It's not about dying on a hill over bleach/disinfectant
It's about Tstorm being able to say your wrong on one word. Thus they can then claim that your whole statement is wrong. Then all statements
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
It's about Tstorm being able to say your wrong on one word. Thus they can then claim that your whole statement is wrong. Then all statements
Their claim is there's a media narrative conspiracy to twist everything he stands for into "pretending" to be something awful which it really actually isn't - but that is dependent on a person thinking gross negligence, insensitivity, incompetence and general awfulness in elected officials is a bad thing to be criticised and avoided.
This is straight after claiming that Biden is destroying America... which sounds like criticism
Well, of course. Biden isn't being criticized for gross negligence, insensitivity, incompetence or general awfulness (all of which he does display). He's being criticized for being a Democrat...
I have come to inflict pain.
What I find hilarious is hearing Republicans A) claim that backing anyone but Trump is "begging for President Harris" and B) demand that Biden be impeached. Who do they think is next in line if that happens?
New Report Warns U.S., Allies of Two Front War with China, North Korea - USNI News
The United States and allies must be prepared for a two-front war in Northeast Asia and nuclear attacks in the next decade, a new report from the Atlantic Council warns. “The risk of simultaneous conflict [with China and North Korea] are very high,” Markus Garlauskas, the author, said in a...
news.usni.org
It won't be just a two-front war.
Japan & UK & Australia & Taiwan & the US v China.
SK v NK.
Japan v Russia's western half.
EU and or Ukraine v Russia's Eastern half.
Pakistan v India over the Indian Ocean.
IDF and Saudis v Iran and Syria.
Canada v Russia in the Arctic.
And the UN sits with a thumb up its ass while complaining it has a smaller budget than NYC's.
It will be a shitshow, but at least I can't get drafted so I get to watch.
Nah, that is exactly the sort of hill I die on. The more meaningless the distinction, the less forgivable it can be.
Trump said something really, really dumb. I do not dispute that. He asked if we could just disinfect the covid out of people, he thought UV blasting people's lungs might be a real solution. You do not have to make it worse to criticize that. The truth is plenty bad enough. It was really dumb. So why did they have to lie about it? It's just to make people angry. People get angrier at someone being dangerous than someone being ignorant. And people get angry at the media lying about what he said. And both these things drive both media engagement and polarization. And they're doing it on purpose. It's just clickbait tactics, but it's politically toxic rhetoric that ought not to exist.
If you can be right and win an argument, if the facts support your position, why would you insert one meaningless lie into your claims? People can concede that one word is wrong without meaningfully changing their position, and I'd just let it stand without disagreement.
Who here said Biden is destroying America?
They're not generally lying though, in the sense it's not a deliberate falsehood. It's a fuzzy memory, where they remember that he said something vaguely dumb about bleach, but not all the specifics. It's like people slightly misremember quotes (often paraphrasing) or may misattribute them, or approximate on figures and dates.
I don't know how much value there really is criticising people for having normally imperfect, human memories. One can be a pedant and demand the crystal accuracy, but often the main accomplishment of doing so is more to make oneself look like an annoying tool. If correcting them, better often to do so in a way that is more tactful and useful by also acknowledging the degree of truth in their comment, or if you like the "spirit" of it.
You go on to discuss arguments. Now, if someone is constructing a logical proposition and the error causes a critical flaw in their position, sure, go for it. But if it's just a casual comment or criticism, or has no real relevance to the structure of an argument, you may as well not bother. After all, for instance, if the criticism is Trump says a ton of dumb shit, complaining that the dumb shit he genuinely said was slightly misdescribed doesn't have much substance.
It's not a fuzzy memory though. "Trump told people to drink bleach" is not a slight misremembering of events, it's a perfect remembering of what they were told at the time. The media lied about it the moment that it happened. It was deliberate, coordinated, and sinister.
Look at the headlines from when it happened:
"Suggests", "suggests", "suggest", and "suggestion", every outlet parroted the same line. "Suggest" is a very specifically vague word to use here: as a synonym of "propose" or "theorize", it is an accurate description of events, but it's also synonymous with "recommend" or "advise", and not a single one of those headlines makes clear by context which meaning of "suggest" is being used. People certainly can read those headlines as "Trump told people to inject disinfectant", as they were designed to give you that impression without technically lying.
The Atlantic had probably the most egregious coverage with:
Why It’s Important Not to Drink Bleach
Doctors and nurses are risking their lives and dying. People are out of work and struggling to make rent. The president of the United States is suggesting injecting disinfectant.
www.theatlantic.com
Even the NPR game shows got in on it: when a contestant answered that Trump said about injecting disinfectant, they not only also used the word "suggested" like the others, they responded to the answer with "right, or bleach". I heard this happen on the radio at the time, but you can find it about 35 seconds into the Lightning Fill In The Blank here: https://www.npr.org/programs/wait-w...-25-2020-with-not-my-job-guest-allison-janney
I am not blaming anyone on these forums for not remembering precisely what Donald Trump said. I am blaming the media for the people here remembering exactly what the media told them. My primary concern here is you seeing when you're being lied to.
Your absurd overanalysis here is all about you and very little about anyone else.
Yes, Trump did suggest injecting bleach. That is not misrepresentation, it not sinister or irresponsible to report that, it's what he did.
This is one part a tangential, de facto defence of Trump saying something extraordinarily stupid and reckless by shifting the target onto something more palatable to you and your personal axe to grind (the media). The other part is that the "You guys are just sheeple who believe what the media says" that you keep deploying is just a concealed way of saying "I'm cleverer than you". Do you not realise we can all see you doing that, and do you not understand why it gets such short shrift? And every time you launch into long and specious discussions about what "suggest" means or equivalent, it just rings even more hollow because it is so unconvincing.
That's a lot of why some people can be very short with you. If you want to go round telling people you are cleverer than them, you at least need to back it up with solid reasoning and argumentation that makes them think "Whoa, that's actually a good point". They might still not like it, but at least they could respect it.
This is completely ridiculous. You just said the "drinking bleach" thing is a perfect remembering of what the media said. Then you show a list of headlines, absolutely none of which say he suggested drinking bleach. So it's not a perfect remembering of that, is it? The media accurately reported what he did literally suggest-- injecting disinfectant. He did suggest that.
I'm sorry that your party's candidate suggested doing something insanely dangerous and that the media accurately reported, but that's what happened.
According to the CDC, there were instances of people gargling bleach (sometimes diluted) and swallowing disinfectant.The Atlantic had probably the most egregious coverage with:
Why It’s Important Not to Drink Bleach
Doctors and nurses are risking their lives and dying. People are out of work and struggling to make rent. The president of the United States is suggesting injecting disinfectant.
If you want the media to ignore legitimate dangers in order to coddle the reputation of the President, then you're not understanding their role.
So when I say " Trump said something really, really dumb. I do not dispute that. He asked if we could just disinfect the covid out of people, he thought UV blasting people's lungs might be a real solution. You do not have to make it worse to criticize that. The truth is plenty bad enough. It was really dumb.", you consider that a defense of Trump? My criticism of Trump counts as a defense if I don't just agree to untruths?
And when I say "I am not blaming anyone on these forums for not remembering precisely what Donald Trump said. I am blaming the media for the people here remembering exactly what the media told them", that's me claiming I'm more clever than everyone else? I genuinely mean that. It's not your fault when someone lies to you. It's not a personal attack to say you were lied to.
Why am I not allowed to criticize the media without it being about something else? Why is it simultaneously a defense of Trump and an insult to you when I say the media lies? It's neither of those things, I just care that they're lying.
And then linked the Atlantic article titled "Why It's Important Not to Drink Bleach", and an NPR segment offering up that his comments were about bleach. Which I know you read, because you then responded to it.
There were increased rates of ingestion of disinfectant before Trump said that, because it was a pandemic, and everyone had them everywhere, and accidents happen. There is no evidence his comments caused people to drink bleach. If the media genuinely wanted to avoid people thinking that though, they probably wouldn't have posted headlines claiming the President was suggesting that treatment. Like, that NBC result above doesn't even visibly dispute it, you would have to click inside to see any warnings of the dangers.
Because many people here read further and deeper than you appear to give them credit for.
But there is fault in believing an untrustworthy source. When you say to someone "You just believe what the media tells you", that is not just finding fault with the media.
Deflection onto other targets (e.g. "whataboutery") is a form of defence.
The former doesn't say he suggested it. The latter is not a headline or even article or news piece, its a fuzzy paraphrase from midway through a live recorded gameshow, in which one person says it.
So if there were increased rates of that dangerous behaviour, why are you insisting the media shouldn't warn against it? You believe that the media shouldn't warn against legitimate dangers just in case... uhrm, in case other people think they're criticising the President?
They didn't. Not a single headline said he suggested drinking bleach. The headlines you posted about were accurate to the insanely irresponsible suggestion he did make, and you're objecting solely because it made your party's administration look like whackjobs.
Last edited:
Brianna Ghey: Teenager denies murdering 16-year-old
The transgender girl died after she was found with fatal stab wounds in a park in Cheshire.
www.google.com
Of course one of them would deny being involved. They didn't reveal which gender is denying that they were involved in the murder.
Finally, 11 weeks after announcing she would resign with immediate effect, British Tory MP Nadine Dorries has finally resigned. Of course, she has done so exceptionally gracelessly, just like her hero Boris Johnson.
www.theguardian.com
This comes after two of the local councils in her constituency publicly called for her to resign, and the PM Rishi Sunak has also publicly criticised her, on the basis she has not been meaningfully representing her voters. She has apparently not held a constituency surgery since before covid, has pretty much not even been seen in the constituency (she no longer even lives there), has not spoken in the House of Commons for well over a year, and voted in the Commons just six times.
Dorries claims she has been working for her ~£90k a year MP salary, even if no-one can apparently see much evidence. She also employs her daughter on £50k a year as some sort of MP office manager, at public expense. Meanwhile, she has been writing a book (a hagiography of Boris Johnson) and pulling a salary presenting on a right-wing news network, a job that she does at least turn up for.
This is in a way very sad. Dorries does come from a very underprivileged background, a class wildly underrepresented in Parliament. It is thus exceptionally painful that she has ended out the worst sort of over-wealthy, entitled nit who apparently thinks she can pocket public money (as a multimillionaire) whilst neglecting the needs of the citizens she represents. Or that she has worked for a party that has so tirelessly worked to further disadvantage people with backgrounds like hers.
Good riddance.
Nadine Dorries formally resigns as MP with broadside against Rishi Sunak
Former minister accuses PM of ‘whipping public frenzy’ against her in letter sent 11 weeks after she said she would stand down
www.theguardian.com
This comes after two of the local councils in her constituency publicly called for her to resign, and the PM Rishi Sunak has also publicly criticised her, on the basis she has not been meaningfully representing her voters. She has apparently not held a constituency surgery since before covid, has pretty much not even been seen in the constituency (she no longer even lives there), has not spoken in the House of Commons for well over a year, and voted in the Commons just six times.
Dorries claims she has been working for her ~£90k a year MP salary, even if no-one can apparently see much evidence. She also employs her daughter on £50k a year as some sort of MP office manager, at public expense. Meanwhile, she has been writing a book (a hagiography of Boris Johnson) and pulling a salary presenting on a right-wing news network, a job that she does at least turn up for.
This is in a way very sad. Dorries does come from a very underprivileged background, a class wildly underrepresented in Parliament. It is thus exceptionally painful that she has ended out the worst sort of over-wealthy, entitled nit who apparently thinks she can pocket public money (as a multimillionaire) whilst neglecting the needs of the citizens she represents. Or that she has worked for a party that has so tirelessly worked to further disadvantage people with backgrounds like hers.
Good riddance.
She's really brought the House into disrepute. Ah, I'm kidding. Glad she's gone though, a deeply annoying freeloader.Finally, 11 weeks after announcing she would resign with immediate effect, British Tory MP Nadine Dorries has finally resigned. Of course, she has done so exceptionally gracelessly, just like her hero Boris Johnson.
Nadine Dorries formally resigns as MP with broadside against Rishi Sunak
Former minister accuses PM of ‘whipping public frenzy’ against her in letter sent 11 weeks after she said she would stand down
This comes after two of the local councils in her constituency publicly called for her to resign, and the PM Rishi Sunak has also publicly criticised her, on the basis she has not been meaningfully representing her voters. She has apparently not held a constituency surgery since before covid, has pretty much not even been seen in the constituency (she no longer even lives there), has not spoken in the House of Commons for well over a year, and voted in the Commons just six times.
Dorries claims she has been working for her ~£90k a year MP salary, even if no-one can apparently see much evidence. She also employs her daughter on £50k a year as some sort of MP office manager, at public expense. Meanwhile, she has been writing a book (a hagiography of Boris Johnson) and pulling a salary presenting on a right-wing news network, a job that she does at least turn up for.
This is in a way very sad. Dorries does come from a very underprivileged background, a class wildly underrepresented in Parliament. It is thus exceptionally painful that she has ended out the worst sort of over-wealthy, entitled nit who apparently thinks she can pocket public money (as a multimillionaire) whilst neglecting the needs of the citizens she represents. Or that she has worked for a party that has so tirelessly worked to further disadvantage people with backgrounds like hers.
Good riddance.
You've got a good point there.
After all, Dorries has at best a tenuous relationship with truth, and has received countless rebukes for her conduct as an MP (concealing her address of residence, undeclared earnings, going away and not serving her constituents for months on a reality TV show, etc.) with no discernable consequences of note. If MPs decline to keep their own House clean, and the public decline to pressure MPs to keep their House clean, they can expect it to be very, very grubby.
They certainly can, that does not mean they do in every case. You've insisted yourself, this distinction is minor.
I have said things like that, but I believe I've always qualified it with something like "about this". I don't believe anyone here is universally uncritical of the news, you've demonstrated the willingness and capability of questioning and validating information on many occasions. But nobody has the capacity to fact check everything, this just happens to be one I dug down into.
Now, when you're presented the evidence and you double down, that may be worthy of criticism.
Deflection and whataboutisms are both scenarios where you change the topic. We're still talking about what Trump said, so I have done neither of those things.