Reply to new Reade/Biden thread

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "new Reade/Biden thread"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Just like to send certain readers into a tizzy by pointing out that on Feb 7, 2018 NPR tweeted out “‘Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #metoo movement....”
So unless we’re willing to chalk NOR up to a right-wing group now, maybe it’s time to retire the “Believe all women” was made up by conservatives nonsense?

[/quote]

+ 1 million
Anyone who’s not a left-wing partisan hypocrite knows this is true. [/quote]

You two obviously haven’t read the Faludi piece. It says “believe all women” started on the right, who beat that drum relentlessly to the point where it seeped into the occasional MSM mention. The whole point of the Faludi piece is right-wing insertion of foreign DNA (“all”) into the slogan.

It’s pathetic that you have one NPR cite. How long did it take your puppet masters to dig that up? But there are zillions more from NPR and other MSM saying “believe women” or “listen to women”. The Faludi piece did the legwork to prove it. [/quote]

What is the substantive difference between "Believe Women" and "Believe All Women?"[/quote]

DP.  There really is no difference.  As Ramesh Ponnuru writes in his rebuttal:
"To the extent she succeeds at all, it is in defending the ludicrously narrow contentions that feminists used the words “believe women” rather than “believe all women” and that some conservatives have erred about the precise wording. But by the op-ed’s end, she doesn’t get us an inch closer to the conclusion that there was an implied “some” in that slogan. Of course the point of it was to flip the presumption of innocence."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/more-believe-women-revisionism-from-feminists/[/quote]

Ramesh Ponnuru doesn’t sound like she actually read the piece.  Nor do you.  Or perhaps you’re not capable of understanding it.  It’s a toss up.[/quote]

:lol:  Too funny and so predictable.  You don't like his opinion, so you try and dismiss it - and of course the opinion of anyone else who challenges you.  [/quote]

No, you just haven’t put forth a smart opinion yet.  Just because you came up with it doesn’t mean it isn’t a stupid take.[/quote]

Again:  Ramesh Ponnuru wrote an excellent rebuttal to the Faludi piece.  You just disagree.  Doesn't mean his wasn't a smart opinion.  I could just as easily say Faludi's was the stupid take.  [/quote]

Faludi had data: the number of tweets of "BelieveAllWomen" vs. "BelieveWomen" by Rep/Dem, compiled for her by a Harvard librarian.

Ponnuru's take was lame and half-hearted.

Even Ponnuru gives ground on this issue (Ponnuru says Faludi succeeds a bit and conservatives have erred). But then Ponnuru backs herself into a corner, and finds herself claiming that the phrase "Believe women" totally needs the word "some" to be clear. Or something. Which is a ludicrous straw man.

Here's Ponnuru. Try not to laugh at the verbal gymnastics.
[quote][b]To the extent she succeeds at all[/b], it is in defending the ludicrously narrow contentions that feminists used the words “believe women” rather than “believe all women” and that [b]some conservatives have erred about the precise wording[/b]. But by the op-ed’s end, she doesn’t get us an inch closer to the conclusion that there was an implied “some” in that slogan. [/quote][/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics