3 ms·
And when it is relevant to the topic at hand, people should bring up those past misdeeds. For example, if those aforementioned sources were selling a new war, i
by aww_dang 3y ago
And when it is relevant to the topic at hand, people should bring up those past misdeeds. For example, if those aforementioned sources were selling a new war, it would be relevant to recall the Iraqi WMD debacle. Comments about disgraced CNN producer John Griffin or litigation against Don Lemon would not be relevant. As you say, it is all about context.
Maybe you can elaborate on how "stoning gays" is relevant in this context?
- ZeroGravitas 3y agoThat people only familiar with modern Reason may be a bit confused to be reading something so wacky and that says in effect ashkenazi jews are inherently a bit socialist and think 'Wow, this seems different from their usual "all government regulation is guaranteed to backfire and achieve the exact opposite of the intent so we should never regulate anything, but especially not fossil fuels and anyone who disagrees with us is just too emotional and irrational" schtick' and want some context on that.
- aww_dang 3y agoThe irony for me is that Reason mag uses the same irrational, inflammatory ID politics shtick on their opponents. Guilt by association is irrational by definition. I object to it regardless of the speaker's agenda.