4 ms·
Just so we're clear, this is a Washington Times article. It must be a reflection of a complete shift of internet culture rightwards that this rag has been upvot
by Vxss 7y ago
Just so we're clear, this is a Washington Times article. It must be a reflection of a complete shift of internet culture rightwards that this rag has been upvoted here significantly.
- UncleOxidant 7y agoThis is a good argument for having the ability to downvote things here. Not sure why we can only upvote.
- MiroF 7y ago"complete shift of internet culture rightwards" It's always been here I feel. It's just now, many of the traditional conservative institutions (like Washington Times) are waking up to it.
- not_a_cop75 7y agoIs it impossible to discuss the merit of an article without stating "This is too far right"????
- CompanionCuuube 7y agoFor some, yes. One has to have the cognitive ability to separate the messenger from the content.
- happytoexplain 7y agoThe messenger is part of the content. If Alex Jones screams some anti-liberal hate, I can rationally make some assumptions about the quality of his message before even committing time and energy to vetting his statements. This is normal, and vetting all statements would be impossible. This is a useful filter, if applied prudently.
- not_a_cop75 7y agoThe messenger does not automatically discredit the message. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
- masonic 7y agoFor many people, yes. None of the critics here, for example, has challenged a single element of the article as factually false (let alone providing any supporting data for same).