Progressives, part 3...

One of the few things I do agree with Trump on is fake news. Of course he cries about it like a 4 year old, but as others have pointed out,  the different news sources are definitely slanted in political directions. None of them are neutral if they ever were. 

posted by justincredible

I see geeblock deleted his post. Good call.

Ut oh, anyone give us a brief synopsis?

posted by jmog

Ut oh, anyone give us a brief synopsis?

posted by FatHobbit

One of the few things I do agree with Trump on is fake news. Of course he cries about it like a 4 year old, but as others have pointed out,  the different news sources are definitely slanted in political directions. None of them are neutral if they ever were. 

Haha.....You go over to TheHill.com, which is supposedly a middle of the road publication, and it's just a collection of a bunch of pretty liberal and conservative writers.  Two extremists =/= a moderate.

But the funniest thing is, if you read the comments, you can tell people make-up their mind before even reading the article based on the politics of the writer.  Apparently no credit is given to the editors to select decent writers on both sides - the only good writers are, of course, those that you agree with.

It's a cesspool.  I think the internet and cable news are actually making people less informed.  My personal favorite is "link to back-up your claim?".  No, google it yourself and become less stupid.

posted by gut

It's a cesspool.  I think the internet and cable news are actually making people less informed.  My personal favorite is "link to back-up your claim?".  No, google it yourself and become less stupid.

Unfortunately, it won't make them any less stupid.  They'll find an article, publication, column, anecdote, or limerick that confirms what they want to be true about the claim.

And  it's not on the hearer to affirm the validity of something said.  The onus is on the one popping off about it.

Ultimately, though, how fruitful is it going to be anyway?  For example:

PERSON A: A thing is true.
PERSON B: Do you have any proof?
PERSON A: I have these three sources.
PERSON B: Those sources are biased.  I don't believe them.
PERSON A: Why do you think they're biased?
PERSON B: Because my three sources say they are.
PERSON A: Well your sources are biased, too.

posted by O-Trap

And  it's not on the hearer to affirm the validity of something said.  The onus is on the one popping off about it.

I disagree.  If someone is known not to make stuff up or lie, then they are credible and don't need to defend everything they say, especially things that should be "common knowledge" to people informed about a subject.

I should clarify that I mean fact vs. opinion.  I'm not going to google for links to prove every fact you're too ignorant to know.

posted by O-Trap

PERSON A: A thing is true.
PERSON B: Do you have any proof?
PERSON A: I have these three sources.
PERSON B: Those sources are biased.  I don't believe them.
PERSON A: Why do you think they're biased?
PERSON B: Because my three sources say they are.
PERSON A: Well your sources are biased, too.

That's why I generally avoid those exchanges.  If you can't craft an argument with your own words, citing relevant facts, then you really have nothing to add to the debate.

posted by gut

I disagree.  If someone is known not to make stuff up or lie, then they are credible and don't need to defend everything they say, especially things that should be "common knowledge" to people informed about a subject.

I should clarify that I mean fact vs. opinion.  I'm not going to google for links to prove every fact you're too ignorant to know.

The problem is that the person deciding whether or not to source their facts can't be the same one deciding if they, themselves, are known not to make stuff up.  If that's the case, nobody will source anything, because we all tend to think of ourselves that way.

Certainly, I'm not saying this regarding value statements.  Those are the sorts of things that necessarily have to be articulated on a conceptual basis, so frankly, sources themselves don't provide a lot of validity.

But there's a reason evidence is considered the responsibility of the one making the affirmative claim.  Now, if we both know it to be true, it's not like you have to source every little thing, but if you claim something is factually accurate, you should be able to demonstrate it as such, which is something that does require sources if it's rooted in hard sciences, math, or historical documentation.
 

posted by gut

That's why I generally avoid those exchanges.  If you can't craft an argument with your own words, citing relevant facts, then you really have nothing to add to the debate.

Well, I can't really craft a logical framework to demonstrate the factual accuracy of the affirmation that Millard Fillmore was the 13th president of the US.  That's the sort of thing that requires a historical source to confirm.

If people take me at my word, then there is no need to prove my affirmative claim.  If someone disagrees or doesn't believe me, there isn't some rhetorical argument to which I can appeal.  There are historical sources to which I can appeal.

But in general, I do try to avoid those discussion IRL as well, because they too quickly devolve into the above, even when I try to intentionally use sources that they, themselves, will accept.
 

Back to the thread at hand... Progressives...

Buzzfeed (yea I know) is reporting that planned parenthood fired their president after less than a year because she wouldn’t say men can have abortions and didn’t push abortion enough. “Reproductive health” is so woke

posted by iclfan2

[...] she wouldn’t say men can have abortions [...]

Looks like the aftermath of the whole Racist tweet storm is that Pelosi got owned on the house floor by breaking the rules and lying to Congress.  She will have no political power and will have to step down soon.

The "squad" got nothing out of it either.  Scored zero political points.

Trump wins it.

posted by Spock

Looks like the aftermath of the whole Racist tweet storm is that Pelosi got owned on the house floor by breaking the rules and lying to Congress.  She will have no political power and will have to step down soon.

The "squad" got nothing out of it either.  Scored zero political points.

 

Trump wins it.

What? No. That is all wrong. Go back and read the news again about that. 

The only person who has behaved even a little honorably in this most recent nonsense was the gentleman who in effect said "Fuck this shit, here's the damn gavel".

posted by ptown_trojans_1

What? No. That is all wrong. Go back and read the news again about that. 

What part did I get wrong?  Pelosi is an idiot.  She got throttled.  

posted by queencitybuckeye

The only person who has behaved even a little honorably in this most recent nonsense was the gentleman who in effect said "Fuck this shit, here's the damn gavel".

Yeah. I did laugh at that. 

posted by Spock

What part did I get wrong?  Pelosi is an idiot.  She got throttled.  

Everything. She did break a rule that Thomas Jefferson put in the rule book about how Congress cannot besmirch a sitting President. It has zero to do with lying. Also, she was not owned as the House just said her remarks could not be used in the debate on the measure. They did pass a measure that condemned the President's remarks. 

She is not stepping down at all and is just as pownerful as she was before this. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Yeah. I did laugh at that. 

posted by Spock

What part did I get wrong?  Pelosi is an idiot.  She got throttled.  

Everything. She did break a rule that Thomas Jefferson put in the rule book about how Congress cannot besmirch a sitting President. It has zero to do with lying. Also, she was not owned as the House just said her remarks could not be used in the debate on the measure. They did pass a measure that condemned the President's remarks. 

She is not stepping down at all and is just as pownerful as she was before this. 

 

She broke a rule that has long stood and was used in the 80's also.  She penned this letter that couldnt even be read on the house floor because of it, told the House chamber that it was approved (which it wasnt), lied about it and then read it anyway.  Hence, lying and breaking House rules all at the same time.  She will have zero political power.  The only way she gets any respect is if Trump wins this issue and she gains control of these freshman.

posted by Spock

Looks like the aftermath of the whole Racist tweet storm is that Pelosi got owned on the house floor by breaking the rules and lying to Congress.  She will have no political power and will have to step down soon.

The "squad" got nothing out of it either.  Scored zero political points.

 

Trump wins it.

"The Squad" are huge winners.  This is yet another meaningless event that has garnered them huge amounts of attention.  Good or bad, attention is what they want.  Attention is exactly what they got.  I know Trump loves to hear his name like no one else, but did he have to created a crisis using these four?  It gives "The Squad" way more relevance than it deserves.  

posted by Spock

She broke a rule that has long stood and was used in the 80's also.  She penned this letter that couldnt even be read on the house floor because of it, told the House chamber that it was approved (which it wasnt), lied about it and then read it anyway.  Hence, lying and breaking House rules all at the same time.  She will have zero political power.  The only way she gets any respect is if Trump wins this issue and she gains control of these freshman.

No. The House still passed the measure that rebuked the Trump tweet, so her measure still passed. There is zero, zero talk of her stepping down now. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

"The Squad" are huge winners.  This is yet another meaningless event that has garnered them huge amounts of attention.  Good or bad, attention is what they want.  Attention is exactly what they got.  I know Trump loves to hear his name like no one else, but did he have to created a crisis using these four?  It gives "The Squad" way more relevance than it deserves.  

The group of 4 dipshits did indeed  win, but that is the opposite of helping the democrats. Them continuing to be the face moderates see of the new Democrats is exactly what those on the right want. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

No. The House still passed the measure that rebuked the Trump tweet, so her measure still passed. There is zero, zero talk of her stepping down now. 

I still don't understand the point of passing measures to rebuke stuff. The whole anti semetic one or this one, both seem like a waste of time. And instead o focusing on the "atrocities" and "concentration camps" (laughable) on the border, they wasted a few days talking about a tweet.