Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Childlike Empress]

I find things usually tend more towards the grey than the black or white.

 

[Elvis666]

[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Common_snipe_fencepost.jpg/440px-Common_snipe_fencepost.jpg[/qimg]There are such things as snipes, but if you want to find them you have to know their habits and habitat.

Thanks, Quadraginta. That makes my comparison even more accurate.

 

[Cavemonster]

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.

I completely agree that that's the effect.

I was contesting that said effect is the intent of speakers. If it isn't the intent, then what do you mean by suggesting that the confusion is a feature rather than a bug?

 

[wareyin]

Y’all is also singular. There is a plural variant that all y’all should know about, too.

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. ​

For you two: y'all isn't used as a singular except by people pretending to be southern.

Sorry, I can't parse that because the opening and closing tags don't match!

And that, my friend, is how you do pedantry.

For you two: curse you! : Shakes fist:

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/status/1154741172620972032

President Trump’s responses to the special counsel’s office are receiving new scrutiny after Robert Mueller agreed in his congressional testimony this week that some of those answers were untruthful https://nyti.ms/2Yg2gFl

Article embedded in tweet.

 

[Segnosaur]

https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/status/1154741172620972032
President Trump’s responses to the special counsel’s office are receiving new scrutiny after Robert Mueller agreed in his congressional testimony this week that some of those answers were untruthful

Article embedded in tweet.

As long as Trump's perjury doesn't involve oral sex, they're perfectly fine.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, shades of grey are hard on the brain, I know.

 

[Belz...]

I completely agree that that's the effect.

I was contesting that said effect is the intent of speakers. If it isn't the intent, then what do you mean by suggesting that the confusion is a feature rather than a bug?

Oh, it's definitely the intent, but it's not like they meet and plan this. It's bias and ideology.

 

[Cavemonster]

Oh, it's definitely the intent, but it's not like they meet and plan this. It's bias and ideology.

Whose intent are you talking about? Liberals who use the term "racism" for that broad range of meanings?

Your claim is that this group of people intend to create confusion?

That's a hard claim for me to accept. At least half of my social circle probably falls into that category, and I don't have a sense that any of them desire confusion on the issue.

What's your reason for believing they do? Or are you referring to a different group of people.

 

[Steve]

I am the furthest thing from a Southerner, but my understanding was that the plural of "y'all" is "all y'all."

That's exactly how it was explained to me in Fort Worth by a born and bred Texan.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Whose intent are you talking about? Liberals who use the term "racism" for that broad range of meanings?

Your claim is that this group of people intend to create confusion?

Sometimes? Absolutely. You can't be on this board or in general social discourse for more then 5 seconds without running into a baker's dozen of the "I'm not wrong until the discussion is over, so I'll nitpick and subdivide and hair split the discussion forever, therefore I'll never be wrong" types.

Other times? As I said a lot of its people just sort of subconsciously training themselves to do it in a form of positive feedback loop, again coming from the same "I'm not really wrong if the discussion is still going on" thing.

 

[Cavemonster]

Sometimes? Absolutely. You can't be on this board or in general social discourse for more then 5 seconds without running into a baker's dozen of the "I'm not wrong until the discussion is over, so I'll nitpick and subdivide and hair split the discussion forever, therefore I'll never be wrong" types.

I'm a little confused because the discussion as I perceived it was about using the term "racism" to cover too many different things, but this is the second time you're bringing up something like this:

nitpick and subdivide and hair split the discussion forever

Which seems to me almost the opposite of using a term overly broadly.

So I'm having trouble parsing them as the same behavior being addressed.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm a little confused because the discussion as I perceived it was about using the term "racism" to cover too many different things, but this is the second time you're bringing up something like this:

Because this is one example of it. If "racism" means everything from "not not racist enough" to "only racism if you're literally eating a black person for Sunday Dinner having signed a notarized 'I am hereby doing this solely for the purposes of racism' form" the topic can't go anywhere and "Racism is everywhere" and "The race card is everywhere" people never have to move an inch.

 

[Cavemonster]

Because this is one example of it. If "racism" means everything from "not not racist enough" to "only racism if you're literally eating a black person for Sunday Dinner having signed a notarized 'I am hereby doing this solely for the purposes of racism' form" the topic can't go anywhere and "Racism is everywhere" and "The race card is everywhere" people never have to move an inch.

I still don't see how that's the same thing as splitting hairs.

Splitting hairs is making unnecessary distinctions between things that should reasonably be considered the same. Lumping too many things under a single definition is the opposite of splitting hairs.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I still don't see how that's the same thing as splitting hairs.

Splitting hairs is making unnecessary distinctions between things that should reasonably be considered the same. Lumping too many things under a single definition is the opposite of splitting hairs.

I'm not going to sit here and split hairs about splitting hairs.

It's argumentative stalling. Call it whatever gets your through the day.

 

[Aridas]

That’s because the policies presented as dealing with illegal immigration are often aimed at any immigration, especially concerning the southern border where most of the brown people come from. Trump isn’t making a big deal about our other border, is he?

Which border? The one that lets about 3 times as many criminals cross it as the southern border?

 

[Belz...]

Whose intent are you talking about? Liberals who use the term "racism" for that broad range of meanings?

Obviously.

Your claim is that this group of people intend to create confusion?

How about you read the post you just replied to? I just told you that the problem is bias and ideology. They're not mustache-twirling villains. Not quite, anyway.

 

[Elagabalus]

I'm not going to sit here and split hairs about splitting hairs.

It's argumentative stalling. Call it whatever gets your through the day.

Apples and oranges!

 

[theprestige]

There's something to be said for just discussing what you want to discuss with the others who are discussing it.

No need to spend a lot of time on a discussion you don't want, with people who aren't interested in discussing the other thing.

And if nobody else is discussing what you want to discuss, there's nothing wrong with just saying your piece and leaving it at that.

I gotta figure, anyone who spends a lot of time complaining about how people aren't having the discussion they want is in fact having exactly the discussion they want.

 

[Cavemonster]

Obviously.



How about you read the post you just replied to? I just told you that the problem is bias and ideology. They're not mustache-twirling villains. Not quite, anyway.

Let me rephrase. I assure you, I've read all of your words, and I'm just trying to understand your position.

As I understand the term "Intent" it has a few elements:

1) The person acting has an understanding of the outcome an action will achieve.

2) The person acting desires that outcome.

3) The person chooses to undertake the given action at least partially as a means to achieve that outcome.​

with or without mustache twirling, smoky back rooms, etc, are you suggesting that (I believe you said "some") liberals who use the word "racist" too broadly:

1) Understand that the term will create confusion.

2) Desire to create that confusion.

3) Chooses to use the word in that manner with a goal of creating confusion.

The way you reference "bias and ideology" points to something that I would consider different from intent as I described above.

Joe will probably accuse me of splitting hairs, but I legitimately do not know your position because of the words you've chosen which seem contradictory.