Yeah, I know.

The two go hand in hand.

Given the decline in journalism, I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest networks like Fox and MSNBC feed major guests questions ahead of time.

Why would that be the one journalism convention they wouldn't break?

These, again, are “feels true” arguments.

Stick to just regurgitating my newsfeeds, McP.

It's what you're good at.

It's official. This thread now has everything.

Don't all of our threads have condescending pricks who hide behind obtuse references and "I'm just too smart to debate you" shtick?

Ad hominem.

True, but to be fair you are super arrogant.

To call them "feels true arguments" is disingenuous. Following your logic, most of the discussions/arguments on this board (particularly in N&D) are "feels true arguments."

Here's one for example.



Sometimes discussions need to involve analysis and logical inferences by the poster.

If you wanna disengage that's fine, but don't respond to me with your usual condescending BS.

it's weird because i'm just picturing Patrick Stewart and Stuart Braithwaite getting all pissy with each other over the news

Stay out of this Ernest

You shouldn't base your opinions on "feels true" arguments, you should only base them on tweets from blue checkmarks and "sources familiar with Trump" from Daily Beast.

Watch out burt or you'll anger McP into another '70s pornstache reference.

Yeah, we all have to depend on theorizing to a degree. I do draw a distinction between using it to say “maybe person x did a thing because strategy” and using a “this feels true to me” moment to play down or dismiss a clear and consequential misbehavior like this.

Here is an example of why I draw that distinction: just this morning I was reading a thread by someone who is a frequent guest on several network shows, wherein they laid out a litany of grievances against the way several of those shows handle the booking of guests. This went so far as to include calling out several hosts (I can’t remember if one was Chris Matthews or Chris Hayes) by name. It’s certainly not the first time I’ve read someone who wrote or complained about their experiences as a network guest. And there are hundreds of people out there who have had a tenure as ‘frequent dropin.’

So where are the disgruntled reveals about preapproved questions? Especially right now, as everyone is dunking on Fox News about it. If you are mad over your experience at MSNBC, or just care about the dishonesty of it all, now is the time to wipe the smug look off their faces. I mean, FOX NEWS felt the need to announce disciplinary action, so it’s not like it’s nothing. Whether it feels absolutely true or not, the fact of the matter is that someone got caught, and no one else stood up to say “yeah, about that...”

That’s why that distinction is key for me. The difference between speculating about someone’s intent, and using that feeling to assume Fox’s intentional malpractice is the industry’s ‘business as usual.’

For the record, when I said “I don’t know how to argue a ‘feels true,’” I only meant exactly that. Some people can debate that type of supposition. I am simply not good at it.

OK. So now that I called you out you're willing to have a decent conversation.

Yeah, fuck you.

No, now that I’m off work I’m free to write more.

Actually I’m standing under a bridge next to the University of Washington in the rain so I could write that long post before I get home and my kids beat me up.

So you're basically disguising your straw men as a personal behavior/distinction.

Cool.

If you’re wondering if I would read a summary by you of why my distinction between predictive suppositions and consequential suppositions is wrongheaded or fallacitic, I would read it. I would even read and not respond, if you prefer.

No. I'm fine.

Your gigantic ego has gotten enough "ink" on this page.