|
|
It was just an example of the type of thing that many of us used to say and something I can admit to doing myself (30 odd years ago).
Rather than focus on that one example as definitive, consider it as an example. Society in general has moved on, and that is merely one example amongst many that have changed quite dramatically since I was a child regarding how we talk about and are expected to treat each other.
It is not about whether people do or do not use those terms now a days, it is about whether some people resent being made to feel they were wrong and whether or not that resentment has manifested in a negative reaction or bias against social progress and the BBC, politicians and the Left as pushing an elitist lefty liberal agenda from their bubble while ignoring the 'average Joe'.
The issue was centred on what drove significant enough numbers of the electorate in the US to vote for Trump and the assertion that it was a reaction to the elitist lefty liberal agenda.
That the average Joe was not buying into the elitist liberal agenda bubble and that is why they voted for Trump. The fact is that Trump didn't win the popular vote, so that pours water on the idea that it was 'average Joe' versus the minority of elitist liberals.
I argue that it is a perception of an elitist liberal agenda bubble running things rather than the reality that while there are liberal elites with radical socialist agenda's, they are not representative of the main stream of majority of the Left just as UKIP and Britain First are not representative of the Right.
I argue that the perception of that elitist liberal agenda has come from the likes of Fox News and Breitbart along with conservative and religious sites that have long been attacking and trying to discredit and undermine the general main stream media and news for their own political and economic agendas.
That although these sites and outlets have a limited readership, their reach and effects upon the general public at large is not insignificant.
Again I pointed out that Trump retweeted Britain First's propaganda to his 44 million followers.
It's an example of what happens across the internet, social media and even the main stream as fake stories, propaganda and memes often disguised as to their origin or intent disseminate around the web.
While not everyone falls for it, it still can have a not insignificant impact upon exagerating and exacerbating divisive issues, lending false credibility and false evidence to support our own natural biases and political leanings.
That is precisely why the Russians paid money to advertise to both Republican and Democratic leaning social media users - to exacerbate and exagerate the divide between them and polarise political debates. They spread anti-muslim, anti-liberal propaganda stories to the Republicans while at the same time spreading anti-facist, anti-racist propaganda to the Democrats.
Just the same as they have spread anti-BBC, anti western media messages and propaganda for the last few decades.
Why ?
Because it sows enough seeds of doubt and discord to undermine the main stream media and the general publics perception of it's credibility and honesty - so that for example they can dismiss stories and articles that attempt to hold them to account for their deeds as fake news and anti-Russian propaganda.
Destablising and spliting the US into a politically divided nation at war with itself is an ideal situation if they happen to be your competition in attaining greater influence and power in the world.
At the same time, evangelicals, creationists and climate deniers have long been trying to undermine science and the main stream media for similar reasons.
Since science and the main stream media appear at odds with and undermine the beliefs of those groups, they have long since adopted an approach to trying to undermine and devalue any source of information that contradicts those beliefs.
From crib sheet argument lists to repeatedly spout to funding campaign groups and spreading propaganda out into the main stream via memes and videos that have had a serious impact on the public's perception of science. |
|
Author: raduv1
Author
26-11-2019 00:08:44