Quote:
|
How is it at all welcome? He calls them liars so that his followers won't believe it when they report the truth on him. That's not a good thing.
|
His intentions are not good things. Nor is the intended effect on his followers, who now think the NYTimes and WaPo are entirely fictional when it comes to Trump.
However, creating general skepticism of media is a good thing. Media outlets slant stories, and selectively report. Sometimes it's subtle (Times), sometimes not (Fox). People should read every news story, from every source, with some skepticism. They should think, and develop the capacity to spot and separate the narrative from the facts.
Quote:
|
You can if your goal is to make yourself unaccountable.
|
Again, his goals are not defensible. Any good I'm citing here is entirely accidental.
Quote:
|
Again, his goal is to make himself unaccountable. This does not come with "positives."
|
A positive, or negative, is an effect. If a positive effect accrues from a negative act, even as a sole positive effect among numerous negative effects, it is still a positive. Intent and effects are two unique buckets. They can be separated. And they are not inextricably intertwined because the positive may defend or excuse the negative (in fact, to argue that requires one to fall into a logical fallacy). It does not. The negative intent remains, and any negative effects remain apart from the positive, and the negative actor gets no credit for the positive. The positive just happens to be there. And one can cite it and say, "Most of what Trump has done is awful and done with terrible intent. However, there are these things that have happened by accident, as a result of acts taken in furtherance of his terrible aims, which are not awful."
