“Hungary, strong country. Run by a very powerful, tough leader. He’s a tough guy. The press doesn’t like him because he’s tough. Viktor Orbán, prime minister of Hungary, very tough man,” Trump said in his speech.
This almost gave me a brain aneurysm. It’s like the orange doofus takes two words and scrambles it in a random sequence of sentences while being incapable of adding extra information.
The press doesn’t like him because he’s tough.
Orban is a bitch boy who never gives interviews to press he doesn’t personally own.
But even if he actually was tough, it’s pretty horrible that Trump thinks that “tough” and “good leader” are the same thing. Pol Pot was tough. He was a guerilla fighter in his youth. He ruled with an iron fist and killed up to 2 million people. That would be “tough” from a Trump perspective. He would tout Pol Pot’s strong leadership.
In fact, if you need to be tough, it’s a pretty good sign you’re trying to force something the population does not want (oftentimes yourself included)
Don’t forget that Trump would like to “take care of” quite some people, too! And we know what he actually means.
Thankfully JD Vance will never be like Orbán. The US would be in even deeper shit. Desantis is even scarier but thankfully he fucked up his PR pretty bad.
For now.
Tim Walz calls Viktor Orbán a dictator. For JD Vance, he’s a role model.
Correct. These are not mutually exclusive things.
Blobfish
Fuck Victor Orban.
But The only reason blobfish look bad is cuz you’re looking at a mutilated corpse.
Yeah, my last blobfish comment mentioned that, but it takes too long to type out.
I suppose I shouldn’t be insulting the blobfish by comparing it to Órban.
He kinda looks like a rat in that pic
Politico Europe - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Politico Europe:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - Germany
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
Why is this bot always getting downvoted? It’s just providing information.
There are some who say it’s biased itself. I have not investigated it further.
All bots are annoying. They take screen real estate and lures me into otherwise empty comment sections. I should block it, but I haven’t, because it is sometimes useful.
It might be better if it only posted when summoned by someone.
Maybe Lemmy could support bot posts a bit more organically, so they could be excluded from comment counts, or given a dedicated section. Eg. there could be a way to add this info to all community posts automatically.
TBH this whole bot thing seems like a Reddit holdover where people had no control over the platform.
Personally, I like the bots but I want their messages below the human messages. And since voting scores mean next to nothing in lemmy, there’s no harm.
It’s bad information. See the pinned posts for details.
Because the information is quite badly sourced in some ways and includes a lot of caveats. And the moderators of the subreddit have not added said caveats to the bot message.
Would you downvote a bot that said the rotten tomatoes score in every post in a sub about movies?
Personally I think rotten tomatoes is a terrible guide to tell if a movie is good… But I still cant see why id downvote it, it is just extra information I can ignore if wanted.
Bad comparison. Rotten Tomatoes is user generated. And opinions on movies have much less reprocussions than opinion on news sources. Rotten tomatoes makes clear it is the “opinion” on the movie.
MBFC is some random guy with no credential’s opinion. But they present their opinion as a neutral impartial rating.
Also I don’t downvote, disabled on my instance, just saying why others might.
Some random guy may not be the best, but also a hivemind can often be just as bad. For instance if lemmy.ca ranked news sources, and lemmy.ml ranked the same news sources, I imagine the results would be different.
I agree the impact is different for sure, I just used the first “ranked” system that came to mind that I figured you would be familiar with.
Example. If you rank Empire Strike back a 5/10 and I rank it a 8/10, then we rank Avatar and I give it a 4/10 and you give it a 9/10, on imdb they would both be ranked a 6.5/10. on RT one would be a 100% and the other 50%. (Why I don’t care for RT)
But your right, not a fair comparison
Also, movies are entertainment, not misinformation and disinformation shaping our society, so there’s less scrutiny.
(Yeah, media shapes our views too, but not as much as direct news journalism.)
Nobody likes being told they and their favorite sources are biased, they think they’re the only ones who can see clearly and it’s everyone else who is biased.
