|
Woolie Wool posted:They might try, but it would be a catastrophic failure of historically unprecedented proportions. Who said it was even about winning? They're only in it to profess their faith, and show to God that they're on the side of the valiant, even if it is a resolute failure.
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:The NCO and officer corps have been steadily infiltrated by Narrativists and Christian Dominionists for decades. Even if a substantial portion of the regular troops are ethnic minorities, the leaders and most of the members of the elite special operations units (who are the ones who train our militarized police, not Joe Grunt of the 59th armored division) are indoctrinated and politically reliable. This also ties into the fact that there have been a lot of stories that I've heard of soldiers being shamed, browbeaten, or punished for not being Christian. Anecdotes at best, but it makes sense that since the officers are Narrativists/Christian Dominionists. Morroque posted:Who said it was even about winning? They're only in it to profess their faith, and show to God that they're on the side of the valiant, even if it is a resolute failure. Yeah this is the thing that gets to me. Essentially throwing themselves on the sword for a cause they believe in, no matter how many people get hurt in the process and trying to ensure their own safety in the afterlife. You know, just like any good suicide bomber.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
That reminds me, are there still stigma against the idea of atheists, humanists and the like becoming military Chaplains?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
I'm kinda skeptical of the idea of the US military suddenly going more fundie than it is now. I mean, stuff like this is incredibly creepy, but it's also not being used anymore (yes, I intentionally linked an article by that source).
my dad fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:I have to disagree with PJ about the idea of a Republican victory leading to the victorious Narrativists wanting to reinstate the draft. Part of the whole strategy is dismantling the conscription-based civilian army of the country's past and replacing it with an exclusive, exclusionary warrior caste that serves the agenda of the Narrativists alone and can be used to wage war against black people and other undesirable groups. This process is by now nearly complete. The Narrativists don't need overwhelming manpower, they need ideological purity and the current volunteer structure of the US military is the best way for them to get it. The all-volunteer, special-ops-heavy War on Terror military is a nascent regime protection force for the regime they hope to create. Narrativists don't really care what their foot soldiers look like or believe in so long as they hurt the Other whenever they are told too.  Also, I don't think that "purging" the Us military of its "infection" is a healthy angle to be thinking about this from. Narrativists are human and despite the zaniness we see emerging in the GOP at this time/the threat their irrational behavior can pose, I do not think it is helpful to sink to the same levels of Otherization that Narrativists engage in. We can reduce the Narrativist influence on the military by reducing its overall presence in society, which I think we can do via an education campaign. (Based on several letters goons have written me who have recognized themselves in my descriptions of Narrativists, being exposed to such an accurate description caused a re-evaluation of many of their ideas about life.) Besides, in our system the military is at the heel of the civilian POTUS, and as long as we do not get a Narrativist POTUS again we will be fine. Flagrant Abuse posted:Interested to hear your thoughts on the debate, PJ. Let me start by saying that the most likely explanation at this time is the much simpler one of Fox News being a self interested Rational Actor pursuing ratings rather than my hypothesis of a Narrativist organization becoming untethered in pursuit of the priorities of the Narrative. Frankly, the balance of evidence at this point definitely favors the simpler explanation, to say nothing of the dictates of Occam's Razor. The only way my theory will be born out is if we see the trends I have described born out over a long period of time, so for now my analysis is purely speculative. I start out with a giant disclaimer because I want it clear that this is a schizophrenic reading waaaaaaaayyyyy deep into poo poo. My analysis is complicated and implies some Machiavellian plots, so take everything I say with a giant grain of salt. (Even if I am 100% right it will be a long time before what I say could be proven so take what I say for now as an interesting perspective and little more.) Quoting my projections from earlier in the page. Prester John posted:I wanted to write down some of my thoughts on the GOP debate tonight after having given it some considerable thought. I think that tonight will be when the GOP clown car starts to go from "funny haha" to I think I got a bunch of things right. It was a spectacle that fed directly into the bloodlust of the base. It had a "game show" tone by constantly putting each candidate in high pressure situations. (On top of that, each candidate was placed according to their rank in the polls, with the number one slot being dead center and the 9-10 slots in the wings, demonstrating a clear "winner" before the first word had been said.) The favoritism however, while present, was not near so blatant as I expected. The more I think about it, the more I think that I was generally right, but I substantially underestimated the cunning of Fox News. I think I can demonstrate clearly that the impact of lat night is having specific effects on Narrativists and I think I can demonstrate several Compaction Cycles already taking place. While I cannot prove that Fox News is doing this intentionally, I strongly suspect they are. And if Fox News really is doing this intentionally, if Fox News really has dialed in to the Narrativist base with this kind of precision, then Fox News is truly the finest propaganda outfit in the history of mankind. I mean if I am correct in my analysis here, you have to kind of admire the sheer skill and ruthlessness of what was night was. (I will remind you one more time that this is a Schizophrenic seeing connections in things and making bold conclusions based on that, so do bear that in mind as I explain my interpretation of last nights debate.) Last night's debate represents a significant turning point in the GOP Civil War as well as what may well be the first clearly visible proof that Fox News has become the real boss of the GOP. Last night was a carefully scripted ambush of every single candidate, (Except for Donald Trump. In Trump's case the questions were carefully designed to feed a certain Narrative while initiating a Compaction Cycle against the only loudly pro-woman Fox News personality, Megan Kelly.) and a clear statement of intent from Fox News. Fox made it clear they will savage anyone and that they now call the tune. On top of that, Fox used Donald Trump to threaten the GOP establishment. Trump was given golden opportunities to defend himself by attacking only in areas that his answers would be acceptable to Narrativists. Trump was also used as a bludgeon against Fox's own "softies" Megyn Kelly and Frank Lutz, who now find themselves facing Compaction Cycles as a result of last night. In addition to all this, Trump was given substantially more time than any other candidate (almost double of most) on top of several candidates having their own time basically stolen by being asked questions about Donald trump. (Most Notably the question for Jeb Bush of "So we heard a rumor that you called Trump a poopiehead behind closed doors, confirm/deny?") Let me try and go event by event and highlight what I feel are the pertinent details. First off, there was the amateur hour delays and incompetence at the start. While this may have just been the regular chaos of live television, this might also indicate that Compaction Cycles have been ongoing behind the scenes for some time. One of the side effects of selecting members of your organization only on purity while forcing out the impure, general competency takes a nosedive. Last nights confused opening could be the result of a general decrease in competent technicians. Next up we have the pledge. Lets watch this moment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsSDbC5G0GE Boom, right out of the gate Donald Trump is given a perfect opportunity to make the entire thing about himself by sticking to his schtick of a strait talking tough guy. Fox News had to know what Donald Trump would do, and Fox News certainly would have known how their audience would react so the question then becomes, why give Donald such an opportunity? My hunch is that Fox is supporting Trump, at least for now. (I do not believe that Fox's support is unconditional, but for now at least, I contend they are very clearly manipulating events to keep Trump at the fore.) Whether or not Fox actually wants Trump to be the nomineee does not matter at this point, Fox News is using Trump for now to whip the base up into an unprecedented fury. Look at the impact of that opening. Trump got to Grandstand, to prove his independent spirit by smiling even in the face of the audience booing. Note, the audience first cheered, before the cheer was drowned out by booing. The more extreme Narrativists cheered instantly for Trump the moment he raised his hand, then the moderate Republicans made a rare appearance and drowned out the cheering with boos. Trump stood firm, and Trump even admitted that he was refusing the pledge because it gave him leverage. And oh brother it does. (Or rather, it gives Fox News leverage) I believe that Fox News could end Trump if they wanted too, and reduce any third party run he makes to a joke status. At the same time, Fox News can quite possibly give Trump the nomination, and if not, then Fox could support Trump's third party run sufficiently to ensure a GOP defeat. And not just a defeat mind you, a SMASHING defeat. Not only would the Presidency be hopelessly lost, but the spectacle could inspire other wealthy Trump like copycats to spring up and run their own 3rd party campaigns, putting once safe GOP Congressional/Senate/State/Local districts into play. When Donald Trump raised his hand last night it was an open threat, from Fox News, directly at the GOP establishment. Do not gently caress with us. Bow to us or we will burn it all to the ground. It is the tactics the GOP has relied upon in its opposition to Obama for 6 years suddenly turned back on them, and they are loving helpless. Forget "Don't rock the boat", Fox News is saying "Give us what we want or we will sink the whole Goddamn boat". Trump's threat delivered, Fox then proceeded to begin its ambush. Fox proved last night that it no longer gives one single gently caress about how the establishment feels about being questioned, Fox embraced its Outer Narrative of "Fair and Balanced" for one shining moment last night and kicked every single candidate in a vulnerable spot. Believe it or not, in doing so Fox just gave its reputation a massive loving boost in the American public's eye by running what is essentially a psyop against the establishment GOP. Fox tuned into that undercurrent of populist rage by eviscerating every candidate Daily Show style, and they did so in front of a gigantic audiance. How gigantic you ask? Prepare to be Horrified. CNN Money posted:Fox's GOP debate was watched by 24 million viewers on Thursday night, according to Nielsen data, making it the highest-rated primary debate in television history. *Bolded entire thing because Jesus Christ. So with an audience that huge this debate is going to be talked about endlessly, and the two biggest moments to come out of those talks, the two most memorable things, are going to be Donald Trump's threat followed by Donald Trump's response to Megyn Kelly calling him a Misogynist. For reference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y9_LJj7A68 My interpretation of that exchange.  "Here are some mean things you have said about women Mr Trump, they sure sound misogynistic." "gently caress you, real men don't have time to be politically correct. Toots."*Raucous Applause* That setup was almost perfect, and I really do suspect that Megyn Kelly only got the okay to ask that question because Fox News knew that Trump would curbstomp her on that one. Sending Megyn Kelly to trip Donald Trump up on his misogyny is akin to trying to jam a woodchipper with a bag of kittens. It just makes a horrifying mess. Donald seemed quite prepared for that one and with how ready his "Rosie O'donnell" quip was I would not be surprised if he had been informed ahead of time of the exact wording of that question. Basically Trump turned what appeared to be a lethal question into a home run. Not only that, but in doing so he put the most strongly pro-woman Fox News personality in the crosshairs of a Compaction Cycle. Late last night Donald Trump launched a Twitter offensive against Megyn Kelly (As well as Frank Luntz) and seems to have won. Washington Post posted:After the debate, an even unhappier Trump seemed to have changed his mind about that last part. Reporters in the spin room saw that. Megyn Kelly is now under attack across Narrativist media as a random sampling of any comments section will show. I suspect Megyn Kelly might ahve to either apologize or live with super strict scrutiny from here on out. Megyn Kelly has made herself into the Zoe Quinn of Fox News and Narrativists are going to be super tuned in to any perceived pro woman bias in anything Megyn Kelly says from this point forwards. (Welcome to hell Megyn, I feel pity for you However, as you are the one who chose to swim in this cesspool, that makes it hard to feel much sympathy for you.) I suspect Megyn Kelly's notorious on air pro women rants have not been well received behind closed doors and offering her up like this to Trump may well have been intentional. Fox News will probably have less internal pushback against its misogyny and certainly much less external pushback now as well. If my suspicions are correct this is an ingenious tactic, use Trump to beat down on the "soft" elements within Fox News. While short term this will result in Fox getting some shmutz on its face, it won't be enough to drive their base away. It will however provide a short term boots to their ratings when they are gradually "won over" to the Narrativist side of things by replacing softies with crazy hardliners as a result of public outcry. Of a side note here is Frank Luntz being attacked by Trump after his focus group criticized Trump shortly after the debate. Whether this was intentional or not, by publicly airing the accusation that Trump "dodged questions just like any other politician" which resulted in the focusing group "losing respect" for Trump it has resulted in Narrativists going into active denial over this plainly obvious truth. In short, it has actually strengthened Trump by putting some cognitive dissonance in between a Narrativist and the rational reality of Trumps performance. (also, I think Luntz is something of a moderate himself, but I don't watch Fox enough to know) In any case Luntz also now faces a Compaction Cycle and accusations of "RINO" for daring to report the obvious. Given how perfectly last night played to Narrativist sensibilities though, I strongly suspect that Fox News knew precisely what it was doing and may have constructed that focus group with the intention to ensure that Luntz would be placed into a position to report that outcome and reap the blacklash. Also in the "evidence of a pro Trump bias" catagory we have the speaking times of each candidate. quote:FINAL http://to.pbs.org/1UrgkF6 Trump was number 1 with 22% more speaking time than the number two spot. Trump received more than double what Paul revived (Paul being the only candidate to openly attack Trump) and nearly double of most of the rest of the field. On top of that, multiple candidates faced questions that were exclusively about Donald Trump, further increasing the amount of time attention was on him during the debate. And to top it off, the one question that could have done some real damage to Trump (the God Question) was not asked of him, instead Trump was asked a separate question and give the final word on the debate. Now whether Fox continues its support of Trump or not is a real question, but I feel that Fox has clearly invested a great deal into supporting Trump and is using him as a cudgel to menace the GOP establishment. I am most interested in any reactions or feedback to this interpretation. Edit: Just had a thought. Given the situation with Megyn Kelly, if there is one candidate that could engage the #Gamergate crowd and get them invovled in politics, it would be Donald Trump. (I'm not saying I expect this to happen, I'm saying its an amusing possibility.) Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
That's an interesting reading PJ, but why do you think this sort of machiavellian pro-Trump posturing is going on, when to the lay person, it looks more like they softballed Bush, tried to sink Trump with the "hard questions" (What's the deal with the bankruptcies, why did you donate to HRC, etc) and then went on to declare him the debate's loser. I'd argue that them backing a candidate looks more like Carly Fiorina's treatment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Basically this entire show was meant to prop up Trump, beat down everyone else in front of 24 million, and throw everyone that isn't as extreme as them under the bus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
My take on the whole debate was that Fox was ripping into everyone, presumably to jack ratings up, and Trump was just the only one who went into the debate expecting to be attacked from all directions. Though if you judge the thing by its results, I admit it's hard to see how things could have gone any better for Trump. The tweets that Megan Kelly read off - 'whore', 'get on your knees', etc. - would have sunk any of the other nine candidates. It must have been a seriously nasty shock for Kelly when Trump basically said "So what?" and the audience cheered him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Octatonic posted:That's an interesting reading PJ, but why do you think this sort of machiavellian pro-Trump posturing is going on, when to the lay person, it looks more like they softballed Bush, tried to sink Trump with the "hard questions" (What's the deal with the bankruptcies, why did you donate to HRC, etc) and then went on to declare him the debate's loser. The backing of Trump may be more important as a cudgel to threaten the GOP establishment with rather than actual support of Trump. (To say nothing of the ratings bonanza Fox is currently reaping as a result of their support of Trump up to this point.) I am not saying Fox wants Trump to win, I am saying that Fox is constructing events to keep Trump at the head of popularity with the Narrativist wing (who are the easiest group to manipulate by far.) The longer Trump remains a viable candidate (which he can only do with the support of Fox) the more leverage Fox likely feels it has over the establishment GOP. Going for the nuts of every candidate last night was meant to communicate just how much Fox News runs Bartertown now, and they did it in front of the largest audience Fox news has had for anything ever. (Something like triple the previous record for a debate) Fox has incredible leverage right now and realistically Fox is the only one that could ruin Trump. That they avoid doing so in what would be such a simple and cost free way with their base in the form of letting Trump skip the God question is to me extremely telling. Fox wants Trump in this race, and Fox wants him as the frontrunner. Whether or not Fox wants Trump to take it all the way remains to be seen, but it is my contention that as of right now that Fox News is steering almost the entire GOP. Edit: Re Carly Fiorina: I think Fox News just wants Carly in the main stage debates as a useful anti Hillary talking point, Fox does not actually want Carly to be the nominee. I think the support for her is just to get her onto the main stage so they can point to her and say "see look how diverse we are" and nothing more. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Your analysis is very interesting to me because from what I saw Fox had no qualms with going after Trump hard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
site posted:Your analysis is very interesting to me because from what I saw Fox had no qualms with going after Trump hard. Watch how Rush/Savage/Beck/Jones et all react to the Megyn Kelly/Trump exchange. Trump is going to be a hero for this and will get endless exultation from the Narrativist media. Fox News is either blundering perfectly, or Fox News understands its audience very very well and has a pretty good idea what it is doing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Prester John posted:Watch how Rush/Savage/Beck/Jones et all react to the Megyn Kelly/Trump exchange. Trump is going to be a hero for this and will get endless exultation from the Narrativist media. Fox News is either blundering perfectly, or Fox News understands its audience very very well and has a pretty good idea what it is doing. Yes, I agree with saying Trump was the clear victor in the debate. It just didn't look to me like Fox was trying to help him do so. I'm definitely going to rewatch it though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Prester John posted:Narrativists don't really care what their foot soldiers look like or believe in so long as they hurt the Other whenever they are told too.  It's great that you're self-aware about it, I just want to let you know that, yes, to me most of this reads uncomfortably close to every crazy conspiracy theory rambling I've come across. Fascinating, regardless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
site posted:Your analysis is very interesting to me because from what I saw Fox had no qualms with going after Trump hard. I guess the real question is how much Fox was aware that going after him hard and letting him be an rear end in a top hat was exactly what would appeal to his supporters. The fact he got a lot more time than anyone else is a bit telling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
site posted:Yes, I agree with saying Trump was the clear victor in the debate. It just didn't look to me like Fox was trying to help him do so. Well on the one hand, it appeals to the moderates who want Trump out, and on the other hand it makes Trump look like the 'guy everyone hates' that the narrativists want. They don't want a guy who'll go up and be smiles and charm and talking about how he'll fix everything, they want an rear end in a top hat who will do what they think they want. If Fox wants Trump elected and they make it look like Trump is the 'renegade against the system bad boy that all the narrativist girls and boys want' then that'll get them whipped up even further. The worst question they gave him, at least that I heard, was the one Megan gave him and that pretty much was just blown up into this massive 'gently caress you feminazi' tantrum that has basically made every single hard right christian who thinks men should be the head of the household get the biggest religious boner. Everything else seemed to be in his wheelhouse. At one point I think I heard him explain that he's running because he realized he could buy anyone, at one point donating to the clintons and asking them to come to his wedding, and they came. He then dropped that he'd given money to just about everybody in the room at some point or another, as if that was somehow proof of his dominance. I couldn't watch for too long, that hair kept making me nauseous so Its what I managed to catch while also playing Dark Souls 2, I thought it would be more cheerful than seeing the men the republicans are bringing forth to try and gently caress over the poor. In the freep thread they're already working on retconning Trump into a teetotaler christian whom has never ever done wrong and is saintly as poo poo. lizardman posted:to me most of this reads uncomfortably close to every crazy conspiracy theory rambling I've come across. Fascinating, regardless. Yeah but at the same time, it makes sense, sort of. We'll have to see if the predictions bear out, and either way I sure hope this is helping PJ with her book. E-Tank fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:I guess the real question is how much Fox was aware that going after him hard and letting him be an rear end in a top hat was exactly what would appeal to his supporters. The fact he got a lot more time than anyone else is a bit telling. Listening to Savage Nation right now. The entire thing is about the Megyn Kelly/Donald Trump thing. Savage is calling her a "transpolitical" and comparing her to Caitlyn Jenner. The last 4 callers in a row have all been ranting about Megyn and droning on about how betrayed they fell by her. Megyn's career is done. Edit: Now he has a "facial artist with 60 years experience" on for an elaborate discussion about how changes in her face prove she has turned on Conservatives. I thought they were kidding at first. They are not. They are seriously arguing that becoming a traitor/liberal triggers an involuntary reflex that changes the face, and since we can see that Megyn Kelly's face has changed over the last 13 years, it proves she is a traitor. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Prester John posted:Listening to Savage Nation right now. The entire thing is about the Megyn Kelly/Donald Trump thing. Savage is calling her a "transpolitical" and comparing her to Caitlyn Jenner. The last 4 callers in a row have all been ranting about Megyn and droning on about how betrayed they fell by her. Megyn's career is done. What the ever loving christ. How do you even think something like that is legit?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
I don't know if I agree with the analysis that last night was a series of 11th dimensional strategic questions specifically targeted at destroying Megyn and allowing Donald to answer in a way that makes him look good. The simpler explanation is that Trump is exceedingly good at providing the primary base exactly what it needs right now, a proxy with which to let out all their frustration in the most misogynist, offensive, and rude way possible. Bonus points if it's directed towards women or minorities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Savage's broadcast style is certainly something. The long periods of calm in a deep voice that grows almost bored which then suddenly shifts to the frothing anger raging rant. It's practiced and kind of scary. For those that haven't listened to him Savage is big into natural medicines (wrote a book on it), and to a degree idolizes south pacific tribesmen, "bronzed adonis(es)". He's pretty out there. I stopped being able to listen to talk radio a couple years ago. Even hosts like Dennis Miller were getting just foul and hateful. It's certainly interesting for Savage to be going after Megyn Kelly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
nachos posted:I don't know if I agree with the analysis that last night was a series of 11th dimensional strategic questions specifically targeted at destroying Megyn and allowing Donald to answer in a way that makes him look good. The simpler explanation is that Trump is exceedingly good at providing the primary base exactly what it needs right now, a proxy with which to let out all their frustration in the most misogynist, offensive, and rude way possible. Bonus points if it's directed towards women or minorities. I'm not saying I agree with my analysis at this point either, but I do feel it is however a potentially valid explanation. Time will tell. I will say this in though, Fox News is the master of dogwhistling. The essence of good dogwhistling is to get Narrativists riled up at a selected target without overplaying your hand and making what you are really doing too obvious. What I am arguing Fox News has done here is basically a variation on dogwhistling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Prester John posted:I'm not saying I agree with my analysis at this point either, but I do feel it is however a potentially valid explanation. Time will tell. I think the biggest argument that the whole thing was intentional is that a lot of people figured Donald would be an rear end in a top hat and the base would love him for it. If that was obvious to us, you'd think it'd be obvious to the people running Fox. They're not exactly ignorant about who their audience is. I mean, it sounds pretty unbelievable they'd set Megyn Kelly up like that, but it's almost more unbelievable they wouldn't know what would happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
I think this is relevant to the current discussion.Rush Limbaugh posted:RUSH: It's Open Line Friday, and I am your host, the award-winning Rush Limbaugh, all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-everything Maha Rushie. We are here on the day after the first Republican presidential debate last night on the Fox News Channel from the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, and we go to Rocko up in Westchester County to kick it off on the phones today. Hi, Rocko, great to have you with us. Look at how perfectly Trump is falling into the role of Heroic champion struggling against the mighty and corrupt GOP. Trump is fulfilling the role of Champion that the Narrativists have been searching for, and Fox's actions last night have cemented his standing in the Narrativist media. Edit: IF I am correct than the eventual conclusion to this story will be Fox News treating Donald Trump with more visible respect while at the same time changing their overall tone to be more in line with extremist Narrativist media outfits like Beck or Savage. The Narrativists will feel that they now control Fox News because their public outrage brought Fox around, leaving Fox with an even freer hand to steer the Narrative. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Megyn Kelly, Fox News under fire on social media with allegations of biasExaminer posted:Kelly was slammed on her Facebook page by visitors unhappy with her performance. "You were rude, biased, unprofessional and nasty last night," one person said Friday. "I will never watch your show again." Whether or not Fox set Megyn Kelly up on purpose, this is now a full fledged attack on her, and either she will need to apologize, be publicly reprimanded in some way, or (likely) be eventually fired when her ratings tank. Note how the Compaction Cycle is working here, with Trump managing to get various groups of Authoritarians all targeting one member of the tribe for insufficient purity. She is having presure applied to her so that she will either have a "come to Jesus" moment about the Donald or be forced out of RWM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Does Fox have an end goal for all this? Or are they just trying to steer the tiger?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
LowellDND posted:Does Fox have an end goal for all this? Or are they just trying to steer the tiger? For now I think they are just trying to steer the tiger and prove that they are in fact, the ones steering the tiger. What Roger Ailes intends to steer that tiger towards I don't know yet, but he almost certainly does have some destination or other in mind. How detached that destination is from reality is anyone's guess, but my money is on "very".
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Well Ailes did get his start producing media for founding members of the John Birch Society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
This article about Ailes' move to a small town outside NYC which he tried to remake in his own image may prove informative.quote:One morning in July 2008, Brian O’Donnell called the employees of the PCN&R to the newsroom to meet Roger Ailes and his wife. The staff was on edge. Although Beth was taking the title of publisher, Roger did most of the talking that day. They could keep their jobs, he said, but there would be “new” rules. “The first one was, ‘Don’t bad-mouth your employer,’ ” reporter Michael Turton, an affable Canadian, recalled. “Roger’s second proviso was to ‘get both sides of the story.’ ” quote:When Lindsley moved to Philipstown in the winter of 2009, Ailes’s mountain was a topic of intense conversation on Cold Spring’s Main Street, comedy and rumor mixing with paranoia. “[Ailes] was said to have ordered the removal of all trees around his house so that he … had a 360-degree view of any leftist assault teams preparing to rush the house,” Leonora Burton, the owner of the Country Goose shop on Main Street, recalled. Roger and Beth also bought up as many surrounding houses as they could. Security cameras were installed throughout the property. “A team of landscapers was, in the absence of the Ailes family, working on the grounds of the compound,” Burton later recounted. “They were planting a tree when the boss’s cell phone rang. It was the absent Beth. ‘No, no,’ she said. ‘That’s not where I want the tree. I insist that you move it.’ She directed them to the correct site. The landscapers were puzzled until they realized that the many security cameras on the grounds had captured them at work. Beth had been watching them from wherever she was and called to correct the tree planting.” Other local contractors helped install a bunker that could weather a terrorist attack underneath their mansion. “He can live in there for more than six months,” a friend who has visited it said. “There are bedrooms, a couple of TVs, water, and freeze-dried food.” “I’m not allowed to talk about it,” Ailes’s older brother Robert said. “I think the proper term is a ‘panic room.’ ” quote:With his trusted editor in place, Ailes used the paper to muscle local politicians. James Borkowski, a lawyer and town justice in Putnam County from 1998 to 2009, learned the danger of crossing the PCN&R when he decided to run for Putnam County sheriff in the 2009 election, challenging Ailes’s close ally, the incumbent Don Smith. A few months before the Republican primary election, Lindsley invited Borkowski to meet with him and Beth for breakfast at a restaurant across the street from the PCN&R offices. At one point in the conversation, Beth turned to Borkowski.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
On the general topic of the "Compaction Cycle" and becoming more extreme each go around, holy poo poo Scott Walker went full insanity on abortion: "Would you really let a mother die rather than let her have an abortion?" Scott Walker gave a non-answer that basically amounted to "yes".  I'd ask where this insanity came from, but this thread has provided a very terrifying answer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
This video perfectly encapsulates the Narrativist reaction to Megyn Kelly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP6S3KE2DaI
