Looking at the comments here, even here in the Fediverse, it’s quite easy to understand how the US regime is possible despite its completely obvious depravity.
It’s “quite easy to understand” because that’s how the Dunning–Kruger effect works: the less you know, the more simplistic your understanding of a system, and the easier it is to confidently make bullshit claims and pretend you know what you’re talking about.
Yes, I’m simplistic when it comes to this: I wouldn’t accept being ruled by organized crime that covers up its heinous crimes by starting a war. But hey, it’s nice that you know the names of two renowned psychologists.
it’s nice that you know the names of two renowned psychologists.
The painfully unearned smarm almost masks the way you have no idea how any of this works and just want to manufacture a reason to be mad at the NYT’s coverage of the Middle East – coverage that already has a million provable things to be mad at (of which that link is just a small sample). You’re trying to perform alchemy in a fucking gold mine, and it’s baffling.
Please explain it to me. And by that I don’t mean a general explanation of how journalism works, because I probably know a whole lot more about that than you do, but an explanation of why you believe that the US, together with Israel, should not be held responsible for the murder of innocent children. And then I would also like to know what your motivation is for defending the current US regime, because I don’t understand it.
“Please explain it to me. Not the actual thing we’re talking about, because I actually don’t care to consider why I might be wrong, but about this batshit strawman argument I created.”
Checking off all the boxes. If you want to talk to someone who’s whatever you tell them they are, then fuck off to ChatGPT, you clown.
So, to recap, this thread started with a passive-aggressive accusation, you backed it up with another passive-aggressive comment, somebody responded to you, and then you got mad at them for being angry about the wrong thing (without, y’know, actually saying what they should be mad about!)
Why not just state your opinion? Why all this beating around the bush?
We don’t need to manufacture grievance to criticize our government and institutions. In fact, it weakens our case when we do so.
The top comment outlines some very reasonable explanations for the difference in phrasing between the two headlines. If you’re always assuming the worst possible motivations, people aren’t going to take you seriously.
I’m sure the newspaper that cheerleaded us into the Iraq war and is owned by a board of billionaires is following only the strictest code of ethics when it comes to reporting on American warmongering.
Right?! It’s so uncivil and making unfair assumptions to point out that the newspaper with a history of war hawking and downplaying fascism dating literally back to Hitler isn’t trustworthy on the subject of war and fascism 😢
The idea that somebody else might not take the same, obviously bad faith interpretation of a pair of headlines worked you up into that much of a lather?
I have given up hope that the US population can be counted on. They have allowed too many atrocities to happen, and it is equally obvious that they will not even act for their own sake.
I simply do not accept arguments such as “there is no evidence,” because only the worst can be expected from the US - the evidence is the president who leads the US.
Looking at the comments here, even here in the Fediverse, it’s quite easy to understand how the US regime is possible despite its completely obvious depravity.
It’s “quite easy to understand” because that’s how the Dunning–Kruger effect works: the less you know, the more simplistic your understanding of a system, and the easier it is to confidently make bullshit claims and pretend you know what you’re talking about.
Yes, I’m simplistic when it comes to this: I wouldn’t accept being ruled by organized crime that covers up its heinous crimes by starting a war. But hey, it’s nice that you know the names of two renowned psychologists.
The painfully unearned smarm almost masks the way you have no idea how any of this works and just want to manufacture a reason to be mad at the NYT’s coverage of the Middle East – coverage that already has a million provable things to be mad at (of which that link is just a small sample). You’re trying to perform alchemy in a fucking gold mine, and it’s baffling.
Please explain it to me. And by that I don’t mean a general explanation of how journalism works, because I probably know a whole lot more about that than you do, but an explanation of why you believe that the US, together with Israel, should not be held responsible for the murder of innocent children. And then I would also like to know what your motivation is for defending the current US regime, because I don’t understand it.
“Please explain it to me. Not the actual thing we’re talking about, because I actually don’t care to consider why I might be wrong, but about this batshit strawman argument I created.”
Checking off all the boxes. If you want to talk to someone who’s whatever you tell them they are, then fuck off to ChatGPT, you clown.
So, to recap, this thread started with a passive-aggressive accusation, you backed it up with another passive-aggressive comment, somebody responded to you, and then you got mad at them for being angry about the wrong thing (without, y’know, actually saying what they should be mad about!)
Why not just state your opinion? Why all this beating around the bush?
We don’t need to manufacture grievance to criticize our government and institutions. In fact, it weakens our case when we do so.
The top comment outlines some very reasonable explanations for the difference in phrasing between the two headlines. If you’re always assuming the worst possible motivations, people aren’t going to take you seriously.
I’m sure the newspaper that cheerleaded us into the Iraq war and is owned by a board of billionaires is following only the strictest code of ethics when it comes to reporting on American warmongering.
Oh you did it again! You assumed the worst possible motivations!
Waaaaahhhhh! Just because it’s true! Waaaaahhhhhhh
Right?! It’s so uncivil and making unfair assumptions to point out that the newspaper with a history of war hawking and downplaying fascism dating literally back to Hitler isn’t trustworthy on the subject of war and fascism 😢
The poor innocent independent newspaper that promoted illegal wars before, look they said they changed. Just don’t ask if it was for the better.
When it comes to corporate news sewers, you’re barking in the wrong toilet.
You’re talking about motivations? Seriously? These mother fuckers have done so much worse than this and it’s us that shouldn’t be taken seriously?
Why don’t you crawl up that ass of yours a little more.
What case? When have you cowards have held your government responsible for any of unprovoked attacks, invasion, regime changes, massacre abroad?
That boot must taste really good, huh?
The idea that somebody else might not take the same, obviously bad faith interpretation of a pair of headlines worked you up into that much of a lather?
said as if the government has ever been held accountable…
apologists are never taken seriously
I have given up hope that the US population can be counted on. They have allowed too many atrocities to happen, and it is equally obvious that they will not even act for their own sake.
I simply do not accept arguments such as “there is no evidence,” because only the worst can be expected from the US - the evidence is the president who leads the US.
What are you doing to stop fascism in your country?
I vote and regularly attend protests, but lately I’ve also been pointing out to people on social media that whataboutism is not very effective.
Says the person who screams and insults, “Do something!” all while probably not even a US citizen and gives no advice.
How dare you run defense for the imperialist americans?