Saying "The West has deindustrialised" is incredibly disingenuous. The west's consumerism has driven a race-to-the-bottom for pricing of products in China and India.
Who do you think would need to be given equal time on conservative talk radio?
What would be the other outcome of the change to the rule that I am proposing? Also I am not even against the rule being applied to talk shows, I just want to see it applied non-hypocritically.
So you see general entertainment TV shows as the same as literally conservative radio? If a conservative radio show gave equal time to Jasmine Crockett who would even listen? If Hannity gave equal time to Joe Biden, probably hours of equal time, who would even want that? Or take it seriously? That's like a Mosque giving equal time to a Rabbi. That's not the spirit of the rule. Late night entertainment shows were getting around the rule by claiming they were news shows that are exempt.
> So you see general entertainment TV shows as the same as literally conservative radio? If a conservative radio show gave equal time to Jasmine Crockett who would even listen? If Hannity gave equal time to Joe Biden, probably hours of equal time, who would even want that?
(As far as the FCC is allowed to consider within First Amendment boundaries,) What makes Stephen Colbert's show "general entertainment" under the assumption that Hannity's show is "conservative"? Put another way, what makes Hannity's show not "general entertainment" yet makes Colbert's show "general entertainment"?
(I'm not trying to distract from xracy's comment [1] about selective enforcement.)
No, it's calling out a red herring. It's a valid response in a discussion to say that your comment is not contributing to the topic at hand. Especially when your comment is not really comparable.
I find it fascinating that USAians can not see that their two political parties are barely any different from each other. Trump is as vile as the previous lot, but with zero attempts at hiding it.
Anyway, we have a saying: you can not wake up someone pretending to be asleep.
This is the account's M.O. You can see my response above, but basically as far as I can tell they're deeply conservative, and they try and position themselves as a like "rational centrist" by doing this "both sides" Dance.
The giveaway that you've noticed, is they never actually condemn the existing administration without also comparing them to Obama (and for reasons beyond me, specifically Obama and not say, Biden, Bush 1/2, Clinton).
big hint: how many computer-literate people do you know that would put their whole-ass name as their HN handle, in 2026? none i'd professionally associate with, thats for sure
Having an excuse for why you still haven't filled out the fourth-quadrent "unknown unknowns", doesn't make you "better".
It's entirely possible to dislike BHO for racist reasons, just like it's possible to think both he and the Bushes are literal war criminals for consistent reasons.
I think GWB is a war criminal who had a better understanding of North/South migration than BHO. I still think both of them, and about anyone who supports DJT for any reasons, are pretty vicious.
And, like I said, literal all folks who like DJT and dislike BHO are birthers of various stripes. That's my lived experience. Maybe you're some kind of unicorn, who knows.
My read of this account is that they're deeply conservative, and like to take every example of a terrible thing the current administration is doing as an opportunity to "both sides" it in order to attempt to normalize how bad the current administration is.
They have never condemned the current administration for doing this without also "whatabouting" the Obama administration.
So to answer your question, they will say they're doing the "liberal hypocrites" song and dance, but in reality they're working towards a case that "Actually concentration camps aren't that bad, because 'both sides' do them."
In practice most people actually on the left can recognize that the Obama administration (and the Bush, Clinton and Biden administrations) were deeply flawed, but they are still lightyears better than the Concentration camps of the current administration which are detaining children and separating them from their families based on which side of a line they fall on, on a map (or more likely, the color of their skin).
It's funny because Rick's examples always what-about the Obama administration which makes it likely a dog-whistle.
Rick, if you want to beat the allegations, please condemn the current administration for their actions if you think they're wrong. We already know what you think about Obama, so you can just call out the current administration without mentioning other administrations.
Weird, cause I remember there being a very lengthy and involved debate about COVID. I remember hearing a ton of dissent and disagreement with the government positions... almost like... they weren't being censored. There are hundreds of thousands of discussions about the lab leak hypothesis, and there were hundreds of those discussions at the time. There was also plenty of conflicting advice given, including "injecting bleach" which was advice given by the then president, and ivermectin, which was advice given by 100s of online podcasters.
Even today, you can find like, hundreds of articles of dissenting opinions that were posted at the time of covid. In fact, no one quite yelled "I'm being silenced" as loudly as covid deniers who were demanding to share untested hypotheses.
What I can't find, is any articles that were pulled-from-the-air for going against the then-administration's opinions. But if you have them, please share. Importantly, they need to not be pulled for "false, harmful, or misleading takes."
Certainly at the beginning, the tools weren't 100% in place, at least in the west. Famously, China silenced one of the very first COVID reporters and forced him to recant, before he himself died from the virus.[1]
As the pandemic wore on, we began to see a fight over "fact-checking". Mostly, it played out on Facebook and YouTube, not in traditional media. At the height, I saw a lot of channels self-censoring by avoiding any mention of the words "COVID", "virus", "coronavirus" etc to avoid the AI bot that would capriciously ban or demonetize their videos because it clocked them as COVID misinformation, even when they weren't primarily talking about the virus or proposing any sort of false, harmful, or misleading takes. Many channels do similar today, saying "PDF files" instead of pedophiles or "SA" / "Sea Ess Eh Em" instead of "sexual assault" or "kiddy porn" while talking about the Epstein files. Or everyone's favorite, "unalive" or "self-delete" instead of "dead"/"kill" or "suicide".
I don't have a good source for most of that handy - I just remember living through it. I'm sorry, I know anecdotes aren't data!
Yeah, I mean, the thing is, I also lived through it, and you and I remember it differently. Which is why I asked for clear examples, because it's easy to go back and forth about anecdotes.
At some point, we as a society are going to come to grips with the fact that only like 5% of the population is capable of actually losing and maintaining weight-loss.
The rest is just all new "fad diets" that cycle every 3 years as people go through the cycle of trying them, seeing results, failing to maintain them "forever" (which is what they'd have to do), and then putting the weight back on.
Every single diet has this problem (Even GLP-1s from what I have seen). The human body seems to have some mechanism by which it attempts to maintain it's current weight. But we all continue to be incredibly prone to "this new fad diet actually works!"
It looks to me like you're adding the conflation to "all addictions" because you can clearly distinguish between "sugar" and "cocaine" as both forms of addictions.
Why would you not be willing to include "scrolling" as another form of addiction? Just because it's labeled the same way you yourself are demonstrating that we handle that in different ways.
Social Media is being treated as "sugar" in this instance instead of as "cocaine".
reply