|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 20 2016 01:35 TanGeng wrote:
The primary critique of the establishment by the alt-right is a combination of bias and blindness.
They are going to disagree on basic and fundamental assumptions that fashion world views.
The primary critique of the alt-right by the establishment is that they are not legitimate.
In throwing out the establishment world-view, alt-right also do not have any of the journalistic disciplines of existing newspapers.
Breitbart is typical of new media phenomenon filling a niche where the news and editorials are tailored to the audience group. Alt-right is only one of many such targeted audiences. It is a end run around the gatekeeper functionality that would keep certain angles on current events out of the mainstream. Again it doesn't have the full journalistic discipline of the establishment media. This very naturally leads to the post truth label being thrown around.
Even if you dislike the Breitbart site, failing to understand the new media phenomenon and appreciate its influence and power would be... bias and blindness. LOL
I think it's a bit more problematic than that, TanGeng, and it's not because they are unprofessional that they are labelled post truth.. The problem with Breitbart is that it is bullshit news. And I use bullshit in its most rigorous definition, such as given by Frankfurt
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing
bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to
the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he
says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly
indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter,
however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side
of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of
the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away
with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality
correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Breitbart doesn't try to get its fact rights. They simply don't care. That's not a niche journalism phenomenon, it's not condescension from the "establishment" or the well educated towards low level populist press, it's a state of the american debate were people are fed information by media that simply disregard reality.
And I totally understand Breitbart's position and influence. I just think it's extremely worrying, because to put it bluntly, bullshit destroys democracies. If you simply don't care about reality and facts, you can't have a debate, an agenda and elections that mean anything. And that's the real problem with the Trump phenomenon.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
The article isn't really well thought out. COMEX's US subsidiary would represent US jobs. Whether or not the local logistics favor US cement or Mexico cement depends on trains and train cars and trucks and roads.
Like most infrastructure programs, the wall is:
a corrupt pay off where favored contractors get to rip off the American tax payer
a jobs program that hires some Americans [possibly feeding money to unions at the same time]
a combination of the two.
If you have the corrupt contractor scenario, perhaps they would hire a lot of Mexicans.
But if there are strict hiring standards, in many ways the wall is a "shovel-ready" jobs program. The kind that Obama wanted after first bailing out the banks.
|
On November 20 2016 01:35 TanGeng wrote:
The primary critique of the establishment by the alt-right is a combination of bias and blindness.
They are going to disagree on basic and fundamental assumptions that fashion world views.
The primary critique of the alt-right by the establishment is that they are not legitimate.
In throwing out the establishment world-view, alt-right also do not have any of the journalistic disciplines of existing newspapers.
Breitbart is typical of new media phenomenon filling a niche where the news and editorials are tailored to the audience group. Alt-right is only one of many such targeted audiences. It is a end run around the gatekeeper functionality that would keep certain angles on current events out of the mainstream. Again it doesn't have the full journalistic discipline of the establishment media. This very naturally leads to the post truth label being thrown around.
Even if you dislike the Breitbart site, failing to understand the new media phenomenon and appreciate its influence and power would be... bias and blindness. LOL
But isn't this also why something like breitbart.com can never be "the new mainstream news"? Its whole success is derived from an extremely targeted product; outlets like the NYT try to make news for everyone to read, but these websites only appeal to a relatively small subsection of the population. To broaden their appeal they'd have to quit dealing in conspiracy theories, not just do far-right editorials, etc. at which point they'd lose their targeted appeal and wind up trying to beat conventional news outlets at their own game.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 20 2016 01:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 01:35 TanGeng wrote:
The primary critique of the establishment by the alt-right is a combination of bias and blindness.
They are going to disagree on basic and fundamental assumptions that fashion world views.
The primary critique of the alt-right by the establishment is that they are not legitimate.
In throwing out the establishment world-view, alt-right also do not have any of the journalistic disciplines of existing newspapers.
Breitbart is typical of new media phenomenon filling a niche where the news and editorials are tailored to the audience group. Alt-right is only one of many such targeted audiences. It is a end run around the gatekeeper functionality that would keep certain angles on current events out of the mainstream. Again it doesn't have the full journalistic discipline of the establishment media. This very naturally leads to the post truth label being thrown around.
