In this one instance they might do that. In the area where I live where it was done, there was no space for the emergency vehicles to go in the other direction. Just because there are ways they could do it in this one case doesn't make it universal.

Also, are you able to provide the polling you referenced showing that highway blockades change minds? I was unable to find anything other than web and call-in polls, both of which overwhelmingly showed the exact opposite (but those are hardly scientific so I wouldn't trust them).

Also, I'm not the one downvoting you. I do not do that.

... which just means you have to get creative.

Freeway blocking is not creative, doesn't get people present on your side (quite literally the opposite), presents safety risks, may delay emergency vehicles, wastes natural resources, and doesn't change minds of readers. Same with the stupid "throw soup / oil at a piece of art" shit I saw repeatedly. A throw-away headline seems to be the goal, but it accomplishes next to nothing.

Target. Those. In. Power. Make life fucking hard for them.

This thread (not you explicitly) reeks of this attitude I see frequently on Lemmy of "It's a deeply stupid and astoundingly flawed thing to do, but I'll defend it to the death because it agrees with my politics!"

despite that being a dictionary definition of bigotry

Well, here is the dictionary definition of bigotry.

It fits both Alito and anyone who dislikes his views. I wasn't aware the definition was so broad but it basically applies to everyone who dislikes anyone else's view on anything.

Sure. They lied. I'm not going to watch it to verify, but I'll take your word on it. But again, that's not what they're there to stop. It's akin to getting mad at Sesame Street for not showing you how to make a good stew.

And also, they wanted usage rights. Now that they had footage that they owned, CNN the same night and next day aired basically pick-aparts using their own footage demolishing a lot of those points. Is your issue that it wasn't done live even though it never has been?

These debates rarely have given equal time to all candidates involved. Historically, they give the most time to the most popular candidates no matter where the debates are aired.

Here is some current polling.

So this is to show that the results are not set in stone. I understand that polling this early on isn’t meaningful, but I think what it does illustrate is that Biden isn’t obviously dominating in a Biden-Haley match up. If anything it looks Haley beats Biden by a larger margin than Trump does.

Rather than trying to support Haley because she is perceived to be less of a (insert whatever pejorative you'd use here) or because Biden will do better against her in a general election (and as far as we know, he won’t), we should focus on pressuring Biden to enact policy changes that his voting base are demanding.

And again, if using a US barometer for politics, none of this really shows that CNN is centrist or right-wing now out of nowhere (while still arguing against and frequently mocking right-wing policies).

Absolutely, which is why I'm asking for clarification. Keep in mind that like 90% of our TV, movie, and internet content is American, so it's not like we're clueless about the goings-on there, we just don't have some of the finer points nailed down.

So assuming the Equal-Time rule doesn't apply, splitting the vote still does. Also, as a show of political fairness it still counts, not to mention that you can't properly fight what you don't understand.

You didn't answer my question if the Democratic equivalent had a fact-checker. I'd look myself, but I'm not sure what it's called.

And before I forget, thanks for talking. It's not often you can debate on any social media without the other person being rude and condescending. I appreciate it.

I moderate (and do most of the writing for) !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca if you'd ever like to stop by!

I spent about an hour and kept getting reply notifications, just like the one I got now for this (now over a month old) post. I reply. I like to interact. It's not arguing, it was legitimate discussion, and yes, I was discussing how people like to strawman others. To my mind, it was civil.

The message I got from the mod was - nearly word for word - "get the fuck out of here with that my children matter bullshit."

I did not misrepresent the situation.

As an addendum, the thread were I was banned was not my first exposure to them. You may be conflating two interactions.

Hey I'm just writing the rules down, not telling you you shouldn't be annoyed by them.

It takes me no longer to gain immediate access then it does for a stream user to search and play the stream, even with rare or weird songs.

Killing is only one way of reducing a population, and is not one I advocated for. You are becoming increasingly unhinged. The primary definition of "people" is "human beings in general or considered collectively." A second definition? "human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest."

No. Animals are not people. You are factually incorrect, bad at making points, and potentially psychotic. Take your meds.

W... what? Am I debating with an AI or something? Malthusianism was never invoke nor implied. The food supply is a finite resource. This isn't a debate. We live in an entropic reality. Period. You do not get to rewrite universal constants.

The argument was not nonsense, you've just moved the goalposts instead of acknowledging it. There was no justifying mass slaughter of people because animals are not people by any but the loosest of definitions (eg. the one you seem to operate on). You moving the goalposts of what constitutes the word "people" for political reasons does not magically make it so. I am wholly opposed to the political adjustment of words no matter who does it and for what reason it's done. It's intellectually dishonest and allows the mover to re-frame any argument however they see fit.

What if I did what you did? Well, now plants are people and you're psychotic. I've now re-recategorized animals to never be people. Okay, so now you're calling for genocide. Congrats! You've proved why word adjustments for political reasons is a shit idea. Now let's be grown-up about things, shall we?

As someone who has lived on a small farm for a good number of years and raised animals, you (and I) hold their lives in higher regard than they do. That is because you (maybe?) are a sentient being. Many animals have fewer sentience-indicating behaviours than trees do.

And tell my hamster how important family is. She ate six of her children on two separate occasions.

Because if I don't understand something, I would like an understanding of what the reasoning behind it is. We get smarter by asking people about the world. I find a lot of issues with people emerge because they don't think about the reasoning behind any of what they are doing and simply fall into a rut of convenience instead of finding a better way to do things.

But of course on the internet, people get pretty angry when questioning a behavior they just adopted and never bothered to think about.

They are not attracted to it because it's racial, they are attracted to it because it is taboo.