this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
126 points (95.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13601 readers
715 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

She got half of Burgerland to think that everything they don't like is Russian propaganda, that the evil Russians helped Trump steal the 2016 election, Russia Russia Russia, it's the ultimate thought-terminating cliche now. And even in the face of cold, hard evidence to the contrary (ie: Mueller report, off the top of my head) Libs just stomp their feet and insist that it's still RUSSIAAAAA!!!!!1

I guess Bill O'Riely would be the Republican equivalent of her, but his oafishness and toxic masculinity got the best of him and he ~~ended up losing everything~~ got a multi-million dollar severance package from Fox News and then faded into irrelevancy.

Seriously though, I can't think of anybody that could rival Maddow in terms of how effectively she brainwashed tens of millions of Burgerlanders into believing an absolute, absurd fantasy. You can't have anything that resembles a level-headed discussion with any Lib anymore, largely due to her influence (and others of course, but I feel like she's the most prominent figure in this regard).

Can you think of anyone that could rival her impact? Who else would be in the same league of propagandists in this day?

EDIT: Obviously I forgot to mention Tucker Carlson, but he also got kicked off Fox lol

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rod_Blagojevic@hexbear.net 73 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

I heard from my mom last night that Putin directed Iran to tell Hamas to do the 10/7 attack. It was calculated to divide the US so we would be less effective in supporting Ukraine. This led to me yelling for two hours, which I don't feel good about, but I'm tired of explaining that when examining the world you have to strive to find plausible explanations for why things are happening, not something as fucking stupid as saying the people of Gaza were perfectly satisfied until a bunch of outside agitators got them stirred up.

Edit: She actually doesn't watch MSNBC. This is NYT brain. She used to be fine with criticizing media that promoted the war in Iraq, but doing that now means you're just like Trump.

[–] SacredExcrement@hexbear.net 48 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Liberals completely gave up on self crit at some point in the last 6-8 years

It used to be how they showed they were 'better' than their counterparts, but Trump just broke so many brains

[–] CloutAtlas@hexbear.net 43 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I fully believe a significant amount of libs opposed the Iraq war because it was started by Bush Jr. If it was a Democrat they wouldn't have been against it. Nevermind all the Dems that started it. GOP = bad, Dem = good, and for the parts that overlap, it's bad if GOP is currently in charge and a necessary evil/tolerable inconvenience if the Dems are in charge.

See also: Children in cages at the border

[–] falgscode@hexbear.net 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

a significant amount of libs opposed the Iraq war because it was started by Bush Jr. If it was a Democrat they wouldn't have been against it.

well 99.9% is a significant amount

Clinton's NATO bombed the Chinese embassy 5 years before and not one peep

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ClimateChangeAnxiety@hexbear.net 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Didn’t something like 90% of Americans support the invasion when it happened? The libs were only against it afterwards.

[–] Philosoraptor@hexbear.net 12 points 1 month ago

Yes. Virtually everyone except the actual left was on board at first. It was bananas.

[–] ZWQbpkzl@hexbear.net 27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It's like they've all become demcents but for an institution they have no democratic control over.

[–] CarsAndComrades@hexbear.net 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Thank you, this is a perfect description. I've been arguing with a liberal friend who seems to blame everyone but the DNC and Harris campaign for their loss, it's so frustrating and confusing why so many people are ride-or-die for the Dems.

[–] GoodGuyWithACat@hexbear.net 29 points 1 month ago

The ride or die Dems make sense because it's the last thing holding their entire world view back from collapsing. Republicans are overtly evil so they're not an option. Third parties have no real chance of elections or social change. There are no mainstream activist groups that have social capital or numbers for change (like the civil rights movements).

So the Dems are all you have left to believe in the system. If you admit to yourself Dems are coconspirators in all the bad things about America, then you have no real reason to think America is a force for good. So for the majority of liberals the cognitive dissonance is an easier pill to swallow than saying "Are we the baddies?" Not to mention there is an infinite amount of media for you to consume that reinforces that dissonance so you don't have to think about it.

[–] blobjim@hexbear.net 35 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ZWQbpkzl@hexbear.net 57 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I guess Bill O'Riely would be the Republican equivalent of her

Wrong, Bill is the shoulders which Rachel stands on. Every cable news talking head is copying his game. Bill walked so Tucker could run. He's only irrelevant now because he accelerated the american conservative past him.

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 36 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I'd even go so far as to say he's a couple rungs down in terms of history. Tucker is standing on Glen Beck who is standing on O'Rielly.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 22 points 1 month ago (4 children)

This although Beck was standing on the shoulders of Alex Jones more than O'Reilly

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 29 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Regardless of the order, whoever is standing on Alex Jones is standing on his roid gut, not his shoulders.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I cast Spicy Chili at the Roidgoblin

Roll for damage

[–] Weedian@hexbear.net 19 points 1 month ago

Critical failure: you forget the names of your children

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 21 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Fair enough, though O'Reilly was always kinda cribbing from Jones. He just never had the intensity. If we want to go that route though then they are all standing on Rush Limbaugh. As for who was most effective of the lot, hard to say.

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Also not to forget Art Bell of Coast to Coast AM fame, whom I just learned while relistening to (I think) a Qanon Anonymous episode apparently died in a shootout with the cops just after 9/11 lmao.

[–] Spongebobsquarejuche@hexbear.net 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HumanBehaviorByBjork@hexbear.net 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

who was standing on rush limbaugh who was standing on bill buckley... it's assholes all the way down

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 22 points 1 month ago

Dig deep enough in the America Propaganda Mines and you find Goebbels down there.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SteamedHamberder@hexbear.net 55 points 1 month ago (1 children)

John Stewart was a cheerleader for norms and civility from about 2002-2015. He defined what as worthy of ridicule (Kucinich, Chelsea Manning, occupy movement) and ultimately what was worthy of respect .

[–] BeamBrain@hexbear.net 33 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What was his problem with Chelsea Manning lmao

[–] chungusamonugs@hexbear.net 55 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think it was something like "yeah war crimes are bad, but leaking secrets that put service members in danger is unacceptable." It's civility, but with the chain of command.

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 44 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Ahh yes the old "endangering the troops" hobby horse they trot out to silence dissent, protest, or opposition. A charge they never level against the generals and emperors, kings and presidents, and fitting because of the topic of this thread, propagandists. The ones responsible for putting the troops in harms way to begin with.

[–] BeamBrain@hexbear.net 40 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] HoiPolloi@hexbear.net 22 points 1 month ago (5 children)

The picture of Abu Ghraib and the Collateral Murder video radicalised young me to the point where that's my reaction.

Why isn't it an emoji?

[–] Feline@hexbear.net 11 points 1 month ago

I think Chelsea served more time than any of the abu ghraib torturers (And obviously the commanders actually responsible for abu ghraib were never held responsible)

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 17 points 1 month ago

CD-i Zelda says "no war but the class war, Link."

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 12 points 1 month ago

Sure their job is to be endangered and every boot worshipper is constantly using that as justification for why they should be the only ones with rights and shit, but also hOW DARE anything put them in danger.

[–] RiotDoll@hexbear.net 48 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

i feel like it's a mistake to let the face of these operations have too much credit. This is a performance, and it is an editorial team that sets her agenda, it's a crew that manages her image, and it's the network that gives her the platform - the personalities of these people are there for your consumption and an icon you're encouraged to relate to and see as a teacher.

A friendly feminine presence who is there every night to tell you how to be an obedient little liberal

but never forget she's just a performer in an ensemble.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] theother2020@hexbear.net 46 points 1 month ago (2 children)

In a proximate tier of liberal smugness, Sam Harris and Bill Maher have done damage.

[–] ZWQbpkzl@hexbear.net 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Bill and Sam have the ears of actual liberal elite, like ceo's and investors. Rachel has your college educated white collars.

[–] BeamBrain@hexbear.net 19 points 1 month ago

The big Eichmanns and the little Eichmanns.

[–] sexywheat@hexbear.net 18 points 1 month ago

They have indeed, but Bill Maher in particular is such an asshole and also a sexist prick that I can't see him having the ear of many (any?) women. Maddow, on the other hand, can appeal too pretty much all Libs.

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 30 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Can't think of other examples. Just wanted to say that this happening is horrifying.

[–] sexywheat@hexbear.net 25 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Yeah comrade, I was once accused of “spreading Russian propaganda” for simply sharing an article written by Benjamin Norton (the article had absolutely nothing to do with Russia whatsoever) because he was on a Russia Today podcast once (I guess?).

Absolutely deranged shit.

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I mean, where do you even go from there? It's worse than being a rabid flat earther. That generation that said TV turns brains to mush was right.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GoodGuyWithACat@hexbear.net 29 points 1 month ago

I remember in 2016 right after the election she was on some talk show and made some word salad like "Well Trump has a lot of policies that want to help only Americans so he's a nationalist. And he has policies that want to make sweeping social change, like a socialist. So he's really a national socialist." And I was nodding along with my lib brain.

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 26 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's plausible that Russia preferred Trump to his Democratic rivals, and did a little bit of trolling to fuck with America. But only to the tune of 0.1% of their military budget, not the 20% of GDP it would take to get anywhere near what BlueMAGA keeps accusing.

[–] sexywheat@hexbear.net 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well Kamala's campaign spent over 1 billion dollars and it didn't seem to make any difference che-laugh

[–] Spongebobsquarejuche@hexbear.net 18 points 1 month ago

That had to be money laundering.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WeedReference420@hexbear.net 24 points 1 month ago

I thought people were memeing about how much she blames everything on Russia until I watched a couple of clips of her

[–] Feline@hexbear.net 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ehhhh that's giving her waaaaaaaaaaay too much credit. Not many people watch MSNBC

[–] Lussy@hexbear.net 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah this is insane and would imply Maddow is good at what she does lol there’s not many burgers who give a shit about Russian interference

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kittin@hexbear.net 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Red MAGA propaganda - can you believe the libs think they know better than us, rage

Blue MAGA propaganda - we libs know better than them, rage

Synthesis: red libs who know better than everyone how to loot the country by enraging everyone as a distraction

[–] ButtBidet@hexbear.net 17 points 1 month ago

Back before I was an ML I knew a few PMC liberal types who listened to Rachel Maddow. Yes, those individuals were the worst humans one could imagine. But what used to shock me was how non-Amerikans would listen for an hour (?) each day about Russian electoral interference.

load more comments
view more: next ›