|
Post by Christine on Feb 14, 2017 19:49:34 GMT -5
I'm sympathetic to Ohio's take (shocker, I'm sure).
Criticizing "technique" is fair enough, and no, no one turned Yates into an actual villain. But the fact that she defied the Muslim ban and warned against Flynn's Russian ties... it's sort of like, someone saving a kid from drowning, or preventing a forest fire, and a bunch of people sitting back and discussing how the person could have done it better.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 14, 2017 20:11:56 GMT -5
Criticizing "technique" is fair enough, and no, no one turned Yates into an actual villain. But the fact that she ruled against the Muslim ban and warned against Flynn's Russian ties... it's sort of like, someone saving a kid from drowning, or preventing a forest fire, and a bunch of people sitting back and discussing how the person could have done it better. It is not vilification. She was only criticized for how she responded to the Executive Order - she did not "rule against" it, as she is not a judge, and she was not criticized re: Flynn. People criticize how rescue and firefighting efforts were conducted all the time. If someone is doing something I approve of but doing it stupidly, I will say so, and making that into something it is not is simply disingenuous.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 14, 2017 20:31:43 GMT -5
*shrug*
You're free to do so, of course.
To me, the idea of an "imperfect hero" is still somewhat of an indictment. As to what, it depends. Is it really a technique that had harmful (or the potential for harmful) side effects, or is it more speaking to motives? If one is criticizing technique ("it would have been safer/better/more efficient to do it this way") that's fair. When one hints at or outright criticizes motives, one is at least approaching the outskirts of "vilification," imo.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 14, 2017 22:12:18 GMT -5
"At least approaching the outskirts" of vilification. LOL. Okay.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 14, 2017 22:13:57 GMT -5
I report. I don't HAVE to distort. That's your thing and I'm calling "bullshit" on it. Call whatever you want to call, but the idea that you don't "distort" is laughable. "Vilify" is not the same thing as "criticize," imo. But based on the quotes you pulled to demonstrate your claim, that's where you're going to end up in defending your statement. Which is stupid, imo. People here were certainly critical of Yates, but she wasn't being vilified by any reasonable standard. Insisting that such is absolutely the case is distortion, plain and simple. That said, so what? It has nothing to do with anything, really. It just seems to be an angle through which you can cast yourself as the lone voice in the wilderness here with a take on things no one else shares, even when you don't actually have a drastically different position from others, at all. The idea that I don't "distort" would be laughable if it were provable and you haven't bothered to do that, robeiae. WHEN and IF you do, perhaps I'll feel a need to defend my statement, but I don't have to defend my definition of vilify and I definitely do not need yours or Amadan's definition of the word. Because the only thing that is "stupid" ( your word, not mine) is asserting a word isn't something that it is. I'm not the lone voice in the wilderness. I'm the guy whom certain posters think they can pick apart my points, tell me what a word means when they don't know what the word means, and just generally try to nitpick and bitch and moan and whine and when they get called out, instead of manning up, double down and keep digging the hole even deeper. I'm the guy happy to hand them another shovel. Yeah, I do consider calling a respected attorney and honorable public servant like Sally Yates "tactically stupid" to be vilifying her and dubbing it "criticism" is being unnecessarily (but not unexpectedly) kind to the slam. You are really, really reaching and you know it. I can think of people I actually like and admire whose actions I would call "tactically stupid," and I'm pretty sure you could too. Conversely, I also stated that I agreed with Ken White that she is an "imperfect hero." To call that "vilification" is either a distortion or evidence of skin thinner than Trump's. I'm not reaching, Amadan. I'm right. Does it pain you so to admit it? I don't give a shit what Ken White says. I give a shit about you calling Sally Yates "tactically stupid" when she was right about Trump's bullshit immigration ban and right about warning Trump about his bullshit national security adviser. You're not the first one to try a lame-ass comparison between Trump and myself. You're not even the first this week, so if you think you're going to jab me, you're gonna have to try way harder and much deeper than that. You're taking crazy pills if you think you're gonna suck me into one of those never-ending serve-and-volley over what a word means. Play that game with some kid who wants to play with you, Amadan. That ain't me. You're burnt. Burn like Michael Flynn was burnt. Rub something on it, let go, move on.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 14, 2017 22:32:41 GMT -5
What's the logical fallacy to describe "I win, you lose, and I'm right because I totally say so"?
If you don't want to volley back and forth, stop making things up and then reaching ever further to double down on your errors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 22:44:31 GMT -5
MOD NOTE:
Thank you all, I think this particular discussion about vilification and distortion has pretty much covered the bases. If anyone would like to continue to discuss Yates' approach to the executive order on immigration, we have a lovely thread for that. Let's get back to Flynn, shall we? Please and thank you.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 14, 2017 23:29:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 15, 2017 2:09:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 15, 2017 5:33:31 GMT -5
That's what you've got, celaw - memes and clickbait articles? Yeah there are plenty of those, and when for the past eight years conservatives were circulating articles about how Obama admitted he's actually a Muslim, or Hillary Clinton told donors at a "secret" dinner meeting that she plans to ban all firearms, you were not bewailimg the assault of "fake news."
This "fake news" line is something being pushed by the alt-right specifically to discredit ALL news media that is not flattering to Trump. You are falling for it.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Feb 15, 2017 8:51:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 15, 2017 11:27:58 GMT -5
Whether it's intentionally fake news from those sketchy websites that try to look legit, or mainstream news sources like the NYT or CNN, or more slanted "reporting" from rags like Slate, it is a naive perspective to think this is just a joke that people "fall for". This is serious stuff, and it's feeding the anti-Trump hysteria and probably bringing people down in the process. Which appears to be the purpose of it.
We can't deny that in this age of Twitter and the internet, outright lies, blatant misrepresentation, exaggerations, or even mistakes or bad research fly far and wide before being identified as bullshit, if it ever is. And by then, damage is done. This is a real problem.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 15, 2017 12:02:12 GMT -5
Whether it's intentionally fake news from those sketchy websites that try to look legit, or mainstream news sources like the NYT or CNN, or more slanted "reporting" from rags like Slate, it is a naive perspective to think this is just a joke that people "fall for". This is serious stuff, and it's feeding the anti-Trump hysteria and probably bringing people down in the process. Which appears to be the purpose of it. We can't deny that in this age of Twitter and the internet, outright lies, blatant misrepresentation, exaggerations, or even mistakes or bad research fly far and wide before being identified as bullshit, if it ever is. And by then, damage is done. This is a real problem. I am saying there is a distinction between the NYT and CNN (which may sometimes get things wrong, and/or be biased, but is not "fake news") and Twitter. You are conflating the two. If CNN is "obsessed" with Trump, as rob has put it, that does not mean it's a conspiracy to pump out fake news to discredit him. There has always been sensational and biased news reporting.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 15, 2017 12:03:23 GMT -5
We can't deny that in this age of Twitter and the internet, outright lies, blatant misrepresentation, exaggerations, or even mistakes or bad research fly far and wide before being identified as bullshit, if it ever is. And by then, damage is done. This is a real problem. I agree. But Trump is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. He's been doing all of the things you just named for decades. He may not have been doing so as a part of the traditional media, but he was using his fame, his money, and his connections to push his schtick. Now he's annoyed that he's on the receiving end? Tough, imo. He can weather the storm, put on his big boy pants and try to act like a real leader, or he can keep doing what he's doing. I'm not a fan of the shit people are talking about him and the admin; it's all pretty tasteless and pathetic, imo. But I can't fairly say he doesn't deserve it.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 15, 2017 12:38:29 GMT -5
Trump has made everyone a little bat crap crazy. If there was a rumor started somewhere that Trump was going to bring back slavery many "real" news sources would run with it. Objectivity has gone out the window. Too much see themselves not as being a 4th estate that's supposed to keep Trump in check, but rather actively opposing him. You also some that seem to be actively rooting for him, which is just as bad, if not worse.
But let's also not forget that the reason why Trump drives so many up the wall is that he himself is a complete jackass. He brings so much of it on himself.
And of course, we should forget that talking about him in a reasonable, measured way doesn't achieve ratings gold.
|
|