5 ms·

I find it interesting. Basic google check suggests that Ben-Ghiat is a political commentator. If that is true and accurate then her presence and presentation at

I find it interesting. Basic google check suggests that Ben-Ghiat is a political commentator. If that is true and accurate then her presence and presentation at Naval Academy is at best an opinion and not strictly a 'lecture'. I have technically zero problem with her presenting, precisely because I am very, very pro-free speech, but this is akin to interpretative dancing representative performing at defcon.. kinda silly. edit: I will add one more thing to the lazy disagreements via negative points. If I am right, then her very presence there is political propaganda aimed for specific candidate. In other words, it is not clear whether she should be there at all.

justin66 2y ago
Strange comment. Is the argument that a PhD, professor and author of several books on any given topic is no longer a credible authority in their field after they act as a "political commentator?" And by extension, presumably, the most credible political commentators are the ones without any education or academic credentials? That all seems pretty dumb. > I am very, very pro-free speech I bet.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  << > I am very, very pro-free speech I bet. *** I addressed commentator comment with another poster, but if you were to look at my other posts, it is not hard to see the way I lean. You would lose that bet friend.
  - anon84873628 2y ago
    Elsewhere you said you go where the argument takes you, but haven't responded to this one. Please find us any professor of social sciences who is not also a "commentator". The purpose of these studies is hypothesize new viewpoints and narratives through which to understand the world. There is no unbiased or apolitical view of history.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
      << but haven't responded to this one. I am apparently rate limited in what I can post; nothing personal. You can blame HN/Dang/God/whathave you as needed. << Please find us any professor of social sciences who is not also a "commentator". Um.. I would like you to reconsider the phrasing here. I can absolutely respond in line with HN guidelines and I am relatively certain you will not be that happy with that answer. I will help you out a little though, because the response to you would be trivial. Maybe consider the population of professors in social sciences and population of commentators on various news outlets? Maybe consider venn diagrams where they do and do not overlap? Can you see why your argument barely passes as an argument?
      - justin66 2y ago
        > Maybe consider venn diagrams where they do and do not overlap? Or consider that we're adults who are capable of doing things like on the one hand presenting a nonpartisan lecture on a subject when it's called for, or on the other hand attending a lecture presented by someone we disagree with on a number of topics and nevertheless deriving some value.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        Have you been to US lately? This is not a rhetorical point. If you typed those words and I am expected to take those at face value, I have to assume that you have not seen the rabid mobs calling for not allowing X to speak/present/or even be vaguely associated with a given group ( X to avoid adding a political spin to it ). Any other day, yeah, I agree.. that is absolutely how things SHOULD work. But then, we are here. It is what you get for not protecting freedom of speech enough and excusing attempts at restricting it further ( if you actually tried to stop it, you can ignore that sentence ). That said, I have a suspicion that you have been to US and know exactly what I am talking about, which means several different things ( among other that I can't really trust those tears of 'nonpartisan lecture' ), but I will let you respond first.
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  It's not a question of if she's a credible commentator, it's that arms of the executive aside from the president and vp are forbidden by law from making political commentary directly relating to active candidates. By announcing the title she did, the author put the academy at risk of violating the law.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - SauciestGNU 2y ago
    So are you proposing that nobody who has ever published a political opinion can speak at a state-sponsored event without violating the hatch act?
    - throwawaymaths 2y ago
      Of course not. General political opinions are welcome. Even specific exhortations against most individual candidates from the past are too. But you better not come in guns blazing announcing your state-sponsored lecture with a title that calls out a candidate in this election cycle.
derektank 2y ago
Calling her a political commentator when she's a member of the AHA and a tenured professor of History at NYU feels a little bit disingenuous. You can just as easily call her a historian, and the Naval Academy employs (and produces) a lot of historians
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  Know that I love you. Her very own web page states the following: "Historian, Educator, and Commentator" That is her words ( or at least someone who built it for her ), not mine. So you are 1/3 right? Same page has interviews with her at MSNBC -- and if you listen to those, she does not exactly appear to be exactly an impartial observer. [1]https://ruthbenghiat.com/ https://ruthbenghiat.com/ [2]https://ruthbenghiat.com/interviews/ https://ruthbenghiat.com/interviews/
  - V-eHGsd_ 2y ago
    > So you are 1/3 right? if you're trying to assign fractions of correctness (huh?), op said historian and tenured professor. and I suspect the ordering of the list on the site matters. so of the prominent, public things that Ben-Ghiat self-identifies as, commentator is the _least_ important.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
      I go where the argument takes me. Is it my fault that OP did not actually check the background of the person they were defending on ( apparently based on this fact alone ) purely political grounds? No, how dare I actually read the article and, the horror, look up the person at the center of attention. After all, I am not supposed to do that. Facts are evil. My eyes will deceive me as it is likely Russian propaganda. What I am supposed to do is to blindly go all-in for defense/attack depending on whether it is my team or not my team? Sorry, I don't swing that way. I smack people as needed depending on how easily their argument could be defeated.. here it took a google search so I was being generous with a smack on the hand whack. << I suspect the ordering of the list on the site matters. so of the prominent, public things that Ben-Ghiat self-identifies as, commentator is the _least_ important. How dare you assume the order of importance in which Ruth views herself? How dare you even assume there is an order? What if I suspect she is the believer in chaos and the order semi-randomly selected each day and rotated backwards for maximum confusion. Just as plausible as your half-baked explanation, but at least mine has the value of being entertaining. In all seriousness, did you even THINK of asking her? Such a man thing to do.. explaining what SHE meant.

justin66 2y ago

Strange comment. Is the argument that a PhD, professor and author of several books on any given topic is no longer a credible authority in their field after they act as a "political commentator?" And by extension, presumably, the most credible political commentators are the ones without any education or academic credentials? That all seems pretty dumb. > I am very, very pro-free speech I bet.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
<< > I am very, very pro-free speech I bet. *** I addressed commentator comment with another poster, but if you were to look at my other posts, it is not hard to see the way I lean. You would lose that bet friend.
- anon84873628 2y ago
  Elsewhere you said you go where the argument takes you, but haven't responded to this one. Please find us any professor of social sciences who is not also a "commentator". The purpose of these studies is hypothesize new viewpoints and narratives through which to understand the world. There is no unbiased or apolitical view of history.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    << but haven't responded to this one. I am apparently rate limited in what I can post; nothing personal. You can blame HN/Dang/God/whathave you as needed. << Please find us any professor of social sciences who is not also a "commentator". Um.. I would like you to reconsider the phrasing here. I can absolutely respond in line with HN guidelines and I am relatively certain you will not be that happy with that answer. I will help you out a little though, because the response to you would be trivial. Maybe consider the population of professors in social sciences and population of commentators on various news outlets? Maybe consider venn diagrams where they do and do not overlap? Can you see why your argument barely passes as an argument?
    - justin66 2y ago
      > Maybe consider venn diagrams where they do and do not overlap? Or consider that we're adults who are capable of doing things like on the one hand presenting a nonpartisan lecture on a subject when it's called for, or on the other hand attending a lecture presented by someone we disagree with on a number of topics and nevertheless deriving some value.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        Have you been to US lately? This is not a rhetorical point. If you typed those words and I am expected to take those at face value, I have to assume that you have not seen the rabid mobs calling for not allowing X to speak/present/or even be vaguely associated with a given group ( X to avoid adding a political spin to it ). Any other day, yeah, I agree.. that is absolutely how things SHOULD work. But then, we are here. It is what you get for not protecting freedom of speech enough and excusing attempts at restricting it further ( if you actually tried to stop it, you can ignore that sentence ). That said, I have a suspicion that you have been to US and know exactly what I am talking about, which means several different things ( among other that I can't really trust those tears of 'nonpartisan lecture' ), but I will let you respond first.
throwawaymaths 2y ago
It's not a question of if she's a credible commentator, it's that arms of the executive aside from the president and vp are forbidden by law from making political commentary directly relating to active candidates. By announcing the title she did, the author put the academy at risk of violating the law.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- SauciestGNU 2y ago
  So are you proposing that nobody who has ever published a political opinion can speak at a state-sponsored event without violating the hatch act?
  - throwawaymaths 2y ago
    Of course not. General political opinions are welcome. Even specific exhortations against most individual candidates from the past are too. But you better not come in guns blazing announcing your state-sponsored lecture with a title that calls out a candidate in this election cycle.

derektank 2y ago

Calling her a political commentator when she's a member of the AHA and a tenured professor of History at NYU feels a little bit disingenuous. You can just as easily call her a historian, and the Naval Academy employs (and produces) a lot of historians

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
Know that I love you. Her very own web page states the following: "Historian, Educator, and Commentator" That is her words ( or at least someone who built it for her ), not mine. So you are 1/3 right? Same page has interviews with her at MSNBC -- and if you listen to those, she does not exactly appear to be exactly an impartial observer. [1]https://ruthbenghiat.com/ https://ruthbenghiat.com/ [2]https://ruthbenghiat.com/interviews/ https://ruthbenghiat.com/interviews/
- V-eHGsd_ 2y ago
  > So you are 1/3 right? if you're trying to assign fractions of correctness (huh?), op said historian and tenured professor. and I suspect the ordering of the list on the site matters. so of the prominent, public things that Ben-Ghiat self-identifies as, commentator is the _least_ important.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    I go where the argument takes me. Is it my fault that OP did not actually check the background of the person they were defending on ( apparently based on this fact alone ) purely political grounds? No, how dare I actually read the article and, the horror, look up the person at the center of attention. After all, I am not supposed to do that. Facts are evil. My eyes will deceive me as it is likely Russian propaganda. What I am supposed to do is to blindly go all-in for defense/attack depending on whether it is my team or not my team? Sorry, I don't swing that way. I smack people as needed depending on how easily their argument could be defeated.. here it took a google search so I was being generous with a smack on the hand whack. << I suspect the ordering of the list on the site matters. so of the prominent, public things that Ben-Ghiat self-identifies as, commentator is the _least_ important. How dare you assume the order of importance in which Ruth views herself? How dare you even assume there is an order? What if I suspect she is the believer in chaos and the order semi-randomly selected each day and rotated backwards for maximum confusion. Just as plausible as your half-baked explanation, but at least mine has the value of being entertaining. In all seriousness, did you even THINK of asking her? Such a man thing to do.. explaining what SHE meant.