That opposing Trump automatically means you’re on the right side on everything. It’s evident in every sentence you type.
Why was Biden “normalizing” handing over the WH to “actual Hitler” just days after the election? Because he knows DT is NOT actual Hitler - of course he knows it. Biden was playing his role, saying whatever he was told to say on the campaign trail to win.
Biden knows politics is performative, ditto Pelosi, etc.. yet somehow you cannot grasp that reality.
You and Sam Harris are unable to admit that in the modern news era our emotions CAN be easily triggered by lying or exaggerated headlines - “Russia collusion! Fine people on both sides! 15 days will stop the spread! Mostly peaceful protests! The vaccine IS safe and effective! Questioning is doubting the science! Joe Biden has never been sharper!”
And secondly understanding that you yourself are susceptible to emotional manipulation.
We all are susceptible. That’s why skepticism right now is on the rise - not dehumanization - skepticism.
Journalism need not be activism.
You’re a leftist Archie Bunker - yet even Archie humanized his black neighbor George Jefferson, something you apparently cannot do.
It’s remarkable to me that you accuse me of emotional bias while offering not a structured argument, but a scattered list of grievances, memes, and hypotheticals.
Your underlying claim is this: that opposing Trump automatically makes someone wrong, biased, or incoherent. That’s not reasoning. That’s tribal projection posing as insight.
You presume I’ve elevated Biden as a moral exemplar. I haven’t. I’ve consistently critiqued institutional liberalism for its complicity, performance, and moral cowardice. You would know that if you engaged with my work in good faith.
The issue isn’t that I “can’t humanize Trump.”
The issue is what it means to evaluate power coherently.
You offer false equivalencies (“we’re all emotionally manipulated”) as if recognizing propaganda is the same as collapsing moral distinctions.
You say “skepticism is rising” — but you conflate skepticism with cynicism.
You claim journalism shouldn’t be activism, but you mistake truth-telling for tribal loyalty.
Let’s be clear:
You’re not arguing that Trump is imperfect.
You’re defending a posture in which truth itself is just a tactic — and anyone who holds a moral position must be a fool or a dupe.
So let me ask you plainly:
What does it mean to think for yourself?
What does coherence mean to you?
And do you believe that truth exists outside of performance—or is everything just narrative war?
Because if it’s the latter, you haven’t exposed my bias.
Mike nowhere did I say opposing Trump automatically makes someone wrong. You have a basic comprehension problem (because you’re in so deep). Thinking for myself means asking questions - but asking questions is what you call “platforming dangerous ideas.”
Dangerous ideas like what? Like maybe the earth isn’t the center of the universe? Like maybe washing our hands before surgery could lead to healthier outcomes? Like maybe enslaving people as an economic model cannot exist if we also wish to be moral citizens?
Questioning IS good.
I don’t care if it’s questioning Bush and WMDs, questioning Obama’s drone strikes, Gavin Newsom’s covid hypocrisy, or a vaccine that was neither safe nor all that effective.
I have no tribalism to either political color - so yes I agree truth exists outside the narrative. But how do you propose finding truth when you’re so triggered by dangerous ideas?
And you didn’t answer Biden yucking it up with actual Hitler! LOL
You thinking platforming people who believe perhaps the Holocaust didn't happen, or that maybe Hitler was not as morally culpable for it as we think, is a responsible thing for morally engaged commentators like Joe Rogan to do? Is that what you think? Can you explain why?
This is the most vapid point I've engaged with in these comments in a while. Many people see Rogan as one of their primary platforms of sense-making in the world. Anyways, this line of argument has become profoundly unserious and boring to me. So, goo day.
Because you’re not addressing any points of worth. Galileo, Joan of Arc, MLK, and Cassius Clay, all at one time could be labeled “irresponsible” wouldn’t you agree?
Yet your solution is to ban speech YOU decided is irresponsible?
You still haven’t justified your opposition to free speech.
Bravo, well stated. The liberals are all so vain that they can’t even consider the possibility they have been wrong about Trump and his voters. They view us with contempt and disdain without an iota of self reflection.
You said it Mike — “you have no idea what she’s talking about” — because you’ve believed a lie for so long now you cannot admit it.
You don’t WANT to learn.
And no, I didn’t even vote GOP…
What "lie" do I believe?
That opposing Trump automatically means you’re on the right side on everything. It’s evident in every sentence you type.
Why was Biden “normalizing” handing over the WH to “actual Hitler” just days after the election? Because he knows DT is NOT actual Hitler - of course he knows it. Biden was playing his role, saying whatever he was told to say on the campaign trail to win.
Biden knows politics is performative, ditto Pelosi, etc.. yet somehow you cannot grasp that reality.
