Hunter Biden, the president’s problematic son, has finally been indicted for his years of tax evasion. Only in an egregiously unequal society like ours do the children of the rich and powerful get away with corruption for as long as Hunter Biden has.
They don’t want you to have a basic understanding of issues they are greatly exaggerating so you can explain to people what’s actually going on without propagandizing it? This kind of sounds insane that you think being able to explain right wing exaggerations in a grounded way helps the right. Tail between the legs sort of thinking there.
That’s not what I said. If people want to engage honestly, then you can explain what’s going on, but articles like these are acting like It’s Hunter Biden that’s the last straw. Where were they when Jared Kushner was doing the same shit? Or Trump? Or any other rich asshole? They don’t need to use Hunter’s name at all, but the fact that they are headlining him specifically means their bent is to the right.
We can (I hope) have an honest conversation, but with regards to this article, it’s propaganda designed to sway naive people to the right.
The right don’t want to know what’s going on they exaggerate it, this is what’s going on and it’s not exaggerated, it’s smart to name Hunter because this is a specific election issue regarding him personally the right will be exaggerating to insane levels. Knowing what’s actually going on is obviously a good thing and people shouldn’t be shy or censored about addressing it, that’s just pathetic IMO and only helps the right. That this is an election issue can’t be dismissed, the right have the power to make this an election issue and we don’t control that. The best response is a reasoned one that informs and doubles-down on how elites should, but are, treated differently by the justice system. That’s exactly the point being made here.
Hunter is not relevant to the larger discussion of the rich getting free passes, insomuch as he needs to be a headline. That just gives credence to the weak impeachment efforts from House Republicans trying to tie Hunter to his father. Hunter is not a novel case, and we cannot fail to recognize the effects of running his name as a headline for this issue.
And that’s what I take umbrage with. I agree the rich should be held accountable. But these headlines help the extreme right, since too many rarely read past the headline. The author/editor are using his name on purpose, and the only people doing that and wringing their hands saying, “Wow, isn’t this a problem?” are the bobble heads on the right.
Hunter is relevant because the right have the power to make him relevant in their campaigning which we don’t have control over. If someone on the right read this they would be surprised it doesn’t include the conspiracy extended universe and think “hey at least the left agrees this is bad.” I’m basing this on how I view anti-Trump neocons like McCain, like at least they have that shred of integrity to address it. Democrat supporters who insist this isn’t relevant and should be buried… you don’t have the luxury to determine that.
I think you’re missing the part where this already happens, and you’re overstating the effect.
For example, I agree with conspiracy theorists that the wealthy elite are a social scourge. That doesn’t mean I think they’re somehow reasonable people who arrived at those conclusions with objective evidence or that their other views are worth exploring.
Likewise, seeing that the left agrees on certain topics doesn’t mean their political needle will move left. Plus, you can (and people do) wave it away with thought terminating clichés, like, “Okay, there’s a few reasonable libs, but most of them still don’t care!”
I don’t think Hunter’s actions deserve to be buried, but they’re getting far and away more attention than they deserve, and it’s that part of the equation that’s the problem. Name me one person who evaded taxes
then paid them backor did drugs and illegally signed a gun ownership form as a private citizen who wound up in front of Congress.This article is just more political theater. Hunter Biden is mentioned, because they want you to draw the line between wealthy elites’ special tier of justice and Joe Biden. They don’t have to mention Hunter in the headline to discuss the two tiers of justice, but they made the conscious choice to do so, and that only helps the bad-faith actors on the right continue making mountains out of molehills.
Precisely my point. Nothing you do will change the message of the right wing propaganda machine. Facts aren’t going to sway their faithful. Teaching people to recognize when they’re being played (i.e. recognizing that this article is unnecessarily headlining Hunter), is the only remedy.
Not having a response to issues they raise, specifically with Hunter, trying to obfuscate around it, that’s giving them more power to run on it. There’s no downside to saying “this is the deal with Hunter and political elites shouldn’t be afforded these concessions.” They’re not going to be convinced but you’ve addressed the issue at that point and asserted your own power over it, so move on. Not doing this is like rolling over. If I were an undecided voter seeing Dems bury Biden and get upset like this by it would seem pathetic to me, especially in light of Trump et als constant tax issues.
No, you’re missing the point. You can’t take away their power, and appearing reasonable doesn’t affect their ability to make you look foolish. They aren’t acting in good faith, and facts can’t shed light on their fantasy.
Plus, the “but Hunter does deserve to be punished” line is already part of the conversation, and they simply ignore that anyone on the left has said it. That’s why it doesn’t matter. They have no obligation to present all the facts, and engagement is an effort that only allows them to stay relevant.
If this is the matter that convinces people to vote or not vote, they’re deeply unserious, and there’s no reason to think that a zingy one-liner from a right wing pundit at the 11th hour won’t sway them the other way. Better to demonstrate the lack of credibility of their sources (e.g. how Jacobin is dishonestly framing this issue) than engage with the narratives they’re using as bait.
So if it doesn’t matter in the end… why choose the option that looks more pathetic rather than simply say what’s going on? I sent this to someone on the right personally and they sent me back another article they liked… I literally got a conservative to read leftist articles ON THEIR OWN with this. How is that not a win tell me, cause I am just immediately more convinced this is a good idea.