3 ms·
I'm down-voting you, here's why: Context is a thing, and you even make use of it in your comment. You have set up a false scenario where (according to you) we
by mason240 10y ago
I'm down-voting you, here's why:
Context is a thing, and you even make use of it in your comment. You have set up a false scenario where (according to you) we are only allowed discuss what is explicit in headline, yet "alternative facts" isn't even in the headline.
If you seriously believe that comment sections should not discuss the context around its subject, you are wasting your time here because there is an entire internet you there for you to police.
- RangerScience 10y agoI think I see where you're coming from...? First - I'm straight up not talking about only the headline. Strawman'ing is a real thing, and Mikeb85's comment is doing it. The article has six sentences, and then a bunch of Orwell links. Only one of those sentences is about anything other than Orwell, and that sentence is a link to an article about Orwell, and how "alternative facts" sounds a lot like Newspeak. At no point is either the original article, or its sole political link, making any kind of comment of argument on any of the things in Mikeb85's comment. Context is great! Establish some, and then present your points, arguments, and comments.