3 ms·

>The problem is to think this bias is only there when I'm listening to someone who I disagree with I'd argue the bigger problem is rampant "what-aboutism" that

>The problem is to think this bias is only there when I'm listening to someone who I disagree with I'd argue the bigger problem is rampant "what-aboutism" that infects virtually every discussion these days. What does the NYT or WaPo have to do with Musk, Brazil, or this situation? The subject is Musk. Why broaden the discussion this way to "even out" things for him? In any case, I was responding to the OP who asked why this article would be considered divisive. My answer is that some (including myself) don't deem Musk/Greenwald to be honest brokers. Musk and his allies have a distinct pattern of supporting certain narratives and rejecting others, while claiming to be champions of free speech and freedom.

lobocinza 3y ago
The interlocutor doesn't matter. You shouldn't trust anyone as a general rule and you don't need to trust Musk or Gleenwald as they are not the only ones talking about this. > The subject is Musk. You tried to make it so but the subject is authoritarianism in Brazil.
- unclebucknasty 3y ago
  >The interlocutor doesn't matter Of course it matters. And, there is roughly a 0% chance that anyone who is at least semi-cogent, including you, operates in the real world with the belief that it doesn't. That would be highly inadvisable, unless one enjoys being a persistent rube. >You tried to make it so The story is about Musk's and Greenwald's takes on authoritariansim in Brazil. The OP asked how it could be considered divisive. One obvious answer is that people are considering the source(s) and their histories. Whatever your personal feelings, two things are true: 1. People absolutely do consider the source 2. Musk and Greenwald are controversial figures with specific motives and ideologies that frequently cause rancor
  - lobocinza 3y ago
    I realize your argument was that the story is divisive and I might've made an unnecessary rebuttal. Yes, the interlocutor can make a story divisive though it doesn't change the truthiness (or falseness) of the subject. Where Musk and Greenwald are often divisive they are not the only voices calling out the supreme court authoritarianism in Brazil. The acts and postures of the ministers are enough evidence.

lobocinza 3y ago

The interlocutor doesn't matter. You shouldn't trust anyone as a general rule and you don't need to trust Musk or Gleenwald as they are not the only ones talking about this. > The subject is Musk. You tried to make it so but the subject is authoritarianism in Brazil.

unclebucknasty 3y ago
>The interlocutor doesn't matter Of course it matters. And, there is roughly a 0% chance that anyone who is at least semi-cogent, including you, operates in the real world with the belief that it doesn't. That would be highly inadvisable, unless one enjoys being a persistent rube. >You tried to make it so The story is about Musk's and Greenwald's takes on authoritariansim in Brazil. The OP asked how it could be considered divisive. One obvious answer is that people are considering the source(s) and their histories. Whatever your personal feelings, two things are true: 1. People absolutely do consider the source 2. Musk and Greenwald are controversial figures with specific motives and ideologies that frequently cause rancor
- lobocinza 3y ago
  I realize your argument was that the story is divisive and I might've made an unnecessary rebuttal. Yes, the interlocutor can make a story divisive though it doesn't change the truthiness (or falseness) of the subject. Where Musk and Greenwald are often divisive they are not the only voices calling out the supreme court authoritarianism in Brazil. The acts and postures of the ministers are enough evidence.