The Summit with Russia was a great success, except with the real enemy of the people, the Fake News Media. I look forward to our second meeting so that we can start implementing some of the many things discussed, including stopping terrorism, security for Israel, nuclear........— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 19, 2018
Go join CNN. Sorry your feelings are hurt but now you too are not reporting both sides of the argument. Look at the ridiculous media frenzy going on. To me that is the big story. Its absolutely insane.— Rush2112 (@Rich_Brule) July 19, 2018
The fake news media is the enemy of the people - none of their followers getting the truth - distructive and harmful to country.— Karen (@kacee1115) July 19, 2018
Interesting in itself only mildly, I realized this is the same stone-wall reasoning you run into when people demand "proof" of the "existence" of God. "Proof" in that demand means something you can't show, because your "proof" is "fake!" Go ahead, convince any of those people that "fake news" is a fake term. Or a Russian term, for that matter. Terry Gross interviewed British journalist Carole Caldwell this morning, and Caldwell pointed out how many times that term has been used by the Russian government in social media and Twitter postings. But go ahead, convince those people that you have "proof" their news is "fake news," and your news is real.Are you fake news John? Cause that’s who is is referring to— Jennifer Burke (@jennifer_jburke) July 19, 2018
I'll wait over here.
Kierkegaard pointed out you can't convince someone of something they already assume can't be proven.* Some things just aren't worth arguing about, and assuming everyone will "see reason" and agree with you will lead you to despair and probably disillusion; but that can be a pathway to wisdom.
*But what is this unknown against which the understanding in its paradoxical passion collides and which even disturbs man [sic] and his self-knowledge? It is the unknown. But it is not a human being, insofar as he knows man, or anything else that he knows. Therefore, let us call this unknown the god. It is only a name we give to it. It hardly occurs to the understanding to want to demonstrate that this unknown (the god) exists. If, namely the god does not exist, then of course it is impossible to demonstrate it. But if he does exist, then of course it is foolishness to want to demonstrate it, since I, in the very moment the demonstration commences, would presuppose it not as doubtful--which a presupposition cannot be, inasmuch as it is a presupposition--but as decided, because otherwise I would not begin, easily perceiving that the whole thing would be impossible if he did not exist. If, however, I interpret the expression "to demonstrate the existence of the god" to mean that I want to demonstrate that the unknown, which exists, is the god, than I do not express myself very felicitously, for then I demonstrate nothing, least of all an existence, but I develop the definiteness of a concept.
But they've always been there; and they always will be.