Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-25-2019, 02:34 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,457

AOC as James Mason in The Verdict - Not a Good Look


What the hell was with AOC, trying to come off like Ed Concannon, as played by James Mason in The Verdict with Mark Zuckerberg yesterday? A question as phrased was, essentially, "would you run an ad by a Democrat saying his opponent supported the Green New Deal"? Total bullshit question. First off, if there is a Republican who supports it, why would they NOT run it? Obviously her implication was that no Republican would ever do such a thing, so she wanted to know if Facebook would run an ad with "disinformation" in it. But no, that would be too simple a way to pose the question, now wouldn't it? Why be clear and concise when you can obfuscate in an attempt to make someone look like a fool?

In other moments, Zuckerberg stated that an ad giving a wrong election date would be taken down, but when he tried to explain that he is of the opinion that in a democracy, he believes people should be able to judge the character of politicians themselves, she cut him off. In fairness, he was able to get his answer out but, Concannon, excuse me, Ocasio-Cortez, clearly wasn't interested in the answer. Despite this obvious distinction, she was able say with a straight face that there was a simple yes or no answer to her question about taking down ads with lies in them. Finally, in a moment top-flight propogandists would be proud of, she waited until the end of her five minutes to pose a question about ongoing dinner parties with far-right hosts, where white supremacy is evidently made out to be a hoax, a rather long-winded question that Zuckerberg didn't quite get. But no matter, the question was left to hang in the air as, oh well! she was just out of time.

To be clear, this is not about whether Zuckerberg's/Facebook's policies are the best ones. I am not aware of them in detail. This is about the left's ever-increasingly taking up the tactics of the right for political gain. Don't get me started on Rachel Maddow for the last year or so! AOC should be better than this, and a few months ago, I think she was. This is not the right path for her to be going down.
__________________
The essence of youth is believing things last forever. -Eric Sevareid
  #2  
Old 10-25-2019, 02:48 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
What the hell was with AOC, trying to come off like Ed Concannon, as played by James Mason in The Verdict with Mark Zuckerberg yesterday? A question as phrased was, essentially, "would you run an ad by a Democrat saying his opponent supported the Green New Deal"? Total bullshit question. First off, if there is a Republican who supports it, why would they NOT run it? Obviously her implication was that no Republican would ever do such a thing, so she wanted to know if Facebook would run an ad with "disinformation" in it. But no, that would be too simple a way to pose the question, now wouldn't it? Why be clear and concise when you can obfuscate in an attempt to make someone look like a fool?
Is there a Republican who supports the Green New Deal? I'd be very surprised if there is, and even if you can find one, the point on her question is still pretty clear and obvious. I'm not really seeing how this is obfuscatory on AOC's behalf.
  #3  
Old 10-25-2019, 03:23 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
In other moments, Zuckerberg stated that an ad giving a wrong election date would be taken down, but when he tried to explain that he is of the opinion that in a democracy, he believes people should be able to judge the character of politicians themselves,
How can voters judge the character of someone when they are fed disinformation about that person through media outlets like Facebook?
  #4  
Old 10-25-2019, 03:41 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
How can voters judge the character of someone when they are fed disinformation about that person through media outlets like Facebook?
Use more than one source of information?
  #5  
Old 10-25-2019, 04:00 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Use more than one source of information?
I don’t need to get all my knowledge from Facebook? Tell me more.
  #6  
Old 10-25-2019, 04:08 PM
enalzi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
I don’t need to get all my knowledge from Facebook? Tell me more.
You joke, but then remember that there are people who do that, and they get to vote too.
  #7  
Old 10-25-2019, 04:12 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Unfortunately for humanity there are lots and lots of really stupid people out there who believe any damn thing they see on Facebook. I will later watch the AOC clip, and perhaps chime in again once I am more familiar with this. If it's early enough I will still be sober and more likely to be civil.
  #8  
Old 10-25-2019, 04:17 PM
Guest-starring: Id!'s Avatar
Guest-starring: Id! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,263
Hm, I thought AOC was being more Humbert Humbert-y, but there you go.
  #9  
Old 10-25-2019, 05:10 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
I clicked the AOC/Zuckerberg link in the OP, and it went to Faux news. I watched this 5-1/2 minute video of the testimony from PBS Newshour instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT9BRUoXhh8

Eh, she was trying to establish a line between what ads Facebook would publish and what they wouldn't with respect to the inclusion of misinformation and lies in those ads. After watching the video, I can declare that my opinion of her in general, including her conduct during this questioning leave me proud to know that my tax dollars go toward paying her salary.
  #10  
Old 10-25-2019, 05:20 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
I clicked the AOC/Zuckerberg link in the OP, and it went to Faux news. I watched this 5-1/2 minute video of the testimony from PBS Newshour instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT9BRUoXhh8

Eh, she was trying to establish a line between what ads Facebook would publish and what they wouldn't with respect to the inclusion of misinformation and lies in those ads. After watching the video, I can declare that my opinion of her in general, including her conduct during this questioning leave me proud to know that my tax dollars go toward paying her salary.
She really is rather skilled at questioning. Which is why the right is so fascinated/afraid of her, which is why Fox covers her so much, in their own inimitable spun and edited way.
__________________
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
- C. Darwin
  #11  
Old 10-25-2019, 05:23 PM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 16,236
nm

Last edited by Inigo Montoya; 10-25-2019 at 05:24 PM.
  #12  
Old 10-25-2019, 05:59 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
What the hell was with AOC, trying to come off like Ed Concannon, as played by James Mason in The Verdict with Mark Zuckerberg yesterday? A question as phrased was, essentially, "would you run an ad by a Democrat saying his opponent supported the Green New Deal"? Total bullshit question. First off, if there is a Republican who supports it, why would they NOT run it? Obviously her implication was that no Republican would ever do such a thing, so she wanted to know if Facebook would run an ad with "disinformation" in it. But no, that would be too simple a way to pose the question, now wouldn't it? Why be clear and concise when you can obfuscate in an attempt to make someone look like a fool?

In other moments, Zuckerberg stated that an ad giving a wrong election date would be taken down, but when he tried to explain that he is of the opinion that in a democracy, he believes people should be able to judge the character of politicians themselves, she cut him off. In fairness, he was able to get his answer out but, Concannon, excuse me, Ocasio-Cortez, clearly wasn't interested in the answer. Despite this obvious distinction, she was able say with a straight face that there was a simple yes or no answer to her question about taking down ads with lies in them. Finally, in a moment top-flight propogandists would be proud of, she waited until the end of her five minutes to pose a question about ongoing dinner parties with far-right hosts, where white supremacy is evidently made out to be a hoax, a rather long-winded question that Zuckerberg didn't quite get. But no matter, the question was left to hang in the air as, oh well! she was just out of time.

To be clear, this is not about whether Zuckerberg's/Facebook's policies are the best ones. I am not aware of them in detail. This is about the left's ever-increasingly taking up the tactics of the right for political gain. Don't get me started on Rachel Maddow for the last year or so! AOC should be better than this, and a few months ago, I think she was. This is not the right path for her to be going down.
...what the fuck is this bullshit?

AOC's questioning was entirely on-point and was probably the best of all the Democrats on display yesterday. Zuckerberg was evasive as fuck. What the fuck are you smoking?
  #13  
Old 10-25-2019, 06:17 PM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Use more than one source of information?
And what if multiple stories from seemingly different sources reporting the same lie show up on your social media feeds? That's not very difficult to arrange.

