5 ms·

This is a good take. I'm genuinely sorry you're being downvoted. Anything remotely positive about Trump is just destroyed and it's absolutely ridiculous. There'

This is a good take. I'm genuinely sorry you're being downvoted. Anything remotely positive about Trump is just destroyed and it's absolutely ridiculous. There's no objectivity - people online interpret everything he does in the absolutely worst way.

Loughla 6y ago
Honestly. Maybe I should've put the line in there that I deleted calling him an idiot. Because apparently I need to be clear, I think this is complete idiocy. But there are always 2 sides to every coin.
- BitwiseFool 6y ago
  Heck, I got downvoted for talking about a pattern I noticed. I never even gave an opinion good or bad about him.
anigbrowl 6y ago
He habitually demonizes and belittles others for political gain, often in the crudest terms, and then whines about how unfairly he is treated. Objectivity does not require blinding oneself to context.
- twomoretime 6y ago
  >Objectivity does not require blinding oneself to context. That's not context. The fact that he acts like a child does not justify exaggeration or sensationalism. And the press has undeniably been antagonistic going back to election season - he just seems to be the first president to fight back, however crudely. And objectivity requires normalizing context for emotional influence. That means not being blind to context, but inhibiting your hatred momentarily to examine whether the media is also behaving unbecomingly.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    The record of his public behavior is most certainly context. I didn't say he was childish, but that he was aggressive; and to the extent that the press has been antagonistic, maybe because that's because he began his campaign that way. Here's an excerpt from his announcement speech: When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. People like you have have lots of problems. You're bringing drugs. You're bringing crime. You're rapists. And some of you, I assume, are good people. How do you feel to find yourself as the subject of such rhetoric? I'm guessing, not very good. You're probably feeling something along the lines of 'what did I do to you, I'm just living my life and you come along and start saying these things about me.' And before he announced his entry to the political field on that occasion, he had many times solicited attention online by making unilateral aggressive personal attacks on other public figures. What he's 'fighting back' against appears to the plain reports of his own behavior. At press conferences, when he's asked how his rhetoric comports with previous and recent statements of his that appear contradictory, he frequently complains about 'nasty questions' and engages in direct personal attacks. And objectivity requires normalizing context for emotional influence. That means not being blind to context, but inhibiting your hatred momentarily to examine whether the media is also behaving unbecomingly. What hatred? And which unbecoming media behavior are we talking about? I formed my negative opinion of Trump's remarks at his press conference yesterday based upon listening to them on the White house's youtube channel. I don't have a cable TV subscription so I don't rely on second-hand interpretations by news anchors or pundits. Seems like you might be experiencing a little cognitive bias of your own.
    - twomoretime 6y ago
      >How do you feel to find yourself as the subject of such rhetoric I'm the son of immigrants and if anyone implied that most of the immigrants from my third world country of origin were, let's say, underachievers, I wouldn't have any problem with it, because this hypersensitivity to anything remotely critical of people from other nations or cultures is an inane western cultural norm. I assure you that liberal white people are far more offended on anyone's behalf than actual minorities. >How do you feel to find yourself as the subject of such rhetoric? I'm guessing, not very good. You're probably feeling something along the lines of 'what did I do to you, I'm just living my life and you come along and start saying these things about me.' This is absolutely childish reasoning. What Trump says about the general state of immigrants coming from my country of origin does not reflect on me personally. Moreover, what he's saying is objectively true, in that the people crossing the border illegally are not exactly doctors and scientists with post graduate degrees. They are mostly a burden on our infrastructure and all that about how they contribute more than they take is absolute hogwash...but that's another discussion. >What he's 'fighting back' against appears to the plain reports of his own behavior. >I formed my negative opinion of Trump's remarks at his press conference yesterday based upon listening to them on the White house's youtube channel. Do you honestly think it's reasonable that some 95% of headlines about Trump are negative? Do you truly believe that every single thing he does is negative? I challenge you to find a single positive headline from CNN or MSNBC or the like from the last few years that isn't an editorial. >Seems like you might be experiencing a little cognitive bias of your own. My cognitive bias is that statistically for Trump to make the wrong call as often as the media claims he does, he'd have to do so deliberately. As in it would take effort and skill to be wrong this often. >What hatred Please. You want to pretend people online aren't rabidly against Trump? Even this latest gaffe, coverage of which is exclusively negative, could trivially be interpreted as listening and deferring to suggestions from experts. But you won't find that valid take on "reputable" media.

