the line from NYT and herself was that she made these tweets in a trolling fashion (against people who were harassing her) and that she didn't mean it

believable / not believable?

Yeah, that's what I get from it too.

i agree that context matters, but when its someone the left doesnt like, context doesnt always apply. seems like a bit of a double standard

But as someone who holds the principle that context is important, do you think that sacrificing your principles to get a desired effect is good?

poor acosta

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-sarah-sanders-refuses-to-say-press-isnt-enemy-of-the-people-in-jawdropping-clash-with-jim-acosta/

I see it as witting hypocrisy.

generally i would say no, one should avoid sacrificing their principles unless the circumstances are extreme

this i wouldnt count as extreme

I mean, there are plenty of right-leaning individuals willing to resort to Alinksy tactics.

I'm sort of okay with that, especially since they're people I don't associate myself with

link to alinsky explanation? not familiar

Alinsky isn't a bogeyman

Saul Alinsky?

Saul Alinsky is a socialist writer, and author of the book Rules for Radicals

Yes

It's not possible to win anymore without such tactics.

A lot of people treat it as some sort of cursed book. It's really mundane, but offers decent advice about changing the status quo

So you can either choose to use them and compete, or retain the moral high ground and lose.

Rules for Radicals is overrated imo.

I'd agree yeah

My perception is that it is not possible to win, then.

No, it's possible.

I don't think Alinsky tactics are some sort of moral failing

But it's a difficult, challenging game.

Resorting to the same tactics used against you in a battle of principles

is a pyrric victory at it's core.

It's a fair assessment. And you're right, you have to temper your movements with principle.

But in some sense it's also a prisoner's dilemma.

i don't know about "the press" but acosta is very much an "enemy of the people"

I don't think it's unprincipled to demand consistency from organizations based on the rules they've set

I think the twitter mobbing is a bit dumb, but I think the core request is fine

"you live by the rules you make for others" is very much a principle

At some point you have to evaluate the battlefield and come to the conclusion that the old tactics don't work anymore. The British couldn't line up in neat ranks in bright red uniforms, stand up straight and trade volleys with the Boers because the Boers were not going to play by those rules.

They'd snipe individually from cover, in the prone, wearing camo.

No amount of gentlemanly conduct is going to defeat that.

Do you see a difference between approaching NYT and telling them they're hypocrites for hiring someone, and conveying to the people at large that NYT are hypocrites for their actions?

Yes and no.

I do. It's ever-so-subtle, but it's there.

The audience is different.