You don’t get it. I agree with all that stuff you wrote, I’m not arguing any of that. But quoting a random Redditor in any way in a news article that is not about Reddit is dumb, and contributes to the dumbing down of news. For all we know, that “Reddit User” is probably a bot. The article would have been much better if they left it out entirely.
No, I totally understand what you’re saying and agree with you. But from my perspective, it sounds like a lazy critique of the article not having the info you wanted when it’s in an article linked in the first paragraph.
Maybe I’m out of pocket here, but I’m so used to people criticizing articles because they didn’t bother to read them/linked articles that directly answered the complaints provided. I definitely agree that they should have included it in the actual article (or better yet, if OP just linked to the guardian article directly), I just get frustrated seeing people complain about lack of information when it’s literally just a click away.
But I never complained that the article didn’t have the right information. I am complaining because they are presenting valid information alongside bullshit social media information. And this plays directly into the fascist playbook: my opinion is just as valid as your knowledge.
I’m willing to burn Karma (or whatever we call that here) to point out when I see shit like this.
Thanks for understanding. I did read the article. I didn’t click through to a second article but I did later search and found the details (see below).
Reading though this all, and all the replies, the accusations, the negative assumptions - we’re so screwed. I’m literally on the same side of all these folks that assume I’ve got some agenda. I just wanted to see information presented with details, even (especially) from those that are making the point I agree with. But the this social media, even this distributed, federated platform that isn’t tuned to rile us up with algorithms for clicks, has us assuming the worst in each other. Has us behaving poorly behind the mask of anonymity. I didn’t come here for “karma” or points. I came to discuss. I was disappointed.
Anyhow, here’s what I found and posted above on the topic. Spoiler - the “Reddit expert” (in my opinion) was right:
Sorry, I’m clearly doing a terrible job making my point.
So instead, I just did a quick search. If the person writing the article included this information I would never had said anything.
Here’s the animation produced by PragerU and enforced for the Florida school’s curriculum:
My issue was with the article, not the position. It wasn’t informing. It was pandering. After watching the video I am better informed about the counterpoint to my own beliefs.
And don’t listen to me, a random Lemmy user, but my take was that it was a terrible argument and I was offended by it. I worry that this is what is being promoted as material suitable for educational purposes.
You don’t get it. I agree with all that stuff you wrote, I’m not arguing any of that. But quoting a random Redditor in any way in a news article that is not about Reddit is dumb, and contributes to the dumbing down of news. For all we know, that “Reddit User” is probably a bot. The article would have been much better if they left it out entirely.
No, I totally understand what you’re saying and agree with you. But from my perspective, it sounds like a lazy critique of the article not having the info you wanted when it’s in an article linked in the first paragraph.
Maybe I’m out of pocket here, but I’m so used to people criticizing articles because they didn’t bother to read them/linked articles that directly answered the complaints provided. I definitely agree that they should have included it in the actual article (or better yet, if OP just linked to the guardian article directly), I just get frustrated seeing people complain about lack of information when it’s literally just a click away.
But I never complained that the article didn’t have the right information. I am complaining because they are presenting valid information alongside bullshit social media information. And this plays directly into the fascist playbook: my opinion is just as valid as your knowledge.
I’m willing to burn Karma (or whatever we call that here) to point out when I see shit like this.
Thanks for understanding. I did read the article. I didn’t click through to a second article but I did later search and found the details (see below).
Reading though this all, and all the replies, the accusations, the negative assumptions - we’re so screwed. I’m literally on the same side of all these folks that assume I’ve got some agenda. I just wanted to see information presented with details, even (especially) from those that are making the point I agree with. But the this social media, even this distributed, federated platform that isn’t tuned to rile us up with algorithms for clicks, has us assuming the worst in each other. Has us behaving poorly behind the mask of anonymity. I didn’t come here for “karma” or points. I came to discuss. I was disappointed.
Anyhow, here’s what I found and posted above on the topic. Spoiler - the “Reddit expert” (in my opinion) was right:
Sorry, I’m clearly doing a terrible job making my point.
So instead, I just did a quick search. If the person writing the article included this information I would never had said anything.
Here’s the animation produced by PragerU and enforced for the Florida school’s curriculum:
https://www.prageru.com/video/poland-anias-energy-crisis
And here’s a more thorough article with facts and details, that does beyond calling a Reddit user and expert for a clickbait headline:
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2023/08/prageru-climate-skeptic-science-florida-education/
My issue was with the article, not the position. It wasn’t informing. It was pandering. After watching the video I am better informed about the counterpoint to my own beliefs.
And don’t listen to me, a random Lemmy user, but my take was that it was a terrible argument and I was offended by it. I worry that this is what is being promoted as material suitable for educational purposes.