« Some suggested thoughts | Main | The good ole days »

April 04, 2021

Comments

The process of never acknowledging the speaker, but calling them out is an old rhetorical gambit.

A lot like calling someone a loser behind two or three layers of indirection. If you can't play the lawyer game well, "we call them losers."

"How high?"

Charles, what did YOU mean?

I'm guessing you meant what you have consistently held here for years, that you prefer gridlock no matter which party is in power and in every instance except if we were to wake up tomorrow with your preferred "good" government in power, a sharply curtailed, mostly inert thing, rarely heard from and barely funded.

Barely a grid to lock.

I'm picturing Charles' libertarianism coming forth nude on a giant scallop shell, as pure and as perfect as a pearl, birthed anew and never before seen. (That's partially plagiarized.)

Admittedly, I don't come by my attitude about gridlock out of thin air. Gridlock is a recurring theme in libertarian venues. And, as McKinney suggested, I apply it to both sides.

The Republicans want to cut some taxes and spend. The Democrats want to raise taxes and spend.

Nice for me, at least in the short run, having stimmies dropping into my bank account. But, sooner or later, there has to be a reckoning. Much higher taxes and inflation with a risk of hyperinflation. Something will have to give. TANSTAAFL.

Public nudity is one tenet of Libertarianism I might be able to get with, though in Charles' individual case regulation may well be called for.

Oh, my eyes!

See, that's not ad hominem, that's a joke.

Nudus hominem.

Charles, what did YOU mean?

I posted before refreshing.

I would prefer a good government. And less of it.

Congress was supposed to be first among equals. But, in recent decades, it prefers to pass vague, overly broad laws and give the responsibility to the executive to flesh them out and write the regulations. That and executive orders create a lot of regime uncertainty that is a drag on the economy and society in general.

See, that's not ad hominem, that's a joke.

Me and people my age lolling about nude would be no joke.

Maybe gross-out humor.

Maybe gross-out humor.

I was about to ask: "But how many adolescents do we have here?" Then I reconsidered.

The process of never acknowledging the speaker, but calling them out is an old rhetorical gambit. It's meant to try and get everyone else to gang up on them yet maintain plausible deniability. It is kind of the opposite of good faith.

Ok, I'm not a big fan of mind-reading, but I'll go out on a limb and call this projection. But it's true, I've never, not once at ObWi acknowledged you or your existence and for that, I apologize.*

For everyone else at ObWi, if any of you think I am asking you to pile on, to join me in criticizing someone--as opposed to me simply criticizing someone for acting like a jerk IMO--feel free to call it to my attention. I'll address your comments substantively and if and when that happens.

instead of trying to start a fight between two other people, why don't you say 'gee, I think that was a bit harsh, I'm sure Charles prefers good government over gridlock'.

Thanks for making my point. Again.

BTW, just so you know where I'm coming from, you can light me up in your own, inimitable style, all you want and it is highly unlikely I will respond. Life is too short and your points are just too silly to bother with. The exception is if you happen to beclown yourself more than usual, I may not be able to resist taking a shot. Sorry in advance for that.

However, if I think you are being a shit to someone else, I will say so, assuming I have the time. Which I had some of today, but not a lot. So, take your best shot. Beware of ricochets.

*Am I being too subtle here?

McTX: Anyone with the intellectual wherewithal to comment here is capable of looking past the universal and very common lack of perfect communication and determining the writer's likely intent.

OTOH, many writers will respond with "Stop putting words in my mouth" any time we infer, from their actual text, an implication they find embarrassing.

I suspect that in McKinney's legal experience, the "I know what you meant but you said it wrong" criticism is fairly common in, say, contract disputes.

--TP

I suspect that in McKinney's legal experience, the "I know what you meant but you said it wrong" criticism is fairly common in, say, contract disputes.

Insightful. Here's the difference: in most contract cases, the lawyers are being paid $500/hr or more to pay very careful attention to what they are doing, not commenting on the fly at a blog. They still f it up a lot (I'm briefing that right now, as it happens). But, still, a good point, which is why I think the better, more productive approach is to ask for clarification.

CharlesWT:

Congress was supposed to be first among equals. But, in recent decades, it prefers to pass vague, overly broad laws and give the responsibility to the executive to flesh them out and write the regulations. That and executive orders create a lot of regime uncertainty that is a drag on the economy and society in general.

Michael Cain:

But you don't get gridlock. You get all the changes that the executive branch can make using EOs, the rule-making authority of the various agencies, and the DOJ making choices about not only which cases to pursue, but which side to be on. IIRC, there are a couple of Supreme Court cases in which the DOJ was invited to make arguments and the Biden DOJ has asked for a delay because they want to oppose the side that the Trump DOJ supported. Trump got tax cuts, then four years worth of rolling back regulations. Biden got Covid relief, and if Manchin and Sinema are to be believed, will get four years of changing regulations.

It looks like Charles and MC have somewhat similar views on what legislative gridlock really means. Stuff still happens, just by different, less-desirable means. Charles seems to like it more, though.

It looks like Charles and MC have somewhat similar views on what legislative gridlock really means. Stuff still happens, just by different, less-desirable means. Charles seems to like it more, though.

From the perspective of someone trying to run a business, having a predictable environment is very desirable. Which means that, in general, legislation is preferable. Just because it takes longer to enact, and (more importantly) longer to change, laws. Regulations, as we saw in the last administration, can be abruptly changed if someone comes into office who has very different ideas of how the world ought to be run.

That desire for stability and predictability is why, for example, auto manufacturers decided to simply ignore the previous administration's determination to relax pollution emission standards. Better to stick with the prior regulations, however un-fond of them they were, than to put effort into creating something to take advantage of the relaxation. Only to have it made worthless in a few years when the regulations were restored.

However, if I think you are being a shit to someone else, I will say so, assuming I have the time.

No, you won't. You'll keep trying to have your cake and eat it too with a steady menu of back-handed lines until someone with a lot more patience than I draws you out. And even then, you don't defend gridlock, you simply try to make the case that I'm misreading what Charles said. David Koch was considered a libertarian stalwart. As wj noted, the difference between being a libertarian who is standing on principles and being a billionaire who wants to harness gridlock to not have to be taxed is non-existent.

You could have simply said 'I think that is unfair to Charles'. You didn't. What am I to infer from that? As you said 'that you can't resist taking a shot'. So you aren't interested in advancing the discussion. QED.

I urge you to point out when you think I'm being too harsh with someone else. (Anyone else is also invited to, that's part of what give and take on a blog means.) It would nice to be having you participate here in some other mode than drive by, though I supposed dropping in to defend someone is better than dropping in to attack someone. But, as I've pointed out before, while formally, attacking me is the same as defending Charles, functionally, there is a difference. To me, it seems that you are just indicating that you can't acknowledge me and nothing short of mind reading can tell me why that is. Especially as you don't seem to have time to engage in anything else. If you don't want me to engage in mind reading, go an extra step and explain why gridlock is a good thing, especially in this Covid era. I'm sure there's a good discussion there. But pretending to be a knight errant to protect the commentariat from me beclowning them won't do that.

