I’m flattered that you find me so intimidating but no, a questioning of her sources and application of impartial critical thinking is merely rational on my part - sorry to disappoint.
Unless of course you find “rational” evil?
I’ll grant you that I personally prefer an academic analysis of politics, which some may perceive as “elitist”.
How dare I prefer evidence and impartial reasoning, right?
The fact that the vast majority of people don’t seem to apply this as standard would make me elitist for requesting it, I suppose.
I’ll do it again here, if you’ll forgive such loftiness in my standards which you obviously find so objectionable, and ask you politely about your expertise over my offline life. You are remarkably certain about how isolated I am from reality, and how I have absolutely no experience in the real world. For one, such things would be quite the achievement: to have lived somewhere between a 1/3 and a 1/2 of a normal human lifetime without once interacting with it. But I can’t quite concede that I have succeeded in such a task, given that I’ve been all too thoroughly embedded in the lives of all classes of people across my lifetime, but no - I’ll respectfully defer to you as expert on the details of my life, to tell me all about myself.
Sorry to laugh though - at the contents of your white knight defense of Maia at this point - so valiantly defending her right to trust her own experience and yet not affording me the same gallantry - it’s just a little ironic that your double standards are so faithful to your own obvious biases. I’ll give you a tip though: if you want to escape your isolation from reality and gain experience in the real world, I recommend a transcendence of your current flagrant ideological commitments and to instead stand back a second to consider that those with whom you disagree are equally beholden to both their own experience and the standards of academic inquiry.
Her own experience would appear to consist overwhelmingly of right wing slander.
Perhaps I am wrong, and she has performed far more independent and impartial research into the private life of Corbyn and his reasons for being where he’s been and at what time and for what reasons - this is what I’m attempting to find out at this point. I am merely making suggestions this far, and none of the “elitist” standards I’m looking for appear to have been adhered to in any way over the course of her forming her political opinions. It’s all intuition, wishful thinking as far as I can yet tell, and receptivity to the juggernaut of right wing propaganda forcefully shoved into the minds of the British public by sheer relentless repetition and persistence - with a degree of exposure afforded only to those who have been allowed to so utterly dominate the media.
Are you attempting to speak for her as you are attempting to speak for me, by asserting your own experience over ours, claiming that her own experience is based solely on having heard what Corbyn has to say and nothing else whatsoever besides?
I am sure she lives in the real world just as we all do, and has been subject to information sources from all kinds of angles.
That’s not the issue though, it’s more of a given. The issue is over how credulous you have to be to believe the right wing slander, and how much honest research you’ve done to fact check such persistent claims.
Fact checking… that lost “elitist” art.