You and Sam Harris are unable to admit that in the modern news era our emotions CAN be easily triggered by lying or exaggerated headlines - “Russia collusion! Fine people on both sides! 15 days will stop the spread! Mostly peaceful protests! The vaccine IS safe and effective! Questioning is doubting the science! Joe Biden has never been sharper!”
And secondly understanding that you yourself are susceptible to emotional manipulation.
We all are susceptible. That’s why skepticism right now is on the rise - not dehumanization - skepticism.
Journalism need not be activism.
You’re a leftist Archie Bunker - yet even Archie humanized his black neighbor George Jefferson, something you apparently cannot do.
It’s remarkable to me that you accuse me of emotional bias while offering not a structured argument, but a scattered list of grievances, memes, and hypotheticals.
Your underlying claim is this: that opposing Trump automatically makes someone wrong, biased, or incoherent. That’s not reasoning. That’s tribal projection posing as insight.
You presume I’ve elevated Biden as a moral exemplar. I haven’t. I’ve consistently critiqued institutional liberalism for its complicity, performance, and moral cowardice. You would know that if you engaged with my work in good faith.
The issue isn’t that I “can’t humanize Trump.”
The issue is what it means to evaluate power coherently.
You offer false equivalencies (“we’re all emotionally manipulated”) as if recognizing propaganda is the same as collapsing moral distinctions.
You say “skepticism is rising” — but you conflate skepticism with cynicism.
You claim journalism shouldn’t be activism, but you mistake truth-telling for tribal loyalty.
Let’s be clear:
You’re not arguing that Trump is imperfect.
You’re defending a posture in which truth itself is just a tactic — and anyone who holds a moral position must be a fool or a dupe.
So let me ask you plainly:
What does it mean to think for yourself?
What does coherence mean to you?
And do you believe that truth exists outside of performance—or is everything just narrative war?
Because if it’s the latter, you haven’t exposed my bias.
You’ve confessed your own collapse.
Mike nowhere did I say opposing Trump automatically makes someone wrong. You have a basic comprehension problem (because you’re in so deep). Thinking for myself means asking questions - but asking questions is what you call “platforming dangerous ideas.”
Dangerous ideas like what? Like maybe the earth isn’t the center of the universe? Like maybe washing our hands before surgery could lead to healthier outcomes? Like maybe enslaving people as an economic model cannot exist if we also wish to be moral citizens?
Questioning IS good.
I don’t care if it’s questioning Bush and WMDs, questioning Obama’s drone strikes, Gavin Newsom’s covid hypocrisy, or a vaccine that was neither safe nor all that effective.
I have no tribalism to either political color - so yes I agree truth exists outside the narrative. But how do you propose finding truth when you’re so triggered by dangerous ideas?
And you didn’t answer Biden yucking it up with actual Hitler! LOL
You thinking platforming people who believe perhaps the Holocaust didn't happen, or that maybe Hitler was not as morally culpable for it as we think, is a responsible thing for morally engaged commentators like Joe Rogan to do? Is that what you think? Can you explain why?
“Responsible?” Who said anything about responsible - do you always change the goalposts or put words in other people’s mouths like this?
Were Galileo’s heliocentrist views “responsible?” if you’d asked the church at the time?
Seems like you need to go backwards before going forward and discover how many now mainstream views were once controversial and “not responsible.”
Also Joe Rogan is found under “entertainment” on Spotify, not legal or commentary or even advice.
What does it matter that it's categorized as "entertainment" on Spotify, exactly?
His podcast isn’t claiming to be anything other than entertainment.
This is the most vapid point I've engaged with in these comments in a while. Many people see Rogan as one of their primary platforms of sense-making in the world. Anyways, this line of argument has become profoundly unserious and boring to me. So, goo day.
Because you’re not addressing any points of worth. Galileo, Joan of Arc, MLK, and Cassius Clay, all at one time could be labeled “irresponsible” wouldn’t you agree?
Yet your solution is to ban speech YOU decided is irresponsible?
You still haven’t justified your opposition to free speech.
Don’t bother, they don’t understand anything you’re saying….:)
Bravo, well stated. The liberals are all so vain that they can’t even consider the possibility they have been wrong about Trump and his voters. They view us with contempt and disdain without an iota of self reflection.
Apologies Mike I should’ve kept it simpler - the lie you believe is that Trump cannot be humanized.
Therefore Republican voters cannot be humanized.
The new media needs you enraged.
Mission accomplished 🙌
My good sir. You are arguing against a rather stupid straw man, because I have made no such claim.
It’s why you’re upset with Bill, that he “normalized” Trump right? Should I get out my thesaurus?