current outrage and division... we have much worse that will come. It does not matter which party either, both are complicit in this problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Each person have their own moral compass and may arrive at a different conclusion. That said, I am making the point that those saying nothing when Obama did is are just as guilty of those that said nothing when Bush did it, and how that Trump did it... well you get the idea.
We must first step away from the political bias. The democrats need to chillax and come down to conversation levels and stop demonizing the republicans. The republicans needs to stop demonizing the democrats and keep an open mind when they point out the negatives. I know just exactly that this has zero fucking chance of happening, but at least I can go down having tried. Hell, maybe it will work!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
Funny that - in response to questions about his post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because the left never lies? Hypocrisy only buries you, not your enemy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You misspelled illegitimate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey, they killed their kid, but at least those parents don't have to waste money feeding and clothing them now. Wow, nice optimism there! NOT!
Any gain achieved through dishonest means, might not be a gain in the final analysis. Doing the right thing but for the wrong reasons, can still doom you!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Details of the German ban law?
Bonus points for identification and discussion of why most everyone else disagrees with your definition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the news is fake.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump Lying More
Suppose we were talking about killers instead, Should we send the less skilled killer to jail because they were not able to hide their kills as well as the skilled killer?
A liar is just simply a liar. Why bother with tallying up who was the best or worse or the most or least? Is this a national pastime now? Which president lies the best/most?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never called the left perfectly honest. But if you're going to ask "Bengazi movie anyone?" as an example, then one SHOULD ask "What lie?"
Being an issue where there's undeniably been a lot of myths from the right - including from dozens of appearances on Fox News by their Benghazi Expert former CIA operative Wayne Simmons - who turned out to be no such thing and a complete fraud - then specifying real lies rather than myths is appropriate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump Lying More
Not at all. Everybody lies sometimes; some lies are socially acceptable and others aren't. That's even more true for politicians.
We have lots of different laws concerning sentencing different types of killing, Anon. First-degree murderers do get sentenced differently than second-degree murderers, who get sentenced differently from people who commit manslaughter. Motivation and circumstances are relevant. Context is important.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
The question asked has no real bearing on the subject. Kinda like asking, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
In other words, a trick question designed to derail the conversation or make someone appear guilty regardless of any actual guilt. Most folks call those a straw-man type argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Close to"?
Is the implication that it's not, or are you relying on the reflexive property? Making it illegal to publish something is censorship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because the right never uses strawman arguments?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So.... One shouldn't criticize white-supremacist racism and bigotry because you're "watering it down?"
Just a reminder: Even Breitbart chairman Steve Bannon declared it "the platform for the alt-right." White supremacist Richard Spencer coined the term "alt-right" in 2010 to define a movement centered on white nationalism, and has been accused of doing so to whitewash overt racism, white supremacism, and neo-Nazism. Which is pretty much Breitbart's mission statement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then it's not a lie. Lying requires intent. If it's unintentional, it could be a falsehood, or it could be bullshit (ie a statement without regard to its truth or falsity), but it's not a lie.
I would argue that Trump does all of the above: lies, bullshit, and accidental falsehoods.
I don't know about that. A pathological liar is someone who lies even when there's no benefit to doing so. I think Trump usually lies because he thinks there is a benefit to doing so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There were protests all through both the Bush and Obama Administrations. Do the phrases "Iraq War", "Tea Party", "Occupy Wall Street", and "Black Lives Matter" not mean anything to you?
Can you provide a concrete example of "the US government [] massively ignoring the US Constitution" and no protests occurring?
Are you suggesting that a presidential candidate boasting about sexual assault is not a valid cause for protest?
You also seem to be willfully ignoring that there have been protests over other policy decisions Trump has made. His immigration policy has led to massive protests, for example.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump Lying More
Since you freely admit that you are a dishonest person by finding some lies to be "socially acceptable" then all we have here is that for you, it is okay for Obama to lie, but not Trump. This holds true for Trump supporters that it is okay for Trump to lie, but not Obama.
We really should not be in the position of letting these people lie like this... "just because they are on our team". The damage it is doing is evident.
When you give Obama a pass, you provide license for others to give Trump a pass without compliant. Or do you not understand how hypocrisy works?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How much outrage do you believe is "necessary"?
AYFKM? The "puerile and vagrant childishness of the anti-Trump crowd"?
As opposed to the reasoned discourse we've come to expect from Donald Trump?
I'm not denying that there some of the people who don't like Trump are jerks. But your implication that his supporters are above namecalling and vulgarity is absurd.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Now fastforward about the current scandal with Flynn and contact with Russian agents. You have heard nothing about the content of the calls, just who had a conversation with whom. Did the NYT's say anything about the content of the conversation? Were any laws/rules broken? You don't hear about that, you just hear that Flynn was talking to Russians.
That to me is fake news.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would you care to detail how stating that the left is just as complicit in lies as the right to be a straw-man argument? If one liar desires to call another liar out, then we must first resole the liar problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay then.
You can fly.
That is information. As a source, I am equally valid to every other source, and you should under no circumstance treat me with any more or less skepticism than a physics textbook. Please go jump out a window.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're allowed to rant about "Uneducated [sic] people" and it's worthwhile and insightful, but if I point out your own lack of education, I'm the one who's ignorant?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, that would be a pathological issue, one which many of you share WITH Trump, which likely pisses many of you off but no one really cares.
There are a lot of posters here at TD that are buying their own cons.
And yes, Trump does lie because there IS a benefit to doing so. The Benefits of lying is well established, it works, and it works damn good. Even when the lies are obvious, they work. The tale of "The Emperors New Clothes" is a fine example of what I speak.
I find that while all people in both parties are guilty of this, just in different ways, many of the Anti-Trumpers have specifically fallen under the spell that anyone not bashing Trump is "unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent". Unfortunately, there are not children on your side willing to even dare say... "But he isn't wearing anything at all!" so that you can be broken out of your delusions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well I'm not the person you asked, but your strawman is pretty obvious to even a passer-by like myself.
The initial claim: Obama's lie about something related to "the Benghazi movie, anyone?"
The challenge: What lie with regard to "The Benghazi Movie" is being alluded to here? Addendum: actual lies, not Fox News talking-myths that have been debunked numerous times.
Your strawman: "So the left never lies?"
Assuming you understand what a strawman argument is, you see how you have just illustrated the concept like a text book example?
No one claimed the left never lies. No one believes that. It's a strawman you created to knock down.
The argument you're avoiding with the strawman is: What real-life lie from the Benghazi movie is being spoken of?
Your argument style in this thread is textbook strawman arguing.
This is TD man. Do you drive-bys really think assertions can go uncheked around here?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can protest for any reason you like, I am just saying that people watching you protest might think you are a toon for it.
"Can you provide a concrete example of "the US government [] massively ignoring the US Constitution" and no protests occurring?"
I have to prove a negative? I guess you don't understand how logic work. Do you see a protest formed at any point in history over "civil forfeiture laws"? I am sure there have been some not covered by the media, but I never saw reports.
How about the TSA? Seen any protests on that? The protest over the Immigration issue and Iraq war is about the most real meaningful and concrete protest you guys have. OWS was a joke by idiots, BLM is a RACIST joke by scum, and the Tea Party was a flash in the pan. The tea party tards ran mouth and got suckered again by rhetoric, invited the problems right back in the front door.
So, is protesting a Presidents bad mouth valid? Well so is protesting over the sky being blue. You going to protest that? Or is the sky guilty of one of your pet labels for people you don't agree with?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Calling unpopular stories fake news seems to be working on some people. My friend, who previously believed pretty much everything he heard on the news, now believes that the news can't be trusted. Well, it can't be trusted when it goes against his viewpoint. As long as the stories agree with or reinforce his position, then it's obviously true.
Now, politicians aren't even trying to hide the fact that they're using the claim of fake news to delegitimize news outlets that they don't like. In Colorado, a state senator called a local paper fake news for publishing an editorial calling on him to bring a bill up for a vote. An editorial, which is an opinion is now considered fake news if the politician it targets doesn't like it.
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/17/515760101/when-a-politician-says-fake-news-and-a-newspaper-threate ns-to-sue-back
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the puerile and vagrant childishness of the anti-trump crowd is just out of control. We need to work to ratchet it back and not allow it to spin out of control.
Ahh yes - the "wait and see," "give him a chance," "work across the aisle" kumbayah shit that we got when Obama took office.
How quickly you forgot.
How did you feel about the right doing the same thing before? Was it childish then or is it just childish now, you know, given as to how the right is significantly more reasonable than the left.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to import masses of people from cultures where they own their women and kill people with my sexuality.
However, those "masses of people" have meaningful brain activity and are rightfully in fear of their lives.
What makes them less important?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
people like that
You mean people who likely agree with the party stance on eliminating abortion, but basically are saying "go fuck yourself" to the people who are already here because of a "resource issue?"
People like that deserve it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I think you're confused. Alot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OWS was about "draining the swamp." It was about the very things Trump supporters use to justify their votes - Washington beholden to Wall Street and ignoring the needs of the middle class.
Republicans treated OWS like criminals. Police tear-gassing them and did dirty tricks like dropping off every homeless person they could find into the OWS camp.
Those Trump supporters turned out to be the "joke by idiots", as you say. Trump filled the White House with "the swamp"; Goldman Sachs and ExxonMobil executives and assorted major donors and lobbyists.
The response to OWS only makes the new administration's betrayal more predictable and your partisan gullibility more sad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
As for Flynn, what was the conversation that happened? The NYT reported on the calls, but nothing on what was actually said. All that took Flynn out. So the story wasn't about the calls, the story was to remove Flynn and to embarrass Trump.
The media has created this monster. The right doesn't believe anyone except Fox and doesn't believe anything out of what is viewed as news from the left. The rest of the media (NYT, CNN, MSNBC etc.) is seen as supporting the left (which is true, you can't reasonably say they were not rooting for Hillary) so the left doesn't believe anything out of Fox.
Where is the media outlet that is considered to be neutral? Is there one?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
but the media only reports (not long after the Hillary emails (and by Hillary, I mean the DNC hack, not the private server emails)on who did it, not what was in the actual emails.
So then you've never heard of Wikileaks?
As for Flynn, what was the conversation that happened?
Too bad the Russians didn't want that leaked, otherwise you'd know.
The NYT reported on the calls, but nothing on what was actually said.
I'd love for the content to be disclosed. Perhaps you could convince Trump or the FBI to reveal the contents in order to put the story to rest. I fail to see how Trump not releasing the information is the fault of the media.
I still think you're confused. More now than I did before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every time you avoid the issue, my hypocritical claims and act like your shit does not stink while theirs does you give license to the opposition to do the same in return to you.
I clearly see people gleefully pushing a person like Trump in your face for you having pushed Obama in theirs. Do not underestimate people's exasperation to go scorched earth just to wipe deal with you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump Lying More
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/killer
There's definitely a dishonest person here, but it's not me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
whoosh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While I still believe that it's important to find common cause with people who don't agree with me, at this point I am willing to write you off as a racist, a misogynist, and a gibbering lunatic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thanks, Andrew Jackson!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OWS was bust because no one there could properly state what they were for. I additionally blame the "show only the idiots" on TV media but that is normal. What does confuse me is that, I though the media was generally pro democrat, well until you start talking about class warfare then they re 100% republican. Funny that?
Wait, you think I am pro-Trump? I see, no wonder you are stupid and ignorant. You cannot even read the things I wrote and understand that I am not one. I an independent and telling you, that your stupidity and hypocrisy is what invited Trump in. The republicans are falling all over themselves watching you clowns writhe in agony.
As an independent I am telling you losers to get over yourselves, collection your fucking sanity and bring a candidate that can restore some sanity to the Democratic party. If you can do that, then you should be able to trounce Trump, but I don't think you losers have it in you. Your identity is "the loser", because that helps foment the "victim label" you guys need so much to operate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because it's better to make women and gay people stay in countries like that, obviously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Well would you look at that: the headline is right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Thanks, Andrew Jackson!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All righty, Anon, I'm juuuust about done with your nonsense, but out of sheer morbid curiosity, I've got two more questions for you:
Who did you vote for?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not all racists read Breitbart.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for Flynn, the NYT's and others released the story of the conversations, but didn't have any info on the content. Other stories talked about this being the biggest governmental scandal since Iran/Contra. Another talked that this was a huge story that could bring the White House down.
So a story with no details and yet the media talks about the biggest scandal in recent memory? It talks about the downfall of a president?
I am not confused. If you think that the recent reporting on the DNC hack mentions anything about the content of the emails vs. who did the hack, then I think you are delusional.
And in terms of WikiLeaks, does today's reporting talk about what they released or is the bigger reporting about Russian influence and rape charges?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Solution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Techdirt is fake news. Fake news is for cows. You are all cows. Cows say moo. MOOOOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOO! Moo cows MOOOOOOO! Moo say the cows. YOU FAKE NEWS READING COWS!!"
I am sooo tempted to put this lovely, illustrative gem up for "the Last Word"...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paid Propogandists on Techdirt Comments?
Just musing, not accusing.
Dave
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Copyright-types were always a pretty fucked up bunch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump Lying More
Plus a lot of these so called lies is the left saying a lot of B.S. Just saying everything is a lie when it clearly isn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where was Code Pink? Bush Bad, Obama, perfectly fine. Up in arms and protesting what trump is doing, even before sworn in and Obama did many of the same things and NOTHING!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump Lying More
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: All news is fake if you know what you're talking about
And of course, you missed the point completely. You understand a subject well. You see how well reporters cover that subject. You see how well their background has enabled them to cover things completely out of their competence. And you even begin to trust them to cover something arguably more complex than a software bug? Just what are you smoking?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: All news is fake if you know what you're talking about
I think your attempt at humor falls a bit short. Obviously people of any background can learn new things, I suppose you will make fun of blonds next.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that they see women as property.
So do you think they're more likely to change if:
a) they remain in that culture
b) they're exposed to other cultures
I know you're scared. Lots of people are. But the odds don't support your paranoia.
https://www.techjuice.pk/a-data-scientist-explains-odds-of-dying-in-a-terrorist-attack/
Do you support removing "home of the brave" from our national anthem? Because I truly think it's time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump Lying More
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're confused as hell.
And let's be honest here - the emails aren't really important anymore - the election was held, what, 4 months ago?
If Flynn was a stand up guy, then Trump shouldn't have fired him. If you feel he was pressured, then are you admitting he's a pussy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now it's back to business as usual.
For the record the TDers have issues with Obama over IPR, Dotcom, mass surveillance, Manning, Snowden, TPP, TTIP... the list is endless. It's just that Obama is over and Hillary, as right-wingers keep reminding us (why, I'll never know!) lost, so Trump is in charge doing things we don't like. We'd have given Hillary the same kind of drubbing for the same reasons. Capiche?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the puerile and vagrant childishness of the anti-trump crowd is just out of control. We need to work to ratchet it back and not allow it to spin out of control.
To be fair I've been vastly amused by the hysterics on the liberal/progressive front freaking out about Russian election hacking, etc. Damn, that was funny!
What AC doesn't seem to have caught yet is that not all of us who can't stand Trump are in Moonbat Club. Yes, a lot of us are talking smack about him but when you viscerally can't stand someone that's what happens. Hillary gets it all the time from the right, as does Barack Obama and his family. Remember the awful things even public officials said about him and his wife? Did you complain about the smack talk against the other side or do you lean so far to the right that you either repeated it or nodded sagely when you heard it?
I don't say mean things about Melania because I haven't got a beef with her per se (although she's much more liberal than I am). I'd certainly leave ten year old Barron out of it.
Calm yourself, AC. The smack talk against Trump (bar the hilarious histrionics) is pretty damn mild compared to the crap Obama and Hillary had to take.
If we're going to criticise people, let it be for the things they actually do (or allow to happen on their watch). Is that reasonable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's true that media ownership is condensed; anti-trust law needs to be applied here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The institutions we traditionally revered have had so many holes knocked in them we're too skeptical to take them seriously. If we can't rely on them per se we look elsewhere for information we can trust, and that's usually based on gut feelings rather than empiricism.
I personally advocate to a return to empiricism as the measure of veracity and am glad to note I'm not the only one. Should reading TD be compulsory?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump Lying More
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump Lying More
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You made this bed, now lie in it. It wouldn't have been so bad if the original people crying 'fake news' weren't throwing these stones from such obviously glass houses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-cov e rt-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Agreed. You see the name calling, Drumph and such coming from quite a few of the commenters here. All it does is further the divide between the parties. The non-Trump supporters, left or slightly left, whatever you want to call them, are just as heavy handed with the partisanship and name calling as the Trump supporters. They are just as guilty as what they accuse the "other side" of being.
Your comment was very insightful, but expect it to fall on mostly deaf ears here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They do whatever the hell they want, somewhere else.
