2020 Presidential Election

[charley]

Originally Posted by kittygrrl

I detest any reference to "fake news" on our side. This is a term Trump uses often and why would we want to borrow any of his crap? I think we can express ourselves without resorting to using his kind of propaganda.

""Fake news" is a phrase that may seem specific to our particular moment and time in American history."

"But Columbia University Professor Andie Tucher says fake news is deeply rooted in American journalism."

"The first newspaper published in North America got shut down in 1690 after printing fabricated information...."

https://www.npr.org/tags/502124007/fake-news

Fakes news is spread worldwide... Propaganda has existed in all political circles where dictators rule. One can give it other names, use euphemisms, but it's all lies.

Personally, I have tried to talk with some Philippines here, who absolutely believe all that they read in "social media" in the Philippines, suggesting how wonderful Duterte is, despite an overall pov in those who can read between the lines that he is a dictator.

I can cite many examples that are worldwide. So, I see no reason whatsoever not to use such an expression, because everything that comes out of Trump's mouth is "fake news", and that is because he is a "fake".

[kittygrrl]

Originally Posted by charley

""Fake news" is a phrase that may seem specific to our particular moment and time in American history."

"But Columbia University Professor Andie Tucher says fake news is deeply rooted in American journalism."

"The first newspaper published in North America got shut down in 1690 after printing fabricated information...."

https://www.npr.org/tags/502124007/fake-news

Fakes news is spread worldwide... Propaganda has existed in all political circles where dictators rule. One can give it other names, use euphemisms, but it's all lies.

Personally, I have tried to talk with some Philippines here, who absolutely believe all that they read in "social media" in the Philippines, suggesting how wonderful Duterte is, despite an overall pov in those who can read between the lines that he is a dictator.

I can cite many examples that are worldwide. So, I see no reason whatsoever not to use such an expression, because everything that comes out of Trump's mouth is "fake news", and that is because he is a "fake".

Notwithstanding your effort to promote it's usage as acceptable. it was popularized by Trump every time he heard something from the free press that was the truth , he would insist it was "fake news" to deflect. Knowing that why would you want to promote your ideas by using his propaganda method? It's not logical. He's polluted the term, as he has many things, so associating any rational argument using his methods doesn't help the reader to sympathize with your opinion or argument, just the opposite. But it's a free country and my opinion is just one opinion. There are some good ideas here but i find some of the ways it is expressed rude and coarse. That's a shame.

[charley]

Originally Posted by kittygrrl

Notwithstanding your effort to promote it's usage as acceptable. it was popularized by Trump every time he heard something from the free press that was the truth , he would insist it was "fake news" to deflect. Knowing that why would you want to promote your ideas by using his propaganda method? It's not logical. He's polluted the term, as he has many things, so associating any rational argument using his methods doesn't help the reader to sympathize with your opinion or argument, just the opposite. But it's a free country and my opinion is just one opinion. There are some good ideas here but i find some of the ways it is expressed rude and coarse. That's a shame.

from Time Magazine:

"The scourge of “fake news” and its many cousins–from clickbait to “deep fakes” (realistic-looking videos showing events that never happened)–have experts fearful for the future of democracy." - Katy Steinmetz

http://time.com/5362183/the-real-fake-news-crisis/

"Fake news websites (also referred to as hoax news websites) are Internet websites that deliberately publish fake news—hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation purporting to be real news—often using social media to drive web traffic and amplify their effect."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_website

I used the term correctly, which others have also used - and correctly so. And I did not misappropriate the term. I have watched news reports from other countries (I live outside the U.S. and have access to other journalists who use that term correctly.) Just because someone misuses those words does not invalidate their true meaning, and I am not responsible for anothers' misuse of words.

The only issue was proof of Bernie Sanders alleged misdeeds, of which there are none; because, if there were, Mueller would be investigating, and Republicans in the Senate and the POTUS would be calling for him to go to jail, which they are not doing.

An ad hominem attack is an attack on the person usually in the form of an insult, not for the content of what that person stands for.

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

And, the topic of hand was "Bernie Sanders"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

As such, any proposed argument dismissing the use of the term "fake news" just because someone else has misused the term is utterly fallacious and ridiculous and misleading, because it failed miserably to address the fact that someone made false allegations about someone else.

[kittygrrl]

charley i wasn't trying to insult you, but your argument and expression doesn't move me nor is your current explanation polite however, considering the combative nature of this thread in general (except for a few) and the passionate argument without careful consideration of opposing views, it's not a mystery why people in general would not want to wander in here for fear of being slaughtered. Do enjoy.

[WheatToast]

Originally Posted by kittygrrl

charley i wasn't trying to insult you, but your argument and expression doesn't move me nor is your current explanation polite however, considering the combative nature of this thread in general (except for a few) and the passionate argument without careful consideration of opposing views, it's not a mystery why people in general would not want to wander in here for fear of being slaughtered. Do enjoy.

Basically, don't we all want to to see Trump ousted in favor of a president who actually cares about Americans of all stripes?
I believe so,
IMHO, I love Hillary, but that doesn't give me the right to excoriate anyone who can't stand her.
Conversely, I don't like Bernie Sanders (though I used to) but I don't think that should be a ticket for anyone to play pin the tail on the donkey on my ass--which, unlike Bernie, is all Democrat.
If we could agree not to get personal with each other in a hostile way, wouldn't that beat what we may have brewing here?
I stand for the first amendment in all things, including political discussions.

[kittygrrl]

Originally Posted by WheatToast

Basically, don't we all want to to see Trump ousted in favor of a president who actually cares about Americans of all stripes?
I believe so,
IMHO, I love Hillary, but that doesn't give me the right to excoriate anyone who can't stand her.
Conversely, I don't like Bernie Sanders (though I used to) but I don't think that should be a ticket for anyone to play pin the tail on the donkey on my ass--which, unlike Bernie, is all Democrat.
If we could agree not to get personal with each other in a hostile way, wouldn't that beat what we may have brewing here?
I stand for the first amendment in all things, including political discussions.

Agreed, very reasonable