• tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I tend to agree with you, but I also think it’s important to know how the “enemy” thinks and interpret the news. I don’t think we should lock ourselves up in echo bubbles only reading stuff we agree with.

    • Pisodeuorrior@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      In theory I’d agree with you. I don’t mind reading of nuances or different opinions than mine.

      In general however, conservative media are worthless piece of shit embarrassments that I don’t want to waste time on.

      There’s a difference between discussing with sometime with a different opinion, and stopping in the middle of the road responding to every deranged, mentally challenged ignorant mean crack addict who yells their vision of the world from the top of a soap box.

      • figaro@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed. They don’t argue in good faith. Their goal is not honesty and truth. What’s the point in engaging with someone like that?

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Arguing in good faith is the important part.

          As soon as I engage with someone not arguing in good faith, I leave. There’s just no point.

      • tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Comparing Forbes to a deranged, mentally challenged crack addict isn’t very fair, whatever your opinion is on Forbes or crack addicts.