News has in the past allowed videos that are relevant to the community topic - news. Allowing this to stay.
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
190 points (93.2% liked)
News
23445 readers
3728 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
OK thanks, 👍 😀
I changed the title, but I think my original was more accurate apart from the (amazing) which is obviously subjective, and I did put in parenthesis for that reason.
slams
🧐🤮
Yes, the rules say I MUST use the editorial by MSNBC instead of writing "AOC speech at 2024 democratic convention."
But at least the mods made an exception and allowed the video, despite rule #6.
I would have posted this to c/politics, because I found it weird it wasn't already posted. But their rule #1 apparently only allows posting articles?
But IMO this speech is absolutely worth seeing if you have ANY interest in American politics.
The normal work around would be to find a news article that embedded the full speech but thanks for posting it here! I saw the Warnock speech but I missed catching AOC live.
I messaged one of the mods, asking why videos that are clearly relevant can't be posted.
If I post a link to an article with the video, the video becomes secondary to the article.
The video represent what was actually said, not some interpretation of it.
Seems to me a weird rule, excluding relevant quality content.
So instead of working around the rule, I chose simply not to post there. As I suspect others have done too, despite the content is super relevant to the sub.
A PoliticalVideos community needs to be fostered. I think r/politics always had a similar rule.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable reaction. When the community rules add a barrier it's quite fair to simply refuse to participate - I'm not a mod so I don't know why that rule is there but I appreciate you posting it here regardless.
I adore AOC. I look forward to when she runs for president, too.
S L A M S
She really is a natural at this politics thing.
Yes, and she seems very strongly motivated by her own experiences that are shared by many people, and everybody is at risk having to deal with.
She truly is a voice of the people for the people.
He would sell out the US to avoid losing a dollar, even if he gains nothing.
I'm just happy the party isn't suppressing its stars because they're progressive. A Big Tent party needs to recognize and use talent across its spectrum. Now get Ayanna Pressley up there.
They need to pay some lip service to progressives for now to get elected.
AIPAC’s funding casts doubt on how progressive the Dems are allowed to be in the long term.
It feels like there's still some, mostly unspoken animosity between liberals and demsocs like AOC. I think the Democrats would like people to believe that liberals and demsocs have reached a consensus, and that moderates and progressives are unified, but I think there are still philosophical and ideological differences between them, maybe even some that are irreconcilable. The liberals have definitely made a lot of concessions to the demsocs, but I think they have also tried to make it abundantly clear that the Democratic party is still a liberal party. And that's understandable, liberalism is the predominant ideology in America. Sure, there are a lot more demsocs today than twenty years ago, but we are still heavily outnumbered.
There’s nothing holding her back from being a great speaker like Obama. She needs more time and practice to develop her skills further to get to that next level. And maybe a better speechwriter.
I’m definitely a fan of hers, but felt that this could have been executed better. She did not have a lot of vocal variation and came out blazing fairly early on in the speech. Not going to rewatch it, but that was my perspective from last night. At one point I was like whoa Kimberly Guilfoyle, take it down a notch.
I do understand the need to be angry but it’s much more impactful when vocal variation, pitch, tone and volume are employed more effectively to build toward the anger.
Response because I can’t post to thread?
Yeah it was a solid debut but I’m excited for her to get better. Compare and contrast with Harris’ childhood friend and she obviously was better than that. It just doesn’t inspire me to make people watch it because I don’t think it was at that level.
To be fair, the news showed people straight up crying at Clinton’s speech and I didn’t think that was amazing either.
With respect I tend to disagree. I and many others felt she delivered one of the best speeches of the evening, both on substance and in delivery. She delivered fire and excitement, was one of the few speakers who actually kept their cadence on pace; her speech had a clear beginning, middle, and end, and she utilized body language effectively. For her sort of debut in the national spotlight, she knocked it out of the park.
You mean her practiced body language? It was pretty unnatural and sometimes her timing was off which especially gave it away as a performative act.
Yes thank you. It didn’t read as natural - that’s the word.
It’s disheartening that one can’t disagree on this topic without being eaten alive. I’m not saying elect Donald Trump and the couchfucker or anything ffs. Plus, I’m Canadian - so probably more left leaning than any US Dem - and as I’ve expressed, I really want the US to get their shit together.
I’ve done Toastmasters. I’m a writer for a living. I know how to give feedback on speeches. I also acknowledged that not every speech is received the same way by every viewer.
I’m not even saying she’s bad - I’m just saying she could be GREAT with more practice. I don’t understand why this is a shocking thing to say.
I’m Canadian - so probably more left leaning than any US Dem
Do you think American Democrats are all just Joe Biden clones at various ages? Canada both isn't an incredibly left-leaning country (we're not talking about a European social democracy) and both the US and Canada are a political spectrum. Just being Canadian doesn't mean you're a super leftist in the context of the US.
Our parties are more left leaning than US ones, yeah. So the left-most leaning party, the NDP is the Bernies and AOCs. Just slightly to the right of them but not by much are the centre-left (some could argue centre, for Canada) Liberals aka US Dems but these are still left of the US Dems. Then you have the Conservatives who used to be centre right but they’re really flirting with being firmly right which is STILL to the left of the US Repubs. So yeah, we’re pretty left.
Here’s a good breakdown someone wrote on the other site:
There's a Daily Show from back in the Stewart days when Harper's Conservatives won the federal election in Canada. The line went something like:
"Right wing parties are winning everywhere! In Canada, the Conservative Party, or as we'd know it here, the Gay Rainbow Alliance, has won their election."
If that gives you any idea.
The NDP are mostly in-line with the further left of the Dems, but realistically, the Liberals are only slightly more towards the centre than them. The Conservatives are historically right of centre, but still left of most of the American center. That was largely true before the Progressive Conservatives failed, merged with the Reform party, and became the Conservative Party of Canada.
That said, the Conservative parties have been moving further right in recent years. Some of this was because their supporters were generally finance, oil, large corporations, etc., so the policies they pushed forward were usually beneficial to them. But more recently they've been pursuing a lighter version of US-style populism. Mostly though, their platform for the past 3 leaders seems to be "aren't you sick of Trudeau yet?" because they don't have much substance in anything else they claim to support.
None of this is relevant to whether you, as a Canadian, are inherently leftier than "any US Dem".
Sure? I mean this isn't Juilliard. I'm not expecting perfection, but relative to historical baseline for convention speeches it was fantastic.
It feels like there's a bit of gender stereotyping going on here.
Her speech was fine without your desire for her to be less intense.
Nope, just saying what makes an impactful speech to me 🤷♀️
I’m allowed to disagree about the speech.
You will be assimilated, resistance is futile. 😋
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support