What is it called when someone takes the time in an article to quote another person exactly, then below that quote, completely ignore it and transform the statement into something the person didn’t say? Oh yes. It’s called misrepresentation.
The Grande Dame of The Usual Suspects just can’t help but heap hate on Christina Hoff Sommers. She goes to all the trouble of actually doing at least a partial transcription of a video Sommers made concerning Gamergate and then proceeds to change the subject.
Here’s a perfect example from the post where she first quotes Sommers (Note: This is her transcription, not mine)
Male gamers, as a group, do evince a strong a preference for games with male heroes and sexy women. Could that be because they are – uh [quick eye roll] male? There is no evidence that these games are making males racist, misogynist, or homophobic. In fact, all the data we have suggests that millennial males—born and raised in video game nation—are far less prone to these prejudices than previous generations.
Then she proceeds to interpret that for her readers
All the data? I doubt that. Misogyny is too prevalent and hip and fashionable for that. It’s coming from somewhere.
Well, to begin with, Sommers didn’t say “all the data”, as you just read, but said “all the data we have”. Thats a big difference in my mind and shows that there might be room for a different evaluation in the future as more data are gathered.
Then she proceeds to state that misogyny is prevalent. So, she disagrees with the statement that “There is no evidence” for misogyny, yet provides nothing to back up her own statement.
I’m not surprised. It’s just another hate/hit piece. It’s fine to disagree with others, but can anyone be taken seriously when they constantly misrepresent someone with whom they disagree?
I don’t think so.