So, give us some examples of things Trump said which were A.) not wrong, and B.) were taken out of context and twisted to make him appear to be as much of a fascist as Hitler.russ_watters said:My favorite are the multitude of examples from the campaign, reintroduced after the election, of analysis purporting to show Trump a fascist on the scale of Hitler himself. Those should be common knowledge by now.
Debatable. Many (most) people will say they hold both to high standards, yet we as a collective consistently elect leaders at all levels and consume media of all types that lie to us. I'm pessimistic enough to think that it is just lip service when most people say they desire honesty from these entities: I think most people desire to be told what they want to hear.Bandersnatch said:I'm not sure I see what the contention in the recent argument was here. Surely, the POTUS is held to a higher standard of veracity than media?
They don't. And seveal people have said this. What has disappointed me here is that it is actually the statement that neither's failings justify the others that has apparently created the current argument! I would have hoped it would be something we could all agree on!How does one's failings justify the other's?
Right.On the one hand, we'll have more Daily Mails and Fox News' among once-more respectable crowd, on the other we have a man with a questionable hold on reality at the helm of a major military and economic power.
He was speaking of a personal conversation, he already cleared that up.zoobyshoe said:So, give us some examples of things Trump said which were A.) not wrong, and B.) were taken out of context and twisted to make him appear to be as much of a fascist as Hitler.
It could be such examples exist.
I don't get it. Inside mentor joke?Evo said:He was speaking of a personal conversation, he already cleared that up.
It was a thread in the mentor's forum that he was referring to.zoobyshoe said:I don't get it. Inside mentor joke?
A meme (/ˈmiːm/ meem)[1] is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture".[2] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.[3]
Proponents theorize that memes are a viral phenomenon that may evolve by natural selection in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution.
Not exactly. The OP of that (split) thread made the Trump=Hitler comparison without citing a third party source that was making it, but there were a bunch of actual citations given in the thread and I have a handful of others in mind. I have two favorites, and this one I didn't discuss in the thread, but was cited there:Evo said:He was speaking of a personal conversation...
Did someone actually make that claim in this thread?zoobyshoe said:"The worse-then-ever media" is a thought virus that's going around. A very contagious one.
I don't see Trump as evil, I see him IMO, as an extremely self absorbed, extreme narcissist, incompetent in that he believes he's able to understand more than he's able to, and has a childish, uncontrolled temper. Not qualities that you look for in a President. Of course many of our former Presidents were flawed, but they also were able to pull it together when necessary, so far, Trump seems unable to.russ_watters said:Not exactly. The OP of that (split) thread made the Trump=Hitler comparison without citing a third party source that was making it, but there were a bunch of citations given in the thread. I have two favorites, and this one I didn't discuss in the thread:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/d...thered-by-comparisons-to-hitler-a7466046.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-cites-fdr-policies-defend-muslim-ban/story?id=35648128
These are articles about an interview by George Stephanopoulis, a TV reporter for ABC and Clinton's former press secretary. The interview starts with questions about Trump's Muslim ban and segues from there to comparisons of Trump to Hitler (citing two sources of his own). This became one of the sources for Trump's comments on internment camps. But evidently every liberal observer I've seen including Steph himself is irony impaired, because as Trump pointed out in the interview, they are comparing Trump to the wrong WWII leader.
So how's that for spin? Trump says something akin to FDR and instead they spin him as Hitler!
My other favorite from the Mentor's forum thread was one of those you-might-be-a-fascist-if lists that went around during the campaign. The particular one in the thread I think went viral on facebook and was purported to be written by a phd political scientist who turned out to be just some guy. The qualifications provided were fake, which tricked a lot of people into making it go viral.
...It wasn't easy for me to go back and find/cite such sources earlier...
russ_watters said:Did someone actually make that claim in this thread?
Which is a reference to polls like this:NTL2009 said:But there is a lot of 'fake news' and 'ignored news' from the press - who is going to challenge that? A free press is an essential part of our system, but they also have a responsibility. They should be admired by the public, but their approval ratings are dismal (~ 14%?)
What you're missing is the revisionist view of FDR as having acted a little too much like Hitler when he interred the Japanese. It was considered perfectly acceptable at the time, but is no longer. Liberals have been kicking FDR for that for at least three decades now.russ_watters said:So how's that for spin? Trump says something akin to FDR and instead they spin him as Hitler!
I've never heard of that, but nevertheless, it is still a choice of spin to compare Trump to Hitler instead of more accurately comparing him to FDR, in particular on the issue of internment camps. Just because someone makes a bad comparison between FDR and Hitler, that doesn't make a comparison between Trump and Hitler valid. It's just two very ironic* flawed - and more importantly, unnecessary - comparisons.zoobyshoe said:What you're missing is the revisionist view of FDR as having acted a little too much like Hitler when he interred the Japanese.
"The worse-then-ever media" is a thought virus that's going around. A very contagious one.
russ_watters said:Did someone actually make that claim in this thread?
Your response to my question was a negative. NTL2009 didn't make the claim and the poll cited only goes back continuously to 1997 with a couple of single examples back to 1976 and doesn't make the claim either.zoobyshoe said:Which is a reference to polls like this:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx
zoobyshoe said:What you're missing is the revisionist view of FDR as having acted a little too much like Hitler when he interred the Japanese. It was considered perfectly acceptable at the time, but is no longer. Liberals have been kicking FDR for that for at least three decades now.
The OP of that thread never made such a comparison.russ_watters said:The OP of that (split) thread made the Trump=Hitler comparison
ZapperZ said:I will also add that he is verbally abusive, both out of his mouth, and out of his fingers via Twitter. No other US Presidents have stooped so low. This is what is so different this time.
So naturally, when executive decisions such as this is signed, especially when the effectiveness is seriously under questioned, the reaction will be extreme. This should not come as a surprise.
Zz.
Please post your examples.Maylis said:I've never seen media coverage of a candidate as vile as towards Trump.
According to mfb, the OP of that thread never actually made this comparison. We'll see how you respond. Obviously I can't check the thread myself.russ_watters said:I've never heard of that, but nevertheless, it is still a choice of spin to compare Trump to Hitler instead of more accurately comparing him to FDR, in particular on the issue of internment camps.
No, my response was positive. "Worse-than-ever," is informal, hyperbolically intended, and perfectly good for the purposes of this conversation. I assumed you understood that. People aren't expressing their extremely poor opinions of the media in rigorous terms in these threads. The fact NTL2009 didn't specifically use the words "worse than ever," doesn't really amount to a hill of beans when he did say "dismal," and cited an approval rating of only 14%. People have the impression of "a new low."Your response to my question was a negative. NTL2009 didn't make the claim and the poll cited only goes back continuously to 1997 with a couple of single examples back to 1976 and doesn't make the claim either.
I didn't intend to draw you into this, but you're being disingenuous. You explicitly cited the start of Trump's term (his executive orders after taking office) as "reminding" you of the Nazi seizure of power. I can't fathom what hair you are trying to split here: are you trying to argue that "Nazi" doesn't necessarily mean "Hitler"? You linked the wiki article, which starts:mfb said:The OP of that thread never made such a comparison...As soon as you dare to mention any piece of German history from 1933-1945 in any context, someone will claim that you set some person equal to Hitler..
You weren't citing the Olympics or Oktoberfest, you specifically cited Hitler's rise to power. How is a citation of Hitler's rise to power here not equating Trump to Hitler?The Nazi seizure of power (German: Machtergreifung) was the acquisition by Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi Party) of the chancellorship of Germany, and of several other high-ranking cabinet posts, on 30 January 1933, following the appointment of Hitler as chancellor by President Paul von Hindenburg, then aged 84. It also refers to the period of consolidation of Nazi power through intimidation and violence, culminating in the establishment of the Nazi Party as the only legal political party in Germany in July 1933.
It is, of course, impossible to cite an example of something that doesn't exist. But if you alter it slightly to be a rating of the level of negative coverage, there are sources that discuss it. For example, this discusses the pre-election coverage of Trump vs Clinton:Evo said:Please post your examples.
The OP's content is neither here nor there: I cited sources that were provided in the thread in order to satisfy a request to cite sources. That they were [bad] sources provided for the purpose of attacking Trump is just gravy.zoobyshoe said:According to mfb, the OP of that thread never actually made this comparison. We'll see how you respond. Obviously I can't check the thread myself.
Apparently not, since you acknowledge you introduced it into the thread!:People are simply repeating a meme they've heard and spreading it to others.
No, I didn't and I don't agree. In these situations, hyperbole-to-make-a-point is acceptable when used sarcastically on your own point, but when you apply it to the points of others, it looks like you are purposely misrepresenting what they said. It's the strawman fallacy. And it makes it hard to have a discussion when we can't even agree on the premise:No, my response was positive. "Worse-than-ever," is informal, hyperbolically intended, and perfectly good for the purposes of this conversation. I assumed you understood that.
Well that's nice. Since no one has said that, there is of course no argument to be had. So how about we discuss the points actually made?: do you agree that media accuracy has gotten worse over the last 5 years, since the rise of Twitter? And please: don't hyperbolize in order to enable you to disagree: I meant it exactly as I said it and nothing more. Please respond to what I actually asked/said.I'm saying the media is not actually at "a new low", not actually "dismal," not actually "worse than it's ever been."
Don't know where mfb was going, but anyone might compare Trump to Hitler vis a vis internment camps due to Trump's racism. That is: people perceive that the idea of internment camps appeals to Trump for racist reasons rather than national security reasons. FDR isn't perceived as having had primarily racist intentions when he interred the Japanese.russ_watters said:I've never heard of that, but nevertheless, it is still a choice of spin to compare Trump to Hitler instead of more accurately comparing him to FDR, in particular on the issue of internment camps...
Again: my post was not about mfb, it was about George Stephanopoulis and his sources.zoobyshoe said:Don't know where mfb was going...
Sure, anyone might do anything -- that doesn't make it valid. See, the nice thing about Hitler was that he was very open about what he wanted. There was no need to invoke slippery slope fallacy argument because he actually said more than a decade before he did it what he was going to do. There is no similar bridge from Trump's statements to some Hitler-mirror fantasy where he's intending to do genocide on Muslims. The worst that can *actually* be attributed to him is FDR (and even then only vaguely*), not Hitler....but anyone might compare Trump to Hitler vis a vis internment camps due to Trump's racism.
People can perceive (imagine) what they want -- but again, *Hitler's* intentions did not require perception: he came right out and said what he intended to do. And frankly, from what I've seen the perception regarding Trump is circular: Trump is racist because he wants internment camps. Again, Hitler did not mince words on the issue.That is: people perceive that the idea of internment camps appeals to Trump for racist reasons rather than national security reasons. FDR isn't perceived as having had primarily racist intentions when he interred the Japanese.
OK, you don't like my attempts at characterizing everyone's poor opinion of the media these days. How would you characterize it? (I don't mean just PF'ers, I mean the poor opinion that is being voiced everywhere in the US.)russ_watters said:No, I didn't and I don't agree. In these situations, hyperbole-to-make-a-point is acceptable when used sarcastically on your own point, but when you apply it to the points of others, it looks like you are purposely misrepresenting what they said. It's the strawman fallacy. And it makes it hard to have a discussion when we can't even agree on the premise:
Well that's nice. Since no one has said that, there is of course no argument to be had. So how about we discuss the points actually made?: do you agree that media accuracy has gotten worse over the last 5 years, since the rise of Twitter? And please: don't hyperbolize in order to enable you to disagree: I meant it exactly as I said it and nothing more. Please respond to what I actually asked/said.
zoobyshoe said:... when he interred the Japanese. It was considered perfectly acceptable at the time, ...
Korematsu was born on our soil, of parents born in Japan. The Constitution makes him a citizen of the United States by nativity, and a citizen of California by residence. No claim is made that he is not loyal to this country. There is no suggestion that, apart from the matter involved here, he is not law-abiding and well disposed. Korematsu, however, has been convicted of an act not commonly a crime. It consists merely of being present in the state whereof he is a citizen, near the place where he was born, and where all his life he has lived.
...
A citizen's presence in the locality, however, was made a crime only if his parents were of Japanese birth. Had Korematsu been one of four -- the others being, say, a German alien enemy, an Italian alien enemy, and a citizen of American-born ancestors, convicted of treason but out on parole -- only Korematsu's presence would have violated the order. The difference between their innocence and his crime would result, not from anything he did, said, or thought, different than they, but only in that he was born of different racial stock. ...
...
Of course, the existence of a military power resting on force, so vagrant, so centralized, so necessarily heedless of the individual, is an inherent threat to liberty.
...southern Californians indicated the strongest support for moving Japanese- Americans to internment camps: three-quarters held that view, compared to 50% of respondents in Washington, 56% in Oregon, and 44% in Northern California...
[edit: reword]zoobyshoe said:OK, you don't like my attempts at characterizing everyone's poor opinion of the media these days. How would you characterize it? (I don't mean just PF'ers, I mean the poor opinion that is being voiced everywhere in the US.)
I don't even use Twitter. Do people consider Twitter part of the media? That's just mass texting. I don't even text, that function on my phone died some time ago, but the only person I used text with was Evo Child. now she has to wait on email. If it's urgent, there's this thing referred to as a "phone call".russ_watters said:[edit: reword]
I don't speculate or speak for "everyone", "everywhere" except as narrowly shown by the statistics. The stats speak to my question: People think the media has gotten worse over the last 5 years. So do you agree?:
Do you agree that media accuracy has gotten worse over the last 5 years, since the rise of Twitter?
I'm not a member of Twitter either, but:Evo said:I don't even use Twitter.
Yes! Major news sources/reporters use Twitter to break stories and cite Twitter posts in-line in stories. Companies and other entities use it for major announcements, that are also news (my impression is it is bigger in sports than in regular news). Trump is only going to amplify that with his immense volume of Tweets.Do people consider Twitter part of the media?
Heh -- my mother realized the criticality of texting when she found out I was getting updates on the birth of her first grandchild from my sister before she got them. She went from almost never texting to being fully onboard in a matter of 4 hours!That's just mass texting. I don't even text, that function on my phone died some time ago, but the only person I used text with was Evo Child. now she has to wait on email. If it's urgent, there's this thing referred to as a "phone call".
It isn't necessary for him to be planning a muslim genocide for him to derive racist enjoyment of the idea of rounding up muslims. I don't want Trump deporting one lowly illegal Mexican if he, or any of his followers, is going to enjoy that for racist reasons.russ_watters said:There is no similar bridge from Trump's statements to some Hitler-mirror fantasy where he's intending to do genocide on Muslims.
Hitler had the luxury of not having a fairly recent historical precedent. Racists in America today have had to go underground with their views. The few overt racists there are have no status and very few followers. People who were paying attention slowly put Trump's racism together from things like his inexplicable unwillingness to repudiate David Duke's support, his unwillingness to mention Jews in conjunction with the Holocaust, all that stuff you surely already know about.People can perceive (imagine) what they want -- but again, *Hitler's* intentions did not require perception: he came right out and said what he intended to do. And frankly, from what I've seen the perception regarding Trump is circular: Trump is racist because he wants internment camps. Again, Hitler did not mince words on the issue.
Thanks! I wasn't aware of any of that. I was basing my remark on the fact no one in my parent's generation in my hometown ever said anything negative about it and all seemed to think it was necessary.mheslep said:Korematsu was decided in 1944, 6-3
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting:
Jackson's dissent was the past opinion most admired by Justice Scalia
American public opnion at the time was also divided about the internment:
OKruss_watters said:[edit: reword]
I don't speculate or speak for "everyone", "everywhere" except as narrowly shown by the statistics.
I don't understand this part. What are the stats you're referring to? Did you mean to link to a poll here?The stats speak to my question: People think the media has gotten worse over the last 5 years.
I believe Twitter is considered 'social media', but then just about anyone can have a Twitter account. I don't. Individuals and institutions can use Twitter to reach large audiences - quickly. As a communication tool, it can be used to disseminate information or misinformation/disinformation.Evo said:I don't even use Twitter. Do people consider Twitter part of the media?
You have to ask why the media makes these connections to ignore them could be dangerous.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39048293russ_watters said:But we're getting off track here. Based on what Trump actually said - not peoples' imaginations - the more accurate comparison is to FDR. And even if it wasn't, it still meets the request for an example of media spin that is more negative than it has to be. The media chooses to make these connections to Hitler. They could choose to make connections to FDR instead.
Only if the connections are valid and I have shown in this case that they are not. Indeed, to make a false connection to Hitler adds to the divisiveness, it doesn't reduce it. Observers from the left are quick to point out that anti-immigrant rhetoric is divisive, but less inclined to point the finger at themselves and acknowledging that comparing someone to The Archetype of Evil is about the most divisive rhetoric there is. It even has a name: Goodwin's Law. Mitt Romney had his "42%" gaffe, which people correctly called divisive and probably cost him some votes. Hillary upped the ante with her "basket of deplorables", which is even more divisive.. I didn't vote for Trump, but this ridiculousness certainly earns him - and more importantly his supporters - sympathy from me.Buckleymanor said:You have to ask why the media makes these connections to ignore them could be dangerous..http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39048293If you want a more divided and unstable world carry on.
I said that the rapid rate of executive orders issued by Trump reminds me of the rapid rate of the German equivalent of executive orders issued in Germany 1933. Everything beyond that is not what I said.russ_watters said:I didn't intend to draw you into this, but you're being disingenuous. You explicitly cited the start of Trump's term (his executive orders after taking office) as "reminding" you of the Nazi seizure of power. I can't fathom what hair you are trying to split here: are you trying to argue that "Nazi" doesn't necessarily mean "Hitler"?
mfb said:I said that the rapid rate of executive orders issued by Trump reminds me of the rapid rate of the German equivalent of executive orders issued in Germany 1933. Everything beyond that is not what I said.
"A shared some very specific property with B" does not imply that A=B. It does not even imply that A and B would be similar in anything else apart from this specific property. And I did not even say that they are the same. I just said that this property of A reminds me of some property of B.
If I say "Trump's skin color reminds me of carrots", do I claim that Trump is literally a carrot? No. I also don't claim Trump would be the size of a carrot, grow underground, or share any other properties with a carrot. I don't even claim that Trump's skin color is the color of a carrot.