|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I think reading the article isn't too high of a bar to clear. I think posting the text or archiving it yourself isn't too high of a bar to clear, either, especially when posting hot takes on a story. I'll bring it up in the next forums feedback thread since it seems to be such a controversial opinion all of a sudden, and causing discord. vvv Lots of bullshit instead of posting the dang story yourself while making hot takes, goon sire! Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Dec 17, 2021 |
# ? Dec 17, 2021 23:13 |
|
|
# ? Jun 9, 2024 04:43 |
|
Willa Rogers posted:I think posting the text or archiving it yourself isn't too high of a bar to clear, either, especially when posting hot takes on a story. Willa, nobody is trying to own you or be mean. You admitted that you knew how to read the article, but chose not to. Then, you came in with an aggro hot take that was disproved in the second paragraph of the article and continued to get aggro and defensive about it. You spent 40 minutes defending not reading the article when reading it would take 5. You could have pasted the article and read it like you said, but even if you couldn't, then there would be many people willing to help you or link to archive for you if you asked instead of coming in hot. https://twitter.com/brianbeutler/status/1471967917675847682 Former NYT editor and politics reporter admitted in an interview that they don't like to say one side is right in a political dispute (even if one side objectively is correct) because they are afraid of being accused of a liberal bias and want to try and build credibility with conservative readers. Also, that they try to stick to neutrality rather than objectivity when covering politics. quote:When facts have a liberal bias, New York Times editors can get squirmy Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Dec 17, 2021 |
# ? Dec 17, 2021 23:29 |
|
It's funny because that's basically also how the Democratic Party operates. They don't want to seem biased in favor of leftism or liberalism
|
# ? Dec 17, 2021 23:50 |
Discendo Vox posted:a) it's been around from the beginning of November, being recycled now as if it's new specifically to make people rage. Think about why you constantly defend this poo poo
|
|
# ? Dec 17, 2021 23:57 |
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:What? Do you just not watch the news? It was everywhere when the withdrawal started, the chickenhawks came out in droves to say "Actually we need to stay in Afghanistan MUCH longer to accomplish our goal of (mumble mumble)" and other thinly veiled excuses for war profiteering. Why would anyone ever watch TV news? It's a horrible way of getting information. And who cares what Tony Blair has to say. Is he in some kind of position of power?
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 00:05 |
|
*Shocked Pikachu Face* https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1471975760894251008 quote:Trump White House made 'deliberate efforts' to undermine Covid response, report says
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 00:22 |
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Think about why you constantly defend this poo poo What are you claiming I am defending?
|
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 00:25 |
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:*Shocked Pikachu Face* I really hate when they treat this stuff like it was a bad treatment and not quack science with no basis whatsoever
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 00:46 |
|
the_steve posted:Why? Are they actually passing it yet? lol what
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 00:54 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:'Documents obtained by the committee also show that Trump political appointees tried to pressure the Food and Drug Administration to authorize ineffective Covid treatments the president was pushing, like hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma, over the objections of career scientists, the report said.' Dr oz is a doctor, are you????
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 00:55 |
Discendo Vox posted:What are you claiming I am defending? Eliding the administration's actions by quibbling over the presentation and/or timing of tweets that reference them is just really obviously a coward's defense of them and it's kind of absurd to pretend that it isn't Why does a news item having come out earlier taint it for discussion now? Have facts come to light since that have rendered the original story invalid? Or are you just suggesting that anybody who misses a news item when it comes out only to discover it later must be barred from bringing it up, and to do anything other than keeping silent on it is to out oneself as an insidious Derailer? Just how long is the window here, exactly, too, since you pulled this exact poo poo over news that was two days old? If anything, the age of the redacted memo story should make it look even worse now, given the excuses at the time were all about how the administration wasn't trying to obscure anything by redacting it, it was simply an intermediate step, they'd totally announce their findings later when they were ready... and now months down the line the only action the administration's taking on student loans is to end the pandemic moratorium on them So again, why do you continually run cover for the administration's bad behavior by nitpicking the presentation details of news items here? You should ask yourself this
|
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 00:58 |
|
Discendo Vox posted:a) it's been around from the beginning of November, being recycled now as if it's new specifically to make people rage. If there anything good for the administration behind what was redacted, it never would have been squashed.
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 01:10 |
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:lol what Your post seemed to imply that those who thought that BBB was dead were foolish, so I believe he assumes that you must have proof to the contrary to make that assertion.
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 01:35 |
|
... to tell them that they were right why would i try to call them foolish when it's obvious poo poo isn't getting passed
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 01:50 |
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:... to tell them that they were right Ah, that's my mistake then
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 02:03 |
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:... to tell them that they were right It's how I read it at first too and would've assumed if I didn't know your politics. Nothing to do with you, it's just that 99% of the time the context of that kind of post means it's followed by a silent "to laugh at how dumb they were" imho the best examples are probably found in the congressional record as I'm pretty sure definitely Sinema and probably Manchin have been very clear from the start that their reason for wanting the split was specifically that they didn't support any of that other stuff and never would
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 02:04 |
|
Oh yeah it was my bad for leaving it that ambiguous, I thought that the current extreme deadlock would make the point clear enough cuz man did they ever call it. It was an incredible play 'how about you take everything I like and might vote for out of your bill, and now we'll just vote on my bill with only the stuff I like in it.' Somehow that move worked??? outplayed by a strat as sophisticated as heads I win, tails you lose
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 02:08 |
|
The story about the memo was news to me, at least, so looking through the disclosures, the most interesting unredacted parts are these: (e: note - reverse chronological order and I snipped a few) Putting a hell of a load on the one word "countering", it does sound like they took a contrary view to the prior memo in at least some respect. The section from the one for DeVos that they're talking about is where they argue that this verbiage couldn't possibly be used as authority for mass cancellation: quote:Notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless enacted with specific reference to this section, the Secretary of Education . . . may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the Act [, 20 U.S.C. §1070, et seq.,] as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency to provide the waivers or modifications authorized by paragraph (2). There's also this snippet, which is obviously a redaction fuckup. We weren't supposed to see anything highlighted. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Dec 18, 2021 |
# ? Dec 18, 2021 02:21 |
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Oh yeah it was my bad for leaving it that ambiguous, I thought that the current extreme deadlock would make the point clear enough cuz man did they ever call it. It was an incredible play 'how about you take everything I like and might vote for out of your bill, and now we'll just vote on my bill with only the stuff I like in it.' "Do what I want right now in exchange for some nebulous future support i'll totally give" is a tactic that shouldn't keep working, but I think McConnell pulled this on Schumer a couple times too.
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 02:37 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I really hate when they treat this stuff like it was a bad treatment and not quack science with no basis whatsoever Are you implying my accai berry colon flush with a colloidal silver infusion is not scientific???
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 02:41 |
|
Sedisp posted:Are you implying my accai berry colon flush with a colloidal silver infusion is not scientific??? All I can say is that if you vape colloidal silver, you definitely will not die of COVID
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 03:01 |
|
I believe that memo says Biden can cancel student loans and the reason I believe that is because he redacted the memo and buried it instead of blaring it from every media outlet that he'd love to do that but he just isn't allowed!
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 03:45 |
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Eliding the administration's actions by quibbling over the presentation and/or timing of tweets that reference them is just really obviously a coward's defense of them and it's kind of absurd to pretend that it isn't So, I'm not, but you want me to so I can be your posting enemy. Leon Trotsky 2012's framing of the subject is much better TheIncredulousHulk posted:Why does a news item having come out earlier taint it for discussion now? Because it misrepresents it as new and inaccurately describes the subject. TheIncredulousHulk posted:Have facts come to light since that have rendered the original story invalid? Or are you just suggesting that anybody who misses a news item when it comes out only to discover it later must be barred from bringing it up, and to do anything other than keeping silent on it is to out oneself as an insidious Derailer? Just how long is the window here, exactly, too, since you pulled this exact poo poo over news that was two days old? No, because both the twitter account and the original citing post don't acknowledge that it's old. Hell, the post acknowledges the source is lovely but still runs with it because it gives them ammo. TheIncredulousHulk posted:If anything, the age of the redacted memo story should make it look even worse now, given the excuses at the time were all about how the administration wasn't trying to obscure anything by redacting it, it was simply an intermediate step, they'd totally announce their findings later when they were ready... and now months down the line the only action the administration's taking on student loans is to end the pandemic moratorium on them I am not. I'm addressing misrepresentations that keep happening because people keep posting tweets without context and misrepresenting them. Epic High Five posted:All I can say is that if you vape colloidal silver, you definitely will not die of COVID FDA actually just put out a press release a few days ago because companies have started selling essential oil and vitamin vapes.
|
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 04:24 |
Discendo Vox posted:So, I'm not, but you want me to so I can be your posting enemy. Leon Trotsky 2012's framing of the subject is much better What material difference does it make to the content that it's old? Spell it out for me Even in your response, you apparently feel unwilling to outline that yourself for the person who originally posted it. Instead you're just retreating to "hmm think about what you're doing here, really think about it" and it's nonsense. You're presenting yourself as being Socratic but what you're really doing is arguing by innuendo. It's just chickenshit You're doing way more to misrepresent the subject and mislead other people with these stupid tweet crit posts by implying the actual content is false based on presentational details than the tweets and articles with which you've taken issue have been themselves TheIncredulousHulk fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Dec 18, 2021 |
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 04:39 |
TheIncredulousHulk posted:What material difference does it make to the content that it's old? Spell it out for me The mediating tweet is in fact misrepresenting the source, because it presents one memo from a larger, not entirely censored FOIA release as if it were an immediately recent, publicly issued "report" . The point is to treat what was old as new to justify new rage, a new response (and to act as if the administration just issued the censored report, when as Leon Trotsky 2012 noted, was not the case and is of significance for how the situation should be interpreted). This is not about me being a defender of the administration (however much you want me to be an ideologically clear enemy). I want people to stop posting misleading twitter ragebait in USNews (right down to the "how is this real lmao" intensifier, christ). Eviltastic and Leon Trotsky are able to identify and engage with the actual source material on its own terms.
|
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 05:31 |
Discendo Vox posted:The mediating tweet is in fact misrepresenting the source, because it presents one memo from a larger, not entirely censored FOIA release as if it were an immediately recent, publicly issued "report" . The point is to treat what was old as new to justify new rage, a new response (and to act as if the administration just issued the censored report, when as Leon Trotsky 2012 noted, was not the case and is of significance for how the situation should be interpreted). The constant refrain of "this is old information!!!" is meaningless and you deploy it entirely to insinuate that "old" equates to something that has either been resolved or has been contradicted and in this case it's neither. In what way has the redacted memo become irrelevant since its release? Has the administration's policy on student loans stopped mattering? The contents of this memo have been hidden even longer now than when they first hit the news. It is actually less defensible now than it was a month ago, and knowing that they did this is useful information for understanding why they're doing something as harmful as ending the loan moratorium. If you're going to cry "old news" all the time, you should explain why its age makes it irrelevant for discussion(especially if we're talking about a press conference that was two days old). If you're going to claim something is misleading, you should explain what aspect of the story it's obscuring besides timing, which in these cases hasn't meaningfully distorted the content. Otherwise it's just innuendo You can claim you're not defending the administration but yet you're constantly trying to police whether people are allowed to be mad at them over still-extant policy. Ask yourself why you feel the need to play anger cop towards others in response to policy that harms them
|
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 07:00 |
TheIncredulousHulk posted:The constant refrain of "this is old information!!!" is meaningless and you deploy it entirely to insinuate that "old" equates to something that has either been resolved or has been contradicted and in this case it's neither. In what way has the redacted memo become irrelevant since its release? Has the administration's policy on student loans stopped mattering? The contents of this memo have been hidden even longer now than when they first hit the news. It is actually less defensible now than it was a month ago, and knowing that they did this is useful information for understanding why they're doing something as harmful as ending the loan moratorium. If you're going to cry "old news" all the time, you should explain why its age makes it irrelevant for discussion(especially if we're talking about a press conference that was two days old). If you're going to claim something is misleading, you should explain what aspect of the story it's obscuring besides timing, which in these cases hasn't meaningfully distorted the content. Otherwise it's just innuendo You appear to be ignoring the part where I point out the other ways the tweet was dishonest, and you appear to be ignoring the part where I talk about how other people angry about the policy are engaging with the subject honestly, unlike the tweet, all so you can continue to remake me into a posting enemy.
|
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 07:36 |
|
HonorableTB posted:I believe that memo says Biden can cancel student loans and the reason I believe that is because he redacted the memo and buried it instead of blaring it from every media outlet that he'd love to do that but he just isn't allowed! I mean, is there literally any other interpretation? The Democrats obviously want every possible excuse to say 'Aw jeez, we'd love to, but we gotta follow the rules'. The BBB was made to be hung above Joe Manchin's door as a stuffed and mounted trophy.
