4 ms·

[The parent comment does not suggest the premise of this question:] > What makes you feel he is not deserving of criticism? The focus on that comment was the

[The parent comment does not suggest the premise of this question:] > What makes you feel he is not deserving of criticism? The focus on that comment was the nature and quality of the criticism, not the simple fact of some criticism occurring. For those of us who feel very strongly that there is some very important criticism we should be focused on, it can be frustrating and disheartening to see a media establishment, and millions of uncritical viewers, making the worst types of criticism (criticism based on lies and false reasoning). The most important (and valid) criticisms get lost in the noise. Further, moderately critical thinkers can become desensitized due to the low quality criticism. When they hear that he has done some new terrible thing, some of them start to tune it out as 'most likely another lie'. (Appending paragraphs with edits) One part of the problem is click-bait journalism. Hyperbolic claims get more eyeballs, more clicks. Incidentally, I agree with the second half of your statement.

osrec 6y ago
> but I am honestly tired of how methodically wrong the criticism are toward that person The criticisms are described as "methodically wrong", but I disagree. In fact, while the US P frequently dabbles in ad-hominem, most criticisms of him seem valid and well presented. I don't feel he is being unfairly targeted by falsehoods, since much of the critique is a direct result of what comes out of his mouth, rather than hearsay. I do agree with you on click-bait journalism. I think the current US P has given the media an unbelievable boost, and they must be (secretly!) hoping he stays in office forever. I mean, they have probably never had such a sensational political soap-opera to report on! Yet only part of the sensationalism can be blamed on the media - much of the story is sensational in its own right, thanks to the person involved!
- jshevek 6y ago
  >The criticisms are described as "methodically wrong" At this point are we on the same page, that the GP was claiming that "methodically wrong" criticism occurs, not that all the criticism is methodically wrong? The total volume of media criticism is huge. It's possible that you, me, and the parent poster are simply looking at different portions of the criticism being made. When you say "much of the critique" I take this to mean "much of the critique that you've seen", and when I say I "see a media establishment...making the worst types of criticism" I'm speaking to what I've seen. >a direct result of what comes out of his mouth [Unless full context is given,] this is often not sufficient to ensure that the criticism is fair, and accurate. Consider, for example, the way the media lied about his comments on Charlottesville. They used the actual words out of his mouth, but selectively omitted the most important words necessary to understand what he was actually saying. By omitting those words, they painted a false picture in which he appeared to say the opposite of what he was saying. In my experience at the time, I saw no left leaning outlets reporting accurately on this.
  - osrec 6y ago
    The implication was that the vast majority of criticism is methodically wrong. I don't think that's true. I'd say the vast majority is well-deserved based on silly/stupid actions or words. Regarding the critique, please tell me how you'd interpret this video: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/trump-disinfectant-bleach-sarcastic https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/trump-disinfec... ? Before this statement was made, the US P's supporters were saying that he was referring to "advanced treatments" that detractors were unaware of. Now the US P comes out and says that his comments were made sarcastically (huh?!), completely killing the "advanced treatments" theory. I am eager to know what you make of this? Is the criticism he faced for this valid in your opinion?
    - jshevek 6y ago
      >The implication was that the vast majority of criticism is methodically wrong. Not at all. Only that there is enough to warrant the expression of concern which the GP made. We each have different tolerances. >the US P's supporters were saying that he was referring to "advanced treatments" that detractors were unaware of. Are you viewing US P supporters as a monolith? I heard those claims from some people. I thought it was unlikely because he has demonstrated substantial scientific illiteracy in other situations. Regarding 'sarcasm', I think, most likely, he was saying whatever he thought, at the moment, would help him move on and put that embarrassing situation behind him. >Is the criticism he faced for this valid in your opinion? Which criticism, exactly? Because I saw headlines implying that Trump got up on stage, addressed the American people, and suggested to the American people that they should inject bleach into their bodies to cure this disease. This is a good example of what I'm talking about. The man is not science literate, and he says some amazingly dumb things. You don't have to spin what he says to criticize him, and yet some in the media still dialed it up to 11 and painted a [dishonest] representation of events. Edit: Just to emphasize this, when you ask Is the criticism he faced for this valid in your opinion?, he most definitely deserved to be criticized for what he actually said. The fact that he deserves to be criticized doesn't mean the form, content, and nature of all of the criticism that everyone makes is okay.
      - 6y ago

osrec 6y ago

> but I am honestly tired of how methodically wrong the criticism are toward that person The criticisms are described as "methodically wrong", but I disagree. In fact, while the US P frequently dabbles in ad-hominem, most criticisms of him seem valid and well presented. I don't feel he is being unfairly targeted by falsehoods, since much of the critique is a direct result of what comes out of his mouth, rather than hearsay. I do agree with you on click-bait journalism. I think the current US P has given the media an unbelievable boost, and they must be (secretly!) hoping he stays in office forever. I mean, they have probably never had such a sensational political soap-opera to report on! Yet only part of the sensationalism can be blamed on the media - much of the story is sensational in its own right, thanks to the person involved!

jshevek 6y ago
>The criticisms are described as "methodically wrong" At this point are we on the same page, that the GP was claiming that "methodically wrong" criticism occurs, not that all the criticism is methodically wrong? The total volume of media criticism is huge. It's possible that you, me, and the parent poster are simply looking at different portions of the criticism being made. When you say "much of the critique" I take this to mean "much of the critique that you've seen", and when I say I "see a media establishment...making the worst types of criticism" I'm speaking to what I've seen. >a direct result of what comes out of his mouth [Unless full context is given,] this is often not sufficient to ensure that the criticism is fair, and accurate. Consider, for example, the way the media lied about his comments on Charlottesville. They used the actual words out of his mouth, but selectively omitted the most important words necessary to understand what he was actually saying. By omitting those words, they painted a false picture in which he appeared to say the opposite of what he was saying. In my experience at the time, I saw no left leaning outlets reporting accurately on this.
- osrec 6y ago
  The implication was that the vast majority of criticism is methodically wrong. I don't think that's true. I'd say the vast majority is well-deserved based on silly/stupid actions or words. Regarding the critique, please tell me how you'd interpret this video: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/trump-disinfectant-bleach-sarcastic https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/trump-disinfec... ? Before this statement was made, the US P's supporters were saying that he was referring to "advanced treatments" that detractors were unaware of. Now the US P comes out and says that his comments were made sarcastically (huh?!), completely killing the "advanced treatments" theory. I am eager to know what you make of this? Is the criticism he faced for this valid in your opinion?
  - jshevek 6y ago
    >The implication was that the vast majority of criticism is methodically wrong. Not at all. Only that there is enough to warrant the expression of concern which the GP made. We each have different tolerances. >the US P's supporters were saying that he was referring to "advanced treatments" that detractors were unaware of. Are you viewing US P supporters as a monolith? I heard those claims from some people. I thought it was unlikely because he has demonstrated substantial scientific illiteracy in other situations. Regarding 'sarcasm', I think, most likely, he was saying whatever he thought, at the moment, would help him move on and put that embarrassing situation behind him. >Is the criticism he faced for this valid in your opinion? Which criticism, exactly? Because I saw headlines implying that Trump got up on stage, addressed the American people, and suggested to the American people that they should inject bleach into their bodies to cure this disease. This is a good example of what I'm talking about. The man is not science literate, and he says some amazingly dumb things. You don't have to spin what he says to criticize him, and yet some in the media still dialed it up to 11 and painted a [dishonest] representation of events. Edit: Just to emphasize this, when you ask Is the criticism he faced for this valid in your opinion?, he most definitely deserved to be criticized for what he actually said. The fact that he deserves to be criticized doesn't mean the form, content, and nature of all of the criticism that everyone makes is okay.
    - 6y ago