Jesus wept

by liberal japonicus

I imagine everyone will have their own take about the debate that is about to finish, so I'll crack this thread open. Have at it.

Comments

[liberal japonicus]

Got to do some work, but a quick note as the debate is ending.

WTF is ABC putting on true crime adds right after Trump bullshits about the crime rate? It's all ABC commercials, what are they thinking?

[russell]

I didn't really intend to watch it, but my wife wanted to, so I did.

I thought the moderators did a good job, and I very much appreciated the occasional real-time fact checks.

Trump mostly avoided a complete and utter meltdown, which may make this yet another evening when Trump Became Presidential. But basically it was his usual torrent of belligerent bullshit, with the occasional nugget of something more or less factual mixed in like half-digested kernels of corn in a pile of chicken shit.

I thought Harris was OK, but I think she missed some opportunities to really hammer Trump on points of fact.

Overall I wished there was more substance. Policy-wise, Trump had basically nothing, while Harris' policy statements seemed thin - kind of bullet-point level.

That said, I'm not sure politics in the US is primarily about policy per se anymore.

[wj]

Well, we already knew that Trump doesn't do policy. And anything above bullet points isn't going to work in this situation.

Gotta remember, folks like us (engaged, interested in policies) simply aren't the target audience here. And the target audience couldn't absorb more than bullet points, even if they were interested.

[liberal japonicus]

I thought Harris was OK, but I think she missed some opportunities to really hammer Trump on points of fact.

I missed the first few minutes, but I'm assuming that Harris didn't call Trump weird. That was another missed opportunity.

The Grauniad had this
Harris also appeared to address what British political strategists termed “hero voters”, or voters who once voted Democrat but have since switched to the Republicans, or who might be lured from a party that they feel has veered too far to the right.

If it gets them to vote for Harris, I'll call them heros, but the linguist in me wants to point out that a hero is not someone who leaves a catastrophe and then meanders on back to help

Finally, Taylor Swift endorsed Harris, so I guess we are done...
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1833708267597386157?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1833708267597386157%7Ctwgr%5Ec7b771c8bf997ca1cf6bd8fa8df6f74106371db0%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2Flive%2F2024%2Fsep%2F10%2Fharris-trump-presidential-debate-updates

[nous]

If Harris can get inside Captain Crabbypants' head that easily and have him chasing his own tail like that, I shudder to think what the situation would look like if he were to get into a room alone with Putin again.

[wj]

Or a room with Xi.

[novakant]

I'm just glad it wasn't Biden up there - just imagine.

[novakant]

That said, what planet are we living on if they're talking about crowd sizes at rallies, immigrants eating pets and Harris being a Marxist?

[liberal japonicus]

Did anyone else notice when Trump tried the slut-shaming move?

From the transcript
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I don't know. I don't know. All I can say is I read where she was not Black, that she put out. And, I'll say that. And then I read that she was black. And that's okay. Either one was okay with me. That's up to her. That's up to her.

I can understand why she didn't want to say anything (though I wish she had something like 'Put out? Put out? If this is the way he talks in front of the entire nation, imagine what he says when he's behind closed doors'), I'm surprised none of the articles have noted that, afaict.

[wonkie]

I think that in general the media is sane washing Trump again--but also his performance was so awful that even with the sane washing they are saying that she got to him, he was angry the whole time, he said stupid stuff.

And example of the sane washing is the failure to repeat that quote: I don't know. I don't know. All I can say is I read where she was not Black, that she put out. And, I'll say that. And then I read that she was black. And that's okay. Either one was okay with me. That's up to her. That's up to her.

The closest I've seen to it is a quick little reference to "Read somewhere that she was not black."

But she did kick his ass so hard that the media can't-both-sides-do-it or say, "Kamela didn't do as well as expected and Trump did better." The general consensus seems to be that she controlled the debate, and he was visibly angry and said something about aliens eating dogs.

NOt quite the "He's nuts" coverage I wanted but close enough.

[Girl from the North Country]

Have to dash out, but I thought she did pretty well. He said plenty of mad stuff (killing born babies, eating pets etc), and she managed to bait him very successfully (his biggest crowds in history, fired by 81 million people etc). Taylor Swift endorsement welcome, but probably not that consequential...I thought the moderators let him interrupt and break the rules way too much, but maybe that didn't do much harm. He says it was his best debate ever, "three on one". I have no idea what that means - does he mean the moderators and him against her?

[Marty]

I don't know why but the line that struck me as pointing out his mental limitations was when he has talking about aliens eating pets and they fact checked him: His answer was No, I saw someone on tv say it.

He's gone completely deranged.

[wonkie]

" I heard it on TV, I read it somewhere, someone said," is how MAGA operates. That's how they get info. And their exclusive filter for evaluation is" Does that info make me hate/fear/feel superior to others? If so, they believe it. If not, then they don't.

[hairshirthedonist]

He says it was his best debate ever, "three on one". I have no idea what that means - does he mean the moderators and him against her?

The opposite. He had to debate all three of them (according to him).

I've seen a lot of complaining that he was fact-checked far more than Harris was. That doesn't account for his completely outrageous and constant lying, particularly considering that he repeated lies that had been refuted multiple times already.

It seems to me that he was given more out-of-format rebuttal time. The breakdown of overall speaking time supports (but doesn't prove) that.

tRump: 42m 52s
Harris: 37m 36s

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/10/politics/speaking-times-harris-trump-debate-dg/index.html

Overall, fair enough that he can't blame the moderators for his terrible performance, IMO.

[Hartmut]

I saw someone on tv say it

that's the 1970ies version of the 1870ies* 'If they allow it to be printed in the newspapers, it must be true.'**

Overall, fair enough that he can't blame the moderators for his terrible performance, IMO.

but not in his opinion of course. He'd accuse even Faux Newts or OAN of being biased, if the results don't please him.

*rough guesstimate assuming that in the 1970ies TV was still considered a reliable news source and that the same was true a century (or maybe even 2) before about newspapers.

**this reminds me of Conan Doyle's 'Lost World' (1912) where just to the contrary photographs are discounted as reliable evidence because they were so easy to fake.

[hairshirthedonist]

Oh, and how about the Viktor Orbán talk? That flabbergasted me.

[Hartmut]

In GOPland Orbán is the saviour of Europe from the Oriental and African hordes and the most respected statesman in Europe, so his endorsement carries weight with GOPlanders. He also has achieved a lot in Hungary of what the GOP can still only wish for in the US.

[Michael Cain]

A lot of people who should know better are talking about Taylor's endorsement as if the timing was some soft of fortunate accident. The woman has become a billionaire on the basis of public performance -- that doesn't happen without an impeccable sense of timing for maximum effect.

[Donald]

A couple of days ago Trump was making fun of Harris's height and demanding that there be nothing done on stage to make their sizes seem similar. Definitely the kind of intellect one likes to see in a President. (It is true that people are consciously or subconsciously prejudiced in favor of tall people because of our primate heritage, but Trump isn't running for head baboon. Not officially anyway.)

[hairshirthedonist]

In GOPland...

Which is why a nationally televised debate, where the general public is the target audience, isn't the place for it. At one of his stupid rallies, sure. Last night, no.

It's not that I'm surprised that he thinks Vik's A-okay. It's that he's clueless enough to let all of America know that he does, particularly when Harris is pointing out what a sucker he is for the manipulations of dictators.

[Michael Cain]

...where just to the contrary photographs are discounted as reliable evidence because they were so easy to fake.

Chain of custody for photographs used as evidence in court has been a thing for a very long time. For digital media, this seems like an actual useful application for blockchain technology.

When I worked for the state legislature, the official copy of a bill and its history was a single (sometimes very large) paper document. This despite the fact that all bills and amendments were created in the digital bill tracking system. When a bill was amended in committee, a paper copy of the amendment was attached to the document, one of the sergeants-at-arms would sign for it and transport it to its next destination where it would be signed for. Elected members of the legislature and their partisan staff couldn't sign for a bill, only the permanent non-partisan staff. The process and its importance was stressed in training, because even the most junior staffer might be the only one in the office and have to sign for a bill.

[Pro Bono]

The betting markets have moved quite sharply to Harris, making her the clear (but narrow) favourite for the first time.

Re. Conan Doyle: in 1917 he was fooled by purported photos of "The Cottingley Fairies" faked by two girls.

[Hartmut]

But how many undecided voters even know about Orbán and would be repulsed? I'd assume the typical low information voter would just hear 'endorsed by leading European statesman' and see that as a positive while Putin, Xi or Kim would likely trigger a negative reaction. And on the conservative side Orbán's name would be seen as another positive affirmation. Those informed over who Orbán really is and disgusted by it would not vote for His Orangeness anyway. So, from a GOP POV there is little risk of harm and a certain chance too fool a few in his favor.

[Hartmut]

Pro Bono, in the book the position of 'photographies are unreliable' is presented as a cop-out by those who were invested in the 'Lost World' being fake. Like the calls of 'fake news' to-day. That's the point where the head of the expedition (who anticipated this) releases the pterosaur into the lecture hall. So, from the author's standpoint it's not the voice of reason to question the evidence.

You're right that it's ironic that Doyle himself fell for the fake fairies. But iirc even though the photos were shown to be fake he did not change his position on the general topic. Fake proof is not disproof after all. Which reminds me of the affair of Dubya's military service where there is a strong suspicion that fake proof got presented to discredit the very strong real evidence of him having shirked his duty.

[nous]

Michael Cain - A lot of people who should know better are talking about Taylor's endorsement as if the timing was some soft of fortunate accident. The woman has become a billionaire on the basis of public performance -- that doesn't happen without an impeccable sense of timing for maximum effect.

If you look at what her endorsement says, I think there was a lot of forethought that went into the timing. It says:

Like many of you, I watched the debate tonight. If you haven’t already, now is a great time to do your research on the issues at hand and the stances these candidates take on the topics that matter to you the most. As a voter, I make sure to watch and read everything I can about their proposed policies and plans for this country.

That's Swift telling millions of Swifties who do not watch tv that they should search up the debate - or clips of the debate - and pay attention to what was said. She's getting them to hunt that stuff down before the Sanewashers can get out and put up a bunch of material that shows how King Lear Jet is actually secretly brilliant, bla bla blah.

It's like Oprah recommending a book. Boom. Instant traffic.

[wj]

The woman has become a billionaire on the basis of public performance -- that doesn't happen without an impeccable sense of timing for maximum effect.

What I thought was notable in Swift's endorsement was that she said that she was voting for Harris. But she did not tell her fans to do so. Instead she told them to a) register and vote, and b) do their own research (as she had done) and make up their own minds.

A lot of them probably won't do the later. But it will make them feel like they are being treated like adults, rather than being manipulated. And whether they do their own research or follow her lead, they will likely end up in the same place. Which makes the admonition to vote more important.

As for the timing, I totally agree it was perfect for maximum effect. Certainly it's grabbing headlines in both my local paper and the MSM. Right up there with headlines describing the debate as somewhere between a clear win for Harris and a rout. But perhaps Trump has a "concept of a plan" to recover....

[Girl from the North Country]

hsh: I'm an idiot! Of course it meant they were all three ganging up on him, how could I have thought anything different. The friend with whom I spent the afternoon pointed this out to me mere minutes after we left my place to drive to North London. Also, the Orban thing was kind of hysterical, hsh, until I remembered how ignorant a lot of the electorate is, who will have no idea what Orban is. And the RWNJs who happen not to be ignorant will approve of him, just as Hartmut says.

Among all the mad things he said, the one that startled me most was some kind of remark about how Harris "wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are locked up in prison". I was marvelling at the extent of the craziness, but to my chagrin I see this:

LGBTQ+ media advocacy group GLAAD said Trump may have been referring to a 2019 ACLU questionnaire where Harris agreed to ensure medical care for transgender and nonbinary people who "rely on the state - including those in prison and immigration detention."

In a fact check of the debate moment, GLAAD stated, "health care is a human right, and it is the law to provide it for detained people.

Even a scintilla of truth in a morass of his lies enrages me. However, I (home now) see that the consensus seems to be building that she did far better than him - absolutely not a foregone conclusion at least as regards the consensus. And I see he is sort of saying he doesn't really need to debate her again, since it was such a conclusive win for him. OK, that's not such a bad outcome. And in the meantime, let the Swifties loose on the clips and the full debate, as nous says.

[hairshirthedonist]

But how many undecided voters even know about Orbán and would be repulsed?

More after tRump cited him than before?

[Girl from the North Country]

Dammit, I just lost a whole comment!

Shorter me: hsh, I am an idiot! Of course he meant 3 against him - how could I have thought anything different (as has already been pointed out to me)?

Also: Orban? Shudder...but the mass of the electorate won't have a clue, and will just think "major foreign leader who approves of Trump". And the RWNJs who do know, will think exactly what Hartmut says.

Amidst all the craziness, my favourite example was "she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison." But then, to my great chagrin, I see this:

LGBTQ+ media advocacy group GLAAD said Trump may have been referring to a 2019 ACLU questionnaire where Harris agreed to ensure medical care for transgender and nonbinary people who "rely on the state - including those in prison and immigration detention."

In a fact check of the debate moment, GLAAD stated, "health care is a human right, and it is the law to provide it for detained people."

So the candidate for craziest claim goes to "Israel will be gone in two years", or possibly "No-one is talking about nuclear weapons". The pet-eating is just a side-issue.

Let the Swifties go forth and watch the debate, or clips, as nous says.

[Girl from the North Country]

I just lost 2 comments! "To lose one may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose two" etc etc. I would be grateful if someone could rescue one of the two!

[hairshirthedonist]

I might have lost one this morning around 8 AM EDT, but it also might have been user error on my part (previewed without posting).

[Girl from the North Country]

I was prepared to accept that the first was my fault - but I didn't want to have to do yet another one, so I was very careful about the second one. So annoying.

[novakant]

Someone pointed out on Twitter that Trump mentioned in passing that he had met Putin after he was voted out. What's up with that?

[hairshirthedonist]

It just occurred to me that tRump have new meaning to "man bites dog."

[hairshirthedonist]

gave!

[wonkie]

"He says it was his best debate ever, "three on one". I have no idea what that means - does he mean the moderators and him against her?"

He probably heard what that shitty creep that heads up Turning POint said. Shitty Creep (forgot his name) said that Trump was like a defendant with three prosecutors. The intent was to support Trump, but really it is a clear statement of Trump's weakness. Poor widdle Trumpie couldn't stand up to three people!

[wj]

Two GftNC posts rescued from Spam. 😇

[wj]

No heh posts in Spam

[GftNC]

Thanks, wj.

I think I'm going to have to change my handle to GftNC all the time, because it seems to do better more consistently, not just when I post links. I'll be sad, though - I like to see the whole name, because it reminds me of the song, and of my late husband and my time in the North Country!

[GftNC]

Very late to all my four newspapers today, (I always read the Grauniad first), but this gave me pleasure, headlined Republicans dismayed by Trump's ‘bad’ and ‘unprepared’ debate performance:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/11/trump-harris-debate-republican-reaction

[liberal japonicus]

This is the view from the spinroom, where Trump made an appearance

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/abc-trump-kamala-debate-reactions-b2610662.html

n that gaggle occurred possibly one of the most stunning moments of the campaign — after defending his performance, Trump came face-to-face with New York City Councilman Yusef Salaam, none other than a member of the “Central Park Five” whom the former president called to be executed for crimes they were later exonerated of committing. Reporters asked Trump if he would apologize to Salaam. He did not, instead turning away laughing after quipping that Salaam was “on my side”, which the bemused Salaam denied.

Why no video? There isn't an agreement that encounters in the spin room can't be televised, check out Stephen Miller melting down.

[liberal japonicus]

Where did Trump get these ideas? One possible source

https://youtu.be/N7hfv7nl9vM?si=aM43hdpSZBQdnBNk&t=327

[nous]

Here is something to consider - Tufts analysis of the districts in which the youth vote could have the largest effect on the November elections:

https://circle.tufts.edu/2024-yesi-top-50-house

Had not expected to see my district that close to the top. Hoping to see that play out in our favor.

Working hard to thread the needle in my class planning. It's not easy to bring rigor to climate and climate justice issues without making the self-identified Republicans and evangelicals start to feel intimidated. That does no one any good as an environment for learning.

[liberal japonicus]

nous, that's really interesting. You or anyone else have an idea why there are no youth influences in the Deep South for House races, even though the same methodology suggests that youth could have an impact in Georgia and the Carolinas? They have two different lists of indicators, but I'm not sure which ones are overriding

[nous]

My guess, lj, is that none of the House races in GA and NC are competitive races. Cook Political Report doesn't list any competitive races in either state.

If you want a better idea of why it is that none of those states have any competitive races, you can check out the Princeton Gerrymandering Project:

https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/

I'd guess the main ingredients making up the recipe for a youth-forward district are districts with large colleges or universities where the district is competitive and there is a bit of a "town and gown" tension between the older, more Republican residents and the younger, more Democratic student body.

The states with heavy gerrymandering have engineered that volatility out, and are probably making it hard for students to vote in any way other than in-person in their district of residence.

[Hartmut]

Meanwhile: AI catching Mad Cow Disease
https://jensorensen.com/2024/09/11/ai-model-collapse-mad-cow-cartoon/

[GftNC]

Look, I know that Cheez Whiz and russell are right, and the problems won't all be solved by a Dem victory, but as we all know (except Marty, and possibly Charles) nothing good can happen politically without one. So anyway, I myself intend to wring every bit of fleeting pleasure I can out of what are going to be a gruelling, nerve-wracking 7 weeks.

“You can kiss your sales to the Republican audience goodbye, Taylor,” said Megyn Kelly. “Hope you enjoyed them while you had them.”

Ms. Swift’s snarky sign-off — “Taylor Swift, Childless Cat Lady,” a clear reference to JD Vance’s 2021 remarks about “childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives” — was a hint that she isn’t too worried.

For those of us of a certain age, it was also a reminder of another time when conservatives came for the single ladies. It didn’t go well.

Mr. Vance was only 7 years old in May of 1992, when Dan Quayle — another youngish member of a presidential ticket who’d been celebrated as the future of the party — went after a sitcom character named Murphy Brown. Played by Candice Bergen, Brown was a TV news anchor who unexpectedly became a mother without first becoming a wife. Pearls were clutched. Knives were sharpened.

“Bearing babies irresponsibly is, simply, wrong,” Mr. Quayle said in a speech. “It doesn’t help matters when prime-time TV has Murphy Brown, a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid professional woman, mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another ‘lifestyle choice.’”

That September, when the series’ new season aired, Murphy Brown gave her rebuttal. In an episode of the show she addressed Mr. Quayle’s remarks directly, saying, “Unfortunately, it seems that for him, the only acceptable definition of a family is a mother, a father and children. And in a country where millions of children grow up in nontraditional families, that definition seems painfully unfair.”

Murphy Brown had the last laugh. Seventy million viewers tuned in — which, The Washington Post observed, was “about 31 million more than the votes the Bush/Quayle ticket got six weeks later when they lost re-election.”

Ms. Swift’s endorsement may not swing the needle for the tiny sliver of persuadable voters in the handful of swing states. If people want to make their decisions based on something other than a pop star’s Instagram post, more power to them. But that post, with its tongue-in-cheek-y humor, raises the hope that the joy Ms. Harris has been running on might get us to a place that attacks never could.

[bobbyp]

When Harris turned to Trump and said, "You are a disgrace", I just about spilled my beer. About 'effing time!

[GftNC]

About 'effing time!

And ditto for when she said he was weak and other world leaders were laughing at him, or in some cases just knew they could manipulate him. Obvs, the politics wonks on ObWi, who read the Guardian or other reputable foreign papers know this, but I bet an awful lot of the 70 million Americans who watched the debate didn't know it. And if they doubted it and were prepared to do even a bit of research, they would find huge amounts of evidence to support it. It has been very infuriating to hear him go on about how "respected" the US was when he was president. In every case, liberal democracy or authoritarian dictatorship, the opposite was true but for different reasons.

[GftNC]

Bernie Sanders's congratulations to Harris, and four suggestions of policies which a) are very popular, even among Republican non-billionaires, and b) would be transformative for America.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/12/kamala-harris-debate-bernie-sanders

[CharlesWT]

In the debate, Trump made the better case. Harris didn't make a good case for why she should be president. Trump made the better case of why he shouldn't be president.

[CharlesWT]

"U.S. — A singer who has made her entire career out of writing songs detailing her horrifically bad choices has announced her choice for President: Kamala Harris.

Pop icon Taylor Swift, who has written a veritable library of songs about her being a poor judge of character, made the announcement last night. "I know I'm internationally renowned for regretting every major decision in my life, but this choice will turn out different, I just know it," said Swift. 'She's the one!'"
Woman Who Made Career Singing About Her Bad Choices Endorses Kamala

:)

[liberal japonicus]

Charles, Владимир Владимирович выражает свою благодарность.

[hairshirthedonist]

You had me going for a sec, Charles.

[wj]

Ms. Swift’s endorsement may not swing the needle for the tiny sliver of persuadable voters in the handful of swing states.

Agreed, that impact may be tiny. But there are indications that her admonition to her fans to register and vote is generating a surge in registrations. Those people aren't, technically, persuadable or undecided. They are previously unengaged. And there seem to be a lot of them.

Some will heed her admonition to do their own research; others will just follow her lead. But either way, expect them to break overwhelmingly for Harris. But that, significant as it may be for the presidential race, is likely not going to be the biggest impact.

A bunch of fools (to be kind) among Republican officeholders and other prominent party people, have chosen to attack Swift, in fairly nasty terms, for what she has done. Which is likely to motivate a lot of Swifties to keep voting right down the ballot for anybody with a D after their name. (And there are a lot of down-ballot races out there which could be flipped by that.) Moreover, that sort of behavior can be habit-forming. Not great news for a party already in demograpgic trouble.

[GftNC]

377,000 people followed her link to the voter registration site - here's hoping!

[russell]

In other news, a conservative family member posts on Facebook to recommend reading the Wikipedia article on Tammany Hall as a way of understanding the deep perfidity of the (D) party.

For decades, if not centuries. See, they've always been a pack of crooks!!

It's hard to know where to even begin to untangle such a dense knot of bad, ahistorical thinking.

The person in question here is one of my sisters. The sister in question among other things taught me to read when I was 4, and was a great friend and help, in a million ways, throughout my childhood and youth.

We just don't talk about politics or matters of public life in general. Ever. We have completely different, and alien, understandings of history, of what public civic life - the res publica - is and means. The divide is just too freaking wide.

It all makes me sad.

A lot of folks talk about finding common ground. I don't really think it exists, other than at the most basic level - things like we all need food and shelter, we all want to be basically healthy and live lives that are meaningful in some way. We all want our loved ones to prosper.

Is that enough "common ground"? I mean, enough to come to agreement about how to organize public life?

I've kind of given up on the common ground idea. I'm just looking for ways we can coexist.

[russell]

Sorry, my inner word nerd insists that I correct "perfidity" to "perfidy".

There is no such word as "perfidity".

I will try to do better.

[JanieM]

russell -- your "I will try to do better" made me laugh out loud.

As to this: I don't really think it exists, other than at the most basic level - things like we all need food and shelter, we all want to be basically healthy and live lives that are meaningful in some way. We all want our loved ones to prosper.

Maybe that's common ground in the sense that we do all want those things for ourselves -- but I'm pretty sure there's no common ground around the question of whether everyone should have them, even at the most basic subsistence level.

Some people are lazy and don't deserve any consideration, some are not in God[sic]'s good graces and so aren't on the list to have decent lives, etc.

Or in other words, I'm with you in not believing common ground exists to work with. At this point I'd go way beyond giving up on it: I basically think we can't even coexist without a permanent war (shooting or metaphorical) to force the issue of sharing basic resources so that everyone gets some.

[hairshirthedonist]

FWIW, this is what 538 has to say about Swift's endorsement of Harris:

https://abcnews.go.com/538/taylor-swifts-endorsement-harris-change-election-end-game/story?id=113645967

Headline: "How Taylor Swift's endorsement of Harris could change the election end game"

Subheadline: "Swift’s fans largely lean Democratic, but her support could boost engagement."

As wj noted, it's less about which way to vote than it is about voting at all.

[wj]

There is no such word as "perfidity".

They best be adding it to the dictionary. Because I've been hearing it that way all my life.

Wouldn't be the first time a new word came along that was originally a mistake on an old word. Even an old English word. It's a well established American tradition. And has anybody here ever heard someone say "perfidy"???

[hairshirthedonist]

Your perfidy may lead you to perdition. It's confusing.

[russell]

I'm pretty sure there's no common ground around the question of whether everyone should have them, even at the most basic subsistence level.

Sadly, I can't disagree.

[CharlesWT]

Wouldn't be the first time a new word came along that was originally a mistake on an old word.

What words in the English language were originally mistakes on existing words?

"Several words in the English language originated from mistakes or misunderstandings of existing words. These mistakes occur through processes such as mispronunciation, misreading, or misinterpretation. Here are some notable examples:"
English words derived from mistakes

[JanieM]

And has anybody here ever heard someone say "perfidy"???

Yes! I have never heard or seen "perfidity" -- I thought it was just a typing mistake on russell's part. (Was it, russell???) If I didn't know you better I would think you were pulling our legs about hearing "perfidity" all your life. In fact, when I first read your comment (wj) I thought you were making a joke about the correct pronunciation of perfidy (that you thought it was perFIDy or something).

I will throw in a mistake that I see in writing so often that I'm surprised it isn't yet (as far as Google or Bryan Garner will tell me) on the route to becoming a standard variation: "distain" for "disdain." Pronunciation doesn't reveal how someone thinks this word is spelled, so it's a little different from the perfidy/perfidity example.

[JanieM]

But then Google gives me this:

Oxford English Dictionary
https://www.oed.com › dictionary › perfidity_n

The earliest known use of the noun perfidity is in the early 1600s. OED's earliest evidence for perfidity is from 1607, in the writing of Edward Topsell ...

*****

The link asks me to subscribe, however, so I can't see the rest.

[nous]

OED basically says that 'perfidy' and 'perfidity' are the same, with the former occurring about four times more frequently than the latter. 'Perfidy' is a borrowing from French and classical Latin, where 'perfidity' is a borrowing from post-classical Latin. So it's perfidia vs. perfiditas at the root of things.

[CaseyL]

I have to say, I've never heard "perfidy" used, but have heard "perfidity," and in my innocence have therefore used that version myself.

I thought Winston Churchill himself had said "perfidity," but can't find a quote confirming it.

Erroneous terms replacing correct ones in popular usage has happened at least once before I can remember: normalcy v. normality.

[GftNC]

Perfidy is the word I have always heard here, and it's not all that rare either. If Winston Churchill ever said perfidity, I'll eat my hat (subject to contract).

Mistakes which seem to be gaining ground (apart from my usual bugbears): irregardless for regardless. I first heard this from Dubya, but someone here used it not long ago. And, given Janie's OED finding on perfidity , frankly nothing would surprise me.

Erroneous terms replacing correct ones in popular usage has happened at least once before I can remember: normalcy v. normality.

I started hearing "precarity" for the first time very recently, when I had always heard "precariousness". But when I looked it up, lo, it exists.

[nous]

As far as the whole 'living in different worlds' thing, this is what I have been talking about when I've mentioned Yugoslavia post-Tito in the past. We have competing nationalisms and competing media ecologies and a vast gap between as the right has become more and more Manichean in its politics.

The religious intellectual right has rejected liberalism and is busy trying to enact regime change to build a post-liberal order. And let us be clear here - the US Constitution is built upon the principles of enlightenment liberalism, so when they speak of regime change, they are talking about sidelining the constitution and putting something in place that resembles Franco's Spain, or Orban's Hungary.

So, yeah, we really do want different things.

[hairshirthedonist]

I was going to write a comment with made-up word forms, one of which was "obviosity." Then there was no red squiggle. I've since come to find that it's a recognized word, at least according to several sources. Collins has its status as "This word is being monitored for evidence of usage."

But, like I wrote, no red squiggle. Spell-check is okay with it. Who knew?

[russell]

OED's earliest evidence for perfidity is from 1607, in the writing of Edward Topsell ...

Ah! I knew I'd seen it somewhere!

:)

[nous]

OED has 'precarity' starting in usage in English in 1910. Google Ngram has a huge spike in usage for 'precarity' starting in 2011 and coinciding with the publication of British economist Guy Standing's The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class, which hit at the same time as the Occupy Movement.

[CaseyL]

English, being a language that likes to devour tasty bits of other languages (and other languages' grammar, come to think) in big bites, is notoriously fluid in what it considers proper language or usage.* Always has been.

Mass communication (printing, newspaper, radio, TV) sped that along. Social media has accelerated the trend to light-speed.

Pity the editors and publishers of dictionaries. It's got to be a sprint by now to keep up.

*A YouTube channel I subscribe to, and recommend for language nerds, is "Lost in the Pond." A Brit who has lived in the US for 16 years, became a citizen and all that, does videos on the differences between the UK and the US in everything, from what our houses are like to how we spell/pronounce/ use certain words. Very entertaining.

[wj]

It seems like we might have an opportunity (if only anyone here knew how) for a map of where the various takes on perfidiousness are common. And clearly we're talking a world map.

[JanieM]

So what would be the "perfidity" equivalent of "perfidiousness"? "Perfiditousness"?

;-)

And russell, you cracked me up again with "I knew I'd seen it somewhere."

It would be fun to go on about language all day long, but I have just come back from a week away, and obviositously enough, I have to spend some time delving myself out of the mess.

*****

Okay, that reminds me of a point of grammar that tripped up some English learners a friend was teaching long ago:

You can say:

I gave John the ball.

Or:

I gave the ball to John.

But it's not cricket to say:

I gave to John the ball.

*****

And for GftNC -- I noticed "irregardless" recently too. That has been an ill-usage since I was a kid; I remember my mom being annoyed by it. She was a stickler....no mystery about where I got it.

[CharlesWT]

A YouTube channel I subscribe to, and recommend for language nerds, is "Lost in the Pond."

I like that channel too.

Lost in the Pond

[Hartmut]

But it's not cricket to say:

I gave to John the ball.

Is it the definite article? If I replace it with 'a', it sounds less weird/stilted.
Although I think the proper way would be to get John in front: "To John (not Dick or Harry) I gave a ball (not a cuckoo clock)."

[JanieM]

Hartmut: Is it the definite article? If I replace it with 'a', it sounds less weird/stilted.

Curious to see whether any other native English speakers will disagree with me, but no, IMO it's not the definite article, it's the combination of "to" and the word order -- as shown in my two acceptable examples.

Your final example works, but only in a very specific context, as you note.

[wj]

I would say that
"To John I gave the ball"
mostly works in the context of listing out what you gave to a series of people. As in
"To John I gave the ball. To George I gave the bat. To Rachael I gave the glove."
(I'm getting a Last Will and Testament vibe here.)

[CharlesWT]

My grammar checker says:

To John, I gave the ball.

[JanieM]

CharlesWT:

My grammar checker says:

To John, I gave the ball.

*****

As to the comma, I would say sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on the context in terms of both the meaning you're trying to convey and the rhythms of the surrounding verbiage.

If I were copy editing wj's examples, I would leave them as is, always (again) depending on context.

The use of commas to shape/create rhythm in a sentence or paragraph, and in shaping meaning, evolves over time. Just read some Dickens if you don't believe me. Plus, it's somewhat a matter of taste.

IMHO. YMMV. Etc.

[Priest]

"I gave to John the ball", to my ear, sounds like it would be just fine in poetry/verse, but certainly not in everyday speaking language.

[Michael Cain]

To John, I gave the ball.

I tend to overuse commas when I write, because I stick them in to represent places where I would pause, however briefly, if I were speaking. I would pretty automatically put that comma after John.

[Michael Cain]

To John, I gave the ball.

To be honest in the context where I would use that sentence structure, I would probably say, "To John, I left the ball."

[nous]

John to ball gived I.

[GftNC]

I gather the US version of HIGNFY airs tomorrow night. If anyone watches it, please report back! It's certainly a perfect week for political satire...

[liberal japonicus]

A phrase for y'all: hapax legomenon. It's originally a word that only appears once, either in all the words of a language, all the words of one author or only once in an author's work.

It started out as words that only appeared once in Homer, but was taken up in looking at other authors, and then by corpus linguistics. But when statistics started to be conceptualized, you had Zipf's law, which pointed out that the ratio of hapax legomenon to the total vocabulary is relatively constant. So the fascination with hapax legomenon as something incredibly important for discerning authorship or making arguments is really epiphenomenal.

[GftNC]

Oh my God, this is one of the funniest things I've ever seen. It's only 15 seconds long, make sure you have the sound on:

https://x.com/7Veritas4/status/1834564530434695384

[GftNC]

hapax legomenon (a transliteration from the ancient Greek) always reminded me a bit of the (now defunct) Googlewhack.

[CharlesWT]

Honorificabilitudinitatibus • Flother • Whipstock • Saxatile • Gardyloo • Manticore • Dord • Contrafibularity • Tattarrattat • Twattle

[JanieM]

So if they're only used once, we get to construct a guess about their meaning from context? Or are they sometimes defined explicitly in context?

[JanieM]

So the fascination with hapax legomenon as something incredibly important for discerning authorship or making arguments is really epiphenomenal.

I'm tired from travel and other things, so not really thinking it through or pinning down reasons, but for some reason I want to put this next to Hartmut's link yesterday (?) to the cartoon about AI increasingly being trained on its own effluvia.

[Priest]

Pretty sure that in all of Lord of the Rings Tolkien only uses the word weregild once, in reference to Isildur keeping the ring, and that may have only been in the appendix. It’s not an unusual word, but for a reader that hadn’t encountered it before, it’s meaning can only be inferred from context.

[JanieM]

Oh Priest....the rabbit hole of all rabbit holes:

https://github.com/jblazzy/LOTR/

(Came up in a Google search for "weregild" in LOTR.)

The .txt files for the 3 books, plus The Hobbit and The Silmarillion, yield "weregild" only once (as you say) -- in the Council of Elrond chapter, where Elrond tells the relevant story.

But there's arguing at reddit about whether "weregild" is even valid in the situation Elrond described.

[JanieM]

'Alas! yes,' said Elrond. 'Isildur took it, as should not have been. It
should have been cast then into Orodruin's fire nigh at hand where it was
made. But few marked what Isildur did. He alone stood by his father in that
last mortal contest; and by Gil-galad only Cnrdan stood, and I. But Isildur
would not listen to our counsel.

’ "This I will have as weregild for my father, and my brother," he
said; and therefore whether we would or no, he took it to treasure it. But
soon he was betrayed by it to his death; and so it is named in the North
Isildur's Bane. Yet death maybe was better than what else might have
befallen him.

[Priest]

It stood out to me in a rereading, because despite the obvious Norse/Old English influence of the characters and tales, it seemed like the only time Tolkien used an archaic word from that era.

[Priest]

And yet, not inappropriately, as Elrond is recounting the events of the previous age, so in that context an archaism lends itself to the circumstance.

[Priest]

Also, arguing at Reddit? Unheard of!

[JanieM]

Priest: it seemed like the only time Tolkien used an archaic word from that era.

It wasn't. The first counterexample that comes to mind is "mathom" -- which is basically the Old English word for "treasure" and appears over and over in Beowulf, which was the basis for the year of Old English I took in grad school. I was quite tickled to learn some of the OE underpinnings of LOTR.

(Although the redefining (?) of the word might make it less of a counterexample to what you wrote.)