|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 00:23 Jockmcplop wrote:
What we have here is a right wing who elected a president based solely on the fact that he triggers the left, complaining that the left is triggered by the president.
Politics has turned to a steaming pile of shit. Wow! Voters on one side are voting only for one reason! Absolutely magnificent logic! 
I don't understand why people think they can just change words of an academic concept and it still works.
"toxic femininity" isn't a thing. Trump is clearly not only supportive of white supremacists, but is a white supremacist himself.
If I say "socialism is bad, capitalism is the best" people aren't going to presume I'm actually pro-capitalist. They are going to think the FBI finally took them seriously lol.
So when Trump makes halfassed condemnations of white supremacy (all the supremacies, like tf?!?) only the people who want what he does not to be considered white supremacy accept it.
|
Northern Ireland25238 Posts
On August 09 2019 09:24 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 08:45 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 01:45 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2019 01:19 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 09 2019 00:52 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2019 00:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
Well hopefully some of the damage can be repaired after he fucks off anyway. Not so sure myself.
The traction that ‘fake news’ has gathered has pushed segments of the country into such isolated media spheres that have completely different narratives that lack areas of shared agreement from which they can ideologically diverge.
Sure this was the case prior to this era but it’s far more pronounced.
The media mainstream was also deeply flawed, but Trump decided to burn the whole house down instead of fixing the plumbing.
You do have a point. I think the problem has gone on for enough decades that the time had come for a President to punch back at poor journalism. Criticism of Fox News was vile but accepted, but when NYT WaPo and CNN gets it, suddenly it's destroying the country. The mass shooting angle, very obviously saying that even good speeches by Trump must be ignored and attacked, is just the latest iteration. I guess they're writing off people that would devalue criticism of bad speeches, since they can't recognize the good ones. The changed headline is just a stark example of an old phenomenon. Its age is why I think it's not on Trump for breaking the news media, such that even a headline that doesn't attack him is a mistake. The industry will recover if they can report mass shootings and presidential responses, and not continue on the Fox-News-ification track. are you somehow insinuating that trump was justified in shouting "fake news" at whatever news he didnt like or made him look bad? this isnt a president that is taking a stand against manipulative or deceitful media, far from it. what were seeing now is a president that is manipulating the masses by completely blocking out legitimate criticisms against him and painting all media that calls him out as deceitful (not that im saying every single claim has merit. but most of them do). you gotta give him credit in the fact that he absolutely knows how to control his supporters because 90% of them are dumbasses, but theres some serious mental gymnastics going on if you think trump has shown the world the media's true colours. how you could think trump is doing the noble deed by "punching back at poor journalism" is beyond me. the guy is literally the master of manipulation and deceit, so much that he could write a textbook on divide and conquer strategy. the media could only dream of being as effective as this guy I made reference to exactly what I think the problem is within the first paragraph, and I hope you will read and respond to what I've written there before taking this elsewhere. Secondarily, I don't think Trump's motivations deny the underlying reality. I don't think anyone who can seriously say "his supporters because 90% of them are dumbasses" can capably judge fake news, Trump, the media, or mass shootings. I think his motivations are entirely pertinent here, pushing for the fourth estate to spout less bullshit vs espousing anything that scrutinises you as ‘fake news’. I don’t particularly blame him singularly but he’s punched through the wall and many others have followed into the breach. Hell its permeated way beyond the US. Equally I think we as a populace have a large degree of culpability in retrenching into our spheres, it may be comforting to some to blame Trump for everything but it’s total bullshit. He’s one man, regardless of office. We’ve collectively taken the decision to further polarise and this goes across the board. Trump’s low accuracy is pertinent to some questions, but I’m saying you can’t use it toss out the bullseyes which empower him. His favorability ratings are up, and that’s scaring people. For the rest, you may need to tell me exactly what part of my previous post your point was pertinent to. The NYT is not the place you go to read reporting on Trump’s speech, it’s where what you already believe about mass shootings and presidential responses gets fed back to you to make you feel good. The Fox News Channel model, if you will.
My point is more if you act to destroy trust in entities previously considered vaguely reliable, with nothing to actually replace them then you end up with something even worse than the previous state of affairs.
So the Guardian shifts from being a reliable source with a left tilt to ‘fake news’. And from there the BBC, previously a source considered generally reliable on most matters is ‘fake news’ when I’m linking articles, etc etc. Which didn’t generally happen until relatively recently.
That Trump still courts Fox News entirely fits within the motivation question, if he cared about a reasonable unbiased media culture he wouldn’t do that.
I don’t particularly care about short term favourability ratings whatsoever, nor indeed much of Trump’s policy, that can happily be reversed to my tastes.
He’s been very successful in his ‘fake news’ crusade and it worries me a lot, not just in how he uses it but in how others are as well.
I’m happy to have political disagreements with people but I don’t even bother engaging half times anymore because even indisputable facts end up embroiled in this ‘fake news’ bullshit.
And as I said, Trump is one man. As a society we need to take ownership on what we believe and how we act upon it, act better, be more discerning, use our fucking brains for once. If Trump does something decent, give the guy credit and not go with the hive mind, or vice versa.
My personal bias is that while not a fan, I thought Trump might push some kind of reforms from his anti-establishment platform so I was willing to give him a shot. He’s done fuck all of the sort, been happy to play to racist galleries, done nothing of importance in terms of systemic reform, attacked legitimate journalism, not so much drained the swamp as squatted above it and added to the detritus.
|
Northern Ireland25238 Posts
On August 09 2019 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. On August 09 2019 00:23 Jockmcplop wrote:
What we have here is a right wing who elected a president based solely on the fact that he triggers the left, complaining that the left is triggered by the president.
Politics has turned to a steaming pile of shit. Wow! Voters on one side are voting only for one reason! Absolutely magnificent logic! I don't understand why people think they can just change words of an academic concept and it still works. "toxic femininity" isn't a thing. Trump is clearly not only supportive of white supremacists, but is a white supremacist himself. If I say "socialism is bad, capitalism is the best" people aren't going to presume I'm actually pro-capitalist. They are going to think the FBI finally took them seriously lol. So when Trump makes halfassed condemnations of white supremacy (all the supremacies, like tf?!?) only the people who want what he does not to be considered white supremacy accept it.
Stop being a dick. Trump clearly said he didn’t like supremacists very much when pressed after someone with a white supremacist manifesto killed a bunch of people.
That he says nothing in between such horrors matters little, the important thing is that he condemns massacres immediately after they’ve happened when pressed on them, it takes a lot of courage to say such things that literally any human would say when asked if massacres are bad.
|
On August 09 2019 09:59 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. On August 09 2019 00:23 Jockmcplop wrote:
What we have here is a right wing who elected a president based solely on the fact that he triggers the left, complaining that the left is triggered by the president.
Politics has turned to a steaming pile of shit. Wow! Voters on one side are voting only for one reason! Absolutely magnificent logic! I don't understand why people think they can just change words of an academic concept and it still works. "toxic femininity" isn't a thing. Trump is clearly not only supportive of white supremacists, but is a white supremacist himself. If I say "socialism is bad, capitalism is the best" people aren't going to presume I'm actually pro-capitalist. They are going to think the FBI finally took them seriously lol. So when Trump makes halfassed condemnations of white supremacy (all the supremacies, like tf?!?) only the people who want what he does not to be considered white supremacy accept it. Stop being a dick. Trump clearly said he didn’t like supremacists very much when pressed after someone with a white supremacist manifesto killed a bunch of people. That he says nothing in between such horrors matters little, the important thing is that he condemns massacres immediately after they’ve happened when pressed on them, it takes a lot of courage to say such things that literally any human would say when asked if massacres are bad.
Now you've gone from "people who don't condemn bad things are bad" to "people who condemn bad things when they happen, but don't do it frequently enough even when bad things are not happening, are bad".
|
|
|
Northern Ireland25238 Posts
On August 09 2019 10:10 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:59 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. On August 09 2019 00:23 Jockmcplop wrote:
What we have here is a right wing who elected a president based solely on the fact that he triggers the left, complaining that the left is triggered by the president.
Politics has turned to a steaming pile of shit. Wow! Voters on one side are voting only for one reason! Absolutely magnificent logic! I don't understand why people think they can just change words of an academic concept and it still works. "toxic femininity" isn't a thing. Trump is clearly not only supportive of white supremacists, but is a white supremacist himself. If I say "socialism is bad, capitalism is the best" people aren't going to presume I'm actually pro-capitalist. They are going to think the FBI finally took them seriously lol. So when Trump makes halfassed condemnations of white supremacy (all the supremacies, like tf?!?) only the people who want what he does not to be considered white supremacy accept it. Stop being a dick. Trump clearly said he didn’t like supremacists very much when pressed after someone with a white supremacist manifesto killed a bunch of people. That he says nothing in between such horrors matters little, the important thing is that he condemns massacres immediately after they’ve happened when pressed on them, it takes a lot of courage to say such things that literally any human would say when asked if massacres are bad. Now you've gone from "people who don't condemn bad things are bad" to "people who condemn bad things when they happen, but don't do it frequently enough even when bad things are not happening, are bad".
Literally anyone would condemn such things, it’s hardly a badge of honour.
The only time he ever condemns trends is when they manifest so horribly that he can’t pragmatically do anything but do so.
Trump does not condemn any of the negative aspects of his support unless he’s directly pressed on it, or something terrible happens.
If Trump gave one speech, outside of those constraints to condemn such behaviours then sure, he does not do so off his own bat.
You can throw around all the buzzwords you want that make Trump drones indistinguishable from bots, he doesn’t do these things, he’s happy to cosy up to the worst instincts of the populace and profit from it politically.
|
There was also one time Trump was directly asked by a reporter if he wanted to remove any doubt and condemn white supremacists properly, and he just walked away. I'd be amazed we forgot that, but he's also a rampaging idiot who can't stand not dominating the news cycle. But that happened.
On August 09 2019 10:10 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:59 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. On August 09 2019 00:23 Jockmcplop wrote:
What we have here is a right wing who elected a president based solely on the fact that he triggers the left, complaining that the left is triggered by the president.
Politics has turned to a steaming pile of shit. Wow! Voters on one side are voting only for one reason! Absolutely magnificent logic! I don't understand why people think they can just change words of an academic concept and it still works. "toxic femininity" isn't a thing. Trump is clearly not only supportive of white supremacists, but is a white supremacist himself. If I say "socialism is bad, capitalism is the best" people aren't going to presume I'm actually pro-capitalist. They are going to think the FBI finally took them seriously lol. So when Trump makes halfassed condemnations of white supremacy (all the supremacies, like tf?!?) only the people who want what he does not to be considered white supremacy accept it. Stop being a dick. Trump clearly said he didn’t like supremacists very much when pressed after someone with a white supremacist manifesto killed a bunch of people. That he says nothing in between such horrors matters little, the important thing is that he condemns massacres immediately after they’ve happened when pressed on them, it takes a lot of courage to say such things that literally any human would say when asked if massacres are bad. Now you've gone from "people who don't condemn bad things are bad" to "people who condemn bad things when they happen, but don't do it frequently enough even when bad things are not happening, are bad".
No, we're at "people who only half-heartedly condemn white supremacists because they killed someone are probably white supremacists". Have been the whole time. You're looking for a whole bunch of different arguments that aren't there, because you don't like what people are saying.
On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though.
Yeah, I think I glossed over that because there's no way someone was stupid enough to say that unironically. But, uh... wow. I think I'm out, y'all. Can't take it.
|
On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things.
Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though.
|
Northern Ireland25238 Posts
On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though.
How is it not? I feel it’s invoked more to criticise critiques of toxic masculinity but that obvious deflection aside I don’t feel it’s entirely without basis.
|
On August 09 2019 09:55 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:24 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2019 08:45 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 01:45 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2019 01:19 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 09 2019 00:52 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2019 00:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
Well hopefully some of the damage can be repaired after he fucks off anyway. Not so sure myself.
The traction that ‘fake news’ has gathered has pushed segments of the country into such isolated media spheres that have completely different narratives that lack areas of shared agreement from which they can ideologically diverge.
Sure this was the case prior to this era but it’s far more pronounced.
The media mainstream was also deeply flawed, but Trump decided to burn the whole house down instead of fixing the plumbing.
You do have a point. I think the problem has gone on for enough decades that the time had come for a President to punch back at poor journalism. Criticism of Fox News was vile but accepted, but when NYT WaPo and CNN gets it, suddenly it's destroying the country. The mass shooting angle, very obviously saying that even good speeches by Trump must be ignored and attacked, is just the latest iteration. I guess they're writing off people that would devalue criticism of bad speeches, since they can't recognize the good ones. The changed headline is just a stark example of an old phenomenon. Its age is why I think it's not on Trump for breaking the news media, such that even a headline that doesn't attack him is a mistake. https://twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/1158777925690437632The industry will recover if they can report mass shootings and presidential responses, and not continue on the Fox-News-ification track. are you somehow insinuating that trump was justified in shouting "fake news" at whatever news he didnt like or made him look bad? this isnt a president that is taking a stand against manipulative or deceitful media, far from it. what were seeing now is a president that is manipulating the masses by completely blocking out legitimate criticisms against him and painting all media that calls him out as deceitful (not that im saying every single claim has merit. but most of them do). you gotta give him credit in the fact that he absolutely knows how to control his supporters because 90% of them are dumbasses, but theres some serious mental gymnastics going on if you think trump has shown the world the media's true colours. how you could think trump is doing the noble deed by "punching back at poor journalism" is beyond me. the guy is literally the master of manipulation and deceit, so much that he could write a textbook on divide and conquer strategy. the media could only dream of being as effective as this guy I made reference to exactly what I think the problem is within the first paragraph, and I hope you will read and respond to what I've written there before taking this elsewhere. Secondarily, I don't think Trump's motivations deny the underlying reality. I don't think anyone who can seriously say "his supporters because 90% of them are dumbasses" can capably judge fake news, Trump, the media, or mass shootings. I think his motivations are entirely pertinent here, pushing for the fourth estate to spout less bullshit vs espousing anything that scrutinises you as ‘fake news’. I don’t particularly blame him singularly but he’s punched through the wall and many others have followed into the breach. Hell its permeated way beyond the US. Equally I think we as a populace have a large degree of culpability in retrenching into our spheres, it may be comforting to some to blame Trump for everything but it’s total bullshit. He’s one man, regardless of office. We’ve collectively taken the decision to further polarise and this goes across the board. Trump’s low accuracy is pertinent to some questions, but I’m saying you can’t use it toss out the bullseyes which empower him. His favorability ratings are up, and that’s scaring people. For the rest, you may need to tell me exactly what part of my previous post your point was pertinent to. The NYT is not the place you go to read reporting on Trump’s speech, it’s where what you already believe about mass shootings and presidential responses gets fed back to you to make you feel good. The Fox News Channel model, if you will. My point is more if you act to destroy trust in entities previously considered vaguely reliable, with nothing to actually replace them then you end up with something even worse than the previous state of affairs. So the Guardian shifts from being a reliable source with a left tilt to ‘fake news’. And from there the BBC, previously a source considered generally reliable on most matters is ‘fake news’ when I’m linking articles, etc etc. Which didn’t generally happen until relatively recently. That Trump still courts Fox News entirely fits within the motivation question, if he cared about a reasonable unbiased media culture he wouldn’t do that. I don’t particularly care about short term favourability ratings whatsoever, nor indeed much of Trump’s policy, that can happily be reversed to my tastes. He’s been very successful in his ‘fake news’ crusade and it worries me a lot, not just in how he uses it but in how others are as well. I’m happy to have political disagreements with people but I don’t even bother engaging half times anymore because even indisputable facts end up embroiled in this ‘fake news’ bullshit. And as I said, Trump is one man. As a society we need to take ownership on what we believe and how we act upon it, act better, be more discerning, use our fucking brains for once. If Trump does something decent, give the guy credit and not go with the hive mind, or vice versa. My personal bias is that while not a fan, I thought Trump might push some kind of reforms from his anti-establishment platform so I was willing to give him a shot. He’s done fuck all of the sort, been happy to play to racist galleries, done nothing of importance in terms of systemic reform, attacked legitimate journalism, not so much drained the swamp as squatted above it and added to the detritus.
I totally disagree. Previously well-esteemed publications that were successful in marginalizing dissident opinions need a corrective, even if its chaotic and destructive. That’s liberty and a free exchange of ideas. The editorial boards and newsrooms that only publish their preferred frames of events can and should suffer losses and possible bankruptcy if that truth becomes more widely known. The good part of a free society is previously respected publications that choose to be activists for political ideology are allowed to become echo chambers and lose their status and influence. I support their choice, and Trump’s chaotic 1-50% accuracy speeding that process along. You want to be the left’s Fox News or Breitbart, you go right ahead.
I don’t want to indulge too many asides on Trump unrelated to this gun rights, gun control, and mass shootings thread, but I certainly understand where you come from on what you posted.
|
On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though.
Trump is selectively xenophobic towards certain other countries that he sees as a threat to the US. But the other two I would think not.
Mollycoddling and over-sensitivity to emotions are toxic behaviors that affect a fairly large number of people, and more often people of the left. Creation of safe-spaces (which are actually biased towards a particular ideology) that suppress free speech and debate is a consequence of this. Although i don't supposed many people here will admit it is a problem.
|
On August 09 2019 10:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:55 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 09:24 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2019 08:45 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 01:45 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2019 01:19 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 09 2019 00:52 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2019 00:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
Well hopefully some of the damage can be repaired after he fucks off anyway. Not so sure myself.
The traction that ‘fake news’ has gathered has pushed segments of the country into such isolated media spheres that have completely different narratives that lack areas of shared agreement from which they can ideologically diverge.
Sure this was the case prior to this era but it’s far more pronounced.
The media mainstream was also deeply flawed, but Trump decided to burn the whole house down instead of fixing the plumbing.
You do have a point. I think the problem has gone on for enough decades that the time had come for a President to punch back at poor journalism. Criticism of Fox News was vile but accepted, but when NYT WaPo and CNN gets it, suddenly it's destroying the country. The mass shooting angle, very obviously saying that even good speeches by Trump must be ignored and attacked, is just the latest iteration. I guess they're writing off people that would devalue criticism of bad speeches, since they can't recognize the good ones. The changed headline is just a stark example of an old phenomenon. Its age is why I think it's not on Trump for breaking the news media, such that even a headline that doesn't attack him is a mistake. https://twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/1158777925690437632The industry will recover if they can report mass shootings and presidential responses, and not continue on the Fox-News-ification track. are you somehow insinuating that trump was justified in shouting "fake news" at whatever news he didnt like or made him look bad? this isnt a president that is taking a stand against manipulative or deceitful media, far from it. what were seeing now is a president that is manipulating the masses by completely blocking out legitimate criticisms against him and painting all media that calls him out as deceitful (not that im saying every single claim has merit. but most of them do). you gotta give him credit in the fact that he absolutely knows how to control his supporters because 90% of them are dumbasses, but theres some serious mental gymnastics going on if you think trump has shown the world the media's true colours. how you could think trump is doing the noble deed by "punching back at poor journalism" is beyond me. the guy is literally the master of manipulation and deceit, so much that he could write a textbook on divide and conquer strategy. the media could only dream of being as effective as this guy I made reference to exactly what I think the problem is within the first paragraph, and I hope you will read and respond to what I've written there before taking this elsewhere. Secondarily, I don't think Trump's motivations deny the underlying reality. I don't think anyone who can seriously say "his supporters because 90% of them are dumbasses" can capably judge fake news, Trump, the media, or mass shootings. I think his motivations are entirely pertinent here, pushing for the fourth estate to spout less bullshit vs espousing anything that scrutinises you as ‘fake news’. I don’t particularly blame him singularly but he’s punched through the wall and many others have followed into the breach. Hell its permeated way beyond the US. Equally I think we as a populace have a large degree of culpability in retrenching into our spheres, it may be comforting to some to blame Trump for everything but it’s total bullshit. He’s one man, regardless of office. We’ve collectively taken the decision to further polarise and this goes across the board. Trump’s low accuracy is pertinent to some questions, but I’m saying you can’t use it toss out the bullseyes which empower him. His favorability ratings are up, and that’s scaring people. For the rest, you may need to tell me exactly what part of my previous post your point was pertinent to. The NYT is not the place you go to read reporting on Trump’s speech, it’s where what you already believe about mass shootings and presidential responses gets fed back to you to make you feel good. The Fox News Channel model, if you will. My point is more if you act to destroy trust in entities previously considered vaguely reliable, with nothing to actually replace them then you end up with something even worse than the previous state of affairs. So the Guardian shifts from being a reliable source with a left tilt to ‘fake news’. And from there the BBC, previously a source considered generally reliable on most matters is ‘fake news’ when I’m linking articles, etc etc. Which didn’t generally happen until relatively recently. That Trump still courts Fox News entirely fits within the motivation question, if he cared about a reasonable unbiased media culture he wouldn’t do that. I don’t particularly care about short term favourability ratings whatsoever, nor indeed much of Trump’s policy, that can happily be reversed to my tastes. He’s been very successful in his ‘fake news’ crusade and it worries me a lot, not just in how he uses it but in how others are as well. I’m happy to have political disagreements with people but I don’t even bother engaging half times anymore because even indisputable facts end up embroiled in this ‘fake news’ bullshit. And as I said, Trump is one man. As a society we need to take ownership on what we believe and how we act upon it, act better, be more discerning, use our fucking brains for once. If Trump does something decent, give the guy credit and not go with the hive mind, or vice versa. My personal bias is that while not a fan, I thought Trump might push some kind of reforms from his anti-establishment platform so I was willing to give him a shot. He’s done fuck all of the sort, been happy to play to racist galleries, done nothing of importance in terms of systemic reform, attacked legitimate journalism, not so much drained the swamp as squatted above it and added to the detritus. I totally disagree. Previously well-esteemed publications that were successful in marginalizing dissident opinions need a corrective, even if its chaotic and destructive. That’s liberty and a free exchange of ideas. The editorial boards and newsrooms that only publish their preferred frames of events can and should suffer losses and possible bankruptcy if that truth becomes more widely known. The good part of a free society is previously respected publications that choose to be activists for political ideology are allowed to become echo chambers and lose their status and influence. I support their choice, and Trump’s chaotic 1-50% accuracy speeding that process along. You want to be the left’s Fox News or Breitbart, you go right ahead. I don’t want to indulge too many asides on Trump unrelated to this gun rights, gun control, and mass shootings thread, but I certainly understand where you come from on what you posted.
I don't recall you having too many problems with Fox News, despite how problematic you seem to think this "Left-Wing Fox News" title is. You're free to correct the record on that, though.
On August 09 2019 10:41 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though. Trump is selectively xenophobic towards certain other countries that he sees as a threat to the US. But the other two I would think not. Mollycoddling and over-sensitivity to emotions are toxic behaviors that affect a fairly large number of people, and more often people of the left. Creation of safe-spaces (which are actually biased towards a particular ideology) that suppress free speech and debate is a consequence of this. Although i don't supposed many people here will admit it is a problem.
The irony of the "safe space" insult is that the term safe-space, in and of itself, is a product of of a group of people willingly limiting that space to a select set of viewpoints.
|
On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though.
Sexism and misandry is alive and well, I see.
|
On August 09 2019 10:33 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though. How is it not? I feel it’s invoked more to criticise critiques of toxic masculinity but that obvious deflection aside I don’t feel it’s entirely without basis.
Yes both toxic masculinity and toxic femininity can be problems.
Just a quick example of each:
Good masculinity - strength, courage, dominance
Toxic masculinity - trying to assert dominance unnecessarily and being over-belligerent (Trump does this to other public figures)
Good femininity - nurturing, compassion
Toxic femininity - over-protectiveness and mollycoddling, resulting in vitiation of natural ability to deal with adversity
|
On August 09 2019 10:33 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though. How is it not? I feel it’s invoked more to criticise critiques of toxic masculinity but that obvious deflection aside I don’t feel it’s entirely without basis.
Because the conventional definition of "toxic masculinity" refers to the general patriarchy's perpetuation of systemic masculine stereotypes and norms that have historically hurt groups of people (both men and women). While it's true that feminine stereotypes could also be harmful, it's the fact that any sexual or gender norms are reinforced by the privileged group in power (men) that differentiates them. If women held a near-monopoly on power, then it could be the case that toxic femininity existed without toxic masculinity, as the women would still be in charge of which pro-woman and pro-man norms to reinforce.
|
Northern Ireland25238 Posts
On August 09 2019 10:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 10:33 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though. How is it not? I feel it’s invoked more to criticise critiques of toxic masculinity but that obvious deflection aside I don’t feel it’s entirely without basis. Because the conventional definition of "toxic masculinity" refers to the general patriarchy's perpetuation of systemic masculine stereotypes and norms that have historically hurt groups of people (both men and women). While it's true that feminine stereotypes could also be harmful, it's the fact that any sexual or gender norms are reinforced by the privileged group in power (men) that differentiates them. If women held a near-monopoly on power, then it could be the case that toxic femininity existed without toxic masculinity, as the women would still be in charge of which pro-woman and pro-men norms to reinforce.
I disagree that women have to hold sway in the corridors of overall societal power for ‘toxic femininity’ not being a real phenomenon.
Our human relations exist far beyond political or economic power, and at certain strata women exert plenty of power socially.
|
Northern Ireland25238 Posts
On August 09 2019 10:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:55 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 09:24 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2019 08:45 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 01:45 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2019 01:19 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 09 2019 00:52 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2019 00:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
Well hopefully some of the damage can be repaired after he fucks off anyway. Not so sure myself.
The traction that ‘fake news’ has gathered has pushed segments of the country into such isolated media spheres that have completely different narratives that lack areas of shared agreement from which they can ideologically diverge.
Sure this was the case prior to this era but it’s far more pronounced.
The media mainstream was also deeply flawed, but Trump decided to burn the whole house down instead of fixing the plumbing.
You do have a point. I think the problem has gone on for enough decades that the time had come for a President to punch back at poor journalism. Criticism of Fox News was vile but accepted, but when NYT WaPo and CNN gets it, suddenly it's destroying the country. The mass shooting angle, very obviously saying that even good speeches by Trump must be ignored and attacked, is just the latest iteration. I guess they're writing off people that would devalue criticism of bad speeches, since they can't recognize the good ones. The changed headline is just a stark example of an old phenomenon. Its age is why I think it's not on Trump for breaking the news media, such that even a headline that doesn't attack him is a mistake. https://twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/1158777925690437632The industry will recover if they can report mass shootings and presidential responses, and not continue on the Fox-News-ification track. are you somehow insinuating that trump was justified in shouting "fake news" at whatever news he didnt like or made him look bad? this isnt a president that is taking a stand against manipulative or deceitful media, far from it. what were seeing now is a president that is manipulating the masses by completely blocking out legitimate criticisms against him and painting all media that calls him out as deceitful (not that im saying every single claim has merit. but most of them do). you gotta give him credit in the fact that he absolutely knows how to control his supporters because 90% of them are dumbasses, but theres some serious mental gymnastics going on if you think trump has shown the world the media's true colours. how you could think trump is doing the noble deed by "punching back at poor journalism" is beyond me. the guy is literally the master of manipulation and deceit, so much that he could write a textbook on divide and conquer strategy. the media could only dream of being as effective as this guy I made reference to exactly what I think the problem is within the first paragraph, and I hope you will read and respond to what I've written there before taking this elsewhere. Secondarily, I don't think Trump's motivations deny the underlying reality. I don't think anyone who can seriously say "his supporters because 90% of them are dumbasses" can capably judge fake news, Trump, the media, or mass shootings. I think his motivations are entirely pertinent here, pushing for the fourth estate to spout less bullshit vs espousing anything that scrutinises you as ‘fake news’. I don’t particularly blame him singularly but he’s punched through the wall and many others have followed into the breach. Hell its permeated way beyond the US. Equally I think we as a populace have a large degree of culpability in retrenching into our spheres, it may be comforting to some to blame Trump for everything but it’s total bullshit. He’s one man, regardless of office. We’ve collectively taken the decision to further polarise and this goes across the board. Trump’s low accuracy is pertinent to some questions, but I’m saying you can’t use it toss out the bullseyes which empower him. His favorability ratings are up, and that’s scaring people. For the rest, you may need to tell me exactly what part of my previous post your point was pertinent to. The NYT is not the place you go to read reporting on Trump’s speech, it’s where what you already believe about mass shootings and presidential responses gets fed back to you to make you feel good. The Fox News Channel model, if you will. My point is more if you act to destroy trust in entities previously considered vaguely reliable, with nothing to actually replace them then you end up with something even worse than the previous state of affairs. So the Guardian shifts from being a reliable source with a left tilt to ‘fake news’. And from there the BBC, previously a source considered generally reliable on most matters is ‘fake news’ when I’m linking articles, etc etc. Which didn’t generally happen until relatively recently. That Trump still courts Fox News entirely fits within the motivation question, if