Just when you think the media cannot sink any lower

[BPPLEE]

Or, people who weren't going to vote now are going to vote against him.

I think Trump is getting more mileage out of Biden's comment that Trump supporters are garbage.
Some comedian who no one has ever heard of making a comment pales in comparison to the President saying it

 

[MrMoe]

It’s supposed to be divisive. I have no interest in uniting with these people and neither do any of them.

You're okay with engaging in divisive rhetoric yourself but not okay when others engage in it. Hypocrisy at it's worst.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I think Trump is getting more mileage out of Biden's comment that Trump supporters are garbage.
Some comedian who no one has ever heard of making a comment pales in comparison to the President saying it

Who was eating cats and dogs in Ohio? Remind me of that one again.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't think that the sarcastic dismissive "You know Trump and Hitler both did <insert overwhelmingly common thing here - like they both had a sandwich" as a rebuttal against the "Trump is a Nazi" claim is a particularly effective one.

I get the point people are trying to make when they do that, but it's not particularly helpful in that it feeds into the left's talking points about "we take things like Nazism and fascism seriously and the other side doesn't take it seriously at all"


I think it'd perhaps be more effective to discuss it within the framework of the following two realities:
1) Every form of "authority", exercised to its full extent, would become "authoritarianism". Even forms of authority that people purportedly see as "good" would become seen as "bad" if the dial was turned from a 2 to a 10. (IE: "having police" = 2; "police state" = 10)

2) Every form of "nationalism", embraced to its full extent, can turn into fascism in the form of what people have labelled "othering".


We all have at least a certain level of both authority and nationalism we embrace. For instance, I like that we have things like police, a system of governance with checks and balances, and I like the fact that the US is its own country with its own (different) laws, cultures, and priorities.


So, one team saying, "Trump is like Hitler", and the other team giving a dismissive rebuttal in the theme "well everyone who drank water is like Hitler, cuz Hitler drank water" is missing the forest for trees.

The reality is, we all exist somewhere on both of these two spectrums.
The spectrum of "anarchy <-> totalitarianism", and "multiculturalist <-> nationalistic"

It's the old analogy of traditional light switches vs. dimmer switches.

If we pretend that those spectrums are represented by values ranging from 0 to 10...

And, if we pretend that Hitler represents the "10's" on both spectrums, what level does a person have to reach on those spectrums before it becomes a cause for concern, to the point where it's even worth drawing comparisons? and what objective metrics should be used to assign those values?

...because, as I noted, none of us is a 0 on either.

So the question is not "is Joe Shmoe like Hitler?", it's "to what degree is Joe Shmoe like Hitler?"

I know it's uncomfortable to think of it in that context, but that is the reality.

Merely by preferring that you'd prefer we delegate certain powers to the federal government (no matter how limited), and merely acknowledging that (culturally speaking) you'd prefer to reside in certain places over others, you're already on the "0 to Hitler" spectrums.

 

[Piers Plowman]

I don't think that the sarcastic dismissive "You know Trump and Hitler both did <insert overwhelmingly common thing here - like they both had a sandwich" as a rebuttal against the "Trump is a Nazi" claim is a particularly effective one.

I get the point people are trying to make when they do that, but it's not particularly helpful in that it feeds into the left's talking points about "we take things like Nazism and fascism seriously and the other side doesn't take it seriously at all"


I think it'd perhaps be more effective to discuss it within the framework of the following two realities:
1) Every form of "authority", exercised to its full extent, would become "authoritarianism". Even forms of authority that people purportedly see as "good" would become seen as "bad" if the dial was turned from a 2 to a 10. (IE: "having police" = 2; "police state" = 10)

2) Every form of "nationalism", embraced to its full extent, can turn into fascism in the form of what people have labelled "othering".


We all have at least a certain level of both authority and nationalism we embrace. For instance, I like that we have things like police, a system of governance with checks and balances, and I like the fact that the US is its own country with its own (different) laws, cultures, and priorities.


So, one team saying, "Trump is like Hitler", and the other team giving a dismissive rebuttal in the theme "well everyone who drank water is like Hitler, cuz Hitler drank water" is missing the forest for trees.

The reality is, we all exist somewhere on both of these two spectrums.
The spectrum of "anarchy <-> totalitarianism", and "multiculturalist <-> nationalistic"

It's the old analogy of traditional light switches vs. dimmer switches.

If we pretend that those spectrums are represented by values ranging from 0 to 10...

And, if we pretend that Hitler represents the "10's" on both spectrums, what level does a person have to reach on those spectrums before it becomes a cause for concern, to the point where it's even worth drawing comparisons? and what objective metrics should be used to assign those values?

