domain:aerosociety.com
WandererintheWilderness
1hr ago
Blue Tribe collectively wanted them to do it
No, Blue Tribe wanted there to be protests. Most people fell on a spectrum going from "sincerely believes that the reports of widespread violence are Republican lies" to "grants that some protests devolved into riots, but thinks it's more important for protests to remain untouchable than to stop the riotous excesses".
MaximumCuddles
The world-spirit texting on the toilet
2hr ago
The really funny thing for me which I knew at the time was the clash of the scale of the things they were talking about.
Health officials stating that “police violence against black s” was our “most important health crisis” which somehow overrode COVID.
I knew at the time how many “unarmed” black men were killed by police; it was like 12 per year. 12 goddamn people in the entire United States. In a year. With a very generous definition of “unarmed” which includes; had a gun but dropped it, had a gun within arms reach, etc etc.
The average democrat voter thought it was around 10,000 a year, an exaggeration in the ballpark of 10,000%.
These same people were claiming that literally millions of people would possibly die if their despotic covid policies weren’t followed to the letter.
Even in their own exaggerated rhetoric I couldn’t make it make sense.
It was maybe my first experience with an absolutely unsteelman-able position which looked suspiciously like mass voodoo, like witnessing 90 million people fall to dancing mania in the year of our lord 2020.
Primaprimaprima
Aliquid stat pro aliquo
2hr ago
No, it really is much closer to 50%. That’s the only way to explain the absolute deluge of support among leftists for Kirk’s murder. It’s a statistical argument. The only reason you’re hearing this many people who support it is because there are even more who don’t. Otherwise you’d have to believe that almost every person who supports Kirk murder has been vocal about it on the internet, which is implausible.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
2hr ago
It's not super common, but it's not all that weird for Mormons in my lived experience. My mother was a fifth child adopted from a local hospital, I have two cousins adopted from Kazakhstan, a cousin from a different side adopted from Ukraine (one of the very literally very last actually), and I've heard of a few other cases besides.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
2hr ago
I get the feeling that maybe you haven't spoken with many Trump-hating leftists recently? I do on a pretty regular basis, and put simply, most of the complaints boil down to one of the following: "he's stupid and I want a smarter president", "I dislike his thin skin and meanness", "his policies often make no sense", "I still haven't forgiven him for J6/the 2020 election lie", "he's been tanking the economy even more", and yes, "he's trying to take away important rights" does make an appearance. There's some resentment of perceived anti-LGB, anti-T, and anti-immigrant background too. But framing the first 5 reasons as not very specific I don't think is very fair.
Not OP but I think it's an open question as to whether the number of Trump's lies, in absolute terms, is greater or less than other politicians, but I don't really think it's too important to close it with an answer, I don't care about it per se.
However, it seems completely obvious that the lies he tells are particularly... maybe "brazen" is the right word? Like in real life people tell white lies, and usually don't get caught. Trump tells white lies, and regularly does get caught, when prior presidents and many other public figures are often careful enough that they, on the whole, seem to lay off the white lies (silence works pretty well for most administrations, in fact almost equally as well in situations where a white lie would otherwise attempt to hide an awkward truth, they both hide it in effect).
The usual defense amounts to one of three things: 1) Trump's words were hyperbole or maybe technically incorrect, but the broader truth is correct so the precise verbiage doesn't matter, 2) Trump was just relaying his understanding based on other reports/TV/hearsay, and any incorrectness is a simple lack of due diligence, which is fine because again his broader points are correct and people can be wrong sometimes, 3) Well if you look at what he said earlier or later or some other day, that clarifies things, that's what he really meant, obviously he was just riffing off that, and we should kind of average all his statements. No particular word, phrase, or claim ever has absolute meaning.
You know, honestly I was lowkey fine with this during election season, and in a number of cases I defended Trump (!) by saying that in an election it really does matter more what people hear than what you say. We all even expect it, fact-checker mania or no. However, I (and most liberals and even most centrists even despite any biases) think that when governing the words you say have special meaning. We can't and shouldn't be guessing. It's not like the Bible where reasonable people can disagree if X scripture is literal or metaphorical or symbolic or something in between! A word has meaning. Sometimes flexible, but all meanings can be stretched so far as to break. As an example, Trump said the fired BLS chief "rigged" the numbers. That means something, and it's not a Biblical interpretation situation. Factually, by any definition, Trump was wrong. She did not rig the numbers. End of story. The End. There is no wiggle room there. So which is it, 1, 2, or 3? They have some partial explanatory power. I admit that. But they do not actually change the lie.
It's the President and he has a responsibility. Sure, Presidents lie. Some have told some really, really big whoppers. But by and large, as I said above, that's usually about the big stuff. Trump's statements are frequently wrong about the small stuff.
How bad is one versus the other? Hypothetically is it better to have a habitual fibber who is honest about the big stuff, or a charming fact-wielding guy hiding a devastating betrayal? I have no firm opinion, and to be fair it's a little bit of new territory, and with a yet-unwritten and unrevealed history to match. Will we discover a Trump Iran-Contra under our noses and thus have the worst of both worlds? Does anything so far count? No one can say yet for sure.
