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.
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
I feel like less people will watch the VP debate but people might still point out that jd vance is lying out of his aaa
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Start looking at how many people say “Kamala” versus how many people say “Joe”, “Tim”, “Donald”, or “JD”.
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…
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.
Surely CBS knows that a random person cannot unilaterally revoke their broadcasting license and shut down their legal corporation.
When was the last time legality stopped Trump?
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)
A random person - no.
A person who controls millions of narrow minded gun wielding nationalists - maybe.
In a liberal federal republic that isn’t a failed state, no.
In what Republicans want and are actively working towards?
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)?
So you didn’t pay attention to any part of the immunity ruling. Got it.
Depends how much of the rest of the government apparatus Trump’s brown shirts manage to take control of
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.
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.
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”
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
Right wing populism moment…
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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!
This is exactly the spirit I’m talking about.
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
Trump demands networks agree with him.
