mozz

joined 2 years ago
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I won’t say I 100% disagree, but it is a hard thing. It’s like the Coast Guard rescuing someone when they ignored every warning and put themselves in danger - it’s like yeah they definitely shouldn’t do that but also if you have the capacity to rescue them, and if you don’t they will literally die on your watch while you sit at home. I get the idea of saying fuck it and going and bailing them out, even if it is costly to do it.

It’s good for US journalists to go into authoritarian countries and report, just like they do for war zones and other dangerous places. It’s bad for US Marines to hear all this stuff about putting their life on the line for their country when they know they are Marines just sitting in Russian prison and the US isn’t doing a thing to try to get them out (whatever stupidity it was that wound up getting them put there).

I think it’s also kind of national pride - like it makes us look like chumps if there are Americans sitting in prison that shouldn’t be there and we’re just not doing anything about it.

Like I say I won’t say I 100% disagree with you but there are other factors involved than just whether or not the person put themselves at risk on their own.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And, that problem of starting from a super-slanted perspective bleeds into their assessment of “factual”. Outlets are dubbed as low factualness if they write true stories that make Israel look bad, if they then take the step of adding to them editorially “and that is why Israel is bad.”

And, the assessment of reliability is based on picking out randomly anecdotal individual articles / claims and then doing a very substandard job of assessing their truthfulness, so outlets that write a ton of stories or that report breaking stories or that have video content with free-form conversations can get randomly dinged for one dubious thing that someone said on a panel show, or one breaking story from 10 years ago that turned out not to be true in retrospect. Whereas an outlet like sciencetoday where every single article is just sort of half-assedly rewritten from some primary source usually with a few exaggerations or misleading framings in EVERY SINGLE ONE, is perfectly factual, because look, it’s based on a science paper, and those are never wrong.

And, yes, they’re trying to represent the US political spectrum where the NYT is “left center” but the US political spectrum is so badly tilted that half the stuff has fallen off the table and it’s not even possible to use it as a coherent scale at this point.

And they don’t rank some smaller outlets where it actually kind of would be useful to have a ranking, because that would be work

Other than that it’s a fine idea

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah. Venezuela has a TON of oil which makes it of interest to anyone in the world who likes to go around fuckin with people and taking their stuff.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Personally I don’t think it’s wrong to have it up; there is enough bullshit in the “factual” news that I think it’s okay if people see this interesting thing while still being aware of the context that maybe it is a weird mistake or means nothing at all. I was just - maybe for the first time - sort of actually wanting the bot to tell me more about this news source.

As a general rule, to me the model of “let me take the information and figure out for myself and based on comments whether I think it is well founded enough to take seriously” is better than “the mods and MBFC bot will keep me safe, anything untrustworthy should come down, anything that does stay up I can just accept uncritically because it’s had a stamp of being definitely trustworthy”.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 3 points 1 year ago

Yes. I understand that part of it. Let me rephrase my part that I already restated and expanded on a little.

People who work in the White House are absolutely not supposed to call a federal prosecutor and say, hey I don’t like this deal you made, take it back. Lloyd Austin isn’t a chief prosecutor.

The idea that someone who isn’t a US service member is going to be subject to a military tribunal, and in particular to a political appointee (which is what Lloyd Austin is, in addition to being the overling in this case so to speak) calling up and weighing in on their sentencing, has no place in a democracy at all, let alone one where there are people with credible plans to build that exact type of White-House-directed machinery and use it for horrifying ends. This is a time when every single person who works for the US government should be getting weekly briefings on the constitution and separation of powers, not having them bent (just a little) so we can settle some old and by now pretty much irrelevant scores.

I get that letting the 9/11 hijackers be subject to being paroled in 20 years by some theoretical future administration is unacceptable. I get that Lloyd Austin is the boss in this case and that military prosecutions don’t work like civilian law enforcement or have the same stringent safeguards built into it. That is, in fact, EXACTLY the reason I don’t like it.

I just don’t think this slight erosion of democratic norms of how law enforcement works is ever a good idea, let alone right now of all times.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Yeah. I mean I don’t agree with the whole concept of Guantanamo or the military tribunals or the torture or any of it. You have a point about how it’s supposed to work, in this construction… but this is why the courts are supposed to be civilian things.

There’s a reason why Ginny Thomas was talking about barges off Guantanamo for the Democrats, in the days leading up to January 6th. They haven’t forgotten how awesome it would be for it to work that way; we don’t gotta hand the infrastructure over to them all ready made.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

WTF

Courts are separate from the executive branch for a VERY good reason

If people get in the habit of people from the White House calling up and saying hey no, I want you to treat those defendants more harshly than that, then it becomes commonplace. You need to be diligent about preventing the habit BEFORE it starts getting abused.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 89 points 1 year ago (15 children)
  1. I watched the video and honestly just this one dude standing in this unidentified location for unknown reasons with a patch that maybe looks like a Wagner patch if you zoom in and squint, doesn’t really mean anything.
  2. I had no particular opinion about the Venezuela elections and no idea that anyone in geopolitics cared, until some of the Lemmy propagandists who also don’t like Ukraine started going HARD that Maduro was the best and totally won and González was a tool of US imperialism and Elon Musk.
  3. Fact check bot? Where you at? I sorta want to know what’s up with this site I’ve never heard of
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 3 points 1 year ago

An old video site known for having some stuff that was too extreme for YouTube (people dying or etc)

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 67 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

If you've ever known a particular type of abusive person, this is a pretty standard tactic. Information I don't want you to say is "lies," and if you say it, I will attack you. Information I want you to say is "the truth." These categories are extremely consistent and play a pivotal role in the abuse; if you view the terminology in that light, a lot of things (like not even pretending there is some factual backing needed for the claim of "an inaccurate attack") start to make sense.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 1 year ago

I have chosen to exit this conversation

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes yes, let's underfund the prisons, instead of anything to directly reduce the amount of people going into them

What could go wrong, what's the worst that could happen

view more: ‹ prev next ›