Ladies and gentlemen, the rot in the Democrat party.
post
The quote is near the end of the audio clip and is easier to hear than the first half of the clip. We need some audio engineers isolating her voice
Isolating vocals on a messy track would actually be closer to audio forensics, which is a pretty specific branch of the audio world. There are lots of specialized tricks that audio forensics experts can use, which would fly in the face of a lot of what traditional audio engineers would consider best practice. Because an audio forensics expert isn’t thinking about best practice for a mixed and mastered track, which is the mindset that most audio engineers would approach the problem from.
Her last year has essentially been just throwing darts at a board and riding her time out. Allowing Altman to even enter this state pretty much sums up her current level of give a s***.
Democrats are trash and the BlueMAGA that keep defending them are holding everyone back
...recently?
That literally describes any government ever. People will always say fuck no, just not all the people all the time. Some people all the time though because they hate the government no matter what.
If you read that whole page you linked to you would see they haven't produced fake news so much as they consistently misrepresent facts to suit a conservative narrative.
So arguing it could be AI means you failed to actually read their fucking reasoning for the low credibility and bias claims. None of it had to do with facts not being true, but rather presenting those true facts within a conservative narrative. Whitmer is mentioned several times, and in each case it was rooted in real facts but presented with a conservative slant.
Screaming "fake news" is unhelpful.
Screaming “fake news” is unhelpful.
Vetting sources absolutely is helpful.
It's clear they didn't actually vet the source or read what mediabiasfactcheck said then, because at no point did they make "fake news." So the likelihood of this being AI is near zero.
Taking the top line that some group made and not actually looking at the details is not vetting a source, it's taking a quick glance as gospel. It matters that they don't make fake news because it makes this video likely real.
But I mean you do you if you just take a quick glance as gospel and don't actually, you know, fucking read anything yourself.
You keep putting "fake news" in quotations like it's something they said.
You're not inspiring confidence in people here when purporting an obvious strawman fallacy. Please quote where I said they're "fake news" as you put in quotes no less.
Second, one demonstrates an unfortunately low level of comprehension skills, given I stated, "Don’t trust this to be anything more than AI" -- which suggests by comparative logic that there are possibly other things I trust equal to or lower than AI.
"Don't trust this to be any more than AI" directly implies that it must be fake.
No, it does not lol. AI can distort half-truths / half-lies, take things out of context, but yes can also fabricate entirely.
Remember: LOW CREDIBILITY
LMAO it's a fucking video dude. You're saying you're NOT saying it's AI while claiming it might be AI? What part of the video is real and what part is AI and what part is taken out of context. You're just pulling shit out of your ass.
Videos can't be AI?
"LOW CREDIBILITY"
You just outright refuse to read the fact that they have never been found to make up facts. That would include making fake AI videos dude.
Anyway thanks for admitting you refuse to take a look at the facts and instead are screaming ITS FAKE with no evidence to back it up other than feels.
Funny, it's like you think given their LOW CREDIBILITY that they wouldn't have a first (even assuming they haven't in the past).
You keep repeating the low credibility but you refuse to read with or engage with WHY they got that rating, and it wasn't for not presenting facts or making shit up, its purely ideological and how they PRESENT facts.
So how are they PRESENTING this that is making it biased? When they make a full report on it I expect it to be DEEPLY biased, but the video on it's own is very likely real. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
But I think you just read LOW CREDIBILITY and your brain shuts off and you cant suss out that there's a difference between actually presenting fake journalism and fake stories versus deeply misrepresenting what those facts mean. They got low credibility for BIAS, not FACTS.
Sorry I bothered to read their fucking reasoning and you won't
What fact? There is no fact. The footage remains unverified. Not even Snopes could make it out. Seems EXACTLY like they described them -- taking a half-truth and distorting it to a full-lie.
That you slam your keyboard over and over because someone wants a better source than right-wing slop is wild, so I can only conclude you're a nazi simp.
Snopes confirmed the video's authenticity with the videographer who shot it. However, the audio was too distorted to definitively confirm the specifics of the conversation.
Man you and this conservative media outlet have a lot in common with MISREPRESENTING FACTS
No facts.
-
LOW CREDIBILITY
-
SNOPES: "However, the audio was too distorted to definitively confirm the specifics of the conversation. "
Cool. Whatever. Find me a better source.
lmao, jesus. Sorry I asked you to read and ripped a hole in your pulled out of your ass AI theory.
They don't have a history of making shit up. They have a history of being extremely biased. This video has no commentary.
Soooooo no other source beside some shithole far-right subpar slop?
Last chance!
Sure, no other source, except for the video and hot mic recording of her saying exactly what's being reported here.
Here's another news source, which includes the actual recording.
But of course, we can all see that truth is not what you're actually after here.
Oh I'm sure there's plenty of sources here for this obviously surreptitiously recorded video. /s
Dismissing the source when the facts are real is in, a word, stupid.
Why don't you prove to me they have a history of making shit up? Oh yeah, because your own source proves that wrong, ding-a-ling.
Dismissing the source is a genetic fallacy. They comment on someone else creating a fallacy and cant see their own. Their cognitive dissonance is in over drive
LOW CREDIBILITY
Should be easy to find a better source reporting on this, if vetted! Hell, even Fox News!
I mean, things take time. The Drudge Report wasn't wrong about Monica, he was just an asshole. Assholes can be right and still refer to facts but present those facts in a different ideological context.
but I clearly was never going to get through to you.
Cool buddy, just wake me up when that happens ;)
Not even Snopes could verify it.
Snopes confirmed the video's authenticity with the videographer who shot it. However, the audio was too distorted to definitively confirm the specifics of the conversation.
Even Snopes says its authentic you fucking moron, but I guess it's "nothing more than AI" whatever.
False. Unrated because they could not hear what was said... Almost exactly like I said about half-truths, half-lies, distortion of context, etc. Just another straw-man fallacy, for I never denied the video existing (that doesn't mean jack shit).
Look at you, getting so upset.
I'm getting upset lmao dude, sorry that you're desperately trying to ragebait me. Sorry that calling a fucking moron a fucking moron makes people think you're mad lmao
You have done nothing but shift goalposts.
Take a break from the internet, spend time with your family. You have cancer as you said yourself, dude. Get offline and stop wasting time being a blow-hard for nazi propaganda lmao
You're the one who has decided I am doing that instead of actually addressing any of my points. Your claim that it was AI and the video is authentic. That they have low credibility but that low credibility is related to their bias, not to outright making shit up. That's shifting goalposts, dear.
I was never taken in, I just don't dismiss a source when there is no evidence that the facts they produce are you know, facts. This video is authentic. It's up to individuals to decide what they hear, it's also why audio forensics would help.
I live with and caretake for family members, trust me, I spent a lot of time with them in the pool today already.
Do we seriously have to insinuate that people are Nazis every half a second? Could we just like, instead, not do that? Here on the threadiverse?
The point you're trying to make is frankly weaker for it.
The truth is, their point is made weaker for using a far-right trash source with low credibility. Why they used that specific source should raise serious eyebrows.
In fairness, I simply asked a question; how they responded reveals so much more. Though if you're regurgitating the most fringe fucking garbage right-wing media points that just so happens to have wedge-drive the left, yes, I think that raises some red flags.
I will continue to call such people out, and if they instead turned around and went, "Hey yeah you're right, this source is dogshit and Snopes couldn't even verify what was said in the video, so sorry for spreading this bullshit nazi trash" I'd say no harm no foul.
Edit: By the way, I never said they were center-right; I was citing MBFC. Please, I encourage one to read more carefully. Though anyone with half a brain knows by the standards of Overton Window, that means far-right in US politics. If you disagree, then congratulations, you're enabling fascism or should review the rightward trajectory of the Overton Window.
My brother in Christ you already described it as being center-right and now you're exaggerating that to try and make your point more sailient
I agree that its an irreputable source and that the quality of the source should always be pointed out. But if you seriously think using a less than reputable source on a link aggregator site when it confirms their biases makes someone a Nazi I'm pretty damn confident your bar is set cartoonishly low.
