>Americans are spending progressively less time in shopping malls[1] and the military[2].
[1] Are Amazon, ebay et al shopping malls?
Given healthcare and college tuition being paid by the state I think you might see [2] drop very, very fast and far. I've heard the argument made that this was why the establishment corrupt of Washington united so cohesively against Bernie.
Now don't smear, it's against house rules around here and @dang will get very cross.
I've heard the argument, I repeat it because I take it seriously and it seems plausible to me. I am not sufficiently expert to know with /certainty/ so I don't claim certainty because that would be silly. Moreover when you point out an argument that appears to have some merit but you have not yet made up your mind about, someone here frequently responds with a well-reasoned perspective that is different and based on evidence. Such things make conversation here worthwhile like this particular one basically isn't. Best.
"Weasel words from which my immediate instinct is to recoil."
Obviously is not engaging with an argument, idea or evidence and isn't much more than abuse. Also completely wrong in every way as I politely outlined.
"Weasel words" is a term and it's correctly used here. I don't understand how you think it's "completely wrong"; it's not. It's also not abuse at all to object like that.
And engaging with an argument requires understanding it, and their post is a pretty good way to get an understanding of your actual argument. Unless you mean they needed to engage with your quote independently of what your argument is, which I would disagree with.
weasel words
noun
words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading.
There is no engagement with the idea expressed at all. There is a statement that you must agree totally, disagree totally or shut up about an idea otherwise it's "weasel words" which is clearly and obviously to me utter nonsense. As I said. That kind of nonsense not encouraged around here because what happens next is flame-war, is my understanding. Is it also yours?
Much the same as if were to say, (which I am emphatically not) that you are just "piling-in" and are trying to distract from a point about possible contributors to Washington corruption and ensuring that anyone who even suggests such a thing about corruption is worth considering and exploring should be condemned as being weasel-like.
If I said that, which again I am not, that would be personal, not helpful, not engaging with an argument. So I am not saying that. I am now saying explicitly I have zero reason to believe that. I am giving you the benefit of of the belief that the argument is in good faith and engaging with it accordingly rather than casting aspersions about you.
We really do need to be able to discuss possibilities before having full, firm and unshakable views as to their unambiguous and evergreen truth. You're allowed to consider a plausible argument before having been awarded your PhD in it.
What do you think? Is it plausible that the corrupt in Washington united so cohesively against Bernie because with health care and tuition covered the numbers volunteering for the armed services would plummet? Do you think there was a different reason and that isn't significant? Or do you think the corrupt in Washington were not against Bernie? Or do you think there isn't meaningful influence of the corrupt in Washington? Or something else? Or do you not have the right to express any ideas about any of it because there must always be something you can't know about it. If you had thoughts and an argument from /evidence/ about it I'd likely update my views at least somewhat. Would I dismiss this idea? Would it become more plausible?
The argument, that I heard expressed, and lack information to fault (acknowledging that such information may exist),
is interesting to me and possibly others. Refraining from stating it as an incontrovertible fact is not at all weasel-like and doesn't seem to me that calling it so is likely to lead to productive discussions between people who are capable of updating their opinions on a topic.
> here is a statement that you must agree totally, disagree totally or shut up about an idea
> The argument, that I heard expressed, and lack information to fault (acknowledging that such information may exist), is interesting to me and possibly others. Refraining from stating it as an incontrovertible fact is not at all weasel-like and doesn't seem to me that calling it so is likely to lead to productive discussions between people who are capable of updating their opinions on a topic.
No, but you have to state a stance at all.
If you don't state a stance at all then you're not engaging with the argument you've quoted!
People should engage with what you're arguing, but much less so something you just toss out as having heard. If you don't say what your opinion is, then don't complain that there isn't engagement.
> We really do need to be able to discuss possibilities before having full, firm and unshakable views as to their unambiguous and evergreen truth.
Okay. But say what your view is. It doesn't have to be firm and unshakable. Be clear about if you believe it and how strongly you believe it.
> otherwise it's "weasel words" which is clearly and obviously to me utter nonsense
The phrase "I've heard the argument made" is one of the clearer examples of weasel words I've seen. Your dictionary definition isn't perfect. From wikipedia: Examples include the phrases "some people say", "most people think", and "researchers believe."
> being weasel-like
It's a term, not calling you a weasel.
> What do you think? Is it plausible
I guess?? I'd need to see a lot more about priorities in washington before I can have more than a ghost of an opinion, personally. Without that I find it a little bit interesting.
> If you had thoughts and an argument from /evidence/ about it I'd likely update my views at least somewhat.
I'm not trying to change your opinion. I'm encouraging you to better express your opinion.
But if you only have a vague idea yourself, then you're not going to change mine either. If you were actively looking for evidence instead of just mentioning the idea I might be more interested? Whatever, I'm not here to post about that, I'm here to explain weasel words.
Please go have another look at the definition of "Weasel Words"
Intentionally ambiguous or misleading. Heavy emphasis on the intentionally misleading. When you accuse someone of using weasel words you are accusing them of intent to mislead. You aren't calling them a small furry mammal. You are calling them someone who is, in other words, basically telling lies. That is a smear every damn day of the week. "Weasel" being a word used to describe someone untrustworthy hence "Weasel words." Calling mere ambiguity "weasel words" is unambiguously incorrect usage of that term.
My comment was not intending to mislead. I don't believe it is in any way misleading. How you can think that I'm trying to mislead you is not obvious to me at all. This is not cross-examination under oath. This is not a politician's response as to whether their hand was in the till and the photograph of the nude holding the S&M gear was themselves and they were not in their place of worship at that time. I have stated my view. I have heard the argument. Implicitly by phrasing it like that I have not endorsed it but find it has some merit based on my limited knowledge about it. As I have now spelled out in full a few times.
If you think you or anybody has been misled here, I can't really help you, I did not do that nor did I contribute to it. If you think your post is totally unambiguous and are going to ignore the "intentionally misleading" aspect of "weasel words" I also can't help you.
Just don't deliberately smear people speaking to their intentions when you don't know what those intentions are and are totally, utterly and 100% wrong about them. Seems pretty unambiguous to me, I guess that's why its the rule around here. dang does get cross when you get personal. Like accusing people incorrectly of using weasel words, speaking to their intentions with zero evidence, and making them cross about it, just like I am.
It remains a smear and I continue to call it what it plainly is. Maybe they didn't mean it?
What you say above is ambiguous. Hence by your definition "Weasel words."
I say the pejorative is there in Weasel Words and so does the dictionary and indeed it must be there to describe something as weasel words or we end up with everything being weasel words. Hilariously the work of max plank is weasel words. He intentionally does not express an opinion on whether light is a wave or a particle.
My opinion on your good faith in that post above is now also unstated.
Some people say Jimi Hendrix is a wonderful guitarist and it's a shame he died so young. What weasel words. You should recoil. Some people say using words with their accepted meanings is essential to communication but James Joyce might disagree.
I intended nothing personal, and indeed my point was to elevate the level of discourse. I would call out 'ad hominem', 'no true Scotsman' or 'motte and bailey' as easily as I would 'weasel words'.
I assure you I too have been guilty in the past and I'm sure I will slip in the future.
> I would call out 'ad hominem', 'no true Scotsman' or 'motte and bailey' as easily as I would 'weasel words'.
You doubled down? With no explanation. No justification of claiming it to be weasel words? I guess you can't or chose not to defend your use for which I have called you out. Maybe, in your words guilty in the past, the future and also right here & now then. Consider it.
I've heard the argument made that Louis Armstrong was the most important and influential musician of the past 200 years and yeah whatever edifying conversation were possible it's now very, very dead.
[1] Are Amazon, ebay et al shopping malls?
Given healthcare and college tuition being paid by the state I think you might see [2] drop very, very fast and far. I've heard the argument made that this was why the establishment corrupt of Washington united so cohesively against Bernie.