I'm personally happy over any content that features the Obamas. I enjoyed Barack's interview on Letterman's show. The Obamas are amazing folks and it just makes me sad that we used to have a well...
I'm personally happy over any content that features the Obamas. I enjoyed Barack's interview on Letterman's show. The Obamas are amazing folks and it just makes me sad that we used to have a well spoken and mannered family in the White House...and now we have ..ugh..Trump.
I didn't enjoy his interview on Letterman's show very much at all! I was excited to watch it the morning it came out. He looked great, and he talked as beautifully as ever, but on the whole the...
I didn't enjoy his interview on Letterman's show very much at all! I was excited to watch it the morning it came out. He looked great, and he talked as beautifully as ever, but on the whole the hour was very sentimental and not an especially interesting interview, I thought. It was all tales from retirement and back-patting.
I guess I wasn't expecting anything else, and I do think it's good that he started by stepping back from very public work. Even so I was put off the interview series entirely, and I haven't watched any more of Letterman's new stuff. I like celebrities, but I don't like making saints out of them...
I was also unimpressed by the overall show. I think an hour is too long and my expectations were for a hard-hitting interview, or just something that dived deeper. But those expectations are a bit...
I was also unimpressed by the overall show. I think an hour is too long and my expectations were for a hard-hitting interview, or just something that dived deeper. But those expectations are a bit unfair given that it's Letterman doing the interviewing, and he's known for celebrity interviews.
I however didn't come away feeling that he was trying to make a "saint" out of anyone. Obama had a successful, largely scandal-free presidency (especially personal scandals), and I think that's to be celebrated.
I think it was mainly a case of optics. Obama definitely had some scandals (the increased drone strikes come to mind) but most were focused on crazy people attacking him for no reason. Trump, on...
I think it was mainly a case of optics. Obama definitely had some scandals (the increased drone strikes come to mind) but most were focused on crazy people attacking him for no reason. Trump, on the other hand, has sort of pissed the media off royally, and he's also made a lot of stupid comments and decisions. I think we're just hearing more of it now because the media is in a bit of a frenzy trying to take him down any way they can. It concerns me, in a way, because there was plenty to criticize about Obama, just like there is plenty to criticize about Trump. The media just likes to megaphone ones scandals and soundbites more than the other.
Cards on the table, I didn't hate Obama at all, I thought he was fairly well balanced. I do disagree with him on a few stances, but those weren't really brought out to the public sphere too much. Plus, I think a lot of people romanticize him, especially compared to what the US has for a president at the moment.
You aren't wrong, and I do not disagree! But the media are like piranhas and sharks. They don't care where the blood is coming from, they will attack. I just think we should be more objective in...
You aren't wrong, and I do not disagree! But the media are like piranhas and sharks. They don't care where the blood is coming from, they will attack. I just think we should be more objective in what is reported as a whole. Media now seems to rush to print the "facts" first, and often they aren't real facts. Not all the time, however, but I certainly feel this rush to publish is allowing a certain lack of professionalism to rise up.
While there is plenty to discuss about Trump, and plenty to criticize, we need to make sure we are criticizing things worth actually going for, and the facts, not feelings. It's why I personally hate most Op-Eds now. Less facts, more activism, and the last thing reporters should be, is activists.
I would say that Obama definitely managed his optics better. And while there were some scandals in his administration (Bengazi, Fast and Furious), and with decisions he personally made, I can't...
I would say that Obama definitely managed his optics better. And while there were some scandals in his administration (Bengazi, Fast and Furious), and with decisions he personally made, I can't think of any personal scandals, whereas I can tick several from Trump off the top of my head.
I disagree strongly that the media is going after one more than the other. The media is about making $ and would have gone after any president the way they have Trump had those presidents done/said the things our current POTUS has done/said.
It’s a little strange because we currently have a reality tv show host as the president and I’m sure he’ll jump back on the bandwagon as soon as the presidency winds back down. If he ends up on...
It’s a little strange because we currently have a reality tv show host as the president and I’m sure he’ll jump back on the bandwagon as soon as the presidency winds back down.
If he ends up on regular cable, will you cancel your cable bill? Or if he has a show on Hulu? What if he does paid media appearances while campaigning again? That’s not to say you shouldn’t vote with you dollar, you absolutely should, but where’s the cutoff?
After following the trail between his banned Reddit accounts and his Voat account, the OP seems to have a hate boner for Obama going back several years. This is what I'm worried about here on...
After following the trail between his banned Reddit accounts and his Voat account, the OP seems to have a hate boner for Obama going back several years. This is what I'm worried about here on Tildes, where users will try to intentionally stir up shit.
This article is a political article, I think users should expect all viewpoints being discussed in the comments, as long as its interesting discussion.
This article is a political article, I think users should expect all viewpoints being discussed in the comments, as long as its interesting discussion.
So if a president showed up on HBO for a paid interview or a series, you would cancel the service right? Because with all the money sloshing around content right now, it's bound to happen. And...
So if a president showed up on HBO for a paid interview or a series, you would cancel the service right? Because with all the money sloshing around content right now, it's bound to happen. And what about past appearances?
You cancelled your netflix subscription, though? I guess it sounds like a principled stand, but sort of shutting yourself off from a now fairly major content platform... Were you not using it for...
You cancelled your netflix subscription, though? I guess it sounds like a principled stand, but sort of shutting yourself off from a now fairly major content platform... Were you not using it for anything?
So one show that you're not being forced to watch is what you're going to cancel over? Edit: Oh snap I know this guy, this is the guy who kept getting banned and caused huge ruckus in /r/undelete...
So one show that you're not being forced to watch is what you're going to cancel over?
Edit: Oh snap I know this guy, this is the guy who kept getting banned and caused huge ruckus in /r/undelete and started ceddit and other things and was pretty big on Voat after the whole FPH debacle . Now it's starting to make sense.
Yeah, that's not a hill I'm going to die on. I doubt many others will either. If HBO comes out with 'Meet the Trumps' or something I'm not going to quit watching Game of Thrones.
Yeah, that's not a hill I'm going to die on. I doubt many others will either.
If HBO comes out with 'Meet the Trumps' or something I'm not going to quit watching Game of Thrones.
HBO has both Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and Real Time with Bill Maher. If someone is upset with Netflix at Obama having a show, they should be livid at HBO.
HBO has both Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and Real Time with Bill Maher. If someone is upset with Netflix at Obama having a show, they should be livid at HBO.
Ceddit was the service that allowed you to see deleted reddit comments, right? If so, removeddit is a working replacement; just replace the reddit.com url with removeddit.com.
Ceddit was the service that allowed you to see deleted reddit comments, right? If so, removeddit is a working replacement; just replace the reddit.com url with removeddit.com.
To be fair, with the way a lot of communities were being moderated, I can see the value in having a tool like that. Especially with the "high-ground" standings a lot of subs seem to have now, both...
To be fair, with the way a lot of communities were being moderated, I can see the value in having a tool like that. Especially with the "high-ground" standings a lot of subs seem to have now, both Right and Left.
Especially when whole threads were deleted and there was actual good conversations to be read and had there.
I honestly don't think he would have the skill to play that role. Say what you will about Kevin Spacey since the unfortunate truth came out, he was absolutely perfect for that role. I honestly...
I honestly don't think he would have the skill to play that role. Say what you will about Kevin Spacey since the unfortunate truth came out, he was absolutely perfect for that role. I honestly don't believe Obama would fit in any way shape or form.
It would just scream pandering to me, assuming that I absolutely worship the man, and while I respect him, I do not want to see him in that sort of role or show. That being said, I don't think there's many actors that could take that role now, with the work and character Spacey added to it.
From a comment by u/ten. I’m confused. It kind of seemed like he was talking about you.
Edit: Oh snap I know this guy, this is the guy who kept getting banned and caused huge ruckus in /r/undelete and started ceddit and other things and was pretty big on Voat after the whole FPH debacle . Now it's starting to make sense.
From a comment by u/ten. I’m confused. It kind of seemed like he was talking about you.
Reddit started banning a lot of subreddits they found distasteful. Which, as a company, is completely in their rights to do so. That being said, where is the line drawn? Who gets to decide what is...
Reddit started banning a lot of subreddits they found distasteful. Which, as a company, is completely in their rights to do so. That being said, where is the line drawn? Who gets to decide what is distasteful and what isn't? I'm not defending FPH by any means, I just don't like the idea of someone injecting their personal politics into a site that originally stood by freedom of speech and expression. It left a sour taste in my mouth.
I also tend to believe that a lot of those sub forums end up being containment forums, if that makes sense. You take away the containment, and they spill out every where else. At least, when they had their own group, you wouldn't see it in random threads or elsewhere. You could block it from showing up and wash your hands of it so to speak.
I don't believe the natural state of websites is /pol/ at all. Content that is encouraged is what will become the norm. That type of content is encouraged there, hence why it's become the...
