4 ms·

This is just common NYT style. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/reader-center/why-does-nyt-call-president-mr-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/re

This is just common NYT style. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/reader-center/why-does-nyt-call-president-mr-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/reader-center/why-does-ny... It’s common elsewhere too. Here is a cbs news article talking about the style (using Mr. Obama in this case). https://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-disrespect-in-calling-the-president-mister/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-disrespect-in-calling-the-pr... Discrediting the article’s tone is easier than attacking its conclusions, but that’s not how we have a productive discussion, and I hope we can agree it’s not useful.

RobertRoberts 7y ago
If my point was to discredit it's conclusions, I would have. I pointed out that the article was appealing to baser instincts by it's writing methods. Everyone who think's I support Trump (I don't) or think climate change is hoax (I don't) assumed this. Nothing in my comment indicates this. Maybe people downvote based on emotions as well?