3 ms·

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

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.
  - V-eHGsd_ 2y ago
    this reads like an LLM generated argument. it's totally incoherent and has almost nothing to do with what's being discussed. cheers, friend.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
      Ahh, the llm defense.. I genuinely expected a little more. Shame.
      - V-eHGsd_ 2y ago
        it's not a "defense". i'm saying your reply is weirdly bombastic and generally incoherent.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        Stop. Own your approach. Good grief man, you act like your tactic is some sort of secret strategy, but it is obvious -- so why even try to deny it. << reply is weirdly bombastic and generally incoherent. Bombast should not prevent you from being able to form an argument. Incoherence would, but then it would make sense to point out something specific hang on. Otherwise, we are just putting random words together... you know.. like llm?
        V-eHGsd_ 2y ago
        it's not a defense because despite your efforts to antagonize, I don't need to defend myself. i'm over our little interaction. cheers.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        And yet you respond to tell me how you don't need to respond. I find the contradiction to be of note.
skeledrew 2y ago
Can you point to the particular clues which suggest that she isn't an impartial (from an academic perspective) observer? That she isn't presenting the empirical conclusions of her analysis and years of research?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  You know, this is actually an interesting approach, but I will wait to see how you are going to respond to what I am about to say. Chomsky sometimes argued that you simply do not get to certain levels of corporate media unless you are already so steeped in propaganda that you simply are not able to articulate an opposing view. In other words, the argument is, our Ruth would not even be allowed to have an interview as 'fascist' expert if she said anything nice about Trump. To simplify, her mere presence on MSNBC suggests that she was selected for 'pre-appproved' thoughts that the public may be allowed to digest ( ie. hate Trump ). Rebuttal?
  - skeledrew 2y ago
    It could be a case of everything just lining up well. As an academic, I trust her to be a professional when dealing with anything related to her field. And "nice" is a relative value that she shouldn't have to pander to, but it just may be the case that there is nothing "nice" about Trump in the given context, and this happens to line up with what MSNBC is looking for in potential interviewees. There's probably a whole subject of study regarding the psyche of leaders; like I think it takes a certain kind of personality to attract loyalty in people, sometimes to the point they'll literally do anything without question. And I can very much see where that could lead to common traits among the persons of her study. Another thing to keep in mind is that there's no human in history or existence who knowingly and consciously makes a "bad" decision. It's ingrained in our nature that what we do is what we think is best, given the contexts and available information. But sometimes it turns out that the consequences don't line up morally. Also I feel like I should make it clear I have no horses in this race. I'm neither American, nor in the US, and I hardly follow politics. I'm just trying to inject some logic into the whole thing.
    - 2y ago

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.
- V-eHGsd_ 2y ago
  this reads like an LLM generated argument. it's totally incoherent and has almost nothing to do with what's being discussed. cheers, friend.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    Ahh, the llm defense.. I genuinely expected a little more. Shame.
    - V-eHGsd_ 2y ago
      it's not a "defense". i'm saying your reply is weirdly bombastic and generally incoherent.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        Stop. Own your approach. Good grief man, you act like your tactic is some sort of secret strategy, but it is obvious -- so why even try to deny it. << reply is weirdly bombastic and generally incoherent. Bombast should not prevent you from being able to form an argument. Incoherence would, but then it would make sense to point out something specific hang on. Otherwise, we are just putting random words together... you know.. like llm?
        V-eHGsd_ 2y ago
        it's not a defense because despite your efforts to antagonize, I don't need to defend myself. i'm over our little interaction. cheers.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        And yet you respond to tell me how you don't need to respond. I find the contradiction to be of note.

skeledrew 2y ago

Can you point to the particular clues which suggest that she isn't an impartial (from an academic perspective) observer? That she isn't presenting the empirical conclusions of her analysis and years of research?

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
You know, this is actually an interesting approach, but I will wait to see how you are going to respond to what I am about to say. Chomsky sometimes argued that you simply do not get to certain levels of corporate media unless you are already so steeped in propaganda that you simply are not able to articulate an opposing view. In other words, the argument is, our Ruth would not even be allowed to have an interview as 'fascist' expert if she said anything nice about Trump. To simplify, her mere presence on MSNBC suggests that she was selected for 'pre-appproved' thoughts that the public may be allowed to digest ( ie. hate Trump ). Rebuttal?
- skeledrew 2y ago
  It could be a case of everything just lining up well. As an academic, I trust her to be a professional when dealing with anything related to her field. And "nice" is a relative value that she shouldn't have to pander to, but it just may be the case that there is nothing "nice" about Trump in the given context, and this happens to line up with what MSNBC is looking for in potential interviewees. There's probably a whole subject of study regarding the psyche of leaders; like I think it takes a certain kind of personality to attract loyalty in people, sometimes to the point they'll literally do anything without question. And I can very much see where that could lead to common traits among the persons of her study. Another thing to keep in mind is that there's no human in history or existence who knowingly and consciously makes a "bad" decision. It's ingrained in our nature that what we do is what we think is best, given the contexts and available information. But sometimes it turns out that the consequences don't line up morally. Also I feel like I should make it clear I have no horses in this race. I'm neither American, nor in the US, and I hardly follow politics. I'm just trying to inject some logic into the whole thing.
  - 2y ago