|
Post by SpringSummers on Jun 11, 2011 9:12:40 GMT -5
Stewart has been hilarious, as has Colbert. I don't usually watch, but I HAD to watch after the Weiner's weiner story broke. I loved their reactions to Weiner mentioning them and their shows in his "sexy" tweets. I wonder if they (Jon and Weiner) have talked at all since the story broke? Carolyn used to baby sit for a couple named Clara and David Dick. They had a son who had some fairly minor but there special education needs. Eventually they both changed their names to Clara's maiden name because David couldn't stand having his son grow up, as he had, suffering the taunts associated with his last name. Not really relevant, just thought of them. Makes sense. The boy sounds as if he might be especially vulnerable, too. I'm pretty sure the name Weiner is actually pronounced "Viner" in German - I remember learning that it is always the SECOND vowel that you pronounce, in German (i.e., stein is stine, riehl is reel). It may have been smart to just change it to "Viner," for the Weiner family. But on the other hand, I can see why that would be diffcult to do. People are understandably proud of their names and heritage. I like how your friends changed their name to the Mom's name, though, instead of messing with the father's family name - a good solution.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jun 13, 2011 10:57:02 GMT -5
Stewart has been hilarious, as has Colbert. I don't usually watch, but I HAD to watch after the Weiner's weiner story broke. I loved their reactions to Weiner mentioning them and their shows in his "sexy" tweets. I wonder if they (Jon and Weiner) have talked at all since the story broke? Carolyn used to baby sit for a couple named Clara and David Dick. They had a son who had some fairly minor but there special education needs. Eventually they both changed their names to Clara's maiden name because David couldn't stand having his son grow up, as he had, suffering the taunts associated with his last name. Not really relevant, just thought of them. Might be somewhat relevant. Stuff like that can lodge deep within your psyche. Roger Ebert had an interesting guest on his blog that talked about what he thinks is Anthony Weiner's problem - narcissistic personality disorder. He said that it is really hard to treat and psychiatrists usually prescribe medicine for it that doesn't really 'cure' the disorder. He says that the only thing that does put a dent in it is intense psychotherapy and that that most times fails. It sounded like trying to cure a pedophile. Basically impossible. Maybe the Representative has been diagnosed before and that's what he meant by "having a weakness that can't be removed by treatment". I guess people with the disorder can go along for years with no symptoms (acting out), but sometimes the very success they crave is what triggers the actions they abhor in themselves. The high ranked French man who was arrested for assaulting a hotel maid supposedly has the disorder. //amateur armchair psychoanalyzing//
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Jun 13, 2011 14:31:55 GMT -5
Carolyn used to baby sit for a couple named Clara and David Dick. They had a son who had some fairly minor but there special education needs. Eventually they both changed their names to Clara's maiden name because David couldn't stand having his son grow up, as he had, suffering the taunts associated with his last name. Not really relevant, just thought of them. Might be somewhat relevant. Stuff like that can lodge deep within your psyche. Roger Ebert had an interesting guest on his blog that talked about what he thinks is Anthony Weiner's problem - narcissistic personality disorder. He said that it is really hard to treat and psychiatrists usually prescribe medicine for it that doesn't really 'cure' the disorder. He says that the only thing that does put a dent in it is intense psychotherapy and that that most times fails. It sounded like trying to cure a pedophile. Basically impossible. Maybe the Representative has been diagnosed before and that's what he meant by "having a weakness that can't be removed by treatment". I guess people with the disorder can go along for years with no symptoms (acting out), but sometimes the very success they crave is what triggers the actions they abhor in themselves. The high ranked French man who was arrested for assaulting a hotel maid supposedly has the disorder. //amateur armchair psychoanalyzing// Heh. See, and I was doing my own amateur armchair psychoanalyzing and wondering if maybe he wasn't bipolar...Weiner, not the IMF guy.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jun 13, 2011 16:06:30 GMT -5
Might be somewhat relevant. Stuff like that can lodge deep within your psyche. Roger Ebert had an interesting guest on his blog that talked about what he thinks is Anthony Weiner's problem - narcissistic personality disorder. He said that it is really hard to treat and psychiatrists usually prescribe medicine for it that doesn't really 'cure' the disorder. He says that the only thing that does put a dent in it is intense psychotherapy and that that most times fails. It sounded like trying to cure a pedophile. Basically impossible. Maybe the Representative has been diagnosed before and that's what he meant by "having a weakness that can't be removed by treatment". I guess people with the disorder can go along for years with no symptoms (acting out), but sometimes the very success they crave is what triggers the actions they abhor in themselves. The high ranked French man who was arrested for assaulting a hotel maid supposedly has the disorder. //amateur armchair psychoanalyzing// Heh. See, and I was doing my own amateur armchair psychoanalyzing and wondering if maybe he wasn't bipolar...Weiner, not the IMF guy. Ha! Yeah, we all go from our experience....I think my ex suffers from a personality disorder. It sounds so banal, but I think that's what makes it a tough nut to crack, so to speak. Here's the Ebert article: What were they thinking?Or..."I guess that's why they call it a compulsion."
