Trump outrage of the day

[PKFFW]

That did occur to me, but it made the renaming all the more brilliant on the FFS (for fucks'* sake) scale.

*As long as we are being pedantic, how many fucks are we forsaking? Just one or all of them?

My speech pathologist mother trained me to be a grammar Nazi so I can't stop myself from chipping in....

When using the term "for fuck's sake....." we are stating that we are doing something for the sake of "fuck" not that we are "forsaking" any "fucks".

So you can safely keep all your fucks and happily go about doing anything you like for the sake of those very fucks. :-)

[Travis]

That did occur to me, but it made the renaming all the more brilliant on the FFS (for fucks'* sake) scale.

*As long as we are being pedantic, how many fucks are we forsaking? Just one or all of them?

My speech pathologist mother trained me to be a grammar Nazi so I can't stop myself from chipping in....

When using the term "for fuck's sake....." we are stating that we are doing something for the sake of "fuck" not that we are "forsaking" any "fucks".

So you can safely keep all your fucks and happily go about doing anything you like for the sake of those very fucks. :-)

I thought it was possessive towards the fucks.

[rab-bit]

I wonder how long it will take Trump to see the opportunity of renaming all these places after himself, his crooked cronies, and his family?

Every president I can think of has a slew of public buildings named after them somewhere.  I’m sure Trump will be no exception.

I cannot think of a president who tried to name a place after himself while in office, but Trump hasn’t been constrained by the norms from other presidencies...

Does Nixon have anything named after him?

[Travis]

I wonder how long it will take Trump to see the opportunity of renaming all these places after himself, his crooked cronies, and his family?

Every president I can think of has a slew of public buildings named after them somewhere.  I’m sure Trump will be no exception.

I cannot think of a president who tried to name a place after himself while in office, but Trump hasn’t been constrained by the norms from other presidencies...

Does Nixon have anything named after him?

A movie, some books, his library, and United States v Nixon.  His biggest scandal was named after the hotel rather than him.

[nereo]

I wonder how long it will take Trump to see the opportunity of renaming all these places after himself, his crooked cronies, and his family?

Every president I can think of has a slew of public buildings named after them somewhere.  I’m sure Trump will be no exception.

I cannot think of a president who tried to name a place after himself while in office, but Trump hasn’t been constrained by the norms from other presidencies...

Does Nixon have anything named after him?

A movie, some books, his library, and United States v Nixon.  His biggest scandal was named after the hotel rather than him.

Apparently two public elementary schools as well, one in NJ and one in Iowa.
Not sure he wanted a SCOTUS case after him

[OtherJen]

Not satire. Trump rally-goers must agree they won't sue if they contract coronavirus

[nereo]

Not satire. Trump rally-goers must agree they won't sue if they contract coronavirus

I just want normal.  Can we go back to normal?  Please??

[ixtap]

Not satire. Trump rally-goers must agree they won't sue if they contract coronavirus

I just want normal.  Can we go back to normal?  Please??

Nope, MAGA insisted on attempting to reverse the passage of time, usually citing the 50s and now we are all stuck in whatever the heck this is and will probably have to increase tax rates to 1950s levels next.

I'm off to remind a MAGA supporter that "under God" wasn't in the pledge when their parents were saying it.

[MDM]

Not satire. Trump rally-goers must agree they won't sue if they contract coronavirus

Sad situation, but understandable.  In a reasonable world, people would understand that they run a risk attending a crowded venue and would not resort to litigation should that risk be realized.

AFAIK, nobody is forcing anyone to buy a ticket and attend.  If nobody shows up, so be it. 

[PKFFW]

That did occur to me, but it made the renaming all the more brilliant on the FFS (for fucks'* sake) scale.

*As long as we are being pedantic, how many fucks are we forsaking? Just one or all of them?

My speech pathologist mother trained me to be a grammar Nazi so I can't stop myself from chipping in....

When using the term "for fuck's sake....." we are stating that we are doing something for the sake of "fuck" not that we are "forsaking" any "fucks".

