Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack
Ok, let's take this piece by piece
I'll respond once I figure out what "instintually" means
You're right it is, and it shouldn't be. Usually when someone makes that comment it's quickly shut down as an errant comment
Nothing inconsistent, but fine.
Touche
I think you completely misread my point. You have stated here that you are/were the Chipotle dude at Wizards games and that's how you got this unique access to Wizards games. And I was simply saying that it would be ridiculous for anyone of us to say "well then keep your participation on this board to that. I'll take a page out your book here...I apologize if I offended any of the forum members, but I stand by my comments.
Ok, clarify.
To be honest, some discourse isn't worth facilitating
Yeah I'm not sure I'm the one you want to argue with over what ESPN does or why it does what it does
I don't think Sally Jenkins was talking about the intricacies of actual game play. And I can't believe I'm here defending her
|
By Instinctually, I am referring to the "truth bias" that pertains to the individual and the "media bias" that is peddled on behalf of the masses. We automatically or innately assume that the people that we speak to, or the persons that report the news are correct or credible sources because of their positions. So if one were to have a defensive mindset to that aspect(e.g. my comments to the perspective of Sally Jenkins), then the burden of proof would be on the communicator to prove to one's self that their observations are so valid and poignant, that the nature of their inexperience is of no consequence to the listener or reader. All, I was saying is that I believe a more critical apprach is needed when evaluating aspects of the media.
As for clarification, in retrospect, I maybe should have said that I "question" instead of "I don't listen to," and how much "one" can really know about something that they haven't played or in which they were a participant, rather than use "woman" or "SJ." Those comments may not have taken as much heat, but at the same time, I did the exact thing, but I was just more specific with that example.
I agree some discourse isn't worth facilitating, but just as ignorant as that discourse may be, it is just as ignorant to preclude someone's perspective before you understand where that someone is coming from and/or meant.
I really laughed out loud, at your disbelief in defending SJ....that was comedy