There is no “both sides” to Donald Trump’s threat to democracy
There is no “both sides” to Donald Trump’s threat to democracy
Just because Republicans choose unreality doesn’t mean the media should ignore the facts of January 6.
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're viewing part of a thread.
"voting is the only way to create change" is the mentality that got us here.
You know why George Floyd's murderer was the only one who got the sentence he deserved? Because the people demanded it by threatening capital.
So what are you suggesting?
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.
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
Anyone insisting that the only way to move forward is to vote for someone who is promoting genocide is effectively saying that, yes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If someone supports genocide, you may want to try to imagine some plausible excuse to make that ok.
But genocide is inexcusable, and there is no reason to bend over backwards to give its supporters the benefit of the 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.
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.
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.
These guys all want violent revolution, right up until it's their time to pick up a rifle.
I think what the morons want is trump. I'm really worried about how common this braindead opinion is. They're actually going to vote against Biden because of Israel. We're fucked.
If you're that worried that reaction to our government enabling a genocide is risking the election or whatever, maybe blame the people doing the enabling rather than the people disgusted by them.
Found one of them
Everyone knows your only feeling can be whatever a stranger makes up
What do you mean by that?
I can't want us to stop supporting Israel because I'm required to be a myopic idiot unaware of what will happen if I don't vote for Biden. That's just facts.
I'm saying that a lot of people are disgusted by what the American response has been and the natural reaction is going to be disengaging. Why are you blaming them instead of the actual parties responsible?
That's not being pragmatic or whatever you think you are, it's just being lazy and unprincipled.
What outcome do you think will occur if people don't vote or vote third party or for trump?
It's probably going to fucking suck either way. I blame the party for its shitty actions, not the voters for not voting for them.
I would suggest trying to understand why people are so upset by the administrations complete non-response to what should be an easy lift- a fucking ceasefire. It's our bombs and missiles being used to do this, and we're sending them there as fast as we can. The administration could stop that at any time but chooses not to.
I get that it's frustrating that there's this obvious and unsalvageable debacle looming and it's only January in an election year, but find someone else to blame.
These guys all want violent revolution, right up until it’s their time to pick up a rifle.
"These guys" could just be foreign conflict bots, trying to promote mayhem.
"Everyone who is less than ecstatic about the genocide I love can't possibly be genuine. It must be an international conspiracy because no one could possibly oppose genocide."
“Everyone who is less than ecstatic about the genocide I love can’t possibly be genuine. It must be an international conspiracy because no one could possibly oppose genocide.”
Where's that quote from? Is it made up?
Generally speaking, you'd have to be very naive to assume that foreign nationals would not want to affect the population of potential enemies, and try to manipulate them with specific narratives. The interconnection of the species, communication wise, has good points and bad points.
It's certainly a convenient way to dismiss people who disagree with centrists' support for genocide.
Where’s that quote from? Is it made up?
I was mocking a standard dismissal that centrists use when someone to their left has a point they don't feel like actually addressing.
If you don't want people saying that you're baselessly dismissing opponents of genocide as foreign bots, don't baselessly dismiss opponents of genocide as foreign bots.
I was mocking a standard dismissal that centrists use when someone to their left has a point they don’t feel like actually addressing.
So it's just your opinion that you're passing off as someone else's quote.
don’t baselessly dismiss opponents of genocide as foreign bots.
I wasn't. When I wrote that comment I wasn't even thinking about 'opponents of genocide' at all. It was not meant as a verbal attack against 'opponents of genocide'. You made that assumption via your biasis.
My comment was meant to bring awareness to the fact that some people/comments that are replied to could just be bots controlled by organizations that are trying to direct a narrative in a certain direction, and that's all. No other judgments were being passed.
You know exactly what he's suggesting and he's probably right to do so.
Stop playing stupid and stop trying to shut down people who say such things. It's not gonna work, you're not gonna convince anyone to not fight for what they believe in, hit the road if you don't like it.