No complaints from me. From my point of view, gridlock is often better than the alternatives.

Well, I would guess that from a libertarian standpoint a gridlocked government that does nothing is preferable to any government doing something insofar as doing much of anything is a departure from the libertarian ideals.

however,....to continue-the efficacy of that view from a standpoint of effective political decision-making and government policy seems problematical at best.

The party that has a clear popular mandate should be able to rule, even if it is the fucking Republican Party. The problem of gridlock arises out of different factors than mere popularity...institutional arrangements that actually work to promote it.

Charles has a sad because Congress has "ceded" it pre-eminent power. I would agree the power shift is indeed real. Perhaps he could enlighten us as to why we observe this development.


But, in recent decades, it prefers to pass vague, overly broad laws and give the responsibility to the executive to flesh them out and write the regulations

This is just laudy-dah warmed over nondelegation doctrine. It is, to put it bluntly, a pernicious concept.

Charles has a sad because Congress has "ceded" it pre-eminent power.

a system that allows itself to be change will change.

libertarians should invent a system that can't change, if that's what they want.

Something will have to give.

But it has not. Please explain why.

It also occurs to me that gridlock, from the fever swamp of your inflationary fears, is the worst possible outcome. To overly simplify like any good libertarian would: If the GOP rules, they cut taxes and cut spending. If the Dems rule, they raise taxes and increase spending.

In gridlock we get the "worst" of both possible approaches. Big spending. Lower taxes.

So tell me again how great it is.

I supposed dropping in to defend someone is better than dropping in to attack someone.

Cor blimey, I made my comment to McKinney (who may have disappeared by now) on the golf thread before I caught up on this thread. Nobody has ever explained to me why blog etiquette (which I have gathered) scorns "mind-reading" so much, so here goes. I am astonished by the combative nature of McKinney's responses in the last few hours, and not just to lj (with whom he has a notably difficult relationship, to put it mildly). He recently claimed that he had not been "stung" (my word) by a recent discussion in which we had discussed his adversarial style, but his actions since put the lie to this. In fact, most of his comments recently on this thread read like pure retaliation against a commentariat some of whom he thinks have unfairly characterised, or attacked him. Crikey O'Reilly, look within for a change McKinney. A pretence that all you are after is substantive, logical argument is wearing pretty thin.

And, FWIW, I suggest anyone who thinks my comment is "overwrought" should also look at McKinney's comment, and the 3 comments above it, on the "Urge to Make a Buck" thread.

I'm sympathetic to the view that it shouldn't be too easy to pass legislation. (There are some interesting comments here on incentives for government to do foolish things.)

But gridlock in Congress is exactly the wrong way to make it harder. Bills are passed through budget reconciliation, which was used to explode the deficit in 2001, 2017, and this year, only the last with any sort of economic justification. And it would have been used to pass the thoroughly stupid and destructive ""Health Care Freedom Act" had three R senators not voted on the side of sense. The reconciliation mechanism ensures that anything that does get passed will be wholly partisan.

When it comes to appointments, gridlock has created the absurd situation that the less popular party has a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, with none of the recent Justices being anywhere near the centre.

Now anyone who believes in democracy recognises that fair voting is a priority. So there will be a bipartisan voting act? In my dreams there will.

It's telling that corporations are coming out against voter suppression. They want low corporation taxes, but even more important than that to them is getting a sane Republican Party. Which is impossible if the Party thinks it can steal power with support in the low forties.

If you want restrained legislation, the current system is precisely the wrong way to get it.

GftNC: Who, do you imagine, is going to think you're "overwrought"? Certainly not I.

McKinney said my arguments about the new GA law were overwrought, if I am remembering correctly.

Ahhhh, I had either missed or forgotten that. I should have known. Drive-by epithets a specialty. ;-)

Charles WT is too nice. He was in no way unclear.

I agree that Charles is a very nice guy, and also that he was clear.

I responded “how do you know” because we don’t completely know what the result of laws and policies will be until they’re in place. We can try to think forward and anticipate how they will play out, but we don’t know.

Likewise, we don’t know how “gridlock”, i.e, “do nothing”, will play out until we do nothing and see what happens.

Situations present themselves, we respond to them according to our best understanding and what we think is good and appropriate. We can’t anticipate everything, so we do our best. And then, when we discover things that aren’t playing out that well, we do our best to address those.

“Do nothing” is not a guarantee of success. It’s not even a guarantee of the status quo. So I’m not sure what it is that Charles is actually preferring.

hence my question.

If the GOP rules, they cut taxes and cut spending

They cut certain spending but afaict the 'saved' money plus extras is spent on different things (and with 'spent' I do not just mean tax cuts), so they also spend more (even if maybe* less more than the Dems at least after Reagan). And let's be generous and not include spending on actual wars like in Iraq.

*too lazy to look up actual numbers, so I may be completely wrong there.

GFTNC, sorry the overwrought was offensive. Not personal, I thought the overall reaction was overwrought. As for the rest, it will have to wait until Friday, hopefully in the morning. Adieu.

Apology accepted, McKinney. And again FWIW, I personally would hate to lose you from ObWi. Generally speaking, I agree with russell, PdM and Pro Bono that you add greatly to our somewhat moth-eaten tapestry.

Underwroughtness can be even more maddening than overwroughtness.

It's always too soon to be overwrought, sez the underwrought.

The underwrought Mr. Spocks among us will give we jittery Captain Kirks the high sign when it is time to become overwrought.

Now?

No, not yet.

When?

After the shots ring out. There will still be time to duck.

When you see me leave the building, then , and only then and with calm, collected demeanors, drop everything and run for your lives.

Kudlowian virus denial. All of those working in Tower #2, please remain at your desks, keep producing and stop gawking at the human debris leaping from Tower #1.

Someone close the blinds, please. Too much overwroughtness on display.

Thank you, and keep in touch.

So many of the underwrought didn't see 1/6/2021 coming.

Others did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loOWKm8GW6A


Today: Not personal, I thought the overall reaction was overwrought.

April 6, 12:52 pm:

And, with that said, let me address your direct question: why are you not "moved" by transparent attempts to disenfranchise certain categories of voters?

I think that if you, for example, read the NYT piece and look at the statutory language, there is nothing facially or substantively that disenfranchises voters of any class or other identifiable description. Therefore, I think your formulation is overwrought. I think much of the reaction to these new laws is overwrought.

An explicit statement about "your" reaction in addition to "much of" the reaction.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2021/04/12/mcconnell-to-17th-amendment-drop-dead/

America was founded upon a tidal wave of overwroughtness and then renewed during the Civil War by the overwrought against those who were underwrought regarding slavery and secession from the Union.

What is once again required is an explosion of overwroughtness, that watery substance that feeds the tree of liberty.

A Republic, if you can maintain the overwrought energy to keep it.

I notice the suspects counseling that the rest of remain underwrought at some point became overwrought enough in their lives to arm themselves to the gills.

The voting franchise is being stolen right out from under our noses.

A Republic, if you can maintain the overwrought energy to keep it.

