Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dunamisdeos]

I guess it depends on the context or pretense of the interview?

Under no circumstances should they be given the implication of legitimacy.

[Playergamer]

i mean, yeah. they've got a press pass already, an unbiased interview isn't "giving them legitimacy."

[Frumple]

I'unno, which working definition of unbiased are we talking, here? Because actually unbiased isn't just going be challenging some views, they're probably going to be spending more time calling bullshit than talking to the guy. And then there's that thing people call unbiased where you give someone's views about a hundred times more credence than they actually have earned and let them cheerfully stroll along lying not just out of their own arse, but virtual asses conjured from the aether as well... which is what most people call "giving them legitimacy." Stuff's kinda' orthogonal to white house access, really. Or rather there's a couple different working meanings to the term, I guess.

[smjjames]

According to a friend of Trump, Trump is mulling firing Special Counsel Mueller. This would be a mistake of epic proportions, and I have no idea if the Republicans would just ignore it, or not. Hopefully AG Sessions and the deputy AG and whoever else, has the spine to resign if Trump tries to do that.

Also, his media allies are trying to spin some reason to make the case for firing Mueller. No idea if Nixons allies did the same, although by the point that he tried to fire the investigator, he was pretty much at rock bottom.

[Playergamer]

even the second version of "unbiased" there would be fine. nobody from fox is going to start seeing infowars in a great light.

[Reelya]

And then there's that thing people call unbiased where you give someone's views about a hundred times more credence than they actually have earned

"Is the moon made of green cheese ... ? Stay tuned tonight a fair and unbiased debate between one man who says it is, and one man who says it isn't".

[Frumple]

No man is that stupid. Not even Trump.

It's not likely, exactly, but... are you really sure you want to say that with certainty? Because if he still thinks that congress won't do anything with teeth if he does, he might not think it's stupid. After all, how stupid can it be if you can get away with it?

even the second version of "unbiased" there would be fine. nobody from fox is going to start seeing infowars in a great light.

Eh, wouldn't exactly matter if they were held in a great light. Even just giving a platform or the legitimacy of argument pushes around the idea that, hey, this thing actually has something worth listening to, impactful enough even <Insert Preferred Media Outlet> thinks it needs to be rebutted. That must mean there's something to it, right? And even if most folks ultimately come to conclusion there isn't, that's still going to be that many do, and exposure to the surrounding ideas to the rest, which even if they still don't agree with, makes the exposure more significant. More likely to be seen as something unsurprising. Normal.

... which is what it looks like when legitimacy is creeping into the public conscious, ahableh

[smjjames]

According to a friend of Trump, Trump is mulling firing Special Counsel Mueller. This would be a mistake of epic proportions, and I have no idea if the Republicans would just ignore it, or not. Hopefully AG Sessions and the deputy AG and whoever else, has the spine to resign if Trump tries to do that.

Also, his media allies are trying to spin some reason to make the case for firing Mueller. No idea if Nixons allies did the same, although by the point that he tried to fire the investigator, he was pretty much at rock bottom.

No man is that stupid. Not even Trump.

I wouldn't bet on it, given what we've already seen Trump do.....

[MrRoboto75]

No man is that stupid. Not even Trump.

"Hold my beer"

-Trump

Meanwhile, the televised meeting of the Trump personality cult cabinet is quite entertaining.  Essentially a big circle of people all taking turns praising the glorious leadership of Trump and all the accomplishments they didn't do for the first 16th or so of the term.

[Dunamisdeos]

And then there's that thing people call unbiased where you give someone's views about a hundred times more credence than they actually have earned

"Is the moon made of green cheese ... ? Stay tuned tonight a fair and unbiased debate between one man who says it is, and one man who says it isn't".

I giggled at this.

But yeah, if they bring him on and just let him talk and listen attentively to things he says, that totes gives the impression that his ideas are worthy of consideration.

[misko27]

Not necessarily. I could imagine doing that. The problem is it requires a willingness to be critical of bad and/or incorrect opinions, which news abhors.

Consider the "moon is cheese" example. Obviously they know moon isn't cheese. But instead of saying that, they feel the need to bring someone in to say that. The accepted way of "refuting" something by television news is bringing in an expert (or "expert").

Obviously there are exceptions:

Microwaves do not turn into cameras. Fox News can now confirm: Microwaves heat food...

But those are just that, exceptions.

