If you got something other than a feeling in response to this, I’m all ears:
He said things don’t change. Progressives try to change things. If progressives want to change things and he’s saying things don’t change, he’s saying progressives must always fail.
Right, I got that wrong last time too. Allow me to revise.
They said “things will not change”. If progressives want things to change, but things will not change, then they are saying the progressives must fail.
True or false?
edit: If anyone actually got this far, I think this thread was raided by conservatives pretending to be liberals. That actually happens a fair bit, though not usually in places this small. They’re just bored people hanging out on the internet somewhere, and someone makes a post going “hey guys, let’s all go fuck with link”. Used to happen all the time at 4chan, probably still does. And there’s discords and shit that can coordinate crap like this when they’re in the mood.
Could also be properly organized shills, but I’d think they’d have better places to be.
I can’t find any other explanation for the sheer amount of trolliness I’m receiving. A bunch of people elsewhere are trying to pretend I’m defending Murdoch somehow.
What the person I was replying to said, was a hopeless perspective that you consistently hear. It does nothing but de-motivate people. They could have said “Fox” will not change. But I’m real sick of hearing that things will not change when they very, very clearly will. Will Fox improve in the short-term? No, of course not. Will Fox News eventually change? It would be impossible not to.
Saying “things will not change”, under virtually any circumstances, is objectively false, actively harmful and completely pointless. My apologies for hating it, but I won’t back down from this position.
I can’t find any other explanation for the sheer amount of trolliness I’m receiving.
Have you tried looking inward?
Hell you don’t even have to look inwards. I told you right here in this thread why people are taking issue with you. It was actually meant to be constructive. But you dismissed it as “feelings”.
I didn’t really see anything constructive or that I could use in it. I can’t control how other people see me, and I can’t predict how my words will be received. All I know is those four words were wrong. At every level. So I called it out, and I said why I felt that way.
This is the internet, mistakes in communication are extremely frequent due to nonverbal cues all being missing. I can tell you with certainty that I was expecting that to be fairly controversial, but also to be overall upvoted as opposed to down-voted. I’m actually pretty fucking disappointed people aren’t understanding what I’m trying to say, because it’s pretty important. Hence why I suspect a raid.
Folks around here are usually more willing to engage with nuance and a calm, polite analysis of the specifics of something.
If you got something other than a feeling in response to this, I’m all ears:
He said things don’t change. Progressives try to change things. If progressives want to change things and he’s saying things don’t change, he’s saying progressives must always fail.
True or false?
They literally did not.
In this situation, they don’t expect a change.
As I, and everyone else, have been saying: You are tilting at windmills.
Right, I got that wrong last time too. Allow me to revise.
They said “things will not change”. If progressives want things to change, but things will not change, then they are saying the progressives must fail.
True or false?
edit: If anyone actually got this far, I think this thread was raided by conservatives pretending to be liberals. That actually happens a fair bit, though not usually in places this small. They’re just bored people hanging out on the internet somewhere, and someone makes a post going “hey guys, let’s all go fuck with link”. Used to happen all the time at 4chan, probably still does. And there’s discords and shit that can coordinate crap like this when they’re in the mood.
Could also be properly organized shills, but I’d think they’d have better places to be.
… what are you even on about?
They don’t expect a change in this case. You’re trying really hard to stretch those words into something entirely different.
C’mon now. Be serious.
I can’t find any other explanation for the sheer amount of trolliness I’m receiving. A bunch of people elsewhere are trying to pretend I’m defending Murdoch somehow.
What the person I was replying to said, was a hopeless perspective that you consistently hear. It does nothing but de-motivate people. They could have said “Fox” will not change. But I’m real sick of hearing that things will not change when they very, very clearly will. Will Fox improve in the short-term? No, of course not. Will Fox News eventually change? It would be impossible not to.
Saying “things will not change”, under virtually any circumstances, is objectively false, actively harmful and completely pointless. My apologies for hating it, but I won’t back down from this position.
Have you tried looking inward?
Hell you don’t even have to look inwards. I told you right here in this thread why people are taking issue with you. It was actually meant to be constructive. But you dismissed it as “feelings”.
I didn’t really see anything constructive or that I could use in it. I can’t control how other people see me, and I can’t predict how my words will be received. All I know is those four words were wrong. At every level. So I called it out, and I said why I felt that way.
Predicting how your words will be received by an audience is a core skill in communication, and one that can be practiced.
Constructive enough for you?
This is the internet, mistakes in communication are extremely frequent due to nonverbal cues all being missing. I can tell you with certainty that I was expecting that to be fairly controversial, but also to be overall upvoted as opposed to down-voted. I’m actually pretty fucking disappointed people aren’t understanding what I’m trying to say, because it’s pretty important. Hence why I suspect a raid.
Folks around here are usually more willing to engage with nuance and a calm, polite analysis of the specifics of something.