THREAD: You can mention two things in the same sentence without trying to draw an equivalency. Cries of "false equivalency" are what some say to distract from unpleasant truths. ((CC @TheStranger, which should start paying me for the clicks I get it!))

For example: Should @SeattlePD officers be held accountable for siege on U.S. Capitol, even if they only attended rally prior? If you say yes, then answer this: Should @SeattleCouncil members be held accountable for deaths at CHOP if they took part in protests leading up to CHOP?

No, the two events aren't the same. No one is saying they are. But the question is meant to see whether your logic is consistent, or if it's influenced by personal bias. But it's easier to cry "false equivalence!" than to be introspective.

I criticized council members for failing to condemn (and even inciting) climate at CHOP, but we did not criticize them for attending protests. If it turns out officers participated in siege or saw criminal behavior and did not leave or act, I will have a similar criticism.

One of the primary problems with the MSM right now is that the threshold for reporting on negative behavior by the right is far, far lower than reporting on negative behavior by the left. Consumers see this. It is blatant.

This is less of a concern for media that is not intended to be unbiased. For example, no one should be surprised when @TheStranger excuses anarchist violence but rails on violence by the right. No one should be surprised when @newsmax does the opposite.

But if the MSM can get back to judging actions independent of the person or their politics, that would be a great start to restoring trust. END THREAD.

((Feel free to quote me, @richsssmith! No charge!))