How is it that people are intelligent enough to type words on a screen to form complete sentences yet incapable of reading the content which they're commenting on? And how do others choose to support this sort of statement?
“But what I will say, too, though, is I think everybody should vote for Joe Biden if they want our democracy to survive,”
For the elementary schoolers, Hutchinson is saying that, "if they want our democracy to survive", "everybody should vote for Joe Biden".
You may not agree with this statement, you may claim that this title is clickbait, you may argue that HuffPost is a shitty outlet for news; but to question "what's the dark reason?" and have others upvote such a question, while the answer to the question is very clearly written in the article in which you're commenting on, suggests you and others are simply too lazy or disinterested in giving a shit about the topic and more interested in generating your own rage-bait content for karma.
So, do you just read every article that comes across your feed? How much time per day do you spend reading? Do you ever worry you may be missing out on important information, due to not selecting articles more likely to convey newer information, more relevant information, or more in depth information?
Personally, I appreciated the question, and the answer, as it saved time that I can use on reading something more valuable to me - or, I guess, on writing this comment. A lot of articles these days use misleading or vague headlines to trick people into reading a long article that says nothing more than could have been conveyed in the headline itself.
Now, I will admit, thanks to your comment, I did click through and read this article, just so I wouldn't look like an idiot writing this comment, if it turned out to be much different from what was said above, or to provide more context, or whatever, and yes, I did find it was not so bad. It's pretty brief, and while the main point could have easily been in the headline, the article does give some additional context (most of which I knew, but it was a good refresher). Whether we choose to read or not to read, we are taking a gamble with our time and opportunity cost, but people in the comments giving at least some information is better than having nothing to go on, or trusting a headline from a source known to use misleading headlines.
I'm not so sure you've really learned anything here. You claim to have now taken the time to read the article and you learned something yet you're still supporting the idea that reading original content over reading the comment section is a waste of time.
do you just read every article that comes across your feed?
The ones I find interesting, yes. The ones I choose to comment on, yes, if it's a top level comment, of course I do.
Do you ever worry you may be missing out on important information, due to not selecting articles more likely to convey newer information, more relevant information, or more in depth information?
Whuuut? No… I worry I might miss out on important information by only reading headlines. And, frankly, I worry that the majority of people on "social media" are missing the point of the journalist's story by only reading the top -often unrelated or diluting- comments. The comment I responded to is a waste of everyone's time and alters the narrative of both Hutchinson and the author.
These platforms are great for sharing information, especially in topical areas we find interesting. Yet at the same time, it seems they're making most of us dumber for participating in them. Headlines are often misleading. A lot of media outlets publish content just for the sake of publishing content and getting clicks while only a tenth of an article is really relevant to the story or offers any new valuable insight. This HuffPost article is trash to begin with. It's click bait and OP is making it even worse. Which is pretty remarkable.
I'd argue that you'd have more time to read more, and would be more well informed, if you spent more time reading the articles instead of the headlines and engaging in the peanut gallery (of course I'm guilty here too).
I read a lot of articles, friend, and I feel that you are going far out of your way to misinterpret my comment. We can't read everything, and we have to choose based on some criteria. A comment offering some summary of what is in the article is better criteria than nothing, especially if, as you seem to agree, the headline is worse than useless.
…yes. that is the "the end of democracy" that we've been aware of now for the entirety of Trump's political existence. I know this because I did read the article.
So, you're saying you posted a question to something you knew the answer to while paraphrasing the known answer. That's a great contribution you've added to the conversation.
How is it that people are intelligent enough to type words on a screen to form complete sentences yet incapable of reading the content which they're commenting on? And how do others choose to support this sort of statement?
For the elementary schoolers, Hutchinson is saying that, "if they want our democracy to survive", "everybody should vote for Joe Biden".
You may not agree with this statement, you may claim that this title is clickbait, you may argue that HuffPost is a shitty outlet for news; but to question "what's the dark reason?" and have others upvote such a question, while the answer to the question is very clearly written in the article in which you're commenting on, suggests you and others are simply too lazy or disinterested in giving a shit about the topic and more interested in generating your own rage-bait content for karma.
But it's just so much more fun to have a sanctimonious blowhard such as yourself summarize it in the most obnoxious way possible!
It's like how my teachers used to explain it to the slow kids back then. #genX
Right. Rage-bait, as I said.
So, do you just read every article that comes across your feed? How much time per day do you spend reading? Do you ever worry you may be missing out on important information, due to not selecting articles more likely to convey newer information, more relevant information, or more in depth information?
Personally, I appreciated the question, and the answer, as it saved time that I can use on reading something more valuable to me - or, I guess, on writing this comment. A lot of articles these days use misleading or vague headlines to trick people into reading a long article that says nothing more than could have been conveyed in the headline itself.
Now, I will admit, thanks to your comment, I did click through and read this article, just so I wouldn't look like an idiot writing this comment, if it turned out to be much different from what was said above, or to provide more context, or whatever, and yes, I did find it was not so bad. It's pretty brief, and while the main point could have easily been in the headline, the article does give some additional context (most of which I knew, but it was a good refresher). Whether we choose to read or not to read, we are taking a gamble with our time and opportunity cost, but people in the comments giving at least some information is better than having nothing to go on, or trusting a headline from a source known to use misleading headlines.
I do agree with her statement.
I'm not so sure you've really learned anything here. You claim to have now taken the time to read the article and you learned something yet you're still supporting the idea that reading original content over reading the comment section is a waste of time.
The ones I find interesting, yes. The ones I choose to comment on, yes, if it's a top level comment, of course I do.
Whuuut? No… I worry I might miss out on important information by only reading headlines. And, frankly, I worry that the majority of people on "social media" are missing the point of the journalist's story by only reading the top -often unrelated or diluting- comments. The comment I responded to is a waste of everyone's time and alters the narrative of both Hutchinson and the author.
These platforms are great for sharing information, especially in topical areas we find interesting. Yet at the same time, it seems they're making most of us dumber for participating in them. Headlines are often misleading. A lot of media outlets publish content just for the sake of publishing content and getting clicks while only a tenth of an article is really relevant to the story or offers any new valuable insight. This HuffPost article is trash to begin with. It's click bait and OP is making it even worse. Which is pretty remarkable.
I'd argue that you'd have more time to read more, and would be more well informed, if you spent more time reading the articles instead of the headlines and engaging in the peanut gallery (of course I'm guilty here too).
I read a lot of articles, friend, and I feel that you are going far out of your way to misinterpret my comment. We can't read everything, and we have to choose based on some criteria. A comment offering some summary of what is in the article is better criteria than nothing, especially if, as you seem to agree, the headline is worse than useless.
…yes. that is the "the end of democracy" that we've been aware of now for the entirety of Trump's political existence. I know this because I did read the article.
So, you're saying you posted a question to something you knew the answer to while paraphrasing the known answer. That's a great contribution you've added to the conversation.