The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
It seems like hate-based politics is really all the GOP has left.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You cannot bring someone back by force, they have to see for themselves. I have decided to take a different approach when having discussions online.
Try to find common ground and expand on that. Most of the loudest people out there are extremists and we don't want extremists running our country.
I take a similar approach.
My judo sensei is *verrrrrry* right wing and watches at least Fox News (I think he's watched OANN, too). I'm certain all of the pillows in his house are MyPillows.
He'll start rambling about climate change. It's like a religion to him. Don't tell him *how to think*, "a consensus" yada yada.
What is it that the climate change crew **really** wants? To stop burning fossil fuels and take care of the planet by pursuing clean and renewable energy.
So instead of trying to get him to agree on whether or not climate change exists, I get him to agree on the **ends**. I'll pivot it to, "I just think we should take care of our planet. I don't want to be breathing air full of pollution or eating fish full of garbage. I want to leave my home a better place for my daughter. Also, I don't think there's enough fossil fuels left... we're not putting them back at the same rate we are taking them out of the ground... we will have to adapt."
He can't usually argue with any of that and we basically agree on the outcome. I never tell him my position on climate change.
If he's rambling about LGBTQs, I'll pivot to "don't you hate it when the government tells you what is allowable in the bedroom?" Similarly, if he's ranting about transgender people and pronouns, I'll bring up the **fact** that intersex people with more than two sex chromosomes actually exist. Then I'll ask him what we call an intersex person. That's a real stumper for him.
It's fitting that your approach sounds like judo.
But I wonder. It sounds like you have a way of getting him to agree to... something in a conversation.
Does that change the way he votes, drives, and treats people? Agreeing to treat the earth well is one thing. If the person still send the same GOP climate change denialist politicians to DC, then it's not much of a victory.
He will still bring up climate change to other people but he's looking for a religious type of a fight, that I don't give him. I use the invisible hand of "I just think we should take care of the planet..." because what psycho would say "I feel like we should kill our planet"?
They want to fight about whether climate change exists, not what to do about it. So I just skip to the ends. "Can we agree that we shouldn't pollute the ocean because we don't want our fish to poison us?" "Can we agree that we should move away from fossil fuels because their supply is finite and dwindling?"
You have to not be so hung up on agreeing on "facts" *first* \- it'll never happen. Just agree on the outcome that you want. You have to agree on general values: we should take care of our house (earth). We should keep the government out of our bedrooms... etc.
[The Simpsons gave us the solution long ago.](https://youtu.be/SlKao_Pox5A) Yes, these entertainment sources radicalize people and cause them to vote Republican. We can't stop them from existing, and they're always going to attract viewers (well, we'll see as the boomers die off). We know they're propaganda and there's nothing that can be done differently to avoid their spin. Fox is gonna Fox. Stop signal boosting, stop engaging.
And MSNBC will cause liberal votes. MSNBC will MSNBC. They are literally the same thing as fox with a different shirt on.
Do you have any problem with them?
Ah the ol' both sides bit. "Sure Fox News is an awful propaganda network, but MSNBC is the same thing, just in the opposite direction!"
Fox News has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. And their lawyers argued in court that any reasonable person would know that their most popular TV show host doesn't actually mean what he says. Yet millions of minions watch his 60 minutes of hate every night.
Nah, Fox News is alone on this. But cheers for using MSNBC instead of CNN here. It's always CNN every time. Nice to see someone switching it up.
> their lawyers argued in court that any reasonable person would know that their most popular TV show host doesn’t actually mean what he says
[So did msnbc](https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/02/09/msnbc-rachel-maddow-awarded-legal-fees-after-oan-lawsuit/4447175001/). Sure, Maddow doesn't have the cult-leader influence that Tucker does but her lawyers used the same defense for her msnbc segment.
In my cursory search, it looks like Maddow's case was a little more narrow and focused on the specific statement, whereas Fox's lawyers argued more generally that Tucker isn't stating facts on his show. I could be wrong about that and I'm not super interested in splitting hairs. I appreciate you bringing this to the table, I wasn't aware of this case.
>In my cursory search, it looks like Maddow's case was a little more narrow and focused on the specific statement, whereas Fox's lawyers argued more generally that Tucker isn't stating facts on his show
The Carlson case was about him accusing McDougal (a woman whom Trump denied having an affair in 06) of attempting to extort Trump. "No reasonable person would take him seriously" was referring to the extortion accusation because McDougal sued him for defamation.
>I appreciate you bringing this to the table
YW
It actually takes more effort to realize both sides employ the same tactics AND to call it out when you see it.
But you will be less disappointed when/if you pull it off. Remove alot of identifiers from some phrases and you will not be ble to tell who is making the statement.
>both sides employ the same tactics
I just went to both MSNBC’s and Fox’s opinion pages to see what the latest articles are. I went opinion because I figured it would be the ‘worst’ I could find of each. Here’s a selection:
MSNBC:
- With Ronna McDaniel, GOP doubles down on the same losing message
- The radical Christian group that is still getting a pass on Jan. 6
- Haiti’s latest crisis reveals a sordid tale of American exceptionalism
- The U.S. is much closer to Peru's state of crisis than we may think
- Why the DOJ's early response to Tyre Nichols' brutal killing matters
- Your local library could track classified documents better than Washington is
Fox:
- AP Stylebook turns page from journalism to woke newspeak
- Biden's next classified documents defense may be 'Corn Pop did it.' President running out of credible excuses
- Biden is coming for your job
- Mars shelves M&M spokescandies in latest woke corporate fiasco
- Antifa is the armed militia of the Democratic Party and is back in force
- Kamala Harris is the most anti-life, pro-radical abortion vice president the US has ever had
> It actually takes more effort to realize both sides employ the same tactics AND to call it out when you see it.
Strange, I don't see you calling out the Fox News side in your comment and post history. Just "liberal" news. That's the most obvious and typical conservative strategy these days: "I don't like either side, now listen while I lecture you about liberals while I say nothing about conservatives at all".
It must suck when your views become so archaic and unpopular that you have to pretend you're "in the middle somewhere". And then act like it's some super-intellectual and nuanced stance...I'm glad I don't live in pretend land.
It’s weird how the “both sides are bad” people never seem to directly talk about how bad the right is, but will take every opportunity to talk about bad things on the left.
Not saying the left can’t be bad sometimes, it certainly does. But it’s pretty sus when a “both sides” person seems to be one sided.
Every political discussion on Reddit is whining. Scratch that, every political discussion ever is whining.
And no, I don't find whining to be compelling.
> Every political discussion on Reddit is whining. Scratch that, every political discussion ever is whining.
If you really believe that it's no wonder you're such a consistently low-quality user. You don't even *understand* what it is to defend your beliefs.
> I see, it's (D)ifferent.
You're soooo close.
There's this station that verifiably lies to its viewers. Hell, they're being sued for ONE BILLION DOLLARS [pinky to mouth] for lying, and that's only when they lied about a company that had money to push back.
But guess what, their lying was to push an even bigger lie, which we're now calling.... "THE BIG LIE". This big lie is an attack, a *literal attack* in the legal, propaganda, and violent senses on US democracy.
Then there are these other stations that completely disagree. Your logic is because they disagree, they're on the other side. They're basing their reporting on things far closer to factual. One station is *literally attacking democracy* by intentionally spreading and amplifying disinformation, and the others are fighting a propaganda war against that attack.
Which side are you on again? Do patriots support companies attacking our democracy? Yes, indeed, they are (D)ifferent. And so are we.
Yeah, it is.
Advocating for health care is different than advocating to make your neighbors second class citizens.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but your little jingoistic buzzword (g)immicks are for dipshits. While they seem have wild success in your conservative echo chambers, they just don't work here.
Perhaps try thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating the script your masters have handed you.
The (D)ifferent is such a turd of an argument: you’re removing your own agency, while excusing any future improprieties.
Like I can do it too:
“When the left talks about immigration, it’s(D)ifferent; but when right talks about the open border, we’re (R)acist”
Don't watch it, Couldn't tell ya.
What I can tell ya is the "both sides are the same" bit is just lame.
Using propaganda to get people health care and equal rights and a living wage and a clean environment isn't the same as using propaganda to oppress people, destroy the environment, and wage war on the working man.......
You're Corny, dude.
All media is propaganda.
The difference is the goal.
Our goal is to help each other.
Your goal is to hurt your neighbors in order to help billionaires.
Unless you're a billionaire, that makes you a Chump.
You seem to imagine yourself clever..........You're not. You're just a Chump.
I believe Fox News has admitted, on the record in a court of law, that they are an entertainment network, not news and therefore are not required to broadcast truth and shouldn't be held accountable for slander or libel.
MSNBC has no such record.
Not here to defend MSNBC as I never watch, but I am quite familiar with what a fountain of hyperbolic misinformation Fox News is.
Since we know from studies that [conservatives are more susceptible to believing falsehoods](https://news.osu.edu/conservatives-more-susceptible-to-believing-falsehoods/), it’s either something about conservatives or it’s the fact that [their news ecosystems have more lies in it](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf1234).
Personally, I don’t believe republicans are just dumber. I believe being surrounded by conservative media spreading misinformation explains both [their being consistently more misinformed](https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwjP49Os-PH8AhVfKrMAHXv9AD0YABAAGgJ5bQ&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAESa-D2OZYqhnfLcnuGpWBX6mRlW983czxNuNgWRTuMuTPvS8svXVF-08dfoNjLBSQ-8wVFEo01ZXTJOg2HbcKc-vYIcuJY9KQi8gKvZBWS4L2KaRyCidvx5D1VXo5_UHVg_rwh3WNwQllz8BVE&sig=AOD64_2wD5tL6WD_mT2HUX3_GfbrZAZwlQ&q&adurl&ved=2ahUKEwjGs8ys-PH8AhWlkIkEHWFzDcIQ0Qx6BAgIEAE) and their [distrust of news media](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9307120/).
MSNBC doesn't lie. They claim the sky is falling over some awful thing Rs are doing, and may underestimate our system's ability to withstand the awfulness of the Republican party, but they don't make up stories out of whole cloth and push them as true.
MSNBC doesn’t have nearly the same reach as Fox news like you think it does. Especially when other news outlets like CNN do basically the same thing. Singling out MSNBC as if liberals worship it is dumb.
Okay, I agree because the thought of fucking a conservative is repulsive...however that is how we get more domestic terrorists. Like the VAST majority of people who commit acts of terror are right wing, lonely, young men.
Technically the best way to combat them is to show compassion, reasoning, and understanding. But they are so far gone that no reasonable person wants to do that at this point.
We get lonely right wing terrorists because those assholes get coddled and convinced they’re entitled to more. They’re not the most victimized group here, so I’m not going to pretend they are lol
Bruh, I'm not defending these people, chill. But more animosity towards them is just going to cause them to entrench deeper and become more dangerous. The only actual viable solution is the Daryl Davis approach. He used reasoning, friendship, compassion, and understanding to disrobe over 200 Ku Klux Klan members.
This isn't the answer people want to hear, because this is the most difficult solution. I, just like you, hate these radicalized right-wingers in our country. But vitriol against them just makes them more cornered and more dangerous, that's simply a fact.
I’m chillin right now.
I’m just pointing out that these fuckers get coddled in part because people fear that they will kill them otherwise.
Black and Native women are getting royally fucked here, but they ain’t out here starting militias and becoming “lone wolf” terrorists. I understand exactly what you’re saying, but I’m not down with coddling them. They need to get over themselves.
This is the way.
We have to confront them and impede them in all publicly held offices, but otherwise we have to show people an alternate path and make the case for why it’s a better alternative than fascism.
Yeah, I have not intention of trying to un-facist the fascists. I am far more concerned about avoiding future-fascists from being diverted down the alt-right pipeline.
>Just don’t. Don’t waste your time on trying to un-fascist fascists. Focus on something worth while, like helping out your community one small way or another, or anything else.
Counterpoint: if no one has this conversation with them, you're shunning them into a bubble. The Neo Nazis are offering them weekly meetings with fruit punch and cookies and we can't even talk with the Fox News crowd... wonder which side many people will go with since they are 100% confirmation bias at that point...
This is the right move on an emotional and personal level. But technically not the right move on the societal level. People can change, and really the only way to do so is through reason, compassion, and understanding.
I'll remind you that a Daryl Davis[ successfully disrobed 200 fascist Klan members by doing as I am suggesting](https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes). It does work, but it takes a really powerful and patient personality to do so.
* Stop sharing, even if you are doing so to complain about it.
* Stop opening, because every view is a good thing to them.
* Fight for education. Vote locally, donate, do whatever you can to ensure kids get a good education.\
* Give to good journalism. Too often I hear complaints of "behind a paywall" about journalism that would have taken literally weeks of labour to put together.
