Grand Old Podcast (Errr, Leaguecast)

Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

135 Responses

  1. Erik Kain says:

    Will, I un-stickied your post cause I’m selfish like that and I want my fund-raising post at the ye olde top of the pile. Feel free to keep bumping this if you’d like to, however.Report

  2. Will Truman says:

    Technical difficulties, hopefully up and running soon.Report

  3. Jon Rowe says:

    Ha. Love Tom’s sunglasses.Report

  4. Robert Greer says:

    The other day on Bret Baier, Bill Kristol and a few other Republican opinion leaders said that Ron Paulites could be the future of the Republican Party. What do you guys think of this?

    Some reasons we might think Kristol is right:

    1. Republicans are getting increasingly little traction from being pro-war and culturally conservative, and they’re starting to learn this.

    2. There will probably always be some kind of anti-elite or countercultural sentiment. Democrats have tended to monopolize this among young people, but disenchantment with the Democratic establishment over civil liberties and Internet regulation and surveillance runs strong with younger voters. There’s always been a certain “fuck the man” element in the anti-regulatory elements of Republican economic orthodoxy, but this has been overshadowed recently by the party’s subservience to wealth. If the Democrats won’t let you sell raw milk or have an organic garden in your front yard but the Republicans will, then maybe Portlandia-types would start trending red.

    3. The Republican Party will have to make changes that aren’t too alien to their Southern white base. Paulite positions are a natural fit here because many young people in conservative rural areas are Paul fans. The people espousing Paulism are less alien to older Republicans than other potential allies.Report

    • Lyle in reply to Robert Greer says:

      Roh Paul represents a bit more libertarian point of view (at least with respect to drugs) If we could find a libertarian on social as well as economic issues that would be desirable. Get out of the business of prescribing how people live as long as it does not affect their neighbor directly i.e. you can’t open a tannery next door or a pig farm (if the pig farm was there first and you built its a different story). So the whole same sex marriage and contraception issue would be moot.Report

      • Will H. in reply to Lyle says:

        I still think that’s more of an effect of regionalisim.

        When you see no zoning, then you get apartment buildings built next to refineries.

        The issue there is really one of the benzenes & H2S being absorbed by the fetus in the womb.

        Again, regulation sparks technological development.
        It is not the enemy.

        Denial is the true enemy.
        Ignorance can be overcome.Report

        • Lyle in reply to Will H. says:

          It should be noted that Houston uses enforcable deed restrictions in place of zoning. Recent restrictions tend to auto renew. A deed restriction is set up when a developer restricts the property it is trying to develop before selling it to increase the price. Now of course this suggests for those that believe the market to be the full solution, buying someone who wants to start an obnoxious plant out.Report

  5. Tod Kelly says:

    Someone needs to give Dennis a TV gig.Report

  6. Kazzy says:

    Late to the party… can anyone give me a run down on who is who? I recognize a few faces but not all…Report

    • Anne in reply to Kazzy says:

      Left to right Burt Likko, Dennis Sanders, Elias Isquith, (Mark Thompson), Mike Dwyer, Tim Kowal, Ton Van Dyke, Will H., and last bu not least Will TrumanReport

  7. Michael Drew says:

    Saw some of it live; will check out more when it posts. Really reflective & illuminating – great dia(multi-)logue. Also got my first visual glimpses of quite a number of longtime Gentlemen. (Wazzup, TVD!! And hello, Mr. Mark Thompson.)

    Good stuff.Report

  8. greginak says:

    Interesting stuff. I agree the commentator participants were very good. I agree with Elias’ final point that the R’s are not in nearly as much electoral trouble as some would suggest. They can win back some af am’s and latino’s and women.

    Three points stood out for me.
    1 At some point i started to think how “whither the Republican Party?” has been dominating the conversation in lots of places. But the D’s won, yet there has been far less talk about the successes of the D’s in terms of politics, policy and message.
    2 Tom is largely correct about the power of the SoCon’s and their rise to power in the 80’s. They rose to power as a reaction to the changes of the 60’s and 70’s. But they didn’t have to muss their hands with politics before since the country was run, in many ways, in a way that benefited them and supported their beliefs. They were reacting to other groups getting some power and voice and a much more liberal social sphere. The world is not going back to the time when SoCon’s are going to be dominant.
    3 Tim- Some of us liberals and D’s actually believe in stuff to. Hard to believe, i know, but we do. We really do.Report

  9. greginak says:

    Also sort of topical is two reactions, albeit from minor lights in the conservo sphere, to the female half of the Petraus “surge” that has gotten in the news given how much talk there was about creepy weirdo’s and tone.

