The right-wing activist and convicted felon's gesture was identical to the one Musk made at Donald Trump's inauguration The post Steve Bannon Gives Apparent Nazi Salute During CPAC Speech, Mirroring Elon Musk | Video appeared first on TheWrap.
They came to the same fucking interpretation as you did, but that’s still not good enough. “Apparently” they don’t just have to oppose nazis, they have to participate in your daily Two Minutes Of Hate. Clearly differentiating between objective observation and the inferences drawn from those objective observations IS A GOOD THING. So fucking fragile.
The space karen one was blatantly apparent, this was a pretty half assed attempt. Like he is too much of a bitch to put his contemptible fascist ideology on full display.
In this case I think the point is to be on the nose about how fucking ridiculous it is - just from this article:
Steve Bannon made a gesture that is identical to a Nazi salute
Bannon made the gesture — extending his arm, palm down, fingers straight, at an upward angle away from his chest, which is also what Nazi salutes look like
the gesture was also identical to one made by billionaire Elon Musk
extended his arm straight out, palm down, fingers straight, at an upward angle away from his chest. Which, whatever the billionaire’s intention, just happens to be precisely how a Nazi salute is performed.
Musk repeated the gesture. Here’s how that looked. <pic of Musk doing a Nazi salute>
Nah. Getting sued for libel is what these outlets should be absolutely proud to have sent their way. That’s literally a news story in itself. It would also means he’d actually have to defend it instead of posting Nazi puns on Twitter.
Less than perfectly, due to the constraints of the system they are forced to operate within.*
You are, of course, free to start up a news agency that fulfills every ideal you hold close, just know that you’ll have to have a lot of funding if you’re going to be spending as much time in court defending against libel lawsuits as you spend on reporting.
Apparent? Shut the fuck up.
Getting upset when journalists explicitly flag their interpretations is pretty fucked up and fragile.
“Interpreting” a sieg heil is pretty fucked up and complicit.
They came to the same fucking interpretation as you did, but that’s still not good enough. “Apparently” they don’t just have to oppose nazis, they have to participate in your daily Two Minutes Of Hate. Clearly differentiating between objective observation and the inferences drawn from those objective observations IS A GOOD THING. So fucking fragile.
The space karen one was blatantly apparent, this was a pretty half assed attempt. Like he is too much of a bitch to put his contemptible fascist ideology on full display.
In this case I think the point is to be on the nose about how fucking ridiculous it is - just from this article:
Throwing in the word “apparent” is cowardly, but it’s also a lot cheaper than being sued for libel by a fucking billionaire.
Yeah. They’re cowards because they don’t want to lose any money saying the truth.
Nah. Getting sued for libel is what these outlets should be absolutely proud to have sent their way. That’s literally a news story in itself. It would also means he’d actually have to defend it instead of posting Nazi puns on Twitter.
So at what point of doing something does it actually become the thing that it was?
Seems pretty obvious to me.
From a legal point of view it hasn’t been tried in a court of law, which is why words like “apparently” and “allegedly” are used.
By that logic, it would impossible to report on literally anything.
Yes. It’s impossible to report objectively on capitalists with enough control to sue. This has been shown again and again.
Yet here they are, reporting on it.
Badly.
Less than perfectly, due to the constraints of the system they are forced to operate within.*
You are, of course, free to start up a news agency that fulfills every ideal you hold close, just know that you’ll have to have a lot of funding if you’re going to be spending as much time in court defending against libel lawsuits as you spend on reporting.
Oxford’s top definition for Apparent is “clearly visible or understood; obvious”
And the second (which is how they are using it) is “seeming real or true, but not necessarily so”.
I think the third one is “brother, i really don’t wanna get sued for that shit.” Pretty sure they are using that one.