• Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
    412·
    3 days ago

    I don’t know why you have to be a dick in your response to me but I will return the favor in my response.

    Well maybe you shouldn’t assume someone doesn’t know the history because you don’t understand what they mean.

    Some quick steps to understand subtext:

    1. As it is obvious that a website can be used for anything, the description of wild is not actually describing the act.
    2. If it is not describing the act, what is it describing? Clearly it is describing an ability. The ability of whom? As the “what” is already excluded as an option. The government’s abilit to do that!
    3. Obviously the government can do that though… so maybe the ability is not the ability to do it but the lack of consequences that one has to face when doing it.
    4. consequences? From whom? The public.

    So let’s read it again, “it is wild that the public let the government publish obviously partisan propaganda over public channels like that”.

    But why would the author expect the public to show a reaction to this behaviour? Mhm maybe because he is aware of the history and he assumes that the general public has the vague understanding, due to history, that the government shouldn’t be used to push partisan propaganda.

    But please, be proud of how smart you are and how you know history while failing to understand the subtext of a simple sentence.