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

[laughing dog]

And, of course, the OP cited article is from a Murdoch-owned and run news site. LOL.

 

[Metaphor]

Truly ironic.
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, I am not 'basically arguing' that. I am saying that when a full time feminist comments and references gender in her comment, that it is madness to suggest that feminism did not inform her response. You are grasping at straws.

There is no way for you to know that.

Of course she fucking doesn't, since thousands of people mocked the decision. She did not aim her comment at a specific person.

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 isn't pointing out anything, except that Thunberg is unqualified to speak on an expert panel about COVID-19.

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.

It's a clear jab at everyone else. Gay doesn't want Thunberg on the panel because Thunberg isn't a doctor. But when other people think Thunberg shouldn't be on the panel, they don't have good reasons like Gay does. No, they are misogynist hypocrites who don't care about qualifications since they never speak up about 'unqualified', 'bloviating' men, because Gay has gone through all their public and private statements.

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.

In future keep your speculations to positions that have a modicum of evidence.

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

Sure hun. There's an army of full time feminist writers who reference gender in their statements but whose statements have no connexion with feminism.

 

[Metaphor]

And, of course, the OP cited article is from a Murdoch-owned and run news site. LOL.

Are you disputing the facts of the article?

If not, why is this remotely relevant?

 

[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?

It isn't relevant to the main thread, but any gay who wants the State to force a baker to cater to their gay wedding is a deeply damaged gay. How on earth do you want to pay money to homophobes who don't believe in the value of your union?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And, of course, the OP cited article is from a Murdoch-owned and run news site. LOL.

Are you disputing the facts of the article?

If not, why is this remotely relevant?

You claimed it wasn't and so it's relevant to your creepy op.

 

[Toni]

And, of course, the OP cited article is from a Murdoch-owned and run news site. LOL.

Are you disputing the facts of the article?

If not, why is this remotely relevant?

Article? A list of participants and re-posting of tweets is not an article nor is it journalism. My high school newspaper did a better job.

 

[laughing dog]

No, I am not 'basically arguing' that. I am saying that when a full time feminist comments and references gender in her comment, that it is madness to suggest that feminism did not inform her response. You are grasping at straws.

Nah, I am simply using reason. According to your very words, if a full time feminist says men have penises, it is based on feminism. Which, of course, is moronic.

Of course she fucking doesn't, since thousands of people mocked the decision. She did not aim her comment at a specific person.

So? Ever here of a generalized statement that is true in general but not true in every single instance?

She isn't pointing out anything, except that Thunberg is unqualified to speak on an expert panel about COVID-19.

That is not hypocritical, so what the fuck are you babbling about?

It's a clear jab at everyone else. Gay doesn't want Thunberg on the panel because Thunberg isn't a doctor. But when other people think Thunberg shouldn't be on the panel, they don't have good reasons like Gay does.

You just pulled that one out of your ass.

In future keep your speculations to positions that have a modicum of evidence.

That one broke every irony meter that has ever existed and will ever exist.

 

[laughing dog]

And, of course, the OP cited article is from a Murdoch-owned and run news site. LOL.

Are you disputing the facts of the article?

If not, why is this remotely relevant?

CNN is a competitor of that Murdoch-owned website. For someone who routinely imputes intent and motives, your response is truly obtuse.

 

[Toni]

Guys, Metaphor doesn’t give two shits about the panel or its composition although if he could scruff himself to think about it he’d probably be pissed that a 17 year old girl gets any voice at all.

His real problem is the so called author of some fake ‘news article’ on a lame add ‘nees site’ pulled up some random tweets including a couple of tweets from women he considers feminist. He thinks his point is slamming feminism. You notice he doesn’t quarrel with any of the points made and instead confined his remarks to physical and racial characteristics of the authors of two of the tweets—and of course they are women so of course they have no right to offer any opinion and of course the only thing worth commenting about them is their skin color, BMI and his extremeky shallow interpretation of their political leanings. Then he attempts to blame his misogyny on feminism. He doesn’t bother to even state whether any of the tweets (FFS: TWEETS!!!!!) make any valid point or to offer any counter point. Nope. His entire point is: feminismbaaaaaad.

What’s really bad here is that anyone gives half a second of their life to reading a damn thing on any ‘news’ site connected with fucking Rupert Murdoch. That is truly sad.

 

[Metaphor]

Nah, I am simply using reason. According to your very words, if a full time feminist says men have penises, it is based on feminism. Which, of course, is moronic.

Actually, the right kind of feminist might deny that men necessarily have penises, indeed that there are many women with penises. Penises and their belongingness to men is indeed a statement that is informed by what kind of feminist you are.

That is not hypocritical, so what the fuck are you babbling about?

She's a fucking hypocrite because she thinks other people are misogynist hypocrites for objecting to Thunberg, even though she herself, the reasonable feminist, has good reasons to object. Everyone else doesn't.

You just pulled that one out of your ass.

No. It's right there in her statement. She thinks the misogynists object to Thunberg when they don't object to bloviating men because the unwashed masses are misogynists. She objects to Thunberg but she has good reasons, unlike everyone else.

 

[Metaphor]

And, of course, the OP cited article is from a Murdoch-owned and run news site. LOL.

Are you disputing the facts of the article?

If not, why is this remotely relevant?

CNN is a competitor of that Murdoch-owned website. For someone who routinely imputes intent and motives, your response is truly obtuse.

I have no idea who owns news.com.au or who owns CNN and I don't care. CNN appointed Thunberg to a COVID-19 panel and it provoked a reaction on Twitter. These are facts.

 

[Metaphor]

Guys, Metaphor doesn’t give two shits about the panel or its composition although if he could scruff himself to think about it he’d probably be pissed that a 17 year old girl gets any voice at all.

Another assertion without evidence. One doth tread upon the other's heels, so quickly they follow.

His real problem is the so called author of some fake ‘news article’ on a lame add ‘nees site’ pulled up some random tweets including a couple of tweets from women he considers feminist.

If you think Roxane Gay, who is a full time feminist, somehow isn't a feminist, you are so beyond reason it would be better for you to block me than to continue to interact with me. You are a brick wall.

He thinks his point is slamming feminism. You notice he doesn’t quarrel with any of the points made

Are you fucking kidding me? Of course I have a quarrel with the statements. They're fucking stupid.

Gay's is stupid and hypocritical.

Arquette's is stupid and laughable.

and instead confined his remarks to physical and racial characteristics of the authors of two of the tweets—and of course they are women so of course they have no right to offer any opinion and of course the only thing worth commenting about them is their skin color, BMI and his extremeky shallow interpretation of their political leanings.

Like any feminist, you will see misogyny everywhere. Like any feminist, you equate criticism of feminism with misogyny. Well, it isn't.

Then he attempts to blame his misogyny on feminism.

I'm not a misogynist.

He doesn’t bother to even state whether any of the tweets (FFS: TWEETS!!!!!) make any valid point or to offer any counter point. Nope. His entire point is: feminismbaaaaaad.

Yes. Feminism is bad.

What’s really bad here is that anyone gives half a second of their life to reading a damn thing on any ‘news’ site connected with fucking Rupert Murdoch. That is truly sad.

Alright luv.

 

[Toni]

Another assertion without evidence. One doth tread upon the other's heels, so quickly they follow.



If you think Roxane Gay, who is a full time feminist, somehow isn't a feminist, you are so beyond reason it would be better for you to block me than to continue to interact with me. You are a brick wall.

He thinks his point is slamming feminism. You notice he doesn’t quarrel with any of the points made

Are you fucking kidding me? Of course I have a quarrel with the statements. They're fucking stupid.

Gay's is stupid and hypocritical.

Arquette's is stupid and laughable.

and instead confined his remarks to physical and racial characteristics of the authors of two of the tweets—and of course they are women so of course they have no right to offer any opinion and of course the only thing worth commenting about them is their skin color, BMI and his extremeky shallow interpretation of their political leanings.

Like any feminist, you will see misogyny everywhere. Like any feminist, you equate criticism of feminism with misogyny. Well, it isn't.

Then he attempts to blame his misogyny on feminism.

I'm not a misogynist.

He doesn’t bother to even state whether any of the tweets (FFS: TWEETS!!!!!) make any valid point or to offer any counter point. Nope. His entire point is: feminismbaaaaaad.

Yes. Feminism is bad.

What’s really bad here is that anyone gives half a second of their life to reading a damn thing on any ‘news’ site connected with fucking Rupert Murdoch. That is truly sad.

Alright luv.

And yet, rather than talk about why you disagree with their statements, you choose to talk about the physical appearance, BMI, color, race and politics of the people making the statements.

Instead of offering a thoughtful critique you simply talk about how feminism is stupid.

It’s almost as though instead of having any points to make, you have a very, very, dull ax to grind.

Sad.

 

[Metaphor]

Another assertion without evidence. One doth tread upon the other's heels, so quickly they follow.



If you think Roxane Gay, who is a full time feminist, somehow isn't a feminist, you are so beyond reason it would be better for you to block me than to continue to interact with me. You are a brick wall.



Are you fucking kidding me? Of course I have a quarrel with the statements. They're fucking stupid.

Gay's is stupid and hypocritical.

Arquette's is stupid and laughable.



Like any feminist, you will see misogyny everywhere. Like any feminist, you equate criticism of feminism with misogyny. Well, it isn't.

Then he attempts to blame his misogyny on feminism.

I'm not a misogynist.

He doesn’t bother to even state whether any of the tweets (FFS: TWEETS!!!!!) make any valid point or to offer any counter point. Nope. His entire point is: feminismbaaaaaad.

Yes. Feminism is bad.

What’s really bad here is that anyone gives half a second of their life to reading a damn thing on any ‘news’ site connected with fucking Rupert Murdoch. That is truly sad.

Alright luv.

And yet, rather than talk about why you disagree with their statements, you choose to talk about the physical appearance, BMI, color, race and politics of the people making the statements.

Instead of offering a thoughtful critique you simply talk about how feminism is stupid.

It’s almost as though instead of having any points to make, you have a very, very, dull ax to grind.

Sad.

I talked about their points at length. I explained how feminism uses physical characteristics to determine its pecking order.

You refuse to acknowledge these points because you are blinded by prejudice.

Bye.

 

[barbos]

I don't understand what this fuss is about. I saw her interview there. Seems perfectly fine an appropriate considering her activities.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Greta Thunberg has repeatedly made the point that when it comes to global warming, we need to listen to what qualified experts are telling us. not morons on Faux, or Trump and the far right GOP. And she is right. And now, we face similar problems with Covid-19. Disinformation and stupidity from the usual suspects. We should be listening to the experts. So I can see why she was allowed to be there. She has a message. Listen to the best experts, and not the far right idiots. I see nothing to complain about.

 

[laughing dog]

Actually, the right kind of feminist might deny that men necessarily have penises, indeed that there are many women with penises. Penises and their belongingness to men is indeed a statement that is informed by what kind of feminist you are.

Nice story, bro, but irrelevant. According to you, feminism would drive a feminist to state "Men have penises". Your claim is moronic.

She's a fucking hypocrite because she thinks other people are misogynist hypocrites for objecting to Thunberg, even though she herself, the reasonable feminist, has good reasons to object.

You pulled that one right of your ass.

No. It's right there in her statement. She thinks the misogynists object to Thunberg when they don't object to bloviating men because the unwashed masses are misogynists. She objects to Thunberg but she has good reasons, unlike everyone else.

Ms, Gay’s statement from your cited article
““Unqualified men appear on cable all day every day, bloviating endlessly, but Greta Thunberg is a bridge too far? OK,” tweeted writer Roxane Gay.”
There is no mention of misogynists. None. So, your claim that she is talking about misogynists is pulled right of your ass. And as I have a pointed out, her view appears to be while Thunberg is unqualified, unqualifed men appear all the time on TV, so what is the hullabaloo?
If she is talking about hypocrisy, it is the hypocrisy of moaning about Thunburg’s lack of qualifications but not others. It does not mean that only she has a good reason. I realize that for you that is a nuanced argument that is difficult to grasp. But it means you have pulled out of your ass yet another turd of an argument.

I would guess that CNN's selection is an attempt to post viewership. TV stations do this all the time. It really is a nothing burger for anyone to throw a hissy fit over.

 

[Toni]

Another assertion without evidence. One doth tread upon the other's heels, so quickly they follow.



If you think Roxane Gay, who is a full time feminist, somehow isn't a feminist, you are so beyond reason it would be better for you to block me than to continue to interact with me. You are a brick wall.



Are you fucking kidding me? Of course I have a quarrel with the statements. They're fucking stupid.

Gay's is stupid and hypocritical.

Arquette's is stupid and laughable.



Like any feminist, you will see misogyny everywhere. Like any feminist, you equate criticism of feminism with misogyny. Well, it isn't.



I'm not a misogynist.

He doesn’t bother to even state whether any of the tweets (FFS: TWEETS!!!!!) make any valid point or to offer any counter point. Nope. His entire point is: feminismbaaaaaad.

Yes. Feminism is bad.

What’s really bad here is that anyone gives half a second of their life to reading a damn thing on any ‘news’ site connected with fucking Rupert Murdoch. That is truly sad.

Alright luv.

And yet, rather than talk about why you disagree with their statements, you choose to talk about the physical appearance, BMI, color, race and politics of the people making the statements.

Instead of offering a thoughtful critique you simply talk about how feminism is stupid.

It’s almost as though instead of having any points to make, you have a very, very, dull ax to grind.

Sad.

I talked about their points at length. I explained how feminism uses physical characteristics to determine its pecking order.

You refuse to acknowledge these points because you are blinded by prejudice.

Bye.

Your discussion of anyone’s appearance has nothing to do with Thunberg’s appointment to the panel or to why a feminist would support her appointment.

It’s just another rag on feminism because women dared to tweet and some faux news organization decided to include those tweets in their half assed faux journalistic attempt.

 

[funinspace]

Nor am I 'upset', as laughing dog implied, although even if I were upset I can hardly imagine that requires the attention of mental health professionals.

Your obsession with underaged teens does raise the eye brow a bit.

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

You notice what I did there? I took a statement you made about a 17 year old and extrapolated it to indicate a wider spread and more generalized context. Not really fair of me to do that.

I mean, that'd be like you taking a news channel's coverage of Covid-19, and ignoring every science piece, every doctor interview, every bit of news from experts in the field related to pandemics... and acting like CNN's sole coverage consists of celebrities talking about their feelings.

But we all know you wouldn't do that, right? That'd be stupid. It'd be like me saying you are obsessed with underaged girls because you make comments about a 17 year old from time to time.

Yeah....thad'd be stupid...LOL

What a pathetic little thread....feminists, obesity, race, and just gosh a 17 year old 'child' on TV. I wonder if she will be an official adult in 7 months? But meanwhile, we have a 73 year old child in the White House...

 

[Toni]

Greta Thunberg has repeatedly made the point that when it comes to global warming, we need to listen to what qualified experts are telling us. not morons on Faux, or Trump and the far right GOP. And she is right. And now, we face similar problems with Covid-19. Disinformation and stupidity from the usual suspects. We should be listening to the experts. So I can see why she was allowed to be there. She has a message. Listen to the best experts, and not the far right idiots. I see nothing to complain about.

Thunberg has been working in a children first response to COVID-19 under the auspices of UNICEF and has an impressive grant for such work from the Danish government. Surely she is qualified to remind people that children are in fact important in the consideration of policies that affect us all. Frankly we most often hear about how big business is affected or farmers but by farmers, we really mean giant agriculture conglomerates.

And ffs: they are using tweets as sources for thoughtful responses to the composition of the panel. Tweets. Because they are unwilling to devote resources for even a phone call to well informed representatives.