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

[Metaphor]

I did not choose this thread title

Then request it be changed.

If the mods want to change it they can. I suggest "is understanding the speech of others relevant to being a Senator"

Somehow I suspect the thread title will not be changed.

It's your post at the root of it, it's in your power to demand proper characterization of your views.

Quit pretending that it's hopeless despite the fact that you've tried nothing to actually solve what seems a problem.

I've been demanding proper characterisation of my views for the entire thread. The mischaracterisation of my views began before the thread split and continued afterwards.

The fact is, you have spent the whole thread trying to cast doubt and muddy waters and weave public opinion against someone for whom there is no real barrier to them understanding things sharply, on the basis that the path that is required to reach that understanding is not the same path that avails most.

I spent zero percent of the thread doing that.

 

[Ford]

Metaphor, this is someone who apparently has not had a stroke who is still running for senate. This is the fucking standard:



If anything, Fetterman is overqualified for senator. He'll do just fine,

I have to agree with Brian. I don't...I don't know.

I have some perspective on this. Arizona's late Senator McCain was a frequent guest at the radio station where I used to work. I didn't have much interaction with him personally, but I did edit some of his "sound bytes" in the aftermath of 9/11. Or more to the point, I didn't. Because I didn't have to.

In the days following the attack, part of my job was to edit interviews with various leaders into clips that could be played on air. It was difficult, because most people talk in fits and starts. Getting 30 seconds of content out of a live interview is a challenge. But not so with McCain. I'd load up one of his interviews, set about editing it, but left it "as is" for the most part. There it was. A perfect 30 or 40 second sound byte.

I later talked to a co-worker who'd been part of his campaign, and she said "oh that's on purpose." The man spent hours upon hours crafting his words so that they would fit into 30 or 40 second clips. He could go on a lot longer, but realized that he needed to communicate what he wanted to say in the most efficient package. That's why he was such a frequent guest on the TV talk shows. Every quip, every policy statement, every answer was carefully crafted, and not by his staff or some consultant. That was just who he was...a man who wielded his words like a scalpel.

Senator Herschel Walker? Please, Georgia....please don't do it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'd like to see the GOP try... let them try to disqualify a man for being disabled... that'll go over well.

 

[Jarhyn]

If the mods want to change it they can

Then for lack of asking for the change, you choose the title. You have the power to choose otherwise yet you make the choice to let it remain.

Thus it is you who chooses the title.

 

[ZiprHead]

There were no werewolves in that movie.

 

[Swammerdami]

Mea culpa. I thought the following remark should have signaled a willingness to find a more appropriate thread title. I should have sent a PM to the putative OP, and drawn attention to this remark as a Staff announcement.

I apologize to one and all for the "Should disqualify" in thread title. Ambiguous, and not, apparently, the claim under review. I gave little thought to thread title, partly because my initial idea was to move this split to Elsewhere and/or Lock it.

I and the other Mods are generally happy to comply with reasonable requests.

I did not choose this thread title

Then request it be changed.

If the mods want to change it they can. I suggest "is understanding the speech of others relevant to being a Senator"

Somehow I suspect the thread title will not be changed.

How's this title ?
"Is Fetterman's aphasia relevant to his being a Senator?"

 

[Metaphor]

If the mods want to change it they can

Then for lack of asking for the change, you choose the title.

No Jarhyn, any more than being sent unsolicited merchandise means I manufactured the merchandise.

 

[Ford]

Mea culpa. I thought the following remark should have signaled a willingness to find a more appropriate thread title. I should have sent a PM to the putative OP, and drawn attention to this remark as a Staff announcement.

I apologize to one and all for the "Should disqualify" in thread title. Ambiguous, and not, apparently, the claim under review. I gave little thought to thread title, partly because my initial idea was to move this split to Elsewhere and/or Lock it.

I and the other Mods are generally happy to comply with reasonable requests.

I did not choose this thread title

Then request it be changed.

If the mods want to change it they can. I suggest "is understanding the speech of others relevant to being a Senator"

Somehow I suspect the thread title will not be changed.

How's this title ?
"Is Fetterman's aphasia relevant to his being a Senator?"

Metaphor is using the Tucker Carlson Defense.

"I'm not saying it is...I'm just asking questions."

