Commenter Archive

AvatarComments by North in reply to Aaron David*

On “Carnage: 6.6 Million in Initial Jobless Claims, 10 Million Two Week Total

Yeah, the bottom line currently appears to be a big ol shrug. But the articles I've read aren't optimistic since the studies so far have either said "it likes the heat" (eeek!) or "it's uncertain". I don't like the direction that is leaning.

"

Wouldn't matter, people would still call it nursing whatever the title said on the paycheck.

"

I'd assume it's the novelty of the threat there. I don't expect this level of social distancing will endure an enormously long time.

On “Oh Man! The Marvelous Spring Morning

Hmmm unless I'm misreading this by living in the country he's referring to living in what we'd call the suburbs and commuting into the city by automobile yes? I don't know why but the idea of suburban couples keeping a vegetable garden as a matter of course is precious. But, of course, this is pre-global (or even national) produce sections; these folks are coming off months of salted, pickled and dry foods (the wealthier ones have fresh meat). The past is a different universe.

On “Carnage: 6.6 Million in Initial Jobless Claims, 10 Million Two Week Total

Probably depends on what Covid does in warmer weather. Right now nature is on the quarantine's side because the weather is pretty crummy in the north (but rapidly improving). I don't thing even the national guard could keep people inside once the weather gets nice up here.

On “Joe Biden: Staying Alive

As I pointed, again, out all the legislation you're using as examples of cancel culture is just anti-lobbyist and political transparency legislation. That may not be pro free speech as libertarians strictly define it but there's no universe where that is considered cancel culture, at least not as Kristin (or anyone beyond you) uses the term. So I can only presume you're either being disingenuous or flat out have no clue what cancel culture is.

You then ignored that fact that, as I pointed out, Pelosi denounced exactly the people and actions you claimed she didn't and then went on a three paragraph screed about how outrageous it is to point out obliquely that, whereas the Antifa imbeciles don’t like the Democrats at all (a feeling that is mutual), right wing racist loons are quite fond of our the current President who was, after all, the head cheerleader for the birther movement. And yet somehow the Dems are cheek to jowl with Antifa in your estimation whereas the GOP is free of any association with those right wing goons? Yeah that doesn’t parse.

You’re welcome to stop, I enjoyed debating with you. I accept your concession that there isn’t any strong evidence to suggest that your assertion that the Democratic Party has become the party of cancel culture. Maybe the reality of that party will descend to your appraised level someday in some dark future, perhaps, but it isn’t now; nowhere near.

"

Won't be me. I think it's pretty broadly acknowledged that she effed the hell out of the Midwest. Not visiting is one thing but stopping polling? It was her most unambiguous own goal. Almost as bad as putting Mark Penn in charge of her campaign in 2007.
You saw Bidens' results against Bernie in Michigan this year no? Every county. And turnout was up too.

"

To outperform HRC in those states we'd have to first pay attention to those states. *checks box* Ok, that's done.. then we'd have to get a candidate who is more popular with people in those states than Hillary Clinton was *checks box*. I mean, I don't want to be complacent but HRC lost those states by an incredibly narrow margin. Considering that and the position we're in I don't think cautious optimism about the Blue Wall stats is unwarranted. Though Wisconsin does worry me.

"

You said, as I quoted, that the Democratic Party has become the party of cancel culture. That is a very strong assertion and would require very strong evidence in support. In order for your assorted points to even remotely support that very strong assertion you’d have to define cancel culture down to virtually meaningless, this stuff isn’t even weak tea- it’s luke warm water with a pine cone in it.

If the Democratic party was the party of cancel culture then their former President would be a pariah for warning against it, not virtually universally loved within the party. I certainly would never claim cancel culture exists and that it’s present within the Democratic Party but it’s marginal and carries no votes currently. And, then, of course you went back to Hillary Clinton because former Presidents do count when they’re saying something you can sort of interpret as aligned with cancel culture.

Pelosi herself condemned the violent actions of Antifa, -by name- after the Berkely foofaraw. So the idea that those Antifa imbeciles have gotten cover from Democrats is utterly risible. That's the highest ranking elected Democrat in the country. Whereas the Proud Boys etc are open advocates for and supporters of Donald "very fine people on both sides" Trump.

The comments from presidential candidates you’re pointing out are, inconveniently for you, from the losing ones. Beto’s comment about churches was widely panned by the left as desperate, anti-liberal and counterproductive even as right wingers did backflips in glee because they finally had someone, anyone, to point to actually saying that. And, of course, Beto did so badly that he didn’t even make it to the first primary.

Everything related to the pro-life-pro-choice argument is, of course, irrelevant. That’s not an act of fealty to cancel culture, that’s just another trench in the hottest culture war in the country and has dozens of equivalent anti-speech positions on both sides of that bitter fight.

And, of course, the only actual policies and legislation you point out is mostly campaign finance, anti-lobbyist and transparency legislation. Now I know that libertarians are big on the “money is speech” thing and that’s an area that there’s a lot of debate over but to try and shove that whole thing into the category of cancel culture and try and pass opposition to lobbyists or “money is speech” assertions off as fealty to cancel culture is so nuts I had to actually pause and laugh a bit. Yeah only cancel culture loons hate lobbyists or dislike people buying politicians. Heheheh.

As for Trump, he’s gone so far as to Amazon of scamming the postal service, has attacked the company for putting Mom&Pop retailers out of business and allegedly pressured the Pentagon to choose non-Amazon contractors for cloud computing services because he doesn’t like what the Washington Post says about him (both are owned by Bezos). That might count for a little, maybe a smidge, more than him just calling for civil suits. But, of course, it’s only cancel culture if the left does it, or something vaguely like it, or something you can kind of connect to cancel culture on a ten step chart.

"

Ok, yeah we're in agreement on a lot of that, actually a lot of our impulses are similar.

"

For starters your exact quote was “Democrats” OTOH have become the party of cancel culture, deplatforming, and calling any disagreement with them “unprotected hate speech”.

Which is nonsense on stilts (well except maybe the last one, but both parties do that endlessly and no one pays any mind to it). I’m enormously amused that you went and did my own work for me by having no less than the Democratic Party’s last elected and still enormously popular President taking the exact opposite stand. Sure, the Dems don’t go out of their way to blast cancel culture- primarily because cancel culture is so utterly powerless and unrepresented in the Democratic Party. I mean look at your list: A bunch of talk, half of which is fishing twitter of all things. If talk is cheap (and it is) then tweets are even cheaper. By your definition even the GOP is a party of cancel culture because they’ve called on social media and media corporations to be punished, regulated and suppressed as well- does Senator Hawley not count? Hell, the sitting GOP President has gone after media companies, reporters and speech he doesn't like in, like, almost every pronouncement he's made. Hmm.. unless you're a libertarian in which case from where you're sitting they're all statists but I had the impression you were more Republican than libertarian. Neither of the parties are controlled by cancel culture.

And, yeah, cancel culture lost the primary in a landslide. They called for Joe Biden to be cancelled ages ago and he went and won the nomination whereas most of cancel cultures favored candidates couldn’t even last through to Iowa. Went your opponent wins, decisively, and you don’t even get a single point? That’s a landslide loss.

"

Fair enough, she was my #4. I liked her plenty but I felt she miscalculated, ran too far to the left and ended up bogged down there.

"

Basically every criticism the left leveled at the Tea Party was proven right.

"

That is an excellent question and one that no one has solid answers to. The whole identity/woke/intersectional phenomena is a really odd one. It was around in the 90’s as political correctness but the more modern iterations sprang from a grab bag of sources: the efforts of small online refuges to make themselves welcoming to their inhabitants and then some bright person thinking “we should expand this to the whole world”; real social science terms getting snatched up by social media and used for policing discourse (usually in a way that is radically incoherent with the original use of the term) and, of course, social pseudo-science trying to carve a place for itself out in the contracting academic world as administrative kudzu covers everything.
I don’t think anyone knows if this stuff can actually escape the internet and academia and actually matter in the rest of the world. It doesn’t, exactly, have any clear definable rules. It’s just internet and youthful ID running amuck while wearing these scientific and “compassionate” hats.

So, yeah, it could be that the young intersectional/woke people, once they actually get elected in numbers, will have to actually define terms and rules and will settle down and become more sane once they do but we can’t put our faith in assuming that. The responsibilities of governance doesn’t automatically make ideologues become rational or coherent- history is thick with incoherent babbling ideologies that gibbered nonsense while bathing their arms up to their elbows in blood.

