Solnit decries sanewashing Trump

[Kishkumen]

Lol. Yep. I'm lucky I can dress myself.

Boy, you could give some LDS apologists a run for their money.

"Disagree with me? Why you must be egregiously insulting me if you disagree! How unreasonable you are!"

[Marcus]

That's so unfair! I thought this was much more mopologetical....

...I guess you didn't understand what she said and decided to substitute your bile and resentment for educated people for a description of what transpired in the video...

[Dr Exiled]

I just finished the video. Ms. Solnit, a writer of books about feminism, the environment, and politics, chastised the corporate media for not being hard enough on Trump and would like to have seen more prosecutions against him for conduct she is sure happened. She believes the corporate media doesn't fact check Trump enough and would fire most of the political reporters at the NY Times. She did however say she doesn't look to corporate media for her news (because she doesn't trust it apparently). However, she is a columnist for the Guardian. Maybe her disdain for corporate media only goes so far. Anyway, I don't think you'd agree with much of what she says.

Yeah, doubtless ceeboo wouldn't agree. By the way, plenty of people who write things American corporate media does not want to pay to support write for UK media. That's a fairly standard and unexceptionable move. Maybe you just weren't aware of that.

She is another of the reality police that seems upset because people don't agree with her learned opinion.

I guess you didn't understand what she said and decided to substitute your bile and resentment for educated people for a description of what transpired in the video.

I understood her fine. She's a textbook example of TDS and is upset that the media doesn't share in her psychosis.

[Kishkumen]

I understood her fine. She's a textbook example of TDS and is upset that the media doesn't share in her psychosis.

Ah, so you didn't understand her. OK.

If you want to convince me that you did understand her, you might try discussing what she said instead of ad hominem.

[Kishkumen]

That's so unfair! I thought this was much more mopologetical....

...I guess you didn't understand what she said and decided to substitute your bile and resentment for educated people for a description of what transpired in the video...

So you agree with the idea that she is suffering from "TDS"?

I give her a lot more credit than that but to each their own.

[Some Schmo]

She's a textbook example of TDS...

And which textbook would that be?

It's hilarious how stupid anyone sounds when defending Trump.

TDS is a good descriptor of the media's sane-washing Trump's dementia.

[Dr Exiled]

I understood her fine. She's a textbook example of TDS and is upset that the media doesn't share in her psychosis.

Ah, so you didn't understand her. OK.

If you want to convince me that you did understand her, you might try discussing what she said instead of ad hominem.

Another one that pretends to be the arbiter of reality. You confuse disagreement with understanding and probably on purpose. Ms. Solnit clearly overdoes it to the point of psychosis. Perhaps that's why she never cites NY Times articles that support her main point of sanewashing?

Maybe explain how her thinking should win the day?

[Kishkumen]

Another one that pretends to be the arbiter of reality. You confuse disagreement with understanding and probably on purpose. Ms. Solnit clearly overdoes it to the point of psychosis. Perhaps that's why she never cites NY Times articles that support her main point of sanewashing?

Maybe explain how her thinking should win the day?

Adding the adverb clearly to your assertion/attack on the speaker does not demonstrate understanding.

[Chap]

[...] Ms. Solnit, a writer of books about feminism, the environment, and politics, chastised the corporate media for not being hard enough on Trump and would like to have seen more prosecutions against him for conduct she is sure happened. [...] However, she is a columnist for the Guardian. Maybe her disdain for corporate media only goes so far. [...]

The Guardian is not owned by a corporation. Characterising it as 'corporate media' is therefore inappropriate.

Since 1821 the mission of the Guardian has been to use clarity and imagination to build hope.

Guardian Media Group is a global news organisation that delivers fearless, investigative journalism - giving a voice to the powerless and holding power to account.
Our independent ownership structure means we are entirely free from political and commercial influence. Only our values determine the stories we choose to cover – relentlessly and courageously.

The Guardian is owned by Guardian Media Group, which has only one shareholder - the Scott Trust.
The Scott Trust, named after our longest serving editor, CP Scott, exists to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity.
Today more than half of our revenue comes directly from our readers, helping to support Guardian journalism and keep it open for everyone.
In short, the Guardian isn’t owned or controlled by advertisers or billionaires. It’s owned by a Trust, and it runs on trust. Let’s keep building that trust together.

Some of that revenue comes from my own regular donations, which I am happy to pay to ensure that the Guardian's journalism is freely available to all. There is no paywall, nor will there be.

[Kishkumen]

Thanks for the salutary correction, Chap.