Last edited by scr4; 10-25-2019 at 06:19 PM.
  #14  
Old 10-25-2019, 06:18 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Unfortunately for humanity there are lots and lots of really stupid people out there who believe any damn thing they see on Facebook. I will later watch the AOC clip, and perhaps chime in again once I am more familiar with this. If it's early enough I will still be sober and more likely to be civil.
After some BS humor site ran a "Pope Endorses trump" article, my wife was inundated from her FB friends about it. I knew from the get that it was bogus, not because the Pope wouldn't endorse trump, but because the Pope wouldn't endorse anybody because he's, I don't know, the freakin' Pope. She had the great pleasure of linking to a site debunking this obvious (to anyone with at least two firing neurons) bit of balderdash.

Meanwhile, trump is wondering if the Pope will endorse him again in 2020.
  #15  
Old 10-25-2019, 06:37 PM
Projammer's Avatar
Projammer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arkansas
Posts: 6,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
..but, Concannon, excuse me, Ocasio-Cortez, clearly wasn't interested in the answer.
To be fair, finding any politician who's interested in the answer is about as likely as finding a virgin at an ISIS goat farm.

It's all about sound bites and pandering to their constituency.
  #16  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:12 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Use more than one source of information?

That works if sources are generally truthful. If they don’t need to tell the truth, all you can expect from multiple sources is a random collection of lies.

The press and media are afforded great legal protections. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a certain amount of truthfulness from them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #17  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:32 PM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Watched snippets of that on Twitter the other day. It fascinates me on a psychological level how people can see totally different things when it comes to AOC.

I had second-hand humiliation watching her obviously rehearsed pea-brain self question Zuckerberg about complete shit for the cameras and her soundbites & clips.

She perfectly embodies and personifies the woke millennial liberal virtue-signaling liar.

And she clearly does not understand or see the irony in her line of questioning.
  #18  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:36 PM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
She really is rather skilled at questioning. Which is why the right is so fascinated/afraid of her, which is why Fox covers her so much, in their own inimitable spun and edited way.
Going by that logic, then you and everyone else on this board who leans to the left must be absolutely quaking in terror of Donald Trump.
  #19  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:40 PM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Going by that logic, then you and everyone else on this board who leans to the left must be absolutely quaking in terror of Donald Trump.
He's an idiot with access to nuclear weapons - of course the left is terrified of him. The right should be, too.
  #20  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:41 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Watched snippets of that on Twitter the other day. It fascinates me on a psychological level how people can see totally different things when it comes to AOC.

I had second-hand humiliation watching her obviously rehearsed pea-brain self question Zuckerberg about complete shit for the cameras and her soundbites & clips.

She perfectly embodies and personifies the woke millennial liberal virtue-signaling liar.

And she clearly does not understand or see the irony in her line of questioning.
It is fascinating all right, how when some woman actually researches her stuff before questioning someone that will allow misinformation to be distributed, is disparaged.


https://news.yahoo.com/think-aoc-bei...205223984.html
Quote:
Ocasio-Cortez, appearing articulate, patient and composed, asked Zuckerberg a range of questions from when he first knew of Cambridge Analytica to Facebook’s failures in fact-checking political advertisements. Zuckerberg seemed jittery and nervous in contrast. “So, you won't take down lies or you will take down lies? I think that's just a pretty simple yes or no”, Ocasio-Cortez said at one point in frustration. Her insistence on clarity and truth seemed to contrast with his inability to be straightforward.

We are now at a point where a congresswoman is praised for undertaking the exact role she is elected and paid to do. Now, nobody’s denying that Ocasio-Cortez is excellent at her job. Over the past year, the Representative of New York’s 14th district has been applauded for questioning Michael Cohen and the relationship between President Donald Trump and insurance fraud, probing CEOs of the largest financial institutions, and calling out Trump’s corruption during a “lightening round game” at the House Oversight Committee. But the disproportionate amount of praise heaped upon her is comparable to applauding every time a doctor accurately diagnoses a health condition.

In comparison to Ocasio-Cortez, other congresspersons have been less enthused during congressional hearings, having seemingly not researched topics they are elected to scrutinize or the individuals they should be holding to account. The first time Zuckerberg sat through a Congress testimony, Zuckerberg smirked and giggled as he eased his way through tranquil lines of questioning, occasionally bewildered by the fact that he had to explain how the internet works to senators. Senator Brian Schatz reveled that he thought emails are sent through WhatsApp, and Senator Orinn Hatch failed to understand the concept of garnering revenue through advertising.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-25-2019 at 07:42 PM.
  #21  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:42 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Watched snippets of that on Twitter the other day. It fascinates me on a psychological level how people can see totally different things when it comes to AOC.
...
Your hunger for knowing the full story is inspiring!
  #22  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:16 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,840
When I first heard about her, I assumed she was some lightweight who sneaked through the cracks. But, I can't disagree more with the OP. She is very, very smart and very, very good at this.
  #23  
Old 10-25-2019, 09:24 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,018
AOC was doing well what she intended to do, and getting her messaging through to whom she wants to get it, whether or not we agree with either her premises or her intent. She's not as amazing as some people wish but neither is she some naïf adrift.

OTOH like many real world matters of policy this is not "a simple Yes or No" question. It's not even one single question. But for her political purposes she is using it effectively.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
That works if sources are generally truthful. If they don’t need to tell the truth, all you can expect from multiple sources is a random collection of lies.

The press and media are afforded great legal protections. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a certain amount of truthfulness from them.
In the USA the mainstream print press has been allowed to get away with all sorts of things short of provable libel or outright obscenity since anyone bothers to remember. And I would not have it any other way.

Broadcast media, being public franchisees, are on a tighter leash but the requirement of "fairness" was done away with a generation ago.

Non-broadcast, you go back down to the print press standard.

But part of the whole deal is that debates on whether or not Facebook/Twitter/et al are "press" or a "common public space" or a repository of the public interest, are still ongoing.

And Zuckerberg being a designated punchmonkey of the 116th Congress from both right and left does not impress me, as I see them flailing at their own inability to do something about the problem.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 10-25-2019 at 09:29 PM.
  #24  
Old 10-25-2019, 10:26 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Watched snippets of that on Twitter the other day. It fascinates me on a psychological level how people can see totally different things when it comes to AOC.

I had second-hand humiliation watching her obviously rehearsed pea-brain self question Zuckerberg about complete shit for the cameras and her soundbites & clips.

She perfectly embodies and personifies the woke millennial liberal virtue-signaling liar.

And she clearly does not understand or see the irony in her line of questioning.
Considering the source, I take this as a ringing endorsement of AOC.
  #25  
Old 10-25-2019, 10:57 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 375
Who are all these stupid cunts getting their news from Facebook? It seems like they’re everywhere, but I’m 100% certain I’ve never met anyone that dumb.
  #26  
Old 10-25-2019, 11:54 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Who are all these stupid cunts getting their news from Facebook? It seems like they’re everywhere, but I’m 100% certain I’ve never met anyone that dumb.
I'm 100% certain you have, but just don't know it.
  #27  
Old 10-26-2019, 12:37 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,029
Interesting thread!

Fiddle Peghead starts by linking to a FoxNews clip readily available from more responsible sources. Pro-Tip for Fiddle Pegs: next time have your nephew or the kid who cuts your grass Google to find you a less laughable source. Using a FoxNews video tells us all we need to know about your "opinion."

