I’m getting completely sick of inanimate objects and concepts blasting and slamming people. It’s always Country X Slams Y, or building X blasts Y.
What’s wrong with Andrew Bates criticizing Elon Musk. Why do we sum these people up to a point they become shadows behind a larger concept?
The White House is a building filled with people and opinions. It doesn’t blast shit, shut the hell up. No take away from the content here. I’m just fed up with click bait and hearing that whole countries have a unified voice, going around slamming things everytime some asshole says something about another asshole just because the media needs to put a more famous face behind it to give it a bit more oomf.
Apologies for the rant, but I find it all very misleading and rather annoying. The amount of times a country of 300 million people has blasted some dude without consulting with said 300 million people is upsetting.
Having said that, Musk is a cunt. But I say that, not Lemmy. Lol.
What’s wrong with Andrew Bates criticizing Elon Musk.
Because White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates is not speaking for himself, he’s speaking for the institution of the White House as part of his job. Your rant is totally out of place here.
Then it’s “White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates criticizing Musk” or Biden through him. Just because he’s an important part of a spin squad doesn’t mean he’s a building.
He’s. Not. Speaking. For. Himself. He’s reading a statement that was crafted by a team of people and approved by another team of people because he’s speaking for the administration. “The White House” isn’t referring a building in this context, it’s a metonymy for the Biden Administration as an institution.
My point is that it’s a crappy metonymy that should be retired along with many others that only serve to muddy the waters as to who exactly said what on behalf of whom.
Disagreeing with the use of lazy and sometimes misleading language commonly used by hacks ≠ media illiteracy.
Your way of saying it is what would be muddying the waters as it posits the criticism as coming from the individual who is relaying the message which is not the case
Then use your words to SAY who the origin is! Don’t just use a vague catchall for “probably the president but could be anyone in the building”.
Better yet; ask the messenger who the message is specifically from and then talk with THAT person in stead of this mealy mouthed pretense.
I’ve had it up to here 🫡 with the media pretending that organisations and building are persons with unified opinions just because the bosses and middle men want denyability.
And why is it always a slam when wrestling has so many other moves? “White House Suplexes Musk” “Trump Power Bombs DeSantis From The Top Rope” At least be creative with it.
These entities exist specifically to minimize the risks to those comprising them. The problem is that these entities are allowed to exist in the first place. You want sell vegetables? Cool. You want to sell vegetables coated in poison? Well then you should suffer the consequences, not be shielded behind a legal entity and able to gain the size and power to legalize your poison.
I’m getting completely sick of inanimate objects and concepts blasting and slamming people. It’s always Country X Slams Y, or building X blasts Y.
What’s wrong with Andrew Bates criticizing Elon Musk. Why do we sum these people up to a point they become shadows behind a larger concept?
The White House is a building filled with people and opinions. It doesn’t blast shit, shut the hell up. No take away from the content here. I’m just fed up with click bait and hearing that whole countries have a unified voice, going around slamming things everytime some asshole says something about another asshole just because the media needs to put a more famous face behind it to give it a bit more oomf.
Apologies for the rant, but I find it all very misleading and rather annoying. The amount of times a country of 300 million people has blasted some dude without consulting with said 300 million people is upsetting.
Having said that, Musk is a cunt. But I say that, not Lemmy. Lol.
Lemmy SLAMS cnbc
Lemmy user u/PotjiePig viciously disembowels and subsequently consumes the entrails of modern media language!
Because White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates is not speaking for himself, he’s speaking for the institution of the White House as part of his job. Your rant is totally out of place here.
I think their broader point is still valid, which is that clickbaity “blasts” is fucking annoying regardless
Then it’s “White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates criticizing Musk” or Biden through him. Just because he’s an important part of a spin squad doesn’t mean he’s a building.
He’s. Not. Speaking. For. Himself. He’s reading a statement that was crafted by a team of people and approved by another team of people because he’s speaking for the administration. “The White House” isn’t referring a building in this context, it’s a metonymy for the Biden Administration as an institution.
We desperately need media literacy education.
I know perfectly well what they meant.
My point is that it’s a crappy metonymy that should be retired along with many others that only serve to muddy the waters as to who exactly said what on behalf of whom.
Disagreeing with the use of lazy and sometimes misleading language commonly used by hacks ≠ media illiteracy.
Your way of saying it is what would be muddying the waters as it posits the criticism as coming from the individual who is relaying the message which is not the case
Then use your words to SAY who the origin is! Don’t just use a vague catchall for “probably the president but could be anyone in the building”.
Better yet; ask the messenger who the message is specifically from and then talk with THAT person in stead of this mealy mouthed pretense.
I’ve had it up to here 🫡 with the media pretending that organisations and building are persons with unified opinions just because the bosses and middle men want denyability.
Journalism is dead and capitalism killed it
„So I started blasting”
- the White House, probably
And why is it always a slam when wrestling has so many other moves? “White House Suplexes Musk” “Trump Power Bombs DeSantis From The Top Rope” At least be creative with it.
“Musk Hit With Chair” sounds great to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy
“Potjie Pig Blasts CNBC For Promoting ‘Blasting’ And ‘Slamming’”
Damn this reminded me to think for a second before adopting or endorsing this. Thank dude
Synecdoche
slamming and then blasting is basically me every night before bed.
It’s like an old Batman TV episode.
deleted by creator
These entities exist specifically to minimize the risks to those comprising them. The problem is that these entities are allowed to exist in the first place. You want sell vegetables? Cool. You want to sell vegetables coated in poison? Well then you should suffer the consequences, not be shielded behind a legal entity and able to gain the size and power to legalize your poison.
You have completely made things up. This entity exists because of the logistical difficulties of one person running a branch of government.
I was referring to the corporate ones, not the government ones.
The government ones are there of course to consolidate power amongst the most successful psychopaths.