Good demonstration of the idea. You dismissed it without even addressing it, just by attacking the source! Great distraction method. Good ad-hominem on the fly.
A+ work, citizen! You will get a gold star on the camp’s board!
Calling into question the credibility of a source is basic media literacy, though. An author comfortable associating themselves with a known fascist platform should be treated with extreme skepticism. The lib position is to ignore the credibility of the source in favor of the content on it’s own - behavior you see all the time with articles from NYT, BBC, WAPO, TimesOfIsrael, etc…
This time someone did it to a source/take you happen to agree with, which doesn’t make it bad for them to have done.
And if Ben Shapiro had posted the same thing, the meaning would fundementally change.
Calling out the source’s potential biases is a good thing to do - if the initial commenter’s sensitivity to context is higher than your own that’s their choice, but it’s not wrong for them to have that sensitivity or be vocal in expressing it, any more than it’s wrong for you to have done so here, or for the OP on Twitter to have posted this in the first place.
The lib position is to ignore the credibility of the source in favor of the content on it’s own
That’s what they do with content they like. When they don’t like it they do exact as Teslekova said. How they treat with information from Al Jazeera is also a good example of this.
Good demonstration of the idea. You dismissed it without even addressing it, just by attacking the source! Great distraction method. Good ad-hominem on the fly.
A+ work, citizen! You will get a gold star on the camp’s board!
Calling into question the credibility of a source is basic media literacy, though. An author comfortable associating themselves with a known fascist platform should be treated with extreme skepticism. The lib position is to ignore the credibility of the source in favor of the content on it’s own - behavior you see all the time with articles from NYT, BBC, WAPO, TimesOfIsrael, etc…
This time someone did it to a source/take you happen to agree with, which doesn’t make it bad for them to have done.
This post isn’t a source of information. It’s just somebody’s opinion. We either agree with it or we don’t.
And if Ben Shapiro had posted the same thing, the meaning would fundementally change.
Calling out the source’s potential biases is a good thing to do - if the initial commenter’s sensitivity to context is higher than your own that’s their choice, but it’s not wrong for them to have that sensitivity or be vocal in expressing it, any more than it’s wrong for you to have done so here, or for the OP on Twitter to have posted this in the first place.
That’s what they do with content they like. When they don’t like it they do exact as Teslekova said. How they treat with information from Al Jazeera is also a good example of this.