Trump Ups his Fascism Game, bans words such as 'diversity' and 'science-based' from CDC

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Plus why should I believe one tweet from one person?

A named person stakes their reputation on the information they provide. An unnamed source has nothing to lose.

No, you want to refute this? Then proof it up.

Refute what? That confirmation bias is totally a thing prevalent across the US political spectrum at the moment?

I find it funny when right-wingers say stuff that sounds like an argument against right-wingers.

Saelune:
I find it funny when right-wingers say stuff that sounds like an argument against right-wingers.

It's an argument against anybody using bullshit arguments.

As I have repeatedly stated, my principles remain the same regardless.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
I find it funny when right-wingers say stuff that sounds like an argument against right-wingers.

It's an argument against anybody using bullshit arguments.

As I have repeatedly stated, my principles remain the same regardless.

I dont disagree with your first sentence. As for the second, at this point you defend Trump and his ilk more than even Zontar does, yet you still try to claim you dont share his political views.

You put too much effort into supporting someone you claim you dont.

Saelune:
I dont disagree with your first sentence. As for the second, at this point you defend Trump and his ilk more than even Zontar does, yet you still try to claim you dont share his political views.

You put too much effort into supporting someone you claim you dont.

I hate the guy. He's a fucking moron that represents pretty much everything I detest. Born into wealth, egotistical, loud-mouthed prick with no respect for anyone. But that doesn't mean we should just lap up every unsubstantiated story or vague accusation.

When it appears I defend Trump, what I am actually doing is questioning at arguments that seem weak. There are plenty of major things people should harangue him about. Going on about how he drunk a cup of water badly is fucking ridonculously unhelpful for anyone, though. Trying to argue that unnamed sources are sufficient evidence to prosecute / impeach him is flawed.

Focus on the big stuff. The little stuff is unimportant, and with enough desire could be used to assassinate anybodies character. It sets a bad precedent to let it actually influence things.

Yes, my principles remain the same. I didn't particularly like Clinton either, but I wouldn't go around believing crap about her without more than an unnamed rumourmonger.

And yes, if something more substantial turns up to back up this latest thing, then I will be willing to reevaluate my position. That is how evidence works.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
I dont disagree with your first sentence. As for the second, at this point you defend Trump and his ilk more than even Zontar does, yet you still try to claim you dont share his political views.

You put too much effort into supporting someone you claim you dont.

I hate the guy. He's a fucking moron that represents pretty much everything I detest. Born into wealth, egotistical, loud-mouthed prick with no respect for anyone. But that doesn't mean we should just lap up every unsubstantiated story or vague accusation.

When it appears I defend Trump, what I am actually doing is questioning at arguments that seem weak. There are plenty of major things people should harangue him about. Going on about how he drunk a cup of water badly is fucking ridonculously unhelpful for anyone, though. Trying to argue that unnamed sources are sufficient evidence to prosecute / impeach him is flawed.

Focus on the big stuff. The little stuff is unimportant, and with enough desire could be used to assassinate anybodies character. It sets a bad precedent to let it actually influence things.

Yes, my principles remain the same. I didn't particularly like Clinton either, but I wouldn't go around believing crap about her without more than an unnamed rumourmonger.

And yes, if something more substantial turns up to back up this latest thing, then I will be willing to reevaluate my position. That is how evidence works.

See, you work too hard defending him for me to believe any of this. You try to phrase it as some sort of Devil's Advocate thing, but like doing something ironically, eventually it no longer counts as ironic.

Saelune:
See, you work too hard defending him for me to believe any of this. You try to phrase it as some sort of Devil's Advocate thing, but like doing something ironically, eventually it no longer counts as ironic.

There's nothing ironic about it. Either your argument withstands challenge, or it doesn't.

Not all criticism is an attack. Not all criticism is a defence of the thing you are challenging. The adversarial approach to politics / random internet bickering helps nobody but pill-prescribers.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
See, you work too hard defending him for me to believe any of this. You try to phrase it as some sort of Devil's Advocate thing, but like doing something ironically, eventually it no longer counts as ironic.

There's nothing ironic about it. Either your argument withstands challenge, or it doesn't.

Not all criticism is an attack. Not all criticism is a defence of the thing you are challenging. The adversarial approach to politics / random internet bickering helps nobody but pill-prescribers.

Then why defend the side that does not withstand challenge?

Saelune:

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
See, you work too hard defending him for me to believe any of this. You try to phrase it as some sort of Devil's Advocate thing, but like doing something ironically, eventually it no longer counts as ironic.

There's nothing ironic about it. Either your argument withstands challenge, or it doesn't.

Not all criticism is an attack. Not all criticism is a defence of the thing you are challenging. The adversarial approach to politics / random internet bickering helps nobody but pill-prescribers.

Then why defend the side that does not withstand challenge?

Me personally, I think both sides should be challenged. You have to justify your response every time. You don't get a free pass if you were right the previous time. But then I'm sceptical of everything

Catnip1024:
I mean, banning it (if that actually is the case) is still stupid, but the portrayal of the story is not exactly accurate.

Why not? It doesn't specify what the precise definition of "entitlement" is to be misleading. One way or another, it's verboten.

trunkage:

Saelune:

Catnip1024:
There's nothing ironic about it. Either your argument withstands challenge, or it doesn't.

