Say you're helping someone do something that the local authorities don't like. The local authorities know you want to do that thing, but don't know the person you're helping also wants to do it.
If the local authorities find out that you're working with that person, they will become suspicious that the person is also wanting to do that thing, and that person will have a harder time of doing that thing.
No matter *why* you are trying to help that person, this is still equally true.
Details of how to make a nuclear bomb, for instance, could rightly have been classified for years after the conclusion of the Manhattan Project, until such time as the information entered the public sphere by other means.
Your point is good in general, but there is room for legitimate classification that is not about current or recently-current operations.
Nit: Although "Republican" is both a noun and an adjective, "Democrat" is only a noun. The corresponding adjective is "Democratic".
It's my experience that those who use "Democrat" as an adjective usually carry a distinct right-wing bias, but it looks like the usage may be spreading to the point that that may be becoming a less reliable indicator...
While pointing out hypocrisy may be worthwhile, the existence of other things which the speaker is not (or at least not currently) condemning does not automatically constitute hypocrisy.
In the instant case, the poster was not saying "The viewpoint presented here is wrong", but "X other, similar thing is also wrong". To consider that "an opposing viewpoint" seems like a stretch, to me.
>> Also, if Mike coined the word, that's news to me. > >I never said he coined it.
He responded to one person by saying "Doing X should be a crime." (albeit clearly in sarcasm mode), with the implication that the person being responded to had just done that.
You responded to him by saying "So should doing Y", which - if only because of that juxtaposition - naturally carries the same implication.
The "doing Y" in question was "making up silly nonsense words like "whataboutism"".
Therefore, in the context, what you wrote you clearly implied that he had made up - or, in other words, coined - the word.
I'm aware of "dripping with sarcasm", but I agree that that is a different usage; it is not the long-established convention I was thinking of. I was thinking specifically of "dripping with jewels" and its closely related expressions.
I'm a little surprised you've never encountered those expressions, but just as with the many expressions I've managed to go my whole life without encountering (the idea that "whack-a-mole" might properly be spelled without the K, for instance), that doesn't make it any less real. (Though it certainly may make it significantly more irritating! I cringe every time I see a Techdirt article use "whac" as a verb.)
Google finds plenty of results for "dripping with jewels" sans quotes, although most of them appear to be from "dripping in jewels" instead. There are also plenty of hits for things like "dripping with rubies", "dripping with pearls" (including a song lyric which I think I've run across before), "dripping with diamonds", et cetera, with the same minor caveat. It may not be as universally widespread as I'd thought, but it certainly does appear to be out there in the culture.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/387441/origin-of-dripping-with-sarcasm refers to "dripping with jewels" in the question and some of the discussion, and one of the answers gives a quote from 1860 which includes "It hangs unclasped and heavy with jewelry, dripping with chain, filigrane, and aiglet" (reportedly taken from the OED), one of two non-liquid-based uses quoted there. So unless you're Keanu Reeves, the usage is probably older than either of us.
...do you even understand what "whataboutism" means? Because my understanding of it is that it specifically is about pointing out that what the other person has said does not actually oppose the argument which was brought up; instead, it attempts to distract from that argument, by pointing out something else.
(Also, if Mike coined the word, that's news to me. I imagine the Wikipedia article on the word, which I've seen linked several times but never actually visited, might clear up that question.)
It's a long-established convention to refer to something with lots of X hanging all over it as "dripping with X"; for example, consider a person described as "dripping with jewels". It probably comes from jewelry, in fact, from the idea of someone having so much jewelry on that some of it is likely to fall off when they get up to move around.
In this case, it evokes the image of the request document being adorned with so many flags that it's difficult to see the actual contents of the document.
Back when the 2000 elections happened, and "hanging chads" became a household word, I looked at the paper ballots in use where I live (Maryland) and thought that they were clearly superior, having none of the lack-of-clarity problems of the ballots described as being in use in Florida. (Arrowhead at one side of the page, arrow fletching at the other side, IIRC one such for each candidate; you use a Sharpie to draw the black line connecting the halves of the arrow corresponding to the candidate you want, then feed the paper into a machine that scans for that long, thick, dark line.)
