One very trenchant observation Daum makes that has particular resonance for me is that there is a sense among many journalists now, especially younger ones, that in the era of Trump we don’t have the luxury to be nuanced, to be fair, but must dedicate all our energy to fighting the #resistance as energetically as possible. (In a sign that there is nothing new under the sun, the book opens with a quote from a 1972 Joan Didion essay on the women’s movement: “The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.”)
There are deep philosophical problems with this, obviously (although sadly that is not obvious to everyone). But even if you leave those aside, this impulse is wrongheaded just from a narrow partisan political perspective. Someone who is willing to grant certain points to the other side, but then proceed to show why they are wrong in the main, has a much stronger debating position than someone who gives no quarter on anything. Dale Carnegie talked about this a century ago in his mega-blockbuster book How to Win Friends and Influence People, and it remains true today.
If you are inviting my opinion on the New York Times article, this is the sentence that stood out most to me:
I have encountered this paradox while researching sexual objectification in a different thread, and might be interested in reading the book if Ms. Daum’s book claimed to resolve it.
That’s weird. Here I thought #BelieveWomen was treating reports of sexual abuse and assault the same as reports of other crimes, instead of trying to find ways that the woman was asking for it.
It’s the difference between taking reports of assault seriously, which we definitely should do, and automatically believing they are accurate, which we definitely should not.
Why would I? Was he arrested for sexual assault? Has his career been ruined because of false accusations of sexual assault? Why, exactly, would I tell that to Woody Allen?
Hard to tell sometimes where one crosses over into the other.
In the UK there has been, over the past 5 years or so, a pretty depressing and very high-profile episode that played out because someone making historical child-abuse claims had those claims accepted as “true” by the authorities. It hasn’t ended well.
Someone who grants certain points is much likelier to be correct, and much likelier to be arguing in good faith. But why do they have a “Stronger position”? What are you defining as a position of strength?
Hashtags don’t explain social movements. Based on the quotes, it appears the author of this article buys into the alt-right/conservative/anti-feminist descriptions of movements like #MeToo rather than the actual facts about them.
I should care about some little blonde thing’s misappropriation of black terminology to try and create buzzwords (“wokescenti” - Barf!) and love affair with the heroes of the IDW, why?
Interesting goalpost shift. Now you are pretty much doing what you said most people don’t do: assuming the charges against him are true until proved false, even though there was an investigation and there was found to be no merit to them.
