- Fritz the Horse
- Dec 26, 2019
-
... of course!
|
It's bullshit that the Tara Reade accusations on the sitting president are forbidden discussion in the USPOL thread.
Yes it does turn into a lot of poo poo when it comes up, because people feel strongly about it. The solution there is to mod more on it, otherwise you're going to continue to have people bringing it up over and over because it's not being addressed.
Saying "this always causes a poo poo show" reeks of "this is just causing drama" which is what lots of orgs and groups do when people bring up injustice, be it, racial, gender, or sexual assault, in order to silence it.
And don't accuse me of brigading in from CSPAM I don't post there.
The president being an accused rapist is just as relevant for Biden as it was for Trump. Or Clinton. And you're telling SA victims how much they matter when you're banning discussion when it's about certain people.
edit: In case it's unclear why this is in the sourcing thread, this explicitly came up during discussion of whether RT was a relevant source, in USPol
I might suggest you try and apply the media criticism questions (just a couple posts back) to Reade's editorial in RT since this is after all a thread about discussing sources.
quote:Who created this?
Was it a company? Was it an individual? (If so, who?) Was it a comedian? Was it an artist? Was it an anonymous source? Why do you think that?
Why did they make it?
Was it to inform you of something that happened in the world (for example, a news story)? Was it to change your mind or behavior (an opinion essay or a how-to)? Was it to make you laugh (a funny meme)? Was it to get you to buy something (an ad)? Why do you think that?
Who is the message for?
People who share a particular interest? Why do you think that?
What techniques are being used to make this message credible or believable?
Does it have statistics from a reputable source? Does it contain quotes from a subject expert? Does it have an authoritative-sounding voice-over? Is there direct evidence of the assertions its making? Why do you think that?
What details were left out, and why?
Is the information balanced with different views -- or does it present only one side? Do you need more information to fully understand the message? Why do you think that?
How did the message make you feel?
Do you think others might feel the same way? Would everyone feel the same, or would certain people disagree with you? Why do you think that?
It's important to consider the outlet and context of the editorial and not just its content. What is RT? It's propaganda from the Kremlin. Why is RT publishing Reade's editorial? Who is the target audience? etc
edit: you seem to be talking about the substance of the Reade accusations and how discussion of that is handled in D&D, rather than RT as a source. Which is the purpose of this thread.
Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Feb 4, 2021
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2021 20:20
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 09:59
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2021 20:20
