This is true and accurate. It's right there with my facebook feed, where people who have spent the last 12 months posting about how our government has been taken over by outright fascists are now demanding that same government go out and disarm the citizenry.
I can't speak for Oscar but you're misreading him I think. Parts of gun culture imitate the paranoid police culture that prevails in places like Baltimore.
I've observed this as well. I hate it. The place where I target shoot stocks all kinds of faux law enforcement crap. I've spoken to the guy who owns the range. He claims he refuses to let police certify there due to their support for the big changes we had in 2013. Nevertheless, if you need a t-shirt with some asinine slogan you'd see over at Police One it's the place to go.
This is a part of it. There's an assumption that there's a consensus on the broader left around firearm rights/policy that doesn't exist. My policy preferences line up reasonably well with Bernie world. Still, I support a right to personal ownership of firearms and find most of the reforms circulated every time there's a massacre to be pointless or maybe counter productive.
What I'd actually like to learn more about is the Czech model. They recently amended their constitution to include a right to firearm ownership and I think their system could be promising.
It isn't easy. I mentioned upthread the need to find a way to re-open a discussion on the social contract, which needs to involve how we're going to manage citizenship and movement of labor in a globalised world. I don't know how to do that. I just don't think it starts with dismissing the issue because of the existence of worse off people than the median Trump voter.
My use of it was meant to be a bit flip. I'm no apologist for law enforcement. But their various sins and shortcomings aren't an excuse not to take the immigration issue seriously anymore than police abuse is a reason not to take the prohibition issue seriously. Indeed its the larger policy failure that in many respects is driving whats happening with the law enforcement agencies in question.
I think there are probably times where this is the case but it takes us down this road where economic outcomes are all a bunch of individual morality plays and not complex results of policy choices and incentives, where agency matters but isn't the whole story. This frustrates me.
I concede that there is always someone worse off than the exhibit in question, always someone overstating their case for cynical reasons, and always someone unfairly scapegoating others.
Edit to clarify: I get the $20k is meaningful to the person who doesn't have it, and they would take it in a heartbeat. What I mean is it isn't nearly the great shield for the economic forces in question the author implies it is.
I agree that it's a complicated calculation of who is losing and who is winning, and I read that Mother Jones article when it was published. It's basically the equivalent of the conservative/libertarian trope that we don't need to care about poor people in America because compared to poor people in x developing country our poor people actually have it pretty good. Which is to say it's bullshit.
What globalization unaddressed is doing is creating precarious economic conditions for large numbers of people. The ability to buy cheap consumer goods isn't in itself going to alleviate that. Nor is a $20k household wage difference all that meaningful between low and unskilled working people (or even higher skilled people) with no safety net when they're all potentially expendable based on the whims of shareholders. It's bizarre to me how many progressives have seemingly embraced conservative talking points on this subject.
Yes on all points. That doesn't mean there doesn't need to be an actual deal struck. States as we know them aren't going to just evaporate nor are traditional concepts of citizenship. I know its now fashionable on both left and right to deny the concept of a social contract but thats really what's being implicated.
@pillsy of course said what I was really trying to get at, and did in one sentence what I failed to do in 3 paragraphs. I think the type of conservative whose politics are within a strain of conservatism that is fully consistent with rational inquiry have been done dirty by the populists/Fox News conservatives that run the GOP. The fact that colleges post 1960s are, on balance, blue turf allowed for a purge, and eventually a failure to distinguish between pedagogical and ideological standards.
If conservatives want back in (and to be clear, I'd like to see them get back in) they need to push for a correction in the movement they identify with. I say the same thing to liberals when it comes to all this intersectionality fanaticism.
I don't know enough about the institutional issues to comment intelligently but what I see from the headlines is more of a cultural battle than a partisan one. There are certain attributes one expects of a person dedicated to intellectual inquiry. One of those things is reliance on research, skepticism, and the scientific method. Those who reject those concepts for various reasons are in large part going to be rejected from or self select out of career paths that rely on it. To take an extreme example, someone who is a young Earth creationist is probably never going to do well in biology or maybe any hard science, and for good reason will never be faculty anywhere credible.
The problem as I see it, is that the know-nothing strain of conservatism that has come to dominate conservative culture has marginalized conservatism more broadly, to the point that its mere presence in respectable academia has become suspect. This is exacerbated by the fact that colleges themselves and their student bases have ended up on the blue side of the class and demographic divide.
Now that the conservatives of any stripe are in such a decisive minority, there's no one to curb the academic left's excesses, and they've busily established their own brand of post modern know nothingism impervious to facts and reality outside of the greenhouse. Still, if conservatives really want to re-establish a foothold, Milo and people like him aren't going to be the ones to do it.
I think the real issue is how to control it in a way that takes the realities of globalization into account but addresses concerns of people on the losing end of it. A lot of what's happening now in the US and Europe is the result of failure to put systems in place over the last 30 years. The answer can't be 'those who are placed to benefit from a globalized world will be permitted to do so unfettered and those who are not must learn to live with their unfortunate situation'. That's right up there with 'Let's build a wall.'
