|
Deteriorata posted:Lots of people get really mad when told that the biased source they're quoting is just making up numbers to tell them what they want to hear. If you think the whole thing is a rigged game, maybe you shouldn't post here. Actual media analysis involves analyzing individual stories, not simply canonizing certain sources as unbiased and other sources as wrongthink. Let's take an example that's less contemporaneous (and ignore the weird libertarian milieu of old D&D): by the current Media Analysis thread standard, someone arguing that WMDs were a false pretext for invading Iraq would have been inherently arguing in bad faith, since reliable, trusted media sources (being fed information by a literal conspiracy of ex-military and government sources who were misrepresenting their agenda, though that wasn't known at the time) said it was likely true, and the expression of doubt were invariably from less mainstream sources. But I'm not just making an appeal to hindsight here, because at the time it was possible even through the fog of warmongering to pick apart the equivocation and lack of specific details from outlets like the New York Times. But again (NOTE TO MODERATORS AND IKS) doing things like drawing comparisons to the Gulf of Tonkin would have been, under this standard, shitposting and grounds for moderation. "Meet effort with effort" is never going to be (and probably shouldn't be) a completely equitable standard because there is, rightly so, a higher standard of effort to make an assertion the less mainstream it is. That makes sense (though of course I and others disagree with where the Overton window of D&D is right now). The problem is when someone makes a effortpost for something "outlandish" which is then met with glib dismissal. What usually happens then is the effortposter gets upset and will eventually break decorum, and be the only one to face discipline. It's like how school bullies are better at not drawing attention to themselves and get their victims punished for fighting back. It's not a great environment. e: Perhaps I'm being a bit too sarcastic here, but the "NOTE TO MODERATORS AND IKS" is from an actual post that was NOT made by a moderator, informing everyone that only sources that meet the standard established by the Media Literacy thread are valid. It did not result in a probation for backseat modding
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2021 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 07:25 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:No, go read the thread. I'll not post about it further here. If you have any questions, ask them there. Perhaps the relevant snippets should be posted in the rules thread; if the Media Analysis thread is to act as a de facto rules thread, it seems a bit onerous to expect everyone to read the whole thing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2021 03:15
|
|