[untitled]
7 comments
The author criticizes Trump heavily, but then starts to support traditional media under the guise of journalism. The overwhelming majority of major news networks in this country are for profit and bloated by corporate greed. Don't get it twisted, traditional media should not be trusted, neither should Trump. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend, and the media is picking this battle carefully so as to rake in more clicks and profit.
I am getting disgusted by how the left is becoming more and more friendly to corporations and traditional media in the wake of Trump. A corporation can never be woke or virtuous. A corporate entity supporting lgbtq rights or diversity is the same as when Hitler supported animal rights or labour standards; Hitler is still evil, and so are corporations.
I am getting disgusted by how the left is becoming more and more friendly to corporations and traditional media in the wake of Trump. A corporation can never be woke or virtuous. A corporate entity supporting lgbtq rights or diversity is the same as when Hitler supported animal rights or labour standards; Hitler is still evil, and so are corporations.
Regarding their stance towards Trump and corporations, I don't think that's too surprising - the US left wing is right wing by international standards.
By European standard I would say it's more towards the center, if you're taking about the Dems. Certainly not "left" but surely not "right".
Yeah completely the left from US like AOC, Bernie and Gravel are centre left at best. I am disgusted of China and others but at the same time I'm disgusted at the papers and media not talking about US, UK and many others surveillance states.
[deleted]
During a speech in July 2018, Trump himself said: “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” Another line from Nineteen Eighty-Four went viral—a real one this time: “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
That's all right, but when dealing with the information the party was distributing, wouldn't "don't trust your eyes and ears" be the correct advice? You may see pictures of Eastasian troops marching whom we've always been at war with. You may hear the news anchor talk about the events of the day. You shouldn't believe either.
You may hear Nayirah testify about the terrible things that are done by Iraqi soldiers in Kuwaiti hospitals. You may see those satellite pictures, presented by Powell and explained by your newspaper of choice, clearly showing Saddam's WMD factories.
It's not wise to believe what you hear or see, especially when you hear and see things filtered through the lenses and microphones of other people, digitally altered for maximum effect.
That's all right, but when dealing with the information the party was distributing, wouldn't "don't trust your eyes and ears" be the correct advice? You may see pictures of Eastasian troops marching whom we've always been at war with. You may hear the news anchor talk about the events of the day. You shouldn't believe either.
You may hear Nayirah testify about the terrible things that are done by Iraqi soldiers in Kuwaiti hospitals. You may see those satellite pictures, presented by Powell and explained by your newspaper of choice, clearly showing Saddam's WMD factories.
It's not wise to believe what you hear or see, especially when you hear and see things filtered through the lenses and microphones of other people, digitally altered for maximum effect.
> From Putin to Trump, We Are Being Told to "reject the evidence of your eyes and ears."
Every time I see statements like this, I wish someone presented a deeper historical and cultural analysis. Is the level of official lies any different than during Cold War, WWII, WWI, Crimean war, etc.? Is the offence of asking from people to reject the evidence of their eyes and ears any different than what various religions and cults have done to their followers for millennia?
Sure, the capabilities to surveil the population and to reach masses with a message have reached historically unprecedented levels; but other than that, have there been any substantial shifts?
I know Yuval Harari has expressed his skepticism on this point; but he never really undertook a task of comparing the present and the past as regards to the levels of lying.
As an aside: I am also a bit surprised by the role attributed to Aleksandr Dugin in some of the narratives of Putin’s Russia (e.g. "Inspired by the fascist thinker Aleksandr Dugin, he called it Eurasia" in this article). I am not sure whether there is any concrete evidence of Dugin’s direct influence on the thinking of top Russian politicians. This is probably a question for historians and literary scholars to assess that.