正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

“He did something jaw-dropping to me. He read a statement from his phone.” That is the issue right there. Scott Pelley was not making an argument. He was applying emotional blackmail to CBS. It is the same tactic that works so well in corporate HR today: frame composure as...

276,609 次观看 • 1 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

DISPROVING KAREN READ'S DEFENSE: BRIAN HIGGINS Karen Read and her legal team have propped up their insane third party culprit theory with a self-constructed romantic fantasy between Read and Higgins that did not exist in reality. As revealed in the first trial, Read and Brian Higgins had exchanged several awkward texts, shared an odd kiss, and met at Higgins apartment in what Higgins explained was an uncomfortable visit after Read had been out drinking with a friend. Read was the initiator and aggressor in all these instances. The last communication between the two occurred the evening of January 23rd with Read texting "Phone works ↔️". Higgins responded "Thought you were all set". This is not the response of a man madly in love with a woman and pining for her and certainly not the response one would expect from a man so blindly enamored he was willing to murder a friend to take his place. Instead what we see is a detached response. The next reply was from Read with her stating "With talking? No.." It is Read's response here that indicates she is the one with interest. Not convinced, Higgins responds "Hmmmm. Well" to which Read does not respond. If Higgins truly wanted Read, he would have continued texting that night pushing to rekindle but their communication stops until he sees her the night of the 28th. She was out of sight, out of mind for him. The "Ummm. Well" he texted her that night lends itself far more to a drunk text than how the defense has categorized it as an angry response from being rebuffed, which he hadn't been. Higgins summed up his interactions with Read as strange, "uncomfortable" and as having a "weird vibe". This was not a man who was in love with Read and the notion he would even exchange one heated word with John over Read is beyond ludicrous.

Julie Carpenter

16,137 次观看 • 1 年前

Babette Babich on why reading philosophy in translation is a fundamental problem: "If you don't read Aristotle in Greek, you cannot understand his argument. If you don't read Plato in Greek, you cannot understand his argument." Her reasoning is precise: translation is not a neutral act. "If you translate it into English, someone somewhere along the line will vary the word and then the argument falls apart." She uses Nietzsche as her sharpest example. The Cambridge edition aside, most English translations of Nietzsche don't give you Nietzsche. They give you the translator's interpretation of Nietzsche. She names Walter Kaufmann specifically: "He earns his name, he's a salesman. He sold Nietzsche to everyone as someone who was not really Nazi. He's very good. But that's the problem." The same logic applies to analytic philosophy's engagement with continental thinkers: "Analytic philosophers can teach you how to read Nietzsche. But I would say they really can't. You cannot read Nietzsche in translation. You can, but you'll be reading a lovely man, R.J. Hollingdale. You will not be reading Nietzsche." Her deeper point is about what makes a genuine continental philosopher and why that tradition is quietly disappearing: "The distinction is over because everyone has died. Who are actual continental philosophers? You're looking at one. But there are not a lot of them. And I'm not long for this world." What made Gadamer great wasn't that he wrote "Truth and Method". It's that he was a philologist first. He read Greek. What made Nietzsche penetrating was that he was a scholar of Greek. That's precisely why Bernard Williams took him so seriously. The language wasn't incidental. It was the method. When the last generation who had those teachers is gone, something irreplaceable goes with them.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

24,301 次观看 • 3 个月前

U.S. President Donald J. Trump attacks 60 Minutes and CBS News correspondent Norah O'Donnell during today’s interview, calling them a “disgrace,” after he was read a quote from the manifesto of Cole Thomas Allen, the shooter in last night’s attempted attack on the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington. Interviewer: “The so-called manifesto is a stunning thing to read, Mr. President. He appears to reference a motive in it. He writes this quote, ‘Administration officials, they are targets.’ And he also wrote this, ‘I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.’ What's your reaction to that?” President Trump: “Well, I was waiting for you to read that because I knew you would because you're horrible people. Horrible people. Yeah, he did write that. I'm not a rapist. I didn't rape anybody. I'm not a pedophile.” Interviewer: “Do you think he was referring to you?” President Trump: “Excuse me. I'm not a pedophile. You read that crap from some sick person. I got associated with stuff that has nothing to do with me. I was totally exonerated. Your friends on the other side of the plate are the ones that were involved with, let's say, Epstein or other things. But I said to myself, you know, I'll do this interview and they'll probably... I read the manifesto. You know, he's a sick person. But... You should be ashamed of yourself reading that because I'm not any of those things. You're a disgrace. But go ahead. Let's finish the interview. You're disgraceful.”

OSINTdefender

281,342 次观看 • 2 个月前