« Thread Thread Thready Thread | Main | No. Sleep. Till Brooklyn. OpThr »

June 07, 2018

Comments

i've yet to hear a concrete suggestion from you about how to fix any of this.

Got one

Having just finished a chapter on Peterloo, in which the workers variously protested, lost their jobs, starved, were beaten and hung in dozens for fifty goddamn years the answer is simple tho not easy

a million pink pussyhats at the borders, a million pink pussyhats at the white house. The first ten thousand die.

If they can break away from leaning in, using metoo for personal advancement, and memphis bachelorette parties

Get a few hundred thousand on their way, and I'll do point. But damn if I am gonna do it on my own, saving and protecting women.

there actually were some tens or low hundreds of thousands of pink pussyhats at the white house, fwiw. so, assuming you weren't there, you missed your opportunity to do point.

regarding korea - I think people are inclined to criticize Trump for anything he does, good bad or indifferent. because he is a bigoted old asshole and a horror show as POTUS.

it's true, the guy can't get a break. because, in general, he sucks, and doesn't deserve one.

All of that said, IMO diplomatic contact with NK is a good thing. they're not likely to give up the nukes without getting a lot back in return. I'm not even sure what guarantees would be sufficient.

Ivanka as hostage?

but in general, well done, a good initial effort (which is to say, an initial effort). lots of grandstanding, but it's Trump and Kim. Trump will milk it for whatever bounce he can, but welcome to politics. Hopefully they will now hand it over to the pros to sort out details.

Nixon went to China. He was still a crook, and he should have gone to jail. That's what I think of the NK summit.

Was curious, but apparently Dan Snow took his daughters to a museum when he decided to change history.

Curious because an anime is currently streaming globally on Netflix, though you can't tell about particular country licenses, Hisone to Misotan that is about women pilots. A prominent subplot has a young woman who struggled against sexism for years to become a fighter pilot and is heartbroken that she is commanded to pilot a dragon instead. She learns to love her dragon.

As usual, and different from third wave Anglo feminism, piloting here is not about the glories of killing people, the equal chance to bomb schools and hospitals.

Trump will milk it for whatever bounce he can, but welcome to politics.

Too bad for him he's too stupid not to drag attention away from that and toward his feud with the FBI and his ill-conceived trade war with China (and Europe and Canada and Mexico).

But the story on Korea also includes the fact that the US has remained fairly popular - Protestantism introduced by US missionaries being the largest religion in South Korea - and that the latter has travelled from being one of the poorest nations in the world to one of the richer ones, in the space of a couple of generations, while moving from effective dictatorship to democracy.

I'm not sure what Bob's alternative fix might be, either.

bob's job here, AFAICT, is to make people think about things they otherwise might not think about. It's not so much about answers as about different questions. (Granted, at least for me, the question is sometimes "WTF does that even mean?")

EP Thompson, page after page, day after day

"In the neighbourhood of Glasgow small parties of weavers rose on 5th and 6th April (with their famous banner, "Scotland Free or
a Desart"), there was a sharp encounter with the military at the "Battle of Bonnymuir", and in the outcome three men were executed."

there actually were some tens or low hundreds of thousands of pink pussyhats at the white house

It was a freaking party.

Resistance is measured in blood not selfies, at Amritsar, the Winter Palace, Selma, Chicago 68.

hsh: bob's job here...

bob who?

but in general, well done, a good initial effort (which is to say, an initial effort). lots of grandstanding, but it's Trump and Kim. Trump will milk it for whatever bounce he can, but welcome to politics. Hopefully they will now hand it over to the pros to sort out details...

I think it fairly likely that that's about it already, as far as progress goes, for the next couple of years.
Which hopefully gets us to the end of Trump's term without war.

A positive outcome, in my book.

“that the latter has travelled from being one of the poorest nations in the world to one of the richer ones, in the space of a couple of generations, while moving from effective dictatorship to democracy.”

That was because we kept the North Koreans out, though also committing one of the greatest mass slaughters of civilians in the post WWII era. The bombing campaign— well, there are no reliable figures but it might have killed millions.

But while we kept the Stalinists out, South Korea went from fascism to democracy in spite of us.

https://www.thenation.com/article/kwangju-uprising-and-american-hypocrisy-one-reporters-quest-truth-and-justice-korea/

bob who?

mcmanus. And I don't mean that he actually has anything remotely like a literal job here, just that he seems to fill that role (for me, anyway).

A positive outcome, in my book.

Yes, but (there's always a "but"!) a positive outcome relative to the negative outcome Trump spent some amount of time making significantly worse than it otherwise would have been.

It's like antagonizing the mildly belligerent drunk at the party, making him far more belligerent, and then taking credit for having to calm him down afterwards.

Aside from all his other problems, Trump seems to me to be just a really weird guy who's so all over the place that he lands on something good once in a while.

bob's job here, AFAICT, is to make people think about things they otherwise might not think about.

I have no problem with bob. Hopefully he has no problem with me giving him shit because of his apparent inability to make a point without giving the rest of us a lecture about our blindness to the way things really are, and/or our failure to really put our asses on the line to bring about the revolution.

Resistance is measured in blood not selfies

I pretty much agree with this.

Bleed much lately? Or, are you waiting for tens of thousands of the rest of us to go first before you "do point"?

Talk is cheap. Right?

and, manafort goes to jail. bail revoked due to witness tampering attempts.

It was a freaking party.

Resistance is measured in blood not selfies

So are you saying that nothing is worth doing in protest if it doesn't result in bloodshed? That change doesn't count, somehow, unless it comes with violence?

Not arguing that violence isn't sometimes required. But I just can't see that it's the only approach. Did gay marriage come as a result of riots in the streets? Not noticeably -- there were some acts of violence against gays, but I don't recall any big organized acts of violence in favor of it. And yet that massive bit of social change happened.

and Trump's foundation lawsuit looks legit.

swing, Donny, swing.

So are you saying that nothing is worth doing in protest if it doesn't result in bloodshed? That change doesn't count, somehow, unless it comes with violence?

We're talking about stopping Trump and Sessions.

I'm willing to listen to other methods, but so far so far in the meantime are your tactics stopping Trump and Sessions?

Maybe success (and taking huge credit) in 2024?

100k pink pussyhats could have torn down the fences, broke into the white house and done a Mussolini on the guys. Or die trying, and get political power.

For some meaning of "could"

I respect the Palestinians. Brazilians. Venezuelans.

Bleed much lately? Or, are you waiting for tens of thousands of the rest of us to go first before you "do point"?

And here we go. My fault, not their fault, because I am not, see next post, leading and telling women what to do. I am just watching in disappointment, especially at that lie of "sanctuary cities." Hell, the blues are fighting harder for pot.

Frankly, after the catastrophic failure of Clinton and the feminists, the pink pussyhats were almost entirely about "Not our Fault" in order to maintain control of the Democratic Party and resist Sanders.

What I take away from bob's 'Resistance is measured in blood' comment is not that people who want change need to be violent in their pursuit of it, but that making substantial change often requires people who want it to be willing to suffer violence.

So, yes, gay marriage did not come from riots in the streets, but the recognition of gay people as a class of people who deserved equal protection under law (to the degree that that exists at all even now) required Stonewall.

Civil rights act required Selma and Bull Connor.

Women's vote required suffragettes getting the crap kicked out of them, and jail.

Labor advances required open warfare, in that case with violence from both sides.

It appears to be a pattern. Lots of peaceful action involved, as well, in all the cases I've named, but upsetting the apple cart sufficient to create a context for change frequently seems to require people being willing to take a beating for it.

I neither condemn nor endorse it, it's just an observation. I wish change could come from simple, reasonable dialog. I just don't see it.

My issue with bob is his persistence in haranguing all of us for not getting out their and taking it to the streets, when as far as I can tell he has done nothing of the sort either.

If tens of thousands of the rest of us go first, he'll join in. That's an understandable position, but not really one that earns him the right to lecture all the rest of us. IMO.

me: bob who?

hsh: mcmanus. And I don't mean that he actually has anything remotely like a literal job here, just that he seems to fill that role (for me, anyway).

I was joking, but it was a bad joke.

Ideas are a dime a million on the internet, and even in the library (where they're free), so it's easy as pie to encounter them without the poisonous additives, and much healthier.

IOW, I sort of agree with Donald about tactics, though I don't think Donald's and bob's goals are really aligned anyhow. (And I don't mean politically.)

Back to my regularly scheduled pie.

yes, gay marriage did not come from riots in the streets, but the recognition of gay people as a class of people who deserved equal protection under law (to the degree that that exists at all even now) required Stonewall.

I would argue that the length of time (over four decades) between the Stonewall riots and gay marriage becoming legal shows that violence was NOT what led to the change. Violence got us nowhere.

Does violence sometime work? Sure. The Civil War got us the end of slavery. But it's not the only path, and not IMHO the best path most of the time.

the pink pussyhats were almost entirely about...

The pink pussyhats were "about" a thousand different things. People participated from an extraordinarily broad range of motivations. "Control of the Democratic party" was not foremost among them.

All different kinds of people. Not all that much in common, really, other than wanting to express a general "Do Not Want" for the Trump presidency and all that looked likely to bring.

Were you there? At any of places where the "pink pussyhats" showed up? Or did you just watch on TV, and wait for the folks at Counterpunch to interpret it all for you?

If you couldn't even bother to show up, you don't get to tell me what it was about, because I at least showed up.

Try it next time. Get out of your house and show the hell up. Then I'll have a higher regard for your point of view on "what it was all about".

and Trump's foundation lawsuit looks legit.

It's a civil, rather than criminal, suit. What can happen? The Trumps have to cough up some money? The foundation loses its New York State tax exempt status?

The Trumps have to cough up some money?

Works for me.

The Trump Foundation suit is civil . . . for now. But if the facts alleged are confirmed, criminal charges (e.g. for violating election law) may follow.

And note that the fact that it's civil means that settled law, ruling by the Supreme Court and everything, means that Trump can be subpoenaed to testify.

Violence got us nowhere.

In the case of Stonewall, what violence "got" was a demonstration that gay men, in a gay bar, in a gay community, were not going to put up with cops harassing them, arresting them, and subjecting them to violence and abuse.

It was a marker. A line in the sand. A statement that that particular community would no longer accept being persecuted for being who they were. They had had enough.

And without that initial line in the sand, I do not think we would have, 40 years later, an acceptance of gay marriage.

Basically, I disagree with you on this point.

If we could have gotten there without Stonewall, all the better. Maybe we would have, absent Stonewall. But in the actual history, the path to gay marriage, and general acceptance of gay people as a population who should be afforded basic civil rights, went through Stonewall.

and, manafort goes to jail. bail revoked due to witness tampering attempts.

Not that it will surprise anyone here, but it ought to be asked for the record:
Who engages in witness tampering, multiple attempts at witness tampering, if they are innocent? Seems almost as good as a guilty plea.

Who engages in witness tampering, multiple attempts at witness tampering, if they are innocent?

I'm not sure it has as much to do with guilt as with the belief in untouchability, in his own ability to wrangle every situation to his own advantage one way or another.

I think these people (hopefully more of them every day) have run into a brick wall they didn't know was there, which is that there are people in the world, and contexts, where they can't actually bully their way through to getting their own way.

I was listening to the radio in the car the other day and heard snatches of a talk with Cecile Richards (president of Planned Parenthood, and I didn't know this, the daughter of Ann Richards). She was talking about how after the election Ivanka called her and asked for a meeting. CR refused at first, but after several phone calls, finally gave in. Then Ivanka told her Jared was coming , so CR brought her own husband. (She was -- surprising me, because I knew nothing about her -- quite funny in relating all this.)

Jared offered to forestall the defunding of PP if PP would stop doing abortions. CR said no way (at length, I'm sure). They pushed. She stood firm -- not surprisingly.

The meeting ended, and later Ivanka called her (more than once IIRC) to see if she'd "thought about" the offer.

I told this to a friend of mine who has worked in real estate, from the POV of the idea that I didn't think J and I understood that there are things in life that some people actually value more than $.

My friend said said: classic sales person's mindset. You just keep nagging and pushing, and pushing and nagging, until at the very worst (from your POV), they give in to shut you up. The thing is, I don't think people like that grasp that some people actually have principles, and reasons......and that they are not going to cave no matter how hard you push.

This is obviously not directly relevant to Manafort, but I think in terms of attitude there's some similarity. The attitude is: there's no one I can't push hard enough to get my way, and no context where I can't be clever enough to beat my opponents, and there's no context where I will get called to account for it. After all, what's there to get called to account for?

Nevertheless, I fervently hope Manafort is scared shitless. Someone on BJ wrote that his wife looked stunned when he was led from the courtroom. So did he think he could weasel his way through this one too? Or just not bother to prepare her? Or maybe it was his lawyers.......

JanieM:I am disappoint you don't block my comments.

there's no one I can't push hard enough to get my way

I am also disappoint that for all the insults and comparisons for Trump, no one has brought up Kingsley in Sexy Beast
But Trumphobia is boring.

though I don't think Donald's and bob's goals are really aligned anyhow. (And I don't mean politically.

Oooh, how cryptic and mysterious.

Ok, I confess, I am a Putin puppet paid with Bubba Kush and Durban Poison. Trying to bargain up to Chernobyl.

Manafort and Cohen aren't getting any of my attention. I have also, within memory, never heard Trump's voice.

What can happen?

a different set of prosecutors get to start digging around in Trump's finances.

So did he think he could weasel his way through this one too?

Just to take russell's ball and run a little further with it, I think part of the problem is that, not only do they not appreciate that some people have principles they won't violate, they don't appreciate that they're now in a very different environment than they once were.

It's like being the smartest kid in your Podunk high school and heading off to Princeton, where your roommate is not only as good at math as you are, but plays the violin, can translate texts in ancient Greek, and has climbed the Matterhorn. (At least you're still better at soccer, maybe.)

But the real problem for the people in the Trump circle isn't just that they aren't the biggest fish. It's that they still haven't figured out that they aren't. They're dealing with people and institutions and levels of responsibility and scrutiny that are unlike anything they've previously encountered. Regardless, they keep plugging along as though the same, old rules apply.

You go first or you're a hypocrite
No, you go first or you're a liar
You first
You first

Can't say I am overwhelmed by your argument, russell

Let's say that those who are loudest and most publicly outraged by Trump should take the lead in resisting him. That's the haranguing, I would love to talk about Haydn or anime or Nancy Fraser, but I get this full-voice hysteria wherever I go.

If you think you deserve power and responsibility, then get the shit done. Failure and performative victimhood does not get my empathy or respect.

Dammit! That first sentence should be in italics.

Can't say I am overwhelmed by your argument, russell

can't say I'm surprised by this news.

Failure and performative victimhood does not get my empathy or respect.