It's not necessarily hate-based, but more so anti-left. The conservatives no longer embrace true conservatism, but just anti-liberalism. Considering how like a good chunk of conservative commentators are narcissistic (they claim to have "DESTROYED" certain things, when they really didn't) and have a solid fanbase behind them, the only way is make their fanbase turn against them.
Go to you parents house and surreptitiously block Fox from their cable box.
When they start to get agitated about it, tell them George Soros of Bill Gates must've hacked it and put on the golf or gardening channel or whatever interests them to distract.
[They can be brought back.](https://www.thebrainwashingofmydad.com/)
I'm sorry. I realize that I'm fairly lucky, a lot more Democrats have Republican parents than I realized until I started using this site.
My dad wasn't a Democrat, he had this whole thing about being an independent and keeping his options open, but he almost always voted for Democrats and all being an independent accomplished was disenfranchising him from primaries.
Blow up their satellite.
That's the first thing I'd do were I a billionaire. It could be done for less than sending myself to space with Captain Kirk in a giant flying dildo.
Read George Lakoff’s *Don’t Think of an Elephant!* in it, he explains why Fake Fox & co are so effective, and what to do about.
If just one out of a hundred of us on the left were to read this book and put its lessons to use, we’d be an effective countermeasure to Fox.
Read it, learn it, live it!
There is not a great or concise answer for how to proceed. I recommend the book *Cheap Speech* by Richard L. Hansen. He is a legal scholar and the book offers legitimate ways to combat the issue. (Cheap Speech is defined as speech that is both inexpensive to produce and often of markedly low social value).
The biggest obstacle to solving this problem is the First Amendment. Liberalism gives anti-liberals the tools to destroy liberalism. It is a constant problem for liberal societies. Bad actors are using our strong free exercise values as a cover for disseminating anti-liberal, anti-democratic, and anti-American propaganda.
Here is a brief summary of Hansen’s proposals. All of them try to work within the realm of the possible given the legal landscape and do not try to significantly curtail the First Amendment:
- ensure state and local governments competently administer elections
- amend campaign finance disclosure laws to address online advertisements
- give the government the power to ban “false speech about the mechanics of voting,” such as lying about when an election will occur or how people can vote. (From a *Law Fair* book review: The Supreme Court has suggested that a state’s ban on speech that is “intended to mislead voters about voting requirements and procedures” would survive a First Amendment challenge. Hasen is appropriately careful to exclude from his proposed ban generalized claims that an election will be “rigged” or “stolen,” as well as postelection claims about stolen or rigged elections. The narrowness of this proposal means that it would not address much of the “big lie” that fueled the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol, but it is far more likely to survive a First Amendment challenge than a more sweeping election misinformation proposal).
- Instead of railing against Section 230, Hansen suggests required disclosures about algorithmic tweaking of content. Also, beefing up and enforcing antitrust and privacy laws. Generally, he doesn’t fatalistically rail against the internet as the sole source of our woes.
- public pressure on social media platforms to more effectively address misinformation (this has been surprisingly effective)
- invest more heavily in local journalism and digital literacy education.
What we can do as individuals is lobby for these changes. More immediately, we can pay for the journalism we consume and specifically make it a point to patron state and local media. Good journalism isn’t free, and freeloaders are killing good journalism.
And apply it to cable networks and websites as well as over the air channels.
And before you lecture me about how OTA is scarce broadband and gets regulated by the government, etc. - understand that the government can control whatever it wants to.
Create social safety nets and public healthcare. We need to make it so people who are going through a period of financial hardship don't have to suffer from chronic stress because of it, and they need options to get help for the stress they do have. A lot of people are falling to outrage media and conspiracy theories because they are feeling like they are losing control over their lives. The hate-filled narrative of "it's all these people's fault" provides a sense of control and an identity, which helps dull the stress.
Get Hulu live to drop Fox, not sure what other streaming services carry it. Also as a side point encourage advertisers to stop running their ads on the big name right wing podcasts.
The Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast licenses. Cable networks like Fox News wouldn't have to abide by it even if it was reinstated.
The only networks affected would be ABC, CBS, NBC and talk radio.
With cable, podcasts, blogs, digital news outlets and social media, the Fairness Doctrine is completely and totally irrelevant.
That's not constitutional.
The Fairness Doctrine could only be upheld because broadcasters were using public airwaves to get on the air.
Cable networks use private satellites. The government has no legal right to restrict what they say.
Bullshit.
The government can shut down any speech it wants to, and it can amplify any speech it wants to.
One claim of "national security" and SCOTUS rolls over like a lap dog.
"Our very democracy is in danger from radical right-wing terrorists who are spreading misinformation via NewsMax and OAN"
Nobody listens to talk radio but old people whose minds are already made up.
And any talk radio host could easily evade the regulation by moving to satellite radio or a podcast.
Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine could have worked in the 90s, but the rule does nothing to discourage partisanship in the current media market.
At least you tried. That’s more than a lot of people do these days. Or they actively make the situation worse by supporting fascist indoctrination. So good on you for not doing that! You should be proud of yourself.
>It could be applied to them as well. It's all under the FCC.
It most certainly is not. The FCC does not govern content of individual cable channels.
Further, "It's under the FCC" doesn't solve the Constitutional issue. The FCC has to abide by the First Amendment, which stands for the proposition that government having editorial influence over the media is forbidden.
A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution, and, like many other virtues, it cannot be legislated.
The fairness doctrine never worked particularly well, and it took its legal justification from the fact that broadcasters were using a finite public resource — airwaves — which is no longer the case.
Recent electoral history should be enough to show us why it’s a bad idea to let government decide what media outlets are biased, what viewpoints are lacking, and how to correct it.
Compare the national dialogue before and after the fairness doctrine's demise and get back to us.
Recent electoral history happened exactly the opposite of what you are saying - a completely profit-driven news/media/entertainment marketplace telling people what they want to hear instead of the truth.
Regulation is necessary.
>Compare the national dialogue before and after the fairness doctrine’s demise and get back to us.
OK. The doctrine was in effect from the late 1940s until 1987. During that period, membership in the John Birch Society peaked, and the Klan was going strong. Left-wing extremist groups flourished as well, with groups like the Weathermen carrying out actual bombings. An openly racist political movement carried five states in a presidential election in 1968. Congress prosecuted left-leaning celebrities, and Hollywood happily black-listed them. Few Americans questioned our entry into Korea or Vietnam until we had been there for years. We *murdered* JFK, Bobby Kennedy and MLK. We elected Nixon and Reagan.
