Replies

And sometimes we really do need to be careful.

You should be careful as you decide whether this ia a time to be careful or whether you just want to lambaste me as an apologist for untenable leftist positions.

Since I don’t hold any Leftist positions at all and I have no use for Justice Ginsburg in general, it’s just possible that I was genuinely concerned for truth in the matter.

It’s just as wrong to accuse falsely someone you don’t like as it is to accuse falsely someone you do agree with. Granted that Justice Ginsburg is wrong about a whole series of things, still, to accuse her of being eugenicist needs to be backed up. She may indeed be a eugenicist.

BUT THIS PARTICULAR INTERVIEW’S LANGUAGE IS VERY OBSCURE. It’s impossible to know, simply from the NYT’s quotation of her, whether she is speaking in her own voice when she says “we” or whether she is speaking in the voice of those black leaders at the time of Roe v. Wade.

I offered you some concrete evidence that she might have been speaking in their voice, not her voice. You don’t even argue for or against, but label me an apologist for untenable leftist positions.

Even if she was, in the NYT interview, speaking in someone else’s voice at this point, she might share those other people’s views or she might not. But the interview itself doesn’t clarify this. The words are ambiguous.

But you prefer just to label me. Whatever.

You fell directly onto the trap I laid for you, personalizing my comments, and failing to see the exact truth of what I said.

This is how the left “works the language”, and why the right always falls flat on its face unable to see the forest through the trees.

BUT THIS PARTICULAR INTERVIEW’S LANGUAGE IS VERY OBSCURE. It’s impossible to know, simply from the NYT’s quotation of her, whether she is speaking in her own voice when she says “we” or whether she is speaking in the voice of those black leaders at the time of Roe v. Wade.

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of," Ginsburg told Emily Bazelon of the New York Times.

I disagree -- if she did not include herself in the generalization, she ought to have used the pronoun they and not we. If she wanted to impress the point that it was how folks back then thought, she ought to have used didn't not don't before want.

I don't read this nearly as obscurely as you do, it seems.