3 ms·
They seem to work really hard. Every obsolete / dead political movement in history (religion, too) was staffed primarily by honest and genuine true believers.
by VLM 10y ago
They seem to work really hard. Every obsolete / dead political movement in history (religion, too) was staffed primarily by honest and genuine true believers. I don't think they're lazy or stupid or unmotivated. They just hitched their carriage to a dead horse, that's all.
People involved in current day ascendant political movements and modern religions like to think they're somehow different than the dead past, but sooner or later they find out the hard way they're not. (edited to add, in my study of history I've never found an aspect of human nature quite as cross cultural and universal as this, nothing, nothing comes close, not monotheism or the golden rule or dualism or progressivism, nothing so universally human)
- beat 10y agoSee, when you start saying CNN (and every other major outlet, by extension) is basically Pravda, devoted to carrying the water for the Democratic Party at the expense of the GOP, I kind of assume you're totally blinded by partisanship and incapable of rational discussion of the subject.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoSee, when you say that CNN has journalistic integrity, and ignore VLM's counterexample, where they in fact were carrying water for Hillary, you seem to be incapable of rational discussion on the subject. They objectively did that. Whether they did "a good job" of it or not is completely not the point. [Edit: I saw your parallel post where your definition of "journalistic integrity" is "don't make up facts, even if you report them in a biased manner". First, I think that's way too low of a bar. Strive for objectivity, even if you can't perfectly achieve it. Second, though, what CNN did is like a sideline reporter jumping on the field and tackling someone. It's totally inappropriate, well outside of what is acceptable for journalists, even if it's not creating "false facts".]