July 7th, 2019 (Permalink)
Rule of Argumentation 61: Defend your position!
This is how arguments usually start: someone makes an affirmative claim that someone else either denies or at least doubts and challenges. If you are the person making a claim and someone challenges it, the burden is on you to defend that claim. If you cannot or do not wish to defend it, then you should withdraw it2.
You may be familiar with the notion of burden of proof in the Anglo-American legal system. In a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. At the very least, the prosecutor must present a prima facie3 case for guilt. If the prosecution succeeds in presenting a prima facie case then the burden of proof switches from the prosecution to the defense. However, if the prosecutor fails to present such a case then the defense wins, that is, the defendant need not even present a case unless the prosecution meets its burden of proof.
Another way of making this same point is that in the Anglo-American legal tradition there is a presumption of innocence, that is, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is the other side of the burden of proof coin: the burden is on the prosecution and the presumption is in favor of the defendant. If the prosecutor meets the burden with a prima facie case, then the burden and presumption switch: the burden is then on the defense to rebut the prosecution's case sufficiently to show a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt.
The notions of burden of proof, presumption, prima facie evidence, and the shifting of the burden of proof can all be extended from the legal realm to argumentation in general. However, it's not obvious who gets the burden and who gets the presumption, that is, who plays the role of the prosecutor and who the defendant?
The answer is that the burden is on the affirmative rather than the negative, that is, on he who affirms as opposed to she who denies. The reason for this is an asymmetry between affirmative claims and denials, namely, that it is much easier to find evidence for an affirmation than a negation4. Moreover, unless they just blurt out claims for no reason, those who introduce a claim should be able to produce some evidence to support it. In contrast, you may be skeptical of a claim without having studied or considered the matter enough to present evidence against it.
The burden of proof is not all or nothing, but comes in degrees. If you assert a plausible claim then the burden of proof will be light, whereas an implausible claim places a heavy burden on you. This is the basis for the familiar saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence5.
Logical fallacies that result from attempts to evade the burden of proof include6:
- Appeal to Ignorance: Ignorance is appealed to when a lack of evidence against an affirmative claim is taken as evidence in favor of it. In other words, an appeal to ignorance treats an affirmation as if the presumption was in its favor, thus placing the burden of proof on the challenger to disprove a challenged claim. Remember: the burden of proof is on the affirmative.
- Begging the Question: The question is begged when the proponent fails to present a prima facie case for a claim yet refuses to withdraw it. The question can be begged in many ways, for instance, by repeating the claim in other words, or by educing evidence for a claim that is at least as implausible as the original claim.
So, the burden of this rule is that if you make an affirmative claim, be prepared to defend it. If, in contrast, you are the challenger and the proponent of the challenged claim makes a prima facie case, then accept the burden of proof. It is now up to you to either make a case against the claim, or to accept it.
Next Month: Rule 7
- Previous entries in this series:
- Rule of Argumentation 1: Appeal to reason!, 12/14/2018.
- Rule of Argumentation 2: Be ready to be wrong!, 1/26/2019.
- Rule of Argumentation 3: Focus on claims and arguments!, 2/13/2019.
- Rule of Argumentation 4: Be as definite as possible!, 3/8/2019.
- Rule of Argumentation 5: Be as precise as necessary!, 5/29/2019.
- As with all the rules discussed in this series, this is a rule of thumb, that is, a rule that has exceptions. For this rule, common sense is an exception. For instance, a person who asserts that every living thing eventually dies does not bear the burden. Instead, those who challenge such a claim must make a prima facie case against it, and only then does the burden shift to the claimant.
- Latin for "at first sight". See: Eugene Ehrlich, Amo, Amas, Amat and More: How to Use Latin to Your Own Advantage and to the Astonishment of Others (1985). A prima facie case for a claim is one that is sufficiently strong to prove the claim unless successfully rebutted.
- It is often said that you can't prove a negative, which is over-stated but a good rule of thumb. For an explanation of how much truth there is in this saying, see: Logical Literacy: "You can't prove a negative.", 3/14/2015.
- Popularized by the astronomer Carl Sagan, see: Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science (1980), p. 73.
- For more on each fallacy, see the entries under the names of the fallacies available from the drop-down menu in the navigation pane to your left.
July 4th, 2019 (Permalink)
An Independence Day Puzzle at the Logicians' Club
In July of 2019, the Logicians' Club* held its monthly meeting on the fourth. To celebrate the holiday, the members played a game. On this day, its three regular members were in attendance: Mrs. A, Miss B, and Mr. C. It was the latter who suggested the game and organized it for the other two members to play. They met in a private room of the tavern where the club meetings were held.
