6 ms·

Its absolutely not a false equivalence. Infowars publishes tons of fear mongering articles with various shades of legitimacy, just like this article. EDIT: It's

by MollyR 10y ago

Its absolutely not a false equivalence. Infowars publishes tons of fear mongering articles with various shades of legitimacy, just like this article. EDIT: It's how they got so influential, they mix a lot of half truths and speculation into their articles. A muslim ban that doesn't ban saudi arabia, india,pakistan indonesia,and somalia doesn't seem much of a muslim ban. I'm going to quote elon musk here "Reading the source material is better than reading other people's opinions about the source material" on the muslim ban. Its pretty clear the media is acting as an opposition party to Trump rather then objective researchers. I highly suggest you read the actual executive orders, before you start fear mongering, because that doesn't actually help anybody.

grzm 10y ago
Source material is important. It's also important to look at what people have said around the creation of that source material. Giuliani, in an interview on Fox News, yesterday: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-trump-asked-me-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-t... "I’ll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban,'" Giuliani said on Fox News. "He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’" I find it very difficult to dismiss out of hand that it isn't intended as a Muslim ban in spirit when Giuliani explicitly says that this exactly what he was asked to do. The submitted post also includes two articles which include a lot of additional source material.
- MollyR 10y ago
  In the article, it says explicitly. """ "The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible." Giuliani reiterated that the ban is "not based on religion." """ A muslim ban not based in religion sounds nonsensical to me. As for the conspiracy theory medium article, its easy to do in a world of big data. It's called cherry picking, and its exactly what Info Wars does to create their fear mongering articles. Vague speculation and half truths on the main premises of the paper, and then even the conclusions. Here's an example from the medium article: "The aims of crushing various groups — Muslims, Latinos, the black and trans communities, academics, the press — are very much primary aims of the regime" This is clear hysteria. Here's what Trump actually said on black communities while campaigning, "We're going to rebuild our inner cities because our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever been in before. Ever, ever, ever." And so far President Trump as been doing pretty closely what he said.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I don't understand your argument. He is right there on video, from just a couple days ago, saying that he and his team were tasked with designing a Muslim ban. I'm sorry, I believe my lying eyes.
  - grzm 10y ago
    A muslim ban not based in religion sounds nonsensical to me. I agree. Will you admit that sometimes people figure out ways to accomplish their goals under the cover of something else? That they know something won't be politically or legally feasible to do head on, but that they can accomplish another way if they don't express their actual intent explicitly? I think it's hard not to argue this happens. This type of accusation is thrown around all of the time from all sides. In this particular instance, we've got explicit evidence of exactly that from one of the people who was involved in doing it. It's really hard to ignore this, or even deny the possibility without being disingenuous. And this is ignoring the submitted article all-together.
    - MollyR 10y ago
      No I don't. I think the executive limits worked pretty well here. President Trump may have wanted a muslim ban, but they couldn't do it. So they tried to take Obama what did in 2011, a few steps further and are rightfully taking flak for it, just like I think Obama should have gotten in 2011. Again though a muslim ban not based in religion sounds nonsensical. Edit: Is there subtext I'm missing. Are you implying this is a slippery slope to a full muslim ban ?
      - grzm 10y ago
        I think the executive limits worked pretty well here. President Trump may have wanted a muslim ban, but they couldn't do it. (Aside: may have wanted? Can't even trust what Giuliani said Trump told him?) Great. So we're supposed to be happy with a President who stretches the law as far as he can to do what he wants. This smacks of the "well, it was legal, so what's the problem?" argument we hear all too often. Just because you can figure out a way to do something legally doesn't mean it's the right or moral thing to do. Response to the edit: Yes, I think there's something you're missing, and it's not subtext at all. Trump at minimum wanted a Muslim ban. There's no reason to think he won't continue to push for one, or one that accomplishes the same goals. Trump is very good at not clearly expressing what he means. I'm not satisfied yet whether this is intended or not. If the latter, it's sowing a lot of needless confusion domestically and abroad. If on purpose, it makes it very difficult to trust him and know what his intent is, domestically and abroad. Evidence on HN: Trump supporters are divided as to whether this is a Muslim ban or not. You'll find comments expressing either opinion.

by MollyR 10y ago

grzm 10y ago

Source material is important. It's also important to look at what people have said around the creation of that source material. Giuliani, in an interview on Fox News, yesterday: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-trump-asked-me-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-t... "I’ll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban,'" Giuliani said on Fox News. "He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’" I find it very difficult to dismiss out of hand that it isn't intended as a Muslim ban in spirit when Giuliani explicitly says that this exactly what he was asked to do. The submitted post also includes two articles which include a lot of additional source material.

MollyR 10y ago
In the article, it says explicitly. """ "The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible." Giuliani reiterated that the ban is "not based on religion." """ A muslim ban not based in religion sounds nonsensical to me. As for the conspiracy theory medium article, its easy to do in a world of big data. It's called cherry picking, and its exactly what Info Wars does to create their fear mongering articles. Vague speculation and half truths on the main premises of the paper, and then even the conclusions. Here's an example from the medium article: "The aims of crushing various groups — Muslims, Latinos, the black and trans communities, academics, the press — are very much primary aims of the regime" This is clear hysteria. Here's what Trump actually said on black communities while campaigning, "We're going to rebuild our inner cities because our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever been in before. Ever, ever, ever." And so far President Trump as been doing pretty closely what he said.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I don't understand your argument. He is right there on video, from just a couple days ago, saying that he and his team were tasked with designing a Muslim ban. I'm sorry, I believe my lying eyes.
- grzm 10y ago
  A muslim ban not based in religion sounds nonsensical to me. I agree. Will you admit that sometimes people figure out ways to accomplish their goals under the cover of something else? That they know something won't be politically or legally feasible to do head on, but that they can accomplish another way if they don't express their actual intent explicitly? I think it's hard not to argue this happens. This type of accusation is thrown around all of the time from all sides. In this particular instance, we've got explicit evidence of exactly that from one of the people who was involved in doing it. It's really hard to ignore this, or even deny the possibility without being disingenuous. And this is ignoring the submitted article all-together.
  - MollyR 10y ago
    No I don't. I think the executive limits worked pretty well here. President Trump may have wanted a muslim ban, but they couldn't do it. So they tried to take Obama what did in 2011, a few steps further and are rightfully taking flak for it, just like I think Obama should have gotten in 2011. Again though a muslim ban not based in religion sounds nonsensical. Edit: Is there subtext I'm missing. Are you implying this is a slippery slope to a full muslim ban ?
    - grzm 10y ago
      I think the executive limits worked pretty well here. President Trump may have wanted a muslim ban, but they couldn't do it. (Aside: may have wanted? Can't even trust what Giuliani said Trump told him?) Great. So we're supposed to be happy with a President who stretches the law as far as he can to do what he wants. This smacks of the "well, it was legal, so what's the problem?" argument we hear all too often. Just because you can figure out a way to do something legally doesn't mean it's the right or moral thing to do. Response to the edit: Yes, I think there's something you're missing, and it's not subtext at all. Trump at minimum wanted a Muslim ban. There's no reason to think he won't continue to push for one, or one that accomplishes the same goals. Trump is very good at not clearly expressing what he means. I'm not satisfied yet whether this is intended or not. If the latter, it's sowing a lot of needless confusion domestically and abroad. If on purpose, it makes it very difficult to trust him and know what his intent is, domestically and abroad. Evidence on HN: Trump supporters are divided as to whether this is a Muslim ban or not. You'll find comments expressing either opinion.