You must log in or register to comment.
Stop mentioning Hillary. She’s old news. She’s as relevant to 2023 politics as hunter biden.
No kidding, I don’t know why she feels the need to insert herself in this year’s politics with this super divisive “cult deprogramming” language/narrative. Not that a lot of folks don’t need to step down from the rhetoric of violence and demagoguery that’s a big part of MAGA, they absolutely, do… but seriously, Hillary, you are such an unnecessary bull in the china shop on this right now. Like her or hate her, I think it’s a pretty objective statement that bringing the temperature down and bringing people together just isn’t something her presence and choice of language in this debate is going to accomplish.
She shares the blame for Trump being elected. She campaigned shittily and she was a shitty candidate. The DNC conspiracy to prop her up as the chosen nominee is also to blame.
Those elements combined with Obama hate from Trumptards and the Russian propaganda all over social media produced the result we got.
She campaigned shittily and she was a shitty candidate.
That literally IS Russian propaganda.
No, it really isn’t. She repeatedly made comments that upset me. Every time I listened to her speak it made me not want to vote. She refused to take any real stances on issues I cared about other than bland platitudes. Whatever the opposite of “get out the vote” is what she did.
It’s not Russian propaganda that she was a terrible, unlikable candidate. I know myself and a half dozen people who voted for her and hated doing it.
What, anything short of just absolute love for her campaign and candidacy is propaganda?
She made some serious mistakes in her campaign, and even before that she was probably the most divisive Democrat in the country - she was a poor choice for that reason alone if nothing else. They were banking on people voting for her on a combination of “first female president” and “Trump is a buffoon”. And if you don’t think the DNC made moves to explicitly prop her up as a candidate regardless of the primary vote I’d point you to my state.
In my state, she got about 35% of the primary vote and Sanders got over half (Sanders even won in every single county, it’s not like they won different parts of the state or something). A local attorney who ran as a protest candidate got a quarter as many primary votes as Hillary Clinton. So from the vote Sanders got 18 delegates and Clinton got 11. Which means she only got one more delegate from my state than Sanders did. Because superdelegates. Literally all the superdelegates for the state went to Clinton, and that was one more delegate than Sanders got for only having a bit more than half the vote.
Because of superdelegates, she would only ever need around 30% of the primary vote to win in any state. And superdelegates in several states pre-declaring they would vote for Clinton acted to depress the Sanders vote.
WHAT??? ARE YOU SAYING CROWNING HER THE VITCTOR BEFORE VOTING EVEN STARTED SUPPRESSED OPPOSITION TURN OUT??? Never, blasphemy you are a disgusting Bernie bro obviously. Must be sexist for not wanting the first female president. It was her turn.
In all seriousness I’d love to vote for a woman. Just give me one with some integrity and a real platform please. I would of gladly voted for Warren as white toast as she is. She at least has some real stances I agree with.
She’s arrogant. Simple as.
Well, did she insert herself here or did someone do it for her for clickbait
Probably because she’s not planning on running so she can say what she really thinks without giving a fuck about whether it offends some people’s delicate sensibilities?
Came in here to say basically this. The fact that they used Hilary as the image for this articles headline killed any credibility instantly. She is not relevant and hasn’t been since she lost. There is zero positives to bringing her up. Unless you want an example of exactly how not to run a presidential campaign.
I just clicked because I wanted to be sure she wasn’t running in 2024
What? You mean to say it isn’t her turn?
Let’s get someone under 50.
Best I can do is 69.
I saw the link was from Salon.com… as relevant to politics as TMZ is to climate change.
Yes let’s all continue ignoring the people who were warned us about the dangers of a Trump presidency.
Surely she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Also she is not wrong.
But you know fake internet points on a reddit knock off matter more, apparently.
Literally everyone with half a fucking brain knew Trump would be terrible. The fact that she was so unlikable and ran such a bad campaign that people didn’t bother to show up and vote for her tells you everything. She needs to shut the fuck up, and disappear.
The mere sight of her face makes me not want to vote Democrat. I never was one, and her attempts to shame me into voting for her only made me think about that more. The “big tent party” needs more than fear mongering to win elections. I don’t really care for Joe Biden either, but I didn’t feel ill voting for him. He didn’t tell me I owed it to him, that I had to vote for him or I was deplorable. He at least said a few things that made me want to vote.
