|
Re: icymi above
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ty, if you want to see “narrative creation” and “fact shading,” this is it. This is a perfect MSNBC/Fox talking point. (Just reverse it for Fox.)
Now, academia being littered at least 5:1 with liberal and progressive idiots versus conservative idiots, the example cited is cherry picked to make a point suiting the speaker’s incorrigible bias. Harvard of course has some conservative morons, but does anyone doubt the # of conservative morons is significantly higher?
And yet they are cited, transparently, as though they’re the majority of idiots. Nevermind the armies of liberal idiots at Harvard (or any decent school) who dwarf them.
This is j.v. shit, and I’m slumming to flag it. But this is “narrative creaton.” Fox-style anti-factual narrative creation.
There’s no false equivalence. What GGG did is only transparent if your IQ gets to triple digits. That’s a thin slice of Fox’s demographic. So Fox is far more blunt and embarrassing in the way it does this same thing, as the bar for getting away with it is incredibly low. But it’s all on the same continuum of bullshit.
|
From what I know, GGG is not making this up out of whole cloth.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
