Political WTFuckingtosh

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,324
There is no comparison between Trump and Omar when it comes to Jews.
 

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
5,462
Location
Shanghai
Car(s)
taxis and the subway
What’s incorrect about the first paragraph?
You don’t use any adjectives that the reader is supposed to (or rather: will automatically) combine with “goddamn” or similar to describe someone if you’re not in the BS business. Calling someone a (goddamn) socialist is just an equivalent of calling someone a capitalist (swine). Neither is a mark of an article or opinion piece that is rooted in facts.
 

JimCorrigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
3,885
Location
Pacific Rim
Car(s)
HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
You don’t use any adjectives that the reader is supposed to (or rather: will automatically) combine with “goddamn” or similar to describe someone if you’re not in the BS business. Calling someone a (goddamn) socialist is just an equivalent of calling someone a capitalist (swine). Neither is a mark of an article or opinion piece that is rooted in facts.
Is he or is he not a socialist? If he is, what's the problem since they didn't throw up those qualifying adjectives that you just brought up?

The Daily Wire is an openly conservative site (and therefore do not look kindly upon socialism). They also do not purport to be a traditional news service, either. They're an extension of EIC Ben Shapiro's own political values.
 
Last edited:

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
5,462
Location
Shanghai
Car(s)
taxis and the subway
Is he or is he not a socialist? If he is, what's the problem since they didn't throw up those qualifying adjectives that you just brought up?
It's been a while since I've paid attention to Sanders, but he sounded like a Social Democrat to me, not like a Socialist. I consider that distinction important, others don't, and that's part of the issue. Every democratic country and its political system suffers when its economy becomes unbalanced and social democracy has proven to be a very effective countermeasure. Which is why neoliberals and die-hard socialists both fight it tooth and nail.

Anyway, my issue here is with the framing. By adding adjectives with a negative connotation (which "socialist" is in this context), they aim to confirm and entrench their readers' attitude, presumed or otherwise, towards Sanders. It's like saying "Sanders, who, as we all know, wants to turn our country into the American SSR" instead of "Sanders, whom we all know, and here's what's happened".

The Daily Wire is an openly conservative site (and therefore do not look kindly upon socialism). They also do not purport to be a traditional news service, either. They're an extension of EIC Ben Shapiro's own political values.
That's no excuse for adding oil to the fire. There's already far more than enough divisive content on the internet.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
19,795
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
It's been a while since I've paid attention to Sanders, but he sounded like a Social Democrat to me, not like a Socialist. I consider that distinction important, others don't, and that's part of the issue. Every democratic country and its political system suffers when its economy becomes unbalanced and social democracy has proven to be a very effective countermeasure.
Define social democracy, please. I have never seen or heard a definition that makes any kind of sense.
 

JimCorrigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
3,885
Location
Pacific Rim
Car(s)
HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
Anyway, my issue here is with the framing. By adding adjectives with a negative connotation (which "socialist" is in this context), they aim to confirm and entrench their readers' attitude, presumed or otherwise, towards Sanders. It's like saying "Sanders, who, as we all know, wants to turn our country into the American SSR" instead of "Sanders, whom we all know, and here's what's happened".
If Bernie Sanders is a socialist (and by all accounts according to the American political spectrum, it is undeniable), then labelling him as such isn’t slanderous. There’s nothing negative about the label itself, unless it’s inaccurate. Those are his positions. What you’re doing is tantamount to thought policing the writer, who simply labelled it, by inferring that his label meant something mor
Einsidious.

That's no excuse for adding oil to the fire. There's already far more than enough divisive content on the internet.
Calling a socialist a socialist isn’t adding fuel to anything. Calling a socialist a (as you put it) “goddamn socialist” would be.
 

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
5,462
Location
Shanghai
Car(s)
taxis and the subway
Define social democracy, please. I have never seen or heard a definition that makes any kind of sense.
Solid democratic political system + capitalist economic system + strong social security networks. That's the extremely short version. Basically, a system where A) money doesn't buy all the power and B) everyone gets a chance to participate freely in the capitalist market without having to fear that they're going to be totally screwed for life if something goes wrong.
 

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
5,462
Location
Shanghai
Car(s)
taxis and the subway
If Bernie Sanders is a socialist (and by all accounts according to the American political spectrum, it is undeniable), then labelling him as such isn’t slanderous. There’s nothing negative about the label itself, unless it’s inaccurate. Those are his positions. What you’re doing is tantamount to thought policing the writer, who simply labelled it, by inferring that his label meant something more insidious.
That's the point: in "openly conservative" (as you put it) American circles, "socialist" is a slur. It represents the Soviet (or Chinese or whatever) bogeyman who supposedly threatens the hard-working underdogs by making their superiors a little bit less wealthy.

You may have a better understanding of what the term actually means, but frankly, you don't exactly come across as a die-hard American-style "conservative" who would be part of a pundit's target audience.

Calling a socialist a socialist isn’t adding fuel to anything. Calling a socialist a (as you put it) “goddamn socialist” would be.
Again, the negative connotation is strong enough to make a qualifying adjective unnecessary. If someone is angered by the term itself, that already serves the purpose.
 

JimCorrigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
3,885
Location
Pacific Rim
Car(s)
HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
That's the point: in "openly conservative" (as you put it) American circles, "socialist" is a slur. It represents the Soviet (or Chinese or whatever) bogeyman who supposedly threatens the hard-working underdogs by making their superiors a little bit less wealthy.

You may have a better understanding of what the term actually means, but frankly, you don't exactly come across as a die-hard American-style "conservative" who would be part of a pundit's target audience.


Again, the negative connotation is strong enough to make a qualifying adjective unnecessary. If someone is angered by the term itself, that already serves the purpose.
Someone somewhere will always be angry with what is written, no matter how carefully crafted. It is not the writer’s responsibility to worry about how the reader interprets their work, only how it is actually written.
 

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
5,462
Location
Shanghai
Car(s)
taxis and the subway
Thanks for ad hominem...I guess.
What do you expect if you ask me whether I'm telling people to "shut up and do as I want" while I'm arguing against political manipulation? Your first and only idea was to accuse me of being an authoritarian and that had to come from somewhere.
 

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
5,462
Location
Shanghai
Car(s)
taxis and the subway
Someone somewhere will always be angry with what is written, no matter how carefully crafted. It is not the writer’s responsibility to worry about how the reader interprets their work, only how it is actually written.
If you publish your writings, you are responsible for them. If the content is manipulative, you are responsible for that. I don't know how you can argue with that.
 
Last edited:

JimCorrigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
3,885
Location
Pacific Rim
Car(s)
HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
If you publish your writings, you are responsible for it. If the content is manipulative, you are responsible for that. I don't know how you can argue with that.
You are responsible for what you wrote, not for what someone infers from it. I don’t know how you can argue with that.

Calling the content manipulative is disingenuous unless you can prove why it’s manipulative. Otherwise, you are just looking for any subjective reasons you can to dismiss the article on the face of it.

Fact: Bernie Sanders is a socialist based on his political platform. The headline is accurate, as is the body. You don’t like it, we get that. You’re entitled not to like it. You don’t get to make up subjective reasons for why it isn’t valid.
 
Last edited:

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
19,795
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Solid democratic political system + capitalist economic system + strong social security networks. That's the extremely short version. Basically, a system where A) money doesn't buy all the power and B) everyone gets a chance to participate freely in the capitalist market without having to fear that they're going to be totally screwed for life if something goes wrong.
That’s just a capitalist democracy...
 
Top