Oops could be the name of a category. It is when a point or fact is evidenced as the product of another topic entirely. Here’s an example:
Mark Zuckerberg stated as a matter of policy that providing services in Spanish on FB would be considered “partisan.”
What more proof do you need that the GOP and Trumpers see Hispanics as aliens?
Pat’s Polemics
On-going brilliance
How is any stupid remark by Zuckerberg proof of anything about anyone else? FB already supports Spanish and many other languages. There is better evidence in their own statements.
I disagree. When anyone states that the use of Spanish is partisan, by terming it partisan they are recognizing the hostility of one block of partisans toward the use of FL in general or Spanish in particular, revealing a bias against “foreigners” on the part of the partisans. Now whether or not Zuckerberg is right does not bear; he is one person who believes that the use of Spanish in a public forum is somehow partisan. He did not say who would consider it partisan besides himself, but writing off his opinion as meaning nothing about the people is one thing and dismissing his perception as not saying anything about those ‘partisans’ is true, but perceptions do matter. My saying it was proof was wrong; initially I said it ‘evidenced’ in the sense of ‘points to.’ Certainly we don’t need Zuckerberg to tell us the GOP speaks ill of Hispanics and immigrants generally, but it tells us what his – and perhaps many others’ – perceptions are.
Thanks for the citations. They are more to the point.