--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > "How many simply blocked it out of their > awareness because they're friendly with Barry?" > > I'm gunna take a wild guess who this was aimed at. At > least you know I'm reading your posts. > > Of the 3 alternative options I can think of my favorite > is that if you take off the "malicious Barry" glasses > for a moment, and knowing his writing style, you might > just conclude that Barry enjoys hyperbole and finds it > entertaining to take an extreme perspective and watch > people react to it. I didn't think for a second that > he meant it literally so I thought it was a funny > exaggeration.
I should have used the phrase "rationalized it" instead of "blocked it out of their awareness." Or "blocked the malice out of their awareness." You're missing the point and being naive. It's a *propaganda technique* to use a loaded metaphor like that. *Because* it's a metaphor, it can more easily sneak through one's critical thinking filter and color one's emotional reaction. And you quoted me out of context. I wasn't referring just to that ugly metaphor but to all the distortions in his characterization of John's post. (Note that he didn't *quote* John's post, just included a link to it. Again, how many are going to click the link to see if his characterization fairly reflects what John wrote?) > Maybe he was tweaking John's ear a bit, I don't remember > how they usually interact here. When Barry says John is someone "who IMO represents pure, unadulterated, On The Program 'TM thinking' more than anyone else on this forum, even Nabby" (quoted in my post), how can you be in any doubt that he was demonizing John? How about when he says (also quoted in my post) that John's post was a "tribute to misogyny and hatred of women" that is "pervasive" in the TM movement? Did you notice that Barry's big objection to John's post was that John suggested the guy's wife felt left out--which was remarkably similar to what you had said in the post John was responding to? > You are starting with the premise of sinister intent > and finding pieces to suggest that. Barry's disquisition on John's post *started* with pieces not just suggesting but *embodying* sinister intent. I didn't have to look for them. You think it's OK for Barry to slander people because he finds it "entertaining." I don't. We've been over this before and obviously we aren't going to agree.
