[002]
InfinityLeague
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
You know, I used to think that this page was very reasonable... right up until I read the \
to:
You know, I used to think that this page was very reasonable... right up until I read the \\\"Real Life\\\" entry about the Charlottesville rally in 2017. How ironic it is that this page condemns people who assume that objectivity means always being neutral and never taking sides, even when one side is right and the other is wrong... and then does just that here. This is the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment taken to its illogical conclusion; trying so hard to come across as inoffensive that you end up being extremely offensive by implying that a neutral viewpoint is the correct one to take regarding Nazis.
Let\\\'s start with the first half of the entry, shall we?
\\\"President Donald Trump\\\'s response to the August 2017 melee in Charlottesville, Virginia was widely seen as this in which he condemned \\\"Both sides\\\" of the violence. This response was widely condemned by left-of-center Americans, as it was seen as as ignoring the radically different ideologies of the two sides of the rally with clearly definable \\\"good guys\\\" (counter-protesters) and \\\"bad guys\\\" (white supremacists), and insensitive to the fact that the violence culminated in a vehicular terrorist attack committed by one of the \\\"white supremacists\\\" that killed a peaceful counter-protester, pointing to evidence that it was taken as a tacit sign of approval by several notorious white supremacists, like David Duke and Richard Spencer.\\\"
This entry would have been fine if you just stopped there, although there are a few things I would add (like the fact that Trump said there were \\\"very fine people\\\" marching alongside the Nazis, and the fact that when a reporter explicitly asked him if he wanted to condemn the Nazis, Trump responded by walking away silently) and things I would subtract (the sarcastic quote marks around the phrase \\\"white supremacists\\\", which just smacks of denialism.)
Then the second half of the entry ruined it - basically the very essence of the Golden Mean Fallacy, engaging in he said/she said without saying which side is right.
\\\"Those on the right who did not identify with the white supremacists mostly approved of Trump\\\'s remarks, pointing to violent tactics used by left-wing protestors and radical groups (namely Antifa) in response to the rally\\\"
That\\\'s called Whataboutism - in short, trying to distract from the issue at hand and instead shifting focus toward someone else\\\'s wrongdoing, aka the very thing Trump was condemned for doing in the first place.
The fact of the matter is, as John Oliver pointed out, heavily-armed Neo-Nazis rioting and attacking people is so horrible that a comparatively smaller number of club-wielding counter-protestors have to wait their turn to be judged.
Bringing up Antifa only muddies the issue further. Antifa, while regrettably extreme in their methods, are too small and loosely organized to be of any real threat to the people at large (and at least Antifa didn\\\'t kill 7 million Jews in gas chambers.) \\\"Antifa are just as bad as Nazis\\\" is an argument you could only make if your only problem with Nazis is that they\\\'re too gosh-darn loud.
And then there\\\'s this delightful little quote:
\\\"and the exclusive media focus on the right wing violence.\\\"
In other words, \\\"It\\\'s the media\\\'s fault that people think Nazis are bad!\\\"
Bottom line: this section of the article is atrocious and needs to be heavily re-written.
Let\\\'s start with the first half of the entry, shall we?
\\\"President Donald Trump\\\'s response to the August 2017 melee in Charlottesville, Virginia was widely seen as this in which he condemned \\\"Both sides\\\" of the violence. This response was widely condemned by left-of-center Americans, as it was seen as as ignoring the radically different ideologies of the two sides of the rally with clearly definable \\\"good guys\\\" (counter-protesters) and \\\"bad guys\\\" (white supremacists), and insensitive to the fact that the violence culminated in a vehicular terrorist attack committed by one of the \\\"white supremacists\\\" that killed a peaceful counter-protester, pointing to evidence that it was taken as a tacit sign of approval by several notorious white supremacists, like David Duke and Richard Spencer.\\\"
This entry would have been fine if you just stopped there, although there are a few things I would add (like the fact that Trump said there were \\\"very fine people\\\" marching alongside the Nazis, and the fact that when a reporter explicitly asked him if he wanted to condemn the Nazis, Trump responded by walking away silently) and things I would subtract (the sarcastic quote marks around the phrase \\\"white supremacists\\\", which just smacks of denialism.)
Then the second half of the entry ruined it - basically the very essence of the Golden Mean Fallacy, engaging in he said/she said without saying which side is right.
\\\"Those on the right who did not identify with the white supremacists mostly approved of Trump\\\'s remarks, pointing to violent tactics used by left-wing protestors and radical groups (namely Antifa) in response to the rally\\\"
That\\\'s called Whataboutism - in short, trying to distract from the issue at hand and instead shifting focus toward someone else\\\'s wrongdoing, aka the very thing Trump was condemned for doing in the first place.
The fact of the matter is, as John Oliver pointed out, heavily-armed Neo-Nazis rioting and attacking people is so horrible that a comparatively smaller number of club-wielding counter-protestors have to wait their turn to be judged.
Bringing up Antifa only muddies the issue further. Antifa, while regrettably extreme in their methods, are too small and loosely organized to be of any real threat to the people at large (and at least Antifa didn\\\'t kill 7 million Jews in gas chambers.) \\\"Antifa are just as bad as Nazis\\\" is an argument you could only make if your only problem with Nazis is that they\\\'re too gosh-darn loud.
And then there\\\'s this delightful little quote:
\\\"and the exclusive media focus on the right wing violence.\\\"
In other words, \\\"It\\\'s the media\\\'s fault that people think Nazis are bad!\\\"
Bottom line: this section of the article is atrocious and needs to be heavily re-written.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
You know, I used to think that this page was very reasonable... right up until I read the \
to:
You know, I used to think that this page was very reasonable... right up until I read the \\\"Real Life\\\" entry about the Charlottesville rally in 2017. How ironic it is that this page condemns people who assume that objectivity means always being neutral and never taking sides, even when one side is right and the other is wrong... and then does just that here. This is the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment taken to its illogical conclusion; trying so hard to come across as inoffensive that you end up being extremely offensive by implying that a neutral viewpoint is the correct one to take regarding Nazis.
Let\\\'s start with the first half of the entry, shall we?
\\\"President Donald Trump\\\'s response to the August 2017 melee in Charlottesville, Virginia was widely seen as this in which he condemned \\\"Both sides\\\" of the violence. This response was widely condemned by left-of-center Americans, as it was seen as as ignoring the radically different ideologies of the two sides of the rally with clearly definable \\\"good guys\\\" (counter-protesters) and \\\"bad guys\\\" (white supremacists), and insensitive to the fact that the violence culminated in a vehicular terrorist attack committed by one of the \\\"white supremacists\\\" that killed a peaceful counter-protester, pointing to evidence that it was taken as a tacit sign of approval by several notorious white supremacists, like David Duke and Richard Spencer.\\\"
This entry would have been fine if you just stopped there, although there are a few things I would add (like the fact that Trump said there were \\\"very fine people\\\" marching alongside the Nazis, and the fact that when a reporter explicitly asked him if he wanted to condemn the Nazis, Trump responded by walking away silently) and things I would subtract (the sarcastic quote marks around the phrase \\\"white supremacists\\\", which just smacks of denialism.)
Then the second half of the entry ruined it - basically the very essence of the Golden Mean Fallacy, engaging in he said/she said without saying which side is right.
\\\"Those on the right who did not identify with the white supremacists mostly approved of Trump\\\'s remarks, pointing to violent tactics used by left-wing protestors and radical groups (namely Antifa) in response to the rally\\\"
That\\\'s called Whataboutism - in short, trying to distract from the issue at hand and instead shifting focus toward someone else\\\'s wrongdoing, aka the very thing Trump was condemned for doing in the first place.
The fact of the matter is, as John Oliver pointed out, heavily-armed Neo-Nazis rioting and attacking people is so horrible that a comparatively smaller number of club-wielding counter-protestors have to wait their turn to be judged.
Bringing up Antifa only muddies the issue further. Antifa, while regrettably extreme in their methods, are too small and loosely organized to be of any real threat to the people at large (and at least Antifa didn\\\'t kill 7 million Jews in gas chambers.) \\\"Antifa are just as bad as Nazis\\\" is an argument you could only make if your only problem with Nazis is that they\\\'re too gosh-darn loud.
And then there\\\'s this delightful little quote:
\\\"and the exclusive media focus on the right wing violence.\\\"
In other words, \\\"It\\\'s the media\\\'s fault that people think Nazis are bad!\\\"
Bottom line: this section of the article is atrocious and needs to be heavily re-written.
Let\\\'s start with the first half of the entry, shall we?
\\\"President Donald Trump\\\'s response to the August 2017 melee in Charlottesville, Virginia was widely seen as this in which he condemned \\\"Both sides\\\" of the violence. This response was widely condemned by left-of-center Americans, as it was seen as as ignoring the radically different ideologies of the two sides of the rally with clearly definable \\\"good guys\\\" (counter-protesters) and \\\"bad guys\\\" (white supremacists), and insensitive to the fact that the violence culminated in a vehicular terrorist attack committed by one of the \\\"white supremacists\\\" that killed a peaceful counter-protester, pointing to evidence that it was taken as a tacit sign of approval by several notorious white supremacists, like David Duke and Richard Spencer.\\\"
This entry would have been fine if you just stopped there, although there are a few things I would add (like the fact that Trump said there were \\\"very fine people\\\" marching alongside the Nazis, and the fact that when a reporter explicitly asked him if he wanted to condemn the Nazis, Trump responded by walking away silently) and things I would subtract (the sarcastic quote marks around the phrase \\\"white supremacists\\\", which just smacks of denialism.)
Then the second half of the entry ruined it - basically the very essence of the Golden Mean Fallacy, engaging in he said/she said without saying which side is right.
\\\"Those on the right who did not identify with the white supremacists mostly approved of Trump\\\'s remarks, pointing to violent tactics used by left-wing protestors and radical groups (namely Antifa) in response to the rally\\\"
That\\\'s called Whataboutism - in short, trying to distract from the issue at hand and instead shifting focus toward someone else\\\'s wrongdoing, aka the very thing Trump was condemned for doing in the first place.
The fact of the matter is, as John Oliver pointed out, heavily-armed Neo-Nazis rioting and attacking people is so horrible that a comparatively smaller number of club-wielding counter-protestors have to wait their turn to be judged.
Bringing up Antifa only muddies the issue further. Antifa, while regrettably extreme in their methods, are too small and loosely organized to be of any real threat to the people at large (and at least Antifa didn\\\'t kill 7 million Jews in gas chambers.) \\\"Antifa are just as bad as Nazis\\\" is an argument you could only make if your only problem with Nazis is that they\\\'re too gosh-darn loud.
And then there\\\'s this delightful little quote:
\\\"and the exclusive media focus on the right wing violence.\\\"
In other words, \\\"It\\\'s the media\\\'s fault that people think Nazis are bad!\\\"
Bottom line: this section of the article is atrocious and needs to be heavily re-written.
