theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, yes. We know. But if Breitbart quotes Hillary Clinton saying something stupid, you won't fact check even a single shrimp on the barbie, will you? Just throw an ad hom and run for cover, right?
Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed?
- Thread starter Matthew Best
- Start date
- Status
Yes, yes. We know. But if Breitbart quotes Hillary Clinton saying something stupid, you won't fact check even a single shrimp on the barbie, will you? Just throw an ad hom and run for cover, right?
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
That is literally what I said.
So far I have never been led astray by the adage "it's said by Breitbart, therefore it is a lie".
Don't do that. Always confirm. You can research that quote without going near Breitbart. Google....Clinton Thunberg.......2 minutes, you have your answer.
We're skeptics, get the info.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
Breitbart are their own evidence. They have a long, long history of being a pioneer of false news. They have made lying into an artform. They have never been a credible source.
And for the record, I don't give a crap about what Clinton said about Thunberg or vice versa. I'm just saying that Breitbart is a purveyor of lies and falsehoods, and that anyone who takes it seriously is an idiot.
Well then if you don't care what she said then you don't care what she said but calling it false just because you don't like the source is a skeptical misstep.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
I don't verify every claim of a Bigfoot sighting, and I don't verify every claim of ESP either. These are things that have been so thoroughly investigated that it is a waste of time to investigate it again. It is good skepticism to dismiss such things unless some new strong evidence is presented. And that evidence had better be damn good.
Breitbart's editorial policy is well-established, and every good skeptic should know to mistrust it as a source. If you or anyone else tries to present Breitbart as evidence of anything, you will be told to get a better source because that one is not credible.
But this thread is not about Breitbart. I've said my thing. Let's end this derail now.
Childlike Empress
Banned
Your nonsense which doesn't even qualify as ad hominem but was just a baseless suggestion that Breitbart misquoted Killary (or more likely just an automatic response without any second thought following Steve's own-goal) was the derail, arthwollipot. My post about what the hag had to say about St. Greta was entirely relevant and on topic.
Last edited:
Childlike Empress
Banned
I suddenly felt the urge to check out what Ben Garrison had to draw on this saga. It is rude but excellent in a technical way, unsurprisingly:
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
In summary, Greta is less disturbed than those criticising her.
TBF I have noticed when people atart referring to others in the media by first names only, they tend to be a bit unreliable in their impartiality
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
What if the tread is about them? In fact, their first name is the first word of the title of the thread.
By first word do you mean conveniently omitting the second?
I get it
You are being really really unbiased and neutral.
Yes, it happens most frequently with women/girls and is often used to create the illusion of familiarity and friendliness like the writer/speaker has some sort of personal relationship with the person. Some older women see this as a sign of disrespect, see it as an indication that their opinions are being downplayed because they're female.
I have to admit though, I served up y family some Beyond Meat patties on whole wheat buns last night and referred to them as Thunburgers. My bad too.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
That's pretty much over the top even for you.
The amusement value of your posts is no longer sufficient to overcome their offensiveness.
Bye bye.
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 13,844
It's more likely that after you have typed out their full name many times in a thread it becomes easier, and faster, to use their first name only.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Less disturbed than Ben Garrison, anyway. But then, who isn't less disturbed than Ben Garrison?
Distracted1
Philosopher
Yet, Trump is rarely shortened to "Donald", Tillerson to "rex", Schiff to "Adam", Cosby to "Bill", etc..etc...etc..
First names only is often dismissive, and applied to women far more frequently IMO.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Last I checked, "Trump" was shorter than "Donald", so I'm not sure why you would choose that example. However, I do often hear Trump referred to as "The Donald" by detractors.
In the other cases, like Cosby, the differences are small, the last names more iconic, and the first names very common by comparison (making it less clear who one is speaking of). "Greta", however, is a much less common name in English, and easier for English speakers to pronounce than "Thunberg". A good rule of thumb to apply in these cases is "Do not attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by laziness."
This is true, as far as it goes; but far from the whole picture, and applies mainly in the US. As counter-examples, I give you "Bernie" Sanders, and Hillary "Clinton", who are more often referred to by the quoted monikers than the unquoted.
Interestingly, the British in particular have a tendency to refer to public figures by diminutives of their given names, and doing so is considered affectionate rather than dismissive. When being dismissive, they're more likely to use the person's family name. EG. "Winnie" for Winston Churchill; and "Maggie" for Margaret Thatcher.
Last edited:
- Status