[georgemcbay]

At least one Republican Senator has made the plan to stop attacking pedophiles explicit:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TulTH6psCsw

I mean, yeah he probably flubbed his words, but let's also be honest in that most likely what happened was he was going to performantly proclaim "Let's stop protecting the pedophiles" realized mid-thought that that would effectively equate to saying "Release the Epstein files" putting him at odds with Dear Leader and at that point rafael_ed_cruz_brain.exe crashed and dumped core containing the shocking statement he ended up saying.

I don't know what else would make sense given that he didn't immediately correct himself, which is what one would expect if it were just a traditional brain fart.

[gruez]

>At least one Republican Senator has made the plan to stop attacking pedophiles explicit:

>I mean, yeah he probably flubbed his words, but let's also be honest in that most likely what happened was [...]

So not explicit? The whole point of something being "explicit" is that the point can be conveyed through straightforward reading of what was said, not vague implications through "dogwhistling" or "what he must have meant was...".

[johnnyanmac]

He didn't correct himself and no one else bothered to correct him in the whole room. It's pretty explicit at this point.

Why are we still giving the benefit of the doubt at this stage?

[gruez]

>He didn't correct himself and no one else bothered to correct him in the whole room. It's pretty explicit at this point.

No, it's pretty obvious that it's a flub, given that he's clearly reading from a script and has a prepared billboard behind him that says "sex abuse -40%". If flubbing a line and not correcting it counts as "explicit", then what do we call it if someone straight up says that he supports pedophiles? Super-duper explicit? "He flubbed a line and didn't correct it" falls right in the same alley as "dogwhistling" accusations, which also often accompanied with insistence that "he knew what he was trying to say" and "if he wasn't dogwhistling he would have worded it differently".

>Why are we still giving the benefit of the doubt at this stage?

I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt, I'm just pointing out that it's not "explicit".

[johnnyanmac]

>explicit

If we're doing semantics:

">(of a person) stating something in a clear and detailed way.

It is indeed" explicit ".

>No, it's pretty obvious that it's a flub

"binders full of women" was a flub. It was still a PR disaster. We've now moved beyond "grab them by the pussy" and we can't muster any rage now?

The charts don't really mean much given how much the admins have already contradicted this and talk about how crime is rampant in [insert city to be invaded].

>then what do we call it if someone straight up says that he supports pedophiles?

Explicit. Still meets the definition. I don't think we need to argue about spectrum of explicit. We can bring "literal" back or "with genuine intent" if we want.