I’ve said this multiple times before, but clearly stupidity is a bigger obstacle than I thought.
I post links to Twitter posts for multiple reasons.
1. It’s the official Twitter account of a news organization or politician.
2. It’s an easier way to post videos. Clips from MSM shows are excellent examples. The comments are often informative as well.
3. It’s something that I find interesting.
4. I follow a number of non conservative professors or stats/data folks and want to present their findings in their own words.
5. Videos.
6. I try very much to post enough context for people to confirm things, and I regularly delete inaccurate information.
7. There are people with enough time to dig up old news clips of DFL leaders contradicting themselves.
8. Someone edits a 20 minute segment on a CNN show down for, while still allowing anyone who cares to find the context.
I generally assume that the reader has the ability separate these different types of posts and deal with them appropriately. I, foolishly it turns out, believed that it made sense that the official Twitter account of someone or an organization would be understood to be them speaking for themselves. I further believed that most people can differentiate between the medium and the message and understand that the medium does not automatically negate the message.
I do understand that having the idiotic discussion takes away from more important things, but sometimes the lowest common denominator needs to be addressed.
2 comments:
Look, I don't care if you post from X or Twitter or the KKK Times and Picayune. Just don't count on people following your nonsense non-sourced "sources."
You're not a middleschooler, don't cite "sources" like one.
Clearly you’ve simply decided that things like reality are not important to you, nor is reading.
It’s my blog, I’ll post what I want and you can prove me wrong if you want.
FYI, for months I did the extra work and sourced every “news” story from a “real journalism” outlet and I made precisely zero difference to how you responded or ignored things.
So, I’m done trying to placate you and your arbitrary restrictions.
As I said, comment or don’t. Believe what you see or don’t. Prove me wrong or don’t.
You’ve abandoned the moral high ground you believed yourself to possess rather spectacularly of late.
Had you said something like, “Oh my goodness, that is far beyond the bounds of decency and civility. Publicly appearing to threaten a sitting US president seems like it could be criminal. I unreservedly denounce anyone who would do something like that.”, you’d demonstrate the morality you claim. Instead you defend and excuse.
Post a Comment