3 ms·

The irony of attempting to "argue" with my point is incredibly hilarious. I would suggest suspending ideological preference for a moment and re-reading my post.

by mythrwy 10y ago

The irony of attempting to "argue" with my point is incredibly hilarious. I would suggest suspending ideological preference for a moment and re-reading my post. It's about trust and human nature. Not nitpicking details to try to "prove" you are right. You will never win what you are trying to win like this. Ever. But since you asked here is a sample: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-w... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/donald-trump-w... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html?ribbon-ad-idx=2&rref=politics&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donal... (the implication being of course that Trump is tied to racism). Now lets oppose the outrage above with the treatment of Hillary's behavior. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/27/us/politics/what-we-know-about-hillary-clintons-private-email-server.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/27/us/politics/wh... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/us/politics/hillary-clinto... Look guys... it's not an ideological thing here. But you can't behave like this and have people who support a different ideology take you seriously. That's a simple fact. When this happens people will get their information from elsewhere. Last I have to say about this. Think about it or not. But I don't intend to argue.

woodruffw 10y ago
Debate isn't ironic, and it's not productive to laugh at people who want to reason with you. I'm not sure what you mean by "trust and human nature". These seem to be self-evident (read: mostly rhetorical), and not directly in conflict with what I've said. I'm also not sure what details I've nitpicked. I pointed out a case that I thought you might consider a hit piece, and explained why dulling it down to just that has a chilling effect on journalism as a whole and operates against the public interest. The articles you linked portray Trump in a negative light. Is the conclusion supposed to be that HRC must be portrayed in an equally negative light? It's odd to have to say this, seeing how I'm not a particular fan of hers, but the media cannot treat circumstances as equals when they are definitively not equal. There is no modern analog to what either candidate has in their closets, but to equivocate between them via this fact alone is, bluntly, bewildering. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, and I hope you revisit this conversation (or perhaps the thoughts behind it) at a later point without immediately defaulting to a defense against "ideology".

by mythrwy 10y ago

woodruffw 10y ago

Debate isn't ironic, and it's not productive to laugh at people who want to reason with you. I'm not sure what you mean by "trust and human nature". These seem to be self-evident (read: mostly rhetorical), and not directly in conflict with what I've said. I'm also not sure what details I've nitpicked. I pointed out a case that I thought you might consider a hit piece, and explained why dulling it down to just that has a chilling effect on journalism as a whole and operates against the public interest. The articles you linked portray Trump in a negative light. Is the conclusion supposed to be that HRC must be portrayed in an equally negative light? It's odd to have to say this, seeing how I'm not a particular fan of hers, but the media cannot treat circumstances as equals when they are definitively not equal. There is no modern analog to what either candidate has in their closets, but to equivocate between them via this fact alone is, bluntly, bewildering. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, and I hope you revisit this conversation (or perhaps the thoughts behind it) at a later point without immediately defaulting to a defense against "ideology".