Difference between revisions of "Woozle/2021/12/18"
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
Love the Corvette analogy. It’s reaching the point where I almost feel like we need a glossary. Lately we’ve seen that “Accountability” = “something bad happening to someone”, “outrage”= the opposite of “happiness”, & legitimate concern/criticism is being “mean”, or some other elementary construct. | Love the Corvette analogy. It’s reaching the point where I almost feel like we need a glossary. Lately we’ve seen that “Accountability” = “something bad happening to someone”, “outrage”= the opposite of “happiness”, & legitimate concern/criticism is being “mean”, or some other elementary construct. | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| + | From that, I added the "Glossary" section to [[Conservoid Discussion Rules]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Rosie then chimed in with something completely off-topic. I added this at the bottom of the thread: | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | I'm kind of feeling like it's time to start a list of people who don't seem to be interested in understanding how to meaningfully contribute to a discussion -- so that we can make it clear that if we don't respond to what they say, it's not because we don't have a response but because we don't think what they've said is worth responding to. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thoughts? My list for this article alone would be Randall, Mike M., and Rosie. | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Also, note the absolute hypocrisy of Rosie saying that I should stick to topics more and stop slinging insults, when her first comment was an insult and every other conservoid comment has been off-topic. | ||
Latest revision as of 14:01, 29 December 2021
About
This is a crosspost from Nextdoor of a post written by Meg C.
Meg's Post
Maybe some will finally be held accountable. $1.6B will hurt.
Fox News probably had enough information after the 2020 presidential election to know a conspiracy theory claiming Dominion Voting Systems Inc. rigged the contest was false, a judge said in denying the network’s request to dismiss a defamation lawsuit.
Delaware state court Judge Eric M. Davis on Thursday ruled Dominion had presented enough factual allegations against Fox for the $1.6 billion lawsuit to proceed.
“When Fox guests spread or reiterated disinformation about Dominion, Fox did not use the information Dominion provided to correct its guests or to reorient its viewers,” Davis wrote. “Instead, Fox and its personnel pressed their view that considerable evidence connected Dominion to an illegal election fraud conspiracy.”
Comments
A couple of conservoids said things like "Meg can always be counted on to post anything possible you see as anti Republican/Conservative", which is not an accurate characterization, and "Wow This is a propaganda push piece. I guess it made you democrats feel nice and warm and fuzzy thinking something is being done to fox."
My response:
Fascinating... the pattern seems startlingly clear here.
The conservoid response to information that disagrees with what they've been told to believe is to disparage it in some way. Dismiss it. Discredit the messenger, ascribe venal motives to the source. Fake news.
They don't seem to have the least bit of interest in looking at what was actually said -- not even *understanding* it enough to try to *counter* it. The facts don't matter.
They don't want to know that the shiny Corvette they think they bought is actually a piece of junk under the hood. It would be too embarrassing, I guess?
And even when all the fake Corvettes are clearly falling apart and won't run half the time, they'll band together in solidarity with their fake-Corvette-owning friends and neighbors to pretend that *they* still have the best cars, the greatest ever, so they can keep feeling okay about their purchase.
As an anti-authoritarian, this mindset just baffles me... but I guess it's super-strong in some people.
I'm not sure how we can maintain a democracy when so many of its members are basically emotional toddlers.
Jane responded:
Love the Corvette analogy. It’s reaching the point where I almost feel like we need a glossary. Lately we’ve seen that “Accountability” = “something bad happening to someone”, “outrage”= the opposite of “happiness”, & legitimate concern/criticism is being “mean”, or some other elementary construct.
From that, I added the "Glossary" section to Conservoid Discussion Rules.
Rosie then chimed in with something completely off-topic. I added this at the bottom of the thread:
I'm kind of feeling like it's time to start a list of people who don't seem to be interested in understanding how to meaningfully contribute to a discussion -- so that we can make it clear that if we don't respond to what they say, it's not because we don't have a response but because we don't think what they've said is worth responding to.
Thoughts? My list for this article alone would be Randall, Mike M., and Rosie.
Also, note the absolute hypocrisy of Rosie saying that I should stick to topics more and stop slinging insults, when her first comment was an insult and every other conservoid comment has been off-topic.