I'd been blissfully unaware of many of these debates prior to my wife becoming pregnant. I blame the internet and social media in particular. We've always had busybodies, gossips, and scolds. Now they have megaphones in a culture that revels in self-righteous narcissism.
Actually reading this I think we might be mostly in agreement. I said 'conservative' identity. I don't think it has anything to do with policy. I think it's the just the name they've given themselves as an identity group. They aren't voting for policy they're voting for the one speaking for the identity group regardless of what policies he or she may support. See also my comment above to Kohole at 9:16.
Obama's legacy on party leadership is something I really go back and forth on. I can never decide if I think Clinton was really just the wrong candidate for the moment (realistically she only isn't president because of a few hundred thousand people around the Great Lakes who voted Obama last time) or if Obama's rise just happened to come at the perfect moment and therefore masked the rot in the Democratic establishment.
Maybe I'm not being quite clear. Trump's triumph is the triumph of the conservative identity over that which is substantive. They voted for someone with a background and stated policy agenda in severe conflict with what has been the stated conservative platform since the late 70s. All Trump did was adopt the identity (and have the money to give him a platform without going through the party of course).
Of course they're never going away and sometimes they might even be credible. The problem isn't that they exist, it's that they aren't being scrutinized appropriately by the outlets who publish them. These papers have been used too many times by operatives of various politicians, administrative agencies, and the intelligence services.
Obviously it doesn't mean that the anonymous source is never right but it has become impossible to distinguish between whistleblowers and controlled leaks meant to further an agenda. Personally I don't understand how anyone with any brains can take anything an anonymous source says seriously absent hard corroborating evidence. And yet here we are in Blue America, post Operation Iraqi Freedom, wondering why it is people don't trust the latest from Fred Hiatt's unnamed bud at Fort Meade.
Maybe I misread Stillwater but I don't really see how Marchmaine's critique addresses what he's saying. Marchmaine is right, the conservstive identity is hollow in that it isn't based on policy or rational operation in our existing political system (which is how I interpret Stillwater). Where Marchemaine is wrong I think is that the conservative identity is a relatively powerful allegiance, and turned out to be stronger than the GOP establishment, corrupted and brittle as it has become.
I largely agree and I think there's a much simpler way to say it- they've created an identity politics for a group called 'conservatives.' Policy and even electoral success, while impacted, don't drive the allegiance, the identity does.
We are in a bad spot regarding news, and saying sources you don’t like are fake news news or wrongthink cuts both ways.
Part of the problem is that the big MSM outlets, including the Serious papers of record like NYT and WaPo, have doubled down on their worst pathologies i.e. deference to authority (as long as it presents a certain way), relying on anonymous sources so that agendas are masked, and mistaking blue state cultural norms for morality. They'll never get their credibility back or be able to credibly criticize online propaganda until they address those shortcomings.
Depends on how you look at history. I'll take our justice system, warts, inequities, and all of it over what passed for justice not so long ago in the story of mankind, or even in this country.
I think you're giving way too much credit to the cultural appropriation side. The framing begs the question, what's a society (or in this case culture), and who has authority to speak for it? I don't think there's any workable way to answer that question for purposes of adjudicating accusations of appropriation which is a large part of why it's such an intellectually weak concept.
The media is awful at reporting on cases and legal developments. Usually they latch on to some random fact or phrasing, often devoid of context, either because it's lurid or increasingly because at face value it seems to affirm some SJW truism or another. Crucial details are buried on page 6 and don't even make it into the click bait or 90 second cable news banter where most people hear about it.
I get that but it strikes me as a great example of the whole privilege cult failing to distinguish between 'privilege' we want to end and 'privilege' we want to spread. The solution isn't to start dropping the hammer on the well to do and advantaged to even the score, it's to stop being so keen to drop the hammer generally, and to extend the same benefit of the doubt to the poor and marginalized.
I think we are just so used to calling for blood and over emotionalizing everything in this country that leniency of any kind comes as a shock. Further googling says the 'stabbing' was with a bread knife (not exactly a fearsome weapon, it may not have even broke the skin) and that she threw some stuff. It's definitely immature and dumb conduct but I don't think it merits jail time. I think it says a lot about our culture that our natural reaction is to think it does.
I feel similarly. I'd like to think that there isn't really a constituency for it among regular voters and it's more inertia, law enforcement, and general gut preference for politicians who are 'tough on crime' but who really knows?
Edit to add there are a lot of people who maybe don't want their kids doing it but don't really understand the way prohibition works. I guess that could be a big bloc of support.
I hate to say it but it makes me wonder if it isn't the first step to a Ruby Ridge or Waco type scenario- just over pot instead of federal firearm regulations.
I would agree that punching Spencer was probably driven by media attention to the alt-right. Absent that it isn't clear to me anyone would have known who he was. I can't prove it but my suspicion is that had he not been punched on camera he would remain unheard of among mainstream society (he probably still is outside of political junkies like us here on OT).
On the bigger question of this stuff becoming somehow more acceptable... I'm just not convinced. Even if there's been an increase in their numbers (something I'm not sure we can measure) we're still talking about a tiny, tiny group of people with no power or electoral significance.
I think jr is closer to the mark and your first paragraph is begging the question. I'm open to being corrected but I don't think there's any good evidence that neo-nazis or the KKK or similar groups are any more mainstream than they were 8 years ago. It's easier to stage re-enactments of old battles than try to figure out what to do about the resentments and inequities that have survived the end of de jure racism.
Read it how you want. My alma mater had a bit of a reputation for sports riots when I was attending. To my knowledge that tendency was never exploited for political purposes.
That's because that's what's happening. There's a reason these incidents tend to happen at private, liberal arts universities or in their vicinity. Nothing is easier than trolling immature people awash in an intellectually shallow dogma, that being the whole intersectionality/woke thing.
Conservative provocateurs bring a hustler magazine to a Puritan prayer vigil then pin the unhinged reaction on their political opponents and score a propaganda victory.
On “Tempest in a D-Cup”
Sounds like paradise.
"
I'd been blissfully unaware of many of these debates prior to my wife becoming pregnant. I blame the internet and social media in particular. We've always had busybodies, gossips, and scolds. Now they have megaphones in a culture that revels in self-righteous narcissism.
On “I Read the Comments on Breitbart So You Don’t Have To”
Ha! Tell them to send the info encrypted to Glenn Greenwald and I guess I'll have no choice but to take it seriously.
"
You make a valid point. What I should have said was 'taste' not cultural norms.
"
Actually reading this I think we might be mostly in agreement. I said 'conservative' identity. I don't think it has anything to do with policy. I think it's the just the name they've given themselves as an identity group. They aren't voting for policy they're voting for the one speaking for the identity group regardless of what policies he or she may support. See also my comment above to Kohole at 9:16.
"
Obama's legacy on party leadership is something I really go back and forth on. I can never decide if I think Clinton was really just the wrong candidate for the moment (realistically she only isn't president because of a few hundred thousand people around the Great Lakes who voted Obama last time) or if Obama's rise just happened to come at the perfect moment and therefore masked the rot in the Democratic establishment.
"
Maybe I'm not being quite clear. Trump's triumph is the triumph of the conservative identity over that which is substantive. They voted for someone with a background and stated policy agenda in severe conflict with what has been the stated conservative platform since the late 70s. All Trump did was adopt the identity (and have the money to give him a platform without going through the party of course).
"
Of course they're never going away and sometimes they might even be credible. The problem isn't that they exist, it's that they aren't being scrutinized appropriately by the outlets who publish them. These papers have been used too many times by operatives of various politicians, administrative agencies, and the intelligence services.
Obviously it doesn't mean that the anonymous source is never right but it has become impossible to distinguish between whistleblowers and controlled leaks meant to further an agenda. Personally I don't understand how anyone with any brains can take anything an anonymous source says seriously absent hard corroborating evidence. And yet here we are in Blue America, post Operation Iraqi Freedom, wondering why it is people don't trust the latest from Fred Hiatt's unnamed bud at Fort Meade.
"
Maybe I misread Stillwater but I don't really see how Marchmaine's critique addresses what he's saying. Marchmaine is right, the conservstive identity is hollow in that it isn't based on policy or rational operation in our existing political system (which is how I interpret Stillwater). Where Marchemaine is wrong I think is that the conservative identity is a relatively powerful allegiance, and turned out to be stronger than the GOP establishment, corrupted and brittle as it has become.
"
I largely agree and I think there's a much simpler way to say it- they've created an identity politics for a group called 'conservatives.' Policy and even electoral success, while impacted, don't drive the allegiance, the identity does.
"
Part of the problem is that the big MSM outlets, including the Serious papers of record like NYT and WaPo, have doubled down on their worst pathologies i.e. deference to authority (as long as it presents a certain way), relying on anonymous sources so that agendas are masked, and mistaking blue state cultural norms for morality. They'll never get their credibility back or be able to credibly criticize online propaganda until they address those shortcomings.
"
I second that point, and my sympathies are to the left, at least by the standards of this country.
On “Linky Friday: Houses of Warship”
Depends on how you look at history. I'll take our justice system, warts, inequities, and all of it over what passed for justice not so long ago in the story of mankind, or even in this country.
"
I think you're giving way too much credit to the cultural appropriation side. The framing begs the question, what's a society (or in this case culture), and who has authority to speak for it? I don't think there's any workable way to answer that question for purposes of adjudicating accusations of appropriation which is a large part of why it's such an intellectually weak concept.
"
The media is awful at reporting on cases and legal developments. Usually they latch on to some random fact or phrasing, often devoid of context, either because it's lurid or increasingly because at face value it seems to affirm some SJW truism or another. Crucial details are buried on page 6 and don't even make it into the click bait or 90 second cable news banter where most people hear about it.
"
I get that but it strikes me as a great example of the whole privilege cult failing to distinguish between 'privilege' we want to end and 'privilege' we want to spread. The solution isn't to start dropping the hammer on the well to do and advantaged to even the score, it's to stop being so keen to drop the hammer generally, and to extend the same benefit of the doubt to the poor and marginalized.
"
I think we are just so used to calling for blood and over emotionalizing everything in this country that leniency of any kind comes as a shock. Further googling says the 'stabbing' was with a bread knife (not exactly a fearsome weapon, it may not have even broke the skin) and that she threw some stuff. It's definitely immature and dumb conduct but I don't think it merits jail time. I think it says a lot about our culture that our natural reaction is to think it does.
On “Linky Friday: Here, There, Everywhere”
I feel similarly. I'd like to think that there isn't really a constituency for it among regular voters and it's more inertia, law enforcement, and general gut preference for politicians who are 'tough on crime' but who really knows?
Edit to add there are a lot of people who maybe don't want their kids doing it but don't really understand the way prohibition works. I guess that could be a big bloc of support.
"
'Up to Congress..' Talk about your discouraging phrases.
"
I hate to say it but it makes me wonder if it isn't the first step to a Ruby Ridge or Waco type scenario- just over pot instead of federal firearm regulations.
On “An Unfortunate Turn of Events”
I would agree that punching Spencer was probably driven by media attention to the alt-right. Absent that it isn't clear to me anyone would have known who he was. I can't prove it but my suspicion is that had he not been punched on camera he would remain unheard of among mainstream society (he probably still is outside of political junkies like us here on OT).
On the bigger question of this stuff becoming somehow more acceptable... I'm just not convinced. Even if there's been an increase in their numbers (something I'm not sure we can measure) we're still talking about a tiny, tiny group of people with no power or electoral significance.
"
I think jr is closer to the mark and your first paragraph is begging the question. I'm open to being corrected but I don't think there's any good evidence that neo-nazis or the KKK or similar groups are any more mainstream than they were 8 years ago. It's easier to stage re-enactments of old battles than try to figure out what to do about the resentments and inequities that have survived the end of de jure racism.
"
Read it how you want. My alma mater had a bit of a reputation for sports riots when I was attending. To my knowledge that tendency was never exploited for political purposes.
"
That's because that's what's happening. There's a reason these incidents tend to happen at private, liberal arts universities or in their vicinity. Nothing is easier than trolling immature people awash in an intellectually shallow dogma, that being the whole intersectionality/woke thing.
Conservative provocateurs bring a hustler magazine to a Puritan prayer vigil then pin the unhinged reaction on their political opponents and score a propaganda victory.
On “Mugged By Reality: A Conservative for Universal Health Care”
By what metric?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.