I'm not sure how pointing out your argument is incoherent nonsense qualifies as "screaming", bro, though I'm sure pretending it does must be much more convenient than trying to actually defend it.
DensityDuck:
“Trump did not come out of nowhere. He was created. Your side had a hand in it.”
What’s funny is that people will say “pfft, it’s not my vicious anger-addict attitude that created a hostile, you people just need to Deal With It when someone calls out your racist bigotry“, and then then turn around and tell us how Milo created a dangerous environment through inconsiderate and intemperate speech and that’s why he and people like him shouldn’t be allowed to take part in public conversation.
So, wait, we shouldn't call the members of the right out on their racist bigotry because the right welcomes racist bigots like Milo with open arms?
He wasn't so extreme about immigration in 2012, but he really embraced bigotry and xenophobia then, too. He battened onto Birtherism was impressive gusto. Policy considerations aside, that's really where he goes first, and it seems like he's had a long history of going there first, even outside of politics.
The whole story boils down to, "We paid them money we owed them as a settlement, but some people think the timing looks bad. Everybody knew this six months ago, but it's supposed to be a scandal now because... we paid cash!"
I told them at the Liberal Elites Plotting to Eradicate Righteousness meeting we should just send an Amazon gift card, but they didn't listen to me. Nobody ever listens to me!
And now we have this tedious nothingburger of a "scandal" to deal with. Like, it's not even the kind of nothingburger that's a bun with no meat--it's a low carb nothingburger with a piece of iceberg lettuce wrapped around it.
Q Thank you very much. Appreciate it, Josh. On Sunday, we learned that the United States made a payment to the government of Iran of $1.7 billion. Was this tied to the deal that led to the freedom of the Americans that were being held in Iran?
MR. EARNEST: Jon, this is actually the result of a long-running claims process that had been at The Hague. In 1979, there was obviously an Iranian revolution that abruptly severed relations between our two countries. And prior to that revolution, the U.S. government had entered into an agreement with the then-Iranian government to transfer about $400 million in military equipment to the Iranian government. Once the revolution took place, obviously that equipment was not transferred, but we also didn't return Iran’s money either. So that money essentially was held in what could, I think -- essentially in an escrow account. And for more than 30 years now, the Iranians have been using this claims process at The Hague to try to recover that $400 million.
I'm really glad the Wall Street Journal blew the lid off of this one.
That's what the argument you're objecting to boils down to, though. The complaint of Walsh et al. [1] wasn't, "Bernie is a white dude," it was, "Bernie and his coalition aren't doing enough to appeal to women and members of racial minorities."
Back in 2007, people worried that Obama wasn't doing enough to appeal to African American voters, and he never had support among Latinos the way Hillary did. That wasn't because he was a white guy!
[1] Which is really debatable, for reasons you and @saul-degraw discussed elsewhere.
No, that's not the assumption on display here at all, because the reference wasn't to the candidates, but the coalitions supporting them. If it were Biden v Coulter, it would be a perfectly sensible statement... in support of Biden.
LTL FTC:
I see the “rejecting the superiority” as a very carefully hedged statement written to allow for pillsy’s defense because “rejecting the superiority” of one thing is not precisely the same thing as “claiming the superiority of the other thing.”
Yeah, “We all know what she means” can come off as weak sauce, but come on – we all know what she means.
Less weak sauce, more distilled water. You've basically set it up so that there's no way someone can argue against the assumption that white men should run the show without saying they're inferior, because if they speak carefully in favor of equality, it's a "carefully hedged statement". Heads you win, tails they lose.
You can find these “sit down, shut up and do what your intersectional betters say” language all over the place. This one is from Clay Shirky’s semi-famous tweet storm:
You're doing it again. Shirkey suggests that white men do the same thing members of minorities do--accept imperfect candidates--and it's calling them inferior.
That's two out of three.
And I'm not saying that WWC women aren't WWC--you're implicitly assuming that when you exclude them from a coalition of "black, brown and female voters". Also, one thread I've seen in a lot of polling is that white, non-college-educated women are likely to support Trump at significantly lower levels than they did Romney. So there's that.
Quite simply, your opinion means less, WWC. We’re not actually fighting for equality, just like you suspected. We believe oppression is ennobling and you lack it. It doesn’t matter how poor or hopeless you are, you must be this oppressed to be worth listening to at all.
Ah, yes, rejecting the superiority of white men over "black, brown and female voters" is, somehow, incompatible with fighting for equality. White men are, axiomatically, more equal than everybody else.
