I meant to specify it was the Munich killer, but, you know, didn't type that. In any event, here's @notme mocking everyone for not immediately joining him in jumping to the conclusion that ISIS was behind it.
EDIT: On second read, he didn't actually say it was ISIS, he just sarcastic towards everyone who entertained the possibility that it wasn't ISIS. Which, you know, is totally better and he shouldn't feel a shred of embarrassment over it.
You mean he's more upset that a Presidential candidate is trying to collude with the intelligence services from a foreign country, and benefit from criminal activities perpetrated by that service, than he is that HRC was careless with her emails?
I just want to be extra clear here that this is what's bugging you.
Hey, @notme, it's turned out that the killer was a self-described "Aryan" who was obsessed with Adolf Hitler and Anders Breivik, and hated Arabs and Turks.
Did you forget telling us all that was another example of ISIS coming to kill us all, or were you just expecting everybody else to?
I just think it's interesting that someone who is offering advice about the importance of avoiding a supposedly predictable form of backlash didn't frame their advice in a way that would avoid a different, but obviously predictable, form of backlash.
Matt Yglesias took a stab at voxsplaining it, and I think he's onto something.
They may be coming from a different kind of activism, the kind where you make yourself a pain in the ass by repeatedly drawing attention to the problem you want fixed in a disruptive way. I.e., "protesting".
It's not a bad thing in and of itself. It's just a crappy fit for party politics.
So progressives need to learn all sorts of lessons about what creates backlash and how to avoid it, but when your advice to progressives causes backlash, well, that's on them?
That could be, but then it's gotta be mediated by something--FOX News, emails, FB, their kids coming home from college, whatever. I think there's gotta be more to it than political correctness gone mad, especially since political correctness went made 20 years ago, when I was in college.
I think everything you said is a plausible explanation for the incredibly irksome rise of the alt-right.
I just don't think it's very likely related to Trumpism, which is heavily focused on older people and people without college degrees. Why would they be reacting to Tumblr spats and campus culture wars?
My first election was Clinton v. Dole, except I actually didn't bother voting. I thought neither candidate was worth voting for, but by the same token, neither was worth voting against.
I got a bit of the revolutionary spark with McCain four years later, except by the time I noticed it it was already all over for his campaign. I voted Gore without a whole lot of enthusiasm, but also without much regret, and haven't seriously considered a Republican candidate since.
Still, by the time Howard Dean came along, I was already well along the road to viewing politicians in a way that was far too cynical to really get invested in them as revolutionary figures. I was enthusiastic about Obama, but that was because I thought his "Hope and Change" line was a brilliant bit of marketing guff to get a competent-seeming but far-from-revolutionary guy with reasonably appealing policies into office. I had a lot of friends who sorta swooned for him, and I remember telling quite a few of them that they were going to end up being pretty disappointed in him in the end. I was mostly right about that.
If we’re seeing it in places where we never would have looked before (due to not having the tools to do so), that should be a big indicator of a big problem around the corner… like “we’ve started finding pockets of staphylococcus epidermidis in parts of the hospital we’ve never been able to test before” kind of big problems.
Really, it's an indicator of a big problem that's here right now which we simply hadn't detected before. If that particular hypothesis is correct--it may not be.
My point is that there are a myriad of possible explanations and contributing factors to why King is saying the sorts of things he said, when a Congressman twenty years ago (presumably) wouldn't have said them.
I've noticed a pattern in a lot of places to try to single out the behavior of a segment of the left on social media and college campuses as a major contribution to awful behavior of, say, right-wing members of Congress. It seems like a very counter-intuitive place to look for explanations, and as if to confirm my intuition, I rarely see anything like an actual connection offered beyond suggestions of hypocrisy[1] and the like.
[1] Talk about explaining a variable with a constant!
So maybe it’s merely something as simple as antibiotic-resistant strains of particular thoughts.
Or that it never really went away, and various shifts in (among other things) communication media and the way we structure our social networks allow it to be visible in places it wasn't before, or shift the incentives for saying these things openly so that they're more favorable.
