Oh man... you're basically speaking directly to why I made our small community (consider this a personal invite).
As I said elsewhere, I find Lemmy actively hostile.
The number of indignant replies and comment-free downvotes we get inundated with continually is… disheartening.
People want content, but actively detract from any content that doesn’t explicitly cater to them. It’s hard to take.
As someone who started and is extremely active in a small community, I find Lemmy actively hostile to the point where I'm considering closing up after less than a month.
The number of indignant replies and comment-free downvotes we get inundated with continually is... disheartening.
People want content, but actively detract from any content that doesn't cater to them. It's hard to take.
It fits both Alito and anyone who dislikes his views. I wasn't aware the definition was so broad but it basically applies to everyone who dislikes anyone else's view on anything.
There would be no way for them to gain that knowledge. I could believe that they potentially lost their primary language and spoke a mild amount of other languages that they had picked up by osmosis...
But I am doubtful that they would be able to have a full conversation with a native speaker.
There's no way the human brain could just conjure up a fully functioning secondary language that the person had no exposure to.
Huh. Reading the article now that I have time, they cite massive immigration as an issue, not to mention training people from other countries who then go home.
I know people in hospitals that retired when COVID hit, but not GPs. Not to say it isn't the case, but I'd like to see a large study showing WTF is going on.
Why did I make this community? Well, mostly in response to the rest of Lemmy and the way many otherwise interesting discussion threads fall apart into downvoting and groupthink.
I don’t like people making baseless accusations and defend people on all sides when people are wrong about their opposition. I hate it when people think they know what others think and project incorrect (and often evil) bullshit on each other. It’s important to maintain solid reasoning and conclusions, not just one or the other.
I hate people being wilfully wrong because their group fetishizes a certain angle of the truth instead of the boring reality of the situation.
Ideas are important and I don’t feel we can get out of the current shitty slump we’re in with political discourse unless we are able to clearly articulate ourselves and discuss the world we’re in.
You (and all of you who feel the way you do) are welcome. You won't always agree with everyone there.
That's okay. We talk about it. We're grown-ups.
I get it, but it doesn't have to be just pure stats. Could have been mild ability improvements or something or maybe changed some of the effects or visual things that occurred around you. Hell, even walking speed improvement or something like a tone to help you locate hidden items.
There's a lot they could have done considering we're dealing with magical items! Still had a pretty good time with it overall though.
Never got into Harry Potter since I was too old. This game was really fun to just explore and I constantly felt a forward momentum. Some of the stories were good, and some were awful.
I would absolutely play a sequel just based on the well done sense of discovery alone. I just wish more of what you found was impactful instead of cosmetic.
Sure. They lied. I'm not going to watch it to verify, but I'll take your word on it. But again, that's not what they're there to stop. It's akin to getting mad at Sesame Street for not showing you how to make a good stew.
And also, they wanted usage rights. Now that they had footage that they owned, CNN the same night and next day aired basically pick-aparts using their own footage demolishing a lot of those points. Is your issue that it wasn't done live even though it never has been?
These debates rarely have given equal time to all candidates involved. Historically, they give the most time to the most popular candidates no matter where the debates are aired.
So this is to show that the results are not set in stone. I understand that polling this early on isn’t meaningful, but I think what it does illustrate is that Biden isn’t obviously dominating in a Biden-Haley match up. If anything it looks Haley beats Biden by a larger margin than Trump does.
Rather than trying to support Haley because she is perceived to be less of a (insert whatever pejorative you'd use here) or because Biden will do better against her in a general election (and as far as we know, he won’t), we should focus on pressuring Biden to enact policy changes that his voting base are demanding.
And again, if using a US barometer for politics, none of this really shows that CNN is centrist or right-wing now out of nowhere (while still arguing against and frequently mocking right-wing policies).
Absolutely, which is why I'm asking for clarification. Keep in mind that like 90% of our TV, movie, and internet content is American, so it's not like we're clueless about the goings-on there, we just don't have some of the finer points nailed down.
So assuming the Equal-Time rule doesn't apply, splitting the vote still does. Also, as a show of political fairness it still counts, not to mention that you can't properly fight what you don't understand.
You didn't answer my question if the Democratic equivalent had a fact-checker. I'd look myself, but I'm not sure what it's called.
And before I forget, thanks for talking. It's not often you can debate on any social media without the other person being rude and condescending. I appreciate it.
I misused a term, my apologies (I'm Canadian and my terminology was a little off). I was using Democratic Primaries in place of whatever the Democrats have as a candidate debate session like this was for the Republicans. If you let me know what it's called, I'll correct my post!
Regardless of the name, did they have a fact checker there at that event?
Again, I don't believe the candidates have a chance against Trump UNLESS he is rejected as a candidate by enough states or other lawsuits have results that prevent him from running. If those do occur, then it will have been useful because it's not like the Republicans are just going to not field a candidate.
Also as I mentioned, if a candidate has a strong base that really believes in them, sometimes they won't vote for the person that beat "their" candidate, thus splitting the vote. This is a good thing from the opposite side.
It's also a good thing because they're abiding by the Equal-Time Rule (essentially an updated version of the Fairness Doctrine).
Was there a fact-checker at the last Democratic primaries? If not, then why would there be a double standard?
And I think you may be mistaken about what these debates exist to do. They aren't there to "check facts" and make sure everyone only has correct opinions (which I would argue that even some on Democratic side do not have). They are there to show what the candidates believe, how they behave, and how they respond to pressure. They show how they act in front of a crowd, and how they respond later to missteps during the debates. In effect, they show a good public face for judging a politician.
The simple fact is that you aren't going to have every fact going into, say, a negotiation with China - you have to think on your feet.
I would even argue that it wasn't pointless. Trump is certainly the biggest candidate for the Right, but there are plenty of things that could get in his way at the moment.
And "hearing them out" is a way to show that you're not just unfairly maligning them and keeping them down by keeping them out of media that you don't want to see. It's also helping to split the Right, which is INCREDIBLY valuable.
Just because you can't think of a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.
But airing a candidate debate is not a right-wing thing. Since when (in the last 20 years at least) has anything right-wing allowed debates from both major sides in the American political spectrum? Making an attempt to be fair is a centrist or Left-wing thing. If anything, that would further prove my point.
I can't debate this as I don't watch any news channels, but are you able to counter what Media Bias Fact Check (which, as far as I have seen is extremely accurate and vets their information) states, or is this a case that people on the extreme sides of any political movement see anything even slightly closer to the centre as "the other side?"
Oh man... you're basically speaking directly to why I made our small community (consider this a personal invite). As I said elsewhere, I find Lemmy actively hostile.
The number of indignant replies and comment-free downvotes we get inundated with continually is… disheartening.
People want content, but actively detract from any content that doesn’t explicitly cater to them. It’s hard to take.