I wanted to give some kind of interesting intro to my political thread regarding an experiment I'm doing, so I came up with this. It's only been a couple hours since I started on it, so some of it might be inconsistent in some of the wording, but I'm curious to what people might think. Here it is: I am LTSold, a commenter of comments made by political commentators commenting on relevant comments to bring in many irrelevant comments to provide themselves with more relevant comments to comment on, which results in making a living off of comments commented on, or to make a short comment, being a living comment, but I digress in my comments…..so if you would like to comment on any of my comments I commented on, which might have been a comment directed or referring to another comment or comments, unless the comment I commented on isn’t directly referring to another comment, my comments are still only my comments about other comments, not just my conjured up comments, but even if my comment isn’t a comment referring to another comment, my comment still was influenced by other comments or even comments that were commented on, and before you comment don’t forget my comments are just comments about comments that end up commenting on other comments, which could mean those comments I commented on are comments from professionals whose comments are controlled by other comments, or even just comments to bring in more comments to comment on their comments they commented on and attract more important comments so they’ll have more opportunities to make more comments about comments commented on to more varieties of comments, because certain comments demand comments to be in line with comments they want commented on and to be clear with their own comments, so their own comments can always be the same comments even if the comments they comment on are incongruent to the comments commented before the comments commented on now, therefore certain commentators will comment the same general comment, because all we can believe is comments about comments and it’s hard to believe comments, but even seeing something first hand can be changed by comments to influence comments in general, but I look at comments and give good comments about the comments I agree with and give bad comments to the comments I disagree with, consequently, my comments on the other comments have no loyalty to the commentators making the comments about comments controlled by other comments…..my comments aren’t controlled by comments, but influenced by other comments, therefore I will make an improvised comment so I don’t have to spend years listening to other comments about comments before people say I can comment on comments about “informed” comments, so feel free to comment on my critique where I post comments about various comments, so I can comment on all comments to bring some interesting comments, but even if there’s no comments, I’ll still comment just to comment, because bringing in other comments doesn’t pressure me to change any of the moral base of my own comments, because I want to give my honest comment, but is this comment just a pretentious comment that doesn’t really comment on any comment, fuck you, but comment if you want to comment in this specific thread of comments. Unbiased Experiment
I don’t even think it’s readable, but one hell of a ridiculous run on sentence. Couldn’t get through it man.. Whittle it down a few hundred words. Better yet - scrap the entire thing.
I'm a big fan of proper spelling, grammar, punctuation and black typeface. I couldn't get through it.
I did my best to translate this without using the word "comment" and using better grammar. Translation: I am LTSold, a person who gives his opinion on various important topics discussed by political pundits. The national news networks report any discussions that will draw an audience, and like anything else, they are only as big as the attention they receive from everyday people. The everyday people provide the national news networks the opportunity to profit greatly off of any crazy thing said by anyone "important." They make a living off of doing so, but I digress. If you would like to give your opinion on any of the stories from the news I go over, feel free. Be aware, though, that the networks are only reporting what is in the better interest for the business. The business itself has many political connections, which results to a lot of strings pulled for one story. Even if I'm not referring to a specific story, I'm still forming my opinion off of every story I've heard and experience I've had in my lifetime. I'm only telling you what makes the most sense to me on the ethics and politics I've been told to believe in my entire existence. Nothing I say is purely new or original. The world is a gigantic game of telephone. Don't assume I am right only because I try my best to speak the truth, because all I'm doing is giving my opinion of a story or political issue that has been discussed millions of times before it got to me. Like I said before, many of the topics I discuss could be a big lie or exaggeration I'm ultimately unaware of. Somewhere down the line of a newsworthy story, someone has most likely fabricated that story to bring more attention to it. The more attention the story receives from everyday people, the more opportunities it presents to people who did the deceitful acts to get ahead with that story. The more attention a story receives will lead to the more stories they will have the opportunity to report, therefore the more money everyone a part of it makes. Deception with big news networks begin with their biases. The conservative media will only give a conservative point of view and the liberal media will only give a liberal point of view despite what's right or wrong, therefore they're not at risk of seeming disloyal and half of America are guaranteed to tune back in to see their one-sided view of things. Integrity isn't even an idea to the company, it's a business controlled by numbers just like reality TV. They'll adjust what they say over the years to fit what is perceived by the general public as being liberal or conservative, even if they totally contradict themselves on some moral dilemma they had a few years back. It's hard to believe anything, because we can trust the source we get, but what about the source of the source and so on? Even with technology nowadays, something can be manipulated on video to change the outcome of a story. Even seeing isn't believing anymore. There's hardly any solution, but I always give my honest opinion, good or bad, to any story I see despite what side of the political spectrum I fall under. Consequently, if journalism is something I would want to end up pursuing, I'll be seen as having no loyalty and two-faced, but I like the fact that the things I say aren't controlled. Being relatively ignorant to politics at this moment, I will still give my honest thought out opinion on the stories I hear from people who know more than me, even if I disagree with them. I will not wait until I get through any kind of schooling to voice my opinion. Not bashing school, but a degree doesn't define good morals and facts, it hopefully helps boost them. With that being said, feel free to give your opinion about what I say through these articles and videos done by people who have had much more experience than I have. I would like to get an interesting variety of viewpoints on what I'm doing. Even if by some divine miracle the world finds its Utopia, I will still give my opinion, even if it drives people away. I also have the luxury of not having anyone breathing down my neck telling me what is the right and wrong thing to say. Is this just a pretentious statement that doesn't direct itself toward anything? Fuck you, still but give your opinion if you feel led to.
Okay, I cleaned up the grammar with the translation. Basically the message is repetitively saying to trust no one, especially big news outlets. I'm also saying don't completely trust independent sources either, not because they're deceitful, but because the source of the source of the source of any story they're reporting could've been misconstrued at some point. It's saying to try your best and follow your gut. It's not saying to completely distrust everyone. I'm saying be open to your moral compass and beliefs to change if something presents itself that makes more sense to you. I'm curious if anyone is interested in deciphering this to show if my translation was total bullshit or accurate. I believe it's an accurate translation.
I'm diving deep on this one, just for fun and in jest You had an idea in your mind, you wrote that idea out in an incomprehensible wall of words, words which even if expressed as accurately as possible, cannot fully capture your original thought. Now you have attempted to translate the incomprehensible into something else and you want us to tell you if it is accurate? With love
I really do believe it's accurate, but I don't think people believe me lol. I'm curious to see what you discover. Have fun!
My mind does not give me much peace, dude, especially when it starts going on a subject. It shows on the politics forum, there's only a couple of blades as long-winded as me, I write long, I talk fast, and I say a lot in both mediums. That being said, I don't hold myself to blame there, I think it's the twitter-age dumbing our attention spans down. I've got a lot to say, much of it is well considered, so how do I say it all? I found that it helps a lot to give a long text some spacing (I.e. paragraphs), and to give those paragraphs a title, and to have those titles be able to tell the whole story. Someone should be able to read your opinions in three sentences by way of topic titles, where the breadth of detail is revealed in each paragraph. I don't always agree with your posts on your thread, but I commend your approach to politics, inquisitorial, uncertain, and curious. This is sorely needed in a world where everyone confidently knows everything from Twitter posts and YouTube pundits. Keep it up even if you struggle with the presentation sometimes, I'm a big fan
That means a lot. Thank you. I have a pretty short attention span honestly. That's why I have to read a paragraph 5x before really understanding it. I think it does have a lot to do with social media for me as well. Or maybe it's just me lmao.
To clear things up regarding my last comment, when I'm doing my critiques, I'll read a certain paragraph I don't understand about 10x, I'll research any word I do not know the definition of, and then I'll give my synopsis. I do this because I do have a VERY short attention span and it's hard for me to click with anything. That's why I spend hours on the critiques to make them quality as possible, because I want to show that I am growing with each one. I've been known to do this with other projects in the past, (ie sales and college) I believe very intelligent people, much more intelligent than I, are being fed lies on a day to day basis by pundits they trust. That's why I embarked on the journey to do this without knowing much. I just wanted to clear things up, because my last comment didn't line up with anything I've said before and the critiques I give is an exaggeration of the person I truly am, sort of like a character I've portrayed myself to be in the past (ie sales) I am drunk, so I see this now as being a good explanation of my critiques, a narcissistic disaster, or just a comment that has nothing to do with this thread and therefore everyone is pissed..
Yes. I discovered this in my first year of university - surrounded by brilliant people, and so many of them were idiots. It got compounded in the two years I worked for the university doing research, where part of my job was grading master thesis'. Not only were brilliant people often fools, but liars too, twisting qoutes, sources, and papers to fit their own findings, even if it was by minutae. As you point out with regards to ego, intelligent people love being right , and don't always love doing the work required to be so. Edit: The same goes for less intelligent people, I should say, even worse often. But they're so much easier to spot and sort.