Someone made a comment, and I'd like to address it for everyone.
The comment:
"Addressing outrage surely must be exhausting and you've provided tools and resources to help us. But there's plenty of stuff that flies above the heads of us laypeople that isn't hair-on-fire panic that I turn to you for understanding."
I do not believe the news is "above the heads of laypeople."
I think the laypeople are being confused and made to believe it is over their heads.
1/
I was about to give a link to the Washington Post sunday roundup to demonstrate that anyone can understand it (but I won't because I don't want to get into a debate.)
If you read too much opinion, you'll get confused.
If you follow 10 lawyers who offer their "hot takes" you'll get confused because lawyers in real life don't do hot takes.
They do a lot of research and thinking before they appear before a judge.
Looking closely at a single court filing doesn't help you understand the case.
2
Here is what why: Suppose you have never seen an elephant and someone shows you an elephant's ear. Then you try to imagine what the entire elephant looks like. You'll get entirely the wrong idea.
They give you parts that they want to talk about.
While I was writing this week's blog post, I scrolled through the social media feeds of a lot of legal pundits (I stuck with the ones who appear on TV or have hundreds of thousands of followers.)
3/
Once in a while I saw facts, but mostly I saw opinion, spin, and predictions.
The facts are not hard to undrestand. These are the cases going on. These are the charges. We are in the stage of pre-trial motions. After all of the pretrial motions are resolved, there will be a trial.
The problem is that the facts cannot fill hours of programming or keep you glued to your screen.
You can read each motion, but that isn't predictive of what a court will do.
4/
I just went to look at a few feeds to double check.
I saw cheerleading.
One told me what Trump thinks.
Another was asked on TV to talk about "what is at stake."
One said something about how what we are seeing shows that Trump cannot be stopped by a mere judgment.
One had another complaint about what the 3 liberal justices in the 14th Amendment case failed to mention.
Listen to all of that if you enjoy it.
If you end up confused, it's not the law or news that is confusing you.
5/
@Teri_Kanefield
Yes.
Some (not all) of the pundits offer quite a bit of facts and history. It's an important skill, though, to be able to separate that from the opinion, spin, and predictions. Doing so lets me dodge the rage response, though sometimes it still leaves me with worry.
Wait until tomorrow (I'll let you know when) and then read my revised blog post.)
I am adding that one as one of the 'Rage provoking invented narratives."
You are being played.
In fact, I may quote from your post as an example of a victim being played by false narratives.
47.5% of Americans can't distinguish facts from political opinion: https://www.psypost.org/doomed-startling-study-finds-americans-struggle-to-differentiate-facts-from-political-opinions/
A new study reveals many Americans struggle to distinguish fact from opinion, critical for navigating political information. The findings have profound implications for civic discourse and the democratic process.
@aimless_melissa @Teri_Kanefield
Is there a title to any online article these days that isn't clickbait? At least, in this case, the word is in scare quotes, which suggests that it is acknowledged to be a little hyperbolic.
But nevertheless, the numbers are pretty dismal.
@aimless_melissa @Teri_Kanefield
The opinionated form of the "doom" judgment aside, if somebody can't tell the difference, then they are also unreliable as an information purveyor.
Which raises questions like: 1) how high a fraction of unreliable information purveyors can a society accommodate and still continue to function (for multiple definitions of "function")?; 2) is obliviousness to the difference self-propagating?; and 3) what are effective counters to this discriminatory disability?
@aimless_melissa @Teri_Kanefield
NB: I use "discriminatory disability" to mean 'unable to tell the difference between fact and opinion'.
@aimless_melissa @Teri_Kanefield
My fact-free opinion about the answer to #3 includes better education in critical thinking. And history, and law.
And more of what @Teri is doing.
re: They (lawyers) do a lot of research and thinking before they appear before a judge.
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.
see trump lawyers.
Teri Kanefield
Rickey James
Grandpa Don
pinkdrunkenelephants
RevPudDudley
George Dinwiddie
Jake Harbor
RDN
aimless_melissa
Tim Ellis 🦝
SpaceLifeForm