I mean it doesn't change anything really, Tusk is still right and it's still a great quote, but it's strange that the Times will go with this quote without any clarification
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
it unequivocally *does* matter though, if one of the biggest american publications can't even get basic numbers right, that's a terrible basis for public discourse
No, it doesn't, in that context. Writing "unequivocally" doesn't make it so. You said it yourself, "it doesn't change anything really". It's just meaningless nitpicking.
If they were reporting on the counting of votes for example, sure.
There is no such thing as incorrect facts, since facts are by definition correct.
See, I can also do meaningless nitpicking. Does it make the discussion better? Did it change the crux of your argument?
No, and that is the point I am making.
Comments
If they were reporting on the counting of votes for example, sure.
See, I can also do meaningless nitpicking. Does it make the discussion better? Did it change the crux of your argument?
No, and that is the point I am making.
muting this now