NY Times vs Donald Trump

in #news7 years ago (edited)

Theory: Whenever the MSM is indignant and on a high horse about Donald Trump, it was probably one of his more reasonable moments.

Article: Trump’s History of Defending Men Accused of Hurting Women

If you look at Trump's tweet, and insert any other topic besides [women accusing men of sexual misconduct], like you just measure the content of those words, I don't think anybody runs around disagreeing or has any issue with it.

Yet, the general feeling and implication from the NY Times (and probably from the left in general) is that this is sexism on Trump's part. That he's "defending men".

But since you'd agree with the statement if it were other topics besides this, and have an issue with it in this case, maybe you're the sexist ones? 🤔🤔🤔

Due process is always important.

Ultimately, to protect potential future victims.

There really are no shortcuts in this universe of ours, and this is a perfect illustration of that.

The less committed you are to due process, the more unclear it is that all future similar claims are true.

And then a side-effect is you create immunity for anyone who really did it. Without due process, the worst case scenario for an offender is to be placed in a more murky category of "may have done it but it's so hard to tell these days" rather than the firm category of people who are sex offenders and should be treated as such.

By muddying the water in this way it becomes a more favorable landscape for people who want to offend.

So due process is just a good thing.

It doesn't help men or women or any demographic at the expense of others.

It's just good that we would have a standard of seeking truth and clarity about what occurred. And it's really just insane to suggest otherwise. (Even if you don't like Donald Trump, it's insane to believe there's anything wrong with his statement about due process.)


Are Trump's statements politically motivated? Sure, probably. (Or at least, motivated by a sense of loyalty to someone who has worked with him.) But that doesn't mean you have a valid reason to criticize it.

It can happen to be reasonable and true even if it's motivated politically.

There could be a political motivation behind a statement about why it's good to help old people cross the street. But all you can do is measure the content of the statement. You don't have a valid objection with it just because you don't like the messenger.

The Times goes on to say that Trump's criticisms seem to fall along partisan lines. 😲

There's a lot to dissect here.

Partisan lines could easily be a part of it. But that's hardly the defining feature.

If someone spits on my shoes and I spit back, it doesn't seem like the first thing you should mention is that he had any feature or characteristic besides that he spit on my shoes.

Even in The Times' own edit here you see that Franken is accusing Trump of having a history of sexual assault. And so Trump isn't necessarily motivated by anything other than returning the same treatment or standard.

For better or worse (whether he should have responded or ignored it or whatever), you can't leap to it being about political lines. In my book, if you antagonize someone, you don't get to say it was some other thing besides your behavior that caused them to react.

Plus there's literally a photograph that shows Franken to be guilty of what he's accused of, which seems to kind of take it out of the "allegation" phase. But that's not even important.

Different standards.

Trump isn't trying to strip Clinton of Due Process. If these accusers aren't being heard, then calling it to attention is an act of Due Process.

In other words:

"In this case we rush to judgment and assume the person is guilty"

and

"In this case we don't investigate and ignore the allegations and continue to give the person positive news coverage"

are BOTH examples of Due Process not occurring.

So a consistent commitment to due process would potentially cause you to be labeled as hypocritical by the NY Times.

I wonder if there's a chance they could be falling along partisan lines here. 🤣🤣🤣

Of course Trump is politically motivated when he calls out Bill Clinton, but again, that doesn't mean he's wrong or that there's a valid criticism of it.

And regardless..

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Flashing back to the title of the article: Trump's History of Defending Men Accused of Hurting Women

You don't get to accuse him of siding with men over women, and then cite all these other examples of when he sided with women over men and forget you ever said the first thing and now try to accuse him of a different bias.

It's kind of like you don't get to accuse me of rooting for the Cavs over the Warriors, and then also accuse me of basing it on some other variable like who was winning at the time.

I mean, you could. But it's self-defeating. One allegation directly cuts in to the other. If the second one is true it comes at the expense of how true the first one could have been.

So if I was a reader of the NY Times, I'd be annoyed that they drew me in with one thing and then proceeded to say things that weakened that claim.

It seems like a dizzying web of wasting my time with non-material. Basically drawn up to try to manipulate people into feeling a certain way without any specific arguments or justifications for it.

Sort:  

They seem to be losing their own audience on the Trump narrative. The people I know who still push the Russia story do so at a very shallow level. Social norm if nothing else.

Ya. I feel like it's pretty polarizing. Like even for people who aren't hellbent on supporting Trump, it just gets dizzying, to think you're getting news and really it's a concentrated effort to portray someone poorly.

I wonder if they'll start to adapt soon. I suppose if there become bigger issues in the economy then they can just focus on that.

A lot of people who did not support Trump are finding themselves defending him because the other side has lost all critical thinking and reality.

Haha right! I'd put myself in that category. I don't support political power in the hands of anyone, and I'm sure disagree with plenty of what Trump says. But it gets to the point of being such a critical thinking nightmare, and just kinda gross and manipulative, that it's hard to not find yourself defending him.

It's like people want to say the grass is purple, you end up defending that it's green.

One thing we know for sure, is that there are a lot of women who will lie about abuse and rape. There are also a lot of men who will abuse and rape. It's strange how the left is trying to push this agenda that women should be believed over men for the simple fact that they have vaginas.

Enzo Amore of the WWE was just fired for a rape accusation a week ago. Then text messages leaked of her bragging about having sex with Enzo. His career is STILL over and people still associate him with being a rapist.

Women, being the physically weaker sex, inflict harm on men with false accusations rather than striking them, because it's the only type of harm they can inflict in most situations.

Trump is the master of making statements that the fakenews will pretend to be outraged by, but the general population agrees with.

Ya, and as long as there's low standard or no standard in terms of making sure the claims are real, then there inevitably WILL be false claims. If you know you can snap your fingers to take down any political rival or anyone you don't like, then people will do it.

In a voluntary futuristic world with p2p credit and ratings, there will be a natural balancing and disincentive around stuff like this. If you're known to report inaccurately, the algorithm should weaken or even remove the weight of your vote. So an interesting thing happens where by falsely accusing you actually compromise your own security. If you falsely accuse people of theft, and now the algorithm dampens your reports, now a thief would see you as a better target than previously. If you falsely accuse people of rape...

Just, in statist world it's kind of warped to where there can be so much to gain relative to how much reputation matters.

"Trump is the master of making statements that the fakenews will pretend to be outraged by, but the general population agrees with."

Haha! Ya he's next level.

Oh wow. That will be great. We also could have a steemit-like token that rewards people for "curating" #metoo style claims. Lol.

lollll ya.

And ya, I think some sort of token like that is totally feasible. Some way to essentially decentralize the judicial process, into the hands of whoever has the best info.

Anything that trump has said or done, past presidents or leaders from left have supported it.

Yup! Same quotes from Obama would turn into inspirational little memes with his pic next to it, but from Trump they get mad.

I don't know , it doesn't look like anything.
It is completely redundant if a person is a man or a woman, it has to be proven quilt and not just 'allegedly'.

Yup! The allegation should be taken very seriously, but that doesn't mean rushing to judgment, that means investigating it. And then it should be known to be true before you assume the person is guilty. For everyone's safety.

Donald Trump doesn't give two shits about NYTimes or whatsoever.

hehe, true. lots of people still get their news that way tho.

Curated for #informationwar (by @stevescoins)
Relevance: #fakenews, media bias
Our Purpose

It's a battle out there!

resteemit done dear

ty dear

good news sharing
really valuable that is
resteemit done

thank you!