The Stuff removed / changed / pulled relating to Trump

Elijin

Elite Member
Legacy
May 10, 2020
258
367
68
Oh no the banks are going after that one guy with a lifetime of accruing debt, welching on contracts, failed businesses and bankruptcies.

Oh noooo, somebody stop them, oh noo.

Locking him out of his money, or reclaiming outstanding debts and bad business deals? Nah it's Trump, so they must be biased thieves, right Dwarven, Houseman?
 

Elijin

Elite Member
Legacy
May 10, 2020
258
367
68
....so he has... less responsibility? He should be held to a lower standard? He's the President of the United States.
Yeah actually, how did I miss that? Probably because it was 5am.

Houseman, you're arguing that ambigious headlines are worse than the president of the US making sweeping inflammatory comments about racial groups?
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,661
691
118
You mentioned "articles" in the beginning of the discussion quite clearly and not "headlines". So there, instead of admitting you were wrong you went full Donald Trump and just lied your way out of it. No surprise you admire him, you use the same communication techniques.
Yes, Asita pointed that out already. I was using not "article" to refer to the body of the article, like how one might say "bottle" when referring to the design of the label as opposed to the glass itself. It was not the most accurate thing to say, and I apologize for the confusion.

....so he has... less responsibility? He should be held to a lower standard? He's the President of the United States.
How many speeches do you think a President gives in a term?
How many words make up those speeches?
How many opportunities might there be to take a few words out of context and present something in a worse light?

If, let's just pretend, if the media were biased against Trump, and wanted its audience to dislike Trump, wouldn't taking words out of context and painting a false view benefit them?

How can one have a "responsibility" to avoid or prevent one's words from being maliciously twisted?

Houseman, you're arguing that ambigious headlines are worse than the president of the US making sweeping inflammatory comments about racial groups?
What you think is a "sweeping inflammatory comment about racial groups" is the result of malicious groups taking his words out of context and editorializing
 
Last edited:

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
536
400
68
Country
United States
How many speeches do you think a President gives in a term?
How many words make up those speeches?
How many opportunities might there be to take a few words out of context and present something in a worse light?

If, let's just pretend, if the media were biased against Trump, and wanted its audience to dislike Trump, wouldn't taking words out of context and painting a false view benefit them?

How can one have a "responsibility" to avoid or prevent one's words from being maliciously twisted?
How many articles and shows do you think a media channel makes in a term?
How many words make up those articles and shows?
How many opportunities might there be to take a few words out of context and present something in a worse light?

If, let's just pretend, if you were biased against the media channel, and wanted those listening to dislike the media channel, wouldn't taking words out of context and painting a false view benefit them?

How can one have a "responsibility" to avoid or prevent one's words from being maliciously twisted?
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,661
691
118
How many articles and shows do you think a media channel makes in a term?
How many words make up those articles and shows?
How many opportunities might there be to take a few words out of context and present something in a worse light?
How many opportunities does the news org have to take words out of context? As many words as they write. Each word is a fresh new opportunity.

If, let's just pretend, if you were biased against the media channel, and wanted those listening to dislike the media channel, wouldn't taking words out of context and painting a false view benefit them?
No it wouldn't benefit them. It would be the opposite of a benefit.

How can one have a "responsibility" to avoid or prevent one's words from being maliciously twisted?
One can't, which was my point.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
536
400
68
Country
United States
How many opportunities does the news org have to take words out of context? As many words as they write. Each word is a fresh new opportunity.
How many opportunities do you and your ilk have to take words out of context? As many words as you write. Each word is a fresh new opportunity.

No it wouldn't benefit them. It would be the opposite of a benefit.
Same answer applies to when you asked it then *shrug*

One can't, which was my point.
So the media can't be held responsible for you and your ilk taking their words out of context either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,661
691
118
How many opportunities do you and your ilk have to take words out of context? As many words as you write. Each word is a fresh new opportunity.
Let's suppose "me and my ilk" do take the media's words out of context. How much reach do "we" have? How many news organizations do "we" control, that we use to spread our message? Is it a threat big enough to worry about?

Same answer applies to when you asked it then *shrug*
No, I think you failed to properly switch the pronouns. You replaced "them" with "you" in one place, but not in all places, so you changed the meaning of the sentence.
You should have written "...wouldn't taking words out of context and painting a false view benefit you?" instead of "...benefit them"

So the media can't be held responsible for you and your ilk taking their words out of context either.
I never said that they should be held responsible for others taking their words out of context.
I said they have a responsibility to not take others out of context.

Oh no the banks are going after that one guy with a lifetime of accruing debt, welching on contracts, failed businesses and bankruptcies.

Oh noooo, somebody stop them, oh noo.

Locking him out of his money, or reclaiming outstanding debts and bad business deals? Nah it's Trump, so they must be biased thieves, right Dwarven, Houseman?
Would you be okay with it if your bank were owned by "the alt-right" and they banned you from it because they disagreed with you?
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
1,299
857
118
Country
United Kingdom
How many speeches do you think a President gives in a term?
How many words make up those speeches?
How many opportunities might there be to take a few words out of context and present something in a worse light?

If, let's just pretend, if the media were biased against Trump, and wanted its audience to dislike Trump, wouldn't taking words out of context and painting a false view benefit them?

How can one have a "responsibility" to avoid or prevent one's words from being maliciously twisted?
Literally every point here applies to Trump no less than it applies to reporters & op-ed writers.

You're arguing that we can ignore the entire actual content of the article, and blame reporters for the fact that readers might take their headlines alone out of context... and at the same time we must give Trump the benefit of the doubt and strenuously interpret the context favourably.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,661
691
118
You're arguing that we can ignore the entire actual content of the article, and blame reporters for the fact that readers might take their headlines alone out of context...
I'm arguing that most people do not read the articles, but merely look at the headlines. Do you disagree?

And as such, the media should be very careful about what they put as their headline. In fact, I think they already are being very careful about their headlines, such that their headlines are not the result of laziness, but are purposefully crafted.

So yes, they should be held accountable for their headlines.

Headlines don't have context, they stand alone. That's the point. To stand alone and grab your attention.

and at the same time we must give Trump the benefit of the doubt and strenuously interpret the context favourably.
Let's look at it like this: The "Stand Alone Principle". Does a sentence "stand alone" or is it part of a greater context?
If it stands alone: Then no, you don't need to evaluate the context
If it doesn't stand alone, but is part of a larger context: you need to evaluate it.

So since headlines stand alone, you don't need to evaluate the context in order to hold someone responsible for it.
Since sentences inside of paragraphs inside of speeches aren't stand-alone, you need to evaluate the context before holding someone responsible for it.

If there is context to consider, consider it.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,661
691
118
Strikes me that the contents of an article provide an enormous amount of context to that article's headline.
Do you deny that clickbait headlines are a thing? Or that the headlines can even contradict or be misleading when tested against the article?

The first google result: https://honestreporting.com/tag/misleading-headlines/

Headlines actually impact the way we read and remember articles.

Responding to a 2014 study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied on the effects of misinformation in headlines, Maria Konnikova wrote in The New Yorker:

Psychologists have long known that first impressions really do matter—what we see, hear, feel, or experience in our first encounter with something colors how we process the rest of it. Articles are no exception. And just as people can manage the impression that they make through their choice of attire, so, too, can the crafting of the headline subtly shift the perception of the text that follows. By drawing attention to certain details or facts, a headline can affect what existing knowledge is activated in your head. By its choice of phrasing, a headline can influence your mindset as you read so that you later recall details that coincide with what you were expecting.
 

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,921
2,076
118
Do you deny that clickbait headlines are a thing? Or that the headlines can even contradict or be misleading when tested against the article?
No, I'm literally just pointing out that the claim that headlines don't have context is patently untrue.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
1,299
857
118
Country
United Kingdom
I'm arguing that most people do not read the articles, but merely look at the headlines. Do you disagree?

And as such, the media should be very careful about what they put as their headline. In fact, I think they already are being very careful about their headlines, such that their headlines are not the result of laziness, but are purposefully crafted.

So yes, they should be held accountable for their headlines.

Headlines don't have context, they stand alone. That's the point. To stand alone and grab your attention.
And by the same token, most people will only be aware of the content of an American President's speech from select little snippets. If that President throws in wildly inflammatory snippets, then he has equal responsibility for that.


Let's look at it like this: The "Stand Alone Principle". Does a sentence "stand alone" or is it part of a greater context?
If it stands alone: Then no, you don't need to evaluate the context
If it doesn't stand alone, but is part of a larger context: you need to evaluate it.

So since headlines stand alone, you don't need to evaluate the context in order to hold someone responsible for it.
Since sentences inside of paragraphs inside of speeches aren't stand-alone, you need to evaluate the context before holding someone responsible for it.

If there is context to consider, consider it.
Headlines do not stand alone. Their entire purpose is to provide a brief, non-exhaustive summary of the main thrust of an article.

Quite simply, you want a speaker you like and support to be absolved of anything except the most charitable interpretation of his statements, and meanwhile you want speakers you don't like to be judged on the worst interpretations people could take.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,661
691
118
And by the same token, most people will only be aware of the content of an American President's speech from select little snippets. If that President throws in wildly inflammatory snippets, then he has equal responsibility for that.
The snips aren't "inflammatory" when viewed in context, that's the point. They're only inflammatory when taken out of context and editorialized upon.

Headlines do not stand alone. Their entire purpose is to provide a brief, non-exhaustive summary of the main thrust of an article.
I disagree.

Quite simply, you want a speaker you like and support to be absolved of anything except the most charitable interpretation of his statements, and meanwhile you want speakers you don't like to be judged on the worst interpretations people could take.
I disagree.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
1,299
857
118
Country
United Kingdom
The snips aren't "inflammatory" when viewed in context, that's the point. They're only inflammatory when taken out of context and editorialized upon.
That's highly debatable, considering in context Trump never actually limited his statement to only criminals, or only illegal immigrants, or whatever. He flat out just says "Mexico" and "Mexicans". You and others have had to infer context in order to make it more charitable.

But this is entirely beside the point. View the headlines in the context of the actual article they're a part of, and they're not bad either. I merely want you to apply the same standard to speakers you like and speakers you don't.

I disagree.
They're literally part of the article. You may as well say that a picture used to illustrate an article shouldn't be viewed in the context of the article. Its entire purpose is as part of the article.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,661
691
118
But this is entirely beside the point. View the headlines in the context of the actual article they're a part of, and they're not bad either. I merely want you to apply the same standard to speakers you like and speakers you don't.
When have I ever taken a speaker I don't like out of context before?


They're literally part of the article. You may as well say that a picture used to illustrate an article shouldn't be viewed in the context of the article. Its entire purpose is as part of the article.
That reminds me, pictures can be misleading and taken out of context too.

For example


And news articles talking about a NY hospital being overcrowded, but using a picture from a different country

Images have a context of their own: reality. Not just what the photographer wants to include in the frame, but the things outside of the frame as well.


I'm reminded of a cartoon that shows guy A running away from guy B who has a knife, but the view in the camera appears to show the reverse, where guy A's foot looks like a knife, and guy B's knife and arm looks like a person running away.

oh, found it:




So no, we can't always rely on the article to provide accurate context for the image. The image may not truly be what the article describes.
Edit: re-worded that last two sentences to avoid confusion.
 
Last edited:

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,416
240
68
Country
USA
So no, we shouldn't try to understand the image in the context of the article, both of them may be misleading.
Would you care to rephrase this? "Don't bother trying to understand, cause it might not be true" is a little absurd, even by your standards.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,661
691
118
Would you care to rephrase this? "Don't bother trying to understand, cause it might not be true" is a little absurd, even by your standards.
By "understanding the image in the context of the article", I mean "using the article to give you an idea of what the image is about".
So, for example, in my last image above, the cartoon, it might show the guy on the left stabbing the guy on the right, when really, the reverse is true.

We can't necessarily rely on the article to provide context on, or tell us the truth about, the image.