A close friend of mine's co-workers wife just recently scolded him for saying they should "go straight" at an intersection because it was offensive to gays.
Does your friend's co-worker understand humor generally? Does he seem to "get" such jokes for what they are? This isn't something I'd repeat unless I was there and understood the tone and the people involved. It sounds like the sort of joke I'd make.
Politicians have a huge credibility problem. If one actually made specific promises and delivered them it would be a revolution.
Voters reward promises that you can't keep. Having coherent strategies to address major issues that will be difficult and grimy does not benefit a candidate as much as promising puppies and rainbows through your term.
If voters were willing to look past the bullshit and the talking points then maybe we would get closer to having elections based on merit, but we're nowhere close to that yet.
This "logic" continues to mystify me. How does major news becoming less trustworthy cause fake news to become more trustworthy? If we insist that news should be trustworthy, then why would we trust obviously fake news? That does not make any sense.
It's "The Truth is Out There" attitude, with the notion of the news. They suspect the mainstream, so sources that contradict the mainstream are automatically more likely to be correct.
I don't know, did Trump brag about specific pussies he grabbed, or was it all the braggadocio of a rich asshole showing off for another rich asshole?
I don't know, should we take him at his word or assume that he was lying about like he lies about so many other things? I guess we're fucked either way, though on the list of "issues that are actually important," it's pretty far down.
Ah yes, the old "paying money to someone is the same thing as free speech!" argument. It was sad when the Citizens United decision came down, it's sad now.
"in many cases it's a felony trespass to enter a freeway on foot if it has a center divider"
This is why many people don't trust the government. Sure, its dangerous but should it really be a felony to walk onto a road?
Yes, because you are introducing an extremely high hazard to motorists. It's not just a hazard to the pedestrian, it's a hazard to the motorists because that pedestrian is likely to cause a high-speed collision. I'm not a fan of a nanny state or government overreach, but intentionally introducing that sort of a hazard onto the freeway being a felony is all right with me.
Just prior to the election, latest consensus "too close to call"
That's bullshit. It's only been a couple of weeks, too early to try to rewrite history dufus.
Nope, the parent was right. Before Comey's investigation announcement, Clinton had widened her lead in the wake of Trump's 1980s video comments. But at that point her momentum full-stopped and she started losing support again. The "undecided voter" group grew, and the margin of victory on election day was within the margin of error.
Like when someone claims "Trump asked Russia to hack Clinton," even when the quote they provide does no such thing? That kind of thing?
Trump didn't use the exact words "Russia, please hack Clinton", but when he says in response to the Russian DNC hacks, "And Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," what are we supposed to draw from that? He's asking for hacking activity to uncover the emails... wherever they are. How could you possibly interpret it any other way?
Fake news, you say? Would this amazing coincidence of dozens of media outlets running the exact same theme qualify? [i.redd.it] This isn't news, it's coordinated propaganda.
I... what? You realize that's how we describe things in our society that we think are disturbing or paint a bleak picture. Dark. If you're not all aboard the Donald Trump train, and a huge swath of the country was not, these are dark times.
I think public unwillingness to pay for the news in the age of the Internet has a great deal to do with the downward quality of reporting. Repeating gossipy nonsense doesn't take much effort, especially if that sort of click-bait brings in more revenue than something more boring like war reporting or investigative journalism.
But ad networks also share much of the blame in peoples' willingness to put up barriers to ads. If you're going to have bouncing animated images distracting with "look at me here!!" frequency on a static page, people will quickly get annoyed. You don't get that with a newspaper. Or a pop-over. You don't get that with a newspaper either. Or some video ad that blares out sound out of your speakers suddenly. I've never had a newspaper that does that. Or a flash ad whose purpose is to track your online activities. Or a flash ad that due to its very nature would mean opening your web browser to exploits. Or having an advertising server operate slowly, slowing page load times. Etcetcetc. All of these advertising crimes that newspapers never committed have eroded peoples' willingness to put up with aggressive online advertisers.
Trump raging after boos: Ole Henriksen refuses to apologize! (Because an entire theater was booing at Mike Pence, but this one guy gets singled out because he's originally from Denmark)
Well, ok, I mean, not super-important, but I could see why it would make the news. It is, at least, yet another illustration of how horribly divided the US here is at the moment.
Fitnessbabe shares completely honest picture: This is what my body really looks like (Front page material right there)
UUUGGGGHHH. At least, and this is small consolation, at least it's a step up from "Fitnessbabe shares one weird trick to physical fitness that personal trainers don't want you to you!"
Friday is when it happens: Black Friday will beat all records (Why is Black Friday even a thing outside the US, let alone front page material a week in advance?)
