1 1
billvon

Gaslighting as a strategy

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Coreece said:

You said that "Trump even got the  White House Science Office  [sic] (bit of an oxymoron there) to say that Trump was responsible for "ending the COVID-19 pandemic."

What you posted is the press release, not the actual report from the OSTP - and neither say that it has ended like you suggested it did.  The only way to come to that conclusion is if you're being intellectually dishonest or you just didn't read beyond your own confirmation bias and are being dragged by the nose by misleading headlines that impose on the text.

Coreece, I'm not sure that doubling down on "they didn't say that" when it's in print is a good strategy. "That could have been a whole lot better" might be a better way to approach it.

Hold the statement up to any Democrat, and tell us how you'd react if (say) Mario Cuomo's administration had said that he defeated COVID in NY State, and then walked it back, saying they meant that NY State was the hardest hit in the beginning, and that they did the best they could with the limited knowledge they had at the beginning of the pandemic. Or something like that.

Yeah.

Saying "they're too goat-fuck stupid to make sure their press release is clear and unequivocal" is better than "no, they didn't mean that."

"Ending the COVID Pandemic" was listed under accomplishments, not near-term goals, not almost-dones, or anything else. Better stupid than bragging about something wrong.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spacer.png

44 minutes ago, billvon said:

I said Trump took credit for ending the COVID-19 pandemic.  And I can prove it because the OSTP listed his accomplishments in a press release - and one was "ENDING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC."  Front page, bold type, all caps.  I even posted a link for you.

I eagerly await your redefinition of the word "ending" to explain why "ending" doesn't mean "ending."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Coreece said:

Where specifically does it say "ending the covid-19 pandemic" and suggest that it has ended?

You say that it was in there, but now it has been removed.  Where is the original?

It says it in the press release he linked in his post

5 hours ago, Coreece said:

Even the first link in your google search in post #10 specifically says that "The 62-page document attached to the email did not say the administration “ended” the pandemic."

No, the 62 page document doesn’t, but the press release synopsis of it does.

5 hours ago, Coreece said:

What specifically do take exception with?

The bit where it says ending the pandemic is a highlight of Trump’s first term. I’m really not sure how you’re still unclear on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Coreece said:

I agree it could've been worded better, but you still have to be pretty intellectually dishonest to say that that they're claiming it has ended when they didn't,

Buuuuuullshit.

”Trump administration releases Science and Technology accomplishments over first term...

Highlights include ending the Covid-19 pandemic.”

 

Now then C-dawg, you be intellectually honest and tell me if that’s saying the Trump admin ended the pandemic or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
17 hours ago, headoverheels said:

Oddly, I cannot find any reporting on this at all on foxnews.com.   Coverage of the freezing people debacle at the Omaha rally is also missing -- did it get stolen in the mail, or did the dog eat it?

 

Interview with a woman who was there:

Edited by ryoder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Coreece, I'm not sure that doubling down on "they didn't say that" when it's in print is a good strategy.

Just to be clear, I'm saying that the actual OSTP report does not say "ending the pandemic."  It seemed like Bill was throwing them and their scientists under the bus for something they didn't say. 

But if the OSTP actually wrote that press release as well, then ya, obviously they'd be the ones to blame for the poorly worded text.  I'm just not sure if that's how it actually works.  For example, if the ambiguity was deliberate, then I could totally see that coming from somewhere else in the administration. 

 

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Coreece, I'm not sure that doubling down on "they didn't say that" when it's in print is a good strategy. "That could have been a whole lot better" might be a better way to approach it.

Hold the statement up to any Democrat, and tell us how you'd react if (say) Mario Cuomo's administration had said that he defeated COVID in NY State

See that's the point, nobody said "defeated." It was poorly written but not THAT poorly.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
6 hours ago, jakee said:
8 hours ago, Coreece said:

I agree it could've been worded better, but you still have to be pretty intellectually dishonest to say that that they're claiming it has ended when they didn't,

Buuuuuullshit.

”Trump administration releases Science and Technology accomplishments over first term...

Highlights include ending the Covid-19 pandemic.”

 

Now then C-dawg, you be intellectually honest and tell me if that’s saying the Trump admin ended the pandemic or not.

I actually read past the word "pandemic" and skimmed the actual report that talks about how they're ending it, so it would be intellectually dishonest for me to claim they're saying it already ended when the context doesn't support that.  If they used the words "ended" and "defeated" then there wouldn't be any room for interpretation, but they didn't.

If one didn't read past the word "pandemic," then they're just uninformed and have to rely on headlines and/or their own bias to interpret the poorly worded text.

. . .and that bias should be pretty easy to demonstrate.  I mean would any of you have honestly read the other "highlights" listed in the press release as if they were past tense and that everything they said had already been accomplished?

Edited by Coreece
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Coreece said:

I actually read past the word "pandemic" and skimmed the actual report that talks about how they're ending it, so it would be intellectually dishonest for me to claim they're saying it already ended when the context doesn't support that. 

So you're not intellectually honest enough to answer the question I asked, about what the press release actually says. That's a shame.

Quote

If one didn't read past the word "pandemic," then they're just uninformed and have to rely on headlines and/or their own bias to interpret the poorly worded text.

That's the whole point. People don't read 62 page reports. If you want to lie to them effectively, you'd be crazy to do it anywhere but in the headline.

