this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
763 points (96.4% liked)

politics

19090 readers
5225 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Just because Republicans choose unreality doesn’t mean the media should ignore the facts of January 6.

On January 6, 2021, I watched CNN as thousands of Donald Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol. As someone well-versed in watching tragedy on television, I was struck by just how indisputable the facts were at the time: violent, red-hat-clad MAGA rioters, followed by Republicans in Congress, tried to stop democracy in its tracks. Trump had told his followers that the protest in Washington, DC, “will be wild,” and in the assault that followed his speech, some rioters smeared feces on the walls of the Capitol. Hundreds of them have since been convicted on charges ranging from assault on federal officers to seditious conspiracy. These are stubborn facts, the kind that do not care about your feelings. These facts include the inalienable truth that Trump is the first president in American history to reject the peaceful transfer of power.

It never occurred to me that these facts could somehow be perverted by partisanship. But three years later, we are seeing just that, as Republicans cling to the lie that the 2020 election was “stolen” by Joe Biden and are poised to make Trump their 2024 nominee. And perhaps even more dangerous than the GOP ditching reality is the news media’s inability to cover Trumpism as the threat to democracy that it very much is.

...

But the problem is, when all you have is conventional political framing, everything looks like politics as usual. One candidate makes a claim; the other disputes it. Two sides are divided, etc. This framing only works if both parties operate within the frameworks of a shared reality. But Trumpism doesn’t allow for the reality the rest of us inhabit. Trump’s supporters believe their leader’s reality and not, say, the reality the rest of us see with our eyes. As Trump once told a crowd: “Don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”

Journalists may be well-intentioned in trying to be “objective,” or they’re simply afraid of being labeled partisan. Either way, coverage of January 6 that gives equal weight to both sides—one based in reality, one not—is helping pave the road for authoritarianism.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheAlbacor@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

That people need to start by stopping this "only voting matters" narrative that so many push. I know people try to counter that by saying that people are overworked and don't have time for protests or any other direct action, but the Labor Movement was done by people working 70ish hour weeks.

More people need to be willing to protest. Until they are, things aren't going to meaningfully get better.

Right now, the message I get from a lot of these conversations here is that the President is allowed to have a little genocide as a treat because otherwise there could be more genocide. It's completely insane.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Right now, the message I get from a lot of these conversations here is that the President is allowed to have a little genocide as a treat because otherwise there could be more genocide. It's completely insane.

No you don't

[–] TheAlbacor@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Anyone insisting that the only way to move forward is to vote for someone who is promoting genocide is effectively saying that, yes.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We’re saying the only way to avoid a trump wanna be dictatorship, and even longer term fucking of the US, which is allowing Biden to lose.

We need a general strike and to eat the rich if that doesn’t work, but we also need a president that won’t call out the troops (real ones or bullshit fanbois) when we protest.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We’re saying the only way to avoid a trump wanna be dictatorship, and even longer term fucking of the US, which is allowing Biden to lose.

Biden could stop supporting genocide if he doesn't want to lose votes of people for whom genocide is a dealbreaker.

I'm voting for biden, but I expect you will ignore this sentence.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I’m still hoping Biden has the balls to tell Netanyahu to fuck off.

However, I assume the calculation between voters who’ll drop him after conflating support for Israel with support for the Jewish people are greater than, or at least the same as, voters who are dropping him now for allowing this Palestinian genocide.

It’s a lose-lose choice the Dems, which is exactly why it seems likely that Russia convinced Iran to back Hamas’ attack in the first place (Israel’s Apartheid is still the reason terrorists felt they had no other option). It might be a crazy conspiracy, but that’s where we ended up, however it started.

I’m with you though that it sucks that our only rational choice is to vote for not-a-wannabe-dictator, when thousands of people’s lives are currently at stake.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

However, I assume the calculation between voters who’ll drop him after conflating support for Israel with support for the Jewish people are greater than, or at least the same as, voters who are dropping him now for allowing this Palestinian genocide.

I do not make charitable assumptions about people who support genocide.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What’s charitable about pointing out how they’re likely ignoring lives based on polling?

Your sounding like more and more of a shill as you go on.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

If someone supports genocide, you may want to try to imagine some plausible excuse to make that ok.

Genocide is inexcusable, and there is no reason to bend over backwards to give its supporters the benefit of three doubt.

You're apologizing for genocide supporters and lobbing accusations at people who oppose genocide.

I have never advocated for withholding votes, nor have I ever advocated for voting for anyone but Biden since he won the nomination in 2020. My consistent position has been that Biden should not be supporting genocide.

There is no good or compelling reason to support genocide.

[–] jasondj@ttrpg.network 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn’t say it’s completely insane.

It’s a modification of the trolley problem. The “do nothing” path goes downhill and has a hell of a lot more bodies. The switched path still has bodies but at least it’s uphill and you’ll have a chance to slow it down or stop it.

[–] TheAlbacor@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Who said to do nothing? I'm saying this path is also terrible.

We as a people, and specifically the commenters who insist these are the only options, are consciously choosing between the two paths that lead to genocide. We are specifically saying we are too comfortable and indifferent to demand the changes to prevent it.

That's insane.