I'm sure there's people here who feel the same way about you and your sexuality.
Do you feel they have a legitimate beef with you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think he was fired (at least the saying goes) was because he misled the administration in telling them he didn't have conversations at all.
I would have had no problem with him telling the Russians not to overreact to Obama's sanctions because that would make it hard to smooth things over once Trump took office. But you can't lie to your boss.
The problem is, you are playing a game. admitting he is a pussy? What was the right thing to do? I have a lot of problems with how Trump says things, but I agree with some of the things he is trying to do. Would you say that Trump is more likely to say things off the top of his head? Would you say that he says what he really believes? Could you say the same thing about Hillary? About the DNC? Obviously the content of the emails showed the answer to that question would be no.
People believe that Trump says what he thinks, and means what he says, and he won the election. Outside of Bernie, I think the people believe that Trump actually tells the truth more than other politicians. That is actually pretty funny when you look at all the stupid lies he says (which are usually around really stupid topics like crowd size.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you can't talk to another nation's government over policy when you are not a representative of our government.
He looks to have broken the Logan Act.
"The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. It was intended to prevent the undermining of the government's position.[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
Not good if he and others did the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Could you say the same thing about Hillary? About the DNC? Obviously the content of the emails showed the answer to that question would be no.
She isn't the president. And this isn't about Trump lying - it's about (according to you):
So a story with no details and yet the media talks about the biggest scandal in recent memory? It talks about the downfall of a president?
My question is (and has been) if Flynn is a stand up guy, he shouldn't have been fired. Yet Trump fired him anyways.
You can't argue both that the story has no merit, yet Trump fired him because of the story (which had no merit).
Either the story has merit, or Trump is a pussy.
I'll ask again - which is it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lying to your boss isn't against the law (in most cases) but gets you fired. I don't think Flynn broke the law so in no way would lead to impeachment (that is being hyped.)
Now if he lied to the FBI or law enforcement about conversations, that could get him arrested.
If he told his bosses the truth and he was fired because of the media firestorm, then yes, I would say Trump is a pussy. I don't think that is the situation though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. It was intended to prevent the undermining of the government's position.[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
He wasn't an authorized citizen at the time, speaking with Russian government entities which we have a dispute with (on numerous issues, ergo sanctions).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Has anybody been dumbfuck stupid enough to do so?
Appearently, but later events made the point moot.
"The only actual indictment under the Logan Act was one that occurred in 1803 when a grand jury indicted Francis Flournoy, a Kentucky farmer, who had written an article in the Frankfort Guardian of Freedom under the pen name of "A Western American." In the article, Flournoy advocated a separate nation in the western part of the United States that would ally with France. The United States Attorney for Kentucky, an Adams appointee and brother-in-law of Chief Justice John Marshall, went no further than procuring the indictment of Flournoy, and there was no further prosecution of the Kentucky farmer. The purchase of the Louisiana Territory later that year appeared to cause the separatism issue to become moot, and the case was abandoned"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
So 1 idiot did, but we got the Lousiana Purchase anyways.
Dumpflthinskin certainly is breaking lots of traditions, this could be one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The real problem is both sides are the problem, a real revolution needs to take place: new political system, new law/judicial system, new results.
The proof that both sides ARE the problem is that no matter who is in charge, red or blue, for the past several decades, things still don't change, USA still in many wars and invading others, politicians still lying all day to people, corporations still abusing people's rights and making huge profits while salaries keep low, inequality increasing, etc, etc, etc. Those are facts.
So long as people keep fighting over which side is better, democrat or republican, nothing will change. Clearly both sides are the problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You want more "spread the wealth" (although you may not know you want it)...look at what has happened when wealth is concentrated: they can impose you more charges on your medical plan but they (they elite) pay less and keep amassing more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The american people live clearly in a state of complete crazyness, ie doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. They keep arguing over red vs blue, democrats better than republicans, Obama better than Trump, while they don't see nothing has changed. That is complete state of crazyness. Shopping more thinking they will somehow get happy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everytime an american person happily goes shopping knowingly that other parts of the world are rotting in war, hunger, migration, violence, etc, corruption is being normalized. And this has been happening for decades in USA.
Everytime you acknowledge there is lots of poor, miserable people in the world, but you don't change your ways and keep consuming as you, corruption is normalized, and this has been happening in the USA for decades.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]