3 ms·
His point was broadly about the tone in which Trump has been described in the media, and how that contributes to the division that currently exists in America.
by rfrank 10y ago
His point was broadly about the tone in which Trump has been described in the media, and how that contributes to the division that currently exists in America.
"How do you talk people down after spending a year telling them Hitler was coming to power?" vs. "How do you talk people down after spending a year telling them a fascist was coming to power?" isn't a very meaningful distinction to me in that context. Your mileage may vary. Many mainstream outlets have expressed that opinion for a long time, and it's a point of view I've seen defended here on HN many times in political threads. I don't think it's a fringe viewpoint at all.
- epistasis 10y agoThere's a difference between what all these people are warning of, and then "literally Hitler" of starting a world war and imprisoning all political opponents and then executing millions of the prisoners like cattle in an industrial processing plant. The "literally Hitler" smear is an attempt to distinguish that careful, and important distinction, so that the entire thought can be dismissed as ridiculous. Looking at each of those articles where they say "not hitler, but he still is making noises like he'll be bad," do you think that needs to be walked back? Were they ignoring reality, or facing an unpleasant reality? "Literally Hitler" is not a thoughtful, fair, or even useful characterization of these viewpoints.
- rfrank 10y agoLiterally Hitler and literally fascism are both just bedwetting.