When Trump’s capacity for expressing imaginative empathy reaches even inanimate objects, or he writes something as minimally evocative as “tears streaming down their strong stone faces,” and I don’t believe it, yes, the joke will be on me.
Until then, it doesn’t take a Ph.D. in linguistics to listen to the different ways people write and speak.
and fwiw, at least 2 or 3 times last week I had to google something the president was alleged to have said. The items seemed unlikely, but given the stuff that Donald's actually know to have said, I had to check. And then it turned out one of the seemingly parodical quotes was in fact real.
“With tears streaming down their strong stone faces.”
The difference in verbal development between even those two small samples isn’t subtle. The first: Just a simple declarative sentence, and one that gets the image all wrong, because tears don’t run down eyes. The second: A subordinate clause using alliteration and concrete adjectives to paint a picture. The satirist either was intentionally distinguishing her parody from perfect mimickry, or she couldn’t help herself from sounding literate.
I’m guessing the question is, does paying attention to distinctions like these matter, beyond bickering with drummerboy and ml1? I think so.
One reason to push back against those concessions is that manipulators of social media are counting on us to surrender just like that. Social media, we know, is vulnerable to misinformation. Thankfully, misinformation is vulnerable, too — because it often contains a tell. Not that Mrs. Betty Bowers’ tweet was intended to deceive, but no matter, because it had some tells. A few weeks ago on MOL, basil unwittingly shared a fake Trump tweet that did appear to be created to deceive — but it, too, had tells.
No matter how sophisticated deep fakes and other social media deceptions become, there’s a chance that tells like these remain their vulnerability, simply because it’s hard to sound exactly like other people. (For instance, the fake Orwell quotes that get circulated are usually easy to spot because nobody who can write as sharply as Orwell would waste time mimicking him. The relative hackery of the forgeries is their tell.)
Every percentage of believability that you grant to inauthentic tweets or other posts are points in favor of the manipulators. Better, I think, to work harder at listening and reading closely enough to spot the tells and take responsibility for keeping believability as close to the zero end of the scale as possible.
not even sure who or what you're arguing against anymore. are you upset that some of us think that the fake tweet was actually a plausible one? If so, you certainly haven't made the case that it wasn't.
but I will say that I'm surprised that this has gotten you a lot more agitated than, let's say, the horrible political reporting of the New York Times, which is surely more harmful than something like Ms. Bowers' tweet.
One reason to push back against those concessions is that manipulators of social media are counting on us to surrender just like that. Social media, we know, is vulnerable to misinformation. Thankfully, misinformation is vulnerable, too — because it often contains a tell. Not that Mrs. Betty Bowers’ tweet was intended to deceive, but no matter, because it had some tells. A few weeks ago on MOL, basil unwittingly shared a fake Trump tweet that did appear to be created to deceive — but it, too, had tells.
No matter how sophisticated deep fakes and other social media deceptions become, there’s a chance that tells like these remain their vulnerability, simply because it’s hard to sound exactly like other people. (For instance, the fake Orwell quotes that get circulated are usually easy to spot because nobody who can write as sharply as Orwell would waste time mimicking him. The relative hackery of the forgeries is their tell.)
Every percentage of believability that you grant to inauthentic tweets or other posts are points in favor of the manipulators. Better, I think, to work harder at listening and reading closely enough to spot the tells and take responsibility for keeping believability as close to the zero end of the scale as possible.
not even sure who or what you're arguing against anymore. are you upset that some of us think that the fake tweet was actually a plausible one?
I wouldn’t say “upset” or “agitated.” I’d say, “One reason to push back.” Which I think I did say.
If you’re still not sure what the rest of my comment is arguing for or against, I can’t help you there. I made it as plain as I can make it.
I understand quite well what you're arguing for. I just don't understand how you got to this point. It seems kind of off-subject. i.e. Was there any post in this thread which led you to this place? Because I don't see it.
Why are you guys arguing about something he may have said? He said way worse things on video.
In an age of disinformation, knowing what people didn’t say is important, too. With the fake tweet you shared a few weeks ago, you’ve already made that point.
You do understand that "thought was believable enough" is not the same as "believing it was", right? My original post didn't even present it as an actual quote. This is why I don't get your lengthy reaction.
Why are you guys arguing about something he may have said? He said way worse things on video.
In an age of disinformation, knowing what people didn’t say is important, too. With the fake tweet you shared a few weeks ago, you’ve already made that point.
If I share a fake tweet or picture, and someone points that out to me, I will rectify it as fast as I can.
One reason to push back against those concessions is that manipulators of social media are counting on us to surrender just like that.
If I google a "quote" to see if it's true, I don't consider it "surrendering." It's actually the opposite of surrendering.
But before I googled it, I did think it could have been true. As I mentioned above, I googled one Trump quote that I was sure was fake, and it turned out to be true. I don't think it's my fault that the president says so many ridiculous, untrue and outrageous things that none of us can be sure that he didn't actually say something. It's Trump himself who has give fodder to the manipulators of social media. That's our reality.
If I share a fake tweet or picture, and someone points that out to me, I will rectify it as fast as I can.
The one you shared had so many tells it’s a wonder you didn’t deal it a hand and shove $500 into the pot. The idea is to not spread disinformation in the first place, to not sit back and wait for someone to cry foul.
Gee whiz, I leave for a day or two, and you all bicker amongst yourselves!
As I commented on this or perhaps another, I warned that photoshopping or altering comments, or attributing words incorrectly, is very dangerous. Just because we can all be wise guys on social media doesn’t make it OK.
Of course there may be some folks gifted to such a degree that they can spot a “tell” in fake news. I think many more people will accept what they see and/or read without double-checking. That is why I like cartoons — make of it what you will.
As I commented on this or perhaps another, I warned that photoshopping or altering comments, or attributing words incorrectly, is very dangerous. Just because we can all be wise guys on social media doesn’t make it OK.
if it's very dangerous, why haven't you once criticized Trump when he does it?
lol. after recent signs of intelligence, the WSJ returns to it's old wackaloon self
"President Trump delivered one of the best speeches of his Presidency Friday evening at Mount Rushmore," the @wsj editorial board says https://t.co/UgKJCoPA4G
Things that Trump actually says and proudly disseminates are bad enough without making things up.
For example, this tweet, which says it's all the black guy's fault that we can't have that nice flag displayed any more.
Has @BubbaWallace apologized to all of those great NASCAR drivers & officials who came to his aid, stood by his side, & were willing to sacrifice everything for him, only to find out that the whole thing was just another HOAX? That & Flag decision has caused lowest ratings EVER!
It's silly to rant about obviously cartoonish "photoshops", which are really just like editorial cartoons. Even the stupid ones which still use Nancy Pelosi's freezer as something we're supposed to be upset about.
Meanwhile, the actual President of the United States gives an actual Independence Day address in which he gives a cartoonish view of American history, to stir up his ignorant and resentful voting base.
""Together, we will fight for the American Dream, and we will defend, protect, and preserve American way of life, which began in 1492 when Columbus discovered America."
It's silly to rant about obviously cartoonish "photoshops", which are really just like editorial cartoons. Even the stupid ones which still use Nancy Pelosi's freezer as something we're supposed to be upset about.
Meanwhile, the actual President of the United States gives an actual Independence Day address in which he gives a cartoonish view of American history, to stir up his ignorant and resentful voting base.
""Together, we will fight for the American Dream, and we will defend, protect, and preserve American way of life, which began in 1492 when Columbus discovered America."
I can usually tell a fake Trump statement from a real one because the real ones are usually too stupid to be believable -- like the one you just posted about Columbus. Few parodists are able to strip themselves of enough self-respect to write at the level of an actual Trump statement.
I can usually tell a fake Trump statement from a real one because the real ones are usually too stupid to be believable -- like the one you just posted about Columbus. Few parodists are able to strip themselves of enough self-respect to write at the level of an actual Trump statement.
I'm often googling presidential "quotes" because I don't want to be taken in by fakes, and it's become difficult to tell the difference from the real ones.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/analysis/2018/09/08/according-to-donald-trump-a-lot-of-people-are-crying-around-donald-trump.html