US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2432

On June 20 2020 02:49 JimmiC wrote:
It is like a tenuous plausible deniability when you don't fire these people after all this comes out. Even if he is not the brains behind it (which seems likely given he doesn't seem smart enough to do much, I mean the bleach thing was even dumber than when he changed a map with a sharpie), he is clearly alright with the strategy as he keeps these tremendous, just the best people around and it keeps happening.

On June 19 2020 12:14 Wombat_NI wrote:
So apparently there’s some new controversy over Trump/CNN and Twitter, his account tweeting out some attempt at satire using CNN footage of toddlers hugging only selective editing it to make them be running away
twitter.com

First chance seeing this new Twitter filter in action (I rarely use it as a platform)

Small thing but I really do quite like the ‘this is fake news’ filter they’ve added. Enough replies to said Tweet saying it’s disgusting what CNN are publishing kind of points to the necessity of such flags.

I’m curious as to where this goes from here, Trump seems to be doubling down in his long-standing war against the media and now tech aggregators.

It’s long been my fear that the worst part of a mostly terrible legacy is going to be Trump’s tearing down of the media. Not that the media is without fault but a situation where a sizeable constituency of a nation outright doesn’t believe basically anything coming from the fourth estate regardless of veracity is a terrible state of affairs for societal cohesion.

On June 20 2020 05:57 BlackJack wrote:


The problem I have with this new trend of tech giants trying to filter out fake news is who gets to decide what the truth is.

For example, I saw a video the other day of Joe Biden supposedly committing a gaffe by saying he was going to "beat Joe Biden" + Show Spoiler +

So I googled it and I found that Politifact which has a partnership with Facebook to combat fake news has deemed this to be false and that what he actually said was "I'm going to be Joe Biden." My problem is that when I watch that video it sounds more like "beat" than "be" to me. It's a little troubling if these tech giants that already have so much influence in our society are now also able to decide what the "truth" is and censor anything that doesn't go along with their version of it.

On June 20 2020 05:00 ShoCkeyy wrote:
One of Trumps most recent tweets include not treating protesters like "normal" people. Literally people who are actively using their first amendment right shouldn't be treated humanely.

On June 20 2020 06:39 Simberto wrote:
Treating people as subhuman does have a lot of tradition behind it. Humans have been doing it for millenia. Treating people as people is a pretty unheard of radical idea, i don't think we have ever seen a society which treats everyone like a person.

On June 20 2020 06:02 Jockmcplop wrote:


The example you gave is nothing to do with facts or information though. Its either an obvious accident or you misheard it. You can't fact check 'i'm going to beat Joe Biden' any more than you can fact check 'i'm going to beat Joe Biden'.

On June 20 2020 07:25 JimmiC wrote:

He says. " I have a record of over 40 years and I'm going to be Joe Biden". In context I'm not sure how you would think he says beat, when they cut the clip I can see how you would.

It is like if you hear "there is a bathroom on the right" when CCR sang "there is a bad moon on the rise". It would be factually incorrect to the say the former, no matter what you think you hear.

The bill allows a person who has a constitutional right secured by the bill of rights of the Colorado constitution that is infringed upon by a peace officer to bring a civil action for the violation. A plaintiff who prevails in the lawsuit is entitled to reasonable attorney fees, and a defendant in an individual suit is entitled to reasonable attorney fees for defending any frivolous claims. Qualified immunity and a defendant’s good faith but erroneous belief in the lawfulness of his or her conduct are not defenses is not a defense to the civil action. The bill requires a political subdivision of the state to indemnify its employees for such a claim; except that if the peace officer’s employer determines the officer did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that the action was lawful, then the peace officer is personally liable for 5 percent of the judgment or $25,000, whichever is less, unless the judgment is uncollectible from the officer, then the officer’s employer satisfies the whole judgment .

The Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice policy analyst Jay Schweikert, an expect on qualified immunity, praised Colorado’s accomplishment and explained the impact of the new law.

"Colorado has passed historic civil rights legislation, which both allows citizens to bring civil rights claims against police officers who violate their rights under the Colorado Constitution, and also clarifies that qualified immunity will not be a defense to any such claims,” he told Law&Crime. “While this law doesn’t affect the availability of qualified immunity in federal cases, it does ensure that Coloradans who are the victims of police misconduct will have a meaningful remedy in state court.”

On June 20 2020 05:57 BlackJack wrote:


The problem I have with this new trend of tech giants trying to filter out fake news is who gets to decide what the truth is.

For example, I saw a video the other day of Joe Biden supposedly committing a gaffe by saying he was going to "beat Joe Biden" + Show Spoiler +

So I googled it and I found that Politifact which has a partnership with Facebook to combat fake news has deemed this to be false and that what he actually said was "I'm going to be Joe Biden." My problem is that when I watch that video it sounds more like "beat" than "be" to me. It's a little troubling if these tech giants that already have so much influence in our society are now also able to decide what the "truth" is and censor anything that doesn't go along with their version of it.

On June 20 2020 07:25 JimmiC wrote:

He says. " I have a record of over 40 years and I'm going to be Joe Biden". In context I'm not sure how you would think he says beat, when they cut the clip I can see how you would.

It is like if you hear "there is a bathroom on the right" when CCR sang "there is a bad moon on the rise". It would be factually incorrect to the say the former, no matter what you think you hear.

On June 20 2020 07:29 farvacola wrote:

Well that begs an interesting problem, is it possible to truthfully assert that a statement is false without directly implying a truer version of events? If “Biden said X” is said to be false, can’t that be true because “we can’t quite tell what he said but one version makes more contextual sense than the other?” is actually the truest thing to say about the quote in question?

On June 20 2020 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:

And it's funny because appeals to tradition are formally considered a logical fallacy, yet that is the pillar of conservative philosophy. The entire thing is based on something that is defined as inadequate reasoning.