6 ms·

In 2015 this would be shocking but in 2023 it's not that surprising as government media control ramps up around the world. There is no longer any tolerance for

In 2015 this would be shocking but in 2023 it's not that surprising as government media control ramps up around the world. There is no longer any tolerance for anything but a narrow slice of views an opinions to be available to people. What's worse is that I generally agree with all the views of mainstream western media it still pisses me off that it seems to be biased in agreement with me... Unless I'm now part of the sheeple?

uvnq 3y ago
I think you can agree with the views of sheeple and not be a sheeple. You sound too self aware for me to assume you're a sheeple
mschuster91 3y ago
> There is no longer any tolerance for anything but a narrow slice of views an opinions to be available to people. Carlson literally disputed the results of an election, and that despite heaps of evidence that there never has been fraud. At that point, he and his gullible viewers become a threat to democracy itself - and that is not an exaggeration given the events of Jan 6th. It used to be the case that such events got classified and prosecuted as high treason.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- logicchains 3y ago
  >Carlson literally disputed the results of an election, and that despite heaps of evidence that there never has been fraud There's plenty of evidence of some fraud occuring, it was just never discussed by the regime-aligned media and tech companies, which is the vast majority of them. The same way they conspired to cover up the Hunter Biden laptop story, and claimed in unison that the covid vaccines could prevent transmission and infection when there was no evidence to support this. >At that point, he and his gullible viewers become a threat to democracy itself If all your sources of truth are partisan media outlets aligned with you regime, then if the fraud really was large enough to alter the election results, you'd never know. That's the real threat to democracy.
  - acdha 3y ago
    > There's plenty of evidence of some fraud occuring, it was just never discussed by the regime-aligned media and tech companies HN does not need people repeating long-debunked lies, especially when you’re not even willing to put your personal credibility on the line by stating what specifically you assert to be true and why.
- bmarquez 3y ago
  > Carlson literally disputed the results of an election > It used to be the case that such events got classified and prosecuted as high treason. I wasn't aware that stating an opinion on a government election was illegal in the United States. Isn't that literally what the First Amendment is for?
  - acdha 3y ago
    “I don’t think Biden should have won” is an opinion. “Biden conspired with Dominion to tamper with votes” is a statement which can be assessed factually, and which has significant impact. Carlson and others knowingly lied like that – hence the first massive lawsuit settlement – and the J6 insurgents show every sign of having believed those lies and being motivated by them to assault the legitimate government trying to prevent a fair election result. The First Amendment is not absolute and has long-standing exceptions. One of those are false statements about specific people, which Carlson clearly made knowing they were false before he made them, and another is incitement to violence. The bar for that is high but it seems likely that at least some of these calls are debatably close to that level. It’s also worth remembering that the first amendment isn’t relevant to what a Canadian regulator allows to be broadcast in Canada.
    - bmarquez 3y ago
      My understanding is that Dominion (and Smartmatic) are private companies so they're not bound by the First Amendment and are free to file defamation lawsuits. My criticism of the parent poster was with the phrase "high treason" which implies a crime against the government (who would be bound by the First Amendment if this was taking place in America).
- local_crmdgeon 3y ago
  So did everyone on left wing channels in 2000. There was no outrage then. It’s just become acceptable to despise and ostracize the Right.
  - tzs 3y ago
    There was no outrage then because in 2000 there was actually evidence. That's why the court cases actually were heard by the courts instead of being quickly dismissed. Compare to 2020 when all the cases were quickly dismissed because no one could find any actual evidence.
  - xracy 3y ago
    Yeah, this definitely doesn't go both ways. /s
- sigstoat 3y ago
  > Carlson literally disputed the results of an election that was a pretty popular thing to do, circa 2000 > that is not an exaggeration not something normally included in non-exaggerations.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Pretending that the horseshit in florida is even remotely comparable to all the nonsense conservatives made up to pretend their golden god was super popular is insane. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot is well documented and pretty clear, while Republicans in 2020 claimed things like foreign agents changing votes in a database using a satellite, and pushed forward claims WE HAVE DIRECT EVIDENCE THEY KNEW WERE FALSE.
- Philorandroid 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Show me the time democrats in 2016 file tens of completely valueless court cases that all got thrown out for a complete lack of evidence. We have Trump himself on a call pressuring a government official to "find" more votes.
    - Philorandroid 3y ago
      Kindly explain how, misguided as they might have been, proceeding through the legal system is somehow more pernicious to democracy than paying lip service to riots and participating in a campaign where the outcome of an election is flat-out denied and retroactively justified by "foreign interference"?
      - xracy 3y ago
        > Kindly explain how, misguided as they might have been, proceeding through the legal system is somehow more pernicious to democracy than paying lip service to riots and participating in a campaign where the outcome of an election is flat-out denied and retroactively justified by "foreign interference"? I think you're using too many SAT words, and not enough sentence structuring. I believe the responder is saying "the 2016 election was less 'pernicious' to democracy than the 2020 election." But to be honest, it's impossible for me to tell which election you think had which results from this sentence. EDIT: Please note that working within the constraints of the system will always be less pernicious to the system than working outside of the constraints of the system.
        Philorandroid 3y ago
        My sentence structure is fine, as is my word choice. The parent to my original comment talked about how evil it was to question the integrity of an election, and I snidely brought up how it wasn't considered a problem until Trump did it. mrguyorama's response was to suggest that Trump sympathizers filing legal cases on questionable or nonexistence evidence justified the decidedly anti-democratic response to his election. So, I facetiously asked how they think democratic measures justify the anti-democratic action they claim to abhor.
sophacles 3y ago
> There is no longer any tolerance for anything but a narrow slice of views an opinions to be available to people. I get that you're soap-boxing, but... "trans people are targeting Christians" isn't a viewpoint. It's a statement of fact that may be false or true. In the context used (a vile statement by a trashy fear monger), it seems to be an intentional statement, and further one designed to incite hatred over a lie.