This is not what I said. It has nothing to do with “innate”.
I described what they did and how that affected their place in the hierarchy that remained after they won. Not what they *WERE*. It has nothing to do with what people “are” (let alone “innately”).
If it has nothing to do with what white people are, why would we expect any connection between the supposedly contemporary white mastery of "memetic weapons" to the military dominance that made European imperialism and domination possible in centuries past?
Memetic weapons might have taken a couple of generations to figure out… but, at the end of the day, a lance is a pike is a halberd is a bill-hook is a bec-de-corbin.
But the "memetic weapons" you're talking about[1] are way newer than the ideas expressed in Steve King's tirade. You have the consequence--whether intended or not--preceding the cause.
[1] Leaving aside the rather bizarre notion that white people are innately superior warriors.
You seem to be trying to explain a constant with a variable. It's not like Steve King is putting forward his racist theories in a new and exciting way.
On “NYT: Donald Trump Encourages Russia to Find Hillary Clinton’s Missing Emails”
No, but you not only disagreed, you were sarcastically dismissive when presented which looks to me like a good-faith reasoned argument.
"
Do you think replying this way is likely to improve trust and collaboration from people who think Trump's behavior is unconscionable?
On “Morning Ed: World {2017.07.26.T}”
I meant to specify it was the Munich killer, but, you know, didn't type that. In any event, here's @notme mocking everyone for not immediately joining him in jumping to the conclusion that ISIS was behind it.
EDIT: On second read, he didn't actually say it was ISIS, he just sarcastic towards everyone who entertained the possibility that it wasn't ISIS. Which, you know, is totally better and he shouldn't feel a shred of embarrassment over it.
On “NYT: Donald Trump Encourages Russia to Find Hillary Clinton’s Missing Emails”
You mean he's more upset that a Presidential candidate is trying to collude with the intelligence services from a foreign country, and benefit from criminal activities perpetrated by that service, than he is that HRC was careless with her emails?
I just want to be extra clear here that this is what's bugging you.
"
At least Nixon didn't try to outsource the burglary to the KGB.
On “Morning Ed: World {2017.07.26.T}”
Hey, @notme, it's turned out that the killer was a self-described "Aryan" who was obsessed with Adolf Hitler and Anders Breivik, and hated Arabs and Turks.
Did you forget telling us all that was another example of ISIS coming to kill us all, or were you just expecting everybody else to?
On “The Siberian Candidate: A Collection”
Well, Trump just asked the Russians to do that at a press conference.
So, yeah, obviously we should be worried about Hillary Clinton's perfidy here.
On “I Want to be Part of Western Civilization Too”
I just think it's interesting that someone who is offering advice about the importance of avoiding a supposedly predictable form of backlash didn't frame their advice in a way that would avoid a different, but obviously predictable, form of backlash.
On “Weep the Revolution”
Matt Yglesias took a stab at voxsplaining it, and I think he's onto something.
They may be coming from a different kind of activism, the kind where you make yourself a pain in the ass by repeatedly drawing attention to the problem you want fixed in a disruptive way. I.e., "protesting".
It's not a bad thing in and of itself. It's just a crappy fit for party politics.
On “I Want to be Part of Western Civilization Too”
Oh, sorry, the word you used was "ought" instead of "needs"; clearly a crucial difference here.
"
So progressives need to learn all sorts of lessons about what creates backlash and how to avoid it, but when your advice to progressives causes backlash, well, that's on them?
Sounds legit.
On “CNN: Man shot by cops while lying down with hands up, lawyer says [+Video]”
It may not be HRC, but it was moderately big news that the Democratic Platform now has language about decriminalizing pot.
On “I Want to be Part of Western Civilization Too”
That could be, but then it's gotta be mediated by something--FOX News, emails, FB, their kids coming home from college, whatever. I think there's gotta be more to it than political correctness gone mad, especially since political correctness went made 20 years ago, when I was in college.
"
I think everything you said is a plausible explanation for the incredibly irksome rise of the alt-right.
I just don't think it's very likely related to Trumpism, which is heavily focused on older people and people without college degrees. Why would they be reacting to Tumblr spats and campus culture wars?
"
Wait, preferring steak that isn't well-done is a class marker now?
I thought high SES liberals ate, like, gluten-free artisanal organic beet salad and shit. I guess I need to update my stereotypes!
"
Being named "Shaniqua" is a behavior?
On “Weep the Revolution”
My first election was Clinton v. Dole, except I actually didn't bother voting. I thought neither candidate was worth voting for, but by the same token, neither was worth voting against.
I got a bit of the revolutionary spark with McCain four years later, except by the time I noticed it it was already all over for his campaign. I voted Gore without a whole lot of enthusiasm, but also without much regret, and haven't seriously considered a Republican candidate since.
Still, by the time Howard Dean came along, I was already well along the road to viewing politicians in a way that was far too cynical to really get invested in them as revolutionary figures. I was enthusiastic about Obama, but that was because I thought his "Hope and Change" line was a brilliant bit of marketing guff to get a competent-seeming but far-from-revolutionary guy with reasonably appealing policies into office. I had a lot of friends who sorta swooned for him, and I remember telling quite a few of them that they were going to end up being pretty disappointed in him in the end. I was mostly right about that.
On “I Want to be Part of Western Civilization Too”
Appointed Scalia, and tried to appoint Bork. I think those count.
"
"Some people are born smug, some achieve smugness, and some have smugness thrust upon them."
"
If we’re seeing it in places where we never would have looked before (due to not having the tools to do so), that should be a big indicator of a big problem around the corner… like “we’ve started finding pockets of staphylococcus epidermidis in parts of the hospital we’ve never been able to test before” kind of big problems.
Really, it's an indicator of a big problem that's here right now which we simply hadn't detected before. If that particular hypothesis is correct--it may not be.
My point is that there are a myriad of possible explanations and contributing factors to why King is saying the sorts of things he said, when a Congressman twenty years ago (presumably) wouldn't have said them.
I've noticed a pattern in a lot of places to try to single out the behavior of a segment of the left on social media and college campuses as a major contribution to awful behavior of, say, right-wing members of Congress. It seems like a very counter-intuitive place to look for explanations, and as if to confirm my intuition, I rarely see anything like an actual connection offered beyond suggestions of hypocrisy[1] and the like.
[1] Talk about explaining a variable with a constant!
"
So maybe it’s merely something as simple as antibiotic-resistant strains of particular thoughts.
Or that it never really went away, and various shifts in (among other things) communication media and the way we structure our social networks allow it to be visible in places it wasn't before, or shift the incentives for saying these things openly so that they're more favorable.
This is not what I said. It has nothing to do with “innate”.
I described what they did and how that affected their place in the hierarchy that remained after they won. Not what they *WERE*. It has nothing to do with what people “are” (let alone “innately”).
If it has nothing to do with what white people are, why would we expect any connection between the supposedly contemporary white mastery of "memetic weapons" to the military dominance that made European imperialism and domination possible in centuries past?
"
Memetic weapons might have taken a couple of generations to figure out… but, at the end of the day, a lance is a pike is a halberd is a bill-hook is a bec-de-corbin.
But the "memetic weapons" you're talking about[1] are way newer than the ideas expressed in Steve King's tirade. You have the consequence--whether intended or not--preceding the cause.
[1] Leaving aside the rather bizarre notion that white people are innately superior warriors.
"
You seem to be trying to explain a constant with a variable. It's not like Steve King is putting forward his racist theories in a new and exciting way.
"
I'd be a lot more convinced that charging the Republican Party with racism is "lazy" if it hadn't just, you know, nominated Donald Trump.
On “Morning Ed: World {2017.07.26.T}”
They really seem to be an awful non-solution to any real problem.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.