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

[Toni]

Just when you thought the media couldn't get more ludicrous.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/bus...s/news-story/e7e382fba2bc6fd35cd51594de453593



Roxane Gay is a woman of color and fat, so she makes a good point here. I mean, whataboutism just doesn't count when it's a feminist doing it.

It is indeed a wonder that some posters here see you as a misogynist or racist. Just because you ignore the men quoted and latch on to one woman whose only characteristics you find relevant are that she's female, feminist and fat and a person of color.

White feminist Patricia Arquette demonstrates you don't need to know what the words 'extraordinary' and 'knowledge' mean to be a successful actress.

Again: Arquestte's race is relevant....how, exactly? Or her politics?


Why didn't you feel it important to give us a rundown of the physical characteristics, race, skin tone, BMI and gender politics of Yashar Ali? Eugene Gu?
Why not discuss Yashar Ali's 'credentials' to comment? To refer to him as a journalist is extremely generous, to be kind. Or Gu?

Why even link this 'news article' which is compiled of cursory listing of names of those who will be on a panel--and tweets? FFS, TWITTER is now what 'journalists' are mining for information? Twitter????????????????????

“It’s a town hall, not a meeting of scientists,” another follower noted.

“Some of their previous guests have been chef Jose Andres, director Spike Lee, author Laurie Garrett, etc etc.”

So, always, well known experts are on panels. Also, Thunberg will HOST along with Anderson Cooper, not appear as an expert.

Do you even read the 'articles' you link?????

Thunberg has, perhaps wisely, been mum throughout this erupting social-media showdown.
But she hasn’t spent the past three months lounging in lockdown.
On April 30, UNICEF said that the young activist had launched a children-first campaign to help protect young lives against COVID-19, pledging a grant of €92,000 ($155,000), awarded to her by Danish NGO Human Act, toward the effort.

“Like the climate crisis, the coronavirus pandemic is a child-rights crisis,” said Thunberg.
“It will affect all children, now and in the long-term, but vulnerable groups will be impacted the most. I’m asking everyone to step up and join me in support of UNICEF’s vital work to save children’s lives, to protect health and continue education.”

So, Thunberg has been involved in a campaign directly related to helping protect children from COVID-19 but because she's 17, she should not co-HOST? She's less well qualified than a chef?

The world is going to end in 12 years, so I'm not sure why Greta is worried about the impact of covid-19 on her future.

It's a wonder that you are willing to use up so many of your precious few remaining moments to bring such vital information to this forum for discussion.

 

[laughing dog]

This "uproar" is about an insignificant TV program on a relatively insignificant station (at least by ratings). The scrutiny and criticisms are disproportionate to the significance.

If this were about a blue ribbon scientific commission that makes recommendations to government, there might some point to the moaning.

 

[Metaphor]

It is indeed a wonder that some posters here see you as a misogynist or racist.

It is a wonder, because I've not said anything misogynist or racist.

Just because you ignore the men quoted and latch on to one woman whose only characteristics you find relevant are that she's female, feminist and fat and a person of color.

It's Roxane Gay who has made much of her fatness. I don't recall specifically making much of her being a woman, though she is indeed a woman.

Fatness and non-whiteness are measures of prestige in intersectional feminist narratives; I'm surprised you are unfamiliar with the pecking order.

Again: Arquestte's race is relevant....how, exactly? Or her politics?

Arquette's race is relevant to all the feminists (presumably, the closer to God intersectionals) who criticised her repeatedly as a 'white feminist'. I did not invent the term nor did I originally apply it to Arquette; I merely referenced it.

Why didn't you feel it important to give us a rundown of the physical characteristics, race, skin tone, BMI and gender politics of Yashar Ali? Eugene Gu?

Because neither Yashar Ali nor Eugene Gu said something obviously stupid, and I therefore did not comment on them. It's really quite obvious from my post that I didn't comment on them, because I didn't comment on them.

Why not discuss Yashar Ali's 'credentials' to comment? To refer to him as a journalist is extremely generous, to be kind. Or Gu?

I didn't refer to either of them as anything, because neither of them said something obviously stupid.

Why even link this 'news article' which is compiled of cursory listing of names of those who will be on a panel--and tweets? FFS, TWITTER is now what 'journalists' are mining for information? Twitter????????????????????

If you are bemoaning the state of journalism today, welcome.

So, always, well known experts are on panels. Also, Thunberg will HOST along with Anderson Cooper, not appear as an expert.

Do you even read the 'articles' you link?????

It is evident that in your desperation to nab a 'gotcha' moment, it is you who has not read the article. Nowhere does it imply that Thunberg is 'hosting'. The hosts are Cooper and Gupta:

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, 52, will host alongside Gupta.

So, Thunberg has been involved in a campaign directly related to helping protect children from COVID-19 but because she's 17, she should not co-HOST? She's less well qualified than a chef?

What on earth are you talking about? Is a chef on the panel? Did I say anything about her age at all? Also, she is not hosting.

It's a wonder that you are willing to use up so many of your precious few remaining moments to bring such vital information to this forum for discussion.

It's hardly a wonder. If I thought the world were going to end in 12 years, I might well behave differently. But I don't believe that, unlike Thunberg.

 

[laughing dog]

It is a wonder, because I've not said anything misogynist or racist.

See below

It's Roxane Gay who has made much of her fatness. I don't recall specifically making much of her being a woman, though she is indeed a woman.

Fatness and non-whiteness are measures of prestige in intersectional feminist narratives; I'm surprised you are unfamiliar with the pecking order.

Neither her weight nor race nor feminism is relevant to the Thurberg inclusion. There is no need to reference them. So why do it?

Arquette's race is relevant to all the feminists (presumably, the closer to God intersectionals) who criticised her repeatedly as a 'white feminist'. I did not invent the term nor did I originally apply it to Arquette; I merely referenced it.

Neither her weight nor race nor feminism is relevant to the Thurberg inclusion. There is no need to reference them. So why do it?

Because neither Yashar Ali nor Eugene Gu said something obviously stupid, and I therefore did not comment on them.

Neither did Ms Gay. She stated an obvious and relevant fact - something absent in your posts.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This thread is creepier and more dramatic than the one about pants-wearing habits of schoolgirls.

 

[Metaphor]

See below
Neither her weight nor race nor feminism is relevant to the Thurberg inclusion.

Her feminism is clearly and obviously related to her dismissal of other people's criticisms of the inclusion of Thunberg. Gay objects to 'bloviating men' being on panels. Hell, she says herself in a later quote she'd prefer a doctor to be on the panel and doesn't want Thunberg on it. She is a a full time feminist and her first instinct was to defend Thunberg's inclusion based on her gender.

There is no need to reference them. So why do it?

There was every need to reference her feminism, since her feminism is the point.

Her fatness and race are merely high value currency in the intersectional universe. They are important in understanding the feminist pecking order. It's also why Arquette is lower in the feminist pecking order: Arquette is white, thin, and 'conventionally attractive' (which means attractive).

Neither did Ms Gay. She stated an obvious and relevant fact - something absent in your posts.

Yes, what she said was obviously stupid. It was so stupid she later admits she doesn't even want Thunberg on the panel. She just wants everyone who criticised the decision to be made aware that she thinks they are misogynist hypocrites. Because feminists gotta feminist.

 

[Toni]

Her feminism is clearly and obviously related to her dismissal of other people's criticisms of the inclusion of Thunberg. Gay objects to 'bloviating men' being on panels. Hell, she says herself in a later quote she'd prefer a doctor to be on the panel and doesn't want Thunberg on it. She is a a full time feminist and her first instinct was to defend Thunberg's inclusion based on her gender.



There was every need to reference her feminism, since her feminism is the point.

Her fatness and race are merely high value currency in the intersectional universe. They are important in understanding the feminist pecking order. It's also why Arquette is lower in the feminist pecking order: Arquette is white, thin, and 'conventionally attractive' (which means attractive).

Neither did Ms Gay. She stated an obvious and relevant fact - something absent in your posts.

Yes, what she said was obviously stupid. It was so stupid she later admits she doesn't even want Thunberg on the panel. She just wants everyone who criticised the decision to be made aware that she thinks they are misogynist hypocrites. Because feminists gotta feminist.

Thunberg is not a panelist. She is to be a co-host and one who is well known, and is doing work pertinent to the issue being discussed. At 17, her credentials to serve as co-host vastly surpass your own.

Your self apologia aside, everybody sees your misogyny and racism for what they are—and recognizes that you are unable to actually post a link to any substantive article on the subject. It is easy to see that your sole purpose in posting this ‘article’ was to attempt another dig at feminism and to make nasty personal comments about the physical appearance of women who dare utter words you disagree with. Instead of commenting on the merit of their statements you must bring up their supposed politics and physical characteristic again, jumping through a dizzying array of lame attempts to justify your own obvious misogyny.

 

[laughing dog]

Her feminism is clearly and obviously related to her dismissal of other people's criticisms of the inclusion of Thunberg. Gay objects to 'bloviating men' being on panels.

So? It is stupid to think that is a feminist position.

Hell, she says herself in a later quote she'd prefer a doctor to be on the panel and doesn't want Thunberg on it. She is a a full time feminist and her first instinct was to defend Thunberg's inclusion based on her gender.

There is nothing inconsistent with the view that Thunberg should not be on the panel, but it is stupid and hypocritical to complain CNN's choice when it routinely has bloviating men.

There was every need to reference her feminism, since her feminism is the point.

That is really stupid.

Her fatness and race are merely high value currency in the intersectional universe. They are important in understanding the feminist pecking order. It's also why Arquette is lower in the feminist pecking order: Arquette is white, thin, and 'conventionally attractive' (which means attractive).

All of which is irrelevant to the issue of Thunberg's inclusion.

Yes, what she said was obviously stupid. It was so stupid she later admits she doesn't even want Thunberg on the panel.

Your premise that it is stupid is, in itself, stupid. And your conclusion does not follow from your premise which makes your conclusion stupid.

She just wants everyone who criticised the decision to be made aware that she thinks they are misogynist hypocrites. Because feminists gotta feminist.

Whether it is arrogance or stupidity to think one can read minds, I will leave to the audience.

You have not shown one bit of actual evidence that Ms. Thunberg's inclusion or Ms. Gay's comments are driven or caused by feminism.

 

[Toni]

So? It is stupid to think that is a feminist position.
There is nothing inconsistent with the view that Thunberg should not be on the panel, but it is stupid and hypocritical to complain CNN's choice when it routinely has bloviating men.

There was every need to reference her feminism, since her feminism is the point.

That is really stupid.

Her fatness and race are merely high value currency in the intersectional universe. They are important in understanding the feminist pecking order. It's also why Arquette is lower in the feminist pecking order: Arquette is white, thin, and 'conventionally attractive' (which means attractive).

All of which is irrelevant to the issue of Thunberg's inclusion.

Yes, what she said was obviously stupid. It was so stupid she later admits she doesn't even want Thunberg on the panel.

Your premise that it is stupid is, in itself, stupid. And your conclusion does not follow from your premise which makes your conclusion stupid.

She just wants everyone who criticised the decision to be made aware that she thinks they are misogynist hypocrites. Because feminists gotta feminist.

Whether it is arrogance or stupidity to think one can read minds, I will leave to the audience.

You have not shown one bit of actual evidence that Ms. Thunberg's inclusion or Ms. Gay's comments are driven or caused by feminism.

The entire source for people's opinions is their twitter accounts. This is the equivalent of playground gossip at a kindergarten. With Metaphor's own mean spirited, inaccurate and bigoted slant added for color. Ooops--should not have mentioned 'color.'

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The world is going to end in 12 years, so I'm not sure why Greta is worried about the impact of covid-19 on her future.

Her entire argument is that we can do something about climate change. God you people are dumb.

 

[Metaphor]

Thunberg is not a panelist. She is to be a co-host and one who is well known, and is doing work pertinent to the issue being discussed. At 17, her credentials to serve as co-host vastly surpass your own.

Thunberg is not a co-host. Gupta and Cooper are the hosts. You have invented Thunberg-as-host from whole cloth. Stop. Stop right now and read any article from any source you like. Thunberg is not a co-host.

Your self apologia aside, everybody sees your misogyny and racism for what they are

In other words, you cannot quote a single misogynist or racist thing I've said.

—and recognizes that you are unable to actually post a link to any substantive article on the subject. It is easy to see that your sole purpose in posting this ‘article’ was to attempt another dig at feminism

In what universe would I deny that it was a dig at feminism? Of course it was. That's why I pointed out the stupid things that feminists said in it.

and to make nasty personal comments about the physical appearance of women

What did I say that was nasty? Where? To whom?

The only thread where in recent memory that I have discussed appearance was the thread about Adele's weight loss, where I express my jubilation at her physical transformation and said she looked fantastic.

Unless you think any reference to fatness is 'nasty'. Non. You simply don't know what nasty is.

Also, it's a strange 'racist' who would criticise Gay for being black and Arquette for being white. I know you are desperate to imagine I am a racist but racists don't usually hate every race.

who dare utter words you disagree with. Instead of commenting on the merit of their statements you must bring up their supposed politics and physical characteristic again, jumping through a dizzying array of lame attempts to justify your own obvious misogyny.

Non. You keep saying my "misogyny" is obvious but you never ever demonstrate it. You have never quoted anything I've said that demonstrates this putative "misogyny".

The politics of the two feminists I commented on are not supposed. Gay is, in fact, well known in Australia for being a feminist writer. She is literally a full time feminist who earns money feministing. That her comment is directly related to her feminist beliefs does not require any imagination.

It wouldn't be fair to describe Arquette as a full time feminist, but she most assuredly has used her platform to say feminist things, and was widely criticised by intersectionals as a 'white feminist' and 'white saviour' (google arquette white feminist to see the number of articles that came out around 2015).

You think I bring these physical characteristics up as criticisms, but it isn't I who thinks they are relevant. It's feminists.

 

[Toni]

Thunberg is not a co-host. Gupta and Cooper are the hosts. You have invented Thunberg-as-host from whole cloth. Stop. Stop right now and read any article from any source you like. Thunberg is not a co-host.

I went back and looked and apparently, I misread Gupta for Greta.

Mea culpa

In other words, you cannot quote a single misogynist or racist thing I've said.

Your entire post is misogynist and some of it seems a bit racist.

—and recognizes that you are unable to actually post a link to any substantive article on the subject. It is easy to see that your sole purpose in posting this ‘article’ was to attempt another dig at feminism

In what universe would I deny that it was a dig at feminism? Of course it was. That's why I pointed out the stupid things that feminists said in it.

and to make nasty personal comments about the physical appearance of women

What did I say that was nasty? Where? To whom?

The only thread where in recent memory that I have discussed appearance was the thread about Adele's weight loss, where I express my jubilation at her physical transformation and said she looked fantastic.

Unless you think any reference to fatness is 'nasty'. Non. You simply don't know what nasty is.

Also, it's a strange 'racist' who would criticise Gay for being black and Arquette for being white. I know you are desperate to imagine I am a racist but racists don't usually hate every race.

who dare utter words you disagree with. Instead of commenting on the merit of their statements you must bring up their supposed politics and physical characteristic again, jumping through a dizzying array of lame attempts to justify your own obvious misogyny.

Non. You keep saying my "misogyny" is obvious but you never ever demonstrate it. You have never quoted anything I've said that demonstrates this putative "misogyny".

The politics of the two feminists I commented on are not supposed. Gay is, in fact, well known in Australia for being a feminist writer. She is literally a full time feminist who earns money feministing. That her comment is directly related to her feminist beliefs does not require any imagination.

It wouldn't be fair to describe Arquette as a full time feminist, but she most assuredly has used her platform to say feminist things, and was widely criticised by intersectionals as a 'white feminist' and 'white saviour' (google arquette white feminist to see the number of articles that came out around 2015).

You think I bring these physical characteristics up as criticisms, but it isn't I who thinks they are relevant. It's feminists.

Yeah, nothing here worth responding to. Denial denial mis-characterization denial denial YAWN.......

 

[Metaphor]

So? It is stupid to think that is a feminist position.

Are you feminism's gatekeeper now? Are you saying Gay, who is literally a full time feminist writer, made a comment that references gender and you think it isn't informed by her feminism?

There is nothing inconsistent with the view that Thunberg should not be on the panel, but it is stupid and hypocritical to complain CNN's choice when it routinely has bloviating men.

No: she doesn't know anything about the history of the people who complained. She has assumed hypocrisy. She is also grossly hypocritical. She agrees Thunberg shouldn't be on the panel!

But, you see, her motives for not wanting Thunberg to be on the panel are reasonable. Everyone else is a misogynist hypocrite.

Your premise that it is stupid is, in itself, stupid. And your conclusion does not follow from your premise which makes your conclusion stupid.

Sure Jan.

You have not shown one bit of actual evidence that Ms. Thunberg's inclusion or Ms. Gay's comments are driven or caused by feminism.

I never claimed Thunberg's inclusion was driven by feminism. If you think I made that claim, you need more time with a high school English teacher who can help you with your comprehension.

Gay's comments are transparently informed by her feminism. It beggars belief that you think otherwise.

 

[Metaphor]

I went back and looked and apparently, I misread Gupta for Greta.

Mea culpa

Well yes, you are culpable. It was a mistake and I suspected that you had misread Gupta as Greta, but that's why I quoted that actual paragraph again in my response. Yet you made an additional post insisting I was wrong.

But now that you understand that Thunberg is appearing alongside the two other experts--whose credentials I assume you are not uncomfortable with--do you think Thunberg matches their subject matter experience in any way? Can you see how jarring it is to include Thunberg given the composition of the rest of the panel?

Your entire post is misogynist and some of it seems a bit racist.

If you equate criticism of feminism with misogyny (and evidently you do), then I suppose the post must look 'misogynist'.

....
Yeah, nothing here worth responding to. Denial denial mis-characterization denial denial YAWN.......

No indeed. "Nothing worth responding to" meaning "I can't address what you are saying".

Work on yourself Toni. For example, work out why you think it's 'nasty' to point out somebody's fatness when intersectional feminists themselves see it as very important in understanding systemic oppression and write articles bemoaning fatphobia.

 

[Toni]

Well yes, you are culpable. It was a mistake and I suspected that you had misread Gupta as Greta, but that's why I quoted that actual paragraph again in my response. Yet you made an additional post insisting I was wrong.

But now that you understand that Thunberg is appearing alongside the two other experts--whose credentials I assume you are not uncomfortable with--do you think Thunberg matches their subject matter experience in any way? Can you see how jarring it is to include Thunberg given the composition of the rest of the panel?



If you equate criticism of feminism with misogyny (and evidently you do), then I suppose the post must look 'misogynist'.

....
Yeah, nothing here worth responding to. Denial denial mis-characterization denial denial YAWN.......

No indeed. "Nothing worth responding to" meaning "I can't address what you are saying".

Work on yourself Toni. For example, work out why you think it's 'nasty' to point out somebody's fatness when intersectional feminists themselves see it as very important in understanding systemic oppression and write articles bemoaning fatphobia.

Sure, sweetie. Whatever you wanna believe.

 

[KeepTalking]

Just when you thought the media couldn't get more ludicrous.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/bus...s/news-story/e7e382fba2bc6fd35cd51594de453593



Roxane Gay is a woman of color and fat, so she makes a good point here. I mean, whataboutism just doesn't count when it's a feminist doing it.



White feminist Patricia Arquette demonstrates you don't need to know what the words 'extraordinary' and 'knowledge' mean to be a successful actress.

“It’s a town hall, not a meeting of scientists,” another follower noted.

“Some of their previous guests have been chef Jose Andres, director Spike Lee, author Laurie Garrett, etc etc.”

Thunberg has, perhaps wisely, been mum throughout this erupting social-media showdown.
But she hasn’t spent the past three months lounging in lockdown.
On April 30, UNICEF said that the young activist had launched a children-first campaign to help protect young lives against COVID-19, pledging a grant of €92,000 ($155,000), awarded to her by Danish NGO Human Act, toward the effort.

“Like the climate crisis, the coronavirus pandemic is a child-rights crisis,” said Thunberg.
“It will affect all children, now and in the long-term, but vulnerable groups will be impacted the most. I’m asking everyone to step up and join me in support of UNICEF’s vital work to save children’s lives, to protect health and continue education.”

The world is going to end in 12 years, so I'm not sure why Greta is worried about the impact of covid-19 on her future.

Since you obviously aren't going to be watching CNN anyway, why do you give a fuck about who they put on their show?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I forget, if i ever noticed, where did Metaphor stand on gay florists making feminist bakers cater a smoker's wedding? Was it on the side of the business owners making their own decisions, none of society's nevermind, or was it the consumer's will uber alles?

Because that should be reflected here, right?

Either CNN is a private business and can put whoever they please on, under, or in front of a forum, for whatever topic they choose, or it's up to the consumers to choose to watch the panel or not....

 

[Metaphor]

Since you obviously aren't going to be watching CNN anyway, why do you give a fuck about who they put on their show?

What kind of response is this? Is it now verboten to criticise the media?

 

[laughing dog]

Are you feminism's gatekeeper now?

Truly ironic.

Are you saying Gay, who is literally a full time feminist writer, made a comment that references gender and you think it isn't informed by her feminism?

I think the idea that Thunberg is no worse than many of the bloviating men who have been on CNN is not unique to feminism. You are basically arguing because a feminist said or thought it, it must be due to feminism which is an incredibly moronic argument.

No: she doesn't know anything about the history of the people who complained.

There is no way for you to know that.

She has assumed hypocrisy. She is also grossly hypocritical.

This is result of very poor reasoning. Ms. Gay’s point about is pretty clear. Her quote (which your OP mangled from your cited article) is
““Unqualified men appear on cable all day every day, bloviating endlessly, but Greta Thunberg is a bridge too far? OK,” tweeted writer Roxane Gay.” She may be pointing out hypocrisy or simply pointing out an obvious double standard.

She agrees Thunberg shouldn't be on the panel!

Thinking that
1) Thunberg is no worse than other past choices, and
2) Thunberg should not be on the panel, is not contradictory or hypocritical. It is stupid to think otherwise.

I never claimed Thunberg's inclusion was driven by feminism. If you think I made that claim, you need more time with a high school English teacher who can help you with your comprehension.

I was covering all the bases. Given the inanity of the OP and your responses, along with your visceral antipathy to feminism, anything is possible.

Gay's comments are transparently informed by her feminism. It beggars belief that you think otherwise.

As I pointed out, your claim is illogical on its face. But that is par for your course

 

[Metaphor]

I forget, if i ever noticed, where did Metaphor stand on gay florists making feminist bakers cater a smoker's wedding? Was it on the side of the business owners making their own decisions, none of society's nevermind, or was it the consumer's will uber alles?

Because that should be reflected here, right?

Either CNN is a private business and can put whoever they please on, under, or in front of a forum, for whatever topic they choose, or it's up to the consumers to choose to watch the panel or not....

I did not suggest CNN should be forbidden by the State from putting Thunberg on its panel. That doesn't mean CNN's decision is beyond criticism, nor does it mean feminist responses to CNN's decision can't be analysed.