5 ms·

In related news, policemen also cannot break the laws. But isn't it a good thing we have the public with their smartphones recording the police as they work? I

In related news, policemen also cannot break the laws. But isn't it a good thing we have the public with their smartphones recording the police as they work? Isn't it great that there are multiple separate, public, open channels to provide feedback when the police go astray? The use of "cannot" here is very problematic.

drcode 13y ago
Exactly: Obama is using "cannot" to mean "aren't supposed to" while making it appear like he's saying "aren't technologically able to".
- alexqgb 13y ago
  The idea that he's referring to policy prohibitions - not technical limitations - is even more unsettling when violations of law as egregious as Clapper's lying to Congress go so conspicuously unpunished. The entire concept of illegality as an impediment becomes meaningless when a class that's demonstrably above the law emerges in public.
- jsz0 13y ago
  Not how I read it. Obviously the technical ability to do so exists so "cannot" can only mean "aren't supposed to" in this context. Honestly I think people would have to be grasping at straws to read it any other way. What else could it possibly mean? Of course it's technically possible that's not even open for debate is it?
  - rhizome 13y ago
    A plain reading of the word "cannot" says that the person does not have the ability.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - CWuestefeld 13y ago
      If you're a stickler for language, then yes. The word "can(not)" refers to the ability, while the words "may (not)" or "must (not)" refer to a policy constraint rather than ability. But in common vernacular, the word "can" is used in both cases, so it's ambiguous. "Mom, can I play on the Xbox now?" "No, you haven't finished your homework." Obviously Junior has the ability to play, but his mom won't allow him to do so.
      - rhizome 13y ago
        We're talking about adults, though.
  - amirmc 13y ago
    The debate might be how Joe Public interprets that phrase. I'd bet that more people would think that 'cannot' means 'not possible', rather than 'not supposed to'. I think that choice of words was quite deliberate for exactly this reason.
bobwaycott 13y ago
Exactly. I attempted to say the same in my longer comment (that is perhaps way too long and 40+ comments came in while I was writing it). The talking points are winning here, and language is being abused to signify the opposite of what it actually means.

drcode 13y ago

Exactly: Obama is using "cannot" to mean "aren't supposed to" while making it appear like he's saying "aren't technologically able to".

alexqgb 13y ago
The idea that he's referring to policy prohibitions - not technical limitations - is even more unsettling when violations of law as egregious as Clapper's lying to Congress go so conspicuously unpunished. The entire concept of illegality as an impediment becomes meaningless when a class that's demonstrably above the law emerges in public.
jsz0 13y ago
Not how I read it. Obviously the technical ability to do so exists so "cannot" can only mean "aren't supposed to" in this context. Honestly I think people would have to be grasping at straws to read it any other way. What else could it possibly mean? Of course it's technically possible that's not even open for debate is it?
- rhizome 13y ago
  A plain reading of the word "cannot" says that the person does not have the ability.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - CWuestefeld 13y ago
    If you're a stickler for language, then yes. The word "can(not)" refers to the ability, while the words "may (not)" or "must (not)" refer to a policy constraint rather than ability. But in common vernacular, the word "can" is used in both cases, so it's ambiguous. "Mom, can I play on the Xbox now?" "No, you haven't finished your homework." Obviously Junior has the ability to play, but his mom won't allow him to do so.
    - rhizome 13y ago
      We're talking about adults, though.
- amirmc 13y ago
  The debate might be how Joe Public interprets that phrase. I'd bet that more people would think that 'cannot' means 'not possible', rather than 'not supposed to'. I think that choice of words was quite deliberate for exactly this reason.

bobwaycott 13y ago

Exactly. I attempted to say the same in my longer comment (that is perhaps way too long and 40+ comments came in while I was writing it). The talking points are winning here, and language is being abused to signify the opposite of what it actually means.