“Oh well, you know, he’s not serious,” Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., told reporters in the U.S. Capitol. “He likes to goad you. You can’t take him seriously when he’s talking about stuff like this.”
"i don't kid."
-trump
"he tells it like it is"
-trump voter cultist
This sentence is a lie.
-The Ascended, product of Trump and his cult fusing into one giant monstrosity... That promptly implodes from the self-loathing of realising it's mostly made up of 🤢 poor people 🤮
Fox wasn't even aware of Trump's unilateral debate announcement.
Need to find a way to make a hybrid scarecrow/tin-man/lion/trump. Seeing as how he’s brainless, heartless, and cowardly.
I enjoy that pollsters are starting to poll for what happens if Trump drops and Vance is the top of the ticket, while Washington republicans are trying to figure out how to oust Janky Douche.
At this point I wouldn't be completely surprised if that chair that Clint Eastwood shouted at a few years ends up on the ballot.
i enjoy watching republicans eat each other alive while self-immolating
What's delightful is that their whole... (waves hands frantically) thing^1^, takes all the most crucial tools off the table. Imagine this safety sign posted at the RNC:
Absolutely NO:
compromising
back-tracking
changing your mind
making mistakes
wrong opinions
All one can do from there is lie while doing one of those things anyway. At a certain point people are going to take notice, which just makes it worse.
At this point I wouldn’t be completely surprised if that chair that Clint Eastwood shouted at a few years ends up on the ballot.
That was 12 years ago :(
That hurts. That hurts deep inside.
stupid time
honestly, with the rate at which the gop has gone balls to the wall deranged it feels more like 50 years.
think about it: the reason talking to a chair became a meme was because it was so unbelievable. the reason vance fucking a couch became a meme is because it's so believable.
Fuckin weird then and it's weird now.
People told me that it was impossible for the Republican party to even concieve of replacing Trump. Yeah? How's that going now, huh? Personally, I'm looking forward to Trump ripping the party in half.
That's the problem when you have a bunch of narcissistic opportunities vying for power. Eventually, they start trying to push each other down the stairs...
And if we found the right lever to push them into destroying each other, we'd have a very effective way to fight fascism.
The chair would have less felony convictions and rapes
That's where you're wrong. The chair would actually have fewer felony convictions and rapes. Allegedly. I don't know that chair personally. But the point is that "fewer" is the grammatically correct word for the point you're making.
"Less" is going to become grammatically correct as it's used more and more. It's only a matter of time. There is no useful distinction between the two terms.
So more less begets more less, more or less?
Yes.
Linguistic descriptivism 💪
Yes, although I will lament the loss of a useful term when it happens, like when "literally" became commonly used to mean "figuratively."
"Less" and "fewer," though? Worthless distinction. "Whom" needs to go ahead and die as well.
Oh yeah I'm a staunch descriptivist, but I do sometimes mourn the changes that are going on in Finnish which is my native language.
Change is inevitable, especially when there are more learners whose native language is from a completely different family (which'd be the vast majority of immigrants here, Uralic languages aren't exactly common), but it's still a bit sad to see the language start to lose some of its unique features that have made it so expressive – but also hard as fuck to learn.
I'm a big fan of language being as useful for communication as possible for people, which means it has to evolve with the times. While it's cool that Icelanders can still read 1000 year old documents, the fact that the language was artificially forced to stay the same doesn't sit well with me. They can get away with it because it's a niche language of only around 330,000 speakers, but no world language would ever survive under those kind of constraints.
As a native speaker of a relatively small language (under 6 million speakers) in a very niche language family, I understand eg. Iceland's desire to "preserve" the language – languages are by definition communication tools, but they're also inextricably tied to the culture(s) that produced them (and vice versa), so while I absolutely do agree that fighting change is relatively pointless, I think it's understandable that speakers of minority languages try to protect them.
So yeah, even though I definitely am a descriptivist and know that linguistic evolution is just a fact of life, I just can't help being a bit sad about it at the same time when it comes to Finnish. Not that I'd want to somehow "freeze" it since that'd be silly and impossible, but at the same time I'd love to see eg. promotion of some of the features that are currently dying out (whatever the hell that'd mean in practice). The primacy of English in this age of global mass media has minority languages in a real bind.
A language being closely tied to your identity is something I've never really experienced since my native language, English, is so widespread. I definitely agree that preservation of language is important - it doesn't have to be keeping the language the same, but can also just be keeping track of the changes. I've always been fascinated by the etymology of words, and English's word origins are very well-documented. I always assumed that it was the same in other languages that aren't in danger of dying out - are you able look up a random Finnish word online to see where it came from?
English is enough of a universal language nowadays that it's understandable that it might not be immediately obvious how language and culture / identity can be linked. Any sort of written, spoken, etc. cultural artifact is tied to a language, and while translation is absolutely a thing (duh), you do lose nuance even when translating to a closely related language.
With Finnish it's not really the vocabulary I'd like to see preserved, but grammar. English grammar is relatively lightweight even compared to most Indo-European languages, and Finnish and Uralic languages in general are on the other end of that spectrum. There's a lot of cool grammatical features, which, while not super duper necessary, add a lot of nuance that can take multiple words or even nearly a full sentence to replace. Where English and most other Indo-European languages usually need a completely new word to express new concepts, we can often just express the same thing by using our frankly ridiculously complex grammar (for a non-native learner!).
As an example, let's take the verb for "to look", katsoa. If you were to use a verb aspect called the momentane – which indicates that something was sudden and short-lived – to form the verb katsahtaa, you'd have something that's close to the English word "glance". Then you could use eg. the frequentative aspect – which (quoting Wikipedia here) expresses "repetitive action, but may also represent leisurely and/or prolonged activity, or activity that is not done in a particularly determined attempt to reach a goal" – to give you katsahdella and you'd have a verb that translates to something approximately like "to glance around aimlessly".
This sort of grammatical minutia has been getting rarer for centuries now, but the speed has definitely accelerated over the past ~40 years mainly due to more. In many ways it's unavoidable, but I still think it's a bit sad.
Oh and to answer your question about word origins, there's a free online Finnish etymological dictionary, and eg. Wiktionary has an etymology section.
Very late to the comment, but I don't think and don't hope this is correct. There is a distinction - fewer is for things you can count, less is for a more abstract, less countable amount. I have fewer opportunities as I have less time. I'm just an old English major, but I like accuracy with language.
Yes, there is a difference, but as far as understanding what a person is saying, you can use them interchangeably. In what situation would you need to know whether it's a countable or abstract amount?
Problems. “I have fewer problems than I did last year” means that I understand what my problems are or am tracking some of them and no longer have as many. “I have less problems than I did last year” is more vibes based and is a statement that this year seems to be going easier than last year went
Law.
I'm fine with the "less" and "fewer" distinction only being relevant in formal settings. People need to give up on correcting "10 items or less" signs, though. The change is already here.
Depends on whatever style guide and dictionary your work falls under, I suppose.
When I edited law reviews, we used Chicago Manual and Webster. We had secondary and tertiary references as well in case the primary was silent or vague. We also had our own list of style exceptions and preferences. But that's law and policy writing.
On the grocery sign, or on things such as ads, that's not writing, that textography. The rules don't need to be formal on the sign. The word was chosen for space constraints. The word with fewer letters takes up less space. If all you do is read signage, fewer and less probably feel interchangeable. If you are reading law reviews and legal opinions all day, you recognize the number disagreement error, immediately.
The countable / uncountable element which creates the disagreement error comes from the dictionary. They are slightly different parts of speech even. Both are determinative adjectives but only one is comparative, by definition. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Hence "Drive-thru" rather than "drive-through."
You're correct. It's just a distinction that's extremely unlikely to be needed in everyday use.
The same Vance that refuses to learn a nice life lesson from Mamaw?
"I'll never forget the time I convinced myself that I was gay. I was eight or nine, maybe younger, and I stumbled upon a broadcast by some fire-and-brimstone preacher. The man spoke about the evils of homosexuals, how they had infiltrated our society, and how they were all destined for hell absent some serious repenting. At the time, the only thing I knew about gay men was that they preferred men to women. This described me perfectly: I disliked girls, and my best friend in the world was my buddy Bill. Oh no, I'm going to hell."
When he brought up the issue with his grandmother — known to Vance as "Mamaw" — she replied bluntly: "Don't be a fucking idiot, how would you know that you're gay?"
When Vance explained his reasoning, she laughed.
"JD, do you want to suck dicks?" she said, according to the book.
The young Vance, apparently "flabbergasted," said: "Of course not!"
"Then you're not gay. And even if you did want to suck dicks, that would be okay," she replied. "God would still love you."
Oh wow. Even when they try they can't get it right. Many people know they're gay by 9, not all gay men want to do oral sex, and all most 9 year olds know is they're supposed to want this thing called sex. It's literally the grade where they talk about "it" and some braggart says they did "it".
And the God loves you line is just classic. According to conservatives God loves gay people which is why it's important to save them from hell.
This entire story is just a massive line of red flags.
My family loves to tell the story about my cousin and I running around the house when we were like 6 and supposedly he stopped dead in his tracks, looked at my stepmom and said "that dress is so your color."
Doesn't have to do with dicks, but from that day they knew he was gay and he very much is now that we're in our late 30s. I love him to death, he's such a great guy!
He finally came out to me when we went to an art exhibit because I always liked Tim Burton stuff and he kept commenting on paintings "why are the men all clothed and the women all topless? Why does Jack not have a bulge but Sally is full figured!?" That kind of stuff. So over dinner I was like "ya know... I couldn't help notice some of your comments? You know I love you, is there anything you want to share with me?" Lol
If he replaces Vance, it'll have to be Nancy Mace, the only one left in the potential pick pool whose one-syllable name ends in "ce".
But she doesn't have a 5 letter last name, so she's straight out.
Ok I'm interested. He was picked July 15, 3 weeks, 21 days ago. That's 1.9 Scaramuccis as of today. If he's replaced tomorrow Aug 6, that's 2 Scaramuccis on the dot.
Ohio needs the names Aug 7.
Cap’n! Tha Mooch scale was ne’er intended for campaignin’! I dunnae how much longer she’ll hold!
But what happens in Ohio if Trump/Vance is the name on the ballot, but Vance has since been replaced by Rubio? Is the vote just torn up and tossed? If a VP candidate dies in a bizarre boating accident in October is it just... over?
Even if it is too late to remove a name from ballots, the Democrats and Republicans would name a new nominee as their standard-bearer.
Fortier said it's important to remember that when people cast a vote, they aren't voting for a candidate, but for electors who will vote for their preferred party in the Electoral College.
Because of that, electors in most states could simply vote for the replacement nominee, regardless of which name is actually on the ballot, he said.
Nevertheless, it gets complicated once again if a candidate dies or becomes incapacitated when electors vote because of state laws restricting who the electors can vote for.
“There is a potential for some confusion,” said Ned Foley, director of the Election Law Program at Ohio State. That's because about a dozen states either don’t specifically address what electors should do if a candidate has dies, or have laws obligating electors to vote for the name on the ballot rather than the party’s nominee, he said
States might move to change the law, or the question of who electors should vote for could be decided in state courts, he said.
If a VP candidate dies in a bizarre boating accident in October is it just… over?
Are you suggesting that JD Vance may have an "accident" where he ends up sleeping with the dolphins?
If I know dolphins, if he ends up sleeping with them, they'll treat his body like he'd treat a couch
Oh yeah there's problems with that. The electoral college also elects the VP. It is not just an appointment. But if it's soon enough you know Ohio will just decide to honor it's post dated extension trap they tried to catch the Democrats in.
Oh we might elect Dr Harris purely out of spite for dropping an Ohioan
CARRY IT TO TERM LOSERS
i don't know how much i would pay to see this as a huge banner at the debate, but it would be a lot
::: spoiler USA Today - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for USA Today:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America Wikipedia about this source
:::
Edit: Downvoting me for asking a question? Don't ever change reddit lemmy
From what I've seen so far, a number of reasons:
It's not overly accurate, with a tendency to report from a basis of American centrism as though that's the sole metric to measure what is left and right. I assume they decided they had to pick something to base it off of, but even a lot of Americans take issue with what an American centrist considers left-wing.
It's a bot, and some folks hate those enough to downvote it every time rather than block it.
Some folks prefer to decide for themselves what's credible. I've also read comments saying they don't like that there's no disclaimer — plenty of people get riled when something is presented as though it's the sole arbiter of truth.
I've probably missed plenty, too.
It's not even centrist. It's straight up conservative. All the papers of record with good reputations are listed as at least left leaning. It's meant to feed into the idea that mainstream media is biased.
And it's meant to make very conservative stuff look mainstream. For example the Ayn Rand Institute gets a center right lean. The same rating as the New York Times on center left lean. It's very well done and you wouldn't notice it if you didn't take a close look.
Yep, definitely forgot to list this complaint. Frankly a paper with a good reputation having a left lean would seem obvious to me — the right abandoned reality a long time ago.
I think it makes more sense if you start from the supposition that centrists in America are just right-wingers who still remember how to be ashamed of their batshit views when they’re in public.
MBFC is a conservative project to give their rags more credibility while painting the news organizations with good records of being objective as left leaning. There is no actual center designation. The best anything can get is center left or center right. So on center left you have stuff like NYT, feeding into the idea that mainstream news is biased left. And on center right you have the Ayn Rand Institute, getting it's credibility washed by being placed in any category with the word center in the name.
"i don't kid."
-trump
"he tells it like it is"
-trump
votercultist-The Ascended, product of Trump and his cult fusing into one giant monstrosity... That promptly implodes from the self-loathing of realising it's mostly made up of 🤢 poor people 🤮
Fox wasn't even aware of Trump's unilateral debate announcement.
Need to find a way to make a hybrid scarecrow/tin-man/lion/trump. Seeing as how he’s brainless, heartless, and cowardly.
I enjoy that pollsters are starting to poll for what happens if Trump drops and Vance is the top of the ticket, while Washington republicans are trying to figure out how to oust Janky Douche.
At this point I wouldn't be completely surprised if that chair that Clint Eastwood shouted at a few years ends up on the ballot.
i enjoy watching republicans eat each other alive while self-immolating
What's delightful is that their whole... (waves hands frantically) thing^1^, takes all the most crucial tools off the table. Imagine this safety sign posted at the RNC:
Absolutely NO:
All one can do from there is lie while doing one of those things anyway. At a certain point people are going to take notice, which just makes it worse.
^1^ - Machismo? Rampant authoritarianism? Sociopathic narcissism? I can't keep up.
Yes.
I hope there's some left for me to eat.
That was 12 years ago :(
That hurts. That hurts deep inside.
stupid time
honestly, with the rate at which the gop has gone balls to the wall deranged it feels more like 50 years.
think about it: the reason talking to a chair became a meme was because it was so unbelievable. the reason vance fucking a couch became a meme is because it's so believable.
Fuckin weird then and it's weird now.
People told me that it was impossible for the Republican party to even concieve of replacing Trump. Yeah? How's that going now, huh? Personally, I'm looking forward to Trump ripping the party in half.
That's the problem when you have a bunch of narcissistic opportunities vying for power. Eventually, they start trying to push each other down the stairs...
And if we found the right lever to push them into destroying each other, we'd have a very effective way to fight fascism.
The chair would have less felony convictions and rapes
That's where you're wrong. The chair would actually have fewer felony convictions and rapes. Allegedly. I don't know that chair personally. But the point is that "fewer" is the grammatically correct word for the point you're making.
"Less" is going to become grammatically correct as it's used more and more. It's only a matter of time. There is no useful distinction between the two terms.
So more less begets more less, more or less?
Yes.
Linguistic descriptivism 💪
Yes, although I will lament the loss of a useful term when it happens, like when "literally" became commonly used to mean "figuratively."
"Less" and "fewer," though? Worthless distinction. "Whom" needs to go ahead and die as well.
Oh yeah I'm a staunch descriptivist, but I do sometimes mourn the changes that are going on in Finnish which is my native language.
Change is inevitable, especially when there are more learners whose native language is from a completely different family (which'd be the vast majority of immigrants here, Uralic languages aren't exactly common), but it's still a bit sad to see the language start to lose some of its unique features that have made it so expressive – but also hard as fuck to learn.
I'm a big fan of language being as useful for communication as possible for people, which means it has to evolve with the times. While it's cool that Icelanders can still read 1000 year old documents, the fact that the language was artificially forced to stay the same doesn't sit well with me. They can get away with it because it's a niche language of only around 330,000 speakers, but no world language would ever survive under those kind of constraints.
As a native speaker of a relatively small language (under 6 million speakers) in a very niche language family, I understand eg. Iceland's desire to "preserve" the language – languages are by definition communication tools, but they're also inextricably tied to the culture(s) that produced them (and vice versa), so while I absolutely do agree that fighting change is relatively pointless, I think it's understandable that speakers of minority languages try to protect them.
So yeah, even though I definitely am a descriptivist and know that linguistic evolution is just a fact of life, I just can't help being a bit sad about it at the same time when it comes to Finnish. Not that I'd want to somehow "freeze" it since that'd be silly and impossible, but at the same time I'd love to see eg. promotion of some of the features that are currently dying out (whatever the hell that'd mean in practice). The primacy of English in this age of global mass media has minority languages in a real bind.
A language being closely tied to your identity is something I've never really experienced since my native language, English, is so widespread. I definitely agree that preservation of language is important - it doesn't have to be keeping the language the same, but can also just be keeping track of the changes. I've always been fascinated by the etymology of words, and English's word origins are very well-documented. I always assumed that it was the same in other languages that aren't in danger of dying out - are you able look up a random Finnish word online to see where it came from?
English is enough of a universal language nowadays that it's understandable that it might not be immediately obvious how language and culture / identity can be linked. Any sort of written, spoken, etc. cultural artifact is tied to a language, and while translation is absolutely a thing (duh), you do lose nuance even when translating to a closely related language.
With Finnish it's not really the vocabulary I'd like to see preserved, but grammar. English grammar is relatively lightweight even compared to most Indo-European languages, and Finnish and Uralic languages in general are on the other end of that spectrum. There's a lot of cool grammatical features, which, while not super duper necessary, add a lot of nuance that can take multiple words or even nearly a full sentence to replace. Where English and most other Indo-European languages usually need a completely new word to express new concepts, we can often just express the same thing by using our frankly ridiculously complex grammar (for a non-native learner!).
As an example, let's take the verb for "to look", katsoa. If you were to use a verb aspect called the momentane – which indicates that something was sudden and short-lived – to form the verb katsahtaa, you'd have something that's close to the English word "glance". Then you could use eg. the frequentative aspect – which (quoting Wikipedia here) expresses "repetitive action, but may also represent leisurely and/or prolonged activity, or activity that is not done in a particularly determined attempt to reach a goal" – to give you katsahdella and you'd have a verb that translates to something approximately like "to glance around aimlessly".
This sort of grammatical minutia has been getting rarer for centuries now, but the speed has definitely accelerated over the past ~40 years mainly due to more. In many ways it's unavoidable, but I still think it's a bit sad.
Oh and to answer your question about word origins, there's a free online Finnish etymological dictionary, and eg. Wiktionary has an etymology section.
Very late to the comment, but I don't think and don't hope this is correct. There is a distinction - fewer is for things you can count, less is for a more abstract, less countable amount. I have fewer opportunities as I have less time. I'm just an old English major, but I like accuracy with language.
Yes, there is a difference, but as far as understanding what a person is saying, you can use them interchangeably. In what situation would you need to know whether it's a countable or abstract amount?
Problems. “I have fewer problems than I did last year” means that I understand what my problems are or am tracking some of them and no longer have as many. “I have less problems than I did last year” is more vibes based and is a statement that this year seems to be going easier than last year went
Law.
I'm fine with the "less" and "fewer" distinction only being relevant in formal settings. People need to give up on correcting "10 items or less" signs, though. The change is already here.
Depends on whatever style guide and dictionary your work falls under, I suppose.
When I edited law reviews, we used Chicago Manual and Webster. We had secondary and tertiary references as well in case the primary was silent or vague. We also had our own list of style exceptions and preferences. But that's law and policy writing.
On the grocery sign, or on things such as ads, that's not writing, that textography. The rules don't need to be formal on the sign. The word was chosen for space constraints. The word with fewer letters takes up less space. If all you do is read signage, fewer and less probably feel interchangeable. If you are reading law reviews and legal opinions all day, you recognize the number disagreement error, immediately.
The countable / uncountable element which creates the disagreement error comes from the dictionary. They are slightly different parts of speech even. Both are determinative adjectives but only one is comparative, by definition. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Hence "Drive-thru" rather than "drive-through."
You're correct. It's just a distinction that's extremely unlikely to be needed in everyday use.
The same Vance that refuses to learn a nice life lesson from Mamaw?
Oh wow. Even when they try they can't get it right. Many people know they're gay by 9, not all gay men want to do oral sex, and all most 9 year olds know is they're supposed to want this thing called sex. It's literally the grade where they talk about "it" and some braggart says they did "it".
And the God loves you line is just classic. According to conservatives God loves gay people which is why it's important to save them from hell.
This entire story is just a massive line of red flags.
My family loves to tell the story about my cousin and I running around the house when we were like 6 and supposedly he stopped dead in his tracks, looked at my stepmom and said "that dress is so your color."
Doesn't have to do with dicks, but from that day they knew he was gay and he very much is now that we're in our late 30s. I love him to death, he's such a great guy!
He finally came out to me when we went to an art exhibit because I always liked Tim Burton stuff and he kept commenting on paintings "why are the men all clothed and the women all topless? Why does Jack not have a bulge but Sally is full figured!?" That kind of stuff. So over dinner I was like "ya know... I couldn't help notice some of your comments? You know I love you, is there anything you want to share with me?" Lol
If he replaces Vance, it'll have to be Nancy Mace, the only one left in the potential pick pool whose one-syllable name ends in "ce".
But she doesn't have a 5 letter last name, so she's straight out.
Looks like he's stuck with JD then!
So how many Scaramuccis is that?
Ok I'm interested. He was picked July 15, 3 weeks, 21 days ago. That's 1.9 Scaramuccis as of today. If he's replaced tomorrow Aug 6, that's 2 Scaramuccis on the dot.
Ohio needs the names Aug 7.
Cap’n! Tha Mooch scale was ne’er intended for campaignin’! I dunnae how much longer she’ll hold!
But what happens in Ohio if Trump/Vance is the name on the ballot, but Vance has since been replaced by Rubio? Is the vote just torn up and tossed? If a VP candidate dies in a bizarre boating accident in October is it just... over?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/17/presidential-candidate-death-during-campaign/74402360007/
Are you suggesting that JD Vance may have an "accident" where he ends up sleeping with the dolphins?
If I know dolphins, if he ends up sleeping with them, they'll treat his body like he'd treat a couch
Oh yeah there's problems with that. The electoral college also elects the VP. It is not just an appointment. But if it's soon enough you know Ohio will just decide to honor it's post dated extension trap they tried to catch the Democrats in.
Oh we might elect Dr Harris purely out of spite for dropping an Ohioan
CARRY IT TO TERM LOSERS
i don't know how much i would pay to see this as a huge banner at the debate, but it would be a lot
::: spoiler USA Today - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for USA Today:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/08/03/trump-campaign-seeks-vance-reset/74652329007/ ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Why is this getting downvoted so much?
Edit: Downvoting me for asking a question? Don't ever change
redditlemmyFrom what I've seen so far, a number of reasons:
It's not overly accurate, with a tendency to report from a basis of American centrism as though that's the sole metric to measure what is left and right. I assume they decided they had to pick something to base it off of, but even a lot of Americans take issue with what an American centrist considers left-wing.
It's a bot, and some folks hate those enough to downvote it every time rather than block it.
Some folks prefer to decide for themselves what's credible. I've also read comments saying they don't like that there's no disclaimer — plenty of people get riled when something is presented as though it's the sole arbiter of truth.
I've probably missed plenty, too.
It's not even centrist. It's straight up conservative. All the papers of record with good reputations are listed as at least left leaning. It's meant to feed into the idea that mainstream media is biased.
And it's meant to make very conservative stuff look mainstream. For example the Ayn Rand Institute gets a center right lean. The same rating as the New York Times on center left lean. It's very well done and you wouldn't notice it if you didn't take a close look.
Yep, definitely forgot to list this complaint. Frankly a paper with a good reputation having a left lean would seem obvious to me — the right abandoned reality a long time ago.
I think it makes more sense if you start from the supposition that centrists in America are just right-wingers who still remember how to be ashamed of their batshit views when they’re in public.
MBFC is a conservative project to give their rags more credibility while painting the news organizations with good records of being objective as left leaning. There is no actual center designation. The best anything can get is center left or center right. So on center left you have stuff like NYT, feeding into the idea that mainstream news is biased left. And on center right you have the Ayn Rand Institute, getting it's credibility washed by being placed in any category with the word center in the name.
Please keep doing this.