So if I perchance, did something like this;
You’d consider that an actionable misquote? Or are we talking only actual living people here? In which case, is this actionable?
[Quote=Chester Bennington]
I’d bet my life OJ doesn’t get paroled
[/quote]
Now admittedly, that one is in poor taste, but it is something I’ve seen on the internet.
What, this, of all times, is when your relentless, bloody-minded legalism fails you?
I have no knowledge of this incident. Link, please.
I extend to Bricker my question to Quartz. If you don’t support Trump, why do you suddenly care about something people have been doing for years when it’s about Trump?
In your case, is it just that Quartz has brought it to your attention, and you’d never paid attention before? Still, why go to the mat for Trump? Everyone says this has been allowed for years, so why suddenly care?
I don’t even know who this december is. I’m pretty sure they were banned before I got here. It’s been that long ago. The mods appear to be being consistent, but, even if they weren’t, why couldn’t things change in 9+ years?
If you think there is harm by these fake quotes, then it would be great to hear an argument for that. But, otherwise, why does it matter? Why did it come up about Trump? I’d understand if it were someone “on your side,” but Trump is on no one’s side but his own.
december was at the center of our winter of misleading content.
Here is a link.
Misleading content indeed, LHoD.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=205995
And a follow up.
Hmm, that was a long time ago. The board rules may have evolved and changed since then.
Sorry, Bricker. I can’t believe that you don’t understand how those cases differ. december’s gambit was a deliberate attempt to deceive in GD.
I ask you directly. Do you believe the posts cited in the OP to be rules violation?
Do you believe misdirection of the kind demonstrated by december should be acceptable in GD?
And I note that december had a history of that kind of behavior that eventually got him banned.
I disagree. It was an attempt at a trick to trap his opponents. He quoted “The President”, waited for people to call Bush a liar for those words, at which point he would pounce and say "aha, it was actually your beloved Clinton that said it, ha ha. "
It wasn’t a particularly clever trick, and it failed, but I don’t see it as being dishonest as such.
FWIW, the quote was fairly unambiguous to me.
I see it as a trick, and as such, meant to deceive his opponents.
It wasn’t even remotely the same as a joke, or even an unattributed quote.
Weird - Trump just tweeted this:
No, I think they’re well within the rules.
Yes, I do.
That tactic was (in my opinion) an excellent way to separate the honest reactions to the quoted material from the kneejerk reactions to the speaker. Words that were thought to have been spoken by Bush were lies; when it turned out Clinton spoke them, there was a much more nuanced view. And since he did, in fact, simply say “President” instead of “Bush,” I found his tactic perfectly acceptable.
What should have happened in GD is judgement based on the words, not the supposed source.
As Socrates was fond of saying:
And 'december’s " President" quote specifically referenced 9/11. Oops.
What “harm”? Seriously? Do you have some notion that it’s illegal to criticize the POTUS in the U.S.? What, do you think that Trump is going to send the Secret Service to Ed’s door or something?
Bush was criticized pretty hard too. I don’t remember you campaigning for him. Jesus Christ, dude.
:rolleyes:
december in that quote was clearly trying to deceive people about who actually said what was said. The entire gambit you are defending depends on this. december was being deceptive with his use of the quote boxes.
Deceptive use of quote boxes has always been against the rules here. If you accidentally do it, you generally get a note. But, if you intentionally do it, you very well may get a Warning.
In this particular case, there was no attempt at any deception, so there is no rules violation.
And since you do not actually contend that there was anything wrong with the moderation in this particular case, all you are doing is wasting everyone’s time. You know the previous decision will not be overturned.
To put it in legal terms, you are in a case where two people are accused of breaking the law. But you are choosing to argue about about a case years ago that was decided by a completely different judge.
[sub]If you agree with my argument, you may wish to quote it (or reargue it) so that Bricker will see it.[/sub]
I’m having flashbacks to high school. “Will you tell your mate that my mate fancies her and wants to meet behind the bike sheds after school for a snog?”
He’s worried that American democracy could be degraded to a point where the people elect an unqualified, semi-literate, dishonest, infantile, silver-spoon-sucking and ethically-compromised demagogue. Sounds far-fetched to me.
It’s certainly a dishonest and deceitful practice and, in my view, morally reprehensible, but the odd occasion shouldn’t warrant moderator attention and indeed I can recall a few instances from other posters where it passed without official notice. Repeated practice, however, rapidly demonstrates an unwillingness to discuss and debate in good faith and bears a very strong resemblance to trolling.
december used to misrepresent and mischaracterize the views of others on a very, very regular basis, and frankly IMO the only reason he got away with it for so long was because he couched his lies and calumnies in polite language.