It wasn’t particularly clever, but it didn’t have to be. Because it didn’t fail - the Usual Suspects fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.
The purpose was what december said it was - if a Republican said it, it’s a lie; if a Democrat says exactly the same thing, it’s not a lie. That’s a perfectly legitimate point to make in GD, because it very much shapes the debates. The genetic fallacy is alive and well on the SDMB, and that ought to be taken into consideration when debating.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, for chrissakes. We’re litigating this again? I just reread that whole five page debacle from fourteen years ago, and pretty much everything you’re saying here beyond the first four words is incorrect.
He’s an America-hating fuckstick. As such he never DESERVES defending by anyone. And it’s ALWAYS right to criticise him. Because he’s ALWAYS an America-hating fuckstick.
The above should not be construed to mean that accurate quotes and lists of his specific flaws and shortcomings are not preferable to inaccurate ones.
I haven’t reread it in ages, so can you link to it? Because my recollection is that quite a few people did walk right into december’s trap.
Whoops, sorry, I missed seeing the instruction about hijacking until after my edit window post 63 was closed. My apologies.
The links are here -
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=205995
and here -
And you are correct - a number of posters did indeed walk right into it. I can’t recall if Left Hand of Dorkness was one of them.
Regards,
Shodan
If the whole quote had been from Bill Clinton, I can see where it would be an legit debate tactic. But only the first paragraph was from Bill, while the second (the bulk of the quote) was from Hillary. Hillary was not and never has been “the president”.
As far as I can tell, there was no official warning. The thread was locked, but no warning was issued.
It’s a shame you can’t read the thread to find out.
By “walk right into it,” you are correct if you mean people construed a mashup of quotes by two different Clintons from two different time periods as representing a falsehood if spoken by W in 2003.
By “walk right into it” you are laughably wrong if you mean that that represents anything. Several people when pressed agreed that both Clintons are goddamned liars, although they didn’t think these quotes were great representations of that fact, since the Clintons spoke at different times and with different information sources than W did. People pointed out that Bill’s quote was made many years prior to 2003, when US intelligence had less information; and Hillary’s quote was made in the context of cautioning about the lack of information she had at the time.
It was an amateur’s attempt at a prank, and it’s a shame that it took you in so fully, Shodan. Perhaps you should re-examine the genetic fallacy.
Let’s hope this is a minority view on this MB. That’s exactly the type of loyalty Trump demands of his followers, so I’m not seeing the value in opposing Trump by copying one of his odious traits.
With so many accurate ones at our disposal, there is no need for “inaccurate ones” and no shame in correcting them when they are offered up here.
There is thing called ‘context,’ counselor. You may be familiar with it; rumor has it that the law occasionally takes it into account.
On August 20, 2003, five months after the Iraq invasion, december concocted a statement, apparently falsely attributing it to “the President” (most of it was actually said by Hillary Clinton), that sounded like a standard-issue Bush statement from the run-up to war. By then, we already knew that Bush and his team, even St. Colin Powell, had been lying across the board about Iraq. We knew that there was no nuance here; his pants were on fire.
If President Clinton said it, he would have said it back in 1998 or so, when he was contemplating or explaining intervention in Iraq. The likelihood was 1 that President Clinton’s reasoning was both more nuanced and more sound.
See, that’s what ‘context’ can do for you. I encourage considering it on a regular basis.
Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally. (Trump that is, not you)
You’re more confident than we are apparently. If it’s illegal, Trump is considering it. Guaranfuickingteed.
FWIW, I agree on this entirely, and I get sick of things like “OMG SHE KNOCKED AWAY HIS HAND” or whatever. Even the attacks on him for saying insurance costs $12 a year are misguided–that’s likelier a slip of the tongue than anything else, IMO, and it just distracts from the real policy and moral failings.
Save your shot, folks.
Sure, a boner once in a while is forgivable, but tweeting stupidity at 3AM doesn’t lend itself to saving shots. Keeping the Yam on the offensive is patriotic. Less time for the animal to sleep or screw up the country.
Not a slip of the tongue, he confused life insurance with health insurance. And so far, I haven’t seen a correction.
Thank you. It was actually less embarrassing than I remembered. For whatever reason, I thought some posters at first criticized the ersatz quote when they first read it, but defended it when they found out the true provenance. That did not happen.
Closest people got to defending it was to point out the bleedin’ obvious fact that a statement might be a lie when uttered by one person but not another, since a lie includes an intent to deceive, and someone who repeats the claims of a liar believing them to be true is not lying.
This bleedin obvious fact gets in the way of the Usual Suspects narrative, however, so it seemed to get get ignored by some.
I wasn’t very active when **december **was posting here. Combine that with the fact that it was near 14 years ago (c’mon dudes), so take this with a grain of salt, but here are my observations:
[ul]
[li]The issue in the OP is satire. The incident from 2003 and december was not intended to be satire so there isn’t a direct comparison.[/li][li]The tactic of offering a snippet of a statement with a ‘who said that’ type question is a legitimate debate tactic. Discussions around Iraq in 2003ish saw quite a bit of this, IIRC, since there had been a lot of uncertainty after Desert Shield in 1991 which provided opportunity for many public figures to make statements.[/li][li]Given the difference in time period, background information possessed, etc. it’s difficult to draw exact comparisons between statements for the tactic to work most of the time, and I’d say that elements of this were in play during december’s gambit. A better example of this tactic would be criticizing the different NY Times editorial commentary about the filibuster based on who was using it, but even that is subject to the same criticism of different available information, time period, etc. I find these weak and unpersuasive but I acknowledge they exist.[/li][li]The biggest issue in the 2003 december post was the faux accidental inclusion of Hillary Clinton’s statements. [/li][li]It was 14 years ago, didn’t receive a warning as far as I can tell, and geez it was 14 years ago.[/li][/ul]
Not technically a warning, but:
That said, the use of “The President” was also a huge issue. December seemed to think that kept him on the technical side of “not lying,” but there’s no way in hell anyone refers to a past president as “the president” without clearly referencing who they mean. That usage was also a lie.