[Playergamer]

No man is that stupid. Not even Trump.

"Hold my beer"

-Trump

Meanwhile, the televised meeting of the Trump personality cult cabinet is quite entertaining.  Essentially a big circle of people all taking turns praising the glorious leadership of Trump and all the accomplishments they didn't do for the first 16th or so of the term.

first 32nd of the term: even if trump goes full nixon, his cult of personality + the dem broken base makes me think two-terms (if he isn't impeached.) As a professional pollster, I think it'll go to Trump if it's an election, or the dem if he's impeached. Basically, coin flip.

[Frumple]

Heh. Let's just say I can't see many situations where four full years of trump would leave an opposition base particularly broken. Argumentative and possibly liable to fall apart after he's gone, but on the subject of getting rid of him and quite possibly many of the people that supported him...

There'd have to be some pretty hard 180s in how he's been going about business. While I have no doubt he can flip promises on a dime, what he actually does I'd be rather less confident expressing that about. It'd be rather odd after all these years for him to deviate behavior all that much, and he hasn't been showing many signs of intending to -- and it ain't a pattern of behaviors that ingratiates people even the least critical of his actions. Rather the opposite.

[TheBiggerFish]

Forcing people to not wear the shawl is just as bad as forcing people to wear the shawl.

An argument that completely disregards the place of the shawls in Muslim cultures and societies. It's not a choice to begin with - it's a patriarchal mandate forced upon women from childhood and up.

...how? TBF never suggested it was a choice to wear the shawl. He just said that preventing someone from practicing a religion is just as bad as forcing them to.

As a counterpoint to the argument that shawls are inherently oppressive.

And at that, forcing people to not go along with an oppressive custom is not just as bad as forcing them to go along with it. Forcing people to not lock others in rooms is not the same as people forcing others into locked rooms.

@scriver: `:\
Aaaaand I also said what you said was bad is bad, too.  But you shouldn't take that as license to suppress someone's right to decide for themself to follow a religion.

They aren't deciding for themselves. Do you not know what a patriarchy means? It means men are deciding it for them.

And here we go again. Do you realise, TBF, that you are literally parroting the words of the Islamic establishment? That you choose to listen and take to heart the words and arguments of the people who are oppressing women and men in the middle east, and women amd men of middle eastern origin in the west, over listening to the many middle eastern feminists who oppose and fight against their patriarchal society?

Oh come on.

One: "The patriarchy", as much as it exists - which I will define as 'an oppressive cultural environment that suppresses the right to choose', regardless of its leading figures - is bad.

Two: Just because someone wants to convert to or follow Islam of some sort does not automatically induce them into a patriarchy-controlled state/status.  I don't know how else to explain that in a manner that would get you to listen.

Three: Forcing people to not follow Islam if they (would otherwise) so choose of their own free will, without external influences is the exact same oppressive cultural environment that you rail against!  It's not "not locking people in rooms", to use your metaphor, it's "locking people out of rooms"!

Do you realize your position violates a fundamental principle of the United States, freedom of religion?

Do you realize that I agree with you that suppressing agency is bad?

Do you realize that not all Islam (and I do not say it is even a majority of Islam, or even a significant minority, but certainly some flavors practiced in the US) is patriarchical, and that people should be able to choose to follow it regardless? 

Do you realize most of Christianity is full of male authority figures?  Are you going to argue we should abolish that, too?

I really don't think you've thought your position through fully.

[misko27]

We should really leave the speculating about his chances until after 2018, don't you think?

Even if Trump is guilty, the investigation will take years, so unless a really massive bombshell drops (and I mean "Trump is literally in a gay relationship with Putin, and selling secrets is his kink" type bombshell), impeachment is not going to occur while Republicans control Congress. And on a related note, the best judge of how Trump is doing with the electorate will be the 2018 congressional elections. If Democrats fail to gain significantly there (which seems pretty damn unlikely, given how A) Traditionally the opposition party gains seats in the midterms, B) Republican Congress seems intent on wasting their majority away on Trumpcare, and C) Trump is not exactly popular at the best of times), then the conversation will turn. If they gain massively, impeachment is possible. If they gain, but only minorly, then real speculation about 2020 will start.

Until then, though, talking about second-terms or impeachment is literally a massive waste of time. It's not even a election year, let alone the election year. Didn't you have enough election last year? Still hungry for more, somehow?