Slashdot Mirror
False News, Absurd Reality Present Challenges For Satirists (apnews.com)
Between reality and the bubble of fantasy news stories, these are tough times for satirists. From a report on AP, submitted by several readers: The New Yorker magazine recently took steps to distinguish Andy Borowitz's humor columns from politically motivated false stories circulating online. His editor said the New Yorker was getting email asking if there was a difference between the two. So they changed the tagline for "The Borowitz Report" from "the news, reshuffled" to "not the news" on the magazine's website. When the stories are shared online, they are more clearly identified as satire, said Nicholas Thompson, editor of NewYorker.com. Borowitz's columns take the form of news stories, like one headlined this week, "Trump fires attorney general after copy of Constitution is found on her computer." One story last week: "Trump enraged as Mexican president meets with Meryl Streep instead." Thompson admits: "It's a weird problem to have."
On April 28, 1945, the Italian people killed their fascist leader and then desecrated his corpse in a public square.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This is not a problem for satirists. I would say that this is a golden age for satirists.
This is a problem for news outlets that also have a satire column.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
for peddling their fake news and attempting to pass them off as the truth.
NY Times headline:
“Berkeley Cancels Milo Yiannopoulos Speech, and Donald Trump Tweets Outrage”
Kinda leaves out the fact that the speech was cancelled because leftist thugs rioted and torched things.
That kind of "false"?
Hitler breathed air. You breathe air. Therefore you are literally Hitler. None of the things you explicitly mentioned that Hitler did are the thigs Hitler did with certainty wrong. You hint at things he did wrong, but killing millions of people who are of a certain religious pursuasion, is nothing substantiality like prioritizing one religion over another. You may have a valid criticism about the religious prioritizing, but trying to say it is of the same issue as what Hitler did is nonsense.
When I heard, at first cursorily, about the Berkeley riots *against* free speech, I was certain someone was describing a new South Park plot or Onion jibe. Imagine my surprise...
Yeah, and obama supporters voted for 'hope and change'. They got a basketball playing george bush, at least as far as civil liberties go.
Hitler didn't start day 1 exterminating the Jews, Homosexuals, and Gypsies. That's the sort of things you build up to with steps like touting one religion over another, otherising a group(s) who "don't hold our values," that are taking our jobs, that are human filth, that must be tracked, that are subhuman, that must be removed so we can be great again.
Hitler breathed air. You breathe air. Therefore you are literally Hitler. None of the things you explicitly mentioned that Hitler did are the thigs Hitler did with certainty wrong. You hint at things he did wrong, but killing millions of people who are of a certain religious pursuasion, is nothing substantiality like prioritizing one religion over another. You may have a valid criticism about the religious prioritizing, but trying to say it is of the same issue as what Hitler did is nonsense.
The argument is more that the themes Hitler played on to get to power are the exact same themes Trump has used. Vilification of "the other" (Jews vs Latinos/Muslims) as undermining the values and success of the country, proclaiming a desire to return the country to an idealized "golden age" (Third Reich vs Make America Great Again), vowing to end treaties that have damaged the ability for the country to go and prevent the creation of jobs (Versailles vs.....NAFTA/free trade I guess?-Trump has really played up the negative effects these treaties have had on his power base), building up the "exceptionalism" of the majority of the powerbase and thereby heaping suspicion and scorn on "outsiders" (immigrants or those perceived to not be part of the superior members of the powerbase), and finally decrediting and sowing distrust toward the establishment and those deemed to be working with/acting as agents of the establishment ("Drain the swamp", MSM, "alternative facts).
Fascist, and authoritarian in general, leaders (assuming they haven't come into power through violent means such as revolution or coup) gain power through building up their powerbase, telling them that they are special, superior, and the backbone of the country while pointing towards a chosen enemy(sometimes internal, sometimes foreign) and using that enemy as the scapegoat for why the powerbase has been held down or otherwise been unable to achieve or capitalize off their innate superiority. Once that enemy is identified and targeted, the leader tries to identify himself as one of the people, part of the powerbase, then proclaims that he alone has the capability of removing the roadblocks and obstacles of the enemy and allowing the powerbase to finally achieve their heretofore unattainable (or lost) superiority. This is often accompanied by creating a cult of personality around the leader along with an inner circle whose job is to provide en echo chamber for the leader as well as make sure the information released to the public maintains the cult of personality and stays on message.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Im sorry, i thought this was a nation of laws. What happened to 'I may hate what you say, but i will defend to the DEATH your right to say it'. The consequences you mention are supposed to be CIVILIZED REACTIONS, not barbarism and lawlessness. If you throw a fist at me, I might toss hot lead back at you. Maybe we should just be civilized and agree to disagree instead of someone getting hurt.
Good-bye
What a load of over-generalised crap. Here, let me change just a few of your words to show you how full of it you've become.
Liberals, and Democrat in general, leaders (assuming they haven't come into power through violent means such as revolution or coup) gain power through building up their powerbase, telling them that they are special, superior, and the backbone of the country while pointing towards a chosen enemy called the Right (sometimes internal, sometimes foreign) and using that enemy as the scapegoat for why the powerbase has been held down or otherwise been unable to achieve or capitalize off their innate superiority. Once that enemy is identified and targeted, the leader tries to identify himself as one of the people, part of the powerbase, then proclaims that he alone has the capability of removing the roadblocks and obstacles of the enemy and allowing the powerbase to finally achieve their heretofore unattainable (or lost) superiority. This is often accompanied by creating a cult of personality around the leader along with an inner circle whose job is to provide en echo chamber for the leader as well as make sure the information released to the public maintains the cult of personality and stays on message.
Two words changed and two words added. Now it's talking about Obama.
I agree with you. I work near the Berkeley campus, and it's awful what happened.
However, nearly all of us have been conditioned from a very young age that Nazis need to be destroyed at all costs, or the world only gets worse. I wonder how many video game Nazis I've killed in my lifetime? If you're going to demonize people on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual preference, as Milo does regularly, then it shouldn't be a surprise to be compared to a Nazi and have people trying to stop you at all costs. Either figure out why you're coming across that way to others and alter your message to convey what you really intend (whatever that is, I don't actually even know), or continue to be an asshole provocateur and be prepared to receive the conflict you've elicited.
But, in this case, the US voted against the candidate with a track record of warmongering and authoritarianism (three strikes ring a bell?). The comparisons would be more apt if we didn't choose Trump over an even MORE authoritarian candidate. How does that fit into the Hitler narrative?
Your post reminds me I forgot something else in my post, thanks. All criticism of the leader must immediately be deflected. It's really more of a subset of vilification of the other and part of discrediting the enemy. If you disagree with or criticize the leader then you must automatically be against him and therefore with the enemy. It doesn't help matters that in our current situation the leader is notoriously thin-skinned when it comes to criticism.
While you are trying to push a dichotomy that "the other person is bad, therefore we must be good", the reality was much closer to "one person is bad, the other is slightly less bad". Even if you align with the "slightly less bad" you have still chosen bad.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
You don't get to be free from the consequences of your speech. Free Speech only means the government can't (or legally shouldn't) censor you. It does not mean that if you speak Nazi-like remarks that you won't get a fist thrown at you.
Because if free speech means, to your example, getting beaten by a mob then it isn't very free. Redefining free speech to fit your mob justice mentality is just an example of a lack of critical thinking. If speaking your mind means you get fired, beaten, black listed, or other serious consequences then speech isn't very free now is it? There was a time when the prevailing logic was everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You didn't have to agree with other's opinions but it was their choice and it was considered rude to insist others think exactly like you. Now we live in times of fear, when any stray comment may get you into trouble. This will only go on so long before it boils over.
Why is this so hard for conservatives and Trump voters to understand?
I guess I could ask why following the law and keeping your hands to yourself is so hard for liberals to understand. Or why a competing view is so threatening that you must attack it with violence. My observation is that violence is the first resort of the ignorant. Your observation is that it is a fitting form of enforcing your group think. Is that really who you are and what you want to be known for xevioso?
If you're going to demonize people on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual preference, as Milo does regularly, then it shouldn't be a surprise to be compared to a Nazi and have people trying to stop you at all costs.
So anyone who demonizes, for example, a white Christian male who is straight must be a Nazi. I think the Huffinfton Post has at least two articles a day demonizing this demographic. I guess the left really are Nazis based on your criteria. I always suspected ;-)
>>Free Speech only means the government can't (or legally shouldn't) censor you. It does not mean that if you speak Nazi-like remarks that you won't get a fist thrown at you.
Correct. But about a dozen other laws will get you tossed into jail if you throw a fist at me because you disagree with what I am saying. Not to mention all the fire-starting, window-smashing and random property damage.
Now that I think about it... geez... why is everyone on the Left so violent? Left-wing thought has *owned* college campuses for the last 40-50 years. Are you guys really so fragile and insecure that one guy giving voice to a different point of view throws you into a tailspin? If y'all are trying to move past that "snowflake" stereotype, pepper-spraying people with whom you disagree is really the wrong approach...
That being said, universities, within reason, should be places where free exchange of ideas happens in an environment free of overt violence or threat of violence. I find Milo to be a vile and evil human being, but that being said, he has as much right to say his piece as I do mine, and the fact that a pack of spoiled malcontents would transform themselves into a liberal version of Brown Shirts means as repugnant as Milo is, they're all the worse.
Seriously, what could Milo have possibly said that would have justified this idiocy? And in the end all these moronic protesters did was to give Milo the kind of legitimacy and influence he craves. A better response would have been just not to show up. If the room was half-filled, that would have sent a far better message than being a bunch of goons.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Precisely. If everyone had just stayed away, then Milo would have largely ended up talking to himself.
Unless, of course, the protesters' real fear is that the house would have been packed, and the violence wasn't as much about preventing Milo from speaking as it was to prevent anyone who wanted to listen from hearing (maybe even some of them). I find the latter in some ways far more disturbing than the former.
As for myself, I'm secure enough in my own views that I can go to right-wing online forums and read the posts, though I don't really often contribute. As much as I find many of the ideas expressed range from the naive and absurd to the outright vile and bigoted, I think it's still important that I not be utterly ignorant of what other people believe. And it does happen that you will find someone who is intelligent on these forums and he'll present an actual challenge to my preconceptions, that forces me to re-evaluate my own views. The fact is that no ideology has an absolute lock on the Truth.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"I don't understand why, as Americans, we feel the need to always voice our opinions as if they are fact. "
Why do you accept what they have to say as fact? People are going to be ignorant, we cant change that, it hasnt changed in 4000 years. Even Einstein gave up on humanity's ignorance, and i consider him a profound humanist. Asimov had some choice words on anti-intellectualism too.
Good-bye
Obama is done. We don't have to speculate about the path he didn't go down. It's in the past and it wasn't an authoritarian fascist regime. There were no civil wars, no collapse of society, no sweeping persecution of the right, and a peaceful transition of power.
I can't say what is going to happen, other than Trump has these tendencies many fold. It's been 2 weeks, we've got about 40 lawsuits, social unrest, zero tolerance of dissent, unfounded attempts to undermine the electoral process (accusations of massive fraud), a new phrase: "alternative facts", a political adviser in a national security role, and nearly every single ally pissed off at us. Jesus Christ, what's the world going to look like in 2 months?
First, to all the liberal progressive mods, if you are so right in your beliefs, write a post and show where I am wrong. -1 Overrated is not your personal censorship tool for views you disagree with. You are supposed to champion tolerance of others, live it. I am not a huge fan of Trump, I voted against him in the primary, but as a rational human being, the cognitive dissonance from the progressive left wing is too massive to let go unchallenged.
So Trump upholds the constitution, appoints a constructionist supreme court judge who will protect the constitution and bill of rights as written (not an activist judge who believes that the constitution can mean whatever the hell he wants it to), and you are comparing him to Hitler? You are taking the few good things that Hitler did for the Germans, like building roads and airports (many other good leaders have also built roads and airports for their countries the world over) and using that as justification to compare Trump to Hitler? By your logic Dwight D. Eisenhower was just like Hitler, because he championed the US interstate freeway system. Please tell me you are not really this stupid?
Take a look at the list of actions he has taken thus far and tell me which ones have hurt you (not traumatized you emotionally based on Democrat demagoguery). Which of these actions send brown shirts to your house in the middle of the night? Which ones force everyone to like Trump (have you turned on a TV in the last year, hatred for Trump is on 90% of the channels), or outlaw a religion (as far as I know, only the progressive left and Obama tried to attack freedom of religion by forcing Little Sisters of the Poor to support abortion and Christian bakers to support homosexual marriages or lose their business). (It is interesting that this was not tried with a Muslim bakery, I wonder why). Which executive actions authorize incarceration of innocent people? (Sorry, illegal aliens are criminals, by entering the country without permission they have committed a crime, no mater how hard you wish that were not the case.)
Trump has signed executive orders to:
- Kill TPP
- Protecting LGBT from workplace discrimination
- Banned fed officials from becoming lobbyists for 5 years
- Lifetime ban on WH officials becoming lobbyists for foreign countries
- 120 day travel ban (not permaban) on visitors from terrorist hotbeds (Obama banned travelers/refugees from the same countries for 6 months after they found to terrorists had made it through the vetting process)
- Authorized the border "wall" that democrats voted for many years ago but never funded, a wall similar to walls all non-island nations have to protect their borders. Check out how Mexico treats illegal entry at it's southern border.
- Approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, so you don't have to pay $4/gal for gas like you did under Obama, which was essentially a tax on poor working people who have to commute longer on average
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
If popular support for unpermitted immigration was so high, progressives could easily change the laws to eliminate our borders completely, but only the loonytoon left wants that. Every country must control its borders. The US still allows over 1,000,000 immigrants a year, the most immigrants of any nation on the planet. Australia won't accept any illegal immigrants and it takes its illegal immigrants and detains them indefinitely on an island with conditions so bad that they are setting themselves on fire. (But there is no moral outrage on the left for this apparently, only that Trump doesn't want to take in potential terrorists that Australia doesn't want).
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
Hardcore Islam is at war with America, we for
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
You mean like this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/a... Yet if I turn the tables and ask for a free space from black people then I'm a horrible racist. Another example is my Google search turned up a slew of "Dear White People" style articles. There's even a movie. These types of things are only directed at white people in general as all other people are protected classes. I wonder what would happen if there was an article like "Dear Black People, stop murdering at 7x the rate of everyone else" (fact if you're curious) or "Dear Gay people, stop adding ever more letters after your special interest groups". Hmm, probably would get called every bad name in the PC playbook. I'm a fairly simple person, one set of rules that everyone uses sounds pretty reasonable. If saying a given thing about one group would be racist then saying it about another should be held to that same standard.