If someone on the right read this they would be surprised it doesn’t include the conspiracy extended universe and think “hey at least the left agrees this is bad.”
I think you’re missing the part where this already happens, and you’re overstating the effect.
For example, I agree with conspiracy theorists that the wealthy elite are a social scourge. That doesn’t mean I think they’re somehow reasonable people who arrived at those conclusions with objective evidence or that their other views are worth exploring.
Likewise, seeing that the left agrees on certain topics doesn’t mean their political needle will move left. Plus, you can (and people do) wave it away with thought terminating clichés, like, “Okay, there’s a few reasonable libs, but most of them still don’t care!”
I don’t think Hunter’s actions deserve to be buried, but they’re getting far and away more attention than they deserve, and it’s that part of the equation that’s the problem. Name me one person who evaded taxes then paid them back or did drugs and illegally signed a gun ownership form as a private citizen who wound up in front of Congress.
This article is just more political theater. Hunter Biden is mentioned, because they want you to draw the line between wealthy elites’ special tier of justice and Joe Biden. They don’t have to mention Hunter in the headline to discuss the two tiers of justice, but they made the conscious choice to do so, and that only helps the bad-faith actors on the right continue making mountains out of molehills.
Hunter is relevant because the right have the power to make him relevant in their campaigning which we don’t have control over…Democrat supporters who insist this isn’t relevant and should be buried… you don’t have the luxury to determine that.
Precisely my point. Nothing you do will change the message of the right wing propaganda machine. Facts aren’t going to sway their faithful. Teaching people to recognize when they’re being played (i.e. recognizing that this article is unnecessarily headlining Hunter), is the only remedy.
Not having a response to issues they raise, specifically with Hunter, trying to obfuscate around it, that’s giving them more power to run on it. There’s no downside to saying “this is the deal with Hunter and political elites shouldn’t be afforded these concessions.” They’re not going to be convinced but you’ve addressed the issue at that point and asserted your own power over it, so move on. Not doing this is like rolling over. If I were an undecided voter seeing Dems bury Biden and get upset like this by it would seem pathetic to me, especially in light of Trump et als constant tax issues.
No, you’re missing the point. You can’t take away their power, and appearing reasonable doesn’t affect their ability to make you look foolish. They aren’t acting in good faith, and facts can’t shed light on their fantasy.
Plus, the “but Hunter does deserve to be punished” line is already part of the conversation, and they simply ignore that anyone on the left has said it. That’s why it doesn’t matter. They have no obligation to present all the facts, and engagement is an effort that only allows them to stay relevant.
If I were an undecided voter seeing Dems bury Biden and get upset like this by it would seem pathetic to me, especially in light of Trump et als constant tax issues.
If this is the matter that convinces people to vote or not vote, they’re deeply unserious, and there’s no reason to think that a zingy one-liner from a right wing pundit at the 11th hour won’t sway them the other way. Better to demonstrate the lack of credibility of their sources (e.g. how Jacobin is dishonestly framing this issue) than engage with the narratives they’re using as bait.
So if it doesn’t matter in the end… why choose the option that looks more pathetic rather than simply say what’s going on? I sent this to someone on the right personally and they sent me back another article they liked… I literally got a conservative to read leftist articles ON THEIR OWN with this. How is that not a win tell me, cause I am just immediately more convinced this is a good idea.
So if it doesn’t matter in the end… why choose the option that looks more pathetic rather than simply say what’s going on?
Because I’m not interested in appearances. Their goal already is to discredit you by drawing you into their narrative and imply their views are superior by making you look like a clown (remember, they don’t have to argue in good faith or present facts to back up their claims). They trade in memes and half-truths. Getting you to engage is part of what makes their song and dance work.
I sent this to someone on the right personally and they sent me back another article they liked… I literally got a conservative to read leftist articles ON THEIR OWN with this. How is that not a win tell me, cause I am just immediately more convinced this is a good idea.
I pointed out in another comment that this is only effective for people who are open to being wrong, people who are interested in where the objective evidence leads. But back again to the context of this article, a headline dishonestly trying to tie the Biden family to the problem of justice inequality as it relates to wealth just feeds the memes and political pundits. It’s not truth; it’s a Fallacy of Understated Evidence.
Notice how the author(s) imply that Hunter Biden is a pinnacle of “corruption.”
Only in an egregiously unequal society like ours do the children of the rich and powerful get away with corruption Only in an egregiously unequal society like ours do the children of the rich and powerful get away with corruption for as long as Hunter Biden has. (Emphasis mine)
There’s a company in Texas where the owner personally committed $2 billion (with a B) in tax fraud over decades. He was in his eighties when they caught up to him, so I am willing to bet he’d been at it for much longer than Hunter. But they don’t ever specifically mention other notable cases of fraud, and instead spend most of the paragraphs covering the Bidens, while barely mentioning the existence of other cases only in very broad and general strokes.
