|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 04 2018 01:06 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 00:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I doubt he has the same stress like other Presidents, he can spend up to 10-12 hours a day watching TV while Pence does the daily work. Spectacularly failing at your job is actually very stressful. You've convinced yourself that you're fit for the dream job and aren't able to prove it. It's about the worst feeling in the world
I don't think he realizes it, though. I think he thinks he's doing just fine... And by fine, I mean I think he thinks he's pretty much doing a perfect, fantastically popular job. Anyone who criticizes him is obviously wrong, in his opinion. No need to stress.
Also, besides the short work days he actually attends, we shouldn't forget about the disproportionately high number of vacations and non-work trips he takes to his resorts to go golfing or whatever.
|
Also, in regards to the press being the enemy the entire discussion was prompted the White House refusing to say that the press was not the enemy of the people:
Source
Acosta, who was heckled by Trump supporters at the president’s Tampa rally on Tuesday, insisted on getting an answer from Sanders.
“You read off a laundry list of your concerns about the press, and then things that you feel like are misreported,” Acosta said. “But you did not say that the press is not the enemy of the people.”
“I think it would be a good thing if you were to say right here at this briefing that the press, the people who are gathered in this room right now ... are not the enemy of the people,” he continued. “I think we ... deserve that.”
Saying "the president has made his position known," Sanders again avoided providing a "yes" or "no" answer, arguing that the news media has repeatedly resorted “to personal attacks without any content other than to incite anger.”
“It's ironic, Jim, that not only you and the media attack the president for his rhetoric, when they frequently lower the level of conversation in this country,” she stated. “The media has attacked me personally on a number of occasions, including your own network.”
This is grievance based politics in a nutshell and dangerous for all parties involved. Sanders doubles down, saying that the press is after her. But her boss is after them and making their lives equally dangerous She know full well that they could stop the escalation by just saying the press isn't the enemy of the people. She choose not to make her boss happy.
There is nothing vague about Trumps attacks on the press. It is all of the press that report anything beyond praise for him. He wants to discredit them. And anyone cheering him on is doing so because they want the same thing.
|
On August 04 2018 01:09 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 00:49 IgnE wrote:On August 03 2018 22:28 farvacola wrote:
It's also an incoherent take; Trump doesn't attack "the media as a whole," he only attacks those segments of the mediascape that are hostile or at least indifferent to him and the ideas he represents. The notion that he's taking on "the media" only makes sense if you regard "the media" as a group that does not include the dominant television news provider and a host of other sources. It's also silly to overlook the extent to which the Crossfire epoch and the Internet fundamentally changed the way news started working around the mid 90s; any sweeping description of "generations of media" that fails to account for this isn't an accurate description at all. It's not incoherent if you consider "the media" to be a floating signifier filled in with particular content by the person enunciating it. And isn't that why "MSM" has become so popular a term since 2015? In any case I don't feel particularly uncomfortable with a statement like, "Fox News is the enemy," even though I believe there are probably some decent people that work at Fox News. Is "Fox News is the enemy" so different a statement? Sure, the sentiment becomes coherent if you drop the pretense of positive, iterative signification in pursuit of objective description, but that's the Saussurean path towards admitting that political speech is inherently detached from the circumstances that ostensibly give rise to colloquy in the first place. That admission totally destabilizes the basis for Trumpist apologism of the sort practiced by folks like xDaunt, however, because it's clear that while they'd be fine admitting that terms like "the media" and "fake news" serve as floating semantic targets, the likes of which needn't be pinned down in the way anti-Trumpers insist they ought to, they would not and do not make the same admission with regards to fundamentally similar floating signifiers a la terms like "racism" and "SJW." Thus, the game of allowing folks to justify Trump in terms of the destabilization of linguistic signifiers is to let them have their cake and eat it while driving the wrong direction on a one way road. "Fox News is the enemy" is a fine thing to assert, but when someone insists Trump is fighting "the media as a whole" while ignoring the extent to which Trump cozies up to and coddles specific segments of "the media as a whole," explaining away the difference in terms of floating signifiers doesn't do justice to what is actually going on.
