Her very own web page states the following:
"Historian, Educator, and Commentator"
That is her words ( or at least someone who built it for her ), not mine. So you are 1/3 right?
Same page has interviews with her at MSNBC -- and if you listen to those, she does not exactly appear to be exactly an impartial observer.
[1]https://ruthbenghiat.com/ [2]https://ruthbenghiat.com/interviews/
if you're trying to assign fractions of correctness (huh?), op said historian and tenured professor. and I suspect the ordering of the list on the site matters. so of the prominent, public things that Ben-Ghiat self-identifies as, commentator is the _least_ important.
What I am supposed to do is to blindly go all-in for defense/attack depending on whether it is my team or not my team? Sorry, I don't swing that way. I smack people as needed depending on how easily their argument could be defeated.. here it took a google search so I was being generous with a smack on the hand whack.
<< I suspect the ordering of the list on the site matters. so of the prominent, public things that Ben-Ghiat self-identifies as, commentator is the _least_ important.
How dare you assume the order of importance in which Ruth views herself? How dare you even assume there is an order? What if I suspect she is the believer in chaos and the order semi-randomly selected each day and rotated backwards for maximum confusion. Just as plausible as your half-baked explanation, but at least mine has the value of being entertaining.
In all seriousness, did you even THINK of asking her? Such a man thing to do.. explaining what SHE meant.
cheers, friend.
<< reply is weirdly bombastic and generally incoherent.
Bombast should not prevent you from being able to form an argument.
Incoherence would, but then it would make sense to point out something specific hang on. Otherwise, we are just putting random words together... you know.. like llm?
i'm over our little interaction. cheers.
Chomsky sometimes argued that you simply do not get to certain levels of corporate media unless you are already so steeped in propaganda that you simply are not able to articulate an opposing view. In other words, the argument is, our Ruth would not even be allowed to have an interview as 'fascist' expert if she said anything nice about Trump. To simplify, her mere presence on MSNBC suggests that she was selected for 'pre-appproved' thoughts that the public may be allowed to digest ( ie. hate Trump ).
Rebuttal?
There's probably a whole subject of study regarding the psyche of leaders; like I think it takes a certain kind of personality to attract loyalty in people, sometimes to the point they'll literally do anything without question. And I can very much see where that could lead to common traits among the persons of her study. Another thing to keep in mind is that there's no human in history or existence who knowingly and consciously makes a "bad" decision. It's ingrained in our nature that what we do is what we think is best, given the contexts and available information. But sometimes it turns out that the consequences don't line up morally.
Also I feel like I should make it clear I have no horses in this race. I'm neither American, nor in the US, and I hardly follow politics. I'm just trying to inject some logic into the whole thing.
Believe it or not, I appreciate it, but I personally think we (US) are too far gone what with major political event only few days away. Everyone is on edge and that means sense and logic is mostly gone with the wind.
I don't really disagree with you, but I find the fervor of 'true believers' very annoying.
You haven't expounded on the clues/issues you found in Ruth's interviews though; I'm still pretty curious to hear them.
Some issues are more interesting than others ( to me anyway ), but I will start by saying something else. In a sense, she is not really saying anything new. The subject has been relatively well studied thanks partially to US focus on WW2 and its role in it. So a lot of her stuff[1][2] is not much to complain about as it is very, very generic fluff that most college students should be able to regurgitate if they read anything beyond "The Prince".
That is not to say that there is nothing in those interviews[1. 7:54 ] that is not objectionable. For one thing, and it is interesting that this particular -- lets call it -- perspective comes from academics ( almost too common once you start hearing the refrain often enough ).
Said perspective is summarized by phrase "the myth of national greatness'. You can say a lot about US and likely not be wrong, but calling world superpower national greatness a myth may be a little.. lets say.. inaccurate; skewed if I felt charitable. And she is not talking about now. If this is the opening, I have some problem accepting her analysis as 'acceptable' if I can't even trust her basic grasp of historical fact as solid. And she is a highly credentialed historian, which puts into question more than just her, but people who decided she can present her ideas as solid gold ( and that happens to include academia and media ). But the issue is not even that.. the issue is whether this the kind of demoralization ( "US was never great. It is a myth." ) the Naval Academy needs.
'Criminal mismanagement of the pandemic' [1. 9:34] suggesting heavy political bent that may go a little beyond her 'fascism expert' title assigned by MSNBC. Say what you want about Trump, but criminality of the pandemic management is arguably about the least criminal thing he could be reasonably accused of. Frankly, just by saying this she kinda limits her credibility and marks herself as a partisan. And here again I argue that Naval Academy being drawn into political wars is a bad, bad idea.
So that is my opening monologue. I would be curious to see if we can turn it into dialogue.
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVj_M-IgE7c [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vO6DolG6vE