...is that weird?
Is the implication that everything anti-Israel - regardless of its merit or truth - should be upvoted and praised, or at least never in any way criticized? That, to me, feels a lot weirder.
...is that weird?
Is the implication that everything anti-Israel - regardless of its merit or truth - should be upvoted and praised, or at least never in any way criticized? That, to me, feels a lot weirder.
> Is the implication that everything anti-Israel - regardless of its merit or truth - should be upvoted and praised, or at least never in any way criticized? That, to me, feels a lot weirder.
You don't understand that in the face of genocide people cling on to anything? Some times even, yes even! gasp, if the article has typos?
The issue with the typos or grammatical errors aren't the typos per se - it's that it strongly implies that their claims of being "independent journalists" is misleading or dishonest. At which point, a critical reader might ask themselves 1) why are they being dishonest about their identity; and 2) what else might they be being dishonest about?
Obviously, none of this matters if you don't actually care about the contents of the work, only its political purpose (not even how effective it is at achieving that). But if you don't actually care about the contents of the work, why are you even discussing it?