I notice the suspects counseling that the rest of remain underwrought at some point became overwrought enough in their lives to arm themselves to the gills.

The voting franchise is being stolen right out from under our noses.

Hard to argue with a word of this.

Janie, thank you for your 12.21, I vaguely remembered this, but I believe McKinney may now be thinking better of it - since he is currently working through his attitude about ad hominem remarks.

As it happens, I had of course read the NYT piece and looked at the statutory language. But I made the (imaginative? I don't think so) leap that if a longtime state R legislature had passed an unnecessary law (since the recent election had been deemed free and fair) straight after they had narrowly lost 2 federal elections, such that they gave themselves hitherto unavailable power to reverse future elections, they were positioning themselves to be able to prevent such a thing happening again.

Speaking personally, phrases like "on the face of it" raise my suspicions. lj's explanation of the concept of "functionality" makes sense to me although I had never heard the term. In the real world, as opposed to in a literal, parsing interpretation, one has to assume that if a power is bestowed, it may be used.

The voting franchise is being stolen right out from under our noses.

Hard to argue with a word of this.

I'd argue that, while an attempt is indeed being made to steal the voting franchise, the implication is wrong.

The phrase "stolen right out from under our noses" conveys, to me, the implication that it is happening and is succeeding because we aren't even noticing. Whereas today we definitely are noticing. And fighting it.

The big money guns aren't really fighting:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-business-is-sticking-with-the-republican-party-190225636.html

Feigning notice, perhaps, to play both sides.

Annoyingly pedantic clarifying addendum to my 04.00 above: ad hominem (as it applies to me) in the sense that the word "overwrought" is usually used these days to mean over-emotional or hysterical, usually of a woman.

GftNC, about your wondering about mind reading, I've had the same thoughts and I think there are two things involved. The first is that it is culturally bound. My ability to participate in Japanese boards is far below my ability to do so in English, but I've never come across a fight about mind reading there. The whole idea of Japanese culture is that you are supposed to read minds. 'Omotenashi' is a new buzz word here and it essentially mean mind-reading. Here are two articles pro vs con
https://metropolisjapan.com/omotenashi/

https://metropolisjapan.com/defense-omotenashi/

It's no surprise that the first author is a Japanese raised overseas and the second is born and raised in Japan. The whole point of Japanese communication is that you are supposed to understand what the other person is saying without having them write it all out.

Unfortunately, everything can be gamed, including this. Often times, when involved in arguments where there is not going to be any compromise, this call for 'mind reading' often is used to avoid honesty and compromise. I was involved in supporting a group that was dealing with the Ministry of Education. The university had listed the foreign teachers as full-time faculty, but when it came time to grant them tenure, they insisted that they were hired on contracts (even though they had never signed anything, a deeper dive into this would require a lot of discussion of Japanese labor law and practice). When problems with the actual records was brought to the labor board, the president said it was an 'akiraka na misu' where akiraka means clear or obvious, but had the nuance of why point that out, everyone knows it was a mistake.

On the other hand, accusations of mindreading can also be gamed, so rather than view them as attempts to understand exactly what the person is trying to say, they are automatically taken as evidence of bad faith. It just underlines that every strength is a weakness and every weakness is a strength.

While I'm on this, a grad school teacher, Thom Givon, was big in functional linguistics and his argument was that sciences like Physics and math are based on axioms (like say gravity) that are true 100% of the time, but linguistics was a science more like biology, in that it is functional (rather than formalism, in biology, the concept opposing functionalism is structuralism and it is a good place to read up about it)

As a functionalist, one of the biggest dangers I see with it is that it is very easy to settle for half measures. If I'm teaching and I come up with something that gets a student to getting things right 80% of the time, I'm down with that, even if it rounds off some edges. But what if it is getting 80% of the students to learn it? Things start to get tricky.

On the other hand, the formalist/structuralist aims for some rule that covers 100%. The thing is, if a formalist settles for 80%, it seems to be a bit more of a stepdown.

As a functionalist, I see the allure of finding a rule(s) that work 100% of the time and I would love to be able to. But I also think everything is messier than you think.

Frankly, I tend not to get too overwrought about my inability to read minds or use the word "substantive" in every other sentence.

You have nothing to worry about GFTNC, nor apologize for.

Thanks, bobbyp, for generous reassurance.

But the truth is, I wasn't worried about anything (except pedantic clarification, which I continue here). I didn't (and still don't) think my concerns about the GA voting law were overwrought. And by overwrought, I mean over-emotional or hysterical, which has been the word's primary meaning over my entire 65 year life.

"over-emotional", in my observation, means dislpaying any emotion at all while holding a position contrary to the speaker's.

As opposed to "robotic", which means failing to display emotion during a disagreement. :-)

I am astonished by the combative nature of McKinney's responses in the last few hours, and not just to lj (with whom he has a notably difficult relationship, to put it mildly).

In fact, most of his comments recently on this thread read like pure retaliation against a commentariat some of whom he thinks have unfairly characterised, or attacked him.

I make no apologies for taking LJ to task for his shitty--and not very smart--little hit job on Charles WT, possibly the politest commenter here. LJ and I don't like each other. However, I manage to get along with most here, and have for well over a decade. So, I deal with the "most" who I get along with and--as much as I can--decline to engage with LJ and a few others. I will continue to address LJ on occasion, but in the third person. Direct communication with him is pointless. I did try at one time--several years ago--and I concluded that not dealing with him directly is much easier.

To be clear: if LJ makes a statement regarding some policy issue, or if he misfires on a racism accusation, I will address that in the third person. If he treats someone poorly, I will address that directly. I will not respond to whatever he has to say about me personally. I have a pretty good idea who I am and LJ's opinion of me means less than nothing to me.

As for "overwrought" being ad hominem, it is not. First of all, I was not describing you, I was describing your and others' response to the GA changes in election law. Overwrought, in my view, means 'over done.' I stand by that, but i certainly meant no personal insult. I can't imagine ever intentionally insulting you, or pretty much anyone, on a personal level. I don't think putting an adjective in front of someone's opinion is necessarily insulting, but I will try to be as moderate as my style allows going forward.

I think this discharges my agreement earlier this weekend to respond. If you think I've missed something material, please let me know.

Last week, the beginning of an explosive corruption trial involving eight members of Baltimore's elite Gun Trace Task Force revealed that a handful of Baltimore cops allegedly kept fake guns in their patrol cars to plant on innocent people—a failsafe they could use if they happened to shoot an unarmed suspect, the Baltimore Sun reports.

Detective Maurice Ward, who's already pleaded guilty to corruption charges, testified that he and his partners were told to carry the replicas and BB guns "in case we accidentally hit somebody or got into a shootout, so we could plant them." The directive allegedly came from the team's sergeant, Wayne Jenkins, the Washington Post reports. Though Ward didn't say whether or not the tactic was ever used, Detective Marcus Taylor—another cop swept up in the scandal—was carrying a fake gun almost identical to his service weapon when he was arrested last year, according to the Sun.

defenestrate the police, and every one who thinks the problem is black kids not behaving themselves.

and why would they 'accidentally' shoot someone who is likely to have a toy gun?

yes, it's a mystery.

