[formalsystems]

I just started posting on the Internet this year after many years of lurking, and I truly don't understand why a handful of people take such a negative tone without even reading what I wrote. Is there something specific you don't agree with?

[jessaustin]

I read the first paragraph, and the abuse of logic just stopped me from continuing. "Americans have suffered far more during the pandemic than any other country, yet 25% of Americans still believe that the pandemic was planned and executed by powerful people." Why would suffering preclude a particular belief in a particular cause of that suffering? Are "powerful people" disinclined to visit suffering upon Americans? Do you have a particular reason to suspect a particular cause? Do you have a particular reason to doubt other causes?

To be clear: I don't know "the cause". It seems likely that the appearance of the virus is a random natural event, but that likelihood hardly precludes other possibilities. The USA response to this hypothetically natural situation has differed sharply from those of other, seemingly more rational, nations. It seems likely that "powerful people" might have had a hand in that. For instance, their lobbyists ensured that the "CARES Act" provided trillions for rich people, but $1200 for normal citizens.

[kps]

> Americans have suffered far more during the pandemic than any other country

That in particular in the opening is enough — a perfect match for the stereotypically ignorant parochial American. The US is among the worst off by some reasonable criteria like deaths per capita, but is in a cluster with other nations and not above. So to claim as if self-evident that it “suffered far more … than any other country” is just nonsense.

[formalsystems]

This is a very good point. I will be rewriting this entire thing and I appreciate the specific feedback.

[formalsystems]

Thank you so much for providing this honest feedback. I am realizing now that I am trying to write these way too fast, and I'm not doing my research well enough or taking my personal opinions out of it.

I'm going to take a step back and ensure I am meeting the standards of HN before posting again. The truth of the matter is I am not a writer and am new to posting anything online. The questions you asked made me realize how little I critically analyzed my own writing. As I mentioned in a comment above, I'd like to make these neutral and lose the incendiary tone.

[buffaloo]

It’s the pervasive high handed tone adopted by propagandists posing as journalists to manipulate readers. We see this propaganda language now usually signaled with phrases like “claims without evidence,” “misinformation,” “lies”... Then, the “journalist” provides no basis for their assertions, instead relying upon their status as journalists, when in fact they are propagandists usurping the role of journalists. Generally, logical fallacies like ad hominem or others follow to craft some desired narrative, never based on critical thinking. This article does just that. “Misinformation”? Says who?

[formalsystems]

Thank you for this feedback. I didn't realize I was taking the same tone as all the partisan journalism I read on a daily basis until I actually tried my hand at writing something myself. Your succinct criticism is greatly appreciated and has helped me tremendously in improving my writing ability.

[hardhar]

Executive Summary: Journalists do not provide evidence for saying my claims do not have evidence, take my word for it. They're all "propagandists" that rely on labeling and name-calling.

[sthnblllII]

I disagree with your lack of perspective. Its simply irresponsible to put normal people under the microscope like this instead of the political establishment that has wrought havoc over the last 60 years. Why not trace the genealogy of lies told by media companies owned by billionaires? The lies that start wars, destroy economies and pillage social trust? Surely that is more consequential than country bumpkins thinking bill gates is a lizard person.

[pii]

:-( seems like an intentional misreading of the content.