4 ms·

This not an interpretation of that tweet but the current trend in journalism. Is pretty easy to follow actually. Do the exercise to look up for authors of infla

This not an interpretation of that tweet but the current trend in journalism. Is pretty easy to follow actually. Do the exercise to look up for authors of inflammatory articles on Twitter. It's like they've said: Alright, truth is impossible to reach, so let's throw everything out window.

ajross 7y ago
> This not an interpretation of that tweet but the current trend in journalism. You literally paraphrased it as "Before you know it, you’re claiming that Slack notifications give you PTSD symptoms". If you don't agree with that analysis (which is ridiculous: the author is making a joke about being afraid of slack notifications) then why did you give it to us just to deny it later?
- detaro 7y ago
  /u/iagovar didn't make that comment
- maxerickson 7y ago
  More than 1 poster involved. But that is the point, the poor interpretation of the single tweet does not particularly bolster the argument analyzing the general behavior of journalists on twitter.
bilbo0s 7y ago
Universal truth, is, in fact, a bit of an impossibility. ("Truth" being dependent on point of view.) That said, "truth" is also unnecessary. That is, it's unnecessary if a journalist is just reporting the known facts of a situation. If what a journalist really wants to do is tell their own "truth". Then yeah, facts and hard evidence aren't really necessary and putting out their "truth" becomes entirely possible.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >"Truth" being dependent on point of view Some truths do. A lot of truths don't depend on point of view. Whether something is right or wrong, benefit or detriment etc does depend on point of view. But lots of truths just depend on what's reported matching what is the case. E.g. "whether X did Y (e.g. whether John punched Jack)" is not based on opinion. There's a universal truth there, either John did or he didn't. Speculation about what happened (when the journalist speaks without evidence) and whether "it's good that X did Y", sure, are based on opinion. Media, all too often, fails to report correctly on things that fall on universal truths (in a famous case, saying someone had WMDs when they didn't). It fails to look for evidence, and it even often blatantly lies or distorts the universal facts.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    >"whether X did Y (e.g. whether John punched Jack)" is not based on opinion. There's a universal truth there, either John did or he didn't I'm pretty sure you just conflated "truth" with fact. John punching Jack. Or John not punching Jack. Is one of the facts of the situation. At least, police and criminal courts would call it one of the facts. They certainly wouldn't call it one of the "truths".
    - wcarey 7y ago
      Fascinatingly, a verdict means “a speaking of the truth”. Courts at least, consider the aim of the jury to speak the truth. So whether John did punch Jack would be an element of the truth of the matter being adjudicated.
      - bilbo0s 7y ago
        Facts and beliefs are elements of truth. That doesn't make fact equivalent to truth, any more than it makes belief equivalent to truth. (Or, indeed, anymore than it makes belief equivalent to fact.) Juries often issue “a speaking of the truth” inconsistent with fact. (Even inconsistent with facts as presented.) That's what the Innocence Project is all about, they exist precisely because of the difference between these adjudicated "truths" and real world facts.
claudiawerner 7y ago
It's hard to see what you're actually saying. The tweet is clearly a joke, and makes no reference to PTSD, triggering, or anything else. The Slack notification sound also makes me freeze up.
- kristianc 7y ago
  You mean it’s not time to contemplate the effects of workplace trauma and capitalism? https://twitter.com/imani_barbarin/status/1220887047008915456?s=21 https://twitter.com/imani_barbarin/status/122088704700891545...
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    It certainly is that time, but not because of Slack notifications.

ajross 7y ago

> This not an interpretation of that tweet but the current trend in journalism. You literally paraphrased it as "Before you know it, you’re claiming that Slack notifications give you PTSD symptoms". If you don't agree with that analysis (which is ridiculous: the author is making a joke about being afraid of slack notifications) then why did you give it to us just to deny it later?

detaro 7y ago
/u/iagovar didn't make that comment
maxerickson 7y ago
More than 1 poster involved. But that is the point, the poor interpretation of the single tweet does not particularly bolster the argument analyzing the general behavior of journalists on twitter.

bilbo0s 7y ago

Universal truth, is, in fact, a bit of an impossibility. ("Truth" being dependent on point of view.) That said, "truth" is also unnecessary. That is, it's unnecessary if a journalist is just reporting the known facts of a situation. If what a journalist really wants to do is tell their own "truth". Then yeah, facts and hard evidence aren't really necessary and putting out their "truth" becomes entirely possible.

coldtea 7y ago
>"Truth" being dependent on point of view Some truths do. A lot of truths don't depend on point of view. Whether something is right or wrong, benefit or detriment etc does depend on point of view. But lots of truths just depend on what's reported matching what is the case. E.g. "whether X did Y (e.g. whether John punched Jack)" is not based on opinion. There's a universal truth there, either John did or he didn't. Speculation about what happened (when the journalist speaks without evidence) and whether "it's good that X did Y", sure, are based on opinion. Media, all too often, fails to report correctly on things that fall on universal truths (in a famous case, saying someone had WMDs when they didn't). It fails to look for evidence, and it even often blatantly lies or distorts the universal facts.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >"whether X did Y (e.g. whether John punched Jack)" is not based on opinion. There's a universal truth there, either John did or he didn't I'm pretty sure you just conflated "truth" with fact. John punching Jack. Or John not punching Jack. Is one of the facts of the situation. At least, police and criminal courts would call it one of the facts. They certainly wouldn't call it one of the "truths".
  - wcarey 7y ago
    Fascinatingly, a verdict means “a speaking of the truth”. Courts at least, consider the aim of the jury to speak the truth. So whether John did punch Jack would be an element of the truth of the matter being adjudicated.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      Facts and beliefs are elements of truth. That doesn't make fact equivalent to truth, any more than it makes belief equivalent to truth. (Or, indeed, anymore than it makes belief equivalent to fact.) Juries often issue “a speaking of the truth” inconsistent with fact. (Even inconsistent with facts as presented.) That's what the Innocence Project is all about, they exist precisely because of the difference between these adjudicated "truths" and real world facts.

claudiawerner 7y ago

It's hard to see what you're actually saying. The tweet is clearly a joke, and makes no reference to PTSD, triggering, or anything else. The Slack notification sound also makes me freeze up.

kristianc 7y ago
You mean it’s not time to contemplate the effects of workplace trauma and capitalism? https://twitter.com/imani_barbarin/status/1220887047008915456?s=21 https://twitter.com/imani_barbarin/status/122088704700891545...
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  It certainly is that time, but not because of Slack notifications.