Is there a double standard in this Obama school address controversy?

[intention]

Thanks, Kimstu. As I said, we’re getting closer.

@Kimstu

I would disagree with this somewhat, but I think it’s something on which reasonable people can disagree. My take on it would be that yeah, it would be nice if he made it absolutely clear what he does really mean, but at this point there has been so much fuss over this issue by unreasonable people that perhaps it is wise, from a strategy viewpoint, for him just to let it go. It’s not clear to me that any clarification he could offer from now on would do much more than just fuel further nutjobbish distortion and misinterpretation.

If it were a dead issue about something that was not happening right now, I’d agree completely. The problem is that the issue is not in the past. He is continuing to collect email addresses today, which is not a good thing. It is still pissing people off, myself included. Stopping that can only be beneficial on balance.

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
What you call “monumental incompetence” I would call “a PR squabble caused mostly by ill-will, illogic and hysterical paranoia from anti-Obama right-wingers, but exacerbated by the Administration’s own inept, or at least imperfectly ept, handling of the situation”. However, in this case we are at least on the same page, just arguing about the proper tempo.
[/QUOTE]

I have explained, in some detail, my reasons for thinking that asking citizens (even unintentionally) to turn over other people’s ideas and email addresses to the Government is a very, very bad thing. My reasons are neither ill-willed, illogical, nor hysterical paranoia. It is a reasonable and rational point of view. It might be wrong, but it is reasonable and rational.

Accusing people of “ill will, illogic, and hysterical paranoia” does not move us forward. It does not make things better. And it royally pisses off people like myself, who are not slack-jawed drooling followers of radio talk show hosts. It is an ugly brush to be tarring people with. It leads nowhere.

When we find that we’ve done things wrong, accusing our opponents of bad faith and stupidity only moves us backwards. Call me crazy, but my advice is to admit the error, fix it, and move on. In this case my advice for fixing it would not be to offer “clarification” as you say. It would be to shut the program down entirely. I see a huge downside, and only a very small possible upside, to keeping the program in place. Get rid of it.

[intention]

@Knorf

What nonsense.

But seriously, how is this post acceptable by SMDB rules? I find being associated with a “hive mind” incredibly insulting, and there’s no doubt in my mind that this line was directed as an insult. It certainly doesn’t contribute anything meaningful to the debate.

Hey, it’s being implied that I’m lying about whether I support Obama, and that I should not be treated as a “rational human being” … so what? If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn’t fit, laugh it off. If that’s the worst they say about you, you haven’t gotten any traction at all, you’ll have to up your game.

[davidm]

@intention

Read what I said. I did not say it was the intent. I said it was the outcome.

The obvious corollary is that if you ask people to forward emails to you, you’ll get the email address, so you can’t claim that you’re not collecting email addresses as many have claimed here. Sorry for my lack of clarity.

“Collecting” implies that the addresses are being separated out into some kind of database for future use. Unless someone has evidence that they are doing this, crying “they’re collecting names” is disingenuous even if literally true in some sense.

Nitpicking about literal meaning versus implication and intent is often indicative that someone is making a disingenuous argument.

[davidm]

@CurtC

But they don’t need to mess with the headers, they just need to drag their mouse over the parts of the forwarded message that show who it was previously from, and hit the “delete” button.

Is there more to this that I’m missing? There are email headers showing a “Reference,” but I think it would take a subpoena, signed by a judge, to get an ISP to open their records to find the details of the email message in the reference header. If I’m mistaken about this, I’d like to know.

You’re mistaken about this. Headers are part of the email. Some email software doesn’t show them or has the option to show or not show them. The typical user will know none of this and will simply click “forward”.

[Shodan]

@Knorf

But seriously, how is this post acceptable by SMDB rules? I find being associated with a “hive mind” incredibly insulting, and there’s no doubt in my mind that this line was directed as an insult.

Probably it’s acceptable in the same way that accusations of bad faith and dishonesty are acceptable by SDMB rules. Unless it is some form of IOKIADDI.

Regards,
Shodan

[kaylasdad99]

@intention

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99
Check this out:
And THAT’s what I’m talking about when I say you’re giving the opposition too much benefit of the doubt for good faith.

Accusing other Obama supporters of bad faith is perhaps not a real productive tactic. You might instead try to understand the points I’m trying to make, and cut me some slack if my words are not clear. Too many people are blowing off other folks’ legitimate concerns for my liking, claiming that they’re acting in bad faith and they’re just dupes of the right wing. It’s a great way to avoid cleaning up our own house, but other than that it is not very effective.

I wasn’t accusing YOU of acting in bad faith; I’m suggesting that the opposition is likely to be acting in bad faith.

I’m accusing YOU of lending aid and comfort to the opposition’s likely-to-be-in-bad-faith efforts with your continued apparent insistence on giving the opposition the benefit of the doubt that they are acting in good faith.

But I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and believing that you’re doing it inadvertently.

[kaylasdad99]

@intention

Don’t know how I could make it more obvious. I don’t think Obama was deliberately seeking the email addresses of people who disagree with him. Are we clear on that?

Why don’t you think that? Do you not think that simply because you’re on Obama’s side, or do you not think that because there’s no plausible way, in good faith, to get from “help us compile a list of disinformation that needs answering” to “help us compile an enemies list”?

[C3]

@intention

Hey, it’s being implied that I’m lying about whether I support Obama, and that I should not be treated as a “rational human being” … so what? If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn’t fit, laugh it off. If that’s the worst they say about you, you haven’t gotten any traction at all, you’ll have to up your game.

Isn’t that exactly what you DON’T want Obama to do, about the accusations made in relation to the school speech and the email “outrage”? Essentially, what his administration did is figure out that the shoe didn’t fit and laugh it off, but you are a little miffed at that. Seems like situational ethics to me.

[kaylasdad99]

@Shodan

Any criticism of Obama is automatically evidence of bad faith.
You’re not acting like an Obama supporter. Obama supporters must automatically, reflexively accept whatever he says, and whatever spin his sycophants want to put on it. That is the only acceptable attitude.

The hive mind does not tolerate dissent.

Regards,
Shodan

Quiet, the grownups are talking.

[Knorf]

@Shodan

Probably it’s acceptable in the same way that accusations of bad faith and dishonesty are acceptable by SDMB rules. Unless it is some form of IOKIADDI.

Accusations of bad faith and dishonesty are not stated purely for the intention of insulting someone.

“Hive mind” is.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@C3

Isn’t that exactly what you DON’T want Obama to do, about the accusations made in relation to the school speech and the email “outrage”? Essentially, what his administration did is figure out that the shoe didn’t fit and laugh it off…

No, that’s not what they did. The e-mail “outrage” prompted them to change their policy; White House Cans Its 'Fishy' E-Mail Box - The New York Times

“The White House has apparently shut down the e-mail address it was using to track what it called “fishy” information about its efforts to overhaul the health care system. E-mails sent to flag@whitehouse.gov now bounce back, with the reply reading, “The e-mail address you just sent a message to is no longer in service. We are now accepting your feedback about health insurance reform via: http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck.”” That new link explicitly spells out the following: “If you have questions about health insurance reform or suggestions on what topics we should address next, please let us know. Please refrain from submitting any individual’s personal information, including their email address, without their permission.” That’s deciding the shoe fit.

As for the school speech, they (a) swapped out the objectionable language in the lesson plan that was available way ahead of time, and (b) eventually made the speech available for review ahead of time, sure as some schools chose not to show it and others had parents sign permission slips. That’s a little bit of “deciding the shoe fit”, followed by a lot of “letting other folks decide whether the shoe fits.”

[Kimstu]

@intention

My reasons are neither ill-willed, illogical, nor hysterical paranoia.

Sorry, I should have made it clearer that since you clarified your meaning in a previous post, I am no longer considering your arguments for inclusion in the category of “ill-will, illogic and hysterical paranoia from anti-Obama right-wingers”. In short: we cool.

(However, I do think that there has been a significant amount of ill-will, illogic and hysterical paranoia from anti-Obama right-wingers on this issue, and I don’t think I should refrain from saying so just because my comment might alienate them if they should happen to read it. The dedicated anti-Obama right-wingers are resolutely determined to be alienated from Obama supporters, and even Obama tolerators, at all costs and on all issues; I don’t think anything I say or don’t say will change that.)

[intention]

@davidm

“Collecting” implies that the addresses are being separated out into some kind of database for future use. Unless someone has evidence that they are doing this, crying “they’re collecting names” is disingenuous even if literally true in some sense.

Nitpicking about literal meaning versus implication and intent is often indicative that someone is making a disingenuous argument.

Nope. Collecting means gathering together in one place. But I’m easy, pick a word that you would use for getting these email addresses. Harvesting? What?

These side trails into what the meaning of “is” is are a poor attempt to avoid grappling with the underlying issue. I invite you to put whatever words on it you like, and then to deal with the issue.

[davidm]

Well, what exactly is your issue then? That some people’s email addresses may be sitting on a server in the White house? That they may use those addresses against their owners somehow?

What is the issue?

[intention]

kaylasdad99, my apologies for my misunderstanding your meaning. My bad. Onwards …

@kaylasdad99

I wasn’t accusing YOU of acting in bad faith; I’m suggesting that the opposition is likely to be acting in bad faith.

I’m accusing YOU of lending aid and comfort to the opposition’s likely-to-be-in-bad-faith efforts with your continued apparent insistence on giving the opposition the benefit of the doubt that they are acting in good faith.

But I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and believing that you’re doing it inadvertently.

Some are acting in good faith, some are acting in bad faith. From my own experience and my own reading and my own observation, most are like my Republican father-in-law. Whether or not it is true, they believe that they are acting in good faith, and they are deeply insulted by an accusation that they are acting in bad faith. This drives people away from us, and we can ill afford that.

My main objection, however, is to the foolish idea that pointing out our own mistakes, errors, and sins of omission or commission gives “aid and comfort to the enemy.” Nothing could be further from the truth. If we do not recognize and fix our own mistakes and errors, the Republicans will be more than happy to thank us for handing them errors and mistakes that they can reasonably and truthfully say we’re ignoring ..

[intention]

@davidm

Well, what exactly is your issue then? That some people’s email addresses may be sitting on a server in the White house? That they may use those addresses against their owners somehow?

What is the issue?

While yours is a good question, I can’t go over it all again. Please re-read my previous emails, in particular

@intention

this one

The issue is not what they are going to be used for, or if they are going to be used at all. It’s like Bush’s spying program. Even if Bush did nothing with the information and it just sat “on a server in the White House”, the Bush spying program was wrong. It’s not the use of the information that is the issue. It’s the program.

[Shodan]

@kaylasdad99

Quiet, the grownups are talking.

No.

I’ll post anything I like, whenever I like. This bothers you? Tough shit.

@Knorf

Accusations of bad faith and dishonesty are not stated purely for the intention of insulting someone.

“Hive mind” is

No, it’s not. It’s an observation.

you’re not acting like an Obama supporter

He is stating rather clearly that to be an Obama supporter means treating him as above criticism. If you aren’t a worshiper and a lickspittle, you aren’t a real supporter.

IOW, what I said was exactly correct.

Now, if you don’t mind, report it to a mod, or save it, won’t you? The whining when someone’s knee doesn’t jerk hard enough, fast enough, is a little repetitive.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bosstone]

@intention

My main objection, however, is to the foolish idea that pointing out our own mistakes, errors, and sins of omission or commission gives “aid and comfort to the enemy.” Nothing could be further from the truth. If we do not recognize and fix our own mistakes and errors, the Republicans will be more than happy to thank us for handing them errors and mistakes that they can reasonably and truthfully say we’re ignoring ..

The difference in opinion lies in whether or not these mistakes, errors, and sins of omission are worth talking about at all. The fanatical, irrational opposition is the reason why this is any kind of deal at all, as a reasonable person would not read “harvesting email addresses of dissidents” into “gathering examples of misinformation.” As I said upthread, it’s no different from what Snopes or Factcheck does.

It is because there are people willing to twist words into the worst possible meaning, no matter how tenuous, that we are having this discussion at all. If you take the stance that the administration should word what they say so the opposition can’t do that, then basically you’ve just demanded they be absolutely 100% perfectly error-free. Not just error-free, but free of any possible alternate interpretation. And when you’re not dealing with legal documents (and sometimes even when you are), that is flat-out impossible even for an organization a tenth the scale of the federal administration.

[Bosstone]

@Shodan

He is stating rather clearly that to be an Obama supporter means treating him as above criticism. If you aren’t a worshiper and a lickspittle, you aren’t a real supporter.

Absolutely not. It’s possible to criticize or be a Devil’s Advocate and still be perfectly clear that’s all. However, when someone says they support Obama and then act like, say, you, then it’s not unreasonable to think that shenanigans are afoot.

[tomndebb]

@intention

I have explained, in some detail, my reasons for thinking that asking citizens (even unintentionally) to turn over other people’s ideas and email addresses to the Government is a very, very bad thing. My reasons are neither ill-willed, illogical, nor hysterical paranoia. It is a reasonable and rational point of view. It might be wrong, but it is reasonable and rational.

I can sort of agree with this concept.

Unfortunately, you spent a large number of posts making a big deal that the White House asked that e-mails be forwarded, (as you underlined on numerrous occasions), yet the original statement made no such statement. It said that if one discovered bad information on the web or in e-mails, one should send “it”, (i.e. the suspect information), to a web site. The word “forward” did not appear in the statement and would be irrelevant if one was sending information from a web site, in any event.

I think the WH should be clearer that they want the headers stripped before anything is sent and they should consider writing a stripper to remove the headers from all incoming mail and demonstrate to a reporter from Wired or some similar outfit that they have done so, but you made a great deal over a statement that the WH never actually made.