Timeline for Why did my Trump's speech question get the response that it did?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 1, 2021 at 18:37 | comment | added | Jared Smith | Not saying any of that, at all. I'm saying that you jumping to that conclusion would be #problematic if the OP were a random American and makes even less sense in the context of a non-American. "You suggest that Canadians are like Borat" no, I'm not suggesting they're dumb (and SBC does certainly play the fool for laughs) I am saying I'd be surprised if they cared all that much. I know who various British politicians are, and what policies they broadly support, and even if I do moreso than the average Brit I'm hardly likely to start crypto-shilling them in random internet sites. | |
| Feb 1, 2021 at 18:01 | comment | added | agc | @JaredSmith, It's as much about timing and context as it is content. You seem be be conceding this could be a suspicious Q. if asked by an American. You suggest that Canadians are like Borat, remote foreigners allowed a few major cross-cultural gaffes. Yet the average Canadian usually knows more of American current events than the average American. So the initial Q. seems more dubious if asked by a typically better informed Canadian. | |
| Feb 1, 2021 at 11:37 | comment | added | Jared Smith | What relevance does that have to the matter at hand? This isn't about whether or not there's a positive spin on the speech (spoiler alert: there isn't), it's about whether even asking the question is wrong. What is blindingly obvious to you may not be obvious at all to others. OP is (glancing at their profile again) Canadian, why do you assume that they know all about American politics and are shilling Trump instead of asking a good-faith question without knowing the whole score? | |
| Jan 31, 2021 at 23:30 | comment | added | agc | @JaredSmith, If there is any credible "positive" spin on the infamous 1/6/21 speech, please elaborate. | |
| Jan 30, 2021 at 12:28 | comment | added | Jared Smith | Ok, now post-edit I did downvote, because now it reads as "anyone ever who discusses the Trump administration in anything but the most negative possible terms is an obvious shill and needs to GTFO". Seriously, although you apparently don't believe it I assure you it is possible for someone to dislike Trump but not quite as intensely as you do. If that is an exaggeration of your actual position then I apologize, but honestly that's what your answer reads like to me. It's not that I think you're wrong about Trump, it's that I think this treatment of the OP is harmful to civil discourse. | |
| Jan 29, 2021 at 22:28 | history | edited | agc | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Minor tweaks.
|
| Jan 28, 2021 at 0:16 | history | edited | agc | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Improved text.
|
| Jan 27, 2021 at 17:07 | history | edited | agc | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
More words about bad faith.
|
| Jan 26, 2021 at 23:20 | comment | added | agc | @Fizz, Yes, it could do double duty, yet it was posted here intentionally. It expresses skepticism about the professedly ingenuous OP's seemingly disingenuous curiosity. | |
| Jan 26, 2021 at 23:11 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | Not my DV, but did you post this on the right page? It seems intended as an answer to the main-site question linked, instead of an explanation for the reaction(s) to the question. | |
| Jan 26, 2021 at 18:34 | history | edited | agc | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Factoid added.
|
| Jan 25, 2021 at 18:28 | comment | added | agc | @JaredSmith, Not necessarily apologists, is true in an absolute logical sense, but the real world odds seem a bit long for this sort of OP ingenuousness coinciding with the time "push" questions usually appear. It recalls the famed difficulty of finding impartial jurors for the OJ Simpson trial. | |
| Jan 25, 2021 at 15:38 | comment | added | Joe W | I agree with Jared Smith and don't see how the speech itself is a problem for the question. | |
| Jan 25, 2021 at 12:41 | comment | added | Jared Smith | Not the DV, but feel that this (totally valid) point could have been communicated without assuming bad faith on the part of the asker. Some (many?) people just don't follow politics or news that closely and are not necessary apologists in disguise... | |
| Jan 23, 2021 at 22:03 | history | answered | agc | CC BY-SA 4.0 |