You don’t seem to have grasped the nuance of the conversation though.
Pushing back with more information is only a viable strategy when all parties are participating in good faith.
When the guest demonstrates a clear intent to spread obvious misinformation to further their own interests, discontinuing the conversation is the only recourse.
To say the same thing another way, the host did rebut the guest, but the guest carried on without responding to the rebuttal, intent on using the show as a platform to spread misinformation.
Nope, I am here. I will try to answer after this reply.
I am not online 24/7 and I will not bother or have the time to reply to every comment or criticism, sadly, I am not a robot or a vulcan that can manage that.
I know I can be wrong and I try to learn from mistakes or bad habits.
Yes, communication can be hard and I and others may react with emotion or just to reply quickly…
I know I do that, as well as other humans.
When the guest demonstrates a clear intent to spread obvious misinformation to further their own interests, discontinuing the conversation is the only recourse.
I do not agree with that point, but who knows how I would react. It is legacy media so sounds bites and time limitations might be the real cause for no pushback.
To say the same thing another way, the host did rebut the guest, but the guest carried on without responding to the rebuttal, intent on using the show as a platform to spread misinformation.
You are most likely correct, but I have little to no reason to be an apologetic to the duopoly,legacy media, or the owner class.
You are most likely correct, but I have little to no reason to be an apologetic to the duopoly,legacy media, or the owner class.
“I didn’t watch the interview but I am certain that it was conducted improperly.
Let me try to shame you all for an interview I didn’t watch but I know it was wrong because I heard it’s negative towards someone Donald Trump adjacent.”
You don’t seem to have grasped the nuance of the conversation though.
Pushing back with more information is only a viable strategy when all parties are participating in good faith.
When the guest demonstrates a clear intent to spread obvious misinformation to further their own interests, discontinuing the conversation is the only recourse.
To say the same thing another way, the host did rebut the guest, but the guest carried on without responding to the rebuttal, intent on using the show as a platform to spread misinformation.
Let me guess, the OP will choose to ignore this extremely relevant critical response.
Nope, I am here. I will try to answer after this reply.
I am not online 24/7 and I will not bother or have the time to reply to every comment or criticism, sadly, I am not a robot or a vulcan that can manage that.
You may be right.
I know I can be wrong and I try to learn from mistakes or bad habits.
Yes, communication can be hard and I and others may react with emotion or just to reply quickly…
I know I do that, as well as other humans.
I do not agree with that point, but who knows how I would react. It is legacy media so sounds bites and time limitations might be the real cause for no pushback.
You are most likely correct, but I have little to no reason to be an apologetic to the duopoly,legacy media, or the owner class.
“I didn’t watch the interview but I am certain that it was conducted improperly.
Let me try to shame you all for an interview I didn’t watch but I know it was wrong because I heard it’s negative towards someone Donald Trump adjacent.”