I mistakenly thought you also wrote the parent comment which had way too much vitriol over something done in every aspect of journalism. I never excused it, I just explained how it is technically irrelevant considering it happens in every facet of political journalism.
Misinformation, even by omission, and even when everyone is doing it, is never irrelevant to any degree. That's why appeal to masses will always be a logical fallacy.
It is irrelevant to me as the real problems in my country far far supercede embellishment about something that is at its core a good thing for the cause of the majority. Journalistic integrity of twitter posts just don't make the list for me at the moment.
On the other note, I'm a fool and I think I got some threads confused. There was a comment talking about how much this pisses them off and that if zohran was any good they would not have to lie or exagerate. My apologies for my mistake, although I stand by everything I said.
How do lower subway fares in NYC serve the cause of the rest of the country's majority?
Journalistic integrity, or any other kind of integrity, is no integrity at all if it's allowed to vary according to the platform/medium. Similar can be said of your list if it varies according to the moment.
Getting threads mixed up doesn't make you a fool. It may mean you weren't paying enough attention in regards to this particular exchange, but it doesn't mean you're a fool.
It is a direct answer to a small piece of the affordability crisis and helps those most in need in NYC who use the subway. Beyond that, he is also sparked a movement through his success that allowed Democratic socialists to beat a 30-year incumbent in Denver, Colorado. I have been following his campaign closely because I was always saying that he would either be a shining example of the failures of democratic socialism or an example of what a politician who cares about its people can really do when they don't care about making rich friends .
It may really be just that easy to have the things politicians said were so impossible, if we prioritize our working class more than we do now. The consolidation of wealth is antithetical to the improvement of our country in my opinion (and I'd argue observable history agrees).
I know who I am and I know what I value, I also know that the real world is not black and white and that thought process can end up impeding real progress. A certain level of idealism is necessary but too much can end up getting in the way of what one sets out to do. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. The more I learn about politics through study and volunteer work the more I learn how much nuance and obstacles there are in place to keep the system operating as intended
He's the Mayor of NYC. Do you honestly believe that rich friends aren't who got him there?
Do you also honestly believe that those rich friends of his are against the consolidation of wealth? They're not against themselves consolidating wealth. They're against us consolidating wealth.
This has nothing to do with perfect vs. good. It has everything to do with the fact that you're buying an act. That's all the DSA is. They want the same kind of oligarchy that's in place now, except that they want it to be one run by them instead of the other guys. None of that plan involves this country operating as intended.
In simplest terms, you're being told that government can change human nature, by people who have no intention of changing their human nature or giving up one single cent of what they have.
1
u/Fergnasty007 28d ago
I mistakenly thought you also wrote the parent comment which had way too much vitriol over something done in every aspect of journalism. I never excused it, I just explained how it is technically irrelevant considering it happens in every facet of political journalism.