[snowedin]

I think you have a very good point.

The overall metapoint that both you and the parent comment agree on is this: the internet isn't being "weaponized by authoritarian states" in some unique fashion specific to authoritarianism.

I'd just round it all up to say that: like most headlines about global trends in America, this headline reenforces the meme of "American Exceptionalism" and casts the situation in a "good versus evil" narrative format that's not really helpful for understanding what's happening or what to do about it. But that itself isn't anything particularly new in itself either (queue last three decades of American headlines).

[dmix]

Every Republican nominee and political organization has been compared to fascists and Hitler since the early 1950s.

It long ago lost its punch yet it's still the go-to for every leftwing political ideologue like it will be taken seriously.

I agree that this same stuff has been going on forever but I've noticed a significant decline in tolerance by the left of even engaging and debating those on the right. The positions of ivory tower righteous we-know-best reputation which the left has always been known for has gone into overdrive - mostly on social media but it's leaking into reputable papers like NYT and less reputable ones in terms of neutrality like WaPo. Plus the crazy radical stuff coming out of places like Teen Vogue are also quite new.

Crossing lines has always been a critical political necessity as so much of politics is built on compromise. But at least culturally the hysteria and FUD being stirred up online has completely destroyed any sense of understanding or breaching the other side. Which is turning modern politics into a form of trench warfare.

The right have certainly contributed to it by tolerating their crazies a little too frequently (even though they rarely win or have any power outside of useful headlines in the political media coverage) when in the past they'd stay the fringe and get zero news coverage or attention, which would otherwise increase their standing and help with recruitment to turn otherwise fringe crazies into groups the media presents with seriousness and legitimacy - because they find it useful to attach it to more mainstream and moderate voters. Which I think is a dangerous game to play and one we've already seen the consequences of.

It's far easier for the baddies to recruit and be real threads when the media and other influential people connect them to the real power players in Washington who've never heard of them and would want nothing to do with them.

[sgnelson]

"The right have certainly contributed to it by tolerating their crazies a little too frequently (even though they rarely win or have any power outside of useful headlines in the political media coverage) when in the past they'd stay the fringe and get zero news coverage or attention..."

I find that pretty funny considering who the current president is. I would go further to argue that was in part the reason he was elected. This is after all the man who started getting more and more attention for claiming that the former president was born in Kenya.

[celticmusic]

it goes in cycles, each side gains power, abuses it, then loses it.

When the left gain power, it becomes all about political correctness. When the right gain power, it becomes all about religious morality.

both try to suffocate each other, and both make being in the middle incredibly difficult because the middle gets attacked from both sides.

[dmix]

The difference is the right has never gain power in the media, academia, and based on a resent report showing a 75% left or far left leaning on Twitter, social media.

My concern is when the more hysterical stuff you’d find at protests (ie, Bush’s face overlaid on Hitler) starts leaking into more reputable sources and every person on the right is treated like a complete pariah... the right had always famously been the “silent majority”. The silent part is becoming a hard requirement these days which really concerns me.

All things should happen in the daylight and a complete intolerance, misrepresentation, and overreaction is what pushes them underground only worsens these radicalism and extremism which we should expunge from both sides by challenging it openly. Instead of one side having an unfiltered field day and monopoly on the media which treats them like villains non stop. Especially when the only option left is Fox News which is full of crazy bullshit (but compared to most traffic rates of major websites not really that popular among the average voter in the big picture).

[toss1]

>>"the right has never gain power in the media, academia"

Excluding, the Murdoch empire including Fox News, the entire RW media ecosystem,'access journalism' as practiced by such as the NYT, and the general false equivalence presumption of most large media outlets. Denying that there is any RW power in the media is a strawman argument at best.

In Academia? Seems to overlook the fact that when given sufficient thought, many RW concepts are justifications for policies that do not hold up to data-backed studies (e.g., benefits of treating drug use as a public health issue), are simply outright denial of science (climate change / AGW denialism), or are straight-up anti-intellectualism used to support popular movements. Combine these trends, and there is sound reason to consider that academia being more liberal is not some crass bias, but based on well-founded reasons.

[seneca]

> Excluding, the Murdoch empire including Fox News, the entire RW media ecosystem,'access journalism' as practiced by such as the NYT, and the general false equivalence presumption of most large media outlets. Denying that there is any RW power in the media is a strawman argument at best.

Those are the exceptions to the rule, and they're also blatant extremist outlets. The right has a handful of outlets that almost read as parodies of new outlets, and the left entails nearly everything else, including nearly all media outside of the news. The lack of news outlets is not something I would "blame" the left for though, it's more a failure of the right, but it is reality. Casual media, which drives culture in a huge way, is entirely dominated by the left.

> In Academia? Seems to overlook the fact that when given sufficient thought, many RW concepts are justifications for policies that do not hold up to data-backed studies..., are simply outright denial of science..., or are straight-up anti-intellectualism used to support popular movements. Combine these trends, and there is sound reason to consider that academia being more liberal is not some crass bias, but based on well-founded reasons.

The meme that "reality has a liberal bias" is one of the things the left should be laughed at for pushing. The left is just as anti-science and anti-intellectual when it comes to pushing their agenda as the right (which is hugely anti-science, not contesting that). You need to go no further than biology to find well founded facts the left just outright ignores. These narratives are equally used to push (often violent and anti-democratic) popular movements.

Neither side of the aisle holds the high ground when it comes to holding true to science and research when they come up against narratives and agendas. If you believe your side does it's probably because you are in an echo chamber.

[dmix]

> The meme that "reality has a liberal bias" is one of the things the left should be laughed at for pushing

This stuff hurts the democrat part which should be the party of the left behind middle class and poor.

Except the left keep pushing their party with a smug holier-than-attitude and wonder why the party that caught for labour and civil rights is not seem as the party of the elite and out of touch.

People glibly buy into the identity politics part as proof of dedication to the critical "unrepresented" working poor middle. They wanted someone to talk to them honestly about their problems, not get talked down to and pushing 1970s style labour "we're with you" campaigns to help fix the dying rust belt.

That was a lot cause but Hillary and her out of touch campaign completely failed to get these people.

[dmix]

Half the stuff on Brietbart is talking about what the left media is saying about themselves, it's their biggest selling points, the victimhood is the strategy (just to make a point, not support the site in any way). There's an endless supply of assaults, some justified, which creates feelings of an endless onslaught against the average right wing moderate voter. There really is no middle ground for them in the media, it's crazy extreme stuff on Fox news or constant assaults on every other channel, being treated like it's crazy to have even considered Trump.

Yet they still did and they might do it again. But no one seems to give a shit, they just obsess about identity politics and white nationalism, which only further pushes the sane ones away (rather than closer).

WSJ is the only place I've found that is still at least trying to be neutral, or at least take a centered take on the reporting instead of presented shamelessly with an obvious left-wing agenda like most NYT and WaPo articles turned into a few years back.

The fact is there was a significant enough amount of people who simply didn't like Hillary Clinton, which scared off a bunch of otherwise moderates, middle of the ground, people which are the critical bread-and-butter of battle ground states - which the democrats badly needed. Yet they remain ignored.

They were called despicable for even considering non-Hillary support. The DNC has completely missed the ball and is only further alienating these same important people.

Beyond that, the fact alone that Trump is polling anywhere near equal should be shocking and concerning to every democrat. This dude gets negative press 24/7 - globally, not just in the US. Even on comedy shows like SNL they have a non-stop field day with it. Yet he still polls.

There's obviously something serious missing that the democrats aren't getting here. This should be an easy landslide. I'm convinced the big mistake is the left's obsession with identity politics, and constant legitimacy that's being given to it, while simultaneously being disconnected from the average voters in rural and small town areas in battleground states. Maybe the damage has already been done and they don't need convincing (the scenario where minimal thought and rationality is assumed, lowest common denominator).

[celticmusic]

> The meme that "reality has a liberal bias" is one of the things the left should be laughed at for pushing. The left is just as anti-science and anti-intellectual when it comes to pushing their agenda as the right

This is a large part of why I pointed out what I did. That the right are just as bad when they're in power. It's just about agenda's.

[stOneskull]

You are totally right and your calm nature in talking about it is impressive. It drives me nuts so I put my head in the sand and try to pretend it doesn't exist

[celticmusic]

> The difference is the right has never gain power in the media

I think the koch brothers might disagree with that...

What's different is that tech has allowed a level of control never seen before, and the mob reigns supreme as a result.

It's a lot more difficult for a single entity like the koch brothers to affect the message because people now get their information from channels they can't possibly control.

But you know who can?

the tech giants. And those tech giants were founded by liberals because that's the nature of what liberals do (explore, vs conservatives who simply run things).

so what you have is tech now allows for unprecedented control and that tech was created by liberals, so you're seeing these astounding levels.

But when it sways back to the side of the conservatives, and it will, you'll watch them have the same level of control.

[Mirioron]

I'd like to add to what you're saying: the religious right of the 2000s and earlier is what some of the left wing looks like today. Instead of religion they have some form of social justice.

[adamsea]

I agree that fascist / Nazi comparisons aren’t very useful.

I do think that the current administration exhibits behavior (verifiable, fact-checkable behavior) which legitimately meets the definition of “authoritarian” — “demanding total obedience to those in positions of authority” - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/authorit... — in ways that are different from past administrations,