Et tu captain clarity: Not. At. All.

Post #227,554 by Ashton 10/1/05 8:39:06 PM Reply	Et tu captain clarity: Not. At. All. NOT Dumbing-it-down. WTF did I remotely imply That? Is that IT with you - terse/compressed OR dumbed-down == those are the Two Options? What he omitted was: Introducing his example with some of the explanatory prose ~ to that of most posts here. Not optional IMO, and that opinion based on as much experience as anyone here, I wot -- on the consequences of introducing a damaged, almost-unuseable, by previous misuse: Loaded Slogan-word, Without any Preamble. Didn't I fucking say this just now? Or do you get Only naked symbolic expressions (and all the rest of English is just ... tooo messily imprecise to bother with?) >> Most Folks Do Not Do Boolean Well << This is an aberrant group! He WASN'T Talking to US There, now - was that so hard?
Post #227,574 by drewk 10/2/05 7:57:51 AM Reply	If by "slogan word" you meant "racism" ... he didn't say it Ash, we went through a very long thread with several people going into great length to lay out what we knew he meant. We got it the first time, as proven by the fact that his later explanation was pretty much exactly what we'd been saying. And even after all that, someone here -- someone who had probably read all the re-statements -- still introduced that explanation as "spin". Do you really think any amount of preface or explanation would have allowed him to make that point without it being taken the wrong way? In the U.S. today, you can't talk about racism without being branded a racist by someone. You can't explain, "This is what some people think," without being accused of thinking it by someone. If you understand it, you must believe it. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #227,591 by Another Scott 10/2/05 11:39:00 AM Reply	[Raises hand] You rang? And even after all that, someone here -- someone who had probably read all the re-statements -- still introduced that explanation as "spin". [link\|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spin\|Spin]: 7. To provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion: \ufffda messenger who spins bogus research into a vile theology of hatred\ufffd (William A. Henry III). I would categorize Bennett's later explanation as spin. Why? 1) We were commenting on a Jay's quote from a web site that included the whole quotation from Bennett. We can't be accused of taking the statement out of context. 2) What little context that was provided from the web site was: a) The discussion stated with Social Security. b) A caller introduced Freakonomics and abortion. c) Bennett made a (IMO) false analogy about what Freakonomics said about the reasons for the drop in crime. d) Bennett did not provide any evidence to support a proposition that he knows to be correct. 3) Bennett was criticized elsewhere (I doubt that he reads IWeThey ;-) and issued statement of elaboration to sway public opinion about what he said and what he meant. (Spin has a derogatory connotation, but it does not have to be nefarious.) My criticism of Bennett's statements were based on my belief that 1) you can't know what would happen as the result of a coerced extreme policy by pointing to evidence from voluntary individual actions by people. 2) That it was supporting an attack on the authors of Freakonomics and abortion rights by building a strawman. In the U.S. today, you can't talk about racism without being branded a racist by someone. You can't explain, "This is what some people think," without being accused of thinking it by someone. If you understand it, you must believe it. Yes, you can talk about racism without being branded a racist. William Julius Wilson isn't branded a racist. He's been called naive and wrong and so forth, but not racist AFAICS. No I don't think Bennett is racist. I think he made a stupid comment. Saying it was just a thought experiment using the Socratic method or that he was talking about the problems of race in America (when he was in (IMO) supporting a caller who was attacking abortion) doesn't make his statement any less stupid, IMO. Hope that helps clear things up. Cheers, Scott.
Post #227,615 by Ashton 10/2/05 4:31:19 PM Reply	Oohhh.. spinning the def'n of spin! Just. Kidding. !! Agree with your analysis, but reiterate: 1) Had he not left-in the context - those allusions you mention. 2) He might.. have (successfully) made the same statement, with the 'race' SYMBOL used, even - as a Forceful illustration of the consequences of the ignorant use of 'statistics' (a pandemic that; as long as I've been around the planet.) If he didn't Realize That :-0 -- then he's dumber than a neo-post.) 3) BUT NOT WITHOUT some primer! of the sort synthesized here. Not a lot of words - just a few Clear Ones: a fucking Preamble. As in, say what you are going to do; do it. say what you (tried to do) did. prologue log postlude

Welcome to IWETHEY!