Discussion in 'Politics' started by Xmo1, May 17, 2018.
That'll work. Yeah...
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
So it is your assertion that the question being asked cannot be context for the answer being given.
Just making sure.
So, it is your assertion that Trump explicitly calling MS-13 "animals" elsewhere does not back up my argument that when asked about MS-13, his identical response is somehow not relevant.
Just making sure.
And you're welcome to wax poetic on those things. I don't disagree. But this article's context is that of a question asked.
The immediate context of the exchange was the question being asked to which he directly responded. That Trump's your rhetoric about a larger picture.
Well, you could always moderate yourself. That's actually the preferred method used by this board.
You're not just trolling Iceaura, you're trolling anyone else who is trying to have a civil discussion.
I do moderate myself. I'd like ice to shut the fuck up, since he trolls so fricking hard on a minute-by-minute basis, he destroys any hopes for a rational and civil discussion.
The civil discussion part should be up to him, since he contradicts himself with damned near every post.
If the wise and learned moderators decide to ban me for truth, so the hell what? Enjoy the perfect world of civility without controversy. Except that ice will find a way to shit in that bowl of post toasties quick as a wink...
This celebration of insipidity and ignorance should continue unabated by rational thought, and y'all can let the stupid feel empowered by their presence here.
Gold stars for drooling!
That's kind of the opposite of moderating yourself. Agree?
And how is that working for you?
These are rhetorical questions.
That is not my assertion. My assertion was about this article, this exchange, this answer, this situation.
He rambled, actually.
But the question is not it's own context, regardless of the answer. The context of an exchange is not one of the questions in it.
No, it isn't. The context of the article is other articles, the discussion of the topic, etc. Context is larger, not smaller, than the contextualized.
See what I mean? that idiot will bitch about getting hung with a new rope.
Rhetorical or not, I'm old enough, with enough experience in more than posturing from the armchair, to not wish to put up with obvious bullshit. Thanks.
An answer is in the context of the question being asked.
The question is the context of its answer.
Trump does not explicitly change the subject of the question. The subject of the question was MS-13.
Anyone reading the article needs to know the subject of the question, or they will interpret his comments out-of the context of the question.
They (and you) are welcome to carry on with a larger picture if you wish - and even use this as an example - and you may certainly interpret what he said in whatever way you wish. I don't even disagree with your larger point.
But the fact remains, that quote was not actually Trump calling all undocumented immigrants animals. I made that point in post 2 simply by posting a reference to the whole conversation.
The larger context that you refer to could have just as easily been made while including the direct context of the question to which he responded. But they didn't. Because that would not have been nearly as sensational.
TRUMP CALLS ALL HUMANS PIGS
Uh. The question was: "name a farm animal".
No! it doesn't matter. Historically we know he thinks people are pigs. Therefore, what he REALLY MEANT here was that all people are pigs.
OK, but don't you agree that the public should be informed of the question he was asked, so that they can decide for them-
No! He factually meant humans!
See how illogical that sounds?
The question was a part of the exchange. Not the context of it. This is a simple matter of logic.
Often, not always, that is so - but not as often with Trump as with honest people, as you may have noticed.
And even if it were, which is vague and undetermined in this case, the exchange is not.
Neither does he limit it to MS-13, and exclude the group his immigration policies (the broader subject) target. He did not even couch his answer in the bogus specifics of the question.
True. And would also have been misleading, in implying that Trump was not using the questioner's reference to MS-13 to justify policies aimed at all illegal immigrants with brown skin - a group he once again represents as gangsters, rapists, traffickers, MS-13 members, etc.
The sensational ones accurately reported the meaning of the exchange, and Trump's response, in other words. You may question their motives - claim that the sensational aspect was their primary reason - but the results remain.
Then why not simply include more of the quoted conversation than I did?
Why are we 90 posts in, you saying I'm "wrong", when all you needed to do to fix it was quote from a few more lines in the exchange?
That would have been "a simple matter of logic".
Providing the text text that led up to Trump's comments does not make any implications. It sure wouldn't have been misleading.
You talk like you don't trust the public to make up their own minds from what they read - and that, if you give them too much relevant information, they will somehow be misled. You talk like it is the media's duty - and, by extension, yours - to control the narrative via selective inclusion of facts. I doubt that's the way you think of it, but that's what it smells like.
You can't report "the meaning of an exchange" (your words) if you only include half of the "exchange".
An exchange is, by definition, a two-way street. That's "a simple matter of logic".
That would have been as irrelevant from me as from you.
Then you will cease claiming that it does?
I'm simply pointing out that the sensationalist media got the story right, this time. Do I trust these media to always get the story right? No.
I'm trying to imagine the operations of a news media that does not select facts to include in its news reports.
(pause for thought, brows furrowed in effort).
Nope, drawing a blank.
No, it isn't.
The part is not the context of the whole. This is basic.
Sure you can. Your report can fail to directly quote any of the exchange at all - not a single quoted word.
And a report of an exchange is a one way street - from the reporter, to the receiver of the report.
And on cue, another reporter covers another one of Trump's speeches.
Note how carefully the reporter follows Trump's lead and furthers his rhetorical tactics, in never mentioning the illegal immigrants his policies target without simultaneously highlighting MS-13 or gangs or the like.
This coverage will meet with more approval here, perhaps - at some cost of accuracy in reporting what Trump actually said and what his audience actually heard, of course, but a small price to pay in avoiding the accusation of "controlling the narrative", no doubt.
Btw: A blogger has helpfully catalogued a good share of the terms used by the reporter in this example of Trump coverage, in place of more directly and accurately descriptive terms such as "lied", "lies", "lying", and so forth: http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2018/05/ripped-from-pages-of-new-york-times.html
No wonder you find the words of the questioner irrelevant↑ and off-topic↑.
To reiterate an earlier point:
• It's hard to know what to review for you, Dave, since you give people nothing to work with. I told you, early on↑, he's not actually talking about Sheriff Mims' talking point; her talking point is that ICE should be helping local enforcement shake down suspected Hispanics. And we went through it again↑, yesterday, or, at least, I did, reminding, the original question wasn't actually about MS-13; more directly↱, "The questioner made one offhand hypothetical reference to MS-13 in a much longer question that was 'about' the standard for referring people detained by law enforcement to ICE." (#31↑)
You know, just one of those points about the words of the questioner that you find irrelevant and off-topic.
Indeed, what counts, in the time since, for what you give is still nothing. People have nothing to work with except your blind screeching for a very constricted larger context.
No. Our stances are not mutually exclusive.
Yours attempts to exclude mine, but mine does not attempt to exclude yours.
If you had simply acknowledged that "Yes, this article is ambiguous in its attempt to provide context, but in the larger picture there is a larger context".
Nice try. I am not claiming implication; I'm claiming explicitation. Providing the contextual question that led to the answer is explicitly providing context.
What you were trying to say is that providing the question that elicited the answer would (in your view) fallaciously imply that the question elicited the answer.
It isn't fallacious to show the question that elicited the answer.
And I guess that's OK with you. I guess that, should you spot an omission that alters the message, you'll just ignore it.
I have gotten so used to debating that I forgot that actions speak louder than words. I achieved my goal in post 2, for anyone who is interested in getting the facts for themselves, instead of from headlines and sound bytes by sensationalist reporters.
There's surely a broader discussion to be had here about Trump's tactics, and that's fine, but it shouldn't start off with a misrepresentation of facts.
I've averted that. And that was all I intended. Please carry on.
An honest but ineffectual attempt to make sense of his bullshit.
You miss the entire matter at hand in my posts: The sensational article more or less correctly reported the meaning of Trump's response to the question. That's my only claim.
You keep making the same mistake - the question was part of the exchange, not the context of it.
That's not what fallaciously means.
And no, that isn't what I said. You can safely assume that I'm not trying to say things I don't say.
Of course. I regard news media as very valuable, and good professional journalism as a high calling.
Selecting (omitting) facts in such a way as to "alter the message" would be bad journalism, at best a mistake, and I would not trust those who do that frequently.
For example, I just linked (93) an NYT report of a subsequent Trump speech in which the reporter came very close to "altering the message" by omission: they falsely reported the nature and frequency of Trump's dishonesties by employing a variety of euphemistic and allusive terminology to describe them, adn avoiding direct acknowledgment of their counterfactual nature by directing attention to their effects on his audience, rhetorical role in his speech, etc. They did correct some of them, and they did allude to the problem if one read for tone, so it wasn't a completely incompetent or corrupt display - but we know that the NYT, at least this reporter, needs to be treated warily and carefully as a source of news about Trump and his speeches.
That's the opposite of moderating yourself.
Play that tiny violin!
They're not considering banning you for "truth." They are considering banning you because you can't make your point without personal attacks.
I mean, someone could come here and tell you "go fuck yourself" every time you said anything. Would that be "telling the truth?" Or would it be a lazy and thoughtless way to make a meaningless attack?
He never shits in my bowl of toasties (whatever that is) because I often ignore him. You could do the same, if you wanted to. If you prefer to engage him, and can't control your temper - it's your own fault.
As a matter of fact, it is. Feel free to keep a dictionary handy.
What you actually said was:
* "...to include the direct context of the question to which he responded..."
It is not "misleading" to include the question being asked that the responder is addressing.
No, it isn't. Wrong is not the same as being fallacious. See below.
It can be, depending on circumstances - context.
In this case, for example, one would have had to clearly indicate that Trump was not in fact "responding" to a question about MS-13 gang members specifically, and his policies toward them specifically, but was instead seizing an opportunity to justify his immigration policies and enforcement tactics by implying their targets were subhuman threats to American civilization. It would be easy for the ignorant or misled to get that impression, as apparently you did, from a falsely or misleadingly contextualized transcription of the exchange as a question and "answer".
That's not a fallacy - it's quite possible for responses to questions to be honest, and the questions themselves to be informatively and clearly couched. It's just not the case in this case - and accurate, competent, clear, and efficient reporting will be of what is the case, rather than what is not the case.
Separate names with a comma.