4 ms·
Source: "Trust me, bro"
by DisjointedHunt 4y ago
Source: "Trust me, bro"
- nix23 4y agoPress Source: "Trust us, little ones"
- namaria 4y agoPolarization weakens the conversation. A reminder not to make assumptions one way is not an argument for running on the opposite direction.
- DisjointedHunt 4y agoThere's no argument for "running on the opposite direction". The OP piece doesn't meet any reasonable standard to be considered an intellectual submission and hence the terse response. Highly speculative opinion not grounded in fact and blatantly pushing a conclusion . . . what else can you say? Why is this even submitted to HN? A conversation starter?
- namaria 4y agoI was clearly responding to a comment ironically saying we should trust the mainstream press if we argue we shouldn't trust random blogs
- nix23 4y agoThe random blog brings up a theory, the mainstream media is already pointing finger towards russia, it's pretty clear which side makes assumptions without proof.
- namaria 4y agoIt's clear to me that thinking there are only two sides to this whole thing is grossly oversimplifying it.
- DisjointedHunt 4y agoI hope that's not the outtake you got from my comment. The phrase "Trust me, bro" is not meant to indicate the press or any entity is above fact and evidence based reporting. If this was a story in the New York Times, it would be in the opinion section. There is an expectation in intellectual reporting to have a factual basis to draw a conclusion upon. I'm annoyed that the blog linked here simply starts off with such a broad, presumptive take citing nothing but the opinions of some stranger on the internet and starts to make such strong conclusions. I would say the same thing if this was reported in the "Establishment press" or anywhere else. As should anyone reading this. Being critical of non factual reporting should be encouraged regardless of where the story is published.
- namaria 4y agoNot yours, the one answering yours. It doesn't matter enough to carry this discussion on honestly.