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jun 13, 2011 19:37:25 GMT -5
Carolyn used to baby sit for a couple named Clara and David Dick. They had a son who had some fairly minor but there special education needs. Eventually they both changed their names to Clara's maiden name because David couldn't stand having his son grow up, as he had, suffering the taunts associated with his last name. Not really relevant, just thought of them. Might be somewhat relevant. Stuff like that can lodge deep within your psyche. Roger Ebert had an interesting guest on his blog that talked about what he thinks is Anthony Weiner's problem - narcissistic personality disorder. He said that it is really hard to treat and psychiatrists usually prescribe medicine for it that doesn't really 'cure' the disorder. He says that the only thing that does put a dent in it is intense psychotherapy and that that most times fails. It sounded like trying to cure a pedophile. Basically impossible. Maybe the Representative has been diagnosed before and that's what he meant by "having a weakness that can't be removed by treatment". I guess people with the disorder can go along for years with no symptoms (acting out), but sometimes the very success they crave is what triggers the actions they abhor in themselves. The high ranked French man who was arrested for assaulting a hotel maid supposedly has the disorder. //amateur armchair psychoanalyzing// My counselor, who is has a PhD in psychology and many years of experience as a psych prof at the University and as a counselor, considers Weiner a narcissist. We talked about this in relation to my situation with Mr PN. He likened him to Weiner. I don't think my counselor would agree that the condition can go years with no symptoms. He says it invades all parts of their lives and relationships; they have very little genuine empathy (though often an great ability to charm and SEEM very empathetic, at first). And everything is ALL about them, all the time. They constantly crave external validation of their wonderfulness. He called it "narcissistic supply." They can never get enough. But I think he would agree, though, that success worsens it, as the narcissist is very insecure at his core, and is hell-bent on self-destruction. He also agrees that narcissism is very resistant to treatment. I mean, it's kind of a Catch-22. If you have a disorder which pre-disposes you to think you know it all and don't need to abide by the rules that others do, and don't need the sort of help that others need, etc . . . how do you get help? As you can tell, my counselor and I have discussed this at some length, due to my need to deal so often with Mr PN. And he used Weiner as an example at our session last week. I'm sure other professionals might disagree, but yep, that was his take on Weiner: Narcissist.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jun 13, 2011 20:18:20 GMT -5
Heh. See, and I was doing my own amateur armchair psychoanalyzing and wondering if maybe he wasn't bipolar...Weiner, not the IMF guy. Ha! Yeah, we all go from our experience....I think my ex suffers from a personality disorder. It sounds so banal, but I think that's what makes it a tough nut to crack, so to speak. Here's the Ebert article: What were they thinking?Or..."I guess that's why they call it a compulsion." I started reading this article but couldn't make myself finish it. I try to limit my exposure to reckless, self-aggrandizing, "think they are above the law and the rules of society" people. I don't buy the "for the most part they are upstanding people" business. No, they aren't. What is this guy trying to sell me? That Strauss-Kahn is different from your garden-variety rapist? I definitely agree that people like this have a disorder, but I think people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have much the same disorder. I suspect Sarah Palin may have a female-version of it. And I think "garden variety" rapists and creepy-sexting-older-married-men have disorders too. I even think hateful, disdainful, moralistic columnists have disorders. I think pedophiles have disorders and act from compulsions, also. So while I agree it isn't our place to judge others in a moralistic sense, it isn't being "moralistic" to say that you find it extremely difficult to be around this type of person, and that you do not want to be around them, be married to them, listen to their self-important bullying or ranting, or elect them as top officials. Basically, Arnold Goldberg makes no sense to me . Or rather, I don't understand his point . . . I mean, what to make of someone telling me that John Kass is being hateful and disdainful, calling Weiner out on his lying, cheating behavior . . . but Weiner is just a sick person acting on a compulsion, when he lies and cheats (and is hateful and disdainful toward his wife)? I don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Jun 13, 2011 21:58:18 GMT -5
Ha! Yeah, we all go from our experience....I think my ex suffers from a personality disorder. It sounds so banal, but I think that's what makes it a tough nut to crack, so to speak. Here's the Ebert article: What were they thinking?Or..."I guess that's why they call it a compulsion." I started reading this article but couldn't make myself finish it. I try to limit my exposure to reckless, self-aggrandizing, "think they are above the law and the rules of society" people. I don't buy the "for the most part they are upstanding people" business. No, they aren't. What is this guy trying to sell me? That Strauss-Kahn is different from your garden-variety rapist? I definitely agree that people like this have a disorder, but I think people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have much the same disorder. I suspect Sarah Palin may have a female-version of it. And I think "garden variety" rapists and creepy-sexting-older-married-men have disorders too. I even think hateful, disdainful, moralistic columnists have disorders. I think pedophiles have disorders and act from compulsions, also. So while I agree it isn't our place to judge others in a moralistic sense, it isn't being "moralistic" to say that you find it extremely difficult to be around this type of person, and that you do not want to be around them, be married to them, listen to their self-important bullying or ranting, or elect them as top officials. Basically, Arnold Goldberg makes no sense to me . Or rather, I don't understand his point . . . I mean, what to make of someone telling me that John Kass is being hateful and disdainful, calling Weiner out on his lying, cheating behavior . . . but Weiner is just a sick person acting on a compulsion, when he lies and cheats (and is hateful and disdainful toward his wife)? I don't get it. It's interesting: Mary Pipher (she wrote "Reviving Ophelia" and "The Shelter of Each Other," among other books) talks about the trend in psychology that she does not like (although she admits that she had been guilty of falling into that trap herself) is this idea that psychology gives someone an out for their behavior; ie, blaming and not taking responsibility. She calls for a greater accountability in her own profession to make sure that patients understand that they may have been damaged by others, but also are accountable for their own behavior. Not that she doesn't acknowledge mitigating circumstances, but it is not any more healthy for someone to blame every poor decision an adult makes on someone else. This guy fell right into that trap; yes, Weiner and Strauss-Kahn may have personality disorders, but they live in this world and have to abide by its rules. That being said: Strauss-Kahn's actions are far and above what Weiner did, and it annoys me to have them conflated. Although according to new Tennessee law, my constant exposure to Weiner's weiner could be actionable.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jun 14, 2011 9:19:58 GMT -5
Ha! Yeah, we all go from our experience....I think my ex suffers from a personality disorder. It sounds so banal, but I think that's what makes it a tough nut to crack, so to speak. Here's the Ebert article: What were they thinking?Or..."I guess that's why they call it a compulsion." I started reading this article but couldn't make myself finish it. I try to limit my exposure to reckless, self-aggrandizing, "think they are above the law and the rules of society" people. I don't buy the "for the most part they are upstanding people" business. No, they aren't. What is this guy trying to sell me? That Strauss-Kahn is different from your garden-variety rapist? I don't think he made that distinction, but possibly. I am sure there are many other reasons that men rape. I agree - whatever the 'reason', the act is hateful, and the man is hated. There are many different levels of severity to the disorder. Alcohol aggravates it. I lived with that variation. I think he would agree with you, but he took exception to the 'hate' talk. "......He so exemplifies the hate and the disdain that is directed against these people. All he wants to do is to beat the shit out of them…. hateful, awful, they’re not like us…. I try very, very hard to get people to stop being moralistic and let’s try to understand what’s happening." I don't see anywhere where he was excusing Weiner's actions, but he obviously has great compassion for a person with his level of the disorder because he can see the good he has done in his life. Yeah, the sexting was over the line. I am sure he knew it at the time he was doing it. BUT he didn't rape someone. Hell, he didn't even hire a hooker, as a few have done while being married. If we looked in 90% of the elected officials closests, we would probably think the world is doomed. John Kass was using inflamatory language. That's what he took exception to. I don't see where he was 'excusing' Weiner for anything. Just trying to understand.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jun 14, 2011 9:34:48 GMT -5
I started reading this article but couldn't make myself finish it. I try to limit my exposure to reckless, self-aggrandizing, "think they are above the law and the rules of society" people. I don't buy the "for the most part they are upstanding people" business. No, they aren't. What is this guy trying to sell me? That Strauss-Kahn is different from your garden-variety rapist? I definitely agree that people like this have a disorder, but I think people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have much the same disorder. I suspect Sarah Palin may have a female-version of it. And I think "garden variety" rapists and creepy-sexting-older-married-men have disorders too. I even think hateful, disdainful, moralistic columnists have disorders. I think pedophiles have disorders and act from compulsions, also. So while I agree it isn't our place to judge others in a moralistic sense, it isn't being "moralistic" to say that you find it extremely difficult to be around this type of person, and that you do not want to be around them, be married to them, listen to their self-important bullying or ranting, or elect them as top officials. Basically, Arnold Goldberg makes no sense to me . Or rather, I don't understand his point . . . I mean, what to make of someone telling me that John Kass is being hateful and disdainful, calling Weiner out on his lying, cheating behavior . . . but Weiner is just a sick person acting on a compulsion, when he lies and cheats (and is hateful and disdainful toward his wife)? I don't get it. It's interesting: Mary Pipher (she wrote "Reviving Ophelia" and "The Shelter of Each Other," among other books) talks about the trend in psychology that she does not like (although she admits that she had been guilty of falling into that trap herself) is this idea that psychology gives someone an out for their behavior; ie, blaming and not taking responsibility. She calls for a greater accountability in her own profession to make sure that patients understand that they may have been damaged by others, but also are accountable for their own behavior. Not that she doesn't acknowledge mitigating circumstances, but it is not any more healthy for someone to blame every poor decision an adult makes on someone else. This guy fell right into that trap; yes, Weiner and Strauss-Kahn may have personality disorders, but they live in this world and have to abide by its rules. That being said: Strauss-Kahn's actions are far and above what Weiner did, and it annoys me to have them conflated. Although according to new Tennessee law, my constant exposure to Weiner's weiner could be actionable. Ha! We all better watch it then, since there is no chance for getting away from it at least for a few weeks longer. I get the whole idea of thinking psychology gives people an 'out' for their behavior, but it doesn't have to be that way. Just because you understand and have empathy for someone's problems, doesn't mean that you should let them get away with hurting you or others or not let them take responsibility for doing so. I wish I would've been this smart at 20.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Jun 14, 2011 10:59:46 GMT -5
It's interesting: Mary Pipher (she wrote "Reviving Ophelia" and "The Shelter of Each Other," among other books) talks about the trend in psychology that she does not like (although she admits that she had been guilty of falling into that trap herself) is this idea that psychology gives someone an out for their behavior; ie, blaming and not taking responsibility. She calls for a greater accountability in her own profession to make sure that patients understand that they may have been damaged by others, but also are accountable for their own behavior. Not that she doesn't acknowledge mitigating circumstances, but it is not any more healthy for someone to blame every poor decision an adult makes on someone else. This guy fell right into that trap; yes, Weiner and Strauss-Kahn may have personality disorders, but they live in this world and have to abide by its rules. That being said: Strauss-Kahn's actions are far and above what Weiner did, and it annoys me to have them conflated. Although according to new Tennessee law, my constant exposure to Weiner's weiner could be actionable. Ha! We all better watch it then, since there is no chance for getting away from it at least for a few weeks longer. I get the whole idea of thinking psychology gives people an 'out' for their behavior, but it doesn't have to be that way. Just because you understand and have empathy for someone's problems, doesn't mean that you should let them get away with hurting you or others or not let them take responsibility for doing so. I wish I would've been this smart at 20. I understand what you're saying, and you're right, it doesn't have to be that way. And it is important to maintain your empathy, even if other people clearly display a lack of it. I don't think that Goldberg, however, did Weiner any favors by conflating what he did with Strauss-Kahn. Weiner's behavior was juvenile and stupid. I can feel bad for his fall (a little bit), and certainly feel terrible for his wife. I feel no urge to engage in ad hominem attacks on his character, or be overly harsh. He's got family and friends for that, and he broke no laws. Strauss-Kahn, on the other hand, well, to feel empathy for him, who has seemingly shown no remorse, and who freakin' raped and sodomized someone? A thousand times no. To conflate the two because of a shared psychological problem undercuts the seriousness of what Strauss-Kahn did; there is no out for him. Weiner might have embarrassed himself, his family, and his coworkers, but Strauss-Kahn violated and abused a woman. Both need to be held accountable, but not to the same degree; otherwise it becomes utterly meaningless. Here's what grates me: Weiner is getting villified, asked to resign. Strauss-Kahn actually has people defending him! Granted, their defenses are batshit insane, but still! Oh, and Ben Stein? Fuck you. You make me wish I'd never seen Ferris Bueller's Day Off.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jun 14, 2011 11:30:51 GMT -5
Ha! We all better watch it then, since there is no chance for getting away from it at least for a few weeks longer. I get the whole idea of thinking psychology gives people an 'out' for their behavior, but it doesn't have to be that way. Just because you understand and have empathy for someone's problems, doesn't mean that you should let them get away with hurting you or others or not let them take responsibility for doing so. I wish I would've been this smart at 20. I understand what you're saying, and you're right, it doesn't have to be that way. And it is important to maintain your empathy, even if other people clearly display a lack of it. I don't think that Goldberg, however, did Weiner any favors by conflating what he did with Strauss-Kahn. Weiner's behavior was juvenile and stupid. I can feel bad for his fall (a little bit), and certainly feel terrible for his wife. I feel no urge to engage in ad hominem attacks on his character, or be overly harsh. He's got family and friends for that, and he broke no laws. Strauss-Kahn, on the other hand, well, to feel empathy for him, who has seemingly shown no remorse, and who freakin' raped and sodomized someone? A thousand times no. To conflate the two because of a shared psychological problem undercuts the seriousness of what Strauss-Kahn did; there is no out for him. Weiner might have embarrassed himself, his family, and his coworkers, but Strauss-Kahn violated and abused a woman. Both need to be held accountable, but not to the same degree; otherwise it becomes utterly meaningless. Here's what grates me: Weiner is getting villified, asked to resign. Strauss-Kahn actually has people defending him! Granted, their defenses are batshit insane, but still! Oh, and Ben Stein? Fuck you. You make me wish I'd never seen Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Oh, totally agree. To compare the two equally doesn't make sense. But maybe that was his point. To show that one 'deserves' hate and disgust to the nth degree more than the other, and like you say, to hold them both accountable to the same degree would make it meaningless. Just goes to show you the extremes of psychological disorders. There are some functional OCD people, and then there are others whose disorder takes over their lives to where their's is a very narrow existence - at least in normal eyes. I haven't read Ben Stein's opinion. Maybe I don't want to? I'd go on the record to support Weiner's decision to stay or leave the House. I mean, I didn't think Clinton should have resigned, and what he did was 'worse', although not illegal either.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Jun 14, 2011 12:26:57 GMT -5
I understand what you're saying, and you're right, it doesn't have to be that way. And it is important to maintain your empathy, even if other people clearly display a lack of it. I don't think that Goldberg, however, did Weiner any favors by conflating what he did with Strauss-Kahn. Weiner's behavior was juvenile and stupid. I can feel bad for his fall (a little bit), and certainly feel terrible for his wife. I feel no urge to engage in ad hominem attacks on his character, or be overly harsh. He's got family and friends for that, and he broke no laws. Strauss-Kahn, on the other hand, well, to feel empathy for him, who has seemingly shown no remorse, and who freakin' raped and sodomized someone? A thousand times no. To conflate the two because of a shared psychological problem undercuts the seriousness of what Strauss-Kahn did; there is no out for him. Weiner might have embarrassed himself, his family, and his coworkers, but Strauss-Kahn violated and abused a woman. Both need to be held accountable, but not to the same degree; otherwise it becomes utterly meaningless. Here's what grates me: Weiner is getting villified, asked to resign. Strauss-Kahn actually has people defending him! Granted, their defenses are batshit insane, but still! Oh, and Ben Stein? Fuck you. You make me wish I'd never seen Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Oh, totally agree. To compare the two equally doesn't make sense. But maybe that was his point. To show that one 'deserves' hate and disgust to the nth degree more than the other, and like you say, to hold them both accountable to the same degree would make it meaningless. Just goes to show you the extremes of psychological disorders. There are some functional OCD people, and then there are others whose disorder takes over their lives to where their's is a very narrow existence - at least in normal eyes. I haven't read Ben Stein's opinion. Maybe I don't want to? I'd go on the record to support Weiner's decision to stay or leave the House. I mean, I didn't think Clinton should have resigned, and what he did was 'worse', although not illegal either. I think it's better filtered through Jon Stewart: www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/20/jon-stewart-debunks-ben-stein-defense-dominique-strauss-kahn_n_864604.html
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jun 14, 2011 17:21:54 GMT -5
I started reading this article but couldn't make myself finish it. I try to limit my exposure to reckless, self-aggrandizing, "think they are above the law and the rules of society" people. I don't buy the "for the most part they are upstanding people" business. No, they aren't. What is this guy trying to sell me? That Strauss-Kahn is different from your garden-variety rapist? I definitely agree that people like this have a disorder, but I think people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have much the same disorder. I suspect Sarah Palin may have a female-version of it. And I think "garden variety" rapists and creepy-sexting-older-married-men have disorders too. I even think hateful, disdainful, moralistic columnists have disorders. I think pedophiles have disorders and act from compulsions, also. So while I agree it isn't our place to judge others in a moralistic sense, it isn't being "moralistic" to say that you find it extremely difficult to be around this type of person, and that you do not want to be around them, be married to them, listen to their self-important bullying or ranting, or elect them as top officials. Basically, Arnold Goldberg makes no sense to me . Or rather, I don't understand his point . . . I mean, what to make of someone telling me that John Kass is being hateful and disdainful, calling Weiner out on his lying, cheating behavior . . . but Weiner is just a sick person acting on a compulsion, when he lies and cheats (and is hateful and disdainful toward his wife)? I don't get it. It's interesting: Mary Pipher (she wrote "Reviving Ophelia" and "The Shelter of Each Other," among other books) talks about the trend in psychology that she does not like (although she admits that she had been guilty of falling into that trap herself) is this idea that psychology gives someone an out for their behavior; ie, blaming and not taking responsibility. She calls for a greater accountability in her own profession to make sure that patients understand that they may have been damaged by others, but also are accountable for their own behavior. Not that she doesn't acknowledge mitigating circumstances, but it is not any more healthy for someone to blame every poor decision an adult makes on someone else. This guy fell right into that trap; yes, Weiner and Strauss-Kahn may have personality disorders, but they live in this world and have to abide by its rules. That being said: Strauss-Kahn's actions are far and above what Weiner did, and it annoys me to have them conflated.Although according to new Tennessee law, my constant exposure to Weiner's weiner could be actionable. Yep, talking about Strauss-Kahn's actions in the same breath as Weiner . . . with friends like that, Weiner doesn't need enemies.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jun 14, 2011 17:36:01 GMT -5
