4 ms·

I’m not defending the specific claim in question. I’m questioning why these websites tend to focus on addressing the most easily debunkable, literal aspects (or

I’m not defending the specific claim in question. I’m questioning why these websites tend to focus on addressing the most easily debunkable, literal aspects (or versions) of an argument, usually in favor of a particular political option. If there’s an article out there in which PolitiFact debunked (let alone flagged) claims of, say, “transitory inflation”, I’ll stand corrected.

glenstein 4y ago
>I’m not defending the specific claim in question It sure as heck seemed like you were all of one comment ago. I'm pretty sure that 999 out of 1000 people reading your previous comment heard something like "PolitiFact said this claim about a possible recession was false, even though it used a dictionary definition of the term!" But now it appears that PolitiFact was not doing that at all, but was instead taking issue with the claim that the White House was "changing the definition" of recession, and now you're saying you're not defending that claim and falling back to unrelated generalities. So now I have no idea what your original point was supposed to be. Is it the White House changing definitions is false and easily debunkable but supports some broader point that you believe is more important? And is that what we were supposed to understand from your first comment? This is just checking every box for being a bad argument.
- ThalesX 4y ago
  > I'm pretty sure that 999 out of 1000 people reading your previous comment heard something like "PolitiFact said this claim about a possible recession was false, even though it used a dictionary definition of the term!" I understood GP to mean that it's a bit strange to have random groups define fake news or not based on deviations from a specific dictionary. If my dictionary says recession is two quarters, and yours says it's three, we can't use just this to decide that something is fake news, and it's especially dangerous to make arbitrary decision on which dictionary is actually 'not fake'. I guess I'm the 1 / 1000 and actually have trouble understanding your arguments.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    If a video claims that the White House "changed the definition" and in fact the White House has always used the same definition, that claim is fake news. Period. What exactly is difficult to understand about that? The fact the rest of the world has always used a different definition (and still does) is moot.
    - ThalesX 4y ago
      Please don’t reply to whatever innervated you, but take the time to read the thread and understand what is being discussed.
      - notahacker 4y ago
        I read the thread thanks, and am not the one claiming to have difficulty parsing the GP's argument. Also, I read the Politifact article in question, so I am not labouring under the delusion that the point of contention is whose dictionary should we use rather than is there any truth to video's sensational central claim 'The White House is now trying to protect Joe Biden by changing the definition of the word recession' which is a hard no, irrespective of whether you believe that the dictionary definition of successive quarters of negative growth is a more parsimonious definition than waiting for the NBER to call it.
- mypastself 4y ago
  If you read the article I’ve linked and its conclusion, you’ll see that it’s not just arguing whether or not the White House changed a definition, but also what the correct definition is. It also follows up a quote of the definition used by the video with a statement that they’ve flagged it. To me, that’s a clear indication the definition is an important part of the reason for flagging.
  - secondhandle 4y ago
    You're arguing nonsense, the politifact article doesn't say the video's definition is wrong. It says the poster of the video "glosses over" the term 'generally' which they do. Your whole argument as to their thought process as to which second in the video they flagged (while ridiculous) is easily explained by this fact. > To me, that’s a clear indication the definition is an important part of the reason for flagging. The article is also titled 'No, the White House didn’t change the definition of “recession”' To me, that's a clear indication of what the most important (and valid) reason for flagging was.

glenstein 4y ago

>I’m not defending the specific claim in question It sure as heck seemed like you were all of one comment ago. I'm pretty sure that 999 out of 1000 people reading your previous comment heard something like "PolitiFact said this claim about a possible recession was false, even though it used a dictionary definition of the term!" But now it appears that PolitiFact was not doing that at all, but was instead taking issue with the claim that the White House was "changing the definition" of recession, and now you're saying you're not defending that claim and falling back to unrelated generalities. So now I have no idea what your original point was supposed to be. Is it the White House changing definitions is false and easily debunkable but supports some broader point that you believe is more important? And is that what we were supposed to understand from your first comment? This is just checking every box for being a bad argument.

ThalesX 4y ago
> I'm pretty sure that 999 out of 1000 people reading your previous comment heard something like "PolitiFact said this claim about a possible recession was false, even though it used a dictionary definition of the term!" I understood GP to mean that it's a bit strange to have random groups define fake news or not based on deviations from a specific dictionary. If my dictionary says recession is two quarters, and yours says it's three, we can't use just this to decide that something is fake news, and it's especially dangerous to make arbitrary decision on which dictionary is actually 'not fake'. I guess I'm the 1 / 1000 and actually have trouble understanding your arguments.
- notahacker 4y ago
  If a video claims that the White House "changed the definition" and in fact the White House has always used the same definition, that claim is fake news. Period. What exactly is difficult to understand about that? The fact the rest of the world has always used a different definition (and still does) is moot.
  - ThalesX 4y ago
    Please don’t reply to whatever innervated you, but take the time to read the thread and understand what is being discussed.
    - notahacker 4y ago
      I read the thread thanks, and am not the one claiming to have difficulty parsing the GP's argument. Also, I read the Politifact article in question, so I am not labouring under the delusion that the point of contention is whose dictionary should we use rather than is there any truth to video's sensational central claim 'The White House is now trying to protect Joe Biden by changing the definition of the word recession' which is a hard no, irrespective of whether you believe that the dictionary definition of successive quarters of negative growth is a more parsimonious definition than waiting for the NBER to call it.
mypastself 4y ago
If you read the article I’ve linked and its conclusion, you’ll see that it’s not just arguing whether or not the White House changed a definition, but also what the correct definition is. It also follows up a quote of the definition used by the video with a statement that they’ve flagged it. To me, that’s a clear indication the definition is an important part of the reason for flagging.
- secondhandle 4y ago
  You're arguing nonsense, the politifact article doesn't say the video's definition is wrong. It says the poster of the video "glosses over" the term 'generally' which they do. Your whole argument as to their thought process as to which second in the video they flagged (while ridiculous) is easily explained by this fact. > To me, that’s a clear indication the definition is an important part of the reason for flagging. The article is also titled 'No, the White House didn’t change the definition of “recession”' To me, that's a clear indication of what the most important (and valid) reason for flagging was.