General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Trump Is Humiliated and More Dangerous Than Ever, William Rivers Pitt [View all]NNadir
(33,477 posts)Neither does anyone need to share a "bio" to have an opinion. Bus drivers, shipping clerks, and for that matter, homeless people, are not precluded from having valid opinions, nor are college professors, CEOs or newspaper columnists precluded from having nonsensical opinions.
Bill O'Reilly's books have been on the New York Times best sellers lists, and O'Reilly is about as muddled brained a thinker as one can imagine.
Maureen Dowd is a long time New York Times Columnist, but is clearly, on inspection, a trivializing fool.
The point is that one's presence on a best sellers list, or a presence in the New York Times has no relevance to value. Claiming that it does is simply an evocation of the logical fallacy of Appeal to Popularity. (I once owned a Mercury Sable, the cousin of the Ford Taurus, which was correctly advertised as the "Best Selling Car in America." It was also the worst car I ever owned.)
Writing well, if it is true that Pitt could write well, on which I offer a comment on very narrow exposure below, does not mean that one is worthy of attention, or that one is entitled to a measure or respect.
William F. Buckley could write well, but the message he offered was pernicious.
I really don't remember much about William Rivers Pitt. I recall him only vaguely, but recognize that at one time he was a prominent poster here. I may have opened some of his posts, but they were hardly memorable. Apparently, from what's been stated in this thread by people who were more interested in what he had to say than I was, he was something of a creep.
I did take a look at the writing linked in the opening post of this thread. In this case it's generic, and expresses no deep or original thinking. Whether his books are better than that, I will never know. I'll take my fellow DUers word for it.
A person who has behaved in the way he is alleged to have behaved here is not worthy of this community. I can be harsh and dismissive myself of certain ideas, and I've been called out for it, but I have never been in favor of physical threats, sexist rhetoric, and opposition to Democratic candidates, in particular, Hillary Clinton. I may not have agreed with everything that Secretary Rodham Clinton may or may not have done, but I am convinced she would have been not just a better president than the racist seated in the office, but would have been an honest broker of the American system of Government.
A person who voted for Jill Stein over Hillary Clinton and then has the temerity to complain about Trump is, in a metaphor I often use in another context, the equivalent of an arsonist who wants to be praised for fire fighting.
One needed to be nearly devoid of either or both sense or integrity to have not voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. If it is true that William Rivers Pitt did this, or advocated it, then he is of no more value than a garden slug, not that I wish to demean garden slugs with the comparison.