11·
15 days agoRemoved by mod
- 0 Posts
- 121 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: June 9th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
You use another standard when looking at whether I’m lying.
Yes, I’m using your standard when looking at whether you’re lying, and I’ve determined you’re lying.
Now you’re lying about what I’m saying? Your standard for “lying” is that someone says something untrue and it’s hard to prove that they knew in advance it was untrue. So, clearly you’re a liar.
Apply my rules to both cases, and the media is lying
And so are you. Those are your rules. You chose them, and so now they apply to you.
Apply your rules in both cases, and the media isn’t lying, and neither am I
Apply my rules and we don’t know if the media is lying, but there’s no evidence to suggest that they knew that what they were saying is untrue, so it’s unreasonable to say they’re lying. As for you, who knows.
Your bias is so obvious
My bias? You’re the guy who claims the media is lying without any evidence that they knew what they were saying was wrong, and you insist that you can still call that lying. But, when that same standard is applied to you, you want to reject it. You want to have your cake and eat it too, liar.
You didn’t present evidence of lying, you presented evidence that what they reported ended up being untrue. That’s part of lying, and I don’t dispute that part. The key part is that they knew that what they were reporting was untrue and they reported it anyway. You’ve presented no evidence to support that.
So, based on your rules, I can say you’re a liar, because you’ve said some things that are not true, so I’m just going to assume that you know they’re untrue and you’re lying.
And there’s the double standard, plain as day. To call me a liar, you would need to prove not only that I said something false
No, your new standard is “vibes”. You have “vibes” that the media lies, so you get to call them liars. I’m appyling the same logic to what you say, liar.
Russia claimed to have captured Mariupol on Friday in what would be its biggest victory yet in its war with Ukraine
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-ukraine-war-1.6460410
President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Friday that Ukraine was working on
According to the Ukrainian Air Force, Russia deployed 368 aerial weapons, including 352 attack drones
Iran says it launched an attack on United States forces at Al Udeid Air Base.
Russia claimed on Sunday that its forces had reached the border of Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk region
President Biden claimed former President Trump was “exaggerating” and “lying” about the crisis at the southern border during the first presidential debate.
They report on Russia and Iran’s claims exactly the same way they report on anyone else’s claims.
An impossible standard of evidence? You think proving someone lied is impossible? And yet, despite knowing you can’t prove it, you want to throw around accusations that someone lied.
In that case, you’re a liar. I don’t need to prove it, because proving someone lied is impossible. I can just say you lied and then call it done.
So, are you admitting you can’t actually find a single lie told by Vladimir Putin?
I never made any claims about Putin. You, however, did make claims about the media. Back up your claims.
If there’s no way to corroborate or refute what Israel said, don’t print what Israel said.
Why? What they said is newsworthy.
“Israel bombed this building”
“Why?”
“Dunno, didn’t ask.”
Even if you don’t believe the answer, getting an answer is still newsworthy. Everyone should be aware that it’s not necessarily the truth, but it’s newsworthy as the justification they’re using. If it comes out later that the building was an orphanage, you can’t use that to challenge the government’s justification that it was a command and control center if you never got them on the record saying they bombed it because it was a command and control center.
I don’t know, but it definitely seems like it. OTOH, it seems like journalists really care about the truth and bend over backwards to fact check things.
So, are you admitting you can’t actually find a single lie told by the press?
I’m still waiting for a single example of a lie. It’s a very simple request, and if you can’t find one, you claim that the media lies is wrong.
I see what you’re saying here: if the media prints lies from a government it’s not the media lying, it’s the government
If the government manages to fool the media, yeah. If the government says to the media “the truth is X, but we’re going to pretend that it’s Y, so you print Y, ok?” and then the media goes along with it, then you can blame the media. In many cases, the media isn’t able to fact check the things the government tells them. But, relaying what the government is saying is still important. Similarly, even though the media can’t independently fact check the numbers that the Gaza Health Ministry reports, it’s still valuable to have those numbers released too.
If the media is lazy about their fact checking you can call them lazy, but you can’t call them liars, because lying requires knowing the truth and intentionally saying something untrue.
Here’s the thing: if a government lies all the fucking time and the media keeps printing what the government claims anyway, then that makes them complicit in spreading the government’s lies.
If the government says “the truth is X” and then the media says “X is true” then sure, you’re right. But, if the media says “the government said that the truth is X”, then it’s up to readers / viewers to understand that the media isn’t endorsing what the government said as being true, the media is simply telling you what was said.
The media doesn’t get to wash its hands of the things it prints just because it puts “Israel says” before the headline.
Why should it need to wash its hands? That is exactly what Israel said. Because Israel has a complete ban on reporters in Gaza, for example, there’s no way to corroborate or refute what Israel said. It’s newsworthy to repeat what Israel said, but you can’t blame the media when someone reads that and assumes that the government is telling the truth. As you said yourself, the government lies all the time, so why would you assume that “the government said X happened” means that “X happened”.
The media told all sorts of lies to justify the war in Iraq
A lie is something they were aware was not true and published it anyhow. What sources do you have that the media was publishing stories it knew weren’t true about Iraq? What examples do you have?
more recently, the New York Times published a false story about Hamas committing mass rape
What story are you talking about, and what specific allegations do you think it got wrong?
if you want to go further back they lied to get us into Vietnam
You’re saying the media knowingly made up stories because they wanted to trick the US into going to war in Vietnam? What specific examples do you have of that? Again, if this is your claim, it isn’t enough to show that they got some reports wrong. It’s not even enough to show that they printed some things that in hindsight they should have known were wrong. Your bar is to prove that they knew ahead of time that they were publishing things they knew were untrue and did it for the express purpose of trying to get the US into war in Vietnam.
I don’t think the media is necessarily “on his side”. When the media sticks to just reporting the facts, people interpret it as the media taking the other side.
Also, his approval rating never got up to 90%. It was in the 80s in the days after 9/11 (which was sickening) but it dropped pretty quickly, and by the time the Iraq war began it was back down to almost 50%. It briefly went up after the war started, but then kept going down and down until he finally left office.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2008/12/18/bush-and-public-opinion/
The whole reason they’re not doing anything is that the democrats (who might do something) are in the minority in both the house and senate, so what they can do (without breaking rules and norms) is very limited. The Republicans either don’t want to do something because they support what Trump is doing, or they’re scared to go against him.
If you get a dozen Republicans who are willing to go against Trump, suddenly the anti-Trump side has a majority, which gives them a massive amount of power to do something.
When Bush got the US into a war in the middle east, he at least did it after a terrorist attack on the US (which had nothing to do with Iraq, but he was able to fudge that part), and as a result of the stupidity of Americans, he had a 60+% approval rating at the time.
Trump didn’t even manage a false flag or anything, as a result, a lot of conservatives are pissed off about this. Probably not enough to crack the MAGA coalition, but every little bit chipped away from it helps. With margins in the senate and house so close, it’s actually possible that he could be stopped by congress and the US doesn’t become a failed state, instead merely becoming an illiberal democracy.
But, what I wonder is if this will actually win him any converts from the Democratic side. I bet there are ultra pro-Israel people who were formerly Democrats who actually think this is a good idea, and will now start supporting Trump. Still, I think he’s going to lose 90 MAGAs for every 10 Democrats he gains.
“Total global Civilizational Collapse by 2050” is being tossed around
By whom?
Idiots toss around a lot of stuff.
Yeah, even an established creator is going to have a hard time moving their audience.
If YouTube weren’t a near monopoly it would be different. Then other companies would be competing for creators.
Making it worse is section 1201 of the DMCA. It makes it a crime to circumvent access controls. In the past, Facebook was able to grow by providing tools to interface with MySpace. People didn’t have to abandon their MySpace friends, they could communicate with them through Facebook, and Facebook could ensure that messages sent on its platform arrived to people still on MySpace. But, if you tried that today Facebook has access controls in place that make that a crime. The same applies to YouTube. Nobody can build a seamless “migrate away from YouTube” experience because YouTube will use the DMCA to block them.
The governments of the world need to bring back antitrust with teeth and force interoperability.