Your intent to use word to deliberately invoke emotion is exactly what news media should avoid. Note they are also not using the word “arrest” which would give legitimacy to the action.
Why do you think it’s important to push an emotion? Are you trying to use emotion to influence people into thinking how you think?
It’s fine for people on social media to express their feelings. But news media is supposed to be as factual as possible and should avoid using words to put an emotional spin on a story. Demanding news media to do so is demanding news media to be more propagandist than factual, and that makes it indistinguishable from other propaganda. I don’t think the problems we’re having is due to there not being enough propaganda. We need there to be some people reporting the facts.
Don’t tell me what my intent is. My intent was to point out that using charged language for some people and selecting more neutral language when the influential do parallel acton is itself a bias toward the rich and powerful. I was using the socratic method to highlight the hitch in your reasoning. I was being fairly neutral in that my focus was to inform you that your reasoning had a gaping hole in it.
Now I shall use somewhat more emotional language because I’m now more actively attempting to persuade
“Reserve judgement and let the system work” is only a valid stance if there’s reason to believe the system will work. After multiple impeachments and numerous more lawsuits (and we’re barely touching on this sleasebag’s career before they got into office; a lifetime of profiting on misery and broken promises, getting away with it solely by being rich as fuck and cultivating a persona of playing dumb in court while hiring the most ruthless lawyers in the industry to whitewash his crimes in a legal…) That got away from me - my point is I don’t know why we’re giving a convicted rapist and suspected pedophile the benefit of the doubt.
Much more to the heart of the matter is Project 2025 by the Heritage Foundation. Within it’s pages, it spells out a plan to functionally blitz the landscape with so many regressive policies enacted at once that they effectively cover for each other. With that frame in mind it’s entirely unsurprising that the Epstein files issue, the planned military extraction of Maduro, and the ICE shooting in Minneapolis all share airspace within the same week. The media position of ‘wait to see what plays out before using judgemental language’ is being deliberately exploited as a stalling tactic.
So let me offer an olive branch: If it were anybody but Trump and his cadre of enablers, I normally am all for the media acting with reserve before throwing their influence around before the facts are in, but that norm is being weaponized against us. So, do you believe that the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and coup of their leadership is justified? Please note - I did not call it a kidnapping or abduction and all parties agree that the President’s stated intent is to directly influence Venezuelan policy. Do you believe the President should be conducting similar operations in Columbia and Cuba as stated and Greenland as leaked? And when does it become appropriate for journalism to push back against government overreach?
Words carry meaning. Which is why news media is careful of the words they use because some words to avoid showing intent they don’t actually have. If someone interprets your intent based on the words you choose, when they get your intent wrong, it may be because you aren’t choosing the best words to convey your intent.
So, do you believe that the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and coup of their leadership is justified?
Maduro was not elected as leader and basically stole his position from the rightful leader of the country according to democratic norms. He’s not a legitimate leader so I really don’t car about him in terms of any legal terms since his hold on power was dependent on his ability to exert violence on the people of Venezuela. The issue isn’t Maduro, it’s the ~80 people that US forces killed on their way in to get him. Had it been a bloodless operation, there would then be potential violence caused by the instability created potentially leading to a civil war in the country.
Now I get to ask you a question. If the US conducted similar operations in Israel and/or Russia to arrest Netanyahu and/or Putin, would you consider that a kidnapping? Are we only in disagreement over which world leaders should be arrested or which political body is allowed to call for world leaders to be arrested?
So, do you believe that the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and coup of their leadership is justified?
The nature by which Maduro has and maintains power does not make him a legitimate leader. Putin is a leader in power by similar means. Netanyahu on the other hand is democratically elected. So do you believe that a violation of Israeli sovereignty and a coup on their leadership is justified? Should the media be reporting that the ICJ wants to “kidnap” Netanyahu?