uvnq 3y ago

I think you can agree with the views of sheeple and not be a sheeple. You sound too self aware for me to assume you're a sheeple

mschuster91 3y ago

> There is no longer any tolerance for anything but a narrow slice of views an opinions to be available to people. Carlson literally disputed the results of an election, and that despite heaps of evidence that there never has been fraud. At that point, he and his gullible viewers become a threat to democracy itself - and that is not an exaggeration given the events of Jan 6th. It used to be the case that such events got classified and prosecuted as high treason.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
logicchains 3y ago
>Carlson literally disputed the results of an election, and that despite heaps of evidence that there never has been fraud There's plenty of evidence of some fraud occuring, it was just never discussed by the regime-aligned media and tech companies, which is the vast majority of them. The same way they conspired to cover up the Hunter Biden laptop story, and claimed in unison that the covid vaccines could prevent transmission and infection when there was no evidence to support this. >At that point, he and his gullible viewers become a threat to democracy itself If all your sources of truth are partisan media outlets aligned with you regime, then if the fraud really was large enough to alter the election results, you'd never know. That's the real threat to democracy.
- acdha 3y ago
  > There's plenty of evidence of some fraud occuring, it was just never discussed by the regime-aligned media and tech companies HN does not need people repeating long-debunked lies, especially when you’re not even willing to put your personal credibility on the line by stating what specifically you assert to be true and why.
bmarquez 3y ago
> Carlson literally disputed the results of an election > It used to be the case that such events got classified and prosecuted as high treason. I wasn't aware that stating an opinion on a government election was illegal in the United States. Isn't that literally what the First Amendment is for?
- acdha 3y ago
  “I don’t think Biden should have won” is an opinion. “Biden conspired with Dominion to tamper with votes” is a statement which can be assessed factually, and which has significant impact. Carlson and others knowingly lied like that – hence the first massive lawsuit settlement – and the J6 insurgents show every sign of having believed those lies and being motivated by them to assault the legitimate government trying to prevent a fair election result. The First Amendment is not absolute and has long-standing exceptions. One of those are false statements about specific people, which Carlson clearly made knowing they were false before he made them, and another is incitement to violence. The bar for that is high but it seems likely that at least some of these calls are debatably close to that level. It’s also worth remembering that the first amendment isn’t relevant to what a Canadian regulator allows to be broadcast in Canada.
  - bmarquez 3y ago
    My understanding is that Dominion (and Smartmatic) are private companies so they're not bound by the First Amendment and are free to file defamation lawsuits. My criticism of the parent poster was with the phrase "high treason" which implies a crime against the government (who would be bound by the First Amendment if this was taking place in America).
local_crmdgeon 3y ago
So did everyone on left wing channels in 2000. There was no outrage then. It’s just become acceptable to despise and ostracize the Right.
- tzs 3y ago
  There was no outrage then because in 2000 there was actually evidence. That's why the court cases actually were heard by the courts instead of being quickly dismissed. Compare to 2020 when all the cases were quickly dismissed because no one could find any actual evidence.
- xracy 3y ago
  Yeah, this definitely doesn't go both ways. /s
sigstoat 3y ago
> Carlson literally disputed the results of an election that was a pretty popular thing to do, circa 2000 > that is not an exaggeration not something normally included in non-exaggerations.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Pretending that the horseshit in florida is even remotely comparable to all the nonsense conservatives made up to pretend their golden god was super popular is insane. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot is well documented and pretty clear, while Republicans in 2020 claimed things like foreign agents changing votes in a database using a satellite, and pushed forward claims WE HAVE DIRECT EVIDENCE THEY KNEW WERE FALSE.
Philorandroid 3y ago
[flagged]
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Show me the time democrats in 2016 file tens of completely valueless court cases that all got thrown out for a complete lack of evidence. We have Trump himself on a call pressuring a government official to "find" more votes.
  - Philorandroid 3y ago
    Kindly explain how, misguided as they might have been, proceeding through the legal system is somehow more pernicious to democracy than paying lip service to riots and participating in a campaign where the outcome of an election is flat-out denied and retroactively justified by "foreign interference"?
    - xracy 3y ago
      > Kindly explain how, misguided as they might have been, proceeding through the legal system is somehow more pernicious to democracy than paying lip service to riots and participating in a campaign where the outcome of an election is flat-out denied and retroactively justified by "foreign interference"? I think you're using too many SAT words, and not enough sentence structuring. I believe the responder is saying "the 2016 election was less 'pernicious' to democracy than the 2020 election." But to be honest, it's impossible for me to tell which election you think had which results from this sentence. EDIT: Please note that working within the constraints of the system will always be less pernicious to the system than working outside of the constraints of the system.
      - Philorandroid 3y ago
        My sentence structure is fine, as is my word choice. The parent to my original comment talked about how evil it was to question the integrity of an election, and I snidely brought up how it wasn't considered a problem until Trump did it. mrguyorama's response was to suggest that Trump sympathizers filing legal cases on questionable or nonexistence evidence justified the decidedly anti-democratic response to his election. So, I facetiously asked how they think democratic measures justify the anti-democratic action they claim to abhor.

sophacles 3y ago

> There is no longer any tolerance for anything but a narrow slice of views an opinions to be available to people. I get that you're soap-boxing, but... "trans people are targeting Christians" isn't a viewpoint. It's a statement of fact that may be false or true. In the context used (a vile statement by a trashy fear monger), it seems to be an intentional statement, and further one designed to incite hatred over a lie.