Good demonstration of the idea. You dismissed it without even addressing it, just by attacking the source! Great distraction method. Good ad-hominem on the fly.
A+ work, citizen! You will get a gold star on the camp's board!
Calling into question the credibility of a source is basic media literacy, though. An author comfortable associating themselves with a known fascist platform should be treated with extreme skepticism. The lib position is to ignore the credibility of the source in favor of the content on it's own - behavior you see all the time with articles from NYT, BBC, WAPO, TimesOfIsrael, etc...
This time someone did it to a source/take you happen to agree with, which doesn't make it bad for them to have done.
And if Ben Shapiro had posted the same thing, the meaning would fundementally change.
Calling out the source's potential biases is a good thing to do - if the initial commenter's sensitivity to context is higher than your own that's their choice, but it's not wrong for them to have that sensitivity or be vocal in expressing it, any more than it's wrong for you to have done so here, or for the OP on Twitter to have posted this in the first place.
The lib position is to ignore the credibility of the source in favor of the content on it's own
That's what they do with content they like. When they don't like it they do exact as Teslekova said. How they treat with information from Al Jazeera is also a good example of this.
The short of it, is believe in having a power structure with in groups and out groups. Groups the law binds but does not protect with groups the law protects but does not bind. Treating anyone as part of the out group as second class at best.
Operationally? The ones the New York Times pretends to support the aims of while burying you in an avalanche of imaginary horrible consequences and insisting on some delay (more research, popular consensus) before actually doing anything that would change the status quo.
An authentically liberatory movement that isn't just larp or mere ideas on the internet (something that hasn't existed for at least 40 years) wouldn't give a shit about NYT
Liberals are inherently more capable of self-doubt. They tend to question details and seek ethical purity, which can make it hard for them to agree on anything, frustrating their own causes. Conservatives more easily accept a "my party right or wrong" mentality that strengthens their causes.
I see posts from X.com as roughly the same as posts on TruthSocial.
Anyone posting on X.com isn't a serious person. .
Yeah, I genuinely don't see how you can feel comfortable on that site as anyone who's not a straight up Musk fan
Good demonstration of the idea. You dismissed it without even addressing it, just by attacking the source! Great distraction method. Good ad-hominem on the fly.
A+ work, citizen! You will get a gold star on the camp's board!
Calling into question the credibility of a source is basic media literacy, though. An author comfortable associating themselves with a known fascist platform should be treated with extreme skepticism. The lib position is to ignore the credibility of the source in favor of the content on it's own - behavior you see all the time with articles from NYT, BBC, WAPO, TimesOfIsrael, etc...
This time someone did it to a source/take you happen to agree with, which doesn't make it bad for them to have done.
This post isn't a source of information. It's just somebody's opinion. We either agree with it or we don't.
And if Ben Shapiro had posted the same thing, the meaning would fundementally change.
Calling out the source's potential biases is a good thing to do - if the initial commenter's sensitivity to context is higher than your own that's their choice, but it's not wrong for them to have that sensitivity or be vocal in expressing it, any more than it's wrong for you to have done so here, or for the OP on Twitter to have posted this in the first place.
That's what they do with content they like. When they don't like it they do exact as Teslekova said. How they treat with information from Al Jazeera is also a good example of this.
Thank you!
How would you define a conservative?
billionare cum drinker?
That is the real one 👍
The short of it, is believe in having a power structure with in groups and out groups. Groups the law binds but does not protect with groups the law protects but does not bind. Treating anyone as part of the out group as second class at best.
That's called "class society."
I think there's a spectrum based on favorite paradox game.
Stellaris btw
Liberalism is just another way of holding power
Something something white moderate.
Ya, say that to Malcom X.
I don't like putting words in historical figures' mouths, but there's a good chance Malcolm X would've been calling for the bullet if he lived today.
Yes. We white moderates should stand with our allies of color in calling for slow measured change! I have a dream Hallelujah and Amen!
That's the right guy right? I can't tell those fucking people apart. Damn commies.
White Liberals
What authentically liberatory movements lmao
Operationally? The ones the New York Times pretends to support the aims of while burying you in an avalanche of imaginary horrible consequences and insisting on some delay (more research, popular consensus) before actually doing anything that would change the status quo.
An authentically liberatory movement that isn't just larp or mere ideas on the internet (something that hasn't existed for at least 40 years) wouldn't give a shit about NYT
is this a direct quote from the Protocols of Zion?
Liberals are inherently more capable of self-doubt. They tend to question details and seek ethical purity, which can make it hard for them to agree on anything, frustrating their own causes. Conservatives more easily accept a "my party right or wrong" mentality that strengthens their causes.
Well, at least most of those words are actually words. Even if he doesn't actually know how to put them into an order that isn't absolute gibberish.
Yeah! In fact it doesn't look like anything at all!