American media: too much discussin' and not enough cussin'.

[Atticus]

I guess my blue collar wrong-side-of-the-tracks upbringing is to blame for my impatience with lying mean-spirited sons o' bitches. Whatever the reason, it seems normal to me that when someone has attacked me or those I care about again and again and again, I reach the point where I am no longer interested in excuses or justifications or even civility. At some point, I am simply outraged at what has already been allowed to happen and damned determined that it not happen again.

And, so, watching the predictably calm unruffled discussion of---oh, say---kids in cages or nazis described as "very fine people" or the continued fellation of murderous dictators by our very own wannabe, I am literally sickened by the total LACK of outrage among supposedly responsible political reporters. Has righteous indignation truly been replaced by "whatever"? Is genuine passion now "just not done" by "serious journalists"? Doesn't anyone---besides me---get pissed off any more?

I get objectivity. I get nuance. I get the First Amendment. But, while there may be two sides to every story, sometimes one of the sides is invalid or immoral or evil or insane---or all of these things. And, if we have reached the point where such a side must be "respected" by those whose job is to inform us, we are lost.

I guess it comes down to what I have been muttering under my breath for the last two years: "Where the hell is the outrage?"

[world wide wally]

1. Better question: where is the courage to call a spade a spade?

[Nitram]

2. There's a difference between a good discussion of differing viewpoints and describing nazis as very

fine people. Please don't confuse the two. Maybe outrage and venting makes you feel better, but it never ever persuaded anyone of anything except that you are an angry SOB.

[Atticus]

3. I agree that there are "differing viewpoints" on whether we should keep kids in cages, whether

nazis are "fine people" and whether Vlad and Kim are swell people. I just don't think a discussion which respects both of those viewpoints equally is a "good discussion".

Also, please note that this "angry SOB" is not angry that you called him an SOB.

[Nitram]

6. Atticus, I didn't really consider SOB in that context to be an insult. Glad you didn't take it as

such. I think you missed my point. It was that there is a difference between discussing topics that are complex enough to allow for differing canid viewpoints, and discussing topics where there is really no valid alternative viewpoint. We should calmly discuss different viewpoints on how best to make affordable health care available to everyone, but there is no point in discussing whether some racist, nazi, bigots are "fine people."

[sharedvalues]

5. With all respect

This is a “blue area” point of view.
To many people, emotion and outrage really ARE persuasive. That’s why Kavanaugh screamed at his illegitimate confirmation. Didn’t work on Dems, but resonated with the GOP base.

[sharedvalues]

4. This is SO CORRECT

What I’ve realized living in blue and red areas is:
Blue-area types and red-area types have different communication styles.

Like you, I wish some Dems would get loud and outraged. Amongst other things, that style resonates with red areas.