Trump Ups his Fascism Game, bans words such as 'diversity' and 'science-based' from CDC

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

runic knight:

No, that is expected. A politician is going to have an agenda, so expecting them to not try to withhold information, or to spin it into something favorable is what is absurd. Hell, it is the very nature of politicians in general and has been known and expected for centuries that they will spin things. Hell, every president has been called out for it, be it clinton's "I did not have sexual relations" to Bush's "They have weapons of mass destruction", politicians WILL try to deceive or outright lie.

Meanwhile a news media is not suppose to be a propaganda arm of a political party, but instead should be accurate, relevant, and as impartial as they can be. Their trustworthiness is what they depend on as a news agency and it is the very point of why they are considered the fourth estate. When it is in any way comparable between the two with regard to trustworthiness, the news media has failed beyond measure

This is utter nonsense. Clinton was almost impeached for that lie, and it's far less severe than many of Trump's lies. Bush's lie led to a catastrophic loss of credibility in the public eye.

The government is expected to spin. For that matter, so are media outlets: we accept that most of them have party biases; it's fully expected. The government is not expected to outright fabricate.

This is mere apologism, attempting to normalise the intentional deception of the public.

runic knight:

Should be, I agree.
Reality and all of human history, however, has shown that only a fool would believe that. The media, on the other hand, is completely reliant upon their reputation in order to thrive. Reporting fake news or openly lying costs them the only thing they have to sell, their trustworthiness that the news they report is accurate and relevant.

As such, a lying politician is the norm and a lying news media is worthless. If there is a competition between the two, the news media lost just by being terrible enough to compete, regardless if they are better than what is considered as unethical and untrustworthy as a lawyer in popular opinion and general history itself.

Trump is not "the norm" of a lying politician. His lies are more frequent, more severe, and more grounded in prejudice than is "the norm".

This is an attempt to normalise highly abnormal behaviour for a politician. It is utter false equivalence. This is not fudging statistics; this is lying about entire demographics of people, accusing huge swathes of people of crimes without a shred of evidence. Many orders of magnitude more extreme and prejudicial.

runic knight:

No, they are dis-believing one source that has demonstrate supreme unreliability and untrustworthiness, and entertain the alternative, which is a politician that should never be trusted in the first place.

That isn't "partisanship", that is consequence of the news media being reliant upon one's integrity and trustworthiness and failing to uphold that to such a cataclysmic degree.

Your argument would be like saying the villagers no longer believing the boy who cried would are "partisan" when they would be more likely to listen to the person calling the boy a liar.

Every time Trump calls the media fake news and is right, he gains a relative trustworthiness to the media's loss of it. He was right, the media was wrong. The problem with this is that while as a politician, people listening to him trusting him to be honest is not critical after he is elected, the media NEEDS to maintain public trust in their ability to deliver accurate and relevant information. That is their sole purpose, and much like a burger-flipper who can't make a burger without stuffing it down their pants, if they can't do it right, they have no purpose.

It's entirely partisanship. There is no other descriptor for applying high scepticism to one side of the political spectrum, and none at all to the other.

runic knight:

If you are going to make claims about me, at least have the decency to not be blatantly dishonest in them. [...]

Stop right there. You directed numerous (baseless) personal accusations towards me in the tract above. If you're then going to play the victim, this conversation cannot continue.

Either receive criticism without screaming bloody murder, or do not throw personal slights yourself. Choose one.

Here we go with the essays again...

runic knight:
No, that is expected. A politician is going to have an agenda, so expecting them to not try to withhold information, or to spin it into something favorable is what is absurd. Hell, it is the very nature of politicians in general and has been known and expected for centuries that they will spin things. Hell, every president has been called out for it, be it clinton's "I did not have sexual relations" to Bush's "They have weapons of mass destruction", politicians WILL try to deceive or outright lie.

Right. No. A politician is going to have an agenda, but the entire system of representative democracy is founded on the idea that the politician's agenda is the agenda of the people who voted for him. He represents their wishes.

If a politician cannot be trusted, the entire system collapses. There is nothing stopping a person from saying "I will do X when in office," getting elected, and then doing Y instead. Trustworthiness is the entire reason people are willing to vote for a candidate based on what he says he's going to do once he's in office. If you cannot trust a politician, you cannot vote for him.

Even those two examples you cited defeat your point. Clinton was impeached and Bush's reputation and legacy were permanently stained. When the president tells a lie, it is supposed to be a big deal. Remember "no new taxes?" Bush Snr. lost re-election because of that.

runic knight:
A few problems with this though. First, the failures to report honestly back during the watergate was both treated as a large fuck-up on their part, and wasn't intentionally done for the sake of a political hatchet job.

I fail to see the difference. When reporters fucked up a story back then, there was a huge hubbub and someone got fired. When reporters fuck up a story these days, there's a huge hubbub and someone gets fired.

You seem to be arbitrarily deciding that the fuckups of the 1970s were honest mistakes, whereas the fuckups of the 2010s are political hatchet jobs. You're not citing any actual evidence that supports that assessment. This says a lot more about you than it does about the media.

runic knight:
Secondly, regarding Trump, as I said before, the fact there is any competition at all in trustworthiness between a politician and the news media itself is a testament of failure on behalf of the news organization to an embarrassing extent.

Honestly? There isn't a competition. Not outside of your own mind. The New York Times is far less likely to lie to me than Donald Trump is.

Donald Trump wants people like you to believe that he and the mainstream media are exactly as trustworthy, because he knows that's a net gain for himself in trustworthiness. In reality, the mainstream media publishes dozens of stories a day that are completely accurate and one story every couple weeks that is embarrassingly wrong. Donald Trump, meanwhile, tells five lies a day on average.

Wait, that link was to the Washington Post, which is Fake News. Okay, let's try...the Times? No? They're fake news too? Dang. Politico? No, I suppose that's fake news. Politifact? You better believe that's fake news. Wow, a lot of assessments really critical of Trump seem to be fake news these days!

runic knight:
You might be right about Trump being very dishonest (considering how much crap he talks, probably are, though considering you take statements like "acid washed emails" as a lie instead of the clear meaning of her destroying them (which is true)

One, I am right when I say that Trump is dishonest. Dishonesty is his most noteworthy trait. He's like a dishonesty elemental from the lie dimension.

Two, read the tweet.

image

If Trump meant "acid wash" as an unusually specific euphemism for "deleted," then it was a redundant one, because he'd already said they were deleted. Why say "acid wash" in that scenario? Was it a metaphor? Was Trump experimenting with poetic license?

Like I said, I can't even categorise that as a lie, because I don't know what it means. It's nonsense. It's the kind of nonsense that comes from the mouth of a guy who knows that he can keep saying nonsense without repercussions because people like you do not expect him to say anything sensible or true.

runic knight:
Still, again, you compare a politician, someone in a career built around spin and presentation, and which is regularly accepted to be on-par in honesty as a lawyer, to the news media itself, which is built or destroyed by public trust in them being accurate and honest.

This may surprise you, but lawyers are also expected to not lie. That sort of thing is frowned upon in a courtroom.

runic knight:

...yeah. That is forgiving Trump. You want to know why?

Because those journalists got fired. Donald Trump is still the President.

No, it isn't, regardless how much you wish to try to contort reasoning here.

Yes. It is. Donald Trump will personally, with his own mouth that God gave him, tell outrageous whoppers with disconcerting regularity. He has never been punished for that. When a reporter at CNN tells an outrageous whopper, they face immediate consequences up to and including being immediately fucking fired.

None of this "oh, but CNN is still around, so they're not really punished" bullshit. Donald Trump is not the federal government; he is the chief executive of the federal government. If the chief executive of CNN told the kind of lies Trump did, they would get fired, and CNN would continue to exist and presumably hire a new chief executive. But when Trump tells a lie, he does not get fired. He retains control of the federal government and escapes consequence entirely, because for some reason people like you are holding employees of CNN to a higher standard than employees of the federal government, to the point where lowly reporters are being fired for lies that the President of the United States tells with impunity.

It's bewildering as to why you tolerate this state of affairs, or why you insist on blaming the media as a single aggregate entity for Trump's dishonesty instead of blaming Trump for the lie-sounds his mouth-hole makes. There is no level of impunity enjoyed by anyone in the news media comparable to that enjoyed by Trump. Except for Rupert fucking Murdoch, who is the worst thing to be exported from Australia since planking.

Anyway. I fully expect to open my laptop in the next day or so to find a 25,000-word rebuttal left by you, at which point I will close my laptop and go play with my cat.

bastardofmelbourne:

If Trump meant "acid wash" as an unusually specific euphemism for "deleted," then it was a redundant one, because he'd already said they were deleted. Why say "acid wash" in that scenario? Was it a metaphor? Was Trump experimenting with poetic license?

Like I said, I can't even categorise that as a lie, because I don't know what it means. It's nonsense. It's the kind of nonsense that comes from the mouth of a guy who knows that he can keep saying nonsense without repercussions because people like you do not expect him to say anything sensible or true.

It means Ms. Clinton had her emails "shredded" with BleachBit brand open source software to make them unrecoverable by forensic means. See https://www.bleachbit.org for your Hillary-endorsed cover-up needs.

StatusNil:

bastardofmelbourne:

If Trump meant "acid wash" as an unusually specific euphemism for "deleted," then it was a redundant one, because he'd already said they were deleted. Why say "acid wash" in that scenario? Was it a metaphor? Was Trump experimenting with poetic license?

Like I said, I can't even categorise that as a lie, because I don't know what it means. It's nonsense. It's the kind of nonsense that comes from the mouth of a guy who knows that he can keep saying nonsense without repercussions because people like you do not expect him to say anything sensible or true.

It means Ms. Clinton had her emails "shredded" with BleachBit brand open source software to make them unrecoverable by forensic means. See https://www.bleachbit.org for your Hillary-endorsed cover-up needs.

1. The fact that she used Bleachbit doesn't make "acid [washing]" emails any less nonsensical. You're raising a non-sequitor to deflect from the point that Trump spouted utter bullshit, and his zealous followers simply kept nodding along shouting "lock her up."

2. Maybe, just maybe Clinton "acid washed" her personal emails (the vast majority of emails were turned over) because she knows what the delusion and rabid right-wing nuts would do with them? I mean they already turned a bunch of (largely) benign emails into a murderous, pedophilic prostitution ring run out of a pizza parlor to the point where one of the alt-right "listen and believers" went to shoot it up. Hell, members of this forum have advanced that conspiracy theory, and it only takes a quick glance at r/the_donald to see it being taken as truth. The right-wing has been inventing conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory about her for 2 decades now; why give them access to more personal info to take that shit even further?

StatusNil:
It means Ms. Clinton had her emails "shredded" with BleachBit brand open source software to make them unrecoverable by forensic means. See https://www.bleachbit.org for your Hillary-endorsed cover-up needs.

The only innocent explanation I can fathom is that Donald Trump heard someone say "BleachBit" and misinterpreted it as "bleached it." And then refused to either check the facts or listen when someone checked the facts for him and told him "no, she did not literally bleach her computer."

Like, seriously. Either he's lying to make Clinton's actions look more incriminating than they were, or he's just an idiot and thought she literally emptied a bottle of bleach onto her email server.

Edit: And shit, if he did just mistakenly believe that she had bleached her hard drive, why didn't he say "bleached her hard drive" instead of "acid washed 33,000 emails?" Why specifically her emails, and that specific number of them? That makes it sound like the emails were 33,000 physical things that Hillary Clinton dunked in acid one after another.

It's retarded. No-one who knows how to speak English would phrase it that way.

Silvanus:

This is utter nonsense. Clinton was almost impeached for that lie, and it's far less severe than many of Trump's lies. Bush's lie led to a catastrophic loss of credibility in the public eye.

So you agree, presidents have a history of lying? Good, my point stands then, as that was the extent of it there, that politicians lie.

Whatever manufactured position beyond that which you are internally applying to me via strawmen about my pointing that fact out is irrelevant.

Politicians lie and and known to lie. We agree, that was all my point used for support, so moving on.

The government is expected to spin. For that matter, so are media outlets: we accept that most of them have party biases; it's fully expected. The government is not expected to outright fabricate.

This is mere apologism, attempting to normalise the intentional deception of the public.

This is where you are wrong. When someone listens to a politician, they strongly suspect they will lie. When those people go to the news, however, it is only recently that people suspect they are lying through their teeth as bad as politicians. Most people trusted the news media more than politicians. Now fewer do because they keep lying.

You have it in your head that such a statement is a defense of or excuse for or underplays the actions of one or overplays the action of another and all of that is you making shit up and pinning it on me. Stop being so dishonest, I called you out for that last time and will do so every time.

That is not a judgement of their lying as good or bad, or better or worse than politicians. This is saying their lying has negatively affected public perception of their trustworthiness, and in comparison, aided Trump's.

Also, this line of thought is simply amazing.

"we accept that most of them have party biases; it's fully expected."

But

"The government is not expected to outright fabricate."

So, news agencies that are suppose to be impartial, accurate and relevant by a strong built-upon ethical guideline and decades of respect of it, they are ok to ignore that for political parties. They are expected to lie through their teeth to promote a political party?

But the government itself, which is filled with politicians historically revealed to be liars and who are tied far more closely to political parties, that is not expected? Then why is the media which is suppose to be less tied to those parties than the people running the government?

Government is run by political parties, where the media is suppose to be separate from that. That was the whole value and point of the forth estate.

Furthermore, this is not trying to "apologize" for the behavior, this is describing the reality of it. Now, attempting to say that news media is expected to be propaganda for a political party, THAT sounds like apologetic for how they behave towards trump, likely because you don't want to call out the behavior of those opposed to the same political opponent you have. But that does seem to be the underlying conflict here; I am pointing out a simple observed phenomenon of reality, and you are screaming about it because it doesn't target your opposing political party right this second (even though I did touch on them too).

Trump is not "the norm" of a lying politician. His lies are more frequent, more severe, and more grounded in prejudice than is "the norm".

Does he now? Well, usually I would accept this claim as common sense, but since you seem pretty determined to reject that at every instance, I am going to have to ask you for something to back that claim up. Oh, and has to be a trustworthy source, so any one already found guilty of manufacturing stories or outright lying about him, not trusted to be honest.

And I know, that means you will have NOTHING you can use to back up your claim since that sort of thing is not measured well to begin with, and only those with a blatant agenda, for or against him, would bother to look it up much. But that itself is the point of the exercise, to show the result of what happens when the media's trustworthiness is compromised because people like yourself actually play apologetics for it just because it currently tells you what you want to hear.

This is an attempt to normalise highly abnormal behaviour for a politician. It is utter false equivalence. This is not fudging statistics; this is lying about entire demographics of people, accusing huge swathes of people of crimes without a shred of evidence. Many orders of magnitude more extreme and prejudicial.

Again with this? No, it is not "normalizing" anything, it is pointing at reality itself and saying "this is reality". You would say a claim that "the grass is green" is "normalizing" grass-colour based prejudice with this abused logic of yours.

I am pointing at a known public perception about politicians (that they are distrustful), built upon history itself giving countless examples, built upon the reputation of it being common accepted knowledge, and built upon even your own claims regarding a political party.

You are getting upset because I am not selectively picking only the side you dislike. I am sorry, but I don't hold the illusion you do that pointing out reality itself in common knowledge and public perception is "normalizing" behavior, it is just defining reality itself. That grass is green. Politicians are notoriously known as distrustful, opportunistic, liars. The media, up til recently, was not, but their fuck-ups is quickly changing them to that.

Your opposition to that simple stance is silly, but your mental gymnastics and sloganism accusations like "normalizing" are simply meaningless.

It's entirely partisanship. There is no other descriptor for applying high scepticism to one side of the political spectrum, and none at all to the other.

Except I am skeptical of the other side as well, and openly called them out in my examples already. You being upset I am talking about the media critical of trump does not mean I am not critical of the failings of the media positive about him, and my examples prove that point already.

Furthermore, examine your claim here. You are calling me partisan because I am skeptical of your side while skeptical of your opposing side. You don't care that I am skeptical of both (and I have established that point already, clearly), you only care I am not more skeptical of your opponent than your side. THAT is pure partisan bias.

You are being very dishonest here claiming I am not skeptical of you opposing side. You should withdraw your accusation when it is so blatantly wrong. Or should I instead take your defense of the media's behavior to openly lie, as well as the majority of your claims themselves, to be protecting your own vested interest in using the same tactic?

runic knight:

If you are going to make claims about me, at least have the decency to not be blatantly dishonest in them. I never said this was exclusive to those who opposed trump, and I actively have referred to examples of it not such as my description of fox news, and my implication that sites like Breitbart would be expected of that behavior

Stop right there. You directed numerous (baseless) personal accusations towards me in the tract above. If you're then going to play the victim, this conversation cannot continue.

You know, just because you cut out where I clarify exactly how you are wrong doesn't mean other people can't till read it in my posts and see you are being dishonest in trying to hide it. Hell, I readded it here in bold and will probably do so in the future when I see this sort of behavior.

You are getting called out for your already demonstrated false claims and your lack of anything worthwhile to support them but your own imagination. The fact you want an out of the conversation that doesn't look like there is a tail between your legs is noted, but irrelevant to me. The moral high ground of "Why I never!" is an attractive option, I suppose, especially after making claims of my position itself based on nothing but your own personal biases. I have no patience for that though, so I will just call it out fine. Seems a fair rebuttal to baseless claims of "you are defending him" when I am pointing out simple reality such as "when the media is caught lying, it makes them look untrustworthy".

Either receive criticism without screaming bloody murder, or do not throw personal slights yourself. Choose one.

"There is no other descriptor for applying high scepticism to one side of the political spectrum, and none at all to the other."

Yeah, I don't care if you think calling out your blatant argument tactics and making assumptions about them is "personal slights". If your reply relies to heavily on tone policing instead of actually making a point, it is a sure sign you don't have anything to support yours. And you cut away a lot of my point just for the sake of this pearl-clutching about me calling out your claims.

Your "criticism" thus far has been reliant upon a "with me or against me" mindset that I don't share. I am going to call that out, and I am going to call you out for using it, relying upon it, or trying to perpetuate it. And when you try to quietly sweep it under the rug to complain about tone instead after making such supported claims, I will call that out to.

My statement was that the media lying about Trump has cost them trustworthiness and made more and more people believe him more than the media. Address that as it is, and leave the "stop excusing him" nonsense at the door if you want me to make fewer "personal slights" in calling out your openly dishonest misrepresentation of my position, my arguments, or my views.

bastardofmelbourne:
Here we go with the essays again...

You know, I smile every time I see someone complain about length in these forums. The greatest benefit of them is this sort of long-form dissection and examination of topics and points, so I can't help by feel warm inside when people complain I am using that as it was intended.

Still, for novelty, I'll try to be consise since I either covered my points already or we are largely talking past each other anyways. Or not, there is plenty here to chew on so we will see.

Right. No. A politician is going to have an agenda, but the entire system of representative democracy is founded on the idea that the politician's agenda is the agenda of the people who voted for him. He represents their wishes.

If a politician cannot be trusted, the entire system collapses. There is nothing stopping a person from saying "I will do X when in office," getting elected, and then doing Y instead. Trustworthiness is the entire reason people are willing to vote for a candidate based on what he says he's going to do once he's in office. If you cannot trust a politician, you cannot vote for him.

Even those two examples you cited defeat your point. Clinton was impeached and Bush's reputation and legacy were permanently stained. When the president tells a lie, it is supposed to be a big deal. Remember "no new taxes?" Bush Snr. lost re-election because of that.

I never said it was a good thing. I said it with regard to public perception and general opinion, as all of my statements on this has been. My point there was that politicians are known to be liars, and Clinton and Bush examples show that is common of presidents too. Any opinions about it being a good thing were not being made by me, merely it IS a thing in the first place.

I fail to see the difference. When reporters fucked up a story back then, there was a huge hubbub and someone got fired. When reporters fuck up a story these days, there's a huge hubbub and someone gets fired.

You seem to be arbitrarily deciding that the fuckups of the 1970s were honest mistakes, whereas the fuckups of the 2010s are political hatchet jobs. You're not citing any actual evidence that supports that assessment. This says a lot more about you than it does about the media.

It says I am talking in a forum and not as a professional journalist. Which, much like comparing them to politicians, if a professional journalist is seriously being compared to an anonymous poster, their reputation is already fucked regardless if they "win" the comparison against me or not. They should be a lot better than me. If that is ever a question, things have gotten bad.

As for people getting fired, frequency of fuck-ups compared to consequences, and political and financial ties between media and political parties today compared to the 1970's. I'll wait for your evidence of the amount of fuck-ups regarding the watergate reporting then go from there. Things like the JournoList show political allegiance in media and motivation there-in as well.

But this, all of this, is rather irrelevant to the point I made in the first place. The media has been caught lying about the president with such frequency and severity that it is harming their reputation as trustworthy among people who don't have a Pavlovian response to them already, good or ill. They vindicate Trump's claims of fake news by being fake news, which harms their trustworthiness and helps his. When a man goes "he is a liar" to someone who is found to be making false claims, it makes them seem more trustworthy in comparison, unless there is an inherent bias against him previously.

Honestly? There isn't a competition. Not outside of your own mind. The New York Times is far less likely to lie to me than Donald Trump is.

And to others, they are more likely. That's part of the point, that it is even getting to the degree that it is a question for anyone not already hardline in a camp. That is bad.

Donald Trump wants people like you to believe that he and the mainstream media are exactly as trustworthy, because he knows that's a net gain for himself in trustworthiness. In reality, the mainstream media publishes dozens of stories a day that are completely accurate and one story every couple weeks that is embarrassingly wrong. Donald Trump, meanwhile, tells five lies a day on average.

Wait, that link was to the Washington Post, which is Fake News. Okay, let's try...the Times? No? They're fake news too? Dang. Politico? No, I suppose that's fake news. Politifact? You better believe that's fake news. Wow, a lot of assessments really critical of Trump seem to be fake news these days!

You show the problem there entirely and make my point very clearly, while poorly trying to mock it. All those stories now have people doubting them because they fucked up other stories. Their trustworthiness is lessened when they get caught lying about trump or things related to him.

Things like Washington Post claiming russians hacked the power grid
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/01/01/fake-news-and-how-the-washington-post-rewrote-its-story-on-russian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/#6b8400f77ad5

This undermines them to anyone who doesn't have a bias that is being feed, such as yourself.

You try to make it an irrational response to dismiss a known liar on a subject they are known to lie about, but to anyone who doesn't have a built-in bias to knee-jerk accept or reject things that fit their biases, they have to rely on history of trustworthiness to decide. The news media used to be rather reliable aside from radicals on either side and Fox news as a major news network. But they keep fucking up, making shit up, pushing bullshit just to try to stick-it to trump or republicans or whatever. You have places like CNN that are busted faking stupid shit like fish food dumping just to score a political point, in doing so they kill their trustworthiness off to those who actually care about that instead of preconceived biases to determine accuracy of reporting. Hell, it is how people start to trust trump more than the media in the first place as the media's own actions vindicate his claims about them and cast doubt on their claims toward him.

The result is like a witness in a trial destroying their own reputation by lying under oath. Sure, if you want to believe they saw the accused at the time of the shooting, you are going to believe in spite of how questionable they are, but other people are not going to take his word when he keeps being caught lying. And the consequence of that is while you may laugh it off as "pfft, fools believing fake news rhetoric", others can't put their faith in the media to not lie to them and the accused might get off even if actually did the crime.

Downplaying or ignoring that effect because YOU already believe what they say regardless is arrogance. It is remarkably similar to the attitude that cost Hillary the election.

There is a reason I have framed this as general opinion and common perception, and why I have specifically separated that away from those who already at set in stone in either direction. Because it doesn't mater if you will always trust CNN or someone else will always distrust them, you two are the extreme poles and are, regardless how much either might feel others, just loud minorities. Those in the middle, the moderates on either side, the independents, the majority of people who's opinions are reflected in votes and decisions, that is what this affects. And when the media is seen as just as likely to lie as Trump to those people, it becomes a case of competing crying wolf regardless how much YOU personally know to not trust him. Who with any skepticism is going to trust the media when they keep being caught lying? Maybe the other lies reported on by the media was also them lying? Maybe Trump really is the victim of a slander campaign like he claims?

Put hey, if you want to just laugh and dismiss this fall of trustworthiness, go ahead. Enjoy trump 2020 as the media tries the same tricks they did in 2016 against him and it fails even harder. Me? I'd rather see this shit reformed so the dems can put a candidate that isn't grossly unelectable up for a run.

One, I am right when I say that Trump is dishonest. Dishonesty is his most noteworthy trait. He's like a dishonesty elemental from the lie dimension.

Which is why him being trusted more than the media by anyone not a party sycophant should be a slap in the face and seen as a very distressing occurrence, not just something to try to handwave away and pretend only his faithful believe.

Or just keep shouting "he is a liar" I am sure it will convince people eventually as they grow tired of trying to explain "That doesn't excuse the media being liars too"

Two, read the tweet.

image

If Trump meant "acid wash" as an unusually specific euphemism for "deleted," then it was a redundant one, because he'd already said they were deleted. Why say "acid wash" in that scenario? Was it a metaphor? Was Trump experimenting with poetic license?

Like I said, I can't even categorise that as a lie, because I don't know what it means. It's nonsense. It's the kind of nonsense that comes from the mouth of a guy who knows that he can keep saying nonsense without repercussions because people like you do not expect him to say anything sensible or true.

I think Status covered this one, so I'll let him cover that back and forth.

This may surprise you, but lawyers are also expected to not lie. That sort of thing is frowned upon in a courtroom.

Same as politicians. And also same as them, when you ask public perception if they would trust a lawyer or politician to be telling the truth and you would get few who do, especially when it involves people not directly connected (there is a well know phenomenon where people think more highly of their own lawyer or representatives than others). This view of politicians as untrustworthy is well established so when one lies, it is never "I never expected that", it is always "I never trusted them anyways".

The media once had a far higher public regard of trustworthiness. That is deteriorating quickly. That deterioration is a major problem, not just in general, but especially for the liberal side of politics.

Yes. It is. Donald Trump will personally, with his own mouth that God gave him, tell outrageous whoppers with disconcerting regularity. He has never been punished for that. When a reporter at CNN tells an outrageous whopper, they face immediate consequences up to and including being immediately fucking fired.

None of this "oh, but CNN is still around, so they're not really punished" bullshit. Donald Trump is not the federal government; he is the chief executive of the federal government. If the chief executive of CNN told the kind of lies Trump did, they would get fired, and CNN would continue to exist and presumably hire a new chief executive. But when Trump tells a lie, he does not get fired. He retains control of the federal government and escapes consequence entirely, because for some reason people like you are holding employees of CNN to a higher standard than employees of the federal government, to the point where lowly reporters are being fired for lies that the President of the United States tells with impunity.

Has he broke the law or the established means of maintaining his job? Because, as you said at the start, how Bush's lie tainted his legacy, it still didn't get him fired either. There is a different system in place between the two jobs, and different requirements, expectations, and purpose.

Trump was elected, not hired. He has limitations set by the system, not a human resources department or even a PR department (in that PR can't fire him like they could in a news media company for a journalist), and the only people he has to make happy are the constituents who voted for him, which, despite all the lying, seem happy with him thus far. A journalist has a single purpose of delivering accurate, honest and reliable news, and failing that is going to cost them pretty likely. Sure, lately news media has allowed countless stories to be pushed through that are later "fixed" after the damage is done without any consequences (considering the amount of such stories compared to people fired, it seems only monumental fuckups result in actual punishment), but even that leniency for such dishonesty and misrepresentation eventually runs dry as the sole purpose of the job is affected. Trump just has to not break the law, and make the people that voted for him happy enough to re-vote for him if he wants to run again. Liar still seems to be doing that much.

Expecting a journalist who is an employee and representative of a company to embarrass said company to always retain their job after they fucked up, especially when said company has the legal means to remove them, is simply foolish. Comparing that situation to an elected official who has not yet been charged with breaking the law is all the more so.

It's bewildering as to why you tolerate this state of affairs, or why you insist on blaming the media as a single aggregate entity for Trump's dishonesty instead of blaming Trump for the lie-sounds his mouth-hole makes. There is no level of impunity enjoyed by anyone in the news media comparable to that enjoyed by Trump. Except for Rupert fucking Murdoch, who is the worst thing to be exported from Australia since planking.

Public opinion doesn't trust politicians and used to trust media, who was once respected as a watchdog on the government.

Lately, the media' hate-on for Trump has cost them a lot of trust and undermined their very function, both as information providers in general and as the fourth estate of the people.

You are asking why I don't blame Trump for being who he is and instead call out the media for their fuck ups? I call Trump incompetent and a liar just fine. But I call the media that too because they are that too. You take offense at me calling them out, but I just see you playing apologetic for their fuck ups because it is in the name of your political beliefs. The media should not be so easily played and manipulated, yet they run like lemmings to his every clown-show. YOU, yourself, hang on his tweets as examples of how he is worse as if I care at all that he is worse. This should never have been a competition, but the media made it one, and in doing so, they are losing.

Seriously, look at how this conversation has gone. I am critical of the failings of the media in reporting Trump. Your defense is that Trump is worse. Not that the media wasn't dishonest. Just that all I should care about is that Trump is worse.

I don't care if he is or not here, that doesn't make the media less bad because of the comparison, it just highlights you don't care beyond how it relates to hurting your political opposition. You don't care that the media is lying more often, just as long as they target someone you dislike.

I don't blame Trump's dishonest on anyone but him. But it seems like you blame the media's dishonesty on Trump.

Anyway. I fully expect to open my laptop in the next day or so to find a 25,000-word rebuttal left by you, at which point I will close my laptop and go play with my cat.

Good. You should spend more time with your cat than posting online. As for the length of my posts, the more I have to re-explain myself, the longer they get. Considering I have to do that a lot lately, it was probably wishful thinking of me to try to be kind and go for shorter. Oh well.

runic knight:

So you agree, presidents have a history of lying? Good, my point stands then, as that was the extent of it there, that politicians lie.

Whatever manufactured position beyond that which you are internally applying to me via strawmen about my pointing that fact out is irrelevant.

Politicians lie and and known to lie. We agree, that was all my point used for support, so moving on.

Yes, politicians lie, obviously. That was the extent of your point? That was never under contention by anybody here, and proves nothing.

You stated in the previous post that we should "expect [the President] to withhold information", and implied that the news media should be held to a higher standard. Both of those statements, of course, go well beyond the mere point that politicians lie-- but if you're not trying to make any of those related arguments any more, then that's fine with me.

runic knight:

This is where you are wrong. When someone listens to a politician, they strongly suspect they will lie. When those people go to the news, however, it is only recently that people suspect they are lying through their teeth as bad as politicians. Most people trusted the news media more than politicians. Now fewer do because they keep lying.

You have it in your head that such a statement is a defense of or excuse for or underplays the actions of one or overplays the action of another and all of that is you making shit up and pinning it on me. Stop being so dishonest, I called you out for that last time and will do so every time.

That is not a judgement of their lying as good or bad, or better or worse than politicians. This is saying their lying has negatively affected public perception of their trustworthiness, and in comparison, aided Trump's.

The scepticism you're describing, though, is very specifically of anti-Trump media. You made that specification yourself, in fact. We're not talking merely about media scepticism; we're talking quite specifically about scepticism of the claims of those who are against Trump, and none applied to Trump himself (or his own supporters in the media). When Trump slams the media, he only ever applies the criticisms to his political opponents. You did the same.

That is not scepticism.

runic knight:

Also, this line of thought is simply amazing.

"we accept that most of them have party biases; it's fully expected."

But

"The government is not expected to outright fabricate."

So, news agencies that are suppose to be impartial, accurate and relevant by a strong built-upon ethical guideline and decades of respect of it, they are ok to ignore that for political parties. They are expected to lie through their teeth to promote a political party?

Uhrm, no, I never said that.

You're accusing me constantly of dishonesty, and simultaneously making up shit about what I'm saying.

runic knight:

Furthermore, this is not trying to "apologize" for the behavior, this is describing the reality of it. Now, attempting to say that news media is expected to be propaganda for a political party, THAT sounds like apologetic for how they behave towards trump, likely because you don't want to call out the behavior of those opposed to the same political opponent you have. But that does seem to be the underlying conflict here; I am pointing out a simple observed phenomenon of reality, and you are screaming about it because it doesn't target your opposing political party right this second (even though I did touch on them too).

You're not "pointing out a simple observed phenomenon". You're directing a criticism solely to one side of the political divide, though both are guilty of it. It's partisanship.

runic knight:

Does he now? Well, usually I would accept this claim as common sense, but since you seem pretty determined to reject that at every instance, I am going to have to ask you for something to back that claim up. Oh, and has to be a trustworthy source, so any one already found guilty of manufacturing stories or outright lying about him, not trusted to be honest.

I've snipped the second paragraph, there, because there wasn't any actual content in it whatsoever.

Take a look at Politifact's file. Note that each statement of Trump's is directly quoted.

Compare it to the files on rival politicians. You'll see that lying is common (including for Clinton)-- but nowhere near as common.

runic knight:

Except I am skeptical of the other side as well, and openly called them out in my examples already. You being upset I am talking about the media critical of trump does not mean I am not critical of the failings of the media positive about him, and my examples prove that point already.

Furthermore, examine your claim here. You are calling me partisan because I am skeptical of your side while skeptical of your opposing side. You don't care that I am skeptical of both (and I have established that point already, clearly), you only care I am not more skeptical of your opponent than your side. THAT is pure partisan bias.

You are being very dishonest here claiming I am not skeptical of you opposing side. You should withdraw your accusation when it is so blatantly wrong. Or should I instead take your defense of the media's behavior to openly lie, as well as the majority of your claims themselves, to be protecting your own vested interest in using the same tactic?

Firstly, I want to draw attention to the intense hostility you've displayed throughout the entire post above. Personal accusation after personal accusation, insult after insult, constant grandstanding.

You are not equally sceptical of both. Your first post on this matter-- the one to which, specifically, I first responded-- singled out solely those opposed to Trump as damaging the credibility of the media. This is exactly the same narrative that the establishment trots out, time and again-- ideological opponents are accused constantly of dishonesty, while equally dishonest outlets on the same side as Trump do not.

runic knight:
So you agree, presidents have a history of lying? Good, my point stands then, as that was the extent of it there, that politicians lie.

Whatever manufactured position beyond that which you are internally applying to me via strawmen about my pointing that fact out is irrelevant.

Politicians lie and and known to lie. We agree, that was all my point used for support, so moving on.

This is pathetic.

You weren't stating the bare fact that some politicians have been known to lie. You were making an ethical comparison. You were saying that you hold journalists to a higher standard of honesty than you do your President. Anyone with the patience to scroll up the page can see that for themselves.

runic knight:
You know, I smile every time I see someone complain about length in these forums. The greatest benefit of them is this sort of long-form dissection and examination of topics and points, so I can't help by feel warm inside when people complain I am using that as it was intended.

An argument is like a knife; it cuts deepest when it's been sharpened to as thin and smooth an edge as possible.

What you are doing is not arguing. The purpose of an argument is to convince someone of your point. You will never convince someone of your point if your arguments are intentionally so long and so dense that they cannot be easily read and understood. And if you cannot convince someone with your argument, you are wasting your time.

StatusNil:

bastardofmelbourne:

If Trump meant "acid wash"

It means Ms. Clinton had her emails "shredded" with BleachBit brand open source software to make them unrecoverable by forensic means. See https://www.bleachbit.org for your Hillary-endorsed cover-up needs.

I hate to interrupt your petty distractor, but please bear in mind bleach (at least, the commo household variety) is strongly alkaline, not acidic; pH ~12.

Agema:

StatusNil:

bastardofmelbourne:

If Trump meant "acid wash"

It means Ms. Clinton had her emails "shredded" with BleachBit brand open source software to make them unrecoverable by forensic means. See https://www.bleachbit.org for your Hillary-endorsed cover-up needs.

I hate to interrupt your petty distractor, but please bear in mind bleach (at least, the commo household variety) is strongly alkaline, not acidic; pH ~12.

To be fair, the average person won't really think of bleach as alkaline rather than acid, I think. I believe their reaction would be "Bleach burns," and leave it at that.

runic knight:
You know, I smile every time I see someone complain about length in these forums. The greatest benefit of them is this sort of long-form dissection and examination of topics and points, so I can't help by feel warm inside when people complain I am using that as it was intended.

If you want to use long-form dissection, try making it coherent, consistent, logical, properly sourced, with individual points made in a clear and concise fashion.

Otherwise it's not much a dissection as pouring soggy porridge over the thread.

Silvanus:

Yes, politicians lie, obviously. That was the extent of your point? That was never under contention by anybody here, and proves nothing.

You stated in the previous post that we should "expect [the President] to withhold information", and implied that the news media should be held to a higher standard. Both of those statements, of course, go well beyond the mere point that politicians lie-- but if you're not trying to make any of those related arguments any more, then that's fine with me.

My point was that politicians are expected to lie or withhold or spin or generally be untrustworthy, not in the sense that "it is a good thing" or it is "part of their job", but in the sense that is the public expectation that they are so untrustworthy, that they will.

Meanwhile public perception of the media WAS that they were trustworthy, and between the two, default more believable on a story than the politician because of the far more stringently enforced source expectations and detailed ethical code.

That was the point, that the media used to be near-universally inherently more trusted than politicians. Which was used to support my overall point of "The media lying all the time about Trump hurts their trustworthiness and raise his when he is vindicated about them being liars".

The scepticism you're describing, though, is very specifically of anti-Trump media. You made that specification yourself, in fact. We're not talking merely about media scepticism; we're talking quite specifically about scepticism of the claims of those who are against Trump, and none applied to Trump himself (or his own supporters in the media). When Trump slams the media, he only ever applies the criticisms to his political opponents. You did the same.

That is not scepticism.

No, being skeptical of the media because they are lying is not "not skepticism" just because I am not attacking the target of their lies equally to them just because you personally dislike the target of their lies and want to excuse their behavior. That is you forcing your own political bias, nothing more.

My point was directed at the media's loss of trustworthiness, of course I will look at them as an example instead of wasting my time going "oh and the politician who people don't trust already is untrustworthy too". And I brought up reference to his supporters in the media as well with Fox and Breitbart, so you are outright lying about that at this point.

In fact, the only relevance Trump's trustworthiness relates is in that by calling the media liars and being vindicated, he is gaining more trustworthiness for their loss.

At this point, you keep going "But what about him being a liar!" as if it is in any way relevant to the point that the media has been lying with regularity about him. The media lying is not justified, excused or explained by him being a liar, and the only purpose of comparisons to my own point was in how embarrassing it is to the media that they are being compared to him at all, let alone that they are losing that competition in the eyes of many who, unlike yourself, aren't predisposed to hate or support one side of the political isle or the other. Your constant complaining about him though, and your outright denial of the fact I HAVE mentioned his supporters in the media, shows you are upset solely because I am not satisfying your personal bias here.

runic knight:

Also, this line of thought is simply amazing.
"we accept that most of them have party biases; it's fully expected."
But
"The government is not expected to outright fabricate."
So, news agencies that are suppose to be impartial, accurate and relevant by a strong built-upon ethical guideline and decades of respect of it, they are ok to ignore that for political parties. They are expected to lie through their teeth to promote a political party?

Uhrm, no, I never said that.

You're accusing me constantly of dishonesty, and simultaneously making up shit about what I'm saying.

No, unlike yourself who I outright prove when you are being dishonest by making claims that are dishonest (such as by reminding you that despite how much you claim otherwise, I HAVE touched upon Trump's supporters lack of honesty too), I am simply applying your words here and trying to make sense of them.
Those were your words, quoted exactly. And that is the consequence of your words. You defend and excuse the media's actions because the media displaying party bias is fully expected, referring to the outright lying, you know outright fabrication of the news and the truth, that I have been calling out as displaying party bias. And right after you condemn the government itself for outright fabricating despite the fact that between the two, the government should be FAR more influenced by the political biases you excuse in the media.

So which is it? Is it ok for the media to lie and manufacture the news because of the political ties, and thus even more likely and justifiable that the government to do so because they are literally run by those ties? Or is the government no expected to do that, and thus there is even less justification for the media to manufacture stories and news?

If I got something wrong, feel free to explain it, but as you presented and wrote it, THAT was the take away.

You're not "pointing out a simple observed phenomenon". You're directing a criticism solely to one side of the political divide, though both are guilty of it. It's partisanship.

No, I am pointing it out and responding to your complaints about the half you support as you ignore that I touched upon supporters of trump like Breitbart and Fox in not-favorable ways too. My criticism seeming more directed at those who lie about Trump negatively might also stem largely from the thread itself being an outright example of the media lying or misrepresenting negatively about Trump.

Furthermore, you keep making this claim (that is disproven already since I did touch on Reupblican supporting media) which still doesn't address the media lying being bad. Your concern is not that they lie, but that I am not whining about Trump equally. I don't care if you want me to complain about Trump equally, my point was on the media's failing and loss of trustworthiness, so it doesn't require I do so just to satisfy your bias.

I've snipped the second paragraph, there, because there wasn't any actual content in it whatsoever.

Take a look at Politifact's file. Note that each statement of Trump's is directly quoted.

Compare it to the files on rival politicians. You'll see that lying is common (including for Clinton)-- but nowhere near as common.

So, you cut out the part where I explained that I didn't really want you to make your case because it was going to be rejected for bias, and was going to do so because doing so was itself an example of the problem when the media lies, and instead you tried to fulfill the request that was called for solely as a point of demonstration, with a site example that googling "politifact bias" brought up problem with bias about, thereby demonstrating my very point both about the problem with using examples with biases, and your own personal bias blinding you...

I can't tell if you just fail to understand the point I am making, or are being intentionally obtuse about it at this point.

You are obsessed with showing Trump is a liar despite it neither being challenged or being relevant.

I'll try again, and go slower. Which means going longer. And you folks wonder why I write such long posts when I have to keep doing this sort of thing. Ah well, I know you all love to see these text walls...

Ok, from the top.

The site you called up has people claiming it has a bias. And honestly, there is a case to be made there, selective bias of "facts", representation of quotes, sheer number of quotes selected, and even harsher judgements for the same statements as made by others are all causes of concern about it. But no, that was not the point and I am not getting into that one here. The relevance of the request for an example, though, is that people call that bias out, are vindicated when they find an example showing that, and the site loses trustworthiness while the ones that called it out gain.

This is a problem. Because of the bias exists and is observably obvious, the trustworthiness of the media, or even fact-checking sites like politifact, is harmed. The more examples, the larger the harm in public perception of them. And those that call them out only need to parade the examples of their failure out to be validated and claim trustworthiness for calling them out.

This is a large reason why due diligence was such an important part of journalism. As I said before, the public is not surprised when a politician lies. It is an expectation that they will. Their job doesn't depend on them being seen as honest so much as being seen as effective to those who support them. Most voters wouldn't care if they found out a politician lied to someone else, so long as it wasn't them and wasn't illegal. A journalist and a news media publication, however, only has their trustworthiness. Without it, they are worthless. Them lying in reporting, even harmlessly, hurts their sole purpose. So CNN lying about Trump, or politifact demonstrating a bias hurt them far more than a politician for the same action. It happens enough, and then those calling them up look more trustworthy in comparison for being accurate in calling them out.

That in turn, leads to the point I was making here, that you can't call up an example to show what you wanted without it being questioned as biased. Hell, like the 4th result of that google search.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans
"As the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto has consistently reported, the fact checking business often ? too often for anyone's good ? turns on matters of opinion rather than matters of "fact.""

The result is that your example would be rejected for failing to be unbiased. And my request was designed as such, to highlight the consequence of the media being publicly distrusted: People stop taking it as reliable evidence of claims"

Firstly, I want to draw attention to the intense hostility you've displayed throughout the entire post above. Personal accusation after personal accusation, insult after insult, constant grandstanding.

Yeah, it is fun to reply in kind. Fortunately I take the time to back my stuff up too though, so address that if you would, not my tone itself because I largely do not care if you find my tearing apart your replies to be "hostile" at this point. I am addressing points, explaining mine, and demonstrating how I am reaching the conclusions I am, even when it comes to pointing out your own biases and dishonest portrayals of my position. Of course, if you want me to be more "friendly", perhaps stop making bald-faced lies about my position instead and I wouldn't have the examples of your blatant dishonesty and politically motivated bias to call out in the first place. Would probably result in a lot shorter posts too since I wouldn't feel the need to address them.

You are not equally sceptical of both. Your first post on this matter-- the one to which, specifically, I first responded-- singled out solely those opposed to Trump as damaging the credibility of the media. This is exactly the same narrative that the establishment trots out, time and again-- ideological opponents are accused constantly of dishonesty, while equally dishonest outlets on the same side as Trump do not.

You mean in a thread that itself is an example of the media being dishonest in presentation of facts against trump, in response to a post that specifically talks about a pattern of dishonesty, I would touch upon the media's irrational increase in dishonesty when it comes to Trump compared to anyone else, and the way that Trump's reply of "Fake News" shows the consequence of such dishonesty, doing that a little more frequently than examples of Fox or Breitbart that are less relevant to this thread's topic? Gee, I can't imagine why I would do that, especially as more and more replies complain more about how dishonest trump is than address the media's behavior which was my larger point.

From that first post itself.

"News media and opponents of trump have certainly sold a lot of goodwill and trust down the river with the amount of stories and claims misrepresentative if not openly fabricated, same as republicans have when it came to obama.

Even then, even with no reason to be impartial as my post is directly replying to someone later claiming republican are "never right", I STILL touch upon both sides when critical of the media.

You keep manufacturing baseless claims like you do and wonder why I am so intolerant of them to the point you would describe me as "hostile"?

bastardofmelbourne:

runic knight:
So you agree, presidents have a history of lying? Good, my point stands then, as that was the extent of it there, that politicians lie.

Whatever manufactured position beyond that which you are internally applying to me via strawmen about my pointing that fact out is irrelevant.

Politicians lie and and known to lie. We agree, that was all my point used for support, so moving on.

This is pathetic.

Tell me about it, what should be a simple statement of stance has devolved this much because people read into being critical of the media, with particular example of their lying about Trump, is some defense of him or excuse of his actions. It is just sad people can't see an actual criticism of what they think of as an ally without immediately charging to the attack of their political foe, even if said foes aren't actually there.

Seriously, my stance was "Media lying makes people trust them less, and people calling the media liars are trusted more". Hardly revolutionary, yet here I am arguing with, what, 3? 4? People now about how trump is a liar (as if I said he wasn't), and how the length of my posts are too long.

My point about the media lying more frequently making more people less likely to trust them seems to be ignored entirely. Almost intentionality even...

You weren't stating the bare fact that some politicians have been known to lie. You were making an ethical comparison. You were saying that you hold journalists to a higher standard of honesty than you do your President. Anyone with the patience to scroll up the page can see that for themselves.

No, I am calling up public perception of the ethical expectations of both with relation to the surprise if caught lying and using the fact that people used to be more surprised by the journalist lying than the politician, but now that difference is changing as journalists are less and less trustworthy.

This is not holding them to a higher standard personally, this is arguing public perception and expectation of them to be honest is higher than a politician, which is relevant when my entire point is about how the media's behavior is harming their public perception and people like Trump, who call that out, are gaining trustworthiness by being vindicated for doing so.

runic knight:
You know, I smile every time I see someone complain about length in these forums. The greatest benefit of them is this sort of long-form dissection and examination of topics and points, so I can't help by feel warm inside when people complain I am using that as it was intended.

An argument is like a knife; it cuts deepest when it's been sharpened to as thin and smooth an edge as possible.

What you are doing is not arguing. The purpose of an argument is to convince someone of your point. You will never convince someone of your point if your arguments are intentionally so long and so dense that they cannot be easily read and understood. And if you cannot convince someone with your argument, you are wasting your time.

You mistake yourself for the world. I likely wont convince you because you already demonstrated there is no reasoning you out of your position. But other people read these replies and take things away. I will, of course, try my best to explain my reasoning and my arguments, break down points, support positions, call out flaws, and generally treat you like someone who can be reasoned with. I give that benefit of the doubt to anyone I talk with, even if frustrated from time to time. But even suspecting you will never be convinced wont stop me from arguing. At worst, I still examine my own arguments, sort my reasoning, and hone my position. At best, I may yet surprise myself and convince someone I didn't expect.

As I have addressed to the many who come at me with "Why do you even post" style of criticism of me, I like to have discussion and argument. I like to break things down, examine them, and see how they relate to one another. Back when the sock-puppet used to complain about me replying to them knowing full well what a griefer he was, I said as much. It still stands.

On the point of length specifically though, that is entirely a consequence of environment. Every time I have to drill deeper into an argument, tie up a loose point, address a fallacy, or jut re-explain my point that has been misunderstood or just misrepresented, it adds length.

There is a saying I like
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Most people see that and just see the first part, that of "simple as possible", but I like it for the second part more. Don't dumb it down more than it needs to in order to be functional.

My posts are a result of that mindset. They are as simple as I think they are needed. If I need to explain something because it is an odd train of thought, that is needed. If I need to address a position that is flawed, that is needed too. If I need to correct a fallacy, that is needed. If I need to re-explain myself in a way even harder to misrepresent, also needed. Every addition to length is the result of a post or reply that showed me I must not have had enough explaining my point when they can still misunderstand my point, or still repeat a debunked point, or still use a fallacy, or still bring up an irrelevant bit of fluff. The fact they are so long tells you the amount I feel I need to put forth to functionally communicate my thoughts to the person I am talking to. I suppose, that really is not flattering to you though.

Agema:
If you want to use long-form dissection, try making it coherent, consistent, logical, properly sourced, with individual points made in a clear and concise fashion.

Otherwise it's not much a dissection as pouring soggy porridge over the thread.

You mean such by breaking up posts to address individual points, correct mistakes, explain and re-explain arguments, section off fallacies, and re-state positions that get misrepresented with nearly every post?

I'll try that, thanks.

runic knight:

My point was that politicians are expected to lie or withhold or spin or generally be untrustworthy, not in the sense that "it is a good thing" or it is "part of their job", but in the sense that is the public expectation that they are so untrustworthy, that they will.

Meanwhile public perception of the media WAS that they were trustworthy, and between the two, default more believable on a story than the politician because of the far more stringently enforced source expectations and detailed ethical code.

That was the point, that the media used to be near-universally inherently more trusted than politicians. Which was used to support my overall point of "The media lying all the time about Trump hurts their trustworthiness and raise his when he is vindicated about them being liars".

If that was the expectation, the expectation was baseless and foolish. It should be clear, also, that the misrepresentations bandied about Trump-- the fish-food thing, nonsense like that-- have by-and-large been unimportant in comparison with the President's own untrustworthiness on far bigger issues.

Keep in mind, more than half the time Trump whines about "fake news", he's using it to try to dismiss something perfectly true. It's a distraction for him; a method of burying criticism, including valid and true criticism. He has led his supporters into disbelieving the truth.

runic knight:

No, being skeptical of the media because they are lying is not "not skepticism" just because I am not attacking the target of their lies equally to them just because you personally dislike the target of their lies and want to excuse their behavior. That is you forcing your own political bias, nothing more.

What I "personally dislike" is applying an entirely different standard to outlets that don't fit the ideological agenda. That is what Trump does, and that is what you were doing when you singled out only "opponents to Trump". You are the one using political agenda to distinguish between whether an outlet is trustworthy, not me.

runic knight:

My point was directed at the media's loss of trustworthiness, of course I will look at them as an example instead of wasting my time going "oh and the politician who people don't trust already is untrustworthy too". And I brought up reference to his supporters in the media as well with Fox and Breitbart, so you are outright lying about that at this point.

You made a throwaway reference, amidst numerous essay-length posts which constantly decried Trump's political opponents.

runic knight:

No, unlike yourself who I outright prove when you are being dishonest by making claims that are dishonest (such as by reminding you that despite how much you claim otherwise, I HAVE touched upon Trump's supporters lack of honesty too), I am simply applying your words here and trying to make sense of them.
Those were your words, quoted exactly. And that is the consequence of your words. You defend and excuse the media's actions because the media displaying party bias is fully expected, referring to the outright lying, you know outright fabrication of the news and the truth, that I have been calling out as displaying party bias. And right after you condemn the government itself for outright fabricating despite the fact that between the two, the government should be FAR more influenced by the political biases you excuse in the media.

So which is it? Is it ok for the media to lie and manufacture the news because of the political ties, and thus even more likely and justifiable that the government to do so because they are literally run by those ties? Or is the government no expected to do that, and thus there is even less justification for the media to manufacture stories and news?

If I got something wrong, feel free to explain it, but as you presented and wrote it, THAT was the take away.

My words? They were not my bloody words. Where did I say it was fine and dandy for the media to lie and fabricate? That's a spurious accusation, something you pulled out of your ass-- and then you have the gall to insist that I'm being "dishonest" when I point that out.

runic knight:

Agema:
If you want to use long-form dissection, try making it coherent, consistent, logical, properly sourced, with individual points made in a clear and concise fashion.

Otherwise it's not much a dissection as pouring soggy porridge over the thread.

You mean such by breaking up posts to address individual points, correct mistakes, explain and re-explain arguments, section off fallacies, and re-state positions that get misrepresented with nearly every post?

I'll try that, thanks.

I can tell you've never had to write an essay outside of the Internet.

Silvanus:

runic knight:

My point was that politicians are expected to lie or withhold or spin or generally be untrustworthy, not in the sense that "it is a good thing" or it is "part of their job", but in the sense that is the public expectation that they are so untrustworthy, that they will.

Meanwhile public perception of the media WAS that they were trustworthy, and between the two, default more believable on a story than the politician because of the far more stringently enforced source expectations and detailed ethical code.

That was the point, that the media used to be near-universally inherently more trusted than politicians. Which was used to support my overall point of "The media lying all the time about Trump hurts their trustworthiness and raise his when he is vindicated about them being liars".

If that was the expectation, the expectation was baseless and foolish. It should be clear, also, that the misrepresentations bandied about Trump-- the fish-food thing, nonsense like that-- have by-and-large been unimportant in comparison with the President's own untrustworthiness on far bigger issues.

Keep in mind, more than half the time Trump whines about "fake news", he's using it to try to dismiss something perfectly true. It's a distraction for him; a method of burying criticism, including valid and true criticism. He has led his supporters into disbelieving the truth.

You have repeated my very point here, so I have to wonder just what you are actually interpreting my words as at this point.

Yes, Trump does call things fake news to discredit them.

The fact those "unimportant" stories are easy examples for him to point to and go "See, they lie all the time" is the point I was making, as it destroys their trustworthiness which their entire reputation depends on.

That was the point, by the media resorting to openly, unapologetically lying, it gives Trump's claims validity, and through that, him more trustworthiness. That was it, that they intentionally lying hurts them and helps Trump despite how much their lying about Trump is meant to hurt him.

Also, you should not be disingenuous about the scale of lies made about Trump. It is not just unimportant things, as legitimately fake news was important enough it was responsible for a small market crash, and the manufactured bullshit about the russia connection is not a little detail to get wrong but a willful, constant effort to outright lie and misrepresent.

runic knight:

No, being skeptical of the media because they are lying is not "not skepticism" just because I am not attacking the target of their lies equally to them just because you personally dislike the target of their lies and want to excuse their behavior. That is you forcing your own political bias, nothing more.

What I "personally dislike" is applying an entirely different standard to outlets that don't fit the ideological agenda. That is what Trump does, and that is what you were doing when you singled out only "opponents to Trump". You are the one using political agenda to distinguish between whether an outlet is trustworthy, not me.

Where did I apply a different standard? And not your "you aren't talking about the people I dislike" nonsense you have been complaining about either. Where did I apply a different standard of "the media being dishonest is hurting its reputation?"

At best I can assume where you might have gotten that would be me calling sites outlets like Fox and Breitbart out for already being known to be biased, but that is not a different standard applied, that is saying "these are already known to not be trusted because of that very issue" to demonstrate the very point. And I stand behind what I said, because they have gone even further into outright lying, outlets like CNN have lost any claim to being more trustworthy than FOX simply by virtue of them being caught outright lying through their teeth less lately.

runic knight:

My point was directed at the media's loss of trustworthiness, of course I will look at them as an example instead of wasting my time going "oh and the politician who people don't trust already is untrustworthy too". And I brought up reference to his supporters in the media as well with Fox and Breitbart, so you are outright lying about that at this point.

You made a throwaway reference, amidst numerous essay-length posts which constantly decried Trump's political opponents.

Yes, references I didn't even need to make at all since it doesn't matter if I equally devote my time to "both" sides for my point to be valid. And it was, the media's lying has hurt their reputation and helped Trump, specifically in relation to those Trump calls fake news (you know, those you keep complaining I am talking about). And this done in a discussion in a thread that stands as an example of those openly misrepresenting Trump as well, which is largely addressed by people like you more concerned about justifying the media's lying than on addressing my point it in the first place.

My not bitching about the people you dislike does not mean I support them. You thinking that does is a failure of your own thinking, so stop trying to apply that to me just because it makes it easier to argue against that strawman than it does what I actually am saying and arguing.

Your continued insistence that I am holding a position I am not after you have been corrected on it multiple times is maliciously dishonest, and I will call it out as such. I've addressed your misrepresentation, I'd explained why and how it is wrong, so persisting on it at this point is blatantly dishonest.

Seriously, your entire complaint is "you don't talk about the other side enough" in a discussion that has been intentionally directed and framed by your own replies to center around Trump being a bigger liar, in a thread about the media misrepresenting Trump.

Hey, you don't talk about the starving kids in Africa every post either. Lets apply your gross reaching here and say that means you support genocide through starvation. Do you see how inane that sounds? How much of a manufactured line of crap your strawman is?

You are complaining I am not talking about "the other side" as much as you want when my point was about the negative consequences of the media lying through their teeth, specifically with how it helps Trump by letting him be vindicated by calling them liars. Why would I spend a lot of time on it, or need to spend any at all for that matter, when my example of "Trump is using this to be vindicated" is predicated on the media lying about him and being caught in it over and over again?

The answer is, there is no reason for me to or requirement for me to. Your complaints are manufactured and dishonest attempts to paint my position into something it is not, solely for he sake of complaining that it is biased. Knock it off.

runic knight:

No, unlike yourself who I outright prove when you are being dishonest by making claims that are dishonest (such as by reminding you that despite how much you claim otherwise, I HAVE touched upon Trump's supporters lack of honesty too), I am simply applying your words here and trying to make sense of them.
Those were your words, quoted exactly. And that is the consequence of your words. You defend and excuse the media's actions because the media displaying party bias is fully expected, referring to the outright lying, you know outright fabrication of the news and the truth, that I have been calling out as displaying party bias. And right after you condemn the government itself for outright fabricating despite the fact that between the two, the government should be FAR more influenced by the political biases you excuse in the media.

So which is it? Is it ok for the media to lie and manufacture the news because of the political ties, and thus even more likely and justifiable that the government to do so because they are literally run by those ties? Or is the government no expected to do that, and thus there is even less justification for the media to manufacture stories and news?

If I got something wrong, feel free to explain it, but as you presented and wrote it, THAT was the take away.

My words? They were not my bloody words. Where did I say it was fine and dandy for the media to lie and fabricate? That's a spurious accusation, something you pulled out of your ass-- and then you have the gall to insist that I'm being "dishonest" when I point that out.

This is what you said.

The government is expected to spin. For that matter, so are media outlets: we accept that most of them have party biases; it's fully expected. The government is not expected to outright fabricate.

Your words right here.

And given the context of the discussion (it being in response to my point about the media lying hurting their reputation), this is the breakdown of the take-away from that.

> You say we expect the media to spin things because of party biases.

> You make this claim in response to examples of outright fabrication of stories.

>> Therefore, because of that and because of your defense of the media's lying thus far, the natural conclusion to reach is that we expect the media to outright fabricate stories (what you described as spinning) because of party biases.

> You then say the government is not expected to outright fabricate.

> But the government is outright run by the parties.

>< This creates the conflicting belief.

-> Either the media's outright misrepresenting and lying, which was the topic I was discussion, is ok because of party biases AND the government's outright misrepresentation and fabrication is ok for the same reason.

or

-> The the government fabricating is not ok regardless of party bias, and party biases is not enough justification for the media either.

This is the argument you presented in response to me talking about the media outright lying. This is the take away I got from your words. As I said before, if it is wrong, feel free to explain yourself better, but it is not a spurious accusation, like your own of my position before, and this is the second time I explained, clear as day, how I reached that conclusion.

For all your bluster about it, you have neither addressed the reasoning I made nor my point itself at all. Furthermore, while you huff and puff about my pointing out (and clearly showing how) your argument was terrible and asking for you to actually explain yourself, you refuse to accept my explanation of why your own insistence of my position is wrong despite it being explained multiple times now that it is.

Save your outrage and just address the arguments please.

bastardofmelbourne:

runic knight:

Agema:
If you want to use long-form dissection, try making it coherent, consistent, logical, properly sourced, with individual points made in a clear and concise fashion.

Otherwise it's not much a dissection as pouring soggy porridge over the thread.

You mean such by breaking up posts to address individual points, correct mistakes, explain and re-explain arguments, section off fallacies, and re-state positions that get misrepresented with nearly every post?

I'll try that, thanks.

I can tell you've never had to write an essay outside of the Internet.

On the contrary, it is just that outside of the internet, I have a lot more faith that the person it is reaching wont intentionally try to misrepresent me or be unable to follow the basic reasoning I used to reach conclusions.

As I said, the length is a consequence of adapting to this environment. Having to deal with logical fallacies, misrepresentation, and, as you demonstrate well here, useless snark, simply has me add more to the post to cover bases.

Heck, it proved itself required in this thread itself as my unneeded but still included examples of opposing bias media demonstrated that Silvanus was being dishonest in their misrepresentation of my position. When I have to deal with that sort of nonsense regularly, it gets lengthy.

But nice of you to demonstrate exactly why I feel it is needed with such uncharitable assumptions and worthless attempted snide side commentary.

bastardofmelbourne:

runic knight:

Agema:
If you want to use long-form dissection, try making it coherent, consistent, logical, properly sourced, with individual points made in a clear and concise fashion.

Otherwise it's not much a dissection as pouring soggy porridge over the thread.

You mean such by breaking up posts to address individual points, correct mistakes, explain and re-explain arguments, section off fallacies, and re-state positions that get misrepresented with nearly every post?

I'll try that, thanks.

I can tell you've never had to write an essay outside of the Internet.

It's funny, but when I wrote that comment I was part-way through marking a heap of final year essays. The gulf in quality is remarkable. It's not that I expect the same quality in an internet post that I do in a formal essay towards the end of a degree qualification, but I like to think anyone who has been through ~3 years of learning how to write effectively will bring some of that to an internet post.

runic knight:

Yes, Trump does call things fake news to discredit them.

The fact those "unimportant" stories are easy examples for him to point to and go "See, they lie all the time" is the point I was making, as it destroys their trustworthiness which their entire reputation depends on.

That was the point, by the media resorting to openly, unapologetically lying, it gives Trump's claims validity, and through that, him more trustworthiness. That was it, that they intentionally lying hurts them and helps Trump despite how much their lying about Trump is meant to hurt him.

Also, you should not be disingenuous about the scale of lies made about Trump. It is not just unimportant things, as legitimately fake news was important enough it was responsible for a small market crash, and the manufactured bullshit about the russia connection is not a little detail to get wrong but a willful, constant effort to outright lie and misrepresent.

I am aware of what your argument is. My point is that one source lying does not somehow convey "validity" to a different source, which also lies through its teeth. If someone believes it somehow does convey validity, that's ludicrous gullibility and partisanship on their part. Only through a total failure of critical thinking does that happen; it is not a rational conclusion.

runic knight:

Where did I apply a different standard? And not your "you aren't talking about the people I dislike" nonsense you have been complaining about either. Where did I apply a different standard of "the media being dishonest is hurting its reputation?"

You specifically singled out "anti-Trump media" as the lying, disingenuous sources, to which people are sceptical. You quite specifically accused one side of the political divide.

That is more than simply "not talking about people I dislike". You made the effort to single out only your political opponents.

runic knight:

This entire tract is peppered with aggressive personal insults and hostility. We can discuss this if we're both willing, but I'm not going to sit here and read paragraph after paragraph of constant accusation and insult.

runic knight:

This is what you said.

The government is expected to spin. For that matter, so are media outlets: we accept that most of them have party biases; it's fully expected. The government is not expected to outright fabricate.

Your words right here.

Yes, those are my words. Nowhere did I say it was fine to lie and fabricate. It's simply not in the quote, at all.

runic knight:
And given the context of the discussion (it being in response to my point about the media lying hurting their reputation), this is the breakdown of the take-away from that.

> You say we expect the media to spin things because of party biases.

> You make this claim in response to examples of outright fabrication of stories.

>> Therefore, because of that and because of your defense of the media's lying thus far, the natural conclusion to reach is that we expect the media to outright fabricate stories (what you described as spinning) because of party biases.

> You then say the government is not expected to outright fabricate.

> But the government is outright run by the parties.

>< This creates the conflicting belief.

-> Either the media's outright misrepresenting and lying, which was the topic I was discussion, is ok because of party biases AND the government's outright misrepresentation and fabrication is ok for the same reason.

or

-> The the government fabricating is not ok regardless of party bias, and party biases is not enough justification for the media either.

This is the argument you presented in response to me talking about the media outright lying. This is the take away I got from your words. As I said before, if it is wrong, feel free to explain yourself better [...]

It's extremely simple.

We expect the media to spin-- to be selective about how/what they report, and to "interpret" the information to suit their political biases. It is not okay for them to lie, and I never said it was, at any point. Spin =/= lying.

We also expect political parties to spin, particularly in campaign efforts. It is also not okay for them to lie.

You seem to have merely added a number of additional steps and unnecessary suppositions, that's all.

===

I've snipped the end of your post, because it devolved again into yet more accusation and insult. I am seriously getting quite tired of the sheer level of hostility you're showing here.

There is something for us to discuss, clearly, but if you don't raise the standard of your discourse a little-- cutting out the constant personal accusations ("Blatant dishonesty", "maliciously dishonest", "manufactured and dishonest")-- then we can just end it. I don't have the interest in reading endless tracts of personal insults directed towards me. It tires me out.

Silvanus:

runic knight:

Yes, Trump does call things fake news to discredit them.

The fact those "unimportant" stories are easy examples for him to point to and go "See, they lie all the time" is the point I was making, as it destroys their trustworthiness which their entire reputation depends on.

That was the point, by the media resorting to openly, unapologetically lying, it gives Trump's claims validity, and through that, him more trustworthiness. That was it, that they intentionally lying hurts them and helps Trump despite how much their lying about Trump is meant to hurt him.

Also, you should not be disingenuous about the scale of lies made about Trump. It is not just unimportant things, as legitimately fake news was important enough it was responsible for a small market crash, and the manufactured bullshit about the russia connection is not a little detail to get wrong but a willful, constant effort to outright lie and misrepresent.

I am aware of what your argument is. My point is that one source lying does not somehow convey "validity" to a different source, which also lies through its teeth. If someone believes it somehow does convey validity, that's ludicrous gullibility and partisanship on their part. Only through a total failure of critical thinking does that happen; it is not a rational conclusion.

It is not a matter of "one source lying", it is an entire series of promoting such lies, disregard for proper investigation, abandonment of any hint of journalistic ethics, abandonment of even attempting to be fair and impartial, and the willful and malicious dishonesty in address the series of mistakes, fuck-ups, and outright dishonesty. The media is a collective series of sources, yet when it comes to trump the sheer scale of dishonesty regarding him is breathtaking. People not trusting the news reporting on him is a rational conclusion to make in light of that. Them believing Trump instead after he is validated in his claims is less so, but not unexpected behavior.

Because the news media relies entirely on their reputation, them being so dishonest so often creates a pattern. They are a character witness that have been shown compromised, while the person they accused has been shown correct in calling them out. When it is a situation of competing claims, starting to go "you know, the guy they keep lying about might be telling the truth about other things they said he was lying about", it is a reasonable expectation that people will come to that conclusion. While I agree it is not good critical thinking to do that, the simple fact is that people will think such ways, especially when the media keeps giving them reason to do so by being caught pants down time after time lying and misrepresenting. After a while, you stop believing the boy crying wolf. After a while, you start to believe the person calling the boy a liar.

runic knight:

Where did I apply a different standard? And not your "you aren't talking about the people I dislike" nonsense you have been complaining about either. Where did I apply a different standard of "the media being dishonest is hurting its reputation?"

You specifically singled out "anti-Trump media" as the lying, disingenuous sources, to which people are sceptical. You quite specifically accused one side of the political divide.

That is more than simply "not talking about people I dislike". You made the effort to single out only your political opponents.

No, I made a point to concentrate on the topic closest related to the thread itself, you know, the one about trump and a story demonstrating the media misrepresenting him. Contrary to your accusation here though, those critical of trump aren't MY political opponents. They are just the most pertinent example of the media lying to make my point on, and most relevant to the thread itself. That you still persist in pretending that point is in any way affected by my lack of exhaustively calling out both sides is disingenuous of you, especially when it has been explained multiple times now.

Furthermore, you have made zero case as to why it matters even if I was bias, which begs the question as to why you are so hung up on accusing my position despite being corrected on it multiple times.

runic knight:

This entire tract is peppered with aggressive personal insults and hostility. We can discuss this if we're both willing, but I'm not going to sit here and read paragraph after paragraph of constant accusation and insult.

This coming immediately after you make claims of my position? Or after long series of posts where you do the same? Spare me your outrage. You are right on one part, I pepper these in, though unlike your entire reliance upon them for points, I both actually support them, and have a justification for them relating t the larger point.

Or to reword that, you dishonestly (and after being corrected and explained to multiple times now, your continued repetition of the claim about MY position is nothing but dishonesty at this point) making claims and accusations of my position is often all you have as a counter-point. Me pointing that out and making conclusions about you from them is actually worthwhile solely because in making such accusations based on nothing but your personal insistence, it makes YOUR character relevant to the argument as intentional or not, you, by lack of anything else to address my reasoning or position, present your claim against me as if you are expert testimony when it relies on your insistence that I am wrong about my own position (this is compounded when you repeat the dishonest claim when it has been addressed and explained while still not supporting it with anything but your insistence of MY position).

When your reply is "you are only attacking those opposed to trump" after the claim itself has been shown to be outright false, and it has been explained multiple times why I use examples there-in, I have to call that out for what it is and what it makes me conclude about you, especially when that conclusion is relevant to your support of that claim (your own reliability as a "witness"). When you persist in it, and refuse to actually address the points made addressing it, you validate that conclusion and demonstrate why it is actually relevant as a point in and of itself. It ends up as me going "you are losing faulty logic and fallacy and here is why" to which your rebuttal is attempting to tone police, another rhetorical trick worthless to the discussion.

If you would stop making baseless accusations about my position, or actually addressed my explanation of why I use specific examples, or even just explained it better than repeating yourself of "you only talk about trump's opponents", I would not be forced to address your "criticism" by calling out the "expert witness" for being dishonest as it would have a lot less relevance.

Granted I would still pepper some jabs in it if you kept doing other dishonest things. but it would matter a lot less if your didn't repeatedly rely on your own reliability in your insistence of my position despite my claims, explanation, and arguments to the contrary.

Or you could just accept that your accusation is unfounded and worthless overall to the discussion and stop trying to claim my position is what it is not. Not having to repeat myself every post correcting your dishonesty about my position would likely save a lot of this discussion about you being dishonest in your portrayal of my position by virtue of you no longer doing that.

runic knight:

This is what you said.

The government is expected to spin. For that matter, so are media outlets: we accept that most of them have party biases; it's fully expected. The government is not expected to outright fabricate.

Your words right here.

Yes, those are my words. Nowhere did I say it was fine to lie and fabricate. It's simply not in the quote, at all.

runic knight:
And given the context of the discussion (it being in response to my point about the media lying hurting their reputation), this is the breakdown of the take-away from that.

> You say we expect the media to spin things because of party biases.

> You make this claim in response to examples of outright fabrication of stories.

>> Therefore, because of that and because of your defense of the media's lying thus far, the natural conclusion to reach is that we expect the media to outright fabricate stories (what you described as spinning) because of party biases.

> You then say the government is not expected to outright fabricate.

> But the government is outright run by the parties.

>< This creates the conflicting belief.

-> Either the media's outright misrepresenting and lying, which was the topic I was discussion, is ok because of party biases AND the government's outright misrepresentation and fabrication is ok for the same reason.

or

-> The the government fabricating is not ok regardless of party bias, and party biases is not enough justification for the media either.

This is the argument you presented in response to me talking about the media outright lying. This is the take away I got from your words. As I said before, if it is wrong, feel free to explain yourself better [...]

It's extremely simple.

We expect the media to spin-- to be selective about how/what they report, and to "interpret" the information to suit their political biases. It is not okay for them to lie, and I never said it was, at any point. Spin =/= lying.

We also expect political parties to spin, particularly in campaign efforts. It is also not okay for them to lie.

You seem to have merely added a number of additional steps and unnecessary suppositions, that's all.

My complaint from the start was not about spin, but about dishonesty, misrepresentation, and outright lying. My sub-point was about how the public would even be far more expecting of a politician to lie instead of a news media site.

As such, your reply concerning "spin" (that is often how such dishonesty in both media and politics is downplayed or even defended) seems like it is discussing the same phenomenon I called out (the media's lying and dishonesty) and it was done in reply to my specifically addressing media lying.

If your rebuttal was truly meant to be discussing only the media that "spins" (a vague description in and of itself), then the entirely of your reply in that section was the fallacy of Equivocation in your arguing against a claim relating to the media lying with a point about the media making spin, two separate elements that therefore make your point moot to the discussion's topic itself.

If that is the case I can easily dismiss the entirety of that portion of your post concerning all of that as irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and I wait for you to put forth something actually relevant instead, since otherwise you are discussing something different than I was.

I've snipped the end of your post, because it devolved again into yet more accusation and insult. I am seriously getting quite tired of the sheer level of hostility you're showing here.

Then why do you insist on being dishonest in your claims of my position, ignoring explanation correcting your claims, and forcing the issue on the point to be a matter of your personal character as opposed to arguments themselves by insisting that my position is not what you pretend it is as I have already explained to many times?

There is something for us to discuss, clearly, but if you don't raise the standard of your discourse a little-- cutting out the constant personal accusations ("Blatant dishonesty", "maliciously dishonest", "manufactured and dishonest")-- then we can just end it. I don't have the interest in reading endless tracts of personal insults directed towards me. It tires me out.

I am tired of having to re-explain my position that it is not what you claim it is, only for you to repeat your claim based on only your own insistence. Perhaps if your "arguments" and behavior were not so definable as dishonest and your position so reliant upon your own insistence, I would be far less inclined to call it what it is as a means to address it.

You can be unhappy with my tone all you like, but that is not an argument, nor a defense of your own, your claims, or your tactics. If you can't even put forth the good faith to accept what someone says their position is, then I can not find a lot of effort to care if you are offended that I call that out. And that is a different thing than misunderstanding someone's position, or pointing to unintended or unintentional ramifications of that position such as I did with your "spin" wording. If you refuse to accept when someone goes "that is not my position" after they explained it several times, then you forfeit any value to your offense at being called dishonest.

Agema:

bastardofmelbourne:

runic knight:

You mean such by breaking up posts to address individual points, correct mistakes, explain and re-explain arguments, section off fallacies, and re-state positions that get misrepresented with nearly every post?

I'll try that, thanks.

I can tell you've never had to write an essay outside of the Internet.

It's funny, but when I wrote that comment I was part-way through marking a heap of final year essays. The gulf in quality is remarkable. It's not that I expect the same quality in an internet post that I do in a formal essay towards the end of a degree qualification, but I like to think anyone who has been through ~3 years of learning how to write effectively will bring some of that to an internet post.

Well considering I expect people online who are by now grown adults to have integrity enough to be honest in online discussions, to say nothing of not posting solely for the sake of sniping in a public forum like they were highschool meangirls, I guess the internet is full of disappointments we have to learn to tolerate.

runic knight:

Well considering I expect people online who are by now grown adults to have integrity enough to be honest in online discussions, to say nothing of not posting solely for the sake of sniping in a public forum like they were highschool meangirls, I guess the internet is full of disappointments we have to learn to tolerate.

I'm sorry you feel that you're such a disappointment to yourself. I hope you can learn from the experience.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here