Seems like they are running with Hillary's 'basket of deplorables' comment, not having learned anything from that. I once frequented the comments section of a progressive news site but soon wearied of how mindlessly and reflexively so many there loved to heap contempt and ridicule on the stereotypes they concocted not just of Trump voters, but of anyone right-leaning. Moronic and childish smears minus any attempt at analysis or understanding easily garnered the most upvotes. It was clear to me then they were busy creating the very 'monster' they feared. It was pretty much impossible to make that point, though.
Great essay Erica. It reminds me of the conversation I had with my co producer recently about a project I brought him that is short film segments bringing together both sides of the issue to highlight how each side sees say, abortion, free speech, etc. He wanted Jordan Klepper to host, and I couldn't break through the barrier of matter to explain why that would not be a good choice.
That sounds like a very worthwhile project. I'd been fantasizing recently of a candidate debates where each candidate must acknowledge at least one valid point their opponent made and one weakness in their own position...to move from adversarial debates toward something less polarizing or ideally, as Braver Angels calls it, a collective search for truth. Hope you get your project off the ground! Maybe Braver Angels Media would take it on.
Thanks for this interesting observation. Often when feeling under attack from narcissism, we point a finger, ridiculing, condemning from a grandiose standpoint, but in that moment we ourselves have taken up narcissism as the way forward.
I agree with most of the article, I also don't like these kinds of gotcha vox-pops of ordinary people where we're supposed to laugh at how stupid they are. But I think the John Bolton example is OK and in this particular instance Klepper is being very fair with the person he's interviewing.
I would disagree that "Most people [...] aspire to be decent and kind". Most people aspire to conform and self-preserve, and they take their values from their environment. If the society around them is decent and kind, they mostly will be too. If the society around them isn't, they won't be.
Liberals both adhere to fallacious ideas and think only the other side adheres to them and is uniquely unreasonable. But the self satisfaction of mainstream liberal content just makes us blind to why people outside cities hate democrats.
No. They were being formally interviewed about their area of expertise. If they'd been stopped on the street to comment about hockey playoff games, then, maybe....
Maybe intent does matter. The point of What is a Woman? was to push back against the “transwomen are women,” “affirmative care is always appropriate.” The comedic aspects were icing on the cake. And the film did, iirc, persuade some member of the public too exhausted by politics to read up on gender issues
I dunno. Comedy shouldn’t have to be kind. But when the cruelty only goes in one direction, it tends to be not so funny. (I’m thinking of the cringeworthy SNL skit that parodied the Ivy League Presidents going bf Congress.)
" The point of What is a Woman? was to push back against the “transwomen are women,” ....."
A much better argument to make would be to state that women are trans women.
After all, if X = Y then Y must = X
Walsh's moronic 'gotcha' counter arguments only serve to keep the debate completely dumbed down and polarised. From that 'low resolution' position the only thing which carries any weight is appeal to emotion, which means the 'progressives' will keep winning even though they are the side who are putting children through a mincing machine to serve the transhuman agenda - which is what this is all about (when you take a step back from all the bickering).
Seems like they are running with Hillary's 'basket of deplorables' comment, not having learned anything from that. I once frequented the comments section of a progressive news site but soon wearied of how mindlessly and reflexively so many there loved to heap contempt and ridicule on the stereotypes they concocted not just of Trump voters, but of anyone right-leaning. Moronic and childish smears minus any attempt at analysis or understanding easily garnered the most upvotes. It was clear to me then they were busy creating the very 'monster' they feared. It was pretty much impossible to make that point, though.
Great essay Erica. It reminds me of the conversation I had with my co producer recently about a project I brought him that is short film segments bringing together both sides of the issue to highlight how each side sees say, abortion, free speech, etc. He wanted Jordan Klepper to host, and I couldn't break through the barrier of matter to explain why that would not be a good choice.
That sounds like a very worthwhile project. I'd been fantasizing recently of a candidate debates where each candidate must acknowledge at least one valid point their opponent made and one weakness in their own position...to move from adversarial debates toward something less polarizing or ideally, as Braver Angels calls it, a collective search for truth. Hope you get your project off the ground! Maybe Braver Angels Media would take it on.
yea, thats a thought for sure thanks.
Your piece generated a very hot exchange in the Smart Politics Facebook group. I know you're not on FB anymore, but you might want to check it out. https://www.facebook.com/karin.tamerius/posts/pfbid0c6rEpaQzQcbLUhXFFrn4wGJa1gQDpRgY3LjFQALaEgmB59x3FFQPToTSbD96ScqWl?__cft__[0]=AZWRk38ud1QOnaovU6oFN0ZzyK8qB87wxbY0499kqcaw3QIEXabsaoOgj7y7X63yhK3q8kSuqTM6WWCawGi1sf7iJrxXXGn54rnXpV42WxlloUcnC5xKGzVmXYbznyD9xd4&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R
Thanks for this interesting observation. Often when feeling under attack from narcissism, we point a finger, ridiculing, condemning from a grandiose standpoint, but in that moment we ourselves have taken up narcissism as the way forward.
Fabulous work, Erica! I will share far and wide.
I agree with most of the article, I also don't like these kinds of gotcha vox-pops of ordinary people where we're supposed to laugh at how stupid they are. But I think the John Bolton example is OK and in this particular instance Klepper is being very fair with the person he's interviewing.
I would disagree that "Most people [...] aspire to be decent and kind". Most people aspire to conform and self-preserve, and they take their values from their environment. If the society around them is decent and kind, they mostly will be too. If the society around them isn't, they won't be.
Hear hear. In case you wanted to see how easy it is to do this in the opposite direction, see here: https://youtu.be/3JGmKHrWKMQ
Excellent essay.
Liberals both adhere to fallacious ideas and think only the other side adheres to them and is uniquely unreasonable. But the self satisfaction of mainstream liberal content just makes us blind to why people outside cities hate democrats.
Very well said, thank you.
No. They were being formally interviewed about their area of expertise. If they'd been stopped on the street to comment about hockey playoff games, then, maybe....
Maybe intent does matter. The point of What is a Woman? was to push back against the “transwomen are women,” “affirmative care is always appropriate.” The comedic aspects were icing on the cake. And the film did, iirc, persuade some member of the public too exhausted by politics to read up on gender issues
I dunno. Comedy shouldn’t have to be kind. But when the cruelty only goes in one direction, it tends to be not so funny. (I’m thinking of the cringeworthy SNL skit that parodied the Ivy League Presidents going bf Congress.)
" The point of What is a Woman? was to push back against the “transwomen are women,” ....."
A much better argument to make would be to state that women are trans women.
After all, if X = Y then Y must = X
Walsh's moronic 'gotcha' counter arguments only serve to keep the debate completely dumbed down and polarised. From that 'low resolution' position the only thing which carries any weight is appeal to emotion, which means the 'progressives' will keep winning even though they are the side who are putting children through a mincing machine to serve the transhuman agenda - which is what this is all about (when you take a step back from all the bickering).