326
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 31 Jul 2024
326 points (97.7% liked)
politics
19135 readers
1156 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What the fuck is the issue now
I was all set to say, okay you redeemed yourself with The Guardian because you actually picked out some factually wrong stuff I didn’t know about and I learned they were maybe more sensationalist a paper than I was aware of and that’s relevant information
Now this I am somewhat confident is some bullshit, but let’s see
Edit: Hm. Here are some of the things they’re calling out as lies, and then the context:
There’s not really any further information, but it kinda looks to me like when this was said, it was true. “Walmart estimates that it contributes just 2% of total US gun sales and 20% of ammunition sales. He said this means Walmart is probably not among the top three guns sellers in the country.” So, they’re potentially among the top 3 means to me they’re one of the largest. I mean you could nitpick what “assault style weapons” means but the point is it’s not wildly off base.
They showed, on air, a tweet that said this, Brian Williams and his guest talked about it, and then Brian Williams explained that that’s not how that works. And then, after the show, they put out a tweet just reiterating for anyone who missed the point that that’s not how that works.
I didn’t watch the video so maybe I’m missing something but it sounds like Politifact should not be calling this any kind of untrue.
Idk; I think it’s clear that something is wrong and that this is not a good way to rate news programs. I think maybe they have sort of criteria in mind and they’re suited to print media when applied correctly, but not to a video program where two people are talking to each other, and they’re also not really doing much more than quickly scouring for individual instances instead of trying to get a sense of the overall reliability of the outlet.
It’s not like transparent bullshit like “anti Israel = lying” like they were doing on some other outlets, but it is some type of bullshit.
Yeah this bot is pretty bullshit tbh
It’s a good idea but it is, ironically, not really attentive enough to the facts to be useful, because you can’t trust it to be telling the truth
We need MBFCFC
Can you give me a couple examples?
Let me ask you; when you’re talking about your politics with people, do they sometimes quickly develop this really strong I-don’t-want-to-talk-with-you-anymore energy? ‘Cause if so, I feel like I might know why.
Yeah I definitely think I know why