All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[shooshoomanjoe]

Lemme guess...

Yahoo News is part of the conspiracy too?

https://news.yahoo.com/washington-po...113302862.html



As for "When The Tape Became Available..."

Yeah... Sure.

There was not tape right off of the jump that various news outfits could have heard that would have cleared up that someone was clearly on some nonsense.

Said tape just magically turned up last week...

This isn't Yahoo, this is Fox. Yahoo has their own reporters and articles but its webpage posts articles from all networks.

[numberthirty]

This isn't Yahoo, this is Fox. Yahoo has their own reporters and articles but its webpage posts articles from all networks.

https://www.newsweek.com/washington-post-correction-triggers-furious-debate-about-whether-false-report-influenced-*********1576326

Washington Post Correction Triggers Furious Debate About Whether False Report Influenced Georgia Senate Race

[Jack Dracula]

https://www.newsweek.com/washington-post-correction-triggers-furious-debate-about-whether-false-report-influenced-*********1576326

If it did influence the race, I'm ok with it.

[numberthirty]

If it did influence the race, I'm ok with it.

Someone that posts on here being "Ok With It..." does not make this all being an FNC conspiracy any more likely.

[Mister Mets]

Sure...

I'm going to take a reasonable look at this, and buy into the assertion that someone just found it in a "Thrash..." folder.

No reason to think that could be anything accept "On The Level..."




As for "Election Interference..."?

Are you seriously telling me that a issuing a direct command "Find The Fraud..." is the exact same thing as saying someone would "Find Dishonesty..." if they looked into something?

Should the guy have butted out in a perfect world?

Sure.

That does not change a suggestion that an inquiry is in order into a direct order.

Never mind that Republicans now have this legitimate lack of fact-checking to point to in the future.

Yep. "Find evidence of X" and "Do this and you will find evidence of X" are different claims.

This is meaningful since the impeachment trial was rushed, and part of the argument for the impeachment trial was Trump's calls to Georgia officials.

How Yang charmed the right on his road to political stardom

If appealing to Ben Shaprio or David Rubin is enough to explain why Andrew Yang is the frontrunner to win the Democratic nomination for mayor, that represents a serious missed opportunity for other political figures.

It's also potentially a smart move in the long term, if he wants to ever win a national election.

[Tami]

Yep. "Find evidence of X" and "Do this and you will find evidence of X" are different claims.

This is meaningful since the impeachment trial was rushed, and part of the argument for the impeachment trial was Trump's calls to Georgia officials.

If appealing to Ben Shaprio or David Rubin is enough to explain why Andrew Yang is the frontrunner to win the Democratic nomination for mayor, that represents a serious missed opportunity for other political figures.

It's also potentially a smart move in the long term, if he wants to ever win a national election.

I'm not a New Yorker, so I don't have a say in their election, However, if I was I probably would not vote for Yang in the primary.

[numberthirty]

Yep. "Find evidence of X" and "Do this and you will find evidence of X" are different claims.

This is meaningful since the impeachment trial was rushed, and part of the argument for the impeachment trial was Trump's calls to Georgia officials.

...

Honestly?

I don't care one bit about the impeachment component.

That someone decided to just straight up bend the truth on what actually was said when the actual reality would inevitably eventually come out?

It gives blockheads like Cruz and Gaetz a legitimate issue to point to the next time a Republican is trying to get elected.

It is an unforced error that only stands to potentially benefit politicians who are regularly standing in the way of actual progress.

[Kirby101]

https://www.newsweek.com/washington-post-correction-triggers-furious-debate-about-whether-false-report-influenced-*********1576326

The original WP story about this call was on January 9th. The Senate runoff was January 5th. How did the Post story affect the election?

[Kirby101]

Yep. "Find evidence of X" and "Do this and you will find evidence of X" are different claims.

This is meaningful since the impeachment trial was rushed, and part of the argument for the impeachment trial was Trump's calls to Georgia officials.

Those sound the same to me. And the call to election officials they used for impeachment was to the Sec of State, for which the tape was released to the public, so "Find me the votes" was entirely accurate.

It would be disingenuous to not admit what Trump was doing. It was quite obvious and overt.

[Mister Mets]

Your argument is apparently, "Well, I'm willfully ignorant, and won't look up why trans people should have basic human rights and dignity, or why denying them that simple courtesy should affect any potential employment. Also, if nobody does this homework for me to show me how to do the bare minimum to be a decent person with a modicum of tolerance for others, THAT'S ON THEM!"

And we're expected to take this seriously.

I can probably approximate an argument about how an actress putting Beep/bop/boop in her twitter bio is denying trans people their basic human rights, but my understanding of that question is not the same as yours. It would be rude of me to make potentially incorrect assumptions about your political understanding, when there are nuances that I don't know (Do you think she wrote that in order to mock trans people? Do you think it's right to call for her firing even if you didn't think she was trying to mock trans people because there's a greater good? Do you think swing voters in Arizona, Georgia or New Hampshire agree this was cause to fire her? What percentage of people who announce their pronouns in twitter bios/ email signatures do you think are trans?) which are likely to affect where you're coming from.

People obviously know better, but they also know that conservatives have no interest in making a good faith attempt at addressing any of those issues, they just want silence people from speaking out by making irrelevant comparisons. The thing is though, not only does this tactic not work at all, it actually harms those people even more, because the minute anyone hears about "gays being thrown off of rootops" these days, they immediately assume that it's some right wing troll pushing an anti-Muslim agenda, which means that anyone actually attempting to advocate for LGBT rights in the Middle East becomes even more dismissed and marginalized than they already are. Of course conservatives don't care about this, because they never cared about any of those people to begin with, they just wanted to score internet points to own the libs.

The question of whether these are irrelevant comparisons depends on what the argument is. It may be relevant if the question is about consistency or whether statements represent an accurate representation of the world.

If a potential problem is that uninformed progressives may dismiss accurate information as right-wing propaganda, informed progressives (as well as informed moderates and conservatives) should politely point out the facts. Otherwise, if someone does a modicum of research and learns that the progressive is wrong, they may conclude that they should dismiss everything the person has to say.

There's also a mistake in assuming that conservatives are a hivemind, all acting the same way. Some will argue in bad faith, just as some liberals will argue in bad faith. Some won't argue in bad faith, but may come from a different perspective/ frame of reference.

I'm not a New Yorker, so I don't have a say in their election, However, if I was I probably would not vote for Yang in the primary.

Is it because he went on shows with hosts you disagree with, or something else (inexperience, his lack of familiarity with local politics, a preference for another candidate, etc)?

[numberthirty]

Those sound the same to me. And the call to election officials they used for impeachment was to the Sec of State, for which the tape was released to the public, so "Find me the votes" was entirely accurate.

It would be disingenuous to not admit what Trump was doing. It was quite obvious and overt.

If it was so "Obvious And Overt..."?

Why lie about the actual wording?

[numberthirty]

The original WP story about this call was on January 9th. The Senate runoff was January 5th. How did the Post story affect the election?

I'm going to have to assume you did not actually read the piece. From said piece...

Correction, March 16, 2021, 2:39 p.m. EST — This story has been corrected to clarify that the Washington Post's original story was published after the Georgia Senate runoffs.

All that said...

That they flubbed their dates does not change that FNC is not dictating who and how this issue is being covered.

[Kirby101]

I am not at this point polls mean much in the NY Mayor. And the Dem primaries have notoriously low turn out.

[numberthirty]

So...

Obvious issue there?

That if folks were applying the same critical view to other pieces that they did to that flub(and not just try to create a scenario where it is part of a conspiracy?...)?

That would probably be a more beneficial approach.

Not trying to point at the "Who?..." when a person sees what they don't like the looks of.

[Tami]

I can probably approximate an argument about how an actress putting Beep/bop/boop in her twitter bio is denying trans people their basic human rights, but my understanding of that question is not the same as yours. It would be rude of me to make potentially incorrect assumptions about your political understanding, when there are nuances that I don't know (Do you think she wrote that in order to mock trans people? Do you think it's right to call for her firing even if you didn't think she was trying to mock trans people because there's a greater good? Do you think swing voters in Arizona, Georgia or New Hampshire agree this was cause to fire her? What percentage of people who announce their pronouns in twitter bios/ email signatures do you think are trans?) which are likely to affect where you're coming from.

The question of whether these are irrelevant comparisons depends on what the argument is. It may be relevant if the question is about consistency or whether statements represent an accurate representation of the world.

If a potential problem is that uninformed progressives may dismiss accurate information as right-wing propaganda, informed progressives (as well as informed moderates and conservatives) should politely point out the facts. Otherwise, if someone does a modicum of research and learns that the progressive is wrong, they may conclude that they should dismiss everything the person has to say.

There's also a mistake in assuming that conservatives are a hivemind, all acting the same way. Some will argue in bad faith, just as some liberals will argue in bad faith. Some won't argue in bad faith, but may come from a different perspective/ frame of reference.

Is it because he went on shows with hosts you disagree with, or something else (inexperience, his lack of familiarity with local politics, a preference for another candidate, etc)?

It's a little bit of everything, also I like Maya Wiley better.