Split Is Fetterman's aphasia relevant to his being a Senator?

[Patooka]

It astonishes me - truly - that it is considered 'ableist' to say a cognitive deficit that negatively affects the ability to follow and process speech will negatively impact performance as a Senator.

Fetterman can perform the tasks a senator does and, more importantly, he was fucking voted in. Not only is you premise completely asinine, that you think Fetterman is unique with being bad at answering questions, speaking or debating shows how truely ignorant you are of contemporary US politics.

I never said any of that. This is not even a straw man of what I said. It's complete fantasy.

Hmm...being bad at debates:

Did you watch Fetterman in the debate? His responses were not the responses of a man whose cognition was fine.

I hope he does. Because he is a Senator now and Senators need to be able to follow conversations and debates in real-time.

Hmm...being bad at speaking:

When a bill is debated in the Senate, multiple speakers speak for it and against it. If you can't understand /process what is being said to you, that is a deficit in your ability to be a Senator.

Hmm...being bad at answering questions:

But Fetterman has said he needs captioning to follow conversations, even with a single questioner (e.g. when he was interviewed).

I'll repeat* - only someone truely ignorant would think being bad at answering questions, speaking or debating disqualifies one from US politics. Sadly in this day and age, it's a fucking asset.

*I know I used the word repeat when I should have used reiterate as I didn't repeat word for word. That was deliberate on my part. Go nuts over the discrepancy.

 

[Metaphor]

It astonishes me - truly - that it is considered 'ableist' to say a cognitive deficit that negatively affects the ability to follow and process speech will negatively impact performance as a Senator.

Fetterman can perform the tasks a senator does and, more importantly, he was fucking voted in. Not only is you premise completely asinine, that you think Fetterman is unique with being bad at answering questions, speaking or debating shows how truely ignorant you are of contemporary US politics.

I never said any of that. This is not even a straw man of what I said. It's complete fantasy.

Hmm...being bad at debates:

Did you watch Fetterman in the debate? His responses were not the responses of a man whose cognition was fine.

I hope he does. Because he is a Senator now and Senators need to be able to follow conversations and debates in real-time.

Hmm...being bad at speaking:

When a bill is debated in the Senate, multiple speakers speak for it and against it. If you can't understand /process what is being said to you, that is a deficit in your ability to be a Senator.

Hmm...being bad at answering questions:

But Fetterman has said he needs captioning to follow conversations, even with a single questioner (e.g. when he was interviewed).

I'll repeat* - only someone truely ignorant would think being bad at answering questions, speaking or debating disqualifies one from US politics.

And I'll repeat: I never said it "disqualified" him.

Oy gevalt.

Sadly in this day and age, it's a fucking asset.

*I know I used the word repeat when I should have used reiterate as I didn't repeat word for word. That was deliberate on my part. Go nuts over the discrepancy.

I didn't say Fetterman was 'bad at debates'. I said his responses in the debate showed he had a cognitive deficit. Now whilst being bad at debates is not a desirable quality for a Senator, the reason he performed poorly--the cognitive deficit--is definitely not a desirable quality for a Senator and will make his job very hard, the jobs of everyone interacting with him verbally very hard, and cannot entirely be mitigated.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It astonishes me - truly - that it is considered 'ableist' to say a cognitive deficit that negatively affects the ability to follow and process speech will negatively impact performance as a Senator.

Fetterman can perform the tasks a senator does and, more importantly, he was fucking voted in. Not only is you premise completely asinine, that you think Fetterman is unique with being bad at answering questions, speaking or debating shows how truely ignorant you are of contemporary US politics.

I never said any of that. This is not even a straw man of what I said. It's complete fantasy.

Hmm...being bad at debates:

Did you watch Fetterman in the debate? His responses were not the responses of a man whose cognition was fine.

I hope he does. Because he is a Senator now and Senators need to be able to follow conversations and debates in real-time.

Hmm...being bad at speaking:

When a bill is debated in the Senate, multiple speakers speak for it and against it. If you can't understand /process what is being said to you, that is a deficit in your ability to be a Senator.

Hmm...being bad at answering questions:

But Fetterman has said he needs captioning to follow conversations, even with a single questioner (e.g. when he was interviewed).

I'll repeat* - only someone truely ignorant would think being bad at answering questions, speaking or debating disqualifies one from US politics.

And I'll repeat: I never said it "disqualified" him.

Oy gevalt.

Sadly in this day and age, it's a fucking asset.

*I know I used the word repeat when I should have used reiterate as I didn't repeat word for word. That was deliberate on my part. Go nuts over the discrepancy.

I didn't say Fetterman was 'bad at debates'. I said his responses in the debate showed he had a cognitive deficit. Now whilst being bad at debates is not a desirable quality for a Senator, the reason he performed poorly--the cognitive deficit--is definitely not a desirable quality for a Senator and will make his job very hard, the jobs of everyone interacting with him verbally very hard, and cannot entirely be mitigated.

We don’t know his full condition or how he will improve, though there have been statements made that he has already improved since the debate. We don’t know yet how much harder his job will be. I can’t imagine that interacting with him verbally and expecting lucid, intelligent responses would be more difficult than that from someone like Marjorie Taylor Green, who doesn’t have the excuse of a stroke for her apparent cognitive disabilities.

 

[ZiprHead]

It isn't just televised debates, which are certainly high stress events for any participant (except perhaps seasoned politicians who have perfected their talking points).

When a bill is debated in the Senate, multiple speakers speak for it and against it. If you can't understand /process what is being said to you, that is a deficit in your ability to be a Senator.

Fetterman needed captioning when he had a one-on-one interview.

I started with one response - that it was ludicrous to say a demonstrated cognitive deficit had 'no impact' on his ability to be a Senator. I can't help but feel I am getting hyperpartisan pushback against what seems like an obvious statement.

If Fetterman can understand a statement if it's in a differant form, then it's not a cognitive issue, it's a communication issue. And that issue will get better.

And Oz will always be Oz.

 

[scombrid]

You look at the Ohio map for US House, and you wonder how in the fuck that is legal. Southern half of Franklin county is diluted by most of empty Ohio heading to Dayton. Yeah, the voters in those regions have so much in common. Same thing with Toledo being drowned. At least my district has Canton and Akron, and a reasonable territory around it. Not a hundred miles across! But both 7 and 13 are meant to carve out a bit more of Cuyahoga County and disenfranchise more Democrats.

Last week's This American Life episode was called "The Map Makers". It dove deep into that quandary.

Very happy for Fetterman. Would have been too dispiriting if he lost over a disability irrelevant to the job. And really, fuck "Dr." Oz, what a dehumanizing, ugly campaign that fraud ran.

What?

Not being able to follow ordinary speech without seeing it written down is 'irrelevant' to the job of a politician?

Are you serious?

I’ve not seen anything from the conservatives about policy in that race. Just jabs about Fetterman being “Abby Normal” and such. Probably because he actually has a history of being in the trenches working for regular people. Whereas Oz is just a charlatan celebrity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Accommodations make it irrelevant. You may be aware that someone who is deaf can make a fine senator.

Fetterman's problem is not sensory, but cognitive.

Same effect, though.

No, it's not.

A person who was hard of hearing or deaf would need to rely on either a hearing aid (in which case I would say the accommodation mitigates the deficit 100%), or, if in the Senate, rely on a device that generates real-time captions/subtitles for everything that is said in close to real time. I don't know if the American Senate is set up for that, nor do I know that the automated tech is there (I've had Microsoft Teams meetings with good real-time captioning but it isn't anything I would rely on as an official transcript).

But Fetterman has said he needs captioning to follow conversations, even with a single questioner (e.g. when he was interviewed). And, he needs things written down because of his cognitive/processing deficits, not a sensory deficit. Sometimes cognitive deficits are very narrow and specific, but often they are general. Whatever the deficit is that is causing him difficulty in processing speech might also cause other problems.

You aren't showing it as any worse than deafness that can't be corrected with a hearing aid. (And note that hearing aids are nothing like 100% mitigation.)

 

[Metaphor]

Accommodations make it irrelevant. You may be aware that someone who is deaf can make a fine senator.

Fetterman's problem is not sensory, but cognitive.

Same effect, though.

No, it's not.

A person who was hard of hearing or deaf would need to rely on either a hearing aid (in which case I would say the accommodation mitigates the deficit 100%), or, if in the Senate, rely on a device that generates real-time captions/subtitles for everything that is said in close to real time. I don't know if the American Senate is set up for that, nor do I know that the automated tech is there (I've had Microsoft Teams meetings with good real-time captioning but it isn't anything I would rely on as an official transcript).

But Fetterman has said he needs captioning to follow conversations, even with a single questioner (e.g. when he was interviewed). And, he needs things written down because of his cognitive/processing deficits, not a sensory deficit. Sometimes cognitive deficits are very narrow and specific, but often they are general. Whatever the deficit is that is causing him difficulty in processing speech might also cause other problems.

You aren't showing it as any worse than deafness that can't be corrected with a hearing aid. (And note that hearing aids are nothing like 100% mitigation.)

Oy gevalt.

It's significantly worse. Fetterman doesn't have a sensory issue. He can't understand speech not because he can't hear it but because his brain is damaged and he can't process it.

It's also a more difficult accommodation to turn all communication into written communication. These are facts.

 

[Metaphor]

It isn't just televised debates, which are certainly high stress events for any participant (except perhaps seasoned politicians who have perfected their talking points).

When a bill is debated in the Senate, multiple speakers speak for it and against it. If you can't understand /process what is being said to you, that is a deficit in your ability to be a Senator.

Fetterman needed captioning when he had a one-on-one interview.

I started with one response - that it was ludicrous to say a demonstrated cognitive deficit had 'no impact' on his ability to be a Senator. I can't help but feel I am getting hyperpartisan pushback against what seems like an obvious statement.

If Fetterman can understand a statement if it's in a differant form, then it's not a cognitive issue, it's a communication issue.

Oy gevalt.

A reading disorder is a cognitive issue. Speech processing disorders are cognitive issues. Bruce Willis's aphasia is a cognitive issue. The issue is the brain, not the sensory organs feeding it.

It beggars belief the amount of defensiveness about calling Fetterman's clear cognitive issue an issue. It beggars belief that people think listening and understanding speech is completely optional as a Senator. It beggars belief that I would be called 'ableist' for pointing out the screamingly obvious.

Also, it is not clear to me at all that Fetterman understands the questions put to him, even when written. Listen to his response about his position on fracking. He either was taking the 'outright lying' response; or he didn't understand the question, or he did understand the question but thought his response answered it, or he believes he has always held the same stance.

But this isn't even about Fetterman. I wanted to address the absolutely ludicrous delusion that difficulties processing speech was somehow 'irrelevant' to the job of being a Senator.

Oy gevalt.

Where did you get your medical degree and when did you examine Fetterman?

A stroke can have physical, mental and emotional effects. Here are common physical conditions that occur after a stroke:

• Weakness or paralysis: Weakness or paralysis occurs in 80% of stroke victims. One whole side of the body may be affected, or movement in just a leg or arm could be impaired. Depending on which side of the brain experienced the stroke, the opposite side of the body will see the effects.
• Balance or coordination complications: A stroke survivor may struggle to sit, stand or walk despite adequate muscle strength.
• Sensations of pain or numbness: Abnormal sensations may make a stroke survivor unable to get comfortable or relax at times.
• Trouble swallowing: Difficulties swallowing may make eating more frustrating after a stroke.
• Bowel or urinary control problems: Bowel or urinary incontinence can be common in stroke survivors.
• Fatigue: Stroke patients may get tired quickly, which can make fully participating in a stroke rehabilitation program challenging.

Stroke survivors may also endure these mental health symptoms:
(This is the important part, Metaphor)

• Aphasia: Aphasia is a language disorder that causes communication issues by affecting the patient's ability to both understand and express spoken and written language. Typically, speech therapy is the main treatment for aphasia. Although it may sound overwhelming, knowing what aphasia is and how to address it is a big step toward recovery.
• Cognitive complications: A stroke survivor may face a range of cognitive challenges such as memory problems, a shortened attention span, trouble learning or difficulty thinking clearly.
• Bodily inattention: It is not uncommon for a stroke patient to not look toward their weaker side or even eat food from the half of the plate according to their weaker side.
• Unawareness of symptoms: Stroke survivors may not fully grasp the extent of their symptoms and misjudge their ability to complete tasks like they used to.

What to Expect After a Stroke: 6 Tips for the Stroke Caregiver | PAM

If you have recently become a stroke caregiver, you will find some helpful information about the stroke recovery process and your new responsibility.

pamhealth.com

Stay in your lane, Metaphor.

It appears you think this refutes what I've said. What you've posted supports what I've said. Fetterman has cognitive issues as a result of his stroke.

 

[ZiprHead]

It isn't just televised debates, which are certainly high stress events for any participant (except perhaps seasoned politicians who have perfected their talking points).

When a bill is debated in the Senate, multiple speakers speak for it and against it. If you can't understand /process what is being said to you, that is a deficit in your ability to be a Senator.

Fetterman needed captioning when he had a one-on-one interview.

I started with one response - that it was ludicrous to say a demonstrated cognitive deficit had 'no impact' on his ability to be a Senator. I can't help but feel I am getting hyperpartisan pushback against what seems like an obvious statement.

If Fetterman can understand a statement if it's in a differant form, then it's not a cognitive issue, it's a communication issue.

Oy gevalt.

A reading disorder is a cognitive issue. Speech processing disorders are cognitive issues. Bruce Willis's aphasia is a cognitive issue. The issue is the brain, not the sensory organs feeding it.

It beggars belief the amount of defensiveness about calling Fetterman's clear cognitive issue an issue. It beggars belief that people think listening and understanding speech is completely optional as a Senator. It beggars belief that I would be called 'ableist' for pointing out the screamingly obvious.

Also, it is not clear to me at all that Fetterman understands the questions put to him, even when written. Listen to his response about his position on fracking. He either was taking the 'outright lying' response; or he didn't understand the question, or he did understand the question but thought his response answered it, or he believes he has always held the same stance.

But this isn't even about Fetterman. I wanted to address the absolutely ludicrous delusion that difficulties processing speech was somehow 'irrelevant' to the job of being a Senator.

Oy gevalt.

Where did you get your medical degree and when did you examine Fetterman?

A stroke can have physical, mental and emotional effects. Here are common physical conditions that occur after a stroke:

• Weakness or paralysis: Weakness or paralysis occurs in 80% of stroke victims. One whole side of the body may be affected, or movement in just a leg or arm could be impaired. Depending on which side of the brain experienced the stroke, the opposite side of the body will see the effects.
• Balance or coordination complications: A stroke survivor may struggle to sit, stand or walk despite adequate muscle strength.
• Sensations of pain or numbness: Abnormal sensations may make a stroke survivor unable to get comfortable or relax at times.
• Trouble swallowing: Difficulties swallowing may make eating more frustrating after a stroke.
• Bowel or urinary control problems: Bowel or urinary incontinence can be common in stroke survivors.
• Fatigue: Stroke patients may get tired quickly, which can make fully participating in a stroke rehabilitation program challenging.

Stroke survivors may also endure these mental health symptoms:
(This is the important part, Metaphor)

• Aphasia: Aphasia is a language disorder that causes communication issues by affecting the patient's ability to both understand and express spoken and written language. Typically, speech therapy is the main treatment for aphasia. Although it may sound overwhelming, knowing what aphasia is and how to address it is a big step toward recovery.
• Cognitive complications: A stroke survivor may face a range of cognitive challenges such as memory problems, a shortened attention span, trouble learning or difficulty thinking clearly.
• Bodily inattention: It is not uncommon for a stroke patient to not look toward their weaker side or even eat food from the half of the plate according to their weaker side.
• Unawareness of symptoms: Stroke survivors may not fully grasp the extent of their symptoms and misjudge their ability to complete tasks like they used to.

What to Expect After a Stroke: 6 Tips for the Stroke Caregiver | PAM

If you have recently become a stroke caregiver, you will find some helpful information about the stroke recovery process and your new responsibility.

pamhealth.com

Stay in your lane, Metaphor.

It appears you think this refutes what I've said. What you've posted supports what I've said. Fetterman has cognitive issues as a result of his stroke.

Answer the questions posed above. Where did you get your medical degree and when did you examine Fetterman?

 

[Metaphor]

It isn't just televised debates, which are certainly high stress events for any participant (except perhaps seasoned politicians who have perfected their talking points).

When a bill is debated in the Senate, multiple speakers speak for it and against it. If you can't understand /process what is being said to you, that is a deficit in your ability to be a Senator.

Fetterman needed captioning when he had a one-on-one interview.

I started with one response - that it was ludicrous to say a demonstrated cognitive deficit had 'no impact' on his ability to be a Senator. I can't help but feel I am getting hyperpartisan pushback against what seems like an obvious statement.

If Fetterman can understand a statement if it's in a differant form, then it's not a cognitive issue, it's a communication issue.

Oy gevalt.

A reading disorder is a cognitive issue. Speech processing disorders are cognitive issues. Bruce Willis's aphasia is a cognitive issue. The issue is the brain, not the sensory organs feeding it.

It beggars belief the amount of defensiveness about calling Fetterman's clear cognitive issue an issue. It beggars belief that people think listening and understanding speech is completely optional as a Senator. It beggars belief that I would be called 'ableist' for pointing out the screamingly obvious.

Also, it is not clear to me at all that Fetterman understands the questions put to him, even when written. Listen to his response about his position on fracking. He either was taking the 'outright lying' response; or he didn't understand the question, or he did understand the question but thought his response answered it, or he believes he has always held the same stance.

But this isn't even about Fetterman. I wanted to address the absolutely ludicrous delusion that difficulties processing speech was somehow 'irrelevant' to the job of being a Senator.

Oy gevalt.

Where did you get your medical degree and when did you examine Fetterman?

A stroke can have physical, mental and emotional effects. Here are common physical conditions that occur after a stroke:

• Weakness or paralysis: Weakness or paralysis occurs in 80% of stroke victims. One whole side of the body may be affected, or movement in just a leg or arm could be impaired. Depending on which side of the brain experienced the stroke, the opposite side of the body will see the effects.
• Balance or coordination complications: A stroke survivor may struggle to sit, stand or walk despite adequate muscle strength.
• Sensations of pain or numbness: Abnormal sensations may make a stroke survivor unable to get comfortable or relax at times.
• Trouble swallowing: Difficulties swallowing may make eating more frustrating after a stroke.
• Bowel or urinary control problems: Bowel or urinary incontinence can be common in stroke survivors.
• Fatigue: Stroke patients may get tired quickly, which can make fully participating in a stroke rehabilitation program challenging.

Stroke survivors may also endure these mental health symptoms:
(This is the important part, Metaphor)

• Aphasia: Aphasia is a language disorder that causes communication issues by affecting the patient's ability to both understand and express spoken and written language. Typically, speech therapy is the main treatment for aphasia. Although it may sound overwhelming, knowing what aphasia is and how to address it is a big step toward recovery.
• Cognitive complications: A stroke survivor may face a range of cognitive challenges such as memory problems, a shortened attention span, trouble learning or difficulty thinking clearly.
• Bodily inattention: It is not uncommon for a stroke patient to not look toward their weaker side or even eat food from the half of the plate according to their weaker side.
• Unawareness of symptoms: Stroke survivors may not fully grasp the extent of their symptoms and misjudge their ability to complete tasks like they used to.

What to Expect After a Stroke: 6 Tips for the Stroke Caregiver | PAM

If you have recently become a stroke caregiver, you will find some helpful information about the stroke recovery process and your new responsibility.

pamhealth.com

Stay in your lane, Metaphor.

It appears you think this refutes what I've said. What you've posted supports what I've said. Fetterman has cognitive issues as a result of his stroke.

Answer the questions posed above. Where did you get your medical degree and when did you examine Fetterman?

I am not a medical doctor and I did not examine Fetterman.

Precisely why you think your appeal to authority refutes anything I've said I'm sure I don't know.

Fetterman has a cognitive deficit. This is not a secret. He has spoken about it and had accommodations for it.

Listening and understanding speech is an important ability for a Senator. Indeed not just for a Senator, in a huge array of jobs.

 

[Metaphor]

How a person responds while under pressure in a debate and how that person decides to cast a vote on a bill are two different things.

It isn't just televised debates, which are certainly high stress events for any participant (except perhaps seasoned politicians who have perfected their talking points).

When a bill is debated in the Senate, multiple speakers speak for it and against it. If you can't understand /process what is being said to you, that is a deficit in your ability to be a Senator.

You have a seriously outmoded idea of how business is conducted in the US Congress, where most seats often sit empty while speeches are given. Back in the 18th century, that idea made much more sense. Nowadays, most business is conducted independently of public debates on the floor, which those in office use primarily for public posturing. Fetterman can give such speeches, and he can read the ones that his colleagues give and have published in the public record.

Understanding debate on the Senate floor was an example. Really, processing speech is a fundamental aspect of almost any job.

You are trying to convince a linguist of this? I think that I understand a little more about linguistic aphasia and how it works than you do. The kinds of errors that Fetterman makes are entirely consistent with aphasia, which tends to become worse in stressful situations. (Even Nixon showed mild signs of motor aphasia during his resignation speech.) There is a big difference between the ability to think clearly and the ability to process language during production and perception. From what I could tell, Feterman's difficulties were quite mild and consistent with someone who is recovering from a stroke, but I am not a clinical diagnostician. I have studied the affliction because of its relevance to linguistic theories.

Fetterman needed captioning when he had a one-on-one interview.

I started with one response - that it was ludicrous to say a demonstrated cognitive deficit had 'no impact' on his ability to be a Senator. I can't help but feel I am getting hyperpartisan pushback against what seems like an obvious statement.

Fetterman will continue to recover and improve, and he will likely make an effective senator for the state of Pennsylvania, which he knows very well. Oz would just have been another vote for MAGA obstructionism and collecting money from rich Republican donors rather than TV audiences.

I said nothing about Oz.

I know that you said nothing about Oz, but he was the only practical alternative choice to Fetterman. As for his so-called "cognitive deficit", all we know is that he suffered brain damage from the stroke.

Calling it 'so-called' and putting it in inverted commas doesn't change the reality.

I used scare quotes, because that expression could mean so many different things. It really doesn't mean very much in the context of this discussion.

What it means in the context of this discussion is exactly what it sounds like. Fetterman has a cognitive deficit caused by his stroke. He can no longer process speech the way he used to and the way ordinary people without such a deficit do.

 

[Metaphor]

You are trying to convince a linguist of this?

I'm trying to convince the people who think that it is 'ableist' to say Fetterman has a deficit and the particular kind of deficit will impact his work as a Senator.

I think that I understand a little more about linguistic aphasia and how it works than you do.

What? I brought up aphasia as an example of a cognitive deficit. I did not claim Fetterman had aphasia. I claim he has the problem he openly says he has.

 

[Copernicus]

...

I know that you said nothing about Oz, but he was the only practical alternative choice to Fetterman. As for his so-called "cognitive deficit", all we know is that he suffered brain damage from the stroke.

Calling it 'so-called' and putting it in inverted commas doesn't change the reality.

I used scare quotes, because that expression could mean so many different things. It really doesn't mean very much in the context of this discussion.

What it means in the context of this discussion is exactly what it sounds like. Fetterman has a cognitive deficit caused by his stroke. He can no longer process speech the way he used to and the way ordinary people without such a deficit do.

You seem to have grasped the point that people who have brain strokes can have behavioral impairments after the stroke. Nobody is disputing that, but just calling them by the rubric "cognitive deficit" doesn't mean much. What you don't seem to grasp is that there is a tremendous range of different impairments that stroke victims can suffer from. It depends on the location and extent of the damage. Some motor and perceptual impairments are quite common. They take time to recover from, but people do make full recoveries. I mentioned Joe Biden as an outstanding example of someone who has fully recovered from brain damage and gone on to become quite effective as a politician. But he suffered the damage much earlier in his life. It is quite common for aphasia to subside over time after a stroke, and Fetterman's stroke was really quite recent. He does not really seem to have suffered anything more than mild symptoms, and he is at an age where the prognosis for recovery is quite good, according to medical professionals who deal with these kinds of disabilities. So all of your huffing and puffing over his verbal stumbles is just so much malarkey, as Biden would put it. It is not as consequential as you are making it out to be. There is cause for concern, but not your level of concern.

 

[Rhea]

His doctors also said he will get better over time.

I hope he does. Because he is a Senator now and Senators need to be able to follow conversations and debates in real-time.

Oh.
He’s not, you know.
He won’t be for another two months.
During which he is expected to continue his recovery.

 

[Metaphor]

...

I know that you said nothing about Oz, but he was the only practical alternative choice to Fetterman. As for his so-called "cognitive deficit", all we know is that he suffered brain damage from the stroke.

Calling it 'so-called' and putting it in inverted commas doesn't change the reality.

I used scare quotes, because that expression could mean so many different things. It really doesn't mean very much in the context of this discussion.

What it means in the context of this discussion is exactly what it sounds like. Fetterman has a cognitive deficit caused by his stroke. He can no longer process speech the way he used to and the way ordinary people without such a deficit do.

You seem to have grasped the point that people who have brain strokes can have behavioral impairments after the stroke. Nobody is disputing that, but just calling them by the rubric "cognitive deficit" doesn't mean much. What you don't seem to grasp is that there is a tremendous range of different impairments that stroke victims can suffer from.

In what way is that relevant to anything I've said?

It depends on the location and extent of the damage. Some motor and perceptual impairments are quite common. They take time to recover from, but people do make full recoveries. I mentioned Joe Biden as an outstanding example of someone who has fully recovered from brain damage and gone on to become quite effective as a politician. But he suffered the damage much earlier in his life. It is quite common for aphasia to subside over time after a stroke, and Fetterman's stroke was really quite recent. He does not really seem to have suffered anything more than mild symptoms, and he is at an age where the prognosis for recovery is quite good, according to medical professionals who deal with these kinds of disabilities. So all of your huffing and puffing over his verbal stumble

What? My "huffing and puffing" over "verbal stumbles"? Not being able to process speech is not a "verbal stumble". Not being able to process speech is a serious limitation for a Senator. And this isn't about me, as much as you would like to make it so.

s is just so much malarkey, as Biden would put it. It is not as consequential as you are making it out to be. There is cause for concern, but not your level of concern.

My "level of concern"? I am concerned all right--I'm concerned that on this board, not even the mildest, factually correct statement (that speech processing difficulties are a cognitive deficit and they have a bearing on a job such as that of a Senator) has to have defensive and idiotic pushback--if the person with the deficit is in your ideological ingroup.

 

[Metaphor]

His doctors also said he will get better over time.

I hope he does. Because he is a Senator now and Senators need to be able to follow conversations and debates in real-time.

Oh.
He’s not, you know.
He won’t be for another two months.
During which he is expected to continue his recovery.

As I said, I hope he does.

Because not being able to process speech is a serious impediment for a Senator, no matter if the person is in your ideological ingroup or not.

 

[Copernicus]

What? My "huffing and puffing" over "verbal stumbles"? Not being able to process speech is not a "verbal stumble". Not being able to process speech is a serious limitation for a Senator. And this isn't about me, as much as you would like to make it so.

You use expressions like "not being able to process speech", but then we can all see that he can process speech. He makes mistakes, but he understands what people say and he responds coherently most of the time. I have seen him give news conferences, one-on-one interviews on TV, and a post-campaign victory speech. That takes a lot of ability to process speech. So all you are doing here is focusing on the verbal stumbles and trying to make them into something that you are clearly unqualified to do--diagnose the man as too mentally incapacitated to do his job as a senator a few weeks from now, when he will have had more time for rest and recovery.

You do correctly point out that I have an ideological bias that may be influencing my perception, but how is that any different from the ideological bias that may be influencing your perception? The ad-hominem issue you raise is utterly beside the point. I have said nothing here that is based on politics. It is how I genuinely feel about Fetterman's ability to process language. And that is a subject that I have some professional qualification to comment on.

 

[Metaphor]

What? My "huffing and puffing" over "verbal stumbles"? Not being able to process speech is not a "verbal stumble". Not being able to process speech is a serious limitation for a Senator. And this isn't about me, as much as you would like to make it so.

You use expressions like "not being able to process speech", but then we can all see that he can process speech.

I have not seen that evidence. I have seen his debate and his tv interview, and both used closed captions. He read text.

He makes mistakes, but he understands what people say and he responds coherently most of the time. I have seen him give news conferences, one-on-one interviews on TV, and a post-campaign victory speech. That takes a lot of ability to process speech. So all you are doing here is focusing on the verbal stumbles

No. I am not focusing on 'verbal stumbles', despite your repeated mischaracterisation that I am. I am saying he has trouble processing speech because that is what Fetterman himself claimed.

and trying to make them into something that you are clearly unqualified to do--diagnose the man as too mentally incapacitated to do his job

False and slanderous. I did not say he was too "mentally incapacitated" to do his job. I said processing speech is an important part of a Senator's job, not an 'irrelevant' part.

as a senator a few weeks from now, when he will have had more time for rest and recovery.

Irrelevant. I made no claims that he would not or could not recover or improve. I made a claim that it was ludicrous to say processing speech is an 'irrelevant' disability to a Senator's job.

You do correctly point out that I have an ideological bias that may be influencing my perception, but how is that any different from the ideological bias that may be influencing your perception?

The perception that understanding the speech of others is an important part of the job of a Senator?

The ad-hominem issue you raise is utterly beside the point. I have said nothing here that is based on politics. It is how I genuinely feel about Fetterman's ability to process language. And that is a subject that I have some professional qualification to comment on.

It is not an ad-hominem to speculate ideological bias as the reason several board members are resisting eye-bleedingly obvious statements, like that processing speech is an important part of a Senator's job.

I also see you changed your words in your penultimate sentence, from processing speech to processing 'language'. I have very carefully said Fetterman has speech (that is, verbal rather than written) processing issues. This is something he and his own camp have said and admitted to. That is why he asked for closed captioning in his tv interview and his debate.

I made a single claim: that speech processing difficulties was hardly irrelevant to the job of a Senator. Responses to that claim have included:
* Go fuck yourself, ableist
* People's cognitive deficits can improve after a stroke (a claim seemingly offered as counterevidence, as if I'd made the claim Fetterman could not experience improvement)
* It's not a 'cognitive deficit', which, even if that were true (it's not) makes no difference whatever to my claim, which is that processing real-time speech is not irrelevant to the job of a Senator
* That the deficit can be accommodated or mitigated, which is a separate question
* That I was not Fetterman's doctor, and therefore...I apparently don't understand what the words 'cognitive deficit' could mean.

Do you have any idea what it's like to make an eye-bleedingly obvious statement and then have half the board resist that statement and ascribe motives and positions to you manufactured from whole cloth?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I hope he does. Because he is a Senator now and Senators need to be able to follow conversations and debates in real-time.

Fortunately, C-Span has closed captioning.

 

[Copernicus]

It is not an ad-hominem to speculate ideological bias as the reason several board members are resisting eye-bleedingly obvious statements, like that processing speech is an important part of a Senator's job.

If you are attacking someone's motives, then you are making an ad hominem attack. That is just what the expression "ad hominem" means. All I did was point out that you yourself are vulnerable to the same attack. You already know that ad hominem attacks are fallacious and irrelevant to this argument, so I shouldn't need to point it out to you.

I also see you changed your words in your penultimate sentence, from processing speech to processing 'language'. I have very carefully said Fetterman has speech (that is, verbal rather than written) processing issues. This is something he and his own camp have said and admitted to. That is why he asked for closed captioning in his tv interview and his debate.

There is no significance to the use of "language" instead of "speech". You are talking about a linguistic impairment and implying that his disability would somehow render him unfit for his job. I agreed with you that it was relevant, but disagreed that it was as serious as you have made it out to be. That he asked for closed captioning supports my contention that his speech/language/linguistic processing was relatively insignificant regarding his fitness for office, given the circumstances. It only showed that he was at a serious disadvantage in a TV debate, because he is not yet fully recovered from the damage caused by his stroke. He could obviously process written English better than spoken English. That is quite common in people who have suffered light or moderate strokes. The prognosis for a full recovery at his age is usually good.

I made a single claim: that speech processing difficulties was hardly irrelevant to the job of a Senator. Responses to that claim have included:
* Go fuck yourself, ableist
* People's cognitive deficits can improve after a stroke (a claim seemingly offered as counterevidence, as if I'd made the claim Fetterman could not experience improvement)
* It's not a 'cognitive deficit', which, even if that were true (it's not) makes no difference whatever to my claim, which is that processing real-time speech is not irrelevant to the job of a Senator
* That the deficit can be accommodated or mitigated, which is a separate question
* That I was not Fetterman's doctor, and therefore...I apparently don't understand what the words 'cognitive deficit' could mean.

Do you have any idea what it's like to make an eye-bleedingly obvious statement and then have half the board resist that statement and ascribe motives and positions to you manufactured from whole cloth?

Yes, and that does not describe the treatment I have given your post. I am not here to defend comments made by others, nor do I endorse your characterization of the extent of your victimhood. People here have disagreed with the way you have framed Fetterman's linguistic difficulties, and I am one of those people. That does not mean that I agree with everything someone else says against you or your argument. I did agree with you that speech processing difficulties are not irrelevant to the job, but disagreed that they are as serious as you seem to think. If you don't think they are serious, then why all the fuss you are making about them?