politics
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
view the rest of the comments
If you read that whole page you linked to you would see they haven't produced fake news so much as they consistently misrepresent facts to suit a conservative narrative.
So arguing it could be AI means you failed to actually read their fucking reasoning for the low credibility and bias claims. None of it had to do with facts not being true, but rather presenting those true facts within a conservative narrative. Whitmer is mentioned several times, and in each case it was rooted in real facts but presented with a conservative slant.
Screaming "fake news" is unhelpful.
Vetting sources absolutely is helpful.
It's clear they didn't actually vet the source or read what mediabiasfactcheck said then, because at no point did they make "fake news." So the likelihood of this being AI is near zero.
Taking the top line that some group made and not actually looking at the details is not vetting a source, it's taking a quick glance as gospel. It matters that they don't make fake news because it makes this video likely real.
But I mean you do you if you just take a quick glance as gospel and don't actually, you know, fucking read anything yourself.
You keep putting "fake news" in quotations like it's something they said.
Oh so claiming it's quite possibly AI isn't directly making a claim that it's most likely fake? Interesting.
It's not even something I said lol. They're clueless.
You're not inspiring confidence in people here when purporting an obvious strawman fallacy. Please quote where I said they're "fake news" as you put in quotes no less.
Second, one demonstrates an unfortunately low level of comprehension skills, given I stated, "Don’t trust this to be anything more than AI" -- which suggests by comparative logic that there are possibly other things I trust equal to or lower than AI.
"Don't trust this to be any more than AI" directly implies that it must be fake.
No, it does not lol. AI can distort half-truths / half-lies, take things out of context, but yes can also fabricate entirely.
Remember: LOW CREDIBILITY
LMAO it's a fucking video dude. You're saying you're NOT saying it's AI while claiming it might be AI? What part of the video is real and what part is AI and what part is taken out of context. You're just pulling shit out of your ass.
Videos can't be AI?
"LOW CREDIBILITY"
You just outright refuse to read the fact that they have never been found to make up facts. That would include making fake AI videos dude.
Anyway thanks for admitting you refuse to take a look at the facts and instead are screaming ITS FAKE with no evidence to back it up other than feels.
Funny, it's like you think given their LOW CREDIBILITY that they wouldn't have a first (even assuming they haven't in the past).
You keep repeating the low credibility but you refuse to read with or engage with WHY they got that rating, and it wasn't for not presenting facts or making shit up, its purely ideological and how they PRESENT facts.
So how are they PRESENTING this that is making it biased? When they make a full report on it I expect it to be DEEPLY biased, but the video on it's own is very likely real. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
But I think you just read LOW CREDIBILITY and your brain shuts off and you cant suss out that there's a difference between actually presenting fake journalism and fake stories versus deeply misrepresenting what those facts mean. They got low credibility for BIAS, not FACTS.
Sorry I bothered to read their fucking reasoning and you won't
What fact? There is no fact. The footage remains unverified. Not even Snopes could make it out. Seems EXACTLY like they described them -- taking a half-truth and distorting it to a full-lie.
That you slam your keyboard over and over because someone wants a better source than right-wing slop is wild, so I can only conclude you're a nazi simp.
Man you and this conservative media outlet have a lot in common with MISREPRESENTING FACTS
No facts.
LOW CREDIBILITY
SNOPES: "However, the audio was too distorted to definitively confirm the specifics of the conversation. "
I guess the "video was confirmed to be authentic" part doesnt matter at all...
Cool. Whatever. Find me a better source.
lmao, jesus. Sorry I asked you to read and ripped a hole in your pulled out of your ass AI theory.
They don't have a history of making shit up. They have a history of being extremely biased. This video has no commentary.
Soooooo no other source beside some shithole far-right subpar slop?
Last chance!
Sure, no other source, except for the video and hot mic recording of her saying exactly what's being reported here.
Here's another news source, which includes the actual recording.
But of course, we can all see that truth is not what you're actually after here.
Oh I'm sure there's plenty of sources here for this obviously surreptitiously recorded video. /s
Dismissing the source when the facts are real is in, a word, stupid.
Why don't you prove to me they have a history of making shit up? Oh yeah, because your own source proves that wrong, ding-a-ling.
Dismissing the source is a genetic fallacy. They comment on someone else creating a fallacy and cant see their own. Their cognitive dissonance is in over drive
LOW CREDIBILITY
Should be easy to find a better source reporting on this, if vetted! Hell, even Fox News!
I mean, things take time. The Drudge Report wasn't wrong about Monica, he was just an asshole. Assholes can be right and still refer to facts but present those facts in a different ideological context.
but I clearly was never going to get through to you.
Cool buddy, just wake me up when that happens ;)
Not even Snopes could verify it.
Even Snopes says its authentic you fucking moron, but I guess it's "nothing more than AI" whatever.
False. Unrated because they could not hear what was said... Almost exactly like I said about half-truths, half-lies, distortion of context, etc. Just another straw-man fallacy, for I never denied the video existing (that doesn't mean jack shit).
Look at you, getting so upset.
I'm getting upset lmao dude, sorry that you're desperately trying to ragebait me. Sorry that calling a fucking moron a fucking moron makes people think you're mad lmao
You have done nothing but shift goalposts.
Take a break from the internet, spend time with your family. You have cancer as you said yourself, dude. Get offline and stop wasting time being a blow-hard for nazi propaganda lmao
You're the one who has decided I am doing that instead of actually addressing any of my points. Your claim that it was AI and the video is authentic. That they have low credibility but that low credibility is related to their bias, not to outright making shit up. That's shifting goalposts, dear.
I was never taken in, I just don't dismiss a source when there is no evidence that the facts they produce are you know, facts. This video is authentic. It's up to individuals to decide what they hear, it's also why audio forensics would help.
I live with and caretake for family members, trust me, I spent a lot of time with them in the pool today already.