…“controversial opinion” are your characterization of the article, not mine. You’ve literally put words in my mouth then claimed that “I said something” that I didn’t.
I literally cited a definition of propaganda. It isn’t a new definition: its the accepted definition.
That editorial failed the normal editorial standards and shouldn’t have been published, and as a result of all of this Bennet is gone and the whole department is getting restructured. The New York Times became a mouthpiece for the administration. Thats a failure.
One of the definitions of citeis “to quote by way of example, authority, or proof”, and the example given by the Merriam Webster is “cites several noteworthy authors”, which was exactly what I did.
There was nothing incorrect about what I wrote.
This has nothing to do with “popular opinion.” They pitched the article. The article failed their editorial standards, it wasn’t read by the chief editor of the editorial page prior to publication, this isn’t the first time that Bennett had fucked up.
At least I’m not a liar.
Give me a fucking break. You’ve had to resort to either ignoring what I’ve written or lying about it. I know what I’m talking about.
I agree. This was fascist shit spewed by a raging asshole who should keep quiet.
The Times, like every other so called “news”, decides on a constant basis, what to publish or not publish. They could have and should have decided to not give that asshole yet another megaphone.
“News” papers, “news” TV, cable “news”, and social media )and I use the word “news” very loosely) have given these Republican right wing theocratic fascistic lying creeps far to much leeway. When they “interview” they lob slow fat softball questions. They feed into the lies or ignore them. Or PEDDLE them. They don’t even bother to fact check or distribute an REAL rebuttals.
All along since the day Trump announced he was running for President, they have given him and his flunkies free coverage, “editorialized” his alibis for him and them, and spread the lies.
Damn right they could and should refuse to spread that garbage.
As opposed to letting the fascists do so? Because that’s what being “neutral” is; lying and deceiving in order to support the fascists. And if they win, they certainly aren’t going to engage in any hand-ringing over the morality of suppressing their opponents.
I’m not a New York Times editor, so it’s not up to me, but as a citizen, it’s absolutely up to me to be vocal about which messages should be amplified, and which ones shouldn’t be. And it’s up to me and others to condemn the Times when they amplify messages that are harmful.
Tom Cotton literally wants to send in the military to suppress free speech in this country. Should I feel bad for him if his speech is not amplified? I’m playing the world’s tiniest violin in sympathy. :rolleyes:
If any of this is true, it’s because you’re an amoral asshole, not a witty opponent. Your tactics are the verbal equivalent of the George Floyd challenge.
And hey, your opinion is your opinion . . . but you’re still losing, right?
Maybe if you put as much thought into how to actually solve the problems as you do in how the people who create the problems are horrible, horrible creatures, you might stand a better shot in November. Even if it is November 2024.
To the extent that those views have been more widely revealed by the NYT Op-ed, do you still think he should have been denied the opportunity to air them and face subsequent publicized opprobrium? Net-net, has this led to a largely positive or largely negative outcome for Cotton and his views?
No. I think we’re losing. I think we’re stupid, distracted, unrealistic idiots without a real plan or a real candidate for 2020. I think we are intellectually dishonest, short-sighted reactionaries who can’t see the train until it’s three inches in front of our face. I think our debating skills are weak and that our focus is weaker. I think we have consistently mischaracterized and underestimated our enemies and disowned our allies over petty, nitpicking semantics and intellectual differences. I think we have muddled the difference between easily identifiable issues that we could come together and work on for short-term results with systematic problems which have plagued this nation since its inception and will take years if not decades of concentrated effort to root out and have no realistic short-term solution. I think we have given ourselves up to sophistry, hyperbole, and emotion over reason, and I think that this has cost us whatever chances we had (and we did have them), to beat the bad guys.
I think we have played into our opponents’ hands, taken their bait, let them frame the issues while we react instead of respond, danced to their music, and squandered our chance to make any sort of difference in 2020.
The problem with that, Chingon, is that I’m a Democrat.
Hardly; that’s how Hillary lost. Too much focus on how to solve problems, not much focus on treating the Republicans like the implacable and utterly unprincipled enemies of humanity and the American people that they are. Or on how corrupt and broken the system is.
The Democrats keep trying to play chess against an axe murderer and getting an axe to the face for their troubles.
Actually, this is a message board, pretty much the opposite of reality, but knock yourself out, and perhaps you’ve been concentrating on Trump, but Biden kind of sucks too, and yes, I’m a passenger clutching a barf bag during turbulence . . . over the middle of the Pacific Ocean with three engines on fire and the fourth engine making the good ol’ community college try.
What you seem to be missing, Chingon, is that Bernie’s campaign has serious problems. It’s not going to be even close to a shoo-in.