Washington Post fires columnist for quoting Charlie Kirk on social media

[jmdrake]

...than Clarence Thomas.

Learn to read.

Sorry. My mistake. Mea culpa.

 

[TheTexan]

...than Clarence Thomas.

Learn to read.

Learn critical reading skills cus you missed the point entirely good job

 

[jmdrake]

I don't understand what your defense of her is. You seem to concede the point that she lied by saying that Kirk said something he didn't. Doesn't that right there settle the case against her?

You seem to not know what the word "lie" means if you think I "conceded that she lied." Lying implies intent. She accurately represented the racist spirit of what Charlie Kirk said even if she should have said it better. This is what Snopes fact checked as accurate.

Charlie Kirk once said prominent Black women didn't have 'brain processing power' to be taken seriously.​

True
About this rating
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rating/true
And technically it is true. Of course like the old game "telephone" leave out the word "prominent" and it's still technically true. Charlie Kirk did say black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. He never said all black women lack said brain processing power nor did he say all prominent black women lack brain processing power. And yes, she should have left out the quotes. Now where you this concerned about accuracy when Trump was going around talking about people eating cats and dogs? If so please reference you doing that.

 

[acptulsa]

Sorry. My mistake. Mea culpa.

Sorry I type so slow. I'm faster on the rare occasions I use an actual keyboard instead of trying to hit tiny squares with fat fingers.

 

[jmdrake]

Learn critical reading skills cus you missed the point entirely good job

It's hard to not miss a point when said point doesn't exist.

 

[Invisible Man]

You seem to not know what the word "lie" means if you think I "conceded that she lied." Lying implies intent.

Either she knew that he didn't say the quote that she attributed to him, or she didn't.

If she did know, then attributing it to him was a lie.

If she didn't know, then she lied by representing herself as someone who knew that he said that, when in fact she didn't.

Either way, she lied. She's a journalist who was working for a major Newspaper, not a lay person who doesn't know any better.

If his real quote really did convey racism, then quote the real quote, and let readers draw that conclusion. The whole point of changing the quote is to make it look racist. Or, even without giving the real quote, she could still have given an indirect quotation, without the use of quotation marks, showing that it was what she interpreted him to mean, or putting direct quotes only around the part he actually said, or putting brackets around the words she or her source supplied. Failing to do any of these things is reason enough to fire her.

And it's also reason enough to change the thread title. It's clear that you now know that the thread title as currently written is not true, even if you mistakenly believed it to be true when you first posted it.

At this point, it's clear that she was not fired for quoting him. She was fired for misquoting him. That's undeniable, unless he actually said the exact words that she put in quotation marks and attributed to him.

 

[Invisible Man]

Now where you this concerned about accuracy when Trump was going around talking about people eating cats and dogs? If so please reference you doing that.

Yes, in fact, more so. See my many posts in this thread.

'OH - Haitian migrants eating cats?'

Sep 7, 2024

• Anti Federalist
• donald trump
• Replies: 1,057
• Forum: U.S. Political News

 

[Brian4Liberty]

...than Clarence Thomas.

Learn to read.

Learn critical reading skills cus you missed the point entirely good job

 

[jmdrake]

Either she knew that he didn't say the quote that she attributed to him, or she didn't.

If she did know, then attributing it to him was a lie.

If she didn't know, then she lied by representing herself as someone who knew that he said that, when in fact she didn't.

Either way, she lied. She's a journalist who was working for a major Newspaper, not a lay person who doesn't know any better.

If she was quoting a secondary source then it's not a lie.

If his real quote really did convey racism, then quote the real quote, and let readers draw that conclusion. The whole point of changing the quote is to make it look racist. Or, even without giving the real quote, she could still have given an indirect quotation, without the use of quotation marks, showing that it was what she interpreted him to mean, or putting direct quotes only around the part he actually said, or putting brackets around the words she or her source supplied. Failing to do any of these things is reason enough to fire her.

On Twitter all of the context that shows why what Charlie Kirk said was racist doesn't fit. (For example showing that Charlie Kirk was questioning the qualifications of KBJ who's actually more qualified than CT). And her quote is so close to the Snopes quote, which is accurate (at least you have disputed it), that it's quite likely she quoted a secondary source that she didn't realize wasn't a direct quote. But to jump straight to "She must be lying" is as much of a stretch as saying "Charlie Kirk must be racist."

And it's also reason enough to change the thread title. It's clear that you now know that the thread title as currently written is not true, even if you mistakenly believed it to be true when you first posted it.

At this point, it's clear that she was not fired for quoting him. She was fired for misquoting him. That's undeniable, unless he actually said the exact words that she put in quotation marks and attributed to him.

I don't see how to change the thread title. (I tried). I don't mind a mod changing the title to "Woman fired for misquoting Charlie Kirk in a way that nonetheless accurately reflected the racial intent behind what he said." Somehow I don't think that would satisfy you though.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Don't just impeach her then:

Please don't throw me in that briar patch!

The powers of impeachment and veto ought to be much more widely vested (and widely used) than they are.

 

[Invisible Man]

If she was quoting a secondary source then it's not a lie.

But she claimed that she wasn't quoting a secondary source. She claimed she was quoting Kirk. If she wasn't actually quoting Kirk (and she wasn't), then that was a lie. She reported that she knew for a fact that Kirk said something, when in reality, she did not know for a fact that he said it.

 

[CaptUSA]

I don't see how to change the thread title. (I tried). I don't mind a mod changing the title to "Woman fired for misquoting Charlie Kirk in a way that nonetheless accurately reflected the racial intent behind what he said." Somehow I don't think that would satisfy you though.

You know you can be against DEI and affirmative action without being racist, right??

 

[jmdrake]

You know you can be against DEI and affirmative action without being racist, right??

So...I didn't even mention DEI. You seem obsessed with it. Anyway, if you're against DEI you're against Christianity. I've explained this to you before but it bears repeating. Acts 6. The Greek widows (diversity) complained about not getting enough of the poor fund (equity) so the complained to the Apostles who set up the office of deacon and the first 7 deacons had Greek names (inclusion).

 

[Occam's Banana]

original: