What do you think my position on this is? How do you know what the CNN reporters position was is was just put out there as a tweet and in the article it said that the comment was said in jest and the person who it was said to thought it was funny. How do you get they thought it was wrong from that? My argument is not that people get upset and nothing changes, my argument is that I wish CNN would not tweet out stuff to provoke outrage, I have no issue with them reporting the story but the title of the tweet was to create outrage. I mean if you like that kind of clickbait journalism more power to you but I do not. Once again what do you think my position is?
I don't know why you seem so interested in what I think your position is... but since you ask, I literally included that in the response you quoted/responded to... You keep complaining that the reporter tweeted what happened. The CNN reporter tweeted what the senator did. That's called... reporting. You needed the reporter to then explain what was wrong with what the senator did? Seriously? And that changes the the role of the reporter to "political commentator" and the report into an op-ed. I am not so certain you want or need every reporter to become a political commentator or tweet out op-eds. "Clickbait" is a loaded term, much like "outrage mob". Pretty soon you will start saying "fake news". Again, the tweet reported what happened. You can call that "clickbait". I consider it reporting. But whatever, that's your value judgement. And btw... tweets usually don't have titles. Articles often do. Here's the tweet again:
My position is that CNN should not be using tweets that don't tell the entire story to invoke outrage but the way you have defended this it shows they have a ready audience. The reporter tweeted out on specific part of what happened in the hearing, that's called instigating. You know its ok to have a different opinion on something and not resort to trying to label me as something as I am not, I knew you would take my criticism of CNN personally and that's why I said it was not about you but even then you went zero to 60. Some people just love to be in a constant state of turmoil, sigh. The fact that we agree on 90% of things on here yet because we disagree on this I am know somebody who is gonna start saying fake news? Really?
Actually, I don't think I have been the one in "turmoil" in this debate. I didn't use loaded words like "outrage mob" and "clickbait journalism" and most oddly "mansplaining". Nor have I defended CNN, just explained what the reporter tweeted and why *I* found what the senator did offensive and sexist (which I believe is expressing *my* opinion).
Strong enough to remove all kinds of checks on the extremists within the party itself. Lies, corruption, sex trafficking, drug use... none of that is as important as canceling Liz Cheney. This party has removed all resemblance of normalcy and has allowed the extremists to take over. Transformation is almost complete now. The pace of unhindered transformation to extremism looks strong but in fact, it's a party being rejected by Americans and they cannot survive if they continue down this path unless they succeed in destroying democracy first.
Actually, it's the GOP who doesn't. They are too cowardly to stand up to that lying loser who lost the election and call him out. Even now he has them all by the balls. It's disturbing, sad, and pathetic.
So now outrage mob and clickbait journalism is a loaded word and somehow I am in the wrong for using them? But yet you don't see how loaded that tweet from CNN was? You were mansplaining because for some reason you thought I did not know what was wrong with what he said. This is why we can't have nice things because for some reason I can't have an opinion on what I thought CNN was doing. I had no problem with your opinion but for some reason me talking about CNN made you feel some kind of way. This was never about if what the senator did was wrong or right but you took it there.
Um, yea, "outrage mob" and "clickbait journalism" are loaded terms. Just like "woke" is a loaded term. Whether you are wrong to use them is up to you and those that read your posts. And you are free to have any opinion you want about CNN or anything else. You seemed much more judgmental (eg "outrage mob and clickbait). Interesting you keep using the phrase "mansplaining" in a discussion about a male senator saying something inappropriate/offensive/sexist to a woman cabinet nominee. You do know what "mansplaining" means? And all I did was remind you that microaggressions are often minor instances of sexist remarks. So again, you are welcome to have any opinion of CNN. And express those opinions here on D&D. I wasn't defending CNN but expressing my opinion about the reporters tweet. which again, here's the wording causing you distress... Seems like a pretty straightfoward reporting of what happened.
It's a mixed bag really, but I'd agree that too many in the leadership positions and on the moderate end of things are rather lacking in testicular fortitude.
