You seem to be (a) grasping at the 'false link' narrative (Reply #65)

In the discussion thread: The false link between Amy Coney Barrett and The Handmaid's Tale, explained: vox.com [View all]

Response to DonaldsRump (Reply #52)

Sun Sep 27, 2020, 05:40 AM

radius777 (3,406 posts)

65. You seem to be (a) grasping at the 'false link' narrative

to support (b) your opinion that we should not focus on it in the hearings.

They are two separate issues and you can support (b) without having to grasp at (a) which is an obtuse bothsiderist piece that debunks nothing.

Atwood's novel was based upon Charismatic Catholic cults and sects of the type Barrett was (is?) a part of - and is thus relevant as a means to attempt to understand and critique Barrett and her worldview. The exact cult is not relevant to the critique - the ideology is - which all of those groups share.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

66 replies	Author	Time	Post
The false link between Amy Coney Barrett and The Handmaid's Tale, explained: vox.com [View all]	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	OP
You certainly seem quite	Rule of Claw	Sep 2020	#1
You certainly seem to not understand my posts. Why exactly?	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#2
Distinction without a Difference. The point remains.	hlthe2b	Sep 2020	#3
This is not a right-wing talking point	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#4
Both groups hold similar premises. Most of us realize this is a distinction without a difference	hlthe2b	Sep 2020	#5
What exactly am I pushing?	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#6
Yeah, sure.	hlthe2b	Sep 2020	#7
Sooo, Coney's not a wich ... That's good to know	uponit7771	Sep 2020	#8
the article linked...	uriel1972	Sep 2020	#9
That's exactly right	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#12
I see nobody on here except this post	Sunsky	Sep 2020	#37
I do agree with that...that's fundamentally the point of my OP	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#39
In evolutionary biology, we call it convergent evolution	NickB79	Sep 2020	#10
The article cites opinions of the left and right on religion,	tavernier	Sep 2020	#11
OP is clearly not defending Barrett	Tones2345	Sep 2020	#13
Then YOU should post the difference in practice and philosophy of the two groups and Barrett--	hlthe2b	Sep 2020	#14
Again, the sole issue here is the inspiration for a book and a TV show	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#16
I think we all know what this is about. You claim you know inspiration for a book for which author	hlthe2b	Sep 2020	#17
And again. You claim the article is correct and agree with its conclusion, though provided NO proof	hlthe2b	Sep 2020	#20
I am not defending anything	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#23
You continually defend an article that concludes that which is not proven.	hlthe2b	Sep 2020	#24
And why are you not reading the posts?	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#25
They are repetetive, but I certainly have. You made your position absolutely clear	hlthe2b	Sep 2020	#26
and I won't forget the absurdity of this discussion	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#29
You discount the author's own words on this matter. Yeah, that's not absurd!	hlthe2b	Sep 2020	#31
I am not defending anything (second time)	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#34
I find calling out those who believe this a distinction without a difference	hlthe2b	Sep 2020	#35
There is nothing remotely offensive in what I have said	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#38
Precisely...	uriel1972	Sep 2020	#18
What does that mean exactly?	Dr. Strange	Sep 2020	#40
I just posted that same link and quote below	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#42
the author of article	uriel1972	Sep 2020	#55
Good lord. Give it up. You were wrong, and just admit it.	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#60
Ah, okay.	Dr. Strange	Sep 2020	#61
It may not have been the literal inspiration but it is a group that	Bettie	Sep 2020	#15
What are you talking about???	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#19
Just to mention	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#44
It's Charismatic Catholicism: the adoption of Pentacostal and Evangelical pathologies by Catholics	Klaralven	Sep 2020	#21
Thos is getting to be a "Gungeon" argument...	uriel1972	Sep 2020	#22
The head of the women's groups were called	octoberlib	Sep 2020	#27
+1	hlthe2b	Sep 2020	#28
It is relevant if that is the point you are discussing	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#32
She's insane.	GeorgeGist	Sep 2020	#30
I think we can agree on that at least... nt	uriel1972	Sep 2020	#33
This message was self-deleted by its author	sarcasmo	Sep 2020	#36
Just to hopefully bring this to a close	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#41
"It was a different one but the same idea." - Atwood	radius777	Sep 2020	#63
+1	MrsCoffee	Sep 2020	#64
Who cares if they call themselves People of Hope, People of Praise or People who Hate Women?	MrsCoffee	Sep 2020	#43
Different strokes for different folks...	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#45
Except you might be missing the bigger point.	MrsCoffee	Sep 2020	#46
I am not disagreeing with that.	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#47
Fox, National Review, Washington Examiner are gonna say whatever the fuck they want.	MrsCoffee	Sep 2020	#48
It was "sympathy" for Brett Kavanaugh	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#49
Handmaids are a part of her little cult. I will keep referring to it.	MrsCoffee	Sep 2020	#50
Absolutely: that's exactly what they were called in her cult until the TV show come on the air	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#52
You seem to be (a) grasping at the 'false link' narrative	radius777	Sep 2020	#65
It feels like a difference between the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front !!!	OnDoutside	Sep 2020	#51
at least they aren't the Popular Front of Judea...	uriel1972	Sep 2020	#53
Don't get me started on them ....	OnDoutside	Sep 2020	#54
There's actually nothing funny about this	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#56
don't be obtuse	uriel1972	Sep 2020	#57
Please don't be so condescending about being "obtuse"	DonaldsRump	Sep 2020	#59
As a Catholic, I think it IS hilarious. There are lots of rwnj cults	OnDoutside	Sep 2020	#62
snort	smirkymonkey	Sep 2020	#66
It is NOT a "small Catholic group." It is a small group that contains a mixture	pnwmom	Sep 2020	#58

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.