it seems possible that anti-trumpers (as demonstrated by the comments in this thread) are routinely underestimating the degree to which the trumpist right is consciously assuming the kind of deconstructionist language games that defined the post-60s liberal discourse, while at the same time 'keeping up appearances'. the question for me is less about how many fundamentalists there are on the right (no doubt a great many) but about how more educated right-wingers (like xdaunt) engage in a cynical maintenance/production of a big Other, through the Zizekian 'subject supposed to believe'.
now i admit that xdaunt rarely goes into it, and that is why ive made comments in the past about the radical 'decisionism' of trumpist right-wingers that mostly subsides below naive appearance. but cant we see now how right fredric jameson was to insist that neoliberals and fellow travelers on the left share much in common: almost everything except the most important stuff. and so i read xdaunt's comments in that light. that is, if xdaunt is the cynical, economically neoliberal trumpist who cares about rule of (property) law, he should be opposed to the more unreflective anti-trumpers who are actually more fundamentalist. they insist that phrases like "freedom of the press" and "the media" are transhistorical signifiers referring to really existing objects. their hysterical response to linguistic attacks is to assert "no, these aren't just language games, we want a real Master to come back and secure the symbolic order that we insist is real"
edit: i probably shouldnt characterize xdaunt as a neoliberal, it is possible that "classically liberal" is the new neoliberal, except it should now be known as a kind of oxymoronic "postmodern classical liberalism"
|
On August 04 2018 01:47 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 01:09 farvacola wrote:On August 04 2018 00:49 IgnE wrote:On August 03 2018 22:28 farvacola wrote:
It's also an incoherent take; Trump doesn't attack "the media as a whole," he only attacks those segments of the mediascape that are hostile or at least indifferent to him and the ideas he represents. The notion that he's taking on "the media" only makes sense if you regard "the media" as a group that does not include the dominant television news provider and a host of other sources. It's also silly to overlook the extent to which the Crossfire epoch and the Internet fundamentally changed the way news started working around the mid 90s; any sweeping description of "generations of media" that fails to account for this isn't an accurate description at all. It's not incoherent if you consider "the media" to be a floating signifier filled in with particular content by the person enunciating it. And isn't that why "MSM" has become so popular a term since 2015? In any case I don't feel particularly uncomfortable with a statement like, "Fox News is the enemy," even though I believe there are probably some decent people that work at Fox News. Is "Fox News is the enemy" so different a statement? Sure, the sentiment becomes coherent if you drop the pretense of positive, iterative signification in pursuit of objective description, but that's the Saussurean path towards admitting that political speech is inherently detached from the circumstances that ostensibly give rise to colloquy in the first place. That admission totally destabilizes the basis for Trumpist apologism of the sort practiced by folks like xDaunt, however, because it's clear that while they'd be fine admitting that terms like "the media" and "fake news" serve as floating semantic targets, the likes of which needn't be pinned down in the way anti-Trumpers insist they ought to, they would not and do not make the same admission with regards to fundamentally similar floating signifiers a la terms like "racism" and "SJW." Thus, the game of allowing folks to justify Trump in terms of the destabilization of linguistic signifiers is to let them have their cake and eat it while driving the wrong direction on a one way road. "Fox News is the enemy" is a fine thing to assert, but when someone insists Trump is fighting "the media as a whole" while ignoring the extent to which Trump cozies up to and coddles specific segments of "the media as a whole," explaining away the difference in terms of floating signifiers doesn't do justice to what is actually going on. it seems possible that anti-trumpers (as demonstrated by the comments in this thread) are routinely underestimating the degree to which the trumpist right is consciously assuming the kind of deconstructionist language games that defined the post-60s liberal discourse, while at the same time 'keeping up appearances'. the question for me is less about how many fundamentalists there are on the right (no doubt a great many) but about how more educated right-wingers (like xdaunt) engage in a cynical maintenance/production of a big Other, through the Zizekian 'subject supposed to believe'. now i admit that xdaunt rarely goes into it, and that is why ive made comments in the past about the radical 'decisionism' of trumpist right-wingers that mostly subsides below naive appearance. but cant we see now how right fredric jameson was to insist that neoliberals and fellow travelers on the left share much in common: almost everything except the most important stuff. and so i read xdaunt's comments in that light. that is, if xdaunt is the cynical, economically neoliberal trumpist who cares about rule of (property) law, he should be opposed to the more unreflective anti-trumpers who are actually more fundamentalist. they insist that phrases like "freedom of the press" and "the media" are transhistorical signifiers referring to really existing objects. their hysterical response to linguistic attacks is to assert "no, these aren't just language games, we want a real Master to come back and secure the symbolic order that we insist is real"
Are you attempting to argue that spoken words cannot promote others to take action? Or that words cannot be viewed as a statement of a person's intents for the future?
