How to survive the broligarchy: 20 lessons for the post-truth world | Carole Cadwalladr
www.theguardian.com
In the wake of Trump’s unnerving appointees, the investigative journalist and veteran of the libel court offers pointers on coping in an age of surveillance

  1. Even dickheads love their dogs. Find a way to connect to those you disagree with. “The obvious mistakes of those who find themselves in opposition are to break off relations with those who disagree with you,” texts Vera Krichevskaya, the co-founder of TV Rain, Russia’s last independent TV station. “You cannot allow anger and narrow your circle.”

  2. Pay in cash. Ask yourself what an international drug trafficker would do, and do that.

He’s thinking about flying a SpaceX rocket to Mars and raping and pillaging its rare earth minerals before anyone else can get there. We need a 30-year road map out of this.

  1. Take the piss. Humour is a weapon. Any man who feels the need to build a rocket is not overconfident about his masculinity. Work with that.

A fundraising banner from The Guardian, an indepedent British newspaper. The centerpiece is a serif block "For f****s sake", with the letters after the f sprayed over with "act '"

  • Senal@programming.devEnglish
    31·
    6 hours ago

    I don’t agree with this. Operation warp speed was Trump’s project. When it comes to COVID, I feel like he was pro-vaccine since the beginning. Back then it was also the democrats who were expressing scepticism about the safety of it because they didn’t trust Trump and felt like the vaccine was rushed and not properly tested.

    Fair enough, i don’t agree that he was pro-vaccine, rather pro self-interest, but outcome wise i’m not sure it matters.

    Assuming his stance wasn’t antivax, it could be argued that he could have done much more with his platform to push for vaccine adoption, given the clear anti-vax stance a large proportion of his base had/has taken, but that’s an entirely different argument.

    He has said sceptical things about masks that has caused distrust and conspiracies in the MAGA population. I don’t see the need to defend him on that one.

    Its less about you defending him and more about omitting a position that conflicts with the narrative of the reply you provided.

    Emphasising the point that correlates with your (in general , not you specifically) narrative and omitting the point that doesn’t, is a common bad faith tactic.

    Perhaps that isn’t what you were doing, but it could easily be interpreted that way, and that’s what i think you were asking for when requesting examples.

    Sure, but what I mean is that simply being downvoted doesn’t alone mean the information is incorrect and the opposite is true as well.

    Sure, but it was written in such a way as to imply that downvote = “people don’t like the truth”.

    Which is a classic bad faith stance to take.

    That you weren’t actually taking that stance is clear now, but not from the original text ( at least to me )

    There’s comments in this tread with false info that’s being upvoted.

    Agreed.

    • Free_Opinions@feddit.ukEnglish
      3·
      5 hours ago

      Assuming his stance wasn’t antivax, it could be argued that he could have done much more with his platform to push for vaccine adoption

      Oh absolutely, but it’s also pretty clear as why he didn’t. He wanted the votes from the anti-vaxx/mask people too so being ambiquous about that is just a political game tactic. It’s quite similar to how Kamala didn’t seem to want to take a clear stance on Israel or the border situation for example because doing so would likely alienate a large part of her base.

      • Senal@programming.devEnglish
        21·
        4 hours ago

        True, the difference i suppose is the body count, both location and volume.

        Gonna be hard to calculate those numbers though.