Second: Of course AOC is grandstanding to some extent. Zuckerberg can and will send more complete answers for the record. But let me ask Fiddle Pegs: Have you ever watched a Gopster ask questions of a witness? What did you think of the Gopsters breaking into a closed session 2 days ago? Anyone who finds AOC's performance to make the Top 1000 List of recent bad behavior by Congresspeople is ignorant as shit probably getting all their info from FoxNews and Facebook.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Unfortunately for humanity there are lots and lots of really stupid people out there who believe any damn thing they see on Facebook.
Definitely. I don't know of any easy solution to this problem, but we should acknowledge that it is a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
She really is rather skilled at questioning. Which is why the right is so fascinated/afraid of her, which is why Fox covers her so much, in their own inimitable spun and edited way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
When I first heard about her, I assumed she was some lightweight who sneaked through the cracks. But, I can't disagree more with the OP. She is very, very smart and very, very good at this.
I liked her charisma when she was just the random media darling. But she is definitely a much better-than-average Congressperson by now. (I mean "better-than-average Democratic Congressperson." Without the "Democratic" qualifier, the bar is very low.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
He's an idiot with access to nuclear weapons - of course the left is terrified of him. The right should be, too.
You seem unfamiliar with today's "right-wingers." If Trump went berserk and got American cities bombed, the right would blame the libtards for pushing him into it, and chortle that the cities were most fully of libtards anyway.
  #28  
Old 10-26-2019, 01:42 AM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
When I first heard about her, I assumed she was some lightweight who sneaked through the cracks. But, I can't disagree more with the OP. She is very, very smart and very, very good at this.
Agreed. I have a huge cerebral crush on AOC (the packaging ain't bad, either, but that's a non-related digression). She's brilliant at her job, and gets more impressive every time I see her.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #29  
Old 10-26-2019, 03:14 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,624
...just to take a deeper dive into this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
A question as phrased was, essentially, "would you run an ad by a Democrat saying his opponent supported the Green New Deal"? Total bullshit question. First off, if there is a Republican who supports it, why would they NOT run it?
The line of questioning here was to establish "where the line would be drawn." The first question was about an falsehood that could cause "voter suppression", and Zuckerberg said that yes, those adverts would be removed. She established that there was a threshold that political adverts would get vetted.

Her second question wasn't "would you run an ad by a Democrat saying his opponent supported the Green New Deal." It was "Would I be able to run advertisements on Facebook targeting Republicans in primary saying they voted for the Green New Deal?"

You claim these two statements are "essentially the same." But they aren't. It wouldn't have been hard for you to type the verbatim quote. But you chose to make something up. Why did you do that?

Quote:
Obviously her implication was that no Republican would ever do such a thing, so she wanted to know if Facebook would run an ad with "disinformation" in it. But no, that would be too simple a way to pose the question, now wouldn't it? Why be clear and concise when you can obfuscate in an attempt to make someone look like a fool?
She was clear and precise. How was she not?

Quote:
In other moments, Zuckerberg stated that an ad giving a wrong election date would be taken down, but when he tried to explain that he is of the opinion that in a democracy, he believes people should be able to judge the character of politicians themselves, she cut him off. In fairness, he was able to get his answer out but, Concannon, excuse me, Ocasio-Cortez, clearly wasn't interested in the answer.
Why would Ocasio-Cortez be interested in an answer to a question that she didn't ask? Zuckerberg has stated over-and-over again his opinion that "people should be able to judge the character of politicians themselves." We knew that before the hearing started. He repeated it in response to other questions. You've listened to the rest of the questions right? Surely you are aware that he answered with variations of this very same response over and over again?

What is it do you think the purpose of these hearings are? Should they be used to hold the rich and the powerful to account, or should they be opportunities for the rich and the powerful to simply repeat talking points and propaganda?

Quote:
Despite this obvious distinction, she was able say with a straight face that there was a simple yes or no answer to her question about taking down ads with lies in them.
It was a simple yes or no question. How was it not a simple yes or no question? Zuckerberg testified for hours. Yet he couldn't answer many different variations on that question. We are still none-the-wiser. Do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing?

Quote:
Finally, in a moment top-flight propogandists would be proud of, she waited until the end of her five minutes to pose a question about ongoing dinner parties with far-right hosts, where white supremacy is evidently made out to be a hoax, a rather long-winded question that Zuckerberg didn't quite get. But no matter, the question was left to hang in the air as, oh well! she was just out of time.
We got this news today. At the last election Facebook employees were embedded in the Trump campaign. The staff at Facebook might overwhelmingly vote Democrat, but everyone in power supports the Republicans.

