Talk:Manufactroversy

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Steelbrain.png

This Deceit related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately.

This article is of LOW importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

Contents

[edit] Origins of the word

I see the word comes up on a few science sites, but does anyone have any idea where the term originated. Its obviously a portmanteau but i mean as far as time and first usage? EternalCritic (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

According to this, the first use was this. But I don't know how reliable that is. Aconite (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The listed examples aren't manufactroversies

The Creation/Evolution Debates and Vaccine Hysteria rise above the level of manufactroversy. I've always seen this term used for controversies created by necessity of the 24 hours news cycle and/or fringe outrage. For example, Barack Obama ordering dijon mustard on his burger, or the suggestion that "you can't put lipstick on a pig" was a smear against Sarah Palin. I'm hard pressed to come up with left wing examples, but I'm sure there are some. Stile4aly (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

They can be more than one thing, I've expanded the article a smidgin and they do seem to fit - and they make neat little examples too. Scandals being mushroomed out of all proportion fit too, though, IMO. TQM (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of political manufactroversies?

Between the ever pleasant Operation Fast and Furious, the nonsense around the 2012 Benghazi attack and stuff around the IRS, perhaps it might be worth a new section about these items? Zero (talk - contributions) 13:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Russian DNC hack

The manufactroversy is the assumption that Russia hacked the DNC; the PBS article disputes that such an assertion is known. Any claim that they did ought to be proven by thise asserting it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is little direct evidence, at least publicly available, of Russia's involvement. And the fact that several US intelligence agencies are in consensus behind the idea isn't too convincing either, given said agencies' track records for honesty with the public. In including this bullet point in the article, however, our specific claim is that it is a manufactroversy. As the burden of proof lies with the proponent of the claim, it's on us to provide evidence of that. It's fallacious reasoning to argue that a lack of proof of Russia's involvement constitutes evidence for the ordeal being a manufactroversy. Until someone presents any such evidence in a compelling way, it's best to leave it out of the article. B) talk 05:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, first of all, only intelligence agencies believe that the attacks appear to be something Russia would do. Regardless, I think it is fair to call this out as BS since those pushing it don't have any physical evidence.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, it's fair to say that Russia's involvement is questionable and could be BS. That's not at all the same as claiming it's a manufactroversy. Would you argue that it's clear what actually happened? If you wouldn't, we agree that there is controversy. To claim manufactroversy is 1) as yet unsupported by evidence and 2) in contradiction with our stated definition of the term ("pretending that a controversy exists over something which is, in fact, not in debate by anyone who has the slightest grasp of the facts"). Those who do have more than a tenuous grasp of the facts are likely those same people who decided Russia would be the official story, whether that is true or not. B) talk 16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Well I feel that it is likely a manufactroversy because there is no evidence of Russia's involvement; the manufactrovesy currently listed all started the same way with propenents saying something was absolutely clear but having to evidence to back it up. I can't tell you that I know what happened, though, so I will relent for now.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools