5 ms·

>Colbert's "truthiness" was eerily prescient, meant in satire, yet followed by Conway's "alternative facts" without irony. "Alternative facts" is an irrelevant

>Colbert's "truthiness" was eerily prescient, meant in satire, yet followed by Conway's "alternative facts" without irony. "Alternative facts" is an irrelevant quibble over wording. Everyone understood the intention. It's exactly these quibbles over technicalities that everyone thought would end Trump's campaign, but it doesn't work; if anything, it generates more sympathy for the speaker. Conway was not saying there is no such thing as objective reality (a belief called "relativism", which is much more repugnant to the conservative side of the aisle than the liberal one). Rather, she meant "we have different sources". Come now, that's not really such a crazy thing to express, is it? The MSM heartily strains at these gnats to try to promote their agenda (not surprisingly, it seems Democratic politicians rarely make such snafus). They are apparently unconscious that all they're doing is spreading the message that these strategic gaffers want spread.

xapata 10y ago
> different sources That's not how I understood it. I find the alternative facts and related screed to be more similar to wearing your team's colors than expressing an opinion. Some years ago, back when Bush was in office, I tried to argue/discuss politics with someone who held quite different beliefs than mine. We went back and forth for a while as I tried to find some common ground. At one point, I realized he had asserted something that was false, according to several sources. I showed him the relevant Wikipedia article. He laughed and replied, "You got me, I lied." I suddenly realized he had no intention of finding anything to agree on, but simply wanted to "win."
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Sorry to be daft, but I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Yes, one can choose to interpret the statements of politicians either charitably or uncharitably. Yes, some people are interested only in tribalism. How is this related to demanding Conway's statement be interpreted as a credo of relativism instead of a) an unfortunate turn of phrase with accidentally-negative connotations; or b) a gaffe intentionally planted with the expectation that the media would seize upon it and spend 3 days nitpicking a technicality, unaware that they're only broadcasting the intended message to the open-minded listeners in the public, who will disregard the media's hostile spin? Liberal use of (b) is exactly how and why Trump won. He beat the media at their game by allowing them to think that foaming at the mouth over technicalities of his ambiguous wording was doing him damage, when it was actually helping.
  - xapata 10y ago
    I think there are more ways to interpret Conway and Trump than those you've suggested. It's not relativism per se, but the belief that for some topics, being correct is less important than demonstrating loyalty. Further, it's possible that Trump and team just say whatever comes to mind without planning. Sometimes life is just dumb luck.

xapata 10y ago

> different sources That's not how I understood it. I find the alternative facts and related screed to be more similar to wearing your team's colors than expressing an opinion. Some years ago, back when Bush was in office, I tried to argue/discuss politics with someone who held quite different beliefs than mine. We went back and forth for a while as I tried to find some common ground. At one point, I realized he had asserted something that was false, according to several sources. I showed him the relevant Wikipedia article. He laughed and replied, "You got me, I lied." I suddenly realized he had no intention of finding anything to agree on, but simply wanted to "win."

cookiecaper 10y ago
Sorry to be daft, but I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Yes, one can choose to interpret the statements of politicians either charitably or uncharitably. Yes, some people are interested only in tribalism. How is this related to demanding Conway's statement be interpreted as a credo of relativism instead of a) an unfortunate turn of phrase with accidentally-negative connotations; or b) a gaffe intentionally planted with the expectation that the media would seize upon it and spend 3 days nitpicking a technicality, unaware that they're only broadcasting the intended message to the open-minded listeners in the public, who will disregard the media's hostile spin? Liberal use of (b) is exactly how and why Trump won. He beat the media at their game by allowing them to think that foaming at the mouth over technicalities of his ambiguous wording was doing him damage, when it was actually helping.
- xapata 10y ago
  I think there are more ways to interpret Conway and Trump than those you've suggested. It's not relativism per se, but the belief that for some topics, being correct is less important than demonstrating loyalty. Further, it's possible that Trump and team just say whatever comes to mind without planning. Sometimes life is just dumb luck.