« Who disabled an unmarked unit, with a banana? Op. Thr. | Main | About the recent unpleasantness »

June 15, 2018

Comments

(on dishonesty, financial corruption and treason)

And, of course, on inhumanity to families and children.

Do you think that (to use your examples) known supporters of gay marriage, Black Lives Matter and Planned Parenthood are NOT insulted, called out and shamed publically?

my church has a "we support BLM" banner hanging over the front door. i guess we're SJW's. there are worse things to be, or be called. we won't take offense at that label.

people give us feedback of all kinds. positive negative, polite and not so polite.

we take it as an opportunity to talk to people. about that, or anything else.

it's no biggie.

by all means, call us out. we'll have a conversation.

i guess we're SJW's. there are worse things to be, or be called

Exactly. Who wouldn't want to be a warrior for social justice? I guess the people who try to make it harder for black people to vote, for example.

McKinney, your use (not for the first time) of the insult SJW, puts you in the same category you were accusing us of being in when we dismissed "Trumpists" as automatically wrong and refuted by definition.

If it is insulting to be called out--in a blog for crying out loud--for over-weening self-righteousness under the guise of being earnest and caring social justice crusaders, then fine by me. You should read what people say here about conservatives.

Here's the thing: until I butted in, the discussion was the limits on harassing people in restaurants for their viewpoint (MAGA). There was one dissent and she's dropped out of the conversation.

If everyone is agreeing on a format for publicly shaming non-conformists, don't expect me to get to worked up over insulting that particular cohort. This is a blog, not a restaurant.

i suspect most people have some category of behavior, some line, that is just a step too far. such that you no longer care about decorum, or being nice, or perhaps even what the law demands of you.

for some people, separating people from their kids is one of those lines.

You bet! Everyone is their own moral custodian, and everyone else's! I think aborting unborn children is an issue--a very terminal issue for the unborn. Can I stick pictures of fetuses on people's tables in a restaurant? Define your own personal moral high ground as uniquely the highest and most pure and then let the sinners have it.

Do you think that (to use your examples) known supporters of gay marriage, Black Lives Matter and Planned Parenthood are NOT insulted, called out and shamed publically?

Not in restaurants. Not at their homes. Not when they try to use public accommodations as an ordinary citizen. The mantle of victimhood does not sit well on anyone here claiming the moral right to accost others as they go about their PRIVATE lives.

by all means, call us out. we'll have a conversation.

You are inviting a conversation, not sitting in a restaurant or trying to get some sleep.

Exactly.

Exactly. Because of who you are and what you stand for, you may and should call out, shame, harass and generally ostracize all non-right-thinking persons. Because only you are the truth, the way and the light.

don't expect me to get to worked up over insulting that particular cohort. This is a blog, not a restaurant.

It was on this blog you accused us of dismissing Trumpistas as refuted by definition.

Not in restaurants. Not at their homes. Not when they try to use public accommodations as an ordinary citizen.

This is hysterical. You think that people like David Hogg, for example (seen recently in New York with armed security guards), who have been monstered in the rightwing press, are not insulted or threatened when they're in restaurants, or walking down the street?

Can I stick pictures of fetuses on people's tables in a restaurant?

i'm sure that, or similar, has been done. for sure people who perform abortions as part of their medical practice have been harassed and threatened in their homes, in public places, at work, anywhere they can be found.

maybe not the best example.

the horrors that have been visited on trump supporters discussed here are (a) couldn't buy a beer, asked to leave a bar, (b) denied service in a restaurant.

so, wtf.

janie says be careful what you wish for, which is good advice, and worth heeding.

but what you are seeing is people responding to outrageous malfeasance. there will probably be more, of both malfeasance and response.

live by the sword, die by the sword, right? well live by outrage, malice, calumny, and threats, and some of that is gonna blow back on you.

karma.

buckle up, we got a long road ahead of before his crap is sorted.

This is hysterical. You think that people like David Hogg, for example (seen recently in New York with armed security guards), who have been monstered in the rightwing press, are not insulted or threatened when they're in restaurants, or walking down the street?

Leaving aside the irony of Mr. Hogg utilizing armed security, if you read what I've written carefully, no one has any business calling out anyone else in their private endeavors. If Mr. Hogg gives a speech and those who disagree with him want to protest, fine. If Mr. Hogg goes to a restaurant, he deserves to be treated like every other guest and left alone. That's in my world, but not in yours.

So, confer on yourselves the right to be the world's biggest busy-bodies, sticking your views in wherever you happen to find a non-conformist: a restaurant, at home, at work, in the hospital, at their kids' weddings. Why have any limits at all on civility?

You are inviting a conversation, not sitting in a restaurant or trying to get some sleep.

people in my church have been called out in all kinds of contexts. for the sign, and other things.

we are, somewhat famously, SJWs, by that name or not. it works some people up. we accept that as part of what comes with espousing a point of view.

it ain't a thing, really.

heat, kitchens.

David Hogg

Hogg has been SWATed. people die that way.

on the whole, i'm sure he'd rather be asked to leave a bar.

but what you are seeing is people responding to outrageous malfeasance. there will probably be more, of both malfeasance and response.

live by the sword, die by the sword, right? well live by outrage, malice, calumny, and threats, and some of that is gonna blow back on you.

You do see the irony here, do you not? Confer upon yourself the gift of true objectivity and pick and choose the winners and losers accordingly.

Who are the fascists? Who is wearing the brown shirts?

Hogg has been SWATed. people die that way.

Well, in your world, no big deal. Someone doesn't like what he says/said. That gives them permission to do whatever. There aren't any rules, any limits. Do what makes you feel good a the moment as you display your moral superiority.

What irony? Since when has anybody said that in America, where guns are so easily obtainable, people who are threatened with violence shouldn't have armed bodyguards?

Exactly

You ridicule the word, but neglect to mention which elements of social justice you particularly object to. In the past you've revealed personal attitudes to race in the workplace, and gender likewise, that show you try to be fair and unprejudiced by your own lights. You don't like our priorities: fine. You think we're self-righteous and close-minded: fine. You don't like Trump - how do you like what's happening in America under his regime? How bad do things have to get before it's OK to call out his lying press secretary in public?

I read you carefully enough. You don't think anyone should be called out in their "private endeavours". But since rightwing thugs regularly do call out black people, gay people kissing or holding hands, known defenders of abortion or gay marriage or other SJW causes, you presumably feel that this should never be pushed back on in the same way. Turn the other cheek, eh?

And if you want to talk about self-righteousness, how would you characterise Sanders's biblical defense of separating kids from their parents?

Who are the fascists? Who is wearing the brown shirts?

The people kidnapping children and using them as hostages to force people to leave. The person who wants to dispense with due process. They're fairly easy to spot.

Hogg has been SWATed. people die that way.

Well, in your world, no big deal. Someone doesn't like what he says/said. That gives them permission to do whatever. There aren't any rules, any limits. Do what makes you feel good a the moment as you display your moral superiority.

WTF?

But since rightwing thugs regularly do call out black people, gay people kissing or holding hands, known defenders of abortion or gay marriage or other SJW causes, you presumably feel that this should never be pushed back on in the same way. Turn the other cheek, eh?

Ok, it must just be me. Do you not see, none of this is in any f'ing way ok. I live in a pretty diverse city, so I'm not seeing any of what you describe, but I'm sure it happens because there are assholes everywhere. What y'all are doing is justifying being assholes. Because, you're right-thinking, good people, so it's ok for you. And besides, other people do it to--so that makes it ok.

And if you want to talk about self-righteousness, how would you characterise Sanders's biblical defense of separating kids from their parents?

This is called 'changing the subject'--oh, look over there! A jeff sessions!

But, if you want to be judged by his standards, fine: I can't tell the difference between the two of you.

The people kidnapping children and using them as hostages to force people to leave. The person who wants to dispense with due process. They're fairly easy to spot.

That's one group. However, due process is rich coming from the same quarter that imposed the risibly named 'yes means yes' standard of campus "justice".

McKinney and I surely disagree on what it would take to Make America Decent Again. Evidently, in a Decent America According To McKinney, 9-5 fascist liars in positions of power are entitled to be treated as simple anonymous citizens out of office hours. To treat them otherwise is to be a Social Justice Warrior, which is next door to being a Socialist, which amounts to being a mass murderer.

McKinney is a lawyer in a border state. He is in a better position than most of us to express a substantive opinion on the "social justice" of He, Trump's border policy. If he shares the sentiment expressed on the billboard-cum-jacket recently worn by the Third Lady of the United States, that's fine. But it provokes me to quote a different Thomas More dictum: in Law, silence implies consent.

--TP

if you read what I've written carefully, no one has any business calling out anyone else in their private endeavors.

So if, to take an extreme example, if Pol Pot happens to come to you to have a bog-standard, i.e. not customized, trust set up (assuming your practice does such things), you have no call rejecting his business. Or telling him what you think of his actions. Positing that there is no legal recourse available -- since his actions were in accordance with local law at the time.

WTF?

You're not tracking? Y'all seem to mostly agree that accosting others is just good clean fun and because they deserve it. Well, if one can be shitty to someone else "who deserves it", who's to say what the limits are on how shitty one can be? It's all a matter of degree and since we're making up the rules as we go, there really aren't any rules.

Or, am I being too subtle?

I know I'm being a smartass, BTW. It's intentional.

Do you not see, none of this is in any f'ing way ok.

Let's recap. We were talking about whether the owner of a business can or should refuse to serve someone whose views and/or behaviour (off-site) they deeply disapprove of. We came down on the side that they should probably serve them, but tell them how much they (as citizens of the country the relevant person officially serves) deeply disapprove of their behaviour and values. You think this justifies:

Well, in your world, no big deal. Someone doesn't like what he says/said. That gives them permission to do whatever. There aren't any rules, any limits. Do what makes you feel good a the moment as you display your moral superiority.

However, due process is rich coming from the same quarter that imposed the risibly named 'yes means yes' standard of campus "justice".

"Same quarter"? It strikes me that there has been a lot of discussion among people among all quarters regarding what to do about campus rape. Some of my "quarter", including me, believe strongly in due process - including notice, a hearing and the right to cross-examine witnesses, and have discussed what process is appropriate in college situations. You might want to identify by name (and preferably link) those who hold the views you object to.

Oh, and way to change the subject.

Please continue to defend the kidnapper racist "quarter".

Well, in your world, no big deal

what the hell are you talking about?

I brought up the guy in the MAGA hat as an example of yet another way in which the (R) brand has become toxic. Because it's leader is toxic, and nobody appears to have the freaking spine to say no to him.

Because they got their tax cut.

Whatever the law says about public accommodations, that is what people should comply with. That is my position on public accommodations.

I don't know what the law says regarding either the MAGA hat or Sanders dinner party. If the proprietors were acting within the law, that's their prerogative. If not, they should be liable for some civil remedy, if they choose to pursue it.

My position on whether people should have a fucking SWAT team called on them because somebody doesn't like what they say is that whoever made that call should go the hell to jail.

Regarding "true objectivity" and "brown shirts", people believe stuff. For whatever reasons make sense to them. They are entitled to express that, and act on that, in whatever way is available to them, within the boundaries of the law.

Sometimes people disagree with things that other people say or do. Sometimes they express that disagreement. Sometimes they do so publicly.

When the person they are responding to is a notable public figure, such as Sanders, I'd say it comes with the territory, and if they don't like it, they need to get another job.

If you're wearing a MAGA hat, you're expressing your point of view loud and proud, and not everyone is going to approve. Don't like it, don't wear a fucking MAGA hat.

You demonstrate not one freaking clue about what fascism is, or what the significance of brown shirts are. Anybody rounding up MAGA hat wearing people, or putting them in camps? Anybody beating them up, or destroying their homes or businesses, or separating them from their families, or taking their kids away?

The guy didn't get served in a fucking bar. Here is a Fox News piece about it.

He walked into a bar with his MAGA hat. The bar owner told him he wasn't welcome, and he was required to leave.

How many freaking bars are there in NYC? This guy's life was damaged in exactly what way?

He said it "offended his sense of being American" to be treated that way, so he sued. His stupid hat offends my sense of being American. can I sue him for wearing it? In any case, it's not a very strong case under the law, so he lost.

Nice try, though.

Anyway, glad to have provided you with yet another opportunity to go off on the Hypocrisy Of The Left.

What everyone needs to get their heads around is that (a) Trump and his crew are going to be deliberately provocative and offensive on a daily basis, (b) that's going to piss people off and (c) they are going to respond.

They *should* respond. Trump's actions and statements deserve a response, and a robust one.

If you attach yourself to the Trump brand, some of that's going to come your way. For some small number of people, they may think twice about whether they really want to be associated with the guy. In most cases, they're going to double down.

As a purely pragmatic, tactical matter, that may be a reason for people who are opposed to Trump to soft-pedal their opposition. "Dial it back", says Snarki.

But to be honest, I don't think Trump's people are going to respond to the soft-pedal approach either. They've cast their lot. They don't give a crap what people like me think, about anything.

So, it's going to go wherever it goes.

When my son was in high school, I picked him up one day and one end of t he school parking lot was filled with dozens of anti-abortion protestors hoisting full color posters of bloody aborted fetuses and body parts in the faces of ninth and ten graders going to their school buses and their sports activities.

They kids had probably finished their lunches 90 minutes earlier.

This stuff has gone on for decades.

Does the name Randall Terry ring a bell?

I've sat through more than one dinner party over the years listening to Rush Limbaugh conservatives luxuriating and smacking their lips over the finer details of Bill Clinton's ejaculate on the blue dress while I tried to choke down some bearnaise sauce.

I interrupted and broke one of them up with an outburst regarding the Iraq War just to see if they could handle it, the sensitive twits.

They couldn't. They started putting on their coats and heading for the door as I finished my dessert alone.

But I was the one apologizing for weeks.

The mp Administration should be taken on at every venue possible.

They are a national disgrace and ruining the country.

It's lucky they live in a country in which every white restaurant in existence wasn't burned to the ground from the Founding until the 1970s and a few after.

We aren't going to indulge these scum any longer, like we indulged the Southern racist Democrats since forever.

Sanders and company could have refused to leave the restaurants. They cut and run like Moe Lane used to accuse Democrats of doing over at Redstate.

Sarah Huckabee's father has hosted and "jammed" with an asshole who numerous times has threatened to murder Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and various gun control advocates with his automatic weapons, including the Florida High School student activists and not once at this blog has a conservative taken the time to condemn that shit.

And so on.

If I'm ever in a restaurant with mp fellow murderer Stephen Miller, finishing his fajitas will be the least of his worries.


Tracking is difficult when the discussion is moving forward so fast. But the difference between telling someone in a restaurant how deeply one disagrees with their behaviour and values and SWATting someone is a difference in kind, not of degree.

Out of interest, intentionally being a smartass is odd. Why are you doing it?

What y'all are doing is justifying being assholes.

I'm sorry, but I don't see telling a guy that you don't want him in your bar because he's wearing a MAGA hat is "being an asshole".

It's saying that wearing your political point of view loud and proud, in that particular venue, is not acceptable.

Presumably, there were other people in the bar. Maybe they didn't want the guy there either. Most likely the bar owner knows his regulars, and his room.

I've been in hundreds of bars, on thousands of occasions, over the last couple of decades. Trust me when I tell you that people get asked to leave bars for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes, hats.

In any case, I'm out of this conversation. This has fulfilled my daily dose of jumping through hoops for McK's entertainment.

In any case, I hope you have enjoyed this opportunity to reaffirm your belief in the hypocrisy of the left. And, feel free to call me a SJW anytime, I will not take offense.

Maybe I'll get it tattoo'd on me, somewhere visible.

Do what makes you feel good a the moment as you display your moral superiority.

Pot, meet kettle.

I have not "dropped out of the conversation," McK, if you meant me and if you meant to imply that I retreated from it or was driven from it.

As it happens, I am traveling, working, and generally not in touch with the blog as easily as I usually am. Plus, people actually do disappear sometimes for their own reasons and needs that have nothing to do with the blog (you may be familiar with that phenomenon, AKA pot, meet kettle).

You have utterly gone off the deep end. Then again, mostly what you seem to come here for is to flaunt your disdain for us by writing what makes you feel good a the moment as you display your moral superiority.

If Mckinney and I ever run into Stalin at the Russian Tea Room, Joe is going to have his hands full going against the two of us...

"I'm sorry, but I don't see telling a guy that you don't want him in your bar because he's wearing a MAGA hat is "being an asshole"."

After five thousand words or more it comes down to this. Yes it makes you an asshole.

Sanders and company could have refused to leave the restaurants.