So you can safely keep all your fucks and happily go about doing anything you like for the sake of those very fucks. :-)

I thought it was possessive towards the fucks.

Really the phrase is just a variant of "For God's sake".

In this phrase God is a noun and the apostrophe s transforms God the noun into God the possessive noun.  The phrase is the standard possessive case and grammatically is the same as saying "for the sake of God."  Eg:  For the sake of God, stop whinging" is grammatically the same as "For God's sake, stop whinging".

The problem with "For fuck's sake" is that it doesn't really make any literal sense as "fuck" is a verb and not a noun and therefore can't be made into a possessive noun.  At least not in a traditionally grammatically correct way.  Eg:  "For fuck's sake, stop whinging" grammatically means "for the sake of fuck, stop whinging".  We can see from the second version that the phrase doesn't make any sense when stated that way.

However, "fuck" has become a very versatile word in modern language and in this phrase it is being used as a noun rather than a verb.  Hence we all know from context what the phrase means but grammatically it makes no sense and hence the confusion.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

That did occur to me, but it made the renaming all the more brilliant on the FFS (for fucks'* sake) scale.

*As long as we are being pedantic, how many fucks are we forsaking? Just one or all of them?

My speech pathologist mother trained me to be a grammar Nazi so I can't stop myself from chipping in....

When using the term "for fuck's sake....." we are stating that we are doing something for the sake of "fuck" not that we are "forsaking" any "fucks".

So you can safely keep all your fucks and happily go about doing anything you like for the sake of those very fucks. :-)

I thought it was possessive towards the fucks.

Really the phrase is just a variant of "For God's sake".

In this phrase God is a noun and the apostrophe s transforms God the noun into God the possessive noun.  The phrase is the standard possessive case and grammatically is the same as saying "for the sake of God."  Eg:  For the sake of God, stop whinging" is grammatically the same as "For God's sake, stop whinging".

The problem with "For fuck's sake" is that it doesn't really make any literal sense as "fuck" is a verb and not a noun and therefore can't be made into a possessive noun.  At least not in a traditionally grammatically correct way.  Eg:  "For fuck's sake, stop whinging" grammatically means "for the sake of fuck, stop whinging".  We can see from the second version that the phrase doesn't make any sense when stated that way.

However, "fuck" has become a very versatile word in modern language and in this phrase it is being used as a noun rather than a verb.  Hence we all know from context what the phrase means but grammatically it makes no sense and hence the confusion.

I fully intend to say 'for the sake of fuck' from now on

[js82]

Not satire. Trump rally-goers must agree they won't sue if they contract coronavirus

In fairness, no reasonable judge/jury would be sympathetic to someone who knowingly puts themselves in a crowded place(for something that's not essential to their well-being) during a pandemic.

*not saying it isn't stupid/irresponsible to hold crowded political rallies in the middle of the pandemic.  It's Oklahoma - not even a state that's going to be seriously contested in the election.

[Travis]

Not satire. Trump rally-goers must agree they won't sue if they contract coronavirus

In fairness, no reasonable judge/jury would be sympathetic to someone who knowingly puts themselves in a crowded place(for something that's not essential to their well-being) during a pandemic.

*not saying it isn't stupid/irresponsible to hold crowded political rallies in the middle of the pandemic.  It's Oklahoma - not even a state that's going to be seriously contested in the election.

Agreed. Nobody is forcing these folks to attend. There's plenty of other things to be upset about. Like referring to the Secret Service as the SS while praising their work shooting at and gassing protesters https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/president-trump-tweets-ss

[LennStar]

Not satire. Trump rally-goers must agree they won't sue if they contract coronavirus

In fairness, no reasonable judge/jury would be sympathetic to someone who knowingly puts themselves in a crowded place(for something that's not essential to their well-being) during a pandemic.

*not saying it isn't stupid/irresponsible to hold crowded political rallies in the middle of the pandemic.  It's Oklahoma - not even a state that's going to be seriously contested in the election.

Agreed. Nobody is forcing these folks to attend. There's plenty of other things to be upset about. Like referring to the Secret Service as the SS while praising their work shooting at and gassing protesters https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/president-trump-tweets-ss

LOL

Just yesterday I told my coworker that our state Sachsen-Anhalt does not have SA as official abbreviation as is generally used, but rather the first and last letter, (->ST) as no one want to be called SA or SS.


The question is only: Doe Trump not know this or is it another wink to the far right?

[OtherJen]

Not satire. Trump rally-goers must agree they won't sue if they contract coronavirus

In fairness, no reasonable judge/jury would be sympathetic to someone who knowingly puts themselves in a crowded place(for something that's not essential to their well-being) during a pandemic.

*not saying it isn't stupid/irresponsible to hold crowded political rallies in the middle of the pandemic.  It's Oklahoma - not even a state that's going to be seriously contested in the election.

Agreed. Nobody is forcing these folks to attend. There's plenty of other things to be upset about. Like referring to the Secret Service as the SS while praising their work shooting at and gassing protesters https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/president-trump-tweets-ss

Many of us can be upset or annoyed by many things at once, thanks.

And of course he would drop the term “SS.” Of course he would.

[talltexan]

Not satire. Trump rally-goers must agree they won't sue if they contract coronavirus

In fairness, no reasonable judge/jury would be sympathetic to someone who knowingly puts themselves in a crowded place(for something that's not essential to their well-being) during a pandemic.

*not saying it isn't stupid/irresponsible to hold crowded political rallies in the middle of the pandemic.  It's Oklahoma - not even a state that's going to be seriously contested in the election.

Agreed. Nobody is forcing these folks to attend. There's plenty of other things to be upset about. Like referring to the Secret Service as the SS while praising their work shooting at and gassing protesters https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/president-trump-tweets-ss

Suppose my co-worker attends a rally, then he comes to the office and infects me with COVID as a result. Am I allowed to sue Trump for America, or am I limited to suing my co-worker?

[nereo]

That did occur to me, but it made the renaming all the more brilliant on the FFS (for fucks'* sake) scale.

*As long as we are being pedantic, how many fucks are we forsaking? Just one or all of them?

My speech pathologist mother trained me to be a grammar Nazi so I can't stop myself from chipping in....

When using the term "for fuck's sake....." we are stating that we are doing something for the sake of "fuck" not that we are "forsaking" any "fucks".

So you can safely keep all your fucks and happily go about doing anything you like for the sake of those very fucks. :-)

I thought it was possessive towards the fucks.

Really the phrase is just a variant of "For God's sake".

In this phrase God is a noun and the apostrophe s transforms God the noun into God the possessive noun.  The phrase is the standard possessive case and grammatically is the same as saying "for the sake of God."  Eg:  For the sake of God, stop whinging" is grammatically the same as "For God's sake, stop whinging".

The problem with "For fuck's sake" is that it doesn't really make any literal sense as "fuck" is a verb and not a noun and therefore can't be made into a possessive noun.  At least not in a traditionally grammatically correct way.  Eg:  "For fuck's sake, stop whinging" grammatically means "for the sake of fuck, stop whinging".  We can see from the second version that the phrase doesn't make any sense when stated that way.

However, "fuck" has become a very versatile word in modern language and in this phrase it is being used as a noun rather than a verb.  Hence we all know from context what the phrase means but grammatically it makes no sense and hence the confusion.

Are you sure?  I seem to remember my HS English teacher using this to highlight the versatility of ‘Fuck’ in the English Language: https://youtu.be/xZkb4TPI-Lo
Seems to me that, in common usage, the word is not exclusively a verb, nor is it intended to be in the sentence above.

Also, interesting philosophical implications that we’ve substituted “God” for “Fuck”.

[ixtap]

When you say "for X's sake," you are begging someone to care.

Therefore, you are asking them not to forsake X.

Hence, my original question regarding the forsaken fucks on my for fucks' sake scale.

You will will notice that I have decided that I am referring to multiple fucks.

What you cannot see in the written word above is that my brain has now introduced a Japanese alcoholic beverage into the conversation, making all proofreading absolutely impossible, even more so than the limitations of navigating to a precise word on my phone, because I now giggle every time I read through "sake."

Marketing opportunity for Fucks' Sake?

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Not exactly Trump outrage, but I find Zuckerberg's stance on leaving everything (dis-information, slander, encouraging violence...) Trump posts up on Facebook to be misguided - https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/06/12/zuckerberg-doubles-down-facebooks-plan-allow-trumps-posts/3174053001/

“We take your concerns seriously and to heart,” the couple wrote in a two-page response posted to Twitter by Recode reporter Teddy Schleifer. “We are deeply shaken and disgusted by President Trump’s divisive and incendiary rhetoric at a time when our nation so desperately needs unity.”

Shouldn't social media platforms be treated like, say, billboards?  And if I rent a billboard and put up a message accusing, say, a public news figure of murder, wouldn't that be taken down? (and most likely I'd be sued, etc.). 

I don't read Trump's Tweets and have never seen his stuff on Facebook, thank goodness, but it seems like he can say pretty much any lie, conspiracy theory, or trollish thing he wants to and FB will allow it.

[nereo]

Well I found this interesting... 
While browsing Wikipedia I came across this description of a leader, and it struck me how much it sounds like Trump:

His preoccupation with detail, reluctance to delegate responsibility, lack of popular appeal, feuds with powerful state governors and generals, favoritism toward old friends, inability to get along with people who disagreed with him, neglect of civil matters in favor of military ones, and resistance to public opinion all worked against him

Spoiler: show

The leader was Jefferson Davis - President of the Confederate States

[LennStar]

Shouldn't social media platforms be treated like, say, billboards?  And if I rent a billboard and put up a message accusing, say, a public news figure of murder, wouldn't that be taken down? (and most likely I'd be sued, etc.).

Just from a practical perspective: There are a lot less billboards and you know who paid for them.

If Facebook etc. would be forced to (for want of a better word) police everything, they would go bankrupt. And so it isn't done.
Even now the check of the messages is done by people mostly in India and other Asien countries, because that is cheaper. And it really is not a nice job.
Imagine you have only 5 seconds to decide if the post is violating rules. Or a single second if a picture is a good one or, for example, a child being raped or murdered. Really not a job to be envious of. 

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Shouldn't social media platforms be treated like, say, billboards?  And if I rent a billboard and put up a message accusing, say, a public news figure of murder, wouldn't that be taken down? (and most likely I'd be sued, etc.).

Just from a practical perspective: There are a lot less billboards and you know who paid for them.

If Facebook etc. would be forced to (for want of a better word) police everything, they would go bankrupt. And so it isn't done.
Even now the check of the messages is done by people mostly in India and other Asien countries, because that is cheaper. And it really is not a nice job.
Imagine you have only 5 seconds to decide if the post is violating rules. Or a single second if a picture is a good one or, for example, a child being raped or murdered. Really not a job to be envious of.

I don't think it needs to be 100% policing, but even using your example - if I post an offensive missive or explicit image, the software can catch it quickly or else a user will report it.  This is pretty standard practice - that an offensive message is reported, reviewed, and can be 'moderated'.  I can't even imagine how many people report Trump's offensive lies.  But yet, he gets special treatment from Facebook - 100% immunity - that no one else gets.

[js82]

Shouldn't social media platforms be treated like, say, billboards?  And if I rent a billboard and put up a message accusing, say, a public news figure of murder, wouldn't that be taken down? (and most likely I'd be sued, etc.).

Just from a practical perspective: There are a lot less billboards and you know who paid for them.

If Facebook etc. would be forced to (for want of a better word) police everything, they would go bankrupt. And so it isn't done.
Even now the check of the messages is done by people mostly in India and other Asien countries, because that is cheaper. And it really is not a nice job.
Imagine you have only 5 seconds to decide if the post is violating rules. Or a single second if a picture is a good one or, for example, a child being raped or murdered. Really not a job to be envious of.

I don't think it needs to be 100% policing, but even using your example - if I post an offensive missive or explicit image, the software can catch it quickly or else a user will report it.  This is pretty standard practice - that an offensive message is reported, reviewed, and can be 'moderated'.  I can't even imagine how many people report Trump's offensive lies.  But yet, he gets special treatment from Facebook - 100% immunity - that no one else gets.

The irony is it really ought to work the opposite way: Powerful/influential politicians should be fact-checked more strictly, not less.

If I post some nutty conspiracy theory on social media, it reaches 200 people, and maybe 10 of them actually buy into it.  Yeah, it would be a crappy thing for me to do but unless it gets more shares/retweets etc. it basically reaches a few people and dies.

If Trump/other person with a ton of followers does the same, it reaches 2,000,000 people, and 100,000 of them buy into it(assuming it gets a similar degree of traction.  And it gets shared/retweeted because famous person is famous, and so it multiplies

This is the same reason why those in positions of power need to be held to higher ethical standards than the population at large - with power/influence comes responsibility.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

...
The irony is it really ought to work the opposite way: Powerful/influential politicians should be fact-checked more strictly, not less.

If I post some nutty conspiracy theory on social media, it reaches 200 people, and maybe 10 of them actually buy into it.  Yeah, it would be a crappy thing for me to do but unless it gets more shares/retweets etc. it basically reaches a few people and dies.

If Trump/other person with a ton of followers does the same, it reaches 2,000,000 people, and 100,000 of them buy into it(assuming it gets a similar degree of traction.  And it gets shared/retweeted because famous person is famous, and so it multiplies

This is the same reason why those in positions of power need to be held to higher ethical standards than the population at large - with power/influence comes responsibility.

And Zuckerberg, of all people, should realize this.  Social media is the equivalent of propaganda because the general population takes information from the internet as fact and at face value, no matter what is shared.  People see something that agrees with their world-view, or makes them feel better about themselves, and it spreads it like wild fire which makes it reality and truth.

So, using a metaphor of selling an addictive drug, it is up to manufacturers like Zuckerberg to stop their users and dealers from abusing their product.  It is as irresponsible as the opioid manufacturers (Purdue Pharma) to say that they just supplied the product but did not realize that distributors and clients were using it in ways that did not make their lives and the lives of the people around them better.  In fact, at some point, the manufacturer has to realize that this world-record income stream is coming from making the world a worse place, but the users can't stop using and the dealers, that should know better, are enjoying their ability to give a quick fix and enjoy success, than they otherwise would if they actually were fixing people's problems and making the world a better place.     

[Gremlin]

I fully intend to say 'for the sake of fuck' from now on

Hopefully with the intonation of James Earl Jones...

[Kyle Schuant]

t is up to manufacturers like Zuckerberg to stop their users and dealers from abusing their product.

We should be ruled by an unelected oligarchical elite who rule us for our own good, you mean.

Defecting to North Korea soon?

[EscapeVelocity2020]

t is up to manufacturers like Zuckerberg to stop their users and dealers from abusing their product.

We should be ruled by an unelected oligarchical elite who rule us for our own good, you mean.

Defecting to North Korea soon?

I'm just trying to say, if people report a post that injures them and that they have firsthand knowledge as being false (Trump doubles down on conspiracy theory about woman’s death, ignoring grieving widower’s plea for peace), then Facebook should moderate it.

Most people will see the Facebook posts and take it as fact, especially if the President posted it.  I think that informed people should be able to counter that, as they do on most other forums and as it is with all other people posting.

There's even a 'duplicate' Trump Twitter account that shows the double standard - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/bot-banned-from-twitter-for-repeating-trumps-tweets-verbatim/

[MasterStache]

t is up to manufacturers like Zuckerberg to stop their users and dealers from abusing their product.

We should be ruled by an unelected oligarchical elite who rule us for our own good, you mean.

Defecting to North Korea soon?

I'm just trying to say, if people report a post that injures them and that they have firsthand knowledge as being false (Trump doubles down on conspiracy theory about woman’s death, ignoring grieving widower’s plea for peace), then Facebook should moderate it.

Most people will see the Facebook posts and take it as fact, especially if the President posted it.  I think that informed people should be able to counter that, as they do on most other forums and as it is with all other people posting.

There's even a 'duplicate' Trump Twitter account that shows the double standard - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/bot-banned-from-twitter-for-repeating-trumps-tweets-verbatim/

Come on, fact checking is for North Korea ( ;

[PKFFW]

That did occur to me, but it made the renaming all the more brilliant on the FFS (for fucks'* sake) scale.

*As long as we are being pedantic, how many fucks are we forsaking? Just one or all of them?

My speech pathologist mother trained me to be a grammar Nazi so I can't stop myself from chipping in....

When using the term "for fuck's sake....." we are stating that we are doing something for the sake of "fuck" not that we are "forsaking" any "fucks".

So you can safely keep all your fucks and happily go about doing anything you like for the sake of those very fucks. :-)

I thought it was possessive towards the fucks.

Really the phrase is just a variant of "For God's sake".

In this phrase God is a noun and the apostrophe s transforms God the noun into God the possessive noun.  The phrase is the standard possessive case and grammatically is the same as saying "for the sake of God."  Eg:  For the sake of God, stop whinging" is grammatically the same as "For God's sake, stop whinging".

The problem with "For fuck's sake" is that it doesn't really make any literal sense as "fuck" is a verb and not a noun and therefore can't be made into a possessive noun.  At least not in a traditionally grammatically correct way.  Eg:  "For fuck's sake, stop whinging" grammatically means "for the sake of fuck, stop whinging".  We can see from the second version that the phrase doesn't make any sense when stated that way.

However, "fuck" has become a very versatile word in modern language and in this phrase it is being used as a noun rather than a verb.  Hence we all know from context what the phrase means but grammatically it makes no sense and hence the confusion.

Are you sure?  I seem to remember my HS English teacher using this to highlight the versatility of ‘Fuck’ in the English Language: https://youtu.be/xZkb4TPI-Lo
Seems to me that, in common usage, the word is not exclusively a verb, nor is it intended to be in the sentence above.

Also, interesting philosophical implications that we’ve substituted “God” for “Fuck”.

The video is basically saying what I said in my last paragraph.  Fuck is a highly versatile word.  However, it is versatile based purely on accepted meaning gained from context and common use. 

To use the example from the video, fuck is used as a "noun" in the sentence "I don't give a fuck."  The meaning of this sentence is clear, however, the word fuck, while being used as a noun, is not actually a noun.  Even in that sentence it is not, grammatically at least, a noun as "a fuck" is a concept not a thing to be named and given. 

To make it clear, try replacing "fuck" with any other concept/idea type word and see if the sentence makes sense.  eg: "I don't give a philosophy." or "I don't give a calculus."  Here, we are using the words philosophy and calculus as nouns but the sentences don't make sense.  This is because they are not nouns and unlike "fuck" there is no common acceptance to use them as nouns and thus have a basis for shared understanding and communication.

Does it matter?  No.  The point of language is to communicate meaning and the meaning of the sentence can be easily gleaned by anyone familiar with the idiom.  Try using that sentence with someone not familiar with the idiom however, and you might find the communication breaks down and the meaning of the phrase needs to be explained because grammatically it doesn't actually make sense unless one is already familiar with the phrase.

[ixtap]

But a philosophy or a calculus don't have any value.

I can say "I don't give a bean" or some other thing that connotes a value (usually a small one).

[PKFFW]

When you say "for X's sake," you are begging someone to care.

Therefore, you are asking them not to forsake X.

Not exactly.

You are literally asking someone to do Y for the sake of X.  While similar, it is not, grammatically at least, the same as asking them to do Y so as to not forsake X.

[PKFFW]

But a philosophy or a calculus don't have any value.

I can say "I don't give a bean" or some other thing that connotes a value (usually a small one).

Yes, because a "bean" is a thing and the word bean is a noun.  Bean in this sentence is actually a noun and not simply being used as a noun in order to convey a meaning based on common usage and acceptance.  As such "I don't give a bean" is grammatically correct and easily understood by anyone who understands the traditional, "dictionary" meaning of the word bean.

[Travis]

He recalled the West Point graduating class to campus for graduation which was going to be virtual. They had to be locked down for 2 weeks of quarantine first. You can watch the whole speech if you want, but I'll give you the short hand here:

"Everything is China and Obama's fault. I'm awesome and you'd be lost without me. And I still think you should be policing our streets at home."

I'm pretty sure that was the first campaign speech ever conducted at West Point.

[Kyle Schuant]

I'm just trying to say, if people report a post that injures them and that they have firsthand knowledge as being false (Trump doubles down on conspiracy theory about woman’s death, ignoring grieving widower’s plea for peace), then Facebook should moderate it.

Isn't checking on facts what we have journalists for? If your newspapers and current affairs shows are failing to do that, why does the responsibility pass to Facebook?

[GuitarStv]

I'm just trying to say, if people report a post that injures them and that they have firsthand knowledge as being false (Trump doubles down on conspiracy theory about woman’s death, ignoring grieving widower’s plea for peace), then Facebook should moderate it.

Isn't checking on facts what we have journalists for? If your newspapers and current affairs shows are failing to do that, why does the responsibility pass to Facebook?

. . . because a large portion of the population has chosen to get their information and news from social media platforms rather than journalists.  We should hold all sources of news to the same standard of truth.

[MasterStache]

I'm just trying to say, if people report a post that injures them and that they have firsthand knowledge as being false (Trump doubles down on conspiracy theory about woman’s death, ignoring grieving widower’s plea for peace), then Facebook should moderate it.

Isn't checking on facts what we have journalists for? If your newspapers and current affairs shows are failing to do that, why does the responsibility pass to Facebook?

. . . because a large portion of the population has chosen to get their information and news from social media platforms rather than journalists.  We should hold all sources of news to the same standard of truth.

+1
It is not the journalist job to try and fact check every social media platform. Social media platforms can certainly do that themselves and at rare times, have. The NK reference is pretty ridiculous. They have state run media where only government approved propaganda news is allowed. 

[Kyle Schuant]

"People are only getting their news from only one source. So you can't compare it to a place where people only get their news from one source."

A citizen in a democracy has a responsibility to inform themselves, which is best done by a variety of information - different media, readings of history and so on.

[former player]

"People are only getting their news from only one source. So you can't compare it to a place where people only get their news from one source."

A citizen in a democracy has a responsibility to inform themselves, which is best done by a variety of information - different media, readings of history and so on.

I didn't have you pegged for an idealist.

[MasterStache]

"People are only getting their news from only one source. So you can't compare it to a place where people only get their news from one source."

A citizen in a democracy has a responsibility to inform themselves, which is best done by a variety of information - different media, readings of history and so on.

Huh. Who gets their news from one source? Even 1/4 of North Koreans have a cell phone. I mean I guess before TV they really only had newsprint. Of course word of mouth is a source of information. The NK comparison would be more applicable to a person/group wanting to control every aspect of information dissemination. That includes what they deem as fact, not what is actually factual.   

This reminds me of when you claimed 50% of Americans were Trump supporters. 

[Plina]

Not satire. Trump rally-goers must agree they won't sue if they contract coronavirus

Sad situation, but understandable.  In a reasonable world, people would understand that they run a risk attending a crowded venue and would not resort to litigation should that risk be realized.

AFAIK, nobody is forcing anyone to buy a ticket and attend.  If nobody shows up, so be it.

Do people pay to attend political rallies? I had not people realized people would pay for that! It makes it even more difficult to believe that anyone would  pay to attend an event were the risk of catching Corona is pretty high.

[OtherJen]

Not satire. Trump rally-goers must agree they won't sue if they contract coronavirus

Sad situation, but understandable.  In a reasonable world, people would understand that they run a risk attending a crowded venue and would not resort to litigation should that risk be realized.

AFAIK, nobody is forcing anyone to buy a ticket and attend.  If nobody shows up, so be it.

Do people pay to attend political rallies? I had not people realized people would pay for that! It makes it even more difficult to believe that anyone would  pay to attend an event were the risk of catching Corona is pretty high.

It looks like it’s free to attend but you have to register to get tickets, which is when you sign the disclaimer.

[bacchi]

Not satire. Trump rally-goers must agree they won't sue if they contract coronavirus

Sad situation, but understandable.  In a reasonable world, people would understand that they run a risk attending a crowded venue and would not resort to litigation should that risk be realized.

AFAIK, nobody is forcing anyone to buy a ticket and attend.  If nobody shows up, so be it.

Do people pay to attend political rallies? I had not people realized people would pay for that! It makes it even more difficult to believe that anyone would  pay to attend an event were the risk of catching Corona is pretty high.

It looks like it’s free to attend but you have to register to get tickets, which is when you sign the disclaimer.

How do the "virus is a hoax" Trump supporters reconcile this contradiction with the release form?

[nereo]

How do the "virus is a hoax" Trump supporters reconcile this contradiction with the release form?

My GOP family members see it as the nanny-state run amuck.  "there's no real danger! It's like the flu!!"  In their eyes the media has hyped and lied about this epidemic so much that now they have no choice but to put up a disclaimer because if just one of the NINETEEN THOUSAND supporters happens to fall ill the lawyers will be all over it, even though if you picked 19,000 people at random who didn't go to the rally chances are a few of them would fall ill and die anyway.*

Or at least that's how they seem to be thinking.

*in reality, the chances that an otherwise healthy person will fall ill and die in a given week (i.e. not related to a traumatic injury) are much smaller and correlated to age.  A person int heir 30s has a roughly 1:71k chance, whereas someone in their 60s is about 1:10k, per mortality tables.  So how many of a pool of 19,000 could die in a given week depends mightily on the age-ratio of that group, but assuming it's roughly evenly-spread between 20 and 70 year olds (roughly 2.7k from each decade of life), then my back-of-the-napkin estimate puts the number between 1 and 1.5 people, and those would most probably be from the ~5.4k individuals over 60. 
...of course this also assumes that Trump will fill the 19,000 seat arena during a pandemic, and that old people will turn out in similar numebrs during a pandemic.  From previous rallies he often struggled to get 10k to show up. At which point the probaility that no one will die exceeds the likelihood that at least one person will die from a non-traumatic injury the week following.

[talltexan]

I wonder if we're not going to see these kinds of waivers for many events besides Trump rallies, honestly. It's not a bad idea.

[nereo]

I wonder if we're not going to see these kinds of waivers for many events besides Trump rallies, honestly. It's not a bad idea.

My ex is a lawyer, as were the two roommates we lived with in grad-school and we were catching up, so I asked them.  In their words the waivers don't do much, because you cannot waive away negligence, and because in order to have a successful case you have to show that they had a duty to protect you and that some action on their part resulted in harm to you (illness). So what the waiver does is just basically acknowledge what the state and federal CDC is already saying. 

[Dancin'Dog]

When did Trump start worrying about lawsuits?

[ixtap]

When did Trump start worrying about lawsuits?

In this case, I am willing to bet that the venue insurance is the one requiring the waivers. It looks like the venue is being opened up special for this, they are otherwise closed through the end of July.

[nereo]

When did Trump start worrying about lawsuits?

In this case, I am willing to bet that the venue insurance is the one requiring the waivers. It looks like the venue is being opened up special for this, they are otherwise closed through the end of July.

I just read this. The venue has been closed since the end of March, and will not host any other events until The end of July
This is a bizarre instance of special treatment. I fear it will not end well

[Pizzabrewer]

He’s at it again.  If we did less testing we’d have fewer cases.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-stop-coronavirus-testing-right-now-have-very-few-cases-2020-6?fbclid=IwAR3hIMxWshzlCYEjZkSp5GRFwfpr8kPKnUS9CGxfpL0EcNg_tCq8oVugdl8

[GuitarStv]

He’s at it again.  If we did less testing we’d have fewer cases.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-stop-coronavirus-testing-right-now-have-very-few-cases-2020-6?fbclid=IwAR3hIMxWshzlCYEjZkSp5GRFwfpr8kPKnUS9CGxfpL0EcNg_tCq8oVugdl8

By jove, he's right!