3 ms·
>But this cuts both ways — you are exposing your own biases in believing it’s obvious satire. It doesn't cut equally both ways because there's an obvious groun
by yanderekko 5y ago
>But this cuts both ways — you are exposing your own biases in believing it’s obvious satire.
It doesn't cut equally both ways because there's an obvious ground truth that exonerates those who believe it's satire. I didn't claim it was obvious, and I could see why an outsider would be unsure. But the deflection of "can't blame me, Poe's Law" doesn't hold when plenty of people are able to see through the ruse.
- jolux 5y agoAll I’m saying is I think it’s forgivable to take something like this seriously, especially without full context. Doubling down after learning it’s a ruse, not so much. My observations on this issue are hindsight, this article is the first I learned of it. > I didn't claim it was obvious, and I could see why an outsider would be unsure You described people who believed it as “detached from reality.” Is that not tantamount to saying it’s obvious?
- IncRnd 5y ago> You described people who believed it as “detached from reality.” Is that not tantamount to saying it’s obvious? Not the op, but it clearly was detached from reality. 1) It was false, therefore not reality. 2) The people who believed it were journalists, who should know to check first and also should know not to believe everything you read.