You must log in or register to comment.
Let me get this straight, CBS is refusing to fact check the VP nominee who, on TV, admitted that if he has to make up lies to get America’s attention then he’d do just that?
Eat shit CBS
They should just add “Admitted liar” to his marquee whenever he’s on screen.
If there is no fact checking, Kamala needs to be ready to ask why Trump nominated someone who isn’t allowed in any Ashley Furniture store in the lower 48 states and Alberta.
I agree with the sentiment, but that tees up Trump to reply with something that normalizes getting banned from places. You know, the sorts of consequences for the actions of “fine people” everywhere. It doesn’t even have to make complete sense nor be morally defensible; simple soothing words and support from perceived “leadership” is enough to make that play.
If your opponent isn’t rational, and their base much less so, appealing to general reason is probably not going to work. Better to go on the attack and out specific weird behavior as, well, weird and not a part of the overall group (voters) dynamic. The key is to signal that there’s something wrong with this kind of behavior with your time on the mic, rather than hope that your opponent will just screw up their rebuttal.
You… do know Harris (it’s weird you used her first name) and Trump won’t be at the Vice-Presidential debate, right?
Not weird at all, it’s her first name. That’s what it’s for
Start looking at how many people say “Kamala” versus how many people say “Joe”, “Tim”, “Donald”, or “JD”.
Yeah no thanks. Its hard enough to get away from american politcs at a time like this as it is. Ive no interest or capacity to go out of my way to subject myself to more of it than i have to.
Okay! Next time someone implies US political discourse is getting a lil sexist, think to yourself, “Ive no interest or capacity to go out of my way to subject myself to more of it than i have to” instead of weighing in.
Hoe many Joes, Tims and Donalds do you know, and how many Kamalas? In the USA, it’s a name that stands out. I’m sure you intend to imply that it’s patronizing in some way, but there are oerfectly legitimate reasons to call her by her first name and you’re not doing yourself any favors by just assuming that none of them apply here.
I’m glad you understand what I’m implying.
It’s not like you were subtle about it. But being understandable doesn’t make it right. “Chickens build laser boxes” is also perfectly understandable.
It’s a subconscious reduction of the person based on the idea that men are better leaders. I promise you’ll start to catch on to it now that you know about it, it’s weird as fuck.
Only if you let it be. Its not weird to call someone by their first name. Especially since the term weird has become weponized.
Calling Kamala Harris, Kamala instead of Harris might be unusually in the situation…but its not “i like to fuck couches” or “ill invent overt lies if thats what i think i need to do” or “grab em by the pussy” etc kind of weird.
if it isn’t weird why aren’t you referring to the men as Joe, Don, Tim and James?
Yeah, we all know it’s her first name, no one calls her that unless they have a personal relationship with her. I’m not even saying it has to be “Madame Vice-President” or anything so formal, but no one refers to the former president as “Donald” either…
R/theDonald
/s
Its unusual maybe, but with the current weaponization of the word weird its a point worth making. Its not weird to call someone by their first name.
Awkward in as elections go, but I think its worth pointing out how completely normal it is to use her first name when refering to her.
Its much like calling your parent by their first name. Its different, but not wierd in the new sense of the word weird
Even back when it was in its heyday, people didn’t say “Donald supports this”, “Donald for President!”, “I love Donald!!!”, etc. It’s kind of unearned personal familiarity…
deleted by creator
Yeah, Trump isn’t what’s killing free speech.
Trump is a symptom, not the cause: conservatism is the real problem here. I keep saying this, but as long as we keep allowing conservatives to reach positions of power, shit like this – and worse – will keep happening.
Let’s have a talk about social media platform censorship. Tiktok and YouTube members who self censor common words like death or rape in legitimate conversations about the topics are learning to temper their language or face consequences. Unimportant consequences.
It may seem small by comparison, but if you condition it at a low level, each step beyond is easy to swallow. Spread it out over an entire population, and you see huge results.
You just described Newspeak (Nineteen Eighty-Four novel):
Newspeak, which is a controlled language of simplified grammar and limited vocabulary designed to limit a person’s ability for critical thinking. The Newspeak language thus limits the person’s ability to articulate and communicate abstract concepts, such as personal identity, self-expression, and free will,[1][2] which are thoughtcrimes, acts of personal independence that contradict the ideological orthodoxy of Ingsoc collectivism.[3][4]
It’s a lot more banal, though. Youtube has to sell advertising, and advertisers don’t want to be next to discussions of rape or suicide. These restrictions are enforced algorithmically, hence the self-censorship. And in any case, it doesn’t achieve the objective of newspeak, as those concepts are still being discussed.
And in any case, it doesn’t achieve the objective of newspeak, as those concepts are still being discussed.
Yet.
But I get what you are saying. I just find the similarities, although banal, kind of funny. In a scary kind of way.
I don’t think it’s right to divorce the censorship from the result just because the justification is different.