he cared about a reasonable unbiased media culture he wouldn’t do that. I don’t particularly care about short term favourability ratings whatsoever, nor indeed much of Trump’s policy, that can happily be reversed to my tastes. He’s been very successful in his ‘fake news’ crusade and it worries me a lot, not just in how he uses it but in how others are as well. I’m happy to have political disagreements with people but I don’t even bother engaging half times anymore because even indisputable facts end up embroiled in this ‘fake news’ bullshit. And as I said, Trump is one man. As a society we need to take ownership on what we believe and how we act upon it, act better, be more discerning, use our fucking brains for once. If Trump does something decent, give the guy credit and not go with the hive mind, or vice versa. My personal bias is that while not a fan, I thought Trump might push some kind of reforms from his anti-establishment platform so I was willing to give him a shot. He’s done fuck all of the sort, been happy to play to racist galleries, done nothing of importance in terms of systemic reform, attacked legitimate journalism, not so much drained the swamp as squatted above it and added to the detritus. I totally disagree. Previously well-esteemed publications that were successful in marginalizing dissident opinions need a corrective, even if its chaotic and destructive. That’s liberty and a free exchange of ideas. The editorial boards and newsrooms that only publish their preferred frames of events can and should suffer losses and possible bankruptcy if that truth becomes more widely known. The good part of a free society is previously respected publications that choose to be activists for political ideology are allowed to become echo chambers and lose their status and influence. I support their choice, and Trump’s chaotic 1-50% accuracy speeding that process along. You want to be the left’s Fox News or Breitbart, you go right ahead. I don’t want to indulge too many asides on Trump unrelated to this gun rights, gun control, and mass shootings thread, but I certainly understand where you come from on what you posted.
Yeah fair enough, look forward to engaging you on my return to the US Politics thread :p
|
On August 09 2019 10:46 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 10:33 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though. How is it not? I feel it’s invoked more to criticise critiques of toxic masculinity but that obvious deflection aside I don’t feel it’s entirely without basis. Yes both toxic masculinity and toxic femininity can be problems. Just a quick example of each: Good masculinity - strength, courage, dominance Toxic masculinity - trying to assert dominance unnecessarily and being over-belligerent (Trump does this to other public figures) Good femininity - nurturing, compassion Toxic femininity - over-protectiveness and mollycoddling, resulting in vitiation of natural ability to deal with adversity
That's not toxic, at all. The masculine one is though:
"Traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant, along with related traits such as misogyny and homophobia, can be considered "toxic" due in part to their promotion of violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. The socialization of boys often normalizes violence, such as in the saying "boys will be boys" with regard to bullying and aggression." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_masculinity
Toxic masculinity doesn't just mean qualities that you don't agree with.
|
On August 09 2019 10:52 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 10:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 10:33 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though. How is it not? I feel it’s invoked more to criticise critiques of toxic masculinity but that obvious deflection aside I don’t feel it’s entirely without basis. Because the conventional definition of "toxic masculinity" refers to the general patriarchy's perpetuation of systemic masculine stereotypes and norms that have historically hurt groups of people (both men and women). While it's true that feminine stereotypes could also be harmful, it's the fact that any sexual or gender norms are reinforced by the privileged group in power (men) that differentiates them. If women held a near-monopoly on power, then it could be the case that toxic femininity existed without toxic masculinity, as the women would still be in charge of which pro-woman and pro-men norms to reinforce. I disagree that women have to hold sway in the corridors of overall societal power for ‘toxic femininity’ not being a real phenomenon. Our human relations exist far beyond political or economic power, and at certain strata women exert plenty of power socially.
That is correct. With the deterioration of the nuclear family unit as the basis of society in western countries, there are an increasing number of children living with single mothers. Add that to the fact that most educators are female or less masculine men who are left-leaning in political views. Children in the west are more indoctrinated with left-wing feminine norms than masculine ones.
Men hold the power in most corporate organizations and branches of the government such as the military.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://cdni-rt.secure2.footprint.net/files/2019.08/article/5d4994b7dda4c8e0178b45ab.jpg)
