Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Embarrassed_Union_96 t1_iwvb1km wrote

Reply to comment by coolducklingcool in Connecticut Democratic official sentenced for ballot fraud by Hopeann

The first question you ask at the end encourages people to come to their own conclusions in a sensationalist way. The second one diminishes the value of a democratically elected public office’s election process——which is the same process shared by all other elected positions.

We live in tough times. It’s okay to accept news we’d rather not see or hear, even if it feels like it’s delivered in a way that makes things worse. As long as it’s factual, it’s okay. If we can’t accept facts, and we suppress their sharing by devaluing them though sensationalist invocations, then things will only get worse.

1

coolducklingcool t1_iwvbh0y wrote

I stand by the clickbait claim. The article content seems factual. The title, however, is deliberately vague.

1

Embarrassed_Union_96 t1_iwvinsv wrote

You can’t claim it’s deliberately vague. By what you’ve said, you wish they added more details because of the times we live in. However, even without those details, the title says what happened.

I understand the feeling tho.

1

coolducklingcool t1_iwvivxj wrote

What happened… seven years ago. I think the year is extremely relevant and important to include in our current climate. But then people wouldn’t click the article as much, nor would this post have any comments.

1

Embarrassed_Union_96 t1_iwvj0ij wrote

He was sentenced like three days ago. It’s still contemporary news.

1

coolducklingcool t1_iwvj81u wrote

Sure. And that’s why there’s an article on it. But the year it took place is essential information.

Listen, I’m not changing my mind that the article and post are clickbait capitalizing on the extreme political climate. So we’re wasting our time here. Have a good day.

1

Embarrassed_Union_96 t1_iwvk9s3 wrote

The claim lacks substance. Recent sentence. Recent article. Timely post. Sounds like you prefer some BBC.

1