I don't care whether you think they have credibility, you can make your case that they don't; calling anyone and everyone a Nazi still damages yours. Your point would be stronger sans that assertion.
I didn't downvote you, but I think you can see lots of others did-- I guarantee you'd be more well received if you left out the heinous personal attacks without adequate basis and just stuck to your very strong argument that the source is uncredible and not something we should trust blindly.
Brother in Christ, I didn't down-vote you, but also, I don't give a shit enough about your opinion anymore to care to read the rest of it. Sorry. Just being honest! I know the sort of tankies and righties alike on here and take zero stock in their down-votes lol. In fact, sometimes I see that is a net-positive :)
I didn't downvote you
Lmao 
Youre right, everyone who disagrees with you is a tankie or a right-winger (we have so many of those here). You should just never engage with critique in any form because youre obviously always right, and anyone who disagrees must either be stupid or arguing in bad faith
You should see his last post on c/asklemmy. He asked why people have been so quick to block him LMAO
Oh oops. Let me correct the misclick. Tell you what. I'll even upvote you, since you clearly care so much!
Also, thanks for confirming you're fucking weird lol.
Can you see what I tagged you, too? ;)
If you downvote someone at the same time as you reply and theres only one downvote, deep at the bottom of a thread, it makes it really obvious it was you, even if activitypub didn't publish votes publicly
Also, thanks for confirming you're fucking weird lol.
Says the person crashing out on the fediverse and blatantly arguing in bad faith without knowing the activity pub standard makes all votes public, so its really easy to show you're lying lol
Yes yes, I'm sure you think I'm a Nazi now too, we all know anyone you disagree with is, but for the record, no. Tagging users is private, at least to my understanding, though I don't have a lot of experience with the feature- I'm not sure if the mobile client I use supports it
Have a nice day
so its really easy to show you’re lying lol
Unfortunately, lying requires proof of intent, and we all can all mis-click or just out of habit when you see absurdist comments. How silly, right? Probably just like how this far-right extremist outlet with known low credibility and zero other corroborating sources may have just dropped that video and audio into AI, and reveal something opposite to what Snopes itself was able to ascertain.
But yeah, yeah... Keep defending fringe right-wing outlets cited as "LOW CREDIBILITY." You keep coming back for more, yet I'm the one crashing out?
Here, I'll help a fella out and give you with the last response:
Edit: Oh, and before I go, I'll even toss in another upvote (check and make sure that's from me, too, though. Can't be too sure). You have a nice rest of your day as well.
Lol, you're an idiot if you think anyone believes that was a mistake just take the L, and at no point did I defend a right wing outlet, I critisized calling people Nazis without adequate basis, I was very clear about what my position was or wasn't
Me, like 2 comments ago:
I agree that its an irreputable source and that the quality of the source should always be pointed out.
...and just stuck to your very strong argument that the source is uncredible and not something we should trust blindly.
Straw man me harder, if you try really hard you can dismiss me as a Nazi too, the whole platform is obviously full of them, after all
And I don't care how you vote, I care when people transparently argue in bad faith and are intellectually dishonest whenever they think they can get away with it and it serves their ability to "win" the argument. its shitty antisocial behavior, regardless of ideology
Hey you know what, I thought it over. I don't like coyful bullshit like I pulled and only do that if I think the other side is being insincere (I have little problem fighting fire with fire if I'm convinced they threw started it). But looking it over, I don't think you're like that, so I'll be straight as you already knew: I lied. Sorry for that. I think we misunderstood each other from the start but ultimately believe we have more in common than what divides us, and share a similar vision.
I'll just leave it at that, but sincerely, have a good rest of your day.
