• 0 Posts
  • 14 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 19th, 2023

help-circle


  • I think I fall in the same camp of agreeing with a good chunk of his points while disagreeing with others and I even have laughed at many of his jokes. And I’m totally fine with that for people I enjoy watching. However, what turned me off of Bill Maher a decade ago was his overall manner and attitude. He just started coming across as arrogant, obnoxious, smarmy, and untimately unkind, even when I agreed with him, which I did not enjoy. It was much in contrast to other satirists who may have mocked people, never felt like they were out to denigrate. Maybe his content has changed, but I haven’t noticed.






  • First, I am not on Israel’s side in this matter. I denounce their historical and ongoing oppression of Palestinians to say the least and generally see a two state solution as an ideal outcome, along with the outcomes you mentioned, dismantling apartheid and establishing self-determination for Palestinians. However I would not condone atrocities to achieve this goal. Just as I am in support of Ukraine’s resistance against Russia, I would not condone any war crimes if they were to commit them. How we achieve our goals matter.

    Sure, neither of us are directly affected won’t be the ones deciding, yet here we are expressing our opinions and hopefully having a worthwhile conversation about it. Perhaps all of social media is just political noise, yet us humans seem to like to weigh in on world events.




  • Fuck you morning people and normalizing waking up early in the morning to the point where sleeping until we’re rested is lazy and staying up “late” is irresponsible. We adapted to your schedule using the aids we have available and now you shame us as addicts for doing what we had to do to accommodate your morning hegemony. I say, how dare you sir! /Half-joking


  • All good points. Sorry I’m coming from a non US perspective where climate change denialism is present, but less fervent. I like your definition of “truth from a rarified point of view”, though I might also considered non-rarified or pervasive, and factually well substantiated truths can be used as propaganda as well. The 95%+ consensus of scientists on climate change is both factually/meaningfully/importantly true and also used with a propagandistic flavour in many examples of political persuasion for example.

    My post was more aiming at acknowledging propaganda as a vehicle of persuasion for any and differing representations of reality (political groups) that exists in parallel with the the establishment of facts of reality. Some representations will adhere more or less with the factual arguments.


  • An interesting exercise is to replace “Communism is bad” with “Climate change is coming” and interrogate how we feel about that and why.

    It is interesting to reflect that propaganda is involved for all kinds of policy application, including science. As someone trained in sciences, it’s always a bit uncomfortable seeing folks extolling science as the exclusive solution to everything. The role of science in society is deeply tied up with values, norms, and policy. I think it’s always good to have a healthy dose of critical self reflection, so we can engage better on the level of humanized reasoning, rather than on the level of regurgitated propaganda.


  • Soleos@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneADHD Rule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    The difference is less that it’s in some circumstances only marginally better. Rather, it’s more that when you advocate for better coverage in EU, the pushback might be more along the lines of “that’s too expensive or an inefficient use of highly limited taxpayer dollars, but I’m open to continuing to evaluate the impact and economics of it”. In the US, sometimes the pushback is “you don’t like it? Then GTFO, you communist traitor!”