Um, no. I expected that one of two things would happen:
A knowledge expert would come by and offer more detail and/or correction
Nobody would care
Apparently, I should have prepared myself to be publicly shamed for trying to add to the conversation. Perhaps you missed the part where I said “…but this seems about right”, and then offered my own analysis. My personal thoughts about the presidential administration that I fucking lived through, of articles I read in real time from a newspaper that was dropped at my door every fucking morning. You want me to source the Kansas City Star from 1976 -1980? Or my civics class in high school? Ted Brokaw? Dan Rather?
To you, Carter is ancient history. To me, he is a vivid living memory. I was a student during his administration; I remember his policies. His picture was hung in more than one classroom.
Setting aside how embarrassing this whole LLM thing is:
You want me to source the Kansas City Star from 1976 -1980?
That’s 100% possible these days. I can’t find jack shit to support the original statement after about 20 minutes of reading, and I don’t know how you propose there’s going to be anything but circumstantial evidence at best, but I guess it’s better than copy–pasted bullshit from an LLM followed by “that sounds right in my anecdotal opinion”.
Specifically, The Kansas City Star from 1976 to 1980 – the only thing you’ve cited that actually approximates a traceable source but that you apparently thought (practicably) wasn’t – seems to have zero evidence that Carter’s foreign policy on South Africa was even remotely controversial enough (let alone specifically not progressive enough) to have any meaningful impact on votes.
Articles on the subject are sparse – mainly the Associated Press who report South Africa’s situation and sometimes (usually minimally) cover Carter’s involvement. The opinions that do exist are basically neutral on Carter’s involvement (and even if they weren’t, we loop back to circumstantial evidence). Even looking specifically around the time of the election returns nothing. Having looked through several dozen articles across those four years, this is all routine coverage of international geopolitics. It’s not even close.
Maybe you’re misremembering. Maybe you thought I’d have to go spelunking through microfilm in a Kansas City library to call you on this. I’m assuming the former. Either way, I appreciate something tangible regardless of intent, even if it’s wrong.
Yeah…I forgot what the original statement was. But I just spent the last hour in an internet rabbit hole, reading about Carter’s administration. Was fun, love ya, thanks for coming to the show.
Um, no. I expected that one of two things would happen:
A knowledge expert would come by and offer more detail and/or correction
Nobody would care
Apparently, I should have prepared myself to be publicly shamed for trying to add to the conversation. Perhaps you missed the part where I said “…but this seems about right”, and then offered my own analysis. My personal thoughts about the presidential administration that I fucking lived through, of articles I read in real time from a newspaper that was dropped at my door every fucking morning. You want me to source the Kansas City Star from 1976 -1980? Or my civics class in high school? Ted Brokaw? Dan Rather?
To you, Carter is ancient history. To me, he is a vivid living memory. I was a student during his administration; I remember his policies. His picture was hung in more than one classroom.
Setting aside how embarrassing this whole LLM thing is:
That’s 100% possible these days. I can’t find jack shit to support the original statement after about 20 minutes of reading, and I don’t know how you propose there’s going to be anything but circumstantial evidence at best, but I guess it’s better than copy–pasted bullshit from an LLM followed by “that sounds right in my anecdotal opinion”.
Specifically, The Kansas City Star from 1976 to 1980 – the only thing you’ve cited that actually approximates a traceable source but that you apparently thought (practicably) wasn’t – seems to have zero evidence that Carter’s foreign policy on South Africa was even remotely controversial enough (let alone specifically not progressive enough) to have any meaningful impact on votes.
Articles on the subject are sparse – mainly the Associated Press who report South Africa’s situation and sometimes (usually minimally) cover Carter’s involvement. The opinions that do exist are basically neutral on Carter’s involvement (and even if they weren’t, we loop back to circumstantial evidence). Even looking specifically around the time of the election returns nothing. Having looked through several dozen articles across those four years, this is all routine coverage of international geopolitics. It’s not even close.
Maybe you’re misremembering. Maybe you thought I’d have to go spelunking through microfilm in a Kansas City library to call you on this. I’m assuming the former. Either way, I appreciate something tangible regardless of intent, even if it’s wrong.
Yeah…I forgot what the original statement was. But I just spent the last hour in an internet rabbit hole, reading about Carter’s administration. Was fun, love ya, thanks for coming to the show.
I’ll try to do better next time.