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.
You know exactly what he’s suggesting and he’s probably right to do so.
Stop playing stupid and stop trying to shut down people who say such things. It’s not gonna work, you’re not gonna convince anyone to not fight for what they believe in, hit the road if you don’t like it.
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.
These guys all want violent revolution, right up until it’s their time to pick up a rifle.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
