3 ms·

It's relevant in this case because the premise of the first comment is that this administration is particularly and uniquely unqualified to perform an investiga

It's relevant in this case because the premise of the first comment is that this administration is particularly and uniquely unqualified to perform an investigation. It's comparative by nature, and therefore information about the disposition and behavior of other administrations is the relevant basis to determine whether the initial proposition is applicable.

abvdasker 7y ago
I would like to clarify that my comment was actually not explicitly comparative in nature. It did not mention a past or future administration. It did not mention the administration of a different country. If you disagree, please quote the part of my comment that makes a comparison to, well, anything. What bothers me about this line of thinking is its suggestion that because corruption is common, observers and interested parties should do nothing about it and remain uncritical towards abuses of power. In particular, it discourages criticism in partisan ways: "Your politicians did it so our politicians should be able to do it. Everyone is corrupt so what are you complaining about?" When partisan ideology normalizes corruption all you end up with is more corruption.
- chottocharaii 7y ago
  ‘Normally I would say A, but I do not trust X so I will say B’ Is an implicit comparison between X & an unstated Y
  - slg 7y ago
    The comparison is implicit. However the definition of Y is not. Assuming that Y must represent Democrats just because X represents Republicans is viewing the world in a binary and unnecessarily partisan way. Y could just as easy be some neutral, nonpartisan, or completely imaginary option dreamt up solely for the sake of comparison.
- lingvist 7y ago
  I agree with the sentiment. The delivery suffers: 1. Linguistically speaking, humans tend to save energy. Every utterance is designed to provide new information, to describe what is different from the norm. Going on a rant on how this administration suffers of problems a, b, and c, weakly implies that other administrations suffer much less of problems a, b, and c. Otherwise it would be common knowledge that all administrations suffers of problems a, b, and c roughly in the same degree, and why bother wasting time repeating common knowledge? 2. Arguments that focus specifically on one administration, carefully avoiding anything that could be construed as a negative reflecting onto opposing party administrations, come across as partisan. It is the hallmark of the USA media environment that most what we hear in the political news is technically true, but carefully curated to further one of the major two narratives. Also known as "information bubble". "Democrats: saviors, Republicans: evil" OR "Democrats: corrupt, Republicans: straightshooters". If we truly are to move past partisan criticism, it is on us to fairly depict deplorable behavior on both side of the aisle, regardless of our own political leanings. Otherwise, we risk engaging in the usual half-blind partisan discourse that is tearing this country apart.

abvdasker 7y ago

I would like to clarify that my comment was actually not explicitly comparative in nature. It did not mention a past or future administration. It did not mention the administration of a different country. If you disagree, please quote the part of my comment that makes a comparison to, well, anything. What bothers me about this line of thinking is its suggestion that because corruption is common, observers and interested parties should do nothing about it and remain uncritical towards abuses of power. In particular, it discourages criticism in partisan ways: "Your politicians did it so our politicians should be able to do it. Everyone is corrupt so what are you complaining about?" When partisan ideology normalizes corruption all you end up with is more corruption.

chottocharaii 7y ago
‘Normally I would say A, but I do not trust X so I will say B’ Is an implicit comparison between X & an unstated Y
- slg 7y ago
  The comparison is implicit. However the definition of Y is not. Assuming that Y must represent Democrats just because X represents Republicans is viewing the world in a binary and unnecessarily partisan way. Y could just as easy be some neutral, nonpartisan, or completely imaginary option dreamt up solely for the sake of comparison.
lingvist 7y ago
I agree with the sentiment. The delivery suffers: 1. Linguistically speaking, humans tend to save energy. Every utterance is designed to provide new information, to describe what is different from the norm. Going on a rant on how this administration suffers of problems a, b, and c, weakly implies that other administrations suffer much less of problems a, b, and c. Otherwise it would be common knowledge that all administrations suffers of problems a, b, and c roughly in the same degree, and why bother wasting time repeating common knowledge? 2. Arguments that focus specifically on one administration, carefully avoiding anything that could be construed as a negative reflecting onto opposing party administrations, come across as partisan. It is the hallmark of the USA media environment that most what we hear in the political news is technically true, but carefully curated to further one of the major two narratives. Also known as "information bubble". "Democrats: saviors, Republicans: evil" OR "Democrats: corrupt, Republicans: straightshooters". If we truly are to move past partisan criticism, it is on us to fairly depict deplorable behavior on both side of the aisle, regardless of our own political leanings. Otherwise, we risk engaging in the usual half-blind partisan discourse that is tearing this country apart.