8 ms·
> I fundamentally don't understand why the Times didn't explain this early on. Sure you do! Context is not important in our age. Reaction is what matters. Let'
by cabaalis 6y ago
> I fundamentally don't understand why the Times didn't explain this early on.
Sure you do! Context is not important in our age. Reaction is what matters. Let's hope we don't live to see the day when pre-action is what matters.
- Wowfunhappy 6y agoI agree that the internet age has made context more difficult, due to the sheer barrage of information it subjects us to. But the above quote constitutes three medium-length paragraphs, and I suspect a couple of good editors could have synthesized that down further (possibly to the author's chagrin, but not to his detriment, if it was done properly). I do not believe we are that far gone.
- tsimionescu 6y agoA deluge of articles would have then followed, debating each of these points, corroborating with stuff the kids wrote etc. What you're saying makes sense if the purpose was to defend the journalist. But if the purpose is just to help the sorry die quickly, this wouldn't have been it.
- Aerroon 6y agoI think you may have missed the point made: it's not that context is too difficult to convey. It's that context doesn't matter (in some circumstances). I don't know why people feel this way, but I've also noticed that some people, for some actions, accept no explanation of any kind. It makes sense why this would happen in politics - you can use it as a cudgel against your opponent. Perhaps it has spread to other avenues of life too?