Donate

The New York Times has published yet another installment in its infuriating series "We Sold Our Moral Compass For These Magic Impartial Beans" yesterday, with a news analysis piece explaining that the public discourse around Donald Trump's immigration policy has become intolerably coarse. On the one hand, for instance, you have the "president" openly echoing Nazi propaganda and saying Democrats want "illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country." Oh, dear, but in response, people are using four-letter words, putting "president" in scare quotes, and even pointing out that Nazi Germany literally compared Jews to vermin, and isn't that a shocking development?


My goodness, it is truly disheartening that things on both sides have come to such a pass, though we must note that reporters Peter Baker and Katie Rogers daintily concede Trump may bear a bit of responsibility, somehow. Mostly for his language, as if the actual policy of taking migrant children away had nothing to do with why people are cussin':

Mr. Trump's coarse discourse increasingly seems to inspire opponents to respond with vituperative words of their own. Whether it be Robert De Niro's four-letter condemnation at the Tony Awards or a congressional intern who shouted the same word at Mr. Trump when he visited the Capitol this week, the president has generated so much anger among his foes that some are crossing boundaries that he himself shattered long ago.

Egad. As usual, NYT's tweet promoting the story somehow manages to distill the both-sidesism into pearl-clutching self-parody:


The actual article checks in with Georgetown business management professor Christine Porath, who writes about being civil in the workplace. She too is shaking her damn head at the unfortunate consequences of all this mean talk:

Unfortunately, we've seen a decline in civility and an uptick in incivility [...] It seems like people are not only reciprocating, but we tend to stoop lower rather than higher. It's really putting us in an unfortunate place.

We aren't certain we buy that claim, since many people have in fact responded to Trump's immigration policies by appealing to our better angels, saying things like "America should be better than to take crying children and put them in prisons where workers aren't allowed to comfort them, you fucker."

And then there's this paragraph, which wisely avoids any mention of Trump's actual policies toward migrants and instead looks only at the derogatory tone:

Mr. Trump's descriptions of those trying to enter the country illegally have been so sharp that critics say they dehumanize people and lump together millions of migrants with the small minority that are violent. This approach traces back to the day Mr. Trump first announced his campaign for president in 2015, when he labeled many Mexican immigrants as "rapists," a portrayal that drew furious protests.

The piece then goes on to catalog Mr. Trump's many calumnies of political opponents, and notes, correctly enough, that he thrives on being as outrageous as possible, while his Republican primary opponents had little success responding with nastiness of their own. But oh, dear, Trump's shamelessness appears to have infected even those who protest him!

The emotional exchanges that feel so raw online play out in person too. Outside an arena in Duluth, Minn., where the president was speaking on Wednesday night, protesters waved signs that said "My Grandpa Didn't Fight Nazis for This" and "Liar. Racist. Fascist. Sociopath. Twitter Troll. Idiot."

Supporters of the president responded with their own messaging. "Hillary Clinton Killed My Friends," read a man's T-shirt outside the rally, without explanation.

The article does at least offer -- a bit disdainfully -- some space to those who point out maybe there's something beyond Trump's tone to cuss about:

Some liberals bristle at the idea that they should hold back in the face of what they consider an inhumane or authoritarian presidency. Jessica Valenti, a columnist for Guardian U.S. and the author of multiple books on feminism, politics and culture, said restraint played into Mr. Trump's hands.

"Expecting those of us who are scared and angry over what our country is becoming to speak with civility is absurd — civility died the day Trump took office," she wrote. "It's like telling a woman to smile as she's being sexually harassed on the street: We're not just supposed to put up with injustice, we're meant to be cheerful through it, as well."

Ya think? We're then treated to a discussion of whether it's overkill to compare Trump's actions and policy to Nazism, because after all, he hasn't yet actually murdered anyone (except a still-unknown total of Puerto Ricans, but that was more deliberate neglect, golly). To at least their partial credit, Baker and Rogers acknowledge that the comparison seems apt to at least some whose experience of the Third Reich wasn't just rhetorical:

Two Holocaust survivors, however, posted a video testimonial this week talking about the impact of being separated from their parents. "Let's be clear: We are not comparing what is happening today to the Holocaust," they said in a statement. "But forcibly separating children from their parents is an act of cruelty under all circumstances."

In conclusion, we would just like to point out that cancelling your New York Times subscription and giving your money to Wonkette isn't merely a good idea: it would make you part of a MOVEMENT.

Plus, we do way gooder rhetorical analysis here.

Follow Doktor Zoom on Twitter

Yr Wonkette is supported by reader donations. Please click here to support the fairest partisan shitshow on the interwebs!

[NYT]

Doktor Zoom

Doktor Zoom's real name is Marty Kelley, and he lives in the wilds of Boise, Idaho. He is not a medical doctor, but does have a real PhD in Rhetoric. You should definitely donate some money to this little mommyblog where he has finally found acceptance and cat pictures. He is on maternity leave until 2033. Here is his Twitter, also. His quest to avoid prolixity is not going so great.

$
Donate with CC

The producers of your favorite live-action Jack Chick pamphlet, "God's Not Dead" -- you know, the one where the Hercules dude plays an evil philosophy professor who tells all of his students on the first day that they are no longer allowed to believe in god? As all secular professors do? -- have come out with a thrilling new movie, all about how abortion is bad or whatever.

The movie tells the "true" story of Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood clinic worker turned professional anti-choicer. Johnson has been a darling of the forced birth circuit ever since she made up ridiculous and provably false reasons for quitting the Planned Parenthood that was about to fire her for being bad at her job.

Basically, she claims that Planned Parenthood was pushing her to make more abortions happen so they could reel in more dough, and also that she witnessed (for the first time ever!) an ultrasound-guided abortion and saw the baby move from the light and then immediately realized that what she was doing was wrong.

The thing is, however -- no ultrasound-guided abortions were performed on the day she said it happened, and the only reason there was an uptick in abortions at her clinic was because they started offering the abortion pill on a daily basis (and had previously only been performing surgical abortions every other Saturday).

As you may have guessed, the movie does not address any of these things. It also looks very, very bad.

Keep reading... Show less
$
Donate with CC
Wikimedia

Ever since Ruth Bader Ginsburg successfully underwent surgery for lung cancer, conservative sites and message boards have been trafficking in a ridiculous theory that she is actually dead and that there is some kind of Weekend at Bernie's-esque conspiracy to pretend she is still alive.

Now, one would think that her recent public appearance at a concert held in her honor would have put this to rest. Alas, it did not. Rather, the "researchers" (as they hilariously call themselves) determined that the concert was actually her funeral.

No. Really. That was a thing.

I admit that I gave this a lot more thought than I should have. Like, how did they think this would go? How long did they imagine this would go on for? Why would they risk having a full on funeral concert, open to the press? Wouldn't they just have not bothered to have a funeral at all? And what did these people think was going to happen when it was announced that she died for real? Or did they think that we were going to pretend that she is immortal and thus never announce her death? It's so confusing!

Being very up to date on the "RBG is secretly dead!" nonsense, I was very curious about which way the "anons" would go with this when they announced her return to work on Friday. They did not disappoint!

Keep reading... Show less
$
Donate with CC
Donate

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Newsletter

©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc