Tuesday, May 17, 2016

The (Liberal?) Media Is Often Unfair To Trump: NYT Girlfriends Edition

   Right, so among the many ways in which liberalism is going crazy is this one: you've got to ante up with your liberal bona fides to get them to listen. Normally, I refuse. But I'll make an exception this time: yes, I loathe Trump. Yes, he deserves most of the derision being heaped upon him. Yes, it's a terrifying embarrassment that he might get anywhere near the Presidency...
   Also, he's being treated unfairly. Even jackasses, you know, can be treated badly.
   Here's just one hot-off-the-press example...one in which the perpetrator was actually busted: the NYT's story on Trump's former girlfriends. (Link to the Politico story.) [Oh and: the NYT story is titled: "Crossing the Line: How Dona'd Trump Behaved With Women In Private."]
   OMG the left-puritan gnashing of teeth over this on CNN last night! Objectification!!! (Another nonsense pseudo-concept cooked up in women's/gender studies alongside the even less coherent "gender identity"...) What utter nonsense. Brewer Lane herself says that the experience was positive and in no way negative, that Trump was respectful, and that they went on to have a relationship.
   Watching lefties--not lunatic PC far lefties, either...just the ordinary liberal type--sputtering angrily and inarticulately about this outrage was surreal.
   Trump's sin? He seems to have offered Brewer Lane a swimsuit relatively soon after meeting her, and after the two had hit it off. It was, FYI, a pool party. Brewer Lane had come from work and didn't have one with her. (Her job? Model. You can't make that up...) According to the NYT, this was "degrading." The image they try to instill in the reader is one of Trump parading Brewer Lane around in a disrespectful manner. This is not what happened according to Brewer Lane.
"Actually, [reading the story] was very upsetting. I was not happy to read it at all," Brewer Lane said. "Well, because The New York Times told us several times that they would make sure that my story that I was telling came across. They promised several times that they would do it accurately. They told me several times and my manager several times that it would not be a hit piece and that my story would come across the way that I was telling it and honestly, and it absolutely was not."
Asked what the reporters got wrong, Brewer Lane said they took her quotes and "put a negative connotation on it." 
"They spun it to where it appeared negative. I did not have a negative experience with Donald Trump, and I don't appreciate them making it look like that I was saying that it was a negative experience because it was not," Brewer Lane said.
   So the sputtering CNN types...mostly liberals...didn't seem to be puritans. I'm sure that if the topic were homosexuality or transexuality, or some other protected type of sex, they'd not have said a word. But in the face of a bit of slightly edgy flirtation between Trump and Brewer Lane, they lost their minds. How these people manage to get laid I'll never know. As lurid and tawdry as so much of mass culture has become, there's still this crazy puritanism mixed in with it...it's like the worse of both worlds.
   Look: Brewer Lane was a model. She was a swimsuit model. She was at a pool party for models. You can find pix of her on the web if you want. So here's a woman--she is very attractive; she has a very nice body; she is probably understandably proud of these things... She makes her living with her attractiveness. No one complains about this--no on should. She meets Trump, they hit it off, he gives her an opportunity to strut her stuff and she is happy to comply. There's little chance that either party was unaware that this was a slightly edgy bit of flirtation. Two consenting adults... A guy relying--to some extent--on his accomplishments to catch the attention of a girl; a girl relying--to some extent--on her looks to catch the attention of a guy...ZOMG STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!111 Objectification! Misogyny! Dogs and cats, living together...  Mass hysteria!  
   Note for the left-puritans out there: they went on to have a relationship! Whew! Thank GOD! It wasn't just sex...because...because...what? I DON'T EVEN KNOW!!!! CAN YOU EVEN DO THAT?
   It's like these morons absorb every little bit of insane programming you throw their way...but they're completely incapable of figuring out even minor things on their own. Boys going through the head-spinning insanity of puberty think they might be girls? They're girls then! So it has been decreed, so the talking heads have dutifully accepted. No one who actually thinks about it for two seconds can dodge the cognitive dissonance...but since actually thinking about such decrees is verboten, nobody does. Two adults engaging in exactly the kind of consensual courtship that humans have engaged in ever since we've been genuinely human? Totally fucking evil, jack.
   And now for the obligatory, ritualized anti-Trump quasi-conclusion to bookend the anti-Trump opening. Yes, I throw myself on the carpet and profess my deep and passionate aversion to Trumpo the Clown! I do, I do!... I'll grant that some of the talking heads did manage to make a good point: Trump has said disrespectful things about women in public--e.g. the Megan Kelly menstruation comment. The jackass. The story about Brewer Lane, for example, adds nothing to that. It can be spun in a sinister direction by someone sufficiently dedicated to the task, or by someone who isn't familiar with actual human flirtation and sexual attraction, or by someone sufficiently imbued with gender feminist nonsense... (Come to think of it, those classes of people overlap a good bit...). But really, there's nothing in that bit of the story to trouble sane people. 
   Perhaps the  NYT writers might defend themselves by saying: we already know what kind of person Trump is from his public statements; thus we're warranted in interpreting accounts of his private actions in light of them. Meh. That's not a weightless response, but it's not a terribly strong one, either. 
   In case liberals don't care about the truth--and fewer and fewer of them seem to--then maybe they'll at least be interested in the relevant counterproductivity argument: there's plenty of legitimate ammunition against Trump. But if somehow that's not enough for you and you keep insisting on making shit up, you're going to generate sympathy for the guy. JQ...extremely intelligent and well-educated, a woman, a careful observer of the political scene and--despite my repeated disapproval--a feminist (but a sane, egalitarian one, not a crazy one (so really my "disapproval" is tongue-in-cheek, for the record))...well, she's the one that initially pointed out the media's unfairness to Trump to me. She started as anti-Trump as you can get, and now she's developed a kind of grudging respect for the guy in certain ways...and she's infected me with it. Confabulating liberals, take note. If you don't care about the truth, and you don't care about fairness, you might at least care that you're helping the guy out.


Blogger The Mystic said...

It has been extremely disheartening that, even given Trump, liberals seem to have to suck.

Although, I've had a bit of a theory for a while that the shittiness of one's opposition is one of the most damaging qualities one can find in opposition; when you don't have to bring your A-game, and when even your D- or, God help us, F-game suffices (because of your opponent's downright suicidal idiocy, perhaps), it's bad news for everyone.

Extremely bad news. Because once the opponent has met his demise at his own hands, we're stuck with the shittified opposition he once had.

As Confucius said, the noble man is easy on others and hard on himself.

10:13 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Dude that is an excellent point.

10:17 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home