False News, Absurd Reality Present Challenges For Satirists (apnews.com) 333
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."
Indeed! (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.)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
That's fake news!
They only had perpetual competitions for the best political jokes and the winners got sent to holiday camps.
Re: (Score:2)
They voted for a Chancellor that promised ...
Apparently, so did Trump voters. :-)
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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. [commondreams.org] 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?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Secretary Clinton, Governor Johnson, and Dr. Stein didn't have quite as obvious parallels with Hitler's rise to power, as explained in articles by Adam Tod Brown [cracked.com] and Robert Evans [cracked.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Insightful double plus.
Re: Indeed! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Indeed! (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.
Re: Indeed! (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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Which explains how Breitbart can be both anti-Semitic and extremely pro-Israel at the same time. Bannon and the alt-right founder Spenser are white nationalists. They don't hate Black people and Jews like the KKK or the Nazis, but they do think each race should have their own lands, and should stick to their own lands. So they love the notion of Jews leaving for Israel, and of Israel as an entirely Jewish state.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Which explains how Breitbart can be both anti-Semitic and extremely pro-Israel at the same time. Bannon and the alt-right founder Spenser are white nationalists. They don't hate Black people and Jews like the KKK or the Nazis, but they do think each race should have their own lands, and should stick to their own lands. So they love the notion of Jews leaving for Israel, and of Israel as an entirely Jewish state.
And many Israelis. I've heard more than once"
"There is no such thing as a Palestinian. They are just Arabs and should be happy to live anywhere in the Arab world. Israel is not part of the Arab world so they shouldn't be living there."
Re: (Score:2)
No he started by executing all of his opposition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives
That's getting the title reworked to:
An Evening of Very Pointy Criticism
The outcome is the same but the perceptual change is Huuuge!
Re: Indeed! (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope he started with exterminating the handicapped, then moved on to the gays, then the Jews and other deplorables.
In Trump's case he's already getting rid of medicine for the terminally ill who don't have insurance... so he's already following the pattern.
Gays are next.
Re: (Score:2)
In Trump's case he's already getting rid of medicine for the terminally ill who don't have insurance...
Of course he is! [statnews.com]
Re: Indeed! (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.
Re: (Score:2)
"Vilification of "the other" (Jews vs Latinos/Muslims) " is fake news and only believe by people that did not really listen to what he was saying. i.e. a characterization created by his political opponents.
"Criminals and rapists", "bad hombres", "Bowling Green Massacre", "thousands of Muslims cheering in the streets of New Jersey" after 9/11. If that's not vilification I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:2)
"Vilification of "the other" (Jews vs Latinos/Muslims) " is fake news and only believe by people that did not really listen to what he was saying. i.e. a characterization created by his political opponents. The equivalent of saying Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim communist. You can only believe this by taking sound bytes and out of context information and molding it into a fake message.
I don't actually think that Trump is a white nationalist, but it's a little weird that he hangs out with and is so chummy with people who are.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Howard Stern may have nailed it, and since Stern is someone who has known Trump for a long time, I tend to accept his view that Trump's politics really are fairly Democrat and liberal, but that he's just feeding the base what they want. There's no way you can jive whose previously stated views with the views he espouses now, without suggesting either some sort of severe psychiatric episode or brain injury.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay - but you know, there's no reason to reject out of hand the possibility. I'm not a trained psychologist or psychiatrist, nor do I have direct access to the President to perform the appropriate tests, but much of his behavior could readily be described as maniacal. Perhaps sleeping no more than four hours per night has caused perma
Re: (Score:2)
Views may change, but we're not talking about views he apparently held thirty years ago, but rather views he seems to have held until a few years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you mean Obama.
Obama was a populist. Mixing nationalism with populism like Trump has is what takes you down the road toward fascism.
Re: (Score:2)
BS - Fascism isn't nationalist and you're disingenuous by trying to make it out so.
Modern, post-war fascism has a very strong nationalist component. In fact that is what has allowed it to spread so much lately. By focusing the discussion on the nationalist portions of the ideology and keeping more fascist rhetoric toned down or in the shadows, they are able to bring in a lot more support without immediately turning people off like such overtly fascist ideologies and groups like the KKK or other groups tend to do.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: Indeed! (Score:5, 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.
Re: (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 mas
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Breathing air is not a bad thing. It doesn't demonstrate bad character, or bad intent. Following a pattern of bad behaviour is definitely something to be worried about though, especially as when unchallenged it tends to lead to escalation.
Considering that actual neo-Nazis seem to strongly approve of Trump's actions, going as far as to give him a Nazi salute while shouting "hail Trump", it's reasonable to be worried about this. Plus, his advisers and staff associate with neo-Nazis as well, and Bannon in part
Re: (Score:2)
Nutballs showing up at a rally does not invalidate the candidate's positions. Anyone with a sufficiently large audience will draw them.
Re: (Score:2)
Nutballs showing up at a rally does not invalidate the candidate's positions. Anyone with a sufficiently large audience will draw them.
Indeed but when the nutballs who are well known for hodling reprehensible views like what you're doing, it's worth a little introsepction.
Re: (Score:2)
but killing millions of people who are of a certain religious pursuasion, is nothing substantiality like prioritizing one religion over another
Hitler started with prioritization as well. You don't go from inauguration to gassing overnight. But so far Trump and Hitler are very similar in approach, reasoning, and how he approaches the public.
Even at todays level of "WTF" stories coming out of America it is still part of a slippery slope. There's a long way to go to the bottom, but there's no arguing that we're on our way down.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I think the Hilter/Trump comparisons are mostly overblown.
But I'd feel a lot more comfortable if the weird associations didn't start popping up, all the white supremacist and neo-Nazi support for Trump, demonization of minority groups, and the reluctance of the GOP to stand up to any of it. Not to mention the refusal to accept that he lost the popular vote.
Is Trump going to do mass extermination of Muslims? Of course not.
But might he try to authorize the deportation of legal resident Muslims? The shutting d
Re: Whoosh! (Score:2)
Re:Indeed! (Score:5, Funny)
Trump actually prayed for better ratings for a show his trust owns at a national prayer breakfast. He out-Onioned the Onion.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Correction: the Berlin Wall was throughout the whole city.
Please put down your KoolAid and re-enter reality (Score:2, Insightful)
First, to all the liberal progressive mods, if you are so right in your beliefs, write a post and show where I am wrong. -1 Overrated is not your personal censorship tool for views you disagree with. You are supposed to champion tolerance of others, live it. I am not a huge fan of Trump, I voted against him in the primary, but as a rational human being, the cognitive dissonance from the progressive left wing is too massive to let go unchallenged.
So Trump upholds the constitution, appoints a constructioni
Re: (Score:2)
History lesson (Score:4, Insightful)
On April 28, 1945, the Italian people killed their fascist leader and then desecrated his corpse in a public square.
Re:History lesson (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure in the case of Mussolini, the death and destruction preceded his ignoble demise.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure in the case of Mussolini, the death and destruction preceded his ignoble demise.
True, but it surely didn't stop with his departure but ground on for a few more years as the country sorted itself out with the Allies help... However, I'd like to point out that we are in no way in a situation that even remotely resembles the circumstances leading to Mussolini's demise, at least not in this country...
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:History lesson (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.
Re:History lesson (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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 hi
Re:History lesson (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:3)
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 Con
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It absolutely was a threat , it was plain call for a military coup, with execution of the current leader as baked into the plan. The left is so concerned about 'causal violence' but they don't apparently listen to the violence implicit in their own rhetoric. Now do I think spouting off on social media and awards shows is likely to lead to a riot or violence, no so it does not meet the standards for which speech can or should be restrained. It was neither a credible threat nor is it likely to provoke actio
Re:History lesson (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) [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you think I'm alluding to sedition? You read a simple historical fact about Mussolini and immediately think it has some similarities to current events?
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
No, Donald Trump is fine because so far he hasn't done anything unconstitutional or even wrong.
He's done things he's promised to do. Yes, he's an ass and a clown. So what?
Until he does something that's actually unconstitutional or reprehensible, shut the fuck up. Disagreeing with the new border control policies doesn't make him a tyrant. You people are actively sowing dissent and the seeds of violence. Where were you when Obama expanded the gitmo torture program? Where were you when Obama executed an
Re: (Score:2)
Really, hmm you have done much research. That isn't surprising, I would not except the sort to call Trump supporters monkeys goes far out of his way to find alternative view points.
Go read the dailywire, or stream.org, or even the weeklystandard. There are lots of articles and lots of comments on those articles by people who are pretty happy Trump is keeping promises he made on the campaign trail. Support his foreign policy both in terms of style and agenda, support his trade policy, see gains being mad
Re: (Score:2)
This seems like Hunter S. Thompson territory (Score:3)
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.
Re: (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.
Where is George Carlin when the country really needs him...
Absurd reality (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Facebookers are trigger happy (Score:2)
Every time the Borowitz Report comes out, I have to correct a handful of outraged friends who share it seriously. We are, altogether, no longer skeptical readers.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time the Borowitz Report comes out, I have to correct a handful of outraged friends who share it seriously. We are, altogether, no longer skeptical readers.
Who needs skepticism when we can get all the alternative facts we want 24 x 7 with no need for real ones to creep in...
Not a problem for satirists (Score:4, 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.
Re:Not a problem for satirists (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.
Re: (Score:2)
I found Obama to be mostly boring. So yeah, my muse went AWOL.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say that this is a golden age for satirists.
In a world where satire looks like the normal news it's not the golden age. It's like saying right now is the Golden age for photographers because everyone has a digital camera. No it's a golden age for pictures. That's not the same thing.
Distasteful (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
I was shocked to see that even the most trusted repository of alternative facts, Conservapedia, did not have a page covering the Bowling Green Massacre. This must be addressed at once!
FUD people. (Score:3)
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... [thehill.com]
Study: https://web.stanford.edu/~gent... [stanford.edu]
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?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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.
/r/nottheonion (Score:5, Funny)
Looking at some headlines from https://www.reddit.com/r/notth... [reddit.com]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"People have paid a company more than $80,000 to dig a hole for absolutely no reason"
One of these things is not like the other. They were off on the dollar amount, but that one actually happened. CAH Holiday Hole [npr.org]
Unless I'm an idiot and the others are all true as well...
Re: (Score:3)
Borowitz has been fooling people for years (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Obama called Putin a jackass in public
That was in response to Putin stealing Michelle Obama's engagement ring.
Sheer Volume of Cruft (Score:2)
Imagine if you will, a haystack. That haystack represents all the 'information' flowing from various 'news' sources on the Internet. Inside of that haystack are needles - that represent stories about the Trump administration: several gold needles - real news stories, several silver needles - bona fide comedic satire, and rusty needles which appear to be real news stories - but are fake...click bait and possible propaganda.
People are so overloaded with the cruft coming inbound from so many sources, some
Man... (Score:2)
Man... Slashdotters can't congratulate themselves enough on their witty Trump bashes.
Too bad they were too busy to do something that actually matters, like vote again him in the general elections.
Keep them zingers comin'!
Re: (Score:2)
Alas, my state does not allow me to register a vote against a candidate. Only for one.
Re:Today satire requires Marxism (Score:5, 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" [mcsweeneys.net]
or Tina Fey as Sarah Palin [youtube.com]
The politicians are writing the material. The satirists just need to point out how rediculous it is by republishing it.
Re:Some of the best satire (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Some of the best satire (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with you. I work near the Berkeley campus, and it's awful what happened.
However, nearly all of us have been conditioned from a very young age that Nazis need to be destroyed at all costs, or the world only gets worse. I wonder how many video game Nazis I've killed in my lifetime? If you're going to demonize people on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual preference, as Milo does regularly, then it shouldn't be a surprise to be compared to a Nazi and have people trying to stop you at all cos
Re: (Score:3, 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 ;-)
Re:Some of the best satire (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Some of the best satire (Score:4, 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?
Re: (Score:3, 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* co
Re: (Score:3, 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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Some of the best satire (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Man, that sounds crazy, maybe someone should investigate that nine times.
Re: (Score:2)
Bah... Milo Yiannopouls should go back to whatever country he came from!
Re: (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