You’d have to ask the OP. As to the courtesies I extend Mr. Ryan, I don’t claim to know what goes on in his heart. My point is that it was reasonable for Congresswoman Lee to interpret the statement as racist, it’s reasonable to object to the statement, and Ryan has failed in trying to defend it, so far.
It was because those in the thread almost immediately agreed that the problem wasn’t whether Ryan stole the story, but that he was saying what he was saying, regardless of the source.
I have no idea when it became clear that Ryan hadn’t stolen or made up his story, but by that point, it had no bearing on the debate.
I haven’t read your mind; I’ve read what you wrote.
I could be wrong, but I’m not.
They are different. One is from a Republican, and the other from Michelle Obama. They don’t express any different sentiments, and they are both equally true, but in the one case you assume they express racism and in the other you don’t. Even though they are saying the same sorts of thing.
So either the genetic fallacy isn’t really a fallacy, or the truth value of a statement is independent of the one who makes the statement.
Regards,
Shodan
You said that I know as well as you do… but no, I don’t. So you were wrong about what I was thinking. Will you take my word that I know my own beliefs? If not, then I guess it’s impossible to have any sort of discussion.
We disagree here. They say different things. Michelle doesn’t call anyone lazy, or moochers, or say there is a culture of laziness. Different words, different meanings.
Sure it’s a fallacy. The truth value of a statement is independent of the one who makes the statement.
We disagree that these statements say the same things. I believe that they are quite different. That’s okay, right? Do you believe that I really disagree with you, or am I lying? Are you able to accept that other people can have a different opinion about whether the two statements are saying the same thing?
Paul Ryan did not call anyone “lazy”, or a “moocher”, or say there was a “culture of laziness”.
Especially when you make the words up.
It isn’t having a different opinion so much as engaging in blackwhite. Before I came to the SDMB I thought it didn’t happen in the real world.
Regards,
Shodan
And I didn’t say he did – I was providing advice on how one can talk about poverty without being accused of saying something racist. Ryan said there were “…men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work”, which is quite similar.
No words made up.
Is it possible we just disagree here? Do I have to be a liar and a hypocrite, or is there the slightest, tiniest chance that I actually believe the statements are different? The words are totally different, of course, and Michelle doesn’t say anything close to anything about a lack of a “culture of work”, or “men not working”, or a “tailspin of culture”. So isn’t it just possible that we honestly disagree here?
If not, then I guess we’re done. I guess you’ve got that lucky feeling that I discussed before – where you “know” that your opponents are all liars and/or hypocrites, and that no one can possibly come to different conclusions from you by honest reason.
Shodan, I disagree with you.
I really, honestly disagree. We disagree. We think different things about those statements. We come to different conclusions.
These things are possible. There is a reasonable chance in the universe that someone might disagree on this topic.
If I had meant Ryan used “lazy”, “moochers”, and “culture of poverty”, in his statement, I would have put them in quotes (like you did). I didn’t put those words in quotes because they were implications that I thought can reasonably be made from the statement (and implications that were not present in Michelle Obama’s statement).
Let’s review what he did say:
[QUOTE=Paul Ryan]
We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work. There is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.
[/QUOTE]
And back in 2012 (same link):
“men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work. There is a real culture problem here” - the difference between saying that and calling those hypothetical men “lazy,” “moochers,” and delineating a “culture of laziness” is pretty damn slim. Sure seems like a distinction without a difference. I don’t think it’s anywhere close to bearing false witness to characterize Ryan’s words that way.
And it is equally fair to characterize Michelle Obama’s words in the same way.
[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
Shodan, I disagree with you.
I really, honestly disagree. We disagree. We think different things about those statements. We come to different conclusions.
These things are possible. There is a reasonable chance in the universe that someone might disagree on this topic.
[/QUOTE]
I have no doubt in the world that we disagree. The problem is that I am right, and you are wrong.
The thread played out as it often does. It started with a false accusation that Ryan plagiarized his story. It turned out pretty quick that this was fairly obviously false. Then, instead of admitting the wrong premise of the thread, the Usual Suspects started kicking around looking for something else to vilify him for. Nothing much sprang to mind, and thus the standard accusation of racism was all that could be come up with. It’s never considered necessary to provide actual proof of it, just repetition. So that’s what we got. Then I came along to spoil the fun by pointing out that the notion of “it’s racism if it comes from a Republican but A-OK if it comes from a Democrat” is pretty silly, and there is no reasonable counter to the argument except the “it’s different if I say so” nonsense and that doesn’t get very far.
So yes, we disagree. I disagree with a lot of positions that are silly.
Regards,
Shodan
You seemed to have plenty of doubt in post #245, in which you say “It isn’t having a different opinion so much as…”. I’m glad you now recognize that you were incorrect, and we do actually have different opinions. I applaud you for your babystep turnaround towards wisdom.
Well, I think I am right, and you are wrong, and your position is silly, and so far I haven’t seen any “it’s racism if it comes from a Republican but A-OK if it comes from a Democrat” in this thread.
So there 
Ryan needs to be taught that there is a huge difference between addition and economics.
Because I’d estimate that admitting one’s error on any subject is pretty rare, especially on a message board where it’s easy to drop a topic and move on. 99% of threads started in Elections/GD’s (at least those where the OP is wrong) are like this. I really don’t see this topic as being any different. Why would you think it has to be?
I will repeat, however, that the original story contains a lot more detail that what Ryan provided. As we claim to be a board interested in fighting ignorance, I’ll repost again:
So, while I agree that the exact claim of Ryan stealing this story is inaccurate, he (or, more probably, the source he used–BTW that doesn’t necessarily make it better) cherry-picked it to fit an agenda. I saw a similar phenomenon with Joe Therrien, the Occupy Wall Street protester the right liked to ridicule for his puppetry degree (turns out there’s a lot more to that story as well–he’s the kind of entrepreneur right-wingers normally praise). Hell, I still hear folks raise Liebeck vs. McDonalds (the “hot coffee lawsuit”) in the tort reform debate, and I would think 20 years on they would at least acknowledge that the details of that case largely undermine the notion that the lawsuit was frivolous.
So, Bricker my friend, given these examples, if you’re waiting for someone to put on sackcloth and ashes for being wrong in a message board thread, I fear you’ll have a long time to wait.
OK then, set down her quote next to those descriptive phrases, so we can judge. Just like I did with Ryan’s.
Isn’t that up to you?
I mean … I agree that it’s rare people in general do it, but I do it. I admit error when I see I’ve been wrong – a occurrence sadly more frequent than I wish it were. Why can’t I expect it of others?
Why can’t you?
I used to, but it turned out I was wrong to do so.
Would that more of us heeded your example, Counselor. You would not be so burdened with scolding us for our liberal hypocrisies. Alas!
First of all, I think Bricker --IMHO-- hit upon a nice tone in that post.
Secondly, I agree with him substantively - it’s good when the OP returns to the thread after a while and repitches his message as appropriate. No need for sackcloth necessarily, just clarification. Fighting ignorance and all that.
Mangled OP by MfM: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17067134&postcount=1
Clarification in post 169, after dust had settled, by MfM: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17104002&postcount=169
OK so far as it goes, but I think it misses the point.
Bolding mine.
Maybe Bricker’s criticism was aimed at Johnny L.A. (I had to go back and check to see who the OP was.) specifically, but it’s hard to see it. What would the point have been? Johnny hadn’t even been participating in the thread for some time at that point.
No, the implication of the bolded part is that the rest of us on the other side of the debate from **Bricker **were demonstrating a lack of integrity by failing to call for the OP to acknowledge his mistake.
But I’ve already answered that. The participants in the thread largely agreed, right away, that what Ryan said was the real issue, not where he got it from. By the time (whenever that was; I confess I missed it) that the OP’s claim was debunked, it had been irrelevant to the thread practically since post #2. It had no bearing on the discussion, nor had it since the very beginning.
So nuts to Bricker and his “have you renounced X” bullshit. The right wing in this country is full of hundreds of middlin’ to major figures - people at least as prominent today as Al Sharpton was during the “all lefties need to renounce Al Sharpton” era that overlapped with the beginning of this board - who routinely say stuff that any reasonable conservative needs to distance himself from, but somehow they never do.
I think it’s important for people to acknowledge when the facts they’ve been depending on in a debate are bad, or the arguments they’ve been making are faulty. I’d hope that Bricker would concede fault for claiming that one of my claims in this thread must be wrong because of something he says he remembers me saying in a thread many years ago that he can’t locate in order to accurately cite. But I ain’t holding my breath. OTOH, if he makes a solid case that my claim was bad using actual evidence, rather than vague memories, I’ll be the one who should acknowledge its weakness.
And maybe it would be good if **Johnny L.A. **came back and said, whoops, my bad. But it would change nothing in the debate we have. Good etiquette, certainly, but Bricker wasn’t about giving an etiquette lesson to a poster who’d been largely absent from the thread since its first few hours. He was playing a different game.
RTFirefly would like you, Gentle Reader, to disregard my actual post and substitute his version of my post.