VT Digger links re VTers who went to DC (drug, activist, radical)

[Riley.]

For info.....


https://vtdigger.org/2021/01/08/verm...low-believers/

https://vtdigger.org/2021/01/13/was-...-insurrection/

https://vtdigger.org/letters_to_edit...ngenial-folks/

https://vtdigger.org/2021/01/13/was-...-insurrection/

https://vtdigger.org/letters_to_edit...estioned-more/

[Riley.]

I thought there might be some dialogue here about rushes to judgment pertaining to the links to commentary I provided. I guess not.

Many in the state (you can read the letters to the editor in this week's edition of Seven Days) apparently feel that even the older folks who went to DC to participate in a peaceful protest, and were caught in amongst the fringe group that clearly went nuts, should be maligned and in general, denigrated, like all Trump supporters are/were in this state. One person even called for the names to be published, ostensibly to ascertain if COVID restrictions were followed, but if you've lived here for any length of time, you know that is likely NOT the case... they just want to destroy and cancel you like they do everything else with which they don't agree.

Vermont is not the friendly, open-minded place it makes itself out to be.

[harry chickpea]

"I thought there might be some dialogue here about rushes to judgment..."

"...they just want to destroy and cancel you like they do everything else with which they don't agree. "

Talk about stereotyping and pot/kettle

[Riley.]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

"I thought there might be some dialogue here about rushes to judgment..."

"...they just want to destroy and cancel you like they do everything else with which they don't agree. "

Talk about stereotyping and pot/kettle

Did you even read the links? Have you lived in VT lately?
This is what they do.

Never mind.

[harry chickpea]

FWIW, I read some of the links. I also read American Thinker and The New Yorker.

My issue with you here is not about politics, but your "us vs. them" attitude that ramps up the rhetoric for everyone. Talk radio pundits are some of the worst offenders, and people listen to them at their own risk. Much of American public has become so used to them by now that they have forgotten that trash talk is repulsive, divisive, and bullying - AND makes people cancel the offenders out of their lives WITH REASON. Worse, the extremists wallow in it with glee and expect to get a free pass while spewing hate. This painting of individuals with a broad brush is destructive, whether from right or left.

For most of the lives of us older people, what we said in public determined how people thought of us and related to us. If you trash talked to someone's face - ANYone's face -, there was a good chance of getting decked, then and there. There was instant feedback.

The media - TV, radio, the movies, print publications - had strict rules and LAWS that included censorship of even minor swear words and references to sex. Announcers that broke those rules got tossed off the air, sometimes jailed, and in some cases the station even had its license to broadcast pulled. Remember that THIS repressive governmental over-reach was the America that has been called "great" and "free." It wasn't free. Not by any stretch. I lived it. I know. In those days, the likes of most of today's talk radio hosts would have been fired before their first lie left their lips. Paul Harvey was as radical as it got.

At that time, I was one of those "liberals" who thought the extreme repression and lack of free and open speech was ridiculous. Those who wanted to control everyone everywhere objected to my views. I am fast coming to the conclusion that I was wrong - people in this country are showing themselves incapable of free speech without resorting to wolf packs of grunts, threats, mud-slinging, stereotyping and name calling.

Social media allows people to lash out with invectives without any meaningful consequence. Crowds of "like-thinkers" get lathered up by cheerleaders (whether activists or political leaders) into packs of rabid dogs and sent on their way to infect others. We live with the result of that evil. Lies are told with impunity by those with power and a soapbox. We live with the results of that evil. Fact-checking has become an attempt to rein in some of the worst offenders, but frankly, many people are too gullible to recognize that the same liars will continue to lie even when caught out.

Extreme divisiveness is a tool of those who would destroy this country. The glee of hate is easier for the mentally lazy than the work required to build and support teams that function well.

How to explain this ...

Alabama and Auburn have an intense football rivalry. There is some trash talk that goes on, but the boosters all love football, and the teams and coaches are respected. You won't find the Auburn coach saying the Alabama coach is a commie. You won't find the Alabama coach saying that the Auburn coach is a racist. All but the worst of the worst understand the basic rules, and the extremists - like the guy who killed the iconic trees in Auburn - are reviled by ALL.

It is positively embarrassing that the citizens of this country put up with the extremist political factions that do little but try to drag everyone down into the mud. The idea that a group of Auburn fans would go to the stadium where Alabama was going to play a game and trash it, and harass the grounds crew is unthinkable. Yet, the rhetoric fed to a political fan base was strong enough that there was attempted insurrection and destruction in the very halls of government.

Those who enable extremists bear responsibility for their actions. Those who parrot extremist rhetoric for the personal enjoyment of schadenfreude also must bear responsibility for their actions.

Don't whine when the stereotyped "*******s" stereotype the conservatives right back in return. At a minimum, doing so makes you look foolish.