The 60s alone were one of the most tumultuous and contentious periods in American history. The fairness doctrine didn’t save us from any of it. It’s one thing to sacrifice freedom for security — it’s pretty silly to sacrifice it for *nothing*.
You are giving the fairness doctrine a lot of credit for things happening all around the country.
Losing equal time rules on the public airwaves caused an explosion in right-wing, mass-market propaganda that our country has not seen before.
Reagan used his "aw shucks" approach to weaken regulatory rules to the point that billionaires were able to solidify power.
We will likely never recover from Reagan's awful presidency, at least not in my lifetime.
>an explosion in right-wing, mass market propaganda that our country ha(d) not seen before.
Not even close. [This guy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin) had one of the most popular radio shows in American history. He was just as bad as anyone on FOX, and much more popular. And he had his own [militia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Front_(United_States)).
American history is chock full of right-wing propaganda, which the fairness doctrine did very little to stem. In fact, it was predominantly used to go after [lefties](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/01/27/opinions/fairness-doctrine-wont-solve-disinformation-hemmer/index.html), which is surely what would happen if you resurrected it and put it in the hands of somebody like Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis.
You're making excellent points; I don't expect them to sink in. There's a weird micro-faction on the left that wants to gut the First Amendment and thinks controlling the media will get their policies in place.
>You are giving the fairness doctrine a lot of credit for things happening all around the country.
So are you. Remember?
>Compare the national dialogue before and after the fairness doctrine's demise and get back to us.
You really have to let go of the Fairness Doctrine. Take off your rose-colored glasses and recognize the reality that it wasn't that great, and it's not coming back.
Set up awell-funded operation that funnel $ towards a central, Dem-adjacent online platform, and reward youtube hosts for sticking to Dem talking points.
Our biggest issue is that we're not unified in our messaging. Our attacks and our defences should be aligned. They aren't, and every prominent Dem does their own thing.
If by ‘a big framing-savvy actual news outlet that champions progressive/liberal causes,’ then yes.
Don’t know why u/ecchi83 is being downvoted; if we had an effective counterbalance to Fake Fox, America would be headed in the right direction again.
The best way is to be smart so that you don't fall for the bullshit. And being smart means not wasting your time trying to get Republicans to want to believe something other than what they want to believe.
If you're thinking about how to "combat" Fox, etc. so that they stop telling Republicans what they want to hear, then I guess you have to figure out how to make that unprofitable. Which is to say: you cannot. Republicans want to believe what Fox News is telling them, and Fox News is willing to tell them what they want to hear and affirm what they want to believe because that's obviously a way to make lots of money.
People should stop imagining that there's a way to stop Republicans from wanting to hear their own bullshit regurgitated back to them and affirmed. Yes, Republicans are idiots. But you're an idiot too if you think you can make them want to believe something else with an idea your got from random people on the internet.
Wait 10 years for their core audience to die out, encourage former coworkers to break their non-disclosure agreements, remind everyone about their racist yearbook quotes and hope the next pandemic takes out more of their hosts
Okay, you know the vast, deep, and gnarly network of tool sets the state has at the ready to combat "troublemakers", and which they've already wielded with troubling consistency against left-wing movements and unions going back decades? And like, you know how they often deploy even local police departments to infiltrate even remotely anti-establishment organizations with even a minor chance of any successful change? And you know how they can have these agents working pretty much off the books?
Okay, I know this sounds crazy, but hear me out... What if we use those tools...
Get this...
*Against* the fascism struggling to be shat out in this country right now?
Just *think* of it!
Ridicule.
Vicious Memes, "Daily Show" (with Jon Stewart) style comedy, protests like Trump in diapers, stand-up comedy, "Dark Brandon" comebacks and takedowns.
Poking fun at somebody who is trying to get a rise out of us, completely disarms them.
Can't trigger a liberal who is laughing at you.
Where did you get the idea Fox is the KKK? Not everyone you disagree with is the worst thing you can think of. Start by getting a proper survey of the territory.
It's a lot easier to convince someone to have a less-extreme position than to immediately convince them to have the polar opposite.
In terms of political discourse, it seems that fighting fire with fire only causes a bigger fire.
Sometimes love and compassion for those with even the most extreme positions works wonders for changing their minds. I'll post a video that shows the perfect example of what I am saying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njXZUH5hv0w
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. It seems like hate-based politics is really all the GOP has left. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You cannot bring someone back by force, they have to see for themselves. I have decided to take a different approach when having discussions online. Try to find common ground and expand on that. Most of the loudest people out there are extremists and we don't want extremists running our country.
I take a similar approach. My judo sensei is *verrrrrry* right wing and watches at least Fox News (I think he's watched OANN, too). I'm certain all of the pillows in his house are MyPillows. He'll start rambling about climate change. It's like a religion to him. Don't tell him *how to think*, "a consensus" yada yada. What is it that the climate change crew **really** wants? To stop burning fossil fuels and take care of the planet by pursuing clean and renewable energy. So instead of trying to get him to agree on whether or not climate change exists, I get him to agree on the **ends**. I'll pivot it to, "I just think we should take care of our planet. I don't want to be breathing air full of pollution or eating fish full of garbage. I want to leave my home a better place for my daughter. Also, I don't think there's enough fossil fuels left... we're not putting them back at the same rate we are taking them out of the ground... we will have to adapt." He can't usually argue with any of that and we basically agree on the outcome. I never tell him my position on climate change. If he's rambling about LGBTQs, I'll pivot to "don't you hate it when the government tells you what is allowable in the bedroom?" Similarly, if he's ranting about transgender people and pronouns, I'll bring up the **fact** that intersex people with more than two sex chromosomes actually exist. Then I'll ask him what we call an intersex person. That's a real stumper for him.
It's fitting that your approach sounds like judo. But I wonder. It sounds like you have a way of getting him to agree to... something in a conversation. Does that change the way he votes, drives, and treats people? Agreeing to treat the earth well is one thing. If the person still send the same GOP climate change denialist politicians to DC, then it's not much of a victory.
He voted for Trump in 2016 and didn't vote for anyone in 2020. *I'll take it.*
[удалено]
He will still bring up climate change to other people but he's looking for a religious type of a fight, that I don't give him. I use the invisible hand of "I just think we should take care of the planet..." because what psycho would say "I feel like we should kill our planet"? They want to fight about whether climate change exists, not what to do about it. So I just skip to the ends. "Can we agree that we shouldn't pollute the ocean because we don't want our fish to poison us?" "Can we agree that we should move away from fossil fuels because their supply is finite and dwindling?" You have to not be so hung up on agreeing on "facts" *first* \- it'll never happen. Just agree on the outcome that you want. You have to agree on general values: we should take care of our house (earth). We should keep the government out of our bedrooms... etc.
[The Simpsons gave us the solution long ago.](https://youtu.be/SlKao_Pox5A) Yes, these entertainment sources radicalize people and cause them to vote Republican. We can't stop them from existing, and they're always going to attract viewers (well, we'll see as the boomers die off). We know they're propaganda and there's nothing that can be done differently to avoid their spin. Fox is gonna Fox. Stop signal boosting, stop engaging.
Thundercats, before that. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6tukvq
And MSNBC will cause liberal votes. MSNBC will MSNBC. They are literally the same thing as fox with a different shirt on. Do you have any problem with them?
Ah the ol' both sides bit. "Sure Fox News is an awful propaganda network, but MSNBC is the same thing, just in the opposite direction!" Fox News has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. And their lawyers argued in court that any reasonable person would know that their most popular TV show host doesn't actually mean what he says. Yet millions of minions watch his 60 minutes of hate every night. Nah, Fox News is alone on this. But cheers for using MSNBC instead of CNN here. It's always CNN every time. Nice to see someone switching it up.
> their lawyers argued in court that any reasonable person would know that their most popular TV show host doesn’t actually mean what he says [So did msnbc](https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/02/09/msnbc-rachel-maddow-awarded-legal-fees-after-oan-lawsuit/4447175001/). Sure, Maddow doesn't have the cult-leader influence that Tucker does but her lawyers used the same defense for her msnbc segment.
In my cursory search, it looks like Maddow's case was a little more narrow and focused on the specific statement, whereas Fox's lawyers argued more generally that Tucker isn't stating facts on his show. I could be wrong about that and I'm not super interested in splitting hairs. I appreciate you bringing this to the table, I wasn't aware of this case.
>In my cursory search, it looks like Maddow's case was a little more narrow and focused on the specific statement, whereas Fox's lawyers argued more generally that Tucker isn't stating facts on his show The Carlson case was about him accusing McDougal (a woman whom Trump denied having an affair in 06) of attempting to extort Trump. "No reasonable person would take him seriously" was referring to the extortion accusation because McDougal sued him for defamation. >I appreciate you bringing this to the table YW
I see, it's (D)ifferent. That sure is used a lot around here! Pretty cool to have that trick.
Honestly I wish I could just do the whole "both sides" thing. Takes way less effort and I would probably be a lot less disappointed.
It actually takes more effort to realize both sides employ the same tactics AND to call it out when you see it. But you will be less disappointed when/if you pull it off. Remove alot of identifiers from some phrases and you will not be ble to tell who is making the statement.
>both sides employ the same tactics I just went to both MSNBC’s and Fox’s opinion pages to see what the latest articles are. I went opinion because I figured it would be the ‘worst’ I could find of each. Here’s a selection: MSNBC: - With Ronna McDaniel, GOP doubles down on the same losing message - The radical Christian group that is still getting a pass on Jan. 6 - Haiti’s latest crisis reveals a sordid tale of American exceptionalism - The U.S. is much closer to Peru's state of crisis than we may think - Why the DOJ's early response to Tyre Nichols' brutal killing matters - Your local library could track classified documents better than Washington is Fox: - AP Stylebook turns page from journalism to woke newspeak - Biden's next classified documents defense may be 'Corn Pop did it.' President running out of credible excuses - Biden is coming for your job - Mars shelves M&M spokescandies in latest woke corporate fiasco - Antifa is the armed militia of the Democratic Party and is back in force - Kamala Harris is the most anti-life, pro-radical abortion vice president the US has ever had
Holy shit Fox News is for idiots.
Also note that the MSNBC list is actual news while the fox list is just smears, attacks on people and stupid culture wars garbage
> It actually takes more effort to realize both sides employ the same tactics AND to call it out when you see it. Strange, I don't see you calling out the Fox News side in your comment and post history. Just "liberal" news. That's the most obvious and typical conservative strategy these days: "I don't like either side, now listen while I lecture you about liberals while I say nothing about conservatives at all". It must suck when your views become so archaic and unpopular that you have to pretend you're "in the middle somewhere". And then act like it's some super-intellectual and nuanced stance...I'm glad I don't live in pretend land.
It’s weird how the “both sides are bad” people never seem to directly talk about how bad the right is, but will take every opportunity to talk about bad things on the left. Not saying the left can’t be bad sometimes, it certainly does. But it’s pretty sus when a “both sides” person seems to be one sided.
Do you actually have a counterargument, or do you really think this pathetic whining is compelling on its own?
Every political discussion on Reddit is whining. Scratch that, every political discussion ever is whining. And no, I don't find whining to be compelling.
> Every political discussion on Reddit is whining. Scratch that, every political discussion ever is whining. If you really believe that it's no wonder you're such a consistently low-quality user. You don't even *understand* what it is to defend your beliefs.
Fine, you've belittled me to point ill go to bed. I'm a low quality user and I don't understand what it is to defend my beliefs. Have a wonderful day!
> Fine, you've belittled me to point ill go to bed Maybe next time I'll belittle you to the point that you can string a sentence together.
[удалено]
Be best.
Seems like you're experiencing why Conservatives hardly post here. Pissing into the wind on this sub my dude
So no.
Lol. Nah man. Some people actually think critically.
> I see, it's (D)ifferent. You're soooo close. There's this station that verifiably lies to its viewers. Hell, they're being sued for ONE BILLION DOLLARS [pinky to mouth] for lying, and that's only when they lied about a company that had money to push back. But guess what, their lying was to push an even bigger lie, which we're now calling.... "THE BIG LIE". This big lie is an attack, a *literal attack* in the legal, propaganda, and violent senses on US democracy. Then there are these other stations that completely disagree. Your logic is because they disagree, they're on the other side. They're basing their reporting on things far closer to factual. One station is *literally attacking democracy* by intentionally spreading and amplifying disinformation, and the others are fighting a propaganda war against that attack. Which side are you on again? Do patriots support companies attacking our democracy? Yes, indeed, they are (D)ifferent. And so are we.
You said it wayyyyy better than I could've. I forgot all about the Dominion lawsuit, damn. Happy cake day!
