3 ms·
I'm not sure how to approach this question. I didn't use the word "force". If you're just generally wondering what I mean with my comment, it's that this artic
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
I'm not sure how to approach this question. I didn't use the word "force".
If you're just generally wondering what I mean with my comment, it's that this article is talking about something that happened "historically" ("Nixon's White House") even though similar things are considered today (or I guess 2 years ago)[0].
It is an interesting story, admittedly it may not actually be a distraction piece, but this comment is not a good rebuttal to mine. Certainly the idea of diverting attention from one thing to another is not so nonsensical.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/27/senior-cia-officials-trump-discussed-assassinating-julian-assange https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/27/senior-cia-off...
- dylan604 4y agoBut certain information from an administration naturally becomes available after an amount of time after the administration ends. There will be new information about a past administration that becomes available during a different administration. Your comment "I'm just left wondering what recent event I'm supposed to ignore in favor of this piece" makes it sound to readers as if you're not capable of doing both, hence the "forced" word used by me. While media can be used as misdirection, it is not always so. Just because some historical information comes out does not mean it was done for the sole purpose of distraction from a current situation. Your comment definitely implies that was the intent. Assuming that is the only reason it is being released comes across as being closed minded to fit an agenda you have.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y agoI believe I understand your point now. Thanks for clarifying.