|
It's also a lot easier to basically agree with the people who are struggling because NAFTA or the drive toward clean energy or outsourcing and say you'll get rid of the things they don't like, even if it's not as simple as tearing up a deal and bing, the clock goes back 35 years and the factories and mines re-open; than to try and explain to them that we need to help them totally reinvent their communities' economic focus.
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:16 |
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Let me put it another way. This is loving hilarious because the resounding narrative from Trump's base was "He tells the TRUTH!", when he does anything but, but when Hillary tells the truth, that those factory jobs are gone, that coal needs to follow, then she's the bad guy because it's a truth some people don't want to hear because change is scary.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
It's maddening because I actually went to journalism school and the best teacher I had was a former investigative journalist who hammered in that balanced reporting is a bullshit blind alley, or at least, in the way that it's practised it is. It SHOULD mean you give proportional weight to different sides, but most often these days means that every side gets equal weight regardless of how fringe or how little backing for their side there is. There's also the line I feel like every journalist should be made to recite like a mantra: There are NOT two sides to every story. Sometimes if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and tastes like a duck, you can skip the "Duck: Yes or No?" headlines and call it a loving duck.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
I just watched it and it's amazing that she took 10 minutes to basically answer Trevor's question about the appropriate way of protesting: "Suck it up and shut up". And it's kind of telling that she sees speaking up as a victim's role as opposed what real victimisation usually looks like, which is terrifying the target into silence. Only thing I think Trevor messed up is not using the example of attacks on minorities from alleged Trump supporters and if that makes HIS whole movement invalid, using her BLM logic. Then again, her doublethink seems to be "a small percentage = the whole group IF the message is one I dislike" Edit: Oh, he also used the technique he suggested the mainstream news use with Trump, allow the subject to hang themself by asking for elaboration. Gaz-L fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:There was some thread, I can't find where now, that posted this tweet of hers: So... she realises that that tweet is her complaining, right? Or does she think you need to say the magic word or it doesn't count?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Conservative pundit so, yes? Of course she's being a giant hypocrite (if you accept the moronic premise that drawing attention to unfair treatment is demanding special treatment). On reflection, while that was a solid question, I think her response does tell us something. I don't think she was acting, I think she genuinely doesn't believe there IS a level of institutional racism, because to her, racism is lynchings and the N word.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Bruceski posted:It's tricky to get around this sort of misconception. People tend to get defensive when first confronted because they think "racism is bad, therefore you're saying I'm a bad person" when it's more about trying to recognize your own biases and counteract/minimize them. It's when you get defensive about passive racism (and other -isms) that you start to rationalize it, look for reasons for those reactions, and that's how folks slide into active racism. It's also where a lot of the issue with the 'lamestream media' BS stems from. The notion is that if you agree with an outlet or article or program, then it's neutral, but anything that contradicts that view is biased, when realistically, EVERYthing has some bias in it. There's no such thing as a truly unbiased journalist, because journalists are people. At best they can try to correct for that bias and trust that their audience understands that bias and takes it into account while using a number of sources to get their information. A lot of people either don't want to or don't know HOW to account for that. If Nixon or McCarthy were around today, Woodward, Bernstein and Murrow would be called liberal puppets and anti-American. Jesus, if Murrow had said what he said about the House Un-American Activities Committee with regards to Gitmo post-9/11? gently caress, Nixon claiming that the President was above the law to David Frost would barely be a blip on Trump's record.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
It was also, beyond the horrifying implications, such a transparent attempt to 'get the last word'.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
1: Oh no, a talk show did a thing to promote a guest's projects?! 2: What is Assange even trying to achieve at this point? Kicking an old lady when she's down? Did Podesta poo poo in his cereal?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:16 |
|
|
PassTheRemote posted:Do the new thread titles have to be TDS quotes? This one.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 16:54
|
|