Re:Gov Parson pushes to prosecute reporter who found securit...
by morelisp on Friday October 22, 2021 @03:13AM
(#28954452)
Being extremely concerned over the precise origin of one particular phrasing of the joke rather than its context and influences is hilariously on-point for the 'reality-based community.' Judicious!
Re:Gov Parson pushes to prosecute reporter who found securit...
by glenstein on Friday October 22, 2021 @07:08AM
(#28955772)
The background context is important, and it's true that Colbert really did coin the term. This really isn't that hard.
It should be possible to hold these two different thoughts in your head at the same time without descending into angry incredulity at anyone offering clarification.
Re:Gov Parson pushes to prosecute reporter who found securit...
by morelisp on Friday October 22, 2021 @01:01PM
(#28959686)
I don't know where you see anger or incredulity in my response. Colbert told the joke first! It also doesn't matter, in exactly the way which liberals misunderstood the comment in the first place! Now it's like a double-joke because it's so ironic, and also the US is probably irrecoverably fucked up. Laughs all around!
Re:Gov Parson pushes to prosecute reporter who found securit...
by glenstein on Friday October 22, 2021 @03:14PM
(#28961379)
An emphatic attempt to say that a correct answer to a simple question either "doesn't matter", or is an obsessive hyperfixation, or is a failure to understand The Real Lesson is a lot of combat to engage in, all for the meager returns of taking a simple yes-or-no question and turning it into an unfocused derail.
Colbert really did coin the term and it really is that simple. You seem to just want to take a question about where a quote came from and turn it into a broader conversation about the history of the 2000s, which is all well and good but.... it's just not an answer to what was being asked.
Of course it was in an intellectual climate where those words were charged with political meaning that made them salient enough to set up the joke. But to say it didn't original with Colbert would be to say that phrase itself was coined by a different person, and if it was, you could say who it was, and when and where. Otherwise it's just a confused detour into the weeds that lost track of the original question of attribution.
This is a huge detour, so to tie it back to the original thread, I think talks of "bias" are poisoned by a false assumption sides are equally estranged from scientific truth. It feels fair to make a both-sides argument, but it really just doesn't hold water under any serious examination especially when it comes to which party affiliation more systematically aligns with, responds to, and believes in scientific consensus.