I'm glad I'm not the only one who had that kind of reaction to this post, lol!
The article annoyed me so much that part of me was tempted to post something really snarky, and another part of me was trying to talk myself out of it, because I wasn't sure I felt like dealing with the possible repercussions. Then I came in here, saw this comment, and felt so much better.
I went to the site, glanced around, and what I saw didn't make me feel at home. Then I did some research and now I know why.. Anything that calls itself "Breitbart for the left" automatically triggers my side eye reflex, lol.
Anything that calls itself "Breitbart for the left" automatically triggers my side eye reflex, lol.
. . . they *chose* to compare themselves to a site that is infamous for just making shit up? Fucking christ, can we please not repeat that part of 2016?
"Just because it has a view point you disagree with, or criticizes someone you like, doesn't make it illegitimate."
Wow, that's not the least bit condescending, lol! There are plenty of sources I regard as legitimate and worthy of respect that I don’t agree with 100% of the time. Implying that the only reason some of us here aren’t Jacobin fans is bcause it has "a view point [we] disagree with" or "criticizes someone [we] like" is incredibly insulting.
Personally, I just find it too radical and extreme for my tastes. Afaic, this particular article is totally over the top in terms of depicting Hillary Clinton as some evil, satanic being who never, ever acted out of anything other than unsavory motives in her entire lfe . It doesn't "criticize" her, it trashes her, and I happen to think it's way off base.
I freely admit that I'm not as radical as some people here, If you or anyone else disapproves of that, c'est la vie. I have the RIGHT to view this publication--especially this article--as questionably radical and extreme, and you have
( ... )
Apologizes, not at all my intention to be condescending. I was more responding to the user above you, with them saying "news" in quotations, Jacobin is a legitimate news source.
Here's where you and I will disagree! Personally I don't think of Hillary as evil, however I think this article criticizes her from a progressive, left point of view. (we can agree to disagree, we don't have to argue this lol)
Apology accepted! And I feel like my reply was a little harsh, so I apologize for that as well.
I do realize that Jacobin is considered to be a legitimate source, but I'll probably never be a huge fan. They seem to regard certain things as givens that I can't quite accept, and they lose me when they start criticizing certain people (Obama and Clinton, etc.), because a lot of their reasons tend to be things I question the validity of. When it comes down to it, I'm not enough of a socialist to feel at home there. (I'm in agreement with some aspects of it, but only uo to a certain point.) Not being on the same radical far left page as they are, I honestly find a lot of their commentary to be alienating and depressing. I know not everyone does, but I also know I'm not the only one.
Reply
The article annoyed me so much that part of me was tempted to post something really snarky, and another part of me was trying to talk myself out of it, because I wasn't sure I felt like dealing with the possible repercussions. Then I came in here, saw this comment, and felt so much better.
I went to the site, glanced around, and what I saw didn't make me feel at home. Then I did some research and now I know why.. Anything that calls itself "Breitbart for the left" automatically triggers my side eye reflex, lol.
Reply
. . . they *chose* to compare themselves to a site that is infamous for just making shit up? Fucking christ, can we please not repeat that part of 2016?
Reply
This is what I was talking about. I'll admit I didn't read the whole thing, but what I did read caused me to emit many wtfs, lol.
Reply
Reply
Reply
"Just because it has a view point you disagree with, or criticizes someone you like, doesn't make it illegitimate."
Wow, that's not the least bit condescending, lol! There are plenty of sources I regard as legitimate and worthy of respect that I don’t agree with 100% of the time. Implying that the only reason some of us here aren’t Jacobin fans is bcause it has "a view point [we] disagree with" or "criticizes someone [we] like" is incredibly insulting.
Personally, I just find it too radical and extreme for my tastes. Afaic, this particular article is totally over the top in terms of depicting Hillary Clinton as some evil, satanic being who never, ever acted out of anything other than unsavory motives in her entire lfe . It doesn't "criticize" her, it trashes her, and I happen to think it's way off base.
I freely admit that I'm not as radical as some people here, If you or anyone else disapproves of that, c'est la vie. I have the RIGHT to view this publication--especially this article--as questionably radical and extreme, and you have ( ... )
Reply
Here's where you and I will disagree! Personally I don't think of Hillary as evil, however I think this article criticizes her from a progressive, left point of view.
(we can agree to disagree, we don't have to argue this lol)
Reply
Apology accepted! And I feel like my reply was a little harsh, so I apologize for that as well.
I do realize that Jacobin is considered to be a legitimate source, but I'll probably never be a huge fan. They seem to regard certain things as givens that I can't quite accept, and they lose me when they start criticizing certain people (Obama and Clinton, etc.), because a lot of their reasons tend to be things I question the validity of. When it comes down to it, I'm not enough of a socialist to feel at home there. (I'm in agreement with some aspects of it, but only uo to a certain point.) Not being on the same radical far left page as they are, I honestly find a lot of their commentary to be alienating and depressing. I know not everyone does, but I also know I'm not the only one.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment