I don’t lie, I just use some vociferous language. For instance, I might say that Bush is a moron. That may be hyperbolic but it’s not a lie. I don’t invent facts.
I agree that it would be a long-term bad idea, even though it is not the worst all possible of sins.
I’d just like to see the definition of “jerk” expanded to include willful ignorance. There are posters who continue to attack straw men again and again in multiple threads, inhibiting discussions from moving forward.
Moron (from dictionary.com)
-
A stupid person; a dolt.
-
Psychology. A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
I think this is the kind of thing El_Kabong is refering to, but the truth or falseness of the statement is clouded by the range of the english language. If you took the first definition, DtC is engaging in hyperbole. If you take the second definition he has wandered into a potential falsehood if it can be proven Bush isn’t retarded.
I volunteer to be the arbiter of such a plan, seeing as I’m the least-biased, nicest, most level-headed guy in the history of the SDMB.
Just kidding.
Taxie yep, I know that FIreman jones would be doing it for a good reason. That was the point of the exercise. None of us (I believe) evaluate each instance of behavior individually. So, when you heard “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski” from Bill Clinton, you already had some idea of his believability on that issue. As did I.
the fact that we do, does not mean, by itself, that we’re always biased in one direction or the other, it means that we, as normal human beings, keep on collecting information and adding it to our picture of a person, developing an opinion of them, which would then color our perceptions of actions that they would take.
I already believed Michael Jackson to be an odd guy. If I’d just heard the phrase “MJ dangled a baby off a balcony”, my mental picture would have matched what turned out to be the actual event, I wouldn’t have immediately assumed that there was probably a fire or some specific danger he was trying to save the baby from etc…
It’s admitted, but it isn’t dumbassery. It’s partisanship.
wring, I still think your example is at odds with the point of this thread, which I think is this: assume that GWB were to engage in the exact same actions as did Bill Clinton re: that woman, Miss Lewinsky (i.e., do sexual acts with her in the Oval office or the immediate vicinity and then lie about it and try to weasel out by arguing about the definition of “is”).
A person is being a partisan idiot if they argue that what Bill did was OK but what GWB did was not, or vice versa. DtC seems to be saying that yes, he would indeed argue that what Bill did was OK but what GWB did was not OK, based on DtC’s admitted bias. And everyone seems to be saying “Well, at least DtC is admitting his bias.”
What I don’t get is why it’s ok to argue that what Bill did was OK but what GWB did was not OK even if one admits that they are arguing that way because they are biased.
Tax - actually the OP of the thread is about ‘fudging on the who’ in order to demonstrate selective bias of the reader’; and my point is that we all do this to some degree or other and, it’s generally a ‘good’ thing to do.
we evaluate actions not simply in a vacuum, but based on why, who (which also goes to why we’d believe what we do about ‘why’), so the simple act of posting an action/statement w/o attributing it (or attributing it in a deliberately misleading way) will not suffice to demonstrate what teh OP hopes it would (Ie that an individual poster’s personal bias would render their judgement simply based on the political views of the poster, vs. other factors).
The simple truth is that (almost) never are two situations exactly identical, so no one really can get at “If George W. Bush did what Clinton did, posters A- C would wail and cry, even though they didn’t care when CLinton did it”.
(and Tax you’ve got that whole 'if BUsh did" example wrong - it’s all about 'Bill Clinton lies about a blow job and y’all call for his proverbial head, but Bush lies about MoMD - quibbling about what ‘immenient’ means, and ‘well he had a good reason’ 
)
This question highlights an important difference between theory and reality. In theory there is no difference, in reality, there is.
In the real world it is virtually impossible to make such substitutions without altering other, possibly critical, aspects of the case.
For example, let’s talk about the time you are alluding to. To swap the attributions of the quotes about Iraq and the posession of WMD between Clinton(s) and Bush also meant shifting the context of [Bill] Clinton’s statement forward several years from being said during his tenure in office, to the timeframe when Bush was in office. Life was not static during those years. Mr Clinton’s statement could have been absolute truth at the time he made it and the exact same statement being made by Bush several years later could be an utter falsehood. THAT is exactly the problem with this tactic.
Swapping the attribution on a quote is no better than stripping the context. “Dowd-ifying” if you will. It is dishonest, and unreliable. There is absolutely no “partisanship” revealed by someone who believes Bill Clinton’s statements in the late 90’s about the state of Iraqi WMDs and WMD programs yet simultaneously disbelieves virtually the exact same statements delivered by George W. Bush in the early 2000’s. The statements are the same. Both said “X”. But there is still a world of difference because “X” doesn’t exist in a vacuum, given meaning only by the person who voiced it. Political debate is not a rigorous as mathematics. You can’t substitute “Clinton” for “Bush” and have the equation change only in that one way. Along with “Clinton” comes “1992-2000” and a host of other variables. Along with “Bush” comes “W” or “HW”, “1988-1992” or “2000-200?”, etc. Any one of these other attributes could swing a reasonable(non-partisan) analysis of a statement. Concluding that a person was a whiny partisan bitch for slamming Bush and letting off Clinton is not necessarially valid. More has changed than just the names.
This is too shallow a measure to have benefit IMHO. Pulling it off may be possible in some theoretical sense, but I don’t believe there will ever be two situations where all the other significant context was so close that any given X could have its attribution changed without changing other factors in an analysis. If a politician said “Israel must dismantle the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza strip or there will be severe consequences.” then it makes a huge difference if that politician was George Bush or Howard Dean. One obvious difference is that one is in a position to make good on that threat and the other is not. A second difference is their stated views on foreign policy. Mr Bush may be implying unilateral sanctions or military action against Israel in such a statement, as both of these are fair game in his foreign policy views(as we have seen). Mr Dean would probably be implying action through an international body such as the UN because his stated views on international foreign policy includes working through the UN. So if the quote is attributed to Bush, a reasonable interpretation would probably include the implicit threat of unilateral action and a person may condemn it in part because they disagree with unilateralism. If the statement was made by Dean then a reasonable interpretation could include the implicit understanding that these “severe consequences” would be decided on and enforced through the UN framework.
Swapping the attribution of “Dean” for “Bush” would change more than the “Democrat” versus “Republican” factor. It would change the “powerless to implement such consequences” factor into “empowered to make good on the threat”. It could also switch the “would use the UN to decide on and enforce these consequences” to “may decide on and enforce these consequences unilaterally” factor.
Basically, more things change when you change attribution than the party of the speaker. As such this “tactic” is a poor gague of partisanship. It is not narrow enough for an accurate test.
Enjoy,
Steven
I believe the case being made is that the two are one and the same.
In this instance–and nearly all others featuring that kind of insult–it’s pretty obvious that he’s using the first definition. Context is important. If, on a message board filled with debating partisans, someone says:
“President Sharpton is a moron!”
It’s obvious they’re using the non-clinical definition. If, in a psychological evaluation, a psychologist says:
“Patient Sharpton scored an 8 on the Michelson life-skills index. He’s a moron who should be supervised closely.”
It’s possible they’re using the clinical definition (it’s also possible they’re an asshole and are using the non-clinical definition).
Come to think of it, do psychologists even using “moron” anymore? I imagine it’s gone the way of “imbecile,” etc.
I can imagine a variation of this idea that might be useful if you’re looking for objective debate (as opposed to simply exposing people’s partisanship). You could refer to the speaker as “anonymous” or “X” and include any other non-identifying context that you feel is necessary.
For example:
“Politician (or celebrity, or news source, etc.) X said the following…”
You could announce that you would identify the speaker after 2 days or 1 week or whatever. Of course, the big problem with this is that it would probably degenerate into everyone trying to identify X rather than actually debating. Maybe it would be better to just say, “what is your opinion of the following statement” without even indicating that it’s a quote.
Is it? Do we not already see the hypocrisy of the people on the extremes? And would “exposure” truly cause those who were not quite so extreme to ratchet down their volume or reconsider their 1984-like ability to cheer contradictory views according to the “correct” chearleader?
In the thread to which you alluded in the OP, there were a number of reasoned responses (on both sides) that addressed the actual issues without simply chanting “Go George” or “Go Away George.” My recollection is that the extremists on both sides simply went on calling any response from their perceived opposition hypocritical and dishonest, regardless how they perceived the lie that set up the “trap.”
Didn’t december get banned for doing just such a thing, quoting the dangers of Saddam Hussein and the need to go to war, before revealing it was Clinton who said it, not Bush?
Or am I remembering that wrong?
How about finding something that two people have said, and starting a thread about each, and seeing who repsonds differently, or that sort of thing?
ivylass: yes, that’s who the OP was referring to.
It is a bad idea.
Terrible idea.
Just to throw out a random reason: What about people who read the OP, and don’t come back to find out it was a fake?
Looks like we just spread some ignorance. Go us.
And as wring said, we don’t judge actions in a vacuum. It’s not partisanship to take into account everything else a person has done or said when evaluating a particular quote or action - it’s just logical.
Oh yeah? Who cares what you think?
For those who say that someone posting a statement like that is obviously not being serious, how soon we forget.
I’m coming down on the side of those who think the proposal is a bad one. If you think someone is just being biased, call him on it and move on. It would be better simply not to debate with someone who you think cannot be reasonably objective than to litter the forum with “gottcha” threads.