However, I think the small lies have spread such an atmosphere of distrust that it's creating a low-trust dynamic between the public and the President that is almost unprecedented outside of wartime (when frankly the President is semi-allowed to tell white lies IMO). I think it's justified to be dismayed about that and worried about it. Because there's a significantly wide, if not deep, "interaction surface" on the utterings of Presidents to the public. They are literally the most newsworthy person in the world, so a lot gets transmitted. Trump's white lies, even if that's really all they are (not a given but let's roll with it), do immense damage to this trust. Suddenly, rather than more limited debates about whether the government is telling the truth about specific and big things, we suddenly are expected to guess whether the government is telling the truth about small things, tiny things, mundane things. We are expected to produce custom weighted-average factual conclusions based on contradictory government information releases. That's exhausting.
Conservatives aren't really bothered by this because they mostly have delegated their decision-making to Trump and his administration, since they trust that he will not betray them overall, so the small stuff is almost irrelevant. They even tend to enjoy Trump cynically playing with those assumptions to make the traditional media dance to his pleasure. But if you put yourself in anyone else's shoes, it's a pretty terrible state of affairs.
A lot of right-wingers around here like to spread this whole idea of high and low trust societies. Okay, fine. Here is a mini-society, and Trump is almost singlehandedly making it a low-trust relation full of perpetual suspicion and mistrust. Maybe he's "owning the libs", but at what cost?
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
3hr ago
Can we have that conversation?
Corvos
3hr ago
IMO English is an unfortunate language (compared to Japanese) in that it is difficult and disapproved-of to shorten words and phrases in a way that is still readable. You can't just stick a couple of kanji together or throw out half the sounds. You can't turn 'leave without pay' into 'no-pay leave' without sounding childish, let alone 'go-no-pay' and 'life without parole' can't be turned into 'forever-jail'. I think part of it is the cultural love-affair with sophisticated latinate vocabulary (he says as someone with an impeccable classical education, but we're all hypocrites here).
Acronyms are an attempt to solve the job but are often too complicated in their own right and are mostly unreadable unless you already know what they mean (BATNA).
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3hr ago
It's not true speech, it's a lie that uses truth to mask itself, making it more dangerous, because it's more likely to be believed.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
3hr ago
Nice try, but it's clearly an Umlaut, which makes the pronounciation of coöperation coördination very funny.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
3hr ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaeresis_(diacritic)
The diaeresis diacritic indicates that two adjoining letters that would normally form a digraph and be pronounced as one sound, are instead to be read as separate vowels in two syllables. For example, in the spelling "coöperate", the diaeresis reminds the reader that the word has four syllables, co-op-er-ate, not three, *coop-er-ate. In British English this usage has been considered obsolete for many years, and in US English, although it persisted for longer, it is now considered archaic as well. [citation to 1993 book] Nevertheless, it is still used by the US magazine The New Yorker. [citation to 2012 article] In English-language texts it is perhaps most familiar in the loan words naïve, Noël and Chloë, and is also used officially in the name of the island Teän and of Coös County. Languages such as Dutch, Afrikaans, Catalan, French, Galician, Greek, and Spanish make regular use of the diaeresis. (In some Germanic and other languages, the umlaut diacritic has the same appearance but a different function.)
Personally I tend to think that both the Colbert firing and the Kimmel firing were partly in result to Trump admin pressure...
...but that reason, while true, wasn't at all the main reason. We heard Colbert's show was losing money regularly, and I imagine Kimmel's was too (although it's possible some Colbert defectors propped it up for a bit so may not have been recently the case, dunno there), so I believe both networks saw it as a win-win situation.
(The Kimmel quote in question is incredibly weak sauce, though. At worst he's accusing Republicans of being murderers, but that seems like a logical stretch of language. He's wrong on the facts of course but it's not like I have a high bar for comedy-ish monologues of the political issues de jour)
Am I worried about this kind of press pressure? Yes. I'm not, like, apocalyptically worried, just normal worried. I'm currently sort of on the train of thought that even if Trump 2.0 is followed by another Republican, I'm not sure these absurdities will continue. My mental model of the Trump admin is roughly that a ton of loose, low-qualified cannons running around using Trump's formidable political cover are going buck wild on their own personal pet issues and Trump doesn't care too much as long as it can be spun positively on TV, or gives off "we are strong" vibes.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
3hr ago
coördinated
Why the Umlaut?
clo
3hr ago
Rosencrantz2
3hr ago
Yeah, and I think it's dishonest to pretend the former is worse than the latter.
This is where we part ways. Biased but true speech is interpretable and informational for smart people, even if it misleads others. Lying is simply pollution.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3hr ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump
So? Wikipedia is well known for slanted coverage of anything political, it's no surprise their edditors would autistically catalogue every misleading statent from him, and refuse to do the same for other politicians.