It's not like there aren't plenty of social democratic and administrative systems we could try.
See my above reply to Oscar. That feminist icon has more than enough baggage with his ex to be tried, convicted, and hanged by the #MeToo movement. I don't want to get overly serious about it either I just think the lack of awareness with this one is stunning, even for the genre of writing.
That's kind of my point. I think attributing politics to most of these movies, at least in any sort of specific way, is silly. They're interesting artifacts of their times but I'm pretty sure John McTiernan (who directed both Predator and Die Hard) was not infusing them with any sort of feminist values, and certainly not the ones that are prevalent 30 odd years later.
Anyone can look at any film and make up stuff about its politics, especially if they're free to define terms as broadly or as narrowly as they want. The author here isn't even very good at the game. If she was she wouldn't have failed to address the director's own criminal charges involving his ex-wife. Even her lazy film criticism is... well lazy.
I've always suspected the intent of the people making it was a half-hearted number 2 but the way it has been generally received culturally is number 1.
Even then it's kind of a gross oversimplification of well.. everything. By the author's standard you could almost call Predator a feminist movie. The mercenaries who try to go toe to toe with the Predator are brutally dispatched. Arnold realizes he must outwit the Predator with cunning, and use its own hubris against it, which by the authors standards, are (for some reason) solely feminine tactics. He isn't afraid to say he needs help/might not be able to handle the situation alone. Why else would the plan include getting to the choppa?
This kind of cultural criticism is shallow, snarky, and dumb. It amazes me people get paid to create it. And I say this as someone who thinks Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton deserve their spots among the best of genre action heroes.
As always in these conversations, I think it's worth noting that identity-issues are, at best, ancillary to Hollywood's actual goal, which is making gobs and gobs of money.
No disagreement. I'm sure they'd sell fewer if the pods resembled dog turds or something. Though that might make it even funnier to watch people eat them.
Exactly. Until last year my wife and I lived in an older apartment with no washer in the unit. When youre lugging baskets down to the basement the pods are a lot easier than the jugs.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Alrighty GOP, It’s Go Time, Let’s See What You Got!”
This is true and accurate. It's right there with my facebook feed, where people who have spent the last 12 months posting about how our government has been taken over by outright fascists are now demanding that same government go out and disarm the citizenry.
"
I can't speak for Oscar but you're misreading him I think. Parts of gun culture imitate the paranoid police culture that prevails in places like Baltimore.
"
I've observed this as well. I hate it. The place where I target shoot stocks all kinds of faux law enforcement crap. I've spoken to the guy who owns the range. He claims he refuses to let police certify there due to their support for the big changes we had in 2013. Nevertheless, if you need a t-shirt with some asinine slogan you'd see over at Police One it's the place to go.
"
This is a part of it. There's an assumption that there's a consensus on the broader left around firearm rights/policy that doesn't exist. My policy preferences line up reasonably well with Bernie world. Still, I support a right to personal ownership of firearms and find most of the reforms circulated every time there's a massacre to be pointless or maybe counter productive.
What I'd actually like to learn more about is the Czech model. They recently amended their constitution to include a right to firearm ownership and I think their system could be promising.
On “Morning Ed: Diversity {2018.02.15.Th}”
It isn't easy. I mentioned upthread the need to find a way to re-open a discussion on the social contract, which needs to involve how we're going to manage citizenship and movement of labor in a globalised world. I don't know how to do that. I just don't think it starts with dismissing the issue because of the existence of worse off people than the median Trump voter.
"
My use of it was meant to be a bit flip. I'm no apologist for law enforcement. But their various sins and shortcomings aren't an excuse not to take the immigration issue seriously anymore than police abuse is a reason not to take the prohibition issue seriously. Indeed its the larger policy failure that in many respects is driving whats happening with the law enforcement agencies in question.
"
@oscar-gordon
I think there are probably times where this is the case but it takes us down this road where economic outcomes are all a bunch of individual morality plays and not complex results of policy choices and incentives, where agency matters but isn't the whole story. This frustrates me.
I concede that there is always someone worse off than the exhibit in question, always someone overstating their case for cynical reasons, and always someone unfairly scapegoating others.
"
Edit to clarify: I get the $20k is meaningful to the person who doesn't have it, and they would take it in a heartbeat. What I mean is it isn't nearly the great shield for the economic forces in question the author implies it is.
"
Makes sense. 'Getting them back in' was my shorthand for correcting the echo chamber. I agree, their mission should he something bigger than that.
"
I agree that it's a complicated calculation of who is losing and who is winning, and I read that Mother Jones article when it was published. It's basically the equivalent of the conservative/libertarian trope that we don't need to care about poor people in America because compared to poor people in x developing country our poor people actually have it pretty good. Which is to say it's bullshit.
What globalization unaddressed is doing is creating precarious economic conditions for large numbers of people. The ability to buy cheap consumer goods isn't in itself going to alleviate that. Nor is a $20k household wage difference all that meaningful between low and unskilled working people (or even higher skilled people) with no safety net when they're all potentially expendable based on the whims of shareholders. It's bizarre to me how many progressives have seemingly embraced conservative talking points on this subject.
"
So I guess it's all good and we should embrace our corporate neo-liberal globalist overlords.
"
Yes on all points. That doesn't mean there doesn't need to be an actual deal struck. States as we know them aren't going to just evaporate nor are traditional concepts of citizenship. I know its now fashionable on both left and right to deny the concept of a social contract but thats really what's being implicated.
"
@pillsy of course said what I was really trying to get at, and did in one sentence what I failed to do in 3 paragraphs. I think the type of conservative whose politics are within a strain of conservatism that is fully consistent with rational inquiry have been done dirty by the populists/Fox News conservatives that run the GOP. The fact that colleges post 1960s are, on balance, blue turf allowed for a purge, and eventually a failure to distinguish between pedagogical and ideological standards.
If conservatives want back in (and to be clear, I'd like to see them get back in) they need to push for a correction in the movement they identify with. I say the same thing to liberals when it comes to all this intersectionality fanaticism.
"
I don't know enough about the institutional issues to comment intelligently but what I see from the headlines is more of a cultural battle than a partisan one. There are certain attributes one expects of a person dedicated to intellectual inquiry. One of those things is reliance on research, skepticism, and the scientific method. Those who reject those concepts for various reasons are in large part going to be rejected from or self select out of career paths that rely on it. To take an extreme example, someone who is a young Earth creationist is probably never going to do well in biology or maybe any hard science, and for good reason will never be faculty anywhere credible.
The problem as I see it, is that the know-nothing strain of conservatism that has come to dominate conservative culture has marginalized conservatism more broadly, to the point that its mere presence in respectable academia has become suspect. This is exacerbated by the fact that colleges themselves and their student bases have ended up on the blue side of the class and demographic divide.
Now that the conservatives of any stripe are in such a decisive minority, there's no one to curb the academic left's excesses, and they've busily established their own brand of post modern know nothingism impervious to facts and reality outside of the greenhouse. Still, if conservatives really want to re-establish a foothold, Milo and people like him aren't going to be the ones to do it.
"
I think the real issue is how to control it in a way that takes the realities of globalization into account but addresses concerns of people on the losing end of it. A lot of what's happening now in the US and Europe is the result of failure to put systems in place over the last 30 years. The answer can't be 'those who are placed to benefit from a globalized world will be permitted to do so unfettered and those who are not must learn to live with their unfortunate situation'. That's right up there with 'Let's build a wall.'
It's not like there aren't plenty of social democratic and administrative systems we could try.
On “Poison By the Pod”
You don't even need a product. I remember the 'pass out' game in high school.
On “Morning Ed: Arts & Entertainment {2018.02.08.Th}”
On thia we agree. Make a purchase from Jay and Silent Bob and debate it until the sun comes up.
"
See my above reply to Oscar. That feminist icon has more than enough baggage with his ex to be tried, convicted, and hanged by the #MeToo movement. I don't want to get overly serious about it either I just think the lack of awareness with this one is stunning, even for the genre of writing.
"
That's kind of my point. I think attributing politics to most of these movies, at least in any sort of specific way, is silly. They're interesting artifacts of their times but I'm pretty sure John McTiernan (who directed both Predator and Die Hard) was not infusing them with any sort of feminist values, and certainly not the ones that are prevalent 30 odd years later.
Anyone can look at any film and make up stuff about its politics, especially if they're free to define terms as broadly or as narrowly as they want. The author here isn't even very good at the game. If she was she wouldn't have failed to address the director's own criminal charges involving his ex-wife. Even her lazy film criticism is... well lazy.
"
I've always suspected the intent of the people making it was a half-hearted number 2 but the way it has been generally received culturally is number 1.
"
Even then it's kind of a gross oversimplification of well.. everything. By the author's standard you could almost call Predator a feminist movie. The mercenaries who try to go toe to toe with the Predator are brutally dispatched. Arnold realizes he must outwit the Predator with cunning, and use its own hubris against it, which by the authors standards, are (for some reason) solely feminine tactics. He isn't afraid to say he needs help/might not be able to handle the situation alone. Why else would the plan include getting to the choppa?
This kind of cultural criticism is shallow, snarky, and dumb. It amazes me people get paid to create it. And I say this as someone who thinks Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton deserve their spots among the best of genre action heroes.
On “Poison By the Pod”
I'm glad you added 'for their intended purpose.' You had me worried there for a second.
On “Morning Ed: Arts & Entertainment {2018.02.08.Th}”
As always in these conversations, I think it's worth noting that identity-issues are, at best, ancillary to Hollywood's actual goal, which is making gobs and gobs of money.
On “Poison By the Pod”
No disagreement. I'm sure they'd sell fewer if the pods resembled dog turds or something. Though that might make it even funnier to watch people eat them.
"
Exactly. Until last year my wife and I lived in an older apartment with no washer in the unit. When youre lugging baskets down to the basement the pods are a lot easier than the jugs.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.