I watched both Candace videos in full. I don't have any bias against any of the conservative commentators, I don't think any of them are "controlled opposition" or whatever the crazies are saying these days. She is simply asking for timestamps so we can piece together the timeline of events of 9-10. Makes perfect sense when you put your emotions to the side and look at it objectively.
Basically what I'm saying is your bias is why you're missing it.
I decided to watch/listen to the whole video in full, which I didn't really have any desire to do previously. (Prompted by the short-take I did on this clip).
I have listened to about 70% of it so far (I do this in chunks).
A few points:
One, the sample size of this clip was too small to get a good overview. Some of my conclusions were correct, I think, and some of them were not (aka off the mark).
My comments re: rhetorical devices and body, language, etc, are by and large accurate I think (she's very skillful and talented in this area) but her motives and objectives can't be properly gleaned from this small sample, and I certainly let my subjective bias influence my interpretation.
(I'm ok with that, because I don't really see anything wrong with having a bias - generally everybody does on some level - the problem comes when you ignore or pretend you don't have a bias, or deny that it influences you if and when it does.)
Two, listening to her whole video broadcast was pretty painful up until it got interesting, which was for me when she began talking about Charlie Kirk and Israel, etc. Prior to that point, I personally just felt like she was really loud and demanding, like an entitled screeching liberal almost (in terms of attitude), focusing on MY timeline, MY wants, etc, etc. rather than objectively making her points or criticisms of the authorities or processes she was talking about.
It was painful to listen to, but I persevered, and I feel like getting to the Kirk / Israel stuff has made it worth while.
I also would give her credit for acknowledging her emotional state and agitated approach. Few will do that (they have too much to lose, often).
So, I still think that Owen's is a little too slick on the emotional/rhetorical/infloooencers side for me, with a bit of an entitlement attitude, and not quite the more objective, dispassionate presentation or stance approach that I like, but her positives seem to be some solid aggressive research chops.
(I have no idea if her stories about her team contacting relatives of Robinson and Robinson's romantic interest are true - but no real reason at this point to doubt them.)
Not sure what her other positives are, and although I'm not fan of the rhetorical style she uses (primarily because I think this sort of approach does not foster objective, critical thinking in the audience but rather promotes emotional reaction/celebrity passions), she does seem ferocious in her stance, which is probably overall a positive.
In effect, I try not to be emotionally attached or identified with my opinions - my ultimate value does not come from having the right opinion or 'being right', and I'm glad to have found the opportunity to take a wider look at Owen's so far. I certainly feel I have enough now to keep a bit of an open mind:
Conclusion: Candace Owens? I have my likes and dislikes, but I'll continue to observe, ideally to both critique and recognize both positives and negatives when there are some. (No one is perfect, so its OK to both appreciate good points while critiquing weaknesses, etc).
But, re: the time stamps? Nah. This was NOT a press release and not a public release of information. It was an indictment paper, and Owen's making a big noise about this does NOT suit her or Serve HER wants and purposes, um, no.
She could have criticized them or acknowledged that the indictment papers do not provide as much information as she wants without ignoring the fact that these papers were NOT FOR HER. The prosecutors involved have a job to do.
So, man, she really just ranted, unjustifiably in my view. Nothing wrong with wanting to know or have the timeline, but her criticism of the indictment papers because they did not provide the information SHE wanted? That's just a little to self-focused, imo.
But, I mean, that's ok. no one's perfect. If she's genuine, she'll make a contribution and advance the overall work of God's plan.
I do appreciate the other frogs who called me out on my initial comments, as a few of these are what prompted me to take a wider look.
um, if you think that controlled opposition does NOT exist, it might just be you that's the crazy!
Controlled opposition is just a shill, plain and simple. Sometimes they're easy to detect (tards) and other times they're not (you may agree with them about everything except this one little issue)
That said, perhaps we agree that some of the 'crazies' do go overboard in accusing everyone and everything as 'controlled opposition'.
It's not always a 1 or a 0. It's somewhere in between. One's own internal bias often leads them to shill for one cause, or another. Or, shill against one (Candace in this case)
I watched both Candace videos in full. I don't have any bias against any of the conservative commentators, I don't think any of them are "controlled opposition" or whatever the crazies are saying these days. She is simply asking for timestamps so we can piece together the timeline of events of 9-10. Makes perfect sense when you put your emotions to the side and look at it objectively.
Basically what I'm saying is your bias is why you're missing it.
I decided to watch/listen to the whole video in full, which I didn't really have any desire to do previously. (Prompted by the short-take I did on this clip).
I have listened to about 70% of it so far (I do this in chunks).
A few points:
One, the sample size of this clip was too small to get a good overview. Some of my conclusions were correct, I think, and some of them were not (aka off the mark).
My comments re: rhetorical devices and body, language, etc, are by and large accurate I think (she's very skillful and talented in this area) but her motives and objectives can't be properly gleaned from this small sample, and I certainly let my subjective bias influence my interpretation.
(I'm ok with that, because I don't really see anything wrong with having a bias - generally everybody does on some level - the problem comes when you ignore or pretend you don't have a bias, or deny that it influences you if and when it does.)
Two, listening to her whole video broadcast was pretty painful up until it got interesting, which was for me when she began talking about Charlie Kirk and Israel, etc. Prior to that point, I personally just felt like she was really loud and demanding, like an entitled screeching liberal almost (in terms of attitude), focusing on MY timeline, MY wants, etc, etc. rather than objectively making her points or criticisms of the authorities or processes she was talking about.
It was painful to listen to, but I persevered, and I feel like getting to the Kirk / Israel stuff has made it worth while.
I also would give her credit for acknowledging her emotional state and agitated approach. Few will do that (they have too much to lose, often).
So, I still think that Owen's is a little too slick on the emotional/rhetorical/infloooencers side for me, with a bit of an entitlement attitude, and not quite the more objective, dispassionate presentation or stance approach that I like, but her positives seem to be some solid aggressive research chops.
(I have no idea if her stories about her team contacting relatives of Robinson and Robinson's romantic interest are true - but no real reason at this point to doubt them.)
Not sure what her other positives are, and although I'm not fan of the rhetorical style she uses (primarily because I think this sort of approach does not foster objective, critical thinking in the audience but rather promotes emotional reaction/celebrity passions), she does seem ferocious in her stance, which is probably overall a positive.
In effect, I try not to be emotionally attached or identified with my opinions - my ultimate value does not come from having the right opinion or 'being right', and I'm glad to have found the opportunity to take a wider look at Owen's so far. I certainly feel I have enough now to keep a bit of an open mind:
Conclusion: Candace Owens? I have my likes and dislikes, but I'll continue to observe, ideally to both critique and recognize both positives and negatives when there are some. (No one is perfect, so its OK to both appreciate good points while critiquing weaknesses, etc).
But, re: the time stamps? Nah. This was NOT a press release and not a public release of information. It was an indictment paper, and Owen's making a big noise about this does NOT suit her or Serve HER wants and purposes, um, no.
She could have criticized them or acknowledged that the indictment papers do not provide as much information as she wants without ignoring the fact that these papers were NOT FOR HER. The prosecutors involved have a job to do.
So, man, she really just ranted, unjustifiably in my view. Nothing wrong with wanting to know or have the timeline, but her criticism of the indictment papers because they did not provide the information SHE wanted? That's just a little to self-focused, imo.
But, I mean, that's ok. no one's perfect. If she's genuine, she'll make a contribution and advance the overall work of God's plan.
I do appreciate the other frogs who called me out on my initial comments, as a few of these are what prompted me to take a wider look.
er, so, thanks for the comment, too!
um, if you think that controlled opposition does NOT exist, it might just be you that's the crazy!
That said, perhaps we agree that some of the 'crazies' do go overboard in accusing everyone and everything as 'controlled opposition'.
Controlled opposition is just a shill, plain and simple. Sometimes they're easy to detect (tards) and other times they're not (you may agree with them about everything except this one little issue)
It's not always a 1 or a 0. It's somewhere in between. One's own internal bias often leads them to shill for one cause, or another. Or, shill against one (Candace in this case)