  10. Chris says:

    Only saw part, but it looked good guys.

    Also, a lot of guys.Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to Chris says:

      There are lots of women out there qualified and interested in this sort of thing. Binders full of them. The question is, how do we attract them?Report

      • Will H. in reply to Burt Likko says:

        I was think about saying “Roofies,” but I think that might be anti-PC.Report

        • KatherineMW in reply to Will H. says:

          My term would be “assholish” rather than “unPC”.Report

          • Chris in reply to KatherineMW says:

            I was going to say, “It’s not un-PC, it’s pro-rape.”Report

            • Will H. in reply to Chris says:

              Now that the exchange has become less than pleasant, it might be beneficial to examine a few widely accepted legal doctrines; specifically, facts not in evidence and in pari delicto.

              There is no evidence to support the notion that I may be even slightly pro-rape.
              That is an inference built from an inference; an unfounded supposition.

              Now, regardless of whether we’re talking about quaaludes or oxycontin, if a person takes something like that willingly and knowingly, intending the effect that could be reasonably attributed to those things, then they subscribe to those effects.
              So, if a person happens to be three sheets to the wind at the time they plow through the crosswalk full of kiddies, the fact that their driving was impaired due to intoxication is no substantial defense. Unless there is evidence which would suggest otherwise, it is understood that the person chose the effects of intoxication at the time of imbibing; that is, assumption of risk.

              Now back to my statement.
              What’s there, other than a dog whistle?
              It’s precisely that dog whistle that I like about it (not the first such statement, you understand), because it makes so many people jump.
              More often than not, when people jump at those dog whistles, it’s because of pyramiding inferences.
              But the inferences never pyramided themselves.
              That is a phenomenon undertaken purposefully in order to arrive at a certain destination; which is to say, that to hear something which wasn’t said requires something other than listening which is an active part of the hearer.

              The drawing of conclusions, especially in a connect-the-dots style when some of those dots have been removed, is neither facile nor appropriate; which is not to say that it’s uncommon.Report

              • Chris in reply to Will H. says:

                Dude, I didn’t make a joke about using the “date rape drug” on women. I’m just pointing out that you did.Report

              • Will H. in reply to Chris says:

                Where do you see “use” being mentioned in the comment in question?Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Will H. says:

                “How do we attract women?”

                How ELSE could you have meant it? Are they going to make the pills into decorative pendants or something?Report

              • Glyph in reply to Kazzy says:

                Saying something strictly to get a rise, is pretty much the definition of trolling.

                But I think there is a fruitful discussion to be had around the boundaries of jokes / bad taste. Because I myself am often unclear on where they lie, and frankly, much humor is operating on the edges of what is acceptable.

                Say Kazzy and I are sitting around our filthy college apartment in our underwear, watching the ballgame on a sofa made of pizza boxes for the nth night in a row, and Kazzy says, “Look at us. This is sad. How could we get some girls in here?”, and I reply, “Look around you, man. The only way to get some girls in here would be to go out caveman-style, surprise ’em, club ’em over the heads, and drag ’em back here.”

                My response to Kazzy in no way would be an endorsement of stalking, assault, kidnapping, or implied rape.

                It’s just a joke – moreover, the point of the joke is not the (cartoon caveman, in no way seriously-contemplated) violence against women (which clearly is still a real thing); the point of the joke is, “We are such extremely messy losers that we’d have to resort to extreme measures to get any females in here.”


                How is Will H’s comment, different from my scenario?Report

              • Will H. in reply to Kazzy says:

                Everyone likes free stuff.
                There’s really no more to it than that.

                Seriously, if you see something in there that is a legitimate cause for offense, then reprint the entire comment with the offending part in bold, rather than restating the matter with words that I didn’t use.Report

              • Will H. in reply to Kazzy says:

                @Glyph: Actually, that’s one reading.
                But I was did that in order to prove a point.
                It’s not trolling; not at all.
                The fact that it’s gotten so much response tends to prove me right about my assumptions in posting that.Report

              • Kim in reply to Kazzy says:

                Meh. Glyph, at my college, people staged the “caveman finds girl, caveman throws girl over shoulder, running off screaming ‘i found one!'” (having the girl infiltrate the general campus tour).

