a guy on one of my alumni email lists or whatever mentioned that he stands for the anthem when watching a game on tv at home and was completely flabbergasted to discover that everyone else thought that was weird
2 Likes
I mean I guess if you’re really standing up as a show of respect or whatever, it would make sense that you would actually do it anywhere. Saying otherwise is admitting it’s a totally performative thing (which it is for 99% of us).
1 Like
But this is also begging the question, ducy?
“Literal” does not also mean its opposite and I can prove it! The word “Irony” is defined by Webster as “ the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning”. If “Literal” has changed then so has “Irony” and therefore “ironic”. “Ironic” has not changed ergo “literal” has not changed.
Alanis Morisette tho
3 Likes
Any concept that I have to look up to remind myself what it actually means is too arcane for the modern world.
It’s a debate term that’s been absconded to a meaning that is much simpler and more intuitive. If the debaters didn’t want that to happen they should have given “begs the question” a better name that actually makes sense - like “assumes the premise”.
Wtf does “beg” and “question” even mean in the philosophy sense? What am I begging? What’s the question?
1 Like
3 Likes
I mean I like to nitpick incorrect stuff because it’s just good to point out, but it’s almost more on the level of knowing trivia. Like when I see someone refer to having “free reign” over something I might mention "oh hey it’s actually about letting a horse run wherever he wants so it’s ‘rein’ ", but in the end I know that the other spelling makes sense in a different context and will eventually be considered correct and no one really cares.
no, you’re reading something into it that makes it seem like it’s begging the question
You’re assuming he did the vetting appropriately and with no conflicts of interest.
2 Likes
I just stay the hell away from “beg the question”. I also avoid affect/effect. I can use other words.
9 Likes
I just use 100% effect. No one knows the rule so it doesn’t matter. A few annoying pedants like myself know the beg the question rule so there you got to be more careful.
1 Like
This one always triggers me for some reason.
1 Like
no
if that’s the case, then the people making hay out of this need to show that
all they’ve got currently is “this guy reviewed this action” and they’ve jumped from that to “something something meow chow” honestly I’m not even sure what the claim is other than it’s bad
2 Likes
Right so Taibbi said that Baker vetted and removed stuff without management’s knowledge and was fired for that. That implies wrongdoing on Baker’s part, for which he was fired with cause. Now that may or may not be true, and you’re right that Taibbi needs to show the conflicts of interest and wrongdoing. But given that Baker was fired for cause for the vetting, then this
is begging the question imo
lol at you agreeing that it needs to be shown but then in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE just assuming it’s actually the case. Come on.
3 Likes
No, the question is “was Baker’s vetting appropriate.” That’s the central question here, right? I’m saying I don’t think we have enough information to say either way.
Yeah, this is how it goes. Every time.
jesus christ man, exactly my point, all I said was the dipshits saying that what we have now is PROOF are begging the question, I never said it was ironclad that there was no wrongdoing.
all we know is
- this guy was employed at twitter as a lawyer
- he reviewed some shit
- that shit was suspected to be politically sensitive and in fact did turn out to be politically sensitive
- someone has said he did something improper
1, 2, and 3 are not enough to prove 4
get the fuck out of here with this bullshit
1 Like