I started reading this article but couldn't make myself finish it. I try to limit my exposure to reckless, self-aggrandizing, "think they are above the law and the rules of society" people. I don't buy the "for the most part they are upstanding people" business. No, they aren't. What is this guy trying to sell me? That Strauss-Kahn is different from your garden-variety rapist? I don't think he made that distinction, but possibly. I am sure there are many other reasons that men rape. Agree he didn't make that distinction. I was just taking a stab at what he was trying to say, which I still can't figure out. Yep. I agree Goldberg wasn't making excuses for Weiner, he was trying to understand him. Goldberg definitely wasn't trying to understand Kass, just criticizing him, in very strong language (saying his actions were hateful and disdainful) for critizing Weiner, in very strong language, for being hateful and disdainful . . . My head hurts.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jun 14, 2011 17:52:17 GMT -5
Ha! We all better watch it then, since there is no chance for getting away from it at least for a few weeks longer. I get the whole idea of thinking psychology gives people an 'out' for their behavior, but it doesn't have to be that way. Just because you understand and have empathy for someone's problems, doesn't mean that you should let them get away with hurting you or others or not let them take responsibility for doing so. I wish I would've been this smart at 20. I understand what you're saying, and you're right, it doesn't have to be that way. And it is important to maintain your empathy, even if other people clearly display a lack of it. I don't think that Goldberg, however, did Weiner any favors by conflating what he did with Strauss-Kahn. Weiner's behavior was juvenile and stupid. I can feel bad for his fall (a little bit), and certainly feel terrible for his wife. I feel no urge to engage in ad hominem attacks on his character, or be overly harsh. He's got family and friends for that, and he broke no laws. Strauss-Kahn, on the other hand, well, to feel empathy for him, who has seemingly shown no remorse, and who freakin' raped and sodomized someone? A thousand times no. To conflate the two because of a shared psychological problem undercuts the seriousness of what Strauss-Kahn did; there is no out for him. Weiner might have embarrassed himself, his family, and his coworkers, but Strauss-Kahn violated and abused a woman. Both need to be held accountable, but not to the same degree; otherwise it becomes utterly meaningless. Here's what grates me: Weiner is getting villified, asked to resign. Strauss-Kahn actually has people defending him! Granted, their defenses are batshit insane, but still! Oh, and Ben Stein? Fuck you. You make me wish I'd never seen Ferris Bueller's Day Off. I take it Ben defended Strauss-Kahn?? Blech. I can only assume Ben suffers from a disorder that compels him to be at total ass. Wiener is getting some villification, but he has people defending him, too. Did you read Alec Baldwin's editorial in the Huffington Post? He defended Weiner as a "modern man." Strauss-Kahn isn't an American, or an American politician, and there is little political hay to be made, so I think that's why the level of coverage is different, at least here in the states. I don't think Weiner, or any elected official, regardless of his "sin," (I am not counting truly serious crimes here) should resign his position unless he wants to. No one but Weiner and his constituents have the right to make the decision on resignation. If he wasnt to stay, stay. If the voters think his actions are objectionable enough to warrant expulsion from his position, they can try to recall him, or vote him out next election. Other reasons the Weiner thing is getting so much more play: Pictures!! Pictures, pictures, pictures. And texts and tweets to read! Much more gossipy. And I actually think that the fact that it ISN'T as serious also makes it more of a target - Stewart can make all kinds of crazy jokes about it, and the like.
|
|