US President Donald Trump wrote Turkish President Erdoğan a letter warning him not to be "a tough guy" or "a fool" as his forces launched their attack on northern Syria
I'm loathe to spam the Gish gallop of bizarre occurrences that is the current presidency, but this actually made me facepalm anew. If you just want to see the picture of the letter: original tweet...
I'm loathe to spam the Gish gallop of bizarre occurrences that is the current presidency, but this actually made me facepalm anew.
If you just want to see the picture of the letter: original tweet
Confirmation by WH staff: here
edit: I take issue with having the topic title edited. It was purposely written to avoid the reduction into inflammatory summation.
I mostly edited the title because the original ("Confirmed Trump letter to Erdogan following Turkish attack into Syria.") didn't make much sense to me, so I looked for a decently representative...
I mostly edited the title because the original ("Confirmed Trump letter to Erdogan following Turkish attack into Syria.") didn't make much sense to me, so I looked for a decently representative sentence from the article. You're right that calling it "an extraordinary letter" is editorializing (and I removed that now), but I don't think quotes from the letter necessarily need to be off-limits too. It's the actual content of the letter and the message it was trying to send. If we push too far into neutrality we lose the ability to explain why any given topic is interesting.
This will end up being my last submission then. The need to constantly editorialize without obvious need is tedious and confines the setting of subject matter to one view, the editing party.
This will end up being my last submission then. The need to constantly editorialize without obvious need is tedious and confines the setting of subject matter to one view, the editing party.
I sympathize with his position. If there's nothing factually wrong with a headline, what's the criteria for editing the submission? It's a fine line, especially since in this situation moving away...
I sympathize with his position. If there's nothing factually wrong with a headline, what's the criteria for editing the submission? It's a fine line, especially since in this situation moving away from a more neutral headline (though I agree it doesn't relate the seriousness of the matter) to something more specific, can easily be seen as partisan.
I this case I wanted to check how "other" sides are presenting it. And it actually turns out fox news highlighted the same two passages. So the new title seems to walk that fine line well, avoiding partisanship, though the original title was more explicitly neutral.
However issues remain with the policy. From the perception of having your submission criticized incorrectly. To the perception of changing the intent or position of the post, especially to something more partisan. And more concretely as stated, the actual effect on limiting the diversity of discourse, through the more narrow filter of a several editing individuals.
Should there be clear guidelines for when this should be done? And a clear chain of transparency, to show when it's done, and maybe why?
There already is transparency - the sidebar shows an edit log. It doesn't show "why" but it's always to try to bring the title more in line with the article itself.
There already is transparency - the sidebar shows an edit log. It doesn't show "why" but it's always to try to bring the title more in line with the article itself.
So we're just to treat all of this as normally as possible? Do you not believe that contributes towards hypernormalization? Also, first and last submission...wow.
The need to constantly editorialize without obvious need
So we're just to treat all of this as normally as possible? Do you not believe that contributes towards hypernormalization?
I semi-predicted that he'd be an ineffectual president constantly under investigation, but I just could never have imagined the never ending torrent of shit. Like, recently the wife of the...
I semi-predicted that he'd be an ineffectual president constantly under investigation, but I just could never have imagined the never ending torrent of shit. Like, recently the wife of the ambassador to the UK - while drunk - killed a 19 year old motorcyclist. This fucking garbage human made a statement along the lines of "who among us hasn't done that?" And then later invited the grieving family to the White House and tried to ambush them with their son's killer for a photo op.
And it's not even a major news event because nobody can keep up.
I actually think spamming the media with controversial actions is part of his strategy. Add that to actual scandal and it makes it very hard for the focus to stay on one action for very long.
I actually think spamming the media with controversial actions is part of his strategy. Add that to actual scandal and it makes it very hard for the focus to stay on one action for very long.
In my imagination, this is the line that Christopher Soprano would write, were he writing a screenplay involving the negotiation of foreign affairs.
Trump then referred to economic sanctions his administration used on the country to push for the release of an American pastor who'd been locked up in Turkey, calling it "a little sample" of what could be in store.
In my imagination, this is the line that Christopher Soprano would write, were he writing a screenplay involving the negotiation of foreign affairs.
I'm loathe to spam the Gish gallop of bizarre occurrences that is the current presidency, but this actually made me facepalm anew.
If you just want to see the picture of the letter: original tweet
Confirmation by WH staff: here
edit: I take issue with having the topic title edited. It was purposely written to avoid the reduction into inflammatory summation.
I mostly edited the title because the original ("Confirmed Trump letter to Erdogan following Turkish attack into Syria.") didn't make much sense to me, so I looked for a decently representative sentence from the article. You're right that calling it "an extraordinary letter" is editorializing (and I removed that now), but I don't think quotes from the letter necessarily need to be off-limits too. It's the actual content of the letter and the message it was trying to send. If we push too far into neutrality we lose the ability to explain why any given topic is interesting.
This will end up being my last submission then. The need to constantly editorialize without obvious need is tedious and confines the setting of subject matter to one view, the editing party.
Alright. Send me a message (or reply saying so) if you'd like your account deleted.
I sympathize with his position. If there's nothing factually wrong with a headline, what's the criteria for editing the submission? It's a fine line, especially since in this situation moving away from a more neutral headline (though I agree it doesn't relate the seriousness of the matter) to something more specific, can easily be seen as partisan.
I this case I wanted to check how "other" sides are presenting it. And it actually turns out fox news highlighted the same two passages. So the new title seems to walk that fine line well, avoiding partisanship, though the original title was more explicitly neutral.
However issues remain with the policy. From the perception of having your submission criticized incorrectly. To the perception of changing the intent or position of the post, especially to something more partisan. And more concretely as stated, the actual effect on limiting the diversity of discourse, through the more narrow filter of a several editing individuals.
Should there be clear guidelines for when this should be done? And a clear chain of transparency, to show when it's done, and maybe why?
There already is transparency - the sidebar shows an edit log. It doesn't show "why" but it's always to try to bring the title more in line with the article itself.
thanks for pointing it out. i didn't know that was a thing.
It also captures other things, like if people move a topic, or if they tag it.
So we're just to treat all of this as normally as possible? Do you not believe that contributes towards hypernormalization?
Also, first and last submission...wow.
It's a fairly old account, maybe the rest of the posts were just deleted?
This guy is one of the worst domestic threats to national security the U.S. has ever faced.
He is everything I thought he would be and more
I semi-predicted that he'd be an ineffectual president constantly under investigation, but I just could never have imagined the never ending torrent of shit. Like, recently the wife of the ambassador to the UK - while drunk - killed a 19 year old motorcyclist. This fucking garbage human made a statement along the lines of "who among us hasn't done that?" And then later invited the grieving family to the White House and tried to ambush them with their son's killer for a photo op.
And it's not even a major news event because nobody can keep up.
I actually think spamming the media with controversial actions is part of his strategy. Add that to actual scandal and it makes it very hard for the focus to stay on one action for very long.
In my imagination, this is the line that Christopher Soprano would write, were he writing a screenplay involving the negotiation of foreign affairs.
Every day that passes I become more and more convinced we're living in a simulation.