I'll just have to muddle along with them.

I'll just have to muddle along with them..

Didn't you mean without them?

There's something in there about the pot and the kettle, but the analogy isn't quite right, since russell is about the last person anyone with any sense would accuse of "failure and performative victimhood." I can't imagine whom he's quoting. ;-)

Or why he bothers.

*****

hsh -- the Princeton analogy is good. I don't think they'll ever "figure it out," not really.

Didn't you mean without them?

yes.

to be honest, I don't really know what "performative victimhood" even means.

I'm open to talking about Haydn. Don't know much about anime.

If bob (or whoever) can explain monads to me - functional programming monads, not the biology ones or the leibniz ones - I'm all ears.

Generic fucking "you" there as usual, no wait, I meant you JanieM, not Russell, you and that insane repulsive LGM crew, who have just enraged me again, making excuses and whining about 2016 being everybody's fault but Clinton.
Worshiping and whining again and again and again what 18 months after the election? And why won't the Berniebros stop talking about Clinton ?

She Can Take it umm, where can she take it?

"they shit on a woman, she’ll always be there to clean up the mess. And in fact, they wanted her to clean it up."

Nah, I don't want Clinton to clean up this mess, I want her to die.

russell is about the last person anyone with any sense would accuse of "failure and performative victimhood."

How very true this is!

Clinton endorses Cuomo over Cynthia Nixon.

Who the hell are you people? Not on my side.

She's poison and still getting richer.

Ok, I confess, I am a Putin puppet

Absolutely unbelievable. Absolutely and totally unbelievable.

For one, I'm pretty sure you believe the far left stuff you are putting out. And Putin doesn't believe it for a minute. (And likely knew better, even back when he was with the Soviet secret police.)

Who are you people?

The enemies of Cynthia Nixon and her program, the enemies of Sanders,Warren and their supporters and the supporters of this avaricious smug warmongering failure and her gang of opportunistic incompetents.

There is still a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party.

The Wall Street Democrats are winning.

Nah, I don't want Clinton to clean up this mess, I want her to die.

Totally understand. Because if you believe the claptrap about "contradictions," it becomes desirable that things get as bad as possible. The desire, in service of a long term end, is for the greater evil, not the lesser.

I think we may be witnessing an extended breakdown of some kind. Or, at the very least, a breakdown of self-control which has up to now temporarily been preventing personal attacks. Stand by for pre-emptive accusations of imminent banning and exclusion.....

I don't understand why we're supposed to be so wrapped up with Clinton, or at least why that's the big deal right now. Who here wrote a thing about Clinton on this thread? Or is this just a rehash for general purposes?

Well, who other than bob wrote anything about Clinton, that is.

it becomes desirable that things get as bad as possible.

Nah, the alternative is out there and obvious.

No, I want Warren and Sanders or some of their allies to clean up this mess created by Obama and Clinton. Clinton Obama Perez and you are in the way.

And yeah, I get baited and vicious. I, in case you haven't noticed, am not trying to win a popularity contest.

I would love to see a Warren-Sanders or Sanders-Warren ticket. I don't know if they would win, but I'd certainly want them to.

I think we may be witnessing an extended breakdown of some kind.

So sorry I am the only one making personal attacks.

Who here wrote a thing about Clinton on this thread? Or is this just a rehash for general purposes?

Try reading LGM. The whole Manafort Russia Comey Berniebro kitchen sink thing has as its primary purpose:

Not her fault.

And I don't give a damn about any of that, even if true.

They stole the election in 2000 and Democrats let them.

Then they stole it again in 2016 and Democrats let them.

Cause Democratic leadership get rich, win or lose. And apparently loved and admired no matter the degree of fail.

Am I supposed to be outraged by Republican bad actions? If you think I hate some democrats...

No more, fix it, take care of it, or I stop caring.

Millions suffered and died, and yes, it is Democrats fault.

I would love to see a Warren-Sanders or Sanders-Warren ticket. I don't know if they would win, but I'd certainly want them to.

I, on the other hand, definitely wouldn't want to see that. Secondarily because I have philosophical disagreements with them. But primarily and overwhelmingly because I think it would be a losing ticket.

There are a few Republicans I'd be fine with in the White House, but the prospect of more Trump, or of someone like Cruz? NOT attractive.

They stole the election in 2000 and Democrats let them.

Then they stole it again in 2016 and Democrats let them.

Cause Democratic leadership get rich, win or lose.

I can agree that the 2000 election was stolen. Although I'm not clear how you figure the Democrats "let them."

And I don't see how the 2016 election was "stolen." I don't like the Electoral College. But it's the way the rules are, and everybody knew it going in.

Or are you arguing the the Democrats tried to lose? In which case, some evidence would seem to be in order.

The Wall Street Democrats are winning.

I don't disagree with this.

I've been away, so apologies if this is a bit late.

I'm still processing North Korea. But it seems to me it is like that the story about the Chinese historian being asked if the French Revolution was a good thing and he said it was too soon too tell. What Trump has done is like an earthquake or some other act of god. People don't rant about how earthquakes or typhoons are 'evil'. So people who are ranting about it, both from the 'ha ha Trump is wrong' side and from the 'ha ha, you think Trump is wrong but you are wrong', are basically being distracted. Some should be smart enough to realize it while others, not so much.

If you want to argue that because Trump's decision to meet Kim means that Peterson is right, I think you have bigger problems than can be addressed in a blog comment.

wj: There are a few Republicans I'd be fine with in the White House

Name two.

I'd spot you Eisenhower, but let's limit ourselves to currently active Republicans we might both have heard of.

BTW, wj, your suggestions need not pass muster with either bob mcmanus or the RNC. I do not ask for the impossible.

--TP

Hey bob mcmanus,

Thanks for advertising LGM, and their spectacular front pagers and commenters. Good people there! Very much my folks.

XXOO

sapient

Also, I saw, but don't want to look again for GftNC's comment about the breakdown in process.

I guess we're all old people here, trying to figure out McKinney's estate plan and such. Maybe we should also all be caring for folks who are losing it.

Hard to tell though, these days, who should be coddled (and talked about later), and who should be shunned. We're living in a very dark time.

I try to think nice things about people, but there are a whole lot of people who need to be put down.

The person in question is probably not dangerous. But giving him a forum? Really? hairshirt, you're such an openminded human, and good on you. But how are you informed by any of this? Please explain in what way you've been enlightened.

i could live with charlie baker in the white house, fwiw. but i'm not sure he counts as a (R) anywhere but here in MA.

It's like being the smartest kid in your Podunk high school and heading off to Princeton

i think it's more like being a sleazy chiseling crook, and suddenly being expected to be resposible for something other than your own personal advantage.

except you can leave out the word "like".

and yeah, i know bill clinton was a triangulating horndog and he, hillary, and obama have all made bundles. i'm not looking for heroes, just basic competence and a due regard for the obligations of the office.

Tony P.: Name two.

Susan Collins
Charlie Baker

Just off the top of my head.

Okay, sapient and the little girls, all frightened and quivery, all putting on the calm reasoned more in sorrow bullshit, are asking you to protect them from the Big Bad Bob.

Been here before.

Look, the LGM crowd and my crowd, Counterpunch Jacobin etc really really hate each other. I had hoped this place wasn't a wholly owned subsidiary of Lemieux.

You want deranged, vicious and violent? And much more profane than anything here.

Leave this space open, I'll start quoting comments from LGM.

They are used to having their way, and banning people who disagree.

Oh, and don't bother to bring up Marty and your Republican pets here. They love being punching bags.

Again, care. Or swear.

Here's Counterpunch

And LGM

Take some time, just scroll thru some titles, compare as to reason, sanity, fairness, civility, depth, breadth

Loomis is ok, except for the company he keeps. He does get in trouble when he pushes back on the hate and bigotry over there.

Ps: LGM has banned its black male commenters

fwiw, i share hairshirt's view of mcmanus. he has a different point of view, i appreciate that he shares it here. i'm somewhat impatient with the whole "your feeble attempts to effect change do not meet my standards for praxis" thing because, well, it's annoying. i'm sure my mental and verbal tics annoy people as well. they annoy me sometimes.

i'm not sure obwi is about "giving people forums". it's kind of an open mike, if someone wants to talk, they can talk, they don't need permission. there are limits, but they mostly have to do with not being abusive or plain old creepily weird (anyone remember irumator?).

i find counterpunch interesting but doctrinaire, therefore limited. fwiw. if it suits you, enjoy.

I needed escape.

Innocent Sorcerers, Wajda 1962, script by Skolimowski. Minimal new wave two hand, both gorgeous doctor and actress meet, go to his apartment, flirt hyper intelligently for sixty movie minutes, no sex, guy won't commit. Lotta jazz, arty shit.

Polanski has a bit part, the funny/sad thing is that Polanski is not short in his Polish movies. War is hell and Americans suck. Do I have to explain this? About nutrition.

What does it feel like to come to America and see that your entire people is stunted? Imamura plays with this in Pigs and Battleships 1959 by hiring short Japanese and all the Americans are freaking linebackers. Hilarious.

Such a tiny movie with a lot of chiaroscuro, it feels more like a Skolimowski than a Wajda. Directors usually don't like to give up control, but gotta wonder.

Looked up some reviews, and people agree with me. Nice of Wajda.

russell: i could live with charlie baker in the white house, fwiw. but i'm not sure he counts as a (R) anywhere but here in MA.

A governor who chooses to be a Republican would presumably support Kevin McCarthy for Speaker of the US House, support Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader of the US Senate, appoint a Republican (i.e. McConnell supporter) to fill a vacant Senate seat if it were in his power, and nominate "conservative" Justices if he ever got into the White House. As I will never tire of pointing out, this is the one and only operative definition of "Republican", in MA or any other state.

wj: Susan Collins

Same as with Charlie Baker. Party affiliation is voluntary, and it has practical consequences.

