Let us now pause to consider the fact that…
…this is an apparently serious piece by a professor of linguistics at Berkeley. For real.
Not a joke. Not a parody. Not the Onion.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
…this is an apparently serious piece by a professor of linguistics at Berkeley. For real.
Not a joke. Not a parody. Not the Onion.
Sadly, I have a niece that, no doubt, will soon be posting this article on Facebook.
Yes, she’s a millennial.
The gender card. It’s what they have. I know several women who consider it the primary reason to vote for Hillary. We men are going to put you ladies back in the kitchen. 🙂
J.J.,
Hillary wouldn’t know what to do if you put her there. I, on the other hand, rather enjoy cooking. And I can even bake cookies.
J.J.:
It’s one thing to play the gender card. I expect that.
But this particular gender card is so totally devoid of even a token bow to logic that it is mind-blowing that this professor doesn’t even try to give her “argument” even a thin and superficial cover that makes sense.
I couldn’t be more pleased that Professor Lakoff is demonstrating to the world that an American college education is a complete waste of time and money. Better to join the Navy and learn aircraft maintenance (no it won’t satisfy the FAA but you’ll be miles ahead in terms of transferable skills). Or, spend some money. But spend it on a welding course, or auto mechanics. Not on Sin-E-Mah.
MM1 Saucier is going to prison for less than Clinton’s crimes, BTW. General Cartwright hasn’t been sentenced yet, but he did a mere fraction of what Clinton did and he’s probably facing a nickel stretch in the hoosegow.
Robin Lakoff asks if a man would have received the same treatment as Hillary Clinton. The answer is no. A man in Clinton’s situation would have been indicted by now and would not be a major political party’s presidential candidate. Especially if that man were a Republican.
Once you reject key attributes of human nature and key aspects of the external reality within which you literally exist… what matters an utter abandonment of fact, reason and logic?
The writer has revealed herself to be either dishonest and/or ignorant, since use of a private server alone is prima facie evidence of serious lawbreaking.
She ignores the many males who have been prosecuted for lesser breaches than Clinton’s. Most recently, the fate of Marine General Cartwright, whose breach of national security was to a far lesser degree than Clinton’s. Yet this male is facing jail and one in which the DOJ decided that intent was irrelevant to proceeding with prosecution.
That the General is reported to have been one of Obama’s strongest supporters within the military typifies Obama; he allowed his supporter’s career to be destroyed, solely for political cover.
Then again, unlike the sacrificial Benghazi victims, the General is at least alive and may yet receive a Presidential pardon along with a quiet sinecure, where he can be occasionally trotted out to give expert military opinion supporting the current leftist POV.
Of perhaps greater interest is Time’s desperation in offering such a ludicrous piece. Political panic has reduced that once honored media outlet to a lesser state than even tabloid journalism. As they don’t just wallow in the mud, they fabricate it. The sole purpose of this piece of trash is to keep liberals on the reservation. After all, a sexist is nearly as bad as a racist.
I don’t want to be thrust in the position of film critic Pauline Kael who famously said after Nixon won that she was confused as no one in here social circle had voted for him. But this ham-handed attempt to smear Hillary Clinton’s critics have alienated more women than I can count.
They’ve been driven into my camp. And I’m not even likeable.
It pleases me no end to contemplate how much money I save by not subscribing to Time, and other such publications.
On the other hand, it is troubling to think that the author of such rambling has a captive audience in the class room, and may have credibility among the few readers of Time as well.
Gotta laugh that one of the things Lakoff’s known for is the development of the “Politeness Principle”, in which she “devised three maxims that are usually followed in interaction. These are: Don’t impose, give the receiver options, and make the receiver feel good. She stated that these are paramount in good interaction. By not adhering to these maxims, a speaker is said to be ‘flouting the maxims’.”
She’s 73, though, so maybe she had a senior moment and forgot them when she sat down to write this piece.
Sometimes one might wonder why it is that opposition to Mrs. Clinton isn’t framed in terms of the Anti-BuckToothed or as Haters of Bottle-Blondes. Well, wonder no more, I guess: Mrs. Lakoff’s take is simply hands down funnier; hence, more winning.
Yikes. Such desperation. Prof. Lakoff’s fear permeates the page.
(Even at that, I couldn’t get through the piece.)
Sure, this will likely show up on social media. I don’t mind; rarely are arguments this easy to rebut. For one, she is claiming — nay, she is shouting at the top of her lungs — that Hillary’s e-mail scandal is a War on Women, because what else could it be? What other motivation could there possibly be?
To which I say: if you attribute a negative motivation to your enemies, because you simply can’t think of any other possible motivation, this shows your lack of imagination more than anything else. There is ALWAYS more than one possible reason for doing something. (Did I buy that Starbucks coffee because I was thirsty? Because I was tired? Because I have reason to patronize that particular store and not the Dunkin Donuts across the street? Because my specific choice shows my racism? Because I’ve chosen today to only patronize establishments beginning with S? Because I was with my wife, and SHE likes Starbucks? The choices are endless.)
What we know — if that — is what someone does, and what someone says. We can only guess at WHY they did or said something. Claiming to KNOW, without evidence, what motivated someone else to do something, is a playground game.
It’s TIME, another source I find untrustworthy. In this case, the guy’s a nut.
It’s also embarrassing to our gender. This is the sort of thing that lends credence to the argument you sometimes hear from misogynists to the effect that the 19th Amendment should never have been ratified. It’s not just that it’s devoid of logic, it’s as if the author had never even HEARD of logic.
Don’t worry, Mrs. Whatsit. Men say plenty of stupid s**t, too. I would start quoting them, but that would take an eternity. I won’t hold it against you if you won’t hold it against me.
Sincerely, the unlikable Steve57.
Oh, Leon Panetta after Benghazi.
I couldn’t resist.
We have a deal, Steve57 – and that was very likable of you. 🙂
It’s not surprising at all to me that Lakoff could have that excuse for the attacks on HRC. One of my wife’s colleagues, a lady of the same age and also a faculty member of some kind of Wymin’s Study(tm), was visiting us at the time Hillary’s health was being questioned. When I showed her the video of HRC being dragged into the van her eyes got wide and then, very seriously, she said “Why that’s sexist!” I’m very proud of myself, I started to laugh but stiffled myself and didn’t say another word. A reality independent of their ideology is a very far country for a lot of these liberal arts academics.
Linguistics appears to be a very small field, an academic sanctuary for nutters like this one and Noam Chomsky. Get tenure in this useless field, then you’re golden.
Mrs Whatsit said:
“…and that was very likable of you.”
Don’t tell anyone. It would destroy my reputation.
Why is gender made a synonym for sex? When did this happen? Are there not problems entailed in this prestidigitation?
Gender, time was, was a term used in linguistics. I once, many many years ago now, heard an interview with Ruth Bader Ginsberg at a time before she had been elevated to the Supreme Court, or even, I think, to any judgeship. She was lawyering on women’s issues with the ACLU. The interview concerned an argument, a presentation Ginsberg had made before the Supreme Court as an advocate on a case (which she won) and Ginsberg recounted (with pride) in the interview how it was she had introduced the term “gender” as a substitute for the word “sex”. I believe she even confessed to a personal dislike to use the word sex before the court owing to a certain reserve or even prudery on her own part. Anyhow, here we are today.
And ain’t it jolly?
“Robin Lakoff is a professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Language and Woman’s Place
‘It’s not about emails; it’s about public communication by a woman’”
Does anyone want to take a good hard look at Tenue and clean these “snowflakes” from feeding at the taxpayer teat?
I remember when TIME Magazine was a serious periodical.
Do you?
I remember when Time and a Baathist posing as a journalist ginned up the Haditha massacre and got sixteen innocent jarheads in big trouble.
Newsweek faked up the Koran desecration story.
I won’t touch those even in a waiting room.
Bastards.
The grievance studies went off the rails a long time ago. Now they’re just about feather-bedding. When a movement denies the existence of truth itself, it’s become worthless.
This is the sort of thing that suggests America is overdue for re-education camps ala the Cultural Revolution. All of the overpaid ignoramuses of the Mandarin class need to be conscripted into productive occupations for a few years until they learn to get their heads out of their colons.
Since the issue’s been raised, maybe this is worth a look:
“Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and
Scope of Government?”
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf
So, what will small-government conservative women who blog do? Choose not to vote, but talk a lot about it? Just kidding. I swear, I’m only kidding.
I’m only kidding. But someone wrote this. Which means someone is teaching this.
http://isitnormal.com/story/i-hate-the-male-gender-and-im-ashamed-to-be-a-part-of-it-145055/
Anybody want to bet that’s not xi’s final problem?
Earlier I responded to Mrs. Whatsit about the stupid things men say.
I don’t even know if this is parody. That’s how low we’ve sunk.
The stupid. It burns.
Oh yes, it burns. And worse. It stabs. It betrays, it lies.
Neo: “But this particular gender card is so totally devoid of even a token bow to logic that it is mind-blowing that this professor doesn’t even try to give her “argument” even a thin and superficial cover that makes sense.”
Yep! So very similar to the logic that any criticism of Obama was prima facie evidence of racism. Ala Joe Biden’s, “They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”
Robin Lakoff is the ex-wife of George Lakoff, another Berkeley linguistics professor who wrote “Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate–The Essential Guide for Progressives,” which had some heat in the 2000s among progressives.
I remember meeting an old friend in a San Francisco cafe and she was dying to tell me about Lakoff’s technique for neutralizing then winning over people like me.
The Lakoffs’ idea is that by controlling the underlying metaphors (“frames”) you control the debate and thereby determine the outcome. They felt the Republicans had already unfairly out-framed Democrats with frames of patriotism and family values for GOP positions, so they were essentially fighting fire with fire.
The Lakoffs aren’t stupid people. I suspect they can make coherent logical arguments when called upon, but their public political utterances aren’t for logical persuasion but to win the day by shifting the metaphor frame. Hence, redolent phrases like Robin Lakoff’s “bitch hunt” in the Time article.
It’s much the same as Scott Adam’s “Master Persuader” brief for Trump, who would be nowhere today if he were making lawyerly presentations like Ted Cruz.
Trump does his policy thing now and then — obviously the work of advisors and underlings — but his meat is the same Lakoff trick of changing the frame.
R. Lakoff says “bitch hunt.” Trump says “Lock her up.” Same difference.
huxley:
I guess it’s Trump who’s on a “bitch hunt” 🙂 .
That the General is reported to have been one of Obama’s strongest supporters within the military typifies Obama; he allowed his supporter’s career to be destroyed, solely for political cover.
To people with an analytical and suspicion mind set, like me for example, what I tend to think of when I see instances and portrayals like that is that it’s just another house internal war. Meaning, some other General staff officer ousted the previous “strongest” Obama supporter, and now has replaced his position and power with a new one.
Stories of internal dissent in various totalitarian systems are full of things like that. They feel little to no loyalty to each other, everything to the State or to the Priest King Hussein, though.
Trump does his policy thing now and then – obviously the work of advisors and underlings – but his meat is the same Lakoff trick of changing the frame.-Huxley
https://jbsanctuary.wordpress.com/2016/10/22/gettysburg/
Here is my reply at the time I read JB’s post, which featured a number of conservative plans proposed by Trum’s campaign, for USA reform.
Most of this comes from Trum clan’s focus groups and community surveys, which started appearing largely around the time of the RNC on Trum’s candidacy.
If Trum puts his clan into cabinet or czar positions, then there’s a good chance it’ll be done. But not because of Trum’s personal views.
They even started talking about defunding the UN, which people have been talking about even before Bush II’s admin. That’s not something a 70 yo New York Democrat can come up with.
As for Trum personally, of course he can be bought, since anyone susceptible to honeypot traps, isn’t that hard to break or blackmail. Of course, that doesn’t apply to his clan or family, which look a lot more competent.
There are a number of reasons why I believe the deadline for reforming the United States of America has already passed. Although I suppose there’s little reason to rehash them now of all times.
*************
That was a previous version of my writing. Some post analysis would be the exact timing which Trum started his community surveys, which are similar to what Kickstarter used. Grassfire, Trumpbart, and other organizations suddenly started sending emails asking what their people wanted the campaign to promote as policy. And now you have a huge list of conservative “promises”, which sound too good to be true. Of course they do, they are the amalgamated total sum positions of all these conservative activists and political operatives and grassroots people, who the RNC have suppressed or ignored or milked for money for decades. Of course it would sound too good to be true, since a lot of it didn’t come from DC Think Thanks or lobby groups.
Also, the exact timing of this around the RNC of Trum’s promotion, would determine just to what extent Trum’s family clan was involved. I haven’t used open meta data to analyze Trum’s clan competency, most of the attention open source has been on Trum and at least half of that is the media’s mind hijack and propaganda tour de force into Alinsky freezing. Hard to tell vs Trum’s Alinsky freeze of Cruz and Carson though.
Just as with Hussein, who likes to play golf when he isn’t getting a big phat grin at seeing Americans killed or tortured, Trum’s most serious activity in DC will be his self promotion. It’ll be up to his czars and cabinet clan members to implement the policy promises, which not even 10 will make it through given the amount of political capital Reagan had to spend just to get taxe cuts and military spending through.
Of course, if Trum decides to give the approval for executive orders and suppression of the bureaucracy first, he can replace them with his own Household troops. The Trum clan has many loyalists who he can put into DC, that will be loyal to Trum first, the FBI second or third.
Same game as Hussein Obola’s Chicago Machine and Valerie Jarret. Loyal to the Man first, the country doesn’t even exist as a stepping stool. And Americans belittled the Iraqis for liking a Strong Man leader… heh.
Using Hussein Obola as a case example once again, he didn’t even manage to shut down Gitmo until his second term, and it’s probably still not completely done. Although who knows what is going on with the media propaganda and this regime’s umbrella net of control. Shutting down GitMo was a big promise Hussein gave to Leftists, to put him into power as King of America. But look how difficult and long it took that Executive Orders megalomaniac golfer to even get started, and that was just one thing, completely under the Executive branch’s sway.
Frog Says:
November 1st, 2016 at 5:26 pm
Linguistics appears to be a very small field, an academic sanctuary for nutters like this one and Noam Chomsky. Get tenure in this useless field, then you’re golden.
Au Contraire, Frog, without linguistics, the Leftist alliance would never have been able to research and develop mass produced mind control techniques. It was linguistics, meaning 1984 theoreticals and Mao’s simplified Chinese implementation of the theoreticals, which gave the Left their current modern day propaganda mass market control.