I don't know if @ltl-ftc is trying to prove everything that progressives believe about white working class [1] grievance, but they couldn't be doing a better job of it if they tried.
[1] Evidently white working class women aren't part of the white working class because who the hell knows.
Will H.: Yet even Casey should be overturned, insofar as it purports to invalidate a statutory spousal notification, as this portion is in violation of the Court’s own Rules, in that it is grounded on a hypothetical matter not properly before the Court, and therefore carries only the weight of dicta.
I'm confused. I was under the distinct impression that the Pennsylvania law considered by the Court did in fact have a spousal notification requirement.
US politics are set up in a way that makes it virtually inevitable that major parties (a) exist and (b) are uneasy coalitions. The problem for the GOP is that most of the issues that held their coalition together either stopped being so important (anti-Communism) or were incompatible with their approach to governance (fiscal conservatism).
A lot of the glue that allowed more principled types to stand with white nationalists in the GOP was "anti-PC" or "anti-anti-racism". This dates back at least to the 1964 election and Goldwater's defection from the GOP consensus on the Civil Rights Act, where he, putative opposition to segregation notwithstanding, had to take a stand for the little guy's right to have a Whites Only lunch counter.
For the following half century, it's always the supposed dangers posted by the opponents of racism that have been the real danger, according to the right. Rhetorical excesses on the left--no matter how far out of the way you had to go to find them--outweighed any sort of policy excesses on the right. So what if the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act by pretending the 15th Amendment isn't a thing and states immediately began looking for ways to keep black people from voting--look at what this 22 year-old SJW on Tumblr said about straight cis men!
As other issues holding the conservative movement became political losers or fell by the wayside altogether, and principles turned into a set of mutually incompatible purity tests [1], soon there was nothing else left but anti-PC, and I think Trump was pretty inevitable after that.
I think the argument that, "This measure is a non-solution to a non-problem," is vastly less damning if the measure itself isn't burdensome and discriminatory.
Twitter evidently disagrees, and would have pretty good basis for doing so, since she said she was going to "tell [her interlocutor] about herself" but that instead she would "let [her] followers do it". She also made no mention of the target's race, contrary to your claims.
It looks like a violation of Twitter's rule against targeted harassment, but since it's a single instance, and Milo was banned for (quoting the article quoiting Twitter) "repeated violations" of that injunction, there is still no double standard in evidence.
And threatening others because of their race, yah, she did that.
Not even in the linked Breitbart article.
You can disagree, but I don’t have an agenda here. Maybe you do?
I suppose "refuting frivolous arguments" is a kind of agenda.
And I didn’t invite anything, as my responses to the two people who tried to misread my comment before Stillwater might “imply,” I have no interest in defending Milo or arguing against what Twitter did.
Emphasis mine.
I misinterpreted your comment in the same way two other people did, and that means that I was arguing in bad faith by deliberately misreading it?
1.) @kazzy linked to fucking Breitbart, dude. They have less than zero credibility when it comes to accusing black women of being racist, and, you know, are Milo's employers. If I had seen a link to Breitbart come up, I would have not clicked on it, because of the high probability of it leading to an egregious pack of lies.
2.) Nonetheless, it did not appear on the first page when I googled "Leslie Jones" or "Leslie Jones racist". I was not interested in spending a great deal of time validating your charges.
3.) Unlike Breitbart, Kazzy does not have a history defaming black women with fabricated charges of racism, so I clicked the link. None of the tweets there seem to rise anywhere near a Twitter TOS violation (note again: just saying racist stuff doesn't cut it), and thus completely fail to substantiate the charge of there being a double standard.
My days of thinking that Breitbart is completely without credibility on this issue are definitely coming to a middle.
That's how I interpreted the segue into the second paragraph, and the discussion of free speech protections and norms.
If you don't think such really apply to Twitter (legal protections obviously don't, but norms certainly could), then I don't disagree with what you said.
I think it's interesting that we're just supposed to assume that Leslie Jones is somehow comparable to Milo based on raw assertion. Given the way false charges tend to propagate against victims of shitbird trolls (e.g., Kathy Sierra), I'm extremely skeptical of "common knowledge" of this sort.
Using Jones' alleged behavior without providing robust evidence that she actually engaged in it does not make me more favorably inclined towards arguments that this somehow demonstrates that Twitter has a double standard.
How do you square robust free speech norms with an expectation that companies which live and die by the messages that they broadcast[1] and the way that they allow communities to form in those spaces should be required to broadcast messages that they (and more importantly, their users) find grotesque and alienating? How much goodwill, user base and, yeah, money is Twitter supposed to lose in order to keep the likes of Milo around?
[1] I think it's pretty significant that Facebook and Twitter both have business models that are fundamentally rooted in their ability to control what you see when you use them; they's nothing like "common carriers".
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “D B Hart: A Person You Flee At Parties | First Things”
I'm not sure how pointing out your argument is incoherent nonsense qualifies as "screaming", bro, though I'm sure pretending it does must be much more convenient than trying to actually defend it.
"
So, wait, we shouldn't call the members of the right out on their racist bigotry because the right welcomes racist bigots like Milo with open arms?
That really doesn't make much sense to me.
"
He wasn't so extreme about immigration in 2012, but he really embraced bigotry and xenophobia then, too. He battened onto Birtherism was impressive gusto. Policy considerations aside, that's really where he goes first, and it seems like he's had a long history of going there first, even outside of politics.
On “Morning Ed: Society {2016.08.03.W}”
The whole story boils down to, "We paid them money we owed them as a settlement, but some people think the timing looks bad. Everybody knew this six months ago, but it's supposed to be a scandal now because... we paid cash!"
I told them at the Liberal Elites Plotting to Eradicate Righteousness meeting we should just send an Amazon gift card, but they didn't listen to me. Nobody ever listens to me!
And now we have this tedious nothingburger of a "scandal" to deal with. Like, it's not even the kind of nothingburger that's a bun with no meat--it's a low carb nothingburger with a piece of iceberg lettuce wrapped around it.
"
The payment was made public at the press conference:
I'm really glad the Wall Street Journal blew the lid off of this one.
"
What's worse, the Obama Administration is so incompetent they Josh Earnest told a press conference all about about the secret payments in January!
"
In case you weren't feeling crappy enough about the country, here's a long piece about the grand jury process in the Tamir Rice case.
On “Morning Ed: Politics {2016.08.02.T}”
That's what the argument you're objecting to boils down to, though. The complaint of Walsh et al. [1] wasn't, "Bernie is a white dude," it was, "Bernie and his coalition aren't doing enough to appeal to women and members of racial minorities."
Back in 2007, people worried that Obama wasn't doing enough to appeal to African American voters, and he never had support among Latinos the way Hillary did. That wasn't because he was a white guy!
[1] Which is really debatable, for reasons you and @saul-degraw discussed elsewhere.
"
No, that's not the assumption on display here at all, because the reference wasn't to the candidates, but the coalitions supporting them. If it were Biden v Coulter, it would be a perfectly sensible statement... in support of Biden.
"
Less weak sauce, more distilled water. You've basically set it up so that there's no way someone can argue against the assumption that white men should run the show without saying they're inferior, because if they speak carefully in favor of equality, it's a "carefully hedged statement". Heads you win, tails they lose.
You're doing it again. Shirkey suggests that white men do the same thing members of minorities do--accept imperfect candidates--and it's calling them inferior.
That's two out of three.
And I'm not saying that WWC women aren't WWC--you're implicitly assuming that when you exclude them from a coalition of "black, brown and female voters". Also, one thread I've seen in a lot of polling is that white, non-college-educated women are likely to support Trump at significantly lower levels than they did Romney. So there's that.
"
Quite simply, your opinion means less, WWC. We’re not actually fighting for equality, just like you suspected. We believe oppression is ennobling and you lack it. It doesn’t matter how poor or hopeless you are, you must be this oppressed to be worth listening to at all.
Ah, yes, rejecting the superiority of white men over "black, brown and female voters" is, somehow, incompatible with fighting for equality. White men are, axiomatically, more equal than everybody else.
I don't know if @ltl-ftc is trying to prove everything that progressives believe about white working class [1] grievance, but they couldn't be doing a better job of it if they tried.
[1] Evidently white working class women aren't part of the white working class because who the hell knows.
On “This Party Cannot Be Saved”
I'm confused. I was under the distinct impression that the Pennsylvania law considered by the Court did in fact have a spousal notification requirement.
"
US politics are set up in a way that makes it virtually inevitable that major parties (a) exist and (b) are uneasy coalitions. The problem for the GOP is that most of the issues that held their coalition together either stopped being so important (anti-Communism) or were incompatible with their approach to governance (fiscal conservatism).
"
A lot of the glue that allowed more principled types to stand with white nationalists in the GOP was "anti-PC" or "anti-anti-racism". This dates back at least to the 1964 election and Goldwater's defection from the GOP consensus on the Civil Rights Act, where he, putative opposition to segregation notwithstanding, had to take a stand for the little guy's right to have a Whites Only lunch counter.
For the following half century, it's always the supposed dangers posted by the opponents of racism that have been the real danger, according to the right. Rhetorical excesses on the left--no matter how far out of the way you had to go to find them--outweighed any sort of policy excesses on the right. So what if the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act by pretending the 15th Amendment isn't a thing and states immediately began looking for ways to keep black people from voting--look at what this 22 year-old SJW on Tumblr said about straight cis men!
As other issues holding the conservative movement became political losers or fell by the wayside altogether, and principles turned into a set of mutually incompatible purity tests [1], soon there was nothing else left but anti-PC, and I think Trump was pretty inevitable after that.
[1] "Fiscal conservatism," became, "never ever raise taxes on rich people."
On “What Milo Tells Us About Free Speech And Decency”
Having spent entirely too much time staring at Twitter today, I think we should be delegating the moderation to the Sweet Meteor of Death.
"
To be sure, they are being selective; they let Milo violate the TOS many times before finally banning him.
"
Thanks. Apology most certainly accepted; sorry for getting a bit salty.
On “United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit”
I think the argument that, "This measure is a non-solution to a non-problem," is vastly less damning if the measure itself isn't burdensome and discriminatory.
On “What Milo Tells Us About Free Speech And Decency”
Sorry, that’s promoting violence in my book.
Twitter evidently disagrees, and would have pretty good basis for doing so, since she said she was going to "tell [her interlocutor] about herself" but that instead she would "let [her] followers do it". She also made no mention of the target's race, contrary to your claims.
It looks like a violation of Twitter's rule against targeted harassment, but since it's a single instance, and Milo was banned for (quoting the article quoiting Twitter) "repeated violations" of that injunction, there is still no double standard in evidence.
And threatening others because of their race, yah, she did that.
Not even in the linked Breitbart article.
You can disagree, but I don’t have an agenda here. Maybe you do?
I suppose "refuting frivolous arguments" is a kind of agenda.
"
And I didn’t invite anything, as my responses to the two people who tried to misread my comment before Stillwater might “imply,” I have no interest in defending Milo or arguing against what Twitter did.
Emphasis mine.
I misinterpreted your comment in the same way two other people did, and that means that I was arguing in bad faith by deliberately misreading it?
Go piss up a rope.
"
@damon
1.) @kazzy linked to fucking Breitbart, dude. They have less than zero credibility when it comes to accusing black women of being racist, and, you know, are Milo's employers. If I had seen a link to Breitbart come up, I would have not clicked on it, because of the high probability of it leading to an egregious pack of lies.
2.) Nonetheless, it did not appear on the first page when I googled "Leslie Jones" or "Leslie Jones racist". I was not interested in spending a great deal of time validating your charges.
3.) Unlike Breitbart, Kazzy does not have a history defaming black women with fabricated charges of racism, so I clicked the link. None of the tweets there seem to rise anywhere near a Twitter TOS violation (note again: just saying racist stuff doesn't cut it), and thus completely fail to substantiate the charge of there being a double standard.
My days of thinking that Breitbart is completely without credibility on this issue are definitely coming to a middle.
"
Did she promote violence against them?
Was the primary purpose of her account inciting harm towards others on the base of race (or one of the other listed classes)?
Neither of the things you've accused her of amount to that. And these are the phrases you bolded, so you must have know they were there.
"
That's how I interpreted the segue into the second paragraph, and the discussion of free speech protections and norms.
If you don't think such really apply to Twitter (legal protections obviously don't, but norms certainly could), then I don't disagree with what you said.
"
I think it's interesting that we're just supposed to assume that Leslie Jones is somehow comparable to Milo based on raw assertion. Given the way false charges tend to propagate against victims of shitbird trolls (e.g., Kathy Sierra), I'm extremely skeptical of "common knowledge" of this sort.
Using Jones' alleged behavior without providing robust evidence that she actually engaged in it does not make me more favorably inclined towards arguments that this somehow demonstrates that Twitter has a double standard.
"
How do you square robust free speech norms with an expectation that companies which live and die by the messages that they broadcast[1] and the way that they allow communities to form in those spaces should be required to broadcast messages that they (and more importantly, their users) find grotesque and alienating? How much goodwill, user base and, yeah, money is Twitter supposed to lose in order to keep the likes of Milo around?
[1] I think it's pretty significant that Facebook and Twitter both have business models that are fundamentally rooted in their ability to control what you see when you use them; they's nothing like "common carriers".
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.