Thats really fuckin hard to step back and do, either durring conflict or to come back and say after, full credit to you for that, I think we can all aspire to being able to take ownership of it if we realize we don't like how we handled something
I feel like the internet makes it really hard to tell people's tone and intent with so much of the social ques like expressions and delivery stripped away and in all fairness I was somewhat flippant in my expressing frustration that someone was being compared to a Nazi, and over the internet it can be hard to read how something like that is meant, especially when lots of people are already arguing with you
A lot of my values system is built on acting in good faith, so I really appreciate being able to get to a place of sincerity. I will say though, I think whem you put your best foot forward ypu often get people's best in response, and you might be surprised how much of the platform is actually lovely folks. Thats part of why Im reflecting that I was somewhat flippant- I didn't put my best foot forward, just wasn't really thinking about it, and I didn't get your best in return 🤷🏻♂️.
Thank you, I hope that you do too :) take care lennybird!
Dispelling the myth of a 2 party system is being a Nazi? Like Clinton said, you need a public and a private position, Whitmer's private position is now public
False Premise fallacy. We've not yet established the premise to be true. You sure trust far-right sources an awfully lot.
And you sure distrust them despite there being zero evidence that they make up items like this.
I would distrust their slant, but this is a video with no commentary. What slant is there?
There's a major difference between faking shit and misrepresenting shit.
If their facts are still true, I don't know what to say, but you do you man.
You sure trust a far-right outlet with LOW CREDIBILITY a lot.
Tagged nazi. Thanks for playing.
lmao I trust what mediabiasfactcheck says, which is that they are BIASED not FAKE.
Slava Ukraini ;)
lmao you are a dipshit, read my comment history fucko. I am an american with cancer who had been pro-Ukraine this entire time.
Good luck with your cancer.
But work on your critical-thinking skills. You take nazi bait way too easily.
and you just read what someone else tells you and take it as gospel even when they give you the opportunity to see their reasoning, which is well laid out on the mediabiasfactcheck page
You on the other hand need to work on your media literacy skills, because you claimed it was AI at the get-go and here we are, the video is authentic, and you still can't admit you were wrong.
If it were fake as Whitmer claims they could have captured and provided the audio from one or several of the other cameras on them at the time. Theyve had over month to do something. SNOPES confirmed the comments. Democrats dont give AF about the working class anymore than republicans
Lots of Democrats do, actually! But that's another topic. Be careful, lots of Russian and Republican trash on here trying to spread misinformation and stop people from voting Democrats, helping fascist Republicans win in November!
Snopes only acknowledges footage happened and audio occurred but could not independently verify or make out what was said, which means anyone could use AI to inject what they want her to say. They left Unrated.
I'll make it simple for you, democrats are fascist. Pointing out that BlueMAGA operates on the same frequency as MAGA isnt spreading misinfo, its breaking down their similarities.
IF you read the story they confirmed what was said but couldnt clarify the context.
I'm not familiar with the outlet but heard about the story on Breaking Points. Since the sub requires an article, I just searched for one and this is what popped up.
Primary her, Michigan, because fuck this shit.
You're reposting month old speculative nonsense adding nothing to what was already a nothing - can't hear what is being said.
You are, knowingly or not, regurgitating propaganda. Dip.
and all those people who bought nfts are laughing at us because we fell behind too, right?
build them or fall behind
Americans building data centers they don't even turn on. They build centers that can't afford the hardware to fill them. They build centers running dogshit inefficient algorithms. They build data centers that can't turn any kind of profit. They build centers for CSAM. They build centers for bot farming social media. They build centers for drone striking elementary schools. They build data centers for mass producing AI slop to cover up the CSAM, the bot farms, and the child murder.
Why do we want more of these things, again?
Germany, the country that was building the Schwerer Gustav Railway Gun - siege artillery so big that they couldn't actually move or fire it. And the MG 42 machine gun that blinded the gunner with its own exhaust. And the Me 163 Komet, which had enormous acceleration but less than eight minutes of flight time and a high risk of explosion during use.
All of these would make good analogs to the modern American AI development cycle.
China is also building more efficient data centers that dont rely on near unlimited amounts of water and resources
It’s a race to the singularity, and whoever gets there first will create and control God. So we need to sacrifice everything to get there before the Red Chinese, or we’ll be living under a Communist Gangster Computer God. After all, sacrificing consumer goods, clean water and basic survival needs is a small price to pay for your only hope for a future.
all 98 comments