No. What you said was weird. Even if it were true that you had merely been bragging that "more people are going to this protest than went to a civil rights protest," that would have been a WEIRD thing to do.
He didn't say "I meant numbers" he said that it was so obvious that he meant numbers that anyone who interpreted that post in any other way was mentally ill.
When you say that your movement is "bigger... on a scale of historically notable activism than the civil rights movement," that means that you think your movement is more historically notable.
I mean, the person who extrapolates from their own struggles in the economy, and the struggles of those around them, is actually being more scientific than the person who just parrots their preferred internet account.
There's a difference between "using data and science" and mindlessly parroting someone else's interpretation of data because you find it emotionally pleasing. Wouldn't you agree?
When Will Stancil was berating the people who thought that putting your email on protest signup sheets was risky, he INSISTED that this urging of caution was going to depress attendance at the protest itself. If people show up in huge numbers, it shows that he was wrong once again.
Sure! Here you go. To Will Stancil, the issue driving slanted journalism is the "psychology" of individual journalists, not the rich people who own the newspapers.
The psychology that twists coverage in Trump’s favor is transparent, once you accept that psychology plays a role. They want to be perceived as neutral by their peers, and they know their peers suspect them of anti-Trump bias. So they demonstrate independence by scrutinizing Dems and praising Trump.
There were at least two ceasefires under Biden! In which more than five times as many living Israeli hostages were released in exchange for 240 Palestinians! Has everyone forgotten this?
There's a lot of people here who seem to feel that the problems with the Post stem from the fact that Jeff Bezos owns it. But Will Stancil has always firmly disagreed with that! He has his own competing explanation.
FYI, Will Stancil firmly rejects that analysis. He does not believe it to be a systemic problem. He instead believes that journalists and editors individually decide to be cowards, each sincerely motivated by the belief that it makes them look smart.
Time to take Trump seriously and form a broad coalition. Step 1, make sure anyone who thinks American history led to this moment in any way knows that they cannot be in the coalition because that is not the exact same thing as what I think.
If you're interested in my content you can check out my substack. I write about movies. It's pretty dense writing about pop culture. I think even people who don't like what I say on this website could probably get into it.
Yes, becauae that's objectively what it is. He's jus invented a way to seem like he's holding powerful people to account, while actively deflecting blame that the powerful should shoulder onto the public.
If the Democrats ignore Will Stancil's messaging advice and the public rewards them anyway, he still for some reason credits his own messaging as having been magically responsible for the good result.
There's this strange disconnect where you jump straight from "I think this argument is simplistic" all the way to "anyone who makes this argument is being dishonest" without a single word of explanation. All I get is that you FEEL correct, even though you aren't capable of verbalizing why.