Even better: she could have said, I'm sorry you feel that way, of course we'll leave if we're creating a problem. Here is my card, please call my office tomorrow, and we'll find a time for someone from my staff to discuss your concerns. If my schedule allows, I will try to join in.

That's what the pros do. She might even have changed a mind or two.

Instead she and her dad jumped on Twitter and bitched about it.

Wait, what's her job? White House press secretary? Public face of the Trump administration?

Keep winning those hearts and minds, Sarah.

Yes it makes you an asshole.

So be it.

I used to work in a bar fairly regularly where bands would be fired for playing Brown Eyed Girl or anything by Jimmy Buffett. Patrons would be warned off if they persisted in requesting them.

He actually was kind of asshole, and he paid crap, but everyone wanted to play there, because they knew they wouldn't have to play Brown Eyed Girl or any Buffett tunes.

He knew his room, and he ran a great bar.

It's gone now, and so is he, but if he and it were still with us, you would probably be allowed to wear a MAGA hat. You would, however, be expected to take shit for it, all night long, and not bitch about it the next day on Twitter.

Via con Dios, Bob Brezovsky.

you were allowed to play Mustang Sally if you could make it sound like Wilson Pickett did.

McKinney and Marty. However would we cope without them defining words like "socialist" and "asshole" for us?

And remember, people: these clowns are reasonable Republicans.

--TP

It strikes me that there has been a lot of discussion among people among all quarters regarding what to do about campus rape. Some of my "quarter", including me, believe strongly in due process - including notice, a hearing and the right to cross-examine witnesses, and have discussed what process is appropriate in college situations. You might want to identify by name (and preferably link) those who hold the views you object to.

I don't like being accused of taking a position that is the opposite of what I actually believe, so first thing: I apologize for including you on the progressive view of due process on campus. Still, it is the progressive view, even if some, like you, dissent.

Please continue to defend the kidnapper racist "quarter".

Please show me where I did that.

It's saying that wearing your political point of view loud and proud, in that particular venue, is not acceptable.

Or your religious point of view, or something in between or having a bumper sticker on your car. You're saying that any of this entitles others to refuse service or give you a public take-down.

Yes, that is asshole on steroids behavior.

Out of interest, intentionally being a smartass is odd. Why are you doing it?

Because I tried--and failed miserably--to make a point, i.e. no one likes being lectured to by an asshole.

I could have 'engaged' in a cerebral, 'well, yes, I see your point, and wearing a MAGA hat is an invitation to rebuttal--no doubt about that--but isn't there a concern that someone with "Hillary for President" bumper sticker might be refused service at a drug store or something like that?' But because we are talking about publicly harassing people for their political beliefs, I just wasn't feeling the love.

For committed lefties, Trump is sui generis and that justifies pretty much anything and everything anti-trump that can be said or done short of outright violence and we may not be far short of that.

And for the last time, if the roles were reversed, my views would be the same.

The Red Hen restaurant owner, and what went down.

Because this never happens from the other direction.

Okay, the internet isn't a restaurant. But the question of which "side" does more to chase people out of community spaces is not quite the way McKinney's fever dream of SJW's projects it.

And remember, people: these clowns are reasonable Republicans.

My original comment had something this insightful coming from the left in mind.

McKinney, are you not reasonable, not a Republican, or what?

--TP

Trump is sui generis

The penny drops.


Because this never happens from the other direction.

Okay, the internet isn't a restaurant. But the question of which "side" does more to chase people out of community spaces is not quite the way McKinney's fever dream of SJW's projects it.


I read the link. An Asian American woman was vilified for being Asian American in a movie? That really happened? Seriously, have you not noticed that diversity is a thing and has been for several decades. There are surely some racists douches who slime minorities, but if it was a real issue, do you think you'd only find one blurb on BBC?

And, to repeat my freaking point one more GD time: it is wrong, regardless of who does it!

McKinney, are you not reasonable, not a Republican, or what?

I'm a what.

As a "what", who offends you more: SJWs or RWNJs?

And I ask again: do you support, oppose, or not care about the Trump/Sessions/Nielsen/Sanders border policy?

==TP

Instead she and her dad jumped on Twitter and bitched about it.

Likely breaking the law in doing so.

Still, it is the progressive view, even if some, like you, dissent.

All I ask is that you identify the people who hold this view, and provide a link.

Please show me where I [defended the kidnapper racist "quarter"].

You can't. Instead you changed the subject into a bizarre whataboutism, saying that the "brownshirts" and "fascists" are everywhere, especially among campus anti-rape advocates.

You've expressed reasonable (more conservative than me, but reasonable) views on immigration. I'm not sure why you're not calling this behavior by the Trump administration out loudly here in these comments. Plenty of lawyers in Texas are playing a part to attempt to represent some of these asylum seekers, and I hope there are some that you support. Anyone reading about their plight knows that these asylum seekers are desperate. Thank you in advance if your firm is helping.

You know, for laughs, I went and googled "trump supporter denied service".

Apparently, it's a thing.

What the hell is going on? Maybe folks should ponder it.

Perhaps it seems asshole-ish. Perhaps it's just people responding to stuff that seems more than asshole-ish, to them.

Everybody has a line. Keep crossing the line, and people will respond. If it seems rude, you can either conclude that, all of a sudden, everybody has lost their manners and their must be something in the tap water.

Or, you can consider that there actually is something different about the current situation that inspires people - business owners, people who depend on public good will for their livelihood - to say fuck it, I'm drawing a line.

Assume that there will be more of this. Consider that there are some things that some people think deserve public condemnation.

If you want the benefits of a tolerant social fabric, it behooves you to not piss all over it, or celebrate those who do.

If you wear a MAGA hat, you're aligning yourself with a guy whose personal history and political career are based on malice bigotry and a profound lack of regard for our public institutions. Feel free to marshal whatever argument you like to contest that simple statement.

Some people find that deeply offensive. They are going to respond. It's human freaking nature.

If you want the benefits of a tolerant social fabric, it behooves you to not piss all over it, or celebrate those who do.

If you want people to treat you with respect, it behooves you to not demonstrate profound disrespect for others, or celebrate those who do

If you present yourself to the world in a deliberately provocative way, it behooves you to not be offended if people are provoked

This is , like, kindergarten stuff.

Trump is an offense. He means to be one. It's what his supporters like about him. It's why they voted for him.

Fuck you liberal! Fuck your feelings!

Well, maybe you don't get a beer. The wise person will take a lesson from that.

McKinney has said before, and again recently, that he is not a Republican but that he is a conservative.

Because I tried--and failed miserably--to make a point, i.e. no one likes being lectured to by an asshole.

Yeah, when you put it like that, it's so hard to disagree. And yet, it's hard to see how our discussed course of action meets that criterion. If you think the person who tells Sarah Huckabee Sanders that she is supporting and enabling a regime of crooks, hustlers, possible traitors, and general slimeballs is the asshole, you show a lamentable lack of discrimination. Do people's choices have no consequences? She doesn't have to work there, and spout their lies and justifications for inhuman behaviour. Doesn't her self-righteous religious justification for taking the kids away from their parents license a little self-righteousness back?

Out of interest, if you and Marty think that someone telling a guy wearing a MAGA hat to leave a bar is an asshole, I ask you Tony P's question, way upthread. Do you think the same about someone wearing a swastika armband? I've resisted calling most Trumpistas fascists and nazis, but tell me, where would you stand on the swastika question? Is that a difference in kind or of degree? Is "lecturing" the swastika wearer acceptable, or are you being a SJW asshole? Where would you draw the line?

McT, as a prelude
you write
Because I tried--and failed miserably--to make a point, i.e. no one likes being lectured to by an asshole.

preceeded by this

I know I'm being a smartass, BTW. It's intentional.

It's one week, so I've just unblocked Bob.

incoming!!

that was a joke bob, welcome back (if you're reading)

Welcome, bob. I've pie filtered you, and I will be very cautious about peeking beneath, because you are not my friend.

Because I tried--and failed miserably--to make a point, i.e. no one likes being lectured to by an asshole.

If you failed, maybe it's because no one likes being lectured to by an asshole.

I was going to say: "Don't bite hooks."

Then then I read russell's 5:15 and changed my mind.

Or: wrs.

a topic perhaps relevant to this discussion is Popper's paradox of tolerance.

can a tolerant society accept intolerance? can it inregrate the intolerant?

to what degree? at what point does making space for the intolerant undermine or even destroy the tolerant society itself?

in the high-falutin' SJW circles that I travel in, this is actually a pretty common subject of discussion.

we live at a moment when questions like "should nazis be given a public platform for their views?" and "should support for white supremacy disqualify people from public office?" are not academic questions.

These are funny times. Not ha-ha funny. These questions are not academic.

If you embrace bigotry and malice and/or support those who do, you cannot also assume that the traditions and institutions of a tolerant and open society will continue to be available to you.

Yes, I second that: wrs @5.15

If you embrace bigotry and malice and/or support those who do, you cannot also assume that the traditions and institutions of a tolerant and open society will continue to be available to you.

Thank you, russell. I will totally plagiarize that, or attribute it to you, whichever you prefer.

please feel free to use it if it's useful. attribution is not necessary, and will probably be counter-productive. :)

Thanks. Going to go on a sign at the very least.

Going to go on a sign at the very least.

In case that isn't clear, I'm going to march with that theme.

"Well, maybe you don't get a beer. The wise person will take a lesson from that."

So, on the internet, in restaurants, clubs, bars, wise people will not Express an opinion different than yours or they will be refused service, ostracized, bullied, refused employment, and otherwise threatened and harassed up to and including physically.

And that's ok? And wrs? I will just say that since these are mostly the characteristics and tactics I despise in Trump and the far right, I despise them in the other side also.


I will just say that since these are mostly the characteristics and tactics I despise in Trump and the far right, I despise them in the other side also.

This hasn't come up much before now (except in the case of the baker who didn't really want to deal with gay marriage people, and people working in clerks' offices in courts, who didn't want to do anything re: gay marriage).

I wonder why.

Stop mischaracterizing what this is.

This is not about having differing opinions about tax rates. It is not about having differing opinions about whether to build a particular highway overpass or not. It is not about having differing opinions about how to redesign our health care system. It is not even about having differing opinions about whether presidents should be allowed to appoint Supreme Court justices.

It is about celebrating putting people in cages. It's about celebrating the agenda of an ignorant, lawless, vile, cruel, lying crook.

Did I mention lawless?

I'm still not sure I know where the line should be drawn, but let's not pretend it's being drawn in relation to any old simple disagreement about any old topic.

I should have quoted Marty, to whom my "stop mischaracterizing what this is" was addressed.

Oh, the poor put-upon MAGA people.

"Fuck your feelings."

wrs because he wasn't saying what you thought he was saying (I think from your comment).

He was saying, if I understood him correctly, that so many people despise and detest Trump that Trump supporters meeting these reactions will perhaps start wondering quite why he generates this response. Sometimes, vile opinions take a while to move into the "unacceptable" category (happened with overt racism way back when, before the recent upsurge), and realising that most people regard them as vile might influence the holders of those opinions to re-examine them.

That's what I thought he was saying, or something along those lines, and that's why I said wrs.

