The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
DaveSchmidt said:
We’re not likely to ever build herd immunity to disinformation on social media. (And basil’s strategy of coughing first, then putting on a mask after someone asks, won’t help.) My pitch is that we’ll get closer if we become more attentive listeners and readers, better able to spot the false notes in language and tone and other idiosyncrasies as often as we can, rather than concede that it’s getting too hard to tell the difference.
All I’m really saying is that I’d rather we commit to being more perceptive ourselves — not only to what others say but to how they say it — than yield to the idea that fakes are becoming too believable. If we all think we’re already as good at this as we can be, manipulators will continue to have a field day.
that's a complete misrepresentation of my meaning. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite. I look this stuff up precisely because I realize how important it is to verify what's true and what isn't. Even you, as perceptive as you are about idiosyncrasies and tone were apparently not so convinced that tweet was false that you didn't feel the need to confirm:
DaveSchmidt said:drummerboy said:
this took me about 7 seconds of googling
Four seconds to read the tweet, one to spot the parody, two more to confirm. We’re even.
ml1 said:
Even you, as perceptive as you are about idiosyncrasies and tone were apparently not so convinced that tweet was false that you didn't feel the need to confirm:
Confirmation is always wise, no matter how convinced one is. And I was convinced.
(I’m aware that makes sound like I think I can’t be fooled. Of course I can be. Knowing that keeps me committed to trying to be better.)
ml1 said:
that's a complete misrepresentation of my meaning. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite.
Sorry. I thought you and drummerboy were saying how believable the parody was.
You checked it. Great — checking everything we see on social media is another way to combat disinformation. I don’t always have the time to confirm everything that’s perfectly or even only 95 percent believable, however, so I find it more effective to try honing my radar.
ml1 said:
that's a complete misrepresentation of my meaning. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite.
Don't worry, he is completely mis-representing me too, so it ain't personal. He is an equal opportunity misrepresenter.
basil said:
Don't worry, he is completely mis-representing me too, so it ain't personal. He is an equal opportunity misrepresenter.
My apologies to you, then, as well.
Meanwhile, back to things that Trump actually says.
As long as he has his f*cking wall, he doesn't give a sh*t about anything or anybody else.
https://t.co/UofUgsWXXv pic.twitter.com/DXr6rPYi6m
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 6, 2020
DaveSchmidt said:
Sorry. I thought you and drummerboy were saying how believable the parody was.
You checked it. Great — checking everything we see on social media is another way to combat disinformation. I don’t always have the time to confirm everything that’s perfectly or even only 95 percent believable, however, so I find it more effective to try honing my radar.
that Trump could have said that if the men on Mt. Rushmore could speak, they would say he belongs there is entirely believable. It didn't mean I thought the tweet was a real quote. That's why I checked it out as you did.
While all these Posters comments are self-serving pats on the back for themselves, being able to suss out fake comments among the millions of comments, quotes, observations, etc., that flow out of our devices and blur our collection vision 24/7, comes with practice. Sad, but true. We will soon believe nothing. What we see with our own eyes has most likely been manipulated.
Meanwhile, as we sit in our safe homes, picking lint out of our navels, this is real. And before the first response is gun control (albeit a factor) , human beings are shooting guns, human beings are dying from violent, random shootings in many cities in our country, just this past holiday weekend. Why?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/us/chicago-shootings-july-4-weekend/index.html
mtierney said:
And before the first response is gun control (albeit a factor) , human beings are shooting guns, human beings are dying from violent, random shootings in many cities in our country, just this past holiday weekend. Why?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/us/chicago-shootings-july-4-weekend/index.html
I mean, there are answers to those questions. You've already pre-emptivey said you don't want to hear some of those answer right in your post. In your comments regarding institutional racism, you've made clear you don't want to hear the remaining answers. So, what are you hoping for in this post, since you're clearly not actually asking a question? Just make whatever statement you intend to make rather than playing coy.
ml1 said:
that Trump could have said that if the men on Mt. Rushmore could speak, they would say he belongs there is entirely believable. It didn't mean I thought the tweet was a real quote. That's why I checked it out as you did.
Eureka! It’s entirely believable that Trump would say something like that! Not that he could have said that. We’re in violent agreement.
The MOL system works!
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:
that Trump could have said that if the men on Mt. Rushmore could speak, they would say he belongs there is entirely believable. It didn't mean I thought the tweet was a real quote. That's why I checked it out as you did.
Eureka! It’s entirely believable that Trump would say something like that! Not that he could have said that. We’re in violent agreement.
The MOL system works!
that's ridiculous
and remember, we're talking about the man who posed for
dave,
are you trying to make some kind of syntax based argument about why this couldn't have been a real quote?
DaveSchmidt said:
Eureka! It’s entirely believable that Trump would say something like that! Not that he could have said that. We’re in violent agreement.
The MOL system works!
I have to say I've been wondering why you seemed to be scolding me to do exactly what I had already done.
drummerboy said:
dave,
are you trying to make some kind of syntax based argument about why this couldn't have been a real quote?
Already made, DB. I’m done, which should please someone who was remarking on my lengthy reaction many lengthy reactions ago.
drummerboy said:
dave,
are you trying to make some kind of syntax based argument about why this couldn't have been a real quote?
I'm still not convinced it's impossible that Trump could have made that statement, particularly given his frequent use of the word "strong." But whatever. On a message board with its share of pointless arguments, this one was especially pointless. Telling people who read a tweet critically and weren't fooled by it, to read critically and not be fooled by misinformation seems pretty redundant.
Back to actual things happening.
A while ago, I predicted Trump would win, because Republicans fight dirty, using any means necessary. You might call it bringing a gun to a knife fight, my Scottish dad would have called Glasgow Rules. While I agree that Trump's current strategy of doubling down on his white nationalist base is a losing strategy (I don't think this is going to matter in the end) this morning's Lincoln Project ad is a masterclass in Glasgow Rules politics. It is a psyop targeting one single person. It's dirty as heck, it's creepy as heck, it's up there with Willie Horton and the Daisy ads of old. And only Republicans could make something like it.
Wow! How about we put Biden in bubble wrap to protect him until the all clear siren is heard. No debates? Just how significant are his “issues” ? Protecting him from public appearances before Election Day is blatant Media manipulation. Why are Democrats afraid of — and for —their candidate?
mtierney said:
Wow! How about we put Biden in bubble wrap to protect him until the all clear siren is heard. No debates? Just how significant are his “issues” ? Protecting him from public appearances before Election Day is blatant Media manipulation. Why are Democrats afraid of — and for —their candidate?
why are you paying any attention to what Tom Friedman thinks?
ml1 said:
mtierney said:
Wow! How about we put Biden in bubble wrap to protect him until the all clear siren is heard. No debates? Just how significant are his “issues” ? Protecting him from public appearances before Election Day is blatant Media manipulation. Why are Democrats afraid of — and for —their candidate?
why are you paying any attention to what Tom Friedman thinks?
Mr. Ml1 - Why are you assuming that the Friedman article has anything to do with what's in Ms. Mtierney's post? Other times, we've been told that links aren't always related to what's written in the same post.
Also, the Friedman article doesn't say "no debates", it says that Trump shouldn't be allowed to cheat if there are debates. Completely different point.
nohero said:
Mr. Ml1 - Why are you assuming that the Friedman article has anything to do with what's in Ms. Mtierney's post? Other times, we've been told that links aren't always related to what's written in the same post.
Also, the Friedman article doesn't say "no debates", it says that Trump shouldn't be allowed to cheat if there are debates. Completely different point.
I read the link. And it's typical Friedman fantasyland stuff. As if Trump would release his tax returns under any circumstances. The net effect if the Biden campaign actually took that advice would be no debates.
ridski said:
It's dirty as heck, it's creepy as heck, it's up there with Willie Horton and the Daisy ads of old. And only Republicans could make something like it.
“This is trying to build a coalition of the decent.” An interview with a Lincoln Project founder, Jennifer Horn:
DaveSchmidt said:
“This is trying to build a coalition of the decent.” An interview with a Lincoln Project founder, Jennifer Horn:
Chicago has a bigger problem, getting worse by the day...
Also from the Sun-Times...
"Typical Friedman fantasyland stuff" is a pretty apt description of most of his columns, IMO. Still, let's test out his theory.
Hey mtierney, what exactly is your objection to having Trump release his taxes and having there be a fact checker at the debate?
Now if Friedman is right, mtierney will respond by saying she agrees that Trump "should be able to continue hiding [his] tax returns from you all, even though [he] promised that [he] wouldn’t and even though Biden has shown you his" and that he should "be able to make any statement ... without any independent fact-checking."
Or maybe she'll just ignore this, or change the topic (something something Biden Clinton Benghazi emails) or fall back on Trump being a failed businessman giving him a pass for being a failure of a president.
Trump is back to denying scientific and medical advice.
It's as if the last 6 months never made an impression on him or his ignorant supporters. I disagree with @CDCgov on their very tough & expensive guidelines for opening schools. While they want them open, they are asking schools to do very impractical things. I will be meeting with them!!!
mtierney said:
Chicago has a bigger problem, getting worse by the day...
Also from the Sun-Times...
Is there a weird trigger in your brain that fires murder stats as soon as you see the word "Chicago" no matter what the context?
ridski said:
Is there a weird trigger in your brain that fires murder stats as soon as you see the word "Chicago" no matter what the context?
and we have also been through the fact that taking these numbers out of context is incredibly misleading. Even though homicides are up over last year in Chicago, the number is LOWER than it was at this time in 2017. It's entirely possible that this is random year to year variation, not a crime wave.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/upshot/murders-rising-crime-coronavirus.html
PVW.....I guess our moment of rapport was just that. I am happy to answer questions — Not asked in a snarky — or as we used to say, BITD, snotty — manner! Putting words in someone else’s mouth is gross — a technique refined by losers.
mtierney said:
PVW.....I guess our moment of rapport was just that. I am happy to answer questions — Not asked in a snarky — or as we used to say, BITD, snotty — manner! Putting words in someone else’s mouth is gross — a technique refined by losers.
Well I'll be honest, it's a struggle. On the one hand I do want to have actual exchanges. On the other hand, I'm not a robot, and Trump and his supporters directly attack many of my deeply held personal beliefs, which makes it hard to maintain emotional distance.
I would say that with your posts, what I find most galling is your refusal to take responsibility for your views. So for instance, in previous exchanges, you've made claims to being in favor of legal immigration but opposed to illegal immigration, and yet in the face of Trump's attacks on all forms of immigration you either remain silent or express support. You don't strike me as someone who, like Trump, just outright lies, which makes me think it's mostly yourself you are lying to, but in that case, how can we have a real exchange if you are unable to be honest with yourself about your beliefs?
On a smaller scale, in the piece I happened to respond to here, while Friedman is naive in the strategy he lays out, his point -- that Trump should have to answer for his dishonesty and deception -- is a legitimate one. But you, as a Trump supporter, will not address this. Again, it seems to me that this is more from an inability to be honest with yourself and admit what you are supporting than an outright desire to lie or deceive (ie I disagree you are a "troll").
So that's my frustration with you. It is very hard, bordering on impossible, to have an authentic exchange of views with someone who is unable or unwilling to be authentic with themselves. Beyond your strong loyalty to the Republican party and strong dislike of the Democratic party, I've struggled to see any consistent set of values or beliefs in your posts over the years.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Advertisement
We’re not likely to ever build herd immunity to disinformation on social media. (And basil’s strategy of coughing first, then putting on a mask after someone asks, won’t help.) My pitch is that we’ll get closer if we become more attentive listeners and readers, better able to spot the false notes in language and tone and other idiosyncrasies as often as we can, rather than concede that it’s getting too hard to tell the difference.
All I’m really saying is that I’d rather we commit to being more perceptive ourselves — not only to what others say but to how they say it — than yield to the idea that fakes are becoming too believable. If we all think we’re already as good at this as we can be, manipulators will continue to have a field day.