{"id":5154,"date":"2017-03-15T14:07:10","date_gmt":"2017-03-15T19:07:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=5154"},"modified":"2017-03-15T14:18:59","modified_gmt":"2017-03-15T19:18:59","slug":"norms-of-assertion-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=5154","title":{"rendered":"Norms of Assertion #2"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In more news of <em>assertions made without backing <\/em>(see <a href=\"http:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=5149\">previous post<\/a> about the various norms of assertion), Joe Scarborough Tweeted:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\" data-width=\"474\" data-dnt=\"true\">\n<p lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">The Trump camp released one positive tax return to distract from Russia hearings and the Trumpcare meltdown. That&#39;s painfully obvious. <a href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/NLBVPJhwg6\">https:\/\/t.co\/NLBVPJhwg6<\/a><\/p>\n<p>&mdash; Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/JoeNBC\/status\/841980908852854785?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">March 15, 2017<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><script async src=\"https:\/\/platform.twitter.com\/widgets.js\" charset=\"utf-8\"><\/script><\/p>\n<p>Two assertions, really.\u00c2\u00a0 <strong>#1:<\/strong> Trump leaked the return, and <strong>#2:<\/strong> He did it as a distraction.<\/p>\n<p>The backing: That it&#8217;s &#8220;painfully obvious.&#8221;\u00c2\u00a0 Pretty weak backing.\u00c2\u00a0 But, hey, it&#8217;s Twitter.<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, Scarborough was challenged by one of Trump&#8217;s lawyers, Michael Cohen &#8212; in particular, that he should have some support for such claims:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\" data-width=\"474\" data-dnt=\"true\">\n<p lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">.<a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/JoeNBC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">@JoeNBC<\/a> As <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/hashtag\/potus?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">#potus<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">@realDonaldTrump<\/a> personal attorney, I know who has his taxes. You better have proof to back up your claim and big mouth!<\/p>\n<p>&mdash; Michael Cohen (@MichaelCohen212) <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/MichaelCohen212\/status\/842009186309423105?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">March 15, 2017<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><script async src=\"https:\/\/platform.twitter.com\/widgets.js\" charset=\"utf-8\"><\/script><\/p>\n<p>A pretty apt response, with a little heat to it.\u00c2\u00a0 It is ironic, however, that a Trump representative is making hay out of someone making unsubstantiated claims.\u00c2\u00a0 Oh, and then Scarborough took the bait:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\" data-width=\"474\" data-dnt=\"true\">\n<p lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">And by the way &quot;attorney&quot;:<\/p>\n<p>1. Read the First Amendment<br \/>2. Save your dumb thug routine for someone who gives a damn. <a href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/EZfiaEq2yp\">https:\/\/t.co\/EZfiaEq2yp<\/a><\/p>\n<p>&mdash; Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/JoeNBC\/status\/842017530415837185?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">March 15, 2017<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><script async src=\"https:\/\/platform.twitter.com\/widgets.js\" charset=\"utf-8\"><\/script><\/p>\n<p>Oy vey.\u00c2\u00a0 Wrong way to do this.<\/p>\n<p>Scarborough is committing two errors here.\u00c2\u00a0 First, is what&#8217;s been called the <em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.chronicle.com\/article\/The-Free-Speech-Fallacy\/235520\">Free Speech Fallacy<\/a>.\u00c2\u00a0 <\/em>John&#8217;s got a nice bit on it <a href=\"http:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=5004\">HERE<\/a>, and we&#8217;ve got an entry in the coming <em><span class=\"wz-italic\">Bad Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Important Fallacies<\/span><\/em>.\u00c2\u00a0 Here&#8217;s our line:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">The fallacy arises when a contributor to a critical exchange confuses the protected freedom of expressing an opinion with correlate obligations to reply to freely expressed critical opinions of others.<\/p>\n<p>And note, that using the Free Speech Fallacy is a form of <em>ignoratio<\/em> argument &#8212; that we change what&#8217;s being criticized from <em>what was said<\/em> to whether one <em>has the right to say<\/em> it.\u00c2\u00a0 (I&#8217;d had an earlier point about this<a href=\"http:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=5141\"> HERE<\/a>, which I&#8217;d called the &#8216;meta-move&#8217;).\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 So taking the first amendment strategy is no defense against the request\/demand for evidence.\u00c2\u00a0 Nor is it a reply to the insult that he has a big mouth.\u00c2\u00a0 In fact, some replies seem to confirm the accusations!<\/p>\n<p>The second error is with taking a request, admittedly with heat, as purely intimidation.\u00c2\u00a0 In a way, I think this is a bit of straw-manning, which is to focus on the tone of a challenge instead of the content, and then make the case that someone is using an <em>ad baculum<\/em> or some other scare tactic.<\/p>\n<p>Imagine that A gives a crappy argument, perhaps that B has made some moral error.\u00c2\u00a0 B, in reply, says something like:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">Look, asshole, if you&#8217;re going to make a charge like that, you&#8217;ve got to have better grounds.\u00c2\u00a0 Seriously, what&#8217;s wrong with you?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>And A replies:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">Now who&#8217;s the asshole&#8230; defending yourself with an ad hominem against me?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>For sure, B put some stank on the reply, but there wasn&#8217;t an argument <em>from <\/em>A&#8217;s being an asshole to A making unsubstantiated claims.\u00c2\u00a0 Rather, it was from A&#8217;s making unsubstantiated claims to A being an asshole.\u00c2\u00a0 Mistaking heat of reply with a premise of argument or with intimidation is to mistake tone and content.\u00c2\u00a0 And, you know, grownups who have hard conversations have to keep the two distinct <em>all the time.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In more news of assertions made without backing (see previous post about the various norms of assertion), Joe Scarborough Tweeted: Two assertions, really.\u00c2\u00a0 #1: Trump leaked the return, and #2: He did it as a distraction. The backing: That it&#8217;s &#8220;painfully obvious.&#8221;\u00c2\u00a0 Pretty weak backing.\u00c2\u00a0 But, hey, it&#8217;s Twitter. Interestingly, Scarborough was challenged by one &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=5154\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Norms of Assertion #2<\/span> <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,58,13,12],"tags":[1978,2089,1962,1964],"class_list":["post-5154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ignoratio-elenchi","category-lack-of-evidence","category-plain-bad-arguments","category-straw-man","tag-ad-hominem","tag-free-speech-fallacy","tag-ignoratio-elenchi","tag-straw-man"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5154","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5154"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5154\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5158,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5154\/revisions\/5158"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}