The Trump presidency

[Yuwipi Woman]

Weird fucking times

Amen, brother.

 

[DotCommunist]

Weird fucking times

the late night twitter beefs with people give it the nice 21st century surreal edge. One of those cute signs I saw did make me laugh 'I don't like this episode of black mirror'

 

[ruffneck23]

Just watched it , didn't realise my jaw could drop that much..

 

[bimble]

Re-watch it here if you really want to... Watch live: Trump announces new Labor secretary pick

just

 

[CRI]

I've only met a small sample of Republicans but I'd have guessed the percentage with doubts about Obama's birth was even higher. Good friends of mine claimed to believe this and thought me wrongheaded for being skeptical. It became a conventional article of faith like global warming denial.

Donald Trump said it so it must be true. He now claims it was a lie invented by the Clintons. That will be truthy for most Republicans as well.

I don't believe most Republicans who say they "doubt" Obama was born in America genuinely believe it. However, it's more "palatable" to say this is why he shouldn't have been president instead of their real objection - that he was Black.

 

[CRI]

Religion is bigger than all that, it's all fake belief isn't it?

Well, a Gallup poll last year showed that 89% of Americans believe in God. Perhaps they are already predisposed to believing irrational things, and confirmation bias.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Ultimately, its not the internet that's at fault here. The fault lies in the fact that too many people, are too willing, to go out and find information that confirms odd beliefs they already hold, instead of anything that challenges them.

True, but the internet has made that much easier to do. There have always been people with weird beliefs; and some of those people were able to find ways to connect before the internet. But the internet has put the whole thing into overdrive.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't believe most Republicans say they "doubt" Obama was born in America genuinely believe it. However, it's more "palatable" to say this is why he shouldn't have been president instead of their real objection - that he was Black.

Nail on head.

 

[Dogsauce]

The thing that bothers me a bit is that this media/CIA/establishment war on Trump would have been directed at Sanders if he'd got in - the same forces probably wouldn't have found him palatable either and would have mobilised in a similar way. It gives me less hope if anything.

 

[CRI]

That's only true if the intended purpose of the executive order was to sow chaos.

I'm pretty convinced that was the purpose.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I'm pretty convinced that was the purpose.

 

[CRI]

True, but the internet has made that much easier to do. There have always been people with weird beliefs; and some of those people were able to find ways to connect before the internet. But the internet has put the whole thing into overdrive.

I think it's magnified things. For example, you might have some far out ideas, but because it's unlikely you'll bump into anyone in your town who agrees, you probably keep it under your hat, perhaps be more likely to believe you could be wrong. With the internet, you can find hundreds of people all over the world who agree with you, which is immensely validating. For the stereotypical lonely guy living in his parents' attic, it can also give a sense of belonging and purpose. There's also more opportunity to share ideas and plans, with help and encouragement to put them into practice.

The flip side is that the internet also lets people who are isolated or marginalised to connect, to organise campaigns, demonstrations, etc. against injustice, so it's sort of swings and roundabouts.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Imo, the invention of the internet is on the same level as the invention of the printing press, the telephone, radio, television. Each of those created a sea change in human communication and the dissemination of information. The internet has done the same.

 

[CRI]

The thing that bothers me a bit is that this media/CIA/establishment war on Trump would have been directed at Sanders if he'd got in - the same forces probably wouldn't have found him palatable either and would have mobilised in a similar way. It gives me less hope if anything.

I don't like the idea of the security services ending up effectively as the "conscience" of the nation where the executive has gone rogue and the legislature is doing the three wise monkeys routine.

However, if by some miracle Sanders had been elected, I doubt they'd have done the same. I think fairly quickly, he'd have started toning down alot of his rhetoric because he would have to focus on getting Democratic legislators on his side to get anything done. He wouldn't have started undermining the sitting president day after the election. He wouldn't have run roughshod over Senate committee rules or appointed cabinet members with labyrinthine conflicts of interest. He would have been extremely conventional by comparison to Trump and his totally whackdoodle team.

