- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
CNN gonna CNN: Semantic deflection
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:35 pm
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:35 pm
James Wood tweet:
Then, the semantic gymnastics of the Twitterati rationalize it like only they can do. (This type of stuff is what the media and the left do on a regular basis like some big circle jerk.)
They may actually be right that it was a narrow scope, but they still miss the point of the deliberate impression made that the court was narrowly split on the decision actually rendered.
She has since deleted the tweet. I hate these people so much.
Then, the semantic gymnastics of the Twitterati rationalize it like only they can do. (This type of stuff is what the media and the left do on a regular basis like some big circle jerk.)
They may actually be right that it was a narrow scope, but they still miss the point of the deliberate impression made that the court was narrowly split on the decision actually rendered.
She has since deleted the tweet. I hate these people so much.
quote:
Narrow refers to the ruling, not the vote. The stupid one is you. Sitting on your high horse thinking you're superior - all you did was flaunt your ignorance. LOL
quote:
You’re such a dummy James Woods. Try reading the article before judging the headline. #dummy
quote:
Did you bother to READ this piee at all before opening your pie hole? The rulling was narrowly applied inthat it only addressed the treament by the state commission.
quote:
Narrow ruling means that the ruling is narrow in scope. If you’re going to insult something, at least know what you’re talking about.
8
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:37 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
Then, the semantic gymnastics of the Twitterati rationalize it like only they can do. (This type of stuff is what the media and the left do on a regular basis like some big circle jerk.)
If the intent was deception why would they also write that the ruling was 7-2?
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:38 pm to Ag Zwin
You guys are really not helping your cause with this stupid shite. Everything is not a deep state enemedia conspiracy. Unless Fox News is in on it since theyve beens saying the same thing all day long.
This post was edited on 6/4/18 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:39 pm to Ag Zwin
They were all doing it. I'm just amazed at how many people willingly rub shite in their eyes so that they can't see the constant conflation and wordplay to score a win.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:40 pm to Ag Zwin
It was a "narrow" holding.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:40 pm to bmy
quote:The intent was clicks. That's always the intent of headlines now. That's not debatable. 97% of the people who "see" this news will not go beyond the headline and think two incorrect things: 1) That bakeries can deny service to gays and 2) that the ruling was 5-4. But those two things garner 1000 times more attention than the truth, so that's the headline.
If the intent was deception why would they also write that the ruling was 7-2?
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:49 pm to AUbused
quote:
You guys are really not helping your cause with this stupid shite. Everything is not a deep state enemedia conspiracy. Unless Fox News is in on it since theyve beens saying the same thing all day long.
If you only scan the first sentence of a tweet (as most do) and you see "ruled narrowly in favor of", are you going to assume it was a close vote or that it was a highly focused scope?
If you can find 10% of a group that would say the latter, I will retract the thread.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:54 pm to Ag Zwin
James Wood is a bright guy and usually has something interesting to say. He was flat-arsed wrong here.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:54 pm to AUbused
quote:
You guys are really not helping your cause with this stupid shite. Everything is not a deep state enemedia conspiracy. Unless Fox News is in on it since theyve beens saying the same thing all day long.
LINK
You can't win the war of ideas if you don't have a clue.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:56 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
James Wood is a bright guy and usually has something interesting to say. He was flat-arsed wrong here.
Why did CNN remove the word narrowly?
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:58 pm to junkfunky
quote:For Christ’s sake, there is no nefarious “conflation and wordplay” involved in the use of a common legal term to describe the nature of a legal ruling.
They were all doing it. I'm just amazed at how many people willingly rub shite in their eyes so that they can't see the constant conflation and wordplay to score a win.
The best argument that the tinfoilers seem able to present is that their people are too stupid to read beyond the headline ... not even the first paragraph. Not sure I would want to admit alliance with anyone that stupid.
This post was edited on 6/4/18 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:00 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
For Christ’s sake, there is no nefarious “conflation and wordplay” involved in the used of a common legal term to describe the nature of a legal ruling.
Peaceful protesters (with rocket launchers) at the Israeli border fence.
(MS-13, illegal) immigrants are animals.
quote:
The best argument that the tinfoilers seem able to present is that their people are too stupid to read beyond the headline ... not even the first paragraph. Not sure I would want to admit alliance with anyone that stupid.
Why did they remove the word?
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:00 pm to junkfunky
b/c people were yelling at them about it and it was probably a little confusing?
Right off the bat AP tweeted something like "SCOTUS narrowly reverses..." which most people (myself included) thought would be a 5-4. That was within seconds of SCOTUSBlog even announcing the decision. It was probably a little sloppy on AP's part, but it could be read either way.
Once more reporting about the opinion trickled out it became apparent it was the opinion itself that was narrow, but not before people started reacting to the initial reporting.
Right off the bat AP tweeted something like "SCOTUS narrowly reverses..." which most people (myself included) thought would be a 5-4. That was within seconds of SCOTUSBlog even announcing the decision. It was probably a little sloppy on AP's part, but it could be read either way.
Once more reporting about the opinion trickled out it became apparent it was the opinion itself that was narrow, but not before people started reacting to the initial reporting.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:01 pm to junkfunky
quote:Because the tinfoill dimwits were apparently confused ... or (more likely) were faking outrage.
Why did CNN remove the word narrowly?
For Chuck’s sale, even FOX used the same term. It is all too easy to forget just how stupid the average person actually is.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:02 pm to AggieHank86
Good Lord, you are impressed with yourself. The vast majority of people don't have a law degree and don't use common legal terms. CNN realized the confusion since they changed the headline. Just because people could understandably think the ruling was a close one based on the headline doesn't mean they are idiots.
You inability to not realize that speaks volumes of you. Though, you are constantly on here calling anyone who isn't a lawyer dumb. Lawyers are a dime a dozen. Think back to law school. All of those morons are now lawyers.
You inability to not realize that speaks volumes of you. Though, you are constantly on here calling anyone who isn't a lawyer dumb. Lawyers are a dime a dozen. Think back to law school. All of those morons are now lawyers.
This post was edited on 6/4/18 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:04 pm to Pettifogger
Honestly the reality is that calling an arrow is kind of silly. The ruling ruled exactly what conservatives have been saying for years
There weren't a bunch of conservatives beating the doors down to be allowed to put up signs that said no gays allowed
All conservatives have said from the get-go is that a person should be able to not support something that's in conflict with their beliefs. And secondarily that if you are going to be in the business of forcing people to do that that you have to apply it across the board
You can't say gays get to opt out of events they don't like while simultaneously saying religious people can't
And that's exactly what this ruling said.
You have a bunch of people running around telling you what it didn't say as if they were people hoping it would. That was all just slippery slope bullshite
There weren't a bunch of conservatives beating the doors down to be allowed to put up signs that said no gays allowed
All conservatives have said from the get-go is that a person should be able to not support something that's in conflict with their beliefs. And secondarily that if you are going to be in the business of forcing people to do that that you have to apply it across the board
You can't say gays get to opt out of events they don't like while simultaneously saying religious people can't
And that's exactly what this ruling said.
You have a bunch of people running around telling you what it didn't say as if they were people hoping it would. That was all just slippery slope bullshite
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:04 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
b/c people were yelling at them about it and it was probably a little confusing?
Right off the bat AP tweeted something like "SCOTUS narrowly reverses..." which most people (myself included) thought would be a 5-4. That was within seconds of SCOTUSBlog even announcing the decision. It was probably a little sloppy on AP's part, but it could be read either way.
Once more reporting about the opinion trickled out it became apparent it was the opinion itself that was narrow, but not before people started reacting to the initial reporting.
Some? Sure.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:04 pm to AUbused
quote:
Everything is not a deep state enemedia conspiracy.
Sometimes it is clear that CNN and others are pushing a narrative. This seems to be what this tweet did. You can totally dismiss this if you want. The tweet was disingenuous at best and misleading. You know it and I know it.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:07 pm to junkfunky
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:08 pm to BBONDS25
quote:And anyone reading the article would have had their confusion resolved in the first substantive paragraph of the article. Yes, I consider anyone who forms an opinion based solely upon a headline to be a farking idiot ... lawyer or no.
The vast majority of people don't have a law degree and don't use common legal terms. CNN realized the confusion since they changed the headline. Just because people could understandably think the ruling was a close one based on the headline doesn't mean they are idiots
If you cannot see the difference between (1) saying that someone is an idiot for forming opinions without reading the article and (2) allegedly saying all non-lawyers are stupid, well ... I cannot help you much.
Yes, I also consider most attorneys to be something less than gifted as well. Nonetheless, it is stupid for laypeople to keep arguing, when a lawyer (even one of the slow ones) explains a simple legal term or procedural matter.
If an engineer explained that a reporter (or blogger) had misunderstod the term “specific gravity,” would we see the same outrage? No. But the internet has convinced every Tom, Dick and Harry that he is a legal scholar.
As I said on another thread, this is the Concord continuance all over again. “My GOD, this MAJOR.”. Not so much. Concord was routine procedure. This is a very narrow ruling related to the actions of one agency in one state.
This post was edited on 6/4/18 at 4:25 pm
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News