Georgetown University professor and former NPR editor Kitty Eisele lamented on Sunday that protesters in Washington, D.C., had not attacked the Trump International Hotel.

submitted by Chipit from (freebeacon.com)

all 13 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Trump is not the only worthy target - all of the (s)elected and permanent government, the deep state, the police state, the corrupt justice systems, the executives of all the monopolistic corporations, including the media and all banks, etc.

But really, the most worthy target is the means of production - all the factories and work places - not to destroy but to reclaim and defend and self-manage.

/s/Documentaries/comments/4nv0/if_you_must_protest_do_it_with_purpose_and_an_end/

[–]Nemacolin 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Never heard of her. She doesn't have a Wikipedia entry.

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Are you trying to discredit this and figured out a way to do it? WTF? Search NPR or Georgetown University sites. Or just her name. Jeez. Come on, calling for violence against Trump is hardly controversial.

[–]Nemacolin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I am pointing out that a lot of unimportant people say a lot of unimportant things. Posting them here does does not make them important.

[–]Chipit[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Being an editor at NPR and a professor at freaking Georgetown isn't an important person? WTF? Georgetown graduates the next generation of people who will staff federal agencies in DC. She's teaching them this ugly bigotry and calling for violence.

[–]Nemacolin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

So you figure there are ... what do you think ... 300 professors at Georgetown? Maybe twenty thousand in the DC area?

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm with /u/Chipit on this one. Anyone in a position of influence or authority is noteworthy, even if they aren't famous enough for you.

[–]Nemacolin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Cool. Good for you.

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You don't get to be an editor at NPR and a professor at Georgetown without being influential and accepted by elites. Come off it, the whole "she's a nobody" argument ain't gonna work.

She meets more decision makers who affect your life at a single party than you will in your entire existence. And she's teaching hate and violence is acceptable to the next generation of elites.

[–]Nemacolin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You have no idea about my life. Do you have any idea about the number an influence of NPR editors?

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Sure, they influence millions of people who listen to NPR every day and take what they say as gospel because it's publicly funded. That's pretty much the opposite of a nobody.

[–]Nemacolin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You're right. We all know how the elites suck up to Kitty Eisele for her critical support in matters before the public. Many people say she is the hub upon which history itself turns.

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"An absurd absolute is a restatement of the other person's reasonable position as an absurd absolute. For example, if your point is there is high crime in Detroit, the absurd absolute would be your debate opponent saying something such as "So, you're saying every person in Detroit is a criminal." When your debate opponent recasts your opinion to include an "absolute" word, such as every, always, never, all, completely, universally, and the like, you are seeing cognitive dissonance.

Some people call what I just described a strawman argument. But a strawman argument refers to any sort of inaccurate recasting of your opponent's argument. That is the generic case. I'm referring to a specific strawman argument that uses an absurd absolute. When your debate opponent recasts your point as an absurd absolute, you won the debate. That's as far as you can go."