I don't believe the natural state of websites is /pol/ at all. Content that is encouraged is what will become the norm. That type of content is encouraged there, hence why it's become the mainstay. That's also an issue with people not recognizing that people are being purposfuly idiotic in a sort of edgelord ironic way, and mistaking being in good company. That's another topic though.
Having massive blanket bans on things like obvious racism, and other topics isn't inherently bad, but what I disagree with is having the terms extremely loose. For example, in Canada and the U.K. context doesn't matter so much as to why you're saying something, and it doesn't matter if it's your intention. You're allowed freedom of expression until someone perceives it was because they were a protected class, even if that wasn't the intention at all. It's ripe for abuse by bad actors, which is horrifically unfortunate.
I do hope that is enough to curb it. I want this community to thrive, and be a healthy one. Part of that is avoiding the pitfalls of other sites that have tried to create something similar. That being said, I wouldn't call it ignoring either. I'd rather know who the hateful people are from the get-go, so I know to avoid them and I can call them out. Banning discussion never bans ideas, it only drives them underground where they grow, and fester, and rot in their small echo-chambers that nobody can even peek into. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for horrid ideas, after all. It's why I don't think removing them challenges them in any way. It only drives their ideals home more. If the discussion is banned, then they must be right after all! Obviously that is not true, but humans are weird and that's how fringe radical groups see themselves, after all.
At least with containment boards, you can see who is saying what, and what they are saying. Unchecked, ideas can become extremely dangerous, as history has shown us time and time again. I'm not saying we should open up all these communities for people to be hateful, obviously, but I don't think letting them go unchecked helps any either, and that's ironically what banning and hiding said speech does. Catch-22 if you will.
I'd argue it isn't. I don't have to be super involved in the current political zeitgeist to know that Nazism and Communism are terrible doctrines that lead to hatred and suffering. I can still...
I'd argue it isn't. I don't have to be super involved in the current political zeitgeist to know that Nazism and Communism are terrible doctrines that lead to hatred and suffering. I can still call out how horrendously stupid each ideologue is without having to be part of either one.
This ties into the idea of changing views. The goal is to never change the view of someone arguing for something, but to change the view of the audience, if you will. If we completely ignore them, and don't let people see how full of hatred and stupidity people who follow those groups are, people might be swayed with the nice layer on top that totally belies what's underneath.
I'd argue that dealing with a massive corp like Facebook, with an already massive group of devout users will be ineffective, yes. But I can tell you that a lot of people that may have signed up for Facebook, or may think about it in the future will have second thoughts. This ties into the "swaying the audience" point.
If "all publicity is good publicity" we'd be seeing a lot more hardcore Nazis and hardcore Communists if that were the case. Obviously, while they are gaining traction (imo, because people are so entrenched and unwilling to argue the stupidity of each) they aren't doing as well as one might assume, based on that adage.
If we ignored, and just banned all discussion of the Holocaust, or the Stalinist regime, or the Maoist regime, those ideals would become far larger, because people wouldn't be as aware of the atrocities as they currently are. Again, it ties into swaying the public, the audience, the listeners.
You will never be able to change someones mind that's super entrenched into an idea, but you can change someones mind who is thinking about becoming entrenched.
PS. It's super refreshing to actually have this conversation, thanks for reading and debating with me.
I'm personally happy over any content that features the Obamas. I enjoyed Barack's interview on Letterman's show. The Obamas are amazing folks and it just makes me sad that we used to have a well spoken and mannered family in the White House...and now we have ..ugh..Trump.
I didn't enjoy his interview on Letterman's show very much at all! I was excited to watch it the morning it came out. He looked great, and he talked as beautifully as ever, but on the whole the hour was very sentimental and not an especially interesting interview, I thought. It was all tales from retirement and back-patting.
I guess I wasn't expecting anything else, and I do think it's good that he started by stepping back from very public work. Even so I was put off the interview series entirely, and I haven't watched any more of Letterman's new stuff. I like celebrities, but I don't like making saints out of them...
I was also unimpressed by the overall show. I think an hour is too long and my expectations were for a hard-hitting interview, or just something that dived deeper. But those expectations are a bit unfair given that it's Letterman doing the interviewing, and he's known for celebrity interviews.
I however didn't come away feeling that he was trying to make a "saint" out of anyone. Obama had a successful, largely scandal-free presidency (especially personal scandals), and I think that's to be celebrated.