|
@plansix
no thats not what im arguing
|
On August 04 2018 01:52 IgnE wrote:
@plansix
no thats not what im arguing
No problem them. I will re-read it on a larger screen.
|
That inconsistency - entertaining the notion that one ought not take Trump's words literally while still taking him seriously, all while many of his biggest fans delight in the literal implications of his words and acts - is why I don't think it's coherent to mount a relativistic, destabilization-of-meaning defense of Trump without a heavy disclaimer, a disclaimer that practically begs an error in the defense in the first place.
|
On August 04 2018 01:57 farvacola wrote:
That inconsistency - entertaining the notion that one ought not take Trump's words literally while still taking him seriously, all while many of his biggest fans delight in the literal implications of his words and acts - is why I don't think it's coherent to mount a relativistic, destabilization-of-meaning defense of Trump without a heavy disclaimer, a disclaimer that practically begs an error in the defense in the first place.
is "literal implication" itself an oxymoron? shouldnt we distinguish between the political/discursive games being played and the fantasy structure that sustains them? im not trying to mount a defense of trumpism, if anything im critiquing what i see as a self-defeating resistance that is playing the wrong game because it cant distinguish between those two levels
|
By "literal implication," I mean the typified implication of the plain meaning of words ordinarily used, as opposed to floating implications of the sort more pomo minded folks would refer to.
|
It will be hard to distinguish when the fantasy structure stops being a fantasy. Trumpism, no matter how hard it clings to the Internet's ironic detachment to the impact of language, will inevitability lead to real world results. And those results will reflect Trumps language.
|
On August 04 2018 02:11 Plansix wrote:
It will be hard to distinguish when the fantasy structure stops being a fantasy. Trumpism, no matter how hard it clings to the Internet's ironic detachment to the impact of language, will inevitability lead to real world results.
yeah, fantasy is deadly serious
|
On August 04 2018 02:12 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 02:11 Plansix wrote:
It will be hard to distinguish when the fantasy structure stops being a fantasy. Trumpism, no matter how hard it clings to the Internet's ironic detachment to the impact of language, will inevitability lead to real world results. yeah, fantasy is deadly serious
For someone spends a lot of time posting like a bulimic thesaurus, you do love to shit post with the best of us.
