No, post 54 and you miss the point.
First of all, it’s certainly true that leftists do not carefully consider what we say or try to put a generous construction on what we say.
But if that’s your defense, then you have simply sunk to their level. If you want to do that, be my guest. I think that simple truth and decency requires that we be fair to others, even to those we vehemently disagree with.
More specifically, this is an interview. I have been interviewed. The customs of journalism permit interviewers to put “ “ around words as long as they reasonably reflect what the interviewee said.
Above all, interviewers routinely take a paragraph or two spoken by the interviewee (we often ramble when we speak) and condenses it, massages it a bit in order to make it suitable for print. The interviewer, of course, believes that she has not done violence to the meaning of the interviewer even as she has significantly revised the actual wording.
You cannot simply assume that the interview gives word for word what Ginsburg said. The sentences at issue here in the interview are, on their face, ambiguous. They are prima facie ambiguous because there is a shift from a reference to the past with past tense passive verb (meaning an unclear subject to the verb) to a present tense with a clear first person plural. Normally the present tense first person plural would mean that that verb includes the speaker. But since in the same breath (in the printed interview, not necessarily in the conversation) Ginsburg also used passive past tense, there’s no way to be sure she wasn’t using “we” in historical present tense. If she had used indirect discourse markers she could have been clear, but we don’t always do that when speaking—we depend on body language and inflection to help the listener know the difference. Thus it’s even possible that the printed words are close to Ginsburg’s spoken words but that the interviewer failed to add clarification that was unnecessary when spoken but necessary in print.
But either way,whether one interprets the “we” as in Ginsburg’s voice or not, one has to interpret. Those who say Ginsberg speaks as a eugenicist here are intepreting because the words and time references by themselves are unclear.
In the actual interview, Ginsburg may well have distinguished between the “we” of the black leaders concerned about abortion-genocide back before Roe v. Wade and any “we” today that would include her but the interviewer obscured that when she wrote up the interview. If that’s what happened, it’s malfeasant on the part of the interviewer
Now, I offered a law review article quotation that we know for sure is in Ginsburg’s own voice. It suggests a different interpretation. It doesn’t prove a different interpretation. I don’t claim to know whether she is or is not a eugenicist. I just claimed that one cannot know based on this printed interview.
Anyone who claims to know on the basis of this printed interview has interpreted, parsed the text differently.
Everyone is parsing here. So stop it already with the onesided accusation of parsing. You are as big a parser as I am.
I assume only that it is the nature of the leftist press to protect their own in a situation such as the “interview” with Ginsburg. You and your mental gymnastics help them acheive this with astounding ease.