"Fellow logicians," Mr. C began impressively after clearing his throat, "I have here a bag of patriotic hats," he said, holding up a large opaque bag. "Two of the hats are red, two are blue, but only one is white." He reached into the bag, pulled out a white hat and placed it on his own head.
"In a few minutes," he continued, "I will turn out the lights and pull two hats out of the bag. Then I will place a hat on each of your heads. When I turn the light back on, both of you will be able to see the color of the other's hat, but you won't be able to see your own. I will ask each of you to guess the color of your own hat by whispering in my ear so that the other player won't know your guess. If at least one of you is right, you will both win a prize which you can share.
"Now, I'm going to step out of the room for a few minutes and allow you time to confer. It won't be cheating if you agree between you on a strategy for playing the game. Remember two things: first, only one of you has to guess the color of her hat correctly in order to win the prize―it doesn't matter whether the other player's guess is incorrect; second, if you win you will share the prize, so this is not a competitive game. Good luck!" And he left the room.
Is there a strategy that the two logicians can use to ensure that they win the prize? If so, what is that strategy?
* For other meetings of the club, see:
- A Puzzle at the Logicians' Club, 1/31/2016.
- A Meeting of the Logicians' Club, 9/26/2018.
- Another Meeting of the Logicians' Club, 11/24/2018.
(Added 7/9/2019) An anonymous reader wrote in wondering whether Mr. C could have taken the white hat that he put on his own head and put it on one of the two players when the lights were out. Of course, he could have, but rest assured that he didn't.
(Added 7/5/2019) Thanks to Lawrence Mayes for pointing out a loophole in the description of the game which has now been closed by amending this sentence.
Solution to an Independence Day Puzzle at the Logicians' Club: Yes, there is a strategy that the two players can use to guarantee that they win. Since Mr. C took the only white hat for himself, only two colors are in play: red and blue. The two players agree in advance that one of them will guess that her own hat is the same color as the hat she sees on the other player; the second player will guess that her hat is the other color from what she sees on the first player. For instance, if the first player sees a red hat on the second player, she will guess that her own hat is also red; whereas, if the second player sees a blue hat on the first player, she will guess that her own hat is red.
Since their hats are either the same color or different colors, one of the players' guesses will be right and one wrong. If their hats are both the same color, then the player who guesses that her hat is the same color as her partner's will be correct. If the hats are different colors, then the player who guesses that her own hat is a different color from her partner's will be correct. So, in either case, one of the two players will guess correctly.
Disclaimer and Disclosure: This puzzle is fiction, but it could happen. Sadly, there is no Logicians' Club. The puzzle itself seems to be a traditional one, and I can't remember where I found it. So, I didn't make it up but the presentation is mine.
If you’d like to learn more about manipulating cards in a casino, check out Bestonlinecasinos.com blackjack guide which includes extensive information on how to count cards.
Head over to SmartphoneCasinos.co.uk for a complete guide on casino sites in the United Kingdom.
If you want to play casino for free, you should check out freespinsnodeposituk.com for a complete list of casinos.
Video, classic, 3D, real money or bingo slots? At https://readyslotsgo.co.uk/new-slot-sites we list all of them and more. Read how to get your free spins and dive in to the adventures.
Don’t waste your time looking for worthy new online casinos, as https://newcasinouk.com/ already did all the hard work for you. Check out top lists with latest casinos on the market and register an account today.
Most online slot players have heard of the gamblers fallacy but we would suggest you simply do your homework before you play in order limit your risk. Sites like SlotsOnlineCanada are the go-to Canadian online slots portal on everything from new slot bonuses, slot game reviews and up-to-date news on the iGaming industry.
You will never be able to dispel the truth and reasoning behind the gamblers fallacy, however if you read these winning insights on pokies you may find that you gain a slight upper hand.
June 27th, 2019 (Permalink)
The Big Democratic "Debate", Part 1
The first of two "debates" of candidates for the Democratic party's nomination for president was held last night, and the second part will be tonight. I have some general comments about these so-called debates:
- They should stop calling these events "debates" since there is little if any real debating going on. It would be more accurate to call the event a "candidate forum", or something similar. This is not a new complaint about the presidential debates, but the problem is worse when there are so many candidates. Given the format, there was little clash between the "debaters" on the issues, that is, little argument and counter-argument.