Quote

I mean would any of you have honestly read the other "highlights" listed in the press release as if they were past tense and that everything they said had already been accomplished?

 2 or 3 out of the 4, yes. However, you're making an intellectually dishonest comparison.Ending something is a finite thing. There's only so much ending you can do - once it's ended you're finished ending it, right? If ending something is an accomplishment of yours, the amount of ending there was to do has been done. The ending effort is no more. 

The others, strengthening, protecting, understanding - these are by their nature continuous ongoing efforts. You don't work on protecting something to the point where it's been protected enough and you can stop protecting it. Similarly strengthening. There's no end point for that effort at which things transition from weak to strong. You can keep going forever still making it stronger than if you weren't bothering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jakee said:

That's the whole point. People don't read 62 page reports. If you want to lie to them effectively, you'd be crazy to do it anywhere but in the headline.

The headline is the claim. The text is supposed to explain and back up the claim. It does not. Therefore the headline is a lie. It is that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Coreece said:

Just to be clear, I'm saying that the actual OSTP report does not say "ending the pandemic."  It seemed like Bill was throwing them and their scientists under the bus for something they didn't say. 

Nobody was saying the OSTP report claimed that ending the pandemic among the accomplishments of the administration.

Everybody was talking about the press release that did.

Why are you setting up strawmen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jakee said:

Ending something is a finite thing. There's only so much ending you can do - once it's ended you're finished ending it, right? If ending something is an accomplishment of yours, the amount of ending there was to do has been done. The ending effort is no more. 

I think what Jakee is saying is:

'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jakee said:
9 hours ago, Coreece said:

I actually read past the word "pandemic" and skimmed the actual report that talks about how they're ending it, so it would be intellectually dishonest for me to claim they're saying it already ended when the context doesn't support that. 

So you're not intellectually honest enough to answer the question I asked, about what the press release actually says. That's a shame.

You're asking me to deliberately ignore the context along with the rest of the press release to solidify your point, a point that has already been clarified - it doesn't really get anymore dishonest than that.

 

6 hours ago, jakee said:

That's the whole point. People don't read 62 page reports. If you want to lie to them effectively, you'd be crazy to do it anywhere but in the headline.

Right, but the news outlets do, or at least they should.  They even asked for clarification and the WH said ya, it was poorly worded, but if you look at the rest of the text it's easy see that's not what the press release is actually referring to.  It's referring to highlights of the OSTP report, one of which was how they are ending the pandemic.

But despite the clarification, they still pushed the narrative that they claimed it was over, or has ended, or was defeated.  They must really hate what's in that report.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, billvon said:
21 hours ago, gowlerk said:

What you will get is a careful explanation about how the words don't really mean what they say.

You called it.

Yep, you guys are trying to say that:

- Ending means ended

- Defeat means defeated

- Highlights means accomplishments.

And then you cling to that narrative despite the clarification.

 

In my argument:

- Ending still means ending

- Defeat still means defeat

- Highlights means highlights - as in highlighting points from the OSTP report that the press release is actually talking about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, olofscience said:
10 hours ago, Coreece said:

Just to be clear, I'm saying that the actual OSTP report does not say "ending the pandemic."  It seemed like Bill was throwing them and their scientists under the bus for something they didn't say. 

Nobody was saying the OSTP report claimed that ending the pandemic among the accomplishments of the administration.

Everybody was talking about the press release that did.

Why are you setting up strawmen?

Bill made a claim against the OSTP.  As far as I know, the OSTP was only responsible for writing the actual report.  The actual report doesn't say "ending the pandemic,"  that part was in the press release.

So again, I thought Bill's attack against the OSTP was unwarranted.  But he clarified that he thinks the OSTP also wrote the press release - I'm just not sure if they actually did or not.  If they did, then fine - they're to blame for the poorly worded text.

 

I think PolitiFact sums it all up nicely:

As a point of grammar, "ending the COVID-19 pandemic" can be read two ways. It could mean that the pandemic is over, which it isn’t. But the phrase could also mean that the country is in the process of ending the pandemic. That’s different.

The money spent on research and testing has provided more tools that hold some promise of beating back the virus. In that light, there have been gains.

It’s reasonable to say that some White House staffer went beyond what the authors of the report wrote, and pushed the envelope in wordsmithing the press release.

It’s not a slam-dunk to say that the White House was asserting "Mission Accomplished."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Coreece said:

You're asking me to deliberately ignore the context along with the rest of the press release to solidify your point, a point that has already been clarified - it doesn't really get anymore dishonest than that.

Yes it does. Pretending the full report is context and not contradictory information is more dishonest.

5 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Right, but the news outlets do, or at least they should.  They even asked for clarification and the WH said ya, it was poorly worded, but if you look at the rest of the text it's easy see that's not what the press release is actually referring to.  It's referring to highlights of the OSTP report, one of which was how they are ending the pandemic.

No shit Shirley. One of the things this WH will never do is admit it lied.

6 minutes ago, Coreece said:

But despite the clarification, they still pushed the narrative that they claimed it was over, or has ended, or was defeated. 

Because they did. 
 

You know what, I’m going to start claiming that some of the great achievements of Obama are ending income inequality in Chicago and instituting a lasting world peace, and you have to agree with me that those are indeed his achievements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1