Why even bother commenting that? Literally no one is saying he should just be let free (though I'd argue a mistrial at this point).
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
Because, in my opinion, the punishment fits the crime. Yes, the process involved in getting there is ludicrous, I agree.
But the headlines make it sound like his only crime was being gay.
GasBandit
Staff member
The tweet:
"Killing a man because he is gay."
The line is just as outrage-manipulating as anything that ever came off Fox news.
I didn't get that reading the tweet, because it includes a decent quote, but yeah, I can see how you could read headline that way.
Wait, so they sentenced him to death because they thought he'd enjoy being in a men's prison too much? Doesn't that set the precedent that jurors of the future ought to be expected to avoid the death penalty for individuals who might have masochistic tendencies, or be suicidal?
TLDR; due to poor organization, there's a likelihood many separated children will never be reunited with their parents.
Yeah but they're just gonna keep suppressing votes anyways because republicans are cancer.
And don't forget about Australia too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations
She's in a Trumpistan part of Texas, but godspeed to this woman,
My core objection is that it seems to be lip service, in place of action to actually help.
Oh I completely agree. It's better than complete denial, shoulder shrugging, and "We can't be held accountable for our ancestors!" shit that many, very loud people seem content with.
I mean, there is definitely an issue of corruption and financial mismanagement on many reserves, but it's at the administrative level, not the individual. I probably favour more fiscally conservative measures than you do, but they're certainly not leeches.
figmentPez
Staff member
Sarah Sanders says she was asked to leave restaurant because she works for Trump
And Trumpers are already shouting about "discrimination". Damn hypocrites. They want to discriminate against people based on race and sexuality, but get pissed when people are discriminated against based on their politics.
EDIT: Hahaha!
And Trumpers are already shouting about "discrimination". Damn hypocrites. They want to discriminate against people based on race and sexuality, but get pissed when people are discriminated against based on their politics.
EDIT: Hahaha!
On the flip side, one could say those that fight the most against discrimination are just as willing to dish it out when tables are turned. Unless of course we're going to say that discrimination based on politics is acceptable, in which case, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
figmentPez
Staff member
Even then, it wasn't just because she was Republican, it was because she's press secretary for a specific president. There are states (not Virginia where she was dining) that define political party as a protected class, but even those wouldn't protect discriminating against a specific person because they're being an asshole on a regular basis in public.
Yeah, why are you tolerance peddlers not tolerating my intolerance? THAT'S INTOLERANT!!!!
That would've been illegal.
Making her sit at a table out in the hot sun with a half-dozen immigrant kids, though, that would've been Justice.
--Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
A study shows what should not come as a surprise: People suck at differentiating between factual statements and opinion statements. (Note that "factual statements" can include statements that are false. "2 + 2 = 5" would be considered a factual statement by the terms used in the study.) Overall, people do barely better than random chance at distinguishing between the two, and less than a quarter were able to correctly categorize all 10 statements they were given. (There were 2 additional "borderline" statements that the researchers considered to be too difficult to categorize, because they contained a mix of speculation and facts that cannot be easily verified.)
People tend to think things they agree with are factual, and things they disagree with are opinions (This applies to both Democrats and Republicans). And, in case you were wondering, the study made it pretty clear that facts could be "accurate" or "inaccurate":
More interesting, when a statement was attributed to a news source, it generally had no effect on people's ability to distinguish it as a factual statement. About 74% of people correctly identified a factual statement when it was unattributed, or was attributed to either the New York Times or USA Today. However, the big exception to this is when attributed to Fox News Republicans called it factual 77% of the time, while Democrats called it factual only 66% of the time. Just saying something was from Fox News changed people's ability to objectively judge the statement.
The "duh!" parts of the report:
- People who describe themselves as digitally savvy were better at correctly classifying the statements.
- People who reported having a high trust in news outlets were better at correctly classifying the statements.
But while people who reported greater interest in news were better at identifying factual statements, they were not any better in regards to opinions.
The
:
- 41% of those surveyed thought "Spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid make up the largest portion of the U.S. Federal Budget" is a statement of opinion. I'm sure that, even after explanation, some people were confused bythis being a blatant falsehood something, but it's still not a statement of opinion; it can be proven true or false.
- Of the 57% who correctly identified it as a factual statementa whopping 62% thought it was accurate.
- 29% of those surveyed thought "Democracy is the greatest form of government" is a factual statement.
People tend to think things they agree with are factual, and things they disagree with are opinions (This applies to both Democrats and Republicans). And, in case you were wondering, the study made it pretty clear that facts could be "accurate" or "inaccurate":
When opinion statements were incorrectly identified as factual, 83 - 91% of the respondents said that they thought it was an accurate fact. Factual statements that were incorrectly labeled as opinion had a lot more variation, with 48 - 82% disagreeing with the statement.
More interesting, when a statement was attributed to a news source, it generally had no effect on people's ability to distinguish it as a factual statement. About 74% of people correctly identified a factual statement when it was unattributed, or was attributed to either the New York Times or USA Today. However, the big exception to this is when attributed to Fox News Republicans called it factual 77% of the time, while Democrats called it factual only 66% of the time. Just saying something was from Fox News changed people's ability to objectively judge the statement.
The "duh!" parts of the report:
- People who describe themselves as digitally savvy were better at correctly classifying the statements.
- People who reported having a high trust in news outlets were better at correctly classifying the statements.
But while people who reported greater interest in news were better at identifying factual statements, they were not any better in regards to opinions.
The
:- 41% of those surveyed thought "Spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid make up the largest portion of the U.S. Federal Budget" is a statement of opinion. I'm sure that, even after explanation, some people were confused by
- Of the 57% who correctly identified it as a factual statement
- 29% of those surveyed thought "Democracy is the greatest form of government" is a factual statement.
Last edited:
Not all Republicans? Yes, ALL Republicans.
Wait, but entitlement spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid DOES make up the majority of the federal budget. Per Politifact it makes up around 53% of the budget.The
- 41% of those surveyed thought "Spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid make up the largest portion of the U.S. Federal Budget" is a statement of opinion. I'm sure that, even after explanation, some people were confused by this being a blatant falsehood, but it's still not a statement of opinion; it can be proven true or false.
- Of the 57% who correctly identified it as a "factual statement" a whopping 62% thought it was accurate.
Last edited:
figmentPez
Staff member
Huh, I remember seen pie charts with military spending exceeding all others. Guess I screwed up in my fact checking on this one.
AH, I see where I've screwed up. Military spending gets the biggest portion of discretionary spending most years. Which is different from mandatory or total spending. And probably why I've heard it brought up as the bigger number so often.