This is more real than people think. That's why it needs to be too big to rig.
The New Lounge
- Thread starter hpnole
- Start date
Where's the line between parody and actually trying to deceive people? You know there are some olds out there who will believe that's real if this is presented out of context.
It's more real than what @dukesince91 posted. I like that interviewer guy. He made Jordan Peterson seem decent and reasonable. While I disagree, I respect what the guy sad in a one minute clip.
Both parties are pretty centrist in many ways. It's always comical when Democrats are painted as some kind of extreme liberals when they're in bed with big business, big war business, and maintain systemic racism just as much as Republicans at times.
Uhh... that's a 22 second clip and Rep Pelosi is speaking for about the last 8 seconds. That's a ridiculously small clip to use to claim what the Tweet claimed, as ridiculous as the "very fine people" framing. Is this what qualifies as news for you? I don't remember the last time you posted a link to a peer-reviewed or well-sourced or properly vetted and cited article on some topic. It's all just Tweets telling you what to think.
I was about to post a reply w/o watching the video, admitting it was a straight-up lie if that's what she actually said. I only stopped and watched it because I was qualifying my reply so much. Then I deleted it all and this is what you get instead. IOW, I almost did what you did: read the text of the Tweet and trusted it as accurate.
Is that not what she said? Not sure why you would need a peer-reviewed article for a single line that you can hear for yourself in that clip. What context could possibly change what she said from a lie to the truth? You are a ridiculous person.
Oooh! Ya zinged me!
Seriously: where’s the line between parody and impersonating someone or making up something deliberately or stochastically deceptive? It’s a nonpartisan question.
It’s all well and good to think the people who believed the War of the Worlds broadcast were an anomaly, but AI makes the prospect of a repeat pretty daunting.
I don’t mean peer-reviewing this; I mean ever.
Is “open primary” an officially defined term? Or is it one we can use more loosely, or based on technicalities?
Rep Pelosi said of VP Harris, “…she won it [because] no one else got in the race.” In that sense, it’s not much different from complaining about an uncontested primary where the rebuttal is “we had a primary, you didn’t enter anyone.” You don’t technically have a primary if there’s only one candidate, but there’s context.
It’s absolutely a manipulative, political statement. It’s not “straight-up lying.” She’s not trying to convince anyone that hundreds of thousands of people voted for Harris after President Biden’s withdrawal.
I don’t consider it a straightforward, transparent statement. It’s evasive and — as I said — manipulative and political.
But using an 8-second soundbite that then gets interpreted for you through a tweet, that you then reshare and parrot… it’s part of the problem.
I mean, would Pelosi have gotten any credit at all if she’d said, “Technically, sure, she didn’t win the nom through the people’s vote, but…”? Or would another one of your tweetmasters have cut off the “but…” and used it to invalidate Harris’ candidacy? Like the left did with “very fine people”?
The line should be where it is an actual attempt to deceive people into believing something that has actual consequences. Mocking or altering words while openly advertising it as satire or parody is protected speech. Even if it hurts feelings.
Tell me you can’t rebut something without telling me you can’t rebut something.