Essentially, this is cherry picking a single data point in a broader problem and begging the question. “See? Hunter Biden is the poster child of wealth inequality. What other offenses are they guilty of?” It’s propaganda crafted to ease people into the larger right wing grift.
It’s no wonder your right wing person liked it, because this article is meant for people like them.
I think you’re missing the part where this already happens, and you’re overstating the effect.
For example, I agree with conspiracy theorists that the wealthy elite are a social scourge. That doesn’t mean I think they’re somehow reasonable people who arrived at those conclusions with objective evidence or that their other views are worth exploring.
Likewise, seeing that the left agrees on certain topics doesn’t mean their political needle will move left. Plus, you can (and people do) wave it away with thought terminating clichés, like, “Okay, there’s a few reasonable libs, but most of them still don’t care!”
I don’t think Hunter’s actions deserve to be buried, but they’re getting far and away more attention than they deserve, and it’s that part of the equation that’s the problem. Name me one person who evaded taxes
then paid them backor did drugs and illegally signed a gun ownership form as a private citizen who wound up in front of Congress.This article is just more political theater. Hunter Biden is mentioned, because they want you to draw the line between wealthy elites’ special tier of justice and Joe Biden. They don’t have to mention Hunter in the headline to discuss the two tiers of justice, but they made the conscious choice to do so, and that only helps the bad-faith actors on the right continue making mountains out of molehills.
Precisely my point. Nothing you do will change the message of the right wing propaganda machine. Facts aren’t going to sway their faithful. Teaching people to recognize when they’re being played (i.e. recognizing that this article is unnecessarily headlining Hunter), is the only remedy.
Not having a response to issues they raise, specifically with Hunter, trying to obfuscate around it, that’s giving them more power to run on it. There’s no downside to saying “this is the deal with Hunter and political elites shouldn’t be afforded these concessions.” They’re not going to be convinced but you’ve addressed the issue at that point and asserted your own power over it, so move on. Not doing this is like rolling over. If I were an undecided voter seeing Dems bury Biden and get upset like this by it would seem pathetic to me, especially in light of Trump et als constant tax issues.
No, you’re missing the point. You can’t take away their power, and appearing reasonable doesn’t affect their ability to make you look foolish. They aren’t acting in good faith, and facts can’t shed light on their fantasy.
Plus, the “but Hunter does deserve to be punished” line is already part of the conversation, and they simply ignore that anyone on the left has said it. That’s why it doesn’t matter. They have no obligation to present all the facts, and engagement is an effort that only allows them to stay relevant.
If this is the matter that convinces people to vote or not vote, they’re deeply unserious, and there’s no reason to think that a zingy one-liner from a right wing pundit at the 11th hour won’t sway them the other way. Better to demonstrate the lack of credibility of their sources (e.g. how Jacobin is dishonestly framing this issue) than engage with the narratives they’re using as bait.
So if it doesn’t matter in the end… why choose the option that looks more pathetic rather than simply say what’s going on? I sent this to someone on the right personally and they sent me back another article they liked… I literally got a conservative to read leftist articles ON THEIR OWN with this. How is that not a win tell me, cause I am just immediately more convinced this is a good idea.
Because I’m not interested in appearances. Their goal already is to discredit you by drawing you into their narrative and imply their views are superior by making you look like a clown (remember, they don’t have to argue in good faith or present facts to back up their claims). They trade in memes and half-truths. Getting you to engage is part of what makes their song and dance work.
I pointed out in another comment that this is only effective for people who are open to being wrong, people who are interested in where the objective evidence leads. But back again to the context of this article, a headline dishonestly trying to tie the Biden family to the problem of justice inequality as it relates to wealth just feeds the memes and political pundits. It’s not truth; it’s a Fallacy of Understated Evidence.
Notice how the author(s) imply that Hunter Biden is a pinnacle of “corruption.”
There’s a company in Texas where the owner personally committed $2 billion (with a B) in tax fraud over decades. He was in his eighties when they caught up to him, so I am willing to bet he’d been at it for much longer than Hunter. But they don’t ever specifically mention other notable cases of fraud, and instead spend most of the paragraphs covering the Bidens, while barely mentioning the existence of other cases only in very broad and general strokes.
Essentially, this is cherry picking a single data point in a broader problem and begging the question. “See? Hunter Biden is the poster child of wealth inequality. What other offenses are they guilty of?” It’s propaganda crafted to ease people into the larger right wing grift.
It’s no wonder your right wing person liked it, because this article is meant for people like them.