 

[ruffneck23]

Johnny Canuck3 I'd agree with that but unfortunately it's getting to the point that the secret darkness that humans are too scared to admit, unless they have the safety of a keyboard behind them .it would be interesting to see how many of these keyboard warriors would be brave enough to spout their view in front of people face to face.


ETA a bit pissed so sorry if the post doesn't make sense il edit in th am

 

[CRI]

Imo, the invention of the internet is on the same level as the invention of the printing press, the telephone, radio, television. Each of those created a sea change in human communication and the dissemination of information. The internet has done the same.

Good point - and it's become pervasive, and evolved so quickly that I don't think societies have entirely "caught up" with it, or developed conventions for using it as happened with those more "slo mo" technologies. The Dick Tracy watch is real, and so much more!

 

[Dogsauce]

I think we need a new internet that doesn't have pricks on it. They should invent that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Imo, the invention of the internet is on the same level as the invention of the printing press, the telephone, radio, television. Each of those created a sea change in human communication and the dissemination of information. The internet has done the same.

Sure, but then the question is: what effect does this have on extremist ideas or the dissemination of false ideas and beliefs?

I don't think the answer is obvious. Taking climate change, for instance, there is instant access to explanations from climate change scientists, much of it clear and accessible (the Hadley Centre here in the UK, for instance), laying out what they think is happening and why they think it. Anyone with an inquiring mind and a computer can find this stuff out.

Clearly there are people who don't want to engage with the science, will only read climate-change denialist opinions, and will have their preexisting prejudice confirmed. But that was equally true pre-internet, and today, at least, there are not people with inquiring minds and a computer who, simply due to lack of information, hold false beliefs re climate change. Pre-internet, that was not true.

 

[J Ed]

Just looking over some clips from the press conference.

Russophobic hysteria in the media is allowing Trump to look very reasonable by comparison in places.

 

[J Ed]

Note also the total disconnect between the tweet by the NBC journalist and the actual Trump comments

 

[twentythreedom]

“You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things.”

He said that

Wtf

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Sure, but then the question is: what effect does this have on extremist ideas or the dissemination of false ideas and beliefs?

Prior to the internet, the provision of information via media was largely moderated by the providers, via editors, producers etc. The closest thing the people had for a voice were things like 'letters to the editor'; but even those were passed through a selection process.

There were extremist publications, but such things weren't widely disseminated outside of their small, core readerships.

Nowadays, it's like everything is a 'letter to the editor', but the letters haven't actually been vetted by an editor before going into 'print' on a blog or website. For better or worse, there is no filter over what can be said, and merely by putting it into text form gives it some imprimatur of legitimacy, so far as some people are concerned. It is much easier for people with unusual beliefs, to find others on the internet to legitimize and validate those beliefs. It is also much easier for people to ignore anything that doesn't conform with their beliefs.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

When a video of two Donald Trump supporters shouting “Lügenpresse” (lying press) started to circulate Sunday, viewers from Germany soon noted its explosive nature. The defamatory word was most frequently used in Nazi Germany. Today, it is a common slogan among those branded as representing the “ugly Germany”: members of xenophobic, right-wing groups.

Its use across the Atlantic Ocean at a Trump rally has worried Germans who know about its origins all too well. Both the Nazi regime and the East German government made use of it, turning it into an anti-democracy slogan.


“Lügenpresse” was branded a taboo word in Germany in 2015 by an academic panel after anti-Islam movements, such as Pegida, started using it more frequently in the presence of journalists. As in the United States, trust in mainstream media is on the decline in Germany.



The verbal attacks against journalists soon turned into physical violence in Germany. At times, media members were unable to cover the Pegida-organized protest marches without private security personnel. Some reporters who risked going in without bodyguards were beaten up. It is without doubt that the word “Lügenpresse” has an extremely ugly meaning in modern-day Germany.

Its history is even worse, though.

The ugly history of ‘Lügenpresse,’ a Nazi slur shouted at a Trump rally

 

[bimble]

This press conference its just beyond belief, parody is truly dead.

