Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

False News, Absurd Reality Present Challenges For Satirists (apnews.com)

Posted by msmash on from the weird-problem dept.

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."

53 of 333 comments (clear)

  1. Indeed! by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Real news lately look like a version of The Onion.

    As a German satirist recently remarked, the US should look to Germany, they already did all of it.

    They voted for a Chancellor that promised better infrastructure and he actually built many Autobahns and military airports. He made Germany great again, even bigger than their previous borders, at least for a couple of years. He had yuuuuuge approval numbers (on pain of death) and everybody liked him, if they were asked.
    They also tried religious discrimination like nobody else, ever.

    They also have done the Wall-building thingie a bit later, throughout the whole country and they even got the Russians to pay for it. (If you're lucky, you can even bid for a piece of that wall on eBay.)

    1. Re:Indeed! by Freischutz · · Score: 2

      Real news lately look like a version of The Onion.

      As a German satirist recently remarked, the US should look to Germany, they already did all of it.

      They voted for a Chancellor that promised better infrastructure and he actually built many Autobahns and military airports. He made Germany great again, even bigger than their previous borders, at least for a couple of years. He had yuuuuuge approval numbers (on pain of death) and everybody liked him, if they were asked. They also tried religious discrimination like nobody else, ever.

      They also have done the Wall-building thingie a bit later, throughout the whole country and they even got the Russians to pay for it. (If you're lucky, you can even bid for a piece of that wall on eBay.)

      Speaking of satire, under that chancellor, you could actually get disappeared for telling a treasonous joke.

    2. Re: Indeed! by hackwrench · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Indeed! by epyT-R · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, and obama supporters voted for 'hope and change'. They got a basketball playing george bush, at least as far as civil liberties go.

    4. Re: Indeed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Indeed! by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Real news lately look like a version of The Onion.

      Trump actually prayed for better ratings for a show his trust owns at a national prayer breakfast. He out-Onioned the Onion.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    6. Re: Indeed! by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    7. Re: Indeed! by myowntrueself · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      In fact in 1933 Nazi Germany started sponsoring Jews to emigrate to Palestine. This went on until 1939 when the war made it logistically impossible. It was called 'The Transfer Program' and made the formation of the modern state of Israel possible.

      So no, he didn't start exterminating Jews from day 1.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    8. Re:Indeed! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      That's fake news!

      They only had perpetual competitions for the best political jokes and the winners got sent to holiday camps.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re: Indeed! by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    10. Re: Indeed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

    11. Re:Indeed! by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      Yeah, and obama supporters voted for 'hope and change'. They got a basketball playing george bush, at least as far as civil liberties go.

      Oh, come on! Obama was greater than Bush in every possible metric, including drone bombings. The thing is, what Bush did was absolutely terrible, and needs to be condemned, but when Obama did it, it was great--or are you a racist?!?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    12. Re: Indeed! by firewrought · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Funny enough, he was actually executing many of his supporters. The SA's/brownshirts helped Hitler rise to power; they were the Nazi party's own paramilitary wing.

      However, they were also a political liability. As mostly working-class people (often left jobless in the lurch of the Great Depression), they wanted Hitler to follow thru on his promises of redistributing wealth. This brought them into the conflict with middle/upper classes and the army (which had deep root in the Prussian aristocracy). Taking out key SA leaders gained him massive approval from the army (which, as chancellor, he had not previously been able to control). Shortly after, he justified his action against "treasonous ringleaders" and passed retroactive legislation authorizing the killings.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    13. Re: Indeed! by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      ... Fascism isn't nationalist ...

      Allow me to quote Google's definition of fascism:

      fascism — n. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

      So yeah, it is.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    14. Re: Indeed! by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      Liberals aren't decrying free speech any more than conservatives are. Both have large sections that don't want it, but they generally are against different speech. This can be difficult to notice if you're so far up an ideology's asshole, of course, since $YOUR_SIDE's positions are all completely reasonable and demands justified, whereas $OTHER_SIDE insists on completely unreasonable demands.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. History lesson by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:History lesson by bobbied · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Assisted by a foreign led invasion force. That guy wasn't going willingly and if you read history, fell into the wrong hands though a series of fortunate happenstances. Had he been a little bit more lucky, he would have escaped into exile with his family.

      Not to mention... Shame what happened to his family.. Now that was totally uncalled for.

      So, am I reading this right? You are advocating for similar activity today? If so, you are an idiot.. Death and destruction follow such activity just as sure as night follows dusk. It is the poor and innocent that pay the most.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:History lesson by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I didn't read a threat, just a warning to fascists that history hasn't shown positive outcomes for two of the three European examples. The other one, FWIW, killed himself in a bunker just after telling his underlings to destroy his country. Fascism takes a certain course, always towards destruction.

      I'm not sure why it should be necessary to post this on Slashdot, or warn people in general. I think, really, a sizable number of Trump supporters are in denial about what he represents. Many - from experience - don't even follow the news, and had little idea of what he was before they voted for him, just looking at him as "Not Clinton."

      Those in denial won't recognize the warning, because they don't want to believe that it applies. From their point of view, Trump is just another President. They've never heard of Bannon. On the odd occasion they've heard something worrying about Trump, it's been "balanced" by an exaggeration of something done by "the other side".

      Will Trump end up hung on meathooks by an angry mob? I hope it won't go that far. I hope Congress will impeach him long before he can set up a Reichstag event that'll make him impossible to remove.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:History lesson by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah the old "Donald Trump is fine because other people are doing things I don't like".

      I do love how even the most ardent of Trumpanzees are utterly unable to actually provide words of support. That's quite telling.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:History lesson by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now that's just sad. Comparing Trump to Hitler? Seriously?

      He may not be the model of decorum in his personal behavior and may have a brash personality that rubs folks who oppose him the wrong way, but that doesn't mean his policies are anywhere close to Hitler's or that the country is now in danger of falling into anything that resembles pre-WWII Germany. To even say such garbage cheapens history. This is like comparing the concentration camps where millions of Jews died to a summer camp for kids. It's offensive and shows both a lack of understand of history and current events and betrays the partisanship that drives all this pointless rhetoric used to divide the right from the left in this country.

      The real problem though, is the truth is hard to hide and is becoming apparent. Trump nominates an "originalist" to the Supreme court, a guy who says that he must interpret the laws as they where INTENDED by the original authors and decide the issues based on that, not his personal feelings. Had Trump wanted to take over, he would need a judge who was free to decide cases based on political positions, not the law, because the law in this country pretty much precludes dictators from taking power.

      Then there is the Executive Order issue.... Name ONE of Trump's orders that has attempted to expand the power of the presidency or make a new law? (Hint: there isn't one as of this writing). You won't find one. I encourage you to go read these orders and quote them here to prove me wrong. You can find them all on the White House's web site if you cannot find them elsewhere... (You won't find them on any news site I've found, including CNN, FOX or MSNBC, but you will find a LOT of commentary about them..) I think you will be surprised to learn that a lot of stuff you THINK is there, isn't. Go find the Muslim ban, I dare you to try because I know you will fail.

      So, you have a choice... Back up your claims here with some kind of actual evidence from original sources, or take your partisanship and ugly talk and go away. Trump isn't "like" Hitler and claiming so makes it obvious you don't know history nor current events well enough to be listened too. Stop falling for all this garbage you are hearing, go to the original sources and think critically. Remember the press doesn't tell you things that don't generate advertising dollars, so the mundane and uninteresting stuff doesn't get air time, but violent protests and hyperbolae sure will. You got to dig a bit for the truth, but it's out there.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:History lesson by dwillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trump is just another President, Bannon is irrelevant.

      Unlike Hitler and Mussolini Trump faces an insurmountable obstacle to becoming a true tyrant and dictator. The Constitution and the designed in Checks and Balances. Hitler was able to achieve his position of power due to great flaws in the design of the government of the Weimar republic. There was nothing to stop him when as Chancellor the President died and he just took over the office. Further He came into office with his own private military/police force that engaged in the more dubious acts of his government.

      There is no means for Trump to seize more power in our government. And he does not have a private military/police force to enforce his will. Additionally Trump is not beloved of the GOP establishment. That means neither side of the aisle in the legislative branch really trusts him. So far he is just fulfilling campaign promises so he mostly has their support. But should he start straying he will lose that support in a hurry. Neither party trusts him. (That's actually good, it means he will have to negotiate to get the stuff he's promising that require laws to be passed.) Neither party will stand for it if he were to try to exceed his constitutional authorities and limits.

      Trump is not Hitler. He can't be. Hitler couldn't have been Hitler under our form of government. At most he could have been FDR and Interned citizens (but not exterminated them).

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    6. Re:History lesson by davidwr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you are advocating assassination, this is wrong in so many ways.

      This man is our duly elected President.

      We have a functioning court system which has already put some of his possibly-illegal orders on hold pending legal review.

      We have a duly-elected, functioning Congress with the power to impeach him for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

      We will have elections in two years which can elect a new House of Representatives and replace 1/3 of the Senate. This new Congress will have the power to impeach him for any impeachable offense he has made since taking office.

      In short, unless or until the soapbox, the ballot box, and the jury box (impeachment process) are all impossible (e.g. a President prevents elections or effectively suspends free speech/press/assembly/etc. - neither of which I see happening in the lifetime of anyone alive today unless an armed insurrection or state-government-led secession effort happens first) we should all avoid the ammo box and stay withing the bounds of legal methods to protest government decisions that we do not like.

      A reminder to anyone who contemplates violating the law in the name of civil disobedience - whether it is something "minor" like blocking a street or something major like high treason/assassination: Civil disobedience may be morally justified in certain circumstances only to the extent that 1) it is a last resort (use the other 3 boxes first - the "soapbox" is not a license to block traffic) and 2) you are willing to accept the legal consequences of your actions, specifically, being arrested, going to trial, and, if convicted, accepting the final (after appeals are exhausted) sentence handed down by a properly-functioning court system.

      A far better way to handle things is
      * write your lawmakers and encourage others to do the same,
      * publish well-written, convincing arguments that speak against Trump's proposals and encourage others to do the same,
      * peaceably assemble and peaceably protest, and encourage others to do the same,
      * find and recruit good, solid candidates to run for local, state, and national office, and
      * do the other things that have been a hallmark of the American Experiment for well over two centuries.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    7. Re:History lesson by iceaxe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now that's just sad. Comparing Trump to Hitler? Seriously?

      Unfortunately, for many people this seems entirely appropriate, especially those who fall into one of the many groups of people who feel threatened by Trump and his power base. And yes, I mean threatened like concentration camps and gas chambers. The first has happened in the USA before, and the jubilant hatred coming from many Trump supporters renders the second sadly believable.

      He may not be the model of decorum in his personal behavior and may have a brash personality that rubs folks who oppose him the wrong way, but that doesn't mean his policies are anywhere close to Hitler's or that the country is now in danger of falling into anything that resembles pre-WWII Germany. To even say such garbage cheapens history.

      History is the measuring stick, and while Trump doesn't yet measure up (down?) to Hitler, and hopefully never will, it is entirely appropriate to do the measuring and then speak and act to prevent bad things if possible.

      This is like comparing the concentration camps where millions of Jews died to a summer camp for kids.

      No, it's like comparing the vile spew of Nazis to the vile spew of Trump and the even viler spew of many of his supporters, and finding them disturbingly similar, even though I agree the actions are orders of magnitude different so far.

      It's offensive and shows both a lack of understand of history and current events and betrays the partisanship that drives all this pointless rhetoric used to divide the right from the left in this country.

      The "right" has been dividing itself from the "left" and vice versa in the USA since long before the current political parties existed. Indeed, the political parties themselves have swapped sides, no doubt seeking greener pastures in their quest for power independent of any so-called values. I abhor such oversimplified labels as right and left, but those are your terms. Both major parties are coalitions of wildly disparate interest groups, banding together in the hope of gaining enough power to force their narrow goals on everyone, and if they have to go along with the [insert orthogonal interest] wackos, so be it.

      The real problem though, is the truth is hard to hide and is becoming apparent. Trump nominates an "originalist" to the Supreme court, a guy who says that he must interpret the laws as they where INTENDED by the original authors and decide the issues based on that, not his personal feelings. Had Trump wanted to take over, he would need a judge who was free to decide cases based on political positions, not the law, because the law in this country pretty much precludes dictators from taking power.

      Remind me who gets to decide what the original authors intended, without injecting any personal perspective.

      Then explain to me why the original authors included an amendment process if they never intended anything to change and adapt with the times.

      I am right royally sick of the idea that the US Constitution is scripture handed down verbatim by the almighty, never to be questioned or altered, especially by someone who has a different opinion. It is and was a compromise, a word apparently out of favor in these times.

      For that matter, I am right royally sick of a Supreme Court that is utterly and absolutely partisan, such that the opinions of most justices can often be predicted before the cases are presented based entirely on the political positions of the presidents that appointed them. I don't trust any of them.

      Then there is the Executive Order issue.... Name ONE of Trump's orders that has attempted to expand the power of the presidency or make a new law? (Hint: there isn't one as of this writing). You won't find one. I encourage you to go read these orders and quote them here to prove me wrong. You can find them all on the White House's we

      --
      WALSTIB!
    8. Re:History lesson by bobbied · · Score: 2

      First, being an originalist does NOT preclude making amendments to the constitution.... Your argument on that is a clever fallacy, but so is the rest ofyour argument..

      You admit that although you see qualities in Trump that *remind* you of Hitler, he's not actually anywhere near the historical figure in actions... Yet... You just figure that he might try so you are going to oppose ALL he attempts? You seem to agree he's not done anything like this yet...

      Let me remind you of what I see as the real essence of evil that Hitler was engaged in and the progression of his rise to power so you can ask yourself, where are we along this continuum?

      Hitler was elected and gained power though clever use of intimidation, usurpation of law and violence. He gained power largely though the usurpation of the German constitution using quasi legal means to suppress many basic human rights. He used various "emergencies" to declare marshal law, imprison his political foes and then change the laws of the land while his opponents could not stop him (either because they where dead, in jail or missing). He then took all authority for himself, writing laws by decree and effectively becoming the sole ruler of the country with the death of Hindenburg. After that, it was all over but the war as Hitler had total control of the country as a dictator.

      Where are we? Our constitution remains in full force, with the bill of rights firmly in place. Congress remains fully in charge of writing laws and our courts still have power to adjudicate the laws. The president is still unable to make laws on his own and if he tried (such as when Obama did) the courts would not let him. What power does Trump have to change this arrangement? None... Our constitution is still in force and will remain as it is, Trump is powerless to change that, just like all past presidents. Trump can not amend the constitution himself, that takes 2/3rds of the states, and beyond suggesting amendments he'd like cannot officially even do that without congress or the states.

      Or do you believe that Trump is somehow unaware of the limited power he has or that he is somehow grasping for more than he's allowed? In which case, I ask you to kindly supply examples of this usurpation of power you are so afraid of.

      It's easy to accuse somebody of being "like" someone or something you don't care for, especially if you don't personally or politically like what they are doing. However, your argument here is a classic association fallacy and thus invalid.

      However, PLEASE, please, contact me when Trump actually does something to usurp his constitutional authority so I can join you in opposition to such an action. Be prepared with hard evidence of this because I'm not inclined to believe you given your past logical fallacies. So far, he's done nothing that I am aware of that usurps his constitutional limits as the original framers put forth and hasn't made any moves to change the constitution (much less suggested it needs any). (Which is why I point to his nomination to the Supreme court as proof you are wrong).

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:History lesson by iceaxe · · Score: 2

      First, being an originalist does NOT preclude making amendments to the constitution.... Your argument on that is a clever fallacy, but so is the rest ofyour argument..

      I think you misunderstand or mis-characterize my intent. Since the original intent of the Constitution includes the amendment process, it's plain that amendment is included in "originalism". My argument is with the great many people who "call" themselves originalists or some variation on that idea, and yet oppose any change not in alignment with their own personal interests on the grounds that it wasn't part of the original intent - which included change. Indeed, the interpretations of "original intent" can vary widely in some areas. To finish my thoughts on that topic, I further don't believe that someone is an originalist just because they call themselves that. I think that most people will grab onto any argument that supports them getting what they want.

      (Also, don't expect flawless logic in off-hand slashdot discussions. We're chatting here, not formulating formal formulae.)

      You admit that although you see qualities in Trump that *remind* you of Hitler, he's not actually anywhere near the historical figure in actions... Yet... You just figure that he might try so you are going to oppose ALL he attempts? You seem to agree he's not done anything like this yet...

      I oppose many things Trump has done - that I've heard of - not because it reminds me of Hitler, but because I think he's wrong. I'm sure he's done some innocuous business that incited no remark or concern, as well as being an utter ass-clown most days so far. The fact that his behavior is emotionally disturbing due to some similarities with the German Nazis is merely a side note. I'm not out rioting, either, just expressing my opinions from the shabby safety of an anonymous website account.

      Let me remind you of what I see as the real essence of evil that Hitler was engaged in and the progression of his rise to power so you can ask yourself, where are we along this continuum?

      Hitler was elected and gained power though clever use of intimidation, usurpation of law and violence. He gained power largely though the usurpation of the German constitution using quasi legal means to suppress many basic human rights. He used various "emergencies" to declare marshal law, imprison his political foes and then change the laws of the land while his opponents could not stop him (either because they where dead, in jail or missing). He then took all authority for himself, writing laws by decree and effectively becoming the sole ruler of the country with the death of Hindenburg. After that, it was all over but the war as Hitler had total control of the country as a dictator.

      Yep. Sounds a lot like Trump's verbally expressed wish list. I do not particularly fear that such will actually occur, not least because so many are so vocally opposing it, but also because we do have some checks and balances in place in the US. Thank the founders. As you go on to describe very well:

      Where are we? Our constitution remains in full force, with the bill of rights firmly in place. Congress remains fully in charge of writing laws and our courts still have power to adjudicate the laws. The president is still unable to make laws on his own and if he tried (such as when Obama did) the courts would not let him. What power does Trump have to change this arrangement? None... Our constitution is still in force and will remain as it is, Trump is powerless to change that, just like all past presidents. Trump can not amend the constitution himself, that takes 2/3rds of the states, and beyond suggesting amendments he'd like cannot officially even do that without congress or the states.

      Thanks, I agree, and thank goodness. Also, please don't mistake me for an Obama apologist. I was quite disturbed by some of the actions of his administration.
      Nonetheless, I s

      --
      WALSTIB!
    10. Re:History lesson by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      Now that's just sad. Comparing Trump to Hitler? Seriously?

      Yup, seriously. His base is composed largely of disaffected white people who blame their problems on minorities. He stirs race and national and religious hatred. He has no regard for the truth. He shows strong authoritarian and us-vs.-them tendencies. He's strongly nationalist at the same time he makes the state of the US sound as bad as he can. The feel of Trump and his campaign is much like the feel of Hitler and his campaign. Read some history.

      Fortunately, Trump is a lot less competent than Hitler, and has much worse impulse control. As you note, it's harder to become a tyrant in the US than in Weimar Germany, although legal barriers are only as strong as their enforcement. You do realize that some border agents defied the court ruling about the entry ban, don't you?

      Trump nominates an "originalist" to the Supreme court, a guy who says that he must interpret the laws as they where INTENDED by the original authors and decide the issues based on that, not his personal feelings.

      And, of course, nobody connected to Trump has ever lied, right? Hint: Everybody nominated to the Supreme Court interprets the laws as they were intended. Just ask them.

      Name ONE of Trump's orders that has attempted to expand the power of the presidency or make a new law? (Hint: there isn't one as of this writing)

      The travel ban might be illegal; we'll have to let the courts decide that. If so, it's either an attempt to expand the power of the Presidency or make a new law. And "as of this writing" is two weeks after Trump became President. Give him time.

      In the meantime, I'd bet that he's violated the Constitution, in that I think it very likely that a government has had dealings with part of the Trump empire. Trump is going to make it as hard as possible to find out for sure, of course.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re:History lesson by Xyrus · · Score: 2

      Trump is just another President, Bannon is irrelevant.

      Unlike Hitler and Mussolini Trump faces an insurmountable obstacle to becoming a true tyrant and dictator. The Constitution and the designed in Checks and Balances. Hitler was able to achieve his position of power due to great flaws in the design of the government of the Weimar republic. There was nothing to stop him when as Chancellor the President died and he just took over the office. Further He came into office with his own private military/police force that engaged in the more dubious acts of his government.

      That's incorrect. Hitler was elected on a platform of populism, then the population and his supporters slowly eroded away the protections in place until he could successfully be granted unilateral power.

      The Constitution is only as powerful as the people willing to stand for it's principles. When you have a majority willing to piss on the Constitution, putting power and ideology before the good of the nation, then the Constitution just becomes a piece of inconvenient paper. Soon you'll be hearing how the Constitution is too limiting to deal with the challenges of today's world.

      There is no means for Trump to seize more power in our government. And he does not have a private military/police force to enforce his will.

      Oh yes there is. And you don't need a private military force when you have cult following who thinks your the second coming of Christ.

      Additionally Trump is not beloved of the GOP establishment. That means neither side of the aisle in the legislative branch really trusts him. So far he is just fulfilling campaign promises so he mostly has their support. But should he start straying he will lose that support in a hurry. Neither party trusts him. (That's actually good, it means he will have to negotiate to get the stuff he's promising that require laws to be passed.) Neither party will stand for it if he were to try to exceed his constitutional authorities and limits.

      That's irrelevant. The GOP is more than happy to use and abuse Trumps ham-fisted methods to further their own agenda and ramrod what they want through Congress, including expansion of powers. And just like Hitler did to his supporters when they started thinking he was going too far, Trump would have no qualms doing the same.

      The ends do not justify the means. Making deals with the devil, even with the best intentions, never ends well.

      Trump is not Hitler. He can't be. Hitler couldn't have been Hitler under our form of government. At most he could have been FDR and Interned citizens (but not exterminated them).

      You really don't understand how this works, do you? Populism is a cult. No piece of paper or set of laws matter. Get enough followers and they'll be cheering as you burn the Constitution.

      --
      ~X~
  3. This seems like Hunter S. Thompson territory by H3lldr0p · · Score: 2

    When the going gets weird, the weird turns pro.

    Along those lines, I think it may be time to return to the grotesque, detailed art that came from Zap Comixs, R. Crumb, and the other underground creators. Those are going to be the people closest to the metal (so to speak) in what the crowds are feeling. Hopefully the shocking expressions will be enough to get people unsettled enough to keep up the protests and calling their congress critters.

    It does make a difference.

  4. Absurd reality by burtosis · · Score: 4, Funny

    I believe the term is now "alternative fact therapist", not satirist.

    1. Re:Absurd reality by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      We need real news to inform us. And we need "news" from satirists to help us cope with the real kind.

      We do not need fake news, alternative facts, or deceptions by any other name.

      Satire comes from satirists. Fake news comes from fake reporters. Poe's law notwithstanding, you can and must learn to spot the difference.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  5. Not a problem for satirists by The-Ixian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Not a problem for satirists by Spazmania · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As the satirist who runs whitehouse.net, I disagree. Satire has to be something that seems in character with what's happening but definitely wouldn't actually happen. If it's not in character, it's not funny. If there's a realistic chance it could happen, it's scary not funny.

      Trump makes it really hard to find that sweet spot where it's something amusing you could actually see Trump doing yet definitely not something Trump will end up doing next week.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  6. Re:Today satire requires Marxism by Layzej · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The best satire today is simply to publish official communications verbatim. Some good examples are:

    McSweeneys "My very good black history month tribute to some of the most tremendous black people"

    or Tina Fey as Sarah Palin

    The politicians are writing the material. The satirists just need to point out how rediculous it is by republishing it.

  7. Distasteful by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's distasteful that so many people are bashing Trump and talking about Fake News at a time when events like the Bowling Green Massacre take place every day.

    Can we all come together please, forget our partisanship and different religions, and agree to offer a prayer to all those that died in Bowling Green like good Baptists. May they rest in peace and go to Baptist heaven.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  8. FUD people. by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    I know "fake news" is getting us all worked up right now, but

    "...fake news did not change the result 2016 presidential election, according to a study by researchers at Stanford and New York University released Thursday. ..."

    Story: http://thehill.com/homenews/me...

    Study: https://web.stanford.edu/~gent...

    Like the "Russia hacked the election" story the original threat being discussed was specifically hacking of electronic voting machines. When that was proved ridiculous, the phrase was re-framed to something more vague, saying that Russia "manipulated" the results by media...you know, exactly like the Martin Sheen "dump Trump" video attempted to do (and failed). https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:FUD people. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      What a ridiculous study. There is no way for them to know how many fake news stories in total are out there and how many people actually read them. To claim only 8% of people read a fake news story is a bizarre claim, since I think we all encountered numerous.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  9. /r/nottheonion by brewthatistrue · · Score: 4, Funny

    Looking at some headlines from https://www.reddit.com/r/notth...
    we find

    "Stop making memes of our dead gorilla, Cincinnati Zoo pleads"

    "Spotify offers Barack Obama a job as 'President of Playlists'"

    "People have paid a company more than $80,000 to dig a hole for absolutely no reason"

    "Venezuela's currency value depends largely on one guy at an Alabama Home Depot"

    "Anti-Defamation League Declares Pepe the Frog a Hate Symbol"

    "Pilot 'congratulates' passengers for drinking all alcohol on plane"

    "Nebraska flag flew upside down at Capitol for 10 days and 'nobody noticed,' says senator who wants design change"

    etc.

    1. Re:/r/nottheonion by FFOMelchior · · Score: 2

      NotTheOnion is all true news stories. The general gist is that the headline/premise is so ludicrous that one's first thought is "It must be The Onion", but then it's not. In reference to GP's headlines, I've heard at least 4 of them, but the Venezuela one threw me for loop. Here's the article, if anyone is interested: https://www.pri.org/stories/20...

  10. Re:Some of the best satire by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  11. Re:How about these? by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 2

    Trump sleeps through attack on consulate and Bannon tells troops to stand down...

    Man, that sounds crazy, maybe someone should investigate that nine times.

  12. Borowitz has been fooling people for years by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    Back in 2013 I knew someone who was 100% convinced that Obama called Putin a jackass in public. I don't suspect that Borowitz was actually trying to fool anyone with this, but the distortion was so high for some people at the time that they would believe almost anything that was damning about the POTUS.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  13. Re:Some of the best satire by spire3661 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  14. Re: Whoosh! by hackwrench · · Score: 2

    I was attempting to illustrate that his assertions were as nonsensical as the assertions I made and were similar to something out of the mind of someone who would say unironicly, "literally Hitler".

  15. Re:Falst like NYTimes omitting leftist violence? by davidwr · · Score: 2

    That kind of "false"?

    More like "headline was short, important details omitted."

    The opening sentence includes the VERY relevant details about the riot:

    BERKELEY, Calif. - A speech by the divisive right-wing writer Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California, Berkeley, was canceled on Wednesday night after demonstrators set fires and threw objects at buildings to protest his appearance. [emphasis added]

    While that paragraph doesn't come out and say that the speech was canceled because of the violence, the implication is obvious: NOT canceling the event would have put people's safety at risk and canceling, moving, or postponing the event was the rational thing to do.

    Near the end, the article makes it explicitly clear that the event was canceled over security concerns and that the cancellation was not the desire of the university's administration, saying:

    His scheduled speech at U.C. Davis last month devolved into a tense standoff between protesters and the police. It was called off before it could begin over security concerns.

    and

    The university "deeply regrets" the cancellation of the event, said Dan Mogulof, a spokesman.

    Note: quoted text from The New York Times has been modified to change an "m-dash" to a hyphen and to change "curly quotes" to "straight quotes." This was necessary due to limitations of the Slashdot web site.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  16. Re:Some of the best satire by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  17. Re:Some of the best satire by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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 ;-)

  18. Re:Some of the best satire by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >>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...

  19. Re:Some of the best satire by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  20. Re:Some of the best satire by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  21. Re:Some of the best satire by Ogive17 · · Score: 2

    I consider myself a civilized person. I am not violent and prefer a "live and let live" lifestyle. I'm straight and do not smoke but I have no problem if my neighbors were gay and smoke marijuana every night in their house.

    What I don't like, and what really boils my blood, are public acts of ignorance towards the world we share. In my head, I would love the chance to smack around some of these people that perpetuate lies. Remember as kids, when we did something wrong we'd get spanked? Why can't we do the same thing with adults? :)

    I don't understand why, as Americans, we feel the need to always voice our opinions as if they are fact. As someone who has traveled a significant amount around the world, I would always argue against the ignorant American stereotype by saying the average American is no more or less ignorant than the average _____ (fill in the blank of the local nationality).. however the average American just likes to let everyone know when they are ignorant on a specific subject.

    Ignorance is the social norm, now. We no longer defer to those with experience or knowledge.. everyone believes themselves to be experts on everything.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  22. Re:Some of the best satire by spire3661 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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
  23. Re:Some of the best satire by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

    If "civilized" consequences for irresponsible, harmful speech existed, then barbaric ones would be less likely. What recourse do people have whom witness irresponsible/evil actors corrupting and manipulating the ignorant and naive? We have laws against physical corruption, but precious few for intellectual.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  24. Re:Some of the best satire by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.