449
Don’t underestimate the Rogansphere. His mammoth ecosystem is Fox News for young people
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
449 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19144 readers
3748 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This, many people who voted for Trump weren't going to vote at all until Hillary called them deplorable.
She didn't. If they weren't voting for trump she didn't call them deplorable. Also, she was referring to only a subset of trump voters. She said you could separate trump supporters into two groups, one was a basket of deplorables. They seem fine with "murderers rapist and thieves and some I assume are good people ", but "there are neo nazis supporting this man, we need to reach the non nei nazis on his side" is too far.
Regardless, the rhetoric is aggressive and alienating, the opposite of what a candidate who wants votes should be.
I would agree that it was aggressive and alienating. Another issue is that it was extremely easy to take out of context, which it widely has been. It's so it of context that people who didn't know the context proudly labeled themselves as "deplorable" showing solidarity with David Duke. Never realizing that's who the original context was about. But it's hard to speak in a way that will never be taken out of context. "You didn't build that" for another example.
Did Hilary ever actually clear up the ambiguity though or did we have to give her the benefit of the doubt to a degree?
I dont quite understand what she had to gain from making the statement even if it was said different. She had a strange way of carrying herself thats for sure.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables
There wasn't ambiguity to clear up in context, but she did regret saying "half" of his supporters. She was clearly never saying all of them. Unless you remove the context.
Okay well how about I say I want to murder someone and later take it back and say I only want to murder their bad half. It still sounds sorta like I feel the same either way right?
You can't say words like clearly unless you know her intent. She was happy to say it at the time, she liked the reaction in the room. Saying later she regretted it could just be an acknowledgement that it caused more trouble than it was worth.
Conversely, she could say, "It was wrong for me to call any group of americans deplorables." If she wanted to be a leader, take responsibility for your mistakes. Using clever words to make it sound like you might have maybe made a mistake but not really, and then acting like the victim of the story isnt a good look.
Edit: after reading the quote, it was delivered as a joke, very similar to the Puerto Rico joke that got bipartisan condemnation in this election.
I think I can say clearly if her words put together never meant all by the definitions of those words.
I'm arguing calling any of his supporters deplorable is a bad move, not that she did intend to mean all. In other words, it doesnt matter because its offensive either way.