Of course, I acknowledge that in some alternate universe wherein the national GOP was not the party of He, Trump and his idolaters and lickspittles, a President Collins or a President Baker might be merely disagreeable rather than downright dangerous. But I can't see how we get to that alternate universe from here as long as decent people are willing to call themselves "Republicans".

--TP

But Tony, as we are seeing every day, those Congressional Republicans are willing to abandon everything they have ever said, everything they have claimed for decades to believe, if a Republican President says something different. So why do you assume either of these individuals would suddenly change their beliefs to cater to those same Congressional Republicans?

I'll grant that you still might not love all of their politics. But that wasn't the question.

i could vote for a fiscally-conservative but socially-liberal Republican over a truly terrible Democrat. to me, fiscal conservatism is a disagreement about where to put money - i can handle that; i understand the logic; it doesn't offend me. but social conservatism is a menace. it's the antithesis of what makes small-government fiscal conservatism seem like a valid ideology, to me. and it's rarely more than demagoguery (since basically all of its boosters end being unmasked as hypocrites). i'll never vote for a social conservative.

i could vote for a fiscally-conservative but socially-liberal Republican over a truly terrible Democrat.

I've never seen that happen in my voting experience.

Susan Collins has thrown her lot in with the Nazi child grabbers.

fwiw, i share hairshirt's view of mcmanus.

He's a misogynist. I don't see how that's any better than being a racist.

Just one of many examples of the misogyny: Okay, sapient and the little girls, all frightened and quivery, all putting on the calm reasoned more in sorrow bullshit, are asking you to protect them from the Big Bad Bob.

By the way, I'm the one who has been banned from here, more than once. As far as I know, Big Bad Bob hasn't. I'm fine with my pie filter (and obviously I look underneath it), so I rarely ask that anyone be banned.

I would love it if people would explain to me why they think a misogynist perspective is better than, say, one by a white supremacist. If you think it's fine, okay, but offer some excuses at least.

He's a misogynist.

And like an accusation of racism, that should be banning material.

Hey, I get along fine with the grocery checker and wave back at my neighbours.

Maybe its only when certain kinds of behavior, flattery and unconditional support, are expected of me that I disappoint.

And 1) accusations of racism and misogyny have become completely devalued since the last election.

2) 2008 was precisely when I started getting into trouble, and it has only gotten worse sine then. It never crossed anyone's mind until racism started meaning not cheering Obama enough.

mcmanus spews. You decide.

Although, of course, we have to wonder whether if we don't give him a forum here, he'll go shoot up a yoga class or something. They guy is bent. Which, of course, is fine.

3) That the accusations of misogyny, meaning supporting Sanders over Clinton, started flying in the spring of 2016, and I am very far from being the only person so defamed. I did notice that the accusations were coming from a specific type or character and I became a little hostile, wary, and okay stereotyping.

Not all women. Nancy Fraser, Zillah Eisenstein, Wendy Brown, I can list dozens of strong women I admire and even love. They were for the most part, socialists and Hillary opponents.

So not all women. Just you.

and even love

I'm afraid for them.

And opposed to many male commenters when encountering this stuff, I fight back rather than run away and hide. Sometimes nastily.

Too many sisters to be dependent on women's approval and terrified of being accused of hurting.

And opposed to many male commenters when encountering this stuff, I fight back rather than run away and hide. Sometimes nastily.

Very much so. I suggest that you seek help.

Quiverringly yours,

sapient

he'll go shoot up a yoga class or something.

Okay, now I am getting scared of what might be done to me offline.

Okay, now I am getting scared of what might be done to me offline.

Be vigilant, but never quiver.

I use my real name with a certain amount of trust, even while knowing there are vicious stalkers.

I have already threatened with being reported to the FBI, by someone at Ezra Klein's old blog who didn't agree my anti-war rhetoric. Back when Exra was for the war before he was always already against it and a really great guy who swooned at Obama and cried over Hillary.

Its the liberals that are always dangerous, the ones with support structures that make them confidant and arrogant.

I use my real name with a certain amount of trust, even while knowing there are vicious stalkers.

Am I stalking you by answering you? That's an interesting perspective from someone who is wanting people to step up.

Sorry that you're a complete mess. I'll pie filter you again, but would ask others to acknowledge what we have here. Probably a very human human. But not necessarily somebody whose logic we want to pursue.

XXOO, bob!

If someone wants to change the subject back to McKinney's estate planning, I'm totally fine with that!

Although I'd rether talk about what each of us can do about this Nazi bullshit on the border,

Stand with a sign? Obviously contact Congresspeople.

Maybe bob is right - we can gather enough people to bullrush a place with some of us willing to die in the fight? I might be up for that, but I certainly don't want to be bullrushing by myself. It would end pretty quickly.

Just one of many examples of the misogyny: Okay, sapient and the little girls, all frightened and quivery

actually, you have a point. that was a pretty bullshit comment. most definitely bad form.

if we don't give him a forum here, he'll go shoot up a yoga class or something

ok, maybe bad form.

Be vigilant, but never quiver.

this however was hilarious. well played.

bob, nobody here is coming after you. nobody cares if you're marxist except maybe mckinney. don't be a jerk and we'll be all good.

bob's misogyny goes back ages, and seems to have gone unnoticed by most of you among his frequent spurts of more generalised poisonous misanthropy. His occasional self-aggrandising justifications (he alone among men resists the pressure to flatter and give obeisance to women - apparently the only way to propitiate them and avoid their fiendish behaviour) would be laughable if they weren't so disturbing, and the temptation to psychoanalyse at a distance is certainly hard to resist (and I do not always resist it). But I see how many of the commentariat value his contribution, and despite his absurd pre-emptive claims of imminent banning (imposed or manipulated by those sneaky women, or "the ladies", or "the little girls") I have never personally been disposed to request that he should be banned. For those that like a reminder of their more radical youth, or the occasional introduction of abstruse political or social theory, to quote the orange peril: enjoy. However, let us not pretend that there is no misogyny there.

sapient, you and I often disagree, about terminology and other things. But the bottom line is this: you put your money (and more importantly your time and energy) where your mouth is, to prevent egregious abuses and to support the causes you believe in, and I believe in them too. More power to you.

bob writes plenty of stuff that look misogynistic to me, but I generally reserve judgement on that point because I know he tends to write in an extremely pointed way. And I’m sure he knows a sh*t-ton more about feminism than I do, so I assume he’s parsing in ways I don’t really get. Maybe he is a misogynist. He definitely can be an a$$hole, and I doubt even he would dispute that. Either way, I’m pushed to google things I otherwise wouldn’t because of the things he writes. That’s why I like having him around. It doesn’t mean I endorse everything he writes or that I think he’s a great guy.

Surprisingly enough, I have reasons and motiviations for things that don’t always align with everyone else’s. To be blunt about it, tough sh*t if that doesn’t please you (the general “you”).

So hsh, as to this: sapient and the little girls, all frightened and quivery, all putting on the calm reasoned more in sorrow bullshit, are asking you to protect them from the Big Bad Bob

"Maybe" he is a misogynist? If that attack were racially framed, would you say "maybe" he's a racist? And let it go because you assume he knows more about racial politics than you do?

Or what about this sustained sneer at #metoo? I mean, there's plenty of room for discussion about #metoo, but that's not discussion, it's just bomb-throwing, or as you would rather put it, "extremely pointed."

Okay.

And let it go because you assume he knows more about racial politics than you do?

I don’t really know what letting it go is supposed mean. Yes, that’s certainly a misogynistic thing to write. But I find bob to be far more inscrutable than most people. (He’s a total weirdo AFAICT.) If you think he’s a misogynist, I’m not going to try to talk you out of it. (What are his policy positions as concerns women’s rights issues? Serious question out of genuine curiosity. I could see that going any number of ways.) And if he were to be banned, I wouldn’t argue against it, even if it meant I would no longer get to read and try to figure what he had to write. He’s probably earned it, based on my understanding of the posting rules.

sapient asked upthread for me to explain what it was I got out of bob’s comments, so I did, with some acknowlegement of GFTNC’s comment just before mine. It hasn’t gone beyond my notice what he writes about women. It’s not what I enjoy about what he writes.

hsh, I reacted strongly in part because:

All this time, all our lives until recently, we have had some men being shits to women, and people saying, out loud or quietly, oh, nothing can be done about that, and anyhow, we need the great movies he makes, or the great books he writes, or the great (?) laws he passes, or the great ideas he brings to the blog, and furthermore we might ruin his life if we name what's really happening (Brock Turner, e.g.), so we'll just shrug and let it go. ("Reserve judgment" was your phrase, "let it go" was mine. I mean by it: not challenge it; praise him for other things while ignoring the poison; ...)

Yes, humans are shits to humans in general; men get abused too, not to mention children. That doesn't mean that specific patterns can't be called out and untangled from the mess.

We squabble a lot here. People are mean to other people and sometimes they reconcile and are friends again. But as russell said in this very thread, there are limits.

I don't care what bob mcmanus knows about feminism (I actually don't call myself a feminist anyhow, FWIW) or what his policy positions might be in relation to women's rights. There's that old "actions speak louder than words" thing at play.

It has been pointed out to me that the link in my 11:33 comment isn't working. I've checked and it seems like linking to the timestamp sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. If I figure out why that's happening I'll fix it, and offer details to anyone else who might want to link to a previous comment.

It's typepad, so who knows.

One could try temporary conditional bannig or a string warning—no more misogynistic comments or else.

I think bob plays an important role here or could do so but spoils it to some degree with his um issues. He is more hardline than me, which is good, and I agree with what hsh says on that. I try to do the same things, but have lost my taste for getting into internet arguments, so I am not going to be doing what bob does.

If you could scrape away the misogynistic aspect ( which bob doesn’t seem to be aware of in his writing), it would be, I think, a critique of middle class white Clinton style feminism from a more leftwing perspective. This isn’t something I am going to touch because I am a white male. But you can get it from, say, Katie Halper, who is a young Jewish self described female Berniebro. I think there are people of color who do it too, but I am not very knowledgeable here

Ironically, some of the organizers of the women’s march that bob criticizes were themselves young female people of color, like Linda Sarsour, who was trashed by Bari Weiss in the NYT for being too radical and sympathizing with an alleged cop killer and saying nasty things about Zionism. Imagine a Palestinian American saying nasty things about Zionism. Horrors.

Strong warning, not string warning.

Katie Halper—

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/04/a-feminist-millennial-explains-feminism-to-a-femin.html

Bari Weiss and Linda Sarsour—

https://jezebel.com/the-demonization-of-linda-sarsour-1797537513

Ironically, some of the organizers of the women’s march that bob criticizes were themselves young female people of color, like Linda Sarsour, who was trashed by Bari Weiss in the NYT for being too radical and sympathizing with an alleged cop killer and saying nasty things about Zionism. Imagine a Palestinian American saying nasty things about Zionism. Horrors.

Yes. Everyone fights with everyone. I even fight with myself on a regular basis.

the misogynistic aspect ( which bob doesn’t seem to be aware of in his writing)

You can't possibly be serious.......?

Can you read the comment in the first page of this thread, on June 09, 2018 at 02:17 PM (the link I can't make work) -- and tell me he isn't aware of exactly what he's doing, and doing it on purpose? And over and over and over again, year after year.

Throw in calling Obama "Barry" in that sneering way...

Aiy.

For anybody who can't be bothered to search, Aiy indeed:

MeToo MeToo MeToo MeToo

Well, I know the kid is crying and isn't it terrible...insert required phony empathy here...but did you see what Rudy said about Stormy? (400 comments and biggest picture compared to 130 comments about death of ACA. Thanks for the bandaid on the cancer, Barry.)

Where was I? Oh, I like totally cried for an hour about Rudy's vicious evil statement that all women aren't equally beautiful. It destroyed me, really really hurt. Oh damn, I'm crying again.

And scared me a lot. I am so scared.

So, the black men bleeding out in the street and the kids crying for their moms are...insert PC empathy here..but

I'm a victim too!! Of Rudy. Of Trump. I'm a victim of the white man too, just as much, maybe more! Don't you even care?

Look at me. Look at me. Look at MeToo.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | June 09, 2018 at 02:17 PM

I meant that I think bob believes that he is fighting the privileged and uses misogynistic language, rationalizing to himself that this is justified because in his mind he is striking at the privileged and doesn’t mean that that he really is a misogynist. Is he a misogynist? Yes.

I put up that other stuff because I was thinking of what the conversation could be about if it wasn’t being pushed by bob. I apologize. This was the wrong time for that.

Donald, thank you for the apology, and also for your (habitual) clarity and calm.

"What the conversation could be about if it wasn't being pushed by bob" is one of the reasons it dismays me that people bite the hooks and thereby enable him to push it.

As to this: One could try temporary conditional bannig or a string warning—no more misogynistic comments or else.

That would be fine with me. I don't know if we can get the challenging ideas without the abuse, but if we can't, I'm not interested in being the punching bag.

We'll see.

bob's misogyny goes back ages

being a guy, and probably kind of a guy-ish guy, i am more than open to the idea that a lot of women are obliged to put up with goes clear over my head. my wife spends no small amount of time hipping me to how things i do, or say, or think, will be and are perceived and received by women.

it is illuminating.

so when sapient, and gftnc, and janie, take the trouble to all point out, yes, this is a thing, i am inclined to believe them. and, to try to pay better attention.

i'll also say that i don't always read bob's stuff entirely closely, because it's dense and somewhat recherche. so i think i miss stuff that way.

long story short, this is me as a front-pager saying to the women here yes, i believe you, and asking bob to moderate language and tone when talking about women. this is not a prelude to banning, it's just a request that you be respectful of others who participate here.

I meant that I think bob believes that he is fighting the privileged and uses misogynistic language, rationalizing to himself that this is justified because in his mind he is striking at the privileged and doesn’t mean that that he really is a misogynist.

What I have long ("long" as in in the half century starting in college) found fascinating is just how often those most ideological on the far left manage to be even more misogynic, and racist, than those on the far right. If you look just at what you see on the usual span from conservative to liberal, you might reasonably expect otherwise. But it seems to happen with startling (at least to me) consistency.

Anybody have any speculations as to why? Or, I suppose, experience to suggest that what I think I'm seeing is just a statistical fluke?

“just how often those most ideological on the far left manage to be even more misogynic, and racist, than those on the far right.”

I am not going to take the bait here for a number of reasons. First, I just got caught displaying my own male privilege and I would rather spend more time thinking about that. But second, it just makes me angry. Yes, there is some racism and misogyny and antisemitism on the far left, but outside of say Pol Pot or Stalin it doesn’t come close to the far right, certainly not in America. And centrists are way way too self blinded and complacent to see their own flaws.
It’s partly why we can murder people overseas without blinking an eye.

Anyway, signing out.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Blog powered by Typepad