Personally I think Netanyahu is a bad dude, but arresting a sitting leader of a country is attempting to exert political force, not seeking justice. Same goes for Maduro. But Netanyahu is elected (in a proportional representation system, which sucks but it is a democracy) so has legitimacy as leader of a country while Maduro doesn’t have that legitimacy. If the ICJ waited until after he was no longer in power that would be seeking justice, but doing so while a leader is in power is a geopolitical thing, not a justice thing. But Even if there was a world where some country arrested Netanyahu, I still wouldn’t be demanding the news media term it a “kidnapping” because that’s stupid.
Do you believe the President should be conducting similar operations in Columbia and Cuba as stated and Greenland as leaked?
These operations would be even more stupid than the operation in Venezuela. If they were done on democratic countries, it would be a violation of the will of the people and that would be a true violation of sovereignty. In Canada and Greenland there are free and fair elections. For Cuba, while there are elections, it’s a one party system so the elections aren’t exactly free and fair. So Cuba’s government’s legitimacy is in a grey area. For Canada and Geenland it would be attacking allied countries, a massive betrayal and it in time it would result in the end of the USA.
To me, crying crocodile tears over Maduro accomplished nothing other than making people seem like they like Maduro. Like it’s not oppressive governments that are the problem it’s just personal preference over which particular leader of oppressive governments you like or don’t like. Maybe it’s not your intention, but at this point you’re upset over the media not crying enough crocodile tears over one leader of an oppressive government because maybe you feel like that will make Trump look bad somehow? The reality is that it would be the media pushing propaganda which isn’t their job (and obviously doesn’t line up with the reality that Maduro was a bad dude) which really only helps Trump’s narrative that you shouldn’t trust the “fake news” media. A narrative that you’re helping push only from a different angle.
It’s all a big grey area here. But it seems you want to demand other people to use certain words to make it feel like something is illegal. What do you think that will accomplish? Even if you successfully make out Trump’s actions to be illegal, you’ve already made the case it would be a violation of sovereignty and kidnapping for anyone to do anything about it. And that’s only if it were feasible to do anything about it, which it isn’t.
Your intent to use word to deliberately invoke emotion is exactly what news media should avoid. Note they are also not using the word “arrest” which would give legitimacy to the action.
Why do you think it’s important to push an emotion? Are you trying to use emotion to influence people into thinking how you think?
It’s fine for people on social media to express their feelings. But news media is supposed to be as factual as possible and should avoid using words to put an emotional spin on a story. Demanding news media to do so is demanding news media to be more propagandist than factual, and that makes it indistinguishable from other propaganda. I don’t think the problems we’re having is due to there not being enough propaganda. We need there to be some people reporting the facts.
Don’t tell me what my intent is. My intent was to point out that using charged language for some people and selecting more neutral language when the influential do parallel acton is itself a bias toward the rich and powerful. I was using the socratic method to highlight the hitch in your reasoning. I was being fairly neutral in that my focus was to inform you that your reasoning had a gaping hole in it.
Now I shall use somewhat more emotional language because I’m now more actively attempting to persuade
“Reserve judgement and let the system work” is only a valid stance if there’s reason to believe the system will work. After multiple impeachments and numerous more lawsuits (and we’re barely touching on this sleasebag’s career before they got into office; a lifetime of profiting on misery and broken promises, getting away with it solely by being rich as fuck and cultivating a persona of playing dumb in court while hiring the most ruthless lawyers in the industry to whitewash his crimes in a legal…) That got away from me - my point is I don’t know why we’re giving a convicted rapist and suspected pedophile the benefit of the doubt.
Much more to the heart of the matter is Project 2025 by the Heritage Foundation. Within it’s pages, it spells out a plan to functionally blitz the landscape with so many regressive policies enacted at once that they effectively cover for each other. With that frame in mind it’s entirely unsurprising that the Epstein files issue, the planned military extraction of Maduro, and the ICE shooting in Minneapolis all share airspace within the same week. The media position of ‘wait to see what plays out before using judgemental language’ is being deliberately exploited as a stalling tactic.
So let me offer an olive branch: If it were anybody but Trump and his cadre of enablers, I normally am all for the media acting with reserve before throwing their influence around before the facts are in, but that norm is being weaponized against us. So, do you believe that the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and coup of their leadership is justified? Please note - I did not call it a kidnapping or abduction and all parties agree that the President’s stated intent is to directly influence Venezuelan policy. Do you believe the President should be conducting similar operations in Columbia and Cuba as stated and Greenland as leaked? And when does it become appropriate for journalism to push back against government overreach?
Words carry meaning. Which is why news media is careful of the words they use because some words to avoid showing intent they don’t actually have. If someone interprets your intent based on the words you choose, when they get your intent wrong, it may be because you aren’t choosing the best words to convey your intent.
Maduro was not elected as leader and basically stole his position from the rightful leader of the country according to democratic norms. He’s not a legitimate leader so I really don’t car about him in terms of any legal terms since his hold on power was dependent on his ability to exert violence on the people of Venezuela. The issue isn’t Maduro, it’s the ~80 people that US forces killed on their way in to get him. Had it been a bloodless operation, there would then be potential violence caused by the instability created potentially leading to a civil war in the country.
Now I get to ask you a question. If the US conducted similar operations in Israel and/or Russia to arrest Netanyahu and/or Putin, would you consider that a kidnapping? Are we only in disagreement over which world leaders should be arrested or which political body is allowed to call for world leaders to be arrested?
The nature by which Maduro has and maintains power does not make him a legitimate leader. Putin is a leader in power by similar means. Netanyahu on the other hand is democratically elected. So do you believe that a violation of Israeli sovereignty and a coup on their leadership is justified? Should the media be reporting that the ICJ wants to “kidnap” Netanyahu?
Personally I think Netanyahu is a bad dude, but arresting a sitting leader of a country is attempting to exert political force, not seeking justice. Same goes for Maduro. But Netanyahu is elected (in a proportional representation system, which sucks but it is a democracy) so has legitimacy as leader of a country while Maduro doesn’t have that legitimacy. If the ICJ waited until after he was no longer in power that would be seeking justice, but doing so while a leader is in power is a geopolitical thing, not a justice thing. But Even if there was a world where some country arrested Netanyahu, I still wouldn’t be demanding the news media term it a “kidnapping” because that’s stupid.
These operations would be even more stupid than the operation in Venezuela. If they were done on democratic countries, it would be a violation of the will of the people and that would be a true violation of sovereignty. In Canada and Greenland there are free and fair elections. For Cuba, while there are elections, it’s a one party system so the elections aren’t exactly free and fair. So Cuba’s government’s legitimacy is in a grey area. For Canada and Geenland it would be attacking allied countries, a massive betrayal and it in time it would result in the end of the USA.
To me, crying crocodile tears over Maduro accomplished nothing other than making people seem like they like Maduro. Like it’s not oppressive governments that are the problem it’s just personal preference over which particular leader of oppressive governments you like or don’t like. Maybe it’s not your intention, but at this point you’re upset over the media not crying enough crocodile tears over one leader of an oppressive government because maybe you feel like that will make Trump look bad somehow? The reality is that it would be the media pushing propaganda which isn’t their job (and obviously doesn’t line up with the reality that Maduro was a bad dude) which really only helps Trump’s narrative that you shouldn’t trust the “fake news” media. A narrative that you’re helping push only from a different angle.
It’s all a big grey area here. But it seems you want to demand other people to use certain words to make it feel like something is illegal. What do you think that will accomplish? Even if you successfully make out Trump’s actions to be illegal, you’ve already made the case it would be a violation of sovereignty and kidnapping for anyone to do anything about it. And that’s only if it were feasible to do anything about it, which it isn’t.