Televised political debates can only be serious and meaningful in terms of posturing and the altercation between opponents. True or false?
Obviously, they are never going to exchange blows in a literal sense, but the altercation itself is a serious and meaningful exchange of words.
Beyond the posturing itself there is nothing serious or substantive about the exchange of hostilities on live television.
This same principle applies to "flaming" and other exchange of words in cyberspace.
Obviously, the internet trolls will never come to blows in a literal sense, which means there is nothing serious or substantive at all about the exchange of hostilities, except for the posturing itself.
Beyond the posturing itself there is nothing serious or substantive at all about the actual exchange of words (both, oral and written), which is clearly intended to communicate hostility or opposition to one's opponent.
But what are you going to do about it?
By definition, the posturing itself is serious and meaningful, but was never intended to harm the enemy in a literal, substantive or fundamental sense.
- abdulLv 74 weeks ago
Those debates rely on the news people asking them to answer INTELLIGENT questions. Most debates the news people aren't themselves smart enough to ask intelligent questions, so we listen to a bunch of tripe.
- Anonymous4 weeks ago
The media chooses what the questions are, the time limits, etc., so it is all a form of agenda-setting. Look at how CNN supports the lie that Bernie is a "sexist," when he is a far-left, woke socialist. Don't trust the Establishment media. The DNC is the Establishment party, and the media is their propaganda wing.