4 ms·

> The clips are a compilation of health experts in January 2020 Did you watch the video? Christiane Amanpour is not a health expert. The media joined the outr

> The clips are a compilation of health experts in January 2020 Did you watch the video? Christiane Amanpour is not a health expert. The media joined the outrage mob only when the wrong people started calling it such. That's more evidence of the early politicization driven by the same media.

refulgentis 5y ago
The argument as described seems weak: "Combination of words $X said on Any News Outlet at any time mean its impossible for anyone to ever criticize $X being said by anyone else in any context at any time after. If it happens, Politicized Media." I wonder if there's a bit more nuanced way to make this argument, I'm amenable to it, but...it reads more as American culture war than a discussion
- trentnix 5y ago
  > I wonder if there's a bit more nuanced way to make this argument, I'm amenable to it, but...it reads more as American culture war than a discussion That's a fair critique, but I'm inclined to leave a more nuanced argument in someone else's hands. I'll just say I've long suspected massive media collusion and I found the media's almost overnight religious conversion on speech that identified the source of the virus to be jarring and suspiciously in sync. There are dozens of egregious examples of the media adopting certain language or using certain terms in a sudden, widespread manner. A few examples you can find on Youtube include "power through", "beginning of the end", "walls closing in", etc. I do think the media monoculture is partially to blame, but I don't that accounts for all of it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- kbutler 5y ago
  I think it occurs someone criticizes a political opponent for using a word or phrase which has been commonplace until that time, though some may have considered it offensive. Immediately, that usage is widely decried as horribly offensive, and even groups that routinely used it pile on to join the attack: "When (my opponent) said X today, it shows they are horrible and intend terrible things, whereas my use of it yesterday/last year (or in the future!) was completely innocent." The direction of the politicization will remain in dispute: Did my opponent politicize it by using language known to be offensive, as a callout to their constituency? Or did I politicize it by criticizing them, as a callout to my constituency? Or do they politicize it by continuing to use it afterward?

refulgentis 5y ago

The argument as described seems weak: "Combination of words $X said on Any News Outlet at any time mean its impossible for anyone to ever criticize $X being said by anyone else in any context at any time after. If it happens, Politicized Media." I wonder if there's a bit more nuanced way to make this argument, I'm amenable to it, but...it reads more as American culture war than a discussion

trentnix 5y ago
> I wonder if there's a bit more nuanced way to make this argument, I'm amenable to it, but...it reads more as American culture war than a discussion That's a fair critique, but I'm inclined to leave a more nuanced argument in someone else's hands. I'll just say I've long suspected massive media collusion and I found the media's almost overnight religious conversion on speech that identified the source of the virus to be jarring and suspiciously in sync. There are dozens of egregious examples of the media adopting certain language or using certain terms in a sudden, widespread manner. A few examples you can find on Youtube include "power through", "beginning of the end", "walls closing in", etc. I do think the media monoculture is partially to blame, but I don't that accounts for all of it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
kbutler 5y ago
I think it occurs someone criticizes a political opponent for using a word or phrase which has been commonplace until that time, though some may have considered it offensive. Immediately, that usage is widely decried as horribly offensive, and even groups that routinely used it pile on to join the attack: "When (my opponent) said X today, it shows they are horrible and intend terrible things, whereas my use of it yesterday/last year (or in the future!) was completely innocent." The direction of the politicization will remain in dispute: Did my opponent politicize it by using language known to be offensive, as a callout to their constituency? Or did I politicize it by criticizing them, as a callout to my constituency? Or do they politicize it by continuing to use it afterward?