cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/20368770

It’s easy to understand if you realize that America is essentially a corporation rather than a country, and that country is only representing its shareholders.

In case you’re confused - if you’re not rich and powerful, you’re not a shareholder. You’re an employee or a commodity or an expense, and you exist to enrich the shareholder class.

  • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
    3·
    3 months ago

    I agree with your sentiment.

    Commercial breaks allow for the stylists and makeup artists to touch up their candidate mid debate. I won’t even imply that commercial breaks weren’t invented because of capitalism and the need to monetize everything, it seems that there were commercial/sponsorship breaks in the earliest of radio programs.

    I am saying that they continue because, for live events in particular, it allows the crew to do their jobs and refresh the makeup of their actor for 30 seconds at a time.

    I suppose you could have some other sort of break that is an exposé of feel good news, or puppies and kittens, but I don’t think that is fundamentally different than using the time to display advertisements. The content of those advertisements can be debated ad infinatum, since even in a fully democratic communist world, advertisements still need to exist.

    • Stefen Auris@pawb.socialEnglish
      16·
      3 months ago

      How about instead of a commercial break it’s a fact check break where they go over the most glaring of lies given by the candidates

      • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
        2·
        3 months ago

        Love the idea… But let’s be real, Conservative rhetoric has depended on attacking peoples trust in acedemia, administrative government positions and anyone who is an expert who doesn’t reinforce the vibe of being a “dissenting voice”. Fact checks make those of us who understand sourcing feel like we’re owning the idiots, but for the Conservative audience iit very rarely shifts people out of their steadfast adherence and instead tends to make them distrust the medium the debate is held in.

        Conservative rhetoric has been a poisoned well for a long time. To play by their game one has to look more at a vibes based playbook. Their voting block generally have a misplaced overconfidence in their own ability to read body language and tone. It’s literally not the words and definitely not the facts, it’s the affect they are delivered in.

        It’s part of why they dunno how to think about Harris and have conspiracy theories about her earrings piping her answers. She is outperforming Trump on affect of delivery based on their playbook and they don’t know how to interpret that.

      • Shark_Ra_Thanos@lemmy.mlEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        Lets be real. That’ll spiel the first, maybe even the second time with a special delivery planned to surprise everyone. The kind they’ll practiced across all TV and completely unrelated events telling people important noose.

        The third time at the latest will not be talking about the real lies. They’ll be talking about the lies both of them practiced to be on the board together with no fucks given who would win.

        This because they’re both telling the same lies. The truth isn’t easy to find and all of TV was always loud as fuck because they were always fucking lying even when they were telling the truth.

        • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
          2·
          3 months ago

          Okay, yes. Sure, why not. But out here, in objective reality, some facts can be known and verified and outside your “truth is a lie and nothing can be known” approach, there is indeed a difference between zero reported eaten dogs and hordes of illegal migrant bogeymen eating everybody’s dogs.

          • Shark_Ra_Thanos@lemmy.mlEnglish
            1·
            3 months ago

            You’re missing the point. A lying truth is a statement while true and seems to be the subject, misleads to the wrong relativity and presents a statement, while factual indeed, is still a lie. To say, for example, that there is no consequences to pollution that will kill all life on earth an order of magnitude sooner than any current prediction unless you literally undo everything you’ve done and made it up in an order of magnitude more in work to fix it than was done to create it.

            Now what exactly is true and what EXACTLY is the lie here?

            • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
              1·
              3 months ago

              To say, for example, that there is no consequences to pollution that will kill all life on earth an order of magnitude sooner than any current prediction unless you literally undo everything you’ve done and made it up in an order of magnitude more in work to fix it than was done to create it.

              I am indeed missing the point, though mostly because the meaning of this sentence has not revealed itself to me, to put it lightly. It’s not for a lack of trying, but so far I merely have some vague suspicions what you may be trying to convey with it at best.

              • Shark_Ra_Thanos@lemmy.mlEnglish
                1·
                3 months ago

                Whatever excuses business to murder everyone is not a plan written at the beginning of this celestial Aeon. They weren’t planning it. They just knew all of that because AI went back in time to tell them about it.