Even if you dislike the Breitbart site, failing to understand the new media phenomenon and appreciate its influence and power would be... bias and blindness. LOL
I think it's a bit more problematic than that, TanGeng, and it's not because they are unprofessional that they are labelled post truth.. The problem with Breitbart is that it is bullshit news. And I use bullshit in its most rigorous definition, such as given by FrankfurtShow nested quote +It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing
bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to
the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he
says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly
indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter,
however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side
of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of
the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away
with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality
correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose. Breitbart doesn't try to get its fact rights. They simply don't care. That's not a niche journalism phenomenon, it's not condescension from the "establishment" or the well educated towards low level populist press, it's a state of the american debate were people are fed information by media that simply disregard reality. And I totally understand Breitbart's position and influence. I just think it's extremely worrying, because to put it bluntly, bullshit destroys democracies. If you simply don't care about reality and facts, you can't have a debate, an agenda and elections that mean anything. And that's the real problem with the Trump phenomenon.
You seem to be attacking it on its legitimacy angle.
The targeted audiences simply do not care about this critique.
On November 20 2016 01:49 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 01:35 TanGeng wrote:
The primary critique of the establishment by the alt-right is a combination of bias and blindness.
They are going to disagree on basic and fundamental assumptions that fashion world views.
The primary critique of the alt-right by the establishment is that they are not legitimate.
In throwing out the establishment world-view, alt-right also do not have any of the journalistic disciplines of existing newspapers.
Breitbart is typical of new media phenomenon filling a niche where the news and editorials are tailored to the audience group. Alt-right is only one of many such targeted audiences. It is a end run around the gatekeeper functionality that would keep certain angles on current events out of the mainstream. Again it doesn't have the full journalistic discipline of the establishment media. This very naturally leads to the post truth label being thrown around.
Even if you dislike the Breitbart site, failing to understand the new media phenomenon and appreciate its influence and power would be... bias and blindness. LOL
But isn't this also why something like breitbart.com can never be "the new mainstream news"? Its whole success is derived from an extremely targeted product; outlets like the NYT try to make news for everyone to read, but these websites only appeal to a relatively small subsection of the population. To broaden their appeal they'd have to quit dealing in conspiracy theories, not just do far-right editorials, etc. at which point they'd lose their targeted appeal and wind up trying to beat conventional news outlets at their own game.
Correct. They will never be "the new mainstream news."
|
On November 20 2016 01:26 Sermokala wrote:
I don't want my country to be a healthy democracy and neither do you. You don't live in a democracy and should stop using that ignorant and misleading term that teaches people wrong things about civics.
People sleep on federalism too much.
The U.S. is a representative democracy. You're probably thinking of how the term "democracy" has sometimes historically been understood to mean "direct democracy" and governed only by majority rule. That is not how it is used today (and how it's been used for a long time) by political scientists, politicians, the press, etc.
edit: see this article, for example.
|
On November 20 2016 01:49 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 01:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 20 2016 01:35 TanGeng wrote:
The primary critique of the establishment by the alt-right is a combination of bias and blindness.
They are going to disagree on basic and fundamental assumptions that fashion world views.
The primary critique of the alt-right by the establishment is that they are not legitimate.
In throwing out the establishment world-view, alt-right also do not have any of the journalistic disciplines of existing newspapers.
Breitbart is typical of new media phenomenon filling a niche where the news and editorials are tailored to the audience group. Alt-right is only one of many such targeted audiences. It is a end run around the gatekeeper functionality that would keep certain angles on current events out of the mainstream. Again it doesn't have the full journalistic discipline of the establishment media. This very naturally leads to the post truth label being thrown around.
Even if you dislike the Breitbart site, failing to understand the new media phenomenon and appreciate its influence and power would be... bias and blindness. LOL
I think it's a bit more problematic than that, TanGeng, and it's not because they are unprofessional that they are labelled post truth.. The problem with Breitbart is that it is bullshit news. And I use bullshit in its most rigorous definition, such as given by FrankfurtIt is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing
bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to
the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he
says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly
indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter,
however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side
of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of
the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away
with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality
correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose. Breitbart doesn't try to get its fact rights. They simply don't care. That's not a niche journalism phenomenon, it's not condescension from the "establishment" or the well educated towards low level populist press, it's a state of the american debate were people are fed information by media that simply disregard reality. And I totally understand Breitbart's position and influence. I just think it's extremely worrying, because to put it bluntly, bullshit destroys democracies. If you simply don't care about reality and facts, you can't have a debate, an agenda and elections that mean anything. And that's the real problem with the Trump phenomenon. You seem to be attacking it on its legitimacy angle. The targeted audiences simply do not care about this critique.
I'm fairly sure that if the audience of Breitbart perceived Breitbart was lying to them, they wouldn't go "Oh that's okay it doesn't really matter to me"; the notion that they don't care about this critique is hard to believe. As is the idea that you would see someone say "They're bullshitting" and think "You're saying they aren't legitimate". No, he's saying they're bullshitting. Personnally I'd go a little higher, there were lies in the one article I've read.
|
On November 20 2016 01:49 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 01:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 20 2016 01:35 TanGeng wrote:
The primary critique of the establishment by the alt-right is a combination of bias and blindness.
They are going to disagree on basic and fundamental assumptions that fashion world views.
The primary critique of the alt-right by the establishment is that they are not legitimate.
In throwing out the establishment world-view, alt-right also do not have any of the journalistic disciplines of existing newspapers.
Breitbart is typical of new media phenomenon filling a niche where the news and editorials are tailored to the audience group. Alt-right is only one of many such targeted audiences. It is a end run around the gatekeeper functionality that would keep certain angles on current events out of the mainstream. Again it doesn't have the full journalistic discipline of the establishment media. This very naturally leads to the post truth label being thrown around.
Even if you dislike the Breitbart site, failing to understand the new media phenomenon and appreciate its influence and power would be... bias and blindness. LOL
I think it's a bit more problematic than that, TanGeng, and it's not because they are unprofessional that they are labelled post truth.. The problem with Breitbart is that it is bullshit news. And I use bullshit in its most rigorous definition, such as given by FrankfurtIt is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing
bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to
the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he
says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly
indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter,
however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side
of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of
the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away
with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality
correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose. Breitbart doesn't try to get its fact rights. They simply don't care. That's not a niche journalism phenomenon, it's not condescension from the "establishment" or the well educated towards low level populist press, it's a state of the american debate were people are fed information by media that simply disregard reality. And I totally understand Breitbart's position and influence. I just think it's extremely worrying, because to put it bluntly, bullshit destroys democracies. If you simply don't care about reality and facts, you can't have a debate, an agenda and elections that mean anything. And that's the real problem with the Trump phenomenon. You seem to be attacking it on its legitimacy angle. The targeted audiences simply do not care about this critique. Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 01:49 ChristianS wrote:On November 20 2016 01:35 TanGeng wrote:
The primary critique of the establishment by the alt-right is a combination of bias and blindness.
They are going to disagree on basic and fundamental assumptions that fashion world views.
The primary critique of the alt-right by the establishment is that they are not legitimate.
In throwing out the establishment world-view, alt-right also do not have any of the journalistic disciplines of existing newspapers.
Breitbart is typical of new media phenomenon filling a niche where the news and editorials are tailored to the audience group. Alt-right is only one of many such targeted audiences. It is a end run around the gatekeeper functionality that would keep certain angles on current events out of the mainstream. Again it doesn't have the full journalistic discipline of the establishment media. This very naturally leads to the post truth label being thrown around.
Even if you dislike the Breitbart site, failing to understand the new media phenomenon and appreciate its influence and power would be... bias and blindness. LOL
But isn't this also why something like breitbart.com can never be "the new mainstream news"? Its whole success is derived from an extremely targeted product; outlets like the NYT try to make news for everyone to read, but these websites only appeal to a relatively small subsection of the population. To broaden their appeal they'd have to quit dealing in conspiracy theories, not just do far-right editorials, etc. at which point they'd lose their targeted appeal and wind up trying to beat conventional news outlets at their own game. Correct. They will never be "the new mainstream news."
It does not mean my criticism is invalid or illegitimate; and the populist right basically never care about liberal critics anyway.
Furthermore we don't talk and think solely to convince the other side. I personally have little faith that the alt right will ever get defeated by convincing its member that they don't make sense or surf on hatred and bigotry.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 20 2016 01:56 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 01:49 TanGeng wrote:On November 20 2016 01:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 20 2016 01:35 TanGeng wrote:
The primary critique of the establishment by the alt-right is a combination of bias and blindness.
They are going to disagree on basic and fundamental assumptions that fashion world views.
The primary critique of the alt-right by the establishment is that they are not legitimate.
In throwing out the establishment world-view, alt-right also do not have any of the journalistic disciplines of existing newspapers.
Breitbart is typical of new media phenomenon filling a niche where the news and editorials are tailored to the audience group. Alt-right is only one of many such targeted audiences. It is a end run around the gatekeeper functionality that would keep certain angles on current events out of the mainstream. Again it doesn't have the full journalistic discipline of the establishment media. This very naturally leads to the post truth label being thrown around.
Even if you dislike the Breitbart site, failing to understand the new media phenomenon and appreciate its influence and power would be... bias and blindness. LOL
I think it's a bit more problematic than that, TanGeng, and it's not because they are unprofessional that they are labelled post truth.. The problem with Breitbart is that it is bullshit news. And I use bullshit in its most rigorous definition, such as given by FrankfurtIt is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing
bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to
the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he
says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly
indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter,
however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side
of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of
the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away
with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality
correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose. Breitbart doesn't try to get its fact rights. They simply don't care. That's not a niche journalism phenomenon, it's not condescension from the "establishment" or the well educated towards low level populist press, it's a state of the american debate were people are fed information by media that simply disregard reality. And I totally understand Breitbart's position and influence. I just think it's extremely worrying, because to put it bluntly, bullshit destroys democracies. If you simply don't care about reality and facts, you can't have a debate, an agenda and elections that mean anything. And that's the real problem with the Trump phenomenon. You seem to be attacking it on its legitimacy angle. The targeted audiences simply do not care about this critique. I'm fairly sure that if the audience of Breitbart perceived Breitbart was lying to them, they wouldn't go "Oh that's okay it doesn't really matter to me"; the notion that they don't care about this critique is hard to believe. As is the idea that you would see someone say "They're lying" and think "You're saying they aren't legitimate". No, he's saying they're lying.
It's a tradeoff. If Breitbart is 100% lies then it becomes a problem.
Instead Breitbart does the reporting on issues and events that their audience cares about, trots out editorials that fits world views. So what if they don't fact check 100% and let some untruths slip through some of the time. The lack of fact checking really doesn't matter as much as what they aren't getting from the establishment sources.
|
The Left have papers, publications, media that are FAR more biased than Breitbart.
At least most of the Breitbart articles are backed with concrete facts.
During the election; CNN, Washington Post, MSNBC, BuzzFeed, Gawker, Huffington Posts constantly put words in Trump's mouth and fake news.
And the fact that some of these news outlets are connected directly to Democrats/Clinton is DEEPLY DISTURBING.
The amount of leftist favored at all cost media outlets FAR OUTWEIGHS the amount of right favored media outlets.
They did the same smearing tactics against MRAs, GamerGate, and just your basic folks that questions the "Social Justice" narrative to Donald Trump.
And people just have enough of being guilt tripped into things and would rather want to focus on what really matters, the country's economy and technology.
|
Breitbart isn't so much a news site as it is an editorial site. It doesn't do its own reporting. It sources other media for that. What it does is repackage various reported facts into an alternative narrative that is often ignored by traditional media.
|
Norway28850 Posts
That is a very accurate, and honest, description.
|
They do some of their own reporting, for example they were first out of the gate drawing an equivalence between the sexual assaults of a presidential candidate and those of his opponent's spouse.
|
On November 20 2016 02:23 Doodsmack wrote:
They do some of their own reporting, for example they were first out of the gate drawing an equivalence between the sexual assaults of a presidential candidate and those of his opponent's spouse.
And they were first out the gate with the O'Keefe/ACORN videos too, right?
|
The US vice-president elect, Mike Pence, was booed by a theater audience when he attended the hit hip-hop musical Hamilton in New York on Friday night – and then had a message about protecting diversity delivered to him from the stage after the curtain call.
On Saturday, President-elect Donald Trump accused theatre-goers of having “harassed” Pence, writing on Twitter: “Our wonderful future V.P. Mike Pence was harassed last night at the theater by the cast of Hamilton, cameras blazing.This should not happen!”
He also demanded an apology: “The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!”
On Friday night, as Pence entered the auditorium for the Broadway show at the Richard Rogers Theater, video taken by onlookers and posted to social media picked up some audience members cheering him, then more people booing him.
Pence walked down the aisle towards his seat and waved briefly as people in the theater clearly began to realize who he was. Then the boos began.
The show was occasionally disrupted by more loud booing at Pence. Patrons did not lose sight of the irony of a strong conservative, with a record of opposition against gay rights, attending a hip-hop musical with a pointedly diverse cast was not lost on , as noted in an early report by Variety magazine.
At first it was thought Pence had left the show at the interval, but it later turned out that he had returned to his seat, possibly after the lights went down, at the beginning of the second act in an attempt to minimize disruption.
Source
|
On November 20 2016 01:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 00:43 Doodsmack wrote:
We must have safe spaces for the sensitive!
Eventually, a majority of Americans are going to get tired of the left's temper tantrum.
So you're essentially admitting that you are a racist. Would you like to revise your statement? If the actions of every individual subgroup of liberals are to be painted upon the monolith you call "the left" then we must assume the same about each group in the right.
I'm happy with where I'm standing.
“We, sir — we — are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights,” he said. “We truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us.”
Meanwhile the right is sending such messages as "Cross dress faget lives here" written in spray paint on the house of my friend's trans girlfriend. Along with swastikas and a nice appeal to trump. When she posted it on facebook it unfortunately went viral. The right jumped on that to immediately say that it was fake, staged, and started sending her death threats online, through the mail, and in person.
Are you happy with where you're standing?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 20 2016 02:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The US vice-president elect, Mike Pence, was booed by a theater audience when he attended the hit hip-hop musical Hamilton in New York on Friday night – and then had a message about protecting diversity delivered to him from the stage after the curtain call.
On Saturday, President-elect Donald Trump accused theatre-goers of having “harassed” Pence, writing on Twitter: “Our wonderful future V.P. Mike Pence was harassed last night at the theater by the cast of Hamilton, cameras blazing.This should not happen!”
He also demanded an apology: “The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!”
On Friday night, as Pence entered the auditorium for the Broadway show at the Richard Rogers Theater, video taken by onlookers and posted to social media picked up some audience members cheering him, then more people booing him.
Pence walked down the aisle towards his seat and waved briefly as people in the theater clearly began to realize who he was. Then the boos began.
The show was occasionally disrupted by more loud booing at Pence. Patrons did not lose sight of the irony of a strong conservative, with a record of opposition against gay rights, attending a hip-hop musical with a pointedly diverse cast was not lost on , as noted in an early report by Variety magazine.
At first it was thought Pence had left the show at the interval, but it later turned out that he had returned to his seat, possibly after the lights went down, at the beginning of the second act in an attempt to minimize disruption. Source
It was not clear whether Pence heard the whole address or made any response. On Saturday morning, Dixon replied to Trump’s call for an apology: “conversation is not harassment, sir,” he wrote on Twitter. “And I appreciate [Mike Pence] for stopping to listen.”
Look at the video of the curtain call, what the cast did was ok. The booing by the audience was disruptive.
|
On November 20 2016 02:06 xDaunt wrote:
Breitbart isn't so much a news site as it is an editorial site. It doesn't do its own reporting. It sources other media for that. What it does is repackage various reported facts into an alternative narrative that is often ignored by traditional media.
When you have to voluntarily dismiss the truth sometimes, and most of the time bend it pretty hard, in order for your alternative narrative to function, then it has some basic flaws.
|
I think it sums up the US political sphere pretty nicely that they think a statement is a conversation.
EDIT: Fixed my statement.
User was warned for this post
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 20 2016 02:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It does not mean my criticism is invalid or illegitimate; and the populist right basically never care about liberal critics anyway.
Furthermore we don't talk and think solely to convince the other side. I personally have little faith that the alt right will ever get defeated by convincing its member that they don't make sense or surf on hatred and bigotry.
I feel like this criticism is leveled at the people of the alt-right, rather than at Breitbart itself.
Leveling hatred and bigotry allegations are generally problematic for me.
If we are only talking about a small segment of the population, then politically they can be ignored.
If we are have a large segment of population that are truly fueled by hatred and bigotry then we have a big social problem in society itself. Resorting to pure politics with such underlying social problems can make distrust, discord, and violence worse.
If we are have a small segment of the population poisoning a much larger segmentation, then making such a critique from the outside will make the larger group tone deaf. Even accusing of everyone of being apologists for racism does not help.
On November 20 2016 03:05 Ghostcom wrote:
I think it sums up the US political sphere pretty nicely that they think a statement is a conversation.
EDIT: Fixed my statement.
lol! i think the word choice is passable. It's at least a start of one.
|
Don't get me wrong. I think it's absolutely ok they did it, I agree with what was said, and I do not think they should apologize. But considering the election cycle we've just been through where half the country didn't listen to the concerns of the other half and vice versa I just found it funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
