I've long-since started translating "I was [PUNISHED] for [HARMLESS THING]" into "I was [PUNSIHED] *while* [HARMLESS THING]". The analogy I've used is someone saying they were "arrested for wearing a hat", and it quickly becomes clear they were *actually* arrested for robbing a store, they just happened to be wearing a hat at the time.
I've found this is, 90%+ of the time, more accurate than the original statement.
This strikes me as, at heart, an example of Russell Conjugation ("I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool", or "my patriot martyr, your revolutionary firebrand, his bloody-handed terrorist") - "my silly meme, his fake and misleading counterfeits"
James Hacker : I occasionally have confidential press briefings, but I have never leaked.
Bernard Woolley : Oh, that's another of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential press briefings; you leak; he's been charged under Section 2a of the Official Secrets Act.
Long time reader, first time poster, and I'm a criminal defense attorney.
I think there's a whole sub-clade of this that comes up in commentary of legal cases brought against the ingroup. In this version of your parlor trick, the speaker elides the *mens rea* of a crime, as is done in the Vaughn case. I think I see this all the time. An obviously problematic example would be a speaker who says "you know, they can send you to jail for filling out your taxes wrong." This is true, but an important word is missing: "they can send you to jail for WILLFULLY filling out your taxes wrong"
Lots of friends of mine complained about Vaughn and didn't know, or simply didn't appreciate, that he had the ability to present a whole case that his posts were memes, or jokes, or otherwise not willful/corrupt/intentional attempts to deceive voters. He failed to do that.
This is among the most annoying bad legal commentary.
Eliding the mens rea is definitely one application of what I'm describing, but really it applies to any where emotional resonance is gained at the cost of ambiguity.
Here is the crux, and while I was skeptical going in, upon reflection, I am in complete agreement:
> There’s plenty about Vaughn’s case you could argue about, such as whether this was intended as a joke or as an earnest attempt to mislead voters, or whether his conduct should nevertheless be protected by the first amendment, or whether his case was an example of selective prosecution. All those points are perfectly fair game for debate, but they’re impossible to unearth if you describe his case as “posting memes” rather than the much less ambiguous “posting fake and misleading Hilary Clinton campaign ads”.
I just came across a perfect example of this trend. There's been a case in Ireland ongoing for several years concerning a teacher named Enoch Burke, who was suspended from his teaching responsibilities after several public disagreements with school administrators regarding gender ideology and refusing to address a particular student with they/them pronouns. As a byproduct of the scandal, Burke has been imprisoned for over a year. Gender-critical activists sometimes gloss Burke's situation by saying he was "arrested for criticising gender ideology" or similar.
I'm sceptical as to whether teachers should be required to address students who identify as non-binary with they/them pronouns, but it is manifestly not the case that Burke was arrested for "speaking out against gender ideology". He was arrested for repeatedly violating the terms of a High Court injunction forbidding him entering the school grounds, and was convicted for contempt of court. He has never been prosecuted for expressing his political opinions or misgendering people (although there are doubtless many people in Ireland who would like such acts to be criminal offenses). It is entirely possible to express opposition to gender ideology while abiding by the terms of a High Court injunction.
I've long-since started translating "I was [PUNISHED] for [HARMLESS THING]" into "I was [PUNSIHED] *while* [HARMLESS THING]". The analogy I've used is someone saying they were "arrested for wearing a hat", and it quickly becomes clear they were *actually* arrested for robbing a store, they just happened to be wearing a hat at the time.
I've found this is, 90%+ of the time, more accurate than the original statement.
And the "hat" was a face occurring mask.
This strikes me as, at heart, an example of Russell Conjugation ("I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool", or "my patriot martyr, your revolutionary firebrand, his bloody-handed terrorist") - "my silly meme, his fake and misleading counterfeits"
James Hacker : I occasionally have confidential press briefings, but I have never leaked.
Bernard Woolley : Oh, that's another of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential press briefings; you leak; he's been charged under Section 2a of the Official Secrets Act.
Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister are truly the gifts that keep on giving.
It definitely fits under this penumbra
Hello Yassine,
Long time reader, first time poster, and I'm a criminal defense attorney.
I think there's a whole sub-clade of this that comes up in commentary of legal cases brought against the ingroup. In this version of your parlor trick, the speaker elides the *mens rea* of a crime, as is done in the Vaughn case. I think I see this all the time. An obviously problematic example would be a speaker who says "you know, they can send you to jail for filling out your taxes wrong." This is true, but an important word is missing: "they can send you to jail for WILLFULLY filling out your taxes wrong"
Lots of friends of mine complained about Vaughn and didn't know, or simply didn't appreciate, that he had the ability to present a whole case that his posts were memes, or jokes, or otherwise not willful/corrupt/intentional attempts to deceive voters. He failed to do that.
This is among the most annoying bad legal commentary.
Eliding the mens rea is definitely one application of what I'm describing, but really it applies to any where emotional resonance is gained at the cost of ambiguity.
Here is the crux, and while I was skeptical going in, upon reflection, I am in complete agreement:
> There’s plenty about Vaughn’s case you could argue about, such as whether this was intended as a joke or as an earnest attempt to mislead voters, or whether his conduct should nevertheless be protected by the first amendment, or whether his case was an example of selective prosecution. All those points are perfectly fair game for debate, but they’re impossible to unearth if you describe his case as “posting memes” rather than the much less ambiguous “posting fake and misleading Hilary Clinton campaign ads”.
Yassine is lying about the Douglass Mackey "Ricky Vaughan" case. I will write about this later this week.
If you spotted an error, it would be great if you can point it out earlier than later so that I can append a correction.
I just came across a perfect example of this trend. There's been a case in Ireland ongoing for several years concerning a teacher named Enoch Burke, who was suspended from his teaching responsibilities after several public disagreements with school administrators regarding gender ideology and refusing to address a particular student with they/them pronouns. As a byproduct of the scandal, Burke has been imprisoned for over a year. Gender-critical activists sometimes gloss Burke's situation by saying he was "arrested for criticising gender ideology" or similar.
I'm sceptical as to whether teachers should be required to address students who identify as non-binary with they/them pronouns, but it is manifestly not the case that Burke was arrested for "speaking out against gender ideology". He was arrested for repeatedly violating the terms of a High Court injunction forbidding him entering the school grounds, and was convicted for contempt of court. He has never been prosecuted for expressing his political opinions or misgendering people (although there are doubtless many people in Ireland who would like such acts to be criminal offenses). It is entirely possible to express opposition to gender ideology while abiding by the terms of a High Court injunction.