4 ms·
It sounds like you are saying that context doesn't matter at all for ethics. That's a pretty bold claim
by tdb7893 9y ago
It sounds like you are saying that context doesn't matter at all for ethics. That's a pretty bold claim
- zaroth 9y agoIt certainly would be a bold claim if I made it. Why would I engage with hypothetical positions which I didn't take?
- ajkjk 9y agoWell, you definitely wrote an opinion that selectively ignored context in order to make something reasonable sound unreasonable, which indicates your willingness to selectively ignore context to evaluate ethics, hence the reading that you endorse that as a general behavior...
- zaroth 9y agoThe newspapers band together to blackout Disney in response to Disney blacking out the LA Times That is an accurate portrayal of the context, is it not? Would you have been happier if I wrote; The newspapers band together to blackout Disney in response to Disney blacking out the LA Times in response to their hard hitting story about Disney. It's a mouthful, and doesn't change at all my following statement as I see it.
- s73ver_ 9y agoThat is a fairly inaccurate, to the point of being dishonest, portrayal of the context. That last part, in the italics, that you claim makes no difference, is a huge difference in context here.
- zaroth 9y agoIt wasn't my intent to misrepresent the context. As a comment on TFA I read TFA and I assume you read TFA. But it's telling that you think... the threat to blacklist Disney from awards, unless they retract their blacklist of the LA Times, is justified, not because they blacklisted the LA Times, but because of why they blacklisted the LA Times. Namely, in response to the LA Times' piece critical of Disney. So, a particularly violent response is justified by the MSM in this case, because Disney is retaliating against a news story which so far is being held up as factual. If they want to retaliate against a newspaper's dutiful and factual investigative reporting, then it's OK for the MSM to hit them where it hurts. I actually get that people think this is justified and that the MSM actually did one right by defending themselves like this. I personally take no joy watching powerful interests try to out-leverage each other. A muscle exercised will be a muscle more quickly used and relied on in the future. I don't enjoy the mudfight and don't think either side comes out entirely clean. (My last comment on this topic)
- nerpderp83 9y agoThe papers aren't blacking out Disney, they are saying, you do something to one of us, you are doing it to all of us. They could still cover a movie, they just wouldn't be attending a pre-screening.
- zaroth 9y agoYou may have missed the part about excluding Disney from awards unless they let LA Times back in. Which I believe is worth a fuck-ton of money to Disney.
- nerpderp83 9y ago> members of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the New York Film Critics Circle, the Boston Society of Film Critics and the National Society of Film Critics denounced Disney’s blackout of The Los Angeles Times This wasn't the LA Times doing it. More like a film critic union. Good for them.