These are serious issues for a single reason: what happens on Facebook could turn the next election. They need to be addressed. Maybe if Zuckerberg had spent less time waffling and more time answering the questions then "the question wouldn't be left to hang in the air."

Quote:
To be clear, this is not about whether Zuckerberg's/Facebook's policies are the best ones. I am not aware of them in detail. This is about the left's ever-increasingly taking up the tactics of the right for political gain. Don't get me started on Rachel Maddow for the last year or so! AOC should be better than this, and a few months ago, I think she was. This is not the right path for her to be going down.
AOC's tactics were akin to those of a prosecutor handling an uncooperative witness. This is exactly the path she should be going down, and it should be the path that all the Democrats take.
  #30  
Old 10-26-2019, 04:25 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
Agreed. I have a huge cerebral crush on AOC (the packaging ain't bad, either, but that's a non-related digression). She's brilliant at her job, and gets more impressive every time I see her.
Same. As a lad with left-leaning sensibilities, I dread the coming of the day when we'll have to put her, too, on The List.



What ?
  #31  
Old 10-26-2019, 05:09 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Considering the source, I take this as a ringing endorsement of AOC.
Not surprising. I feel the same when the members of this board shit on a right-wing politician.

But for real (and politics aside) she really is a moron and the perfect caricature of an annoying, woke liberal who's a super duper victim.
  #32  
Old 10-26-2019, 05:56 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
But for real (and politics aside) she really is a moron and the perfect caricature of an annoying, woke liberal who's a super duper victim.
Show me on the doll where Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez touched you.
  #33  
Old 10-26-2019, 07:20 AM
Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Your hunger for knowing the full story is inspiring!
He's following it EXTREMELY closely.
  #34  
Old 10-26-2019, 08:19 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Show me on the doll where Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez touched you.
Show me on the doll where Republicans touched you
  #35  
Old 10-26-2019, 08:21 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
He's following it EXTREMELY closely.
I do follow her and her crew on Twitter. I’m basically an expert

And she IS a moron.
  #36  
Old 10-26-2019, 08:45 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Maybe you should debate her. Show us who the moron is. I know where my money's going.
  #37  
Old 10-26-2019, 08:52 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Maybe you should debate her. Show us who the moron is. I know where my money's going.
Haha when has AOC debated anyone, ever, from the other side in an open dialog?

Answer is never. She is extremely good at shielding herself from criticism and only speaking when she is rehearsed and in a setting with like minded people.

She falls the fuck apart when she has to shoot from the hip & ad lib.

She’s fake, and a fraud.
  #38  
Old 10-26-2019, 09:06 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
"She falls the fuck apart when she has to shoot from the hip & ad lib."
I'm sure you can cite this. Perhaps with a Faux news link, even?
  #39  
Old 10-26-2019, 09:22 AM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
I had second-hand humiliation watching her . . .
I think you mean Fremdschämen. Comes in handy more and more often these days.
  #40  
Old 10-26-2019, 09:33 AM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,463
I'm a lefty, I like AOC, and if I could vote in the United States, it would be for a Democrat.

I thought that her line of questioning was smartly done, in terms of the point that she was trying to make. She was clearly trying to find the boundaries of Facebook's willingness to police and restrict political content, especially advertising, and some of the questions she asked made a good effort at doing that, and at exposing the lack of consistency in Zuckerberg's answers.

If I have a criticism of Ocasio-Cortez over this, it's with the fundamental basis of her questioning: the idea that social media companies should be responsible for determining and policing the accuracy of political advertisements. Politicians and their proxies have been lying and obfuscating for as long as there have been voters to lie to, and the advent of social media hasn't changed that. If we have a significant population who are so fucking dumb that they'll believe anything they read on Facebook, I'm not sure that's Facebook's fault, and I'm not sure that Facebook should be compelled to protect our democracy from the credulity or stupidity of some of its members.

I think what was most startling to me, in the video clip, was how inept Zuckerberg was at dealing with AOC's questions. It's like he walked in there not having a clue of what he was going to be asked. Surely he knew what was coming, and had prepared for it beforehand? He fumbled around like an undergrad who hasn't done the reading trying to answer a professor's question in front of the class. This is a guy who's in charge of a multi-billion dollar company whose whole business is based on communication, and he can't even handle some basic questions about his company's practices and policies.
  #41  
Old 10-26-2019, 09:38 AM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Use more than one source of information?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post

In the USA the mainstream print press has been allowed to get away with all sorts of things short of provable libel or outright obscenity since anyone bothers to remember. And I would not have it any other way.

Broadcast media, being public franchisees, are on a tighter leash but the requirement of "fairness" was done away with a generation ago.
This sounds good in theory. Freedom of speech should mean freedom to lie without any consequences, right?

The problem is that in practice, allowing people to lie with impunity creates things like:
a. global warming deniers
b. anti-vaxxers
c. voters who believe that Trump is a stable genius or honest

And so on. The theory is that anyone should be using multiple sources of information and the truth should drown out the lies. In practice, as it turns out

a. People who don't do any research and just vote from ignorance get an equal vote to people who are intelligent and well informed
b. There seem to be a very large number of people in category (a). Not the majority but huge numbers, enough to swing elections.
c. The nature of modern internet business has made it where people live in bubbles where lies are all they personally see.

I don't have a solution. I will comment that the freedom of speech is not unlimited, and openly saying things like "vaccines cause autism" or "global warming is a Chinese hoax" is dangerous. Probably about as dangerous as shouting Fire! in a crowded movie theater. Real people die from these lies.
  #42  
Old 10-26-2019, 09:55 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
This sounds good in theory. Freedom of speech should mean freedom to lie without any consequences, right?

The problem is that in practice, allowing people to lie with impunity creates things like:
a. global warming deniers
b. anti-vaxxers
c. voters who believe that Trump is a stable genius or honest

And so on. The theory is that anyone should be using multiple sources of information and the truth should drown out the lies. In practice, as it turns out

a. People who don't do any research and just vote from ignorance get an equal vote to people who are intelligent and well informed
b. There seem to be a very large number of people in category (a). Not the majority but huge numbers, enough to swing elections.
c. The nature of modern internet business has made it where people live in bubbles where lies are all they personally see.

I don't have a solution. I will comment that the freedom of speech is not unlimited, and openly saying things like "vaccines cause autism" or "global warming is a Chinese hoax" is dangerous. Probably about as dangerous as shouting Fire! in a crowded movie theater. Real people die from these lies.
Yeah well the problem with that is, who gets to determine what a lie is? People have opinions, people have opinions about what other people say, people have opinions on what other people do. I watch someone say something and I get the feeling they are full of shit, then to me they are full of shit.

I truly believe that Democrat politicians want to allow illegal immigration and let it continue in an effort to change demographics in their favor. I truly believe this. They vehemently deny this. But their actions are at odds with their words. Should people be able to say that Democrat politicians are lying? Fuck yeah they should. Should people be labeled as 'racists' and have their words censored using 'hate speech' laws? Fuck no.

Just because people have completely different opinions and positions on things and you disagree with them, does not mean they are lying, or dumb, or whatever. They have just as much of a right to say it as you do for calling them liars.

The left has taken it upon themselves to be the arbiter of what a lie is and who is lying, and want to shut those opinions down and drown them out. Thats a dangerous precedent and anti democracy.

Bunch of little weasels.
  #43  
Old 10-26-2019, 10:04 AM
The Tooth is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,780
Oh. Feelings. You get the feeling they're full of shit. Yeah, that's not worth fuck all. Well, carry on. Facts are wasted on your kind anyway.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #44  
Old 10-26-2019, 10:08 AM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Yeah well the problem with that is, who gets to determine what a lie is? People have opinions, people have opinions about what other people say, people have opinions on what other people do. I watch someone say something and I get the feeling they are full of shit, then to me they are full of shit.