I’m not saying she’s wrong. I’m saying she’s irrelevant at this point. if for some reason you don’t like this social network, you should go back to Reddit
The biggest thing that I can see that needs to be done would be shutting down “news” organizations like FOX News, OAN, and Newsmax. Also, breaking up online movements like Q where blatant misinformation is spread as if it’s proven truth.
Now, HOW you do that without massive first amendment violations, I don’t know. You would also need to be careful how it’s structured because that could easily be used to shut down anyone left of center should a Republicans take the presidency/control Congress.
Gotta look at that right wing radio cabal also
Education and critical thinking skills. Which is why they want to defund public schools so all children can be indoctrinated in “Christian” private schools.
Shutting down Facebook would be huge. It’s a cesspool of propaganda.
A lot of social media and sites with algorithms are problematic. They tend to steer people to content that’s more and more radical in nature. You start out with innocuous stuff, but the more extreme the content, the bigger the reaction, and thus the algorithm will guide the user to more of that content. (Ryan George illustrated this perfectly: https://youtu.be/x1aZEz8BQiU?si=g3xw0tbDV-4vSyCH )
There’s no need to shut them down:
“The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints. In 1987, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine”
The problem, even if we reinstated this, is that this applied to broadcast only. This wouldn’t apply to cable channels. Neither would it apply to Internet groups. Both of those would still be free to spout full blown lies and conspiracy theories dressed up as “news.”
It would definitely need updating to include cable, things have changed a lot since 1987. As for the internet, I don’t see how that could be enforced other than to classify sites as publishers and make them liable for the content they host.
The entire legal basis for it was the notion that the FCC was entitled to regulate the radio spectrum because it’s a scarce resource. The FCC has no authority to regulate cable or the Internet.
The FCC has no authority to regulate cable or the Internet.
“The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government that regulates communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable across the United States. The FCC maintains jurisdiction over the areas of broadband access, fair competition, radio frequency use, media responsibility, public safety, and homeland security.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission
It’s true that the FCC doesn’t regulate internet content, that’s why classifying sites as publishers would be useful. We would have the same legal tools that apply to newspapers.
Has their ability to regulate communication that doesn’t involve any public resources ever been tested in court?
You could easily argue that things like ISPs require content-neutral regulations, but for regulating content there needs to be a pretty damn solid justification for why the First Amendment can’t apply as written. For public airways the bandwidth is limited enough that allowing some speech necessarily comes at the expense of other speech, but that justification is very shaky for cable and satellite TV, and it completely falls apart for internet services. It would be comparable to the federal government trying to regulate the content of private correspondence through the postal service.
I have a hard time taking this article seriously. I don’t understand why it feels the need to tout HC so fiercely. I guess she was right about “deplorables” but everyone else was correct in pegging her as an out of touch elite. The DNC’s inability to back candidates that can help working class people continually emboldens right-wing extremists. It’s not hard to see how the Dems’ center-right stances open the door for far-right reactions. Yes, they are deplorables but HC is not one of the good guys.
Republicans are programmed due to their echo chambers. People who don’t even follow the news have been shown to be more informed than Republicans who watch and listen to conservative media.
Just curious, do you think the programming due to echo chambers applies to Democrats as well?
If only people knew the truth! The issue is: That’s not how information actually works. Despite what you are told, social media and the internet often increase the range of views to which people are exposed. Algorithms are less likely to create a echo chamber for you than living in a neighborhood surrounded by Republicans with limited media.
So what are echo chambers, really? They are epistemic bubbles, where other voices are not heard; in echo chambers, other voices are actively undermined. When they get contrary information that doesn’t match their preconceived beliefs, they dismiss it. It confirms what they already believe—they’re wrong.
While privately owned social media companies can influence us, they’re hardly the only things that do. Our core ideologies and values are determined by everything from where we grew up to whom we love, to the actual impact of politics on our lives. Fixing Facebook wouldn’t solve the problem of many echo chambers—your family’s opinions, your friend’s bigoted talking points—even if it’s a good idea.
In a way, those who worry about echo chambers are too hopeful. Many voters really do want Trump, Brexit, and other things that liberals abhor. A lot of people do not care, deep down, about democracy. Better information might not be a panacea for that, even if it would slow down a conspiracy theory like QAnon.
That is the main difference of the two sides, Liberals get a multifaceted message with various perspectives and they latch onto those messages that most resonate with them. Conservatives on the other hand only get one perspective and thus rarely hear opposing views in context.
Which side you land on largely has to do with your personal environment.
That’s a very well thought out response and I find myself really agreeing with you. It is frustrating that in order for me to ask the question the elicited a response that changed my perspective, my post automatically gets down voted by the community. That alone makes me not want to ask questions thus perpetuating the echo chambers in the community.
Fake internet points!
I’ve never been in favor of visual voting where it shows positive and negative.
It does. Their propaganda is that equality matters but they maintain status quo with minimal progress. They definitely prioritize corporate interests over gen pop.
Of course it does
The Internet has made people flock to places where people think like them.
Additionally, FaceBook, Google News, and many other sites intentionally show users material that it knows they will interact with to trigger dopamine releases. It’s addictive by design.
Social media has far less influence than ones family, their local community, and their religion or lack there of.
I don’t understand why the DNC (as in the actual organization, not Democrat voters) is so god damn obsessed with Hillary. It feels like they would crown her queen if they could. Makes me wonder if she has some dirt on key people in their organization or something.
I think it has something to do with Democrats still feeling “hurt” over the absurdity of the Clinton impeachment and other sham issues Republicans have with her, that they have some need to redeem her image. Letting her go feels like accepting a loss.
Are they obsessed, or is it just that she’s not campaigning for anything and so she’s ripe for the media junket?
I have a hard time taking this article seriously.
Not a surprise given it’s from Salon. It’s a shitrag. I haven’t read this article but I’ve noticed a pattern based on other articles being posted around Lemmy. A third is rabble-rousing and pandering to the virtue signaling far left. Half is adjacent filler content. The rest is a valid meaningful point worthy of real discussion and has little to do with the headline.
Just noting the comment below about “Republicans are programmed due to their echo chambers”… Dude, if you believe that’s a republican-only phenomenon, you have been programmed by the echo chamber you follow. I’d love a source for “people who don’t follow the news have been shown to be more informed than republicans”.
Speaking of “echo chambers”, that full of shit comment is getting upvoted. You might find yourself currently inside the echo chamber.As a liberal progressive, I’m worried that so many of us are falling prey to the tactics that have worked for conservative media for decades. I thought we were supposed to be more intelligent. It seems like tribalism really is all that matters - intellectualism be damned.
I’d love a source for “people who don’t follow the news have been shown to be more informed than republicans”.
Yeah, it’s not hard to find. Shame you had to do it for them.
There’s definitely value in asking and not just googling. What you find on Google may not represent what the person making the claim is talking about. It’s often best to let a person speak for themselves and place the onus where it belongs.
Back in the day, their grandparents happily filled public swimming pools with cement rather than accept allowing ‘others’ to have a good time.
Defunding and privatization of public schools also started for similar reasons
deleted by creator
Let the Trump cult be. They are a minority of a minority.
Focus on fielding quality candidates that are not Hillary-Clinton-esk and Maga will fade away. Focus on getting out the vote. Focus on issues that resonate with the center right to center left.
It’s not that hard of a concept, but it it doesn’t sell ad clicks. It doesn’t drive engagement either. So we get to wring our hands and are subject to Salon articles for the next 13 months instead.
I’m not saying that you’re wrong. But I am saying that history doesn’t agree with your approach.
If you’re in an enclosed space with a crazy person who’s flailing around with a knife, " leave them alone and let’s focus on ourselves" isn’t going to mitigate the damage.
You cannot be tolerant to intolerance if you want a tolerant society.
I totally agree. My comment misses that point.
Popper’s paradox of intolerance was written nearly a century ago. Your definition and his definition of tolerance are not the same.
In fact, if you actually read his works instead of a wikipedia article headline(lol), then you will find YOU are the one he was criticizing. Popper believed the intolerant were those who would rely on censorship rather than debate. Literally, tolerance of debate.
As you can imagine, I find the irony of your comment hilarious.
My definition? What is my definition of tolerance?
Nearly a century ago? You’re a math genius, by your standards I’m turning 100 already.
The “open society” book was written with fascism as a background and as a reaction to it. But, of course - if only we had debated a bit more with fascists…
Go back to watching Peterson clips.
Triggered by the truth?
Yeah, it was written with fascists in mind. That’s why it applies to your fascist rhetoric, rofl
Obviously they need to Pokémon Go to therapy.
Trying to get to the root of the ideology is almost impossible.
Asking why they have those opinions is futile they have no opinions past the surface layer.
In fact bringing up contradictory facts is an attack, its crazy.
Everyone deserves a chance at redemption for us to heal as a country we have to leave the door open for them to cone back in… its going to be very difficult if they are choosing willful ignorance.
