Addressing the 'other' side.

[Skynet]

When I said "clever political play" I meant literally "clever" political play, IE: Filibustering, diplomatic agreements, etc. Not that politics doesn't play a role in propaganda. Not that the media isn't owned by wealthy benefactors.

I see. That still doesn't mean that the Republican tactic of faux-compromise isn't something that doesn't happen. For instance, what are your thoughts on the example of the Southern Strategy as an example of Republicans evoking a "reasonable middle?"

[Fox Lokison]

When I said "clever political play" I meant literally "clever" political play, IE: Filibustering, diplomatic agreements, etc. Not that politics doesn't play a role in propaganda. Not that the media isn't owned by wealthy benefactors.

That doesn't really clear up a lot of what was said, or address anything, tbh.

[laa]

I see. That still doesn't mean that the Republican tactic of faux-compromise isn't something that doesn't happen. For instance, what are your thoughts on the example of the Southern Strategy as an example of Republicans evoking a "reasonable middle?"

Right, apologies, I didn't really address your point. I just think you made a good point. It definitely shows how political play can be involved in the larger scheme of things, compared to now where Trump could do almost anything and be covered by Fox News. It's definitely disturbing and makes you wonder what exactly can be done to counter it. I know where I'm from, the journalistic standard is pretty decent, so politicians on both sides of the isle gets regularly called out when they try to dodge questions, etc. It's a fantasy, but I'm wondering if journalistic integrity could be a helping hand to combat such strategies?

I think more potently though, if the electoral college could be fixed in a way that no longer promotes the two party system, that'd also force the two parties to start compromising in an entirely new way. Although this has been going on in Europe, and right wing parties have still been somewhat successful.

So all in all... Does anyone know what on earth we on the left should do? It seems hopeless.

[Skynet]

Forgive my suspicions, but I have yet to hear of a leftist either American or European who thinks that the US political right is not obstinate at this point in terms of Congressional stonewalling. Nor one who thinks that the major problem of Fox News covering Trump is free publicity, and not the disinformation they gleefully and repeatedly spread about him. Your post places the entirety of polarization, propaganda, and the Overton Window shifting entirely on mainstream news stations rather than the larger interplay of corporate influence, disinformation through social media, lack of adequate educational standards, and so on and so forth (which Fox more or less covered). It's kind of odd to see a leftist jump into a discussion to question allegations that the Republican Party are deceptive in portraying themselves as a rational middle.

I could be wrong and you are a leftist, in which case I apologize for jumping to conclusions. But there's a rather common debate tactic of right-wingers pretending to be left-wingers or centrists, but end up doing nothing but criticizing progressives and downplaying the failures of the Right. Beyond Richard Nixon, Tim Pool's a great example; claims to be on the left, but defends Trump all the time.  I don't know what country you're from or what it's left-right spectrum looks like, but in my experience there's more or less a universal consensus among Western leftist groups that the American Right has not given ground for decades and only became further extreme.

[Skynet]

Clarification: meant to say "It's kind of odd to see a leftist jump into a discussion to question allegations that the Republican Party are deceptive in portraying themselves as willing to compromise" rather than "as a rational middle."

[laa]

I think the US right is obstinate and uncompromising? I don't think I said anything to the contrary. The problem with fox news isn't free publicity, but free spin (IE: Lies), and I also don't know what I said that's contrary to this. And I specifically said "the media we consume", rather than "the mainstream media", which means I was including social media and all kinds of media in general, be it blogs, etc. I was basically saying that your ideas can't come from nowhere, that original thought needs to be fed.

[Regina Minx]

I am just curious... what was this hand that the left extended?...

I am literally watching Senator Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) speak at Joe Biden’s inauguration as I write this.

[Andol]

I don't know what country you're from or what it's left-right spectrum looks like, but in my experience there's more or less a universal consensus among Western leftist groups that the American Right has not given ground for decades and only became further extreme.

I got to say Skynet that this sounds like exactly what the Right is saying about the Left as well.  :-\

[Skynet]

I got to say Skynet that this sounds like exactly what the Right is saying about the Left as well.  :-\

In the Trump thread when I pointed out that the GOP has been more or less completely compromised by white supremacists and other hatemongers, you agreed with me. If you do not recall the conversation I'll be more than happy to link it to you. But if a self-defined leftist came into a conversation defending said group by deflecting any and all problems over to "the media," wouldn't you be the least bit skeptical?

I've given Iaa the opportunity to elucidate on his position, but his last post (as well as previous ones) more or less pivots back to putting all the responsibility on media and to ignore the political processes themselves. He's come into the thread with a preconceived talking point, and his interaction with Fox who took time and effort in replying are short to the point of being dismissive even when an agreement was struck.

When I myself disagreed with Democrats (a Party I vote for) on things such as gun control, I went into detail as to my position as to why I differed but didn't buy the Republican Party's platform. Iaa is more than free to do so as well.

I think the US right is obstinate and uncompromising? I don't think I said anything to the contrary. The problem with fox news isn't free publicity, but free spin (IE: Lies), and I also don't know what I said that's contrary to this. And I specifically said "the media we consume", rather than "the mainstream media", which means I was including social media and all kinds of media in general, be it blogs, etc. I was basically saying that your ideas can't come from nowhere, that original thought needs to be fed.

So the right is seen as willing to compromise by not being willing to compromise? I'm not really buying your line of reasoning, Fox. By the end of the day, what is seen as 'radical' and what is seen as 'normal' is almost entirely dictated by the media we consume, as it's the only window we have into the political process in the first place. I'd much rather point the finger at Fox News, CNN, etc. for spreading propaganda for decades than at any sort of clever political play.

This is what you're implying. When you came into this thread you more or less asserted disagreement with another poster, who btw also described your problems with the media via the Overton Window.

[Fox Lokison]

This is what you're implying. When you came into this thread you more or less asserted disagreement with another poster, who btw also described your problems with the media via the Overton Window.

Yeah, that is my confusion as well. Like, this is all interconnected and I dont quite understand the urge to separate it all out from one another. Putting blame on one thing or another seems to ignore the intricacies of the situation. The Overton Window shifted in the media as well, because the media reports on what's around us.

In addition, blaming the media SOLELY for stoking a frenzy and causing division (social media included) is not only a tactic used to distract from the complexities of the issue, but to also push the blame away from people who have a major hand in it.

I'd much rather point the finger at Fox News, CNN, etc. for spreading propaganda for decades than at any sort of clever political play.

I get that you added social media, after I replied, but what I was replying to was your comment on mainstream media stations.

So I'm not quite sure why this is a conflict.

[laa]

So the right is seen as willing to compromise by not being willing to compromise?

This is a restatement of the logic I disagreed with. This is, in other words, almost the exact opposite of my stance. It seemed counter-intuitive that one's public perception would be the exact opposite of how you'd act, simply by acting in that manner. I can now see how this could happen.

My short dismissive disagreement happened mostly in response to Fox's second reply in which he lambasted me with an opinion that I never expressed. (About propaganda not being made with a purpose). I was honestly livid. The above is a simple statement, really. X and not X do not go together. Of course, this simplification turned out to be wrong, as is the nature of a debate.

In general, I've found that you've added a lot more context to my words than were in them in the first place. I prefer a more lively debate method, one with relatively short replies in order to potentially follow the notions of the Socratic method (IE: Asking a lot of questions, prying out what people really think and feel, etc). In this regard, I was expecting to get prodded so that I could clarify over time. Instead, well, here we are.

In short, I got frustrated that words were put in my mouth rather than being engaged in a debate, hence the short quip. And then I promptly went to sleep.

When I woke up, I tried to honestly just move the conversation along. I didn't want to be a part of it any longer, and Skynet did honestly have a good point. So I emphasized that he had a good point, threw some random points together and tried to pass it off with a hopeful "What do we do now". I also tried to mimic Fox's original Overton Window point as I'd understood it, with the right seemingly being successful at changing said window. Apologies if this is misunderstood.

I messed this bit up it seems, because now I'm seemingly right wing. And again, taking my words and stuffing them full with context that just isn't there.

This will be my last message on these matters. I really only expected a mild, brief conversation over this. This has gone way beyond what I'd meant to do.

[Fox Lokison]

To clarify... With all due respect, me expounding on media had nothing to do with you, Iaa.

Why?

I'd like to know what the purpose of spreading propaganda is, if it doesn't benefit the people in power, or the people craving it. The thing about propaganda is that it needs a reason. It doesn't just exist so TV stations can stay on the air. It exists to convince the masses of something or other.

I don't really see the point in trying to make the media distinct from the machine it operates within. Yes, media does dictate a lot of what the common people think. That's why it's in the hands of those who need the common people to back them.

The fact that you're willing to blame the media rather than the politics behind it generally means that it's working.

That was my response to your comment, which seemed to indicate it was an "Or" rather than an "and", ie, that it was either Fox News/CNN/etc OR political play that could have the finger pointed at it. I'll admit, putting quotes around "clever" and adding in social media didn't really help me understand or answer the question of why, which was why I said it didn't really clear anything up for me. It was a question, with my thoughts on the marriage of media and politics added. The rest was just me waffling on how interconnected they are, and not understanding why it makes sense to point a finger at one or the other, and not them both as an interconnected thing. As well as waffling about a current trend in the American public to blame the media, not you, specifically.

My apologies if it came across otherwise, that was not my intent. I have no desire to put words in your mouth, merely was expounding as I often do, because I'm completely incapable of being short and concise anywhere.

[Chulanowa]

So... Trump gets his own -ism now? Ok  :-\

I have to admit that I am kind of with you there Callie, but there is just to much I can't reconcile at the ballot box to make the jump in parties. This is even more so the case on the local level where it will actually effect my day to day life.

I loathe the term "Trumpism." It's just a sop for people who don't want to say hte word "fascism," and who want to ignore how pervasive it is in American politics.

[Fox Lokison]

I loathe the term "Trumpism." It's just a sop for people who don't want to say hte word "fascism," and who want to ignore how pervasive it is in American politics.

My thoughts on Trumpism are that it's a combination of fascism, American nationalism, Christian nationalism, white supremacy, and a few other things, so I think having a term for what it is that's distinct from fascism is probably a good idea, especially given how mentioning fascism is often met with scorn or derision (or makes people think of Nazi Germany and Nazi Germany alone)... but also, I agree, I've seen it heavily used to deflect from saying American Fascism. Personally, I think America has a real issue admitting that fascism is here in the country. We want to call it anything but what it is. By contrast, we're more than happy to say socialism or communism is here, and use it to condemn political enemies.

Suppose if you're basically a fascist, you don't wanna admit that fascism could be in the country, and all.

[Oniya]

I loathe the term "Trumpism." It's just a sop for people who don't want to say hte word "fascism," and who want to ignore how pervasive it is in American politics.

I personally don't have a problem identifying it as 'fascism', but the 'Trumpist' aspects of it are unique to the particular flavor of fascism, as Nazism had unique elements separating it from Mussolini's brand of fascism (which was the original source of the term.  Hitler copied Mussolini and added trimmings.)  Call it the equivalent of viral identifiers like H1N1 and H3N2.

I daresay that comparable 'structures' could be identified in all three - FOX News being the Volksempfänger (lit. 'people's receiver', the Proud Boys being the Sturmabteilung (not the Schutzstaffel, but its predecessor.  Even Hitler didn't fully trust it), and so-forth.

[Chulanowa]

I disagree, Trump's "flavor" of fascism is pretty textbook and boring. I mean yeah, it's different from prior instances... But that's just because fascism molds to whatever society engaged in it. "Trumpism" is just the American flavor of fascism. And I dislike the term because it invites the belief that it's unique and exclusive to Trump. It's not. It's not even exclusive to the Republican Party.

The first step to coming a problem is acknowledging it; "Trumpism" does the opposite of that.

[Chulanowa]

Uffda, pardon those typos; thumb-typing in the cold, yanno.