[amateur_soclgst]

Delusions of grandeur?

He puts himself on quite a pedestal, comparing himself to Fonda like he's the righteous movie star, but I'm no psychologist.

It might be hard, but try to understand the minority perspective in viewing the system, you might trust any part of it, and you'll see things like bias and privilege even when they don't exist.

[jjoonathan]

> He puts himself on quite a pedestal, comparing himself to Fonda like he's the righteous movie star

From TFA:

> I’m no Henry Fonda.

Jesus, did you even read the thing?

[nindalf]

Ignore that guy. He's a new account that specialises in trolling. I've seen him in other threads where his comments are so downvoted that they're barely readable. I think they're either deleted or removed at this point.

[thaumasiotes]

Your quote would seem to support the idea you object to. "I'm no Henry Fonda" explicitly draws a comparison between yourself and Henry Fonda, and this kind of rhetorical device is often used to suggest things that the bounds of propriety forbid you from saying outright.

Imagine two political rivals campaigning against each other, Mr. Lowbrow and Mr. Classy. Mr. Lowbrow releases campaign literature to the effect that Mr. Classy is a pussy. Mr. Classy responds "a less courteous person might observe that my esteemed opponent washed out of seventh grade... but I won't. This race is about the issues."

The particular rhetoric Mr. Classy is using there doesn't mean it makes sense to defend him against charges that he called Mr. Lowbrow stupid. (Hey, he specifically said he wasn't doing that!)

[powera]

In this case, the author is clearly comparing another juror ("Henry") to Henry Fonda, not himself. Which is definitely not comparing himself to Henry Fonda.

[thaumasiotes]

> I think of him as Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men. We will share this role.

You can tell me how this means he's not comparing himself to Henry Fonda.