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 08:38 |
Discendo Vox posted:You appear to be ignoring the part where I point out the other ways the tweet was dishonest, and you appear to be ignoring the part where I talk about how other people angry about the policy are engaging with the subject honestly, unlike the tweet, all so you can continue to remake me into a posting enemy. You seem weirdly obsessed with posting enemies. People can just think your posting is lovely and argue with you over it. Saying "oh look I approved these posts made by others, and therefore I must be maintaining a fair and reasonable standard for what constitutes honest engagement" is dumb because the former doesn't necessitate the latter in any way, and the sum total of your argument against it was "old and not the whole memo." Neither of the posters you cited even expressed anger, so it strikes me as pretty dishonest to claim that they did. Leon largely appeared to express confusion, and eviltastic 1) didn't express any personal reaction at all, and 2) opened their post on the subject by noting that they'd missed the story when it dropped originally and said that the post/tweet and its subsequent discussion ITT alerted them to the story in the first place, which to me suggests that the rush to declare news as "old" and disregard the reactions of those to whom it is new as, for some reason, self-evidently insincere and therefore misleading is a dumb and self-serving conclusion
|
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 09:38 |
|
that memo has literally come up at 4 or 5 points just since this thread was rebooted and it's been popping up for like 6 weeks before even this iteration of this thread honestly it's a good example of something getting framed in a dozen different ways depending on who is reposting/tweeting it
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 11:20 |
|
HonorableTB posted:I believe that memo says Biden can cancel student loans and the reason I believe that is because he redacted the memo and buried it instead of blaring it from every media outlet that he'd love to do that but he just isn't allowed! Hold on, if the president can cancel student loans can they also cancel other debts? Like, can the president just make mortgages null and void?
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 12:51 |
|
It doesn't matter how old the news the tweet is about as long as there isn't any new information that renders it obsolete. It's good to have a consistent reminder of something that's related to what Biden campaigned on; sure, he didn't say he'd forgive all of it but he said he'd forgive $10,000 and he can't even be assed to do that!
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 13:44 |
|
Reminding people of the "good" things Biden has done since 1/20 is good and fair. Reminding people of the bad things Biden has done (by action or inaction) is bad and disingenuous.
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 13:45 |
|
Lib and let die posted:Reminding people of the "good" things Biden has done since 1/20 is good and fair. Still, seems like there are potential ambiguities though. Let’s take an official tweet like this: https://twitter.com/SecMartyWalsh/status/1471529554917269510?s=20 Is reposting it good and fair, but only so long as we don’t do basic math or think beyond the surface presentation, at which point it would become bad and disingenuous? Or was it bad and disingenuous material all along? But it was also posted by the Biden administration itself, so is it possible for it to be anything other than good and fair? Makes u think LGD fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Dec 18, 2021 |
# ? Dec 18, 2021 14:27 |
|
As far as I’m concerned, every loan payment I have to make starting in 2022 is a relevant time to bring up that there’s some giant block of pink text over a document pertaining to the presidents ability to fulfill a campaign promise. But that’s just me.
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 14:48 |
|
FizFashizzle posted:As far as I’m concerned, every loan payment I have to make starting in 2022 is a relevant time to bring up that there’s some giant block of pink text over a document pertaining to the presidents ability to fulfill a campaign promise. Well gosh darn it, he said that he really wanted to do something about that, gee willikers he sure did. Isn't that enough, that he said it? What more do you want? For him to actually DO something? Why not add a unicorn to the list while you're demanding fantasies.
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 15:01 |
|
As much as I want a transformational eco revolution megathread I think it makes sense to moderate what's actually being discussed in this current news thread. It's difficult to differentiate between what's relevant though, our present being a tragic convoluted tapestry of misinformation, manipulation, and exploitation. I at least understand DV's point, even if I suspect he hangs out with Alan Chartok.
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 15:06 |
|
I mostly just want to know if the president's power to cancel student loans extends to medical depts as well. Like, cancel 50,000 worth of medical dept right now if that's an option.
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 15:46 |
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:I mostly just want to know if the president's power to cancel student loans extends to medical depts as well. Like, cancel 50,000 worth of medical dept right now if that's an option. This is specifically for public student loan debt held by the Dept of Education, not private companies. So, no, the government paying off private debt is not what’s being looked at
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 15:59 |
|
|
# ? Jun 9, 2024 04:43 |
|
Kalit posted:This is specifically for public student loan debt held by the Dept of Education, not private companies. So, no, the government paying off private debt is not what’s being looked at Well, that sucks.
|
# ? Dec 18, 2021 16:41 |