What I mean is that even though that conditioning is taking place for a banal reason it’s still true that it’s conditioning and will affect the acceptance of moves like this debate fact checking decision that are serious and do have consequences. So therefore it still matters and is still dangerous.
I did pick up what Orwell was putting down. It’s definitely helped shaped my view of the world.
Newspeak was an intentional in-universe conlang designed and handed down by Ingsoc based on “how you speak affects how you think” (which is a hypothesis that has… some kind of name). This is a bunch of people trivially avoiding automated filtering like it’s been done since the first puritan implemented the first world filter.
One of the main differences is that self-censoring seggs and raep and ahh-es or whatever still leaves it plenty obvious what you mean, it just outs you as a Tiktok user. Conceptually word filters are a blacklist whereas Newspeak was intended to be a whitelist with the restrictiveness that entails.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis or linguistic relativity, just in case that was bothering you.
Is this why I see totally unnecessary self censorship for words like “r*cism”? Even here on Lemmy. I assume some of this originated on Twitter, where people abuse the reporting system as a form of retaliation.
Yes. It’s so absurd.
Trump is both a symptom, of some deeper underlying issues, and a cause, of feed-forwarding those same issues - e.g. amplifying their power and their spread beyond what they would have done without his help.
Many people thought that Ron Desantis would take Trump’s place - that speaks to Trump being a mere symptom. However, Ron had no chance to win the the overall presidential election - that speaks to how crucial Trump is specifically to it, in its current form I mean.
The Alt Right Playbook, by Innuendo Studios, describes conservatism so much better than I ever could though.
Agreee. CBS is not afraid of Trump. CBS is afraid of his army of rabid zombies who will flood their telephone lines emails and faxes and mailrooms with violent harrassment.
The brown shirts (or red MAGA caps in this case) are the real danger.
deleted by creator
When it happens, do you think the Supreme Court is going to side with CBS?
Yes. Who do you think has more money, trumpler, or Paramount Global (formerly Viacom)?
Depends how much of the rest of the government apparatus Trump’s brown shirts manage to take control of
So you didn’t pay attention to any part of the immunity ruling. Got it.
In a liberal federal republic that isn’t a failed state, no.
In what Republicans want and are actively working towards?
A random person - no.
A person who controls millions of narrow minded gun wielding nationalists - maybe.
The president absolutely can. Would it be legal? Probably not. Would that matter after federal agents kick everyone out of your studio and lock it? Probably not.
(or after he incites a magat to firebomb them)
When was the last time legality stopped Trump?
Don’t act like Walz wiping the floor with Vance is a forgone conclusion, it’s not. That’s what people thought about Biden’s debate. Whether we admit it or not, there’s intelligent Republican debaters who can’t be baited out there, Trump just isn’t one of them.
I genuinely wonder if the best option wouldn’t be to refuse the VP debate until live fact-checking is in place for both candidates. That, or correcting simple untruths didn’t count toward their time. I love Tom Walz, but if he has to literally spend his entire time refuting very obvious lies continuously spewed by Vance, his time would be better spent campaigning in swing states. How much does a Vice-Presidential debate really matter, anyway?
correcting simple untruths didn’t count toward their time
This would be THE BEST rule ever for all debates of any kind.
I disagree, that’ll be abused by candidates to get more screen time.
We should keep the fact checking ABC did and perhaps deduct time for candidates that are consistently caught out on lies. The fact checkers should be approved by all candidates as well, so they can’t just point to the hosts as favoring one or another.
There’s intelligent Republican debaters who can’t be baited out there
This is true, but I’ve seen Vance speak, he has zero charisma. I feel like you need some amount of charisma to be a bullshit artist and have people not see straight through you. I mean people with any semblance of intelligence will see through you no matter what, but votes aren’t weighted on intelligence.
I’ve been saying for years that votes should be weighted on IQ. 1 vote for 100IQ points, 1.2 votes for 120IQ. If people literally rip up their children’s homework because they are learning about pronouns (the grammatical concept) then they should be considered mentally unfit to vote
edit: sub-100 IQ people keep downvoting :)
IQ is inaccurate at best, racist at worst. Bad take.
Fair, I wish there was a way to judge one’s general grasp on reality accurately.
Yeah as others have mentioned, this is a surefire way to find corruption in new an exciting ways.
How do you determine IQ?
No matter how you answer this question you open yourself up to different methods of corruption, as well as coincidental prejudice.
Is your test based on things only taught in college? Boom! now poor people cant vote.
Is your test based on common knowledge about the world? Boom, people outside of your bubble cant vote.
Also who runs the tests? Who oversees the questions asked? How do you make testing accessible for people with physical impairments? How do you ensure a proper testing environment? Each and every step has a way to inject corruption, and the kind of corruption that grows, since once you start limiting the voting pool u can limit it in a way that allows your brand of corruption to grow.
Its unfortunately not feasible.
Part of the problem is that nearly every sentence trump spoke was a lie, so fact checking was not 100%. They just fact checked random things, like, nobody is eating our pets. ProfessorWeKnowDis.gif
They fact checked the most obvious stuff on purpose. It’s irrefutable. You cannot seriously claim they were biased when their two fact checks were the most basic shit. And yet that highlights just how bad Trump is.
It’s not that Trump is killing anything; no more than millenials killed anything. It’s the media that’s the problem. If we’re going to blame anybody for failed media, then let’s blame the appropriate people. Instead of giving them a scape goat, we hold their feet to the fire.
This. They made the choice not because Trump is a whiny little baby, but because they see dollar signs by allowing him to make a spectacle.
C.R.E.A.M.
He has no power to shut down a major news network, so one must ask why they decided to change the policy. It is not because of Trump’s impotent threats.
Because they want a piece of that sweet, lucrative, “insane spectacle” money. The execs don’t care, as long as they get paid.
I assume the Trump/Vance campaign privately told CBS no fact checking else Vance drops out of the debate.
If Trump wins and we became a dictatorship he could do anything. The supreme Court has ruled on this, he is practically immune from the law while in office. He could literally have people assassinated and get away with it.
That’s a big if. Additionally, he may have a scotus ruling saying that he’s not accountable, but that doesn’t mean that shit won’t hit the fan if he tries to exercise that decision. The government and its institutions aren’t comprised solely of documents. There are a fair number of powerful people who would not take kindly to a dictator running the country. Hopefully we never need to test this. I’ve lived through enough interesting times already.
Do you know the percentages of Law Enforcement and Military that supports Trump? They are the ones that would be able to stop it and hold him accountable.
My sister’s bio-father is a former captain in NYPD, he literally thinks that killing gay people for engaging with his (adult) children is grounds for MURDER. There is a video of him stomping out a memorial in NYC because they didn’t have a permit for their candles…
These people are excited to kill people they don’t like. They are leaders in Law Enforcement. They created the culture of oppression and thirst for violence
Some people are under the mistaken impression that corporate news is not run specifically by republiQans to promote conservatism.
🌎🧑🚀🔫👨🚀
Do you mean that these entities are run by people who believe qanon? Or you weren’t being literal? Just the former I’d be really curious to see what lead you to opinion
Hilarious and sad if true
Do you mean that these entities are run by people who believe qanon?
It’s kind of a ‘trick question’ because they don’t have to believe Qanuts to support them. I like to think they don’t but statistically - i.e. Elon - some must. It becomes irrelevant when they simply repeat Qanon idiocies without brutally mocking them.
A defining quality of Qanon “theories” is that they literally aren’t theories in any sense but in the largest most general term. Like “robots are stealing my luggage” is a “theory”.
Is this one though, or are they merely… “useful”?
My own point is that if those two are functionally indistinguishable, then that should tell us something about how dangerous the situation has become.
Very nice emojis btw!
Every corporation is run by rich assholes who only care about stock prices and quartly earnings
Exactly - whether conservatism is promoted or not seems merely a byproduct.
I kinda wanna see the entire debate evolve into ludicrous, outlandish claims back and forth. Just sheer comedy. I know this isn’t the right way to fix anything, but it’s what we deserve at this point for letting the situation get this far unchecked.
Imagine a candidate spilling bullshit like “Haitian immigrants are eating the dogs”. That would be hilarious.
Oh don’t be ridiculous, who would be stupid enough to believe something like that?
I can’t fathom it.
“No, you have poopy pants!”
This is the level of discourse I’ve come to expect from presidential debates ever since trumpler entered the races.
This is exactly the spirit I’m talking about.
“I will give everyone a car to drive to work”
“I will do one better! A helicopter! Helicopters are way cooler!”
Free sex for everyone! But no contraceptives!
Is the debate being simulcast on all the major networks? I seem to remember seeing the Trump/Harris debate on ABC, CBS and NBC (just with different talking heads before and after).
If so, ABC should broadcast the debate with fact-checking overlays (Pop-up video style?) and advertise the shit out of the fact that they’ll be doing this.
Wow, it’s Kennedy vs. Nixon all over again, with techno-enhanced augmentation of “facts”!
Pop up
videodebates
Walz needs to make outlandish, unbelievable, rumors. Couch fucking should sound normal.
Vance is technology he’s own great-,grandfather/ brother. You know, he’s Grafa bro! His pet ladybug is very proud of their accomplish.
That would be so fun if he would use the maga debate technic and go full lie after lie making Vance lose his time refuting everything
It seems that Walz has been using the Trump cult’s tactics of being super cheeky and poking at the competition.
I hope to see him ridicule that eyeliner-wearing, couch-fucker. When the righties complain we can tell them “why so triggered? he was just joking around! Lol”
I thought I say him wearing eyeliner. Dude’s weird.
he has no power on his own. go after the shadow drivers that hide behind his buffoonery if you really truly want to see clarity
Trump demands networks agree with him.
How was Trump’s threat successful?
CBS says they will not fact check the debate, some people see this is because ABC was threatened and so CBS is caving to Trumps threats
I get it now, thanks!
