Actually I'm perfectly capable of being worried about Nazis and also thinking Feinstein is bad. I don't know why you would frame those as somehow being in opposition.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Senator Dianne Feinstein is taped being snide to children asking about the Green New Deal
- Thread starter Deleted member 43084
- Start date
Actually I'm perfectly capable of being worried about Nazis and also thinking Feinstein is bad. I don't know why you would frame those as somehow being in opposition.
Let's quote you:
The full video does not make this fake news. She said all these things and adding in parts that make her look better does not make the parts that make her look bad a lie. This is not fake news.
ruminate on this string of words for a second and you'll get it
There like 1 guy trying his hardest to make it seem like she wasn't the jerk to those kids that she was. Even in full context she was a jerk.
This just shows that she goes from nice and patronizing to mean and patronizing.
Why don't you just say what it is that I'm missing that makes the original clip fake news?
the part where editing a clip to make someone look as bad as possible to stoke reactions is a dishonest practice and you should be mad at the people doing it even if you don't like the person it's done to
the part where even looking less bad as opposed to not bad at all is important because it has an overall impact on the state of discourse and discord among us, caused by people who are opposed to everything we stand for, because the difference between "less bad" and "as bad as possible" is what causes fights (and they know that)
it's almost like my points have nuance that i don't bother to go into because nobody will engage with them in good faith and it's much more productive to shitpost in the hopes people will figure it out for themselves eventually
Last edited:
Again, the context and how it's presented is what makes it fake news. Look at the replies earlier in this thread at how they commented on the video. One person said she could have just told them that the Republicans control the Senate and it won't pass. Well she did tell them that but without the full video, that context is lost. By losing the context, you change the meaning and tone and by doing so you're no longer convey accurately what happened and you present things to be worse than they are. That is fake news because it doesn't accurately portray the events that took place. Don't like her, that's fine. There's plenty of reasons to not like her but the way that video was edited loses a lot of the context on how the conversation flow and it changes things. Nobody is denying she said those things but the context in which she says them is important.
Is this the bill she's handing out? https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...ecord_id=8ED67027-4EF0-41D9-8433-357F0C6F5E38
It's literally a climate change education guide. Is this a joke? I mean sure, that would be great but is this what she's calling "our green deal" in that clip?
EDIT: Ah, I see she handed them a draft of a unreleased bill.
It's literally a climate change education guide. Is this a joke? I mean sure, that would be great but is this what she's calling "our green deal" in that clip?
EDIT: Ah, I see she handed them a draft of a unreleased bill.
This is BS. The edited clip contains the relevant questions and the answers to those questions. It is not twisting her words or making it look like she's saying something she's not or answering to a different question. That's not what "fakes news" is. She said these things and acted the way she was shown to. The full clip does not change that. You guys have to stop with the argument that Democrats can't criticize other Democrats because it shows division. There's good and bad about all Democrats and we're capable of discussing both.
part of the point of the clip was to make an emotional appeal about being mean to children in order to make everyone angry at her
people wouldn't be as angry if they'd included the clips about offering internships and engaging on substance
if you think stuff like that isn't important you're gonna continue being an easy target for disingenuous bullshit no matter what the topic is
At least she explains her position. It might be condescending and curt, but it's better than the original.
You mean the girl being dragged by the millionaire pragmatist senator?
That's a good one. I love the covert ops that were happening to cut that fucker down every night while she was seething over the ordeal. Not so happy about her love for the prison system for the darkies though.
The way you know you're not falling for propaganda is when you don't criticize members of a party too harshly.
What are these people who will suffer the consequences of my actions doing talking to me
Depends on what you have in mind when you're saying "people wouldn't be as angry." People had a wide range of reactions. Some wanted her to resign over this and that was a stupid reaction even before the full clip came out. My (and a lot of people's) reaction was she didn't communicate with these kids the way she should have and she was out of line. Nothing about the full clip changes that.
Hot take: children are American citizens just like everybody else who lives in America and have not just the opportunity but the right to speak to their elected representatives if they so choose
I think that one was sarcasm.
Is this one sarcasm? I can never tell with you.
I'm not dumb. I'm not "continuing" to be gullible, because I wasn't being gullible in the first place. I know context is important and I'm glad the full thing was released. My argument is this is not fake news and the added context does not make the way she acted and some of the things she said go from wrong to right. It's still wrong.
Its better as far as delivery goes, for sure, in that she's not wggressively supercilious, but not substantively. Her actual reason for not supporting the GND is she just doesn't think climate change is as urgent as the kids do, or not urgent enough to risk pissing off people who've supported her her whole career. But she knows she can't say that directly (though she hant helpmherself from scoffing at the notion that significant changes could occur in 10-12 years), so instead she says it's because it won't pass, as if shes never before supported a bill that didn't pass.
