4 ms·
> It was one month before the 2016 American presidential election, and everyone at the conference was talking about it, yet Searle only dilated on Trump and sex
by MichaelCollins 4y ago
> It was one month before the 2016 American presidential election, and everyone at the conference was talking about it, yet Searle only dilated on Trump and sexuality.
> How was he seemingly indifferent to Brexit—and Trump’s rise?
Am I missing some nuance here, or are these two claims contradictory? I understand 'dilate' to mean enlarge. To 'dilate on Trump' would mean to make Trump greater and larger, or to speak about Trump at great length. That seems to directly contradict the subsequent claim that Searle was indifferent to Trump. If Searle was talking up Trump at length the author would accuse him of being a Trump supporter, not indifferent.
Also, the part about Warner comparing the Braun/Apple industrial aesthetic to the lack of pubic hair in porn (lmao okay...) Then Searle asks if there are studies about the effect of this on people. Author characterizes this question as 'bad faith, plain and simple.' Am I missing something here?
This whole article seems like a disorganized rant, trying to make sense of it is hurting my head.
- Terretta 4y agoin this case, dilate means comment at length, the archaic use connects expand and expound: to describe or set forth at length or in detail perhaps opining on Trump the person is different from implications of Trump's rise, but no idea; to me article mostly reads as if organized around poking in the eye
- MichaelCollins 4y agoIt's hard for me to square Searle talking about Trump at length, and Searle being indifferent to Trump. The two claims seem to contradict, cancelling out and leaving me with no firm impression about what Searle did or didn't think about Trump. Perhaps the point was to put Searle and Trump's names together in the same sentences, as a way of smearing Searle while not actually claiming anything of substance.