Of all the schisms that cleave contemporary America, few are more stark than the divide between those who consider themselves to be victims of US history and those who fear they will be casualties of its future.
No need to be pedantic. My point is that the author clearly likes Harris and doesn’t like Trump. The author does a good job illustrating the perspective of people who like Harris and don’t like Trump. But someone who likes Trump and doesn’t like Harris would say that the author doesn’t know what he is talking about.
My point is that the author clearly likes Harris and doesn’t like Trump.
Nobody who likes Trump is worth listening to. Nobody.
Not even to try to understand them so that you can address the root cause of why they like him? Or is the fact that they like him evidence of them being irredeemable and flawed humans? In that case, how should they be dealt with?
Journalists have been talking about how we need to understand them for 8 years now. What more is there to understand beyond what’s common knowledge already? They’re extremely gullible and most of them are extremely racist and uneducated. Some of them think they’ll benefit from Trump’s tax policies.
The root cause is immaterial, because those people don’t like Trump. They like an idea of who Trump is, an idea that is informed almost exclusively by PR teams and marketing campaigns.
The appropriate way to “deal with” people who are trapped in a media filter bubble is to ignore them. They are of no consequence until they try to leave their bubble and interact with those outside it, at which point they are forced to either come to terms with their deception or else double-down and retreat even deeper into it.
But someone who likes Trump and doesn’t like Harris would say that the author doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Gee, it’s almost as if – how’s it go again? – “facts don’t care about your feelings.”
Did you even read the rest of the article? Or did you just Ctrl+F “Trump” and “Harris”?
It’s just that I thought it was supposed to be objective and a fair representation of different perspectives, and it clearly isn’t.
In what way? The article mainly presents historical facts, not ideological theories. And when it does present theories, it does so within the historical context surrounding it. That was the whole point of the article, that one’s view of history directly relates to their political leaning. If you want to be fair and balanced but refuse to acknowledge that one side is clearly doing more criminal/immoral acts and/or just straight up lying than the other party, then you’re not being fair at all; you’re giving false credibility to an obvious conman simply because you don’t want to admit you’ve been played
