3 ms·
There's another irony in the article: "Damore’s girlfriend has agreed to meet only after being assured that, like her, I disagree with her boyfriend’s views."
by whiskyseagull 9y ago
There's another irony in the article:
"Damore’s girlfriend has agreed to meet only after being assured that, like her, I disagree with her boyfriend’s views."
Unfortunately this has become typical in some parts of the left and that is why you see a resurgent right. Trying to maintain a position by refusing to hear arguments against it is not a good long term strategy and gives moral strength to the other side.
- vorotato 9y agoWhat's ironic there? If you're a conservative you don't want to go blabbing to some liberal rag. In the same way if you're a liberal you probably shouldn't speak to conservative tabloids. All media likes to twist and contort narratives, because it's in their economic best interest to do so. So, no it's not ironic, and I wouldn't blame you for doing the same.
- whiskyseagull 9y agoSo to extrapolate, you believe that she was reasonably concerned that the Guardian might be a right wing tabloid that would twist her words?
- rrhd 9y agoNo, they might be a left wing tabloid that would portray her as the girlfriend supporting her terrible alt-right boyfriend and his awful views.
- pwinnski 9y agoI'm not the GP, but I think being unaware of the Guardian's reputation is rather the norm in the United States. I consider it normal and reasonable to be unwilling to be interviewed by media sources I consider dishonest and disreputable. For me that, that includes Breitbart. For others, the list would be different, but the concept is the same. There is zero point in meeting with an interviewer when antagonistic bias is known ahead of time. The resulting interviews cannot be anything other than character assassination.
- whiskyseagull 9y agoThat's convenient, so you would support people only willing to be interviewed by sympathetic interviewers who agree with them on controversial topics. How are these things supposed to be worked through if no one is willing to engage in a debate about them?
- mcphage 9y ago> How are these things supposed to be worked through if no one is willing to engage in a debate about them? The first step in getting people to engage in a debate is for them to believe that the people in the debate will be acting in good faith. That's often not true—I wouldn't agree to an interview on Fox News, for instance, because I would have no confidence that they'd be acting in good faith.
- whiskyseagull 9y agoDo you think media outlets that lean left act in good faith when they interview controversial figures from the right?
- pwinnski 9y agoWhataboutism is nonsense, and I am going to demonstrate what it's like to refuse to engage with people acting in bad faith... now.
- whiskyseagull 9y agoCrying "whataboutism" is just a way to deflect from charges of hypocrisy.
- bitcharmer 9y agoCould you please expand on why you consider Breibart more dishonest than let's say CNN? Not leaning towards one or another. Just trying to understand why, given the terrible track record of the two, one could choose one over the other.
- rrhd 9y agoShe doesn't want to be associated with what he said. Why is that a problem in any way?