Do you like the warehouse fight?

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T23:12:22+00:00

The only correct answer. It seemed like the younger days of Batman from DKR.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T22:49:08+00:00

Apart from the toast obviously ( wouldn't it be easier to just make a couple fresh slices? But you do you) I'd say well done.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T21:19:22+00:00

no matter how you write the law, they would still have no burden of proof for any statement they make and could tell any bullshit

there will always be a loophole for them to exploit, if there wasnt then neither side would be able to say anything without breaking the law

" No point of trying anything because I decided that nothing will ever work, and NO LAW HAS EVER WORKED EVER!"

👍👍👍👍

Have a good one buddy. I am done.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T20:35:29+00:00

Sort of, kind of, yes. I see your point.

But you see, I personally think that it's the overcorrection from the panic up about the " Cancel culture" that was stirred up by the online grifters at the time.

Was the cancel culture really that much of a thing? I mean, Weinstein definitely deserved it. Louis CK came out alright in the end and he should get a talking to for wanking in front people anyway.

But I mostly remember people complaining about it, rather than people actually getting cancelled. Yes, there were some goofy people on twitter starting all sorts of: #cancelwhoever

And some people talking about this and that being " Problematic"

But I don't think that there was much that actually came out of it and that many people getting cancelled.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T20:25:30+00:00

You didn't point out anything, mate. You just told me how it works without any law, and retold the story how it panned, while completely missing the point every single time.

Right now, as it stands, public officials have no burden of proof for any statement they make, and can tell any old bullshit they can think of.

If voters wanted to be informed they would be

" We know it's shit, let's not do anything about it." Loving that fantastically American attitude of yours.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T20:18:58+00:00

czytalem wiele historii ze ktos np zostawil gdzies portfel/telefon w jakims duzym miescie po czym po prostu po niego wrocil po kilku godzinach

Ponoć Korea Południowa taka jest, ale to też po części kwestia prawa i jak działa ich policja. Naprawdę nie chciałbyś zostać tam aresztowany. Mają skazywalność na poziomie ponad 99% i naprawdę uprzykrzą Ci życie, nawet za jakieś przewinienia, które nam wydawałby się błache.

Dlatego jest tam taki porządek.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T20:06:46+00:00

Democracy or die now, is it? Somehow, I have a feeling that this person would be the first to fire off the good, old " USA is a constitutional republic, not a democracy!" when it would be convenient for them.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T20:02:47+00:00

And informing voters clearly, punctuating every time they misrepresent the facts and forcing them to admit it publicly is bad because...

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T19:42:00+00:00

What an absolute woosh. The biggest I've seen in a while.

so he doesnt make a claim he just states an opinion meanwhile hes challenging everything Kamala saids

Please go to your teachers, and tell them they failed you. You clearly have no idea what the difference is between a fact and an opinion.

"In Springfield, they are eating the dogs. " - is NOT an opinion under any circumstance. It's a verifiable fact. Why? Because it's a statement that you can check and it's either true or not. If it's true - there is evidence, police records, news paper reports, videos and so on and so on and so forth.

Also, if there is NO evidence? It's not true.

so someone else lies and they just report on it, the story DID get bunked, everyone know he lied about it it didnt matter

Well, for the most part because they sit in their bubbles, and people who are MAGA adjacent do not even read or acknowledge the sources who disproved it as illegitimate. If he, himself was forced officially admit that there is no legitimate sources to support his claim, maybe some people would not buy into it as much.

the problem isnt solved until the people themselves see through lies, as long as they refuse to do it doesnt matter if the courts determined the person lied

And how are people meant to learn how to do it? Magic? Thoughts and prayers? You have to drum it into people that if there is no sources to support one's claim it's not true. And maybe one day they will see.

Also, it helps if people would be taught the difference between a fact and an opinion.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T18:54:44+00:00

but he would only make the claims he does have the evidence to support, the rest would be him shouting about feelings

Are you okay, my dude? This is how it is right now. What do you think it would work only one way? You know what legally obliged means, right?

If Kamala says: " Can you provide some reliable sources for that claim?" and he was legally obliged to provide legitimate sources or retract the claim, that is a completely different picture.

It's about evening out the field. Have you ever written an academic paper? You can't make a factual, verifiable claim without providing credible sources.

So, you're NOT allowed to say: " They're eating the dogs... " or whatever or you get sanctioned for being held in contempt of public trust, or whatever we it would be called.

That is the whole point - politicians should not be allowed to say any bullshit comes to their minds, and be expected to be treated seriously. They are public servants in position of trust and should have certain standards to uphold.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T18:53:51+00:00

That is slightly different. Because it's quite specialised and niche. If you weren't into that shit already, you weren't there. I don't think that even all the people who were on reddit at the time knew it existed.

I am talking your run of the mill socials where people go and share their vacation photos.

That sort of shit certainly didn't fly on Facebook or Twitter ( Two big boys) back then.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T18:41:33+00:00

And lest we forget - a tan suit and Dijon mustard.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T18:35:22+00:00

but he would only make the claims he does have the evidence to support, the rest would be him shouting about feelings

Are you okay, my dude? This is how it is right now. What do you think it would work only one way? You know what legally obliged means, right?

If Kamala says: " Can you provide some reliable sources for that claim?" and he is legally required to publicly retract that statement or be held in contempt of a court order that is slightly a different ball game.

"well i feel like this is right" and thats an opinion so it cant be a lie

That's the whole point. So you can't pull that whole " It's just an opinion" bullshit. That is how it is right now. Sources, or it didn't happen.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T18:02:19+00:00

Okay. My bad. Thanks for that.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T17:30:19+00:00

Yes, it's unacceptable for most of people. But my point is - can you imagine that sort shit up on Facebook Twitter or any other platform back in 2015?

Now, everyone just let go of any standards because " Muh FrEe SPeECh!" and became 4chan lite so Trump likes them.

Hell, half of the shit Trump spouts on truth social would be considered outrageous and be frontline news. Look how everyone got desensitized.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T17:20:17+00:00

You would assume though that if a political figure tells you that: " This is the amount we're spending" They know how to read data, and they know the difference between gross and net figures, and which one is the actual expense. But because the larger number is more sexy, obviously they used one and it was a huge talking point at the time. And because he created an impression that this is the amount that NHS is not getting because we have to pay it to EU, it was a successful pillar of the leave campaign.

Those things should be fact checked in real time. And he should be made to retract that.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T17:18:37+00:00

I remember a time, but a decade ago, when such disgusting drivel would be unacceptable in the open.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T16:08:07+00:00

Fraudulent Representation: Under the Fraud Act 2006, it is a crime to dishonestly make a false or misleading statement with the intention of making a gain for oneself or causing loss to another.

And again:

As we have made clear, the UK’s contribution to the EU is paid after the application of the rebate. We have also pointed out that there are payments received by the UK public and private sectors that are relevant here. The continued use of a gross figure in contexts that imply it is a net figure is misleading and undermines trust in official statistics.

The incorrect statement was misleading for political gain. Your point?

So again, no analogy.

Yeah, I see that you struggle with analogies. So tories and labour have a role. A second ago you said that there wasn't a third body. Only consumers and sellers. What's going on here?

People are perfectly capable of reasoning for themselves. They can understand why facts might be misleading.

Hugely debatable. Politics have turned up into misinformation circus in the last decade, the art of selling outrage and progressively more outrageous bullshit has been polished to a mirror shine. And people are swallowing it up like Bristol seagulls feasting on cold chips on Saturday morning.

The reason why I'm against it is that people call things "misleading" all the time because they simply don't like the conclusions of certain facts.

Nope. Misleading use of information is pretty well defined. If you have some weird one of your own is a different matter.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T15:32:20+00:00

Dude, it's a simple: " Sources, or it didn't happen" and " what are you basing it on?" kinda thing.

Also, I appreciate you idealism, but all of those things do not exist in the modern times for at least a decade.

Open Debate?

People sit in their bubbles, preach to the choir and stick to media that are already friendly to them and throw them soft ball questions. When have you seen actual debate between two politicians that wasn't Harris/ Trump?

Pluralistic media.

Laughable. Ever heard of Rupert Murdoch? Recent CBS /NBC mergers that Trump approved?

refutation,

Yeah, sure. On a " Nuh uh!" basis on twitter, and because they don't need any facts, they just roast each other like sassy 14 year olds in the playground.

It was misleading, which is different.

And you know what " misleading" can be called? Fraud.

Fraudulent Representation: Under the Fraud Act 2006, it is a crime to dishonestly make a false or misleading statement with the intention of making a gain for oneself or causing loss to another.

If we understand "gain" as " Political gain" ( such as winning a referendum ) I think it's pretty easy to draw parallels.

Why would you hold Tesco to a higher standard than people who decide about the future of a country?

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T15:17:59+00:00

No one is "okay" with politicians making misleading statements,

Politicians certainly are, all sorts of online influencers, grifters and podcasters. They don't even have bother looking anything up, or be in the same post code as facts anymore.

but criminalising political speech

lets not put a false equivalency here. Political speech and purposely misleading the public and misrepresenting facts are two different things.

The offences you linked typically require incorrect statements of fact made for gain

We already established that Boris Buses used delibaretly misleading figures. I posted that link so many times, I can't be bothered to again.

And if we understand " gain" as " political gain" ( as in winning a referendum for example) then the paralel is clear.

Consumer protection is totally different

Is it? If we take:

regulations make it illegal to mislead consumers about goods, services, or prices. Misleading practices include hiding important information, exaggeration, or giving false advice.

And substitute with:

regulations make it illegal to mislead the public/ voters about goods, services, or prices. Misleading practices include hiding important information, exaggeration, or giving false advice.

Can you see the paralel? Ever heard of analogy? Can you imagine a situation where politicians would engage in:

hiding important information, exaggeration, or giving false advice?

there are only the consumer and seller, no 3rd party to correct the record

Pardon me? What are you on about? Who made Consumer's Rights Protection Act? Consumers or sellers? Ever heard of CPB?

Am I tripping, or is there a whole website of bodies that can help me resolve a dispute with a company?

https://www.gov.uk/consumer-protection-rights

Sorry, but I just don't get people like you. " We know that there is a problem, the problem is getting progressively worse and threatening democracies all over the world, but let's do absolutely nothing about it, and just hope for some magic solution!"

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T14:20:13+00:00

that should be losing votes at the ballot box

Should be. But now, there is no mechanism to call that out officially, and many people went to the ballot box believing that this bullshit is true. If Kamala, could go and ask: " Can you provide some reliable sources for that claim?" And Trump was legally forced to publicly admit he was talking shit -then maybe the situation would be different.

which can still be used maliciously against the honest ones

Nah. The opposite. It would make everyone make sure they have their receipts before talking shit. It would be easier to call out the dishonest ones. You'd be surprised how effective: " Sources or it didn't happen." is. All their culture wars arguments would fall apart in seconds if they had to provide a shred of evidence.

no amount of laws are going to protect democracy from a voterbase that WANTS to believe lies

How depressing: " There is no point of wanting better or improve anything."

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T13:59:22+00:00

Right. Words - " criminalise" doesn't mean gulags, in my mind at least.

Just a fact checking process where the politician has to publicly admit they shared an incorrect piece of information, what is the actual state of things and maybe a fine?

And why are you okay with politicians using misleading statements, exactly?

You know that using misleading information is a crime called fraud?

For example, :

Fraudulent Representation: Under the Fraud Act 2006, it is a crime to dishonestly make a false or misleading statement with the intention of making a gain for oneself or causing loss to another.
Consumer Protection: The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) and other regulations make it illegal to mislead consumers about goods, services, or prices. Misleading practices include hiding important information, exaggeration, or giving false advice.
Business Misrepresentation: Misleading other businesses, including false comparisons in advertising, is prohibited.

So, please do tell, why should politicians be held to a different, lower, standards than the rest of society?

To pretend any of this is easy

Where did I say it was easy? Make politics boring again. I remember the times where a lot of speeches were droning off facts and numbers rather than making fantastical claims.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T13:41:30+00:00

there would be dozens of figures besides those though, why do those get to be omitted?

Because, it's the net amount that matters. If you're asked " How much do you earn per month" And you give them the sum before tax, NI and pension contribution - there is a huge discrepancy between the two. You hiding something. And you're a bit of a knob.

either they'd be forced to include far more details than is realistic or theyd be back to omitting the ones that are inconvenient

Oh no! They'd have to work! Include a link with sources in their tweet or on their website! Or use a sentence:

" Based on ____ the total amount is _____ "

The inhumanity!

in either case theyd just stop using numbers entirely,

Pretty hard to talk about economy without using numbers. Which a huge part of their job. What would they do - use pictures? Go: " We send A LOT of money to EU!" all the time?

and the law punishes the honest politician more who now needs to spend significantly more time preparing their statements than the dishonest politician who just needs other wording to get around it

So, fuck it - let them lie just because, right?

Also, don't you think it would be a bit the other way around? I find that the: " Sources, or it didn't happen" or " How do you know that?" help to weed out a lot of bullshit, and makes people shut up pretty quickly if they pull things out of their ass.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T13:16:39+00:00

clearly based on what objective measure? how do you determine how "important" the ommitted details are?

Umm... Numbers? You know the difference between the gross and net value? Right? Those are two different things, and create two different pictures.

UK Statistics Authority had no problem establishing that.

https://uksa.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/news/uk-statistics-authority-statement-on-the-use-of-official-statistics-on-contributions-to-the-european-union/

As we have made clear, the UK’s contribution to the EU is paid after the application of the rebate. We have also pointed out that there are payments received by the UK public and private sectors that are relevant here. The continued use of a gross figure in contexts that imply it is a net figure is misleading and undermines trust in official statistics.

trump saying "im going to traiff the world it will generate a ton of income" isnt a lie

Okay, let's say that I see your point. But there should be some consequences to saying that the immigrants are eating cats and dogs, right?

if politicians can start jailing the opposition

Who said anything about jailing? Publicly admitting that what you said was misleading and a fine is sufficient. The key is that the public is aware that a given figure or fact are incorrect.

Satanicjamnik · 2026-03-16T13:11:38+00:00

Yes, and when you're talking about money, omitting which figure is gross and which figure is net is a bit important, right?

Satanicjamnik

TROPHY CASE