Belief, Behavior, and Discourse

[Tiassa]

Behavioral Question

Do people really believe that if they do not use a specific word, they are not talking about a particular subject?

Examples:

Observation: It's just weird how much higher that person's head is than everybody else.

Comment: Yeah, he's pretty tall.

Response: Did I say anything about being tall? I think not.

‡​

Observation: His height is greater than everyone else's.

Comment: Yeah, he's pretty tall.

Response: Did I say anything about being tall? I think not.​

One reason we don't talk much about this behavior is that, in its most simplistic form, it reads ridiculously.

†​

To the other, though, it's subtle, and can be difficult to describe all the layers. Here's an example from social media: Conservative foreign service hand Tom Nichols disputes with conservative think-tank scholar Norman Ornstein: "Norm, I always appreciate your view," Tom replies↱, "But I never said they are equivalent." And while it appears true Tom never uttered that phrase, it is the discussion that was already going on, between Ornstein↱ and conservative columnist Charlie Sykes, that he walked into. Ornstein disagreed with Sykes' false equivalence, and Tom interjected to disagree with Ornstein and agree with Sykes. That is, sure, he never explicitly said they were equivalent, but he interjected to disagree with Ornstein's suggestion of false equivalence and agree with Sykes' comparison.

For someone like Tom Nichols, two things are simultaneously true: First, he's smarter than that; second, they're all conservatives, and this kind of weird technical distinction is not uncommon in American conservative rhetoric. Generally, we can reasonably expect that, if asked directly, Tom Nichols would not say he believes the proposition, "if they do not use a specific word, they are not talking about a particular subject".

To the other, Nichols has also promised to make his case in longer form. One thing to watch for, then, is the presence of false equivalence.

†​

Consider, please: It is not difficult to disagree with someone without saying why.

If all someone says is, "You're wrong," then what have they actually said? If someone criticizes paternalism and condescension, what is it they find paternalistic and condescending? If they do not say explicitly, and we ought not apply their words according to the context of the circumstance, then what are they actually saying?

It's easy enough to suggest they are saying nothing. But that only leads to more questions.

You don't need to be a former diplomat, think-tank scholar, or conservative journalist in order to witness or partake of such behavior. The high-profile episode is actually an incredibly convenient coincidence for being so straightforward.

†​

It's also easy to get lost in an in-between zone. The generic examples seem stupid as hell, but the prestige of the participants doesn't negate how stupid Nichols' turn of rhetoric actually is, i.e., that they are reputable, serious, &c., does not ameliorate the rhetorical device; the alternative is that Tom Nichols walked into a discussion and decided to change the subject, which in turn would be kind of rude and undignified. As it is, it looks like he's just doing this thing that people do.

†​

If dysfunction is common, or even popular, that doesn't magically make it functional.

Compared to straightforward practical examples, a lot of the distinction is obscure, easily drowned out in the noise. Many times, you will see someone disagree with a critique of the issue, and then pretend they weren't talking about the issue.

A common experience at large is akin to the aforementioned paternalism and condescension, which is a version of the post hoc blame game in which the response to something happening is blamed as the reason why it is happening. It's a common trope: The only reason supremacism exists, they say, is that anyone would object. Feminism is blamed for misogyny; civil rights are blamed for racism. But depending on how one phrases it, is it possible that they're not saying anything about such subjects?

For instance, if alleged paternalism and condescension is what motivates people to vote for Politician A, who in turn is a white supremacist, and whose rhetoric these motivated people appreciate, extol, and justify, does the accusation that the objection to racism is what motivated people to vote for the racist prospect they praise have nothing to do with racism?

Do you need that broken down?

1. Politician espouses racism.

2. Supporter praises rhetoric.

3. Opponent denounces racist rhetoric.

4. Casual Observer scolds that Opponent's denunciation is what motivates Supporter to support Politician.

5. Opponent wonders how pre-existing support for racism is caused by response to its presence.

6. Casual Observer complains he never said anything about racism.​

Would you accept point six, that Casual Observer never said anything about racism? If your answer is to agree with Casual Observer, then what did the scold at point four actually mean? Did Casual Observer interject just to change the subject?

Now, if for some reason, the breakdown sounds complicated, it's actually very straightforward in its moment; what makes it seem complicated is trying to understand the context of the apparently unrelated interjection. Or, per the topic question: Do you believe that if he does not explicitly utter the word "racism", he is not talking about racism?

†​

The reason this all occurs to me in our moment is that it just happened again, and it went by so quickly and blatantly that I understand it might be hard to believe someone would try something so blatant.

But when you stop and think about its moving pieces, it's easy to see how common this fallacious sleight really is. And in that sense, maybe it's one of those things that is so common people don't recognize it at first glance.

Thus, the question: Do people really believe that if they do not use a specific word, they are not talking about a particular subject?

It is one thing to suggest that much trouble arises from people being misinformed, as such, but simply saying so doesn't help much unless we understand something about how the whole mess works. And as we delve down, we will, here and there, encounter strangeness and fallacy, and in the moment we might wonder, "Okay, but do people really believe this?"

And this is just one of those.
____________________

Notes:

@NormanOrnstein. "If by this, you mean that journalists will shrug at Trump‘s pardons of January 6 violent insurrectionists and others in a pay for play scheme, while telling his minions that they can violate the laws as much as they want because he will pardon them, you are probably right. Which reflects not on Joe Biden, but on the disgrace of our journalists." X. 1 December 2024. X.com. 3 December 2024. status/1863416498322342341

@RadioFreeTom. "Norm, I always appreciate your view. But I never said they are equivalent. I think it was bad for so many reasons. But I make my case in longer form today, coming shortly." X. 2 December 2024. X.com. 3 December 2024. status/1863713191588462936

@SykesCharlie. "Smart person texts me: 'Joe Biden has just removed the issue of pardons from the political arena for the next four years and Trump probably once again can’t believe his own dumb fucking luck at this point' Sadly, I think he’s right." status/1863404719751798926

 

[Sarkus]

Do people really believe that if they do not use a specific word, they are not talking about a particular subject?

I'm reasonably sure that the answer is usually no, and that it is simply a defensive mechanism so as not to admit that what they wrote/said did not adequately/correctly express what they meant. It happens surprisingly frequently on this site, not that I'm going to offer any examples. In my experience people tend to get pissed off when unintended implications get pointed out to them, so their pride kicks in and they try to excuse it away as not being what they said (even though the implication is writ large). If they can sufficiently obfuscate and evade the issue then they are free to continue to make the same argument as if they have somehow proven the implication to not be there.

It's mostly a symptom of lazy thinking and/or lazy writing (of which we are all guilty of at times) followed by unwillingness to simply admit the error in the as-worded argument (that leads to the wanted implication), whether that unwillingness be through stupidity, ignorance, or pride.

What you're asking, therefore, I see as just one means of obfuscating and evading, while knowing full well that it's ridiculous.

I say "usually no" as there may well be some who unfortunately do think that way. But on the whole I'd say no. There are other reasons other than obfuscation/evasion, such as simply to try to score quick points against someone they don't like, but since the whole approach, to use your phrase, "reads ridiculously", it ultimately seems self-defeating.

So, no, I don't think they usually do believe it, but if it gets them to where they want to be, some people will say it.

 

[exchemist]

Behavioral Question

Do people really believe that if they do not use a specific word, they are not talking about a particular subject?

Examples:

​

Observation: It's just weird how much higher that person's head is than everybody else.​

​

Comment: Yeah, he's pretty tall.​

​

Response: Did I say anything about being tall? I think not.​

​

‡​

​

Observation: His height is greater than everyone else's.​

​

Comment: Yeah, he's pretty tall.​

​

Response: Did I say anything about being tall? I think not.​

One reason we don't talk much about this behavior is that, in its most simplistic form, it reads ridiculously.

†​

To the other, though, it's subtle, and can be difficult to describe all the layers. Here's an example from social media: Conservative foreign service hand Tom Nichols disputes with conservative think-tank scholar Norman Ornstein: "Norm, I always appreciate your view," Tom replies↱, "But I never said they are equivalent." And while it appears true Tom never uttered that phrase, it is the discussion that was already going on, between Ornstein↱ and conservative columnist Charlie Sykes, that he walked into. Ornstein disagreed with Sykes' false equivalence, and Tom interjected to disagree with Ornstein and agree with Sykes. That is, sure, he never explicitly said they were equivalent, but he interjected to disagree with Ornstein's suggestion of false equivalence and agree with Sykes' comparison.

For someone like Tom Nichols, two things are simultaneously true: First, he's smarter than that; second, they're all conservatives, and this kind of weird technical distinction is not uncommon in American conservative rhetoric. Generally, we can reasonably expect that, if asked directly, Tom Nichols would not say he believes the proposition, "if they do not use a specific word, they are not talking about a particular subject".

To the other, Nichols has also promised to make his case in longer form. One thing to watch for, then, is the presence of false equivalence.

†​

Consider, please: It is not difficult to disagree with someone without saying why.

If all someone says is, "You're wrong," then what have they actually said? If someone criticizes paternalism and condescension, what is it they find paternalistic and condescending? If they do not say explicitly, and we ought not apply their words according to the context of the circumstance, then what are they actually saying?

It's easy enough to suggest they are saying nothing. But that only leads to more questions.

You don't need to be a former diplomat, think-tank scholar, or conservative journalist in order to witness or partake of such behavior. The high-profile episode is actually an incredibly convenient coincidence for being so straightforward.

†​

It's also easy to get lost in an in-between zone. The generic examples seem stupid as hell, but the prestige of the participants doesn't negate how stupid Nichols' turn of rhetoric actually is, i.e., that they are reputable, serious, &c., does not ameliorate the rhetorical device; the alternative is that Tom Nichols walked into a discussion and decided to change the subject, which in turn would be kind of rude and undignified. As it is, it looks like he's just doing this thing that people do.

†​

If dysfunction is common, or even popular, that doesn't magically make it functional.

Compared to straightforward practical examples, a lot of the distinction is obscure, easily drowned out in the noise. Many times, you will see someone disagree with a critique of the issue, and then pretend they weren't talking about the issue.

A common experience at large is akin to the aforementioned paternalism and condescension, which is a version of the post hoc blame game in which the response to something happening is blamed as the reason why it is happening. It's a common trope: The only reason supremacism exists, they say, is that anyone would object. Feminism is blamed for misogyny; civil rights are blamed for racism. But depending on how one phrases it, is it possible that they're not saying anything about such subjects?

For instance, if alleged paternalism and condescension is what motivates people to vote for Politician A, who in turn is a white supremacist, and whose rhetoric these motivated people appreciate, extol, and justify, does the accusation that the objection to racism is what motivated people to vote for the racist prospect they praise have nothing to do with racism?

Do you need that broken down?

1. Politician espouses racism.​

​

2. Supporter praises rhetoric.​

​

3. Opponent denounces racist rhetoric.​

​

4. Casual Observer scolds that Opponent's denunciation is what motivates Supporter to support Politician.​

​

5. Opponent wonders how pre-existing support for racism is caused by response to its presence.​

​

6. Casual Observer complains he never said anything about racism.​

Would you accept point six, that Casual Observer never said anything about racism? If your answer is to agree with Casual Observer, then what did the scold at point four actually mean? Did Casual Observer interject just to change the subject?

