4 ms·

>The criticisms are described as "methodically wrong" At this point are we on the same page, that the GP was claiming that "methodically wrong" criticism occur

>The criticisms are described as "methodically wrong" At this point are we on the same page, that the GP was claiming that "methodically wrong" criticism occurs, not that all the criticism is methodically wrong? The total volume of media criticism is huge. It's possible that you, me, and the parent poster are simply looking at different portions of the criticism being made. When you say "much of the critique" I take this to mean "much of the critique that you've seen", and when I say I "see a media establishment...making the worst types of criticism" I'm speaking to what I've seen. >a direct result of what comes out of his mouth [Unless full context is given,] this is often not sufficient to ensure that the criticism is fair, and accurate. Consider, for example, the way the media lied about his comments on Charlottesville. They used the actual words out of his mouth, but selectively omitted the most important words necessary to understand what he was actually saying. By omitting those words, they painted a false picture in which he appeared to say the opposite of what he was saying. In my experience at the time, I saw no left leaning outlets reporting accurately on this.

osrec 6y ago
The implication was that the vast majority of criticism is methodically wrong. I don't think that's true. I'd say the vast majority is well-deserved based on silly/stupid actions or words. Regarding the critique, please tell me how you'd interpret this video: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/trump-disinfectant-bleach-sarcastic https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/trump-disinfec... ? Before this statement was made, the US P's supporters were saying that he was referring to "advanced treatments" that detractors were unaware of. Now the US P comes out and says that his comments were made sarcastically (huh?!), completely killing the "advanced treatments" theory. I am eager to know what you make of this? Is the criticism he faced for this valid in your opinion?
- jshevek 6y ago
  >The implication was that the vast majority of criticism is methodically wrong. Not at all. Only that there is enough to warrant the expression of concern which the GP made. We each have different tolerances. >the US P's supporters were saying that he was referring to "advanced treatments" that detractors were unaware of. Are you viewing US P supporters as a monolith? I heard those claims from some people. I thought it was unlikely because he has demonstrated substantial scientific illiteracy in other situations. Regarding 'sarcasm', I think, most likely, he was saying whatever he thought, at the moment, would help him move on and put that embarrassing situation behind him. >Is the criticism he faced for this valid in your opinion? Which criticism, exactly? Because I saw headlines implying that Trump got up on stage, addressed the American people, and suggested to the American people that they should inject bleach into their bodies to cure this disease. This is a good example of what I'm talking about. The man is not science literate, and he says some amazingly dumb things. You don't have to spin what he says to criticize him, and yet some in the media still dialed it up to 11 and painted a [dishonest] representation of events. Edit: Just to emphasize this, when you ask Is the criticism he faced for this valid in your opinion?, he most definitely deserved to be criticized for what he actually said. The fact that he deserves to be criticized doesn't mean the form, content, and nature of all of the criticism that everyone makes is okay.
  - osrec 6y ago
    The guy is the leader of the free world! He's making random screw ups every few days. He has single handedly turned himself into a joke. If you or me said the things he said, we'd be considered idiots by our peers. We need to exercise a bit of common sense now, and realise that the benefit of the doubt has been granted way too many times for there to be any further doubt that this guy is anything other than a buffoon!
    - jshevek 6y ago
      >The guy is the leader of the free world! He's making random screw ups every few days. He has single handedly turned himself into a joke. I wish this site would allow me to self-detach my own sub-thread. There are things I'd like to say which might not be wholly aligned with the site guidelines. At least most people seem to be ignoring our conversation. :) I'll just say that I don't disagree with this sentiment. >If you or me said the things he said, we'd be considered idiots by our peers. Absolutely true. >the benefit of the doubt has been granted way too many times for there to be any further doubt that this guy is anything other than a buffoon! I think you are simply saying that it is well established that Trump is a buffoon. Granting that premise, I still believe we should each investigate the veracity of any subsequent claims about him before accepting them as true. And push back if they prove false.
      - osrec 6y ago
        > I wish this site would allow me to self-detach my own sub-thread. There are things I'd like to say which might not be wholly aligned with the site guidelines. At least most people seem to be ignoring our conversation. :) I'll just say that I don't disagree with this sentiment. Personally, I do not feel no anger or the need to move away from the guidelines; I disagree with you, but that's okay :) Honestly, I was hoping to understand your point of view, while presenting mine. So far, your point of view comes across as: "yes, he may be a buffoon, but the media overplay it, and every new action must be taken on its own merit". I think that's fair enough argument, but you cannot gloss over the "he is a buffoon" bit by defending it using the "the media overplay it, and every new action must be taken on its own merit" bit. I guess what I'm saying is that the US P should not be/come across as a buffoon.
- afiori 6y ago
  > The implication was that the vast majority of criticism is methodically wrong. My point was in a completely different direction. My statement is that the tribe I care about has very low standards for what constitute valid criticism. Together with my personal emotional reaction of this being sad and disheartening because I always assume my tribe was better than that. Matters of majority/minority are inconsequential for this point, (they can be relevant to other points) my point is that those criticism that are fruit of blatant lies are not discarded, as if people did not care that they are false.

osrec 6y ago

The implication was that the vast majority of criticism is methodically wrong. I don't think that's true. I'd say the vast majority is well-deserved based on silly/stupid actions or words. Regarding the critique, please tell me how you'd interpret this video: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/trump-disinfectant-bleach-sarcastic https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/trump-disinfec... ? Before this statement was made, the US P's supporters were saying that he was referring to "advanced treatments" that detractors were unaware of. Now the US P comes out and says that his comments were made sarcastically (huh?!), completely killing the "advanced treatments" theory. I am eager to know what you make of this? Is the criticism he faced for this valid in your opinion?

jshevek 6y ago
>The implication was that the vast majority of criticism is methodically wrong. Not at all. Only that there is enough to warrant the expression of concern which the GP made. We each have different tolerances. >the US P's supporters were saying that he was referring to "advanced treatments" that detractors were unaware of. Are you viewing US P supporters as a monolith? I heard those claims from some people. I thought it was unlikely because he has demonstrated substantial scientific illiteracy in other situations. Regarding 'sarcasm', I think, most likely, he was saying whatever he thought, at the moment, would help him move on and put that embarrassing situation behind him. >Is the criticism he faced for this valid in your opinion? Which criticism, exactly? Because I saw headlines implying that Trump got up on stage, addressed the American people, and suggested to the American people that they should inject bleach into their bodies to cure this disease. This is a good example of what I'm talking about. The man is not science literate, and he says some amazingly dumb things. You don't have to spin what he says to criticize him, and yet some in the media still dialed it up to 11 and painted a [dishonest] representation of events. Edit: Just to emphasize this, when you ask Is the criticism he faced for this valid in your opinion?, he most definitely deserved to be criticized for what he actually said. The fact that he deserves to be criticized doesn't mean the form, content, and nature of all of the criticism that everyone makes is okay.
- osrec 6y ago
  The guy is the leader of the free world! He's making random screw ups every few days. He has single handedly turned himself into a joke. If you or me said the things he said, we'd be considered idiots by our peers. We need to exercise a bit of common sense now, and realise that the benefit of the doubt has been granted way too many times for there to be any further doubt that this guy is anything other than a buffoon!
  - jshevek 6y ago
    >The guy is the leader of the free world! He's making random screw ups every few days. He has single handedly turned himself into a joke. I wish this site would allow me to self-detach my own sub-thread. There are things I'd like to say which might not be wholly aligned with the site guidelines. At least most people seem to be ignoring our conversation. :) I'll just say that I don't disagree with this sentiment. >If you or me said the things he said, we'd be considered idiots by our peers. Absolutely true. >the benefit of the doubt has been granted way too many times for there to be any further doubt that this guy is anything other than a buffoon! I think you are simply saying that it is well established that Trump is a buffoon. Granting that premise, I still believe we should each investigate the veracity of any subsequent claims about him before accepting them as true. And push back if they prove false.
    - osrec 6y ago
      > I wish this site would allow me to self-detach my own sub-thread. There are things I'd like to say which might not be wholly aligned with the site guidelines. At least most people seem to be ignoring our conversation. :) I'll just say that I don't disagree with this sentiment. Personally, I do not feel no anger or the need to move away from the guidelines; I disagree with you, but that's okay :) Honestly, I was hoping to understand your point of view, while presenting mine. So far, your point of view comes across as: "yes, he may be a buffoon, but the media overplay it, and every new action must be taken on its own merit". I think that's fair enough argument, but you cannot gloss over the "he is a buffoon" bit by defending it using the "the media overplay it, and every new action must be taken on its own merit" bit. I guess what I'm saying is that the US P should not be/come across as a buffoon.
afiori 6y ago
> The implication was that the vast majority of criticism is methodically wrong. My point was in a completely different direction. My statement is that the tribe I care about has very low standards for what constitute valid criticism. Together with my personal emotional reaction of this being sad and disheartening because I always assume my tribe was better than that. Matters of majority/minority are inconsequential for this point, (they can be relevant to other points) my point is that those criticism that are fruit of blatant lies are not discarded, as if people did not care that they are false.