It's good to see @zeynep call out the flaws in mainstream Covid coverage (and there were/are many). But framing it as the result of "partisan polarization" & equating it in any way with the dangerous delusion & disinformation from the right goes too far.https://zeynep.substack.com/p/how-polarization-ate-our-brains …
-
-
That seems pretty neutral. The existence of polarization - a fact - does not "imply", in itself, that levels of it are equal. And often the "equivalence" charge is used dishonestly to quash exploration of such critiques.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I see "polarization" as implying 2 extremes and a somewhat comparable pushing away from the center. Partisanship, maybe? Partisans are definitionally loath to acknowledge facts that don't help their party win. Here I mostly just see people overreacting to pathological liars.
-
I understand/accept the suggestion to use "partisanship". But I would note that the word "polarization" while implying two extremes, does not in and of itself imply "equivalence" of those extremes. From Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polarization …pic.twitter.com/A1nMwquYan
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The terms Polarization and Partisanship apply when a bad argument is made in good faith, often resulting from bias. This is misinformation, and it is correctable. Both sides spread misinformation. 1/
-
Disinformation is something else. It’s a political strategy, a threat to our democracy, and the R’s are not interested in correcting it. It’s important to be really clear about the distinction between misinformation and disinformation, 2/
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.