Last edited:
No, I'm serious. Frankly I think the age cutoff on the franchise is pretty arbitrary!
edit: also this is why I don't use punctuation in my shitposts for clarity of communication, are you telling me nobody noticed that
edit 2: wait, I didn't use punctuation in the post you're referring to, maybe this whole policy needs a rework
I'm sorry, who are the trolls, and who are these people that are trying to get me riled up? Is this some thinly veiled attempt to call the folks that disagree with you Russian bots or something? Is that the dead end your argument has taken you to?
I was going to make this comparison but I didn't want to invite the possible backlash. Now that you did it first, I can slither out of my rock like the coward I am.
Yeah deflecting with the size of your electoral victory was very Trumpian. Not that I think she's Trump or a Trump sympathizer but it's clearly an attempt to assert moral superiority by pointing to electoral wins.
Well now I'll know. I didn't mean to imply I thought you said something unreasonable, I thought your taking a sarcastic comment in seriousness was sarcastic in and of itself.
The age of franchisement is pretty arbitrary and probably higher than it needs to be.
You can agree that using children in any kind of political video is manipulative and also agree that Feinstein totally misunderstood the point and reacted poorly in both terms of attitude and substance. I don't know why people have to take sides, always.
I proudly voted for Feinstein last year and this propaganda doesn't change my opinion about her one bit. She's one of the most effective leaders in Congress and the fact that this site and Twitter especially is incapable of having a nuanced conversation about this only makes me more worried about potential Russian interference in 2020.
Fake news can have different components, from Claire Wardle of First Draft News, they indentify 7 types of fake news:
It can be fake news, and what she is saying can still be disagreeable
They're going to be impacted more than anybody by Feinstein's actions. It isn't manipulative, it's perfectly reasonable.
please. these aren't toddlers being fed talking points. i'm not sure if you know any/have ever been an adolescent, but 'listening to your parents' isn't exactly high on the list of shit they're into. even if they're cool with their parents, they're not wind up dolls. if you're in like fifth grade science class in California, chances are you're learning about climate change, and it's not shocking to think you might have skin in the game if you're the ones who have to deal with the consequences in the future. are these kids seeking out climate data in between Fortnite games on their own? probably not, but this is a concept so basic that children can grasp it fairly easily and it's cynical to think their objections are simply a result of manipulative parenting rather than borne of any genuine concern
Have no fear lol. It's a fair criticism, she had no need to say that or make them feel bad they were too young to vote.
if you think that's a response to my argument where I say;
then you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with a strawman, and it's especially hillarious to me that you're doing that when you start out your post with;
Evidence remains to be seen.
here's "a lot of people"
I gave up halfway through the thread, i'm sure there's more and worse
If you think none of this would have been different had the editing been more honest I don't know what to tell you
also betting half of these people will turn around and scream "ageist" at people thinking bernie's too old for president
and the reaction everwhere else is so much worse than it is here because at least ResetEra operates under the pretense of being a decent place
Last edited:
For sure it's going to be a very nuanced conversation when you're already priming the pump to dismiss anything you don't like as Russian interference.
Who is? I'm not dismissing shit. I don't like many of the things she said but I also don't think the way this argument is framed is helpful at all in terms of advancing the conversation. It's the reactions to the video that bother me more than anything. People immediately calling for her to resign? What the fuck is that? It's the left immediately eating itself alive at the first hint of disagreement, and not even a huge disagreement! Just the semantics of a policy they already agree is a priority.
Honestly I'm not sure I can imagine a worse take on my comment than yours.
The actual teenager in the video seemed perfectly capable of speaking her mind and having read the actual bullets points (at least) of the green new deal. The much younger children though were parroting/repeating things. My partner has been a teacher for 10 years and and had the same read. I just stated my opinion and yes I was an adolescent at some point.
The ol' Russian scare in full effect right here. And you dismiss a light discussion about flubs and the intent of leadership as "propaganda" so effectively.
She still explained her position. You might find it flimsy and unsatisfying, but the first video made it seem like she big timed the kids and that was that. She explained that she wont vote because a) it won't pass and b) she has something that might pass. She was curt and condescending, but she gave them an explanation.
Read my subsequent reply. I'm not dismissing anything. Again, another awful take.
Also, a video edited to be misleading and support a narrative is propaganda. Plain and simple.
It's neither. The original clip wasn't meant to give the impression that that was the whole meeting. Those are the parts Sunrise objected to and the video is about that. Seriously, we have to make a difference between things that are so misleading that no one reacting to it should be blamed for having a certain opinion of it, and people just overreacting. We can't blame everything on editing.
Seems like you forgot my original post, which you replied to with "ruminate on this string of words for a second and you'll get it," was a reply to someone who called it fake news. I'm not just responding to you.
And your continued condescension makes it a pain to debate with you.
They're trying to get her to support the bill. It's pretty simple.