|
Are we sure Senator Menendez isn't a plagiarist? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:51 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Are we sure Senator Menendez isn't a plagiarist? Those gold bars were HIS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 21:04
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Are we sure Senator Menendez isn't a plagiarist? I checked the court transcript and he literally pleaded the EXACT SAME THING as the defendant before him. Word for word.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 21:26
|
|
|
ummel posted:This is so ridiculously stupid to even be in the news. The GOP is doing a victory lap and everyone is still clutching pearls about plagiarism? This is an internal Harvard issue. We are so hosed as a country once Trump returns to power. Nobody is obligated to discuss only the parts of an issue that you consider most important, and people discussing what is and isn't plagiarism isn't clutching pearls. Also, dropping a factually questionable claim in the middle of a post is going to lead to people discussing that claim even if it's totally irrelevant to the current discussion or thread as a whole. It isn't an endorsement of that sub-issue as actually mattering. It's just how people are. There isn't a posting shortage. Like, obviously this was a right wing hit job and the lady wouldn't and shouldn't have been fired for the plagiarism. I haven't seen anyone say otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 21:49
|
|
|
Now you're talking about ideas. You've changed the topic. We were talking about arguments (and previously, facts). Those are not the same thing. If you're done with the previous conversation, fine. But to clarify, you can have a right wing idea supported entirely by left wing arguments based on entirely true facts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:11
|
|
|
Her ability to raise money for the university was compromised, whether by the hearing, by the inept response from Harvard, or the "plagarism" stuff. Since that's what a university president is for... Like it sucks that the right wing mendaciously got another one and owned we the libs but tbh I don't give a gently caress who the president of Harvard is, and I wish the national media didn't either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:15
|
|
|
Anyway https://x.com/millerchevalier/status/1742279622912618513?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:17
|
|
|
.....isn't that caro?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:18
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Now you're talking about ideas. You've changed the topic. We were talking about arguments (and previously, facts). Those are not the same thing. If you're done with the previous conversation, fine. I thought "idea" felt more general than "argument" while still being true ("Biden is a plagiarist" isn't exactly an argument I think, because it doesn't go from assumptions to propositions, but it's definitely an idea). I think "Biden is a plagiarist" is not a right-wing argument, or a right-wing idea, or a right-wing fact - as an idea or argument that he shouldn't be president, it's just moralistic, and as a fact it's just true. Assessing an idea, or an argument, or a fact by its social dynamics in a given political moment (who likes it, who doesn't, who's spreading it, who benefits) is a superficial level of engagement - it's not really engaging with the idea, or the argument, or the fact, it's just engaging with how (you imagine) other people (might) engage it. And it leads to crazy conclusions like "preferring a taller president is right-wing if Trump is nominated but left-wing if DeSantis or Haley is nominated" because you're engaging the argument/idea along the lines of "who benefits" and not "what is assumed to be true or important in this line of thinking" Personally I would rather Biden be plagiarizing effective labor rhetoric like Kinnock's than come up with his own unimpressive rhetoric. And I do believe that it was totally unintentional, and he apologized. At this point I am really only mad at him over his support for the Israeli campaign in Gaza. But I am very mad about that. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:19
|
|
|
Craig K posted:.....isn't that caro?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:21
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It sure is One weird trick to win capitalism
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:22
|
|
|
And here I was thinking Joe Biden was somehow able to get into the House of Lords after growing up in South Wales. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:23
|
|
|
We once again struggle to agree on terms as you misquote others' arguments. The issue is critically analyzing a narrative: facts can be true, objectively, and then arranged or presented in a way that supports a right wing narrative being pushed by a bad faith actor. Is it true that the President of Harvard plagiarized? Yes. Is it the reason the right wanted them removed from their post? No. But the fact is used, within the context of the right wing wanting to control academia, to advance a specific agenda.Craig K posted:.....isn't that caro? Yes. Possibly the greatest goon saga of all time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:25
|
|
|
Craig K posted:.....isn't that caro? Yes. The war tourist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:40
|
|
|
Morrow posted:We once again struggle to agree on terms as you misquote others' arguments. The issue is critically analyzing a narrative: facts can be true, objectively, and then arranged or presented in a way that supports a right wing narrative being pushed by a bad faith actor. Is it true that the President of Harvard plagiarized? Yes. Is it the reason the right wanted them removed from their post? No. But the fact is used, within the context of the right wing wanting to control academia, to advance a specific agenda. It's easy to get lost in pedantry or misunderstanding - I'll try to simplify it so I don't misspeak, and so we don't waste time/thread-space. You said "Joe Biden is a plagiarist" is a "right-wing argument" and I just don't see how it is. My definition of a right-wing argument would be "an argument that begins from the assumption that dominant social hierarchies reflect traditional wisdom about how the world is or ought to be, or makes factual assumptions in service of such a conclusion." In other words, an argument which has right-wing assumptions baked into it or adopts common right-wing myths to justify those assumptions. Believing Biden committed plagiarist is not a right-wing myth - he really did have a serious plagiarism scandal which torpedoed his 1988 DNC primary campaign. And if we assess the implication that he'd make a bad president because of that scandal, that's not a right-wing argument. The idea that plagiarism is a form of fraud is not right-wing, the idea that committing fraud indicates that a person is untrustworthy is not right-wing, the idea that untrustworthy people should not be president is not right-wing. It might be a popular argument among right-wing Americans, but that doesn't make it a right-wing argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:41
|
|
|
You're so close. Why is it a popular argument among right-wing Americans? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:43
|
|
|
Glazius posted:It's more telling that nobody who was interviewed about their work being "plagiarized" actually feels that they were materially plagiarized to a damaging degree. Most didn't, but Carol Swain published a pretty angry opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal about how bad a plagiarist Gay was and argued she shouldn't even have gotten tenure. I dunno that it really undermines your point though, as judging by her twitter account, she also appears to be a conservative whackjob who very much already had an axe to grind. She will be talking about the resignation on the Charlie Kirk show today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:43
|
|
|
I'm expecting caro to next sign a 50 million dollar movie deal, in which he gives 50 million dollars for making the film and gets 5% of the profit it makes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:46
|
|
|
Morrow posted:You're so close. Why is it a popular argument among right-wing Americans? I'm not sure it actually is popular among right-wing Americans but sure, let's say it is. Certainly relatively popular among them, compared to others. We both know why it is - because it denigrates Joe Biden's character which is currently politically advantageous for them. Is that what it takes to make an argument right-wing, just that it's politically advantageous for right-wing Americans? If so, "White men make good presidents" will be a left-wing idea if Nikki Haley is nominated, because it'll be politically advantageous for left-wing Americans by promoting votes for Biden. "We should always vote for the tallest president" will be a right-wing idea if Trump is nominated, but a left-wing idea if Haley or DeSantis is nominated. These are observably absurd conclusions. Instead we should determine an argument's political character by actually looking at the argument and seeing how it says the world works and how it says the world should work. eviltastic posted:Most didn't, but Carol Swain published a pretty angry opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal about how bad a plagiarist Gay was and argued she shouldn't even have gotten tenure. I dunno that it really undermines your point though, as judging by her twitter account, she also appears to be a conservative whackjob who very much already had an axe to grind. She will be talking about the resignation on the Charlie Kirk show today. I think it really only goes to show people are more sensitive to the political stakes of the issue than they really care one way or the other about being plagiarized by a small-name academic many years ago. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:51
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I thought "idea" felt more general than "argument" while still being true ("Biden is a plagiarist" isn't exactly an argument I think, because it doesn't go from assumptions to propositions, but it's definitely an idea). Changing from talking about one thing to another different thing is not "more general" and in fact makes no sense. And now you're going on about "myths" when no one brought up myths. Can you please just stick to talking about one thing at a time instead of engaging in this constant shifting of rhetorical focus? To put all these pieces together. There is no such thing as a "right wing fact", but my point is that "Biden is a plagiarist" absolutely can be both a simple fact (or a lie, it doesn't matter which) and a right wing argument if it's being made to support a right wing narrative or idea, especially as a piece of a larger right wing framework. It can also be a non-partisan argument intended to undermine another discussion. Or it can be a joke. Which one of those it is is not determined by content, but by context and intent and, if it's not novel, from source. Civilized Fishbot posted:Is that what it takes to make an argument right-wing, just that it's politically advantageous for right-wing Americans? You have had this explained to you several times now, and you keep trotting this out as your counterpoint instead of engaging with what we're actually saying to you, and it's loving exhausting. No one is making this argument, so just stop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:52
|
|
|
Morrow posted:You're so close. Why is it a popular argument among right-wing Americans? Which one? "The idea that plagiarism is a form of fraud"? "The idea that committing fraud indicates that a person is untrustworthy"? Or "the idea that untrustworthy people should not be president"? Not that it really matters. Those three ideas are popular among right-wing Americans for the roughly the same reasons they're popular among left-wing Americans and centrist Americans. Not wanting to trust massive power to someone you see as untrustworthy isn't unique to the right. And hell, it's not like Biden's never faced criticism from the left over plagiarism and various other issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Which one? "The idea that plagiarism is a form of fraud"? "The idea that committing fraud indicates that a person is untrustworthy"? Or "the idea that untrustworthy people should not be president"? Yes, so now we've arrived at the crux of the issue. The right-wing doesn't care about whether or not it's true, the goal is to propagate the idea through as many people and avenues as possible to do harm. In academic terms we're working off different rubrics and unfortunately people respond more to the methods here than to the idea itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 23:01
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Changing from talking about one thing to another different thing is not "more general" and in fact makes no sense. And now you're going on about "myths" when no one brought up myths. Can you please just stick to talking about one thing at a time instead of engaging in this constant shifting of rhetorical focus? Constant shifting of rhetorical focus? Good lord, I'm not a fascist. I'm sincerely sorry to have been confusing here, I'm happy to just say "argument." quote:my point is that "Biden is a plagiarist" absolutely can be both a simple fact (or a lie, it doesn't matter which) and a right wing argument if it's being made to support a right wing narrative or idea, especially as a piece of a larger right wing framework. In the case of this thread it wasn't being used that way. But it was still called "right wing" and I disagree with that. quote:You have had this explained to you several times now, and you keep trotting this out as your counterpoint instead of engaging with what we're actually saying to you, and it's loving exhausting. No one is making this argument, so just stop. In fact this argument was made. Not by you, but it was made. Morrow posted:In 1988 it wasn't a right-wing argument. Michael Dukakis hasn't held elected office for longer than I've been alive: today the only people who benefit from reminding people about it is the right-wing (and I guess Kinnock and Co but I doubt you're a Kinnock-stan). I've been told we need to focus on who benefits from the argument, on why it's popular among certain people, that we should focus on context and not content. To me these three are jointly synonymous with saying we should focus on who politically benefits from the argument rather than its actual content. Here's my definition of a right-wing argument. I'm no political philosopher but I like it because it requires looking at the actual argument and thinking about its political content, instead of looking at who likes the argument or why and using that to make inferences about the argument, which I consider to be ideological outsourcing and vulnerable to plain error. Civilized Fishbot posted:My definition of a right-wing argument would be "an argument that begins from the assumption that dominant social hierarchies reflect traditional wisdom about how the world is or ought to be, or makes factual assumptions in service of such a conclusion." In other words, an argument which has right-wing assumptions baked into it or adopts common right-wing myths to justify those assumptions. If there is a problem with this definition, please tell me, and if it's a good definition but it implies "Biden is a plagiarist" is right-wing then please tell me, because right now I think it's a good definition which implies "Biden is a plagiarist" is not right-wing. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 23:03
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Which one? "The idea that plagiarism is a form of fraud"? "The idea that committing fraud indicates that a person is untrustworthy"? Or "the idea that untrustworthy people should not be president"? I believe the relevant argument is "We should be talking about how Biden is bad instead of what we were talking about, now matter how tangentially relevant the connection"
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 23:05
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I believe the relevant argument is "We should be talking about how Biden is bad instead of what we were talking about, now matter how tangentially relevant the connection" Is that right-wing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 23:12
|
|
|
It's like you didn't even read any of my posts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 23:17
|
|
|
"Federal labor officials accused the rocket company SpaceX on Wednesday of illegally firing eight employees for circulating a letter critical of the company’s founder and chief executive, Elon Musk." If the case/settlement goes badly for SpaceX, could that result in issues for its government contracts? I assume no, hope yes, and know nothing. GlyphGryph posted:It's like you didn't even read any of my posts. I promise you I did - I responded almost line-by-line to the last one. I think this discussion of what constitutes a right-wing argument is being impeded by the fact that only one poster has offered a definition of what constitutes a right-wing argument. If you could let me know whether that definition is sufficient for you, or off the mark in one place or another, that could be really productive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 23:29
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I think it really only goes to show people are more sensitive to the political stakes of the issue than they really care one way or the other about being plagiarized by a small-name academic many years ago. Fair enough - I don't know about the political sympathies of any of the others, and didn't mean to weigh in on that. Just saying that yes, someone did complain, but it's not like someone inclined to railing about the how neo-Marxists are using diversity, equality, and inclusion to bring down America and thanking Jesus for Elon Musk was going to do something different. She was going on Newsmax to drag Gay before the plagiarism issues involving their respective work was in the news, so when given more ammo she was obviously going to keep taking shots. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Jan 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 23:50
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:A little incredulous to be told that people on “this forum” regard right wing media as inherently untrustworthy when there are enclaves on this site that are all-in on the Hunter Biden scandal. Can someone direct me to these “conservative enclaves”, I’m very lonely 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 00:27
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Most didn't, but Carol Swain published a pretty angry opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal about how bad a plagiarist Gay was and argued she shouldn't even have gotten tenure. I dunno that it really undermines your point though, as judging by her twitter account, she also appears to be a conservative whackjob who very much already had an axe to grind. She will be talking about the resignation on the Charlie Kirk show today. Yeah, of the two examples cited in the Crimson's breakdown of things, one does include some original research work of Swain's but is also literally a multisentence idea that was rephrased and cited in its entirety at the end of the second sentence, which is at best a technical violation of the house style, and the other is a definition of terms in common use in the field that could charitably be said to look a little sus. And again, we're talking about a work dozens of pages long produced in a time before electronic reference checking was possible, let alone reliable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 00:38
|
|
|
i think the real takeaway from the whole 'plagiarism saga' is not really the actual event, but that the NYT felt they should breathlessly report as if it was anything anyone cared about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 01:33
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:i think the real takeaway from the whole 'plagiarism saga' is not really the actual event, but that the NYT felt they should breathlessly report as if it was anything anyone cared about. It’s been taking up several pages of this thread, so it seems like goons care about it to some degree. Or maybe the people arguing about it are just bored 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 01:38
|
|
|
Kalit posted:It’s been taking up several pages of this thread, so it seems like goons care about it to some degree. Or maybe the people arguing about it are just bored Looking forward to weeks of NYT editorials about Taco Bell changing menu items.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 01:45
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Looking forward to weeks of NYT editorials about Taco Bell changing menu items. They will have to pry the nacho fries from my cold dead hands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 01:47
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:"Federal labor officials accused the rocket company SpaceX on Wednesday of illegally firing eight employees for circulating a letter critical of the company’s founder and chief executive, Elon Musk." I'm more familiar with the state version than the federal version, but my immediate quasi-informed gut response is: in and of itself it won't do anything (except cost Elon money and hurt SpaceX' brand / value), but it's a big loving bullet point in establishing a *pattern* of malfeasance. The Biden admin has been playing harder ball than its predecessors with labor regs. I don't know where the line is where they really start getting miffed. I bet Elon doesn't either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 01:54
|
|
|
Considering that there is no other launch provider in the world that does what SpaceX does, it’s probably pretty drat high :/
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 01:57
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Considering that there is no other launch provider in the world that does what SpaceX does, it’s probably pretty drat high :/ Nationalize SpaceX and fold it into NASA. Also more money for NASA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 02:00
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Looking forward to weeks of NYT editorials about Taco Bell changing menu items. Nacho Fries have always been mid. I will never forgive them for getting rid of the superior mexi-fries (small tater tots with taco seasoning that crisped up much more nicely than regular sized tater tots).
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 02:14
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Nationalize SpaceX and fold it into NASA. Guarantee you if that happened, 90% of the engineers at SpaceX would just jump ship from federal service and relaunch under another name w/o (or maybe with?... I hear lots of conflicting reports from acquaintances at SpaceX) Elon at the helm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:51 |
|
|
AlternateNu posted:Guarantee you if that happened, 90% of the engineers at SpaceX would just jump ship from federal service and relaunch under another name w/o (or maybe with?... I hear lots of conflicting reports from acquaintances at SpaceX) Elon at the helm. With none of their IP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 02:42
|
|
