Comments by "Peter deWolf" (@StoneShards) on "Fake News Lies by Structure Re: Nikki Haley Curtains and the New York Times" video.

  1. No, the "curtains" were actually a "curtain system", involving, undoubtedly, motorized programmable control. So 50k isn't all that bad a price. I've never heard the term, "lies by structure"; I don't think it's useful. It may be a direct description of what's happening, but it doesn't elicit a well-connected understanding. Illuminating a lack of structural integrity by referencing relevant logical fallacies leaves you in the realm of logical thinking, whereas subjective/general descriptive terms leave you scrambling for a procedural basis (i.e. "ok, now what?"). In the realm of logic there's lots of options for accurate, constructive rebuttal. "Lies by structure" elicits, "So, you don't like my structures, eh?". You've identified "structure" as an important issue; the logical fallacies can break that out into a couple dozen more specific issues. This reminds me how difficult it can be to use language in communicating with others. Errors of translation compound: a simple sentence of five words may easily contain two words defined differently by two people in a conversation, introducing errors of translation that multiply against each other (not just a simple additive stacking, but a multiplicative stacking). So, it is safer, socially-speaking, to use general terminology because the effect of error stacking is to produce a MORE general meaning, which is likely to be less...unexpected than the effect of error stacking in the case of more specific terminology, which has the potential to be more personally offensive due to its exaggerated specificity. So, when you move from using general terminology to more specific terminology, you go from "safer" to more "dangerous". Unfortunately for many people, this move is absolutely necessary in order for communication to be useful. You have to be able to drop the "hey, look at me" small-talk mentality in favor of "perfect the structure of the communication". If a translation error is capable of disturbing your intellectual equilibrium, this isn't the game for you.
    3
  2. The NYT use of language was/is intellectually dishonest in that it was not chosen to convey the most accurate impression, but to inculcate a particularly calculated IN-accurate impression in the reader. This calculation may be deliberate, but it could also be incidental to the expression of a genuinely-felt bias (in the direction of "right and good", purportedly). Iow, they know not what they do; their hearts have been captured by the glories of ideological warfare.
    2