CNN puts Thunberg on expert COVID-19 panel, feminists support it

[Metaphor]

Jarhyn's low reasoning and petty revenge strikes again.

Jarhyn negative repped me for this post, with the reason "Argument from authority, at its fuckiest."

Jarhyn, my post was not an argument from authority. It was a definition of how expertise is attained.

If you can't suffer occasionally getting negative rep, maybe you should refrain from participating in a forum that allows negative rep instead of whining? I'm sure there's plenty of safe spaces for your like out there.

On the contrary, I have no problem with 'occasional negative rep'. What I have a problem with is Jarhyn revenge-repping me 8 times in a row, and stating at one point, as the reason for a particular negative rep "NGL this is fun."

But your message--that you would like me to leave the forum--is received.

 

[Metaphor]

Ok, just gonna have to keep repeating it I guess: she was there as an emissary of her generation. She is enormously knowledgeable on that front. She has been and will continue to be enormously knowledgeable as an emissary of her generation; she has displayed great thought and consideration of the impacts of various threats to the world that will impact her and her peers.

So you can keep ignoring the actual context of her appearance, sure, but do you really want to keep ignoting the social consequences of doing so?

You can repeat it all you like. Had I had the understanding that Thunberg's appearance was as 'an emissary of her generation', there'd have been no thread, because the thread is not about Thunberg being an 'emissary'.

The thread was started because my perception was that CNN implied Thunberg to be an expert at the same level as Besser and Sebelius*, and the feminist reaction to this understanding was of interest to me.

If you want to start a thread about Thunberg's performance at the town hall, you are free to do so, but her performance is entirely and consummately irrelevant to this thread.

*Before Jokodo comes in again, that statement is true even if I was mistaken about what CNN implied.

There is no evidence that the feminists reacting where subject to the same misconception you were misled to assuming by Murdoch. Thus there is no evidence that "the feminist reaction to this understanding" exists outside your head.

Even if that's the case,--and I do not believe it to be the case--that still doesn't mean the OP is about something that it isn't about. Even if that's the case, that still doesn't mean I mentioned physical characteristics to slander Roxane Gay and Patricia Arquette.

 

[laughing dog]

Handwaving in French is not an argument. Weight and race were used as jabs in your diatribe. To deny it is to deny reality.

Non. Your statement--

part of the reason you disagreed with Ms. Gay was due to her race and her weight

is a lie. I do not believe that race and weight have anything to do with the validity or soundness of an argument, and I never have.

A lie requires me to know that it is not true. I do not. So, your accusation is unfounded. In fact, I believe it to be true.

You then make a different claim:

Weight and race were used as jabs in your diatribe.

This statement is also a falsehood. Describing physical characteristics was used as a jab in my post, but not to jab the people I was describing, but to satirise intersectional feminism. Nor would using something as a jab mean I believed it reduced or eliminated the validity or soundness of an argument.

It is not a different claim. Your jab is part of your argument. So, your claim is illogical and false.

Satirizing intersectional feminism was also an irrelevancy to the OP. A kind description of your explanation is that is lame ass.

 

[fromderinside]

Metaphor methinks you protest too much. Greta's been a teen 5 yrs now. Appears you are pushing picante sauce made in NY Citeeeee. Git rope, tar, feathers .....

 

[Metaphor]

It is not a different claim. Your jab is part of your argument.

No. The jab is not part of the argument. The argument was that Gay implied others to be misogynists, and she did not afford them the same grace she allowed herself.

The description of her physical characteristics was a jab, but not at Gay. It was rhetorical icing mocking intersectional feminism.

Satirizing intersectional feminism was also an irrelevancy to the OP. A kind description of your explanation is that is lame ass.

It's astonishing that you get to determine what my OP was about. Well, I guess it would be astonishing if I didn't know anything about your past behaviour.

 

[Rhea]

.
.
Last chance to make this thread not include any ad hominems, goading, insults and derails.
The mod team is tired of the effort required to moderate this thread into compliance with the TOU.

And for the love of reason, please DON'T quote the TOU violation when you reply to the ad hom, goading or insult - it just makes more editing work.

The topic could be interesting without being inflammatory.
Next violation closes the thread, though. Come up with new content, interesting points and a civil tone, or the mod team will have to stop this car and come back there.

 

[laughing dog]

Never mind,

 

[Trausti]

 

[Jarhyn]

Of course, I tend to actually enjoy when people whine and moan about the social consequences of their failure to meet basic standards of evidence for the message they have created, whether they understand their message or not.

I mean, when I was 8, I asked for "one for each of us" at an expensive restaurant for an expensive dish, and while I wanted ONE, to share between my brother and I, they still brought out two, and there was a whole afternoon of family drama that ensued.

Turns out what you actually say is more important in communicating than "what you wanted to say".

At any rate, I can just keep reiterating here that the only real path to impugn the praise of Greta's appearance is, while acknowledging her role on the panel as an activist, how she did not suitably comport herself as an expert in that specific capacity.

If you want to talk about what some short-ass tweet "implied" it is equally valid to talk about what a huge number of long posts imply.

At any rate, I enjoy posting here, and yes, I do enjoy handing out negative rep to people who fail to meet what I consider basic standards of reasoning. So much so that roughly half the rep I have given is negative, roughly in a Zipf distribution. Ask Keith&Co, I've even negged him, and for being needlessly abusive to you, Metaphor, no less.

The fundamental failure here is to acknowledge the apparent and clear reality of GT's "implied" role on the panel, implied here by the cultural context of who she is and what she does.

All I am looking for here is enough honesty to see people who would impugn the praise of a person to use the actual words of that person against the praise of her rather than bogus inverted arguments from authority (which are AD-HOM), or dragging in irrelevancies such as the physical appearance of a feminist or other unrelated things those feminists say; the thread is not in fact "feminists are bad because they have said some specific crazy thing that has nothing to do with GT or her advocacy", it's "CNN puts Thunberg on expert COVID-19 panel, feminists [foolishly?/ridiculously?/irrationally?]support it". This defines the context narrowly as being the about the relationship between praise, and the person receiving it, and how the relationship between the praise and the praised reflects upon the person praising.

 

[Jokodo]

Jarhyn's low reasoning and petty revenge strikes again.

Jarhyn negative repped me for this post, with the reason "Argument from authority, at its fuckiest."

Jarhyn, my post was not an argument from authority. It was a definition of how expertise is attained.

If you can't suffer occasionally getting negative rep, maybe you should refrain from participating in a forum that allows negative rep instead of whining? I'm sure there's plenty of safe spaces for your like out there.

On the contrary, I have no problem with 'occasional negative rep'. What I have a problem with is Jarhyn revenge-repping me 8 times in a row, and stating at one point, as the reason for a particular negative rep "NGL this is fun."

But your message--that you would like me to leave the forum--is received.

I don't want you to leave. I want you to stop whining or leave. You can always choose to stop whining.

 

[Jokodo]

There is no evidence that the feminists reacting where subject to the same misconception you were misled to assuming by Murdoch. Thus there is no evidence that "the feminist reaction to this understanding" exists outside your head.

Even if that's the case,--and I do not believe it to be the case-

that's not a question of opinion. Even in the unlikely case you happen to be right and Gay and Arquette *were* subject to your stupid little misunderstanding, it remains true that there's no evidence presented in this thread that this is so.

-that still doesn't mean the OP is about something that it isn't about. Even if that's the case, that still doesn't mean I mentioned physical characteristics to slander Roxane Gay and Patricia Arquette.

It's certainly easier to interpret your OP as saying that than it is to interpret CNN's tweet as referring to Greta Thunberg as a COVID-19 expert, and here you are insisting in that interpretation...

 

[Jokodo]

CNN in no way implied that Thunberg is of equal status to Besser or Sebelius when it comes to expertise with COVID-19.

Yes, it did, and I've explained why.

You mean the tweet that *explicitly* refers to her as an "activist", and that's in all relevant respects parallel to tweets that have on previous editions been used to advertise thre appearance of, among others, chefs and singers? Yeah, that's just your vivid imagination.

Or have you seen a different statement of CNN that did so? Then give it to us.

 

[Jokodo]

It is not a different claim. Your jab is part of your argument.

No. The jab is not part of the argument. The argument was that Gay implied others to be misogynists, and she did not afford them the same grace she allowed herself.

The description of her physical characteristics was a jab, but not at Gay. It was rhetorical icing mocking intersectional feminism.

Satirizing intersectional feminism was also an irrelevancy to the OP. A kind description of your explanation is that is lame ass.

It's astonishing that you get to determine what my OP was about. Well, I guess it would be astonishing if I didn't know anything about your past behaviour.

But you get to determine what Gay's tweet was about no matter what? You get to determine that she and Arquette were subject to the same misunderstanding of Greta Thunberg's role as you and the author of the NYP piece were, despite the fact that the tweet announcing her, the only piece of evidence we've seen from you for your claim that CNN caused that misunderstanding, explicitly lists her as "Greta Thunberg, activist"?

Dude, your mind reading skills aren't half as good as you think...

 

[KeepTalking]

CNN in no way implied that Thunberg is of equal status to Besser or Sebelius when it comes to expertise with COVID-19.

Yes, it did, and I've explained why.

Your attempt at an explanation failed, and numerous posters in this thread have explained why.

You know, explanations only work when people accept them. When they are not accepted, that means you have more work to do. Simply referring back to an explanation that was not accepted does not make that explanation a magic bullet to end all discussion.

All you need to do is admit you fucked up, and commit to being more careful about the source you choose when posting topics in the future, and this thread will be settled.

Then you haven't been following the thread at all. There are false accusations against me that are not settled.

I accept your point that there is another discussion going on that would not be resolved as a result. If that is your only objection, however, then it might be advisable to make that admission and show a bit of the old 'arguing in good faith' mentality. On the other hand, those who are taking you to task for focusing on the physical attributes of the feminists you rail against do have some valid points, and it wouldn't hurt to acknowledge that you were being crass and deliberately provocative when including them in your OP.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is no evidence that the feminists reacting where subject to the same misconception you were misled to assuming by Murdoch. Thus there is no evidence that "the feminist reaction to this understanding" exists outside your head.

I mean, I read the announcement and I immediately knew why she was being placed on an expert panel because I acknowledge GT as an expert emissary of her generation. It was apparent what her role would be from the first moment I was aware of her having any role on a town hall at all. All it takes is the tiniest bit of logic to know she has been typecast to the town hall in that way.

But for someone that would fail to understand the phenomena that is GT so entirely, it is understandable that they would be unable to perceive her implied role.

Edit: it comes down to an attempt to be charitable in attempting to understand the motivations of others, and giving them the benefit of the doubt right up until they replace that doubt with certainty.

I fully agree that's the intended purpose but I do not think she is at all representative of her generation and thus she does not actually make a good emissary.

 

[ZiprHead]

There is no evidence that the feminists reacting where subject to the same misconception you were misled to assuming by Murdoch. Thus there is no evidence that "the feminist reaction to this understanding" exists outside your head.

I mean, I read the announcement and I immediately knew why she was being placed on an expert panel because I acknowledge GT as an expert emissary of her generation. It was apparent what her role would be from the first moment I was aware of her having any role on a town hall at all. All it takes is the tiniest bit of logic to know she has been typecast to the town hall in that way.

But for someone that would fail to understand the phenomena that is GT so entirely, it is understandable that they would be unable to perceive her implied role.

Edit: it comes down to an attempt to be charitable in attempting to understand the motivations of others, and giving them the benefit of the doubt right up until they replace that doubt with certainty.

I fully agree that's the intended purpose but I do not think she is at all representative of her generation and thus she does not actually make a good emissary.

Can you think of someone better?

 

[Jarhyn]

I fully agree that's the intended purpose but I do not think she is at all representative of her generation and thus she does not actually make a good emissary.

Can you think of someone better?

Also, a good representative does not need to be "an average member"; rather, they must, as a peer, acknowledge and understand the positions and hardships of the generation. After all, we elect all kinds of 'good' representatives to congress who are not 'representative' individuals.

What I can absolutely say about her is that she is aware of her peers and their needs, and works hard on representing those concerns and needs to others. This is why she is a good emissary.

 

[ruby sparks]

I totally agree she’s a good emissary, and indeed a very important one. Perhaps not about Covid 19, and in some ways it is a bit odd to see her on the panel, but I don’t know the show format. Here, there are tv programmes that often feature a non expert alongside experts, to offer a broader view. And as an activist in relation to Covid 19, she’s arguably got at least some reason to be there.

But generally speaking she’s awesome, imo. I just do not get the criticism of her. And she does speak for many young people.

Im not sure where feminism comes into it much, other than metaphor appears to have trouble posting about much other than complaining about it.

 

[Jarhyn]

I totally agree she’s a good emissary, and indeed a very important one. Perhaps not about Covid 19, and in some ways it is a bit odd to see her on the panel, but I don’t know the show format. Here, there are tv programmes that often feature a non expert alongside experts, to offer a broader view. And as an activist in relation to Covid 19, she’s arguably got at least some reason to be there.

But generally speaking she’s awesome, imo. I just do not get the criticism of her. And she does speak for many young people.

Im not sure where feminism comes into it much, other than metaphor appears to have trouble posting about much other than complaining about it.

He saw GT getting a position on a panel he felt she was unqualified for, likey through the broader right wing outrage machine, and that a feminist was supporting this thing he thought was inappropriate, and then thought he could get in a twofer snipe.

 

[Rhea]

I fully agree that's the intended purpose but I do not think she is at all representative of her generation and thus she does not actually make a good emissary.

Just out of curiosity, can you describe what made you feel qualified to judge who is a good emissary of her age group?

I’m just trying to remember if you are young, if you have kids of that age group, if you work extensively with that age group, or if you volunteer extensively with that age group - and I’m coming up empty.

Concluding that maybe she knows better than you do what makes a good emissary for that age group?