I stopped going to the gym because of Trump. Now I can't open jars

[JFord]

The Cathy Newman Peterson interview is a good example of this, where she continously tries to paraphrase what Peterson is saying in order to respond appropriately. People look at that interview and think she's doing her best to misrepresent him, but I see the exact opposite; I see someone who's trying her best to correctly interpret what he's saying and honestly respond by thinking her own principles through to their logical conclusions.

Wow! If you actually believe this, you are accusing her of a staggering level of INCOMPETENCE. I actually concur but that can’t explain all of it. I also feel quite comfortable accusing her of being staggeringly DISINGENUOUS as well.

A two-fer!

[Nero]

Wow! If you actually believe this, you are accusing her of a staggering level of INCOMPETENCE. I actually concur but that can’t explain all of it. I also feel quite comfortable accusing her of being staggeringly DISINGENUOUS as well.

A two-fer!

My problem with both of those interpretations ("honest but dumb" & "staggeringly disingenuous") is the assumption that it was Cathy Newman doing the talking. To me, the interview seemed like an embodiment of ideological dogma speaking through a person. She probably believed it and, when continuously presented with evidence which made no sense to her (as it wasn't part of the given ideology), didn't realize it was her reality she needed to be worried about. Not the evidence. That led to the misrepresentations and other attempts at trying to find ways around the facts and make sense of the whole thing within her worldview.

[JFord]

My problem with both of those interpretations ("honest but dumb" & "staggeringly disingenuous") is the assumption that it was Cathy Newman doing the talking. To me, the interview seemed like an embodiment of ideological dogma speaking through a person.

She was channeling her indoctrination therefore not responsible for the words coming out of her mouth.

Got it.

[Nero]

Not at all what I meant, but you know that.

[tompaynter]

On a semi-related note of sincerity, this is why it's harder for me to believe that muh leftists are malicious and instead not smart enough. The Cathy Newman Peterson interview is a good example of this, where she continously tries to paraphrase what Peterson is saying in order to respond appropriately. People look at that interview and think she's doing her best to misrepresent him, but I see the exact opposite; I see someone who's trying her best to correctly interpret what he's saying and honestly respond by thinking her own principles through to their logical conclusions. The significant difference being that her principles are inherently flawed, leading to inconsistencies and poor conclusions (the best example being the right to offend/right to free speech moment in the interview where she even pauses the interview to think it over). As to her paraphrasing, I see that as simply attempts at receiving information and broadcasting it again for confirmation. (actual quote; I knew the guy).

I have a different explanation. Suppose werewolves were real; they moved among us, and they were dangerous, hard to catch, and eating lots of people. In such a world, it might still be legal to eat meat. But you'd be unwise to talk too much about how much you like meat, or how you thought it was nutritious and healthy. To be safe, to make sure no one accused you of being a werewolf, you'd be a vegetarian and loudly disclaim any interest in eating meat, condemning it as a filthy, barbaric habit. There might be perfectly rational reasons to eat meat, but anyone who went around saying, "You know, it has a lot of protein and tastes pretty good" would invite suspicion even if that was perfectly true and rational. If you ran into someone talking that way, your main concern would not be to rationally evaluate their dietary advice; it would be to probe to determine if the person was really a dangerous werewolf.

That's what Cathy Newman was doing. In her world view, there are all these white male patriarchs running around enforcing the patriarchy, oppressing everyone, hurting minorities and women, etc. The funny thing is, though, it is hard to catch these patriarchs in the act. Most strong competent men are actually doing things like rescue boys from caves, heart surgery, etc. But in her view, those evil patriarchs exist and do lots of harm, and identifying and exposing them is a primary goal. So when someone says something like "there isn't really a pay gap" or "most men who are at the top of hierarchies are there because of competence, not oppression," the truth of that statement is not important. The important thing is to determine whether the person saying it is actually an evil patriarch, and expose him if so. That's what she was doing with Peterson--in fact she'd already determined that he was such a patriarch and was simply trying to expose him.

[Mark Rippetoe]

And she is no different that anyone else in the media in 2018. It is amazing to watch this.

[Mark E. Hurling]

That's what Cathy Newman was doing. In her world view, there are all these white male patriarchs running around enforcing the patriarchy, oppressing everyone, hurting minorities and women, etc. The funny thing is, though, it is hard to catch these patriarchs in the act. Most strong competent men are actually doing things like rescue boys from caves, heart surgery, etc. But in her view, those evil patriarchs exist and do lots of harm, and identifying and exposing them is a primary goal. So when someone says something like "there isn't really a pay gap" or "most men who are at the top of hierarchies are there because of competence, not oppression," the truth of that statement is not important. The important thing is to determine whether the person saying it is actually an evil patriarch, and expose him if so. That's what she was doing with Peterson--in fact she'd already determined that he was such a patriarch and was simply trying to expose him.

Shakespeare summed it up rather well in Julius Caesar.

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

[Scaldrew]

Hi, I'm tompaynter Cash

You raise a good point. Or, at least, I get a good point out of what you said. There does seem to be an element of thinking in "so whats" and binaries in muh leftist thinking, where one can't positively assert something without negatively asserting the opposite. That is to say, one can't say "successful whitey got there by merit" without implying that whitey didn't get there by oppressing others. Someone in the position of Peterson in the interview doesn't have to believe this supposed implication, or even wish it to be there, but the person in Newman's (or uh, Newwoman, since -man is probably an afterthought of the patriarchy) position won't accept that.

I used a bad example with merit vs oppression, but the main point remains that the opposite of either isn't the other, but themselves. "Merit" opposes [negative] "merit", as someone teaching a class about deconstruction would say. It also both implies and truly means it, but that's a bit too complex to work out convincingly in a single comment. The important thing to note is that one can hold two seemingly, and even fully, contradictory thoughts in one's head simultaneously. It's not wrong to claim that whitey got there by merit, nor does it imply he got there or did not get there through oppression.

So what I'm saying is I hate women. Damn it, she has got me, she has got me.

[gadders]

Godammit Trump! Look what you have done now!

The Trump effect is making me eat doughnuts without shame

On the plus side it's taking fat socialist women out of the gene pool.

[Bestafter60]

Godammit Trump! Look what you have done now!

The Trump effect is making me eat doughnuts without shame

On the plus side it's taking fat socialist women out of the gene pool.

Losers of the world, rejoice! Now you can blame all your mistakes, inadequacies, and accidental misfortunes on Trump, and your stories will be published without any pesky challenges to your rationality or purpose.