We interrupt our coverage of the protests of the police murder of Daunte Wright which interrupted the trial of the police murder of George Floyd to bring you coverage of the police murder of Adam Toledo.

all lives yadayadayada

The big money guns aren't really fighting:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-business-is-sticking-with-the-republican-party-190225636.html

Feigning notice, perhaps, to play both sides.

On the other hand
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/04/15/republican-party-big-business-georgia-voting-rights-conservative-481978

Its just good business practice to listen to your customers. Especially when the party on the other side is visible in a downward spiral.

Overwrought, in my view, means 'over done.' I stand by that, but i certainly meant no personal insult.

I acquit you of misogynist usage, but I believe that your previous use of the word "overwrought" shows exactly what you understand it to mean:

https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2020/04/looking-for-death.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e20240a4fd93de200d#comment-6a00d834515c2369e20240a4fd93de200d

As for "exploding heads", look at the overwrought title of this thread. Jesus.

The thread, for those disinclined to follow the link, was called "Looking for Death", and dealt with rightwing gangs/militias and their gathering, maskless etc, despite the pandemic. You, McKinney, were contrasting this with BLM protests etc, which might have been a valid point (at least as regards Covid risk). But in any case, your use of the word "overwrought" here shows you know exactly what it means in most common usage, and you were using it in that way yourself.

However, the "overwrought" issue has (as I have explained elsewhere) ended up being focussed on disproportionately, and not by you. My real point was that, in cases like the discussion of the new GA voting law, your impulse to downplay the threat to American democracy (despite your discomfort around 1/6/21) and therefore to characterise most people on this blog as hysterical over-reactors (more or less), given to ad hominem attacks, was becoming more strident, even more so perhaps in the aftermath of a discussion about your own "adversarial" style.

I notice on the golf thread that you miss my main point entirely in the rush to denigrate lj (you should get out more often): namely that he was saying he had heard very little of Matsuyama during the Masters tournament. lj confirms as much after my "bee in the bonnet" comment:

I just looked back at this and yes GftNC is correct, I was just speaking of the current Japanese reaction to Matsuyama. I’d also add that Matsuyama’s win in thw Master’s Amatuers was reported, but there hasn’t been a press entourage following him for the past 10 years. A number of teasons, including the thinking that amatuer is a step below pro, the number of successful women (a number of which are Korean, which brings its own complications) as well as golf losing a bit of popularity with Tiger receding and no one really stepping up to hold the spotlight.

In any case, this kind of minute examination of past posts is not my speciality, or something I enjoy. Nothing can make you and lj friends, but I have made clear to you that I, along with many others, value your contributions to this site. My only real request, and it is very sincere, is that in discussion of issues like e.g. racism and the connected threat to American democracy etc, you examine your dismissive assumptions about liberals and lefties, ensure that the things you accuse them ("us") of believing are actually things they ("we") believe, and look within to check whether your own experiences and recent misgivings might be influencing your urge to insult others.

Speaking for myself, I undertake to do the same regarding rightwingers, particularly the ones on this site.

McKinney,

Compare and contrast:
1) Your opinion is overwrought
2) Your opinion is racist

Both adjectives refer to "your opinion", not to "you", so is either one ad hominem?

BTW, can a LAW be "overwrought" do you think?

--TP

The thread, for those disinclined to follow the link, was called "Looking for Death", and dealt with rightwing gangs/militias and their gathering, maskless etc, despite the pandemic.

The thread compared RW militia losers in MI to the Spanish Civil War. Overwrought was an understatement.

Posted by: cleek | April 16, 2021 at 10:36 AM is beyond f**ked up. I can't really express it.

McKinney, I didn't bother to go back and read the whole thread, just the bit under discussion at the time. But your "Overwrought was an understatement" only underlines that by that word, you mean a great deal more than "over done".


Both adjectives refer to "your opinion", not to "you", so is either one ad hominem?

Neither is ad hominem, strictly speaking. Pls see this link:

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


I infer that you believe characterizing an opinion can effectively be a personal attack on the person holding the opinion--ok, I'll grant that *can* be the case.

I'm pretty sure, in regard to both the GA voting laws reaction on the left and the much earlier post suggesting some kind of equivalency between a small crowd of MI Bubbas and the Spanish Civil War, my use of the word 'overwrought' was and remains an opinion of the collective reaction in the first instance and the substance of the Post in the second. I still think I am right in both instances and I am puzzled why my particular word choice is such a thing as well as why people take offense at what is a not uncommon way of describing an overreaction.

The Michigan RW militia losers compared themselves to winning Nazis and the winning Confederacy, judging by their regalia and social media bloviating, by which I mean both were in first place in deadliness for years, before losing, and not to mention with their military getups they compared themselves to genocidal death squads, American-sponsored or not ... which is what thought they were, American-sponsored.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/08/us/gretchen-whitmer-michigan-militia.html

I'd say comparisons to the Spanish Civil War were therefore medium-wrought, though the Franco-loving Catholic insurrectionist-excusing conservative scum over at the American Conservative might consider such a comparison a finely-wrought compliment.

Military fatigues are one thing, but accompanied by military-grade semi-automatic weapons on America's streets kicks me in an overwrought gear that those f*cks do not want to encounter.

Does it occur to anyone that many statements here and on other political blogs are rhetorical shots over the heads of the actual thread participants and not meant to insult the latter, but rather are framed to condemn entire political movements.

I recall, MCKT, a statement of yours some time ago which accused a pharmaceutical charge by Medicare to be "criminal", if memory serves, which seemed a bit hair-on-fire wrought, and I'm sure there exist plenty of other examples.

But then I'm a guy who makes up a new curse word for every stubbed toe.

I also consider your statement in January to the effect that you were surprised the January 6, 2021 insurrectionist violence and murders in DC originated from the radical right wing as opposed to the radical left wing, the precise opposite of your expectations, to be, if not mildly under-wrought, then oddly passive, given the enormity of the event and the incessant insurrectionist cross talk from the right wing these many years, including from the effing President of the United States leading up to the as-yet unpunished violence.

You are a conservative. You have biases, as do we all. They show, but your compass seems to pass you off as pointed inerringly to true north.

I suspect lj, and his parents, in their day-to-day lives have been personally the butt of more racial prejudice than either you or me in this country, so it could be he's ready to go at it at the drop of a hat, just as you are ready and hop to with a conveniently-placed weapon when you suspect an intruder in your home, or the neighbors.

It's THAT personal.

I'm a little overwrought just having to point this out.

But I am professionally overwrought.

And furthermore, that thread was in 2020 - tell me, McKinney, how many more 1/6s and polls showing a majority of Rs believe the election was stolen have to happen, before you see that concerns about, or comparisons to a possible civil war are not as "overwrought" as all that?

Watch with the sound down, if at all, but notice how Homelander remains preternaturally under-wrought as heads explode all around him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfXwEJZRaEo

Kind of a maddening indifference, no?

