User talk:95.165.94.78

While there is no mention in the body text, New York Times has made repeated accounts of Trump supporters all while countless other news media have also interviewed the undeserving supporters (e.g. documenting crying Republican voters in California). We don't see as much interviews from other minorities especially those that will be hurt by Trump policies. People are fed up with New York Times continuously giving these people attention. This deserves mention. Finally, they have allowed global warming deniers who deserve even less attention editorials, which is irresponsible and makes them deserve the tag. Again, this doesn't seem to be mentioned in the page, but it should. See the corresponding talk page too for my reasoning behind the category. 01:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all -- hello and thank you for responding, since I'm more of a reader of RationalWiki, not an author (actually, this is my very first edit here, so I may be unfamiliar with some things :) ). Actually, the reason behind my edit is that placing the NYT somewhere between Lyndon LaRouche and Donald Trump is... well... at least unfair. As far as I know, that particular article was among the few about a pro-Trumper, with the overwhelming majority of other texts from the NYT (as seen from Facebook at least) is about those that are hurt by Trump's policies: Stoneman shooting victims, transgenders, Afro-Americans etc. This doesn't seem to be "continuously giving these people (pro-Trumpers) attention" (sure, you may have different examples; if you do, please, do not hesitate to show them). About Mr. Stephens -- well, that's a shame, really, but I consider this just as one of their unlucky days (again, you may have different examples).
 * Now here comes the part that may be offending (for which I truly apologize, as I don't have any intent to offend you): the one about "the undeserving supporters". It is true that someone must end this hurly-burly the US of A is currently in. It is also true that wingnuttery and all that playing around with Nazism is unacceptable. However, I would call it imprudent not to seek the reason behind certain actions and to reject the possibility that we have a human on the other side instead -- on the wrong side, sure, but a human nevertheless, with one's own mind and thoughts. This doesn't mean we have to embrace such views and thoughts, though. Neither does the NYT (as it looks to me), but provides some insight into all this, with the author's disbelief and criticism intended (and they are right in their "notpology"). As for other media outlets -- the main text is not about them, but the New York Times. And again -- feel free to share different examples.
 * Sorry for all this TL;DR stuff, I just want my position to be as clear as possible :) Call for additional links from my side, if needed. I will repost this to the corresponding talk page, too (with slight changes).
 * And again -- thank you for your response! --95.165.94.78 (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I probably got the impression because I sometimes read Twitter feeds and I've seen Trump supporter interviews in USA Today and L.A. Times and I think in cable news. I think enabler might be the wrong categorization, but it feels very... enabley when New York Times tries to ask the demographic time and time again, like they're trying to be too nice to them. And as for your response, I don't see how it would be offending, lol, no need to apologize. Right now, I don't have time to parse through text and I've seen complaints about New York Times giving interviews to Trump supporters and New York Times even made a piece about the complaints, as far as I recall. You can take my word for it, though if I have the time, I'll try to look for it. I think there is a valid reason to try to understand Trump supporters but my concern was if they're giving them too much attention. I don't think it's right either to paint them as demons or with devil's horns, but we can't have a piece on them and pretend it's okay. Like, we can show how "normal" they are, but we have to remind people, their ideology is all about systemic slaughter (being a Neo-Nazi) or awful discrimination (xenophobic or racist) and they either support it or are complacent with it. Most pieces seem to show they're complacent (the Neo-Nazi and the xenophobes), and I do think complacency is still unacceptable. 06:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)