Did this really just happen?

[_honorentheos]

It’s zeitgeist.

- Doc

And should be treated more carefully. Sharing a single tweet about a race war like it's saying something meaningful about the overall direction isn't zeitgeist. It's 4chan. It's subbie. It's ldsfaqs.

[_moksha]

Why not? News, no matter how it comes to bear, is worth reading about. - Doc

It does sound a bit reminiscent of the Russian hackers stirring up hatred to bolster Trump.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

[quote=honorentheos post_id=1228194 time=1591901966 user_id=7137]
[quote="Doctor CamNC4Me" post_id=1228193 time=1591901757 user_id=3779]
It’s zeitgeist.

- Doc
[/quote]

And should be treated more carefully. Sharing a single tweet about a race war like it's saying something meaningful about the overall direction isn't zeitgeist. It's 4chan. It's subbie. It's ldsfaqs.
[/quote]

You’re right, I suppose. Sharing videos of white nationalists looting in Philadelphia detracts from the narrative:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... OqerosQ4VU

What’s the narrative again? Police brutality? Racial inequality? Institutional white supremacy? Second amendment rights to protect one’s property when the state fails? Or not? Criminal behavior masquerading as protesting? Giving rioters free crap so they don’t riot (danegeld)? There seems to be multiple emerging issues among hundreds of minor ones. It seems to me to even talk about what’s being openly talked about by various factions is, in of itself, a thoughtcrime. What’s the thoughtcrime? Pointing out the obvious push by leftists to use George Floyd’s murder to push socialist policies along with cultural enfranchisement is just one head of this socialist hydra. There’s a lot to unpack with the current zeitgeist. Pointing to one of the hydra’s heads and stating, “That one is the underlying current of racial hatred openly discussed by black people on Twitter toward white people, yet Twitter doesn’t suspend their accounts.”, and claiming it’s distracting from the “the issues” is bad judgement, and being willfully ignorant of the double standards that are at play. If, say, I had posted a screencap of whites openly agitating for a race war, while Twitter does nothing to their accounts, but at the same time has shut down black voices for non-infractions such as simply posting the names of officers who died in these “peaceful” protests, I think the point would be crystal clear.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

On a positive note toward enfranchisement , here in Utah the Governor banned chokeholds and anything that’d put pressure on the neck or spine. Additionally, he:

“... announced that Nubia Peña, director of the Utah Division of Multicultural Affairs, and Dustin Jansen, head of the Utah Bureau of Indian Affairs, will now report directly to him and join his regular leadership meetings, ensuring an ongoing seat at the table.”

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

You’re right, I suppose. Sharing videos of white nationalists looting in Philadelphia detracts from the narrative:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... OqerosQ4VU

What’s the narrative again? Police brutality? Racial inequality? Institutional white supremacy? Second amendment rights to protect one’s property when the state fails? Or not? Criminal behavior masquerading as protesting? Giving rioters free ____ so they don’t riot (danegeld)? There seems to be multiple emerging issues among hundreds of minor ones. It seems to me to even talk about what’s being openly talked about by various factions is, in of itself, a thoughtcrime. What’s the thoughtcrime? Pointing out the obvious push by leftists to use George Floyd’s murder to push socialist policies along with cultural enfranchisement is just one head of this socialist hydra. There’s a lot to unpack with the current zeitgeist. Pointing to one of the hydra’s heads and stating, “That one is the underlying current of racial hatred openly discussed by black people on Twitter toward white people, yet Twitter doesn’t suspend their accounts.”, and claiming it’s distracting from the “the issues” is bad judgement, and being willfully ignorant of the double standards that are at play. If, say, I had posted a screencap of whites openly agitating for a race war, while Twitter does nothing to their accounts, but at the same time has shut down black voices for non-infractions such as simply posting the names of officers who died in these “peaceful” protests, I think the point would be crystal clear.

- Doc

Your first comment gets closer to my point, which is there is a difference between narrative and journalism. Editorial pages exist separate from, and operate differently from, the news columns for good reason.

Make whatever points you want, but it's narrative creation rather than taking a snap shot of the zeitgeist when one picks a tweet out, captions it, and presents it as representative of something larger unless one is doing the work to contextualize it in the broader body of evidence that helps demonstrate that example IS representative rather than cherry picked.

Again, it's a 4chan/subbies/ldsfaqs move to point to a lone example and use it to decry their boogieman of choice. We all know when subbies is doing it, no one ever clicks on a link to a FAQs YouTube video and expects grounded reporting because they have established they aren't interesting in understanding what's going on. Just spinning the narrative that benefits their "team".

Twitter isn't journalism. It can't avoid it's limitations. It can be a great tool for informing journalism and getting scopes on events happening almost in real time. But unless a person engages with that knowing it's reporting from deep in the fog of war, one is being sucked into that fog themselves and assuming things about what the immediacy of that reporting is saying that is reckless.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I respectfully disagree, and view decentralized platforms as a useful tool to peer inside any given culture depending on the context:

https://mobile.Twitter.com/realDonaldTr ... r%5Eauthor

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

I respectfully disagree, and view decentralized platforms as a useful tool to peer inside any given culture depending on the context:

https://mobile.Twitter.com/realDonaldTr ... r%5Eauthor

- Doc

I agree they are useful for doing what you say above. But I disagree that that is fact-based journalistic insight.

In anthropology there are concepts about studying cultures that include emic and etic approaches to doing so. There is also an understanding that one can't typically do both, and is also unlikely to be able to fully engage in emic study or understanding if one isn't actually a member of the culture.

Wiki is good enough for our purposes here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_an ... 20observer).

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I mean, going back to the CHAZ. Here’s a presumably respectable format for an article that’s covering the ‘autonomous’ zone:

https://www.thecut.com/2020/06/whats-go ... l#comments

They themselves use Twitter posts to formulate a piece, extrapolating whatever from the tweets to generate a hot take. The idea that we should discard Twitteratti when we’re trying to get a feel for multiple angles around current events is, imho, a bit irresponsible. I should also note that the authors declined to fill in a LOT of the details, so if we’re using them as the arbitrary source of information around this emerging event I think we’re doing ourselves a disservice. I mean, all they’re doing is summarizing what they gleaned off the internet. There’s no in-person reporting taking place.

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

One of the keys to approaching sources like Twitter appropriately is knowing you are bringing your own perspective and biases into reading others personal experiences so what you are reading is a new creation; their experience filtered through your perspective.

Journalism is intended to act like a sort of counter by forcing an etic view be taken and processes followed to reduce the risk of misreporting.

[Guest]

Twitter isn't journalism. It can't avoid it's limitations. It can be a great tool for informing journalism and getting scopes on events happening almost in real time. But unless a person engages with that knowing it's reporting from deep in the fog of war, one is being sucked into that fog themselves and assuming things about what the immediacy of that reporting is saying that is reckless.