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.
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.
“With that damning non-answer, Senator Vance made it clear he will always make a different choice than Mike Pence made,” Walz said on Wednesday. “And as I said then, and I will say now, that should be absolutely disqualifying if you’re asking to be the vice-president.”
Not American, how was Pence?
Pence was Trump's last Vice President. His politics are as bad as any other republican, but he did the bare minimum of admitting to losing the last election and didn't take part in any of the election overthrowing funny business.
Pence certified the 2020 election, and his party built guillotines outside the capital in retribution. The kicker is the constitution provides the vice president no authority to reject it - it's a formal process and he was following the law. vance's response made clear he hasn't accepted the results, and likely wouldn't have certified. should it be disqualifying?
The potential VP just admitted that he would not faithfully carry out the duties of his position in our government.
If an applicant for a job tells his potential employer that he will not do part of the defined job description it is 100% disqualifying.
Well now, let's be careful with our words. To my knowledge vance hasn't explicitly said he wouldn't certify, he responded with covid accusations and completely avoided the question.. but to your point still, difficult to imagine an applicant doing the same.
When asked a simple yes or no question about whether he would do 1 of the 3 responsibilities of the job (be alive, breaks ties in the Senate, certify the election results), he refused to answer.
Youre saying that with so little to do, someone who refuses to say "yes" to 1/3rd of their job description would still be in the running at your employer?
You hiring?
This is not from the debate -- previously he specifically said that in Pence's place he would not have certified the 2020 election.
The VP has basically a ceremonial role to "certify" the election. When Trump lost he told Pence to not certify it. Pence looked at the law and decided that he had to certify it. Trump tried to get the Jan 6 crowd to kill Pence.
Pence rummaged in the law’s panty drawers looking for a loophole, and when he couldn’t find one, he called Dan Quayle to ask if there was any way at all he could violate his duty and support trump. Only after Quayle told him no multiple times did he finally, begrudgingly decide he had to certify it.
Let’s not give Pence more credit than he deserves.
That headline about Quayle saving democracy doesn't make sense. If Pence had no power on Jan 6th then there was never any danger from him.
The issue is how the constitution lays out the choosing of a president. Pence had to certify the results, if he had refused to do so for long enough, then that session of Congress may have ended without choosing a president.
At that point, the Constitution prescribes there is a contingent election in the House, where every state delegation to Congress gets 1 vote. There are more red states than blue states -> Trump wins.
Ugh.
He was just lying. Gaslighting is a specific thing in abusive relationships, can we not broaden the definition to be "anytime anyone lies about stuff"?
Ehh, lying is a wide thing with different motivations. Gaslighting is a malicious type of lying that is designed to undermine the victims sense of reality, their sense of self. It's meant to increase dependency on the liar.
Its normally used to describe abusive romantic relationships, but it's not that specific. It can apply to jobs, families, and yes, government.
Vance is 100% gaslighting the American public. He's twisting what happened in a torturous way to make people afraid of trusting themselves and their lying eyes. Hes casting himself and Trump as the only people that "tell the truth" by lying. That's gaslighting.
It's really troubling to me, that people's relationships with politicians can be compared to intimate relationships.
You're not wrong I guess.
Gaslighting is a term that has been applied to non-intimate relationships all the time.
In fact, you will see such accusations here on Lemmy.
It wasn't always.
I don't know what to tell you- language is fluid. Calling someone silly used to mean you were saying they were blessed.
Clinical language should not be fluid. It should means something specific so that it can actually be used to help people.
We aren't in a clinical setting.
So what? It still creates confusion for no reason, gaslighting should mean something and not be muddied by popculture. That's always bad every time clinical terms get trashed and used this way.
No one here seems confused.
It's a common problem in mental health; popculture misunderstandings of afflictions like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and depression and addiction all lead people into making mistakes with their own mental health. This is just more of the same.
Is 'gaslighting' even a clinical term? Can you demonstrate this, please?
I do no care enough to do that for you, all I know is it started as a colloquialism that was adopted as a clinical term because of how useful it is and then re-entered popculture again in 2022. We lost a useful term.
I can tell you're just arguing for the sake of arguing by the way. You don't give a shit about any of this. Very Reddity
None of my searching shows it to be a clinical term. I think you just made that up.
Here's what the Cleveland Clinic says:
Gaslighting is a very specific form of emotional abuse and mental manipulation that disrupts your ability to trust others and yourself. While the term has gained popularity online, in reality TV and other pop culture avenues, it’s also a term that’s often over-used to describe other kinds of bad behavior like lying, guilt-tripping or shaming.
In truth, people use these tactics and more to gaslight their targets over long periods of time in an effort to gain power and control over their victims. But it’s specifically the pattern of repetitive behavior that’s used to deteriorate a victim’s morality, sanity and sense-of-self that fundamentally defines gaslighting abuse.
A "very specific" form of emotional abuse that's "over-used" to describe lying, but in truth, people uses these tactics to "deteriorate a victim’s morality, sanity and sense-of-self"
Applying this to a debate performance is troubling. He's just a lying asshole.
That doesn't make it a clinical term.
In fact:
It’s become a popular — and overused — term over the last few years (much like “narcissism” and “toxic relationships”), but it’s important to note that it’s not a clinical or mental health diagnosis. You won’t see this term used in the official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM V), and no one can be diagnosed as “a gaslighter.”
https://www.sondermind.com/resources/articles-and-content/how-to-deal-with-gaslighting/
If it isn't in the DSM V, it is not a clinical term in psychology. It is a term for laypeople.
Seems fair.
I will note that both of our sources point out that the term has become overused, which was my fucking point.
We lost a valuable term and now it's worthless, even as a colloquialism.
I agree with you 100%, just wanted to say that you probably mean tortuous… though torturous is definitely metaphorically possible 😂
Fuck off. You let him get away with it.