My sneaky suspicion of Snowden, by Naomi Wolf

[Al Swearegen]

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.

Not at all.

Here is an example to illustrate.


Let's say that my actual name was "The Reverend Al Swearengen". Let's say I belonged to a Fundamentalist Christian sect and that I was known to, as my churches frontman, lay on hands to heal and to attend exorcisms.

You would be stereotyping if you knew only that i was a Reverend and on this basis formulated an idea to share with others about what and who I was about. "I bet he is a solemn, holier-than-thou, fatcat, used to being toadied up to by his flock and underlings". as stereotyped as this may be, it may be right or wrong. (I bet there are a percentage of dumb blondes that fill their stereotype)

If you knew a little more and that I did all those exorcisms and laying on hands, you may be stereotyping me as some wacko David Koresh in the making, someone so out of touch with reality than I am a bad day off going the full congregation murder suicide pact.

If though you had read my writings and media and in my different accounts I had written so very bland things but the occasion thing to get the antenna up, my saying here that I "see daemons move around and through people" and that "anyone not believing in God is unable to be included as a member of humanity", would NOT be you stereotyping IF you saw an article unrelated to religion or his specific religious beliefs or affiliations, but was talking about a whistleblower....

Yes you COULD reasonably say something like "I know this Reverend, I don't trust him as far as I could thrown him. He is a wacko. He has some very weird ideas. It is small wonder though. The Christian Fundamentalists with their "spiritual connectedness" really can go too far. Makes people like this guy. What he may be saying may be OK but I have read some of his stuff and some of it is just nuts. I do not trust him or his judgment."

Congratulations McJagger, you do not know what a stereotype is.

[Jack]

Americans are spawned from the wretched refuse of teeming shores.

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

[McGiver]

I erred.  I meant that you attributed your bias to something unrelated (not related) to the article.
Feminism.


Because her job is a feminist writer/activist you stated mistrust of her on a completely unrelated topic.

Further, you actually cited feminism as the reason her opinion cannot be trusted on an article about the surveillance state.
What exactly does feminism have to do with the surveillance state.
 

[RageBeoulve]

I erred.  I meant that you attributed your bias to something unrelated (not related) to the article.
Feminism.


Because her job is a feminist writer/activist you stated mistrust of her on a completely unrelated topic.

Further, you actually cited feminism as the reason her opinion cannot be trusted on an article about the surveillance state.
What exactly does feminism have to do with the surveillance state.
 

I agree. Feminists cannot be trusted.

[El]

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:

...hey, why drag ME into this???   

Also, I'm a feminist?  dafuq did that happen?

[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:

...hey, why drag ME into this???   

Also, I'm a feminist?  dafuq did that happen?

you are a sexist then?

[Al Swearegen]

Again you are missing out on the big picture

In the Rev Al example I used, you COULD say "Ok now Rev Al is talking about whistleblowers and so we can view it in complete isolation to what we have seen of his writings and how his mind makes connections and ascribes values. This time he is saying something very much not to do with mainstream Christianity, nor Fundamentalist Christianity, or strange Daemon seeing or whatever. Here we are simply seeing a write an article about his judgment of whether you should trust someone. Why ought we not trust his judgment on this thing?"

I just think to do so would be stupid, but that is just me. I tend to think if you have seen someone making some very dubious associations in the past in respect to their beliefs and values, you do not trust what they say in the future.

If Rev Al was to suddenly backflip and denounce the church and his beliefs and say that maybe some of the crazy shit he had spouted was hysteria or whatever, you know what, I still would not trust him to come up with rational conclusions about non-associate stuff. Even if he did not see everything with a "Daemons walk amoung us, Spiritual power, Sky Faerie protecting us" filter, I would still question whether the intellect that allowed his mind to go down that path is not susceptible to the next misjudged ideology.

This is why I do not trust Naomi Wolf. Even IF she gave us her beliefs in her Church (Feminism) for which she prays at the altar, i would have to see a LOT of her writings to give me a sense of her being able to make reasonable assessments and rational judgments.

Without this it is someone i do trust (and for good reason) asking me to not trust someone. I expanded on the reason - that was all.

[El]

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:

...hey, why drag ME into this???   

Also, I'm a feminist?  dafuq did that happen?

you are a sexist then?

Is there a third option?

[TheoK]

Gladium meum visne, puella?

[RageBeoulve]

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:

...hey, why drag ME into this???   

Also, I'm a feminist?  dafuq did that happen?

If you are not a feminist, you support the patriarchy. You mysoginyst filth.

[Jack]

Wasn't Elle's custom title once, female misogynist of the aspie elite? Jack likes that about her.

[RageBeoulve]

Wasn't Elle's custom title once, female misogynist of the aspie elite? Jack likes that about her.

 Come to think of it, I do remember something like that.

[McGiver]

Again you are missing out on the big picture

In the Rev Al example I used, you COULD say "Ok now Rev Al is talking about whistleblowers and so we can view it in complete isolation to what we have seen of his writings and how his mind makes connections and ascribes values. This time he is saying something very much not to do with mainstream Christianity, nor Fundamentalist Christianity, or strange Daemon seeing or whatever. Here we are simply seeing a write an article about his judgment of whether you should trust someone. Why ought we not trust his judgment on this thing?"

I just think to do so would be stupid, but that is just me. I tend to think if you have seen someone making some very dubious associations in the past in respect to their beliefs and values, you do not trust what they say in the future.

If Rev Al was to suddenly backflip and denounce the church and his beliefs and say that maybe some of the crazy shit he had spouted was hysteria or whatever, you know what, I still would not trust him to come up with rational conclusions about non-associate stuff. Even if he did not see everything with a "Daemons walk amoung us, Spiritual power, Sky Faerie protecting us" filter, I would still question whether the intellect that allowed his mind to go down that path is not susceptible to the next misjudged ideology.

This is why I do not trust Naomi Wolf. Even IF she gave us her beliefs in her Church (Feminism) for which she prays at the altar, i would have to see a LOT of her writings to give me a sense of her being able to make reasonable assessments and rational judgments.

Without this it is someone i do trust (and for good reason) asking me to not trust someone. I expanded on the reason - that was all.

ah, the big picture. As opposed to what you actually wrote?

As long as we are playing make believe, can I be David McKoresh?

:lolwat:

[El]

Wasn't Elle's custom title once, female misogynist of the aspie elite? Jack likes that about her.

I don't remember, but that does sound like something I'd do.   

[Al Swearegen]

Again you are missing out on the big picture

In the Rev Al example I used, you COULD say "Ok now Rev Al is talking about whistleblowers and so we can view it in complete isolation to what we have seen of his writings and how his mind makes connections and ascribes values. This time he is saying something very much not to do with mainstream Christianity, nor Fundamentalist Christianity, or strange Daemon seeing or whatever. Here we are simply seeing a write an article about his judgment of whether you should trust someone. Why ought we not trust his judgment on this thing?"

I just think to do so would be stupid, but that is just me. I tend to think if you have seen someone making some very dubious associations in the past in respect to their beliefs and values, you do not trust what they say in the future.

If Rev Al was to suddenly backflip and denounce the church and his beliefs and say that maybe some of the crazy shit he had spouted was hysteria or whatever, you know what, I still would not trust him to come up with rational conclusions about non-associate stuff. Even if he did not see everything with a "Daemons walk amoung us, Spiritual power, Sky Faerie protecting us" filter, I would still question whether the intellect that allowed his mind to go down that path is not susceptible to the next misjudged ideology.

This is why I do not trust Naomi Wolf. Even IF she gave us her beliefs in her Church (Feminism) for which she prays at the altar, i would have to see a LOT of her writings to give me a sense of her being able to make reasonable assessments and rational judgments.

Without this it is someone i do trust (and for good reason) asking me to not trust someone. I expanded on the reason - that was all.

ah, the big picture. As opposed to what you actually wrote?

As long as we are playing make believe, can I be David McKoresh?

:lolwat:

Sure. YOu could pretend to be David McKoresh. You could pretend my point is invalid.

Playing games can be fun.

If you tire of playing, perhaps you could point out what you find difficulties in ascribing to the big picture.