To David Pakman,Please do Better.

(Authors Note:To be honest, this was written about a month ago and things started to happen and I got busy, so this is going to seem a little out of date because,well, it is. Still, I figured that I would toss it out there since it’s been a while,though I promise to go back to producing stuff within the next few days for certain)
Considering that we’ve been covering #gamergate recently on our videos and blog,it is rather remiss of us to be talking about a man who’s actual name is  “Pakman” without having an appropriate joke. To be honest we just couldn’t think of one without sounding lame. So we opted for simply not having one at all. Apologies.
David Pakman is the host of his own journalist/opinion show where he generally,I believe, deals with largely political topics. Over the past few weeks though he has been also covering #gamergate,though we would say not very well.
Which is not to say that he’s been unfair or biased (yes it is),it’s merely that his reasoning and journalistic skills seem somewhat…..lacking (virtually non-existent). Though this could simply be a matter of a lack of knowledge regarding the subject on his part.He does not come across as very well-informed,which I suppose goes back to his level of skills being lacking as you would think he should be informed. Regardless, that does not really matter in the context of this post. We simply wanted to be clear that we’re coming from a position of not really finding him very compelling in the first place and already being critical of him (perhaps at some point we’ll do a full post or video about it if it ever becomes desirable).
Part of it seems to be his intense unwillingness to truly question the narrative. Despite the fact that I consistently see others in #Gamergate praising his neutrality (to whom I can only shake my head in wonder at how they look at the world) he’s very much of the same cloth as the rest of Anti-GG. The one difference being that he can still at least tolerate the presence of alternate ideas. Even if he can’t actually listen to and process them. See his video interview with Karen Straughn if you want an example of this.
The reality that his fans in GG don’t really want to realize is that Pakman is not a journalist.He’s a commentator, a pundit, he is pushing an agenda and peddling an opinion. All you have to do is look at the actual substance of his coverage of GG.Or, more accurately, look at what of substance is not presented. He says that there is harassment on both sides of the aisle in GG, but neglects to mention that none of the harassment blamed on GG has actually been shown to have come from it. No mention of the Harassment Patrol GG established to police the harassers on both sides, their attempts to protect Anita and their chasing down of those who harassed her and Brianna Wu, etc. All of these are very important facts that any decent journalist would bring up.He never does. Nor does he address much of the more egregious behaviour and comments of his co-feminist and SJW’s.
It kind of says a sad thing about the state of journalism and it’s coverage in the mainstream media when a hack like Pakman is considered to have journalistic integrity.
But that’s for another time, let’s move on.
Regardless however, #gamergate is only tangential in regards to what we’re taking issue with here.
Yesterday he uploaded an interview that he conducted with the comedian Dave Rubin titled “Are Progressives Disagreeing About Progressive Principles?” in which they talked about a recent incident where Sam Harris and Bill Maher were labelled as racists for making comments about how bad Islam is. You may watch the actual video below.

Essentially what they’re edging towards trying to discuss is what’s known as horseshoe theory. Basically the idea that the political spectrum is not actually a line as we’re generally taught in schools,but much more closely can be represented by a horseshoe where, as  you get farther from the center the ends become closer together.That is,the far right and the far left start to have more and more in common. I don’t know if either of them are aware of the term,but that’s what they’re trying to discuss.
Look, let’s make one statement clear before we get into this whole business here.We are not progressives,or conservatives,or libertarians, or anything.We are whateverthefuckisthemostrationalandintelligentsolutionians. Unfortunately you’d be amazed at how hard that is to stick on a campaign pin. So we have no political opposition to any person on any side. Our only opposition is in direct proportion to the intelligence/rationality of what is being proposed. A stupid/smart idea is a stupid/smart idea,no matter where you are on the political spectrum.
Now that we have that disclaimer out of the way,let’s continue.
Now much of what they are saying is actually a series of valid points about these people who call themselves “progressive”. The problem arises at approximately the 9:38 mark where it seems that they’re incapable of taking their own advice.
Pakman:”And I think it’s fair to say that you have concerns about the sort of “Neo-atheists”, in terms of misogyny.Are they not open to female voices?Those are all legitimate specific concerns that we could get into.”
Needless to say this is where our cranium started impacting violently against our keyboard. What follows after did not help either, but we’ll get to that in a moment.
No, Mr.Pakman, it is not fair to say that there are concerns about “Neo-atheists” (which incidentally is a conservative-christian term,whereas you were talking about them being on the left,but whatever) and misogyny. It is entirely unfair to say that because there never was any misogyny, even a hint of it. The misogyny claims came from a collection of insane feminists and “progressives” trying to push forward an agenda.
Before we go on,allow me to make a point clear here.
Earlier in the video, Mr.Rubin made an offhand remark in regards to the racism claims to the effect of “Pft,whatever that is actually supposed to mean”. Essentially referencing something that is often pointed out in criticism of progressives; namely that they use certain words so broadly that they really have no meaning. They only serve to stir up negative feelings on the part of the listener, who then projects those feelings onto the intended target. In thought reform it’s referred to as ‘loading the language’,and I plan to get to this at some point in the future as well.
This is the same thing that you are doing with misogyny. Is,in fact, the same thing that progressives typically do with misogyny.
To be misogynistic, is to display a hatred, mistrust and/or dislike for all women. Progressives generally use the word to mean “something bad happened to a woman, which may or may not have been bad, and may or may not have been because she was a woman,but it happened to a woman and I don’t like that it happened”.
Now, let’s take the so-called misogynistic death threats that women like Anita and Brianna Wu claim to receive,and for the sake of argument let’s say that they are actually real and not faked by the women in question.
The threats that they receive, at least such ones have been shown, are threats and bad comments made about these women. I freely grant that. Are they, however, misogynistic? To my knowledge neither of these two women are a representative sample of all women. Furthermore to my knowledge there is nothing in these threats that indicates that they are being delivered because they are women at all. These are people in the public sphere who have blatantly lied, conned, and outright slandered various large groups of people. Perhaps that has something to do with the threats and insults that they receive, rather than them being women.
So to say that there is misogyny is simply not borne out by any evidence. Or at least none that anyone has cared to provide. All of these claims of misogyny are made by progressives, like you apparently,slinging the word around without concern for its meaning or effect.
The same is true for what you’re calling “Neo-Atheism”. There never was any misogyny. There were a bunch of progressives screaming misogyny at people who opposed their ideas. You heavily betray yourself as little better than those you are criticizing when you do things like this.
If you really want to project yourself as being the fair and balanced voice of reason, you should really put some effort into acting like it.
Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *