980
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
980 points (97.7% liked)
News
23305 readers
3665 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What a useless article because I have no idea if he is right and this was political play, or if this is a case of leopards ate my face. I would love for it to be the latter, but I have no idea because it doesn't actually provide any information for me to make that determination.
He supported a book banning law. He's in the wrong.
Now he's not gone back on that, he's complaining the law he supported is applying to his books.
He wants to be above the law while others are not.
He doesn't want to be above the law, he just wants language to only be understood how he understands it. Grade 4 reading level tops, all ambiguity and questions disallowed in favour of whatever baseless, glib assertion he wants to make. He wants, essentially, for everyone to be him. Narcissism, in short. The typical republican operating principle - "I'm right because I know everything by my feels" the goddamned retards
The clip of him screaming "Fuck it we'll do it live" is s great example of this. He doesn't understand the term "play us out" so he gets angry at everyone. He can't comprehend that that there are turns of speech he doesn't know, but rather than ask he gets angry at everyone else and pitches a fit like a toddler when they are confronted by something they don't understand.
We don’t know if the law actually applies to his books or if the school is just mad at him for supporting the law because the article doesn’t say anything
if the review board removed the book for violating guidelines its because the law allows for it. Period. This probably means the law itself is broader than he realized and now he's being a little baby.
I’d rather not buy his book to check, the journalist should have though if they wanted to cover this
Laws like these are designed to be vague. It's the intent that they get selectively applied. Of course it's a political play and it's a fair move. Same with banning the bible even though the law wasn't intended for that.
Agreed, absolutely. The law is stupid, in any form.
Can you support this claim? In the article he says that he supports the original theme of the law, but that the wording of the actual law is too nebulous. Did he actually support the law as-written because that changes a lot about my position.
Maybe that is the case, but the facts as I've seen them don't really support this conclusion. Unless I'm missing something.
Why are you giving Bill O'Reilly the benefit of the doubt, he's a ghoul
I don't really think this is a fair question no matter how you look at something or what you support.
The question he is asking is fair and this commenter genuinely once an answer to avoid the assumption which and then spin into misinformation about a subject.
It's not about giving benefit of the doubt its about asking for a valid claim. I don't support book banning and I hate this guy but I also hate Trump but I wouldn't want the current case to something of the opposite stance based on the way you are thinking.
Imagine if Trump was not given the benefit of the doubt and we got something factually wrong about his case. That creates room for an appeal. Same goes if Biden was on that stand.
Asking for something to support a claim is asking for something to support a fact not an opinion. The commenter is well within their rights to ask for information to support a claim not giving Bill the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks for putting it much more kindly and eloquently than I can.
If the question is "do you like O'Reilly" the answer is "no."
But the question is "do the facts support this current outrage against him" and, as far as I can tell, the answer is also "no."
You are basically arguing that the facts don't matter. I don't work this way, even when it comes to those I dislike.
I fully agree he's a ghoul. It is important however to be intellectually honest and morally consistent, lest we sink to the level of people like Fucker Carlson and Shill O'Reilly. Okay, maybe I'll sink a little sometimes...
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."
Leftism is skepticism
You should be skeptical about O’Reilly having a decent, coherent thought.
Principles go right out the window when you dislike someone, eh?
Why does it matter
What do you mean "why does it matter"? Specific claims were made about the content of two books, and whether or not there's even a story depends on if those claims are true. If the claims aren't true, then the only story is that a librarian lied about some books in order to pull them off shelves.
If his book doesn't violate the law, and people removed it anyway as political retribution, then that is an abuse of power.
-or-
If he didn't support the law as-written, and is now pointing to his books being banned because of the poor wording as a reason to support that position, then the position is pretty consistent.
-or-
He is a hypocritical piece of shit who wants to evade the rules he helped put into place for everyone else because he thinks he is elevated above the rest of the citizens of this country.
Yes, absolutely. Which goes back to my original point: the article provides no information upon which you can make this judgment, which is why it's useless.
Y'all, this isn't some sort of centrist gotcha. Dude just wants a citation to which part of Billy's book violated the stupid and dumb law.
Or we can use our brains and recognize that hypocrisy is a constant feature of this type of ideology? For fuck sake dude. These people don't deserve the benefit the doubt anymore, and the fact that you seem to believe so strongly that they do is suspicious.
One of the most common, and probably most dangerous, cognitive biases is confirmation bias. It's the exact opposite of "using your brain" to accept a claim simply because it confirms what you already believe to be true. In fact, that might be the time it's most important to ask yourself whether or not it's true.
It's sad that you find my objectivity when it comes to the facts "suspicious" but that's your own short-coming you need to deal with. The accusation is a reflection of yourself and maybe you need to sit and think on it a bit.
This isn't confirmation bias, this is literally just making a (very) educated guess about a person's motivation given decades of behavior. Don't be fucking stupid.
You are admitting it's just a "guess" but it's safe to admit it's true because it confirms what you already believe to be true. And you're trying to claim it isn't confirmation bias. lmao. Classic.
No, it's an educated guess. Not a guess. An estimate.
I am using past behavior as a predictor for current/future behavior. Something that is done constantly (e.g. our credit system), and isn't fallacious.
Holy shit, this is hilarious. Do you understand how language works? In this case "educated" is an adjective that modifies the noun "guess." An educated guess is a guess. Just specific type. . .basically, not "a blind guess", but one based on being "educated" on the topic. Using the monty hall problem as an example, when they remove the door, it's an "educated guess" to also switch your answer. But you don't know what's behind that door, you just are making the best bet. You're not "estimating" it's behind the other door, you're guessing it is. This is a ridiculous (and failed) attempt at a pedantic argument.
So, again, admitting that it's not based on facts, but simply a guess.
If you had just said "I bet it's hypocritical" I wouldn't have said anything. But you didn't. You state it as if it is fact. The credit system does not state "it is fact that they will be bad with any future credit" they are saying "the risk that they will be bad with credit is high, so we are not giving it to them."
Nobody fucking cares dude. Take a step back and think about what you're arguing about here. Just stop. I'm certain you have better things to do.
People who don't care just go away,they don't announce to the world how much they don't care.
You're attempt to make this about me and how much you "don't care" is as transparent as your piss poor argument that saying a guess isn't a guess. (Lol I still crack up when I realize you actually tried to argue that position)
Unlike conservatives, I prefer to be outraged by facts instead of misinformation.
That's the beauty of it. Republicans write laws that always leave a backdoor for them to pull shenanigans that aren't in the spirit of the law. And if/when they're called out on it they hand wave and say "well it's not clear so the law is up for interpretation".
Now they're crying foul because it was used against them and kung-fu clutching those pearls.
Tbh it's not totally useless, as it notes the books have only been temporarily removed, and so the reality is that it's neither him being right about a political play nor leopards eating his face...Yet. I haven't found any followup articles on Escambia County Public School District's review of their books, and wouldn't expect to for awhile given they're reportedly reviewing over 1,600+ books for legal compliance. Also, it's kind of ironic that O'Reilly's benefiting from the group Freedom to Read tracking the books under review...
Right now O'Reilly's fuming over kind of nothing, as no decision has been made regarding whether to ban or remove any of the books up for review. They're simply all in-process of review to comply with the ridiculous new legislation. Maybe in that sense it's kind of more of a leopards ate my face situation that his books have even been temporarily pulled for review because of the legislation?
I don't really know what they were expecting though, as I'm guessing many school districts in Florida are having to go through similar processes to avoid running afoul of the law.