I truly believe that Democrat politicians want to allow illegal immigration and let it continue in an effort to change demographics in their favor. I truly believe this. They vehemently deny this. But their actions are at odds with their words. Should people be able to say that Democrat politicians are lying? Fuck yeah they should. Should people be labeled as 'racists' and have their words censored using 'hate speech' laws? Fuck no.
I might point out that your statement is something you can back up. It's not an outright lie. I don't know enough about the issue to judge whether it's totally accurate - I will point out that politicians on both sides of the aisle mainly worry about the here and now. It takes decades for immigrants to actually stay here long enough to for their children to be able to vote, and not all Hispanics vote democrat. They are the majority of the population in Texas but enough of them vote Republican that Texas is a red state still.

Instead, usually the reason democrat politicians say what they say is if they say negative things about illegal immigrants, this is perceived as an attack on Hispanics, who are a large portion of their voter base. Under the Obama administration, there was an increase in deportations vs the GWB administration right before him. So, at least that specific democrat politician was not doing what you are saying.

"Global warming is a Chinese hoax" is an outright lie. There is such an overwhelming number of scientists who are in no way connected with China who have produced the data, and many other scientists have checked that data, that say global warming is in fact happening. Also it appears to exacerbate certain forms of negative climate event - completely expected if you add more energy to a system - such as hurricanes. Note that while the hurricane:warming connection isn't 100% certain, there is a clear mechanism of action and a clear trend in the data, it's almost certainly happening.

"Trump is honest" is an outright lie.

"Trump is a stable genius" is an outright lie. While he may be putting on a show and acting even dumber than he is, he's made some catastrophic errors as president. He is not a genius.
  #45  
Old 10-26-2019, 10:16 AM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
. . . openly saying things like "vaccines cause autism" or "global warming is a Chinese hoax" is dangerous. Probably about as dangerous as shouting Fire! in a crowded movie theater. Real people die from these lies.
Be careful. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

"I don't have a solution" either, but will note that propagating 'fake news' need not be done with malicious intent. In fact, those who believe what they are claiming may actually have good intent - simply to announce 'the truth'. You seem to be suggesting that it might be a good idea to prohibit people from doing so unless the truth they wish to assert (or provide evidence in support of) has passed some test for being 'good' or 'helpful'. I'm sure you can see the danger in such an approach. As I said, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
  #46  
Old 10-26-2019, 10:46 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Show me on the doll where Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez touched you.
Annoying's posts no longer appear for me, but it was worth seeing the doltish troll quoted just for this rejoinder!
  #47  
Old 10-26-2019, 10:49 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
Oh. Feelings. You get the feeling they're full of shit. Yeah, that's not worth fuck all. Well, carry on. Facts are wasted on your kind anyway.
Its worth just as much of a fuck as your stupid ass opinions, only difference is that we arent trying to stop your stupid self from saying it.
  #48  
Old 10-26-2019, 10:56 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
"Trump is honest" is an outright lie.

"Trump is a stable genius" is an outright lie. While he may be putting on a show and acting even dumber than he is, he's made some catastrophic errors as president. He is not a genius.
"AOC is honest" is an outright lie.

"AOC is a stable genius" is an outright lie.

Works both ways.

Those are opinions. A lie is when you say something with the intent to deceive. If you truly believe something, it is not a lie. Just because you do not agree, does not make something a lie. Are you a lie detector? No you arent.

Regardless, should people be allowed to say it? Yes they should.

Should the left get to label people 'white supremacists' using their own definition and use that label to filter people? No they should not.

And even if something is a blatant lie, its still protected speech.

The left has this disturbing little infatuation with controlling what people should be allowed to say and its quite the shocking little shft they've taken over the last few years.
  #49  
Old 10-26-2019, 10:57 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Annoying's posts no longer appear for me, but it was worth seeing the doltish troll quoted just for this rejoinder!
Ignoring me but still talking about me. What a hero.
  #50  
Old 10-26-2019, 11:00 AM
The Tooth is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,780
Carry on.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017