Anyway, don't many of his supporters acknowledge that he lies a lot, but say his lies are good car salesman style lies, whereas other politicians may not lie but they are selective with what they include and what they omit?
Yeah, and I think it's dishonest to pretend the former is worse than the latter.
quiet_NaN
4hr ago
Kimmel spread an obvious lie.
Are you referring to the following?
We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it
After the evidence published on the 16th, claiming that the shooter was MAGA would be at least a fringe view. One might claim that everyone from the FBI and state prosecution is blatantly partisan and obviously trying to blame the murder on the left, but that would leave the question how the FBI fabricated a MtF boyfriend. So personally, I think that the official narrative -- the killer acting to 'fight LGBT hate' is probably correct.
Still, the Kimmel episode was aired on the 15th, when none of these chat quotes were public (afaik).
And then you have the FCC statement:
[...] FCC Chairman Brendan Carr appeared on Benny Johnson’s podcast and blasted Kimmel’s remark, calling it “some of the sickest conduct possible.”
So Kimmel was either spinning the truth very hard or outright lying. Bad, but mostly SOP -- Trump himself does the same whenever he opens his mouth. If Carr thinks that this is the "sickest conduct possible", he must live a very sheltered life indeed -- free from social media, for one thing. One wonders if he has ever watched Fox News. In short, his statement is as much of a lie as Kimmel's is.
I think that the right is reasonably upset by the social media celebrations of the murders by the far left. Kimmel was not guilty of that at all, he was just someone the FCC could cancel who had interacted with the topic in a way which did not please Trump, and was already on the cancel list, so he got got.
Dean
Flairless
4hr ago
exaggeration of a call to action (not fact based)
Don't Call Your Wife 'Beautiful.' Use These Less Sexist Compliments Instead
"A real self-starter": Is she blushing? Oh, she's blushing.
Okay, this one made me laugh.
"The strong nose of a Caesar": She'll feel like a princess -- no, an empress!
And this one truly is 'not fact based.'
Rosencrantz2
4hr ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump
I read a few reports quantifying his untruths vs Biden and Obama, and he came off much worse.
Whether there's an actually solid study comparing all politicians, journalists, academics and their lies I don't know, but it seems baldly apparent that he is up there with the best of them.
Anyway, don't many of his supporters acknowledge that he lies a lot, but say his lies are good car salesman style lies, whereas other politicians may not lie but they are selective with what they include and what they omit?
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
4hr ago
Now I can squat two plates and bench one plate.
Good job! Benching 60kg x 5 was easy for me, but my fucking knees won't let me squat more than 1.5 plates, and only on a good day. I've switched to endurance training (cyclist squats on a wedge) for my knees, with a plan to add some split squats or lunges when I'm ready. I hate both.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
4hr ago
Very little, truth be told.
Les Trois Mousquetaires, in public-domain audiobook format (librivox). Mostly just to keep my French from escaping me altogether, but also because I genuinely enjoy the genre. I think I get about half of what's being read. It'd probably be a better idea to actually read the text.
Mistress of Mistresses, by E.R. Eddison. It's slow going so far, very much unlike The Worm Ouroboros. I trust Eddison to know what he's doing, so I'll keep at it.
TowardsPanna
4hr ago
Yes, that makes sense.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5hr ago
in a country presided over by one of the most prolific liars in history seems absolutely risible.
Where are you getting the idea he's any worse than any other politician, or even journalist or academic?
Trump lies like your uncle telling fish stories. Understanding this dynamic creates trust by generating low-stakes opportunities to display ingroup loyalty. All the right has to do to gain this benefit is not crash out whenever Trump calls something "the greatest show" because "AKSHUALLY EXPERTS SAY IT WAS ONLY THE FOURTH GREATEST SHOW".
And even more so by presumptively taking most claims of Trump lying as themselves lies. I remember going through a WaPo list of 800 Trump Lies From the Biden Debate, and concluding that most of their examples were insults (FACT CHECK: JOE BIDEN IS NOT A PALESTINIAN), extremely biased nitpicking (I don't think either of them managed to word themselves accurately when they were arguing about the deficit over their comparative terms, but I think Trump was less wrong), or claims that were defensible/true but that Democrats don't like.
And this matters in a context when trust has already been completely destroyed. Remember "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?" That was a blatant, meaningful, painful lie. The self-appointed "fact-checkers" called it absolutely true, then slowly walked it back until after Obama's re-election when they admitted it was the "Lie of the Year".
Shit, "Obama has a healthcare plan" was a straight up lie! He literally just let his speechwriters write a check his policy team couldn't cash because he assumed Hilary was going to be the nominee anyway!
The cost is entirely to you. Every time a respectable outlet melts down over something that didn't happen (because they default assume that Trump MUST be lying about everything), you guys lose trust and respect and a few more people realize that NYT and WaPo and CNN are on the same level as Glenn Beck at his worst.
This whole post is just Blue Team being mad that they can't lie with impunity and nasty consequences to Red Team anymore.
More options
Context Copy link