Chelsea Clinton tweets false story - New Michigan Bill that denies gay patients treatment

a reply to: seasonal

False stories get shared on this website every day. The king of false news, Alex Jones, is heralded as some sort of American hero by some on this website. Sometimes, people get fooled by internet news, much of which is fake, and it's simply a mistake. Here? Well, here it's championed as "being awake" or "not a sheeple."

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I'd say I do correct my errors at times, and at others, I don't. Depends on my mood. But then I just a guy behind an avitar, and even if you did know who I was, I really wouldn't care, so there is that.

With great power comes great responsibility. - Peter Parker's Grandpa.

a reply to: network dude

I see. So by saying that sometimes you correct your errors and sometimes you don't depending on your mood, are you saying that your integrity is questionable because for me, my own integrity is very important, hence my assessment at Clinton's lack of apology and recognition of her error. Had she done so to that standard she would have been displaying sound integrity that good liberals and good conservatives espouse to.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Another thing to consider is that she thinks in 2017 that a law is going to be passed that allows gays to be discriminated against speaks volumes on how this class act known as Chelsea approaches life.

Absolutely right. It was an outlandish assumption and though it speaks to her ability to be swayed by her fears when they are stoked by a supposed ally, for me at least, it can be seen as an example of a larger principle that to one degree or another we all are subject to this kind of assuming.

An easy thing to do is jump on a bandwagon and pile on the aspersions. It is harder to try to understand a larger principle that a specific example may provide and use it to evaluate our own weaknesses. Kind of the mote in anothers eye and the log in ones own.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: network dude

I see. So by saying that sometimes you correct your errors and sometimes you don't depending on your mood, are you saying that your integrity is questionable because for me, my own integrity is very important, hence my assessment at Clinton's lack of apology and recognition of her error. Had she done so to that standard she would have been displaying sound integrity that good liberals and good conservatives espouse to.

I'm not running for office, nor using my real identity. I let my presence here speak for itself as far as my integrity. I have been here over 10 years and have never knowingly lied about anything. But this isn't about me, it's about Chelsea Clinton, who is a very public figure and will likely use her family name to have a career in politics jumped on a fake story due to it's convenient content. If you want to discuss me, please make a thread.

a reply to: network dude
By all means, let's talk about Clinton and her tweet.

I see that we can discuss her tweet from a number of different angles, or contexts. As page one of this thread will attest,there is the context of ''Clintons bad'' let's poop all over them calling them names and slinging cute little aspersions at them.

There is also a context that sees her as a public figure who has demonstrated foolishness by being drawn in to a false interpretation of a news story and then tweeting it, knowing that she most likely has a large number of people who follow her tweets. It was a moment of immaturity and foolishness, possibly only one moment in a life of immaturity and foolishness. I think this one is the context from which you are addressing the issue.

There is another context that sees it as not just a specific example of gullibility or foolishness but rather just one example of a more general trend in our modern cyber world. People being taken in by false narratives that seem to demonstrate or prove their personal fears are becoming reality.

It is within this context that I chose to address the event and in doing so used another example of people who are taken in by false narratives and then spread them further into the cyber world. My example was some members here on ATS. That was a broad and general example.

You then replied with a response from the ''public figure'' context and at the same time calling the reply from within that third context as ''laughable'' while at the same time defending (''Yes, but in the ATS members defense'') ATS members. You then continued the defense by stating '' comparing her to us is laughable.''

I can understand it being laughable from the ''public figure'' context, but not from the ''it can happen to any of us'' context. Why? Because it can happen to any of us as my general example suggested. Again, I said ''some'' members, not all members.

I do not deny the ''public figure'' context and think it is one that needs to be taken into account while assessing the relative value of attention we place on these matters. But that context is not the ONLY context.