Unlike you, I can not read his mind, and am surprised that you read in it a desire for further discourse with X.
But even though I can't read minds, I can observe actions and consider what effect a given action might be likely to have.
Brees, who appears to heartily dislike X, maintained on a public thread that X had 'mentioned' a 'distaste' of hers for such things as truth, justice, human values, principles, etc.
The most obvious effect such an... inaccurate... claim wouold be likely to have would be to create the impression in the minds of its readers that this was X's self-description (since he purported that it was.)
But it wasn't. Hating X as he does, he devised a hate-construct of his own ('extrapolation,' i believe has been used by the defenders of brees's technique; 'interpretation' and 'conclusion,' too), but instead of offering it as his personal 'extrapolation,' he attributed the characterization of X to X herself.
To me, that is what made it a transparent demonizing attempt. (If brees did not evidently hate X, it would conceivably be less transparent and more subject to interpretation as innocent incoherence.)
But hey, it worked as a provocation, too! So, in the unlikely event you are even partly right, he was a success! Because it provoked me.
I have to be away for much of the day today. |