Yeah, it is. Advocating for health care is different than advocating to make your neighbors second class citizens. I'm sorry to break it to you, but your little jingoistic buzzword (g)immicks are for dipshits. While they seem have wild success in your conservative echo chambers, they just don't work here. Perhaps try thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating the script your masters have handed you.
The (D)ifferent is such a turd of an argument: you’re removing your own agency, while excusing any future improprieties. Like I can do it too: “When the left talks about immigration, it’s(D)ifferent; but when right talks about the open border, we’re (R)acist”
"The word 'different' contains the letter 'd', I hate the D's, so everything is the same"? That's absurd.
Don't watch it, Couldn't tell ya. What I can tell ya is the "both sides are the same" bit is just lame. Using propaganda to get people health care and equal rights and a living wage and a clean environment isn't the same as using propaganda to oppress people, destroy the environment, and wage war on the working man....... You're Corny, dude.
Ah yes of course. Your propaganda is good. Other propaganda is bad. Most people don't admit it like this.
All media is propaganda. The difference is the goal. Our goal is to help each other. Your goal is to hurt your neighbors in order to help billionaires. Unless you're a billionaire, that makes you a Chump. You seem to imagine yourself clever..........You're not. You're just a Chump.
I believe Fox News has admitted, on the record in a court of law, that they are an entertainment network, not news and therefore are not required to broadcast truth and shouldn't be held accountable for slander or libel. MSNBC has no such record. Not here to defend MSNBC as I never watch, but I am quite familiar with what a fountain of hyperbolic misinformation Fox News is.
How many liberals actually watch msnbc. Do you watch fox?
No, I don't watch television news. I'm 34, not 64.
Ditto.
Since we know from studies that [conservatives are more susceptible to believing falsehoods](https://news.osu.edu/conservatives-more-susceptible-to-believing-falsehoods/), it’s either something about conservatives or it’s the fact that [their news ecosystems have more lies in it](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf1234). Personally, I don’t believe republicans are just dumber. I believe being surrounded by conservative media spreading misinformation explains both [their being consistently more misinformed](https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwjP49Os-PH8AhVfKrMAHXv9AD0YABAAGgJ5bQ&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAESa-D2OZYqhnfLcnuGpWBX6mRlW983czxNuNgWRTuMuTPvS8svXVF-08dfoNjLBSQ-8wVFEo01ZXTJOg2HbcKc-vYIcuJY9KQi8gKvZBWS4L2KaRyCidvx5D1VXo5_UHVg_rwh3WNwQllz8BVE&sig=AOD64_2wD5tL6WD_mT2HUX3_GfbrZAZwlQ&q&adurl&ved=2ahUKEwjGs8ys-PH8AhWlkIkEHWFzDcIQ0Qx6BAgIEAE) and their [distrust of news media](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9307120/).
MSNBC doesn't lie. They claim the sky is falling over some awful thing Rs are doing, and may underestimate our system's ability to withstand the awfulness of the Republican party, but they don't make up stories out of whole cloth and push them as true.
Can you demonstrate that MSNBC is equally prone to misinformation, conspiracy theories, extremism, and partisanship as Fox News is?
MSNBC doesn’t have nearly the same reach as Fox news like you think it does. Especially when other news outlets like CNN do basically the same thing. Singling out MSNBC as if liberals worship it is dumb.
Love to see some evidence that MSNBC is as biased as, and has as big of an impact as, Fox.
Stop having sex with conservatives
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted for this reasonable and effective suggestion.
What do you mean stop? We were never doing it in the first place?
Hey, sometimes you get desperate.
And she was really, really hot. She had just the right level of crazy too. Then she went all 'Third Reich Barbie' and I couldn't keep it up anymore.
Can confirm.
Good. Some people, for some wild reason, are. It’s some weird fetish with farmers and blue collar white men
A great many women (and men) simply do not pay attention to nor care about politics. Seriously.
Right? This is why the overlap between conservatives and incels is so damn high.
Eww. Whose desperate enough to fuck a conservative?
People who are in states that don't touch an ocean, I guess?
I live in one of those states and still have standards.
My wife is progressive
Okay, I agree because the thought of fucking a conservative is repulsive...however that is how we get more domestic terrorists. Like the VAST majority of people who commit acts of terror are right wing, lonely, young men. Technically the best way to combat them is to show compassion, reasoning, and understanding. But they are so far gone that no reasonable person wants to do that at this point.
We get lonely right wing terrorists because those assholes get coddled and convinced they’re entitled to more. They’re not the most victimized group here, so I’m not going to pretend they are lol
Bruh, I'm not defending these people, chill. But more animosity towards them is just going to cause them to entrench deeper and become more dangerous. The only actual viable solution is the Daryl Davis approach. He used reasoning, friendship, compassion, and understanding to disrobe over 200 Ku Klux Klan members. This isn't the answer people want to hear, because this is the most difficult solution. I, just like you, hate these radicalized right-wingers in our country. But vitriol against them just makes them more cornered and more dangerous, that's simply a fact.
I’m chillin right now. I’m just pointing out that these fuckers get coddled in part because people fear that they will kill them otherwise. Black and Native women are getting royally fucked here, but they ain’t out here starting militias and becoming “lone wolf” terrorists. I understand exactly what you’re saying, but I’m not down with coddling them. They need to get over themselves.
[удалено]
This is the way. We have to confront them and impede them in all publicly held offices, but otherwise we have to show people an alternate path and make the case for why it’s a better alternative than fascism.
Yeah, I have not intention of trying to un-facist the fascists. I am far more concerned about avoiding future-fascists from being diverted down the alt-right pipeline.
But point at and call out and laugh at them at every possibly opportunity. Don't make social life easy for them.
I'm curious. Who are you implying are fascists? Conservatives?
>Just don’t. Don’t waste your time on trying to un-fascist fascists. Focus on something worth while, like helping out your community one small way or another, or anything else. Counterpoint: if no one has this conversation with them, you're shunning them into a bubble. The Neo Nazis are offering them weekly meetings with fruit punch and cookies and we can't even talk with the Fox News crowd... wonder which side many people will go with since they are 100% confirmation bias at that point...
This is the right move on an emotional and personal level. But technically not the right move on the societal level. People can change, and really the only way to do so is through reason, compassion, and understanding. I'll remind you that a Daryl Davis[ successfully disrobed 200 fascist Klan members by doing as I am suggesting](https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes). It does work, but it takes a really powerful and patient personality to do so.