                I find that hilarious.

                Your statement isn’t funny. Now, saying… “why don’t we suit up, and bring some roses… and then take the girls home… to THIS?” That? That’s funny. At least to me.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Kazzy says:


                “How is Will H’s comment, different from my scenario?”

                I totally get what you are saying in your comment.

                But Will isn’t alone with a close friend in his basement. He is in a space populated by women. Women he doesn’t know. That matters.Report

              • Glyph in reply to Kazzy says:

                Hmm. I agree women are obviously in earshot, and so that may cross the ‘bad taste’ threshhold.

                But he was responding to a question from a male, about an event in which there was a pronounced lack of females; and in that context, I can see it being intended as a joke. Obviously lots of jokes that used to be acceptable (like “Polack” jokes or whatever), now aren’t – and I have no doubt “Polack” jokes still get told even today, after people have checked to make sure there are no persons of Polish descent in the room.

                Some people are always going to be on the leading edge, and others on the trailing edge, of what is generally considered bad taste/manners in their jokes. As long as they are just jokes, I’d say we should be slower to condemn.

                I honestly just don’t know where the parameters lie; if I seem like I am being self-serving, well, I am – because I know, sooner or later it’s gonna be me that’s making the “too far!” joke, whatever it may be.

                If due to Will H’s comment women here actually felt in danger of getting roofied when visiting this site, or thought that Will H actually condoned such behavior, I guess I could see this as more serious.

                But what’s the threat here? No one is getting roofied over the internet, nor do (I think?) people seriously believe Will H. seriously condones date rape. Is the site less “safe” now because of what he said?

                Also, this conversation definitely strikes me as a possible ’tilting at rabbit holes’ (TM Kazzy 2012)…hopefully we can get somewhere 😉Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Kazzy says:

                When one of (if not the) initial response is from a woman describing it as assholeish, I think it is fair to say that the line has been crossed.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Kazzy says:

                And I also don’t know if Polack jokes were acceptable in terms of not being offensive. It was simply that enough folks didn’t care enough about the offense registered by Poles.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Kazzy says:

                (At the risk of piling on…)

                I also think we don’t need to view it as either/or. It can be both/and.

                Will might have meant exactly what he says he meant here.

                AND it still might have been offensive. He is entitled to offer his explanation, which might mitigate or eliminate the offense some people felt. But if folks remain offended, they remain offended. We can then choose how we respond to that offense.

                For my money, I think whatever point he was attempting to make pales in comparison to the offense leveled by rape jokes and, as such, the condemnation he is receiving is warranted.Report

              • Kim in reply to Kazzy says:

                I’m fairly certain nothing is too far. I’ve laughed at holocaust jokes, ya know?
                But the standards of humor are a lot tighter the farther out you go.

                And you gotta be prepared to be punched, anyhow.
                Because pushing peoples buttons is supposed to provoke them.Report

              • Plinko in reply to Kazzy says:

                I hate to wade into this, because my opinion on the matter has been well stated already by Chris and Kazzy.

                But, regarding ‘Pollack’ stuff – one member of my team is a Polish citizen and travled with me for work a few weeks ago to Asia, and she used the term extremely liberally to talk about the nature of the culture back home in Poland, and in remarkably similar ways to the kind of jokes I would have deemed offensive had anyone else made them. Of course, there’s certainly a critical ‘we can say it about ourselves’ aspect, but I have to say I was a bit taken aback by it.Report

              • Kim in reply to Kazzy says:

                In every joke there’s a kernel of truth –otherwise its probably not funny.
                Polish jokes are about excessive pride in things that one might ought not to be so proud about. (at least the good ones…)Report

              • Chris in reply to Will H. says:

                Also, saying you were thinking about something, and then saying it, is not the same as not saying it. “I was thinking of saying this really offensive thing that I’m now going to say, but it wouldn’t be PC for me to say it without saying I was thinking about saying it but it wouldn’t be PC first,” is really, really weasley.Report

              • Will H. in reply to Chris says:

                No; in fact, that’s something that I picked up from Ernst G. Beier.Report

              • Kim in reply to Will H. says:

                Dude. If you’re gonna troll, have the balls to admit it.
                And I’ve got some great holocaust jokes if you wanna hear them.Report

              • Will H. in reply to Kim says:

                Nothing like that at all.
                I just blew the whistle to see who would come running.
                Now I know.Report

              • Kim in reply to Will H. says:

                Trolling epileptics is more fun. trolling people who are sensitive about rape? feh. that is talentless.Report

              • joey jo jo in reply to Will H. says:

                The standard troll defense. Much like mcmegan trying to disavow objectivism after calling herself Jane Galt. Your explanation is plausible, but no one believes you.Report

              • Patrick Cahalan in reply to joey jo jo says:

                Historically, I would not refer to Mr. H as a troll. The pattern of behavior he’s describing here matches his history.

                That is to say, I believe that his explanation of his motivation follows from my understanding of his pattern of commentary.Report

              • joey jo jo in reply to joey jo jo says:

                This is one of my issues with this place. If you’re acting like a troll, you’re a troll. I don’t give a whit how one self identifies or how the group identifies. Actions speak for themselves, Patrick.Report

              • joey jo jo in reply to joey jo jo says:

                Y’allz may want to consider that the “Oh, you don’t know what kind of libertarian X is or Y is not that kind of conservative” may drive people away. How about it is incumbent upon the poster to make themselves clear and not have to rely on being rescued by their League reputation?Report

              • Patrick Cahalan in reply to joey jo jo says:

                I don’t think Will needs the League to come to his defense, he’s capable of going through his own thing (which he’s doing, downthread). I’m merely putting forth my own observation.

                Also, for the record, this section of a subthread is… ironically humorous. In my observation – which admittedly may be biased – you spend a lot more time telling the community here what sort of libertarian X is or that Y is that sort of conservative (or, “well, aren’t they all, really”) than you do making any sort of positive argument about your side of the aisle.Report

              • joey jo jo in reply to joey jo jo says:

                Please to be getting the point. I say, “from what you wrote, you appear to be X”. Enter Patrick on his white horse to say, “NO you dolt, that guy is really Y, despite what you say. You have to listen to the notes he doesn’t play and I really know him”.
                Ummmmm, no.Report

              • Patrick Cahalan in reply to joey jo jo says:

                I believe you to be in error. I pointed it out.

                You’re the one making it into a mountain. It’s just a molehill, dude.Report

              • joey jo jo in reply to joey jo jo says:

                Hows abouts I can have my hobbyhorses and you can have yours and we can each think that the other’s is ridiculous but we can still both comment? USA!Report

              • Patrick Cahalan in reply to joey jo jo says:

                I don’t recall suggesting that you don’t comment. You’re welcome to have your hobbyhorses, I’m certainly not going to give up mine. You can comment all you want, and I never suggested otherwise. So I’m not sure how this last comment ties into the last five.

                If you say something I think is wrong, my inclination would be to point it out… would you prefer that I not point it out to you any more?Report

              • joey jo jo in reply to joey jo jo says:

                have at it hoss, that is part and parcel of “you can comment and have your own hobbyhorses”. you point out that you think i’m wrong. i point out that how you say i’m wrong is a classic league maneuver that serves to exclude (imho) and make this place insular. you say i’m making a mountain out of a molehill (which attempts to delegitimize my comment). i’m glad you have a better understanding of all of the established commenters and can know what they’re saying beyond the plain meaning of their words. not everyone has to have that understanding. it gets old.Report

              • Patrick Cahalan in reply to joey jo jo says:

                I point out that how you say i’m wrong is a classic league maneuver

                Permit me a snark: “so failure to agree with joey jo jo is a classic league maneuver?” Okay, that’s off my chest.

                Or is it just the area in which I disagree with you? If it’s just the area I just disagree with you, maybe you could try sticking to that complaint?

                that serves to exclude (imho) and make this place insular.

                I think you’re reasoning well ahead of your data there a tad. I’ll be charitable and assume that what you’re attempting to say here is that for a third party to jump into a conversation to clarify their impression of someone’s stance can come across as (a) groupthink and (b) particularly exclusionary circling of the wagons, and maybe (c) who asked you, dude?

                As a pattern of behavior, I’d agree with the first two… if it weren’t for the fact that I routinely disagree with Will, something that sort of spoils the idea that I want him around and not any one other particular person (or collection thereof). As for the third one, I’ve never been really keen on granting anybody their own private space in the comment box; if you say it, here, I’m assuming your intended audience is, “Everybody”… not just the author of the OP, not just the author of the comment in particular, but the entire commentariat and the large population of lurkers.

                You say i’m making a mountain out of a molehill (which attempts to delegitimize my comment).

                I’m pretty sure disagreeing with someone isn’t the same thing as delegitimizing. If I think you’re making a much bigger deal out of something that it deserves… my characterization it in that fashion isn’t delegitimizing it, it’s attempting to appropriately put it in context.

                You disagree with the context, obviously, hey, that’s fine. But you’re coming across with something resembling a persecution complex on this thread. Maybe I just disagree with you because I disagree with you.

                And seriously, if you’re going to accuse someone of attempting to delegitimize your concerns, you might want to do that *before* you accuse them of leaping to the defense of someone they routinely disagree with “on a white horse”. Because, you know, that’s delegitimizing their position, which might lead them to respond by delegitimizing yours.

                Just sayin’.Report

              • joey jo jo in reply to joey jo jo says:

                Don’t care if you disagree with Will. All I’m saying (besides I hate the phrase Just Sayin) is that a commenter’s words should speak for themselves. It is not incumbent upon me to go beyond that.
                I don’t want everyone or anyone to agree with me. They will or they won’t depending on how good my ideas are and how I present them. If they don’t, it’s on me. If someone missed a nuance, that is on me.
                I’m saying that frequently, when a poster doesn’t make himself clear and gets criticized, the long time commenters jump to their rescue and say, so and so isn’t an objectivist (ignoring that the plain meaning of what they just wrote supports objectivism). It’s an appeal to authority and I reject it. The appeal to authority speaks for itself as well.
                I’m fine with your characterization of me having a persecution complex in this thread. I’m highlighting an aspect of this joint that sticks in my craw. You can focus on the persecuted angle or focus on what I’m (hamfistedly) trying to get at. Up to you.Report

              • Chris in reply to Will H. says:

                Dude, the date rape drug isn’t a whistle, it’s a rape tool. If you want to suggest that we use it to attract women, you’ve got issues, even if you say that you were just thinking about suggesting it. Frankly, I think it would say something less than positive about this blog and its community if no one called you on it. That you think it says something negative about us that we’ve done so is, well, pretty revealing.Report

              • Patrick Cahalan in reply to Chris says:

                Fair enough to call him on it.

                Roofies, though… just for the record… flunitrazepam was taken (and still is taken) voluntarily for recreational use. Although I don’t rave, being too old and crotchety, I am given to understand that most Rohypnol use is self-administered, just like X.

                The connotation of it being used as a date rape drug is a common one, but so’s “guns are used to kill people!”

                (Personally, I think the joke was in bad taste, but I’m more than pretty sure Will is not pro-rape).Report

              • MikeSchilling in reply to Chris says:

                It’s pretty bigoted to think that date rape isn’t as much part of God’s plan as legitimate rape is.Report

              • Will H. in reply to Chris says:

                Really, I got this idea that the Left likes to gin up the outrage machine over the use of certain language.
                And I’ve been needling away for awhile now, just to prove the point.

                I’ll break this down for you:
                but I think that might be anti-PC.
                That’s part of the dog whistle there, and that’s the part that I picked up from Beier.
                Beier did a lot of studies on communication, and one of the things that he noted was that when people preface a remark with a denial of intent, it typically is only a matter of requesting to be socially excused for a socially inexcusable behavior.
                For example, “I don’t mean to be rude, but . . .” pretty much guarantees that you’re going to hear a rude comment.
                I stated that I didn’t want to be anti-PC in order to get the anti-PC crowd on their toes.

                I was think[ing] about
                Here, I make it clear from the outset that this is a statement regarding only something that I am thinking about!
                I can think about any number of things.
                But this is a statement about a thought, and a statement about a thought only.
                That’s part of what’s so funny about the outrage machine ginning up.
                But really, it’s sort of sad, if you think about it.
                It was really a case in which I would have liked to have been proven wrong.

                saying “Roofies,”
                That is, to simply say the word.
                Think about that for a minute.
                The comment didn’t say anything about supplying someone with them, slipping someone a mickey, or anything else– just saying the word itself.
                Saying the word “Chevy” isn’t a means of transportation. It won’t make you go anywhere.

                If needed, I’ll step through the process again.Report

              • joey jo jo in reply to Chris says:

                THAT is your point? You sure showed everyone.Report

              • Chris in reply to Chris says:

                You’ve thought way too much about trolling, dude.

                To me it looks like you just said, “I thought about saying roofies, but knew people would take offense, so I’m only going to say I thought about saying it.” I suspect you know, though at this point will be loathe to admit, that it would have been better to just keep it in your head.Report

              • Will H. in reply to Chris says:

                …and note that I didn’t push back on the notion that the comment might have been “assholish.”
                I’m willing to accept that.Report

              • Kim in reply to Chris says:

                Nigger, please.
                You wanna go discuss language? do it on 4chan.
                Anonymous is a great person to discuss such things with.
                You will learn many interesting and fascinating things.Report

              • Will H. in reply to Chris says:

                No, not at all.
                Again, it’s about the Lefty outrage machine ramping up to full bore at the drop of a hat.

                I did that last week with the word “Jewrusalem.”
                There were a number of people that thought that it might be anti-Semitic because Jerusalem is a city with a whole bunch of Jews in it.
                I don’t see it.
                Were I to say that Manila is chock full of Filipinos, is that somehow anti-Filipino?
                What if I said that there are a lot of Oriental people living in China?
                Get real.

                I meant “Jewrusalem” as a means of addressing Israeli expansion.
                Granted, I feel the whole notion that Jews can expand into Arab territory to miss the point entirely, in that separatism or apartheid or whatever-you-want-to-call-it doesn’t work. It didn’t work in America; it didn’t work in South Africa; and it won’t work in Israel.
                But that’s something that we’re not supposed to talk about.
                We’re supposed to give credence and respectability to the notion that separatism and apartheid is fine and dandy by confining the discussion to the issue of This Side’s Territory or That Side’s Territory.
                So, if they want to expand so much, I’ll give them a hand.
                Let’s just expand their territory in the city of Jerusalem.
                Easy enough to do with language, and nobody really gets hurt.

                But then the outrage machine gins right up to claim this is a disparaging remark.
                How could it be any more disparaging that to say, “The city of Jerusalem is x% Jewish.”
                This assumes that there is something fundamentally untoward in simply being Jewish.
                I don’t believe that crap, and I’m sure the anti-anti-PC crowd does either.

                What I’m driving at here is that, for the sake of being protective of this-or-that, those self-proclaimed protectors often forget exactly what it is that this-or-that is being protected from.
                In a nutshell, that’s what rotten about PC.

                And yes, the Left is generally lying in wait to pounce at any given moment.
                This is one thing that they share with the “lock ’em up & throw away the key” “Law’n Order” Republicans. (Where I differ from this group is in that I believe that public officials should be held strictly accountable, and it wouldn’t be so bad to let an ordinary citizen slide every once in awhile.)
                But those two are really two sides of the same coin.
                They have more in common than they have which separates them.Report

              • Kim in reply to Chris says:

                I was being sincere and honest when I recommended you take this to 4chan.
                And, in the interests of being sincere and honest, I took your Jewrusalem comment ENTIRELY OPPOSITE to how you meant it. I took it to mean you were probably one of those Zionist Christians attempting to identify “which side you were on”.

                This is the honest problem with humor. Occasionally it really, really backfires.

                And congratulations on the troll, it was a good one. With a bit of help, you might be able to troll something larger than a political comment board.Report

              • Kim in reply to Chris says:

                Also, if you want to be a “hero” go get banned from Australia. It’s easy, and Fun! (a friend of mine already is.) All you have to do is make fun of the Aborigines. 😉

                A vote for free speech ought to be respected. But be willing to put a bit of yourself on the line, eh?Report

              • Will H. in reply to Chris says:

                @jojo: As I said, this is one case where I would rather have been proved wrong.

                @Chris: You still don’t get it.
                My thoughts in posting that were more along the lines of, “I’ll bet that, with this one word, I can have people’s imaginations running away with them in all kinds of ways.”
                It’s true.

                @Kim: Please, no heroics for me, thank you.
                I’ve had enough heroics to last a lifetime.
                Just a student of human behavior is all.

                But I think I’ll take up your advice and spend all the time that I would have otherwise spent calling up the Art Bell Show and use that to go look up this 4chan.Report

              • Chris in reply to Chris says:

                I get it. I just think it’s a pretty poor excuse for saying you can attract women with roofies.Report

              • Will H. in reply to Chris says:

                Would you prefer for me to say that they could attracted with some big rocks of crack?Report

              • joey jo jo in reply to Chris says:

                Will: The more interesting question to me would be why “the left” or “leftists” do this. It may be just to control conversations and issues or there could be more to it…….Report

              • Kim in reply to Chris says:

                I think for some people, it hits close to home. And that, regardless, we can’t see the other person on the other side of the screen. And so the idea that they’re a rapist seems more real than if we could see them.

                You could play the same game about half the stories I tell. Most of them are at least off-the-wall, and some of them are to the point of “it’s too odd/crazy/weird to be anything but the truth”.

                I’d be curious to know which stories people are likely to believe, and which ones they aren’t.

                (naturally, if you take them as a whole, most people’s general response is “she’s full of shit”… at least on the internet).Report

              • joey jo jo in reply to Chris says:

                Kim, I get that and thanks for the response.Report

              • Will H. in reply to Chris says:

                @jojo: I agree that is an interesting question.
                I just took it to be true on its face that it was done unconsciously, the same as the law’n order stuff.
                In considering the matter, I believe that there are certainly a number of occasions where it is done consciously, and for the very reasons you describe.

                I should really question my own assumptions more often.
                Thanks for getting me there.Report

        • Roger in reply to Will H. says:

          I think the entire roofies disussion is a great analogy for modern democracy. How do we attract more voters? Roofies!

          Seems like a great idea while you enjoy the free drink. You wake up and find you’ve been roofied.

          The demise of democracies in two lines.Report

  11. Burt Likko says:

    Thanks to Will T. for putting it together and props to Elias for a superb job moderating!Report

  12. Jaybird says:


    I can’t believe we have that many conservatives. (It doesn’t feel like it, on any given day, I tell you what.)Report

    • Chris in reply to Jaybird says:

      Buncha friggin’ RINOs.Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to Chris says:

        I wear it proudly. And will continue to do so because the orthodoxy that turns RINO into a term of derision is something that has the potential to strangle the GOP slowly into oblivion.

        Oh, wait, you were joking.Report

        • MikeSchilling in reply to Burt Likko says:

          the orthodoxy that turns RINO into a term of derision is something that has the potential to strangle the GOP slowly into oblivion

          You say that like it’s a bad thing.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

      I think that, with the exception of Tom and maybe Tim, I’m not sure that many of our conservatives are “typical” conservatives. I don’t mean this as a criticism of either Tom/Tim or the others; I just think that we might have a more stereotyped perception of a “conservative”, which Tim and Tom might fit better than the rest.

      I’m always a bit surprised when I’m reminded that Will is a conservative, since there are a lot of things on which we agree and, more to the point, he doesn’t “seem” conservative. Which says more about me than it does him, mind you.Report

  13. Michael Cain says:

    Will T. made an interesting remark right at the end about Montana electing Democrats to state-wide offices, and Christie being an excellent governor for New Jersey but less so for Montana. Montana isn’t NJ; nor is it Alabama. I think one can make the case that the Republicans are letting the (electorally important parts of the) West slip away from them. Nevada and Colorado have shifted a lot in the last decade; Utah’s Wasatch Front is getting more liberal (Salt Lake City currently has three openly gay or lesbian members of the state legislature); Arizona’s minority population is showing the same rapid growth as the rest of the Southwest.

    The only Republican policy proposal I saw this cycle aimed at the West was Romney’s proposal to let states control permitting for energy development on federal lands within their boundaries. Even that wasn’t really a proposal to give states control — as I understood it, states could make it easier to get permits, but couldn’t make things more difficult. The West faces several problems that are unique to the region: water, wildfire, federal land holdings, and whether they really want to be an energy colony for the rest of the country, among others. It really is a region where “states’ rights” doesn’t have to be a code phrase the way it seems to be in the South.Report

  14. Will Truman says:

    Thanks a ton to everyone who participated and those of you who waited through our technical difficulties. My computer chose today, of all days, to start crapping out on me.

    A special thanks to our commenter-participants, Will and Dennis, and to Elias for moderating.

    The only downside to having so many participants is that I wanted to hear more of what everybody had to say.Report

    • Plinko in reply to Will Truman says:

      I’ve only made it halfway through so far, but I agree with the sentiment on wanting to hear more from everyone.

      It might be a good idea to keep the number of participants down a bit on any given Leauguecast.

      Also, while I’m commenting, I thoroughly enjoyed the half I did get to watch and I agree with Tod up above – Dennis belongs on TV.Report

  15. Dennis Sanders says:

    Last night was both engaging and fun. I’d love to do it again. Thanks to Elias for bringing an outsider’s perspective.Report

  16. Rufus F. says:

    I always thought that people became more conservative as they get older, but it sounds more from this sampling that conservatives become more libertarian as they get older.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Rufus F. says:

      “Classically Conservative”Report

    • Glyph in reply to Rufus F. says:

      Rufus, this definitely describes me, I was very pro-life/pro-death penalty when I was younger. My positions now on these topics are mostly indistinguishable in result from liberal ones, though they may rest on more libertarian premises.

      There are times when I think that maybe on some key issues, that whole ‘liberaltarian’ idea could do some real good.Report

      • Rufus F. in reply to Glyph says:

        I’ve watched the same thing happen to my parents. Their high point of conservatism was probably back in the Reagan era, but they’ve gradually become much more libertarian. He still votes Republican and she tends to alternate, but they’re pretty openly disdainful of quite a bit of the law and order stuff that was more popular back then.Report

    • MikeSchilling in reply to Rufus F. says:

      “Get off my lawn” is a very Randian sentiment, especially when followed by “I’m unhappy with how the edge-trimming looks, so I’m going to blow it up.”Report

    • Mike Dwyer in reply to Rufus F. says:

      I would say that I fit that theory. I’ve become EXTREMELY libertarian on certain issues like gay marriage and drug policy.Report

      • Will H. in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

        What really got me to thinking about addiction differently was getting to know (a bit) two fellows with a gambling addiction when I was in Chicago. I had never been that close to that before.
        The one fellow knew that he had a problem and was trying to do something about it, but he still entertained this notion that he was going to have one last big night out and that would be it. That man was tormented by what he had put his family through, and he was so ashamed that he even stopped going to church.
        The other fellow pretty much saw gambling as a way of life, and he gave others some hard feelings toward him. It seemed like he was oblivious to the problem, even when he was shafting his roomie for the rent, etc.
        But it made me start thinking about addiction issues differently.Report

        • Rufus F. in reply to Will H. says:

          In my band, everyone does more than me. We’ve got an alcoholic, a functional borderline alcoholic, and a guy who smokes pot nearly every single day. I do very little of any of that. I’m addicted to coffee and that’s about it. Anyway, the weird thing is the straight out alcoholic is the problem in the band and I watch him like a hawk to keep him from drinking during practices or shows. Regardless, he seems to have wet brain, which is a whole other problem. The functional alcoholic guy just does not drink during practices and shows, which keeps me happy. The weed head has never caused the slightest problem and, in fact, is my main collaborator in the band. He giggles a lot and sometimes he forgets to bring things. That’s about as much as I notice.

          Not sure where I was going with that. But it’s just interesting to me that, of the people, I’ve known whose lives were destroyed by addiction issues, nearly all of them were boozers.Report

          • Tod Kelly in reply to Rufus F. says:

            This matches my own experience, Rufus.

            I’m sure I’m being thick, but I can’t shake the feeling that most people who are anti-legalization are so because they don’t like the stereotype of the person they associate with pot. It feels more “anti-hippie” than reasoned policy.

            (This might also have to do with the particular type if social conservative we have in the PNW.)Report

          • James Hanley in reply to Rufus F. says:

            My brother is a teetotaler. The only drug he imbibes is caffeine via Pepsi. He spent years working in Yellowstone National Park, where most of the hotel/restaurant employees are college age. When he first went out there he would have said alcohol is ok (not that he’d drink it himself) and pot was a terrible thing. After more than a decade of observation, he now unequivocally states that the potheads were not much of a problem, but the drinkers were not only the ones most likely to show up late or miss work, but were also overwhelmingly responsible for the fights, the rapes and the vandalism.Report

            • Sam in reply to James Hanley says:

              There’s no substantive comparison between the damage that alcohol can do and the damage that marijuana can do. Anybody claiming otherwise is insane. We just pretend like pot is worse because so many people love alcohol.Report

  17. Michelle says:

    Well, now that I’ve had a chance to watch the whole thing, I have to say, great work guys. You’re a lot smarter than most of the pundits on TV. Looking forward to more of this kind of thing.Report

  18. Burt Likko says:

    BREAKING: Bobby Jindal concurs with Burt Likko’s “no more creepy weirdos” proposal:

    It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments — enough of that. … It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party. We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.

    Right arm, Governor.Report

  19. superdestroyer says:

    The future of politics in the U.S. is a one party state much like Maryland, Mass., California, and the District of Columbia now function. The real analysis should be on who will be the winners and who will be the losers in the coming one party state.Report