I think it was mainly a case of optics. Obama definitely had some scandals (the increased drone strikes come to mind) but most were focused on crazy people attacking him for no reason. Trump, on the other hand, has sort of pissed the media off royally, and he's also made a lot of stupid comments and decisions. I think we're just hearing more of it now because the media is in a bit of a frenzy trying to take him down any way they can. It concerns me, in a way, because there was plenty to criticize about Obama, just like there is plenty to criticize about Trump. The media just likes to megaphone ones scandals and soundbites more than the other.
Cards on the table, I didn't hate Obama at all, I thought he was fairly well balanced. I do disagree with him on a few stances, but those weren't really brought out to the public sphere too much. Plus, I think a lot of people romanticize him, especially compared to what the US has for a president at the moment.
Trump's scandals are full of indictments, guilty pleas, and jail time for some of the closest people in his orbit.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/atd-indictments-0514.png?w=1150
There's a pretty massive investigation that's racking up a body count. There's no real comparison to any administration since Nixon.
The media is in a 'frenzy' because there's a metric ton of blood in the water.
You aren't wrong, and I do not disagree! But the media are like piranhas and sharks. They don't care where the blood is coming from, they will attack. I just think we should be more objective in what is reported as a whole. Media now seems to rush to print the "facts" first, and often they aren't real facts. Not all the time, however, but I certainly feel this rush to publish is allowing a certain lack of professionalism to rise up.
While there is plenty to discuss about Trump, and plenty to criticize, we need to make sure we are criticizing things worth actually going for, and the facts, not feelings. It's why I personally hate most Op-Eds now. Less facts, more activism, and the last thing reporters should be, is activists.
I would say that Obama definitely managed his optics better. And while there were some scandals in his administration (Bengazi, Fast and Furious), and with decisions he personally made, I can't think of any personal scandals, whereas I can tick several from Trump off the top of my head.
I disagree strongly that the media is going after one more than the other. The media is about making $ and would have gone after any president the way they have Trump had those presidents done/said the things our current POTUS has done/said.
It’s a little strange because we currently have a reality tv show host as the president and I’m sure he’ll jump back on the bandwagon as soon as the presidency winds back down.
If he ends up on regular cable, will you cancel your cable bill? Or if he has a show on Hulu? What if he does paid media appearances while campaigning again? That’s not to say you shouldn’t vote with you dollar, you absolutely should, but where’s the cutoff?
After following the trail between his banned Reddit accounts and his Voat account, the OP seems to have a hate boner for Obama going back several years. This is what I'm worried about here on Tildes, where users will try to intentionally stir up shit.
This article is a political article, I think users should expect all viewpoints being discussed in the comments, as long as its interesting discussion.
Ok, now I’m curious. Do you watch any content at all? If so, where?
So if a president showed up on HBO for a paid interview or a series, you would cancel the service right? Because with all the money sloshing around content right now, it's bound to happen. And what about past appearances?
What makes this different from when David Letterman interviewed Obama on his Netflix show? Surely Obama was paid for that interview by Netflix.
You cancelled your netflix subscription, though? I guess it sounds like a principled stand, but sort of shutting yourself off from a now fairly major content platform... Were you not using it for anything?
It's a shame you cancelled as my favorite show of all time, BoJack Horseman, is gonna hit it's fifth season later this year.
Oh Season 2 of F is For Family is amazing, much longer than the first season.
But yeah, Bojack Horseman.. it's been a rollercoaster.
So one show that you're not being forced to watch is what you're going to cancel over?
Edit: Oh snap I know this guy, this is the guy who kept getting banned and caused huge ruckus in /r/undelete and started ceddit and other things and was pretty big on Voat after the whole FPH debacle . Now it's starting to make sense.
Yeah, that's not a hill I'm going to die on. I doubt many others will either.
If HBO comes out with 'Meet the Trumps' or something I'm not going to quit watching Game of Thrones.
HBO has both Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and Real Time with Bill Maher. If someone is upset with Netflix at Obama having a show, they should be livid at HBO.
Honestly? I'm not sure.
I noticed I was having problems with it sometime last year. That's actually a really good question.
Ceddit was the service that allowed you to see deleted reddit comments, right? If so, removeddit is a working replacement; just replace the reddit.com url with removeddit.com.
Ceddit is for mod/admin removed comments. User deleted posts remain deleted.
To be fair, with the way a lot of communities were being moderated, I can see the value in having a tool like that. Especially with the "high-ground" standings a lot of subs seem to have now, both Right and Left.
Especially when whole threads were deleted and there was actual good conversations to be read and had there.
What sort of content are they supposed to be creating?
