Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

[Neally]

Wow, incredible comprehension fail.

This notion that somehow Anthony Weiner or Christopher Lee are disqualified from serving in office because they like trolling for ass on the internet is primitive. It's regressive. A trip back to our embarrassing, frivolous, religious history.

You've got the comprehensive fail. As was repeated over and over here, the primary issue isn't and wasn't his sex life, outside flirtations, etc., which as nearly everyone including myself, says is between him and his wife. It's about his incredible choice to lie, blame others, and try to cover it up. I personally couldn't give him a pass for that as my representative.

You guys got lucky this time because, for once, Breitbart wasn't just making stuff up.

Again with the "this time", "for once" business. He posts stuff daily. What percent of every story he has ran has been proven to be false or inaccurate?

 

[TraneWreck]

You've got the comprehensive fail. As was repeated over and over here, the primary issue isn't and wasn't his sex life, outside flirtations, etc., which as nearly everyone including myself, says is between him and his wife. It's about his incredible choice to lie, blame others, and try to cover it up. I personally couldn't give him a pass for that as my representative.

That's a lame excuse to wallow in the voyeurism. I would expect 90% of people in the world to deny something so embarrassing. It's just not important. If you went up to J. Edgar Hoover and said, "Are you a cross-dresser?" I would expect him to say "no" because it's none of your *********** business. It's a form of entrapment: use some frivolous, embarrassing nonsense, confront someone, then bash the natural reaction. Pathetic.

You're using this "lying to the public" canard to justify this absurd fetish with his sex life. There's probably someone on the floor of Congress right now, in an empty room with just a camera running, spreading a more substantive lie than Weiner's.

But you're still evading. If you found out Jefferson was having sex with his slave in 1775 (a lot going on there), and he denied it, would you want him out of the Continental Congress? Why or why not? Try answering a direct question for a change, instead of perpetually evading.

Should Rudi Guiliani have resigned when he was having sex with his mistress in the Governor's mansion where his wife and kids were still living? I don't recall many Republicans making that demand, and it was a fairly well-known scandal.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

You've got the comprehensive fail. As was repeated over and over here, the primary issue isn't and wasn't his sex life, outside flirtations, etc., which as nearly everyone including myself, says is between him and his wife. It's about his incredible choice to lie, blame others, and try to cover it up. I personally couldn't give him a pass for that as my representative.

Seeing as all politicians lie, and blame others (cover-up in common vernacular implies Conspiracy) when they're caught with their hands in the cookie jar, I don't find that aspect incredible at all. What I find incredible is that Weiner was stupid enough to send tweets, and think that he wouldn't get caught out.

Again with the "this time", "for once" business. He posts stuff daily. What percent of every story he has ran has been proven to be false or inaccurate?

Alex Jones posts stuff daily too. Now you're just being deliberately obtuse and playing games.

GB

 

[Neally]

I would expect 90% of people in the world to deny something so embarrassing. It's just not important. If you went up to J. Edgar Hoover and said, "Are you a cross-dresser?" I would expect him to say "no" because it's none of your *********** business. It's a form of entrapment: use some frivolous, embarrassing nonsense, confront someone, then bash the natural reaction.

And that's a lame excuse to justify lying and a coverup.

But you're still evading. If you found out Jefferson was having sex with his slave in 1775 (a lot going on there), and he denied it, would you want him out of the Continental Congress?

If he publicly lied about, blamed others, and tried to cover it up, yes I would. If he said, "That's my private business, and none of yours, no comment", I wouldn't.

 

[davefoc]

You know, on many other parts of the forum, when a person admits they were wrong, and explains their reasons for being wrong, the opposition usually have the courtesy to say "fair enough" and then get on with it.

I don't know what else you lot want me to say. It's pretty rubbishy to pile it on when the other party has conceded.

I think you, and everyone else who piled on after I conceded, should look in the mirror and ask yourselves who is really wearing blinders.

And if people are going around touting one of Breitbart's stories, they ought not be shocked that others might see them, or their alleged evidence, as having little to no credibility.

You guys got lucky this time because, for once, Breitbart wasn't just making stuff up.

GB

Actually GB, while it's not exactly friendly what they're doing, their issue is one of the underlying points of this forum: why do people believe what they believe and how do biases play into that.

I think you did address their point when you said:
"I'm pretty much over it. But I will say this much: From my point of view, all I saw was a bunch of people who had it in for Weiner and believed Breitbart. "

And their point is that in this case the available information coupled with your biases led you to make a faulty assessment of the situation.

Whether that is true or not, I think my biases were part of the reason that I was wrong about the situation. I don't know much about Breitbart's politics but I did know that he participated in one of the most disgusting and dishonest political attacks in my life time. Based on that, I thought it was reasonable to discount the reliability of anything that he reported, but I may have gone overboard. A second major screwup by him would have been very embarrassing and might have even had financial implications seeing that he is being sued by Sherrod. So there is the argument that he might not be reporting on something like this unless he was pretty sure.

But I did worse in my search for the truth than to inappropriately discount Breitbart I think. When the lists of facts that seemed to support Weiner were being presented I tended to accept them without much critical analysis. Partially because they involved some technical details that I wasn't familiar with and I didn't feel like putting the effort in to understand them and partly I think because I was rooting for one side in this dispute and the posted information supported that side.

Eventually, I did come around before the announcement. Ziggurat was pounding away and while there are some issues we disagree on significantly my opinion is that Ziggurat is an intelligent analytical fellow and if he believed the evidence suggested that Weiner was lying I thought he might be right. There were several moderates in the discussion also and at least one of them made the point that hacking became an unlikely theory when it turned out that Weiner used an ap for which the hacking technique described wouldn't work.

 

[Neally]

Alex Jones posts stuff daily too. Now you're just being deliberately obtuse and playing games.

GB

As if everyone knows that every word from Brietbart is a total lie? Your blinders got you on the wrong side of this issue, and as Ziggurat correctly pointed out, you haven't learned.

 

[TraneWreck]

And that's a lame excuse to justify lying and a coverup.

It doesn't justify it, it explains it and is an argument for not taking it particularly seriously. A lie about something not serious is also not serious. The fact that you want to dig into this absolutely frivolous nonsense at all is an expression of perverse voyeurism.

You are offering lame excuses to justify asking those insulting, inappropriate questions in the first place. More jock sniffing.

If he publicly lied about, blamed others, and tried to cover it up, yes I would. If he said, "That's my private business, and none of yours, no comment", I wouldn't.

And this is ********, as well. I don't doubt you personally letting it end there, but you know as well as I do that regardless of Weiner's answer, Breitbart and co. would have pursued him, hunted down the other women he communicated with on twitter, and never let the topic die until they had fully humiliated him in public.

It's over now and Breitbart is still running around with a picture of Weiner's cock.

I also note your continued evasion of my questions.

Why can't you answer these?:

But you're still evading. If you found out Jefferson was having sex with his slave in 1775 (a lot going on there), and he denied it, would you want him out of the Continental Congress? Why or why not? Try answering a direct question for a change, instead of perpetually evading.

Should Rudi Guiliani have resigned when he was having sex with his mistress in the Governor's mansion where his wife and kids were still living? I don't recall many Republicans making that demand, and it was a fairly well-known scandal.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Actually GB, while it's not exactly friendly what they're doing, their issue is one of the underlying points of this forum: why do people believe what they believe and how do biases play into that.

I think you did address their point when you said:
"I'm pretty much over it. But I will say this much: From my point of view, all I saw was a bunch of people who had it in for Weiner and believed Breitbart. "

And their point is that in this case the available information coupled with your biases led you to make a faulty assessment of the situation.

Whether that is true or not, I think my biases were part of the reason that I was wrong about the situation. I don't know much about Breitbart's politics but I did know that he participated in one of the most disgusting and dishonest political attacks in my life time. Based on that, I thought it was reasonable to discount the reliability of anything that he reported, but I may have gone overboard. A second major screwup by him would have been very embarrassing and might have even had financial implications seeing that he is being sued by Sherrod. So there is the argument that he might not be reporting on something like this unless he was pretty sure.

But I did worse in my search for the truth than to inappropriately discount Breitbart I think. When the lists of facts that seemed to support Weiner were being presented I tended to accept them without much critical analysis. Partially because they involved some technical details that I wasn't familiar with and I didn't feel like putting the effort in to understand them and partly I think because I was rooting for one side in this dispute and the posted information supported that side.

Eventually, I did come around before the announcement. Ziggurat was pounding away and while there are some issues we disagree on significantly my opinion is that Ziggurat is an intelligent analytical fellow and if he believed the evidence suggested that Weiner was lying I thought he might be right. There were several moderates in the discussion also and at least one of them made the point that hacking became an unlikely theory when it turned out that Weiner used an ap for which the hacking technique described wouldn't work.

Please spare me the "they convinced me, so you should have been convinced too" routine.

GB

 

[thaiboxerken]

And yet, I don't see any Republicans calling for Vitter to resign....

 

[Puppycow]

It would be funny if the father of the baby turned out to be some stranger she met over the internet.

I heard that Hillary might be the father.

 

[davefoc]

Please spare me the "they convinced me, so you should have been convinced too" routine.

GB

I am sorry that this is what you took from what I said. I had noticed how my own biases had shaped my thinking about his issue and decided to talk about that in the context of the posts that theorized about the biases that had influenced some of Weiner's most persistent defenders.

I think there is a tendency for skeptics to believe that they understand their biases and therefore they believe their views of the world are deeply rooted in objective analysis. I think there is considerable evidence in this forum that in fact the views of the skeptics in this forum are strongly influenced by biases. I had hoped to in some small way to get people to think about that and how that leads to long, emotional threads where the same arguments are posted over and over and there is never any move towards a consensus by acknowledging the role that my biases had played in shaping an incorrect opinion.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

As if everyone knows that every word from Brietbart is a total lie? Your blinders got you on the wrong side of this issue, and as Ziggurat correctly pointed out, you haven't learned.

Bloody Unbelievable!!!

I can see I should have never conceded. It wouldn't have made any difference.

Silly me, thinking you and Ziggy actually wanted an honest debate. One side would be declared the winner, then take a victory lap, and we'd all move on to other threads.

I'll tell what I've learned! I've learned that you and Ziggy will never concede that Breitbart is a political operative whose only goal is to take out as many Democrats he can, by any means necessary. I've learned that you will employ sophistry to dodge the issue of Breitbart's lack of integrity.

I've learned that you will pretend that Breitbart's most infamous lies, the sabotage of ACORN and of Shirley Sherrod, were so inconsequential that you could play "percentage of truth" games.

I've learned that winning the argument is not enough for you and Ziggy. I've learned that your game is character assassination.

I've learned that you and Ziggy have double standards; anyone who disagrees with you must be wearing blinders. I've learned that you and Ziggy believe that "obvious" counts as evidence.

I've learned that arguing with you and Ziggy is a complete waste of time.


GB

 

[Brainster]

Drip, drip, drip:

if it were up to Traci Nobles of Athens, Ga., her contact with Weiner would have stayed a secret.

“I really regret that this was sent to you,” Nobles told the Las Vegas Sun, after confirming that an unnamed roommate went into her Facebook account, which had been inadvertently left open, and emailed the Sun a screen shot of a private conversation between Weiner and Nobles that appears to date from August. “She thought someone should know,” Nobles said.

 

[Ziggurat]

1) Why do you repeat your ridiculous assertions?

I don't think you even know what I'm asserting anymore.

2) Were you paying any attention at all when I explained my reasoning?

Yup. And it completely failed to address why you actually were fooled, and your faith in your current explanation would do nothing to prevent being fooled by the same circumstances in the future.

3) Why do you refuse to accept my explanations for being wrong?

Because it doesn't actually explain your failure in any way that could prevent a repeat.

4) Why do you presume that your interpretation of Human Behaviour is infallible?

I don't. But events have proven me right, and you wrong. So it's rather natural to conclude that, infallible or not, my interpretation of human behavior is better than yours. Perhaps you should worry less about my fallibility and more about your own.

5) Why do you presume that your interpretation of Human Behaviour counts as evidence?

Human behavior counts as evidence. My interpretation is what I do with the evidence. We had the same evidence. But I interpreted it correctly, and you did not.

6) Are you a psychoanalyst?

Why would it even matter? This was pretty basic human behavior. This isn't some exotic pathology here.

7) If you are, then are you willing to give up your anonymity to prove it?

I'm not willing to give up my anonymity to prove anything about myself to you. Nor do I need to, since nothing about my argument depends upon any specific characteristic that I have. Claiming authority by dint of profession is a fallacy. I'm not going to commit such a fallacy, but it's rather peculiar that you're basically stating that you would ACCEPT such a fallacy.

8) Why can't you admit that Breitbart's previous lies disqualifies him from being taken seriously?

You seem to have confused taking someone seriously and believing everything they say. Furthermore, I've stated repeatedly that my conclusion never depended on Breitbart's credibility. So why do you keep bringing up this straw man to try to defend your failure?

9) Why do you continue to insist that you are the Arbiter of Truth?

I've done nothing of the sort.

10) Why can't you come to terms with the fact that I admitted I was wrong and that I explained my reasons for being wrong?

Why can't you come to terms with the fact that your errors were systematic?

But I won't believe anything you say, because your continued assertions--implying that I have some sort of character defect--demonstrates that your arguments completely lack integrity.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Because you are offended by what I am saying, you are CHOOSING to put on blinkers and to refuse to consider the possibility that I might be right about something. You aren't just claiming that you won't trust me, you're actively going to disbelieve me. And why? Because I was rude to you? What exactly do you think your disbelief will accomplish? Do you think you can extract some sort of revenge this way? Well, it won't work. At the end of the day, I don't ultimately care if you believe me or not. But when you choose to disbelieve me based on something other than the facts of the case, well, you're setting yourself up for future failure. You strike at yourself, not me, with such an approach.

Like I said, your mistakes are systematic, and you have committed yourself to repeating them in the future.

 

[Puppycow]

Glenn Greenwald's full-throated counterattack

There are few things more sickening -- or revealing -- to behold than a D.C. sex scandal. Huge numbers of people prance around flamboyantly condemning behavior in which they themselves routinely engage. Media stars contrive all sorts of high-minded justifications for luxuriating in every last dirty detail, when nothing is more obvious than that their only real interest is vicarious titillation. Reporters who would never dare challenge powerful political figures who torture, illegally eavesdrop, wage illegal wars or feed at the trough of sleazy legalized bribery suddenly walk upright -- like proud peacocks with their feathers extended -- pretending to be hard-core adversarial journalists as they collectively kick a sexually humiliated figure stripped of all importance. The ritual is as nauseating as it is predictable.
. . .
Yes, Anthony Weiner lied -- about something that is absolutely nobody's business but his and his wife's. If you're not his wife, you have absolutely no legitimate reason to want to know about -- let alone pass judgment on -- what he does in his private sexual life with other consenting adults. Particularly repellent is the pretense of speaking out on behalf of his wife, as though anyone knows what her perspectives on such matters are or what their relationship entails. The only reason to want to wallow in the details of Anthony Weiner's sex life is because of the voyeuristic titillation it provides: a deeply repressed culture celebrates when it finds cause to be able to talk about penises and naked pictures and oral sex while hiding behind some noble pretext. On some level, I find the behavior of the obviously loathsome Andrew Breitbart preferable; at least he's honest about his motive: he hates Democrats and liberals and wants sadistically to destroy them however he can. It's the empty, barren, purse-lipped busybodies who cannot stay out of other adults' private and sexual lives -- while pretending to be elevated -- that are the truly odious villains here.

I don't know if I fully agree with Greenwald, because I'm probably at least somewhat guilty of what he's criticizing here myself, but I think it's a perspective worth considering.

Should people's private sex lives, even stuff like this, just be off limits?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I am sorry that this is what you took from what I said. I had noticed how my own biases had shaped my thinking about his issue and decided to talk about that in the context of the posts that theorized about the biases that had influenced some of Weiner's most persistent defenders.

I think there is a tendency for skeptics to believe that they understand their biases and therefore they believe their views of the world are deeply rooted in objective analysis. I think there is considerable evidence in this forum that in fact the views of the skeptics in this forum are strongly influenced by biases. I had hoped to in some small way to get people to think about that and how that leads to long, emotional threads where the same arguments are posted over and over and there is never any move towards a consensus by acknowledging the role that my biases had played in shaping an incorrect opinion.

I agree with everything you just said in this post. And I've stated that myself more than once on this thread.

But Ziggy and Neally willfully put their own blinders on to ignore that I had said as much. That was the only way they could charge ahead with wild accusations and character assassination. Which they did because I had the gall to wait for solid evidence that didn't involve trying to decide which techies were right.

The fact that even you can't see the games they were playing, just reinforces the fact that they were using mind games to lull people into believing that they actually had conclusive evidence. Then they played on some people's gullibility to convince them that my honest admission that I was wrong was actually a character defect.

And their point is that in this case the available information coupled with your biases led you to make a faulty assessment of the situation.

See what you did there? You fell for their BS, hook, line, and sinker. If it had turned out to be another Breitbart Hoax, they would have been guilty of the same thing. It's the fact that they are pretending that they weren't doing the same thing that is most galling.

I was honest, I stated my views, and I stated why I waited for convincing evidence. They were not honest, and refuse to concede that they jumped the gun before there was undeniable convincing evidence.


GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I don't think you even know what I'm asserting anymore.



Yup. And it completely failed to address why you actually were fooled, and your faith in your current explanation would do nothing to prevent being fooled by the same circumstances in the future.



Because it doesn't actually explain your failure in any way that could prevent a repeat.



I don't. But events have proven me right, and you wrong. So it's rather natural to conclude that, infallible or not, my interpretation of human behavior is better than yours. Perhaps you should worry less about my fallibility and more about your own.



Human behavior counts as evidence. My interpretation is what I do with the evidence. We had the same evidence. But I interpreted it correctly, and you did not.



Why would it even matter? This was pretty basic human behavior. This isn't some exotic pathology here.



I'm not willing to give up my anonymity to prove anything about myself to you. Nor do I need to, since nothing about my argument depends upon any specific characteristic that I have. Claiming authority by dint of profession is a fallacy. I'm not going to commit such a fallacy, but it's rather peculiar that you're basically stating that you would ACCEPT such a fallacy.



You seem to have confused taking someone seriously and believing everything they say. Furthermore, I've stated repeatedly that my conclusion never depended on Breitbart's credibility. So why do you keep bringing up this straw man to try to defend your failure?



I've done nothing of the sort.



Why can't you come to terms with the fact that your errors were systematic?



This is exactly what I'm talking about. Because you are offended by what I am saying, you are CHOOSING to put on blinkers and to refuse to consider the possibility that I might be right about something. You aren't just claiming that you won't trust me, you're actively going to disbelieve me. And why? Because I was rude to you? What exactly do you think your disbelief will accomplish? Do you think you can extract some sort of revenge this way? Well, it won't work. At the end of the day, I don't ultimately care if you believe me or not. But when you choose to disbelieve me based on something other than the facts of the case, well, you're setting yourself up for future failure. You strike at yourself, not me, with such an approach.

Like I said, your mistakes are systematic, and you have committed yourself to repeating them in the future.

Thanks for proving my point.

It's remarkable that you could convince so many people on this thread that my honesty is a character defect, when you can't even be honest about your own blinders and bias.

I guess Jedi...no...make that SITH mind tricks really do work.

I wonder if you would have been as honest as me if this whole thing had turned out to be another Breitbart Hoax. Somehow I doubt it.

GB

 

[Brainster]

Glenn Greenwald's full-throated counterattack



I don't know if I fully agree with Greenwald, because I'm probably at least somewhat guilty of what he's criticizing here myself, but I think it's a perspective worth considering.

Should people's private sex lives, even stuff like this, just be off limits?

Greenwald means that it's nobody's business but Weiner's and his wife's. And of course Gennette's. And the 40,000+ that follow his tweets. And the five or six other women that Weiner admits (so far) to having a sextual relationship with.

And I note that Greenwald lets himself off the hook for not condemning the media for Republican sex scandals by claiming that, "It's all about teh hypocrisy."

This isn't a case of illegal sex activity or gross hypocrisy (i.e., David Vitter, Larry Craig, Mark Foley (who built their careers on Family Values) or Eliot Spitzer (who viciously prosecuted trivial prostitution cases)).

Well, wait a minute, Sockboy, I thought sex scandals were nobody's business but the people involved. Greenwald's simply elevating convenience to the level of principle.

 

[leftysergeant]

Well, wait a minute, Sockboy, I thought sex scandals were nobody's business but the people involved. Greenwald's simply elevating convenience to the level of principle.

Well, if indicates that the actor is utterly deranged like Diapers Vitter, or consorting with known criminals while engaged in law enforcement or criminal justice work like Spitzer, or persecuting people who do what you do, like Craig, it is our business.

Equal protection under the law and execute in good faith the duties you are about to enter onto and all that.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You know, on many other parts of the forum, when a person admits they were wrong, and explains their reasons for being wrong, the opposition usually have the courtesy to say "fair enough" and then get on with it.

I don't know what else you lot want me to say. It's pretty rubbishy to pile it on when the other party has conceded.

I apologize for piling on. That wasn't my intent.

I think you, and everyone else who piled on after I conceded, should look in the mirror and ask yourselves who is really wearing blinders.

You might be correct.

I thought it might have been an interesting exercise to just review what we knew, and when we knew it, vs what we thought we knew.

I understand that some of the facts relating to yfrog and how twitter works were technical in nature, and I concede that if you don't fully understand the technology, you did not necessarily have any reason to believe my random internet forum posts more than random internet bloggers like cannon.

And if people are going around touting one of Breitbart's stories, they ought not be shocked that others might see them, or their alleged evidence, as having little to no credibility.

You guys got lucky this time because, for once, Breitbart wasn't just making stuff up.

GB

Again, I think part of the exercise was to establish that at some point in time before weiner confessed, the conclusion that he had sent the tweet himself had nothing to do with either Breitbart or being lucky.

I'm finished bringing it up ... we'll just have to wait for the next scandal to do it all over again.