Marty, keep fooling yourself that we're talking about every run-of-the-mill "opinion" here.

Yes, what russell said. You want to defend the rights of assholes? Prepare to eat shit.

--TP

But actually, wrs is usually an appropriate reaction. As I have said before, he should be ROTU, it would be a better place.

About SHS getting kicked out of the restaurant, I haven't clicked on the links, and I'm not sure if this is where I originally got it, but

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/06/23/why-a-small-town-restaurant-owner-asked-sarah-huckabee-sanders-to-leave-and-would-do-it-again/?utm_term=.dcc308b6c020

points out that the owner of the restaurant has a number of servers who are gay and when she asked them what she should do, they asked her not to serve them. Now McT might sniff and say 'of course, waitstaff would be typical SJW, what do you expect?', but if it were a choice of keeping my staff happy or serving SHS, I'd definitely go with the former. Of course, your staff are ideally a reflection of what you want the place to be so that wouldn't be a big surprise, but it just shows how groups can magnify particular impulses.

And to succumb to the temptation of whataboutism, there's this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44594652

US President Donald Trump has called for speedy deportations that bypass any judicial process in a tweet on Sunday.

The other side doesn't call for legal protections to be ignored...

As I have said before, he should be ROTU, it would be a better place.

Yes, because if he were ROTU, I'd be screaming in his direction (at him - maybe in disagreement), and he'd answer. That would be a lovely U.

The other side doesn't call for legal protections to be ignored...

Important point.

I see that McKinney has his [not separated] grandchildren to behold, and is not here to argue.

"The other side doesn't call for legal protections to be ignored..."


What the hell do you think catch and release is? He's calling for nothing more than what was standard practice for every Mexican illegal family until three weeks ago, extended to Central Americans.

So, on the internet, in restaurants, clubs, bars, wise people will not Express an opinion different than yours or they will be refused service, ostracized, bullied, refused employment, and otherwise threatened and harassed up to and including physically.

you have a vivid imagination.

also, you appear to think this is about differences of opinion.

if only.

so many people despise and detest Trump that Trump supporters meeting these reactions will perhaps start wondering quite why he generates this response

yes. although i doubt that will happen often, if at all.

As I have said before, he should be ROTU, it would be a better place.

this is very flattering, and i appreciate it, but really, i would not recommend me to run a pop stand.

but, thank you.

Marty, what are you smoking again? Share!

marty, catch and release refers to the policy of releasing illegal entrants into the community while they wait for their hearing.

marty, catch and release refers to the policy of releasing illegal entrants into the community while they wait for their hearing.

And it works. The people have ankle bracelets. It was all sort of fine (although even then kind of creepy). But for all y'all who just hate on the idea of people "infesting" the country, people were monitored.

No it doesn't. It refers to series of policies including immediately returning Mexican families back into Mexico rather than prosecuting them, while releasing Central Amricans into the community.


Hope that McKinney returns to talk about his attempts, or his law firm's attempts, to help the asylum seekers.

My guess is that the reason he did the drive-by is that he realizes the problem, but has to check on things in his firm. Or that he really is only about tax cuts, and when asked about compassionate legal representation, has nothing.

I hope he has something. My optimistic side says that McKinney is the "good man" he says he is. Now is the time to evaluate.

So no one feels the need, the Mexican families do get trotted in front of a judge, a hundreds a day. Not really due process. Then deported. The problem with Central Americans is the transport back so they get a longer wait, so they can't hold the kids more than twenty days so they get released also, but into the community.

Marty, read what you just wrote. Explain, or go to bed.

What the hell do you think catch and release is?

What it mostly seems to be is an urban myth. In general use (as opposed to your, perhaps ideosyncratic, definition) it refers to release inside the US, pending a hearing. For which, contra the implication, appearance rates were upwards of 99.9%.

Real catch and release is like being in heaven, not this.

. Do you think the same about someone wearing a swastika armband?

I put a swastika or a KKK sign in a separate class. When I was a kid, the ACLU went to bat for some Nazis who wanted to march through Skokie IL. Back then, liberals supported the ACLU. It's speech and it's protected. It was the right call then, it's the right call today. Public accommodations were a thing back then for blacks, less so than in times past, but still a thing. So, when people start talking about weaponizing viewpoints to the point of denying/penalizing public access to public venues based on private actions and beliefs, they have moved into the early stages of tyranny.

Hope that McKinney returns to talk about his attempts, or his law firm's attempts, to help the asylum seekers.

My guess is that the reason he did the drive-by is that he realizes the problem, but has to check on things in his firm. Or that he really is only about tax cuts, and when asked about compassionate legal representation, has nothing.

I hope he has something. My optimistic side says that McKinney is the "good man" he says he is. Now is the time to evaluate.

Whether I'm a good man or not is open to debate. I'm not in the trenches for asylum seekers, so if that's what it takes to be among the elect, I'm doomed. I feel no need to strut my stuff and I have no issues facing myself in the mirror.

More generally, my long response to a number of you fell by the wayside when I hit the wrong buttons. Probably a good thing.

Trump is pretty bad, I'll grant you. Shunning the half more or less of the country who are in his corner is beyond pointless, it is counterproductive. If you weaponize public accommodations based on hats or bumper stickers, you take an already divided body politic and make things expotentially worse.

As right-thinking as most of you here think you are, you are also terribly short-thinking. Intolerant too.

TP, it depends on the day and the subject. The day after DT met with Kim Il Fuckwit, it was the RWNJs. Today, it's the SJWs.

Also, you never asked this question,

And I ask again: do you support, oppose, or not care about the Trump/Sessions/Nielsen/Sanders border policy?

I'm generally not in favor of open borders--just like Mexico, Argentina and Costa Rica (three countries that check my passport everytime I enter). I would turn back any but bona fide asylum seekers. I would not deport anyone who has been here five years or more. Those in the 3-5 year range would get a hearing. Less than three years, they'd go home. I would have a guest worker program, although I think that's bad for American workers. So, I don't know where that puts me.

If you failed, maybe it's because no one likes being lectured to by an asshole.

Exactly my point. Lefty assholes self-righteously lecturing MAGA hat wearers isn't going to change any minds. That's my point. Get it? I'm in your collective faces to make a point--no one likes that shit. And you know what else? They push back. The next thing you know, every controversial viewpoint produces a battle in forums most people just want to relax and enjoy a meal.

What SLWs and RWNJs have in common? Every fucking thing there is gets politicized. Every thing. It is exhausting.

McKinney out.

So, when people start talking about weaponizing viewpoints to the point of denying/penalizing public access to public venues based on private actions and beliefs, they have moved into the early stages of tyranny.

Hmm...that got me to thinking (no snide remarks, please, I have sensitive feelings). Wasn't there a recent Supreme Court case on this subject? Just who started weaponizing what here?

Every fucking thing there is gets politicized. Every thing. It is exhausting.

Said the man who got blue in the face about transgenders and bathrooms. You are a funny guy, McKinney.

I'm in your collective faces to make a point--no one likes that shit.

"No one" includes us. So what do you think you're going to accomplish?

weaponizing viewpoints to the point of denying/penalizing public access to public venues based on private actions and beliefs

A MAGA hat is not a private action. In the current climate, it comes close to being overtly hostile. Certainly a challenge. "I dare you."

Me: "No one" includes us. So what do you think you're going to accomplish?

Point being, when you shout in my face, I don't hear you, I just decide you're an asshole and stay away from you.

You can't change people's minds that way. Which is what I think you were trying to tell us in your superior sanctimonious way, imitating the very people you're apoplectic about.

And anyhow, it's not very relevant to the restaurant situation, because I suspect the restaurant owner didn't giving a flying fuck whether he changed the MAGA hat wearer's mind or not, s/he just didn't want his restaurant to serve as a platform for the hat's message.

Sorry, not being careful enough with my pronouns.

I'm in big trouble now. ;-)

I'm in your collective faces to make a point--no one likes that shit.

No you are not, you drop in and when the going gets too tough, off you go to your busy busy life. I tend to take things as face value, but if you were so concerned about changing our minds, you'd actually take an interest in what we are saying and try to tease points out. But you don't, you drop in, preferably after another dustup when feelings are running high and lob a few grenades in and trot away.

Which is fine, you can do that, though it is assholish behavior and if you act like an asshole, you'll get treated as one. But where you always go to far is where you bring something in from the outside and then try to tar everyone else with it. Communism, Social Justice, intersectionality. It's enough to look for some key words to pop up to know that you that you are going to be doing the McT thing.

If other commenters feel that you are the grain of sand that makes a pearl, so be it. I only make a note on your comments when it seems like the irony threatens to warp space-time, like saying you are being a smartass on purpose and then arguing that this is how assholes get treated. Thanks for the lesson, but you didn't need to make in interactive...

A MAGA hat is not just a private person walking into a public place and minding his own business. A MAGA hat is a political message, aggressive and potentially hostile and representing a viewpoint attached to a bunch of qualities I already listed somewhere above. (Cruelty, dishonesty......)

I doubt the restaurant owner is going to quiz people at the door about whether they've *ever* worn a MAGA hat. If the guy hadn't had the hat on and had minded his own business and had his beer, none of this would have happened. In that sense, it isn't even about banning someone because you disagree with them. It's about insisting that certain messages are not going to be promulgated in your establishment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal

Rolling coal: I saw an asshole do this not long ago as he passed a couple of twelve-year-olds on bicycles. Fuckwad.

I play competitve sports. My teammates over the years have been relative gentleman.

We play to win and we keep it to ourselves.

Never do we gloat over the losers, nor do we tell them to go fuck their feelings.

Unless the other team wants to be assholes.

We can sink to that occasion. You wanna see assholishness?

We're better at that too..

We never denied a hearing to a Supreme Court Justice nominee on the field of play.

You wanna play that game? Expect high spikes at second and third aimed at your faces.

You like trash talk?

It's my hobby.

By the way, what kind of a lout wears a hat at the dinner table?

Stephen Miller walks into my watering hole. He spouts off about Mexicans, gays, blacks, and liberals. I, the straight white guy among the Mexicans, gays, and blacks and the bipartisan crowd, cold cocks him. The Russian immigrant regular at the nearby table gives him a swift one to the short ribs while he's down.

The owner, originally a Mexican immigrant and the most decent human being among the species, drags him out to the sidewalk, brings him to, stands him up, and bans him permanently from the premises. No cops.

The owner comes over to me and says take the night off, Johnny.

See ya tomorrow.

mp republicans are being schooled on how to behave in public.

Unlike their supporters who have been waving around military weaponry in people's faces for the past twenty years and getting away with it.

No more. Shut your mouths and behave. Leave people alone.

The mantle of victimhood does not sit well on anyone here claiming the moral right to accost others as they go about their PRIVATE lives.

Once again, wearing a MAGA hat in public is not a "private" act.

A lot of what McKinney accused other people of in this thread, he was doing. He couldn't have constructed a more perfect example of what he was decrying if he had been doing it intentionally.

Is wearing a MAGA hat in public any more a "private" act than posting comments on a blog? I don't think so.

And now I'm done with McKinney.

And you know what else? They push back.

i'm not sure exactly how to reply to this.

yes, precisely, if you get in people's faces, act like a dick, and give them shit, they will push back. we already understand that,you're not bringing anything to the table there.

what we're discussing *is the pushback*.

i don't think you guys have any idea whatsoever how the trump regime is being received by people who (a) give a shit, and (b) aren't all in on (R) policies.

not just flaming SJW's like me and my fellow Unitarian jihadis.

other people.

this shit is going to come down on people's heads. and they're going to deserve it. because they wanted it, demanded it, embrced it, voted for it.

i'm not talking about not getting a beer, and i'm not talking about anybody like me doing one damned thing to anybody. certainly not over a stupid hat. i'm talking about our public institutions, and basic social fabric, and standing in the world, and ability to function effectively as a nation.

folks who are all in for trump better wake the fuck up, because he is toxic. everything and everyone he touches is worse for it.

folks who are on the fence, enjoy it while ypu got it, because it probably isn't gonna last.

Trump *is a point of division*. there isn't common ground available. not because anybody like me is being a dick, but because *he rules it out*.

he's not an acceptable person to hold the office. he does damage every day he is there. he sows division and enmity like pollen, because he thrives on it. because he's a damaged and dangerous human being.

you better believe there will be push back. a lot of it, by far most of it, will be reasonable. some probably won't be.

it's not a reasonable time.

if that doesn't suit you, find a place to hide for a few years. because it's on.

people like me didn't choose it, didn't ask for it, didn't want it don't want it.

it's been thrust upon us, we're just trying to figure out how to deal.

if you're getting worked up about a guy who didn't get a beer, you have more than lost the plot. two hands and a flashlight won't help you.

i'm not sure you understand wtf is going on here.

enjoy your tax cut.

GftNC: McKinney has said before, and again recently, that he is not a Republican but that he is a conservative.

IIRC, McKinney recently confessed that in 2016 he voted a straight Republican ticket except for president. That's Republican enough for me.

As for "conservative". well: the "conservative" party line appears to be that an all-GOP government can violate all sorts of norms, traditions, and decencies of governance -- but its opponents must stick to such norms, traditions, and decencies of "civil" discourse as Emily Post would be comfortable with.

McKinney is more Republican than wj, AFAICT, and to label them both "conservative" might be offensive to at least one of them. It's hard, isn't it, to discuss anything beyond the fine weather we're having without offending somebody.

I'm not criticizing you, GftNC. The world would be a better place if everybody were as determined to be kind as you are.

--TP

A message from the Unitarian Jihad

Per the Unitarian Jihad, I would dearly love to see Sarah Huckabee-Sanders appear in public dressed as a trout.

That is all.

Rolling coal.... something I’d not even heard of.

Wikipedia:
“The practice of rolling coal has not spread enough to justify legislation outside of the United States....”

Synecdoche, the party of Trump.

McKT has got a point - rules on what you can and can't do have to be independent of outlook.

I'm fine with banning MAGA hats from a bar. But it means that a different bar might choose to ban BLM T-shirts.

I'm also fine with with politely telling Sanders what you think of her support for her vile master. That means that when and if sanity is restored, Trumpers can tell people working for the new president, who isn't a crook, a blowhard, a misogynist, a racist, and an ass in every personal attribute, how much they disapprove of her. If they can manage to do it politely.

McKT has got a point

your take-away from mck's comments was not the same as mine.

a different bar might choose to ban BLM T-shirts.

might?

if you're asking what the rest of us would think of that, i'd say that a BLM t shirt is, and intends to be, a public statement of support for a point of view that is a point of division. negative responses come with the territory.

in other news, trump and his crew are losing Godwin . if that doesn't give you pause, I don't know what will.

McKT has got a point - rules on what you can and can't do have to be independent of outlook.

except when "religious convictions" are involved, of course. then, it's totally different.

"It is exhausting"

THIS I agree with.

Tony P, for me, it's not really about being kind, it's about being accurate and showing respect. Although, kindess is certainly a decent aspiration, and it is one of my concerns, albeit a somewhat secondary one.

The question of Skokie and the Nazi march is one that was very much on my mind, all through our discussion yesterday. I have always greatly admired the actions of the ACLU on that occasion, and thought it was a principle worth fighting for.

So, McKinney might rightly ask, what is different now? Well, as I understand it, the principle espoused by the ACLU in the case of the Skokie march was in the context of a political situation where the Nazis were a tiny minority, generally despised and looked down upon and seen if anything as a cautionary tale from history.

So you might say, what is a principle if it changes with the political situation? And I would say to that, defending Nazis' right to march would not, as an example, apply in a context where Nazis are the majority - they would clearly have that right. Now, I have notably fought with sapient and others when they have called the current Republicans Nazis en masse, and I still (more reluctantly) do so. But, we are now in a situation where the openly racist Trump regime (which enjoys a 90% approval rating among Republicans) has set up concentration camps for children who have been removed from their parents explicitly as a policy to deter those parents from trying to enter the country. The context has changed utterly.

So perhaps the principle was that minorities should not have their right to free speech abridged? Since my early admiration for the ACLU in the Skokie case we have had hate speech legislation introduced in the UK, and I am still trying to work out to what extent I agree or disagree with it. This is a work in progress, I don't pretend to have a perfect philosophy suitable for all occasions - I'm still working it out.

But one thing I'm absolutely sure of: if people work for liars, racists, thugs and crooks and stand up telling lies to the public on their behalf, and self-righteously justifying cruelty by quoting so-called biblical authority to respect laws (which their regime selectively ignores), then people telling them what they think of them in public (or private) is fine with me. Sticks and stones might break their bones, so I reject their use under the circumstances, but words are all most people have to fling at them.

The comments to this entry are closed.