Today's Democratic Party

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

PF5

Deputy
Jan 3, 2014
1,194
356
713
#24
I think what he's talking about is the Biden administration trying to curb misinformation that is spread on facebook in regards to covid/vaccine....good news: people who believe everything they read on social media will continue to do so...if it's on the internet, it's true, especially if it fits your opinion...

from reuters:
Earlier on Friday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki also criticized Facebook.

"Obviously, there are steps they have taken. They're a private-sector company, Psaki told a White House briefing. "There are additional steps they can take. It's clear that there are more that can be taken."

On Thursday, she said the Biden administration was in regular contact with Facebook and was flagging problematic posts.

Psaki said 12 people were responsible for almost 65% of anti-vaccine misinformation on social media platforms. The finding was reported in May by the Washington- and London-based nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate, but Facebook has disputed the methodology.

U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has also raised the alarm over the growing wave of misinformation about COVID-19 and related vaccines. On Thursday, he said it was making it harder to fight the pandemic and save lives.
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,402
2,746
1,743
47
DFW
#25
I think what he's talking about is the Biden administration trying to curb misinformation that is spread on facebook in regards to covid/vaccine....good news: people who believe everything they read on social media will continue to do so...if it's on the internet, it's true, especially if it fits your opinion...

from reuters:
Earlier on Friday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki also criticized Facebook.

"Obviously, there are steps they have taken. They're a private-sector company, Psaki told a White House briefing. "There are additional steps they can take. It's clear that there are more that can be taken."

On Thursday, she said the Biden administration was in regular contact with Facebook and was flagging problematic posts.

Psaki said 12 people were responsible for almost 65% of anti-vaccine misinformation on social media platforms. The finding was reported in May by the Washington- and London-based nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate, but Facebook has disputed the methodology.

U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has also raised the alarm over the growing wave of misinformation about COVID-19 and related vaccines. On Thursday, he said it was making it harder to fight the pandemic and save lives.
Thanks. So 90% of what he said was misleading. Sounds about right.
 

swamppoke

ole 3 putt.
A/V Subscriber
Feb 11, 2004
8,571
6,195
1,743
The Sand Shaker
#26
Thanks. So 90% of what he said was misleading. Sounds about right.
You need to read it all again.

Curious that the OP, which is an opinion piece that has a lot of factual assertions goes unchallenged. Instead, y'all make personal attacks on the poster, rather than to address the issues raised, or counter them. I'm sure there are some areas than can be rationally argued. But sadly, no. Kill the messenger, ignore the message.

As far as Facebook and the White House goes, I think the WH Spokesperson made it very clear in her statements that they work together.

It would be nice to debate the content of a piece (doesn't matter if it was Fox or CNN) rather than bicker. Is rational discussion dead?
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
8,781
5,136
1,743
Somewhere
#27
You need to read it all again.

Curious that the OP, which is an opinion piece that has a lot of factual assertions goes unchallenged. Instead, y'all make personal attacks on the poster, rather than to address the issues raised, or counter them. I'm sure there are some areas than can be rationally argued. But sadly, no. Kill the messenger, ignore the message.

As far as Facebook and the White House goes, I think the WH Spokesperson made it very clear in her statements that they work together.

It would be nice to debate the content of a piece (doesn't matter if it was Fox or CNN) rather than bicker. Is rational discussion dead?
It takes two to tango, brother.

The reason why rational discussion is dead in this thread is because having a debate withe Cim is a waste of time. If you push back on the article, he will respond with questions and if you try to hold him down to actually comment on something, he will attempt to be coy and say he didn't write the article or "i never said that" when he did say it or inferred it. Its an old, too smart by half schtick.

Its a waste of time to argue in good faith with those who don't reciprocate. Now if you want to debate me on the article, by all means, say so!
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
7,694
3,558
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#29
Victor Davis Hanson: The secret that Biden, Obama, Hillary won't say aloud about today's Democratic Party

By Victor Davis Hanson, Tribune Media Services

How often during the last year of wokeness have middle- and lower-class Americans listened to multimillionaires of all races and genders lecture them on their various pathologies and oppression's?

University presidents with million-dollar salaries virtue-signal on the cheap their own sort of "unearned white privilege."

Meghan Markle and the Obamas, from their plush estates, indict Americans for their biases.

Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors Brignac decries the oppressive victimization she and others have suffered — from one of her four recently acquired homes.

Do we need another performance-art sermon on America’s innate unfairness from billionaire entertainers such as Beyoncé, Jay-Z or Oprah Winfrey, or from multimillionaire Delta or Coca-Cola CEOs?

During the 1980s cultural war, the left’s mantra was "race, class and gender." Occasionally we still hear of that trifecta, but the class part has increasingly disappeared. The neglect of class is ironic given that a number of recent studies conclude class differences are widening as never before.

Middle-class incomes among all races have stagnated, and family net worth has declined. Far greater percentages of rising incomes go to the already rich. Student debt, mostly a phenomenon of the middle and lower classes, has hit $1.7 trillion.

States such California have bifurcated into medieval-style societies. California’s progressive coastal elites boast some of the highest incomes in the nation. But in the more conservative north and central interior, nearly a third of the population lives below the poverty line — explaining why one of every three American welfare recipients lives in California.

California’s heating, cooling, gasoline and housing costs are the highest in the continental United States. Most of these spiraling costs are attributable to polices embraced by an upper-class elite — in Silicon Valley, Hollywood and marquee universities — whose incomes shield them from the deleterious consequences of their utopian bromides. The poor and middle classes have no such insulation.

So why are we not talking about class?

First, we are watching historic changes in political alignment.

By 2018, Democratic representatives were in control of all 20 of the wealthiest congressional districts. In the recent presidential primaries and general election, 17 of the 20 wealthiest ZIP codes gave more money to Democratic candidates than to Republicans.

Increasingly, the Democrats are a bicoastal party of elites from corporate America, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, the media, universities, entertainment and professional sports. All have made out like bandits from globalization.

Democrats have lost much of their support from working-class whites, especially in the interior of the country. But they are also fast forfeiting the Hispanic middle class and beginning to lose solidarity among middle-class African Americans.

The Democratic Party does not wish to admit it has become the party of wealth. All too often its stale revolutionary speechifying sounds more like penance arising from guilt than genuine advocacy for middle-class citizens of all races.

The wealthy leftist elite has mastered the rhetoric of ridicule for the lower-middle classes, especially struggling Whites. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden wrote off their political opponents as supposedly crude, superstitious and racist, smearing them as "clingers," "deplorables," irredeemables" and "chumps."

Class is fluid; race is immutable. So by fixating on race, the left believes that it can divide America into permanent victimizers and victims — at a time when race and class are increasingly disconnecting.

The two parties are switching class constituents. Some 65% of the Americans making more than $500,000 a year are Democrats, and 74% of those who earn less than $100,000 a year are Republicans, according to IRS statistics. Gone are the days of working people automatically voting Democratic, or Republicans being caricatured as a party of stockbrokers on golf courses.

The wealthy of all races are the loudest voices of the woke movement. Their frequent assumptions of "victimhood" are absurd.

Americans who struggle to pay soaring gas, food, energy and housing prices are berated for their "white privilege" by an array of well-paid academics, media elite and CEOs.

Note that the woke military is the brand of admirals, generals and retired top brass on corporate boards, not of the enlisted. It’s multimillionaire CEOs who bark at the nation for their prejudices, not saleswomen or company truck drivers.

America is a plutocracy, not a genocracy. Wealth, not race, is the factor most likely to ensure someone power, influence and the good life.

In the pre-civil rights past, race was often fused to class, and the two terms were logically used interchangeably to cite oppression and inequality. But such a canard is fossilized. And so are those who desperately cling to it.

The more the elites scream their woke banalities, the more they seem to fear that they, not most Americans, are really the privileged, coddled and pampered ones — and sometimes the victimizers.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-obama-hillary-democratic-party-victor-davis-hanson
Only problem with all of this is that everyone knows this. It’s not a secret. Well, except to old folks who still see old ways. There’s a ton of money on both sides but the fun money rides left.
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,402
2,746
1,743
47
DFW
#30
It takes two to tango, brother.

The reason why rational discussion is dead in this thread is because having a debate withe Cim is a waste of time. If you push back on the article, he will respond with questions and if you try to hold him down to actually comment on something, he will attempt to be coy and say he didn't write the article or "i never said that" when he did say it or inferred it. Its an old, too smart by half schtick.

Its a waste of time to argue in good faith with those who don't reciprocate. Now if you want to debate me on the article, by all means, say so!
B-I-N-G-O!
 

PF5

Deputy
Jan 3, 2014
1,194
356
713
#31
As far as Facebook and the White House goes, I think the WH Spokesperson made it very clear in her statements that they work together.
foxnews said they are working (consulting) together...WH spokesperson said they were flagging items on facebook, which are problematic posts with misinformation about Covid 19...the stories I have read seem to say Facebook and the WH are at odds!

from a Politico story: (an opinion article)
Misinformation—false and fake stories—has always been with us, but it didn’t really begin to flood our political debates until the 2016 presidential campaign, as Donald Trump used it on social media and TV appearances as his prime political strategy. Trump’s exile from Facebook and Twitter has tempered but not tamed the production and consumption of misinformation as his inheritors have taken up some of his slack to subvert and confuse.

The new White House strategy of directing Facebook to put a crimp on misinformers might prompt a few spectacular headlines. It might persuade Facebook to throttle Covid misinformation. It might earn a few attaboys from public health types. But so far, the effort seems to be backfiring, especially among conservatives and social media users who have criticized the government for censoring Covid- and vaccine-related information it opposes.

There’s no precedent in the Internet era of the U.S. government forcibly shoving back into the bottle an idea that has escaped, so Psaki and the White House would be wise to recall their campaign and rely more on what several recent academic studies have taught us about battling misinformation. Evidence exists that suggests we can manage misinformation without resorting to direct censorship by encouraging social media users to be more mindful of accuracy when posting.

Like I said earlier, if you are upset that the WH is trying to curb misinformation, no worries, fake and false news is alive and well...just ask donald...or go with this:

A 2018 MIT studyshows that fake and false news (characterized as such by six well-known fact-checking organizations) spreads faster on Twitter than true stories, it’s retweeted more often, and it spreads farther. Fake news is 70 percent more likely to be retweeted than real news and people, not bots, are doing the primary spreading.
 
Last edited:

swamppoke

ole 3 putt.
A/V Subscriber
Feb 11, 2004
8,571
6,195
1,743
The Sand Shaker
#32
foxnews said they are working (consulting) together...WH spokesperson said they were flagging items on facebook, which are problematic posts with misinformation about Covid 19...the stories I have read seem to say Facebook and the WH are at odds!

from a Politico story: (an opinion article)
Misinformation—false and fake stories—has always been with us, but it didn’t really begin to flood our political debates until the 2016 presidential campaign, as Donald Trump used it on social media and TV appearances as his prime political strategy. Trump’s exile from Facebook and Twitter has tempered but not tamed the production and consumption of misinformation as his inheritors have taken up some of his slack to subvert and confuse.

The new White House strategy of directing Facebook to put a crimp on misinformers might prompt a few spectacular headlines. It might persuade Facebook to throttle Covid misinformation. It might earn a few attaboys from public health types. But so far, the effort seems to be backfiring, especially among conservatives and social media users who have criticized the government for censoring Covid- and vaccine-related information it opposes.

There’s no precedent in the Internet era of the U.S. government forcibly shoving back into the bottle an idea that has escaped, so Psaki and the White House would be wise to recall their campaign and rely more on what several recent academic studies have taught us about battling misinformation. Evidence exists that suggests we can manage misinformation without resorting to direct censorship by encouraging social media users to be more mindful of accuracy when posting.

Like I said earlier, if you are upset that the WH is trying to curb misinformation, no worries, fake and false news is alive and well...just ask donald...or go with this:

A 2018 MIT studyshows that fake and false news (characterized as such by six well-known fact-checking organizations) spreads faster on Twitter than true stories, it’s retweeted more often, and it spreads farther. Fake news is 70 percent more likely to be retweeted than real news and people, not bots, are doing the primary spreading.
It takes two to tango, brother.

The reason why rational discussion is dead in this thread is because having a debate withe Cim is a waste of time. If you push back on the article, he will respond with questions and if you try to hold him down to actually comment on something, he will attempt to be coy and say he didn't write the article or "i never said that" when he did say it or inferred it. Its an old, too smart by half schtick.

Its a waste of time to argue in good faith with those who don't reciprocate. Now if you want to debate me on the article, by all means, say so!
I don't give a good goddam about Cim. I do like to read Victor David Hanson's views.

My point is, again, the the original post offered discussion, not a lynching. But somehow, by virtue (or notoriety) of the poster, it should be totally disregarded. Pardon me, I was unaware of the rules.

As for debate, I think Dr. Hanson makes some valid points. It is up to others to bring up debating them. But thanks for the reasonable response.
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,402
2,746
1,743
47
DFW
#33
I don't give a good goddam about Cim. I do like to read Victor David Hanson's views.

My point is, again, the the original post offered discussion, not a lynching. But somehow, by virtue (or notoriety) of the poster, it should be totally disregarded. Pardon me, I was unaware of the rules.

As for debate, I think Dr. Hanson makes some valid points. It is up to others to bring up debating them. But thanks for the reasonable response.
I hear what you’re saying.

Still, I think the “virtue of the poster” is the same as the boy who cried wolf. Occasionally there is a wolf, but it’s buried under a mountain of false alarms. He did it to himself.

And yes, there are those who do something similar on the other side of issues. The difference is they will actually engage in reasonable discussion instead of regurgitating soup du jour talking points from a cable network talk show.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,633
4,412
1,743
#34
But do they seem to care that Biden is potentially abusing his power. For instance don't you believe that it is overreach and potential violation of the first amendment for them to be working in lockstep with Facebook and others to not only censor information they don't like but get people kicked off of not just one social media platform but all of them just for disagreeing?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Where is that info coming from?
Did you not earlier last week that psaki said they were working with Facebook to identify people posting misinformation and that the white house believes that those people are killing others?
Then there was mention that they wished that if someone was banned from one social media platform, they would be removed from all of them.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,402
2,746
1,743
47
DFW
#35
Did you not earlier last week that psaki said they were working with Facebook to identify people posting misinformation and that the white house believes that those people are killing others?
Then there was mention that they wished that if someone was banned from one social media platform, they would be removed from all of them.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Hadn’t until later. Even then, it wasn’t the biased extremes in which you framed it. “…just for disagreeing.”

C’mon.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,633
4,412
1,743
#36
Did you not earlier last week that psaki said they were working with Facebook to identify people posting misinformation and that the white house believes that those people are killing others?
Then there was mention that they wished that if someone was banned from one social media platform, they would be removed from all of them.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Hadn’t until later. Even then, it wasn’t the biased extremes in which you framed it. “…just for disagreeing.”

C’mon.
I was merely bringing it up as an example of the Biden admin. I think they are trying on violating the 1st amendment by trying to influence a business to silence opinions they don't agree with.
You don't agree with that?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,402
2,746
1,743
47
DFW
#37
I was merely bringing it up as an example of the Biden admin. I think they are trying on violating the 1st amendment by trying to influence a business to silence opinions they don't agree with.
You don't agree with that?
Merely bringing it up as an example would not mean cramming your statement with loaded accusations in order to sensationalize it.

But do they seem to care that Biden is potentially abusing his power. For instance don't you believe that it is overreach and potential violation of the first amendment for them to be working in lockstep with Facebook and others to not only censor information they don't like but get people kicked off of not just one social media platform but all of them just for disagreeing?
Let’s apply this to another scenario.

… don't you believe that it is overreach and potential violation of the first amendment for movie theaters to be working in lockstep with police to not only censor information they don't like but get people kicked out of not just one theater but all of them just for disagreeing with them on what constitutes a fire?

Obviously, the White House is identifying sources of misinformation about the vaccine. I do think we want to be careful to not infringe on the first amendment. You make it sound like they’re censoring any content they disagree with. That’s simply a gross misrepresentation of the issue because you don’t like the party in office.
 

Jostate

Identifies as a Cowboys fan
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
22,052
15,115
1,743
#38
I think we have seen a couple of examples of why it is impossible to have a rational discussion in the AV lately. Some make it so personal, and emotional, they had to shut down the threads. People are losing the ability to discuss without making it personal.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,633
4,412
1,743
#39
I think we have seen a couple of examples of why it is impossible to have a rational discussion in the AV lately. Some make it so personal, and emotional, they had to shut down the threads. People are losing the ability to discuss without making it personal.
The name calling and rudeness sounds like it's coming from a bunch of 3rd graders. Or a bunch of guys talking smack about bedlam, but I repeat myself.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,402
2,746
1,743
47
DFW
#40
I think we have seen a couple of examples of why it is impossible to have a rational discussion in the AV lately. Some make it so personal, and emotional, they had to shut down the threads. People are losing the ability to discuss without making it personal.
I disagree that was the central issue. I don’t want to go down the rabbit hole of what happened in the AV, but it started with someone trolling pretty hard. He got what he wanted by provoking outrage. That was the first foul, but you’re focused on the guy who shoved back.