Is.... Black Friday a thing outside of the US? At first I thought that maybe it was a day that would involve many a German purchase from the US, but I think "Cyber Monday" came about for online purchases. But maybe Americans are skipping the Black Friday step entirely and going stright to Cyber Monday... on Friday.:-D
But either way, "Black Friday" peaked in the US a few years ago and has slowly been losing relevance. And in response, businesses are starting to cut back again on the crazy sales and the Thursday Thanksgiving sales and zany nonsense.
She was investigated several times by hostile Republican committees and even they couldn't find enough to prosecute her. How much will it take to convince you people that there is nothing there?[
That the Clintons are evil, evil people, corrupt to the core, and horrible lawbreakers who get away with their crimes seems to be a Republican religion. No amount of evidence or lack thereof will convince them. The crimes are evident of how incompetent the Clintons are, and the lack of evidence is itself evident of how smart they are. I won't say it's reached "9/11 Truther" levels yet, but the Clinton Conspiracy seems to be trying to reach the heights of other good old-fashioned conspiracy theories.
You're right. I'm wrong. So I'll go ahead and move the goalposts:) This whole thing feels like a lot of smoke with no fire to me. Technically Clinton performed "illegal acts" if she jaywalked.
Yeah, but nobody really cares if you jaywalk. But how you handle classified data is EXTREMELY important for anyone who handles classified data. It is a jailable offense for good reasons, because so many lives ride on how that happens. Unlike with, say, jaywalking.
We have no reason to think at the moment that Hillary's server was compromised. But it easily could have been. And that's important.
But there's more to it than that. The problems actually started earlier, as media consolidation led to cuts in the number of journalists and reductions in pay resulting from the glut of available staff to fill the positions. The inevitable result of such poor pay is that the industry fails to attract the best and brightest, and over time, quality suffers more and more.
This is half of the problem. The other half of the problem is that news readers/watchers don't want to pay for news anymore. There is this expectation, mostly driven by the Internet, that everything should be 'free.' Who wants to pay for a website (that isn't porn)?? That's so 1980s-thought!
Well what happens is that lack of customer investment coupled with the problems you mentioned provide a 1-2 punch for serious journalism. That and we reward the wrong behaviors -- we reward the salacious, the gossip, and the click-bait.
Bernie Sanders claimed "over 51%", and that number was confirmed as "Mostly True" by fact checking site politifact.com [politifact.com]. Trump's very similar sounding statement "59%", however, was judged as "Mostly False" by the same site [politifact.com].
In our society, 51% is considered just squeaking by with a win, while 59% is considered a "landslide trouncing."
Go back and look at the smears against Romney and look at what they are saying about him now. Back then, he was an animal abusing, woman suppressing, religious nut-job.
You're exaggerating a bit, but yeah, Romney was a bit of an out-of-touch ass. But he is a Republican president I could have lived with. When the comes comes down to Romney versus Giuliani of all people, yeah, I'd pick Romney. After Trump's horrid picks for Attorney General, CIA director, and chief strategist, I'd like something sanely conservative, not "mad dog" conservative.
The same press that reported endlessly about every allegation against Clinton but gave Trump a pass for his racist housing practices and Trump U? Boy, they sure piled on her for as much as she somehow "controlled the press." The press were sharks smelling blood in the water when it came to Hillary, they had so much to sniff out.
Incite blacks vs whites, everyone vs "the 1%", "If you don't vote for me you're sexist BECAUSE I HAVE A VAGINA" - check.
Hillary's campaign was more racially charged? Donald Trump wasn't a candidate who would kick "the elites" out of power?
Absolutely NO policy proposals - check
Don't know wher e to begin with this one.
Clinton cronies already in power - check
I hoped that Trump might clean house, appoint some good folks. Seems like he's making a traditional white house policy team, with some of the same old power brokers from years past and some new surprise disasters.
What drove that? Black racism and angry trailer parks. None of which were served by Hillary's campaign strategy. Blacks were taken for granted, trailer trash were called 'despicables'.
Nope.
Conclusion first because it's a long read:
Stop calling Trump voters racist
I think you are mistaken about what the grandparent poster meant. He didn't claim that Trump voters are racist (though I've seen lots of that), he said that black voters who turned out to vote for Obama because he was black, but stayed home and didn't vote for Hillary because she wasn't black, are the racists.
Slashdot Mirror
A close friend of mine's co-workers wife just recently scolded him for saying they should "go straight" at an intersection because it was offensive to gays.
Does your friend's co-worker understand humor generally? Does he seem to "get" such jokes for what they are? This isn't something I'd repeat unless I was there and understood the tone and the people involved.
It sounds like the sort of joke I'd make.
Politicians have a huge credibility problem. If one actually made specific promises and delivered them it would be a revolution.
Voters reward promises that you can't keep. Having coherent strategies to address major issues that will be difficult and grimy does not benefit a candidate as much as promising puppies and rainbows through your term.
If voters were willing to look past the bullshit and the talking points then maybe we would get closer to having elections based on merit, but we're nowhere close to that yet.
Even the New York Times came out and said that after the election they had to rededicate themselves to journalism.
And they went immediately right back to lying and smearing, running fear-mongering hit pieces on Trump's cabinet picks. They learned nothing.
I had high hopes, but his cabinet picks have ranged from "ok" to "horrific."
This "logic" continues to mystify me. How does major news becoming less trustworthy cause fake news to become more trustworthy? If we insist that news should be trustworthy, then why would we trust obviously fake news? That does not make any sense.
It's "The Truth is Out There" attitude, with the notion of the news. They suspect the mainstream, so sources that contradict the mainstream are automatically more likely to be correct.
Hey, tantrums are awesome.
I don't know, did Trump brag about specific pussies he grabbed, or was it all the braggadocio of a rich asshole showing off for another rich asshole?
I don't know, should we take him at his word or assume that he was lying about like he lies about so many other things? I guess we're fucked either way, though on the list of "issues that are actually important," it's pretty far down.
Ah yes, the old "paying money to someone is the same thing as free speech!" argument. It was sad when the Citizens United decision came down, it's sad now.
"in many cases it's a felony trespass to enter a freeway on foot if it has a center divider"
This is why many people don't trust the government. Sure, its dangerous but should it really be a felony to walk onto a road?
Yes, because you are introducing an extremely high hazard to motorists. It's not just a hazard to the pedestrian, it's a hazard to the motorists because that pedestrian is likely to cause a high-speed collision. I'm not a fan of a nanny state or government overreach, but intentionally introducing that sort of a hazard onto the freeway being a felony is all right with me.
Just prior to the election, latest consensus "too close to call"
That's bullshit. It's only been a couple of weeks, too early to try to rewrite history dufus.
Nope, the parent was right. Before Comey's investigation announcement, Clinton had widened her lead in the wake of Trump's 1980s video comments. But at that point her momentum full-stopped and she started losing support again. The "undecided voter" group grew, and the margin of victory on election day was within the margin of error.
Like when someone claims "Trump asked Russia to hack Clinton," even when the quote they provide does no such thing? That kind of thing?
Trump didn't use the exact words "Russia, please hack Clinton", but when he says in response to the Russian DNC hacks, "And Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," what are we supposed to draw from that? He's asking for hacking activity to uncover the emails... wherever they are. How could you possibly interpret it any other way?
Fake news, you say? Would this amazing coincidence of dozens of media outlets running the exact same theme qualify? [i.redd.it] This isn't news, it's coordinated propaganda.
I... what? You realize that's how we describe things in our society that we think are disturbing or paint a bleak picture. Dark.
If you're not all aboard the Donald Trump train, and a huge swath of the country was not, these are dark times.
That's for sure. He really has gone off the deep end now.
A shame.
Oh, hey, look, it's someone doing exactly what I'm talking about, faking outrage by throwing words into Trump's mouth.
Those are things Trump actually said, and you're willfully being charitable in interpreting them a different way.
that personal trainers don't want you to you!"
I wish I had proofread that. :-(
I think public unwillingness to pay for the news in the age of the Internet has a great deal to do with the downward quality of reporting. Repeating gossipy nonsense doesn't take much effort, especially if that sort of click-bait brings in more revenue than something more boring like war reporting or investigative journalism.
But ad networks also share much of the blame in peoples' willingness to put up barriers to ads. If you're going to have bouncing animated images distracting with "look at me here!!" frequency on a static page, people will quickly get annoyed. You don't get that with a newspaper. Or a pop-over. You don't get that with a newspaper either. Or some video ad that blares out sound out of your speakers suddenly. I've never had a newspaper that does that. Or a flash ad whose purpose is to track your online activities. Or a flash ad that due to its very nature would mean opening your web browser to exploits. Or having an advertising server operate slowly, slowing page load times. Etcetcetc. All of these advertising crimes that newspapers never committed have eroded peoples' willingness to put up with aggressive online advertisers.
Trump raging after boos: Ole Henriksen refuses to apologize! (Because an entire theater was booing at Mike Pence, but this one guy gets singled out because he's originally from Denmark)
Well, ok, I mean, not super-important, but I could see why it would make the news. It is, at least, yet another illustration of how horribly divided the US here is at the moment.
Fitnessbabe shares completely honest picture: This is what my body really looks like (Front page material right there)
UUUGGGGHHH. At least, and this is small consolation, at least it's a step up from "Fitnessbabe shares one weird trick to physical fitness that personal trainers don't want you to you!"
Friday is when it happens: Black Friday will beat all records (Why is Black Friday even a thing outside the US, let alone front page material a week in advance?)
Is.... Black Friday a thing outside of the US? At first I thought that maybe it was a day that would involve many a German purchase from the US, but I think "Cyber Monday" came about for online purchases. But maybe Americans are skipping the Black Friday step entirely and going stright to Cyber Monday... on Friday. :-D
But either way, "Black Friday" peaked in the US a few years ago and has slowly been losing relevance. And in response, businesses are starting to cut back again on the crazy sales and the Thursday Thanksgiving sales and zany nonsense.
The rest of the links feel like Buzzfeed.
"No Irish need apply."
She was investigated several times by hostile Republican committees and even they couldn't find enough to prosecute her. How much will it take to convince you people that there is nothing there?[
That the Clintons are evil, evil people, corrupt to the core, and horrible lawbreakers who get away with their crimes seems to be a Republican religion. No amount of evidence or lack thereof will convince them. The crimes are evident of how incompetent the Clintons are, and the lack of evidence is itself evident of how smart they are. I won't say it's reached "9/11 Truther" levels yet, but the Clinton Conspiracy seems to be trying to reach the heights of other good old-fashioned conspiracy theories.
You're right. I'm wrong. So I'll go ahead and move the goalposts :) This whole thing feels like a lot of smoke with no fire to me. Technically Clinton performed "illegal acts" if she jaywalked.
Yeah, but nobody really cares if you jaywalk. But how you handle classified data is EXTREMELY important for anyone who handles classified data. It is a jailable offense for good reasons, because so many lives ride on how that happens. Unlike with, say, jaywalking.
We have no reason to think at the moment that Hillary's server was compromised. But it easily could have been. And that's important.
But there's more to it than that. The problems actually started earlier, as media consolidation led to cuts in the number of journalists and reductions in pay resulting from the glut of available staff to fill the positions. The inevitable result of such poor pay is that the industry fails to attract the best and brightest, and over time, quality suffers more and more.
This is half of the problem. The other half of the problem is that news readers/watchers don't want to pay for news anymore. There is this expectation, mostly driven by the Internet, that everything should be 'free.' Who wants to pay for a website (that isn't porn)?? That's so 1980s-thought!
Well what happens is that lack of customer investment coupled with the problems you mentioned provide a 1-2 punch for serious journalism. That and we reward the wrong behaviors -- we reward the salacious, the gossip, and the click-bait.
Bernie Sanders claimed "over 51%", and that number was confirmed as "Mostly True" by fact checking site politifact.com [politifact.com]. Trump's very similar sounding statement "59%", however, was judged as "Mostly False" by the same site [politifact.com].
In our society, 51% is considered just squeaking by with a win, while 59% is considered a "landslide trouncing."
Go back and look at the smears against Romney and look at what they are saying about him now. Back then, he was an animal abusing, woman suppressing, religious nut-job.
You're exaggerating a bit, but yeah, Romney was a bit of an out-of-touch ass. But he is a Republican president I could have lived with.
When the comes comes down to Romney versus Giuliani of all people, yeah, I'd pick Romney. After Trump's horrid picks for Attorney General, CIA director, and chief strategist, I'd like something sanely conservative, not "mad dog" conservative.
The GOP establishment hates Trump and never wanted him. Look up "Never-Trumper" from recent news.
So you think they will roll over for him? Well, we will see.
Sure, that's what you say before the election. Post election, even Mitt Romney is meeting with Trump to kiss the ring.
CONTROL the press - check.
The same press that reported endlessly about every allegation against Clinton but gave Trump a pass for his racist housing practices and Trump U? Boy, they sure piled on her for as much as she somehow "controlled the press." The press were sharks smelling blood in the water when it came to Hillary, they had so much to sniff out.
Incite blacks vs whites, everyone vs "the 1%", "If you don't vote for me you're sexist BECAUSE I HAVE A VAGINA" - check.
Hillary's campaign was more racially charged? Donald Trump wasn't a candidate who would kick "the elites" out of power?
Absolutely NO policy proposals - check
Don't know wher e to begin with this one.
Clinton cronies already in power - check
I hoped that Trump might clean house, appoint some good folks. Seems like he's making a traditional white house policy team, with some of the same old power brokers from years past and some new surprise disasters.
What drove that? Black racism and angry trailer parks. None of which were served by Hillary's campaign strategy. Blacks were taken for granted, trailer trash were called 'despicables'.
Nope.
Conclusion first because it's a long read:
Stop calling Trump voters racist
I think you are mistaken about what the grandparent poster meant. He didn't claim that Trump voters are racist (though I've seen lots of that), he said that black voters who turned out to vote for Obama because he was black, but stayed home and didn't vote for Hillary because she wasn't black, are the racists.