61–65 of 65 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
not sure if he's arguing for or against the Seth Rich conspiracy
I just want more information about this subject. Not sure why I am being down-voted?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The journalists have had their day. Future political wars will be waged and won on social media, based on propaganda and confirmation bias. What do you think the news has been for the last 100 years (or longer)? It was never unbiased. The news has always pushed the agenda of the entity that owned it.
Well, sure, but there was very definitely a clear ethical line in proper journalism, as a profession. You had to have the basic facts right, by at least 2 different sources. I think this has changed now. For instance, is Trump in league with the Russians? What are the facts? On the other side, did Hillary break the law with her email server? What are the actual facts? In both of these cases, you can trace the points…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When did "leftism" become a real word? Not a year ago, it was floated by "rightists" to denigrate liberals, since then I've seen it used as a sort of a dog whistle. It couldn't possibly be that the general public is so dense that the most acceptable political divisions nowadays are "leftist" and "rightist?" Will it devolve into full idiocracy of "redist" and "bluist" by the next elections?
I along with other "leftists" use it as a short-hand for left-wing politics, generally those who believe in politics usually placed on the left of the left-right spectrum, including but not limited to the abolition of what we believe are systematic unjustified inequalities within society.
That was my mistake on "left". I was lazy. I don't believe in a political spectrum but enough people understand that simply saying "left" meant everything in this paragraph mostly
"Twitter is basically a bunch of 00s forums that would all hate each other mashed together but also for some reason, professional journalists" - https://twitter.com/StuntBirdArmy/status/733846091347693568 Couldn't agree more. But I really enjoyed 00s forums so I really enjoy twitter. The journalists, if anything, are ruining it by treating it as a clubhouse and a legitimate proxy for what's on the nation's mind.
Something about the structure of twitter makes things that happen there seem much larger than they are. It's an OK platform if you recognize that the communities on it are really, in the grand scheme of things, very small --but so many (especially media types) apparently view every random controversy caused by 3-4 highly-followed users saying something dumb as a vast cultural trend that needs to be reported on.
> Twitter is making the news dumber. The service is insidery and clubby. It exacerbates groupthink. It prizes pundit-ready quips over substantive debate, and it tends to elevate the silly over the serious — for several sleepless hours this week it was captivated by “covfefe,” which was essentially a brouhaha over a typo. This paragraph captures the essence of it perfectly. The medium basically encourages superficial…
Actually I've found Twitter to be the best news aggregator and breaking news platform of all. 140 char tweets make it easy to compare tweets with other sources very quickly. The algorithmic TLs though contribute more to fake news as well as users who haven't quite learned how to curate their own feeds. What's happened to critical thinking skills? Oh well, Twitter works well for me.