Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 83
8/13/2024, 2:34:46 PM
X
In reply to:
Mikon
@PEpigone
·
537d
@GooneyMooney @GaryMarcus He had his phone on speakers. Audio was pretty poor. Other than that, Trump has retained his usual style of speaking even in his old age. Pretending he's in any serious cognitive decline, outside of the normal, is TDS.
Mike M
@GooneyMooney
·
537d
@GaryMarcus There is a world of difference between Trump’s cognitive ability and stamina and Biden’s. It’s disingenuous to pretend they’re the same. He sat and spoke for hours with no issue. He did sound like he recently had tooth work done, however.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
537d
So we ARE just going to pretend that Trump is *not* in cognitive decline?

How’s that going to work out?
Kurt Andersen
@KBAndersen
·
537d
After one nominee dropped out for seeming too elderly, I don’t understand how a reporter writes and editors publish a 900+ word article about the other nominee’s 2-hour talk and its “technical problems” without mentioning its salient stylistic feature—his continuous slurring.

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the cognitive abilities of a public figure, which is a matter of public concern. The tone is assertive and aims to provide evidence-based input into the discussion. The statement also includes a personal credential to bolster the argument.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to intend harm but aims to contribute to the discussion with evidence. However, it could be seen as dismissive of opposing views.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy of others but could be seen as indirectly contributing to a potentially harmful narrative about cognitive decline. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement attempts to promote understanding by providing evidence and credentials, but it could be more empathetic towards differing opinions.
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism but could avoid personal attacks by focusing more on the evidence rather than the credentials of the speaker. [-1]