(Jan 25, 2017 01:20 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan 25, 2017 01:09 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan 24, 2017 09:08 PM)Ben the Donkey Wrote: [ -> ]And let us bloody sort out whether or not Trump is a good POTUS for ourselves, when the dust has settled.
do not question him or his actions until he has resigned or been voted out ?
sounds a bit zealoty...
Politics is a field I usually stay away from but I think Ben means it's tough to judge a 4 year term on the basis of a few days on the job. He does say when the dust settles which I take to mean when Trump's done as POTUS. In order to sort something out, there's usually more than one or two items. I don't think B the D means you can't question Trump or his actions.
You're quite right, of course. Apart from it being about politics... it's more about people in general.
I sincerely hope it's apparent to most just how stupid RU's extrapolation really is, but given it's become not only permissible but almost
de riguer, I sometimes wonder.
Of course we can question Trump's actions - I'd expect the same of any president (although one would hazard a guess a president other than Trump would not be "questioned" quite so rigorously... particularly before he's even been sworn in).
I'm not actually a Trump supporter. I read about the abortion information thing a day or two ago and was very concerned. I've yet to enquire further into the details, but it seems to be a serious backward step.
But I'm not going to publish, read or support bullshit internet articles which gain legs not due to factual content or information, but because it appears you can say and spread pretty much whatever you like... for every voice saying "hang on, is this really how it is" there are a hundred more - RU among them - who will re-post and circulate this sort of thing as fact. With accompanying memes, where possible.
This has been, and still is, a sustained, merciless assault on a president elect, across the entire world, where "fact" has become... shall we say, somewhat blurry.
The entire internet has become saturated with Trump articles, 80% of which are determined to either paint him as a misogynist, an idiot, or attack everything they think he'll do before he's even done it. I've never seen such a prolonged display of disgusting behaviour, nor have I really ever witnessed such volumes of crap being widely distributed under the banner of truth by a pack of jackals pretending to be knowledgeable.
We're not talking about questioning someone's actions here, we're talking about a plethora of mainstream and alternative news sites
both publishing misleading and fake articles in order to further their own prejudices - and then turn around and accuse the opposition of doing it. I'm becoming very, very bored and frustrated with it all. I can't get factual news anymore, I'm forced to dig for it amongst a veritable mountain of opinion pieces passed off as "alternative news" which are, far too often, demonstrably false.
There's another one doing the rounds at the moment, and of course the usual suspects have posted the obligatory emotional image (the one I'm thinking of involves a picture of burning books). I may get back to it, I may not, but even a modicum of internet browsing will result in one uncovering an alternative version of events, from which one might gain an impression that this article, and a couple of others like it, might have... shall we say, exaggerated things a little.
I'm not even going to give them the credit of calling them liars, because to do so would require acting under the assumption that in order for one to lie, one must first know what the truth actually is. I'm quite certain the author of this article believes everything he said, and I'm quite certain RU believes he's really trying to put the truth out there. Of these things, I have little real doubt.
Unfortunately, that only serves to lower my assessment of them even further.
To whit, one might have a certain amount of respect for the cynical machinations of an Ellsworth Toohey, but few have any for a Peter Keating.
My point, in this case, was that's it's demonstrably false to claim that prices will increase if this law is repealed, when the rest of the world is experiencing a different result.
This article is not only merely opinion, it's not even
informed opinion.
RU did not attempt to refute anything I'd said. I'd surmise he didn't even bother to research anything happening in other countries where such laws don't exist. I'd further surmise he barely even read what I said, and still less comprehended what he was being told.
His first and only reaction was to type in "waddaya mean, we can't question Trump" as if that was the only thing I'd said. And I didn't even say that.
I mean if RU is really all that concerned about the questioning of things, then perhaps he should really start
questioning some things.
Like, what
he's reading. Or perhaps
how he's reading, but unfortunately I'm not sure that sort of thing is easily taught.