Renounce the rhetoric, go back to looking at individuals as individuals, and recognize hate as the destructive drug that it is.

[Riley.]

Harry - you put alot of thought and effort into your comment and to respond in kind will take me a bit to sort out how I want to say what I think I should say, so I will answer when i've had a bit more time to think about this. I truly appreciate your feedback.

But right now I can say I feel both sides of this equation, left and right, engage in extremist political rhetoric and actions which embolden their respective fringe elements and are positively tearing this country apart. I think we may agree on this.
?


My beef with the Digger pieces is that there seems to be a clear call for retribution against some who travelled to DC simply to engage in their right to free speech, showing support for those who were challenging the electoral college counts (whether you agree with them or not on this one and I don't - even those who challenged the results had the right to do so). They have not been shown to have engaged in any of the lawless behavior that we all observed. And the media does not appear to be distinguishing at all between those who did and those who didn't. Just being there doesn't make them guilty of anything. And I don't believe the Digger pieces were 'stereotyping;' they were classifying anyone who went to DC as worthy of hate and retribution - or at least that's how I read it. And I don't classify my comments as whining, nor do i believe I am foolish. I am trying to navigate this divided landscape by talking to people and by commenting on things I feel are not fair, which is what I thought of Diggers commentaries.



And in part, that is the kind of thing I have commented on in other VT threads, when people ask if you can be a
conservative in VT.

[harry chickpea]

Yes, we agree that SOME in both sides engage in extremist political rhetoric.

I think we both agree that SOME on both sides lie when it suits them.

We all do well to stop in our tracks when some statement triggers a strong emotion in us. Because I know and love language, I tear apart the words to find out what is causing that emotional rush, and I trust it about as much as I trust a snake on a hot rock.

That is NOT what most people do. 95% of people are followers at heart, and lord help us if it was any other way. The lack of rules for leading are the problem, much more than the people.

One of the things I loved about the town meeting style of government was how quickly I saw the town rabble-rousers and extremists shut down when they had to confront an audience that wasn't just of followers. It was a sight to behold, and one that still makes me smile years later.

That feedback is missing - and INTENTIONALLY missing in social media like Facebook - giving the impression of general acceptance. It needs to come back.

I would bet that if every politician and every media company had to be scored by a trusted and independent group of fact checkers, and that those on the bottom half of the list were struck off (not allowed to hold office or report news), we would be in far better shape.

Current economics dictate saying what is most pleasing to an audience. Facts and truth bear little or no import.

[jdhpa]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

Lies are told with impunity by those with power and a soapbox.

Bingo. Politicians, the media, social media companies, ...

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

Fact-checking has become an attempt to rein in some of the worst offenders

Fact-checkers are among the people with power and a soapbox.

[harry chickpea]

Originally Posted by jdhpa

Bingo.




Fact-checkers are among the people with power and a soapbox.

That is an old recursive argument that usually comes in the form of "Who will protect us from those who protect us?"

The concept of an independent fact-checking body that could be trusted would rely on many of the same mechanisms as our government - limited terms of service, some of those involved selected rather randomly, others based upon experience and knowledge, and so on.

In general... I have noticed that fact checkers stick to very limited subjects with verifiable proof. That might not always be the case, but currently it seems to hold. If you have exceptions that fall within the realms of this forum and thread, I'd be interested to see them. Is Vt. Digger non-factual? What about other media in Vermont?

[jdhpa]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

The concept of an independent fact-checking body that could be trusted would rely on many of the same mechanisms as our government - limited terms of service, some of those involved selected rather randomly, others based upon experience and knowledge, and so on.

You have to have faith that the fact-checkers are basing their statements on nothing but facts for this to work. Otherwise it's just one more institution being bent to political philosophy. Do you have faith in the media to do this? What about a technology company, like Google? This is where bending what should be non-political institutions to political objectives in the short run hurts in the long run. It destroys trust.

Question: Do Supreme Court Justices base their rulings strictly on the law, or do they bend their rulings based on their political philosophy?

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

In general... I have noticed that fact checkers stick to very limited subjects with verifiable proof. That might not always be the case, but currently it seems to hold. If you have exceptions that fall within the realms of this forum and thread, I'd be interested to see them. Is Vt. Digger non-factual? What about other media in Vermont?

I'll pick this one randomly:

https://vtdigger.org/2020/10/23/poli...ential-debate/


You'll note it covers a very wide array of subjects.

It covers subjects which are subjective, where fact checking isn't really applicable, like this one:

Trump: “Not since Abraham Lincoln has anybody done what I’ve done for the Black community.”


I wouldn't blame anyone if they strongly felt that was true or false. It's an opinion, and should never have been fact checked. The fact that it was fact checked at all tells me the fact checker is politically motivated. Certainly this is not a subject that lends itself to verifiable proof.