Now, if for some reason, the breakdown sounds complicated, it's actually very straightforward in its moment; what makes it seem complicated is trying to understand the context of the apparently unrelated interjection. Or, per the topic question: Do you believe that if he does not explicitly utter the word "racism", he is not talking about racism?

†​

The reason this all occurs to me in our moment is that it just happened again, and it went by so quickly and blatantly that I understand it might be hard to believe someone would try something so blatant.

But when you stop and think about its moving pieces, it's easy to see how common this fallacious sleight really is. And in that sense, maybe it's one of those things that is so common people don't recognize it at first glance.

Thus, the question: Do people really believe that if they do not use a specific word, they are not talking about a particular subject?

It is one thing to suggest that much trouble arises from people being misinformed, as such, but simply saying so doesn't help much unless we understand something about how the whole mess works. And as we delve down, we will, here and there, encounter strangeness and fallacy, and in the moment we might wonder, "Okay, but do people really believe this?"

And this is just one of those.
____________________

Notes:

@NormanOrnstein. "If by this, you mean that journalists will shrug at Trump‘s pardons of January 6 violent insurrectionists and others in a pay for play scheme, while telling his minions that they can violate the laws as much as they want because he will pardon them, you are probably right. Which reflects not on Joe Biden, but on the disgrace of our journalists." X. 1 December 2024. X.com. 3 December 2024. status/1863416498322342341

@RadioFreeTom. "Norm, I always appreciate your view. But I never said they are equivalent. I think it was bad for so many reasons. But I make my case in longer form today, coming shortly." X. 2 December 2024. X.com. 3 December 2024. status/1863713191588462936

@SykesCharlie. "Smart person texts me: 'Joe Biden has just removed the issue of pardons from the political arena for the next four years and Trump probably once again can’t believe his own dumb fucking luck at this point' Sadly, I think he’s right." status/1863404719751798926

I'm not sure I can easily envisge this. Can you provide a real example to illustrate it, rather than the obviously ridiculous one you have used?

 

[Tiassa]

Can you provide a real example to illustrate it, rather than the obviously ridiculous one you have used?

There are four examples, in there: Two simplistic illustrations about the word "tall", an episode involving three conservative writers of prestige, and an example about racism, distilled from experience.

So, look back at the part where I rattle off the two illustrative examples and say one reason we don't talk much about this behavior is that, in its most simplistic form, it reads ridiculously.

And then read the next, contrasting sentence: To the other, though, it's subtle, and can be difficult to describe all the layers. What follows that sentence is an example, complete with links and endnotes, involving three ostensibly serious professionals trying to do their professional thing.

The fourth example is experiential, culled from social media including Sciforums, and, technically speaking, still afoot.

So, which one of those four is so ridiculous? At first glance, I would have guessed you were limiting yourself to the two illustrative examples that, as I mentioned, read ridiculously. And, even if we combine the two as one, that still leaves two more examples that you appear to have passed over.

The thing is, the two facially ridiculous illustrative examples are also culled from experience. And if, as such, they read ridiculously, yes, the behavior is, in fact, ridiculous.

And if I'm not the only person who sees it, well, at least there's that, though it doesn't really help you in the moment: I understand it's hard to envisage, that's why I called it subtle and asserted the difficulty of describing all its layers. But that's also why I gave an example from people out in the world: Was it really so incredibly convenient, or maybe the behavior is common enough that it's actually just a convenient coincidence?

So, a presentation question, then: Should I have laid out every one of the posts in the Sykes-Ornstein-Nichols discussion, word for word? That is to say, should I have written a longer post, stretching one paragraph of description into several paragraphs of dialogue?

Or, more directly, what kind of example do you need?

 

[exchemist]

There are four examples, in there: Two simplistic illustrations about the word "tall", an episode involving three conservative writers of prestige, and an example about racism, distilled from experience.

So, look back at the part where I rattle off the two illustrative examples and say one reason we don't talk much about this behavior is that, in its most simplistic form, it reads ridiculously.

And then read the next, contrasting sentence: To the other, though, it's subtle, and can be difficult to describe all the layers. What follows that sentence is an example, complete with links and endnotes, involving three ostensibly serious professionals trying to do their professional thing.

The fourth example is experiential, culled from social media including Sciforums, and, technically speaking, still afoot.

So, which one of those four is so ridiculous? At first glance, I would have guessed you were limiting yourself to the two illustrative examples that, as I mentioned, read ridiculously. And, even if we combine the two as one, that still leaves two more examples that you appear to have passed over.

The thing is, the two facially ridiculous illustrative examples are also culled from experience. And if, as such, they read ridiculously, yes, the behavior is, in fact, ridiculous.

And if I'm not the only person who sees it, well, at least there's that, though it doesn't really help you in the moment: I understand it's hard to envisage, that's why I called it subtle and asserted the difficulty of describing all its layers. But that's also why I gave an example from people out in the world: Was it really so incredibly convenient, or maybe the behavior is common enough that it's actually just a convenient coincidence?

So, a presentation question, then: Should I have laid out every one of the posts in the Sykes-Ornstein-Nichols discussion, word for word? That is to say, should I have written a longer post, stretching one paragraph of description into several paragraphs of dialogue?

Or, more directly, what kind of example do you need?

A real exchange, reported verbatim. There are none in what you have posted, so far as I can see.

 

[Tiassa]

A real exchange, reported verbatim. There are none in what you have posted, so far as I can see.

Nobody should ever wonder, then, why I write long posts.

Sykes: Smart person texts me: "Joe Biden has just removed the issue of pardons from the political arena for the next four years and Trump probably once again can't believe his own dumb fucking luck at this point". Sadly, I think he's right.

Ornstein: If by this, you mean that journalists will shrug at Trump‘s pardons of January 6 violent insurrectionists and others in a pay for play scheme, while telling his minions that they can violate the laws as much as they want because he will pardon them, you are probably right. Which reflects not on Joe Biden, but on the disgrace of our journalists.

Nichols: Norm, it means that in the fights between other Dems and GOPers, pardons are no longer an issue. Trump doesn't give a shit, but Biden just eviscerated an important principle that Dems could have used to draw distinctions with lawless opponents.

Ornstein: Tom, I respectfully disagree. Given what Trump said and what Patel has said, Biden had ample reason to do this. Will it bring criticism and flak? Yes. Will it show even more of the worst examples of false equivalence by journalists? Of course. Does this defang Democrats if and when Trump pardons violent insurrectionists and tells his team that they can commit any crime he orders, up to and including murder, because he has immunity and he will pardon them? If that's the case, we are lost. They are simply not equivalent in any way shape or form.

Nichols: Norm, I always appreciate your view. But I never said they are equivalent. I think it was bad for so many reasons. But I make my case in longer form today, coming shortly.​

To reiterate the summary: While it appears true Tom never uttered that phrase, it is the discussion that was already going on, between Ornstein and conservative columnist Charlie Sykes, that he walked into. Ornstein disagreed with Sykes' false equivalence, and Tom interjected to disagree with Ornstein and agree with Sykes. That is, sure, he never explicitly said they were equivalent, but he interjected to disagree with Ornstein's suggestion of false equivalence and agree with Sykes' comparison.

Thus: Does the fact that Tom Nichols does not explicitly utter the word "equivalent" mean he was not talking about the false equivalence Ornstein asserted of Sykes?

And: The alternative is that Tom Nichols walked into a discussion and decided to change the subject.

 

[exchemist]

Nobody should ever wonder, then, why I write long posts.

​

Sykes: Smart person texts me: "Joe Biden has just removed the issue of pardons from the political arena for the next four years and Trump probably once again can't believe his own dumb fucking luck at this point". Sadly, I think he's right.​

​

Ornstein: If by this, you mean that journalists will shrug at Trump‘s pardons of January 6 violent insurrectionists and others in a pay for play scheme, while telling his minions that they can violate the laws as much as they want because he will pardon them, you are probably right. Which reflects not on Joe Biden, but on the disgrace of our journalists.​

​

Nichols: Norm, it means that in the fights between other Dems and GOPers, pardons are no longer an issue. Trump doesn't give a shit, but Biden just eviscerated an important principle that Dems could have used to draw distinctions with lawless opponents.​

​

Ornstein: Tom, I respectfully disagree. Given what Trump said and what Patel has said, Biden had ample reason to do this. Will it bring criticism and flak? Yes. Will it show even more of the worst examples of false equivalence by journalists? Of course. Does this defang Democrats if and when Trump pardons violent insurrectionists and tells his team that they can commit any crime he orders, up to and including murder, because he has immunity and he will pardon them? If that's the case, we are lost. They are simply not equivalent in any way shape or form.​

​

Nichols: Norm, I always appreciate your view. But I never said they are equivalent. I think it was bad for so many reasons. But I make my case in longer form today, coming shortly.​

To reiterate the summary: While it appears true Tom never uttered that phrase, it is the discussion that was already going on, between Ornstein and conservative columnist Charlie Sykes, that he walked into. Ornstein disagreed with Sykes' false equivalence, and Tom interjected to disagree with Ornstein and agree with Sykes. That is, sure, he never explicitly said they were equivalent, but he interjected to disagree with Ornstein's suggestion of false equivalence and agree with Sykes' comparison.

Thus: Does the fact that Tom Nichols does not explicitly utter the word "equivalent" mean he was not talking about the false equivalence Ornstein asserted of Sykes?

And: The alternative is that Tom Nichols walked into a discussion and decided to change the subject.

Well it's perfectly true that neither Sykes nor Nichols said the two pardons were equivalent, and it is not obvious to me that they were implying they were.

Sykes's point, surely, which Nichols agrees with, is that Biden pardoning his son makes it impossible for Democrats to claim to hold the moral high ground on this issue in political debate. In other words, whether or not they are morally or judicially equivalent, in terms of how it will appear to the public, it will be very hard for Democrats to draw a distinction. If they try, they will just look self-serving.

So in this example I think Ornstein is missing the point.

Which makes me a bit suspicious of the idea advanced in your post. It seems to me one should pay careful attention to what people are saying and be aware of different nuances that may lie behind different ways in which things may be expressed. People generally have difficulty capturing exactly what they intend to convey in verbal exchanges, first time round. It's hard enough even using the written word.

 

[Tiassa]

Well it's perfectly true that neither Sykes nor Nichols said the two pardons were equivalent, and it is not obvious to me that they were implying they were.

Are we to discuss the behavior, or litigate its existence? (I suppose this isn't any surprise↗.)

Which makes me a bit suspicious of the idea advanced in your post.

Litigate it in Politics: This is at least the third iteration of Democrats ceding the moral high ground on pardons; despite the chronology, Republicans never cede moral high ground; not in pardoning Nixon, and not when AG Bill Barr recommended George H.W. Bush pardon his fellows in Iran-Contra. Yes, that AG Bill Barr. The same one who told Donald Trump's Department of Justice to abandon its own standards in order to charge Trump's poltiical rival, Hunter Biden. And, of course, Republicans certainly didn't cede any moral high ground in pardoning Trump's corrupt cronies, nor his daughter's father-in-law. See, the thing is, Skyes' smart person is apparently an ignoramus. (Hint: That's why he framed his opinion as something an anonymous smart person told him.)

Moreover, as to the example at hand, what's even more curious is that Nichols would seem to have ignored what Ornstein actually said:

… Will it show even more of the worst examples of false equivalence by journalists? Of course. Does this defang Democrats if and when Trump pardons violent insurrectionists and tells his team that they can commit any crime he orders, up to and including murder, because he has immunity and he will pardon them? If that's the case, we are lost. They are simply not equivalent in any way shape or form.​

How Nichols came to focus on himself may or may not have its moment, here, but your point about "how it will appear to the public" is also the point Ornstein is making to Sykes. Your argument actually describes the false equivalence.

The thing is, all you're doing is invoking uncertainty according to an apparent lack of information.

 

[exchemist]

Are we to discuss the behavior, or litigate its existence? (I suppose this isn't any surprise↗.)



Litigate it in Politics: This is at least the third iteration of Democrats ceding the moral high ground on pardons; despite the chronology, Republicans never cede moral high ground; not in pardoning Nixon, and not when AG Bill Barr recommended George H.W. Bush pardon his fellows in Iran-Contra. Yes, that AG Bill Barr. The same one who told Donald Trump's Department of Justice to abandon its own standards in order to charge Trump's poltiical rival, Hunter Biden. And, of course, Republicans certainly didn't cede any moral high ground in pardoning Trump's corrupt cronies, nor his daughter's father-in-law. See, the thing is, Skyes' smart person is apparently an ignoramus. (Hint: That's why he framed his opinion as something an anonymous smart person told him.)

Moreover, as to the example at hand, what's even more curious is that Nichols would seem to have ignored what Ornstein actually said:

​

… Will it show even more of the worst examples of false equivalence by journalists? Of course. Does this defang Democrats if and when Trump pardons violent insurrectionists and tells his team that they can commit any crime he orders, up to and including murder, because he has immunity and he will pardon them? If that's the case, we are lost. They are simply not equivalent in any way shape or form.​

How Nichols came to focus on himself may or may not have its moment, here, but your point about "how it will appear to the public" is also the point Ornstein is making to Sykes. Your argument actually describes the false equivalence.

The thing is, all you're doing is invoking uncertainty according to an apparent lack of information.

Now I don't understand what you are arguing. Sure, Ornstein is saying there is no equivalence between Biden's pardon of his own son and the putative pardons Trump might issue, but seems to think Sykes and Nichols were asserting they are equivalent. However Nichols clarifies he is not claiming they are equivalent either, but simply that as far as politics is concerned it won't be possible to argue the distinction between the two cases.

So, regarding the original question in your OP, Nichols and Sykes don't use the term equivalent because that is not what they are saying. They are saying something more nuanced than that, which comes out in the subsequent exchange.

This process is common in dialogue, as people clarify in the course of it exactly what it is they want to convey.

 

[Tiassa]

… but seems to think Sykes and Nichols were asserting they are equivalent.

See, this is the thing—

So, regarding the original question in your OP, Nichols and Sykes don't use the term equivalent because that is not what they are saying. They are saying something more nuanced than that, which comes out in the subsequent exchange.

—your only affirmative assertion is uncertainty.

You appear to be trying to define people's behavior according to ignorance. That's why I say, litigate it in Politics; we could easily waste pages on your fanciful speculation. If we absolutely must go through that many versions of speculation from uncertainty along the way, it might as well just have its own political and historical discussion.

So try an affirmative argument: What was Sykes saying, then?

(As it is, it would appear Sykes never answered Ornstein on that point, but he did reiterate his belief↱ in an later post.)

 

[exchemist]

See, this is the thing—



—your only affirmative assertion is uncertainty.

You appear to be trying to define people's behavior according to ignorance. That's why I say, litigate it in Politics; we could easily waste pages on your fanciful speculation. If we absolutely must go through that many versions of speculation from uncertainty along the way, it might as well just have its own political and historical discussion.

So try an affirmative argument: What was Sykes saying, then?

(As it is, it would appear Sykes never answered Ornstein on that point, but he did reiterate his belief↱ in an later post.)

I have already spelled out for you what I think they were saying, or trying to say.

 

[Tiassa]

I have already spelled out for you what I think they were saying, or trying to say.

So, it would appear some people really do believe that if they do not use a specific word, they are not talking about a particular subject.

 

[exchemist]

So, it would appear some people really do believe that if they do not use a specific word, they are not talking about a particular subject.

Yes, and they may be quite right in that belief, having not chosen the word in question as it does not in fact reflect their position on the matter under discussion.

The key word here is nuance, it seems to me. One should listen to what people say as they try to clarify their position with greater precision, not rush quickly to judgement before one has heard them out.

My son got me a mug a couple of Christmasses ago bearing the slogan: "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that." I am rather proud of that mug.

 

[Sarkus]

Yes, and they may be quite right in that belief, having not chosen the word in question as it does not in fact reflect their position on the matter under discussion.

The key word here is nuance, it seems to me. One should listen to what people say as they try to clarify their position with greater precision, not rush quickly to judgement before one has heard them out.

What Nichols said, though, logically implies equivalence. So while he didn't use the term, what he effectively said is that they are, at least in the regard he's referring to.
If the objective is to balance successfully on a pole, then anything that destroys one's ability to do so can be seen as equivalent in that regard. So a strong gust of wind is equivalent to someone violently shaking the pole, if both acts destroy one's ability to balance successfully.
This is analogous to what Nichols has said, that Biden's use of pardons brought the Dems to the same level as Reps on this matter (even if just in one regard). I.e. he is arguing that the acts are equivalent in that way.
Ornstein recognises that this is what Nichols is saying and disagrees, saying that they are not equivalent in any way, shape, or form.

If this is not what Nichols meant, then his comments were poorly worded, as the implication seems quite clear.
So, sure, he may not have used the word "equivalent" and might genuinely believe that he's not calling them "equivalent". And he may genuinely think that because he hasn't referred to them specifically as "equivalent" that what he said could not possibly mean that he did actually say words to the effect that they are. But then that speaks to his own lack of understanding of what his words are saying (which happens too often on this site, followed by defensive posturing when pointed out, then invariably ad hominems and a downward spiral from there... but that's another story! )

And note, "equivalent" doesn't mean absolutely equivalent in every regard and context possible. That wouldn't be "equivalent" but rather "identical". Equivalent refers to the specific aspect under consideration.

So, as it relates to the OP, this example seems to be a case of someone genuinely believing that because they have not used the term X that they are not talking about the term X. Even though they are.

I see it as a wider issue, though, of people assuming that what they write means, and only means, what they intended it to mean. Both of these assumptions might be wrong: there may be other reasonable interpretations of their words, especially in a given context, and what they write might well have valid implications that they didn't intend, and don't accept. And within this latter is the idea that because they didn't write X they didn't mean X.

It happens in politics often deliberately: maybe Nichols actually knows he is calling them equivalent, but can't bring himself to admit it (for whatever reason). Or maybe he genuinely thinks there is a nuance that means he's not calling them equivalent... but then being equivalent in one regard doesn't mean they're not equivalent in another. In my analogy, the two causes are not equivalent in being caused by another person, but they are still equivalent in bringing to the floor the person trying to balance.

Anyhoo, that's my take on this particular example.

 

[Tiassa]

If this is not what Nichols meant, then his comments were poorly worded, as the implication seems quite clear.

One thing that still stands out, in the current discussion, is the implications of a certain difference. For instance, what you said:

I'm reasonably sure that the answer is usually no, and that it is simply a defensive mechanism so as not to admit that what they wrote/said did not adequately/correctly express what they meant.

There's actually a lot to talk about once we establish the range of what might actually be going on, but, by contrast:

Which makes me a bit suspicious of the idea advanced in your post.

It's the difference between the possible explanations for a phenomenon and the explanation that there is no phenomenon. On an occasion when someone literally came out and said, "I never said," it seems a bit strange to start with the idea that it didn't happen: If the heads and tails is either, not explicit therefore not said, or, changed the subject, the answer is apparently, didn't happen at all.

In a prior issue↗ I had suggested there was a simplistic presupposition in effect, and in these questions it's worth making the point: Having given the objection considerable thought, the problem isn't that I cannot see it, but that I can see it only by presupposing either fallacy or E&O. Or, as I suggested↑ earlier, an appearance of trying to define according to ignorance.

†​

Consider the problem of an arugment so devoid of any substantive foundation I must speculate its lack. Thus, first: While they're all conservatives, Sykes is a conservative journalist who came up through right-wing radio; Nichols is a longtime partisan, former diplomatic hand, turned commentator; Ornstein is a lawyer.

If this, then that: What is the juxtaposition if not an equivalence? For Sykes, the sleight is bread and butter; for the party hand Nichols, false equivalence is nearly doctrinal. For the attorney Ornstein, though, the juxtaposition requires justification; were he to posit Sykes' argument in court, the court would expect him to explain how it works, and if he refused because he wasn't asserting an equivalence, then a judge would refuse the juxtaposition as irrelevant. Sykes knows he's pushing a false equivalence. So does Ornstein. Nichols is not a fool; he knows.

Does our neighbor, Exchemist, understand? Because what remains mysterious, then, is what Nichols meant by, or why he said, "But I never said they are equivalent." To the one, it's the discussion he stepped into; to the other, he actually reinforces the false equivalence: "it means that in the fights between other Dems and GOPers, pardons are no longer an issue", "Biden just eviscerated an important principle that Dems could have used to draw distinctions with lawless opponents".

The ski-boxer's third, as it happens, is that Ornstein was explicitly referring to "examples of false equivalence by journalists". That is to say, something about Nichols saying, "But I never said they are equivalent", utterly fails to make sense. False equivalence is implicitly the discussion Nichols walked into; it is explicitly, and by syntactical rule, what Ornstein is referring to.

†​

That appearance of defining according to ignorance is a projection, to be certain, but so also do we project good faith; at some point, it's easier to accept that some people do a deliberate runaround. For instance, I've already made the point↑ about how this is at least the third iteration of Democrats ceding the moral high ground on pardons according to ahistorical assertions; again, that's why Sykes framed his opinion as something an anonymous smart person told him. Sykes knows he invoked a fake standard, but does our neighbor?

But this metadiscsussion is not an uncommon form. While it is not quite full-blown know-nothingism, certain requisite manners of uncertainty become necessary elements of justification. Recently, someone offered a cookie-cutter recitation of a standard talking point, but then took offense when asked ahout it; he indignantly reminded that he hadn't used a particular phrase.

And it's not that I can't see his point, i.e., he didn't, but, rather, his response makes perfect sense if he actually doesn't know what he's talking about. That's what I mean by presupposing fallacy or error; his pretense that he didn't say something makes perfect sense if he is so unfamiliar with the issue that he doesn't know what the words he recited actually mean. In truth, though, after a while, persistent coincidence between ignorance and doctrine stands out; it gets hard to believe. Moreover, compared to how informed his insistent confidence pretends to be, it seems unlikely that he is so utterly ignorant of the issue. But the problem with accepting someone doesn't know what they're talking about seems like it might be obvious, at least in terms of how a discussion goes.

And in a time when people are worried about disinformation, behavior, and the unwashed voting masses↗, maybe it's important to pay attention to how discussions work. Compared to any question of belief, behavior, and discourse, it is easy enough to simply say there is no issue, and expect to just move on.

†​

There's a sort of westernism about Asian pop music; the quick line is that if you're familiar with sampling, just move that idea into the range of more traditional composition. There is also a story about the Chinese regard for Kenny Rogers' renditions of ancient songs, which reminds how, in the history of music, there is almost always precedent.

The difference between the distinct sound of Eddie Van Halen's guitar, approximately two seconds sampled into a Tone Loc rap, and, say, the chorus of L'Arc en Ciel's "I Wish", is pretty obvious. And while one might not recognize the two-second sample from "Jamie's Cryin'" in the hit rap, well, just sing The Ronettes' "Be My Baby", sort of—"Ring bells through the window, I wish you'd smile for me, sing song, all together, la la la la la"—and maybe you've learned something about J-pop. Or, rather, music in general: Instead of sound sampled from within a phrase, the L'Arc en Ciel example involves a complete, recognizable musical phrase that, removed from its most familiar context, is no longer simply "Be My Baby", but a musical phrase with diverse meanings, which can be applied according to a composer's prerogative.

Over time, "I never said", and other such phrases become similarly empty.

†​

For Nichols, it seems like a filler phrase, something he says reflexively because he is trying to ward off the point, and, as a veteran conservative political hand, is habituated to perpetual accusation. That is to say, it's an empty line that aligns with his usual framework.

The thing is, while everybody has filler sounds, words, and phrases, as such, that's all they're supposed to be.

The problem that arises along the way is expecting everyone else to figure out which phrases have no meaning. Nichols' accusatory construction gives meaning to what might otherwise be empty filler, and when tested, as such, the statement fails to match the evidence.

And if that's all it was, as such, except it's not: One observable effect is how these occasions also refocus a discussion from a given issue to an accusation against someone else. Over time, given enough chances to see what reads like a cheap sleight, changing the subject starts to look like part of the point.

Spoiler

 

[exchemist]

One thing that still stands out, in the current discussion, is the implications of a certain difference. For instance, what you said:



There's actually a lot to talk about once we establish the range of what might actually be going on, but, by contrast:



It's the difference between the possible explanations for a phenomenon and the explanation that there is no phenomenon. On an occasion when someone literally came out and said, "I never said," it seems a bit strange to start with the idea that it didn't happen: If the heads and tails is either, not explicit therefore not said, or, changed the subject, the answer is apparently, didn't happen at all.

In a prior issue↗ I had suggested there was a simplistic presupposition in effect, and in these questions it's worth making the point: Having given the objection considerable thought, the problem isn't that I cannot see it, but that I can see it only by presupposing either fallacy or E&O. Or, as I suggested↑ earlier, an appearance of trying to define according to ignorance.

†​

Consider the problem of an arugment so devoid of any substantive foundation I must speculate its lack. Thus, first: While they're all conservatives, Sykes is a conservative journalist who came up through right-wing radio; Nichols is a longtime partisan, former diplomatic hand, turned commentator; Ornstein is a lawyer.

If this, then that: What is the juxtaposition if not an equivalence? For Sykes, the sleight is bread and butter; for the party hand Nichols, false equivalence is nearly doctrinal. For the attorney Ornstein, though, the juxtaposition requires justification; were he to posit Sykes' argument in court, the court would expect him to explain how it works, and if he refused because he wasn't asserting an equivalence, then a judge would refuse the juxtaposition as irrelevant. Sykes knows he's pushing a false equivalence. So does Ornstein. Nichols is not a fool; he knows.

Does our neighbor, Exchemist, understand? Because what remains mysterious, then, is what Nichols meant by, or why he said, "But I never said they are equivalent." To the one, it's the discussion he stepped into; to the other, he actually reinforces the false equivalence: "it means that in the fights between other Dems and GOPers, pardons are no longer an issue", "Biden just eviscerated an important principle that Dems could have used to draw distinctions with lawless opponents".

The ski-boxer's third, as it happens, is that Ornstein was explicitly referring to "examples of false equivalence by journalists". That is to say, something about Nichols saying, "But I never said they are equivalent", utterly fails to make sense. False equivalence is implicitly the discussion Nichols walked into; it is explicitly, and by syntactical rule, what Ornstein is referring to.

†​

That appearance of defining according to ignorance is a projection, to be certain, but so also do we project good faith; at some point, it's easier to accept that some people do a deliberate runaround. For instance, I've already made the point↑ about how this is at least the third iteration of Democrats ceding the moral high ground on pardons according to ahistorical assertions; again, that's why Sykes framed his opinion as something an anonymous smart person told him. Sykes knows he invoked a fake standard, but does our neighbor?

But this metadiscsussion is not an uncommon form. While it is not quite full-blown know-nothingism, certain requisite manners of uncertainty become necessary elements of justification. Recently, someone offered a cookie-cutter recitation of a standard talking point, but then took offense when asked ahout it; he indignantly reminded that he hadn't used a particular phrase.

And it's not that I can't see his point, i.e., he didn't, but, rather, his response makes perfect sense if he actually doesn't know what he's talking about. That's what I mean by presupposing fallacy or error; his pretense that he didn't say something makes perfect sense if he is so unfamiliar with the issue that he doesn't know what the words he recited actually mean. In truth, though, after a while, persistent coincidence between ignorance and doctrine stands out; it gets hard to believe. Moreover, compared to how informed his insistent confidence pretends to be, it seems unlikely that he is so utterly ignorant of the issue. But the problem with accepting someone doesn't know what they're talking about seems like it might be obvious, at least in terms of how a discussion goes.

And in a time when people are worried about disinformation, behavior, and the unwashed voting masses↗, maybe it's important to pay attention to how discussions work. Compared to any question of belief, behavior, and discourse, it is easy enough to simply say there is no issue, and expect to just move on.

†​

There's a sort of westernism about Asian pop music; the quick line is that if you're familiar with sampling, just move that idea into the range of more traditional composition. There is also a story about the Chinese regard for Kenny Rogers' renditions of ancient songs, which reminds how, in the history of music, there is almost always precedent.

The difference between the distinct sound of Eddie Van Halen's guitar, approximately two seconds sampled into a Tone Loc rap, and, say, the chorus of L'Arc en Ciel's "I Wish", is pretty obvious. And while one might not recognize the two-second sample from "Jamie's Cryin'" in the hit rap, well, just sing The Ronettes' "Be My Baby", sort of—"Ring bells through the window, I wish you'd smile for me, sing song, all together, la la la la la"—and maybe you've learned something about J-pop. Or, rather, music in general: Instead of sound sampled from within a phrase, the L'Arc en Ciel example involves a complete, recognizable musical phrase that, removed from its most familiar context, is no longer simply "Be My Baby", but a musical phrase with diverse meanings, which can be applied according to a composer's prerogative.

Over time, "I never said", and other such phrases become similarly empty.

†​

For Nichols, it seems like a filler phrase, something he says reflexively because he is trying to ward off the point, and, as a veteran conservative political hand, is habituated to perpetual accusation. That is to say, it's an empty line that aligns with his usual framework.

The thing is, while everybody has filler sounds, words, and phrases, as such, that's all they're supposed to be.

The problem that arises along the way is expecting everyone else to figure out which phrases have no meaning. Nichols' accusatory construction gives meaning to what might otherwise be empty filler, and when tested, as such, the statement fails to match the evidence.

And if that's all it was, as such, except it's not: One observable effect is how these occasions also refocus a discussion from a given issue to an accusation against someone else. Over time, given enough chances to see what reads like a cheap sleight, changing the subject starts to look like part of the point.

​

Spoiler

​

​

This refers to posts I made almost a month ago. I think I've said everything I can contribute on this topic.

 

[Tiassa]

I think I've said everything I can contribute on this topic.

That was probably true before you started.

This refers to posts I made almost a month ago. I think I've said everything I can contribute on this topic.

Yeah, you should probably include the expiration date with each of your posts. Well, unless they're already spoiled before you post them.

Anyway, here's a part I omitted from my prior post; maybe it will help clear up what you're getting wrong.

†​

[in re music]

Or, more obscurely, the difference between "The Pinch of Snuff", an Irish reel, and "They Come and They Go", which sounds to be a variation on the theme, i.e., if "They Come and They Go" is its own reel, I haven't found it, yet.

There is plenty of discussion to be had about the chorus of "I Wish", or even learning about the history of fiddling while searching out "They Come and They Go", but you know what's even easier: Just say, "Nah, I don't hear it; I don't think they sound similar." Compared to an argument like that, there's no point even in scoring out the notes themselves. An argument like that doesn't actually tell us anything affirmative, just what isn't. By such a standard, you could play a straight cover on two different instruments, and in some rooms, simply claiming to not hear any similarity is somehow a viable argument. That is, one need not explain what they hear; their contrary assertion is viable simply for having been uttered.

†​

To reiterate, from the topic post↗:

• It is not difficult to disagree with someone without saying why. If all someone says is, "You're wrong," then what have they actually said? It's easy enough to suggest they are saying nothing. But that only leads to more questions.​

†​

There is, Exchemist, also this: The nature of your disagreement actually lends to the point: You doubted the behavior while fulfilling it↑, expressed confusion while asserting nuance↑, stood on your prior remarks↑, and then justified the behavior you previously doubted↑. It's one thing to pretend nuance, but you don't provide or explain any of that nuance. It's easy enough to wonder if you actually believe anything you're saying in this thread, or if you just pitch some sort of opposition because you perceive criticism of something you believe, support, or hold important.

Because if you're just pitching instinctive opposition, well, that's also one of the reasons why people say they never said; they don't know how to answer something, so they push it away. It's actually a more likely explanation for Nichols. It's one thing if Nichols would most likely not say he believes the proposition, but that doesn't really explain why he went and did what it describes, anyway.

 

[Kid Anymore]

This is narrative-driven politics. Which is not actual governing.

Rather, various entities in what we know as the USA, seem to be interested in making some narrative more important than, I don't know, anything they've seen before.

One narrative I've pasted together is, the oligarchs want to become actual oligarchs, rather than live in a republic. Elon Musk is their poster-child but, he has tantrums. Oh dear. The sandbox might end up with some blood in it.

Yeah. Along with a slightly different narrative that has the military and various protest groups saying they want to keep the republic, so you guys aren't going to do that to it. Who knows if that even has legs, but this is 2025.

The media in general is reporting news that keeps their advertisers happy because they make it interesting, but nowhere near as interesting as it might be, not too hot. They have to consider what the corporations who advertise might think about it. I guess.
I am just guessing, btw.

The whole thing is looking like the patients took over, though, isn't it? It's about as crazy as I've seen it get. And the Orange One hasn't parked his butt in the chair yet. It's comedic, pathetic, and very interesting all at once.