Doc Avid Mornington @ docAvid @midwest.social

Not actually a doctor.

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

252

Joined

2 yr. ago

I read a lot of articles, friend, and I feel that you are going far out of your way to misinterpret my comment. We can't read everything, and we have to choose based on some criteria. A comment offering some summary of what is in the article is better criteria than nothing, especially if, as you seem to agree, the headline is worse than useless.

So, do you just read every article that comes across your feed? How much time per day do you spend reading? Do you ever worry you may be missing out on important information, due to not selecting articles more likely to convey newer information, more relevant information, or more in depth information?

Personally, I appreciated the question, and the answer, as it saved time that I can use on reading something more valuable to me - or, I guess, on writing this comment. A lot of articles these days use misleading or vague headlines to trick people into reading a long article that says nothing more than could have been conveyed in the headline itself.

Now, I will admit, thanks to your comment, I did click through and read this article, just so I wouldn't look like an idiot writing this comment, if it turned out to be much different from what was said above, or to provide more context, or whatever, and yes, I did find it was not so bad. It's pretty brief, and while the main point could have easily been in the headline, the article does give some additional context (most of which I knew, but it was a good refresher). Whether we choose to read or not to read, we are taking a gamble with our time and opportunity cost, but people in the comments giving at least some information is better than having nothing to go on, or trusting a headline from a source known to use misleading headlines.

I do agree with her statement.

Only quibble is, they were never the majority. It's too easy to underestimate just how imbalanced our "democracy" was, and to a large extent, remains. But, we're getting better, slowly, s l o w l y . . .

Nah. People suffer from too much just world fallacy. They'd never believe the lottery would select them, but they'd revel in seeing other people randomly get screwed. It'd be a very popular reality TV show.

It takes explaining to understand exactly how it gives us better results, but the rules for the "players" are simple, just pick your first preference, second preference, and so on for all candidates. Probably simpler than tic tac toe.

I mean, you're not entirely wrong for sure. I'm gonna upvote because it's a really good point, worth thinking about. But I do disagree, somewhat. Trump isn't McCain. The majority of D voters are looking for someone more left, and the ones who aren't, are definitely driven by beating Trump. It's the party leadership that is mostly a problem here. If Biden went rogue and endorsed a leftist, which he wouldn't do, the DCCC Democrats would be desperately scrambling to undermine that candidate, any way they could, even at the expense of losing to Trump. But that's also, I think, kind of aside from Ensign Crab's point, as if Biden had chosen to support another candidate, it would not be a leftist.

You aren't wrong, in a way. I'm nearing fifty and Biden is arguably the most progressive president in my lifetime. The problem is, that says more about the quality of presidents in my lifetime than it does about Biden, and with the climate crisis and encroaching global fascism, we don't have anymore time to wait. The Democrats are doing more, now, because pressure from the left has convinced them that they have to, but the leadership is still dragging their feet in defense of corporate profits as much as they can. The fact that they are doing more doesn't mean it's time to lower the pressure - it means the pressure is working, and we need to dial it up.

But that's just not what Biden said, at all. Here's what Biden actually said: "he’s a dictator in the sense that he is a guy who runs a country that is a communist country that’s based on a form of government totally different than ours."

This isn't nuanced, it's an ignorant and belligerent hot-take. He clearly indicated that either having a different form of government from ours, or being communist, or perhaps the combination of those two things (which is redundant), makes a country a dictatorship. That's not a straw man reading, it's what he said, in pretty clear terms. He didn't say, or even approach saying, any of the things you suggested, except the "yes he is" bit.

Biden spews toxic nonsense almost as badly as Trump, sometimes. Thankfully, not as constantly.

Who do you think is going to do this expelling? Do you imagine that there is some meta-governmental body, at the highest level, that can be relied upon to block anybody who isn't following the rules, other than a court? Nobody 24 runs, because they know they would be ruled ineligible. Ultimately, government works because of functioning institutions. The Supreme Court is not, currently, a functioning institution.

But nevermind that. The point is that, if you wanted to suggest that a ruling wouldn't, or shouldn't, be necessary, you could have said so, but you did not. You said that, if no legal authority had ruled him ineligible, that must mean the Constitution has zero legal authority. The Constitution doesn't make rulings. Your comment was entirely unrelated to the comment you were responding to, because you ignored the word "ruled", whether you think a ruling is necessary or not.

All of these are classically liberal positions, and most of them are compatible with progressivism, and with socialism. Admittedly, since liberalism is the foundation of the USA, and the global norm today, classical liberalism is technically a conservative perspective, now, but it really isn't what most people have meant by "conservative" for the last hundred years or so.

You seem to have missed the key word, "ruled", but nice rundown.

"(derogatory) Biased communication aimed to influence an audience to further an agenda, encourage a particular perception or provoke an emotional response." (https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/propaganda)

Other dictionaries give similar definitions. The Oxford Languages definition, given by Google, which doesn't seem to be linkable, says: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." That's the only one I've seen that does indicate something like the word "misleading", but even there it is only "especially" information of that sort, not always.

Generally, the word "propaganda" indicates an intent, not an inherent property. Although it is a derogatory term, which people are unlikely to use to describe things they agree with, it is certainly possible for completely true and well-sourced works to qualify as propaganda.

The videos in question are neither true, nor well-sourced, but that isn't why they are propaganda. They are propaganda because they are produced with the intent of provoking an emotional response (fear and disgust at trans people), of encouraging a particular perception (that trans people are dangerous and mentally ill), and of furthering an agenda (of taking away human rights from trans people).

None of that speaks to whether it is the right decision by the platforms. I don't think it is, but I also don't think that the videos should be deplatformed simply because they are propaganda. They should be deplatformed because they are hate-speech and because they are dishonest.

Thank you, it drives me batty that it's become so hard to discuss the problems of actual fake news, much of which benefits Trump and needs to be called out, without people thinking we're MAGA conspiracy loons.

But also, I kind of chuckled, because your use of past tense made it sound like those things don't happen anymore, rather than being the cornerstone of right wing media today.

Thank you, it drives me batty that it's become so hard to discuss the problems of actual fake news, much of which benefits Trump and needs to be called out, without people thinking we're MAGA conspiracy loons.

But also, I kind of chuckled, because your use of past tense made it sound like those things don't happen anymore, rather than being the cornerstone of right wing media today.

Thank you, it drives me batty that it's become so hard to discuss the problems of actual fake news, much of which benefits Trump and needs to be called out, without people thinking we're MAGA conspiracy loons.

But also, I kind of chuckled, because your use of past tense made it sound like those things don't happen anymore, rather than being the cornerstone of right wing media today.

This really feels like false equivalency. Yes, the MAGA crowd has a delusional belief that they are an overwhelming majority, and that electoral losses must mean a rigged election. They are ready to try to take power by force, they've demonstrated that, and there are high up instigators pushing them that way. But "the left" isn't really Democrats, and either way, I don't see any likelihood of a revolution from Leftists or Democrats just in response to an election. Mass protests, yes, but not revolution. Now, if the next election after that is suspended, then we might be close.

That isn't really so, faithless electors have never been likely, the occasional faithless elector has had nearly no impact on elections, and a recent (2020 I believe) Supreme Court ruling made it clear that they are not allowed.

There are many issues with the general election. The electoral college is the original gerrymandering set up by our founding white supremacists, and the first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system makes sure that general elections only give the public minimal choice between two major party candidates. We desperately need to reform the system.

But voting in the general election remains necessary, to minimize harm, and voting in the primary election is vital, as the only place we get any real chance at a say. If we want to reform the system, dropping out if it is the surest way to fail. It's exactly what the major parties want you to do.

He is, and it's important to remember, but that's less harm than Trump would cause on the same issue, nevermind all the other issues.

How about understanding that more killing doesn't bring the "destruction of a terrorist organization" - it brings more terrorism.

I think it's a mistake to assume that racists won't vote for an Uncle Tom black candidate over a non-racist white candidate.