 |
| Image via Seen2. |
So somebody this morning got pissed off by something I tweeted last night, when—though I usually try not to engage at all with the Steinsters—I sort of couldn't help myself:
.@GreenPartyUS @PoliticallyLib @DrJillStein Yes you should absolutely use a photograph as an argument instead of complex facts— (((Yastreblyansky))) (@Yastreblyansky) September 25, 2016
@PoliticallyLib @GreenPartyUS @DrJillStein Sorry, that's the simple Breitbart lie made stupider than the original https://t.co/VwmPU9FmyA— (((Yastreblyansky))) (@Yastreblyansky) September 25, 2016
I'll spare you the next six items, where I outlined the Politifact case that it wasn't anything like "all" the uranium rights, that Clinton had relatively little to do with the decision, and that there's no evidence Clinton Foundation donors had anything to do with it anyway, under the assumption (undoubtedly correct) that @PoliticallyLib would never click the link. In fact my interlocutor couldn't even read my responses, or at least respond to them:
— (((Yastreblyansky))) (@Yastreblyansky) September 25, 2016
But they sent in some reinforcements:
@GeeOhPees2 @PoliticallyLib @GreenPartyUS @DrJillStein Well, it's the Times, so if you read beyond graf 10 or so you start seeing the facts— (((Yastreblyansky))) (@Yastreblyansky) September 25, 2016
@GeeOhPees2 @PoliticallyLib @GreenPartyUS @DrJillStein but the headline and initial grafs badly distort the story in a rightwing direction— (((Yastreblyansky))) (@Yastreblyansky) September 25, 2016
@GeeOhPees2 @PoliticallyLib @GreenPartyUS @DrJillStein and yes NYT really shows bias in Clinton Foundation coverage https://t.co/79jZuSdeNl— (((Yastreblyansky))) (@Yastreblyansky) September 25, 2016
The interesting point here is that it's all about branding. @GeeOhPees2 (cute how this person, "People over Party", can't even bother to hide his or her Republican origins) didn't regard the Times story as evidence of whether the allegations were true or not, but as something I was obliged to accept, because I obviously accept whatever appears in the Times, because:
@GeeOhPees2 @PoliticallyLib @GreenPartyUS @DrJillStein Editorial is rigorously separate from newsgathering.— (((Yastreblyansky))) (@Yastreblyansky) September 25, 2016
@GeeOhPees2 @PoliticallyLib @GreenPartyUS @DrJillStein And the Times is a very complex place. Clinton coverage is certainly biased though— (((Yastreblyansky))) (@Yastreblyansky) September 25, 2016
— (((Yastreblyansky))) (@Yastreblyansky) September 25, 2016
@GeeOhPees2 @PoliticallyLib @GreenPartyUS I'll bet @DrJillStein doesn't think much of the way she's been covered by NYT either— (((Yastreblyansky))) (@Yastreblyansky) September 25, 2016
@GeeOhPees2 @PoliticallyLib @GreenPartyUS @DrJillStein it's the reporting of electoral politics all around where they're really terrible— (((Yastreblyansky))) (@Yastreblyansky) September 25, 2016
@GeeOhPees2 @PoliticallyLib @GreenPartyUS @DrJillStein Also they're not biased against particular candidates as much as...— (((Yastreblyansky))) (@Yastreblyansky) September 25, 2016
@GeeOhPees2 @PoliticallyLib @GreenPartyUS @DrJillStein ... in favor of drama and "both sides do it"--excitement and clicks— (((Yastreblyansky))) (@Yastreblyansky) September 25, 2016
@Yastreblyansky @PoliticallyLib @GreenPartyUS @DrJillStein I'd never vote for Hillary myself because she doesn't represent me.— People Over Party! (@GeeOhPees2) September 25, 2016
Oh well, aren't you special.
You can stand the prospect of a Supreme Court gutting what voting rights and abortion rights and affirmative action programs we still have left and the end to regulation of campaign finance and marriage equality and the progressive income tax and the federal minimum wage and the right of workers to organize and the turn to renewable energy and "bomb the shit out of them" and "take all the oil" but you can't stand the prospect of voting for somebody who "doesn't represent" you like you like Pepsi and she's Coke, because voting is a self-actualizing consumer choice, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment