First, he has decided that his official position on the kinds of conflicts of interest that might arise if he kept running his business while president is that If The President Does It, It Is No Conflict. Thus, any steps he takes to take his business out of his hands are from the simple, self-sacrificing kindness of his heart. Why, just the other day, someone offered him $2 billion to do a deal in Dubai! Two billion dollars! And would you believe it: He didn’t take it. His point is, we should be grateful. As he repeatedly stressed, he doesn’t have to do this! This whole president thing — it’s really a big pain, and he doesn’t have to do it at all! (In fact, I wish he wouldn’t.) […]
He concluded with a flourish, announcing that if his sons did a bad job running the business, after eight years he would tell them “You’re fired!” — which could possibly invalidate everything he said earlier about how he would not tell them what to do? But, look, he’s the president, and, again, he doesn’t have to do this.
the “Rape Melania” sign was not the work of an anti-Trump protester at all. Instead, according to sources, it was the brainchild of a group of Trump supporters led by Jack Posobiec, one of the organizers of the controversial DeploraBall inauguration party and a prominent figure in the pro-Trump internet. Furthermore, as shown by a series of Posobiec’s text messages obtained by BuzzFeed News and confirmed by a source who collaborated with Posobiec, the sign was the culmination of a disinformation campaign by Posobiec and others intended to paint the anti-Trump rallies as violent and out of control.
In a phone call with BuzzFeed News, Posobiec denied that the texts were sent by him and said that it was likely they had been photoshopped. He also denied having any involvement in the campaign. BuzzFeed News reviewed the texts on a source’s iPhone in Signal, the secure texting app, and the Signal messages allegedly from Posobiec came from the same phone number on which BuzzFeed News talked to Posobiec.
More recent research has actually found that on average, the less identifiable we are online, the more sensitive we are to group norms, whether those norms are to be civil or otherwise.
Matias points to a 2016 meta-analysis of lab studies by Guanxiong Huang and Kang Li of Michigan State University that found „anonymous individuals define their identities on a group level, and their behaviors are guided by the norms associated with their salient group memberships.“
Im Kern bedeutet Politische Korrektheit, dass man Worten eine gesellschaftliche Wirkung beimisst und zur bewussten Verwendung in der Öffentlichkeit aufruft. Aber ich sehe, dass die Art und Weise, wie dieses Konzept bisher umgesetzt worden ist, zu oft zur Reaktanz geführt hat, also zur gegenteiligen der beabsichtigten Reaktion.
Instrumente zur Weltverbesserung - als solches betrachte ich Politische Korrektheit - müssen sich nicht nur an ihrer Absicht, sondern auch an ihrer konkreten Wirkung messen lassen. Die Kritik, dass sich politische Korrektheit trotz ihrer Toleranz-propagierenden Absicht für einen Teil des Publikums zu oft anfühlt wie ihr eigenes - nämlich intolerantes - Gegenteil, muss man daher ernst nehmen. Wenn man das Ziel einer weniger menschenfeindlichen Gesellschaft verfolgen will.
Unterdessen hat sich jedoch im Netz ein Gegenkonzept entwickelt - Political Correctness von rechts: rechte Korrektheit. Bei näherem Hinsehen wird jeder Vorwurf, der der linken Political Correctness gemacht wurde, von rechts aggressiver und ungebremster in der öffentlichen Debatte vorgetragen als je zuvor. Rechte Political Correctness streicht die positiven, mäßigenden Elemente der politischen Korrektheit weg und streift sich den antiliberalen Rest auf rechts gewendet über.
“You want to show that you’re a good member of your tribe,” Mr. Westwood said. “You want to show others that Republicans are bad or Democrats are bad, and your tribe is good. Social media provides a unique opportunity to publicly declare to the world what your beliefs are and how willing you are to denigrate the opposition and reinforce your own political candidates.”
Partisan bias fuels fake news because people of all partisan stripes are generally quite bad at figuring out what news stories to believe. Instead, they use trust as a shortcut. Rather than evaluate a story directly, people look to see if someone credible believes it, and rely on that person’s judgment to fill in the gaps in their knowledge.
What’s distinctive about Twitter, I think, is the form. One thing that we know Twitter for is “Twitter wars.” It’s a format that is particularly friendly to short, angry bursts, back-and-forth volleys — quick, often unreflective outbursts. That’s something that Trump has done that’s different. Obama had a Twitter feed and there were pieces about how significant it was that this was the first presidential Twitter feed, but you’d be hard-pressed to think of a single tweet of Obama’s that was really memorable. So Trump is using it differently. In my book, I write about how Calvin Coolidge doesn’t get credit as a great radio pioneer even though he had the first radio inaugural address, the first radio broadcast nomination acceptance address, first broadcast State of the Union address. Because his were basically regular speeches to which you hooked up a microphone and a wire and could reach California and that was significant. But it was Franklin Roosevelt who, with “fireside chats,” actually wrote speeches for radio, wrote shorter speeches, wrote speeches using colloquial language, made them very policy-specific. He perceived of the whole project as a radio project. That’s, I think, what was different.