675
Elon Musk Is Spreading Election Misinformation, but X’s Fact Checkers Are Long Gone
(www.nytimes.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
675 points (96.7% liked)
News
23296 readers
3363 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But they are wrong. If someone is in a solidly blue state like California, a vote for Cornell West literally means nothing because of the Electoral College. Arguably, if you're in a safe state like that, why not vote with your conscience? (I'm not here to make comment on West's politics, I don't follow him, I'm making a point about the Electoral College and Presidential elections)
I can understand having the attitude of "Well, there's not really a lot of safe options" when they're a swing state or hell even a red state (not a bad thing to try to make a dent against them on their own home turf), but it seems to be really talking down to a lot of Democrat voters who live in Democratic strongholds whose vote basically is meaningless because of the Electoral College but despite this they're being bullied into voting the Democrat choice for President.
Now, even in a blue state, voting matters locally and not just giving your vote out to just any Tom, Dick or Harry matters. But a Presidential election where we continue to use the Electoral College to decide the President and not the popular vote? That's just dismissive of the reality of how anti-Democratic the Electoral College actually is.
If it takes three paragraphs and your specific voting location to explain why your vote "technically" won't go to 45, maybe those people are right. The problem is that there are a LOT of people that don't understand the nuance and we have to plan for the lowest common denominator, otherwise people in actual swing states will see posts like your first one (lacking any explanation) and run with it. For them, a third party vote actually is helping 45.
Additionally, there's a decent argument to be made about total votes even though they don't "technically" decide the president. That number still matters and a lot of weight is thrown around with it. For all we know, this whole thing could hit the courts and having every advantage may be necessary to save our future.
Oh the irony of you telling us to read when you literally can't figure out that yes, I was talking to YOU. When I said "your first post" it meant yours not the OP. Look in a mirror.
"first post' implies more than one. at the time you originally responded to me, my response to you was my only response in the thread discussing anything related to third parties at the time.
So tell me please, why would you refer to "my first post" when the only one that referenced anything related to this subject was the one you were responding to?
Further, you say it "lacks explanation." The only post I made about the subject included an explanation, dipshit, the explanation that you said "took three paragraphs." That's the only post I made on the subject of whether or not a third party counts as a vote for Trump.
Are you really this fucking stupid?
Show me where I made that post, please. Because literally I came into the thread to add my explanation which you shat all over and then said I had left out of a previous post I obviously didn't make.
Because this:
Was not me, genius.
Jesus christ you fucking morons. I reiterate, learn to fucking read.
Can you see that my username is not the top-level comment here or are you stupid or just a gaslighter?