• @pjwestin
    link
    21 month ago

    OK, so what you’re saying is that you know there’s no evidence to back up your claims, but you’re assuming they’re true based on your opinion of these outlets editorial decisions, and you’d like your opinion to be treated as a fact. Did I get that right?

    • Optional
      link
      -21 month ago

      No, you did not get that right.

      What I’m saying is, I’ll accept the fact-check that there is no record of them personally donating to the trump campaign directly, and that’s sufficient to remove the image.

      HOWEVER, everyone needs to be very clear there are a myriad of ways the wealthy can “donate” to campaigns because of Citizens United, and that the media outlets in question have a long and verifiable history of not reporting damaging news or editorial slants against trump which in many ways is more valuable than $2500 in cash.

      SUCH THAT the idea that these CEO’s are not “donating” to trump because they didn’t give the legally required name for a direct campaign donation is laughable. HA!

      • @pjwestin
        link
        21 month ago

        There aren’t any PAC donation records because SCROTUS legalized dark money. Of course we could argue about it, OR just look at the editorial slants and take this obvious fact at face value.

        Maybe you should clarify what the, “obvious fact,” was that we should take at face value. Because based on the context, it really sounds like you wanted us to accept your debunked infographic as fact.

        • Optional
          link
          01 month ago

          It’s pretty clear. If not, I’m not sure what to say to clarify.

          Media owners help trump. Much more than a personal cash donation would. Which is why, when the “debunking” states media owners don’t help (“donate to”) trump, it’s ironic.

          By saying the infographic is “debunked”, the implication is that media owners are not supporting trump. And I say again - they could very well be giving millions, as Elmo Musk does, without being directly identified in an FEC filing. So, the “debunking” is itself “debunked” by simply pointing out political donations can be unknown.

          To restate, so you can clip ‘n save:

          • all the corporate news owners listed in the now-deleted infographic support trump
          • voluntary support for trump could be considered “a donation” (of time, influence, other)
          • to say that the above has been “debunked” because these multi-millionaires didn’t give their name as an individual political donor is (a) technically true and (b) very much beside the point that the heads of all major corporate news media in America are supporting trump in some fashion if not in multiple ways including financial donations.

          So, pop quiz hotshot: is the infographic “misleading”?

          • @pjwestin
            link
            21 month ago

            By saying the infographic is “debunked”, the implication is that media owners are not supporting trump. And I say again - they could very well be giving millions, as Elmo Musk does, without being directly identified in an FEC filing. So, the “debunking” is itself “debunked” by simply pointing out political donations can be unknown.

            OK, but by the logic you’re using, you could accuse anyone of anything. I could make an infographic that says, “Kamala Harris was caught killing small animals as a child,” and when someone says that never happened, I could just say, “Well, juvenile records are almost always sealed and expunged, and people who seek power are often have sociopathic tendencies, so this debunking is debunked, since it’s an unknown.” It’s just using the adage, “yhe absence of proof isn’t the proof of absence,” as a justification to continue spreading a lie.

            • Optional
              link
              01 month ago

              Indeed you could and then the onus is on you to show all the examples of Kamala doing things like killing small animals. Does she talk about it? Does she wear things that indicate it? If she was the CEO of a corporate news organization, does she oversee stories promoting it? (Or, more likely, minimizing argument against it?) If you have boatloads of that evidence, you might have a good argument.

              Got nothing? Well, that’s a poor argument. Maybe there are “Jewish space lasers” and MTG has broken the story wide open, but in the absence of literally any other piece of relevant information, it’s a poor argument to make.

              I have metaphorical boatloads of evidence that the corporate news kaisers are supporting trump. So much so that pretty much anyone on here knows a bunch of them already. So much so, it’s hardly worth mentioning because it’s omnipresent. There’s more supporting evidence coming out every day.

              That addresses the “just making up stuff” part, but let me once again, for the third time now, point out that financial donations to a campaign can be made in many ways that are not as rigorously documented as personal donations. So many ways, in fact, that the absence of these CEO’s names on opensecrets.org doesn’t really answer the question.

              But if you’re simply arguing that as far as words on the infographic go, A is not B, then I’ll give it to you. Change “donor” to “supporter” on that infographic and we can have this exact same conversation again with the exact same meaning and relevance.

              Is the CEO that presides over news coverage that doesn’t continually mention trump’s - conviction for hundreds of millions in fraud, the court’s finding of rape, the bizarreness of his speech, and a hundred other things that throw the ludicrousness of his candidacy into high relief - does the CEO that presides over not presenting that information support trump?

              Yes. Yes they do. Did they give the equivalent of two dollars to his campaign fund and make sure their name was recorded? No. Oh! Well! Debunked! These are all egregious lies!

              If you understand the point of the demographic, you can acknowledge its factual inaccuracy and its greater truth. Right?

              • @pjwestin
                link
                11 month ago

                Hey, if you’re ever wondering what people mean when they say, “Blue MAGA,” it’s this; 8 rambling paragraphs of conspiracy theories about media companies’ CEOs, with no evidence or sources, to justify a debunked infographic. It’s long-winded, “Fake News.”

                • Optional
                  link
                  01 month ago

                  Wow you think calling out corporate news owners as trump supporters is a conspiracy theory?

                  My apologies for trying to be reasonable with an explanation.

                  Evidence is in all the headlines about the race; source is THEIR OWN COMPANIES ffs. You need someone to look at it for you too?

                  • @pjwestin
                    link
                    21 month ago

                    You think that media moguls are secretly supporting Trump, even though he has spent 8 years attacking their outlets and even recently threatened to revoke CBS’ license, so they would ostensibly be acting against their self interest, while also leaving no evidence or paper trail to prove this support exists. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, dude! Anyway, it’s been fun watching how far you’ll go to avoid admitting you fell for a fake meme, but it seems like we’re hitting a wall here, so…bye!