And, frankly, I don’t think liberalism is flawed and has to be replaced by whatever it is woke/intersectional/identatarianism actually peddles. And, yeah, I agree with Stillwater that economic leftism is massively more coherent than woke-ism. I don’t agree with much of it but it’s grounded in the real world and the things it points at are real.

On “Wednesday Writs: Schoolboy Innuendo Edition

I can't think of any good options either. It's either arrest them or overlook them and permit Professor Darwin to drop by the congregation to mete out some biological consequential-ism. But it wouldn't just hurt the congregants to let that happen, they'll take down a lot of innocent people too.

On “Joe Biden: Staying Alive

Nate and his gang talked about the enthusiasm game today which struck me as salient.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/so-about-that-supposed-lack-of-enthusiasm-for-biden/

If I ran for President I am certain my mother and my husband would vote for me and they'd tell pollsters they were enthusiastic about doing so. So I'd have 100% supporter enthusiasm. Of course I'd still have only 2 votes.

"

What's really odd for me is that, being 40, I only really became aware of American politics in the mid to late 90's so the Democratic Party of Clinton is my default party. I don't really remember/know of any earlier iterations on a personal level.

And on the other, less pleasant hand, the GOP I know is primarily the GOP of Gingrich. I knew of the H Bush only in that I kind of saw it walking out the door. And the terrifying bit is that the Gingrich era GOP was the high water mark for the party in my estimation. They've been getting dumber, more malevolent and more incoherent my entire adult life.

The Dems... well they haven't changed a ton from the Clinton era. They've shifted a bit on policies this way and that but underneath they still seem to be the Democratic Party of the 90's.

"

Uh, what Democrats are you looking at? The ones the GOP keeps trying to brand as synonymous with AoC? In case you missed it the cancel culture/woke left candidates didn't just lose the Democratic Primary, they lost in a devastating landslide. The economic lefties and socialists did better than the woke left but they still lost, and lost decisively.
So where're the examples of main stream major Democratic party officials or politicians pushing specific cancel culture policies or principles?

"

Who were yours? Surely not Yang? I would guess Warren but she didn't do terribly, just not wonderfully. Castro and Booker? You don't have to tell if you don't wanna.

"

Thank you, though I was all in on Hilldog so consistency is a knife that cuts both ways on me when it comes to my prognosticating.

"

Joe is still way too old and a little bit out of it. It sucks that the politics of this year mean he's the guy who ended up commanding the moderate vote but there ya have it. If the alternative was Bernie who'd not only a little out of it but also rather shoutily nuts then Biden it is. I'm far from delighted about it (he was my #3 choice) but them's the breaks.

It sucks a lot more that Bidens' general election opponent is even more out of it, also is a convicted fraudster and an obvious charlatan who literally oozed vaguely ignorant malevolence but there we have it. I'd much rather the alternative to voting for elderly Joe Biden was a republican who at least pretends not to be malevolent but them's the breaks again.

And I'm pretty sure my position on Joe hasn't wavered much. He's not bad but man I wish he wasn't so old. Followed by a world weary shrug.

"

I suppose? But most of the favored candidates of the woke contingent didn't even make it to the voting, so they didn't even get minorities of votes.

"

And by Democrats, here, we're talking about the millions of voters who declined to give money or polling support (in the case of Beto and Booker) or actual votes (in the case of Warren) to these candidates because they weren't cool? On what basis do you come to that determination?

I mean, I guess I'm just not getting it. You castigate the Democratic Party for being obsessed with coolness, being controlled by socialists and by being over obsessed with wokeness, then pivot to hrumphing that Biden, a non-woke, non-socialist and non-cool candidate is their nominee? Shouldn't you be doing back flips in delight? By your own terms the Democratic Party has demonstrated that they are not obsessed with wokeness, coolness or socialism since, when given cool, socialist and woke choices, they turned away from all of them?

"

Thank you, that is very kind.
On your point, we're in agreement. The woke contingent is not dominating the party now but they're young and the moderate active faction of party is elderly so if things continue on auto pilot the woke contingent could end up taking over.

*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.