My only real request, and it is very sincere, is that in discussion of issues like e.g. racism and the connected threat to American democracy etc, you examine your dismissive assumptions about liberals and lefties, ensure that the things you accuse them ("us") of believing are actually things they ("we") believe, and look within to check whether your own experiences and recent misgivings might be influencing your urge to insult others.

Speaking for myself, I undertake to do the same regarding rightwingers, particularly the ones on this site.

Ok, this seems fair, although I'm not going to spend much time worrying about other's word choices to describe my positions. With few exceptions, pretty much anything anyone here has said to or about me or my positions has fallen within the very broad range of what I consider to be fair comment.

But, let me also say that how others "take" things here and how I "take" things may be different in important ways. I was actually giving this some thought earlier today after my initial comments this morning. My regular day--almost every day--involves clash, confrontation, attack and defense. Every day. It's been like that for over 40 years. It can range from stimulating to frustrating to, on rare occasions, hostility (very rare, 3-5 times a year). Consequently, about the highest level of negative emotion the give and take here produces in me is mild irritation. It may be that others are more invested in what they say and what is said in response.

So, to me, even noticing that someone said "overwrought" seems unusual since I just don't see where that word is particularly offensive. Perhaps I am insensitive. Others have said that about me, including several close family members. Regardless, the intent is not to offend, but to explain my position. I hope this isn't gas on the fire.

Let me also address this:

your impulse to downplay the threat to American democracy (despite your discomfort around 1/6/21) and therefore to characterise most people on this blog as hysterical over-reactors (more or less), given to ad hominem attacks, was becoming more strident, even more so perhaps in the aftermath of a discussion about your own "adversarial" style.

Not agreeing with someone and assessing someone's reaction to a given event is not ad hominem, by definition. The GA laws do not "threaten" democracy. That is simply not the case. Therefore, it is an overstatement. Or, overwrought, as in 'over done'. Disagreement on substance is not ad hominem. I am very careful not to personalize exchanges here, other than my unfortunate encounters with LJ. If you can find examples of me employing ad hominem, or even strident, tactics against anyone other than my personal expressions to and about LJ, I would like to see them. I take this charge seriously and therefore, would like to see at least one and preferably several examples of what you believe to be out of line. Thanks.

I also consider your statement in January to the effect that you were surprised the January 6, 2021 insurrectionist violence and murders in DC originated from the radical right wing as opposed to the radical left wing, the precise opposite of your expectations, to be, if not mildly under-wrought, then oddly passive,

Do you happen to have a link or something? My recollection was that, going into 1/6, I thought the Rad Right peeps were ineffectual losers incapable anything more than strutting their stuff as in MI. That they did what the did was, truly, quite a surprise to me. That's my memory. I'd like a link, to see if more context is needed. Thanks.

I'm willing to be proved wrong.

I'll hunt for a link.

And furthermore, that thread was in 2020 - tell me, McKinney, how many more 1/6s and polls showing a majority of Rs believe the election was stolen have to happen, before you see that concerns about, or comparisons to a possible civil war are not as "overwrought" as all that?

You are operating from a limited and selective number of data points. Prior to the election, there was no shortage of voices on the left calling for all kinds of uncivil response if Trump won. The farther left, or right, you go on the spectrum, the more the one fears the other and imputes the worst. Lefties wonder how Repubs can tolerate Trump. People like me wonder the same thing. Of course, we also wonder why Bernie Sanders and the Prog Left have a home in the Democratic Party. I do not share your concerns about an imminent, conservative-led civil war and I find plenty of the stuff on the left quite disturbing as well: the Prog Left would pack the Supreme Court, eliminate the filibuster, end the electoral college and disband the senate. Don't think for a minute others don't find that agenda to be a revolution under the very faint color of law.

Believing an election was stolen vs policy proposals that would upend a form of government most of us are very happy with are not even comparable.

Does anybody else here recall the McKinney eruption about trans in "wrong" bathrooms?

Now that was IMHO overwrought.

Just sayin'

But just to be fair, it strikes me as a bit of a stretch to compare our wannabe nazi thugs to the Spanish Civil War...they are more akin to Oswald Mosley's ragtag group. This is not to underestimate the danger they could pose.

Carry on.

I'm willing to be proved wrong.

I might have said, as matter of comparison and context, that in light of the protests/riots earlier in the year, that I would have expected the far left to have been more capable of a deployment like 1/6, but that the right was just of bunch of disorganized losers. I still think my overall assessment of the right is correct, but my confidence level is not as high as it was pre-1/6.

Does anybody else here recall the McKinney eruption about trans in "wrong" bathrooms?

I still think it's horrible that men can follow women and young girls into bathrooms and there is no recourse for women who want privacy. Moreover, I recall that thread well and no one, at that time, pushed back, as I recall.

A man is not threatened by a woman entering the men's restroom. I know of no women, including many, many liberal women, who want a man in the next stall. Or standing outside their stall. Even less so for teenage girls and preadolescent girls.

I've done a significant number of sexual assault cases in which the premises owner is sued because a woman--and in one instance, a teen aged boy--was raped on the premises. Guess what--every single rape occurred in the bathroom. Every one.

So, if you think I buy into this absolute bullshit that men won't follow women into restrooms with intent to harm, or that trans-women won't assault other women, I also know that to be untrue. A client of mine operates a system that requires personnel to be on duty 24 hours or more continuously. Separate sleeping and private facilities are set up by sex. A male employee grew his hair, started wearing a bra and said he was a woman and wanted to sleep and bathe with the women. My advice was: no, let him/her sue us. Our female employees would never stand for something like that. While all of this was bubbling around, it became moot, because this person was arrested trying to lure a young teenage girl into his car.

So, no to men who have not had the downstairs plumbing removed and replaced claiming a right of access to areas where women reasonably expect privacy from men.

And, while I am on the subject, no to trans-women competing in women's, or girl's sports. For obvious reasons, for most people.

Biology is science and whether someone truly and genuinely feels they were born in the wrong body, it's still the body they were born in. Trans-women cannot get the healthcare they need from an ob-gyn and unless trans-men are having their prostates removed, they remain at risk for prostate cancer. I'm fine with looking for as much accommodation as we can find consistent with recognizing and protecting everyone.


I might have said, as matter of comparison and context, that in light of the protests/riots earlier in the year, that I would have expected the far left to have been more capable of a deployment like 1/6...

Comparing protests (not riots) to 1/6 is overwrought. Millions of people across the nation "deployed" with no weapons, posing no threat to anyone.

Rioters and looters, on the other hand, while threatening, went after much softer targets than the f**king The United States Capitol. They knocked down local statues, smashed in store windows, and started fires - the kind of stuff people have been doing on occasion pretty much forever, sometimes because of something like their favorite hockey team winning the Stanley Cup.

We don't have a significant left-wing militia movement in this country.

I've done a significant number of sexual assault cases in which the premises owner is sued because a woman--and in one instance, a teen aged boy--was raped on the premises. Guess what--every single rape occurred in the bathroom. Every one.

Right, but that had nothing to do with whether or not trans people could use the bathroom corresponding to their self-identified gender. Men can follow women or boys into the bathroom whether or not trans people are allowed to choose which kind of bathroom they'd prefer to use. No one is saying a trans person is incapable of rape and no one is saying a trans person should be allowed to rape anyone. What they are saying is that, if a trans person uses a bathroom someone else decides they shouldn't, that someone else doesn't get to go legally after the trans person.

With or without trans protections, men can follow women and children and other men into bathrooms. The explicit legal accommodations for trans people are to protect trans people from victimization. They don't somehow allow people to rape other people or cause people to rape other people.

I do not share your concerns about an imminent, conservative-led civil war and I find plenty of the stuff on the left quite disturbing as well: the Prog Left would [1] pack the Supreme Court, [2] eliminate the filibuster, [3] end the electoral college and [4] disband the senate. Don't think for a minute others don't find that agenda to be a revolution under the very faint color of law.

Believing an election was stolen vs policy proposals that would upend a form of government most of us are very happy with are not even comparable.

I do not have a concern about "an imminent conservative-led civil war". I don't think it is imminent, nor inevitable, but I certainly think it (or something rather like it) is possible, and Trump's continuing to trumpet his big lie combined with the percentages of Republicans who believe it lays fertile ground for something like a civil war.

In your first paragraph, excerpted here you [1] rather ignore the extraordinary phenomenon of a 6:3 conservative majority on SCOTUS when the Republicans have won a majority of the popular vote in presidential elections how many times recently? And when Merrick Garland's nomination never even came to the floor under a D president, whereas ACB was nominated and confirmed how fast, and how long before an election?

[2] Please see Mitch McConnell's pledges to ensure that no D nominations to SCOTUS, or any other Dem policies, go through while he is still leader. There is a context to the proposal to end the filibuster when the Ds win a presidential election by 7 million votes despite the disadvantages of the EC.

[3] and [4} My impression is that nobody realistically proposes these, or thinks there is a snowball's hope in hell that they could be effected.

form of government most of us are very happy with

A tremendously important assertion, and not in evidence. Particularly in states where laws generally understood to be voter-suppression efforts (by reasonable people who live in the real world, as opposed to "on the face of it" lawyers) are currently attempted. I do understand that these are state government matters, but I think you will find that really significant portions of the electorate nationwide are not "very happy" with your current form of government.

I still think my overall assessment of the right is correct, but my confidence level is not as high as it was pre-1/6.

I was wondering if you ever conceived that you might have been wrong about something, and this seems at least a slightly encouraging beginning.

the Prog Left would pack the Supreme Court, eliminate the filibuster, end the electoral college and disband the senate. Don't think for a minute others don't find that agenda to be a revolution under the very faint color of law.

wtf

they'd also mandate gay sharia abortions!

https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2021/01/just-trying-to-help-here.html

Couple of comments on that thread could throw it either way.

Lotta both sides do it is the thrust however, which given the singularity of the event, seemed a yeah-but too far.

I've seen nothing on the far Left resembling capable "deployment", more like chaotic pillaging.

Asshole Antifa protestors look like my 10-year old when he was using a plastic garbage can cover as a shield while sword-fighting with an old three iron of mine, club head removed, against the neighbor kids.

I've seen Oaf Keepers up close in Denver. They are ready to slaughter and wield the weapons to do it. They were as "deployed" on 1/6 as any military unit would be on a mission, and evidence is building that they had more units in the vicinity standing by for "deployment", meaning capturing and killing American government officials.

Are we so dead that we can't get goddamned pissed off at this?

I will admit that the armed black militia mentioned here several times in the past looks like something the far "Left" should emulate if the rightwing paramilitary forces persist in their threatening behavior.

If both sides are going to do it, than more than one side needs to bring what it takes to do it.

"I still think my overall assessment of the right is correct, but my confidence level is not as high as it was pre-1/6."

I don't know, this sounds like stubborn speculation that the French still seem more likely to sack and burn Washington DC to the ground after the Brits did just that in 1814.

Then again, both sides did it back then as America sacked a city in Ontario first.

It's the loud ones you've got to watch.


"conservatives" love for the de-facto 60-vote requirement filibuster (a thoroughly modern invention) is fucking hilarious to me.

i just giggle every time they try to make it sound like some kind of critical keystone of government that the Founders gave us to ensure the future of democracy.

With or without trans protections, men can follow women and children and other men into bathrooms.

Not legally. That is the point. Being *trans* is simply a matter of description. A fully intact, outwardly appearing male can claim to be female, and then what? Can that person be legally prohibited from using female facilities?

I'd like to know what you and the rest of the commentariat here think the answer to that question ought to be. Or, if this turns out to be a thread-jack, then maybe we can have this talk some other time.

they'd also mandate gay sharia abortions!

cleek, each of these items is a 'thing' on the left. I believe you have advocated for all 4 at one time or another, and the House now has legislation being proposed to add 4 new SCt justices.

Trans men and women should have their own bathroom facilities, or all bathrooms should have locks on the door, but be available when unlocked to all "comers', so to speak, as some businesses and government facilities now do.

I guess if the Oath Keepers had been trans men and or men pistol-whipping their way into Nancy Pelosi's office bathroom, we might see unqualified condemnation of the events on 1/6, without ruminating on the possibility that the Cubans were more capable of being behind the whole thing.

MCTX, you should hang at The American Conservative and argue with them about some of their writers' views regarding the need for a Senate at all and heck, let's get rid of the Enlightenment altogether too while we're at it.

McConnell's blocking of all Democratic court nominees without hearings was and is Court-packing.

That IS worthy of revolution.

See, once again, only one side gets to do it.

The Civil War has already begun.

It's just that one side hasn't begun to fight yet.

Conservatives once favored precedent:

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-the-supreme-court-have-nine-justices

We need more justices and more Courts.

cleek, each of these items is a 'thing' on the left.

things that are going nowhere.

the evil left isn't going to rewrite the Constitution to abolish the Senate! we can't even get the seditious GOP to agree to pave roads.

Manchin has killed filibuster reform.

court packing has no constituency in Congress.

best not to waste outrage on impossible things. to do so would be overwrought...

McTX: I infer that you believe characterizing an opinion can effectively be a personal attack on the person holding the opinion--ok, I'll grant that *can* be the case.

I should hope you DO grant that, McKinney, for this reason: on the internet persons are pretty much entirely their opinions.

We don't get to see whether a person expressing a racist "opinion" is ugly, or smells bad, or talks with his mouth full. We only see the "opinion". Which we might (in our own opinion) call racist. Which more often than not results in complaints of the form "How dare you call me racist?"

If you don't see any parallel between "racist" and "overwrought", that's okay.

I do commend you for being un-sensitive to characterizations of your comments. I often feel, myself, that I don't get worked up enough about things like the implication that I need to look up what "ad hominem" means.

--TP

I often feel, myself, that I don't get worked up enough about things like the implication that I need to look up what "ad hominem" means.

Phew. Dry.

But, let me also say that how others "take" things here and how I "take" things may be different in important ways. I was actually giving this some thought earlier today after my initial comments this morning. My regular day--almost every day--involves clash, confrontation, attack and defense. Every day. It's been like that for over 40 years. It can range from stimulating to frustrating to, on rare occasions, hostility (very rare, 3-5 times a year). Consequently, about the highest level of negative emotion the give and take here produces in me is mild irritation. It may be that others are more invested in what they say and what is said in response.

