5 ms·
I don’t want to step into this particular minefield (nor should any progressive, really) but I thought this tiny part of the argument was unusually bad reasonin
by nicklecompte 5y ago
I don’t want to step into this particular minefield (nor should any progressive, really) but I thought this tiny part of the argument was unusually bad reasoning:
> To give such a forceful statement on the nation’s most-watched late-night talk show, it’s fair to assume that Moreno must have understood the “colorism” debate and given her position serious consideration.
Who honestly believes that people on Steven Colbert are giving serious thought and consideration to their responses in the interview? It actually seems more likely that she went on Colbert to promote her show and tell some jokes, got blindsided with a controversial question and gave an answer she regretted (the statement was not at all “forceful” and seemed much more about her personal affection for Lin-Miranda than any serious political motivation). In any case it is not “fair to assume” that interviewees on late night shows are especially prepared - Steven Colbert is not Meet the Press!
Stuff like this is why the newsletter trend is kinda worrying: smart people need editors, otherwise they will write transparently stupid things.
- NoOneNew 5y agoYes, the interviewees are prepped before the show starts. This is pretty well known.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Quekid5 5y agoI think you might have missed the word "especially" before "prepared" in the post you're replying to. The language is also a bit ambiguous (see below). It's well known that guest are (usually) prepared (by the show!) in the sense that they at the very least have a general idea of the major points of conversation, but having a full list of all the exact questions, etc. is quite a bit rarer (AFAIK, at least). Regardless, the parent poster could also have meant that the guests themselves(!) do very little preparation with the information they get from the show. The amount of preparation by the guest would probably depend heavily on the agent, the contentiousness of the questions that they know about, how high the stakes are (e.g. first ever interview on Colbert for an up-and-comer?), etc. etc.
- incrudible 5y agoAre you planning to get that editor for your comments?
- nicklecompte 5y agoI’m not planning to publish my comments in a newsletter and ask people to pay me for it. So I am really not sure what the point of your remark is - unless, of course, this is a childish attempt at an insult.
- incrudible 5y agoYou set yourself up for it. According to you, one of the following must be true: - You are not smart. - You are smart. You do not have an editor. Therefore, you will write transparently stupid things. There is no contingency on writing a newsletter.
- nicklecompte 5y agoSince I am feeling charitable and get the impression you’re merely a jerk rather than a troll: I obviously didn’t mean that any unedited writing is worthless, or that an unedited argument is inherently wrong. Clearly I meant that writing an essay without real editing poses a serious risk of making a bad argument - such as found in the newsletter whose argument I criticized. Indeed the lack of an editor on my HN comments has led me to make dumb arguments, just like everyone else here (including you, about 10 minutes ago). So the only thing I “set myself up for” is a jerk on the internet with bad reading comprehension. This is a mistake I make every time I go on HN.
- incrudible 5y agoI accept your apology.
- shoemakersteve 5y agoNot sure what value this is bringing to the conversation, everyone says/writes stupid things sometimes.