• StorminNorman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fuck me, it’s a comment on social media, not a grad school dissertation. If you want to discuss this in the detail that you want, make you’re own post. For now, in this context, this is perfectly fine and illustrates the point that the original op was trying to make. This horseshit you’re adding to just strengthens their comments rather than weaken it like you want to do.

    • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So just to be clear, you’re saying it’s media literate to just go by a random study someone linked in a comment section with barely any context? And that that comment is even more media literate because someone says the comment has potential for decreasing media literacy rather than increasing it?

      Your comment is actually another great opportunity for readers to practice skepticism and media literacy, thank you.

      • StorminNorman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A question was asked. An answer was given with a source, and a relevant section. That is not random, nor is it without context. Sure, be sceptical of the source, and even attack parts of it that you disagree with. But you did none of that, just assumed that the original poster and everyone else reading it was illiterate in this subject. Did you even read the paper? It’s pretty easy to understand to the layman. Yeah, media literacy is good, but you’ve gone about it entirely wrong here and look like a fool.