When the NRA refers to “bad guys and criminals,” we all know who they mean. Just like we all know what “law and order” means when someone like President Trump says it. That’s the beauty of the dog-whistle.
Here’s a citation for you, “Donna White”:
I’m a frequent critic of Facebook and what it’s doing to our society, and I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately.
Setting aside the fact that the product itself is probably harmful to us, and I wish it didn’t exist in the first place, we may well be lucky that Mark Zuckerberg is in charge.
Seems like a lot of people responded negatively to this piece.
IMO here’s why: your headline. You poison the well of what is otherwise a thoughtful piece by allowing the use of “conservative” as a shorthand for “bigot.”
The hed should read: “Should Bigots Be Allowed To Write For Mainstream…
Appreciate the sentiment of this article but this is not the unsaid reason. This is actually a pretty commonly said reason.
The unsaid reason is one that’s prevailed since reconstruction: white America is afraid of nonwhite America.
When the NRA says you need a gun to protect yourself from bad guys and criminals, they have a very specific profile in mind.
The definition of authentic is “genuine.” Inauthentic means “not genuine.” If your business or brand only has 300 followers, and you buy 20,000 more to make it seem like you have a constituency, this is by definition not genuine.
You go on to say bots have been around for a while and some are good and some aren’t. While…
The lack of “alleged” is unfortunate and should be corrected.
But being a bot isn’t either/or.
It’s possible for a bot account to have a living pilot who curates the bot’s posts or who wrote the algorithm.
I’m of the mind that if you have to be disingenuous to make a point, you risk joining an ignominious club. People like Ted Cruz are in that club. Hillary Clinton, also, is a world class equivocator.
So I like to ask myself, is this a point worth making?