2 ms·
> It's obviously touched a nerve because you're clearly upset I'm upset because you said that someone who knows how to make a website is better at journalism t
by jedberg 5y ago
> It's obviously touched a nerve because you're clearly upset
I'm upset because you said that someone who knows how to make a website is better at journalism that someone who studied journalism in school and has spent years honing their craft. I've worked with journalists -- the real ones who write for reputable publications, not the ones who write for the blog of the week. I have friends who are journalists. I've sat side by side with them. Their primary skill is separating truth from fiction, and you just said that someone who can construct a URL is better at it. It's an insult to them and a reflection of how poorly informed you are.
> So I want either an expression of good faith from you
Lol, where is your good faith? You made a claim, I asked you for a link to evidence of said claim. If it existed, it should take you no longer than 60 seconds to find one example. I didn't ask for an essay, I asked for a single link to a single example and a single sentence as to why it's wrong. Should be pretty easy for you if it exists.
But sure, you can win your petty game of "who will provide evidence first". The 7/8ths rule was bad because it requires 7/8s of the legislature to change provisions in the law, which is basically impossible, so it's meaningless. Sure, most propositions require a new proposition to change, but adding the 7/8ths provision is just a red herring to make it looks like they are being so generous.
- renewiltord 5y agoEvidence isn’t just saying something. If that’s the standard your journo friends have for evidence I’m unsurprised that you are impressed by them. But fine, I can do equivalent evidence: Journalists claimed it required 7/8ths to overturn. They were, of course, wrong. Because they were just reporting based off each other. There’s your equivalent “evidence”, I suppose. I’m kidding, I can do better. Behold, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/17/uber-lyft-prop22-misinformation/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/17/uber-ly... > Prop 22 sought to invalidate AB5′s impact on Uber and Lyft drivers, and it included a provision saying a seven-eighths legislative supermajority would be required to overturn it. Its passage effectively rendered AB5 moot. Now, you can ask your journo friends (who are 4-year-college-trained experts at separating truth from fiction) what’s wrong with this. Compare with bill text as an exercise, if you’d like. Should be easy for the master truth seekers.
- jedberg 5y agoYou didn't ask me for evidence, you asked me what I believed about the 7/8ths provision, and I told you. Is your concern that they used the word overturn instead of modify? That's pedantic at best.