Are you asking for the "For Real According To A Definition That You, Personally, Use" definition or the legal one that they're going to be using as justification?
I don't think it's left v. right. It might be easier if it were.
It's elite vs. non-elite and the elite got very good at explaining that "no, this isn't a foot fault, if you'd read the rules of the game from 1927, you'd see that "the line" refers to the part of the line closest to the net and not anything having to do with paint in general, I can't believe you're using the ruleset from 1948 or, sigh, 1977. What game did you even think we were playing?"
And some of the folks responded by reading a copy of the 1927 rules *VERY* closely and others just started trying to figure out why the refs cared when they started ignoring the back of the line but not when the opponent did.
We haven't had a stupid party for a long time. The elite still thinks it's a left/right thing.
I immediately panicked when I read Phil's accusation. "Did I miss that this was satire? Am I so poisoned that I read that and thought it was real?"
I am not too proud to say that I felt relief after I spent a few moments googling and confirming that, yes, it's real.
But I had to double and triple check first because, you know... you read that and you realize that it could very well be actively making fun of how people used to talk in 2017.
Man, wouldn't *THAT* be nice? I think you're thinking of The Babylon Bee which is, indeed, satire.
The Sacramento Bee is a newspaper that has Pulitzers and everything. While you may read the above and think "Jeez Louise, that's gotta be freakin' satire" (AND I SYMPATHIZE WITH THAT KNEE JERK RESPONSE!!!), sadly, it appears to be entirely in earnest.
Who, exactly, was the audience for this conversation, anyway? Because it sure wasn’t the people of California.
I’d rather listen to Chico State frat boys debate their favorite IPA than spend a single moment listening to Newsom and Kirk.
I already know plenty of boring men who want to mansplain politics to me, thanks.
Now, I’m no fortune teller, but even I can see that Newsom’s little podcast project will soon crumble under the crushing weight of lackluster listenership — like so many other puffed-up would-be podcasters who have gone before him. I’m putting the over-under at 10 episodes. Any takers?
This podcast of Newsom’s is platforming people who make their living off of temper tantrums and mass-produced hatred.
Premise 1: You have one Third Reicher on your show and you have a Third Reich show.
Premise 2: Gavin Newsom had a Third Reicher on his show.
Conclusion: Gavin Newsom has a Third Reich show.
Now, if the conclusion is obviously false, we have a problem with one of the premises.
If the conclusion is true, we have to explore whether having a Third Reich show is enough to make the host of a Third Reich show a Nazi himself.
If it does... then the governor of California is a Nazi.
That hasn't happened since 1975.
I don't think I know anybody who is a Tateista. Like, not even on Twitter have I encountered someone who says "you gotta see this" for any reason but to (rhetorically) ask "why in the hell is this guy considered charismatic?"
Even Joe Rogan, to whom I do not subscribe, gets boosted inside of my circles to get a "you gotta watch this clip!" from time to time.
I have never seen a complimentary clip of Tate.
So maybe no problem, right? Nobody I know even listens to him.
I see Alito as being coherent (though, perhaps, deranged). There's an argument that he sees coming and he wants to cut it off at the pass and, as such, attempted to. Failed, of course.
When I was a kid, the tragedy of schism meant that baptized protestants couldn't partake of the Eucharist. I understand that the Catholic church has lightened up on that in the last decade or so.
In any case, if memory serves, there was an amount of resentment on the part of protestants in general that they couldn't partake of the Eucharist.
Lemme tell ya, anybody who showed up in the Babtist church could take a pinch of bread and a shot of grape juice even if they were Methodists.
So, at the very least, there were hard feelings on the part of those told that they were Heretics living in apostasy. This usually resulted in hammering on several of the (now moot) 95 theses.
As for the Grand Mufti declaring people heretics, the most recent example I can think of is Rushdie.
The right-wingers I've seen are pointing out that a single judge can force the government to send taxpayer dollars overseas!!!
The left-wingers I've seen are pointing out that this ruling applies *SOLELY* to work that has already been completed! It's basic contract law!
And I'm looking at this part from the ruling again: "clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines"
I think that this phrasing is agreeing 100% with the left-wingers and is not talking, for a single second, about what Alito is talking about.
However: The goal isn't changing Tate. It's making Tate irrelevant.
"I shouldn't have to make Tate irrelevant! He should already be irrelevant!" may be a true statement but the fact that Tate is not irrelevant is a problem that won't be addressed by pointing out that he shouldn't be relevant and you shouldn't even have to explain why.
Well, the part where you say "“heresy,” however interesting to outsiders, is a matter of internal club rules and has no purchase on non- members" seems to be true for you personally but it doesn't seem to be true for others.
your panda bear contrarian can’t give a straight yes or no answer on whether I have to deal with a Leo Frank denier or other anti-Semites in good faith or if I can just dismiss them.
My argument is that you can do whatever you want and you don't have to do anything.
However, there are tradeoffs and if you don't like the tradeoff, *THAT IS NOT MY FAULT*.
And cornering me to say "oh, there aren't tradeoffs!" WILL NOT MAKE THE TRADEOFFS DISAPPEAR.
You don't seem to understand that the people who believe that Leo Frank was innocent are the people who are the Leo Frank Truthers and until you hammer that down flat you're not going to understand why you're the one who has to lift the burden.
Well, part of the original lore is that I created the original "Mindless Diversions" sub-blog back in February 2011 in an attempt to create a zone where we didn't discuss politics or religion (new atheism was still a thing) and could just talk about cool stuff. Video games, movies, television, toys, nostalgia, sports, poker, and whatnot.
Right after that, I saw the movie Rango in the theater. There was a scene where Rango gets thrown from his owner's car to the side of the road and the song playing is Ave Maria:
It's just a few seconds of the song, but the song got stuck in my head. So I googled and googled and found a version from Bobby McFerrin that was absolutely amazing. He explained that he was told to learn to sing Bach Preludes as part of his exercises and he sang the Bach Prelude while the audience sang Ave Maria and I thought it was the most amazing version of the song I'd yet heard and I wanted to share it with everybody.
By 2013, I had given up the Wednesday music posts to Glyph and so didn't want to step on his toes by putting up merely a music post so, instead of ending the post with "So... what are you listening to?", I ended it with "So... what are you giving up for Lent?"
And then, in 2014, I discovered a version of the song sung by one of the last castratos and I immediately made the joke to myself "well, I'm not giving *THOSE* up for Lent" and, at that point, the yearly Lent post became one talking about Lent proper, rather than merely alluding to it.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
That's one heck of a framing, anyway. Were you around for the whole "artisans" thing?
"
"The students took over the quad and closed it down to anybody who wasn't willing to denounce Israel."
"They're supporting Palestine."
"
Disney has cancelled its London premiere of Snow White.
"
Are you asking for the "For Real According To A Definition That You, Personally, Use" definition or the legal one that they're going to be using as justification?
"
Engage in illegal discrimination, lose your Federal funding? Gasp! This is just like Hitler!
"
I don't think it's left v. right. It might be easier if it were.
It's elite vs. non-elite and the elite got very good at explaining that "no, this isn't a foot fault, if you'd read the rules of the game from 1927, you'd see that "the line" refers to the part of the line closest to the net and not anything having to do with paint in general, I can't believe you're using the ruleset from 1948 or, sigh, 1977. What game did you even think we were playing?"
And some of the folks responded by reading a copy of the 1927 rules *VERY* closely and others just started trying to figure out why the refs cared when they started ignoring the back of the line but not when the opponent did.
We haven't had a stupid party for a long time. The elite still thinks it's a left/right thing.
"
I immediately panicked when I read Phil's accusation. "Did I miss that this was satire? Am I so poisoned that I read that and thought it was real?"
I am not too proud to say that I felt relief after I spent a few moments googling and confirming that, yes, it's real.
But I had to double and triple check first because, you know... you read that and you realize that it could very well be actively making fun of how people used to talk in 2017.
"
Man, wouldn't *THAT* be nice? I think you're thinking of The Babylon Bee which is, indeed, satire.
The Sacramento Bee is a newspaper that has Pulitzers and everything. While you may read the above and think "Jeez Louise, that's gotta be freakin' satire" (AND I SYMPATHIZE WITH THAT KNEE JERK RESPONSE!!!), sadly, it appears to be entirely in earnest.
"
The Sacramento Bee has an opinion piece that I'm sure you'll enjoy: California needs Newsom to be a leader, not another mediocre white man with a podcast
The people are speaking. Is Newsom listening?
"
Premise 1: You have one Third Reicher on your show and you have a Third Reich show.
Premise 2: Gavin Newsom had a Third Reicher on his show.
Conclusion: Gavin Newsom has a Third Reich show.
Now, if the conclusion is obviously false, we have a problem with one of the premises.
If the conclusion is true, we have to explore whether having a Third Reich show is enough to make the host of a Third Reich show a Nazi himself.
If it does... then the governor of California is a Nazi.
That hasn't happened since 1975.
"
Wait, the podcast he went on was Charlie Kirk's!!!
Newsom is reaching out!!!
Holy cow, he's someone who would have gone on Joe Rogan.
"
I don't think I know anybody who is a Tateista. Like, not even on Twitter have I encountered someone who says "you gotta see this" for any reason but to (rhetorically) ask "why in the hell is this guy considered charismatic?"
Even Joe Rogan, to whom I do not subscribe, gets boosted inside of my circles to get a "you gotta watch this clip!" from time to time.
I have never seen a complimentary clip of Tate.
So maybe no problem, right? Nobody I know even listens to him.
Right?
"
OH! I stand corrected. (I thought that there was a thing that baptized Protestants in good standing who believed in the Presence could do it.)
"
Oh, was that the question you asked?
"
He's running for President. He suspects that you can't be on the 20 side of a national 80-20 issue as Harris just amply demonstrated.
On “Comment Rescue: DavidTC on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Unfreezing of Funds”
I see Alito as being coherent (though, perhaps, deranged). There's an argument that he sees coming and he wants to cut it off at the pass and, as such, attempted to. Failed, of course.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
When I was a kid, the tragedy of schism meant that baptized protestants couldn't partake of the Eucharist. I understand that the Catholic church has lightened up on that in the last decade or so.
In any case, if memory serves, there was an amount of resentment on the part of protestants in general that they couldn't partake of the Eucharist.
Lemme tell ya, anybody who showed up in the Babtist church could take a pinch of bread and a shot of grape juice even if they were Methodists.
So, at the very least, there were hard feelings on the part of those told that they were Heretics living in apostasy. This usually resulted in hammering on several of the (now moot) 95 theses.
As for the Grand Mufti declaring people heretics, the most recent example I can think of is Rushdie.
Is it okay to use him as an example?
On “Comment Rescue: DavidTC on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Unfreezing of Funds”
Here's a copy of the order (warning: PDF).
The right-wingers I've seen are pointing out that a single judge can force the government to send taxpayer dollars overseas!!!
The left-wingers I've seen are pointing out that this ruling applies *SOLELY* to work that has already been completed! It's basic contract law!
And I'm looking at this part from the ruling again: "clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines"
I think that this phrasing is agreeing 100% with the left-wingers and is not talking, for a single second, about what Alito is talking about.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
You're *NOT* going to change Tate's mind.
However: The goal isn't changing Tate. It's making Tate irrelevant.
"I shouldn't have to make Tate irrelevant! He should already be irrelevant!" may be a true statement but the fact that Tate is not irrelevant is a problem that won't be addressed by pointing out that he shouldn't be relevant and you shouldn't even have to explain why.
"
Well, the part where you say "“heresy,” however interesting to outsiders, is a matter of internal club rules and has no purchase on non- members" seems to be true for you personally but it doesn't seem to be true for others.
Which is how we got here in the first place.
"
Eh, I'd say that "the statements you're making are false" isn't hall monitoring.
But, hey. Opinions are like house pets. Everybody has one.
"Not everybody has a house pet."
"Oh, hall monitoring me are you?"
"
your panda bear contrarian can’t give a straight yes or no answer on whether I have to deal with a Leo Frank denier or other anti-Semites in good faith or if I can just dismiss them.
My argument is that you can do whatever you want and you don't have to do anything.
However, there are tradeoffs and if you don't like the tradeoff, *THAT IS NOT MY FAULT*.
And cornering me to say "oh, there aren't tradeoffs!" WILL NOT MAKE THE TRADEOFFS DISAPPEAR.
You don't seem to understand that the people who believe that Leo Frank was innocent are the people who are the Leo Frank Truthers and until you hammer that down flat you're not going to understand why you're the one who has to lift the burden.
It sucks.
"
I agree... DavidTC's comment just a few short comments above is probably the ideal kind of comment we'd want.
But we also need a place for the stuff that isn't worth comment rescue to go.
Hrm. I'll do a comment rescue.
On “Lent!”
Well, part of the original lore is that I created the original "Mindless Diversions" sub-blog back in February 2011 in an attempt to create a zone where we didn't discuss politics or religion (new atheism was still a thing) and could just talk about cool stuff. Video games, movies, television, toys, nostalgia, sports, poker, and whatnot.
Right after that, I saw the movie Rango in the theater. There was a scene where Rango gets thrown from his owner's car to the side of the road and the song playing is Ave Maria:
It's just a few seconds of the song, but the song got stuck in my head. So I googled and googled and found a version from Bobby McFerrin that was absolutely amazing. He explained that he was told to learn to sing Bach Preludes as part of his exercises and he sang the Bach Prelude while the audience sang Ave Maria and I thought it was the most amazing version of the song I'd yet heard and I wanted to share it with everybody.
By 2013, I had given up the Wednesday music posts to Glyph and so didn't want to step on his toes by putting up merely a music post so, instead of ending the post with "So... what are you listening to?", I ended it with "So... what are you giving up for Lent?"
And then, in 2014, I discovered a version of the song sung by one of the last castratos and I immediately made the joke to myself "well, I'm not giving *THOSE* up for Lent" and, at that point, the yearly Lent post became one talking about Lent proper, rather than merely alluding to it.
And now it's 11 years later.
On “The Recruit”
I believe that this cartoon was originally printed March 19th, 1912. Ty Cobb assaulted Claude Lucker on May 15th, 1912.