Hacker News Reader

Comment by pc86 | Hacker News Reader

I blame the media for a lot of this, honestly. If someone tells a lie, say "why did you lie about _____?" That's about 90% of why the media exists in the elevated status it has/had.

But when a reporter on CNN says "Why did the Donald Trump tell the Press Secretary to come out and tell falsehoods?" that diminishes what actually happened. The PS lied on national television. Call him out on it. Use the word "lied" or "liar" and stop dressing it up by using terms like "telling falsehoods."

When a liar is said to be "telling falsehoods" it's only one small step for them to reply with "alternative facts."

View on HN

Agreed. And this has been Trump's strategy the whole time -- just keep bludgeoning and bludgeoning until whatever bullshit he says is accepted as real, or until the associations are tied where he wants them to be, e.g., whatever your political affiliation, "Crooked Hillary" is resonant now.

This has been a tried and true strategy of con men and salesmen and marketers throughout history. (It was also a tried and true strategy of various NBA teams -- foul so much that that level of fouling seems normal and the refs stop calling it. Highly, highly successful strategy; you basically force the game to unfold the way you want.)

I agree with you -- this would help a lot. Good news, NYT story today: "Trump Repeats Lie About Popular Vote in Meeting With Lawmakers".

I wonder if the lawyers have a hand in this. Words like "liar" paint a person in a negative light and could lead to a defamation lawsuit. Whereas pointing out that something is a "falsehood" is inviting a comparison of facts - i.e. inviting Trump to prove he wasn't lying.

That is what I understand; lie implies intent, which is impossibly hard to do. IMO the media is trying to being courteous, even delicate, when it is and should be an all out brawl, when the truth and fact are at stake.

I kind of like the vocabulary they're using. Everybody knows politicians lie, and I don't think that word would have much of an impact. Repeating the term "alternative fact" and using terms like "believes... won't provide any proof" draws attention to just how absurd these particular lies are.

It only draws attention for paying who willing to think critically. Lots of Trump supporters are perfectly content with the notion of "alternative facts."

That's true, but is there any way to reach that group?

There were what, 63 million of them? They're not all closeted racists with barely a HS education. Most of them aren't.

I don't understand the pervasive notion that anyone who voted Trump can't be reasoned with and isn't upset with how his administration has operated in the last week.

Maybe you have trouble understanding that pervasive notion because you misunderstand what people are saying?

Neither I nor the person I replied to said or implied that all Trump supporters are, well, anything. The other fellow talked about "lots of Trump supporters" (which could easily refer to just a few percent of the total) and that's the group I referred to in my reply.

I don't understand the pervasive notion that if you talk bad about any set of Trump supporters, you're somehow painting 63 million people with the same brush.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com