211
‘Stakes are really high’: misinformation researcher changes tack for 2024 US election
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2024
211 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19107 readers
2745 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Dunno how I can make it any clearer without tattooing it to your forehead: She. Could. Not. Consent. Due. To. The. Power. Dynamic. We've also covered how the power dynamic in the rape example is wildly different to the dumbass retort I know you'll respond with that'll be along the lines of "so the same as COVID". That's been done to death. You're inability to understand this does not mean you are right. Sure, it means you're dumb as shit for continuing with this dumb as shit line of reasoning, but it doesn't change the fact that it is dumb as shit and thus you are wrong.
Neither could the other employee. They were both forced. Use your brain
Nope. The other employee was given a choice that was entirely fair. There was no abuse of power. I have given you a shitload of examples of how this works and why the two examples are vastly different. Hell, I literally did it in the comment I gave prior to this one. You have given me nothing but "nah, you're wrong, but I can't say why", despite me asking for more info from you. Leaves me no choice but to assume you can't defend your statements cos they can't be defended. Which saddens me. Means you're just doing this cos you're either an idiot, or full of hate. Neither one is particularly appealing.
Both were fair choices made in free will or neither were. Don't be a hypocrite, you're better than that
I have made it abundantly clear to as to why they are different. I'm not covering it again. I'd suggest you reread what I have written, as you sure as shit seem to still be confused over an issue that I've made incredibly easy for someone even as intellectually limited as yourself to understand.
Also, you have no idea what I'm better than or not. You don't know me from a bar of soap. So I'll kindly thank you to keep your opinions of me to yourself, I care even less for them than I do for your disgusting performance in this comment thread.
You've made nothing clear because you're still confused and can't understand how both are the same. Read back through and try to strengthen your understanding
I can't understand that they are the same, because they literally aren't and have given evidence to support these claims. You can't support your claims, which leads me to the conclusion that it's you who is the one who is still confused and further leads me to suggest that you "read back through and try to strengthen your understanding".
The coercion is the same. Neither can consent or both can. It's literally the same power dynamic
I have covered this in detail, with examples, already. You can keep repeating this horseshit line of logic all you want, it's not gonna change anything. Especially when you can't give any support to your argument. Noone gives a shit about your feelings.