ks.234
Half way to Infinity
In my last post to you I asked you *if* unhinged was inappropriate what would be appropriate? It was a question, not a statement, emphatic or otherwise. I have said that what Reeves said was deliberate and conscious conflation of antisemitism with protests against genocide and have even agreed the “unhinged” suggests incapacity whereas design is *more* appropriate to describe Reeves dissembling.It’s not reporting. The words are emotive, inflammatory and don’t match the content of the video (even if, as I acknowledged above, she might have said things elsewhere that matched the words more closely).
The reason it matters is that that way of twisting language is a material part of the media-political cesspit we find ourselves in. The Gatekeepers on Radio 4 earlier today touched on similar themes, strangely enough.
And your own last reply to me emphatically said that unhinged wasn’t appropriate. Malign, manipulative, disingenuous, those might work, and I’ve said that she should be held responsible for the things she actually is and says and does. But not unhinged and you know it - indeed you said it.
Since you’re contradicting yourself from one post to the next and apparently not reading the tweet when you repost it, I’m afraid I don’t have the energy to engage any more.
You seem to be determined to pick a fight over the word “unhinged”, despite the fact that I have largely agreed with you, but the words in the tweet are irrelevant. I’m only interested in the words coming out of Reeve’s own mouth which you say are “malign, manipulative and disingenuous”. Quite why you are so angry about the word “unhinged” but happy with “malign, manipulative and disingenuous” is a confused kind of semantic argument
I have not contradicted myself at all, I am merely focussing on the central point about Reeves malign behaviours rather than the peripheral use of a word to introduce it. If you agree that Reeves words were malign and manipulative, I’m not sure why the word “unhinged” is upsetting you so.