3 ms·

> What is going on in the US just now is unprecedented in modern Western democracies - we've reached "peak fake news" in the USA. Mainstream news networks like

> What is going on in the US just now is unprecedented in modern Western democracies - we've reached "peak fake news" in the USA. Mainstream news networks like Fox have talking heads spouting venomous lies that are demonstrably and trivially proven as such. The POTUS is lying on an hourly basis (many of those lies just brazenly, ridiculously false), and has millions of people believing his every word - he's personally profiting hugely, while brainwashing them and whipping them up into frenzy. It's fucking dangerous, especially with the US' lax gun laws. Yeah, don't see a political slant here...

Daishiman 6y ago
There is definitely a political slant. It just turns out that one side is obviously factually true for all neutral observers, and the other side is in the equivalent of a collective psychotic break from reality.
- newfriend 6y ago
  The political party I agree with is factually correct! The other party is insane! I wonder if the people you disagree with would say the exact same thing?
  - Daishiman 6y ago
    > The political party I agree with is factually correct! The other party is insane! Yes buddy, sorry to be hard about it, but sometimes you're right and the other side is wrong. It's not about partisanship; it's about objective reality. And the objective reality is that for anyone who's not stuck on the Fox/OANN spin cycle (which includes the billions of US outside the US watching from afar) the results are clear, conclusive and bright as day.
  - bob33212 6y ago
    Certainly there are videos made by Democrats which include wild inaccuracies. You have to draw the line somewhere. Imagine someone buying all the toilet paper in a town and then running targeted adds on-line to start panic buying. So they can sell theirs. At some point Google becomes an accessory to price gouging law. What if Trump ends up in prison for violating the oath of the office? Does Google have no liability in helping him commit his crimes?
weakfish 6y ago
Having a grasp on reality != political slant You can be a conservative and acknowledge the President states falsehoods at an unseen pace.
- disgrunt 6y ago
  Half truths are inherently half lies. Politicians lie. Some better than others. I'll take the bad liar over the good one myself.
  - onli 6y ago
    You are talking about a president that is not accepting the result of a democrating election, exactly like he announced 4 years ago, and the republicans almost fully cooperating with him in trying to destroy the democratic system. That's way past the point of platitutes like politicians and good vs bad liars. This is Weimar.
    - disgrunt 6y ago
      > You are talking about a president that is not accepting the result of a democrating election, exactly like he announced 4 years ago, and the republicans almost fully cooperating with him in trying to destroy the democratic system. That's way past the point of platitutes like politicians and good vs bad liars. This is Weimar. Oh, please. Following the constitutional process for disputing an election is Weimar now? Could this be more Godwin's law?
      - jcranmer 6y ago
        If you think this is the constitutional process for disputing an election, you're mistaken. Trump is arguing that (a) SCOTUS should (b) order several states to have their legislatures appoint new electors (c) on the basis of a suit brought by Texas against several other states (d) alleging that state court rulings modifying electoral law (in accordance with state statutes) are unconstitutionally overruling state legislatures' ability to determine their electors. (See http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163234/20201209155327055_No.%2022O155%20Original%20Motion%20to%20Intervene.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163234/20201...) There are 4 separate elements in that assertion that are each unprecedented in terms of disputing an election. SCOTUS is not the venue for election disputes; state courts are. No one has ever before argued that state legislators can appoint electors in lieu of popular vote, and as some briefs have pointed out, several state statutes (including some of the states involved here!) expressly forbid that. No state has ever before tried to challenge the election procedures of another state. And the legal basis for doing all of this is itself without precedent. This is not normal.
SauciestGNU 6y ago
The problem here is that objective reality is being politicized. There are two parties claiming to have won the election, and one of those claims must be false. But the partisans of the losing side are creating a parallel set of beliefs not based in fact, and creating a media ecosystem around those lies, and it is entirely possible for believers in those lies to avoid all truthful sources of information. What's more is that the language used by the losing party is extremely dangerous. Just yesterday, the verified Twitter account for the Arizona GOP asked its followers if they were ready to die for the cause of keeping Trump in power. Disinformation does not exist in a vacuum, and it is being used actively to cultivate violence.

Daishiman 6y ago

There is definitely a political slant. It just turns out that one side is obviously factually true for all neutral observers, and the other side is in the equivalent of a collective psychotic break from reality.

newfriend 6y ago
The political party I agree with is factually correct! The other party is insane! I wonder if the people you disagree with would say the exact same thing?
- Daishiman 6y ago
  > The political party I agree with is factually correct! The other party is insane! Yes buddy, sorry to be hard about it, but sometimes you're right and the other side is wrong. It's not about partisanship; it's about objective reality. And the objective reality is that for anyone who's not stuck on the Fox/OANN spin cycle (which includes the billions of US outside the US watching from afar) the results are clear, conclusive and bright as day.
- bob33212 6y ago
  Certainly there are videos made by Democrats which include wild inaccuracies. You have to draw the line somewhere. Imagine someone buying all the toilet paper in a town and then running targeted adds on-line to start panic buying. So they can sell theirs. At some point Google becomes an accessory to price gouging law. What if Trump ends up in prison for violating the oath of the office? Does Google have no liability in helping him commit his crimes?

weakfish 6y ago

Having a grasp on reality != political slant You can be a conservative and acknowledge the President states falsehoods at an unseen pace.

disgrunt 6y ago
Half truths are inherently half lies. Politicians lie. Some better than others. I'll take the bad liar over the good one myself.
- onli 6y ago
  You are talking about a president that is not accepting the result of a democrating election, exactly like he announced 4 years ago, and the republicans almost fully cooperating with him in trying to destroy the democratic system. That's way past the point of platitutes like politicians and good vs bad liars. This is Weimar.
  - disgrunt 6y ago
    > You are talking about a president that is not accepting the result of a democrating election, exactly like he announced 4 years ago, and the republicans almost fully cooperating with him in trying to destroy the democratic system. That's way past the point of platitutes like politicians and good vs bad liars. This is Weimar. Oh, please. Following the constitutional process for disputing an election is Weimar now? Could this be more Godwin's law?
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      If you think this is the constitutional process for disputing an election, you're mistaken. Trump is arguing that (a) SCOTUS should (b) order several states to have their legislatures appoint new electors (c) on the basis of a suit brought by Texas against several other states (d) alleging that state court rulings modifying electoral law (in accordance with state statutes) are unconstitutionally overruling state legislatures' ability to determine their electors. (See http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163234/20201209155327055_No.%2022O155%20Original%20Motion%20to%20Intervene.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163234/20201...) There are 4 separate elements in that assertion that are each unprecedented in terms of disputing an election. SCOTUS is not the venue for election disputes; state courts are. No one has ever before argued that state legislators can appoint electors in lieu of popular vote, and as some briefs have pointed out, several state statutes (including some of the states involved here!) expressly forbid that. No state has ever before tried to challenge the election procedures of another state. And the legal basis for doing all of this is itself without precedent. This is not normal.

SauciestGNU 6y ago

The problem here is that objective reality is being politicized. There are two parties claiming to have won the election, and one of those claims must be false. But the partisans of the losing side are creating a parallel set of beliefs not based in fact, and creating a media ecosystem around those lies, and it is entirely possible for believers in those lies to avoid all truthful sources of information. What's more is that the language used by the losing party is extremely dangerous. Just yesterday, the verified Twitter account for the Arizona GOP asked its followers if they were ready to die for the cause of keeping Trump in power. Disinformation does not exist in a vacuum, and it is being used actively to cultivate violence.