I’m just checking to see if I have this straight.
“We decent people shouldn’t engage in any character assassination. It’s only those other guys who engage in it, because they are a bunch of slimeball lowlifes.”
What’s not to love…
Your reading comprehension, for one thing; your paraphrasing skills, for another; and to round out the trifecta, I can’t say I much love your snide insinuation that I’m a hypocrite.
- I didn’t say that decent people shouldn’t engage in any character assassination; while that’s an admirable sentiment, I said they shouldn’t engage in spreading dubious rumors or character assassination stories.
- It’s not a rumor or a story that Bush and Cheney are indecent people; it’s a proven fact. Just joking. It’s an opinion, ferchrissake. If you want to say that Kerry is an elitist bastard, go for it – just don’t go making up lies to support the charge.
- Does “snarky to the end” mean nothing to you? It was a freakin’ joke.
I’ll be happy to accept your apology.
Daniel
You know the strange thing is that before I posted I actually went back and checked the phrase to make sure I had it right. Still do. See below.
I don’t know if hypocrite is the right way to put it. Let’s just say everyone is biased, and people tend to see things differently when it’s about their guys or the other guys.
There’s a story they say about Harry Truman, who was known as “give 'em hell Harry”. He was asked about the moniker and said “I just told the truth about those guys, they thought it was hell”. Most people like to decry negative campaigning and character assassination (or “the politics of personal destruction”) but they generally tend to apply these definitions differently, depending on who it refers to. When we criticize the other guys we are raising legitimate issues. When the other guys criticize us they are engaging in negative campaigning.
Democrats spent the entire primary season competing for who could attack GWB harder, but when Bush ran some ads about Kerry he was going negative. Clarke writes a book full of harsh criticism of the Bush admin, but when the Bush people attack his credibility suddenly they are engaging in character assassination.
What I looked at was the word “or” there. Once you object to character assassination stories of whatever veracity, I don’t see any difference at all between stories or slurs.
As above. Your statement objected to dubious rumors or character assassination stories.
“Snarky” means “joke”? I am completely unaware of this, and have not seen it used this way. I was aware that you expressed your point in a cutesy way, as did I, but was unaware that you meant the entire thing as a joke. If this did not in fact reflect your actual sentiments, then I do apologize (though based on your defense above, this does not seem to be the case).
Izzy, I’m serious about the reading comprehension thing. How is it a “story” to say that Bush and Cheney are not decent people? There’s no narrative, no conflict, no passage of time, no action, no falsifiable fact even. All there is is a statement of opinion.
Of course I’m not opposed to people stating their opinion on different candidates. That would be insane (and by “insane,” I hope you understand that I’m not assassinating the character of anyone). All I’m opposed to is people spreading stories or rumors about candidates that impinge their character and have a high likelihood of not being true.
These are two completely different things. There’s no such thing as a character assassination opinion.
As for the snarkiness, yes, I was saying it as a joke. Although I truly think that Bush is not a decent person, my comment was phrased in a way that I considered humorous. Sorry you didn’t find it funny, but I’m not gonna retract it; nor am I gonna apologize for my lack of a 
in the post to signify its jokiness. I thought the postscript was already ruining the deadpan effect.
To be completely clear and to ruin any possibility that anyone will find it funny (jokes rarely survive vivisection): the implication of my post was that Bush and Cheney, by virtue of being indecent people, aren’t held to the standard I proffered of not spreading dubious rumors, and that that fact was so obvious that rjung should’ve realized it.
Daniel
You should be. Here’s why:
Reread my post. I did not say that I thought an opinion is a story. Only that I don’t think there is a difference between one or the other.
Again, that’s not what you said before.
“So-and-so is a jerk/liar/thief” etc. is not character assassination? I disagree.
So in other words you expressed sentiments that you do in fact believe, but merely expressed them in a humorous way. Exactly what I thought. Apology retracted.
I actually did find it funny. But I thought it was a genuine expression in a humorous manner as opposed to something said totally for humorous effect with no attempt to convey a genuine message at all. Which apparently turned out to be correct.
No need to retract or apologize for anything.
I have no intention of hurting anyone’s feelings, but when I see guys out there cutting and slashing in the most aggressive manner, I tend to assume that I can get in a jibe or two myself, if the spirit happens to move me. Doesn’t always hold true, but it’s a good working assumption.
All I know is that I was trying to make a funny. 
Here, have another–
“Humor is like dissecting a frog; no one enjoys it, and the subject dies as a result.”
–Mark Twain
Well, you can think there’s no difference between an opinion and a story, but you’re wrong. There’s quite a few differences between the two.
It’s pretty freakin’ close to what I said before: in response to someone telling an anecdote about Kerry in a distorted way that made the man look bad, I said:
What hair are you splitting here? Are you splitting the difference between “high likelihood” and “ill-supported”? I fail to see a substantive difference between my two statements.
substantive
Well, I don’t. If I call someone a poopyhead or whatever, that’s just namecalling; it’s obviously expressing an opinion, and it’s got zero persuasive power. If I say that I watched so-and-so smearing feces into his hair, that’s a story: it’s got facts (or lies), and it’s on its surface an objective, opinionless report of events, and it gives other people something to base their own opinions off of. The former is not character assassination; the latter is. This is a very important difference: there’s nothing unethical about expressing a strong opinion, but it’s quite unethical to go spreading denigrating stories about someone that you don’t have strong evidence to support. (Note that “liar/thief” are in a different category from “jerk”: the first two words contain factual implications, whereas the latter clearly doesn’t)
If you can’t see the difference there, I don’t know what to say. Personally, looks to me like you’re giving me hell because of my politics, and are trying to twist what I said in order to prove some bizarre point.
(Rjung, I know you were making a funny; I was just trying to respond in kind, having no idea that some people are so terribly desperate to prove the hypocrisy of the left that they’ll turn a throwaway molehill of a joke into a mountain of damnation).
Daniel
Of course there are. Context is everything. (I have a strange feeling I’ve seen that written somewhere).
There are quite a few differences between men and women, but both pay a token to get on the subway. If we were discussing subway fares and I said there was no difference between men and women that would be an accurate statement. If we were discussing urology :eek: that same statement would be false.
So yes, there are many differences between opinions and stories. (My wife reads stories to the kids before they go to sleep. SC justices write opinions. The other way around is very rare). But for purposes of character assassination there is no difference.
No you’re right that there’s no difference here. But the “ill supported” modified “rumors” only, and you seemed to object to “character assassination stories” of any veracity. (I’ve noted this earlier). When you restated it as "All I’m opposed to " etc., you amended it to only object to that which has a “high likelihood” etc.
I would agree with you about “poopyhead” but not for the reason you give. Rather because despite its technical definition it does not really mean anything - it is generally not being used to convey the idea that the person has actually smeared feces in their hair - it’s just namecalling as you say. There are many insults of this variety (including most or all obscenities). To say that someone is not a decent person is different in this respect, and is analogous to liar/thief.
The problem with this is that “strong evidence to support” is frequently itself a matter of opinion, and as such is no different than any other opinion. For example, in the particular case at hand, the interpretation of Kerry’s sending out two letters is a matter of opinion. Your opinion is that it is most likely that it was in fact a staff error. Shodan’s opinion is apparently that it is most likely an example of Kerry trying to have it both ways on one issue. I don’t see how you can draw a line that excludes Shodan’s opinion that this story indicates Kerry’s two-faced character but which includes your opinion that Bush and Cheney are not decent people.
Nothing could be further from the case. As I mentioned elsewhere I think you are a fine upstanding fellow, and I particularly admire your username (if it is a bit unwieldy). The particular deficiency you’ve exhibited here is extremely common - almost universal, as I’ve noted above. But the spectacle of your paradoxically contradicting yourself in the very same post was too good to pass up, so I took a shot.
Peace brother.
Don’t make me pull out the sentence diagram, buddy. This is getting exceedingly fine on the hairslitting front.
NO IT ISN’T. The only way that “decent” is analogous to “liar” is if you think I was saying that Bush isn’t wearing enough clothes for polite company, and that’s certainly not a mental image I wanted or needed or had. How on earth is the claim that someone is decent a falsifiable claim?
Wrong again: you’re confusing belief with opinion. I believe Kerry’s explanation, but objectively, I’m either right or wrong in that belief. I also think it’s a trivial issue, and that’s an opinion: there’s no right or wrong to that.
I hope you can see that now. I believe that:
- Kerry’s explanation is correct;
- Shodan’s explanation is incorrect; and
- Shodan’s initial post did not contain enough information for a disinterested party to make an informed decision, and was therefore an ill-supported rumor.
I also believe that:
- Bush is an indecent person; and
- There’s no way to prove or disprove that, since it’s a matter of opinion.
Daniel
I couldn’t possibly disagree more. The difference is a vast chasm.
In this example: “the best way for decent people to combat this problem is not to support spineless conservatives and not to encourage liberals”, it would NOT be correct to say that the writer only object to liberals who are spineless.
I’m amazed that you would continue to argue this. Perhaps you misspoke originally.
I think it’s pretty clear that you meant morally and ethically lacking.
Nothing in politics is ever going to be falsifiable in a scientific sense.
I don’t think I’m confusing anything, unless it is what distinction you are drawing here. IMHO, the following two statements mean the same thing.
“I believe Kerry’s explanation”.
“In my opinion, Kerry’s explanation is correct”.
Well Shodan believes that Kerry’s explanation is incorrect and his explanation is correct. And the only information missing from Shodan’s initial reporting was the fact that Kerry had put forth an alternative explanation. This does not make it “ill-supported”.
Yes, I meant “morally and ethically lacking,” in the same way that if I said some food was “nasty,” I’d mean that it was lacking in yummy flavor. That is not falsifiable.
Leave science out of it: I never mentioned it, but instead gave numerous examples of what is falsifiable in a political sense.
As for your two statements that mean the same thing, they only do inasmuch as the second sentence misuses the word “opinion” (or at least uses it in a sense drastically different from the one in which I use it). I learned in the second grade the difference between a belief and an opinion, and have never learned anything to contradict that distinction.
It’s not an opinion that Kerry is correct; it’s a belief.
Daniel
Not to mention the fact that Popper’s theories are not the only ones, and aren’t universally accepted. Stove, for example, is a vociferous critic of Popper.
I agree that neither are falsifiable. (Though FWIW these two are different as well. In that the first refers to what is ostensibly an objective standard - the subjective part is only in establishing the truth or falsehood of the statement. The second is inherently subjective, in that it refers to a matter of personal taste. It might be useful to keep this distinction in mind, should it become relevant.)
I don’t recall numerous examples, or perhaps I just disagreed with them. Either way, I think there is little about politics that is falsifiable, for which reason we have all these debates.
Well I never learned this difference in second grade or any time since, and remain blissfully ignorant.
Apparently, despite my best efforts, so. If you won’t distinguish between falsifiable statements and nonfalsifiable opinions, there’s an unbreachable gap between us. When I made my original statement, I had such a distinction in mind, and tried to word it so the distinction would be implicit; your saying that I contradicted myself seems to be predictaed on your not understanding this distinction.
Daniel