Why don't you include the quote with your OP?

Im mainly asking this of folks who post 'Trump says _____' topics and include a summary or interpretation of what he said, along with a narrative and some reasons why they interpret it thusly, and a link to an author who agrees with them... but not the actual quote.

While I would also like to hear from folks who post about other figures in the 'limelight' in this fashion, I mainly see it done in the general context or 'Trump is bad'.

In my experience, the bulk of the time, this is done when the quote doesn't really match up with the claim being made (which is why I suspect it isn't provided), and as a result I tend to skim for a direct quote first, and if none is found, I disregard the OP entirely as disingenuous propaganda.

But maybe my suspicions as to why this is so common are off base. So tell me, those of you who post in this manner- why?

 

They are just hate threads.

Whether it's a real quote or not is irrelevant, it's just another opportunity for them to say Trump s bad for like the fifth time in a day.

They don't have anything else and avoidance of the Biden train wreck is all they can focus on.

 

98% of all threads from the left are hate threads on Trump, his supporters or anything the Republican party supports. They have nothing else.

Without Trump they will be lost.

 

Not sure why........... but this thread reminded me of this video...



Even if you don't like his type of music, his words ring true.

 

You mean like why don’t people use the actual quote when they’re paraphrasing what the president said?

Yeah that might be why.

 

The reason they don't use quotes is because they are copying journalists, who also don't use quotes, because that goes against the narrative they are trying to push. Two quick examples: The fine people hoax, in which according the MSM and every left leaning poster on this forum, Trump said Nazi's and White Supremacists were fine people. If you include an actual quote, it's the opposite of that so...don't include the quote.

The other one off the top of my head is Coronavirus is a hoax. Trump didn't say that, but details details, he used the word hoax in a statement so build your own comment. There are lots more of course. Probably half the Trump threads on this forum are built around inaccurate paraphrases of something Trump allegedly said.

 

What purpose does paraphrasing him serve when his actual quote is available?

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...ing-national-space-council-cape-canaveral-fl/

Wouldn't you rather have this speech paraphrased rather than having to read all of it? Or watch a 5 minute video vs hour long conference? Paraphrasing is a great way to sum up complex information and make it digestible for the wider public.

 

Yeah, they've only got one month left. Then they have to defend the Biden administration. That should be a hoot.

 

Hell no I wouldn't, and neither does anyone else interested in the truth.

We're all capable of skimming and fast-forwarding. I want to analyze the actual quotes with context for myself, not be told what someone else thinks or wants it to mean for me.

 

Yeah, they've only got one month left. Then they have to defend the Biden administration. That should be a hoot.

 

Paraphrasing entails accurately saying or writing what someone else said in your own words, not interpreting what they you think they said, or coming close to what they said. The point of this thread are people on the left side of this forum inaccurately interpreting what the president is saying, not actually paraphrasing him, and surely not quoting him.

 

This isn't unique to references to Trump. The words of politicians are frequently distorted or taken out of context (e.g. Hillary's "deplorables" comment). But keep in mind that these errors can easily be corrected on a forum like this. The bigger sin is a steadfast refusal to accept correction.

Here's a more problematic asssertion:

It's clearly not a true statistic, it's just the expression of a biased gut feel. It's impossible to refute a claim like this, so it's actually worse than a correctable misquote.

 

That’s paraphrasing. And no you don’t. You don’t get quotes that tell you context. You don’t read an entire speech or watch an hour long video to pick out quotes. That’s not how it works. Quotes are icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

Oh no my interpretation isn’t the same as yours! That must mean something something something bad. Seriously it’s just a different interpretation. Don’t like it? Find out why someone has a different interpretation.

 

I think it will be easier than that. They just won't report anything bad so there is nothing to defend. Recall any MSM coverage of Biden's multiple gaffes and elderly moments? Me either. It just won't be covered.

 

You mean like providing links to actual credible voter fraud instead of being told there was voter fraud?

 

Understood. But as president, Biden will be forced to either do stuff or do nothing, and either way, he and his supporters are responsible. No more "Orange man bad" to fall back on.

 

Sure. The first step in finding that out is reading the quote that is being interpreted. Which is why I always provide the quote with my interpretation.

 

Did you do that for your op?

 

It is pretty easy to guess which of the usual suspects wrote the OP just by the title.

 

Did you miss the part where he said "accurately"? He even bolded it for you. There is no interpretation necessary if you paraphrase accurately.

For example when Trump said "very fine people on both sides" what was the context? Did he say that in a vacuum? Of course not. He was talking about what happened in Charlottesville. Was there any exceptions or qualifications that Trump said? Yes. He had made the exception of white supremacists saying that they should be condemned totally. So an accurate paraphrasing would include that exception. By not including the exception you are lying to the people because without that exception the meaning of what Trump was saying goes in a completely different direction. And the reason that it is lying is because whoever paraphrased him knew that the exception was made yet chose to not include it. Purposely leading the reader/listener towards a conclusion which was not made by Trump.

Bottom line: Paraphrase accurately and no interpretation is necessary.

 

Oh I saw it. And then I realized accurate is a buzzword. It doesn’t really mean anything in this conversation because of different interpretations. Like how you point out the word accurate I dismiss it. Different viewpoints and assumptions means different interpretations. I can take Trumps quote and emphasize that he categorized the violence in Charlottesville as being equal to both sides. When what he should have done is say something to the effect of clearly disagreeing with the racists. See, different viewpoints different interpretations.

 

I've done for all my OPs regarding someone's quote.

If you're referring to this OP- no, of course I didn't because this OP isn't about anything anyone said, but rather how they present what others have said. There aren't any quotes to quote or interpret on this subject.

...unless you're suggesting that you're unaware of the common practice on PF for folks to provide an interpretation of a quote without also providing the quote itself for context. If so- how many examples would I need to provide to demonstrate my claim?

 

It’s not what others have said but it’s about what others have said? Am I paraphrasing you correctly?

 

Yeah, "... but he isn't Trump..." ain't gonna cut it but so long.