- With ten candidates in a two-hour format, the individual candidates have at most about ten minutes total, in one-minute or thirty-second sound bites. This makes it easy for the candidates to use their time for short canned speeches, and difficult for them to engage in extended argumentation even if they wanted to, which they probably don't.
- For the most part, the "debaters" simply ignored the specific questions they were asked and gave short, memorized speeches. Here's an egregious example :
Moderator Lester Holt: … Your thoughts on equal pay?
Candidate Tulsi Gabbard: First of all, let's recognize the situation we're in, that the American people deserve a president who will put your interests ahead of the rich and powerful. That's not what we have right now. I enlisted in the Army National Guard after the Al Qaida terror attacks on 9/11 so I could go after those who had attacked us on that day. I still serve as a major. I served over 16 years, deployed twice to the Middle East, and in Congress served on the Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Affairs for over six years. I know the importance of our national security, as well as the terribly high cost of war. And for too long, our leaders have failed us, taking us from one regime change war to the next, leading us into a new cold war and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end. As president, I will take your hard-earned taxpayer dollars and instead invest those dollars into serving your needs, things like health care, a green economy, good-paying jobs, protecting our environment, and so much more.1
Holt asked Gabbard about the issue of equal pay for the sexes, but Gabbard answered with a short autobiography followed by a discussion of national security policy, never addressing the equal pay issue.
- Since the candidates ignore the questions, the moderators at this type of forum primarily play the role of time-keepers. There were five―count 'em, five!―moderators, when a single one could have done the job of keeping the candidates within their time limits. It's bad enough to have ten candidates to a forum, but to have half that many questioners is ridiculous. The only reason I can see for this many moderators is so that each of the news outlets hosting the forum can get at least one of their people into it. These forums were hosted by NBC, MSNBC, and Telemundo. The moderators Lester Holt, Savannah Guthrie, and Chuck Todd are from NBC, and Rachel Maddow is from MSNBC, which is a cable spin-off of NBC. Moderator Jose Diaz-Balart represents Telemundo, but he also has an NBC show2. Are five moderators from NBC really better than one would be?
- The canned responses of the candidates were, unsurprisingly, highly general. Occasionally, the moderators made some effort to pin a candidate down on an issue, but the candidates easily avoided saying anything specific. For example:
Moderator Savannah Guthrie: … [S]ome Democrats want a marginal individual tax rate of 70 percent on the very highest earners, those making more than $10 million a year. Would you support that? And if not, what would your top individual rate be?
Candidate "Beto" O'Rourke: This economy has got to work for everyone. And right now, we know that it isn't. And it's going to take all of us coming together to make sure that it does. Right now, we have a system that favors those who can pay for access and outcomes. That's how you explain an economy that is rigged to corporations and to the very wealthiest. A $2 trillion tax cut that favored corporations while they were sitting on record piles of cash and the very wealthiest in this country at a time of historic wealth inequality. A new democracy that is revived because we've returned power to the people, no PACs, no gerrymandering, automatic and same-day voter registration to bring in more voters, and a new Voting Rights Act to get rid of the barriers that are in place now. That's how we each have a voice in our democracy and make this economy work for everybody.
Guthrie: Congressman, that's time, sir. I'll give you 10 seconds to answer if you want to answer the direct question. Would you support a 70 percent individual marginal tax rate? Yes, no, or pass?
O'Rourke: I would support a tax rate and a tax code that is fair to everyone. Tax capital at the same rate…
Guthrie: Seventy percent?
O'Rourke:… that you tax ordinary income. Take that corporate tax rate up to 28 percent.1
Guthrie asked O'Rourke specific questions about what top individual tax rate he would support. Instead of answering, O'Rourke gives a canned speech filled with populist boilerplate about how we all have to pull together to make the economy work for everyone. Guthrie then makes a heroic effort to get O'Rourke to answer the original question, which he again doesn't answer. Instead, he tells us how high he wants to raise the corporate tax rate. Despite being asked twice, we still don't know what individual tax rate he would support.
That's the whole forum in a nutshell. I don't mean to criticize the candidates quoted above specifically since none were significantly different. These candidate forums may serve some useful purpose for anyone planning to vote in a Democratic primary, but as a "debate" about substantive political issues they're a waste of two hours.
Given the above, I doubt that I will have anything additional to say about the second forum tonight, since it will probably be more of the same.
- Jeremia Kimelman, "Full transcript: 2019 Democratic debate Night One, sortable by topic", NBC News, 6/27/2019
- Allan Smith, "NBC announces five moderators for first Democratic debate", NBC News, 6/11/2019
June 22nd, 2019 (Permalink)
Last Visit to the Hilbert Hotel
In our previous visits to the Hilbert Hotel, we saw that even though the infinite hotel was full it could still provide rooms for new customers1. We also learned that The Hilbert Company, Inc., that owns the hotel also owns an infinitely long railroad line and an infinitely long train that runs on it2. What we didn't learn at the time is that the company owns an infinite number of infinitely long trains running on an infinitude of infinitely long tracks.
So, one day an infinite number of such trains pulled up at the hotel each carrying an infinite number of passengers, all desiring a room for the night. As usual, the "No Vacancy" light was lit. The clerk on duty that day was the same one we met previously who knew how to provide new rooms for any finite number of new guests even when the hotel was full. He also had learned from the manager how to accommodate an infinite number of new arrivals from one of the infinitely long trains.
However, how was he to find rooms for an infinite number of guests from an infinite number of trains? Even if he opened up an infinite number of rooms by moving all of the current guests into the even numbered ones, as he had been taught by the manager, the very first train would fill up all the odd numbered rooms. Of course, once the hotel was full again, he could do the same trick a second time, but how could he do it an infinite number of times?
Instead of trying to accommodate the new customers train by train, the clerk thought that maybe he should start with the first passengers in each train. However, he soon realized that this would not work, either: since there were an infinite number of trains, there were an infinite number of first passengers. He would end up filling up the whole hotel with just the first passengers in each train, and then he'd have to repeat the same procedure an infinite number of times.
The clerk didn't want to bother the manager again, so he thought hard for a few minutes. He could once again move all of the current guests into the even-numbered rooms, thus opening up the odd-numbered ones, of which there were an infinite number. But how could he make sure that every one of the new guests received a distinct room? Can you help the clerk solve the puzzle?
- See: No Vacancy at the Hilbert Hotel, 4/29/2019
- See: Still No Vacancy at the Hilbert Hotel, 5/13/2019
June 12th, 2019 (Permalink)
Wolff's Howlers (Updated: 7/16/2019)
Michael Wolff, author of Siege: Trump Under Fire, is himself under fire for factual errors in the new book. Many of the errors singled out for criticism seem minor, but one is a whopper:
In the book, Wolff claimed to possess copies of special counsel Robert Mueller's alleged March 2018 draft indictment of Trump on counts of obstruction of justice. However, Mueller's office has asserted that the documents "do not exist."1
Of course, the fact that Mueller's office denies the existence of the draft isn't dispositive, but given the denial the burden of proof is now on Wolff to substantiate his claim. However, Wolff has so far not produced the alleged draft:
Pressed on his sourcing, and whether he would release copies of the supposed Mueller draft indictment memos he claims to have gotten, Wolff averred2. He couldn’t release copies, he said, because that might expose one of his anonymous “authoritative” sources. “You just have to trust me,” he said.3
Trust is earned, but so is distrust, and I think Wolff has earned the latter. In addition to the non-existent indictment, all or most of Wolff's sources for the book are anonymous except for one: Steve Bannon, who does not inspire confidence, to put it mildly.
Just as we saw with Naomi Wolf's new book last month4, this is not the first time Michael Wolff's reporting has come under siege for factual errors. His previous book, Fire and Fury, was a bestseller but apparently factually-challenged5.
I'm less interested in the specifics of Wolff's errors than in what this, taken together with the recent Naomi Wolf blunder, says about the state of the fact-checking of books. According to a Washington Post report about Wolff's previous book:
How did mistakes like these get past a fact-checker? Neither Wolff nor his publisher, Henry Holt, responded to…inquiries about how―or whether―“Fire and Fury” was vetted. Whether is a real question here. In many cases, publishers of nonfiction books such as Wolff's perform little, if any, fact-checking, leaving authors with a choice: pay out of their advances for someone to review their work or skip this pesky step altogether. Wolff thanked three people for fact-checking, in the book's acknowledgments section, but did not describe the scope of their work. “In my experience, publishing houses rarely, if ever, pay for fact-checking,” said Robert Liguori, a freelance fact-checker…. “I can't speak to whether any publishers have their own checking departments, but I have never heard of a major publishing house that has an internal staff to check its books.” Liguori said he has always been hired by careful authors, never by a publisher. Dan Kaufman, who has fact-checked books…told me the same thing.5
So, what happened to all those "editors, copyeditors and proofreaders for each book project"4? It was Naomi Wolf's publisher that boasted of them, but doesn't Henry Holt have any? Not all fact-checking is done by people called "fact-checkers", as Sarah Harrison Smith has written:
Fact checkers are everywhere, though many don't call themselves by that name. Editors, copy editors, writers, and researchers for print, radio, and even television verify facts as part of their jobs. Media that don't employ nominal fact checkers often divide the work of a fact checker among employees who do lots of other things, too.6
For this reason, I don't agree with the following:
Author…Susan Orlean told me that she was “flabbergasted” when she turned in a manuscript for her first book and learned that her publisher did not plan to check her work. But she said she has come to understand that “publishers simply can't do it.” “I mean, to properly fact-check a book basically means re-reporting a book,” she said. “That's how you do it. And a publisher can't do that, so I don't think it's malfeasance on their part or neglect. I think it's just not practical for them to do it, and they're assuming that you've done it.”5
Fact-checking is not the same as reporting, or at least it shouldn't be. Fact-checkers wouldn't be expected to redo all of the reporting that goes into a book such as Wolff's, but to check those things that can be quickly and easily checked. For instance, how hard would it have been to pick up a phone and call Mueller's office about the alleged draft indictment? Presumably, some reporter did just that, which is why the office issued the denial.
All of which raises the question: why didn't Wolff himself make such a call? I suspect that the reason is the obvious one that he didn't want to know. It wouldn't have been impossible or even impractical to check this; it just would have been too risky. The book is currently number four on The New York Times hardcover non-fiction bestseller list7.
Update (7/11/2019): Since I wrote this a month ago, the Jeffrey Epstein case has become a major scandal. According to journalist Vicky Ward:
A few years ago the journalist Michael Wolff wrote a profile of him for New York magazine that was meant to “rehabilitate” Epstein’s image and would tell of all the billionaires who still, secretly, hung out with Epstein. The piece had “fact-checking” issues and never ran. Even so, the notion that it was considered is mind-boggling.8
So, fact-checking issues, again, though I wonder whether the fact that "fact-checking" is in quotes suggests that that was just an excuse for killing the article, with the real reason being something else. Perhaps the following excerpts from an article that did run in New York magazine during the time that Epstein was first being prosecuted can help explain why the "mind-boggling" profile was even considered:
Vanity Fair columnist Michael Wolff met him in the Internet bubble, in the late nineties, when Epstein invited him and a group of scientists and media types to fly to a conference on the West Coast in his beautiful 727. “…[A]fter fifteen to twenty minutes, [Wolff said] Jeffrey arrives. … And he was followed onto the plane by―how shall I say this?―by three teenage girls not his daughters. Not adolescent girls. These are young, 18, 19, 20, who knows?…”9
17, 16, 15, 14, who knows? Continuing:
Soon after, Wolff was invited to tea at the house on East 71st Street. He understood that there was a purpose to the cultivation. Epstein was shifting his view to media…. In 2003, he became a discreet confidant to Wolff during the period when Wolff was involved in a bid for New York Magazine. … “He has never been secretive about the girls,” Wolff says. “At one point, when his troubles began, he was talking to me and said, ‘What can I say, I like young girls.’ I said, ‘Maybe you should say, ‘I like young women.’”9
Let me see if I have this straight: a few years after this Wolff was trying to write a profile for the same magazine to rehabilitate Epstein? Mind-boggling, indeed.
Update (7/14/2019): Yesterday, The New York Times published a lengthy article detailing some of Epstein's attempts to rehabilitate his image after his conviction, and the extent to which those attempts were successful. Wolff is not mentioned in the article, but the following passage is suggestive:
Some of the respect Mr. Epstein…drew on was manufactured…. A writer employed by his foundation churned out the news releases, and Drew Hendricks, the supposed author of a Forbes story calling Mr. Epstein “one of the largest backers of cutting edge science,” conceded in an interview that he was given $600 to post the pre-written article under his own name. (Forbes removed the piece after The New York Times published its article.)10
This passage raises some questions: Was Wolff paid by Epstein to write the article that was supposed to help rehabilitate his reputation? Or was he, like Hendricks, paid simply to put his name on an article written by someone else11? Did New York magazine find out about this and kill the article, using "fact-checking" as an excuse? These are just questions that I don't know the answer to, but if the answer were "yes" to any of them, that would help explain the otherwise "mind-boggling" article.
Update (7/16/2019): The fact-checker for Wolff's "mind-boggling" profile of Epstein appears to have been Alex Yablon, who titteringly cheeped:
In a new piece @VickyPJWard reports that New York Magazine was going to run a profile on Epstein by Michael Wolff that was killed out of fact checking concerns. Fun fact: I was the checker who killed it! One of my weirdest fact-checking experiences. Wolff let Epstein dictate the piece. He made some agreement that all fact questions would go through Epstein and only Epstein. In the piece, Wolff reported various powerful men still hung out with Epstein―but gave me no proof. I was not allowed to call them for comment. Not surprisingly, NY Mag's lawyers weren't thrilled about a story that alleged various rich and potentially litigious men socialized with a sexual predator without any proof or calling them for comment. As I recall the editor wasn't even aware Wolff had made this agreement. This is really more of a Michael Wolff story than a Jeffrey Epstein story.12
Yes, which is why I'm interested in it. This seems to answer at least part of one of my questions, namely, did someone other than Wolff write the profile? According to Yablon, Epstein himself dictated it! Of course, this answer raises the follow-up question: did Epstein pay Wolff for "writing" it?
It also appears to be the case, if what Yablon says is true, that the profile was killed for genuine fact-checking reasons, since real fact-checking seems to have been ruled out. However, the article seems to have been the result of a corrupt process, since no reporter should allow the subject of a profile to "dictate" it, nor enter into any agreement along the lines of the one described by Yablon. Surely, fact-checking aside, either of these should have been sufficient reason to kill it.
- Christina Zhao, "Michael Wolff Defends New Book From Allegations of Factual Inaccuracies in Heated Interview: 'This Critique is Bulls**t!'", Newsweek, 6/8/2019.
- "Averred?" Averred what? The author appears not to know the meaning of this word. "Aver" means "affirm" or "declare", and it's a transitive verb but it lacks an object here. What should the author have written? "Demurred", perhaps, which is intransitive and means "objected", and at least sounds similar to "averred". Otherwise, "declined" or "refused" would seem to be what was meant. See:
June 1st, 2019 (Permalink)
Medice, Cura Te Ipsum1
Only the night before, Moran was an unknown 23-year-old student in St. Paul, Minnesota. … Living alone in a new city, she worked at a Chipotle to make ends meet…. That morning, though, she discovered she had become someone else. Strangers were calling her nasty names on social media. Her photo was plastered across internet news sites. A video was circulating online, and she was its villain. In it, she could be seen refusing to serve a group of black men at the restaurant the previous evening.2
The above quote is from an article that tells the story of a woman falsely accused of racism, and the online lynch mob that immediately formed and got her fired. It's a compelling story, and I recommend that you read the whole thing as a cautionary tale. I further recommend that you read it before returning to this entry as I have some criticisms to make of one thing in the article. I will assume that you have done so.
As you've read, the incident reported in the article was another rush to judgment based on a misleading online video, similar to the Covington incident earlier this year3, with similar threats of violence against the victim and her family. As far as I know, no one has yet been actually lynched by one of these mobs, but it's just a matter of time before someone acts on the threats.
As harrowing as the young woman's story is, in the following passage the article itself does something close to the very thing it is describing. It does so by propagating a false accusation of racism in the following claim: "Critics accuse President Trump of normalizing racism by referring to Mexican immigrants as 'rapists'…". As I pointed out last year4, it's a false accusation based on a contextomy.
Almost as bad as spreading this slander is attributing it to some unnamed "critics". This is a weaselly journalistic technique to introduce by innuendo a charge that the journalist doesn't want to have to defend. I'm sure somebody somewhere has accused Trump at some time or other of this, but it's really the journalist who is saying it and at the same time ducking responsibility. If CNN wants to accuse Trump of calling all Mexicans rapists, it should do so openly and stand by it; if it can't stand by it, because it's false, it shouldn't insinuate it.
It's easy to discover that the Mexican rapists accusation against Trump is bunk as not only Politifact but even Salon debunked it last year4. When CNN complains about Trump calling it "fake news"5, I'd be more sympathetic if it would stop publishing things like this.
- "Physician, heal thyself", Latin. See: Eugene Ehrlich, Amo, Amas, Amat and More: How to Use Latin to Your Own Advantage and to the Astonishment of Others (1985). This proverb is cited by Jesus in Luke 4:23.
- John Blake, "How an internet mob falsely painted a Chipotle employee as racist", CNN, 5/27/2019.
- See: Recommended Reading, 1/30/2019, the last two selections.
- Meet the Press, 9/25/2018.
- Donovan Slack, "Trump to CNN: 'You are fake news'", USA Today, 1/11/2017.
The new year brings new online casinos 2019 with a lot of new games and bonuses!