I know yogi-adepts who can’t make that stretch.
I would have accepted such a definition…if said data points were actually claimed, let alone presented.
I tried that and got warned for it. 
New language gets quickly accepted when it provides a convenient and succinct linguistic tag for a concept everybody already understands. “Alternative facts” does this perfectly - but only if you use it in the way it has already become standard, i.e. that the fact stater is deliberately lying to your face. The delicious irony that the Trump administration itself coined the phrase surely helped its being referenced on every comic’s lips, but remember that it’s a successor word to “truthiness,” which Stephen Colbert coined in those innocent days of 2005. He meant the word as a euphemism for the administration’s lying pronouncements, although it allowed leeway for sincere beliefs that were disjoint from reality.
Alternative facts is Orwellian doublespeak that throws shade and gives none. Nobody in the administration believes that 5,000,000 illegal immigrants voted and that every single one of them voted for Hillary Clinton. Nobody. Not even You Know Who. But that’s what’s being said and defended. Alternative facts = fuck you, what are you gonna do about it.
And that’s why, fun as it would be, it can’t be used here.
I would not look on such with favor. It’s not hard to point out that you think someone is confusing their opinion with the facts without resorting to such things.
That’s sound logic, on it’s face. Has there been any follow-up to ask that those data points be presented, and carried forward toward that conclusion?
Given Conway’s history, I don’t think so.
When Ms. Conway tried to deflect the accusations of lying away from Mr. Spicer with her claim the he was using “alternative facts,” Chuck Todd explicitly noted “Look, alternative facts are not facts. They’re falsehoods.".
At that point Ms. Conway made no effort to defend the silly phrase and provided no further information that would have indicated that Mr. Spicer was relying on other data. She simply avoided any further commentary, tacitly acknowledging that there was no other information and that Mr. Spicer’s words were, in fact, falsehoods.
The phrase means falsehood from its inception and any use directed at the statements of another poster will be treated as an accusation of lying.
We do not intend to base our rules on the Trump administration’s definition of “glory.”
So, are we now to assume that “alternative facts” is out? Per the two mods notes here?
If so, someone should inform all the mods.
Regardless of what KellyAnne Conway may have intended by the phrase, I feel like the majority of posters on this site would use the term to mean lyin’. I’d recommend against allowing it.
It’s Jonothan Chance’s (JC) confusing moderation.
The first time I ran into moderation about alternative facts was Jonothan Chance’s response to k9bfriender’s post of
which was a response to HurricaneDitka
k9bfriender was admonished for “alternative facts” while “Seems like a stretch, even for you” is repartee.
They have exactly the same level of respect, but only one is moderated. I can’t participate in JC moderated forums because of this.
“Seems like a stretch” is pretty different from “you’re spreading misinformation”. Obviously so to me but to explain: The first is questioning someone’s conclusion or suppositions. The second is clearly questioning the truth of the facts presented.
Questioning the truth of the facts presented is a vital part of Great Debates. Questioning the sincerity of the presenter is what’s problematic. In that quote,
what seems problematic to me is the insinuation that the poster might have deliberately spread misinformation. But it’s such a slight insinuation, coupled to the equally plausible suggestion that “you were taken in by it yourself,” that I don’t see it as too terrible.
Note that “alternative facts” is shown as synonymous to “misinformation.” I’m not sure that that usage deserves censure: misinformation can be accidental, I believe.
“Seems like a stretch, even for you.” ----it’s the “even for you” that makes it equally offensive to me.
I’m not equating the offenses; merely the uneven moderation. I think both statements imply the other person might be arguing in bad faith. But if you argue that HD’s quote was questioning one’s conclusion, then the “even for you” is an insult.
I would have had no objection to “seems like a stretch” alone and would have interpreted the quote as you did.
ETA: I didn’t think either quote deserved moderation.
“Alternative facts” was coined as an accusation of lying. It is out of bounds when directed against other posters.
“Seems like a stretch, even for you” seemed to indicate a challenge to a poster’s interpretation of events, not a declaration of dishonesty.
We don’t see every post. This could have been simply Reported to get the response you wanted.
With respect, tom~, the “even for you” bears the appearance of a statement that the person being addressed has displayed a pattern of preferring interpretations which look squirrel-y when held up to scrutiny.
Seems kinda personal to me.
Not really. I was suggesting that all the mods should be informed. Reporting the post would have ensured one mod was notified. But I was making that post anyway, so I figured I’d kill two birds with one stone. Looks like it worked.
That should be fine, if you are to follow a mod’s example.
Huh, didn’t even know I was being talked about…
To be fair, I didn’t feel that the “even for you” actually broke any rules, else I would have reported it. It did stick in my crawl though, and may have negatively influenced my reaction to that poster’s posts.
On my part, incorrectly thinking that he had posted the edited video, I was stating that the video itself was the misinformation that was being presented. No warning though, or I probably would have pled my case in ATMB.
No reason to ask for any changes to rulings, only posting here because it feels creepy to have others talk about me without having any say myself.
This reminds me of Tim Minchin: “Do you know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine.”
Likewise, do you know what they call alternative facts that are true? Facts.
No need to characterize “Witness A states he saw a man with a red top” and “Witness B said she saw a man with a blue top” as “alternative facts.” They’re both facts. As is, “Witness A and B gave conflicting statements about the color of the man’s shirt.”
.