...because, as I noted, none of us is a 0 on either.

So the question is not "is Joe Shmoe like Hitler?", it's "to what degree is Joe Shmoe like Hitler?"

I know it's uncomfortable to think of it in that context, but that is the reality.

Merely by preferring that you'd prefer we delegate certain powers to the federal government (no matter how limited), and merely acknowledging that (culturally speaking) you'd prefer to reside in certain places over others, you're already on the "0 to Hitler" spectrums.

In such range of values, I would personally daresay that we are at, like, 0.2 or even 0.02, rather than at 2.
And, in any case, it's not like any of us in this thread will grab hold of actual political power at any point in our lives...
(...right?)

 

[probinson]

The reality is, we all exist somewhere on both of these two spectrums.
The spectrum of "anarchy <-> totalitarianism", and "multiculturalist <-> nationalistic"

It's the old analogy of traditional light switches vs. dimmer switches.

If we pretend that those spectrums are represented by values ranging from 0 to 10...

And, if we pretend that Hitler represents the "10's" on both spectrums, what level does a person have to reach on those spectrums before it becomes a cause for concern, to the point where it's even worth drawing comparisons? and what objective metrics should be used to assign those values?

...because, as I noted, none of us is a 0 on either.

So the question is not "is Joe Shmoe like Hitler?", it's "to what degree is Joe Shmoe like Hitler?"

Good analysis.

So to what degree do many Democrats exhibit Hitler-like tendencies? Well in January 2022 during the pandemic, 48% of Democrats surveyed supported putting unvaccinated people in "designated facilities", which sounds an awful lot like forcing people into camps.

– Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a policy would be opposed by a strong majority (71%) of all voters, with 78% of Republicans and 64% of unaffiliated voters saying they would Strongly Oppose putting the unvaccinated in “designated facilities.”​

​

Worse, 48% of Democrats supported fining or imprisoning people simply for questioning the efficacy of the vaccine.

– Nearly half (48%) of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications. Only 27% of all voters – including just 14% of Republicans and 18% of unaffiliated voters – favor criminal punishment of vaccine critics.​

And worse still, 58% of Democrats would support forcing people who did not get vaccinated to stay in their homes at all times.

– Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a proposal is opposed by 61% of all likely voters, including 79% of Republicans and 71% of unaffiliated voters.​

​

COVID-19: Democratic Voters Support Harsh Measures Against Unvaccinated

While many voters have become skeptical toward the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a majority of Democrats embrace restrictive policies, including punitive measures against those who haven’t gotten the COVID-19 vaccine.

www.rasmussenreports.com

​

​

COVID exposed the authoritarian nature of many people. Democrats were not only more willing to concede their rights for the illusion of safety, but they were also far more likely to favor authoritarian measures on everyone.

As the above survey demonstrates, Democrats were outliers on all these measures. Far fewer Republicans and Independents supported such draconian measures. It seems when the chips were down, Democrats were FAR more likely to support authoritarian measures than any other political group.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I honestly don't think that the media realizes how unhinged it has become. They know that trust is at lows, yet they continue with insane histrionics like this. Then they'll bemoan the fact that no one trusts them any more and completely ignore that they frittered away what trust they had with nonsense like this.

My wife was a journalist for many years. They realized that the only thing the press has is its integrity. When it loses that, it becomes nothing but the National Enquirer. The MSM has descended below that. It is a sad display of the media going corrupt. I just cannot believe anything they say. Stunts like this reinforce the reality that no news media is left. We may have to go to foreign news outlets for our national news. Sad.

 

[Fantine]

Ah. So you agree with the comparison.

I mean, in 1930, they wanted to kill Jews, and in this rally, Jews were welcome and shown support. And you think those things are comparable?

Alrighty then.

So the Republican candidate has different targets. Schiff. Pelosi. He said Harris and Bidrn should be shot in the head. The media. Everyone who disagrees with him.
Firing those who aren't yes men. Replacing them with fawning sycophants.
Ugh!

 

[Fantine]

My wife was a journalist for many years. They realized that the only thing the press has is its integrity. When it loses that, it becomes nothing but the National Enquirer. The MSM has descended below that. It is a sad display of the media going corrupt. I just cannot believe anything they say. Stunts like this reinforce the reality that no news media is left. We may have to go to foreign news outlets for our national news. Sad.

The mainstream media is infinitely better than Fox and Joe Rogan.
And remember, most CNN, MSNBC and FOX shows are "opinion." It's the opinion of many Americans--including Trump's closest aides and advisors--that he is a fascist. So the rally comparison was inspired by Mille, Mattis, John Kelly, and many more. People relying on first hand knowledge.

 

[probinson]

He said Harris and Bidrn should be shot in the head.

Citation needed.

 

[probinson]

The mainstream media is infinitely better than Fox and Joe Rogan.

The majority of Americans disagree. A combined 68% of Americans have little to no trust in the mainstream media.

 

[Fantine]

The majority of Americans disagree. A combined 68% of Americans have little to no trust in the mainstream media.

View attachment 356567

That doesn't mean they trust Fox.

 

[BPPLEE]

Who was eating cats and dogs in Ohio? Remind me of that one again.

The same ones that have been filmed and posted on Twitter

 

[probinson]

That doesn't mean they trust Fox.

That's true. But it does mean that they don't trust pretty much any "mass media", which is probably wise since the media has worked overtime to earn their distrust.

 

[Always in His Presence]

He said Harris and Bidrn should be shot in the head

Hogwash - prove it.

 

[The Liturgist]

In their rush to slander. They don’t realize the building the Rally was held in didn’t exist in 1939

It was built 30 years later.

Indeed. I am disturbed by the increasing amount of slander and libel in this election cycle, which is disturbing. It would be wrong for a Christian to slander Hitler or Stalin or even the devil himself. We are taught to bless our enemies, to pray for them, and not to curse them or treat them in a manner other than how we would want to be treated. This does not mean we must support them - I myself am unable to support any politician, for example, who is not strictly pro-life and supportive of Christian morality. But it does require us to refrain from engaging in the kind of disturbing behavior you have called attention to in this thread, for which I thank you.

 

[The Liturgist]

Hogwash - prove it.

Agreed - I have seen no evidence of anything like that being said. And I’m pretty sure the Catechism of the Catholic Church follows the traditional Roman Catholic position, shared by most other Christian denominations including my own that slander and libel and gossip and the spreading of false rumors are unacceptable.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In such range of values, I would personally daresay that we are at, like, 0.2 or even 0.02, rather than at 2.
And, in any case, it's not like any of us in this thread will grab hold of actual political power at any point in our lives...
(...right?)

On the "anarchy <-> totalitarianism" spectrum, I'd peg the US-republicans at somewhere around a 1 or 2 out of 10, and Democrats at maybe a 3 or 4.

While we obviously don't have anything like a "police state" or "expansive public sector", we do have a lot of powers that we've delegated to the government (that come with potential consequences if you don't follow their orders), and our public sector (albeit small) still does exist.

On the spectrum of "multiculturalist <-> nationalist", I'd basically invert the aforementioned scores.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

The mainstream media is infinitely better than Fox and Joe Rogan.
And remember, most CNN, MSNBC and FOX shows are "opinion." It's the opinion of many Americans--including Trump's closest aides and advisors--that he is a fascist. So the rally comparison was inspired by Mille, Mattis, John Kelly, and many more. People relying on first hand knowledge.

"Fascist." You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[A2SG]

My wife was a journalist for many years. They realized that the only thing the press has is its integrity. When it loses that, it becomes nothing but the National Enquirer. The MSM has descended below that. It is a sad display of the media going corrupt. I just cannot believe anything they say. Stunts like this reinforce the reality that no news media is left. We may have to go to foreign news outlets for our national news. Sad.

I think part of the problem is that people have a hard time distinguishing news reporting from opinion. And that's not entirely unjustified, as many media outlets, particularly cable TV, don't make a distinction between them either. It can be hard, apparently, to find enough news reporting to fill a 24 hour broadcast day, and this is why you see a lot of opinion pieces that seem to be news reporting, but they're not.

Thing is, it really isn't hard to tell the difference. If MSNBC presents a report that Trump's MSG rally is "like a Nazi rally," well, that's clearly opinion. Treat is as such. If they report the event, and only state what happened (the classic journalism who what where when), and not offer analysis of why it happened, or what it was about....that'd be news reporting.

What I find amusing, however, is when the right wing goes bananas criticizing MSNBC for offering opinion pieces when Fox News does the exact same thing...and the left wing goes bananas then, too.

I don't see any of this as signs that the media (mainstream or otherwise) is corrupt, though. They're just trying to find content for their 24 hour broadcast day, and there isn't enough news to report on. If you want to find examples of corruption in the media, well, having to pay close to a billion dollars to settle a legal case that you repeatedly and knowingly lied about something could be a good one.

-- A2SG, knew my journalism degree would count for something someday, if not employment.....