Commenter Archive

AvatarComments by Chip Daniels in reply to CJColucci*

On “I Love My Country, But Let’s Not Kid Ourselves.

From La Times:
Biden plans early legislation to offer legal status to 11 million immigrants without it

We are about to get a storm of totally not racist economic anxious Republican wailing, with some flurries of murderous cosplay.

On “It’s Not Just About A Speech: Impeachment and President Trump

Calling this “systemic racism” implies we can just tell the legal system to back off and it will be fine.

That's not what "systemic racism" means.

Systemic racism increases rates of victimization.

On “I Love My Country, But Let’s Not Kid Ourselves.

The biggest error we Americans make is to imagine that all the struggles are ended and victory is safe.
It isn't, and never will be.

The struggle to establish dignity and equality to all persons is going to be a never ending one.

On “Drinking Cheap Vodka Will Kill You: A Twitter Parable

The Chip: "Twitters, that's the thing all the kids on Myspace are talking about, right?"

On “It’s Not Just About A Speech: Impeachment and President Trump

Well, it isn't JUST race.
Its also misogyny and Christian cultural hegemony.

But race connects them all.

Fred Clark at Slacktivist has done a good job at revealing the way racism has steered the theology of white evangelicals, echoing Lee Atwater's confession about the code-speak behind the Southern Strategy.

And the MRA types have themselves demonstrated how racial panic and sexual insecurity is intertwined with panic over changing male role models.


We always hear this, that they are wildly insanely angry over the nation's decline, so much so that they are willing to pick up arms and kill the Vice President, and yet, this anger is totally in no way at all related to race and gender but is about, um, taxes, the budget deficit and ethics in gaming journalism, yeah, that's the ticket.

On “January 6th: A Layman’s Post About Group Behavior

You recall incorrectly.

First, there were very few civil rights protests in the 50's; they started in the very late 50's and grew in size during the 60's;
More to the point, the protests which were led by the "nonviolent" MLK were noted for their level of violence and property destruction.

Someone here even posted a cartoon from the era mocking him for that fact.

On “It’s Not Just About A Speech: Impeachment and President Trump

What "nature of the country changing" would make their behavior understandable?


For the purposes of this discussion, lets say "liberal world" is a world where people like Kamala Harris and AOC are the power players.

Current states like California, Oregon, Hawaii where the Democrats are in charge would be a good example.

If you want to make the claim that no one has been oppressed in your lifetime, then this is a flat refutation of Damon's point that the Trumpists fears are understandable.


You can have equality of outcome or you can have equality of opportunity, but you can’t have both.

We should probably have a separate post on this issue, Since we are straying far afield from the topic.

But I will toss out that I believe this to be a false dichotomy.


And that would be...bad?


Pinky, would it be fair to summarize your comment to say that no, you don't believe that you will be the victim of oppression in a liberal world, but that the liberal policies will result in adverse outcomes?

The reason I summarize it this way is to compare your viewpoint to the Flight 93 type existential dread that Trumpists feel.

Your viewpoint is what used to be called "conventional Republicanism", or what would nowadays be called a Lincoln Project Republicanism.

Which is to get to my original point, which was to refute Damon's assertion that the Trumpist viewpoint is understandable.

Your viewpoint is understandable, and debatable. Theirs isn't.


I'm happy to trade quips and quotes, but I'd rather you just level with me.

Is this something you actually believe? That you are going to be an oppressed class, come the liberal takeover?

Because this never sounds convincing, when conservatives list the stuff Damon did.
It always sounds like huffing and puffing and melodramatic posturing.

Like trying to spin the straw of loss of privilege into the gold of genuine oppression.


Biden is also giving vaccine priority to those over 65 and with respiratory ailments.

For much the same reason.


The Mandatory Drag Queen Campfire Singalongs are going to be fabulous.


The assertion being made here by Damon is that the behavior by the right is somewhat understandable, given the behavior of the left.
In other words, that this is a symmetrical battle.

But it really isn't. It isn't about this set of words or gotcha quotes, its about the entire stance of the two parties.

Meaning, in looking at the behavior of the Trumpist/ Tea Party faction over the years, its entirely reasonable to conclude that they consider themselves as the only legitimate holders of power in America, engaged in an eliminationist battle to the death. In taking view of all their behaviors, their stated goals, the price they willingly pay versus the ones they fight to the death for, it becomes obvious that they are unwilling to live as co-equal citizens with the liberals.

This isn't just "politics as usual" where one side tries to gain advantageous policy, or that seeks to shape society in one way or another.

In normal politics, the other side has the option of joining in the majority; An opponent of lower taxes can accept them, or find a compromise.

What's going on with the Trumpists is ethnic tribal warfare, a Flight 93 existential struggle. Their opponents- roughly speaking, nonwhite people, non-Christians, feminists, gays and trans- are just plain lesser people, who have no legitimate claim to be in power over the Trumpists, ever in any circumstance.

All the claimed excesses we hear about, the endless Quillette and IDW wailing about the oppression of the liberals- never amounts to anything more than tough politics or individual acts of cruelty.

There is no eliminationist mentality on the left, where the rural white people are unworthy of ever holding power, where the sight of a straight Christian man reading to children in a library is, by itself, an outrage.

This is why the behavior of the Trumpists is not "understandable", because there is no injustice being inflicted upon them.

The most maximalist claim on the left is that the Trumpist must be forced to live in peace and share power with the liberals.

On “Them’s Fightin’ Words: The First Amendment and Incitement

But this is the point-
You seem more interested in the prospect of accusing fellow activists of hypocrisy, than working for reform.

Like, you have already constructed hypocritical arguments by your fellow activists, and already determined that they failed yet again to achieve your goal and already skewered them with your lacerating insight. You're really just doing the purity schtick.

Which is really just a sly way of supporting the status quo.

Because this purity schtick is just that, a pantomime that proclaims an insight, but conceals a refusal to grapple with how change actually works.

Because yes, the world really IS complicated, and getting a city council to do even the simplest of acts is a herculean struggle and the path towards breaking police unions and ending the drug war is going to be really long, really messy, and involve all sorts of "well you have to understand" compromises with people we'd rather not deal with.

If this isn't your thing, fine, you do you. Most people hate politics because of this.

But realize this is why your lacerations of hypocrites doesn't pack any punch because it doesn't reflect a real grasp of how the process works and it isn't supported by any real argument of what should be done. It's just "those bozos in Congress" from the corner barstool.


We're citizens.
We don't need to just "get to see" what happens.
We get to make it happen.

Like, there are members of your city council, state legislature, and Congressional delegation who are likely to be persuadable, if only they had activist citizens like you who would courageously defend them, flawed as they may be.

There are members of the Democratic party who are eager to apply the motte of BLM, if they had the support of people who wouldn't just wave a hand over the entire party and movement and declare it "bad" or equal to the opposition.


That is true.

And I agree, BLM is being irresponsible in not disciplining their marches.

On “Impeachment, President Trump, and Evidence That Demands a Verdict

We, the people, have to be the enforcers here and make sure that support or even insufficient opposition to an act of insurrection and assassination of our government leaders is punished in the most severe way possible.

The people responsible should be refused a seat in Congress, and replaced in the next election. An event like this has to be the toxic Third Rail of politics, something no one dares do.

On “Them’s Fightin’ Words: The First Amendment and Incitement

This is where contrarianism becomes indistinguishable from a defense of the status quo.

You've been shown actual examples of reforms working (Camden); You've been shown examples of reformers being elected thanks to BLM (George Gascon in LA);

Yet you don't want to endorse any political party; You don't endorse any political ideology or group or movement;

Instead you find fault with them all for various reasons and label them as all bad and unworkable.

And hey, if that's your honest opinion, have at it!

But you can understand then, why people say that contrarianism is really just a reactionary defense of the status quo.

Because if actual change ever does happen, you really, really, don't want to take any part in making it happen.


If we want fewer protests we could...and bear with me here...

We could vote for police reformers who will break the power of police unions and prosecute the guilty ones, and vote for city councilmen who will provide more funding for social services.

We can also then, with just as much vigor, prosecute the bad actors.


I start by taking their own statements unless there is evidence otherwise.

The stated goal of BLM to get police to stop mistreating them.

The stated goal of the insurrectionists was to overthrow a democratically elected government.


Great, lets compare them.

One protest was against injustice, was poorly planned and let bad actors take advantage to cause destruction, even allowing self-described false flag actors commit murder and arson.

The other was to overthrow a free and fair election, and urged the murder of the Vice President and led to the deaths of 4 people.

Like I keep saying, I'm mystified by any attempt to equate the two.

One was good in intent, but flawed in execution.

The other was utterly without redeeming qualities.


Without any seeming knowledge of shit that happened over the last 5 years? Without any seeming memory of whether these things were even talked about over the last 5 years?

OK, lets compare the violent rightwing Trumpist insurrection to BLM.

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