Aestu wrote:
That is not a proper usage of the word "oikophobia".
I'd have thought someone with your keen and penetrating intellect and above-average cognitive abilities would have worked out that it wasn't being used in the clinical sense, and deciphered the meaning. It's being used to express a sentiment that is the antithesis of xenophobia.
Aestu wrote:
The irony of a libertarian movement playing the victim card is seemingly lost on you. In any event, the Tea Party can't say anyone has an irrational reason to hate it. If so, what would it be?
Yes, of course, everyone who hates the Tea Party if obviously completely rational and never the least bit unhinged or deranged, and no one has ever accused the Tea Party of being a wink-and-a-nod away from turning into a terrorist organization (you know, except for this time when ABC tried to imply it, or all the times after the Giffords shooting when it was implied--or plainly stated--or...well, you get the idea).
Aestu wrote:
That article is propaganda designed to play on your emotions and bypass your weak critical thinking abilities. It begins with an outrage that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic of the article, a topic which is pretty insipid since such mistakes are common. It's no coincidence that you link that article after complaining about someone else's lack of reading comprehension/critical thinking. You're psychologically compensating. Brainwashing at work.
The article was a critique of media practices, in a column that routinely includes such critiques. For all your bluster about "critical thinking," you fail to make the connection between the "outrage" and the topic of the article, which is that not only was it an outrage for ABC to identify an individual as the shooter without vetting their discovery (the outrage), but they somehow decided that the most important thing they could identify about him was that he was a member of the Tea Party (the topic of the article: how some journalists attempt to conflate certain groups with negative activities while hiding the involvement of members of certain other groups). This was no "common error," and while it may not have been deliberate (I tend to think gaffes like this are born of the unconscious bigotries of the journalists involved) it was, at best, a serious lapse in whatever standards/practices ABC generally employs.
I don't know how anyone would have thought that any kind of an internet search for "Jim/James Holmes Aurora Colorado" was going to bring up anything knowing that the internet was going to be saturated with news stories regarding that name and location. Was that the only Jim Holmes that came up that wasn't part of some news story? I don't know...and I don't care. "We found a guy with that name on the internet" isn't news...much like the video of the actual shooter giving a speech at a science camp wasn't news. There was no purpose served in doing what ABC's journalists did other than the one suggested.
But hey, I didn't find this on the BBC website, nor am I a self-certified expert on everything except sexual lubricants, so I can totally see your point.
Your Pal,
Jubber
EDIT: I found an article about the media reaction that I like better:
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/07/23/d ... ny-jokers/