Not The Onion

hideshow 23 child comments

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Exactly.

Fuck, I agree with MTG this morning? And I was off to such a good start today.

parent

[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Kinda. MTG is ragging on Fox News, sure, but she's also both-sides'ing media outlets on the left with her full quote:

We have propaganda news on our side just as the left does

She's fishing for people to agree with her which legitimizes her claim that left-leaning news networks are just as untrustworthy as Fox News, which is an untrustworthy news outlet, but she doesn't say shit about Breitbart or OANN or any of the other right-wing superspreaders of misinformation.

So, she is a broken clock that's currently pointing at the correct time, but she did it in a way to sneak in an untruth or two in there hoping that people would pick up on that and amplify the message.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

Look, fuck this racist asshole Marjory. But liberal news sources are also largely garbage. The NYT, for example (well respected by liberals) is constantly giving voice to reactionaries, lying by omission, supporting US imperialism and just generally upholding the status quo, even when it means normalizing/legitimizing fresh horrors from republicans.

parent

[+] RadioFreeArabia@lemmy.cafe 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

[removed by mod]

parent

[–] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago

..and some of them think it's going to "liberate the people of Iran".

parent

[–] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

I have not looked at the American mainstream press for a few months, but honestly cannot remember any broadcasters or papers who are decently covering all news

parent

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Putting the new York times and fox news in the same category is correct as far as I can tell. I don't oppose her calling NYT republican either.

parent

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah thats what broken clock means

parent

load more comments (-1 replies)

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 year ago (15 children)

I prefer "stopped clock," since broken clocks can often continue ticking, albeit at the wrong speed.

hideshow 15 child comments

parent

[–] TheOakTree@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (12 children)

A broken clock, whether it ticks too fast or too slow, is still right at least once every 24 hours, I think.

The only exception would be one that ticks correctly but is not set to the right time (does this count as broken?)

hideshow 12 child comments

parent

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah but the full saying is "a stopped clock is still right twice a day"

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] TheOakTree@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

Where in my comment did I ever suggest that I don't understand this?

I was just reflecting on the comment that I was responding to, which was specifying that a broken clock may be running fast or slow, instead of being stopped.

parent

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago

Where in my comment did I suggest that you didn't understand something? Take a breath dude.

parent

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

If a 24-hr clock is one second slow per day, its correct once every 236 years.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago

Thats MTG.

parent

[–] AoxoMoxoA@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago

They did the math

parent

[–] TheOakTree@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

I was thinking of an analog clock with 12 hours and no distinction of AM or PM... but if we're talking 24h clocks you are right.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

Every 118 years then.

parent

[–] TheOakTree@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago

Ah, true. I was definitely mistaken then.

parent

[–] Chip_Rat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If it ticks faster than time than it would be right more than once (24hr time) a day, the faster it ticks the more times it will incidentally be correct (perhaps there is an allegory here..)

A clock that ticks slower than time would be right less than once a day, but it can never....

I feel like I need a simulator to understand this relationship actually....

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] TheOakTree@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

I was thinking of analog 12hr clock with no distinction between AM and PM

I wonder if your 24hr clock example would be more intuitive as frequencies and phases?

parent

[–] Chip_Rat@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago

I was also visualizing the round analogue clock face, but didn't want to muddy the water by saying "twice" when I guess it's technically only once, just no am/pm delineation.

I am puzzling over this at work now. I guess a fast clock could be right almost infinite times a day if it ran fast enough, but a slow clock can only be as slow as a whisper faster than stopped, which would mean it could be right alllllllllllllmost twice a day, but never twice a day.