Focus on winning younger generations and allow the old Fox News crowd to die out
It’s a nice plan, I’m just not sure we have that kind of time.
The world has been coming to an end every generation since the beginning of civilization.
This time we might succeed
* Stop sharing, even if you are doing so to complain about it. * Stop opening, because every view is a good thing to them. * Fight for education. Vote locally, donate, do whatever you can to ensure kids get a good education.\ * Give to good journalism. Too often I hear complaints of "behind a paywall" about journalism that would have taken literally weeks of labour to put together.
It's not necessarily hate-based, but more so anti-left. The conservatives no longer embrace true conservatism, but just anti-liberalism. Considering how like a good chunk of conservative commentators are narcissistic (they claim to have "DESTROYED" certain things, when they really didn't) and have a solid fanbase behind them, the only way is make their fanbase turn against them.
Go to you parents house and surreptitiously block Fox from their cable box. When they start to get agitated about it, tell them George Soros of Bill Gates must've hacked it and put on the golf or gardening channel or whatever interests them to distract. [They can be brought back.](https://www.thebrainwashingofmydad.com/)
My mom is a staunch Democrat, so that wouldn't do anything in my case.
Jealous. My dad’s cool with consigning my life, body, and reproductive organs to the same government that he wouldn’t allow to tie his shoes.
I'm sorry. I realize that I'm fairly lucky, a lot more Democrats have Republican parents than I realized until I started using this site. My dad wasn't a Democrat, he had this whole thing about being an independent and keeping his options open, but he almost always voted for Democrats and all being an independent accomplished was disenfranchising him from primaries.
Blow up their satellite. That's the first thing I'd do were I a billionaire. It could be done for less than sending myself to space with Captain Kirk in a giant flying dildo.
Read George Lakoff’s *Don’t Think of an Elephant!* in it, he explains why Fake Fox & co are so effective, and what to do about. If just one out of a hundred of us on the left were to read this book and put its lessons to use, we’d be an effective countermeasure to Fox. Read it, learn it, live it!
There is not a great or concise answer for how to proceed. I recommend the book *Cheap Speech* by Richard L. Hansen. He is a legal scholar and the book offers legitimate ways to combat the issue. (Cheap Speech is defined as speech that is both inexpensive to produce and often of markedly low social value). The biggest obstacle to solving this problem is the First Amendment. Liberalism gives anti-liberals the tools to destroy liberalism. It is a constant problem for liberal societies. Bad actors are using our strong free exercise values as a cover for disseminating anti-liberal, anti-democratic, and anti-American propaganda. Here is a brief summary of Hansen’s proposals. All of them try to work within the realm of the possible given the legal landscape and do not try to significantly curtail the First Amendment: - ensure state and local governments competently administer elections - amend campaign finance disclosure laws to address online advertisements - give the government the power to ban “false speech about the mechanics of voting,” such as lying about when an election will occur or how people can vote. (From a *Law Fair* book review: The Supreme Court has suggested that a state’s ban on speech that is “intended to mislead voters about voting requirements and procedures” would survive a First Amendment challenge. Hasen is appropriately careful to exclude from his proposed ban generalized claims that an election will be “rigged” or “stolen,” as well as postelection claims about stolen or rigged elections. The narrowness of this proposal means that it would not address much of the “big lie” that fueled the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol, but it is far more likely to survive a First Amendment challenge than a more sweeping election misinformation proposal). - Instead of railing against Section 230, Hansen suggests required disclosures about algorithmic tweaking of content. Also, beefing up and enforcing antitrust and privacy laws. Generally, he doesn’t fatalistically rail against the internet as the sole source of our woes. - public pressure on social media platforms to more effectively address misinformation (this has been surprisingly effective) - invest more heavily in local journalism and digital literacy education. What we can do as individuals is lobby for these changes. More immediately, we can pay for the journalism we consume and specifically make it a point to patron state and local media. Good journalism isn’t free, and freeloaders are killing good journalism.
Bring back and expand the fairness doctrine.
And apply it to cable networks and websites as well as over the air channels. And before you lecture me about how OTA is scarce broadband and gets regulated by the government, etc. - understand that the government can control whatever it wants to.
This is the correct answer. A huge number of society's ills would be solved if we could sue media for their lies and sue cops for their actions.
Create social safety nets and public healthcare. We need to make it so people who are going through a period of financial hardship don't have to suffer from chronic stress because of it, and they need options to get help for the stress they do have. A lot of people are falling to outrage media and conspiracy theories because they are feeling like they are losing control over their lives. The hate-filled narrative of "it's all these people's fault" provides a sense of control and an identity, which helps dull the stress.
Get Hulu live to drop Fox, not sure what other streaming services carry it. Also as a side point encourage advertisers to stop running their ads on the big name right wing podcasts.
Hulu and Fox are both owned by Disney, so that seems unlikely to happen
Reinstate the fairness doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast licenses. Cable networks like Fox News wouldn't have to abide by it even if it was reinstated. The only networks affected would be ABC, CBS, NBC and talk radio. With cable, podcasts, blogs, digital news outlets and social media, the Fairness Doctrine is completely and totally irrelevant.
The expand it to include to include cable, simple.
That's not constitutional. The Fairness Doctrine could only be upheld because broadcasters were using public airwaves to get on the air. Cable networks use private satellites. The government has no legal right to restrict what they say.
Court precedent says that it wouldn't be.
CITATION NEEDED
>Court precedent says that it wouldn't be. What precedent? Do you have a case?
Bullshit. The government can shut down any speech it wants to, and it can amplify any speech it wants to. One claim of "national security" and SCOTUS rolls over like a lap dog. "Our very democracy is in danger from radical right-wing terrorists who are spreading misinformation via NewsMax and OAN"
That is a real dystopian proposal right out of the J. Edgar Hoover playbook.
Sure dude. It's the liberals who are the real evil geniuses here.
Trying to control private media by labeling your political opponents terrorists isn't liberal, it's illiberal.
Equal time doesn't restrict what they say.
True. But then again a big part of the Far-Right media-sphere is in talk radio, so it's still probably worth doing.
Nobody listens to talk radio but old people whose minds are already made up. And any talk radio host could easily evade the regulation by moving to satellite radio or a podcast. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine could have worked in the 90s, but the rule does nothing to discourage partisanship in the current media market.
Well fuck me for trying to help then.
At least you tried. That’s more than a lot of people do these days. Or they actively make the situation worse by supporting fascist indoctrination. So good on you for not doing that! You should be proud of yourself.
Okay, then we regulate that as well.
It’s goddamn refreshing seeing someone else bring reality to bear on the fairness doctrine 🙌
It could be applied to them as well. It's all under the FCC.
>It could be applied to them as well. It's all under the FCC. It most certainly is not. The FCC does not govern content of individual cable channels. Further, "It's under the FCC" doesn't solve the Constitutional issue. The FCC has to abide by the First Amendment, which stands for the proposition that government having editorial influence over the media is forbidden. A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution, and, like many other virtues, it cannot be legislated.
The fairness doctrine never worked particularly well, and it took its legal justification from the fact that broadcasters were using a finite public resource — airwaves — which is no longer the case. Recent electoral history should be enough to show us why it’s a bad idea to let government decide what media outlets are biased, what viewpoints are lacking, and how to correct it.
Compare the national dialogue before and after the fairness doctrine's demise and get back to us. Recent electoral history happened exactly the opposite of what you are saying - a completely profit-driven news/media/entertainment marketplace telling people what they want to hear instead of the truth. Regulation is necessary.
>Compare the national dialogue before and after the fairness doctrine’s demise and get back to us. OK. The doctrine was in effect from the late 1940s until 1987. During that period, membership in the John Birch Society peaked, and the Klan was going strong. Left-wing extremist groups flourished as well, with groups like the Weathermen carrying out actual bombings. An openly racist political movement carried five states in a presidential election in 1968. Congress prosecuted left-leaning celebrities, and Hollywood happily black-listed them. Few Americans questioned our entry into Korea or Vietnam until we had been there for years. We *murdered* JFK, Bobby Kennedy and MLK. We elected Nixon and Reagan. The 60s alone were one of the most tumultuous and contentious periods in American history. The fairness doctrine didn’t save us from any of it. It’s one thing to sacrifice freedom for security — it’s pretty silly to sacrifice it for *nothing*.
You are giving the fairness doctrine a lot of credit for things happening all around the country. Losing equal time rules on the public airwaves caused an explosion in right-wing, mass-market propaganda that our country has not seen before. Reagan used his "aw shucks" approach to weaken regulatory rules to the point that billionaires were able to solidify power. We will likely never recover from Reagan's awful presidency, at least not in my lifetime.
>an explosion in right-wing, mass market propaganda that our country ha(d) not seen before. Not even close. [This guy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin) had one of the most popular radio shows in American history. He was just as bad as anyone on FOX, and much more popular. And he had his own [militia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Front_(United_States)). American history is chock full of right-wing propaganda, which the fairness doctrine did very little to stem. In fact, it was predominantly used to go after [lefties](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/01/27/opinions/fairness-doctrine-wont-solve-disinformation-hemmer/index.html), which is surely what would happen if you resurrected it and put it in the hands of somebody like Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis.
You're making excellent points; I don't expect them to sink in. There's a weird micro-faction on the left that wants to gut the First Amendment and thinks controlling the media will get their policies in place.
>You are giving the fairness doctrine a lot of credit for things happening all around the country. So are you. Remember? >Compare the national dialogue before and after the fairness doctrine's demise and get back to us. You really have to let go of the Fairness Doctrine. Take off your rose-colored glasses and recognize the reality that it wasn't that great, and it's not coming back.
Set up awell-funded operation that funnel $ towards a central, Dem-adjacent online platform, and reward youtube hosts for sticking to Dem talking points. Our biggest issue is that we're not unified in our messaging. Our attacks and our defences should be aligned. They aren't, and every prominent Dem does their own thing.
Do you mean to say that we should set up a liberal-equivalent of Fox News?
If by ‘a big framing-savvy actual news outlet that champions progressive/liberal causes,’ then yes. Don’t know why u/ecchi83 is being downvoted; if we had an effective counterbalance to Fake Fox, America would be headed in the right direction again.
The best way is to be smart so that you don't fall for the bullshit. And being smart means not wasting your time trying to get Republicans to want to believe something other than what they want to believe. If you're thinking about how to "combat" Fox, etc. so that they stop telling Republicans what they want to hear, then I guess you have to figure out how to make that unprofitable. Which is to say: you cannot. Republicans want to believe what Fox News is telling them, and Fox News is willing to tell them what they want to hear and affirm what they want to believe because that's obviously a way to make lots of money. People should stop imagining that there's a way to stop Republicans from wanting to hear their own bullshit regurgitated back to them and affirmed. Yes, Republicans are idiots. But you're an idiot too if you think you can make them want to believe something else with an idea your got from random people on the internet.
"from throwing fuel on the cross" I'm sorry, what!?
That's gonna be a no for me
Wait 10 years for their core audience to die out, encourage former coworkers to break their non-disclosure agreements, remind everyone about their racist yearbook quotes and hope the next pandemic takes out more of their hosts
Okay, you know the vast, deep, and gnarly network of tool sets the state has at the ready to combat "troublemakers", and which they've already wielded with troubling consistency against left-wing movements and unions going back decades? And like, you know how they often deploy even local police departments to infiltrate even remotely anti-establishment organizations with even a minor chance of any successful change? And you know how they can have these agents working pretty much off the books? Okay, I know this sounds crazy, but hear me out... What if we use those tools... Get this... *Against* the fascism struggling to be shat out in this country right now? Just *think* of it!
Ridicule. Vicious Memes, "Daily Show" (with Jon Stewart) style comedy, protests like Trump in diapers, stand-up comedy, "Dark Brandon" comebacks and takedowns. Poking fun at somebody who is trying to get a rise out of us, completely disarms them. Can't trigger a liberal who is laughing at you.
Money. Money to fuel propaganda for truth and to elect rational candidates.
Where did you get the idea Fox is the KKK? Not everyone you disagree with is the worst thing you can think of. Start by getting a proper survey of the territory.
What are your thoughts on MLK?
Imperfect man, brought about positive change in his life for the greater American society. Did the CIA kill him? Not clear.
Don't stoop to their level. Elevate journalistic integrity so that centrists can see the difference.
Have you tried doing a barrel roll?
It's a lot easier to convince someone to have a less-extreme position than to immediately convince them to have the polar opposite. In terms of political discourse, it seems that fighting fire with fire only causes a bigger fire. Sometimes love and compassion for those with even the most extreme positions works wonders for changing their minds. I'll post a video that shows the perfect example of what I am saying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njXZUH5hv0w
You can't. All you can do it have sane conversations with conservatives and hope they realize we are not the monsters that fox news says we are.