So, to me, even noticing that someone said "overwrought" seems unusual since I just don't see where that word is particularly offensive. Perhaps I am insensitive. Others have said that about me, including several close family members. Regardless, the intent is not to offend, but to explain my position. I hope this isn't gas on the fire.

I have just reread this, and think it is an important explanation for why McKinney's style has struck me, and some others, as so adversarial. I appreciate the honest attempt to
contextualise, and think there's probably a lot to it. I also appreciate the honesty about possible insensitivity. None of it, as far as I am concerned, is gas on the fire.

things that are going nowhere.

best not to waste outrage on impossible things. to do so would be overwrought...

Ok, good one.

None of it, as far as I am concerned, is gas on the fire.

Thanks. A nice way to bring this to a close.

A good weekend to all.

Just want to point out that it is very common for a trans-woman to be assaulted in a men's room, and that unless the teenage boy that McKinney mentions was assaulted in the ladies' room, or assaulted by a trans-woman, that neither of those cases of danger are resolved by laws that pretend to enforce gender segregation in bathrooms.

And the trans-men I know don't necessarily want access to the men's room so much as they want not to be either treated as a freak or a threat when using a restroom, or endangered as a rape target themselves.

Ungendered bathrooms would be a good option.

If you’re willing to rape someone in a public bathroom, I doubt you would care if it was legal to walk in. A trans person might be afraid both of being assaulted in the bathroom they could enter legally and running afoul of the law by using the other, safer one.

But who cares about that when someone has a theory with no empirical support, despite trans protections having been in place for years in a bunch of places? It could happen! And it’s more important than the things that actually do happen!

I'm really baffled by the line of argumentation that McKinney is using in defense of restroom policing. I don't understand why he does not seem to have considered all of the hypotheticals and considered the threats and harms to trans-people that come as a result of the policing, or the failures of our current laws to protect young men from same-sex assault in their legally required restroom.

Once all the considerations and perspectives are considered, it seems clear to me that the thing being policed is not actually addressing the real problem, it's just deciding where to situate the risk and to whom.

I get the urge to defend women from a vulnerable situation, I just don't see that any real thought has gone into the situation or how best to mitigate risk for all parts of society. And I've never seen anyone in favor of policing restrooms by birth-assigned, non-revisable gender acknowledge the blind spots and downsides of their preferred policy.

At least acknowledge that your preferred outcome is that trans-people should be at heightened risk of abuse in order to give cis-women the illusion of safety from male rapists.

Acknowledge the cost. Own it. Apologize to trans-people for demanding the sacrifice.

Or try to find a way to deal more effectively with the rapists or the lack of safety features in restrooms and make everyone safer.

See, once again, only one side gets to do it.

Yup. That seems to be the nub of it. Mulford Act, which see.

I'm really baffled by the line of argumentation that McKinney is using in defense of restroom policing. I don't understand why he does not seem to have considered all of the hypotheticals and considered the threats and harms to trans-people that come as a result of the policing, or the failures of our current laws to protect young men from same-sex assault in their legally required restroom.

I don't understand why you expect to be anything but baffled by the assertions of someone who could write this:

Biology is science and whether someone truly and genuinely feels they were born in the wrong body, it's still the body they were born in. Trans-women cannot get the healthcare they need from an ob-gyn and unless trans-men are having their prostates removed, they remain at risk for prostate cancer.


I'm baffled, JanieM, because I cannot see how the one thing being argued is at all relevant to the other thing. We aren't discussing feelings or healthcare. Those things are entirely irrelevant to the subject under discussion. We are talking about people (of whatever genders or biological sexes) being assaulted in restrooms. That's about power and malice and relative seclusion (and also, not coincidentally, about the likelihood of finding the object of your power fantasy fetish alone in a private place where surveillance is forbidden).

That has nothing at all to do with any of his other arguments, and I'd think that a moment of reflection would reveal that to someone whose living is made off of arguments.

Changing the subject is a deliberate tactic of "argument" for some people. So is filling the air with irrelevant flim-flam. Think of the Gish Gallop. Or more to your point, think of the arguments made in the Chauvin trial. The goal isn't "we seek for truth." The goal is to win.

But I will bow back out, because you have enough patience so that you might actually get somewhere, and I definitely don't and won't.

From the other side of the Pacific

https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/03/19/really-high-hurdle/japans-abusive-transgender-legal-recognition-process

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/19/interview-invisible-struggle-japans-transgender-population

If folks would think it is worthwhile, I can open a thread, and since this blog leans pretty heavily towards white cis-gender male, I think most of us have a lot to learn (I know I do). I've really benefited from the books and pieces that janiem has suggested, and I think that people who are transgender actually represent the new frontier in that the questions of who am I and why am I the way I am are going to be the main questions in the 21st century. Unfortunately, that cutting edge can turn into a bleeding edge. I can understand how that may be frightening to someone who has never had to consider who they are or their role in society, which I think is why the pushback can be so violent.

This all reminds me of Margaret Court
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/jun/03/margaret-court-astounding-champion-who-found-god-and-lost-the-respect-of-a-nation

Anyway, if some folks think it would be a good idea, I could try and open up something.

lj -- If nous and others are interested in a thread, go for it, but not on my account. I will likely stay out of it this time.

I can see many of the arguments supporting trans individuals. But.

When it comes to sports, there is a problem. Biology, if you will. If you got thru puberty as physically male, your muscles are just not comparable to those of someone who was physically female. (Unless they were taking lots of steroids, which rules typically forbid.) Simply put, it's not a level playing field.

I don't see a perfect solution. About all I can see is telling trans individuals that being unable to enter competitive sports is part of the price they pay. Unless the sport is sufficiently gender-neutral that it already has men and women competing together. (And yes, there are a few.)

I think that there are more problems with sports than just biology, given the vast inequalities in prestige and pay between the (currently understood) genders for most sports.

I'm of the opinion that we should be thinking more deeply about what is meaningful about sports and competition more generally. All of the open questions we have about what it might mean to understand trans in sports are also questions that we need to consider about the role of technological change in sports, be it in equipment or in training or biological performance enhancement. These are all related issues - part of our transhuman moment. Transgender is just one facet.

the sports issue is the one that i get stuck on, for exactly the reasons wj cited. getting through even part of puberty as a biological male is simply a huge advantage in strength. and as long as performance enhancing drugs are out (which they should be), females will be at a disadvantage.

i just don't see a good solution.

the bathroom issue seems solvable to me - go where you want. but implementation is complicated by gender stereotypes and prejudice and fear of the unknown.

Interesting thread. Anyone who read the life of Lazarus Long is waiting for the ability to experience multiple transhuman experiences over multiple lifetimes. Who wouldn't want to pick some basic criteria for their next clone? I would love to have a lifetime as a black woman. It would certainly provide context for me.

The challenges of understanding trans people is understandable. The reaction to the whole bathroom thing is on the way to being solved oddly by more and more places having locking bathrooms for families and disabled. This should just be required for any truly public facility. Anyone should be able to use a bathroom without any risk.

Transgender participation in sports is more problematic because simply monitoring for testosterone levels doesn't really address some of the difference. Sports are waning in popularity and respect, it could become pretty moot.

My only real concern is physical transition prepuberty, there are some pretty big red flags there in my mind. I have known several trans persons who just decided they didn't want to do that as adults.It seems an unreasonable decision for a 10 year old.


ladies and gentlemen, The Party Of Ideas:

Immigration The America First Caucus recognizes that our country is more than a mass of consumers or a series of abstract ideas. America is a nation with a border, and a culture, strengthened by a common respect for uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions.

[Anglo-Saxon government! there hasn't been such a thing since 1066.]

...

Infrastructure
The America First Caucus will work towards an infrastructure that reflects the architectural, engineering and aesthetic value that befits the progeny of European architecture, whereby public infrastructure must be utilitarian as well as stunningly, classically beautiful, befitting a world power and source of freedom.

[lol. "conservatives" deciding what the country's aesthetics should be. this would have been better written in Russian]

...

Coronavirus
Ever since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus originating from China and the first known case of coronavirus in the United States on Jan 21, 2020, the United States government and health organizations issued guidelines and policies that would hinder and destroy the American economy in many ways. These guidelines, which includes mask mandates and social distancing rules, are socially conditioning the culture and behavior of Americans.

[the GOP is a death cult]

...

Trade
Ever since the end of the Second World War, the sine qua non of being a conservative has been to support unrestricted international trade. The main intellectual justification of this has been The Theory of Comparative Advantage, which was first proposed by David Richardo over two centuries ago.

[can't help but wonder why they supported Trump. maybe because they're frauds?]

...


Protecting the Value of American Savings
Since the 1940s, the American dollar has been the global reserve currency, a position which has greatly benefitted the real American economy y strengthening the purchasing power of wages and savings. Unfortunately, the strength of America’s monetary position has been under attack for decades by Keynesian economists domestically, and by globalist institutions looking toenhance China’s position on the global stage. We must oppose international currency manipulation and its detrimental long-term impacts for the American economy and U.S. dollar. We must protect the rights of Americans to best position themselves for a changing economy by promoting the development of cryptocurrency companies domestically, and defend the rights of Americans to hold private stores of wealth – including gold, silver, and other blockchain based currencies like Bitcoin.

[gold buggery!]

...

America First Education
The 20th Century saw the decline in many vital American institutions. None has been more damaging to the United States than our education system. The increased consolidation of educational spending came with it the ability for powerful left-wing special interest groups to redirect the focus away from preparing future generations of national talent to progessive indoctrination and enrichment of an out-of control elite oligarchy. Even worse, our education has
worked to actively undermine pride in America’s great history and is actively hostile to the civic and cultural assimilation necessary for a strong nation

[stop indoctrinating people! that's our job!!!!!!]

Make Sussex Germanic Again!

Our version is: Germany in the borders of 1237! Naples must stay German!

Explanation: That's a double joke. 1237 is the year Berlin was first mentioned in a (surviving) document and it also aims at the RW slogan 'Germany in the borders of 1937' (i.e. with the now Polish Eastern parts but without Austria). Do I have to mention that the same RWers like Italians as much as US RWers like Mexicans (yes to the food, no to the people)?

what Dr Seuss thought of "America First"..

I didn't know gold and silver were blockchain-based currencies.

Also, Richardo?

The "America First Education" paragraph is proof that they didn't have any.

I suppose getting someone with half a brain to edit and proofread their drivel would be too much like admitting they don't know a comma from teacup.

Marty @ 8:19 am abv.

Good comment.

"I suppose getting someone with half a brain to edit and proofread their drivel would be too much like admitting they don't know a comma from teacup."

Punctuation, Spelling, and Teacups are for effete, tyrannical elitists.

The Republican Party is the most dangerous organization on American soil, call it the Earth. A militant bizarro-Christian vanguard calling themselves victims and seeking martyrdom. What could go wrong?

Other countries should tighten THEIR borders to guard against the scourge of American conservatives threatening their national security and sovereignty, as we keep an eye out for al Qaeda recruits at our borders.

https://digbysblog.net/2021/04/trump-plus-nothing/

I agree with the drift of Marty's 8:19 am concerns regarding physical transition in prepuberty. But these concerns of the kids and their parents should be greeted with great sensitivity.

I can't think of a single decision I made while going through puberty, or before, that wasn't sketchy at best. Of course, my record over the ensuing 55 years or so is not stellar either.

The bathroom issue is solvable architecturally, but the Republican Party has now moved beyond even discussing accommodation to placing targets on the backs of all in the trans community, just as they have with EVERY other object of their politically strategic hate over the past many election cycles, since forever.

Dedicated bathrooms for trans humans will become the new Tree of Life Temple in Squirrel Hill and the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston as the fascist republican party triggers their shooters to do the dirty work.

Place locks on all bathroom facilities as a matter of common sense, but now also to protect and provide bullet-proof haven for liberals, blacks, immigrants of all categories depending on the latest strategic but nonetheless deadly hate-fad of conservatives, women, gays and lesbians, trans men and women, government employees, global warming scientists, pandemic mask wearers, vaccine enthusiasts, 51% of American voters ... well, anyone targeted by the violent, insurrectionist white nationalist, near-and approaching-genocidal conservative movement, and who may have to gather together and share space behind locked bathroom doors as conservative bullets continue to fly in conservative ungovernable America.

Mike Pence might even have to shoulder his way in, as he soils his smug britches out of sheer fright. He can lock his stall as well.

The facilities can double as bomb shelters as trump's deregulation of the global nuclear weapons menace builds the arsenals.

They'll murder even members of the groups mentioned above who favor tax cuts, because the goal of gutting government by minority force shall not be sacrificed by sparing a few fiscally conservative targets who aren't white, male, and Lindsay Graham effing conservative, and thus fodder for hate-mongering.

I'm overwrought, but these Volk weren't. There was nothing to see there, until eyes opened too late to see. A revised law here, a new set of rules there, until all that was left was a midden of teeth to sort through for the shiny bits. Why, we don't socialize with Jews, and we haven't run into any Nazis among our friends either, so what's to worry?

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-97999-1_2

America First needs to rent out Madison Square Garden .. again.

Rod Dreher can shrug and write, "What did you expect when perverts want to marry and pass their 401Ks down to their adopted children. I don't care for the fascist lyrics, but I admit to wanting to get up and dance.


Regarding the self-proclaimed "America First Caucus", note that Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the third-highest-ranking Republican leader in the House and nobody's idea of a flaming liberal, and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), both denounced what the caucus stood for. Kinzinger called for anyone who joined the caucus to be stripped of their committee assignments in Congress.

So, JDT, on this it would seem that conflating "Republican" and these rwnj's is seriously over-simplistic. There's plenty to criticize in today's GOP. No need to use the folks even many of them see as nutters to do so.

The complete document:

America First Caucus Policy Platform

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad