Well if it's dimwitted, any conservative can handle it. :) This is not a term in common usage. RJJensen 11:51, 17 January 2010 (EST)
- Some lead (by coining or popularizing terms) some (like professors) follow. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 12:41, 17 January 2010 (EST)
It's often dimwitted, but not always so. And even the smartest person in the world can be deceived by a liberal trap if he's in a hurry or thinking about something else.
In response to the concern about whether it's in common usage, a quick search on Google turns up over 5600 links to the term. So it's out there.--Andy Schlafly 13:59, 17 January 2010 (EST)
- I recommend dropping "dimwitted." --as in the Palin example, saying she fell into a dimwitted trap has CP making her look stupid. RJJensen 14:25, 17 January 2010 (EST)
- I'm open-minded about this. But sometimes smart people are tripped up by dimwitted questions (liberal traps), simply because smart people are not used to being ambushed by such idiotic tactics. Presumably you've sat on doctoral review panels and found an intelligent candidate tripped up by a simple-minded, softball question that was unexpected.
- The finest baseball hitters in the game have struck out on the change-up, and applying that observation to this context seems to add information and value.--Andy Schlafly 14:32, 17 January 2010 (EST)
- In the Palin case, she was asked what newspapers and magazines she read. She was asked three times and did not name any. RJJensen 14:49, 17 January 2010 (EST)
- I would call that a dimwitted question, having no apparent significance. There are lots of very smart and productive people who do not read newspapers or magazines. Perhaps you knew some among college professors, and there are certainly more now that the internet is a superior source of information.--Andy Schlafly 15:25, 17 January 2010 (EST)
- But the question is clearly a liberal trap. If Palin says she reads newspapers, then the follow-up question is obviously going to be "which ones"??? Then she is expected by liberals to pay homage to the New York Times or Washington Post, which would hurt her among conservatives, and she would be ridiculed by liberals if she simply listed local papers. The whole line of questioning is "dimwitted", because it has no real value except to spark baseless criticism.--Andy Schlafly 16:25, 17 January 2010 (EST)
I would like to point out that the question was ridiculous in this century. Only the liberal elite believes newspapers and other dinosaur print media is important. It is important to them because that is how they have exercised control over the masses for 100 years. Another part of the trap is manipulating others, as Andy said, into reaffirming the liberals own high opinion of what they feel is important, ney - necessary to read. Thank God the Internet has freed us from the liberal tyranny of telling us what we need to read about, otherwise the entire Tea Party Movement wouldn't have gotten off the ground. Now that it has the liberals are running scared, and their shrill screaming about the "ignorant masses" (which they have always been afraid of) has reached a fever pitch! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 07:27, 18 January 2010 (EST)
Is there a better way?
I don't understand. The question was asked because newspapers are a quick and effective way to inform oneself, not to confuse her in any way. I am often confused by political issues, but I ask questions with an open mind. Is there a better way for Mrs. Palin to inform herself? I would like Mr. Schafly to respond since he is a lawyer and must keep himself informed in some way. Perhaps his methods mirror Mrs. Palin's ElyseE 22:57, 18 January 2010 (EST)
- The internet is a far more efficient way to become informed than reading a newspaper. Talking with informed advisers may be better still. There's no doubt that asking a politician which newspapers she reads is laying a trap. If she says "none regularly," then the newspapers will savage her; if she identifies some but not others then she alienates the others.--Andy Schlafly 23:33, 18 January 2010 (EST)
- Her non-answer was savaged more than any answer she could have given though. I agree the internet is a great place to get information, but most of the most trustworthy and legitimate information still come from newspapers just in digital format. I am a college student so I do not have the funds to have a paper delivered to me so I read the local paper online. Often times I go to the library though and read different publications there to ensure that I have an open mind and a full range of information. Mr. Schafly you appear to be very well informed about contemporary issues, and I do not mean to trap you or savage you in any way, if you would please tell me where you get you information from. I wish only to further inform myself. ElyseE 23:46, 18 January 2010 (EST)
- Depends on what you read and where if you think her answer was savaged more than any other answer she could have given. Some good ways of staying informed:
- Mix your media; Internet, radio, TV and forums.
- Aggregators; Newsletters that provide links to many different sources, news, blogs, opinion columns, domestic and foreign.
- Email discussions with informed and learned friends, of all political persuasions.
- Many interviews are equivalent to an ambush. The object is not to reveal anything about the person you're interviewing, to get at their real essence, or even to find something that the public might like about them. It's advocacy journalism in all its hostile glory and arrogance. --Ed Poor Talk 00:05, 19 January 2010 (EST)
ElyseE, newspapers are the most liberal source of information possible, and are written at about the 7th grade level. I hope you get your information from better sources. I get my information from Conservapedia, and the internet at large, from the best of the public (conferences, emails, students), from court opinions, and from various other sources too numerous to list here.--Andy Schlafly 13:05, 19 January 2010 (EST)
I think the definition sould be amended to include questions which can only be answered in a way that will damage the respondent no matter what he says, and which are planned to serve this exact purpose. An example would be when President Bush was asked near the end of his first term to list his mistakes: his answer was portrayed as lacking in humility, but if he had more given concrete examples, the Kerry campaign would have used this self-incrimination in an attack ad and ran it 24/7. --AnnG 16:47, 19 January 2010 (EST)
- Your point and example are superb. I'll try to incorporate now.--Andy Schlafly 19:17, 19 January 2010 (EST)