Yeah, acting like you’re quoting but instead changing the words to what you want them to be makes it really hard to figure out what the fuck you’re saying.
Summary of the video: a cellphone video of the second strike. The Livestream feed showing smoke in the distance and then cutting off. A video from a camera person approaching the bombsite before getting hit in the second strike. A voice over detailing what happened, Israels statement, the Palestinian press association calling it an unacceptable act of terrorizing journalists attempting to report the truth, and the response from other relevant parties, like Reuters.
Well if you could explain why that’s not a nonsense bullshit position, sure. But you haven’t shown any interest in doing that. It shouldn’t be hard. Please, make literally any attempt. I’ll try my best to understand.
Do you mean trusting Reuters more than you? It has something to do with you overtly stating that you don’t know what you’re talking about and being opposed to factual reporting while Reuters has a reputation as a reliable news source. And I see that you went back and edited your comment to include you being uneducated and deleriously inebriated.
I’m not sure what other position you could be referring to, since I’ve explained things pretty clearly and repeatedly.
audience who consumes media in a way nobody consumes media these days
… Reading the article? Not getting their news from a screenshot of a tweet? If you need media outlets to not even reference in a headline someone you disagree with saying the murder was unintentional, you’re looking for propaganda.
I sought only to match that level of fucked
You thought to yourself “genocide and killing journalists is horrific, I better talk about raping kittens”? That’s even more bizarre than you being a child who thought it added dramatic flair.
Okay so you’re lying. Like, there’s cases where both sides, nut this really isn’t one
I’m actively at a loss for what you’re talking about here. I went back and I never talked about sides. The closest I came was trying to empathize with your viewpoint?
You list a pile of things that would be evidence for their motivation that weren’t reported on. Do you actually have any of those things? A recording of the pilot saying they were gonna go bomb some journalists would actually be evidence.
No one is taking their word for anything. Do you understand the difference between repeating what someone says and saying that they said it?
No. Thats “quoting”. I’m indicating qhqt im responding to, ideas, not full text, and on the assumption that anyone reading what i said has at least least skimmed upthread of here. Bad assumption, i guess
i fucked your mom
Oof, but no accounting for taste. Get checked, k?
edited
Before you saw, so not ‘going back’. I assume the down vote was you.
trusting reuters
You still can’t actually address my criticism and tell me why i should. Like, youve said literally nothing to actually engage with it. You’re just appealing to authority and reminding me how (i told you!) i suck as if i wasn’t aware. As if that produces some inherent trudtworthiness either generally elsewhere or specifically reuters. Which is just convincing me that im right and you have a boot in your mouth.
do you understand
Discourse and how human brains and perception and communication actually work literally at all? It doesn’t seem so.
What criticism? You’ve said that you don’t trust them because they don’t tell you how to feel. I’ve engaged with that notion the entire time. Maybe go back and read through things again. Oh, wait. I forgot you said that actually reading was not how people engage with media anymore.
Err…
reminding me how (i told you!) i suck as if i wasn’t aware
Hey, you asked. You saying you know nothing about the topic is a big motivation to not give you a lot of credence.
Before you saw, so not ‘going back’.
Confused about why you seem to be taking offense at that. I reread your comment while replying because it was jumbled (still not sure what you meant by “both sides”), and saw the "Edited:” bit and then the part about you being high. I assumed you didn’t just write ‘Edited:’ in the middle of the comment, which would mean you … Went back and edited it.
For someone being teeious about wuotes you’re aefully fast and loose with them. You’re not self aware enough to explain yourself. I don’t believe you’re entirely a person, and I’d like to disengage from this and you.
At this point i see you as some combination of bad faith and not-being-a-conavious-actor enougg that i see no reward in exchange. I would like to disengage.
You think I’m bad faith, as the person who has continuously dragged things off topic and ignored what’s been written? Rich. If you want to disengage, it’s called “stop engaging”. I find it entertaining enough to start engaging in this conversation on the level you started at.
Yeah, acting like you’re quoting but instead changing the words to what you want them to be makes it really hard to figure out what the fuck you’re saying.
Summary of the video: a cellphone video of the second strike. The Livestream feed showing smoke in the distance and then cutting off. A video from a camera person approaching the bombsite before getting hit in the second strike. A voice over detailing what happened, Israels statement, the Palestinian press association calling it an unacceptable act of terrorizing journalists attempting to report the truth, and the response from other relevant parties, like Reuters.
Do you mean trusting Reuters more than you? It has something to do with you overtly stating that you don’t know what you’re talking about and being opposed to factual reporting while Reuters has a reputation as a reliable news source. And I see that you went back and edited your comment to include you being uneducated and deleriously inebriated.
I’m not sure what other position you could be referring to, since I’ve explained things pretty clearly and repeatedly.
… Reading the article? Not getting their news from a screenshot of a tweet? If you need media outlets to not even reference in a headline someone you disagree with saying the murder was unintentional, you’re looking for propaganda.
You thought to yourself “genocide and killing journalists is horrific, I better talk about raping kittens”? That’s even more bizarre than you being a child who thought it added dramatic flair.
I’m actively at a loss for what you’re talking about here. I went back and I never talked about sides. The closest I came was trying to empathize with your viewpoint?
You list a pile of things that would be evidence for their motivation that weren’t reported on. Do you actually have any of those things? A recording of the pilot saying they were gonna go bomb some journalists would actually be evidence.
No one is taking their word for anything. Do you understand the difference between repeating what someone says and saying that they said it?
No. Thats “quoting”. I’m indicating qhqt im responding to, ideas, not full text, and on the assumption that anyone reading what i said has at least least skimmed upthread of here. Bad assumption, i guess
Oof, but no accounting for taste. Get checked, k?
Before you saw, so not ‘going back’. I assume the down vote was you.
You still can’t actually address my criticism and tell me why i should. Like, youve said literally nothing to actually engage with it. You’re just appealing to authority and reminding me how (i told you!) i suck as if i wasn’t aware. As if that produces some inherent trudtworthiness either generally elsewhere or specifically reuters. Which is just convincing me that im right and you have a boot in your mouth.
Discourse and how human brains and perception and communication actually work literally at all? It doesn’t seem so.
What criticism? You’ve said that you don’t trust them because they don’t tell you how to feel. I’ve engaged with that notion the entire time. Maybe go back and read through things again. Oh, wait. I forgot you said that actually reading was not how people engage with media anymore.
Err…
Hey, you asked. You saying you know nothing about the topic is a big motivation to not give you a lot of credence.
Confused about why you seem to be taking offense at that. I reread your comment while replying because it was jumbled (still not sure what you meant by “both sides”), and saw the "Edited:” bit and then the part about you being high. I assumed you didn’t just write ‘Edited:’ in the middle of the comment, which would mean you … Went back and edited it.
For someone being teeious about wuotes you’re aefully fast and loose with them. You’re not self aware enough to explain yourself. I don’t believe you’re entirely a person, and I’d like to disengage from this and you.
Removed by mod
At this point i see you as some combination of bad faith and not-being-a-conavious-actor enougg that i see no reward in exchange. I would like to disengage.
You think I’m bad faith, as the person who has continuously dragged things off topic and ignored what’s been written? Rich. If you want to disengage, it’s called “stop engaging”. I find it entertaining enough to start engaging in this conversation on the level you started at.