*slow clap*
Wow. You may have just outdone yourself with this latest post of yours. You haven’t read the sophist playbook; I am now convinced you wrote the damned thing. I almost wonder which of us is the greater glutton for punishment— me, for wasting my time on your sophistry, or you, for enduring my (and others’) obvious frustration and exasperation with your sophistry. Only “almost” because sophists don’t endure punishment unless it is worth it to accomplish the goal of dominating others while simultaneously appearing legit and virtuous. The next step in the playbook is to claim projection.
This is why I've been asking... What is the point you are trying to make with this example?
No, this isn’t why. My point is peppered throughout this thread for anyone as curious and honest as they purport to be (more on that bolder word later). No, you continue to ask as a way to invalidate and avoid examining any and every point I might be making. It’s in your playbook.
Even now, you neglected to quote or address my first paragraph of the post you respond to currently. It’s no wonder, either, because it is an aspect of my point! You fail to take on a lot of what I post. You would rather pretend I didn’t say quite a few salient things.
You've answered it to a certain extent but not to the point where a meaningful dialog can be had, hence the seemingly contradictory statements. But depending on the actual topic, both are correct.
Here, you masterfully offer an olive branch of sorts, purporting (there’s that word again) to seek “meaningful dialog.” You may have your ideological compatriots fooled, but that’s about it. Actually, you might not even be fooling them; it is highly plausible that they just enjoy seeing “the Re-pube-lican getting owned!” You know, like you accuse me of solely wanting to “own the libs!”
“Depending on the actual topic”— again, implying I have no central focus AND using that as a means to justify your blatant contradiction. Well played!
If the point is merely that story X was reported and story X turned out to be false, then the former is what I accept and the conversation stops there. No reason to talk about what the video purports to show.
You already pretended this was the case at one point in this thread. “The conversation stops there” is a polite characterization of what you do. Rather, you make a parting shot such as “So, you really have nothing meaningful to say, really.” It’s in the playbook. It didn’t end there because I called you out on embellishing (aka lying for added effect), and you “ducked, dived, dipped, and dodged.” (From Dodgeball) All in the interests of having a productive, meaningful conversation, of course.
Here’s where I address the word “purport” again. People purport, not things. I have used the word properly earlier to demonstrate the proper context of it. You make it sound as though the video possesses some sentient intent to mislead its audience. Video can be edited by people, though— people who “purport” to show something other than what might be the case.
It’s as if you blame the video for being dishonest. “It wasn’t the journalists saying whipping occurred, it wasn’t the VP. It was the video’s fault! Blame the video!”
If the topic is about journalistic integrity and whether that was exercised here, the former is irrelevant and the latter becomes a valid point.
The difference between these two statements is about what point in time we are pointing to. In the immediate aftermath of the video's surfacing we did not have the benefit of an internal investigation which included analyzing other angles that ICE was able to later attain nor interviews with the agents or other witness statements. We had the video, that's it. So the media did what it's supposed to do, report.
You misunderstand the whole framework at play here. To elucidate:
Forget about the internal ICE investigation for a moment. It seems you were unaware of it anyway until I cited it. When I first watched the video(s) of the alleged whipping, I knew that the “journalists” were framing it in a sensationalized manner. Embellishing, as one might say. I, and others, did not need to the internal investigation to tell us what did or didn’t happen. I saw… an absence of whipping occurring! As such, that story serves as a glaring example of propagandistic journalism. Using plausible deniability and a hint of misbehavior to then overstate what is happening. Again, something you think only right leaning outlets do. That is quite naive.
So, I cited that as an example of misleading journalism. Here’s the thing: if not for the investigation and its conclusions, it would have just been your word against mine on this forum. And that is precisely what happened before I made you aware of the investigation’s exonerating results. When I called out the whipping claim as false (ie misleading, suggestive, irresponsible, etc.), you came (over)confidently back with “There were instances of this happening.”
And it would have been your word against mine if not for the third party, objective result of the investigation stating, “No, Double R, there were not instances of whipping happening.” An honest person might reassess, recalibrate, and think “Gee, I was a bit eager to believe that law enforcement was involved in slave era type brutality. Maybe the media is helping to create and exploit preconceived notions in their audience.”
No, your response is “I believe my lying eyes! Police whipping black people was a perfectly valid interpretation… at the time!” Even now, you attempt to frame your interpretation of the video as being just as reasonable and discerning as mine. Perhaps even superior, from the standpoint of compassion for the victims of law enforcement. Unbelievable. Well, actually it should be believed. It’s in the playbook.
Here is what you can’t get around: the media did not HAVE to say that border agents whipped migrants, especially with the meager evidence they had. Calling it whipping was… wait for it… a hasty assumption— what Denzel Washington was talking about. What this whole tedious line of discussion is about.
Honest headlines (perhaps a contradiction in terms, but you sure believe them!) might look like:
“Border agents wave their reins at migrants”
“Border agents twirl their reigns at migrants”
“Border agents chase migrants on horseback”
“Border agents corral migrants into river”
“Border agents use questionable tactics”
Wait, silly me. You WILL get around all this, just not in a way that reflects a desire for “meaningful discussion.” It’s just boring.