But despite your hyperbolic response, you are intelligent enough to understand the genuine concern that authority figures can cause a shifting normative behavior in the overarching culture. The wrestling over true intent and political strategy aside, people are worried that someone at a Trump rally is going to throw a brick at a reporter and the crowd will cheer them. And that will be supported by our President and his starved ego.
|
On August 04 2018 02:08 farvacola wrote:
By "literal implication," I mean the typified implication of the plain meaning of words ordinarily used, as opposed to floating implications of the sort more pomo minded folks would refer to.
the two seem largely inseparable to me. put some of trump's words about the media into a very religious, 'fundamentalist' catholic priest's mouth and the statements suddenly take on very different literal implications. there is a real danger in a reductionist analysis of the type: "all trumpists are the same, we know what they all really mean/want." this is especially the case when someone says, "the media (meaning nyt, cnn, washpo, 'hollywood') is hostile to a conservative agenda" and the other side is quick to jump to the conclusion that that is code for fascism. again, put those words in the mouth of a religious catholic or muslim and suddenly the literal implications are quite different, and even mainstream liberals are slower to criticize it for fear of appearing intolerant of islam or whatever.
|
|
|
or let me put it another way: suppose a socialist was swept up into the oval office during a turbulent crazy election season and suddenly the main media organs of the propertied classes were printing/producing mostly anti-socialist screeds about the impossibility of the program and a disconnection from reality etc etc. would it be fascistic to say something like 'the media is the enemy'?
|
"The media" already fills the news with anti-socialist garbage, so I'm not sure that scenario works. And yes, it'd still be wrong (not sure if it's necessarily fascist) to utilize an overinclusive term like "the media" in service of a political message-as-reaction. The refusal to acknowledge the collateral consequences of that language is a big part of the problems facing our brand of politics. And as an aside, Trump is hardly the only one guilty of this, only he definitely uses the damagingly sweeping language more than most.
|
I doubt it'll change much of anything; might move the needle a little bit. american catholicism has been on a decline for some time. a fair number of american catholics already didn't like the death penalty. and in general some local bishops, and especially lay catholic, are quite willing to skirt/ignore the pope/church on some issues or at least that's been my impression.
|
On August 04 2018 02:41 farvacola wrote:
"The media" already fills the news with anti-socialist garbage, so I'm not sure that scenario works. And yes, it'd still be wrong (not sure if it's necessarily fascist) to utilize an overinclusive term like "the media" in service of a political message-as-reaction. The refusal to acknowledge the collateral consequences of that language is a big part of the problems facing our brand of politics. And as an aside, Trump is hardly the only one guilty of this, only he definitely uses the damagingly sweeping language more than most.
maybe so. there are definitely consequences
|
On August 04 2018 02:33 IgnE wrote:
or let me put it another way: suppose a socialist was swept up into the oval office during a turbulent crazy election season and suddenly the main media organs of the propertied classes were printing/producing mostly anti-socialist screeds about the impossibility of the program and a disconnection from reality etc etc. would it be fascistic to say something like 'the media is the enemy'?
Yes. Absolutely. It dripped with fascistic trappings, even if it isn't completely fascist. The nomenclature of "enemy" is more than a simple opponent, especially in the terms government. An enemy of the state, government or administration is viewed as a destructive agent or force that must be crushed. We reserve that word for wars or people who wish to inflict mass violence on our country, not professional reporters.
|
On August 04 2018 02:33 IgnE wrote:
or let me put it another way: suppose a socialist was swept up into the oval office during a turbulent crazy election season and suddenly the main media organs of the propertied classes were printing/producing mostly anti-socialist screeds about the impossibility of the program and a disconnection from reality etc etc. would it be fascistic to say something like 'the media is the enemy'?
It would be an utter disaster for the values of liberty and freedom and American democracy, for anyone in the white house to 'the media is the enemy'.
The two aren't equivalent as in your scenario, you need to add everything that Trump and the Trump administration is doing as well. Maybe the socialist president is claiming a growth of 300% and his was the largest penis on the sunniest day when it was a small crowd on an overcast day.
Doesn't matter. It's still a disaster for American democracy for someone in the white house to say 'the media is the enemy', and for it to an opinion a group can hold in USA blithely.
I really have no idea why IgnE would then think it is not a problem just because it would be a socialist government. Not that the Trump administration is the opposite of socialist anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