 

[CrabbedOne]

Your last para is clearly crucial here.

It's a thorny question, and largely an irrelevant one really given that the internet isn't going anywhere - there will be others that we never hear about who hook up with very different ideas via the internet that inoculate them against extremism that they encounter offline.

The example for me would be the comparison of McVeigh with Roof. Here, the common features are the important ones for me, including the very similar reactions of the state. That Roof may have taken ideas from the internet isn't so important. I'm sure McVeigh would have done the same if it had been around in his day.

What you are missing is there were probably thousands of potential McVeigh's out there who ended up as disgruntled wife beaters. Just as it's hard to imagine IS having the global footprint it has without modern social media.

I think the net result of the net has been to shout down fact checked sources and cultivate extremism. Rather than an enlightenment it has actually its ended up enlarging the most reactionary conspiracy minded elements in various societies. A sort of counter-reformation and this is now often called "populism".

 

[hot air baboon]

Peter Sellers last film Being There was about a simpeton who ends up being feted by the Washington elite as some sort of delphic oracle by quoting back platitudes he'd heard on television which was his only input throughout life - funny I thought he'd ended up being elected President but looking it up it appears not - no one would have taken such a ludicrous denoument seriously...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Prior to the internet, the provision of information via media was largely moderated by the providers, via editors, producers etc. The closest thing the people had for a voice were things like 'letters to the editor'; but even those were passed through a selection process.

There were extremist publications, but such things weren't widely disseminated outside of their small, core readerships.

Nowadays, it's like everything is a 'letter to the editor', but the letters haven't actually been vetted by an editor before going into 'print' on a blog or website. For better or worse, there is no filter over what can be said, and merely by putting it into text form gives it some imprimatur of legitimacy, so far as some people are concerned. It is much easier for people with unusual beliefs, to find others on the internet to legitimize and validate those beliefs. It is also much easier for people to ignore anything that doesn't conform with their beliefs.

Yes, the gatekeepers are gone, which itself is good and bad. Said gatekeepers were often not themselves impartial.

But again, places with gatekeepers still exist on the internet. hell via google scholar, you have access to journals that you'd previously only find in specialist libraries. Even wikipedia is now what I would call a gatekept place - its information, while it should always be checked through sources, is remarkably reliable.

Now, you're Canadian, but I'm sure you've been here long enough to know what the Daily Mail is. Its website (don't go there, it's really not worth it) has a very very scary comments section, full of ignorant bile. But does anyone else even read the comments? Here at least we're having a conversation, but many of the places with no gatekeepers are really just places where people rant impotently into the abyss.

As for fascists, racists, white supremacists, etc, I genuinely doubt many people have really come to these beliefs through the internet - they go to the internet to have them confirmed. And maybe I'm being super-optimistic here, but the flipside of that - the free availability of good information - must keep some people at least away from such views.

Dunno how much this is done in schools, but how to use the internet and how to evaluate sources is not not just a thing for academics. It's a thing we all need.

 

[bimble]

As for fascists, racists, white supremacists, etc, I genuinely doubt many people have really come to these beliefs through the internet - they go to the internet to have them confirmed. And maybe I'm being super-optimistic here, but the flipside of that - the free availability of good information - must keep some people at least away from such views.

You are, I think, you're being super-optimistic / blind.
This woman was the first I think to talk about it (online radicalisation of white men) in direct relation to Trump
The Most Intriguing Reason Yet As To Why Those US Election Polls Were So Wrong | The Huffington Post

Also
White nationalist movement growing much faster than Isis on social media

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You are, I think, you're being super-optimistic / blind.

I'm not saying they're not cultivated online. Merely that they are finding what they were already looking for.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

And maybe I'm being super-optimistic here,

I think maybe you are.

I certainly agree that there is a very positive side to the internet - the wealth of information available.

But the easy communication is a double-edged sword. And I believe that the negative side of the internet is slowly causing irreparable harm to the society and the culture.