You're right that this shouldn't be taken at face value. But what are you implying, that Trump would take an completely uncharacteristic action to sacrifice some of his reputation, on the gamble that it would never be revealed that he was responsible? To call himself into doubt because of a book, when he's shrugged off these sort of things in the past? Or that the editorial did come from someone on the inside or within the Republican camp, utilizing a strategy of controlled opposition as some form of preemptive damage control that may or may not even be effective, in the hopes of maintaining approval leading into the midterms?
Both of which seem as likely as this player announcing this "resistance" to begin with in such dramatic fashion, purposefully undermining its own stated purpose. There's even more factors than just this book in play, which makes this editorial just a tad too convenient, all things considered.
Besides, a little subterfuge is nothing to Trump's enemies, especially when it seems so well crafted to target where he's vulnerable.
Racist bigot scum with delicate snowflake sensibilities who are desperate to make excuses. Who does that remind me of.
Ah yes, that fits the description for those who rushed to the defense of Sarah Jeong, the 'cancel white people' NYT editorial hire.
But such is typical now. Instead of self awareness and a commitment to do better to win voters, we received self righteousness and "punch nazis". Instead of reform, a false narrative was pounded relentlessly instead, to where now we see collusion with big tech to put the boot on the neck of free speech.
It seems there's no reasoning with fanatics, they can only be opposed.
Oh you see evil do you? I see a large and complex issue with precious few ideal solutions, with similar policies from multiple administrations. Though I suspect anything less than open borders and unchecked immigration would be call for Nuremberg trials in this case.
Anyway, I'm reminded of how fanatics who are so self-righteous and arrogant that they are quick to point fingers with accusations of being evil or 'unclean', are also the ones quickest to start witch burnings. Take your own purity test.
The media is ramping up the impeachment narrative. And now this. How convenient. Oh and midterms.
Rational people don't claim to act with a purpose, then undermine that purpose for no apparent reason in such a dramatic way. If I was going to design an incendiary device to lob at a declared enemy, it would look just like this one. It's worked perfectly.
I'm calling Occams Razor on this one. People continue to underestimate the guile and mendacity of ruthless people determined to preserve the status quo that benefits them. There's nothing the 'greater good' also won't justify, either.
I had to scroll down this far to finally find someone who demonstrates the proper amount of skepticism. Thank you, I was beginning to get seriously worried.
We're in the months leading up to a midterm election no less, with future supreme court nominations on the horizon. At this point even outright sabotage by the opposition isn't an outcome I'd be surprised by.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Neither does your upvotes which also reeks of childish denialism.
Go ahead and deny that if the situation was reverse, that you'd still be championing for the popular vote and not a republic. The overflowing well of hypocrisy itself is enough cause to oppose your tribal faction.
Why are people so willing to take this at face value, especially during a critical time leading up to primaries when attacks by the opposition should be expected.
The piece itself reads exactly in the same style as editorials I'd expect to read on NYT or the Huffington Post, loaded with pejoratives and subjective terms and hyperbole that comes from the practice of trying to hold a reader's attention. Specifically referencing "resistance" and "enemy of the people" itself should raise suspicions, along with "loadstar" that seems like an obvious and deliberate shibboleth.
My money is on this being a fraud, and "raising awareness" will be the excuse when it comes out of the wash. The unintended consequences of this should be interesting.
But I will never believe that the guy who ordered toddlers ripped from their parents arms and locked in cages is actually a really a good guy and that it's the media who's making him look bad.
Given that you're eager to accept the premise that all of Trump's negative coverage is unvarnished truth, I'm not surprised you'd swallow this narrative hook line and sinker. Here is another baby being stolen from her mamma who will suffer long lasting emotional problems at the hands of police and Trump's America. Spoiler alert: Turns out that real life is more complicated than the media would lead you to assume.
So while you're busy pitying everyone who doesn't have their buttons pushed by knee-jerk emotional manipulation, those that care more about having an accurate understanding of the world will still have their work cut out for them. They won't have their heads lodged firmly up into the echo chamber of for-profit partisan media and the Mockingbird press.
And then when people find Gab.ai missing from the Apple and Google app stores, they might start questioning why there isn't anti-trust action to prevent these tech titans from colluding to keep free-speech Twitter alternatives from getting traction. Hmmm....
Take your shadow banning-lite proposal, and now apply it to your own progressive heroes as they try to fund raise through small donations and build public awareness. Does it still seem like a good solution?
Oh, think that won't happen once you start tolerating and allowing these kinds of practices? You think what goes around, doesn't come around?
It's bad enough there's an uphill battle in fighting the corruptive influence of a political system flush with cash, but now we have a movement to normalize allowing massive corporations to influence and control our national dialog as well. What the hell.
Apparently Twitter is so pervasive and influential that we're told it's a threat to our election process when foreign adversaries are left to operate unchecked on their platform, and so it must be policed. Apparently the same people clutching their pearls about preventing 'meddling' also take the position that this company should be given free reign to use their dominant position in the space of online communications to operate as they see fit, with the potential ability to shape public opinion towards their own political interests. Do you see the conflict?
Whenever the tone is this overwhelming negative, the press is going out of their way to make shit up. Like they did with Trump's 'animals' comment, for example, juxtaposing a notorious criminal gang for 'immigrants'.
There is a simpler and more likely answer than a vast global conspiracy by every media outlet in every country (except Russia) in the world to make Trump look bad
I know that's a bit of a strawman, when really much of media ownership is consolidated by major corporations who call the shots. However, in the study they noticed that the only time Trump receives positive coverage by all the press, is when he launched cruise missile strikes on a Syrian airbase. That alone ought to tell you something.
That balanced moderation seems to hold true until you get to the stories that are intended to contribute to whatever political narrative has become trending. Then I'm reminded that Beauhd and msmash can put their thumb on the scale with unlimited mod points as I'm seeing a string of +5 insightful posts where many of them just amount to name-calling or spreading FUD.
I'm not saying that at least some central moderation isn't necessary, just that there's no visibility for it. Currently it's indistinguishable from users who game the system with sockpuppet accounts, and I wish that could be changed.
It's probably their job, so don't take it too personally. This particular troll likes to provoke people into responding in the hopes that they don't change the comment title, effectively hijacking the karma bonus and increasing their visibility.
Here's some recommended reading about the methods these parasites use. They're a lot easier to ignore once you understand them.
Sure, and that's how Trump gets criticized for saying everyone coming across the southern border are rapists, criminals, and 'animals'. Because the criticism leveled at him is always fair, without lies of omission, and never completely disingenuous smear tactics.
There's every reason not to trust Google's page ranking, just as there no reason to have faith in the actual popularity of what is 'trending' on Youtube, or how keywords in autocomplete are generated. There is no transparency that allows confidence, only the tattered motto of 'don't be evil'.
Tell that to the navy submariner that Trump pardoned. Tell that to the three North Korean hostages which were US citizens who were released leading up to the Singapore meeting.
I know, it is just saving a few lives; hardly worth a break from the breathless coverage of reds under the bed.
Probably due to such a strawman becoming less effective from over use. Sure, race baiting still works, but eventually people do learn. Especially when those leveling the accusations are revealed to be such disingenuous hypocritical racists themselves.
tax evasion, money laundering, obstruction of justice to start...look at all the folks who have flipped. its the entire list of folks who buried his bodies.
A perfect example of why the people who penned the 4th amendment wanted to avoid general warrants, because in their wisdom and experience they knew how it could be abused.
I'm pretty sure they never intended "salacious and unverified" information to be used in a secret court to launch a massive legal campaign to bring the full force of the entire federal statutes to crush everyone even associated with the target into making plea deals, or else face ruinous consequences.
The same/. hive mind that protested the railroading of Aaron Swartz now seem happy to see people thrown into the woodchipper of 'justice' to sate their own political appetite.
You may have missed it when the other leading candidate for POTUS joked and laughed maniacally about the gruesome death of Libya's leader after the US and its allies bombed and destabilized the country. This was even after providing jihadists weapons and support for the purpose of destabilizing and conducting war in another country called Syria.
Now we have the usual suspects in the media that goaded the public into supporting a war with Iraq under false pretenses, (remember that one?) now also wanting to stir up shit with Russia for the sake of saving face for their own preferred political tribe. Somehow exposing the corruption and the financial hegemony that led to the choice of last election is of less actual concern than when Trump misspells words on Twitter posts.
It isn't Trump that I'm worried about. It's the collusion of the media corporations, internet platforms and payment processors to control what we see and hear and who gets to have a voice on the internet that concerns me. Because if anything will lead us to despotism and tyranny and endless war it's that.
Or maybe when you were seeing Trump's empty podium rather than hearing a speech by Sanders, it might have occurred to you that the corporate media's real job is to tell you what to think. I didn't see Sander name 'trending' on Google news either even when he was winning primary elections, but I did see one hit piece after another by the washington post that somehow always were in the list of top stories.
After the way the google-media trust collectively shit on Sanders, why would anyone expect them to represent Trump fairly and honestly either?
The press isn't the enemy of the people? Better hope its not advantageous for the press ever to make a story about you for the sake of ratings and profit, because they will. They may smear you as a racist murderer, and even inspire revenge killings and assaults on innocent people in your name. They may even change your race to fit the narrative. Nobody is too virtuous not to be thrown under the bus if it suits them.
It's exactly why we need to protect speech on platforms, and people like independent journalists who can counter corporate media and propaganda. Not let "private company do what they want". Because if endless war has taught us anything, its that we can't rely on the news-media, and we do need to be informed.
A position that amounts to having only those who express approved speech being allowed to do so, or else. 'hate speech' is highly subjective and carries severe negative connotations for exactly that purpose.
Religious authoritarians that kill heretics are also being morally consistent, but that's hardly a virtue.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right that this shouldn't be taken at face value. But what are you implying, that Trump would take an completely uncharacteristic action to sacrifice some of his reputation, on the gamble that it would never be revealed that he was responsible? To call himself into doubt because of a book, when he's shrugged off these sort of things in the past? Or that the editorial did come from someone on the inside or within the Republican camp, utilizing a strategy of controlled opposition as some form of preemptive damage control that may or may not even be effective, in the hopes of maintaining approval leading into the midterms?
Both of which seem as likely as this player announcing this "resistance" to begin with in such dramatic fashion, purposefully undermining its own stated purpose. There's even more factors than just this book in play, which makes this editorial just a tad too convenient, all things considered.
Besides, a little subterfuge is nothing to Trump's enemies, especially when it seems so well crafted to target where he's vulnerable.
Racist bigot scum with delicate snowflake sensibilities who are desperate to make excuses. Who does that remind me of.
Ah yes, that fits the description for those who rushed to the defense of Sarah Jeong, the 'cancel white people' NYT editorial hire.
But such is typical now. Instead of self awareness and a commitment to do better to win voters, we received self righteousness and "punch nazis". Instead of reform, a false narrative was pounded relentlessly instead, to where now we see collusion with big tech to put the boot on the neck of free speech.
It seems there's no reasoning with fanatics, they can only be opposed.
Oh you see evil do you? I see a large and complex issue with precious few ideal solutions, with similar policies from multiple administrations. Though I suspect anything less than open borders and unchecked immigration would be call for Nuremberg trials in this case.
Anyway, I'm reminded of how fanatics who are so self-righteous and arrogant that they are quick to point fingers with accusations of being evil or 'unclean', are also the ones quickest to start witch burnings. Take your own purity test.
The media is ramping up the impeachment narrative. And now this. How convenient. Oh and midterms.
Rational people don't claim to act with a purpose, then undermine that purpose for no apparent reason in such a dramatic way. If I was going to design an incendiary device to lob at a declared enemy, it would look just like this one. It's worked perfectly.
I'm calling Occams Razor on this one. People continue to underestimate the guile and mendacity of ruthless people determined to preserve the status quo that benefits them. There's nothing the 'greater good' also won't justify, either.
I had to scroll down this far to finally find someone who demonstrates the proper amount of skepticism. Thank you, I was beginning to get seriously worried.
We're in the months leading up to a midterm election no less, with future supreme court nominations on the horizon. At this point even outright sabotage by the opposition isn't an outcome I'd be surprised by.
Exactly all that you'd expect from a NYT editorial.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Neither does your upvotes which also reeks of childish denialism.
Go ahead and deny that if the situation was reverse, that you'd still be championing for the popular vote and not a republic. The overflowing well of hypocrisy itself is enough cause to oppose your tribal faction.
Why are people so willing to take this at face value, especially during a critical time leading up to primaries when attacks by the opposition should be expected.
The piece itself reads exactly in the same style as editorials I'd expect to read on NYT or the Huffington Post, loaded with pejoratives and subjective terms and hyperbole that comes from the practice of trying to hold a reader's attention. Specifically referencing "resistance" and "enemy of the people" itself should raise suspicions, along with "loadstar" that seems like an obvious and deliberate shibboleth.
My money is on this being a fraud, and "raising awareness" will be the excuse when it comes out of the wash. The unintended consequences of this should be interesting.
You're just a sad pathetic excuse for a person.
Perhaps. I apologize if I violated your safe space.
Your saintly hero still ordered children locked in cages for his political benefit. He's evil and so are you.
I'm going to call fake news on this one. You may also need to work on that anti-fanatical thing a bit more if you want to sound more convincing.
But I will never believe that the guy who ordered toddlers ripped from their parents arms and locked in cages is actually a really a good guy and that it's the media who's making him look bad.
Given that you're eager to accept the premise that all of Trump's negative coverage is unvarnished truth, I'm not surprised you'd swallow this narrative hook line and sinker. Here is another baby being stolen from her mamma who will suffer long lasting emotional problems at the hands of police and Trump's America. Spoiler alert: Turns out that real life is more complicated than the media would lead you to assume.
So while you're busy pitying everyone who doesn't have their buttons pushed by knee-jerk emotional manipulation, those that care more about having an accurate understanding of the world will still have their work cut out for them. They won't have their heads lodged firmly up into the echo chamber of for-profit partisan media and the Mockingbird press.
And then when people find Gab.ai missing from the Apple and Google app stores, they might start questioning why there isn't anti-trust action to prevent these tech titans from colluding to keep free-speech Twitter alternatives from getting traction. Hmmm....
Yes, Twitter, ban Trump!
Take your shadow banning-lite proposal, and now apply it to your own progressive heroes as they try to fund raise through small donations and build public awareness. Does it still seem like a good solution?
Oh, think that won't happen once you start tolerating and allowing these kinds of practices? You think what goes around, doesn't come around?
It's bad enough there's an uphill battle in fighting the corruptive influence of a political system flush with cash, but now we have a movement to normalize allowing massive corporations to influence and control our national dialog as well. What the hell.
Apparently Twitter is so pervasive and influential that we're told it's a threat to our election process when foreign adversaries are left to operate unchecked on their platform, and so it must be policed. Apparently the same people clutching their pearls about preventing 'meddling' also take the position that this company should be given free reign to use their dominant position in the space of online communications to operate as they see fit, with the potential ability to shape public opinion towards their own political interests. Do you see the conflict?
Here's an interesting study about the press coverage of Trump's first 100 days in office.
Whenever the tone is this overwhelming negative, the press is going out of their way to make shit up. Like they did with Trump's 'animals' comment, for example, juxtaposing a notorious criminal gang for 'immigrants'.
There is a simpler and more likely answer than a vast global conspiracy by every media outlet in every country (except Russia) in the world to make Trump look bad
I know that's a bit of a strawman, when really much of media ownership is consolidated by major corporations who call the shots. However, in the study they noticed that the only time Trump receives positive coverage by all the press, is when he launched cruise missile strikes on a Syrian airbase. That alone ought to tell you something.
That balanced moderation seems to hold true until you get to the stories that are intended to contribute to whatever political narrative has become trending. Then I'm reminded that Beauhd and msmash can put their thumb on the scale with unlimited mod points as I'm seeing a string of +5 insightful posts where many of them just amount to name-calling or spreading FUD.
I'm not saying that at least some central moderation isn't necessary, just that there's no visibility for it. Currently it's indistinguishable from users who game the system with sockpuppet accounts, and I wish that could be changed.
It's probably their job, so don't take it too personally. This particular troll likes to provoke people into responding in the hopes that they don't change the comment title, effectively hijacking the karma bonus and increasing their visibility.
Here's some recommended reading about the methods these parasites use. They're a lot easier to ignore once you understand them.
Sure, and that's how Trump gets criticized for saying everyone coming across the southern border are rapists, criminals, and 'animals'. Because the criticism leveled at him is always fair, without lies of omission, and never completely disingenuous smear tactics.
There's every reason not to trust Google's page ranking, just as there no reason to have faith in the actual popularity of what is 'trending' on Youtube, or how keywords in autocomplete are generated. There is no transparency that allows confidence, only the tattered motto of 'don't be evil'.
There is however the evidence that Google, or namely Eric Schmidt, remains an ally of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
Tell that to the navy submariner that Trump pardoned. Tell that to the three North Korean hostages which were US citizens who were released leading up to the Singapore meeting.
I know, it is just saving a few lives; hardly worth a break from the breathless coverage of reds under the bed.
Probably due to such a strawman becoming less effective from over use. Sure, race baiting still works, but eventually people do learn. Especially when those leveling the accusations are revealed to be such disingenuous hypocritical racists themselves.
Probably because the truth is so blatantly biased against Trump.
Fixed it for you.
Can you fix my irony meter? I think it just broke.
tax evasion, money laundering, obstruction of justice to start...look at all the folks who have flipped. its the entire list of folks who buried his bodies.
A perfect example of why the people who penned the 4th amendment wanted to avoid general warrants, because in their wisdom and experience they knew how it could be abused.
I'm pretty sure they never intended "salacious and unverified" information to be used in a secret court to launch a massive legal campaign to bring the full force of the entire federal statutes to crush everyone even associated with the target into making plea deals, or else face ruinous consequences.
The same /. hive mind that protested the railroading of Aaron Swartz now seem happy to see people thrown into the woodchipper of 'justice' to sate their own political appetite.
You may have missed it when the other leading candidate for POTUS joked and laughed maniacally about the gruesome death of Libya's leader after the US and its allies bombed and destabilized the country. This was even after providing jihadists weapons and support for the purpose of destabilizing and conducting war in another country called Syria.
Now we have the usual suspects in the media that goaded the public into supporting a war with Iraq under false pretenses, (remember that one?) now also wanting to stir up shit with Russia for the sake of saving face for their own preferred political tribe. Somehow exposing the corruption and the financial hegemony that led to the choice of last election is of less actual concern than when Trump misspells words on Twitter posts.
It isn't Trump that I'm worried about. It's the collusion of the media corporations, internet platforms and payment processors to control what we see and hear and who gets to have a voice on the internet that concerns me. Because if anything will lead us to despotism and tyranny and endless war it's that.
Or maybe when you were seeing Trump's empty podium rather than hearing a speech by Sanders, it might have occurred to you that the corporate media's real job is to tell you what to think. I didn't see Sander name 'trending' on Google news either even when he was winning primary elections, but I did see one hit piece after another by the washington post that somehow always were in the list of top stories.
After the way the google-media trust collectively shit on Sanders, why would anyone expect them to represent Trump fairly and honestly either?
The press isn't the enemy of the people? Better hope its not advantageous for the press ever to make a story about you for the sake of ratings and profit, because they will. They may smear you as a racist murderer, and even inspire revenge killings and assaults on innocent people in your name. They may even change your race to fit the narrative. Nobody is too virtuous not to be thrown under the bus if it suits them.
It's exactly why we need to protect speech on platforms, and people like independent journalists who can counter corporate media and propaganda. Not let "private company do what they want". Because if endless war has taught us anything, its that we can't rely on the news-media, and we do need to be informed.
A position that amounts to having only those who express approved speech being allowed to do so, or else. 'hate speech' is highly subjective and carries severe negative connotations for exactly that purpose.
Religious authoritarians that kill heretics are also being morally consistent, but that's hardly a virtue.