Palins Divorce

[Jack_Batty]

I think it’s over whether or not Trig is divorcing his grandmother Bristol.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Wait, Trig is his own grandpa?

[gonzomax]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I would stick with the “owe the voters” argument if I were you. [del]Rational self-interest[/del] Greed is the linchpin of our economy.

Not public servant who clain to be driven by helping their state as only they are qualified to do.

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

Bricker: How about responding to my post #161 in this thread?

thanks

Sure:

@MaxTheVool

I guess I’m mainly thinking about the Obama-was-born-in-Kenya issue rather than the Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim issue, but to me there is nothing wrong with asking questions and discussing topics. To me, there are two things one can do in a situation like that which are truly deserving of condemnation:
(1) willfully disregard facts that prove the rumor false. This is what the birthers are doing, or anyone who is continuing to claim that Trig Palin is Sarah’s grandson rather than son.
(2) Phrase statements so that reporting about the existence of the rumor implies the potential truth of the rumor. That is, using phrases like “questions persist…”. If someone came onto the SDMB and said “hey, I heard that Obama is secretly a Muslim. Is this true?”, and appeared to be sincerely unaware of the facts of the situation, I strongly suspect that most dopers would respond in a basically calm and rational fashion. On the other hand, someone who was discussing Obama in some other context and randomly threw in a “and of course, controversy continues to surround his Muslim roots” or “while he has claimed…” or something weaselly like that would be lambasted, and rightfully so.

Note that none of those things are just discussing a rumor, even though discussing it certainly at times spreads it. Someone reads a report that Palin is getting divorced, which is far from prima facie ridiculous. So they discuss it on the SDMB. What else are they going to do? Refuse to acknowledge it’s existence until it’s confirmed or denied 100%? People like gossiping about famous people, and doing so is not in and of itself a sin.
One other thing: much as I respect you as a poster and value your input to the SDMB in general, I think arguments like the one you’re making here are, quite frankly, pretty chickenshit. You aren’t saying “hey, you, poster Bob, you said something here and then something else here. They disagree. I call you out for being a hypocrite”. Instead you’re saying “hey, something happened, and then some people responded in a way that was kind of like this. But a while ago, something else (which may or may not really be comparable) happened, and some people (who may or may not be the same people) responded (without specifying whether you’re talking about responding to the incident itself, or to SDMB posts about it, or what) in a certain way. And you all (not specifying who, so no one can really respond) are hypocrites”.

Basically, it’s a not-quite-as-bad form of this, which is one of my prime SDMB pet peeves.

Because I’m reacting more to the tone of the board in general. I think that this tone is so self-evident that there’s very little value to be gained by searching for specific posts, citing them, responding to the tedious nitpicking about what was meant by that poster… because that tactic is a huge win for the opposition. Typing cite? takes seconds; researching past posts is much more time consuming.

Now, of course this presupposes that every reasonable person agrees that the tone I’m speaking of exists. If it doesn’t, then I can hardly be permitted to assert that it does unchallenged.

But I think that a truly reasonable person would agree that it does, and challenges to provide citations are not generally made in good faith, but as exactly the sort of cost-benefit delaying tactic I’m describing.

I chose to take the time to deliver specifics on the “I can see Russia” quote, and despite having shown the fake baby quotes on August 30th and the I-can-see-Russia quotes from Palin as later, I don’t see anyone acknowledging that, or disputing it with a counter-cite. No, having forced me to spend the time to dig it up, now it will just fade away, unacknowledged.

This sort of debate-by-fatigue strategy is … well… fatiguing.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The earliest I can find the Alaska-Russia thing is John McCain saying it to Charlie Gibson on September 3. I could swear that I remember it coming out of the McCain-Palin campaign on the day of her selection, but it’s possible I’m misremembering something that happened a few days later. I don’t think McCain was the originator of the claim that Alaka’s proximity to Russia gave Sarah Palin foreign policy cred, but I can at least prove it predated Sarah Palin’s own interview with Gibson on 9/12/08.

Well, here you’re shifting the goal posts. We started by mocking the claim that Palin made that seeing Russia from parts of Alaska was somehow relevant. Now we’re talking about a claim made by someone other than Palin, one that’s more vague.

And in any event, the point was that the Trig baby rumor came first.

[gonzomax]

Sarah Palin Strikes Back: I Can See Russia/Alaska From My House

Palin said it in an interview. She should have been hooted off the stage. Sept. 11

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

Yes, I’ll certainly allow that Shayna stuck in my mind to the extent that other people taking the same position seem to have been forgotten. My bad.

No prob - glad to have that settled, at least.

However…

@Bricker

And how about this thread – Palin’s getting a divorce! (Despite the fact that Palin hasn’t said so, and has in fact denied it.)

Well, what about it? The claim wasn’t taken seriously after post #2 in this thread.

But she never deserved to be accused of passing her granddaughter off as her daughter.

Again, at the time it seemed as if it wasn’t an accusation, but rather the benefit of the doubt. So can we get off this bit about its being some sort of attack on her character?

It seems to me that, having safely penciled her in to the idiot group, the crowd here is now gleefully accpeting of every negative story about her. Why not address each story on its merits? Doesn’t that seem a safer, and fairer, course?

I don’t see that you’re producing any evidence that we’re not doing that. It almost seems you’re asking that we not bring up any stories of a controversial nature regarding Palin (which was what the OP did) until we know they’re true. Which would seem kinda silly.

Can you link to a particular thread where people here were jumping all over Palin where the evidence didn’t really merit it? That would help.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

Well, here you’re shifting the goal posts. We started by mocking the claim that Palin made that seeing Russia from parts of Alaska was somehow relevant. Now we’re talking about a claim made by someone other than Palin, one that’s more vague.

And in any event, the point was that the Trig baby rumor came first.

There really never was any significant credence given to the Trig baby rumor, but the one day Kos flap happened around the same time as the “Alaska is next to Russia” thing started. So what? What difference does it make which came first? What is your point?

ETA, the reason that Alaka-Russia thing was mocked was not because anyone disbelieves it’s technically possible to see Russia from Alaska, but because it was touted as a foreign policy credential.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

Well, here you’re shifting the goal posts. We started by mocking the claim that Palin made that seeing Russia from parts of Alaska was somehow relevant. Now we’re talking about a claim made by someone other than Palin, one that’s more vague.

She may not have originated it, but she adopted it for her own anyway. So?

[cosmosdan]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Wait, Trig is his own grandpa?

It sounds funny I know but it really is so

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Elvis has been able to trace the Russia line back to 8/29. I believe that’s the day Palin was announced as McCain’s running mate. When did the Trig thing get posted on Kos?

[cosmosdan]

@ElvisL1ves

http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/09/12/transcript-sarah-palin-interview-with-charles-gibson-part-i/

"They’re our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska. "

Did you see Colbert? He showed pictures of Putin on vacation in Siberia with his shirt off.

“Sarah Palin should not have to look at that!”

hehe

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Elvis has been able to trace the Russia line back to 8/29. I believe that’s the day Palin was announced as McCain’s running mate. When did the Trig thing get posted on Kos?

So now Palin is responsible for what Steve Doocy said??

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

And in any event, the point was that the Trig baby rumor came first.

I’m going to be lazy here and not verify (mostly because I can’t for the life of me find a search engine that will let me restrict the search to a particular date range), but my recollection is that the point at which the rumor broke through into the MSM in any meaningful way was when she used the rumor as an excuse to play the victim card and go on about how scurrilous this attack on her was that, before that moment, few Americans had ever been exposed to.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

What difference does it make which came first? What is your point?

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Given Dio’s “history” of the Trig rumors, you’re going to have to provide a cite for the actual media bringing up not-her-baby stuff before I’ll believe it preceded ICSR.

Providing the response to this request for a cite.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

So now Palin is responsible for what Steve Doocy said??

She embraced it. I still don’t understand your point here. What does it matter which came first?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

Providing the response to this request for a cite.

The media never promoted the Trig baby thing. It only reported on it to debunk it.

The meme that Alaska being close to Russia gave Palin foreign policy cred was being promoted by the mainstream media (and Fox News IS the mainstream media) before the Trig thing got posted on Kos, and the Trig thing was never advocated in the mainstream at all.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

She embraced it. I still don’t understand your point here. What does it matter which came first?

Geeze, Diogenes, did you read the thread? Did you see the posts that led me to post the timeline?

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Meh. The first attacks were of the inexperienced-mayor-of-bumfuck sort, which were perfectly fair. Then there was the Couric interview stuff, which was of course also fair. Then the “I can see Russia” stuff. Then “gotcha media”. The attacks definitely followed the evidence, at least at first.

It wasn’t until she started making those speeches about palling around with terrorists that she started taking real flak- and I think you’d agree that at that point she deserved it.

@Bricker

The “Trig is not her baby” attacks predated Katie Coruic’s interview. They predated “I can see Russia.”

Does this sequence of posts ring any bells?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

Does this sequence of posts ring any bells?

Well there are a couple of things wrong with this. First, we’ve seen that the Alaska-Russia thing preceded the Kos-Trig post, and secondly, it’s not true that there really ever WERE any “Trig is not her baby” attacks outside of a small, and short-lived internet fringe. Almost none of the people ridiculing her for “I can see Russia” ever bought into the Trig rumor.