"You Are Still Crying Wolf" and the devaluation of words

Post Reply New Topic

Credit for bringing this to my attention goes to Darmok in a different thread, though my link is different:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 3460acafb2

So that's a hate crime now, huh? It caused a great deal of fear, anger and sadness huh? I looked up this Edgewood College, and it's a liberal arts college. What a surprise.

Again this cheapening of words. So how do you describe something like this video happening at Edgewood? Just substitute the word p****. Don't worry, you'll know where it belongs.



As for the incident in question, what would I call it? At worst it's a childish provocation, requiring no more action than to crumple up and bin the post it note.

It was pretty bad, just look at how many of our members here think Trump ran an explicitly racist, homophobic campaign that openly catered to bigots, vs what Scott over at SSC actually documented. A good example that he brought up was the fact that Trump had strongly condemned both David Duke and Pat Buchanan nearly 20 years ago and had done so many times since, but to hear the media today say it, Trump was practically in bed with Duke.



Here's the deal; virtually all of the non-conservative media here is left wing, just not openly, so it really was just a matter of degree between what you'd see on MSNBC vs what you'd see on CNN, the "mainstream" press was just a little more subtle about their tilt. The best example I can give was his "Mexican rapists" remarks, which as Scott pointed out were totally not racist at all, but were portrayed nearly universally as a slur on Mexican immigrants by all but the conservative media.



Oh, pointing out that he's thin skinned, uninformed, ill-tempered, etc are all totally legitimate criticisms, it's the overreach in trying to paint him as racist and homophobic that I object to, especially when there's absolutely no need to make things up about this guy. I could point out, however, that they likely focused on the most ridiculous things he said (and likely took some out of context) to the exclusion of all else, a different form of bias, but bias none the less.

My guess is that the author agrees that Trump is a misogynist. If you read the article, the author believes the Trump presidency will be a "disaster" but for other reasons then the left's auto response. He does not want people paralyzed by fear based on false pretenses.

That's my read as well, along with is stated premise that if an actual open racist should come along, people will roll their eyes when they start shouting about it, since they wasted their credibility on Trump. Sexism is certainly an easier sell than racism or homophobia, especially since he's easily the most LGBT friendly GOP president ever, even scoffing at the brouhaha over trans bathroom rights. He may even be more progressive on that score than 2008 Obama was on the record.

You're both incorrect, and I don't know where that read came from. I did a little searching, and he actually defends Trump against the accusations of both misogyny and sexism in section iii here:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/06/17/ag ... -whistles/

Another article I'm going to have to read now...

People expecting due recourse, for legitimate grievances, are now being called crybabies.

Forgot about that one, but it did come out before the Access Hollywood tape leaked, and that made at least calling Trump a pig pretty fair.

Your link is what he wrote in June. The link at the beginning of the thread was written November 16 after the "hot mic" tape and subsequent allegations.

Okay, but do you have anything more recent that overrules what he said earlier? Going by what he said there, I don't think the hot mic would be enough to turn over what he said there.

And what make you think that the media you watch/listen/read and Wikileaks are not biased? Wikileaks is quite one-sided on it's leaking of informations after all, and they did endangered the life of many innocents in Saudi Arabia. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/08/23/wikileaks-outs-gay-people-in-saudi-arabia-in-reckless-mass-data-dump/
How you can accuse Slate of a steady flow of stupidity while you shallow whole the stupid statements of Trump is beyond me.
After all:
http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=214763

My opposition to Trump has little to do with what media said about him, it's more about the scary and stupid things he said and the way he said them, which you can easily find on Youtube to confirm it yourself.

I said it was a guess. It was not a peer reviewed journal article.