My sneaky suspicion of Snowden, by Naomi Wolf

[RageBeoulve]

As I stated before

all that, but the truth is you trust no one.
Just a dig at feminism.

Unless you want I forget you brought feminism into the discussion.
I suppose I can do that, but you'd have to edit first.

but the truth is you trust no one

Ah it seems we've come to a fundamental disagreement here. As someone who was trained to kill terrorists along with a team of other people, I've had it burned into my mind to trust a teammate to have my back. I'd trust my pop with my life. And my mom and sister. And probably any of my old army buddies too.

When I see behavior that obviously has some kind of hidden agenda behind it, yeah i'm gonna squint and say "hey. You're up to some bullshit here."

[McGiver]

I'd fart, squint and say, something stinks here and it's not my ass.

[RageBeoulve]

I'd fart, squint and say, something stinks here and it's not my ass.

So we agree.

[Al Swearegen]

As I stated before

all that, but the truth is you trust no one.
Just a dig at feminism.

Unless you want I forget you brought feminism into the discussion.
I suppose I can do that, but you'd have to edit first.

One's ideals and values inform their thinking.

So was I acknowledging that she was not trustworthy based on her viewpoints. Viewpoints shown in the past to be unpalatable and based in her feminist outlook?
Or was I saying irrespective of what she has said or done in the past, Naomi Wolf is a Feminist and Feminists suck?
Either way I was not saying that her POV has no merit but rather that I am likely to question it because of its proponent, apparent merit or not. Naomi Wolf has pushed lines of values that go against mine, therefore I will second guess anything she says because I know it comes from the same well as the garbage I disagree with.

Not seeing the jab at Feminism

[McGiver]

Feminism Theory is a murky fecal quagmire and she is stained by her association.

Not a dig?
I misunderstood.

[Al Swearegen]

Feminism Theory is a murky fecal quagmire and she is stained by her association.

Not a dig?
I misunderstood.

You did. It was an explanation.

[McGiver]

Feminism Theory is a murky fecal quagmire and she is stained by her association.

Not a dig?
I misunderstood.

You did. It was an explanation.

i would say that makes sense, but Aussies are spawned from criminals and cannot be trusted.
See my point?  Your point has nothing to do with being Australian.  Hers has nothing to do with feminism.  It was a completely unrelated topic.

Your point about your PM was valid, because the point was about the government and the surveillance state, which, by association, his job is directly related.

[McGiver]

Forgot a smiley.

[Al Swearegen]

Feminism Theory is a murky fecal quagmire and she is stained by her association.

Not a dig?
I misunderstood.

You did. It was an explanation.

i would say that makes sense, but Aussies are spawned from criminals and cannot be trusted.
See my point?  Your point has nothing to do with being Australian.  Hers has nothing to do with feminism.  It was a completely unrelated topic.

Your point about your PM was valid, because the point was about the government and the surveillance state, which, by association, his job is directly related.

No that does not make sense. Why not?

"Aussies are spawned from criminals"

Now I could tell you that Aussies were not all spawned from criminals. Even barring the fact that many Aussies are Aboriginal or from Aboriginal stock, many Aussies are actually "spawned from free settlers. More people came to our shores through gold rush, pearl diving, to buy up stations and farmsteads, and general immigration than the few hundred "criminals". Which in itself would kind of shoot a rather large hole example BUT you may say, "Ok, whatever, but the point is still cogent"

Except that it is not. Why? Because even were my forefathers criminals (have not found any criminal flavour yet which is a shame), you would still have your work ahead of you trying to show that my criminal ancestors somehow unimind with me to inform my choices AND see evidence of the same untrustworthy preoccupations. Furthermore you are probably aware that most ofthe poor convicts of the first fleet were at best petty criminals and only steal to live and living in untenable squalor and poverty.

Nice try.

But to be fair. Are there non-feminists who I would respond in a similar way for reasons not to do with feminism but because I thought them untrustworthy based on their world view, beliefs, values and what i have seen of them?

Absolutely.

Dalai Lama.
George Bush
Charles Manson
Geraldine Dawson
Jenny McCarthy
Lindsay Lohan
Paris Hilton

These people I have various reason unrelated to Feminism that i would not trust them EVEN if what they said sound perfectly rational, logical and reasonable. I would have actual reasons to not trust them based on what i know of them and the values, beliefs or worldviews they hold.

Maybe if I did this you would say, you are just having a dig over, reincarnation belief, stupidity, psychopathic disorders, Autism Speaks agenda, generation rescue, crack whores or airheads. I possibly would disagree and show you a list similar to the above except it would not contain the person we were discussing and instead be replaced with "Naomi Wolf".

[McGiver]

Maybe I'm stuck in an  TOM episode, but I still don't see why you had to include

Feminism Theory is a murky fecal quagmire and she is stained by her association.

And it wasn't a dig at feminism. 


What, in her article, supported the feminist agenda?

[Jack]

Americans are spawned from the wretched refuse of teeming shores.

["couldbecousin"]

Americans are spawned from the wretched refuse of teeming shores.

  That's why we are by far the most awesome people on the planet! 

[Al Swearegen]

Maybe I'm stuck in an  TOM episode, but I still don't see why you had to include

Feminism Theory is a murky fecal quagmire and she is stained by her association.

And it wasn't a dig at feminism. 


What, in her article, supported the feminist agenda?

You are not looking at the big picture.

Naomi Wolf passing comment on a whistleblower and casting doubt on his honesty. I can take this on the basis that I do not know either Snowden nor Naomi Wolf and so I can take this on the merits presented.
Here is the problem. I do know her. I know her writings. I know that what she writing and the values and beliefs she has evidenced in her writing is rather different to mine and an affront to my reasoning and values. Therefore I can only view anything she says as to be VERY carefully scrutinised at best or dismissed as not worth considering at worst.
Why? Because the brain and mental faculties that have given birth to the "interesting" ideas she has, that i disagree with, is the same brain that has her considering Snowden's merits.

So this context bears a few questions.
What kind of writing she does? What kind of beliefs? Why do I feel THAT way about her interesting ideas?

I believe explaining it like I did ticks all the boxes and does not have a dig but rather explains my position.

[McGiver]

Trust no one, trust nothing, I suppose.

What I also keep thinking is how fortunate it is that Edward Snowden is attractive and, apparently, charismatic.  I honestly think that there would not have been as positive and supportive a response to a guy who was fat/pimply/balding/awkward.  I think, in fact, such a person would have been more easily dismissed.  Call me cynical.

Al, I can't trust PMS ELLE's opinion here for two reasons
1. She is a feminist
2. She is making a sexist comment.

If this guy wasn't attractive (wink wink) then he wouldn't be taken seriously.


When I question her motivations for her comment based on these two criteria, i am taking an unrelated dig at her, not the contents of her post. :hugs:

[McGiver]

Here is the problem. I do know her. I know her writings. I know that what she writing and the values and beliefs she has evidenced in her writing is rather different to mine and an affront to my reasoning and values. Therefore I can only view anything she says as to be VERY carefully scrutinised at best or dismissed as not worth considering at worst.

Except that you DO NOT know her.  You know her at work, doing a job.  You also know her views on feminism.  This is completely related. you just stereotyped.