Imagine if house of cards returned with Obama as the leading actor
I honestly don't think he would have the skill to play that role. Say what you will about Kevin Spacey since the unfortunate truth came out, he was absolutely perfect for that role. I honestly don't believe Obama would fit in any way shape or form.
It would just scream pandering to me, assuming that I absolutely worship the man, and while I respect him, I do not want to see him in that sort of role or show. That being said, I don't think there's many actors that could take that role now, with the work and character Spacey added to it.
What’s with all the deleted comments? As I can’t use ceddit/removeddit for this, can someone please fill me in.
Are you referring to yourself in the third person?
From a comment by u/ten. I’m confused. It kind of seemed like he was talking about you.
/u/Ten refers to an FPH debacle. What debacle? What was his problem with reddit anyway?
Reddit started banning a lot of subreddits they found distasteful. Which, as a company, is completely in their rights to do so. That being said, where is the line drawn? Who gets to decide what is distasteful and what isn't? I'm not defending FPH by any means, I just don't like the idea of someone injecting their personal politics into a site that originally stood by freedom of speech and expression. It left a sour taste in my mouth.
I also tend to believe that a lot of those sub forums end up being containment forums, if that makes sense. You take away the containment, and they spill out every where else. At least, when they had their own group, you wouldn't see it in random threads or elsewhere. You could block it from showing up and wash your hands of it so to speak.
I don't believe the natural state of websites is /pol/ at all. Content that is encouraged is what will become the norm. That type of content is encouraged there, hence why it's become the mainstay. That's also an issue with people not recognizing that people are being purposfuly idiotic in a sort of edgelord ironic way, and mistaking being in good company. That's another topic though.
Having massive blanket bans on things like obvious racism, and other topics isn't inherently bad, but what I disagree with is having the terms extremely loose. For example, in Canada and the U.K. context doesn't matter so much as to why you're saying something, and it doesn't matter if it's your intention. You're allowed freedom of expression until someone perceives it was because they were a protected class, even if that wasn't the intention at all. It's ripe for abuse by bad actors, which is horrifically unfortunate.
I do hope that is enough to curb it. I want this community to thrive, and be a healthy one. Part of that is avoiding the pitfalls of other sites that have tried to create something similar. That being said, I wouldn't call it ignoring either. I'd rather know who the hateful people are from the get-go, so I know to avoid them and I can call them out. Banning discussion never bans ideas, it only drives them underground where they grow, and fester, and rot in their small echo-chambers that nobody can even peek into. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for horrid ideas, after all. It's why I don't think removing them challenges them in any way. It only drives their ideals home more. If the discussion is banned, then they must be right after all! Obviously that is not true, but humans are weird and that's how fringe radical groups see themselves, after all.
At least with containment boards, you can see who is saying what, and what they are saying. Unchecked, ideas can become extremely dangerous, as history has shown us time and time again. I'm not saying we should open up all these communities for people to be hateful, obviously, but I don't think letting them go unchecked helps any either, and that's ironically what banning and hiding said speech does. Catch-22 if you will.
I'd argue it isn't. I don't have to be super involved in the current political zeitgeist to know that Nazism and Communism are terrible doctrines that lead to hatred and suffering. I can still call out how horrendously stupid each ideologue is without having to be part of either one.
This ties into the idea of changing views. The goal is to never change the view of someone arguing for something, but to change the view of the audience, if you will. If we completely ignore them, and don't let people see how full of hatred and stupidity people who follow those groups are, people might be swayed with the nice layer on top that totally belies what's underneath.
I'd argue that dealing with a massive corp like Facebook, with an already massive group of devout users will be ineffective, yes. But I can tell you that a lot of people that may have signed up for Facebook, or may think about it in the future will have second thoughts. This ties into the "swaying the audience" point.
If "all publicity is good publicity" we'd be seeing a lot more hardcore Nazis and hardcore Communists if that were the case. Obviously, while they are gaining traction (imo, because people are so entrenched and unwilling to argue the stupidity of each) they aren't doing as well as one might assume, based on that adage.
If we ignored, and just banned all discussion of the Holocaust, or the Stalinist regime, or the Maoist regime, those ideals would become far larger, because people wouldn't be as aware of the atrocities as they currently are. Again, it ties into swaying the public, the audience, the listeners.
You will never be able to change someones mind that's super entrenched into an idea, but you can change someones mind who is thinking about becoming entrenched.
PS. It's super refreshing to actually have this conversation, thanks for reading and debating with me.
Ew, media deals with politicians make my skin crawl.