In fairness, the unedited speech urged violence...
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2025
111 points (96.6% liked)
politics
26418 readers
2388 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hard to imagine this unedited speech line wasn't meant to rile people up - "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,"
Yup. I remember sending people the transcript when they were trying to say "Yeah, he didn't mean violently..."
Uh... did you read the transcript? 🤔
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial
I mean, there was really no need to edit anything. The Truth is bad enough. Just report that, people!
You kinda have to edit trump to get him to form a complete sentence.
Let's see... Trump lost. Therefor, he had no business being there the day votes were being verified by Congress.
He had no business being there ANYWAY.
And Congress didn't "verify" anything. It was a rote formalism with about as much real power regarding the election as the coronation of the king of England.
Fair enough. In hindsight, my argument was assuming a lot but you get the gist.
Good luck during discovery, pedo
I watched the entire J6 "rally" in real time. The message was coded, but clear. That mob was doing exactly what the people on stage wanted it to do.
If anything, you'd have to edit their speeches in order to not show that they were urging that crowd to fight.
He did do that, we all know he did that. I'm beyond sick at these motherfuckers who keep refuting reality.
Ugh, they apologized to this asshole.
I think the Beeb has told him to get stuffed, on the money. They know he's as potent as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor at this point.
For the same reasons..
Mr Prescott, who until June 2025 was an independent adviser to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board, also highlights serious problems with BBC Arabic’s reporting on Gaza, in which it apparently gives extensive space to the views of Hamas.
I was curious what this meant, so I read the relevant section and while some of the arguments seem suspect, there were definitely massive red flags with the policies of BBC Arabic.
Haven't read the US election part yet, but the points raised in the intro don't sound coherent.
EDIT: The US election part is a lot less convincing. They should have explicitly stated that they are combining two separate sections from the speech, but the argument seems more like a technicality. Some other minor points were fair, but there were a lot of incoherent arguments. One example.
The BBC sometimes fell into using, without attribution, contested language such as “reproductive rights”. This signals to many BBC viewers, particularly those in America, a biased mindset.
Reproductive rights isn't a contested term.
Wait til bro gets a Chris Morris edit
You can't sue people from prison, silly rapist. Tricks are not for kids.
You kinda can in the US. Dunno about civilized countries.
How dare they hear the dog whistle?!
Meanwhile they busily edit anything a Democrat says to indicate something other than what the context of the statement was.