- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
Just because Republicans choose unreality doesnāt mean the media should ignore the facts of January 6.
On January 6, 2021, I watched CNN as thousands of Donald Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol. As someone well-versed in watching tragedy on television, I was struck by just how indisputable the facts were at the time: violent, red-hat-clad MAGA rioters, followed by Republicans in Congress, tried to stop democracy in its tracks. Trump had told his followers that the protest in Washington, DC, āwill be wild,ā and in the assault that followed his speech, some rioters smeared feces on the walls of the Capitol. Hundreds of them have since been convicted on charges ranging from assault on federal officers to seditious conspiracy. These are stubborn facts, the kind that do not care about your feelings. These facts include the inalienable truth that Trump is the first president in American history to reject the peaceful transfer of power.
It never occurred to me that these facts could somehow be perverted by partisanship. But three years later, we are seeing just that, as Republicans cling to the lie that the 2020 election was āstolenā by Joe Biden and are poised to make Trump their 2024 nominee. And perhaps even more dangerous than the GOP ditching reality is the news mediaās inability to cover Trumpism as the threat to democracy that it very much is.
ā¦
But the problem is, when all you have is conventional political framing, everything looks like politics as usual. One candidate makes a claim; the other disputes it. Two sides are divided, etc. This framing only works if both parties operate within the frameworks of a shared reality. But Trumpism doesnāt allow for the reality the rest of us inhabit. Trumpās supporters believe their leaderās reality and not, say, the reality the rest of us see with our eyes. As Trump once told a crowd: āDonāt believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. What youāre seeing and what youāre reading is not whatās happening.ā
Journalists may be well-intentioned in trying to be āobjective,ā or theyāre simply afraid of being labeled partisan. Either way, coverage of January 6 that gives equal weight to both sidesāone based in reality, one notāis helping pave the road for authoritarianism.
I would rather not vote than vote for someone whose first response to a genocide is rushing as many American military assets and weapons as possible to enable it.
You do realize that not everyone in your country has fully assimilated to your extremely chauvinist worldview right?
Whatās chauvinist about not wanting to make a bad situation worse?
Itās the orientation that enabling a genocide is somehow excusable when itās āyour guyā, combined with the implicit understanding that something to do with foreign policy (itself a chauvinist term) shouldnāt affect how people vote when bad things at home are at stake. Like itās sports or something.
Iām sensitive to this because I just donāt have the luxury of disregarding what happens to brown and brown-adjacent people as a result of US āforeign policyā. The bad situation weāre in is directly the result of decisions made (and being refused to get made) by our harm reduction president and his administration.
No itās not. Voting for someone doesnāt mean you think theyāre ok.
I get that people are capable of doing that, but I donāt find the party which is completely unreachable on the genocide theyāre participating in as a credible alternative to the openly fascist party.
deleted by creator