As Ruth Ben-Ghiat says, the wall-to-wall lying we're seeing Trump engage in right now as the election nears is par for the course for authoritarians, who have to control reality for their followers. She says that "Trump’s campaign … is better understoo...

[ericlawton@kolektiva.social]

@wdlindsy

Much of "the media" is directed by billionaire owners.

They sleep on comfortable piles of cash.

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@DJHDJH Thanks for your explanation, and I apologize that I did not see your point. I agree with you.

[rjblaskiewicz@mstdn.social]

@wdlindsy They sleep on cushy piles of ad money, I think.

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@EricLawton That's my take on what's going on, too.

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@rjblaskiewicz Yes, I think that's a huge factor.

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@RonSupportsYou I'm not sure which quote in particular you mean. The method I use is to link quotes, with the first instance always identifying whom I'm quoting. When I follow that instance with another excerpt in quotation marks, it means the person named in the previous posting(s) is the person speaking. So if you mean that /16 does not name the speaker, to find the name, you move back to /15 and you'll see that it's Todd Beeton. I hope this is clear, and sorry for the confusion.

[ronsupportsyou@mastodon.social]

@wdlindsy You wrote these words that I agree with: "They have already dangerously normalized a criminal con man grifter, ..." Yes, it was /16. Most people will not read 16 posts to discover who said those words. I prefer to name names in each of my posts that included a quote.

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@RonSupportsYou I thought that might be the posting to which you were referring. It was Todd Beeton who wrote those words, not I. I always signify that I'm quoting someone by placing her/his statements in quotation marks. When an excerpt does not have an author's name, that means that the person speaking is the person named in the posting(s) immediately prior to the one with no author named. Because character space is very limited, I use that shorthand method and find most followers understand.

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@RonSupportsYou I'm sorry if you find that method misleading. I would lose valuable characters if I repeated the name of an author in each subsequent posting quoting that author, though I can see how someone who hasn't looked closely at how I build threads could find this confusing, and I'm sorry for the confusion.

[ronsupportsyou@mastodon.social]

@wdlindsy If you follow my advice, then you too could have as many followers here as I have, oh wait, that was a bad example. Seriously, I try not to be misunderstood, and that includes editing each of my posts so that it has all of the essential information, including who said the words that are in my post. I understand your point, but this is why I like using the names of the people I quote whenever I quote them.

[martinvermeer@fediscience.org]

@wdlindsy That's my point.

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@martinvermeer I see. Thanks for explaining. Yes, I think you're correct about that.

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@RonSupportsYou Thanks for the suggestions. I'm truly not here to play the I-have-more-followers game. That has never interested me. I'm here to use what time and energy I have as an aging retired teacher to keep sharing and communicating with others. There are lots of ways I could perhaps do things "better," and draw more followers. I'm more concerned to use my energy to share and interact in the way that seems best to me.