Loughla 6y ago

Honestly. Maybe I should've put the line in there that I deleted calling him an idiot. Because apparently I need to be clear, I think this is complete idiocy. But there are always 2 sides to every coin.

BitwiseFool 6y ago
Heck, I got downvoted for talking about a pattern I noticed. I never even gave an opinion good or bad about him.

anigbrowl 6y ago

He habitually demonizes and belittles others for political gain, often in the crudest terms, and then whines about how unfairly he is treated. Objectivity does not require blinding oneself to context.

twomoretime 6y ago
>Objectivity does not require blinding oneself to context. That's not context. The fact that he acts like a child does not justify exaggeration or sensationalism. And the press has undeniably been antagonistic going back to election season - he just seems to be the first president to fight back, however crudely. And objectivity requires normalizing context for emotional influence. That means not being blind to context, but inhibiting your hatred momentarily to examine whether the media is also behaving unbecomingly.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  The record of his public behavior is most certainly context. I didn't say he was childish, but that he was aggressive; and to the extent that the press has been antagonistic, maybe because that's because he began his campaign that way. Here's an excerpt from his announcement speech: When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. People like you have have lots of problems. You're bringing drugs. You're bringing crime. You're rapists. And some of you, I assume, are good people. How do you feel to find yourself as the subject of such rhetoric? I'm guessing, not very good. You're probably feeling something along the lines of 'what did I do to you, I'm just living my life and you come along and start saying these things about me.' And before he announced his entry to the political field on that occasion, he had many times solicited attention online by making unilateral aggressive personal attacks on other public figures. What he's 'fighting back' against appears to the plain reports of his own behavior. At press conferences, when he's asked how his rhetoric comports with previous and recent statements of his that appear contradictory, he frequently complains about 'nasty questions' and engages in direct personal attacks. And objectivity requires normalizing context for emotional influence. That means not being blind to context, but inhibiting your hatred momentarily to examine whether the media is also behaving unbecomingly. What hatred? And which unbecoming media behavior are we talking about? I formed my negative opinion of Trump's remarks at his press conference yesterday based upon listening to them on the White house's youtube channel. I don't have a cable TV subscription so I don't rely on second-hand interpretations by news anchors or pundits. Seems like you might be experiencing a little cognitive bias of your own.
  - twomoretime 6y ago
    >How do you feel to find yourself as the subject of such rhetoric I'm the son of immigrants and if anyone implied that most of the immigrants from my third world country of origin were, let's say, underachievers, I wouldn't have any problem with it, because this hypersensitivity to anything remotely critical of people from other nations or cultures is an inane western cultural norm. I assure you that liberal white people are far more offended on anyone's behalf than actual minorities. >How do you feel to find yourself as the subject of such rhetoric? I'm guessing, not very good. You're probably feeling something along the lines of 'what did I do to you, I'm just living my life and you come along and start saying these things about me.' This is absolutely childish reasoning. What Trump says about the general state of immigrants coming from my country of origin does not reflect on me personally. Moreover, what he's saying is objectively true, in that the people crossing the border illegally are not exactly doctors and scientists with post graduate degrees. They are mostly a burden on our infrastructure and all that about how they contribute more than they take is absolute hogwash...but that's another discussion. >What he's 'fighting back' against appears to the plain reports of his own behavior. >I formed my negative opinion of Trump's remarks at his press conference yesterday based upon listening to them on the White house's youtube channel. Do you honestly think it's reasonable that some 95% of headlines about Trump are negative? Do you truly believe that every single thing he does is negative? I challenge you to find a single positive headline from CNN or MSNBC or the like from the last few years that isn't an editorial. >Seems like you might be experiencing a little cognitive bias of your own. My cognitive bias is that statistically for Trump to make the wrong call as often as the media claims he does, he'd have to do so deliberately. As in it would take effort and skill to be wrong this often. >What hatred Please. You want to pretend people online aren't rabidly against Trump? Even this latest gaffe, coverage of which is exclusively negative, could trivially be interpreted as listening and deferring to suggestions from experts. But you won't find that valid take on "reputable" media.