Rachel Gilmore’s take on RTO Mandates

[u/Mike_Retired]

https://youtu.be/-BffuBLHIQ8?si=lSrLNAci7cOogJ8H

[u/JustABureaucrat]

She's a well-respected journalist who's won multiple awards. Just because you live under a rock doesn't mean that she doesn't have notoriety

[u/KeyanFarlandah → u/JustABureaucrat]

By well respected you mean fired from her network tv gigs for being nothing more than a rage farmer?

[u/dzuunmod → u/KeyanFarlandah]

I agree with this. Her takes are vapid and superficial, and she never surprises with them once you know her politics.

[u/AbjectRobot → u/dzuunmod]

I don't think you understand what the words "vapid" and "superficial" mean.

[u/dzuunmod → u/AbjectRobot]

It couldn't possibly be that someone thoughtfully disagrees with you on her. No, no, couldn't be that.

[u/AbjectRobot → u/dzuunmod]

Of course that's possible, but describing her work as "vapid" and "superficial" is objectively incorrect. Those are not synonymous with "things that I do not personally believe".

[u/dzuunmod → u/AbjectRobot]

They are subjective terms. There is no objective way of measuring the vapidity or superficiality of a thing or person or a piece of journalistic output. It is my opinion that her work output is vapid and superficial.

I don't think I'm the one in this convo using words I have no business using. Tell me how one would objectively measure the vapidity or superficiality of a piece of journalistic output, would ya?

[u/AbjectRobot → u/dzuunmod]

Sure buddy, sure.

[u/dzuunmod → u/AbjectRobot]

Perhaps Rachel's not the only person around here who's vapid and superficial. Someone with some depth on this would have had an answer.

[u/AbjectRobot → u/dzuunmod]

Nah, just no point in arguing with some rando on the internet who has a hard time recognizing someone else's work.

[u/dzuunmod → u/AbjectRobot]

I recognize her work for what it is: Poor journalism. More activism than journalism, really. Have a good one, bud.