Share Funny Videos, Images, Memes, Quotes and more

3305 readers

4 users here now

#funny

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

laurabrown00@lemmy.ml

testman@lemmy.ml

136

The liberal mind cannot comprehend the concept of planning (europe.pub)

submitted 3 weeks ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/funny@lemmy.ml

85 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I literally addressed what you said point by point, and explained why the article is biased with specific examples of what neutral prose looks like. It's very telling that you ignored all that. Entire books have been written on how this type of language manipulation is done, you might want to read one sometime to understand the subject you're attempting to debate here. https://transition-news.org/IMG/pdf/inventing_reality_the_politics_of_the_mass_media_by_michael_parenti_z-lib.org_.pdf

[+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Your standard for neutral prose is razor thin and highly paranoid. It is neither accurate, nor productive.

And you literally ignored most of what I said.

Even on the first skim I noticed you ignored the distinction I addressed between Manner Video (I had no idea what that was and the explanation was useful) and Chongqing Morning Post (everyone knows what [Cityname] Morning Post is, there are probably thousands of newspapers around the world with the same basic name, it doesn't need to be explained). The rest is just as bad.

Just read what I wrote, read what the author wrote. Don't ignore substance to bolster desperation. There are too many legitimate problems to get conspiratorial about this fluff piece. It cheapens the legitimacy of your platform.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 12 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's pretty obvious that you're just going to keep doubling down here no matter what I say. There's no rational conversation possible here.

Oh and you noticed the distinction you made and I ignored it. Good catch. Let me address it head on.

You say Manner Video needed an explanation because you had no idea what it was. But that is exactly my point. The article explicitly labels it as "a Chinese digital video production company" while not labeling Chongqing Morning Post at all. The asymmetry is what I was highlighting, but evidently that was too complex for you to follow. You are proving my argument by saying the label was useful to you. It was useful because it reminded you this is a Chinese source and that subtly signals this may need a grain of salt. If the article added "a Chinese state affiliated newspaper" after Chongqing Morning Post you would probably also find that useful but also slightly loaded. The point is that selective labeling guides the reader's trust.

You say "everyone knows what Cityname Morning Post is." Do they really? Your average western reader has no idea if Chongqing Morning Post is a state mouthpiece or a tabloid or a respected local paper. But the article trusts the reader to fill that in. Meanwhile Manner Video gets a clear descriptive tag. That is the author deciding which source needs a credibility anchor and which one can stand on its own.

Also I love that you said "the rest is just as bad" without actually engaging with the specific words I quoted after accusing me of not engaging with your drivel. If my analysis was so off you could have just said "so say does not sound skeptical to me" or "seemingly is a perfectly neutral word". But instead you waved your hand at the whole thing.

So to summarize. You needed the label for Manner Video. The label exists. The other source does not get a label. That asymmetry is the bias. You confirming you needed it confirms my original point.

Just read what I wrote, read what the author wrote. Don’t ignore substance to make vapid comments. Get offline and go read a book, maybe you'll learn something.

[+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If my analysis was so off you could have just said "so say does not sound skeptical to me" or "seemingly is a perfectly neutral word

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you have a razor thin standard in your head. I did say both of those things, but because I didn't use the exact phrasing you imagine in your head, you can't recognize it. Kinda like how koalas can't recognize eucalyptus leaves sitting on a table.

You need to recognize that the world doesn't live inside your head. Strangers don't know the exact wording that will activate your neurons. When you learn to interact with slightly different perspectives and utilize context clues and critical thinking to parse the things other people say, you will become a much more persuasive and competing debater.

But right now, you come off like a koala that can't recognize eucalyptus leaves because they aren't on the branch.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Let me get this straight. You called me out for ignoring a distinction you made, and I quoted your exact words to show I did not ignore them, I just disagreed with your infantile framing of them. And now your response is that I have a "razor thin standard" and that I cannot recognize arguments unless they use exact phrasing. But you literally just complained that I did not address a specific point you made. So which is it? Do I need to address your exact words or do I need to read between the lines like a psychic?

Also the koala metaphor is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. You are comparing me to an animal that cannot recognize food sitting right in front of it. But the entire conversation has been me pointing to specific words on the screen and you saying you are reading too much into it. If anyone is missing what is right in front of them, it is the person who thinks "so say" is neutral phrasing and "crazily dense tangle" is a compliment.

And competing debater? That is not a thing. The word is competent. Irony levels are off the charts here. 🤣

But please. Keep calling me a koala. It really sells the I have run out of actual arguments energy.