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:This article about Ailes' move to a small town outside NYC which he tried to remake in his own image may prove informative. This is less a human being, and more a SNL sketch released into the wild. It is almost beyond parody. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Prester, I want to agree with your take on it, and I certainly do see how your analysis might hold up on how our subject would've viewed the debates, but I don't really think it has anything to do with what Fox News intentionally did or not. If I am recalling correctly, Luntz is the same wordsmith that invented the majority of the codewords and dog whistles that the political right current employs. We also have him to think for "global warming" turning into the more malleable "climate change" due to it. From his Wikipedia page: Frank Luntz -> Criticism -> Leaked tape from the University of Pennsylvania posted:On April 25, 2013, The American Spectator, a conservative news outlet, published a scathing article about Luntz entitled "The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome". In looking him up just now, I've seen several headlines. GOP strategist: I saw "destruction" of Trump's candidacy, featuring him. It's really telling to me that the very person who so much contributed to the current makeup of the American right wing can't seem to control this guy who, through talent or blunder, is better at the game than he is. At the same time of the GOP debates, the election debates for the slightly more immediate Canadian election were going on. That particular debate went a little too well with no knockout punches for anyone, and basically every party left the debate claiming they "won" it, with various columnists and callers claiming this person or that person won -- to the point where I've wondered if they all even watched the same thing. The debate is not decided at the debate, but the different players then use it as a flashpoint to push or control various narratives after the fact. (Perhaps this dynamic contributes to the functioning of Inner and Outer narratives from some aggregate.) So the political debates themselves, if done well, really aren't important. Fox News itself, regardless of what side they're really on, could do whatever they wanted with it. Their behaviour, while suspect, isn't really as important as what will come after the fact. From what I can tell, you can still see bits and pieces of the GOP Establishment with various grips on FOX given how they tried to lob several grenades at Trump hoping he wouldn't throw them back -- which he did, for the most part. Whatever happened in the debate, there would be various news articles and headlines already written: Trump absolutely destroyed in the GOP debates, regardless of what actually happened within them. Once the debate is over, and the guy you want to discredit is gone, you can say whatever you want to the people still listening. "Still listening," being the keyword. Fox News, talk radio, and the rest, have gotten their base of Narrativists so immunised against "the liberal media bias," that they're trained to just not pay attention to any of this stuff. All of the afterbattle is just "the liberal media" attacking Trump as they expected, nevermind the fact that the liberal media is suspiciously filled with other Republicans this one time. It's all just the big evil media trying to get me down again. The very people that the Republican Establishment needs to convince that Trump will destroy the party are the very people who will absolutely not, under no circumstances, listen to them. That magnificent defence the GOP built in their base to protect them from external, Democrat attacks, also made them perfectly impervious to internal, Establishment attacks. It's horrifying, and beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
PJ. I have an interesting case for you. Two freshman state legislators are in very deep trouble today. One is keeping silent, the other vows he won't resign.  Todd Courser and Cindy Gamrat are tea party politicians from Michigan. They naturally profess to be very socially conservative Christians and have introduced legislation since being sworn in this past January that deals mostly with abortion, banning same sex marriage and eliminating social welfare programs because we need to cut taxes to save the economy. Both of these people are married with children, and stress the importance of God in their lives and upholding traditional family values. All the important narrative bullet points covered. About two months ago there were rumors surfacing that these two deeply conservative Christian politicians were in fact having an affair. Thursday afternoons after the state house closed up shop for the week these two would disappear for hours, expecting their staff to stay until they came back to hold meetings in the evening. They merged their offices into one and shared the same staff. Then, Todd Courser took aside his chief staff member and read an email he wanted sent out to everyone to "inoculate the herd" meaning his constituents, or the masses. The email contained descriptions of him being a bisexual drug addict who was caught having sex behind a Lansing night club. Of course, the state of Michigan is having a field day. These two people are clowns and it's funny to see the holy roller Christian narrative was an act for them. Here's the link to the story with the audio. It gets really good around 3:00 minutes in. http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/08/06/recordings-state-rep-asked-aide-hide-relationship/31269315/ So, do these people really invest in the narrative, or were they using it to get elected?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Morroque posted:Prester, I want to agree with your take on it, and I certainly do see how your analysis might hold up on how our subject would've viewed the debates, but I don't really think it has anything to do with what Fox News intentionally did or not. This is an excellent counter argument and certainly a simpler, more straightforwards explanation than my own. I recognize I am pretty far out on a limb, especially since I am seeing malice where incompetence would suffice. I am quite interested to see how this situation pans out over time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
I think you can be certain that Fox wanted to play up the controversy and to that extent they definitely manipulated the debate to focus on Trump. They wouldn't really lose either way, and it's telling that Kelly is getting all the heat and not her male counterparts. Win/Win from an Ailes point of view. Sickening and cold-blooded but hey that's Fox.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:What the ever loving christ. How do you even think something like that is legit? Do you know how they think Chelsea is ugly and comment about it at length while every normal dude looks at pictures, learns that a well-regarded President's daughter is attractive, and then tries to explain this fact to the them while they freak the gently caress out? Megyn is now "ugly" in their eyes. Big Hubris fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Aug 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
I'm just loving that Frank Luntz is being excluded in the compaction cycle. First they kick out Eric Cantor, and now Luntz. I'm gonna laugh if Ailes is next.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
I don't know that any of the Megyn Kelly reaction has to do with anything but pure misogyny. Any time a woman acts as moderator, this is the reaction you get. Hell, any time a woman gives an interview that doesn't go the way they wanted, even if it was laughably favorable and permissive (but the interviewee still managed to make an rear end of themselves), this is the reaction you get. People are still unbelievably regressive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:I don't know that any of the Megyn Kelly reaction has to do with anything but pure misogyny. Any time a woman acts as moderator, this is the reaction you get. Hell, any time a woman gives an interview that doesn't go the way they wanted, even if it was laughably favorable and permissive (but the interviewee still managed to make an rear end of themselves), this is the reaction you get. Entirely possible. Having given the matter some more thought, I am now backing away from my own analysis. Its too far fetched at this point, even for me. I must state as a result that I truly don't know what is going on with Fox News, I see a bunch of conflicting signals. On the one hand events have played out almost perfectly for uniting Narrativists behind Donald Trump. On the other hand, suggesting that Fox has done this all on purpose strains credulity a bit. I am going to sit back and watch because I no longer can guess at what is driving Fox News, I can however explain the impact this is having on Narrativists. Erick son of Erick just publicly dis-invited Trump from a Conservative gathering and invited Megyn Kelly in his place. The Blaze posted:Erickson wrote, “His comment was inappropriate. It is unfortunate to have to disinvite him. But I just don’t want someone on stage who gets a hostile question from a lady and his first inclination is to imply it was hormonal. It just was wrong.” This is going to be the start of a beautiful new stage in the GOP civil war. Right Wing Narrativists are going to react about as well to this as #Gamergaters would react to one of their own being snubbed in favor of Zoe Quinn. They are almost certain to hit the roof, declare Redstate a hive of RINO's, and scream about political correctness at the top of their lungs. Erick son of Erick really does not seem to understand his own radicalized audience but oh holy gently caress is he about to get a hard lesson.  Get your popcorn ready folks, this poo poo is going to be amazing.Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Aug 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
Prester John posted:Entirely possible. Having given the matter some more thought, I am now backing away from my own analysis. Its too far fetched at this point, even for me. I must state as a result that I truly don't know what is going on with Fox News, I see a bunch of conflicting signals. On the one hand events have played out almost perfectly for uniting Narrativists behind Donald Trump. On the other hand, suggesting that Fox has done this all on purpose strains credulity a bit. I am going to sit back and watch because I no longer can guess at what is driving Fox News, I can however explain the impact this is having on Narrativists.   I realize we're watching the further radicalization of the Republican party but damned if it doesn't make for good TV. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:The NCO and officer corps have been steadily infiltrated by Narrativists and Christian Dominionists for decades. Even if a substantial portion of the regular troops are ethnic minorities, the leaders and most of the members of the elite special operations units (who are the ones who train our militarized police, not Joe Grunt of the 59th armored division) are indoctrinated and politically reliable. TBH the weird bullshit the permeates the US Army probably deserves its own thread, but as someone who has spent the past 5 1/2 years in the organization and had the opportunity to see operations from both a ground and staff level, I think the issues the Army has are a bit different from PJ's wheelhouse. While there is absolutely a compaction cycle within the army, the "Narrative" (if you can even call it that), is less about god or country and more about manhood as an ideal. A very large number of guys who join and stay in are deeply insecure about their status as men and are utterly terrified of women. (Like every Gamergater and MRA ever, the Army as a whole will never actually say "women" or "woman," soldiers are trained on how to interact with "females.") SOF is a little different, they're kind of their own separate world. You can still see some of the issues that the regular army has, but the nature of their selections processes tend to create a different atmosphere. If you want to see something similar to Narrativists' reactions to same-sex marriage, its going to either be the repeal of the trans-ban or more likely, the de-segregation of combat MOS' (which has already begun, but is still "under control")
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 15:58
|
|
