• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
This forum would be a crashing bore without its eccentrics.

("Crashing bore." Jesus, what a hackneyed phrase. See what I mean?)
 
PhantomWolf said:
I actually agree with the article. I stayed up late (early?) and watched the first half live, then watched the second half delayed.

What I got from it was a man who was very carefully choosing his words, which lead to what seemed a little stumbling at times as he thought his way through how to answer the question. Occasionally he asked for a repeat of the question, which would use up time, and allow him to consider the question further, and often ended up simply deflecting it after having wasted the questioner's time.

The only two things I think he did struggle a little with was picking out who was speaking and hearing a few of them when they didn't speak directly into their mics, and since he does have a hearing issue at 74, this isn't entirely surprising.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree more with the article than I disagree with it, but I do get a whiff of "he's playing 10-d chess!" from it.

I think a lot of how he acted came down to choosing his works carefully in order not to be used politically by either side, and, in fact, I'd guess that his request to the DoJ for limits on what he could and could not say was to enable him to do so, but a fair bit also came down (as you say) to being 74 and somewhat deaf.

I'd also like to note that a common criticism of Mueller is that he had to refer to his report, which some are painting as him not knowing what was in it or not really being in charge of the investigation. I think that a more parsimonious explanation is that he didn't want to be seen to agree to or disagree with a re-phrasing of anything in the report that could subtly alter its meaning - which is why he kept asking to be referred to the exact quotes, or saying variations on "I refer you to the report on that issue" and "if that's how it's phrased in the report, then I agree with it" - and, of course, that it's a long report which is worded very precisely and, as such, he doesn't have the entire thing memorised.

And I think he's absolutely right to have taken such care. We've seen pro-Trump people claiming that the report exonerates Trump or says that Mueller found no evidence of conspiracy, and we've seen anti-Trump people pouncing on the two slightly ambiguous statements he did make and interpreting them to mean that Mueller said that Trump is liable to prosecution once he leaves office, and that Mueller would have indicted Trump if it weren't for DoJ policy. That's happened with how careful he's been with his language - both in the report and in his testimony. Can you imagine what it would have been like if he'd casually spoken off-the-cuff?
 
Any teacher who has ever said "It's in the syllabus" or any tech support person who ever said "Read the manual" can understand where Mueller was coming from.

"Keep repeating yourself over and over until you slip up and say something we can take out of context or otherwise twist around" is time honored a dirty tactic, I won't fault Mueller for playing his cards close to the chest.
 
Mumbles said:
One other take: it's a bad idea to trust the judgement of a guy who recently drew a blatantly anti-semitic cartoon at the behest of a well-known scammer, conspiracy theory peddler, and blackmailer.
Click to expand...

I thought that went without saying, TBH. I was working under the assumption that everybody in this section of the board would be well aware of who Garrison is, as he's posted here quite regularly.

I usually ignore it, but this one is particularly noteworthy, as the narrative of Mueller as a doddering old man who didn't know where he was is one the right-wing hasn't really thought through. Because if that's truly who Mueller is, then the Republican Congresspeople who were red-faced shouting at him and calling him a traitor look even worse than they already did.

It's just such a stupid own-goal that I thought it was worth pointing out.
 
smartcooky said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y'all

"Y'all is a contraction of you and all. It is usually used as a plural second-person pronoun, but the usage of y'all as an exclusively plural pronoun is a perennial subject of discussion".​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y'all#Singular_usage

There is long-standing disagreement among both laymen and grammarians about whether y'all has primarily or exclusively plural reference. The debate itself extends to the late nineteenth century, and has often been repeated since. While many Southerners hold that y'all is only properly used as a plural pronoun, strong counter evidence suggests that the word is also used with a singular reference, particularly amongst non-Southerners.

H. L. Mencken recognized that y'all or you-all will usually have a plural reference, but acknowledged singular reference use has been observed. ​
Click to expand...
I am the furthest thing from a Southerner, but my understanding was that the plural of "y'all" is "all y'all." :D
 
JoeMorgue said:
The whole "bUt UR ovERusinG Da wORD!" argument sounds a lot like "I'm so racist so much I'm tired of hearing about how racist I am."
Click to expand...

It's kind of clever, in a way. Because accusations of racism actually ARE overused in certain contexts, the Republicans are using that as a implication that each must, therefore, be treated with suspicion. It's a completely predictable response to the overuse of the accusation. Whether it'll actually come back to bit the left in the ass is yet to be seen.
 
Belz... said:
It's kind of clever, in a way. Because accusations of racism actually ARE overused in certain contexts, the Republicans are using that as a implication that each must, therefore, be treated with suspicion. It's a completely predictable response to the overuse of the accusation. Whether it'll actually come back to bit the left in the ass is yet to be seen.
Click to expand...

Without hijacking the topic too far away from the chewy nouget core I think it's more complex then that.

Right now there are (vastly over simplifying this) multiple versions of the word "racism" being used in the popular discourse.

- Racism meaning "personal racism" as in "I don't like person X because they are of race Y." I don't like this person because he's this.

- Racism meaning "personal racism plus power or action" as in "I don't like person X because they are of race Y and I'm in a position of power/influence/authority/etc to actually affect them on a level beyond direct 1:1 encounters." This is where the "You can't be racist against white people" version of racism comes in.

- Racism meaning "You aren't racist, but you aren't NOT racist enough and tolerating racism is a form of racism"

To what degree any of those is the "correct" version is a job for the pedants, but the fact that some much discussion about racism shifts between those definitions, often within the same person or argument, is not doing anyone any favors.

And those are just the biggies that are being argued... somewhat honestly. Add in nonsense like the "It's not racism because it's not cartoonishly over the top racism" or "talking about racism makes you the racist" and it gets even worse.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
There's two things here. The first is that there is an entirely different take.
Click to expand...


Really, there's a different take? All this time studying cultists in this thread I could never imagine that someone would make themselves believe that they witnessed something awesome here (only saw the URL, no need for another cult preacher).

*shakes head*

When you wake up from this nonsense it will be too late. Expect a well-timed show from Trump leading up to his re-election.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Without hijacking the topic too far away from the chewy nouget core I think it's more complex then that.

Right now there are (vastly over simplifying this) multiple versions of the word "racism" being used in the popular discourse.

- Racism meaning "personal racism" as in "I don't like person X because they are of race Y." I don't like this person because he's this.

- Racism meaning "personal racism plus power or action" as in "I don't like person X because they are of race Y and I'm in a position of power/influence/authority/etc to actually affect them on a level beyond direct 1:1 encounters." This is where the "You can't be racist against white people" version of racism comes in.

- Racism meaning "You aren't racist, but you aren't NOT racist enough and tolerating racism is a form of racism"
To what degree any of those is the "correct" version is a job for the pedants, but the fact that some much discussion about racism shifts between those definitions, often within the same person or argument, is not doing anyone any favors.

And those are just the biggies that are being argued... somewhat honestly. Add in nonsense like the "It's not racism because it's not cartoonishly over the top racism" or "talking about racism makes you the racist" and it gets even worse.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with this much more. (I'd probably add in a couple more categories but it gets the idea across)

I think everyone would be better served to use much more specific language that really points to which of these many uses of the term is meant in a given instance.
 
Cavemonster said:
I couldn't agree with this much more. (I'd probably add in a couple more categories but it gets the idea across)

I think everyone would be better served to use much more specific language that really points to which of these many uses of the term is meant in a given instance.
Click to expand...

That's because you're assuming that the confusion is a bug, rather than a feature.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Really, there's a different take? All this time studying cultists in this thread I could never imagine that someone would make themselves believe that they witnessed something awesome here (only saw the URL, no need for another cult preacher).

*shakes head*

When you wake up from this nonsense it will be too late. Expect a well-timed show from Trump leading up to his re-election.
Click to expand...

I find things usually tend more towards the grey than the black or white.
 
Belz... said:
That's because you're assuming that the confusion is a bug, rather than a feature.
Click to expand...

JoeMorgue said:
This.

"Oh just be clearer and they'll understand" doesn't work on pedantic arguments.
Click to expand...

Maybe to a certain extent, but without picking it apart too much, that sounds like you're suggesting that people who use "Racist" to describe a lot of different things are twirling their mustaches and going "Bwa ha ha, this will create confusion!"

I do think there is a certain attempt to lean on the emotive impact of the word "Racist" that most people under 50 at least have been taught since birth is a bad thing. But I don't think that's necessarily a conscious or unchangeable habit.

I honestly have almost the same issue with pat uses of phrases like "It's not a bu, it's a feature" and it's variants standing in for arguments. It suggests nefarious intent without making a specific enough claim to address. It seem guilty of the same intentional confusion that you're alleging here.
 
Cavemonster said:
Maybe to a certain extent, but without picking it apart too much, that sounds like you're suggesting that people who use "Racist" to describe a lot of different things are twirling their mustaches and going "Bwa ha ha, this will create confusion!"
Click to expand...

Nothing so dastardly. But mixing together the more classic meaning of racism and the much broader, modern one serves their purposes. You're so afraid to be called a racist that you dare not say something that could even be considered part of the broader definition.

And so quite a number of perfectly rational issues are ignored.
 
Cavemonster said:
Maybe to a certain extent, but without picking it apart too much, that sounds like you're suggesting that people who use "Racist" to describe a lot of different things are twirling their mustaches and going "Bwa ha ha, this will create confusion!"
Click to expand...

I think it's about 50/50 some degree of intentional and some degree of "If I'm someone who is just consistently wrong it is easy to subconsciously train myself to stall out the discussion by nitpicking it."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom