3 ms·

I can't help but view it with disgust just at the headline of having the wrong kind of mentality. It is a spiteful logical fallacy of the worst kind. "Soviets t

I can't help but view it with disgust just at the headline of having the wrong kind of mentality. It is a spiteful logical fallacy of the worst kind. "Soviets terrified of plan to nuclear first strike whole world - good!" Just because even the vilest foe dislikes it doesn't mean it is a good idea. The whole article seems to be about shutting down thinking and manipulation via playing with emotions. I am probably an outlier but I view that as an active sign that is terrible because otherwise they would lead on better points. The article made me /less/ supportive of it. It is perhaps unduly harsh but I would call it an outright propaganda piece not because of the message but how it was delivered.

notTyler 7y ago
"Shutting down thinking." Reporting on transgressions and laws designed to hold parties accountable is designed to shut down thinking now, and how those who would be affected by it are literally trying to kill the bill is considered "shutting down thinking." This is literally what you just said.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  You proved my point ironically. It is all about "punishing the bad ones for their past sins" as opposed to going forward the impact of the law - the part to actually think about. Instead straight to emotionally knee jerk driven narratives of "they are bad and must be punished" instead of what the law is actually about. See emotions come out and the thinking on the topic like "would it actually help with Cambridge Analytica 2.0" go kaput. It is an old trick narrative for pushing terrible "tough on crime" laws for advancement. If you point out that it isn't a well thought out idea you support bad people!