491–500 of 994 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disinformation is not free speech.
Who's making the determination something is disinformation? You? No thanks. Reference Wuhan Labs.
How do we determine when something is true or disinformation? That's what good faith pro-social and pro-truth people ask. They talk process, principles, and reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was, as I mentioned a mistake not intentional. If anything was intentional it was the so called journalist giving it publicity instead of doing his duty as a citizen to report it, delete it. Doing anything else is in my books treason. As a company employee that's what you're supposed to do if copied wrongly on an email. In fact that's the usual disclaimer that appears in many email footers.
Your best argument is that journalists should look the other way when serious problems land in their lap? > As a company employee that's what you're supposed to do if copied wrongly on an email. In fact that's the usual disclaimer that appears in many email footers. This analogy would make sense if the messages went to an employee of the federal government, but they didn’t. It’s mind-bending that someone could be so…
That's reckless.
Repeat - revealing sensitive info even if you come across by accident or someone's mistake is a crime. Esp national ones not just corporate secrets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump that he's serious about running for a third term and that there are methods to do it. That was just earlier today. https://apnews.com/article/trump-third-term-constitution-22n... We've had ten years of "Trump can't do X."
Yes but we've also had ten years of flooding the zone. I am inclined to believe this is the latter. He will get everything he needs from this term - primarily an escape from his Jan 6 and classified documents charges.
As a European, I can confirm it’s at least as bad here, if not worse. We’re just gagged by a different set of taboo ideas.
I bought into Trump’s campaign promise to 'restore free speech' — partly because he’d been censored so aggressively himself. I figured he’d get its value. But I didn’t see the Israel exception coming: apparently, Israel and its actions are untouchable, no matter the cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there anything meaningful here? Like is there some kind of edit that matters? Could you try making your point directly? You seem to be expecting me to have the video memorized or something so I can pick out the difference from the transcript.
try using an LLM then.
> Someone is trying to make a point about edited interviews without explaining what they believe the edit was and why it's important.
To get someone to better explain their point about edited interviews:
1. Ask directly what specific edit they're referring to. 2. Request time stamps or examples from the interview 3. Ask them to describe what they believe was removed/altered 4. Question what impact they think this edit has on the message 5. Inquire why they find this edit significant
This is a really good compilation that should make any "free-speech absolutist" reconsider their support for the current administration. In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century. A lot of expansions were provided to the amendment that have been taken for granted since then and we are now going to see c…
Supposed free speech absolutists demand reversals of bans from platforms for people due to hate speech.
Not 1 is demanding the same for spammers or fraudsters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an American, I agree - I'm pretty surprised at how nakedly transparent the whole thing has been. One basic example - I thought pretty much everyone agreed that at least some level of due process is just inherent to the rights of everyone in the US. When I hear administration figures arguing that flying the Venezuelans to El Salvadoran prisons is a good thing because "they're really bad dudes", I think "OK, and we'…
Venezuela claims zero were members fwiw > Venezuela's Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello said on Friday that none of the hundreds of Venezuelans deported by the U.S. to a Salvadoran prison is a member of Venezuela's Tren de Aragua criminal gang, the reason Washington gave for expelling them. > "I believe with absolute responsibility that not a single one appears on the organizational chart of the now-extinct Tren de…
As a person who lived in the States for a bit, and listened to a lot of news, I remember always this almost fawning over the Founding Fathers, checks and balances and great American constitution. It is remarkable, how easy it all goes, and most people don't do anything (i.e. out of 100 top law firms, only a handful joined the lawsuit against the government, etc.)
What we’re experiencing is a group exploiting the biggest vulnerability in the American system, one that was known to the founding fathers. If you can get enough people to vote for you and your friends, then all of the checks and balances will eventually fail against you, because in the end they’re all dependent on the populace not voting for people who corrupt the system. It probably wouldn’t have seemed plausible t…
Or more like there is no solution to this besides telling people to be vigilant about protecting their democracies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an issue we're seeing all around the West - previously centre-left parties unfortunately were cowed into supporting 'soft-neoliberalism' over the last 30-40 years, and now that's shown to not improve the living standards of the many (but works amazingly for the wealthy), voters are looking for anything that looks different than the status-quo. Unfortunately that plus a bit of culture war drives them into the pop…
> now that's shown to not improve the living standards of the many Inflation-adjusted median real income is up 20% since 1990 in the US. Unemployment is lower. Life expectancy is higher. Air pollution is lower. Crime is lower. Gay marriage is now legal. The living standards of the many in the US have demonstrably improved dramatically over the last 30-40 years. Housing affordability is worse, but that is largely due…
There are many things this statistic masks. How many households were dual income vs single income over that same time span? This also doesn't take in to account cost of living changes, which I'm confident have risen more than 20%. Sorry in advance if I'm wrong. Inflation erosion, how CPI is calculated to make things look better than they are (too much to get in to), but my point is that statistic is not the holy grail of progress.
>unemployment is lower
Won't argue that one
>life expectancy is higher
As would be expected with 35 years of progress in medicine? Plus, that statistic hides we've actually plateaued and even declined compared to other OECD nations.
>Air pollution... gay marriage is legal
Won't argue with those, though I wonder how much longer the air will be cleaner when the current admin has severely weakened the EPA and clean air/water regulations.
>The living standards...30-40 years.
Are you deriving that from the median real income? Even assuming it's true, why are a growing percentage of american's living paycheck to paycheck?
>Housing affordability is worse...local
That's... a pretty big one... I'd argue it could be greatly helped by federal policy against oh idk, stopping private equity from buying up homes and apartments, severe taxes on 2nd or 3rd properties, unoccupied property, etc.
All I'm saying is, there's a reason average americans aren't pickin up what you are puttin down. I don't think it's just a feeling.