For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
It sounds a little like spying on private citizens who have not been newsworthy.trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:08 pm Is it a sound political philosophy, for the New York Times to do reviews, or commentaries, of people who work as employees at supermarkets in the UK, in the context that the reviews are criticisms, like how movie journalists do reviews of movies?
I find it very fascinating, how you ended the reply; "seems unkind" - would you mind elaborating a bit on it?commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:52 pmIt sounds a little like spying on private citizens who have not been newsworthy.trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:08 pm Is it a sound political philosophy, for the New York Times to do reviews, or commentaries, of people who work as employees at supermarkets in the UK, in the context that the reviews are criticisms, like how movie journalists do reviews of movies?
It may be legal to do so according to British law (I don’t know) but the motivation behind publishing editorials and op-eds about private citizens without noteworthy events seems unkind.
Why do you think they wouldn't?
The same reason that they're not going to start a daily feature about arbitrary shells they find on the Jersey Shore. What would be the motivation for it? Who is asking for it? How would it help increase their readership or revenue?
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:27 amThe same reason that they're not going to start a daily feature about arbitrary shells they find on the Jersey Shore. What would be the motivation for it? Who is asking for it? How would it help increase their readership or revenue?
They don't publish just any random thing that someone thinks of.
The comparison is rather easy to decipher. One interpretation is that arbitrary shells on the Jersey shore are like individual employees at the supermarket in that both are of little interest to the news-reading public. Neither is in any way newsworthy. Neither will increase circulation or profits.trokanmariel wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:59 pmTerrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:27 amThe same reason that they're not going to start a daily feature about arbitrary shells they find on the Jersey Shore. What would be the motivation for it? Who is asking for it? How would it help increase their readership or revenue?
They don't publish just any random thing that someone thinks of.
How do you make the comparison, between the question and arbitrary shells on Jersey shore, if you don't mind me asking?
commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:38 pmThe comparison is rather easy to decipher. One interpretation is that arbitrary shells on the Jersey shore are like individual employees at the supermarket in that both are of little interest to the news-reading public. Neither is in any way newsworthy. Neither will increase circulation or profits.trokanmariel wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:59 pmTerrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:27 am
The same reason that they're not going to start a daily feature about arbitrary shells they find on the Jersey Shore. What would be the motivation for it? Who is asking for it? How would it help increase their readership or revenue?
They don't publish just any random thing that someone thinks of.
How do you make the comparison, between the question and arbitrary shells on Jersey shore, if you don't mind me asking?
You do know, don’t you, that if you’re a bot you have to say so?trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 7:00 pmI find it very fascinating, how you ended the reply; "seems unkind" - would you mind elaborating a bit on it?commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:52 pmIt sounds a little like spying on private citizens who have not been newsworthy.trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:08 pm Is it a sound political philosophy, for the New York Times to do reviews, or commentaries, of people who work as employees at supermarkets in the UK, in the context that the reviews are criticisms, like how movie journalists do reviews of movies?
It may be legal to do so according to British law (I don’t know) but the motivation behind publishing editorials and op-eds about private citizens without noteworthy events seems unkind.
People are responding to a bot as if it has some kind of deep insightcommonsense wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:48 pmYou do know, don’t you, that if you’re a bot you have to say so?trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 7:00 pmI find it very fascinating, how you ended the reply; "seems unkind" - would you mind elaborating a bit on it?commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:52 pm
It sounds a little like spying on private citizens who have not been newsworthy.
It may be legal to do so according to British law (I don’t know) but the motivation behind publishing editorials and op-eds about private citizens without noteworthy events seems unkind.
Reminds me of the film 'Being there' with Peter Sellers.It's just another example, off the top of my head, of something that there would be zero motivation for them to write about.trokanmariel wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:59 pmTerrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:27 amThe same reason that they're not going to start a daily feature about arbitrary shells they find on the Jersey Shore. What would be the motivation for it? Who is asking for it? How would it help increase their readership or revenue?
They don't publish just any random thing that someone thinks of.
How do you make the comparison, between the question and arbitrary shells on Jersey shore, if you don't mind me asking?
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:59 pmIt's just another example, off the top of my head, of something that there would be zero motivation for them to write about.trokanmariel wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:59 pmTerrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:27 am
The same reason that they're not going to start a daily feature about arbitrary shells they find on the Jersey Shore. What would be the motivation for it? Who is asking for it? How would it help increase their readership or revenue?
They don't publish just any random thing that someone thinks of.
How do you make the comparison, between the question and arbitrary shells on Jersey shore, if you don't mind me asking?
What don't you understand about it?trokanmariel wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:30 amTerrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:59 pmIt's just another example, off the top of my head, of something that there would be zero motivation for them to write about.trokanmariel wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:59 pm
How do you make the comparison, between the question and arbitrary shells on Jersey shore, if you don't mind me asking?
Could you perhaps explain what you mean by that?