 

[Metaphor]

Mea culpa. I thought the following remark should have signaled a willingness to find a more appropriate thread title. I should have sent a PM to the putative OP, and drawn attention to this remark as a Staff announcement.

I apologize to one and all for the "Should disqualify" in thread title. Ambiguous, and not, apparently, the claim under review. I gave little thought to thread title, partly because my initial idea was to move this split to Elsewhere and/or Lock it.

I and the other Mods are generally happy to comply with reasonable requests.

I did not choose this thread title

Then request it be changed.

If the mods want to change it they can. I suggest "is understanding the speech of others relevant to being a Senator"

Somehow I suspect the thread title will not be changed.

How's this title ?
"Is Fetterman's aphasia relevant to his being a Senator?"

Metaphor is using the Tucker Carlson Defense.

"I'm not saying it is...I'm just asking questions."

What is your defense, Ford, for your slanderous misrepresentations of my position that you made in post #177?

 

[Jarhyn]

If the mods want to change it they can

Then for lack of asking for the change, you choose the title.

No Jarhyn, any more than being sent unsolicited merchandise means I manufactured the merchandise.

More, when you release a product unnamed, it means you consent to a folk-naming of it until you name it yourself. Just because you got a default title thrust upon you when you engineered the split does not make your lack of dissent irrelevant.

In fact the lack of dissent over a decision is the very textbook definition of silent assent.

As per Ford,

Metaphor is using the Tucker Carlson Defense.

"I'm not saying it is...I'm just asking questions."

I think I read somewhere on this site about "Just asking questions"

The answer was "no", from the very beginning. Being forced to read something so as to understand it is not a relevant as a senator unless deafness is even more so.

Unless one wishes to argue that this is relevant insofar as it makes him more desirable as a senator. A senator who understands particular difficulties citizens face is someone whose presence as a senator allows an often underserved population representation.

 

[Metaphor]

If the mods want to change it they can

Then for lack of asking for the change, you choose the title.

No Jarhyn, any more than being sent unsolicited merchandise means I manufactured the merchandise.

More, when you release a product unnamed,

I didn't split the thread.

it means you consent to a folk-naming of it until you name it yourself. Just because you got a default title thrust upon you when you engineered the split

I did not engineer a split.

does not make your lack of dissent irrelevant.

In fact the lack of dissent over a decision is the very textbook definition of silent assent

"What are you talking about your honour? She didn't say "no" when I mounted her! I already told you she was unconscious!"

 

[Ford]

Mea culpa. I thought the following remark should have signaled a willingness to find a more appropriate thread title. I should have sent a PM to the putative OP, and drawn attention to this remark as a Staff announcement.

I apologize to one and all for the "Should disqualify" in thread title. Ambiguous, and not, apparently, the claim under review. I gave little thought to thread title, partly because my initial idea was to move this split to Elsewhere and/or Lock it.

I and the other Mods are generally happy to comply with reasonable requests.

I did not choose this thread title

Then request it be changed.

If the mods want to change it they can. I suggest "is understanding the speech of others relevant to being a Senator"

Somehow I suspect the thread title will not be changed.

How's this title ?
"Is Fetterman's aphasia relevant to his being a Senator?"

Metaphor is using the Tucker Carlson Defense.

"I'm not saying it is...I'm just asking questions."

What is your defense, Ford, for your slanderous misrepresentations of my position that you made in post #177?

Ah, the "I know you are, but what am I?" defense. Classic! What's next? "I'm rubber, you're glue!"?

 

[Jarhyn]

If the mods want to change it they can

Then for lack of asking for the change, you choose the title.

No Jarhyn, any more than being sent unsolicited merchandise means I manufactured the merchandise.

More, when you release a product unnamed,

I didn't split the thread.

it means you consent to a folk-naming of it until you name it yourself. Just because you got a default title thrust upon you when you engineered the split

I did not engineer a split.

When you discuss topics that are unrelated or tangential to the OP, that's "engineering a split". You are the architect of this topic of conversation.

And now you have in fact assented directly to... A JAQ title.

Which the thread now has.

Why would anyone have any cause to wonder whether someone with fully intact thought process's audio issues are 'relevant' to his senatorial status?

I dare say the only time it would be relevant is if he, following this minor disability to his ability to decode spoken speech, campaigned against people with audio difficulties.

Thankfully, he has not so campaigned.

I can, however name some senators that HAVE declared such things as 'relevant and disqualifying' for whom it was later discovered that they themselves held these traits...

 

[Metaphor]

If the mods want to change it they can

Then for lack of asking for the change, you choose the title.

No Jarhyn, any more than being sent unsolicited merchandise means I manufactured the merchandise.

More, when you release a product unnamed,

I didn't split the thread.

it means you consent to a folk-naming of it until you name it yourself. Just because you got a default title thrust upon you when you engineered the split

I did not engineer a split.

When you discuss topics that are unrelated or tangential to the OP, that's "engineering a split". You are the architect of this topic of conversation.

No. If I 'engineered' the split, then so did the authors of the ten thousand posts that followed.

But you also don't understand the word 'engineer'.

engineered
adjective
uk

/ˌendʒɪˈnɪəd/ us

PRODUCTION
designed and built using scientific principles

I did not engineer the split, I did not design the split, I did not author the split, I did not carry out the split, I did not consent to the split, nor of its features.

And now you have in fact assented directly to... A JAQ title.

No. I suggested a specific title for the split, and that title was not used.

Which the thread now has.

Why would anyone have any cause to wonder whether someone with fully intact thought process's audio issues are 'relevant' to his senatorial status?

I have already explained why. If you care to see why I thought understanding the speech of others is relevant, you can go back through the thread. I do not owe you an indexing service.

I dare say the only time it would be relevant is if he, following this minor disability to his ability to decode spoken speech, campaigned against people with audio difficulties.

Thankfully, he has not so campaigned.

I can, however name some senators that HAVE declared such things as 'relevant and disqualifying' for whom it was later discovered that they themselves held these traits...

Start a thread about them. And you get to choose the title! What fun!

 

[Jarhyn]

If you care to see why I thought understanding the speech of others is relevant, you can go back through the thread

I will note then that your beliefs that there is some 'relevance' specifically about understanding the speech, and I will note that you specifically target speech of others rather than more generally the ideas of others.

When you target the speech of others as a relevance, you capture deaf people more than even this senator.

Like deaf people, there is no deficit in the general ability to understand the ideas of others. To treat it as relevant is specious.

It is as nonsensical as saying that someone being blind, or even having a problem in their visual cortex should disqualify them, because you might declare 'understanding the writing of others' as relevant as easily.

Neither the understanding of writing nor speech is relevant. The blanket inability to understand ideas would be relevant, but that condition is far more engrossing than the one under examination.

You can't get to 'relevance' with a single-channel failure on a multi-channel question. It is relevant IFF they cannot understand any other form of communication either.

 

[Metaphor]

If you care to see why I thought understanding the speech of others is relevant, you can go back through the thread

I will note then that your beliefs that there is some 'relevance' specifically about understanding the speech, and I will note that you specifically target speech of others rather than more generally the ideas of others.

Yes, understanding the speech of others is relevant to the job of a Senator.

When you target the speech of others as a relevance, you capture deaf people more than even this senator.

It is not the same. As I have already stated, deafness is a sensory deficit. Deaf people cannot hear the speech of others. Fetterman can hear the speech of others but can't process it properly.

The point remains. Understanding the speech of others is relevant to the job of a Senator.

Like deaf people, there is no deficit in the general ability to understand the ideas of others. To treat it as relevant is specious.

Understanding the speech of others is relevant to the job of a Senator.

Fetterman had to understand the speech of others when debating and being interviewed. Since he cannot process the speech of others properly, accommodations were made. Accommodations were made because understanding the speech of others is relevant to the job of a Senator.

It is as nonsensical as saying that someone being blind, or even having a problem in their visual cortex should disqualify them, because you might declare 'understanding the writing of others' as relevant as easily.

I did not say and do not believe that Fetterman is 'disqualified' from being a Senator for his condition. I have said explicitly, more than once, that it does not 'disqualify' him. Stop promulgating the falsehood that I said or believe that.

Neither the understanding of writing nor speech is relevant.

I disagree. I would not elect a Senator who could not read and could not understand the speech of others. That would preclude them engaging in any meaningful way with Senate business.

Note that this doesn't exclude deafblind people who can read Braille.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'd like to see the GOP try... let them try to disqualify a man for being disabled... that'll go over well.

It would probably go over fine with their supporters.

 

[Swammerdami]

does not make your lack of dissent irrelevant.

In fact the lack of dissent over a decision is the very textbook definition of silent assent

"What are you talking about your honour? She didn't say "no" when I mounted her! I already told you she was unconscious!"

Are you on the "ordinary language" train this morning or back on the "hyper-literalist" train? In the latter case I do apologize for your sensation of being raped. I'm not sure what I had to do with your being unconscious, but perhaps I should go ahead and apologize for that also.

And now you have in fact assented directly to... A JAQ title.

No. I suggested a specific title for the split, and that title was not used.

Your suggested title was "is understanding the speech of others relevant to being a Senator"
I felt that the more specific "Is Fetterman's aphasia relevant to his being a Senator?" would be more appropriate.

I thought this was close enough to the suggested title to avoid further whingeing. I was wrong.

Having devoted this much time to a long derail that began with a hyper-literalist whine, I suppose I might change the title again, if there's ample support. But again ...

To receive prompt attention from Staff it is best to click on the Report button and type a brief coherent explanation of your objection(s) or what change you would like to see. As in real life, you will often get better service if you can manage to avoid a whingeing insolent tone.

 

[Metaphor]

does not make your lack of dissent irrelevant.

In fact the lack of dissent over a decision is the very textbook definition of silent assent

"What are you talking about your honour? She didn't say "no" when I mounted her! I already told you she was unconscious!"

Are you on the "ordinary language" train this morning or back on the "hyper-literalist" train? In the latter case I do apologize for your sensation of being raped. I'm not sure what I had to do with your being unconscious, but perhaps I should go ahead and apologize for that also.

You have, unfortunately, failed to grasp the point.

Jarhyn claimed I was responsible or condoned -- via a silence-as-consent model -- for the thread title you created without consulting me, and then, after I suggested the title I would have created had I split the thread, you ignored that and chose something else.

Jarhyn appears to pay a lot of lip service to 'consent' but evidently has a limited understanding of it. I tried to explain it with a stark analogy.

Of course, Jarhyn claims I 'engineered' the thread derail, so maybe I really was asking for it, aye?

And now you have in fact assented directly to... A JAQ title.

No. I suggested a specific title for the split, and that title was not used.

Your suggested title was "is understanding the speech of others relevant to being a Senator"
I felt that the more specific "Is Fetterman's aphasia relevant to his being a Senator?" would be more appropriate. I thought this was close enough to the suggested title to avoid further whingeing. I was wrong.

You are wronger than you imagine. I did not whinge about the new thread title. In fact, Jarhyn first kvetched at me for not whingeing about the thread title! I objected to Jarhyn's false characterisation that I chose it, or that I was 'assenting' to it by not objecting.

Having devoted this much time to a long derail that began with a hyper-literalist whine, I suppose I might change the title again, if there's ample support. But again ...

To receive prompt attention from Staff it is best to click on the Report button and type a brief coherent explanation of your objection(s) or what change you would like to see. As in real life, you will often get better service if you can manage to avoid a whingeing insolent tone.

I did not click 'report' because I had nothing to report. Jarhyn's reasoning problems and bizarre, retrogressive ideas about consent were not caused by your thread title.

If you, Swammerdami, feel like changing the thread title to what I would have called the derail thread, had I created the new thread, you already know what that is. But since you did not do that when you had the chance, why should I expect a different response this time?

Note also I did not request a change in the name of the thread in the first place. I was responding to Jarhyn's you were asking for it nonsense.

 

[Jarhyn]

A(n Ironic) Metaphor:

Criminals are perhaps not asking for justice and segregation from the population when they commit crimes, but it is appropriate nonetheless.

Spoiler: for the (ironically?) metaphorically challenged

To compare the action taken of forcibly splitting details to rape victim being blamed for being raped is yet again the false paradox of tolerance rearing it's head.

If you have tried nothing and are all out of ideas as to how to take the actions available to defend the purity of your ideas, then it's on you, I'm afraid.