Not all criticism is an attack. Not all criticism is a defence of the thing you are challenging. The adversarial approach to politics / random internet bickering helps nobody but pill-prescribers.

Then why defend the side that does not withstand challenge?

Me personally, I think both sides should be challenged. You have to justify your response every time. You don't get a free pass if you were right the previous time. But then I'm sceptical of everything

The difference between you and Catnip though, is you tend to see which side fails that more.

When a Democrat is a sex offender, they get kicked out. When a Republican is a sex offender, they get the Presidency, a new job at Fox, or an endorsement from said sex offender president.

trunkage:

Saelune:

Catnip1024:
There's nothing ironic about it. Either your argument withstands challenge, or it doesn't.

Not all criticism is an attack. Not all criticism is a defence of the thing you are challenging. The adversarial approach to politics / random internet bickering helps nobody but pill-prescribers.

Then why defend the side that does not withstand challenge?

Me personally, I think both sides should be challenged. You have to justify your response every time. You don't get a free pass if you were right the previous time. But then I'm sceptical of everything

Oh, what? I have to keep defending the same thing I was right about the other 52 times? No dice. We don't live in a bubble. Remember your conversations with people and apply what you learned to the next one.

FalloutJack:

trunkage:

Saelune:
Then why defend the side that does not withstand challenge?

Me personally, I think both sides should be challenged. You have to justify your response every time. You don't get a free pass if you were right the previous time. But then I'm sceptical of everything

Oh, what? I have to keep defending the same thing I was right about the other 52 times? No dice. We don't live in a bubble. Remember your conversations with people and apply what you learned to the next one.

So by inverse, shouldn't people remember the amount of times people or organizations openly lie and also apply what they learned the next time? News media and opponents of trump have certainly sold a lot of goodwill and trust down the river with the amount of stories and claims misrepresentative if not openly fabricated, same as republicans have when it came to obama. The constant crying wolf by those who hate trump is probably the largest reason people started buying into the whole "fake news" thing after all. How trustworthy can you find someone when they resort to petty lies on even inconsequential things like "trump emptied his fish food first" just to try to snipe?

Going back to Trunkage's idea of having to prove oneself every time, while it would help with the sheer amount of garbage being pushed, it also runs contrary to history. The news media built a reputation as being trustworthy and reliable. That opportunists have sold that out for the sake of personal politics or whatever justification for constantly failing basic due diligence in reporting isn't going to change the nature of people to trust those that build it over time. And while a peer-review process or something similar to weed out crap would be nice, when a few organizations can push garbage information out to such reach, it likely wouldn't work any better than the current where people compare and contrast stories as they happen today.

runic knight:
Snip

The thing you're forgetting is that the Republicans were NEVER right, ergo they didn't havea first-time proven right to latch onto. And don't gimme that fake news BS. The only reason people are crying it is because they're stupid. It's real and they were dumb enough to vote for the asshole, so they're in denial over their stupidity. Learn to open your eyes and see the world without the damn blinkers. If you couldn't see that Trump was utterly rubbish in comparison to ANYONE AT ALL, Hillary or otherwise, then you failed a crucial eye exam and it's your own fault. No defense will be allowed.

Anonymous source, well I never.

It was debunked later and the WaPo still hasn't corrected their story.

Apparently suggesting the usage of different words to appease a Republican Congress = Banning words and fascism.

I think the word "integrity" was banned at the WaPo. Let's dial back the insanity and hyperbole people.

Delicious Anathema:
Anonymous source, well I never.

It was debunked later and the WaPo still hasn't corrected their story.

Apparently suggesting the usage of different words to appease a Republican Congress = Banning words and fascism.

I think the word "integrity" was banned at the WaPo. Let's dial back the insanity and hyperbole people.

Usually, we consider something debunked if we have some solid, demonstrable proof to the contrary. Another claim doesn't really cut it.

Also, the fucking National Review? Seriously?

Catnip1024:

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Or for law and order, or for civil rights, or for geostrategic initiatives, or for ecological sustainability, or for fiscal & monetary policy, or for diplomatic capital...

As they say; "Took a Nixon for China and SALT..."

Trump has no redeeming qualities at all beyond idiots will vote for him.

I dunno, there is something to be said for incompetence. At least with incompetence, there is a lower limit on how shit things can get.

Is there? Because an incompetent leader is usually a puppet leader.

cjspyres:

Saelune:

Catnip1024:
I dunno, there is something to be said for incompetence. At least with incompetence, there is a lower limit on how shit things can get.

Trump has already fucked things up far worse than Bush Jr did. Your theory is wrong.

Now it's just a matter of time before he gets us into a war. Who it will be with is the question. Will it be in East Europe? The Middle East again? The Far East? Or a straight up World War? Perhaps we will gain enough sanity in our nation that we impeach him before we allow him to further damage not just our nation, but the world.

My bet goes to North Korea. Their leader has a similarly fragile ego than Trump's, so it's only a matter of time.

Silvanus:

Usually, we consider something debunked if we have some solid, demonstrable proof to the contrary. Another claim doesn't really cut it.

Where is the solid, demonstrable proof that words have been banned? I think a CDC official is a little better than a shoddy interpretation of anonymous sources.

Silvanus:

Also, the fucking National Review? Seriously?

Oh how I've missed this argument.

ineptelephant:
The only question left now then is are we headed for 1984 or Brave New World?

Taking all bets; double think, idiocracy or somewhere in between?

Brave New World for the white Christians. Promotion of anti-intellectualism and anti-culture is pretty strong in this administration.

Delicious Anathema:

Silvanus:

Also, the fucking National Review? Seriously?

Oh how I've missed this argument.

I'll tell you what mate; let's play a game. I made this offer earlier in the thread with someone else. You feel free to find every single case of WaPo posting factually incorrect information and not retracting it. I'll then match that with larger number of factually incorrect statements made by the Trump administration or the National Review (your choice) nevver retracted.

I'm guessing you'll slink off into the night like the previous poster because you know your ideology-based blogs are full of nonsense.

Delicious Anathema:

Where is the solid, demonstrable proof that words have been banned? I think a CDC official is a little better than a shoddy interpretation of anonymous sources.

There is no definite proof. Why does this let you off the hook?

On a side-note, sources need to be anonymous a lot of the time for blindingly obvious reasons.

Oh how I've missed this argument.

You've missed... scepticism of terrible, lying sources?

Avnger:

Delicious Anathema:

Silvanus:

Also, the fucking National Review? Seriously?

Oh how I've missed this argument.

I'll tell you what mate; let's play a game. I made this offer earlier in the thread with someone else. You feel free to find every single case of WaPo posting factually incorrect information and not retracting it. I'll then match that with larger number of factually incorrect statements made by the Trump administration or the National Review (your choice) nevver retracted.

I'm guessing you'll slink off into the night like the previous poster because you know your ideology-based blogs are full of nonsense.

No one bothered to post CDC's statement on the matter in this circle jerk of a thread, so I posted it. WaPo fucked up.

I'll let you derail the topic and post every right-wing news outlet stories you find incorrect, and please do it too for WaPo, CNN and NYT as well, since you apparently have more spare time than me. I remember Daily Wire making a few articles exposing WaPo bullshit, but I guess that site is off-limits as well.

I'm not making a case for the National Review, it's just another outlet that reported this stuff. Even freaking CBS published the statements.

Delicious Anathema:
Apparently suggesting the usage of different words to appease a Republican Congress = Banning words and fascism.

Its a little more than that as even the sources you provided note:

Jonathan Lapook:
A federal official told CBS News that this was simply guidance provided to people that write budget proposals

"Use only the language and words we approve of or we won't pay you" is not exactly a mile away from banning them

FalloutJack:

runic knight:
Snip

The thing you're forgetting is that the Republicans were NEVER right, ergo they didn't havea first-time proven right to latch onto. And don't gimme that fake news BS. The only reason people are crying it is because they're stupid. It's real and they were dumb enough to vote for the asshole, so they're in denial over their stupidity. Learn to open your eyes and see the world without the damn blinkers. If you couldn't see that Trump was utterly rubbish in comparison to ANYONE AT ALL, Hillary or otherwise, then you failed a crucial eye exam and it's your own fault. No defense will be allowed.

Your rabid bias and open contempt for those with a different political lean than yourself is noted, but nothing you said addressed anything I did.

The media and those opposed to Trump have been caught openly lying time again, on things small and large. I used the fish food example as a clear-cut one where it was outright reporting on events incorrectly with no excuse to get something that obvious wrong. It is things like that which destroy their reputation and lead to people actually giving the whole "fake news" thing any weight at all. And that is not just the hardcore conservatives but others as well. Dismissing it as just trump supporters is disingenuous.

Furthermore, the republicans being trustworthy doesn't even matter with regard to that point. I already pointed out how they sold public trust down the river (again, speaking in generalizations here, so applied to the general public, thus obviously not folks like yourself who's biases against them would reject them if they said the sky was blue just to be spiteful) when they went after obama for every little thing he did. Watching the democrats amp that up even worse that them with trump is just sad. All the more so when the people who called it out when the conspiracy theories of "obama being a secret muslim" were made now greedily lap it up when "trump is a russian" claims gets tossed around. The completely blatant selective bias is a reason why people outside the party core are trusting the dems less now than before, and why they lost a lot of support.

Going back to the thread topic, the misrepresentation of things and constant attempts to frame them in the best way to attack trump is a child screaming wolf constant, to the point that it is white noise to anyone but those who already hated trump because of ideological reasons. What is worse is the predictable nature of both this selective bias and the fervor of which folks like yourself will defend it makes it very easy to manipulate you like trained dogs as trump will make a stupid tweet or minor mistake, and as the media entices their ideological faithful to foam at the moth about fish food etiquette, trump meanwhile has his actual actions of his power largely ignored amid that manufactured controversy.

Seriously, this was a memo of "hey, use this because this supports party goals" which is largely the same idea as obama going "hey use this because this supports party goals" before with the example I mentioned in my post. And both are stupid, but they aren't censorship like it is being pretended to be. It is the usual politics. But while everyone stampedes to make a fool of themselves about "trump bans words" like they did before over the fish food, or over coffette or over whatever other tweet controversy of the week, other issues were sidelined in coverage.

Finally, "blinders"? Coming from that sort of reply you just made? Well, thank you for the gift of laughter this holiday season I suppose.

runic knight:

The media and those opposed to Trump have been caught openly lying time again, on things small and large. I used the fish food example as a clear-cut one where it was outright reporting on events incorrectly with no excuse to get something that obvious wrong. It is things like that which destroy their reputation and lead to people actually giving the whole "fake news" thing any weight at all. And that is not just the hardcore conservatives but others as well. Dismissing it as just trump supporters is disingenuous.

Furthermore, the republicans being trustworthy doesn't even matter with regard to that point.

Of course it does. You're characterising this media manipulation as something particular to anti-Trump media. It's highly relevant to point out that right-wing media, and Trump himself, peddle falsehood just as often (or in Trump's case, far more).

Supporters of Trump are not genuinely disillusioned with media falsehood. If they were, then they would recognise Trump himself peddles more severe falsehood, more frequently. To point the accusation solely at political opponents, and forgive the worse offender on ones own side, is not honest disillusionment-- it is yet more rank partisanship.

Silvanus:

runic knight:

The media and those opposed to Trump have been caught openly lying time again, on things small and large. I used the fish food example as a clear-cut one where it was outright reporting on events incorrectly with no excuse to get something that obvious wrong. It is things like that which destroy their reputation and lead to people actually giving the whole "fake news" thing any weight at all. And that is not just the hardcore conservatives but others as well. Dismissing it as just trump supporters is disingenuous.

Furthermore, the republicans being trustworthy doesn't even matter with regard to that point.

Of course it does. You're characterising this media manipulation as something particular to anti-Trump media. It's highly relevant to point out that right-wing media, and Trump himself, peddle falsehood just as often (or in Trump's case, far more).

Considering Trump is not a news media outlet, but rather a politician, expecting him to be more honest than what should be an impartial source of accurate unbiasedly presented news is a little silly. And considering that it is still a running competition at all instead of a clear landside in favor of said news media, it is a blacker mark against them than any individual statement I could make calling out their abject failure to do their damn job right.

The media has done such a bad job that people with no ideological mandate still believe Trump over them, or outright doubt them when it comes to anything concerning Trump. I've seen people who bashed the shit out of Bush during the height of the pro-war propaganda after 9/11 come out in defense of Trump solely because of how terribly unreliable and openly biased they have become. The fact there are people who would believe Trump's story over the major news media when they oppose his politics is the very heart of problem itself.

The media is competing with, and often losing to, a politician like trump in a contest of trustworthiness and reliability at the individual level.

Supporters of Trump are not genuinely disillusioned with media falsehood.

How fortunate then that I wasn't talking about them.
I specified I am referring not to the rabid political extremes but rather those moderates and independents, people who didn't and don't "support" trump. I even call out the attempts to paint it as you try, here.

And that is not just the hardcore conservatives but others as well. Dismissing it as just trump supporters is disingenuous.

So, once more, I am not just talking about those that are politically opposed to the progressive media. I was specifically referring to those who opinions could actually be swayed or who represent the wider range of average as opposed to the entrenched ideologically pigeonholed.

My point was that the media's own actions have caused them a lot of lost value to those who don't support their political lean blindly. Yeah, you expect conservative hardliners to reject the Mary Sue outright same as you reject Breitbart. But places like CNN? MSN? ABC? They had a reputation for being relatively honest and dependable at one point, and now it is largely in shambles. Public trust in that sinking with it. Fox News used to be the joke, now it can argue moral high ground solely by getting fewer stories outright manufactured compared to them, since both are now openly on par with bing blatantly biased and political bought-off. When the news openly lies about who poured out the damn fish food first, what else would you expect from anyone not ideologically locked in place to support them regardless of tactic? When they cry wolf about "russia" for over a year, delivering countless examples of misrepresentation, manufactured, or outright dishonestly reported "evidence", is it any wonder the townsfolk stop running to the call? Do you not understand why that is a bad thing worthy of condemnation on its own? Or do you only see it as it relates to your political lean and protecting your self-interests in maintaining your political ideology and opposing the other political ideology?

If they were, then they would recognise Trump himself peddles more severe falsehood, more frequently. To point the accusation solely at political opponents, and forgive the worse offender on ones own side, is not honest disillusionment-- it is yet more rank partisanship.

Where did I forgive him of his actions? Re-reading my post, I don't see it, and I sure didn't imply it, so where exactly are you getting that from "the media lying about trump has cost them a lot of trust"?

Or is this perhaps you assuming that because I call out the actions of party A, I must inherently be defending the actions of party B? Trump calls them fake news and like lemmings the media proves him right time and again as they salivate for his every tweet and openly promote any conspiracy theory or false "anonymous source" that tells them what they want to hear. Pointing out that Trump is making them look like idiots and that it is their own actions that are costing them trust is not "forgiving" him anything, it is holding the media accountable for their fuckups instead of excusing them in the name of the "good" fight against Trump.

I mean come on, CNN had to make several journalists resign because of their screw ups in doing exactly that after they were busted on it, and then there was that huge market impact after the ABC story that was fake. You think calling that out and going "well, that shit makes people not trust them" is forgiving Trump anything? Really?

runic knight:
Considering Trump is not a news media outlet, but rather a politician, expecting him to be more honest than what should be an impartial source of accurate unbiasedly presented news is a little silly.

Is it?

You're seriously suggesting that we hold journalists to a higher standard than we do the President of the United States. That is absurd.

runic knight:
And considering that it is still a running competition at all instead of a clear landside in favor of said news media, it is a blacker mark against them than any individual statement I could make calling out their abject failure to do their damn job right.

The media has done such a bad job that people with no ideological mandate still believe Trump over them, or outright doubt them when it comes to anything concerning Trump. I've seen people who bashed the shit out of Bush during the height of the pro-war propaganda after 9/11 come out in defense of Trump solely because of how terribly unreliable and openly biased they have become. The fact there are people who would believe Trump's story over the major news media when they oppose his politics is the very heart of problem itself.

The media is competing with, and often losing to, a politician like trump in a contest of trustworthiness and reliability at the individual level.

It's long-forgotten now, but the Watergate years were marked by numerous instances of shoddy, over-enthusiastic, or poorly-sourced journalism, as dozens of news outlets competed for an exclusive scoop on the slowly-unfolding conspiracy.

My point being: I do not expect journalists to be absolutely perfect in their reporting. I expect them to make mistakes, sometimes even negligent mistakes, in their rush to feed their audience. But if we were keeping a running tally, Trump is losing the credibility war. This is a man who lies several times a day. He outpaces all of his critics by sheer volume, and he's just one man. Honestly, it's superhuman. He lies so frequently, so casually and so brazenly that everyone observing him has simply stopped expecting him to tell the truth, as if his pathological deception was a magic spell that bewitched onlookers into forgetting that they were watching the President of the United States and not just a rambling hobo on a street corner.

He's claimed that Hillary Clinton acid washed her emails! That shouldn't even qualify as a lie, because it makes no sense! How do you acid wash an email?!

runic knight:
I mean come on, CNN had to make several journalists resign because of their screw ups in doing exactly that after they were busted on it, and then there was that huge market impact after the ABC story that was fake. You think calling that out and going "well, that shit makes people not trust them" is forgiving Trump anything? Really?

...yeah. That is forgiving Trump. You want to know why?

Because those journalists got fired. Donald Trump is still the President.

bastardofmelbourne:

He's claimed that Hillary Clinton acid washed her emails! That shouldn't even qualify as a lie, because it makes no sense! How do you acid wash an email?!

As much as I want to ignore this whole thing, I actually do know what he thinks he means. Turns out that Clinton's team used software called BleachBit to delete her emails. In Trump's "How do you get the internet on the Google" level of technical expertise, this somehow becomes actually physically washing the email with chemicals to destroy it.

(Bonus idiocy: Trump repeatedly called the process "very expensive". BleachBit is open source and completely free of charge.)

CaitSeith:
Is there? Because an incompetent leader is usually a puppet leader.

Nah, Trump's too much of an egotist to be an effective puppet. And even then, a competent puppet is still worse than an incompetent one, if you are trying to screw things up.

Oh, and any other quotes I've missed - the Escapist reset my forum options over the break, so, soz.

Catnip1024:

CaitSeith:
Is there? Because an incompetent leader is usually a puppet leader.

Nah, Trump's too much of an egotist to be an effective puppet. And even then, a competent puppet is still worse than an incompetent one, if you are trying to screw things up.

Oh, and any other quotes I've missed - the Escapist reset my forum options over the break, so, soz.

Oh, that explains why my inbox was so quiet lately! (I mean I got my options reset too). Anyways, egoist people are perfect puppets, because they can be easily manipulated by feeding their ego.

CaitSeith:

Catnip1024:

CaitSeith:
Is there? Because an incompetent leader is usually a puppet leader.

Nah, Trump's too much of an egotist to be an effective puppet. And even then, a competent puppet is still worse than an incompetent one, if you are trying to screw things up.

Oh, and any other quotes I've missed - the Escapist reset my forum options over the break, so, soz.

Oh, that explains why my inbox was so quiet lately! (I mean I got my options reset too). Anyways, egoist people are perfect puppets, because they can be easily manipulated by feeding their ego.

Former Republican Senator and Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum: Praise the best way to influence Trump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCMQsTIN8zQ

Catnip1024:
Nah, Trump's too much of an egotist to be an effective puppet. And even then, a competent puppet is still worse than an incompetent one, if you are trying to screw things up.

I'm with Cait and Avnger on this one. Ego is one of the first things Russian intelligence are trained to exploit in a potential asset. In fact, Trump is unusually vulnerable since they also love to get their claws in you financially. By the admission of his son, Eric Trump, as of a few years ago a lot of money came into the Trump family coffers from Russia. The Trump Hotel in Panama was actually busted for money laundering around the same time as the housing market bubble. They've got a history.

runic knight:

Considering Trump is not a news media outlet, but rather a politician, expecting him to be more honest than what should be an impartial source of accurate unbiasedly presented news is a little silly.

Expecting the government to be as honest as a media outlet is silly? No, I reject that outright. The government's own claims should be held to the highest possible standard of honesty.

runic knight:

The media has done such a bad job that people with no ideological mandate still believe Trump over them, or outright doubt them when it comes to anything concerning Trump. I've seen people who bashed the shit out of Bush during the height of the pro-war propaganda after 9/11 come out in defense of Trump solely because of how terribly unreliable and openly biased they have become. The fact there are people who would believe Trump's story over the major news media when they oppose his politics is the very heart of problem itself.

That speaks, most of all, to the terrible gullibility of the people you're describing. The people you're describing are believing a less credible source, for political reasons. It is the height of partisanship.

runic knight:

How fortunate then that I wasn't talking about them.
I specified I am referring not to the rabid political extremes but rather those moderates and independents, people who didn't and don't "support" trump. I even call out the attempts to paint it as you try, here.

You included a line to say you were talking about "moderates", yes. You've also described, at length and over two posts, people who will believe Trump over the media. Only a supporter would do that; his trust among the remaining population is at an all-time low, and was extraordinarily low to begin with.

runic knight:
Do you not understand why that is a bad thing worthy of condemnation on its own? Or do you only see it as it relates to your political lean and protecting your self-interests in maintaining your political ideology and opposing the other political ideology?

You are the one who has chosen to complain solely about the media on one side of the political divide. You are the one who has used this as a vehicle for political ideology.

runic knight:

Or is this perhaps you assuming that because I call out the actions of party A, I must inherently be defending the actions of party B? Trump calls them fake news and like lemmings the media proves him right time and again as they salivate for his every tweet and openly promote any conspiracy theory or false "anonymous source" that tells them what they want to hear. Pointing out that Trump is making them look like idiots and that it is their own actions that are costing them trust is not "forgiving" him anything, it is holding the media accountable for their fuckups instead of excusing them in the name of the "good" fight against Trump.

I mean come on, CNN had to make several journalists resign because of their screw ups in doing exactly that after they were busted on it, and then there was that huge market impact after the ABC story that was fake. You think calling that out and going "well, that shit makes people not trust them" is forgiving Trump anything? Really?

No, which is why I didn't say that.

Falsehood in media is something to condemn, obviously. That was never disputed. The characterisation of this as something particular to "those opposed to Trump"-- your words-- is what is partisan and manipulative.

It is the recurring narrative of the current administration-- to decry media criticism as "fake news", while simultaneously lying much, much, much more than any of the media outlets in question.

Delicious Anathema:
Anonymous source, well I never.

Try reading your own sources more carefully. At least one reports confirmation by numerous CDC officials regarding this measure.

It was debunked and the WaPo still hasn't corrected their story.

WaPo's story is not "debunked", though.

The National Review article is largely speculation and anonymous word of mouth - and fair credit to National Review and its journalist, because the article admits so clearly. But you are clearly being inconsistent in analysing sources. That and the other two make clear that no technical "ban" exists, which means the WaPo clearly exaggerated when it used that word. However, they do effectively confirm that guidance really has been sent to the CDC to try to dissuade them using certain terms. Substantial chunks of the WaPo article, for instance a staffer having his document edited to avoid such a term, have not been challenged.

The National Review article it interesting, because speculates that the guidance was at least in part sent by civil service bureaucrats without political direction. Firstly, that is speculation, and we have to bear in mind the NR obviously has a motive to take the heat off the Republican party. Secondly, it's curious that it states the intent partly may have been to avoid raising "red flags" with Republican politicians.

But even that second issue, if the case, is troubling: what does it actually mean when government agencies feel the need to not call things what they are because some politicians may be inclined to dismiss it? That suggests both an ugly program of language control that makes it harder to see things for what they are, and secondly that politicians will bin stuff just because they don't like some of the words in it.

bastardofmelbourne:

runic knight:
Considering Trump is not a news media outlet, but rather a politician, expecting him to be more honest than what should be an impartial source of accurate unbiasedly presented news is a little silly.

Is it?

You're seriously suggesting that we hold journalists to a higher standard than we do the President of the United States. That is absurd.

No, that is expected. A politician is going to have an agenda, so expecting them to not try to withhold information, or to spin it into something favorable is what is absurd. Hell, it is the very nature of politicians in general and has been known and expected for centuries that they will spin things. Hell, every president has been called out for it, be it clinton's "I did not have sexual relations" to Bush's "They have weapons of mass destruction", politicians WILL try to deceive or outright lie.

Meanwhile a news media is not suppose to be a propaganda arm of a political party, but instead should be accurate, relevant, and as impartial as they can be. Their trustworthiness is what they depend on as a news agency and it is the very point of why they are considered the fourth estate. When it is in any way comparable between the two with regard to trustworthiness, the news media has failed beyond measure

runic knight:
And considering that it is still a running competition at all instead of a clear landside in favor of said news media, it is a blacker mark against them than any individual statement I could make calling out their abject failure to do their damn job right.

The media has done such a bad job that people with no ideological mandate still believe Trump over them, or outright doubt them when it comes to anything concerning Trump. I've seen people who bashed the shit out of Bush during the height of the pro-war propaganda after 9/11 come out in defense of Trump solely because of how terribly unreliable and openly biased they have become. The fact there are people who would believe Trump's story over the major news media when they oppose his politics is the very heart of problem itself.

The media is competing with, and often losing to, a politician like trump in a contest of trustworthiness and reliability at the individual level.

It's long-forgotten now, but the Watergate years were marked by numerous instances of shoddy, over-enthusiastic, or poorly-sourced journalism, as dozens of news outlets competed for an exclusive scoop on the slowly-unfolding conspiracy.

My point being: I do not expect journalists to be absolutely perfect in their reporting. I expect them to make mistakes, sometimes even negligent mistakes, in their rush to feed their audience. But if we were keeping a running tally, Trump is losing the credibility war. This is a man who lies several times a day. He outpaces all of his critics by sheer volume, and he's just one man. Honestly, it's superhuman. He lies so frequently, so casually and so brazenly that everyone observing him has simply stopped expecting him to tell the truth, as if his pathological deception was a magic spell that bewitched onlookers into forgetting that they were watching the President of the United States and not just a rambling hobo on a street corner.

He's claimed that Hillary Clinton acid washed her emails! That shouldn't even qualify as a lie, because it makes no sense! How do you acid wash an email?!

A few problems with this though. First, the failures to report honestly back during the watergate was both treated as a large fuck-up on their part, and wasn't intentionally done for the sake of a political hatchet job. People in the rush to report on developing news about watergate are going to get some things wrong, you are right. Comparing that to today though is disingenuous. Clear instances of outright fabrication of stories, manipulation of details, ignoring easily verifiable facts, and an utter contempt to fact-check if it supports what they want to hear is a hell of a big step beyond a confusing report pushed through. Adding into that the clear financial connections and the open political propaganda nature of coverage even more so.

Secondly, regarding Trump, as I said before, the fact there is any competition at all in trustworthiness between a politician and the news media itself is a testament of failure on behalf of the news organization to an embarrassing extent. You might be right about Trump being very dishonest (considering how much crap he talks, probably are, though considering you take statements like "acid washed emails" as a lie instead of the clear meaning of her destroying them (which is true), I think a far less biased source of a count there would clearly be needed to determine that. Still, again, you compare a politician, someone in a career built around spin and presentation, and which is regularly accepted to be on-par in honesty as a lawyer, to the news media itself, which is built or destroyed by public trust in them being accurate and honest.

There should be no question, no ground in that debate. The politicians should never be trusted more than the media. But when you fuck up with the frequency and severity that they have lately, you end up where we are now, with claims of "fake news" having genuine validity.

Hell, that is even working with the false dichotomy that one side has to be right. Both are easily capable of being dishonest without making the other less so, which makes it even worse.

runic knight:
I mean come on, CNN had to make several journalists resign because of their screw ups in doing exactly that after they were busted on it, and then there was that huge market impact after the ABC story that was fake. You think calling that out and going "well, that shit makes people not trust them" is forgiving Trump anything? Really?

...yeah. That is forgiving Trump. You want to know why?

Because those journalists got fired. Donald Trump is still the President.

No, it isn't, regardless how much you wish to try to contort reasoning here.

They are different jobs with different methods of control and wrangling in, and different expectations. A journalist who isn't trustworthy has no purpose to the person who hired them in an industry that is reliant upon being trustworthy. They fuck that up, the company they embarrassed will likely fire them in order to salvage the reputation they rely on as news media.
A president who is not trustworthy has no one above them able to just shit-can them, so we have to wait til he lies under oath (ala Clinton), or commits some sort of abuse of power or felony with his lies that would justify impeachment for that system to kick in and get him fired.

You know, you complain isn't even built on pairity. Considering Trump's aids and subordinates are fired when he fucks up, the true comparison would be no the journalists, but the news media companies themselves. And since none of them are punished for the continual and intentional fuck ups they make, it undercuts the complaint that Trump isn't fired for lies all the more.

Silvanus:

runic knight:

Considering Trump is not a news media outlet, but rather a politician, expecting him to be more honest than what should be an impartial source of accurate unbiasedly presented news is a little silly.

Expecting the government to be as honest as a media outlet is silly? No, I reject that outright. The government's own claims should be held to the highest possible standard of honesty.

Should be, I agree.
Reality and all of human history, however, has shown that only a fool would believe that. The media, on the other hand, is completely reliant upon their reputation in order to thrive. Reporting fake news or openly lying costs them the only thing they have to sell, their trustworthiness that the news they report is accurate and relevant.

As such, a lying politician is the norm and a lying news media is worthless. If there is a competition between the two, the news media lost just by being terrible enough to compete, regardless if they are better than what is considered as unethical and untrustworthy as a lawyer in popular opinion and general history itself.

runic knight:

The media has done such a bad job that people with no ideological mandate still believe Trump over them, or outright doubt them when it comes to anything concerning Trump. I've seen people who bashed the shit out of Bush during the height of the pro-war propaganda after 9/11 come out in defense of Trump solely because of how terribly unreliable and openly biased they have become. The fact there are people who would believe Trump's story over the major news media when they oppose his politics is the very heart of problem itself.

That speaks, most of all, to the terrible gullibility of the people you're describing. The people you're describing are believing a less credible source, for political reasons. It is the height of partisanship.

No, they are dis-believing one source that has demonstrate supreme unreliability and untrustworthiness, and entertain the alternative, which is a politician that should never be trusted in the first place.

That isn't "partisanship", that is consequence of the news media being reliant upon one's integrity and trustworthiness and failing to uphold that to such a cataclysmic degree.

Your argument would be like saying the villagers no longer believing the boy who cried would are "partisan" when they would be more likely to listen to the person calling the boy a liar.

Every time Trump calls the media fake news and is right, he gains a relative trustworthiness to the media's loss of it. He was right, the media was wrong. The problem with this is that while as a politician, people listening to him trusting him to be honest is not critical after he is elected, the media NEEDS to maintain public trust in their ability to deliver accurate and relevant information. That is their sole purpose, and much like a burger-flipper who can't make a burger without stuffing it down their pants, if they can't do it right, they have no purpose.

runic knight:

How fortunate then that I wasn't talking about them.
I specified I am referring not to the rabid political extremes but rather those moderates and independents, people who didn't and don't "support" trump. I even call out the attempts to paint it as you try, here.

You included a line to say you were talking about "moderates", yes. You've also described, at length and over two posts, people who will believe Trump over the media. Only a supporter would do that; his trust among the remaining population is at an all-time low, and was extraordinarily low to begin with.

See this, THIS is partisanship. You presume only those who support him would believe him over the media based on nothing but your own bias, and in open rejection to the point I made about how the media's reputation has been destroyed in their attempts to dishonestly report on Trump.

It is not partisan to look at a liar repeatedly outed as such and going "I wont trust them when they keep lying."
You don't even have to support the thing they lie about to do so. You attempts to paint it otherwise only showcase your own partisanship, nothing more.

Though I suppose you could genuinely believe that too. The whole "with us or against us" mindset is common enough. Was very predominant during the election and after when people claimed those that didn't vote Hillary supported Trump. A dishonest and irrational claim, but a persistent one.

runic knight:
Do you not understand why that is a bad thing worthy of condemnation on its own? Or do you only see it as it relates to your political lean and protecting your self-interests in maintaining your political ideology and opposing the other political ideology?

You are the one who has chosen to complain solely about the media on one side of the political divide. You are the one who has used this as a vehicle for political ideology.

I am the one pointing to a cause and effect that does not make a statement regarding the other side of the political divide, or any other statement you wish to try to strawman onto me. The media lies about trump. Their depend on trustworthiness and doing so harms that. Their lies make Trump's reports of it being fake news accurate and true.

This is not partisan, this is basic reasoning that you seem to want to pretend is politically motivated. Hell, I have already covered how the other side of the political isle has its own issues with media trustworthiness and my complaint was directed toward what used to be more center and reliable sources who have become nothing more than propaganda in their attempts to demonize a clown in the most painfully dishonest ways.

So no, my complaints are not solely about one side, but the conversation certainly centers around that side when people such as yourself refuse even basic, reasonable statements like "when the media lies openly, it makes the person who said they are liars look more legitimate".

For someone pretending this is forgiving Trump anything, it does seem like you are forgiving the media their continuous fuck-ups, solely because they are directing harm to someone you politically dislike.

runic knight:

Or is this perhaps you assuming that because I call out the actions of party A, I must inherently be defending the actions of party B? Trump calls them fake news and like lemmings the media proves him right time and again as they salivate for his every tweet and openly promote any conspiracy theory or false "anonymous source" that tells them what they want to hear. Pointing out that Trump is making them look like idiots and that it is their own actions that are costing them trust is not "forgiving" him anything, it is holding the media accountable for their fuckups instead of excusing them in the name of the "good" fight against Trump.

I mean come on, CNN had to make several journalists resign because of their screw ups in doing exactly that after they were busted on it, and then there was that huge market impact after the ABC story that was fake. You think calling that out and going "well, that shit makes people not trust them" is forgiving Trump anything? Really?

No, which is why I didn't say that.

Falsehood in media is something to condemn, obviously. That was never disputed. The characterisation of this as something particular to "those opposed to Trump"-- your words-- is what is partisan and manipulative.

If you are going to make claims about me, at least have the decency to not be blatantly dishonest in them. I never said this was exclusive to those who opposed trump, and I actively have referred to examples of it not such as my description of fox news, and my implication that sites like Breitbart would be expected of that behavior.

They are lying about Trump, with the overall theme being massively negative, with many excusing or even celebrating the false claims and lies because they think it causes him harm. Regardless of if "the other guys do it too", this is a problem. Furthermore, as I explained already, it is a problem because it is coming from news media that up til recently was far more respected as center-leaning and having more integrity than that.

But now the motivation of "hurt the political oppponent any ways we can" by what should be an accurate, reliable, relevant news source is clearly a problem, and one you seem to be handwaving away "because trump lies too" as if it is equivalent, as if mentioning it erases other news media fuck-ups, or as if it is a defense of trump himself to point out that when the media lies, it makes them look like liars and trump look like he was right about them being liars.

It is the recurring narrative of the current administration-- to decry media criticism as "fake news", while simultaneously lying much, much, much more than any of the media outlets in question.

It is a reoccurring trait of the administration to call out the media for fake news, and the media, as I said before, comes to it like lemmings, rushing off the cliff for the chance to prove them right by doing exactly what they are accused of.

And people who aren't ideologically bound to oppose Trump's every breath like yourself will see that fake news revealed time and again as fake news, and it changes their opinions on the media and on trump. And THAT is my whole point and the problem being called out.

People see the media making fools of themselves and being openly dishonest, and are rejecting them as trustworthy or reliable. They see Trump calling the media out and being vindicated.

They see a boy cry wolf only to be found lying time and again. What happens when there is an actual wolf and not enough people believe?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked