Harrington is right! - Really

[TrueBlueGED]

What we're seeing here is the dangers of dissecting every single word of a live quote as if it was something that was written over the course of the day.  The portion of the later conversation about how if you get one word wrong you could be in real trouble is prophetic.  That is now exactly what some are doing here.

 

You could at least say my name. And for the record, this is the second time he's discussed it on-air, separated by a full day or two (depending when the podcast was actually recorded) and came off buffoon-ish both times. It's not hard to be thoughtful and intentional when talking about this stuff, but you have to have some basic idea of how gendered language works. Friedman, I think, means well in his comments, but clearly has no idea what he's actually talking about.

[That Aud Smell]

Except that there is. He's using personal experience with Harrington as a reason to believe he's not sexist. 

 

Edit: "I've known Mike a long time, I don't think he's a sexist guy, I really don't." It's in the same sentence, FFS! He's clearly and blatantly using his personal experience with Mike to infer Mike's intentions regarding Kim Pegula. 

 

I want him to be better. If he's going to advocate for a better level of discourse, he himself needs to be more cognizant of the language he himself uses.

 

FYI, I'm not mad at him or anything, I just find the whole thing hilariously inept. He's obviously someone who knows there is something there, but legitimately has no clue how to talk about it properly.

 

I didn't find his follow-up problematic (the "rush rush rush" take), but I agree with this assessment of the initial quote (with all the "like's" (a sure tell that he was struggling a bit)) -- and I agree especially with this.

 

Clearly, he must step down immediately. I'd also like to see all of his editorial content scrubbed from the Internet. Old copies of any printed materials should be immediately submitted for burning.

 

This advances nothing.

[WildCard]

Except that there is. He's using personal experience with Harrington as a reason to believe he's not sexist. 

 

Edit: "I've known Mike a long time, I don't think he's a sexist guy, I really don't." It's in the same sentence, FFS! He's clearly and blatantly using his personal experience with Mike to infer Mike's intentions regarding Kim Pegula. 

We shouldn't judge people's intentions based on our experiences and history with them?  :huh:

[That Aud Smell]

We shouldn't judge people's intentions based on our experiences and history with them?  :huh:

 

Or, as white dudes, we should not rule out a fellow white dude's ability to hold repugnant values just because he's generally pretty cool with other white dudes.

 

To wit: My brother-in-law.

[WildCard]

Or, as white dudes, we should not rule out a fellow white dude's ability to hold repugnant values just because he's generally pretty cool with other white dudes.

 

To wit: My brother-in-law.

Literally has nothing to do with what I posted. I don't know why you had to make that into that 

[That Aud Smell]

Literally has nothing to do with what I posted. I don't know why you had to make that into that 

 

It seemed to. I re-read what you posted, and still think that it does.

[darksabre]

It seemed to. I re-read what you posted, and still think that it does.

I read it the same way you did. You provided a very specific example of the phenomenon, but the general point remains: personal experience with someone doesn't always count for anything. We see this all the time after some horrific murder happens or whatever. They interview the neighbor and it's always "oh, well he seemed like a nice young man." Sure. To you.

[sabills]

I read it the same way you did. You provided a very specific example of the phenomenon, but the general point remains: personal experience with someone doesn't always count for anything. We see this all the time after some horrific murder happens or whatever. They interview the neighbor and it's always "oh, well he seemed like a nice young man." Sure. To you.

 

It's always hard with people you know and like. Sara Silverman talked about this when the Louis CK stuff came out. She said something to the affect of 'I don't really know how to feel about this. Obviously, he's awful for doing this stuff, but also he's still my friend, and I don't fully know know how to deal with it at this point." Which is fine. But you can't let it completely cloud your judgement.

[TrueBlueGED]

We shouldn't judge people's intentions based on our experiences and history with them?  :huh:

 

I don't think I can say it any better than Smell or Dark. But essentially, it's not necessarily safe to assume that somebody's interactions with us are representative of their interactions with others, particularly others who are not like us, nor representative of any particular value set they may hold. We live through a series of anecdotes, and the plural of those anecdotes is not data.

It's always hard with people you know and like. Sara Silverman talked about this when the Louis CK stuff came out. She said something to the affect of 'I don't really know how to feel about this. Obviously, he's awful for doing this stuff, but also he's still my friend, and I don't fully know know how to deal with it at this point." Which is fine. But you can't let it completely cloud your judgement.

 

Maybe even impossible. 

[WildCard]

I don't think I can say it any better than Smell or Dark. But essentially, it's not necessarily safe to assume that somebody's interactions with us are representative of their interactions with others, particularly others who are not like us, nor representative of any particular value set they may hold. We live through a series of anecdotes, and the plural of those anecdotes is not data.

Well you did. It's not just white dudes are only genuinely good to other white dudes

[sabills]

I don't think I can say it any better than Smell or Dark. But essentially, it's not necessarily safe to assume that somebody's interactions with us are representative of their interactions with others, particularly others who are not like us, nor representative of any particular value set they may hold. We live through a series of anecdotes, and the plural of those anecdotes is not data.

 

Maybe even impossible. 

In which case you have to recuse yourself and admit your bias, which is also fine.

[darksabre]

It's always hard with people you know and like. Sara Silverman talked about this when the Louis CK stuff came out. She said something to the affect of 'I don't really know how to feel about this. Obviously, he's awful for doing this stuff, but also he's still my friend, and I don't fully know know how to deal with it at this point." Which is fine. But you can't let it completely cloud your judgement.

Yup. So when I look at what Friedman is saying, as a public figure and in a public forum, I have to roll my eyes because it's just very self-centered. Someone who is worried about, I don't know, losing a female audience, might have taken a more simple and tactful approach. "I've always had good experiences with him, but I cannot speak to any of the sexism claims" is just about perfect.

 

Is that asking too much? I don't think so. Not from someone who's entire career revolves around words and what they mean.

[That Aud Smell]

I don't think I can say it any better than Smell or Dark. But essentially, it's not necessarily safe to assume that somebody's interactions with us are representative of their interactions with others, particularly others who are not like us, nor representative of any particular value set they may hold. We live through a series of anecdotes, and the plural of those anecdotes is not data.

 

Well turned.

 

Well you did. It's not just white dudes are only genuinely good to other white dudes

 

Hmm. Can you elaborate? (No snark intended.)

Yup. So when I look at what Friedman is saying, as a public figure and in a public forum, I have to roll my eyes because it's just very self-centered. Someone who is worried about, I don't know, losing a female audience, might have taken a more simple and tactful approach. "I've always had good experiences with him, but I cannot speak to any of the sexism claims" is just about perfect.

 

Is that asking too much? I don't think so. Not from someone who's entire career revolves around words and what they mean.

 

Yeah - he booted that grounder. Hard.

[Randall Flagg]

Can someone post exactly what Harrington said that the initial conversation referred to?

[sabills]

Hmm. Can you elaborate? (No snark intended.)

I think what he's saying, and Wild you can tell me if I'm way off, is that its not just because its two white dudes, its because they're friends/friendly. Which is kind of true, but its not like he knows him THAT well, and them being two white dudes in a white dude dominated industry and world, it makes it more specious. 

[WildCard]

Hmm. Can you elaborate? (No snark intended.)

True made it a universal thing, you made it highly specific. As a white dude, I took it rather personal that I can't have, or maybe am less likely/scrutinized more based off of history or the actions of others, good intentions/interactions with other people that aren't white dudes. I don't see anyone differently than anyone else

Edited May 4, 2018 by WildCard

[shrader]

Yup. So when I look at what Friedman is saying, as a public figure and in a public forum, I have to roll my eyes because it's just very self-centered. Someone who is worried about, I don't know, losing a female audience, might have taken a more simple and tactful approach. "I've always had good experiences with him, but I cannot speak to any of the sexism claims" is just about perfect.

 

Is that asking too much? I don't think so. Not from someone who's entire career revolves around words and what they mean.

 

Looking at that original Friedman quote about Harrington, for me anyway, it's next to impossible to draw much of anything from it in it's written form.  There was so much rambling, flow of consciousness stuff going on there.  It somehow even becomes even more rambly in written form than I'm assuming it was on the podcast.

 

And Blue, there's no need for me to call you out by name.  I mean it far more generically than just with this conversation.  It happens all over the place.  Stuff in print is overanalyzed when there really isn't all that much to it.

[WildCard]

And Blue, there's no need for me to call you out by name.  I mean it far more generically than just with this conversation.  It happens all over the place.  Stuff in print is overanalyzed when there really isn't all that much to it.

Genuinely why I quit pursuing a degree in English Lit. Yes, there are undertones, connotations, and deeper meanings to things. That doesn't mean there are to every single thing. After awhile people are just looking for what they want to find. It's very easy to pick apart a piece of literature to form it into an argument you want, let alone someone speaking

[shrader]

Genuinely why I quit pursuing a degree in English Lit. Yes, there are undertones, connotations, and deeper meanings to things. That doesn't mean there are to every single thing. After awhile people are just looking for what they want to find. It's very easy to pick apart a piece of literature to form it into an argument you want, let alone someone speaking

 

I quit all of that after my junior year of high school. :w00t:

[WildCard]

I quit all of that after my junior year of high school. :w00t:

Good choice :lol:

 

Should mention it was that and it's really hard getting a job with an English degree. That was really the driving force to switching majors

[darksabre]

Looking at that original Friedman quote about Harrington, for me anyway, it's next to impossible to draw much of anything from it in it's written form. There was so much rambling, flow of consciousness stuff going on there. It somehow even becomes even more rambly in written form than I'm assuming it was on the podcast.

 

And Blue, there's no need for me to call you out by name. I mean it far more generically than just with this conversation. It happens all over the place. Stuff in print is overanalyzed when there really isn't all that much to it.

It's definitely rambly. When people aren't thinking too hard about what they're saying they ramble.

 

It's kind of a symptom of a bigger problem, which is the proliferation of dudes talking mindlessly about anything and everything, regardless of whether or not they know anything about that of which they speak. Radio, tv, podcasts, Twitter, hell...this forum.

[That Aud Smell]

Can someone post exactly what Harrington said that the initial conversation referred to?

 

Huh? Which?

 

True made it a universal thing, you made it highly specific. As a white dude, I took it rather personal that I can't have, or maybe am less likely/scrutinized more based off of history or the actions of others, good intentions/interactions with other people that aren't white dudes. I don't see anyone differently than anyone else

 

Hmm. I'm still not sure I follow.

 

I guess I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't form opinions, make inferences -- hell, pass judgments -- on people's values, morals, etc. based on your interactions with them. Of course, we all do that.

 

I was just saying that those judgments should not preclude or obstruct you from allowing for the possibility that a person you think you know might also do or say some pretty heinous stuff -- stuff that seems inconsistent with what you know about them.

 

The white dude paradigm was just being offered by me because it's Friedman and Harrington. I am pretty sure that they're both white. (I only qualify that because I am allowing for the possibility that Friedman is Jewish.**) So, Friedman says, or implies, "Gee. Mike's always been a solid guy to me. I know he can come off as brusque or short. But I've never seen him do something, or heard him say something, that made me think 'damn, that guy's a sexist.' And I wouldn't be friendly with someone I thought was sexist. So I'm pretty sure he's not sexist."

 

It's just sorta myopic on Friedman's part. Harrington triggered the he-man woman hater's club of the Twitterverse (and those who oppose such thoughts) with some Tweets that hinted at "hey, get a load of the girl who's gonna be president of the sports teams."

 

That sorta stuff, standing alone, should be enough to prompt Friedman to think, "man -- that's not the Harrington I know, or thought I knew -- maybe he's kinda backward that way."

 

But he didn't. At least not yet. Although he DID un-follow him. Which is maybe the final word on the matter.

 

** I'm not trying to stir the pot, I swear. Just trying to recognize that people who are Jewish have their own unique issues to deal with in terms of animus based on race, religion, ethnicity, etc.

Edited May 4, 2018 by That Aud Smell

[Randall Flagg]

Smell, I meant, what did Harrington say that had Friedmann talking about him in the first place? I'm stuck on mobile and lagging badly is why I'm asking if someone has it remembered or handy.

[nfreeman]

Except that there is. He's using personal experience with Harrington as a reason to believe he's not sexist. 

 

Edit: "I've known Mike a long time, I don't think he's a sexist guy, I really don't." It's in the same sentence, FFS! He's clearly and blatantly using his personal experience with Mike to infer Mike's intentions regarding Kim Pegula. 

 

I want him to be better. If he's going to advocate for a better level of discourse, he himself needs to be more cognizant of the language he himself uses.

 

FYI, I'm not mad at him or anything, I just find the whole thing hilariously inept. He's obviously someone who knows there is something there, but legitimately has no clue how to talk about it properly.

 

This isn't what you said initially.  "He's been nice to me, so he isn't sexist" is qualitatively different from "Based on my experience with him, I don't think he's a sexist."

 

More importantly, "based on my experience with him, I don't think he's a sexist" can be a 100% legitimate perspective depending on how well they know each other.  The alternative -- no one can evaluate someone else's prejudices (or lack thereof) because he/she isn't a member of the allegedly victimized class -- is nonsense.

 

 

We shouldn't judge people's intentions based on our experiences and history with them?  :huh:

 

Beat me to it.

 

 

Or, as white dudes, we should not rule out a fellow white dude's ability to hold repugnant values just because he's generally pretty cool with other white dudes.

 

To wit: My brother-in-law.

 

What in the world does race have to do with it?

 

Would the first sentence be OK if a different color were substituted for "white?"

 

The question answers itself.

[shrader]

It's definitely rambly. When people aren't thinking too hard about what they're saying they ramble.

 

It's kind of a symptom of a bigger problem, which is the proliferation of dudes talking mindlessly about anything and everything, regardless of whether or not they know anything about that of which they speak. Radio, tv, podcasts, Twitter, hell...this forum.

 

I don't think I've ever agreed with anything more than this in my entire life.