« We are so screwed | Main | A change of pace »

September 12, 2020

Comments

LJ, regarding the narcissism of small differences, sorry, but no. That is a very dismissive attitude to take.

You'll have to tell me what I am dismissing before I can agree or disagree. I used that phrase because, it seems to me, that the left has, long before any of us were even here, always been fighting itself.

Donald mentioned a couple of things: sanctions and Yemen. He never really talks about the context in which people were governing.

nous: ["The Clintons'"] accomplishments, large as they were, came with a huge cost to a lot of people on the margins of survival both here and around the world, and I don't like the way that they wore those decisions like personal policy triumphs.

Really? Please explain. And also discuss context, and in what world your favorite policies would have been implemented.

Unfortunately, we live in a country with a lot of people, many of whom are not left-wing or even centrist. Our system of government (even when it's working kind of well) requires compromise. So, like explain yourself and how we're going to get to your Nirvana.

There was a post (and interview) on LMG today about splitting up the country, one of my most hated scenarios, and the comments point out why this is true.

But sure, if nous and Donald and other likeminded people were to start their own country, inviting only the people who saw things their way, they could totally do whatever they thought would be the moral high ground. And if that meant living off whatever land they had, and maybe starving or maybe not, that would be a thing. Completely possible to live one's life in whatever moral universe you want to live in.

Sadly, in supporting local restaurants, I bring home plastic. Plastic is bad! Every single decision we make has some kind of consequence, sometimes horrible. Context.

nous: ["The Clintons'"] accomplishments, large as they were, came with a huge cost to a lot of people on the margins of survival both here and around the world, and I don't like the way that they wore those decisions like personal policy triumphs

It seems to me that it's useful to look at what realistic alternatives were on offer at the time. That is, not what would have been ideal, but what might reasonably have been expected otherwise. For example, the alternative to Bill Clinton was, initially, Bush I. Would you have preferred that? *I* did, at the time, but did you? Because that was the only real option -- IMHO Perot could, and did, impact the result, but had no realistic chance of winning.

As for the Clintons flaunting their accomplishments, what would you have them do? Go with sack cloth and ashes because they didn't spend energy on things that would never have gotten past Gingrich? Sure, there is a time to fight on principle, knowing that you'll lose. But was this one? Realizing that a couple of those lost causes could well have put Bob Dole in the White House. (Who I preferred to Clinton, but I doubt you did.) Admittedly, Dole winning in 1996 would have allowed us to avoid Bush II -- but that's 20/20 hindsight.

Thanks wj.

Neither Donald nor nous will answer right away.

Given a purist scenario of what we all want? Sure! We want peace, human rights everywhere, multiculturalism (which doesn't always jive with human rights everywhere, but we're looking at Nirvana, so whatever), food, shelter and health care for all.

I want all of those things for everyone, equally, everywhere.

How're you gonna get there? That's the weird part. That's the hard part. That's the part that takes time, compromise, and sacrifice (hard sell).

Oh, forgot about climate! Yeah. Forgot about that.

Tactic:

https://digbysblog.net/2020/09/twisted-obsessive/

November 4 is going to be so much fun.

Nope. I will answer right away. I would have had the Clintons acknowledge the harms and articulate the ways in which the views of the times were skewed and harmful in the interest of actually changing the narrative. They were always exploiters of the Overton Window, not resisters of the rightward drag.

I think Obama was always better at managing the narrative of what was possible while focusing on what could be possible. The Clintons never made us better.

And never mind the things they would never have gotten past Gingrich, I'm concerned about things like how Kosovo was largely a shitshow that killed more innocent people than the KLA. Kosovo was the Clinton's Yemen, and they entered into it with no more concern than did W. in Iraq.

I am glad they were in charge rather than Gingrich and Hastert and that bunch. But that is a low fucking bar and they were merely a slowing of our national descent.

Pathetic response, nous. Very nonspecific. But good on you for responding at all!

My Bosnian friends (now American citizens) love "the Clintons". Bill Clinton saved their lives. But you're still not taking account the context, are you? Clinton was vilified for taking on the Yugoslav war.

I am glad they were in charge rather than Gingrich and Hastert and that bunch.

Hahahaha. Yeah, me too. But they had some power, no? A lot of power. You are a cultist yourself, sad to say, if you don't get how the '90's worked. You're what, 40 years old? It shows.

By the way, aren't you against the US hegemon?

The Kosovo "shitshow" as you described it was UN thing. Are you a Republican, an anti-UN person?

Full loaves for all.

Full loaves for all.

Make your own bread. No plastic.

I'm old enough to have had to consider whether or not I would have been called up in Gulf War I and to have classmates who were.

And look now, I 'm simultaneously way too far left AND almost a Republican.

Do not conflate Bosnia (where we did too little, but thank God we did what we did) and Kosovo (which was a shitty little PR war that was badly managed and that was steered by the US and the UK). I've got friends and colleagues, too, who were Bosnian who were saved. Doesn't mean that they have a lot of good to say about Kosovo and the haphazard bombing campaign that killed a couple thousand civilians.

I knew that sapient would start lashing out the moment that the Clintons were impugned, but I'm the cultist. Sorry, I just don't have any mythic attachments to them.

Maybe you could provide a link or two?

Badly managed by the US? As in the US was managing everything? You do know (or maybe you don't) that Russia was interested in the Yugoslav wars? And also the various Yugoslavs were fighting?

I'm old enough to have had to consider whether or not I would have been called up in Gulf War I and to have classmates who were.

So tragic. I'm old enough where people I know were actually drafted! I said DRAFTED. Yeah. Not "called up" whatever that means.

How're you gonna get there? That's the weird part. That's the hard part. That's the part that takes time, compromise, and sacrifice (hard sell).

Yup. But the hardest part may be accepting that even those doing (some of) what you want are flawed human beings, and will do some things that you really don't like. But for most of us (that being anyone who isn't going to get elected president himself) that's inevitable.

If it's more comfortable, that can be regarded as picking the "less awful" candidate. But that's what it takes to make progress. Otherwise, you get the more awful choice. Some folks who sat out 2016 in a snit discovered that.

Tragedy: 219 people died in Gulf War 1.

And yes, for those people, it was a tragedy.

Thank you, nous, for considering the possibility that someone you know might have, maybe, been called to serve. So sorry for your angst.

My father fought on D-Day.

I meant, in my 10:30, that 219 Americans died. Don't mean to disrespect those who died on the other side of things.

sapient, don't let the fact that I agreed with you go to your head...

I'll let Donald answer rather than taking what you feel his answer should be. I'd urge you to avoid answering for other people.

lj, can I just comment?

My comments to Donald and nous really had nothing to do with your (very welcome but very limited) comment. Was what I said that out of line? If so, please explain.

I really need to know in what way I violate whatever your rules are by voicing my opinions which really aren't hugely insulting. Or if they are, can't those folks defend themselves?

I would appreciate your being more explicit about what I'm doing wrong, without you threatening to dox me, etc. Thanks!

lj, can I just comment?

Don't see how I can stop you, though do read thru the whole comment.

My comments to Donald and nous really had nothing to do with your (very welcome but very limited) comment. Was what I said that out of line? If so, please explain.

Sapient, you answered for someone else. You said

Donald mentioned a couple of things: sanctions and Yemen. He never really talks about the context in which people were governing.

Maybe you thought you were just being helpful, but you should really shed that notion. I don't see how else to see this other than you trying to get in a cheap shot. If I were Donald, I'd be upset. Though he knows you and he knows your behavior, so he might just say 'there they go again'.

If I were to have a discussion with nous and invoke you with a phrase like 'unlike sapient, I don't feel the Clintons walk on water', you would take that as an attack on you. As well you should, especially if you hadn't said anything previously.

I don't really know why you don't have better control over your rhetoric. Your last lines are a perfect example.

I would appreciate your being more explicit about what I'm doing wrong, without you threatening to dox me, etc. Thanks!

I have never threatened to dox you or anyone. If you took anything I said as a threat to dox you, you are mistaken. I suspect you know this and just tossed it out there to try and make me angry. That way, you can maximally define yourself as under siege from people who have different opinions from you on anything.

This is why I always am on you, because you seem unable to play and work well with others here. If you can't see or understand that, I'm not sure what else I can say.

One more thing. You make another accusation against me (and possibly anyone else, cause I'm pretty sick of it) like the one above without anything to back it up, I'll kick you out. Life is unsettled enough without having to deal with baseless accusations.

You look very hard to complain about me, lj. I do have a worry about doxxing. I'm not good at searching this site, but you did make a comment during the hairdresser discussion that made me nervous. Sorry if I misunderstood it, but maybe you shouldn't hate on me so much. It wasn't about you threatening to do it: you said something about russell or someone else should doxx me.

Anyone who remembers it is welcome to come to my defense, although it's not likely that anyone will. People here were enraged that I came to the defense of some random hairdresser who wore a mask at work while experiencing some kind of sore throat or something (although cooperated with contact tracing etc.) That person was vilified here. I thought it was ugly, and said so. Bad me! Definitely bannable!

Also, that hairdresser had the gall to go to Dairy Queen!

That discussion reminded me of hating on HIV victims.

I don't think the assertion that the Kosovo War was a shitshow needs much of a link to support it. Any halfway serious attempt to research the peer reviewed literature on the topic will turn up the gist of it. "Kosovo War, Propaganda, NATO" I don't have time to try to recreate a literature review done a few years back for a blog discussion thread and I don't expect this little spat to last as long as it would take to read through the books and articles, nor do I have the energy to defend every point from fine parsing when the only point of the parsing is to defend the Clintons and not to understand the actual giant mess that was our involvement in Kosovo.

Also, Kosovo wasn't technically a UN thing. NATO went in without UN authorization at Blair's urging and Clinton backed him (though Clinton did not agree to the ground forces that Blair wanted). The UN came in after the fact to try to broker a peace.

sapient, I think you are referring this thread.

https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2020/05/comparisons/comments/page/2/#comments

Here is my comment that I think you may have in mind (May 24, 2020 at 07:07 PM)

Sapient, I'm not really sure what is up with you, but it seems like you are just picking fights. This isn't facebook where people can't pull up your previous comments so your concern about shaming is something that seems particularly off given your extensive comments on the blog.

Maybe you are in lockdown and not going out and need the back and forth of a debate. I'd suggest you pick something more interesting that could be discussed rather than trying to shame people for shaming people. There is a lot out there to talk about. But jumping down other people's throats because you've got nothing else to do is not really making this place a place where people might want to talk. Thanks.

If you think is a doxxing threat, I suggest you recalibrate. If you believe that doxxing is pointing to your previous comments on this blog, you do not really understand the concept. I'd recommend that you apologize as well, but I'm not going to wait on that.

If you do have a memory of a comment that you would like to bring forward, you can use google advanced search here
https://www.google.com/advanced_search

enter the site and then a few words that you remember.

I'd also suggest that you treat your memory as more fallible than you think it is (that you thought I was encouraging russell to dox you should have been a big hint that your memory was not quite right) and state things as requests for restatements rather than accusing people of things that you _think_ you remember. Furthermore, if you make those kinds of irresponsible accusations against another commenter, you are out.

One more thing. You make another accusation against me (and possibly anyone else, cause I'm pretty sick of it) like the one above without anything to back it up, I'll kick you out. Life is unsettled enough without having to deal with baseless accusations.

This is pretty much bullshit and typical LJ projecting himself onto others when he gets pushback.

Anyone who remembers it is welcome to come to my defense, although it's not likely that anyone will.

I'm not following this particular line, but I'll defend you in general and in specific. First of all, LJ is the master of mis-quoting others, so more projection there. Second, this is not his f'ing blog (or, if it is, I'm out). Third, I've clashed with Sapient for years. Whether we disagree or not--we almost always do--she is passionate, intellectually honest, consistent and loyal. So, this heavy-handed horseshit of how someone ought to present things or phrase a sentence or in some other fashion meet LJ's constantly-moving expectations is bullshit on toast. LJ, you seldom engage on the merits. When crossed, you turn into an asshole, often an all world asshole. If you can't take the give and take at this relatively benign environment, then maybe you should go home.

Hmmm. While I'm not always a fan of sapient's tone, I do admire her tenacity in the service of a party I greatly prefer to the alternative, and her activism. Although I believe her harangues and insinuations against people whose political views align imperfectly with hers are misguided, I would be sad to see her banned. But McKinney, FWIW, accusing someone of having threatened to "dox" you is a really serious charge. I'm guessing lj was right when he speculated that sapient may have used the expression without fully understanding it, but he was right to point out that if she did mean it, it was completely illegitimate, and, presumably in the context of a blog, bannable. All sapient needed to do was apologise for using a term she didn't understand...

Sapient, when McT is defending you, you should really rethink your position.

So, McT, was I threatening to dox sapient? I've pointed everyone to the thread and even quoted the comment I think sapient was thinking of, so since you have volunteered your services, do explain that.

Of course, attacking me may seem like a way to defend sapient, but it's a bullshit tactic and everyone who reads this knows it. You are welcome to point out to where I've misquoted people, the same google search I shared with sapient works for you too.

When crossed, you turn into an asshole, often an all world asshole. If you can't take the give and take at this relatively benign environment, then maybe you should go home.

It's always projection with you, isn't it? However, any long time reader here will know that you never admit you are wrong, you just scurry off cause you are "too busy". I'd suggest you take your own advice but you seem to do that, whenever you are on the losing end of a discussion (because you can't back down) you disappear. I can tell you, the suspense of waiting till you crawl out to tell us everyone here is a marxist is always spine-tingling!

In hindsight, I was too hard on the hairdresser. Sorry.

my own thoughts, FWIW.

pretty much everybody here has been here a while. we all know each other's style and general (online) personality.

some of us rub others of us the wrong way, on a regular basis.

maybe just let it be.

if someone is being really abusive, different story. if some inter-personal pissing match is dragging a whole thread down, different story.

but other than that maybe just let it ride. if somebody's style of engagement bugs you, don't engage with them.

there is something of value in the substance of pretty much every comment on this thread. maybe just engage with that and let the differences in personality slide.

First, as to who “owns” Obsidian Wings – I suspect a goodly number of people have the password. Very few use it these days, as we can all see by looking at who does front-page posts – besides lj, there’s wj, russell, ugh occasionally, me occasionally, Sebastian and Doctor Science once in a blue moon - sorry if I’m forgetting someone, but it's not a long list in any case.

Anyone with the password can, in theory, ban someone. Anyone who has been around here for a while knows that it’s a power that is used very very very rarely, and never, as far as I know, by one person in a vengeful snit. The “front pagers” consult when there’s a problem. There’s no hierarchy, just discussion, so far (in my experience) ending in consensus whenever a decision needs to be made. Which is not very often.

But the person who has kept it going for years is liberal japonicus. So if anyone “owns” the blog, it is in fact lj.

If that means McKinney is going to back up his “threat,” well, “Sayonara” is a good word.

When Russell or others dox her, we can return to this.

Posted by: liberal japonicus | May 24, 2020 at 08:23 PM

At the risk of opening this wound further, I'm pasting what appears to be lj's "treat" to dox sapient.

It seems pretty clear to me that it was a "when someone actually does this, we can talk about how bad they're behaving" formulation. I think the "her" was the hairdresser who worked while COVID-positive, not sapient. The point being, even if our criticism of her on this obscure, little blog was excessive, no one was looking to out her for any sort of harassment.

No one, not lj or anyone else, was threatening to dox sapient, in my not-remotely-humble (on this particular point) opinion.

The point being, even if our criticism of her on this obscure, little blog was excessive, no one was looking to out her for any sort of harassment.

And the "her" here is the hairdresser. (Pronoun trouble!)

Kumbaya is a nice idea, russell, but contrary to McK (surprise surprise), I think lj was quite forbearing with sapient, that self-portrayed picture of innocence who wrote these comments last night (among others where the plausible deniability was better constructed):

So, like explain yourself and how we're going to get to your Nirvana.

Neither Donald nor nous will answer right away.

Pathetic response, nous. Very nonspecific. But good on you for responding at all! [the latter a nice little barely plausibly deniable dig at Donald; sapient somehow makes even a "thank you" conceal a sneer –jm]

So tragic. I'm old enough where people I know were actually drafted! I said DRAFTED. Yeah. Not "called up" whatever that means.

Thank you, nous, for considering the possibility that someone you know might have, maybe, been called to serve. So sorry for your angst. My father fought on D-Day.

Every one of these comments is a deliberate sneer, intended, as lj said, to make other people angry. They’re all sapient doing what sapient and McK have projected onto lj, which is to be nasty to people who disagree with the writer.

This is not "differences in personality." If it's the ObWi way, well, have fun. Or "fun."

As to that poor hairdresser, I wrote that people who are sick should stay home, and that people should follow the rules, and that the collective "we" should make it possible financially for people to stay home when they're sick.

That was not vilification. I'm not going to relitigate the whole thing, all the more since a link has been provided to counter sapient's misquotes, misdirection, stubborn and deliberate misinterpretation, or whatever it all is.

It was great that there wasn't an outbreak after the hairdresser broke the rules. But we are so far up to 5 dead -- five people lost their lives -- and over 175 sick with COVID-19 in Maine because of one wedding where people didn't follow the rules, and because of the pastor who officiated, who is egging on his parishioners to keep right on with not following the rules.

So I will just repeat myself: if you're sick, stay home, and follow the other COVID rules as well. Your choice to go to the Dairy Queen when you're sick is not more important than the lives of other human beings.

the folks I can think of who have actually been banned from here are:

the guy whose nom-de-blog was Latin for oral rapist and who thought Lindsay had a pretty mouth

the guy with the horses who thought it was a good idea for his daughter-in-the-navy to beat the shit out of her lesbian bunkmate

Brett Bellmore, for his inability to consider any topic other than as a pretext for talking about guns, at extreme length

the first two were with prejudice, Brett much less so but it was just enough already. all of them were after lengthy and repeated attempts to get the parties in question to tone it down.

nobody is planning to dox anybody here.

agreed that it's pretty much lj who's kept the lights on since hilzoy's departure.

also, I'm in complete agreement with this:

While I'm not always a fan of sapient's tone, I do admire her tenacity in the service of a party I greatly prefer to the alternative, and her activism.

Tone is tone, substance is substance. Eat the meat and spit out the bones.

Kumbaya is a nice idea, russell, but ... which is to be nasty to people who disagree with the writer.

I don't disagree.

It would be better for all concerned if people didn't personalize their disagreements.

russell: mcmanus.

*****

Also, saying "people who are sick should stay home" is not like "hating on HIV victims." It's like saying people who know they have HIV should wear a condom. Duh.

Bizarrely enough, this all started out when I felt compelled to note that I agreed with sapient.

I'm often on sapient's case so I should say here that I agree with the point about not worrying about previous spats, which are ancient history, as much as I think ancient history informs current situations.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Further clarification in the face of an attempt to equate things that aren't equivalent:

No one should vilify people who are sick for being sick, and no one did.

But knowing you're sick and refusing to take precautions against passing the illness on to other people is a different story. Being deliberately careless of other people's lives should not go unremarked. To say the very least.

Also, saying "people who are sick should stay home" is not like "hating on HIV victims." It's like saying people who know they have HIV should wear a condom.

This is incontrovertibly true.

Also, hsh's admirable work @09.57 upthread makes it clear that nobody, least of all lj, was threatening to dox sapient, or anybody else. So sapient misunderstood, and accused lj of something he would never have done (as all of us who have observed him lo these many years would have known).

First, I apologize that I misunderstood the doxxing comment (the one that hairshirt found is the one I was thinking of), which I thought was directed towards me, since lj and russell (and possibly others) know who I am. I'm grateful that the comment didn't mean what I took to it to mean, and my paranoia took over.

I appreciate the kind words from the people here who don't hate me. Thank you.

Yes, I do get annoyed when people look at recent history and criticize complicated policy choices without bringing context to bear on the discussion. I'm sorry if my tone becomes angry at times.

I'm going to take a break for awhile. I meant no malice to anyone, and I appreciate the opportunity to comment, and sometimes to rant, here. Thanks for keeping the lights on, lj.

Was Brett banned?
I thought he flounced out because of being teased (by yers truly) about left-handed light bulbs and the thermodynamics of chicken-coops.

Could be wrong. I blame entropy.

I may not have followed this well, but the underlying disagreement seems to be about to what extent we should or shouldn't admire Bill Clinton's presidency.

Well, on a scale from 1 to 10, Obama is 8, Clinton is 5, Dubya is 1, Trump is -1000. I wish we were in a world where we could have a useful discussion about what Obama could or should have done better, but we're not. We're in a fight to save the USA from fascism.

Trump has blown the calibration on our Presidential Performance Meter to the point that the differences between other presidents is noise.

russell: mcmanus

oh yeah. IIRC that was kind of a Brett-ish thing, only for "guns" substitute "the dialectic".

and what Pro Bono said @10:43.

I look forward to the day when we can dissect the failures of the Biden presidency in gory detail.

Trump delenda est.

Trump has blown the calibration on our Presidential Performance Meter to the point that the differences between other presidents is noise.

Exactly.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-health-aide-alleges-broad-190110985.html

I'm sure everyone's already read Caputo's bizarre comments, but it's something else to know about the administration's choice for this position and what they have to say about him.

A longtime Trump loyalist with no background in health care, Caputo, 58, was appointed by the White House to his post in April, at a time when the president’s aides suspected the health secretary, Alex Azar, of protecting his public image instead of Trump’s. Caputo coordinates the messaging of an 80,000-employee department that is the center of the pandemic response, overseeing the Food and Drug Administration, the CDC and the National Institutes of Health.

“Mr. Caputo is a critical, integral part of the president’s coronavirus response, leading on public messaging as Americans need public health information to defeat the COVID-19 pandemic,” the Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement.

From the wikipedia entry on Caputo:

He worked for Gazprom Media in 2000 where he worked on improving the image of Vladimir Putin in the U.S. He moved back to the U.S. and founded a public relations company, and then moved to Ukraine to work on a candidate's campaign for parliament.

Very strange!

LJ's mod skills continue to amaze ... he's made me sympathize with sapient.

And sapient, taking a break is probably for the best. Can't fight city hall; or you can but it's not worth it.

russell: mcmanus

oh yeah. IIRC that was kind of a Brett-ish thing, only for "guns" substitute "the dialectic".

Well, possibly in the bigger picture. But unless I'm very much misremembering, in the more immediate picture it was for overt, repeated misogyny that he deliberately escalated when he was asked to tone it down. Even sapient and I agreed about it (a perhaps unique moment in ObWi history), and overtly appealed to that agreement in arguing that he should be made to stop one way or another.


kdrum:

During his rant posted Sunday, Caputo said his ‘mental health has definitely failed.’

‘I don’t like being alone in Washington,’ he continued. He said there were ‘shadows on the ceiling in my apartment, there alone, shadows are so long.’ He also blasted government scientists ‘deep in the bowels of the CDC have given up science and become political animals’ who he said ‘haven’t gotten out of their sweatpants except for meetings at coffee shops.’

The Best People.

JFC, Facebook is a hot mess.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

Well, they may not be dunces, but lj I imagine that this particular confederacy against you should not be giving you any disquiet!

On mcmanus, it was not the dialectic, it was the misogyny (followed by a stubborn sort-of insistent doxing of hilzoy, who had of course already been thoroughly doxed elsewhere). I can't help feeling that the amnesia on this is significant: I imagine there's not a woman commenting (or lurking) here who has forgotten his misogyny, or its particularly revolting character.

Or, what Janie said @11.18

He was a left-wing incel or sorts.

of, not or.

Yes, although he called himself a "volcel"

I can't help feeling that the amnesia on this is significant: I imagine there's not a woman commenting (or lurking) here who has forgotten his misogyny, or its particularly revolting character.

Seconded. The bold was my first thought when russell attributed it to "the dialectic."

Pro Bono's assessment at 10:43 is a good summary of the disagreement from my POV, and I neither hate sapient nor expected anything less in response. I've been a science fiction fan and a metalhead long enough to know when a statement of mine will be both an argument and heretical to a particular fandom, and politics has its own measure of fan culture and behavior. Goes with the territory.

I can't help feeling that the amnesia on this is significant:

interesting observation.

i had forgotten all about mcmanus. and when reminded, my reaction was "oh, that tiresome boor". i barely remember the misogyny - and what i do remember was that it popped up and *poof* he was gone. but looking at archives, i see it didn't exactly happen that way - took a bit of time.

so, i guess you nailed it.

it was for overt, repeated misogyny

I can't help feeling that the amnesia on this is significant

The bold was my first thought when russell attributed it to "the dialectic."

All noted.

And this is certainly not the first time that I've needed to acknowledge and own my male blinders.

Apologies.

Neither Donald nor nous will answer right away.

Not that it's news to anyone, but this is a tactic for pre-emptively making someone else bad or wrong.

If I could give ObWi (or life) one tagline, it would be, "Don't bite hooks." In other words, walking away from baiting and nastiness is not a failing, or cowardice, it's a virtue, and admirable. Good for Donald for finding something better to do.

Now I'm off to do the same.

Yes, interesting cleek. I'm thinking there may be something of an analogy with racism, in that white people don't notice the constant micro-aggressions that black people are subject to all the time (not that mcmanus's aggressions were micro), in the same way most men here didn't really notice, and now had forgotten, mcm's misogyny. Yup, interesting.

no doubt you are 100% correct, GftNC.

i try to be an ally. but that's definitely not the same as being the target.

i try to be an ally. but that's definitely not the same as being the target.

likewise.

I appreciate having my blind spots brought to my attention. So, thank you both.

I do see you, and russell and hsh, and almost everyone here, as allies, which is why I feel free to discuss it in this way. I trust you not to retreat into kneejerk defensiveness, and my trust is justified.

I was just out for a bit to dredge up why McManus was booted, I remembered that he outed Hilzoy (kind of ironic that a big impetus for this was talk about doxxing) but I should first say that I accused sapient of just trying to get me angry, when she actually felt she had been threatened. So my apologies for making that accusation, it was unfair. I _knew_ I hadn't done that and I knew that I hadn't expressed much of an opinion on the hairdresser, so it was easy for me to assume that sapient knew it as well. Sorry about that.

About mcmanus, while I remembered (dimly) the misogyny he brought to the table, I also remembered that he was kicked out, for, as GftNC pointed out, using Hilzoy's real name and when asked to stop, refused. I also now wonder if we should have kicked him out earlier.

It reminds me of a discussion we were having here about reasons to be fired if you work at a Japanese university. Privacy has become a big issue here, and, as is usual here, the form takes precedence over the function, so you can have one part of the university disregarding privacy, but another group forced to jump through essentially meaningless hoops. Think security (and now Covid) theatre and you should get a good idea. I noted that even though people could get fired 'for' that, what usually happens is that the reason for being fired is something far different, but everyone agrees that this broken rule (which others may have broken other times) is ascribed as the reason 'why' someone is fired.

I think a similar thing was going on here. The 'reason' mcmanus was booted had to boiled down to something that could be set out as 'you did this, now you are getting punished' when the real problem is a long-standing attitudinal problem. And if it hadn't been this thing, it would have been something else.

Unfortunately, with misogyny and racism, it's far too easy for people to play with the language and provide just enough doubt to the reading to claim that they weren't doing what they are being accused of. So I take GftNC's point about amnesia, but it is something that is structurally supported by the way we can take action here (and perhaps elsewhere). I don't say this to absolve myself of not bringing up the misogyny when mcmanus was kicked off the island or of my amnesia (going back thru those comments, sheesh) that I had as to the depth and breadth of it. But this is why these sorts of things can be so hard to deal with and root out which is why I appreciate GftNC for pointing it out.

It reminds me of a discussion we were having here

not 'here' as in ObWi, but 'here' as in something that came thru my computer...

No worries, lj, you were (as the cockneys say) sound as a bell when the misogyny was called out, and have always been a stand-up ally on these matters. As for keeping the lights on, you do a sterling job, and we all owe you for it.

To add to my 12:23, which seems like a month ago already, kudos as well to nous, who did answer. It's a state of being that I aspire to, to be able to answer a baiting comment without taking the bait. So my tagline gets complexified:

Answer, don't answer, don't bite hooks. ;-)

Per lj's 12:44: this is not easy stuff. As frustrated as I get sometimes, I am totally on board with banning being a very rare reaction here, leaving aside obvious spam.

But also, the feeling of suddenness that cleek describes as it popped up and *poof* he was gone (and yes, I know that wasn't cleek's last word) oftentimes comes because of a straw that broke the camel's back moment. As lj says, there's a lot of skirting the edges, a lot of deniability, a lot of nuance that makes it hard to decide to ban someone. What's going on passes outside the radar of people who aren't the targets (like with racism, yes). But to the targets, there has been a steady drip drip drip for a long time, and finally there's one drip too many, and the sluice gates break.

Or something.

Yes, interesting cleek. I'm thinking there may be something of an analogy with racism, in that white people don't notice the constant micro-aggressions that black people are subject to all the time (not that mcmanus's aggressions were micro), in the same way most men here didn't really notice, and now had forgotten, mcm's misogyny.

Speaking only for myself, I don't feel that I fail to notice misogyny or racism, either one. (At least, no more than my general obviousness to the world around me.)

Certainly the details do tend to fade far more quickly than they would if I was the target of the attack. But forgotten is a long way from forgiven. All it takes is a simple "Remember when..." and I'm back sharing the outrage at the offender.

As lj says, there's a lot of skirting the edges, a lot of deniability, a lot of nuance that makes it hard to decide to ban someone.

One thing mcmanus did a lot was to combine class-based and sometimes race-based critiques with discussions of sexism and misogyny such that he could paint the sexism/misogyny victim as a class/race oppressor. And sometimes it was just plain-old "women using their power over men," which wasn't quite as subtle. Then, even less subtle, were fairly obviously misogynistic insults toward specific women or particular groups of women. All depending on how far he was dropping the veil at the time, and combined with whatever he occasionally revealed about his personal life, you could figure out where he was coming from.

In case you missed it
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/14/trump-ad-asks-people-to-support-the-troops-but-it-uses-a-picture-of-russian-jets-414883

Whose troops is Trump asking us to support again? (Those aren't just MIGs. That soldier is carrying a Russian AK-74 assault rifle.)

Yeah, I know, probably nothing more than the usual Trump campaign incompetence at work. But still....

Good catch with that AK-74. Wonder how many of their 3%er contingent got past the automatic frisson of ammosexual imagery to notice that little detail.

Wonder how many of them even care, now that the Russians have been written into their worldview as brave Orthodox crusaders fighting the anti-christian forces of the LGBTQ marxist brigades.

Or something.

I'm on board with this. :)

Wow. I came back to see the reaction to my post, but I don't think much of this was a reaction to my post. Something else must have happened. Gotta look later to see what it was. There is a lot to scroll down, or up. I will respond to sapient, who I see responding soon after me--

"Donald mentioned a couple of things: sanctions and Yemen. He never really talks about the context in which people were governing."

Actually, what I'm asking for on Yemen and sanctions should be pretty low-hanging fruit. There are some other things I think everyone should want which will be harder.

Yemen and sanctions are low hanging,because really, there is no good reason whatsoever for helping the Saudis bomb Yemen. It was done to keep the Saudis happy after the Iran agreement. That's not a good reason for participating in mass slaughter.

Sanctions are just a way of making war on civilians without being called out for it, because in our narcissistic political culture for whatever set of reasons people hardly ever argue about the harm we inflict on others. Ordinary innocent people who have little or no control over whatever policies their governments engage in. We hurt Iranians, for instance, in order to put pressure on their government. That is sadistic. Compare to the reaction many Americans have to Russians engaging in a bit of dirty politics, much of it utterly ludicrous Facebook memes.

We shouldn't be actively engaged in murdering civilians. In some situations, like WWII, ,there are no good choices. That's not the situation we are in.

The argument that politics is very hard and you have to compromise would be a much better argument to make if I was also complaining about our lack of single payer health care or our need for a serious response to climate change. Though on the climate change issue, I think everyone here (at least on the left) will agree that the laws of physics don't actually care much about political pragmatism. If we can't do enough to prevent, say, a 3-4 degree temperature rise because of politics, well, we are fucked.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/endangered-species-animal-population-decline-world-wildlife-fund-new-report/

Nearly 21,000 monitored populations of mammals, fish, birds, reptiles and amphibians, encompassing almost 4,400 species around the world, have declined an average of 68% between 1970 and 2016, according to the World Wildlife Fund's Living Planet Report 2020. Species in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as global freshwater habitats, were disproportionately impacted, declining, on average, 94% and 84%, respectively.

Strong American leadership will fix this!

Okay, just skimmed it. It wasn’t about politics, but how some of us get on each other’s nerves.

Sapient and I rub each other the wrong way. There’s not much to be said about that. On the substance, I gave my response above.

we're fucked.

https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/

lots of fun maps showing where GCC is going to lead the US.

my favorites are those that show huge swaths of central CA and the greater southeast losing huge percentages of crop yields. oh sure, it will go up in the NE and great lakes areas. but, how long do you think it will take industrial farming to move there (longer than it takes for those areas to become unsuitable, since we're not going to do anything about emissions)? and what about the fact that a lot of that land is already occupied?

it shows a 3D model of a MiG-29, and that the soldiers were Russian models. He said it was a composite photo created five years ago and taken in three different countries showing Russian sky, Greek mountains and French ground.

The aeroplane is a fake. The soldiers are fake. The background is a fake. And after all that, it's the wrong country's fake.

There might be a moral in there somewhere.

oh sure, it will go up in the NE and great lakes areas. but, how long do you think it will take industrial farming to move there (longer than it takes for those areas to become unsuitable, since we're not going to do anything about emissions)? and what about the fact that a lot of that land is already occupied?

And not only already occupied, but in the case of a lot of New England, unlikely to be suitable for high-yield industrial farming in the first place. One of the reasons a lot of Maine soldiers who lived through the Civil War didn't come back to Maine after the war was that they had seen places where there was actually topsoil....

Although, natch, humans being humans, people might try. It reminds me of Jared Diamond's story of the near-destruction of what little topsoil Iceland had, when people came there and thought they could use farming methods that worked in England and Scandinavia.

My advice: Get used to eating bugs.

It wasn’t about politics, but how some of us get on each other’s nerves.

This is the most annoying comment ever.

Scratch one off the bucket list.

LOL @ Donald's 4:30

lots of fun maps showing where GCC is going to lead the US.

Confirmation of my long-standing claim that Front Range Colorado is a fine place to be. Other than a modest increase in fires up in the mountains, the maps predict crop yields increase, no increase in bad wet-bulb days, no increase in 95° days, no sea level issues, and economic impact is positive.

But we are so far up to 5 7 dead -- five seven people lost their lives -- and over 175 sick with COVID-19 in Maine because of one wedding where people didn't follow the rules, and because of the pastor who officiated, who is egging on his parishioners to keep right on with not following the rules.

Old news, updated.

Sanctions are just a way of making war on civilians without being called out for it,

I think that's a bit of an over-generalization. Certainly sanctions, especially broad ones, can hurt civilians. (Not as much, typically, as getting bombed. But hurt nonetheless.) But those aren't the only possible kinds of sanctions. Well targeted sanctions will hurt the civilians who give the orders to the troops, rather than hurting the troops. Which can actually be a step forward in getting more care taken in starting fights.

Just wait for all the complaining, though, when the Front Range gets its next wave of out-of-state people flooding in. And instead of it being all the Damn Californians coming in and driving up property values, it will be midwesterners with reduced financial prospects.

Expect homelessness to grow.

I expect Colorado is going to become more like California in many respects as those refugees flood into the urban centers.

Old news, updated.

We'll be over 200K dead either sometime today or tomorrow.

And we've left Italy, Sweden, and France in the dust on the deaths per million number. We're closing in on the UK, we'll probably knock them out of the top 10 sometime in the next week or so.

As far as a response at the national level, we're on our own.

Government by people who hate government and hold it in contempt. The modern (R) dream.

@russell

This is a vivid illustration of the point made in the first of lj's links in the "Change of Pace" thread. (I have some objections to aspects of that article, but it's not worth outlining them here/now.)

I'm sure I've linked to that OWID presentation before. You can tweak it to show whatever countries you want. There's a stark, chilling (for some of us) distinction to be drawn, sort of like this:

1. Countries that had it very bad and got it under control (steep rise, then flatten)

2. Countries that got it under control early and never did have it very bad (no significant rise, more or less flat all the way)

3. Countries like us (ongoing rise, no end in sight)

GOP: Government sucks at everything and we'll prove it!

P.S. OWID graph I linked to is deaths per million of population.

This is a remarkable story which gives me a tiny bit of hope for humanity.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/21/the-man-who-refused-to-spy

I expect Colorado is going to become more like California in many respects as those refugees flood into the urban centers.

I'm sure I've used it here before, but down at the Capital one of the things you already hear about Colorado is, "The eastern third of the state is Kansas, the western third is Utah, and the rest is California."

My friend the anthropologist and I sometimes discuss whether there's a distinctly western urban culture. Thriving urban core, dominated (at least by population) by their suburbs. Statistically, western suburbs run about double the population density of suburbs in other Census Bureau regions, for actual reasons. He claims that the suburbs of any two western metro areas are much more like each other than they are like anything east of Denver.

ammosexual

Excellent! Your invention, nous?

Your invention, nous?

No, but I try to use it sparingly and only when it is descriptive of a sort of erotic desire, not when it is just a substitute for a gay slur with all the associated baggage.

Gives you very few moments when it actually works.

Those Canadians better hurry up and Build The Wall.

To keep the wildlings out.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad