> point a finger at people and declare them the enemy often enough, from a position of power, and someone will attack them.
The point is that there is no explicit£ call for violence, yet just the same it breeds hatred that inevitably results* in violence.
I don’t know what to do about the escalation of rhetoric and action in this country. But let’s not pretend it’s one-sided.
Or...how many times has Trump and his supporters been referred to as Nazis...
Like that time Samantha Bee called a stage 4 brain cancer Trump supporter out for sporting a "Nazi haircut" after chemo:
Followed by endless calls to punch Nazis.
This is just three lazy examples. There's hundreds of examples like this in pop media.
(Anybody going to make the free speech defence for those people you cited?)
I'm not really expecting anyone on the right to realise that if they want to call for civility they need to police their side, starting from the top; but that's the best way to stop this escalating.
Saying "fake news is the enemy of the people" is not controversial. It's quite true. No calling out a Washington-area circle jerk that perpetuates false B.S. is not the same as Tianeman Square.
It's criticism. The President has every right to criticize his critics as his critics do him. Freedom of speech works both ways.
What I would like to ask though, is this the America you want projecting to the outside world? The BBC is British, are they also fake news? If so, what reasonable means are there for the rest of the world to get this news.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, is that international, and domestic news are distinct. People are obviously more emotionally invested in domestic journalism. For me this is international news, it isn't fake news, in the same way as that natural disaster isn't fake news. These people aren't competing for my votes, I'm not paying their wages.
This is the same shit you see from "Antifa" on the left, and it's abhorrent regardless of the source. To pretend that both sides aren't getting increasingly violent is to reject reality. This isn't a false equivalency situation; both left and right are being pushed into division.
And it's the media that's doing it.
In this case, it is a false equivalency. At least in terms of Democrat and Republican.
Antifa is a fringe far-left group. They are not Democrats. They do not support Democrats. You don't see mainstream Democratic politicians supporting them.
The Republicans, on the other hand, have embraced the far-right fringe groups. You have the leader of the Republican party calling the press the "enemy of the people" and making jokes about attacking reporters.
This is one of those cases where both sides are not the same.
Antifa was started by far-left activists, but has support much closer to the center-left than the people that started it because it has a narrow focus that is fairly uncontroversial left of center and has mostly been fairly restrained, both in its methods and in maintaining focus without making Antifa about the extracurricular stances of it's core members.
But I still have no idea what "Antifa" actually stand for. Are they against Fascism? If so, I can get behind that. Nazism is a failed experiment and needs to be kept in the dustbin of history
All I know is right-wingers screech about "the left" and "antifa" while trying to defend being awful people
It's absolutely a case of the end justifying the means, and there's no doubt an anti-democratic aspect to it. It's driven by a fear for fascism and a perceived need to use extreme measures to stop it.
Some people argue that Antifa is itself fascist in a way, and if you consider how fascism uses (and stokes) fear for a common enemy to unite people in support of their ideology, there might be something to it. There's some very slippery slope there.
(+) is this a thing? Did all the other presidents do this?
This article is about mindless violence towards the media that's displayed and documented at Trumps rallys. It's not about antifa.
I don't know what media outlet is to Antifa, that is Fox News to the Right. But I'd welcome a discussion on what we can do to encourage a more fair and balanced media and what we do to hold drunken louts like the gentleman in the article for abhorrent violence.
But God forbid the kid smirk to ease the tension. What do we do to hold media accountable for painting false narratives and stoking the fires of tension, intentionally for hits and ratings?
Was he forced to wear the hat to the event?
Was there someone behind him at gunpoint forcing him to wear the hat?
The Covington case was naked woke hysteria, there is no way around it. Particularly because even after the details came out, people were still doubling down and making excuses for everyone else there.
The hat is the official merch of your current sitting president. The way it's treated as an overt symbol of hate is insane, and only makes stunts like "it's ok to be white" all the more poignant. Clearly it's not ok in the eyes of some, and vice versa, having colored skin can excuse harassment and racism.
Why? Hatred (as in the speech the cameraman was filming) is the overt policy of the President.
The emperor isn't naked, he just has a really bad hat - but we have to point out what we see, no matter how many people are wanting to intimidate us into not seeing it.
A good summary of this faux concern: https://www.salon.com/2019/01/22/defenders-of-the-maga-hat-y...
Here's the 1.5 hour recording of the event so you don't have to sit through some selectively edited hack job:
Basically: the kid was entirely blameless, preyed upon by a racist native activist specifically because he was wearing a MAGA hat.
My handle is significant to me, and AFAIK there's no way to change your handle on HN. Though being honest, even if I were given the chance, I probably wouldn't change it.
I'm unsure if there's a mechanic to block some one on HN but if it does, I'd recommend you use it in this instance. Apologies that I can't be of any further help.
Also, would you change your username if I requested you to do so? (Perhaps I had a bad experience in the past which makes the word “Adam“ something I‘d rather not read)
This is a single instance and it makes headlines. Antifa on the other hand have had dozens of large scale riots and targeted attacks but corporate media avoids painting them in a bad light. They're simply "protesters" rather than a mob.
> I don't know what media outlet is to Antifa, that is Fox News to the Right.
CNN is easily the most far-left news show. There's hundreds of videos on YouTube of the hoaxes, lies and biased news they've broadcast.
> But I'd welcome a discussion on what we can do to encourage a more fair and balanced media
There needs to be stronger anti-libel and anti-defamation laws. The lawsuits coming from the "MAGA kid" Nick Sandmann should a good barometer of whether or not the corporate media can truly be held accountable for their lies.
My guess at this point is that the media will continue to lose trust from the public because they can't ever be held accountable when they lie.
>CNN is easily the most far-left news show. There's hundreds of videos on YouTube of the hoaxes, lies and biased news they've broadcast.
And there's videos of the Earth being flat, climate change being a "liberal hoax" and the Sandy Hook massacre being made up
If I might quote from an (at the time) controversial Sony ad "you can't believe everything you read on the internet, that's how World War 1 got started"
>There needs to be stronger anti-libel and anti-defamation laws. The lawsuits coming from the "MAGA kid" Nick Sandmann should a good barometer of whether or not the corporate media can truly be held accountable for their lies.
America is a very litigious society, compared to the rest of the world. I'd love to see the defense for the "MAGA kid" trying to explain that wearing that hat was not a deliberate act
Well, the defamation lawsuits eventually worked against Alex Jones.
Really? CNN has never struck me as particularly left.
No, they haven't. This is untrue.