6 ms·

Lot's of assumptions in this here reply that I would be happy to report back to you are incorrect (such as the one that I or others who feel this way subscribe

Lot's of assumptions in this here reply that I would be happy to report back to you are incorrect (such as the one that I or others who feel this way subscribe to a certain particular "bubble", or that I am suggesting in any way shape or form you ignore anything) And since you brought up feelings, this reply to my post feels like I may have struck a nerve with one of the aforementioned "establishment media companies" that you may hold near and dear to your heart. Is this how constructive conversation works? How about this: let's talk about the situation I alluded to in my original comment, something called the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. Something that has countless documented occurrences in (sorry to use this word again) establishment media companies. Does this meet your criteria for providing value to the community?

altcognito 6y ago
Claiming someone is responding to you is "triggered" is tiresome. Another red flag, and yes, you're fitting a particular profile. A constructive conversation can still be had, but I'm not particularly interested in Gell-Mann Amnesia which you alluded to in your last post because I [don't] think a focus on "newspapers" is very accurate or interesting. Newspapers are no different than anything else. Errors are found in all writing. My only points are: Evaluating truth based on the identity of the source instead of the content in question is not a good approach. Journals, thesis can and are all written with errors and misleading information. I stand by original comment that this thread and the content was put here to cause injury to the a persons confidence that they can know what is happening in the world from reading the news. Which is a very particular viewpoint.