And then of course in the next election - or the next one I remember noticing for, at least - they had replaced those with electronic voting machines. (From Diebold, IIRC.)
I am given to understand that the phrase "freedom of the press" in that context would, at the time, have been understood to mean "freedom of access to the printing press", i.e., to the means of publication.
A sense of "the press" meaning "the people who are in the profession of reporting on news" apparently did not come along until considerably later.
Wait a moment. Are you saying that the law requires patent examiners to consider only prior patents (and patent applications) when looking for prior art - that it prohibits them from considering a broader scope, such as products in real-world use? Or even that the law requires them to follow procedures which themselves are not technically law, but which do include such a prohibition?
If either of those things is true, that would certainly seem to excuse the patent examiners, but I'd want to see a citation for such a law or procedure.
Re: Re: Re: Re: So where was the moderation with Geigner:
His logic appears to be something like "If they blocked my posts entirely, they would have to admit to themselves that they're censoring me - but by letting the posts through later, when discussion has moved on and the posts are no longer relevant, they can pretend that they're adhering to the principles they claim to support".
I don't think that conclusion is correct, but the logic at least appers internally self-consistent.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
If this is the same person who, in another article recently, indicated that he doesn't see the Insider Chat box because that requires allowing scripts from the site, it wouldn't be surprising that he didn't click to report the comment; IIRC, last time I checked, the per-comment clickable buttons don't even show up if you don't have scripts enabled.
Re: This actually sounds like Twitter was fairly sensible.
If you're going to invest the time and manpower to investigate anyway, why suspend first?
"Investigate, then if you find something wrong, suspend" doesn't take any more effort or any more manpower than "suspend, then investigate, then if you find nothing wrong, revoke the suspension" - but the latter unfairly penalizes people who did nothing wrong, while the former only postpones penalizing people who did do something wrong.
Re: Only one part in bold is imprecise and needs added to:
"Intellectual property enforcement assures innovators and investors that when they devote time and money to develop new concepts and products, they will reap the financial rewards." -- And all other persons are prohibited from just taking the work without paying even a token, nor can anyone else gain money off it.
Or rather, the original quoted statement (from DAG Rosenstein) is wrong, because it has one detail backwards. A more correct version of the same statement would be:
"Intellectual property enforcement assures innovators and investors that when they devote time and money to develop new concepts and products, no one else will reap the financial rewards."
Why exactly this is to be considered desirable, given that "no one else makes money" does not mean "I make (more) money", is less obvious than many of those who advocate for absolute intellectual-property rights and enforcement seem to think it is.
And that's why I conclude that Techdirt is simply piratey kids having no concern for producers.
And this is the statement that makes this post flag-worthy. (The two paragraphs preceding it pull it in that direction as well, but are arguably borderline; this one would be enough all on its own.)
Presumably, that item is derived from the idea that (paraphrasing a much longer and more detailed discussion) "digital objects can be infinitely copied at zero cost, therefore the natural market price for such objects is zero, therefore it is either impossible or impermissible to charge money for such objects, therefore such objects cannot be exchanged for money".
Because it's not "cow" vs. "cash cow", it's "milch cow" vs. "cash cow".
An ordinary cow provides a steady supply of milk, whereas these metaphorical cows provide a steady supply of cash.
Your idea of the origin of the phrase is odd, and does not seem to fit the facts as I understand them. If you want to convince people that yours is the correct etymology, you'll need to cite etymological research to that end. (And, probably, also stop insulting people for being wrong about it.)
The suggestion is not "buy Netflix and shut it down", but "buy Netflix and let it operate, so that the money it makes goes into your own coffers".
Of course, given the desire to avoid eating into the market share of your existing offerings, whether a Netflix which went that route would still do the things which have led it to be as successful as we have seen is another question.
According to coverage I heard on the radio today (NPR), of the various things banned from sale to police forces under the now-rescinded order, there were only three which any police force had ever purchased under that program:
* Tracked vehicles - i.e., tanks and tank-style armored personnel carriers, et cetera.
* Grenade launchers.
* Bayonets.
The other things which were banned by the order reportedly included things like armed aircraft, but also reportedly no police force in America had ever obtained such a thing through the 1033 program. Other things - such as camouflage gear - reportedly were not covered by the prohibition.
If that's not the case, I'd be interested to see citations, if only so that I can be sure I understand the facts accurately.
But it seems clear to me (based on the things I've seen it indicated that he's said) that he also can't stand seeing it suggested that he even might not have done so, much less that he didn't.
On the post: Moral Muppets At Harvard Cave In To The CIA; Rescind Chelsea Manning's Fellowship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Manning is not Snowden
Say you're helping someone do something that the local authorities don't like. The local authorities know you want to do that thing, but don't know the person you're helping also wants to do it.
If the local authorities find out that you're working with that person, they will become suspicious that the person is also wanting to do that thing, and that person will have a harder time of doing that thing.
No matter *why* you are trying to help that person, this is still equally true.
On the post: Trump Administration Says It's Classified If They Can Let The NSA Spy On Americans
Re: Any time something is classified...
That's not necessarily true.
Details of how to make a nuclear bomb, for instance, could rightly have been classified for years after the conclusion of the Manhattan Project, until such time as the information entered the public sphere by other means.
Your point is good in general, but there is room for legitimate classification that is not about current or recently-current operations.
On the post: House Passes Amendment Rolling Back Jeff Sessions' Civil Asset Forfeiture Expansion
Re: Re: Bye, partisan!
It's my experience that those who use "Democrat" as an adjective usually carry a distinct right-wing bias, but it looks like the usage may be spreading to the point that that may be becoming a less reliable indicator...
On the post: Dear Government Employees: Asking Questions - Even Dumb Ones - Is Not A Criminal Offense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the instant case, the poster was not saying "The viewpoint presented here is wrong", but "X other, similar thing is also wrong". To consider that "an opposing viewpoint" seems like a stretch, to me.
>> Also, if Mike coined the word, that's news to me.
>
>I never said he coined it.
He responded to one person by saying "Doing X should be a crime." (albeit clearly in sarcasm mode), with the implication that the person being responded to had just done that.
You responded to him by saying "So should doing Y", which - if only because of that juxtaposition - naturally carries the same implication.
The "doing Y" in question was "making up silly nonsense words like "whataboutism"".
Therefore, in the context, what you wrote you clearly implied that he had made up - or, in other words, coined - the word.
On the post: Las Vegas Police Union Fire Off Whining, Flag-Dripping Request To The NFL To 'Investigate' Michael Bennett For Saying Things
Re: Re: Re: Flag-Dripping
I'm a little surprised you've never encountered those expressions, but just as with the many expressions I've managed to go my whole life without encountering (the idea that "whack-a-mole" might properly be spelled without the K, for instance), that doesn't make it any less real. (Though it certainly may make it significantly more irritating! I cringe every time I see a Techdirt article use "whac" as a verb.)
Google finds plenty of results for "dripping with jewels" sans quotes, although most of them appear to be from "dripping in jewels" instead. There are also plenty of hits for things like "dripping with rubies", "dripping with pearls" (including a song lyric which I think I've run across before), "dripping with diamonds", et cetera, with the same minor caveat. It may not be as universally widespread as I'd thought, but it certainly does appear to be out there in the culture.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/387441/origin-of-dripping-with-sarcasm refers to "dripping with jewels" in the question and some of the discussion, and one of the answers gives a quote from 1860 which includes "It hangs unclasped and heavy with jewelry, dripping with chain, filigrane, and aiglet" (reportedly taken from the OED), one of two non-liquid-based uses quoted there. So unless you're Keanu Reeves, the usage is probably older than either of us.
On the post: Dear Government Employees: Asking Questions - Even Dumb Ones - Is Not A Criminal Offense
Re: Re: Re:
(Also, if Mike coined the word, that's news to me. I imagine the Wikipedia article on the word, which I've seen linked several times but never actually visited, might clear up that question.)
On the post: Las Vegas Police Union Fire Off Whining, Flag-Dripping Request To The NFL To 'Investigate' Michael Bennett For Saying Things
Re: Flag-Dripping
In this case, it evokes the image of the request document being adorned with so many flags that it's difficult to see the actual contents of the document.
On the post: Virginia (Again) Dumps Electronic Voting Devices Over Concerns About Election Interference
Re: What's Wrong With Scan Ballots?
And then of course in the next election - or the next one I remember noticing for, at least - they had replaced those with electronic voting machines. (From Diebold, IIRC.)
On the post: Police Chief Says He'll Decide Who Is Or Isn't A Real Journalist
Re: What Law?
A sense of "the press" meaning "the people who are in the profession of reporting on news" apparently did not come along until considerably later.
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: JP Morgan Patents Interapp Permissions
Re: Stupid Patent of the Month
If either of those things is true, that would certainly seem to excuse the patent examiners, but I'd want to see a citation for such a law or procedure.
On the post: Al Jazeera Gives A 'Voice To The Voiceless' By Killing News Comments
Re: Re: Re: Re: So where was the moderation with Geigner:
I don't think that conclusion is correct, but the logic at least appers internally self-consistent.
On the post: Al Jazeera Gives A 'Voice To The Voiceless' By Killing News Comments
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, when has Techdirt ever moderated, oh, say, Geigner?
On the post: Twitter Suspends Reporter's Account... After He Gets Targeted By Russian Twitter Bots
Re: This actually sounds like Twitter was fairly sensible.
If you're going to invest the time and manpower to investigate anyway, why suspend first?
"Investigate, then if you find something wrong, suspend" doesn't take any more effort or any more manpower than "suspend, then investigate, then if you find nothing wrong, revoke the suspension" - but the latter unfairly penalizes people who did nothing wrong, while the former only postpones penalizing people who did do something wrong.
On the post: Deputy Attorney General Trots Out All Sorts Of Silly Analogies About 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Only one part in bold is imprecise and needs added to:
Or rather, the original quoted statement (from DAG Rosenstein) is wrong, because it has one detail backwards. A more correct version of the same statement would be:
"Intellectual property enforcement assures innovators and investors that when they devote time and money to develop new concepts and products, no one else will reap the financial rewards."
Why exactly this is to be considered desirable, given that "no one else makes money" does not mean "I make (more) money", is less obvious than many of those who advocate for absolute intellectual-property rights and enforcement seem to think it is.
And this is the statement that makes this post flag-worthy. (The two paragraphs preceding it pull it in that direction as well, but are arguably borderline; this one would be enough all on its own.)
On the post: Deputy Attorney General Trots Out All Sorts Of Silly Analogies About 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Re: Intellectual property
On the post: After Previously Claiming the Economics Would Never Work, HBO Streaming Now A Major Windfall
Re: Re: Re: What a big pie of moo-taphor.
An ordinary cow provides a steady supply of milk, whereas these metaphorical cows provide a steady supply of cash.
Your idea of the origin of the phrase is odd, and does not seem to fit the facts as I understand them. If you want to convince people that yours is the correct etymology, you'll need to cite etymological research to that end. (And, probably, also stop insulting people for being wrong about it.)
On the post: After Previously Claiming the Economics Would Never Work, HBO Streaming Now A Major Windfall
Re: Re:
Of course, given the desire to avoid eating into the market share of your existing offerings, whether a Netflix which went that route would still do the things which have led it to be as successful as we have seen is another question.
On the post: Trump Rolls Back Ban On Transfer Of Military Equipment To Law Enforcement Agencies
Re:
* Tracked vehicles - i.e., tanks and tank-style armored personnel carriers, et cetera.
* Grenade launchers.
* Bayonets.
The other things which were banned by the order reportedly included things like armed aircraft, but also reportedly no police force in America had ever obtained such a thing through the 1033 program. Other things - such as camouflage gear - reportedly were not covered by the prohibition.
If that's not the case, I'd be interested to see citations, if only so that I can be sure I understand the facts accurately.
On the post: Nazis, The Internet, Policing Content And Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But it seems clear to me (based on the things I've seen it indicated that he's said) that he also can't stand seeing it suggested that he even might not have done so, much less that he didn't.
On the post: Nazis, The Internet, Policing Content And Free Speech
Re: Re: Re:
You aren't permitted to post pornographic material there, for instance. (Unless things have changed significantly while I wasn't looking.)
Next >>