Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

Status
Not open for further replies.
On this thing about 70% of republican voters still suspecting that Obama is not an American, just anecdotal but true - my nutty auntie in Floria is one of them. This is partly because she's a racist nutter, but also because she gets all of her information / news from a tiny echo chamber of extremist friends on the internet.
I think that's a part of the story which hasn't received as much attention as it warrants and a defining characteristic of the time we're living in:

The majority of Americans (62%) say that social media is where they go to get their news, with Facebook the number one source of information. This is true of my auntie, and she's 71.
So of course people will be mainly just confirming their bias, sharing with their friends the things that reinforce their existing views.
It's not about stupid its about how the proliferation of information has led to people consuming only very selective views, filtered by their social media networks so their prejudices are reinforced. Which goes for everyone of course, not just republican voters or whatever.
News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2016
Facebook’s failure: did fake news and polarized politics get Trump elected?

I cannot comment on the numbers you refer to ,as I am tired of the constant reference to the stats for *whatever* these days - but to suggest that SM is somehow to blame is a diversion I feel - people have always sought the opinion/ been directed to the opinion they should / want to ally to. SM is just a delivery vehicle for something that already existed.There has never been a level playing field for information, irrespective of era
 
Anyway, what's actually interesting about the left-liberal response to this election is that while it's usually assumed that no government will carry out most of its promises, or will be able to, when some loudmouthed buffoon who pushes all the right buttons gets into office, it's automatically assumed that he'll be able to act on every single utterance he's made.

Why? Because it's become second nature to such people to see themselves as beleaguered defenders of civilized values. By working themselves up into an irrational sense of dread they can boost their simultaneously over-inflated and fragile self-esteem.

Sure enough, we are going to see some ugly stuff, but it will only bring into sharp focus problems which have gone unaddressed for decades.
 
Anyway, what's actually interesting about the left-liberal response to this election is that while it's usually assumed that no government will carry out most of its promises, or will be able to, when some loudmouthed buffoon who pushes all the right buttons gets into office, it's automatically assumed that he'll be able to act on every single utterance he's made.

Why? Because it's become second nature to such people to see themselves as beleaguered defenders of civilized values. By working themselves up into an irrational sense of dread they can boost their simultaneously over-inflated and fragile self-esteem.

Sure enough, we are going to see some ugly stuff, but it will only bring into sharp focus problems which have gone unaddressed for decades.
And now who are you talking to? There have been pages and pages on here before and after the election, from all kinds of people, pointing out that Trump was/is full of shit and couldn't do half of what he is threatening to do even if he wanted to.
 
Facebook staff mount secret push to tackle fake news, reports say

Facebook is facing increasing pressure to improve the way it deals with fake news in the wake of the shock 2016 US presidential election result, amid reports that even some of its own staff have formed an unofficial task force to address the problem.

Employees from across the company have secretly come together to try and tackle the problem, BuzzFeed reported on Monday, despite Facebook publicly playing down the role of fake news in the election. CEO Mark Zuckerberg insisted on Sunday that more than 99% of what people see on the platform is authentic, rejecting the “crazy idea” that fake news swayed voters.

Privately, however, the Guardian understands that fake news is being taken very seriously and has been debated at Facebook for months.

According to Gizmodo, Facebook executives have been reviewing its products to eliminate the appearance of political bias. One source said high-ranking officials were briefed on a planned news feed update that would have identified fake or hoax news stories but it disproportionately impacted rightwing news sites. The update was consequently shelved, Gizmodo claims, although Facebook denies it.
 
And now who are you talking to? There have been pages and pages on here before and after the election, from all kinds of people, pointing out that Trump was/is full of shit and couldn't do half of what he is threatening to do even if he wanted to.
I think it's basically a troll. was going to try to respond properly to what they said but fuck it. It's the same person who said on the black lives matter thread 'I bet some of them are sorry that more black people don't get shot by the police here so that they could be more relevant.'
 
Bernie Sanders saying what he thinks went wrong:
Bernie Sanders on US election: 'This is what I think went wrong' – video
Says Trump tapped into the angst and anger of the working class, that the democrats failed because unable to connect with ordinary people, but makes no mention of the nationalism / nativism of the campaign at all, just that Trump knew how to manipulate people and and entertain the media.

It doesn't take much analysis to see that Trump won a nativist/nationalist campaign. He didn't even use dog-whistle politics; he just came out with rhetoric and policies that were explicitly racist and anti-immigrant. It's understandable that you want this to be acknowledged, since it is so disturbing. More importantly, people will need to be vocal about to oppose Trump's policies. But what would Sanders have gained by focusing on this yet again here? What strategic lessons are to be learned from assuming that this is the only reason people either voted for him, or didn't vote for the only alternative candidate that stood a chance of being elected?
screen_shot_2015-03-28_at_17.57.50.png
 
And now who are you talking to? There have been pages and pages on here before and after the election, from all kinds of people, pointing out that Trump was/is full of shit and couldn't do half of what he is threatening to do even if he wanted to.
In which case maybe some people could be a little less alarmist/hysterical.
 
Why the scare quotes around the highlighted word? (my bold)
Because we're always getting reports about 'spikes' in this or that. It's part of the narrative now.

On this issue: BNP councillor gets elected somewhere-reports of a spike in hate crime. Brexit ditto. Now it's Donald.

Those factors disappear or recede and something else is reportedly causing such a spike. The underlying issues are seldom adequately addressed, but the reports in themselves have a certain market appeal.
 
not sure whether this is Guardian clickbait or a valid argument, while its a tiny movement, people like Bannon and Milo are in the ascendancy
What makes you think it's a tiny movement? On what basis do you think that?
And even if you think the crossover between MRA and alt right stuff is tiny, Bannon is now chief strategist, so it's no longer possible to reasonably dismiss this as fringe nuttery.
There's a woman on twitter who has been studying these websites for years, and she called the result correctly.
She says "If people followed the alt-right groups on Reddit, they would know that young white Americans were told to hide their support of Trump... Young men came to these online groups for tips on picking up girls & came out believing that it was up to them to save Western civilization". etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom