Ace T'Ken

17276667. Thanks for the memories.

Street protests generally carried out in front of royal palaces or civic structures where those in power worked had an impact, yes. NOT protests at a random road in town.

I am factually correct here.

I have never stated that protests aren’t effective when carried out well. I’ve stated that these road blocking protests aren’t effective because they do not target.

But come now, certainly you must recognize that that’s not even close to causation. Just because it’s done often doesn’t even come close to meaning that there’s any proof that it functions as you state.

If I carry a “rock of tiger repellent” and tell you that I’ve never been attacked by a tiger, therefore it must work, it’s the same logic.

Countries that do not (or rarely) have highway blockades have more civil rights or had them earlier than the US did. They also have stronger protections and aren’t helping bomb Gaza. Using the logic stated by you, that may actually mean that highway protests make things worse.

Again, just because it agrees with you politically, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. There’s no study or data indicating that it functions, and scads of loose polls and information saying it doesn’t (which are only slightly better than no evidence at all). I’d encourage an actual study, but judging by every thread I’ve ever seen on the issue, the only people claiming to be even minutely swayed by these demonstrations were people already on the side of the protesters.

In this one instance they might do that. In the area where I live where it was done, there was no space for the emergency vehicles to go in the other direction. Just because there are ways they could do it in this one case doesn’t make it universal.

Also, are you able to provide the polling you referenced showing that highway blockades change minds? I was unable to find anything other than web and call-in polls, both of which overwhelmingly showed the exact opposite (but those are hardly scientific so I wouldn’t trust them).

Also, I’m not the one downvoting you. I do not do that.

… which just means you have to get creative.

Freeway blocking is not creative, doesn’t get people present on your side (quite literally the opposite), presents safety risks, may delay emergency vehicles, wastes natural resources, and doesn’t change minds of readers. Same with the stupid “throw soup / oil at a piece of art” shit I saw repeatedly. A throw-away headline seems to be the goal, but it accomplishes next to nothing.

Target. Those. In. Power. Make life fucking hard for them.

This thread (not you explicitly) reeks of this attitude I see frequently on Lemmy of “It’s a deeply stupid and astoundingly flawed thing to do, but I’ll defend it to the death because it agrees with my politics!”

I had to go look them up, but it seems that some have protested manufacturing plants, though not in a terribly effective way. The protests seem to be short-term, and none of the other things I mentioned have been done anywhere I was able to find.

I’ve seen plenty of stories involving protests uselessly blocking main thoroughfares however.

But there definitely are though. Why wouldn’t you, say, protest the factories where these things are made? Not just hold up some signs outside, but blockade those businesses in.

Maybe find out who their major shareholders are and publicly shame them. Dig up dirt on them. Do anything you can to stop them.

Maybe find the neighbourhoods that those shareholders live in and blockade those.

Protest at the schools that their children go to letting them know their parents are murdering people overseas.

It took me like 3 minutes to think of those and those are far more effective than what is going on in this news story. Are protesters in America really that short-sighted but they can’t think of anything better than annoying other normal people and making enemies?

This is like protesting the food in a prison cafeteria by beating the shit out of your cellmate, and then calling him complicit because he ate food yesterday.

They’re not targeting the right people, they’re simply turning normal people off of their message.

Boy do I have a treat for you.

Hey, wake up! The new Clippy skin just dropped!

Nick is a goddamn treasure and I will fight anyone who thinks different.

despite that being a dictionary definition of bigotry

Well, here is the dictionary definition of bigotry.

It fits both Alito and anyone who dislikes his views. I wasn’t aware the definition was so broad but it basically applies to everyone who dislikes anyone else’s view on anything.

Am Canadian. Can confirm.

Sure. They lied. I’m not going to watch it to verify, but I’ll take your word on it. But again, that’s not what they’re there to stop. It’s akin to getting mad at Sesame Street for not showing you how to make a good stew.

And also, they wanted usage rights. Now that they had footage that they owned, CNN the same night and next day aired basically pick-aparts using their own footage demolishing a lot of those points. Is your issue that it wasn’t done live even though it never has been?

These debates rarely have given equal time to all candidates involved. Historically, they give the most time to the most popular candidates no matter where the debates are aired.

Here is some current polling.

So this is to show that the results are not set in stone. I understand that polling this early on isn’t meaningful, but I think what it does illustrate is that Biden isn’t obviously dominating in a Biden-Haley match up. If anything it looks Haley beats Biden by a larger margin than Trump does.

Rather than trying to support Haley because she is perceived to be less of a (insert whatever pejorative you’d use here) or because Biden will do better against her in a general election (and as far as we know, he won’t), we should focus on pressuring Biden to enact policy changes that his voting base are demanding.

And again, if using a US barometer for politics, none of this really shows that CNN is centrist or right-wing now out of nowhere (while still arguing against and frequently mocking right-wing policies).

Absolutely, which is why I’m asking for clarification. Keep in mind that like 90% of our TV, movie, and internet content is American, so it’s not like we’re clueless about the goings-on there, we just don’t have some of the finer points nailed down.

So assuming the Equal-Time rule doesn’t apply, splitting the vote still does. Also, as a show of political fairness it still counts, not to mention that you can’t properly fight what you don’t understand.

You didn’t answer my question if the Democratic equivalent had a fact-checker. I’d look myself, but I’m not sure what it’s called.

And before I forget, thanks for talking. It’s not often you can debate on any social media without the other person being rude and condescending. I appreciate it.

I moderate (and do most of the writing for) [email protected] if you’d ever like to stop by!

I misused a term, my apologies (I’m Canadian and my terminology was a little off). I was using Democratic Primaries in place of whatever the Democrats have as a candidate debate session like this was for the Republicans. If you let me know what it’s called, I’ll correct my post! Regardless of the name, did they have a fact checker there at that event?

Again, I don’t believe the candidates have a chance against Trump UNLESS he is rejected as a candidate by enough states or other lawsuits have results that prevent him from running. If those do occur, then it will have been useful because it’s not like the Republicans are just going to not field a candidate. Also as I mentioned, if a candidate has a strong base that really believes in them, sometimes they won’t vote for the person that beat “their” candidate, thus splitting the vote. This is a good thing from the opposite side.

It’s also a good thing because they’re abiding by the Equal-Time Rule (essentially an updated version of the Fairness Doctrine).

Was there a fact-checker at the last Democratic primaries? If not, then why would there be a double standard?

And I think you may be mistaken about what these debates exist to do. They aren’t there to “check facts” and make sure everyone only has correct opinions (which I would argue that even some on Democratic side do not have). They are there to show what the candidates believe, how they behave, and how they respond to pressure. They show how they act in front of a crowd, and how they respond later to missteps during the debates. In effect, they show a good public face for judging a politician.

The simple fact is that you aren’t going to have every fact going into, say, a negotiation with China - you have to think on your feet.

I would even argue that it wasn’t pointless. Trump is certainly the biggest candidate for the Right, but there are plenty of things that could get in his way at the moment.

And “hearing them out” is a way to show that you’re not just unfairly maligning them and keeping them down by keeping them out of media that you don’t want to see. It’s also helping to split the Right, which is INCREDIBLY valuable.

Just because you can’t think of a reason, doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

But airing a candidate debate is not a right-wing thing. Since when (in the last 20 years at least) has anything right-wing allowed debates from both major sides in the American political spectrum? Making an attempt to be fair is a centrist or Left-wing thing. If anything, that would further prove my point.

I can’t debate this as I don’t watch any news channels, but are you able to counter what Media Bias Fact Check (which, as far as I have seen is extremely accurate and vets their information) states, or is this a case that people on the extreme sides of any political movement see anything even slightly closer to the centre as “the other side?”

Right wing? That’s the first time I’ve ever heard anyone call CNN right wing.

Even media bias fact check says otherwise. Am I missing something?

Yes, I get that. I was finally able to find several news sites reporting the amount of money funnelled to Israel in order to ensure the US has a small foothold in that area of the world. It seems a tad excessive, but politically understandable I suppose. Allies in that region are valuable, but goddamn that’s a lot of money.

I also saw that this most recent payment structure was guaranteed for a certain time frame by Obama. Breaking the agreement off would be breaking treaties and guarantees. Not a great thing to do for America, but what’s going on over there is not exactly a good look. I think that I now agree that Biden should pull aid from Israel.

Again, thank you for the discussion and explanations. It’s nice when people respond instead of just mindlessly downvoting someone who is asking for details.