Even The Wolf likely can't clean up Harvey Weinstein's pending troubles

"Oh my goodness gracious! Of all the dramatic things, of all the dramatic things I've ever seen!"

She'd be the worst if she weren't just laughably annoying. Mind you, I'm a biased Red Sox fan, so...

 

Interesting take from the editor of Newsweek Pakistan (which is produced under a licensing agreement).

That he was willing to share this view publicly, makes you wonder if his local readers would not be offended by the observation.

 

As I said when you first posted this on the Politics Thread: So this is the post where you suggest that the views of the editor of Newsweek Pakistan represent all Pakistanis, thereby suggesting that all Pakistanis are fine with the sexual abuse of children, but you're not a racist. Gotcha.

 

Well, the other option is that this guy didn’t realize how offensive his comments were.

He lives here. He’s a journalist there.

Did he misread his audience, or were his comments inoffensive to a local audience?

 

Yes, because white Americans never post anything offensive and they never misread their audience. So when some dingbat posts something awful, that obviously represents all white Americans.

You know what? Some Norwegians are super into death metal and burn down churches. You'd never dream of saying all Norwegians are Satanists. But that's because they're white.

You are racist as hell, and when anyone asks me why I believe that, I can now point to page 312 of this thread. Thanks.

 

As stated on the other branch of this argument:

 

Guess how I'm not going to spend my afternoon?

 

This guy isn’t the editor of the local edition of the Daily Stormer or InfoWars.

As the editor of the local edition of Newsweek, I’m assuming he’s a mainstream — as far as local issues go — journalist, who has an understanding of his audience’s views on issues.

He did not seem uncomfortable sharing his idea that child abuse is going to happen, and can have a payoff.

That’s interesting. Maybe he was dead wrong. Or, maybe his thought wasn’t offensive to his audience.

But, I guess in some ways it’s no different than David Carr’s takeaway on Harvey Weinstein. The big difference, of course, is that David didn’t tell us that he had learned that Harvey was a rapist before he gave us his summation.

 

Eh, that's fine. You're dead wrong here. You guys - and @YankeeFan is honestly the worst offender - obsess so much over motive. Who's a racist? Who's a misogynist? Who's a Nazi? It's such a fool's errand.

 

Plus, holy shit, conservatives don't impugn white countries? European "socialism" is a long-standing conservative bogey man.

 

You have lost your fucking mind, buddy.

 

If an American journalist had posted something similar, wouldn’t we ask the same thing?

If you post something like that, it’s because you don’t think it’s a controversial view.

But, we’d be pretty damned surprised by that here, wouldn’t we? Even if that was how someone felt, he’d be unlikely to share that view, so casually, on twitter because he couldn’t help but know how it would be received.

So, why did the guy from Pakistan not self censor himself?

He’s either a blithering idiot, who, somehow, doesn’t realize how abhorrent his view is, or he knew it wasn’t such a terrible thing to say, as far as his intended audience was concerned.