Super common thing I’m seeing recently among cons, complete dismissal of any article not from the right sources. You see how this makes you much easier to manipulate right? Read everything.
Read everything, but the moment it’s a commentary piece or there’s extremely unchecked bias, give it a toss and don’t recommend it to others you want to convince.
We don’t need fluff pieces, or people like this author claiming the speaker was making sex jokes about the “weeks on her knees” comment (still weird she wasn’t there, but it definitely didn’t sound sexual) when we have all the evidence and spin on those stories needed with the direct context.
If somebody posted OAN news, I’d say it’s trash and you shouldn’t get your news from there, Salon isn’t as bad but its definitely not good journalism.
However, in a sea of character flaws, the best the author can come up with is “incel energy” it’s a severe lack of talent on the author’s part. That speaks to the quality of Salon’s “writing.”
He doesn’t ignore, but rather acknowledges many of the other things that are bad about the guy, and backs those up with linked citations too.
And, he ties it all together at the end:
There are still many in the punditry who are confused about why Christian conservatives like Johnson glommed onto Trump, a thrice-married chronic adulterer who touches the Bible like it will burn him. But, of course, it was never really about Jesus. What Trump and the men who worship him share is anger that any woman would have the right to say no: To a date, to a marriage, to having your baby. It’s why Trump has a long history of sexual assault. And it’s why men like Johnson embrace a “religion” that is hyper-focused on caging women like they’re farm animals. And why they resent gay people for their perceived sexual adventures.
So I don’t know if it’s the “best” the author could come up with so much as what he chose to write about, but it seems like a reasonably coherent piece to me.
In any case though, your comment at least gave a concrete thing you disliked, so fair point! 🙂 The comment I replied to on the other hand…
I’m not a particular Salon fanboy, but we’re in a sub about politics so I expect to see some opinion pieces about politics.
Salon.com
Super common thing I’m seeing recently among cons, complete dismissal of any article not from the right sources. You see how this makes you much easier to manipulate right? Read everything.
Read everything, but the moment it’s a commentary piece or there’s extremely unchecked bias, give it a toss and don’t recommend it to others you want to convince.
We don’t need fluff pieces, or people like this author claiming the speaker was making sex jokes about the “weeks on her knees” comment (still weird she wasn’t there, but it definitely didn’t sound sexual) when we have all the evidence and spin on those stories needed with the direct context.
If somebody posted OAN news, I’d say it’s trash and you shouldn’t get your news from there, Salon isn’t as bad but its definitely not good journalism.
So much for attacking their ideas when you can just attack them for being them, I guess.
Did you have some particular disagreement with the content of the article?
Johnson is trash, there’s no disputing that.
However, in a sea of character flaws, the best the author can come up with is “incel energy” it’s a severe lack of talent on the author’s part. That speaks to the quality of Salon’s “writing.”
Well OK but,
And, he ties it all together at the end:
So I don’t know if it’s the “best” the author could come up with so much as what he chose to write about, but it seems like a reasonably coherent piece to me.
In any case though, your comment at least gave a concrete thing you disliked, so fair point! 🙂 The comment I replied to on the other hand…
I’m not a particular Salon fanboy, but we’re in a sub about politics so I expect to see some opinion pieces about politics.
That’s quite the opposite of an incel. That’s all I’m saying. If you’re going after the guy, use the right words.
Well, you are the best kind of correct, I must admit.