- The Occam's razor Archived Message
- The Salmond Stitch-Up: Who paid Dani Garavelli? - Cernunnos April 5, 2020, 4:19 pm
- The Occam's razor - walter April 5, 2020, 11:15 pm
- Opps, make that "But MURRAY (not Salmond, Jees) set out his stall..." NM - walter April 5, 2020, 11:27 pm
- The Occam's razor - walter April 5, 2020, 11:15 pm
Posted by walter
on April 5, 2020, 11:15 pm, in reply to "The Salmond Stitch-Up: Who paid Dani Garavelli?"
|
I would accept that Murray's critique of Dani Garavelli's article he made some good points that suggest the article was not balanced. Given that it was written from the perspective of the accusers, it's about as balanced as you could expect. The trouble with his line is that because it is fixated on the idea there had to be a stitch-up, he fails to consider likely alternatives. As a result he greatly overstated his case; as if every valid point supported a conspiracy. As a result his previous article (much lauded by his loyal following here, and everywhere I assume) is much more unbalanced than the one he is critiquing. The women have been pilloried from the beginning (including here), so references to the substance of the trial may not imply a desire to sabotage Salmond's return, but may simply constitute defence of the accusing women and by extension, of sexual assault accusers in general. The same line many feminists will take. It's hard to do that without being accused (by those for whom weaker explanations are anathema) of 'amplifying' the 'Salmond is guilty' message as Murray asserts is their aim. As far as I can tell the (paywalling) Toroisemedia takes a relatively progressive line on feminism (this isn't paywalled https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/09/03/the-handmaids-tale-and-sequel-190903/content.html) and it would be natural to lend some support to that cause by countering the fierce criticism of the accusing women. Those pillorying the women don't have much of a case if contextual defence doesn't show their hero in a great light. If there is a 'get Salmond' movement, of course they would jump on the bandwagon. Not exactly a revelation. That doesn't mean that was Garavelli's purpose. I read it at the time and just quickly looked over the first half again and I couldn't see anywhere this purpose was obvious. Maybe someone will point something out.... But Salmond set out his stall and committed to the pure conspiratorial' 'liars' line a long time ago, and has only one line to take. So he won't be having an Occam's shave  Cheers |
| Message Thread:
|