It's not that it's "wrong" as a political or philosophical thing; it's factually wrong, and the @APStylebook is simply inaccurate.
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
NO moral/ethical component? / MT
@chrisgeidner: ... it's factually wrong, and the@APStylebook is simply inaccurate.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
.
@chrisgeidner Are you saying@APstylebook is merely wrong factually (i.e. inaccurate) but not wrong morally (i.e. unethical)?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @allysonrobinson
@allysonrobinson I'm saying we don't need to get to those debates. It's factually wrong, and as a journalistic enterprise, that ends debate.1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner@allysonrobinson curious what makes it "factually" wrong? 2 married people are a couple and partners as well, no?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeReif
@JakeReif@allysonrobinson If approp term for an opposite-sex married couple is "married," the term is the same for s-s married couples.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner@allysonrobinson I think the better argument is that AP, despite claiming impartiality, is choosing a side to default to2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.