- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
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.
Uh, what we are talking about is people who are already saying they won’t vote for Biden. I run into this a lot. It’s terrifying to know a significant part of the electorate are so myopic they would install Trump forever to “make a point”.
It truly doesn’t matter if they have a point, if the only end result is not voting or throwing their vote away on a third party. If Trump wins, they will be a big part of how.
“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?
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.
“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.”
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?
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.
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.
Removed by mod
WE DON’T WANT GENOCIDE.
If that is what is wrong with us, than what the fuck is wrong with you?
If Trump is an existential threat (Not disagreeing that he is, bear with me.) then why isn’t the Democratic party acting like he is?
The only time they do is when they want to shame people into voting for majority unpopular things, LIKE FUCKING GENOCIDE.
What the fuck is wrong with your brain?
You imagine things will be better under trump, or just don’t care as long as you get to cosplay the moral person here?
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.
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.
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.
People don’t like being manipulated to vote a certain way, they get angry when that is done to them. They realize that other citizens had died for their right to vote, and they hold it sacred.
And when you’re angry, you tend to make dumb mistakes.
How many of us know the stance of the people they’re going to vote for, when it comes to ranked choice voting?
Removed by mod
It’s not just ‘throwing the baby away with the bath water ‘, it’s burning down the whole fucking country just because mommy didn’t give you candy.
Where “mommy didn’t give you candy” in this case is “the guy you’re being screamed at to vote for is supporting genocide.”
Just because you don’t think genocide is a big deal, that doesn’t mean you don’t need the votes of those that do.
I’m voting for Biden, but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize that some people won’t, and that his support for genocide is the reason.