If you support him, why is quoting him a slam?

[DuctapeFatwa]

I do not support any of the candidates, but this comment could be applied to any of them.

I have seen several instances of posts that contained quotes from one candidate or another, and then someone claiming to support the candidate comes in and calls it a "slam" or an "attack."

Hello? If you support a candidate, his views in his own words are not a slam, and saying that they are is more likely to make people question whether you really support him yourself than rethink their own choice.

If your candidate says something you disagree with, that is not the problem of the paper who published his words, or the poster who read them and posted the article here.

If your candidates views anger or embarrass you, either take it up with the candidate or take it up with yourself.

Perhaps you have established a psychic bond with your candidate, and can see inside his soul, and know that he did not really mean what he said. You have a responsibility to inform him of this, so that he can take appropriate action for the benefit of those who do not have your special advantage.

[Constitution]

1. Good post.

Some people want to be asleep while they are voting. That way they are not responsible.

I've even seen questions about campaign actions by supporters of a candiate be met with attacks from other members of that same campaign. There is a lot of hostility here.

[Padraig18]

2. Thanks, DF!

Valuable insight to all of us who get a bit too 'caught up' or personally invested in our candidates! :hi:

[BurtWorm]

3. Quotes out of context used to write off a candidate are a slam.

We saw how the Bushists did it over and over against Gore in 2000. DUers who want to use a quote from a candidate they don't support should be able to supply context on demand, preferably by linking to the source of the quote right away, so people don't have to waste time asking for it, often only to be told to "look it up yourself."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. If someone 'quotes out of context'

just provide the context and continue the debate. This has got to be the most over-used and baseless whine on DU.

One more time: If you think someone quoted your candidate 'out of context', just provide the context that was left out, and explain how it changes the meaning of what was said. Let the debate continue and STOP WHINING!

[BurtWorm]

9. I think it would elevate the debate if people took responsibility

for their own quotes. If you're going to claim Candidate Z made a racist statement, you'd better have the quote and the context to back it up, rather than just slinging shit and hoping to get away with it. A link to the quote is sufficient.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. I think it would elevate the debate if people took responsibility

for their own words. Rather than just complain that someone quoted 'out of context', actually debate, and show how that quoting out of context in some way misrepresented the meaning of what was said. I don't really think "just slinging shit and hoping to get away with it" really happens very much here at all. It is a charge that is levelled constantly by those who are unable or unwilling to actually debate the issues.

[BurtWorm]

14. In order for me to debate you on context, you have to give it to me

up front. You want to elevate the tone on DU? Then show courtesy to the people you're debating. Be adult and display some manners, not to mention a willingness to be challenged and possibly proven wrong, by citing the source for your assertion.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. Yeah, like you said, a link is sufficient.

I'm not talking about people who don't provide links for their quotes.

They aren't worth my time.

[BurtWorm]

18. Thanks for making me work so hard to find out you agree with me!

;)

[Padraig18]

11. No condemnation of the original poster's action?

That strikes me as somewhat odd, frankly, to criticize the defender for saying it's out of context but to give a pass to the roiginal poster who posted the out of context material... How's that again? :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. What action?

It strikes me as somewhat odd, frankly, to always assume that when someone is accused of quoting out of context, that they actually did so.

Why not actually discuss the quote and debate whether or not it was taken out of context?

Why not examine the truth or falsehood of the claims being made?

In short, why not actually debate instead of resorting constantly repeating 'you quoted out of context' which is really no more than name-calling?

[BurtWorm]

17. Anytime someone quotes without giving context

they're quoting out of context. It's fine for rumor-spreaders to take whatever shit gets flung at face value. But reasonable people need to see context. I repeat, a simple link to a source will do.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. It's actually very, very, very rare on DU

for people to post what they say are quotes without providing a link. So rare, in fact, that it really isn't what people mean when they say someone quoted 'out of context'.

[Padraig18]

21. I strongly disagree.

It has become EXTREMELY prevelant of late.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. If it is so prevelant

could you please post the links to one or two examples?

Since it is so prevelant, it should be easy for you to find.

[BurtWorm]

24. Here's one example

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=103592#103920

Not to single out the poster, because he's far from alone, but to give you an example of what you say isn't prevalent.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. Good example of what I'm saying.

if you want to find out what he means when he says "He told Howard U. students that caring about high black incarceration rates was liberal and weepy."

all you have to do is type

Dean "Howard University" liberal weepy

into google and you will get the context of what the poster is talking about.

But the poster is just assuming everyone remembers this thread, which of course is not a good assumption to make. In there you will find a link to the original Washington Post article:

Later, after the applause had subsided, one student asked if Dean would be willing to choose a black running mate. The governor demurred, saying it is too early for him to name possible vice presidential candidates. Another student wondered what Dean might do to lessen the number of African Americans in prison. Dean warned that "we can't get all weepy and liberal about this," but promised to treat substance abuse as a medical issue, rather than a "criminal problem," and to fight racism in sentencing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A41684-2003Oct3¬Found=true

but really that changes nothing, seeing it 'in context' in the original article. Reading the back and forth discussion you and that poster had in that thread, you both would make the same arguments anyway. It isn't a matter of someone dishonestly quoting out of context, it is a simple difference of interpretation. We all read the same thing and ascribe different meanings to it. Then we talk about it. That's debate. And in this particular debate I hold to my position that accusing someone of 'quoting out of context' is nothing more than a weak, ad hominem argument because when it actually is true, demonstrating such is much more effective than complaining about it.

[BurtWorm]

26. It's false to say what this poster said about what Dean said

because he posted it out of context. So he slammed Dean, unjustly, for supposedly saying liberals shouldn't get all liberal and weepy about it. (That's not what Dean was referring to.) This is my point. You can quote someone using their own words or put them in the wrong context and you're basically slandering the author of the quote. It pisses us off when wingers do it. It should piss us off when our guys do it too.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. Well I just think you are 100% wrong.

You are wrong about what the poster did.

You are wrong about what Dean said and what it meant.

You are wrong about what slander is.

You are wrong about every single thing you've said. And what's most infuriating is that you didn't even bother to make a pretense at responding to the points I've been making - which are:

If someone 'quotes out of context' just answer by showing what they did and how the context of what was said proves your point.

It's easy to look for yourself and find the context in which things were said. Then armed with that information, you can make your point

And for the record, I'm offended at the notion of using the word 'liberal' as a pejorative, no matter what the context.

[BurtWorm]

30. The poster didn't quote Dean out of context?

You really think Dean is dismissing high incarceration rates for African-Americans? You really think he's that kind of racist schmuck?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. YOU aren't just quoting out of context, you are misquoting

""The poster didn't quote Dean out of context?"

You really think Dean is dismissing high incarceration rates for African-Americans? You really think he's that kind of racist schmuck?"


The poster said something different than the words you ascribe to him here. What the poster said was:


"Seriously, he says civil rights law has done what it can, and now it's time to address subconscious FEELINGS about racial preferences in hiring. He told Howard U. students that caring about high black incarceration rates was liberal and weepy.

I don't think that he's trying so hard for black voters. I think he's trying to convince moderate whites that they won't have to make any significant sacrifices in order to right the wrongs of racism."



And in fact as I've shown above and you have so studiously ignored, the poster accurately represented the Washington Post article.

Later, after the applause had subsided, one student asked if Dean would be willing to choose a black running mate. The governor demurred, saying it is too early for him to name possible vice presidential candidates. Another student wondered what Dean might do to lessen the number of African Americans in prison. Dean warned that "we can't get all weepy and liberal about this," but promised to treat substance abuse as a medical issue, rather than a "criminal problem," and to fight racism in sentencing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A41684-2003Oct3¬Found=true

You don't like the point being made so you try to turn the argument into a different one, or alternately, you accuse him of 'quoting out of context'.

But that just reveals the weakness of your argument. You are unable to address the issues raised so you cry 'foul'.

It is weak and unpersuasive.

As far as Dean, and his clumsy attempts to discuss race, a picture is worth a thousand words:

[oasis]

34. Dean's comments on those Canadian tapes were in context, yet

he bristled about them being released.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. I'll happily discuss anything Kerry has said or done.

It's not bashing to quote a candidate and debate what they said, nor is it bashing to point out a candidate's past record of performance and debate that.

[Hep]

5. Almost no paper publishes quotes

without manufacturing some greater meaning. It isn't the quotes that so many take issue with, it's the clowning, the selective interpretation. How the quote is used. How much context is left out, etc.

[blm]

7. THANKYOU.

That is my feeling as well, and have always been mystified that those who are uncomfortable with their candidate's words and actions choose to blame the messenger rather than take up their discomfort with their candidate.

[Constitution]

8. If a person cannot support what their own candiate says,

then maybe they shouldn't be backing that candidate.

[xray s]

10. I don't mind the challenge if it is fair

All to often I see a post quoting one of the candidates and think "oh boy, maybe this guy is not the right one" only to find out, after reading the entire link, that the poster quoted out of context or twisted the meaning of the comments.

I do not think that is fair. It is definitely a waste of time and effort that could be better spent defeating Bush and the Republicans.

Besides, it puts false memes out there that will bite us on the ass come November.

[bearfartinthewoods]

12. and know that he did not really mean what he said.

thyis one kills me.....
"what i think he is trying to say....yadayada"

sweet tea....how about dealing with the words he did say instead of trying to warp them into something you can swallow.

[Cheswick2.0]

20. taking them out of context and leaving out the rest of the statement

to make some false point is a "slam". Though I would probably just call it lame.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. Why? Are you incapable of pointing out how the additional context

changes the meaning? What's wrong with discussing the quote and showing how it is a 'false point'? Why resort to the ad hominem 'out of context' instead of actually having a debate?

Could you please post an example of what you mean, a link to a thread where this mythical 'quoting out of context' takes place?

[thebigthink]

27. Well said!

[Clark4VotingRights]

28. I agree with you. Assuming the quote is *in context*.

But don't quote me on that.

}(

[maddezmom]

31. thoughtful post

thanks :)

[poskonig]

33. Paula Zahn tactics are lame.

If a candidate says something like this:

"I tend to believe the president, but his Iraq policy totally blows"

and a candidate-basher quotes

"I tend to believe the president"

yes, one is UNEQUIVOCALLY bashing.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

35. Speaking of context

the context of how a quote is used matters as well. For instance, let's take a case where a poster is responding to over-the-top charges like: 'Candidate X is just Bush's lap dog - how can we vote for anyone who believes Bush on anything?'

in this case it would certainly be appropriate to respond with the 'I tend to believe the President' quote from Candidate Y. Whether the second part of it is included or not, it would still show that the world is not black-and-white and it would still be a valid reply.