By JanieM
Okay, some topics.
1. Guns
I wrote this comment at BJ today in a thread about last night’s killings in Atlanta:
I was poking around on YouTube yesterday looking for something or other and stumbled across some clips from a Western that was on TV when I was a kid. I had forgotten all about it, but I hadn’t forgotten about all the other shows we watched, like the Lone Ranger, Maverick, The Cisco Kid, Have Gun Will Travel, Gunsmoke, Davy Crockett, Bronco Lane, Annie Oakley, Kit Carson, Jim Bowie, Wyatt Earp, Gene Autry, Death Valley Days, the Rifleman, Rin Tin Tin, Kit Carson, Bonanza, Bat Masterson….As I ramble through the list, it’s a wonder we had time for anything else, even including other genres like My Three Sons etc.
I know there have been a gazillion cop shows and even more westerns on TV, not to mention movies, since I was a kid in the 1950s. But with guns this deeply embedded in our collective psyche, I don’t know what it’s going to take to break the spell.
Then again, I grew up awash in the mythology of guns and have barely ever touched one, much less shot one.
Between that and the Pope’s announcement the other day, I’ve fallen into about the deepest pit I’ve been in since January 20
ETA: The Western I had forgotten about was The Lawman.
Several people listed more shows that I had forgotten, and someone reminisced about cap guns, which I haven’t thought about for probably sixty years. But yes, we played with them.
2. Gays (to put it briefly)
The International Pedophile Protection Ring otherwise known as the hierarchy of the “Holy” Roman Catholic Church has once again displayed its pathological arrogance in claiming to have a direct line to God concerning other people’s sex lives.
Can anyone please explain the difference between these people and Q? Other than that the fathers [sic] of the church are probably wealthier?
Can anyone please explain the difference between these people and Q?
Q has not yet hired its first janitor.
Can anyone please explain the difference between these people and Q?
Q has not yet hired its first janitor.
One of the fascinating characteristics of Maverick, as opposed to most of the Westerns I remember, is that he almost never actually used his gun. He was forever finding different solutions to problems that other Westerns just assumed required shooting.
One of the fascinating characteristics of Maverick, as opposed to most of the Westerns I remember, is that he almost never actually used his gun. He was forever finding different solutions to problems that other Westerns just assumed required shooting.
The real wild west was more boring than wild.
The real wild west was more boring than wild.
The real wild west was more boring than wild.
I should have said it was an open thread, though surely they all are unless otherwise specified. And I wouldn’t want to impose any topic discipline, heaven forfend. Nevertheless….
What exactly does that have to do with the place of guns in the national psyche and mythology? In fact, the portrayal of the west as “wild” in all those movies and TV shows, regardless of the reality, is part of the point.
The real wild west was more boring than wild.
I should have said it was an open thread, though surely they all are unless otherwise specified. And I wouldn’t want to impose any topic discipline, heaven forfend. Nevertheless….
What exactly does that have to do with the place of guns in the national psyche and mythology? In fact, the portrayal of the west as “wild” in all those movies and TV shows, regardless of the reality, is part of the point.
wj — yes, I remember Maverick as quite light-hearted, but all my memories of these shows are pretty vague at this point. I’m sure that if I had time to dig more deeply, I’d be reminded that there was a wide range in terms of the importance of guns in the stories. But still, the glorification of the gun and the wielder of it — my biggest surprise yesterday and today was how much I had blanked that out of my memory as an indicator of our national pathology.
wj — yes, I remember Maverick as quite light-hearted, but all my memories of these shows are pretty vague at this point. I’m sure that if I had time to dig more deeply, I’d be reminded that there was a wide range in terms of the importance of guns in the stories. But still, the glorification of the gun and the wielder of it — my biggest surprise yesterday and today was how much I had blanked that out of my memory as an indicator of our national pathology.
“national pathology” is a good way of putting it. It is a sickness that passeth all understanding.
“national pathology” is a good way of putting it. It is a sickness that passeth all understanding.
a sickness that passeth all understanding
Oh, it’s understandable enough. A bunch of manufacturing companies took over a user group and turned it into a marketing entity. An enormously successful marketing entity. And one which generated sufficient revenue that they could then become a major political donor — and thus protect their marketing from regulation.
a sickness that passeth all understanding
Oh, it’s understandable enough. A bunch of manufacturing companies took over a user group and turned it into a marketing entity. An enormously successful marketing entity. And one which generated sufficient revenue that they could then become a major political donor — and thus protect their marketing from regulation.
Thanks Janie. Recently, the youtube rabbithole I fell into was NYPD Blue. Pretty astonishing, because back then, it was ‘hard gritty drama’ but looking back on it, it really made it seem that no one really had a chance, it was all out war. Now, I wonder, was it really like that? Admittedly, I live in Japan now, so kids are coming from their cram school at 10, 11 at night. There have been a few things that have been disturbing, but the vibe is it’s safe, though they do have TV dramas that portray Japan as not so safe. But everyone seems to realize that this is drama.
Thanks Janie. Recently, the youtube rabbithole I fell into was NYPD Blue. Pretty astonishing, because back then, it was ‘hard gritty drama’ but looking back on it, it really made it seem that no one really had a chance, it was all out war. Now, I wonder, was it really like that? Admittedly, I live in Japan now, so kids are coming from their cram school at 10, 11 at night. There have been a few things that have been disturbing, but the vibe is it’s safe, though they do have TV dramas that portray Japan as not so safe. But everyone seems to realize that this is drama.
lj, interesting about NYPD Blue. I think of it as the successor to Hill Street Blues, which is probably because they were both Bochko. My household watched Hill Street Blues faithfully, but by the time NYPD Blue came along I had kids and no TV, so I never watched it. I’m surprised to see that there was a six-year gap between when the one ended and the other began, I would have thought they were much closer in time. They’re probably much more different than I imagine….
lj, interesting about NYPD Blue. I think of it as the successor to Hill Street Blues, which is probably because they were both Bochko. My household watched Hill Street Blues faithfully, but by the time NYPD Blue came along I had kids and no TV, so I never watched it. I’m surprised to see that there was a six-year gap between when the one ended and the other began, I would have thought they were much closer in time. They’re probably much more different than I imagine….
Janie, it has all those Bochco tics, hand held cameras, the big ensemble, and dealing with character arcs. It also shares that DNA of the thin blue line keeping a lid on things.
I’ve not gone thru the episodes, but the Andy Sipowicz clips keep popping up, and that character arc of a racist character who is redeemed thru a long and hard slog seems to be indicative of some sort of ‘ideal’ approach to racism, where the character will eventually come to grips with being a better person. As such, it is compelling, but I have been wondering, like all the guns and crime, is it realistic? Or did the unreal backdrop allow the unreal character development to take place?
Janie, it has all those Bochco tics, hand held cameras, the big ensemble, and dealing with character arcs. It also shares that DNA of the thin blue line keeping a lid on things.
I’ve not gone thru the episodes, but the Andy Sipowicz clips keep popping up, and that character arc of a racist character who is redeemed thru a long and hard slog seems to be indicative of some sort of ‘ideal’ approach to racism, where the character will eventually come to grips with being a better person. As such, it is compelling, but I have been wondering, like all the guns and crime, is it realistic? Or did the unreal backdrop allow the unreal character development to take place?
Did the gun lobby play a part in the production of these old TV (or previous radio) Western shows e.g as advertisers (as Big Detergent did for the original ‘soaps’)?
I guess a realistic show/serial would not just be ‘boring’ (=not violent and bloody enough) but also draw a firestorm from the Right because it would naturally include the very strict gun control practiced in many towns of the “Wild West”.
Also remember that “High Noon” was called “the most un-American thing I’ve ever seen in my whole life” (by John Wayne) and spawned some films showing the ‘proper way’ (steely-eyed heroes that did not need rescuing by chicks with suspicious religious background).
Just look at that toxic masculinity brew currently on the menu of that highly successful Faux Newts show whose whiny host I will not name. Couldn’t we invite some veteran Russian female snipers from WW2 to show him the error of his ways? I guess it would be a spectacle with great ratings, if we could see e.g. Nina Lobkovskaya (96) chasing the POS round the studio shouting colourful obscenities in Russian (constant beeping required).
Did the gun lobby play a part in the production of these old TV (or previous radio) Western shows e.g as advertisers (as Big Detergent did for the original ‘soaps’)?
I guess a realistic show/serial would not just be ‘boring’ (=not violent and bloody enough) but also draw a firestorm from the Right because it would naturally include the very strict gun control practiced in many towns of the “Wild West”.
Also remember that “High Noon” was called “the most un-American thing I’ve ever seen in my whole life” (by John Wayne) and spawned some films showing the ‘proper way’ (steely-eyed heroes that did not need rescuing by chicks with suspicious religious background).
Just look at that toxic masculinity brew currently on the menu of that highly successful Faux Newts show whose whiny host I will not name. Couldn’t we invite some veteran Russian female snipers from WW2 to show him the error of his ways? I guess it would be a spectacle with great ratings, if we could see e.g. Nina Lobkovskaya (96) chasing the POS round the studio shouting colourful obscenities in Russian (constant beeping required).
Hartmut — Did the gun lobby play a part in the production of these old TV (or previous radio) Western shows e.g as advertisers (as Big Detergent did for the original ‘soaps’)?
Quick answer because I just got up: No. Someone will probably pop up with some factoid that seems to prove me wrong, but there was no “gun lobby” as we know it when those shows were made. There was no gun controversy then as we know it now. It’s mind-bogglingly anachronistic to apply the framework of today to those times. (Not a slam at you, Hartmut, I’m just bemused at even trying to express how different that era was from now in this regard.)
Check out the history of the NRA, which includes this (from Wikipedia):
Hartmut — Did the gun lobby play a part in the production of these old TV (or previous radio) Western shows e.g as advertisers (as Big Detergent did for the original ‘soaps’)?
Quick answer because I just got up: No. Someone will probably pop up with some factoid that seems to prove me wrong, but there was no “gun lobby” as we know it when those shows were made. There was no gun controversy then as we know it now. It’s mind-bogglingly anachronistic to apply the framework of today to those times. (Not a slam at you, Hartmut, I’m just bemused at even trying to express how different that era was from now in this regard.)
Check out the history of the NRA, which includes this (from Wikipedia):
Also this: Just look at that toxic masculinity brew currently on the menu of that highly successful Faux Newts show whose whiny host I will not name.
Another phenomenon that has a complex history. When my kids were growing up (they’re in their mid-30s now) there was a lot of awareness and concern about the effect a culture (movies etc.) of toxic masculinity was having on boys and especially body image. I remember seeing articles about the transformation of GI Joe toys from regular guys to musclebound hulks. This was not an unknown concern around where I live…
Also this: Just look at that toxic masculinity brew currently on the menu of that highly successful Faux Newts show whose whiny host I will not name.
Another phenomenon that has a complex history. When my kids were growing up (they’re in their mid-30s now) there was a lot of awareness and concern about the effect a culture (movies etc.) of toxic masculinity was having on boys and especially body image. I remember seeing articles about the transformation of GI Joe toys from regular guys to musclebound hulks. This was not an unknown concern around where I live…
…someone reminisced about cap guns, which I haven’t thought about for probably sixty years. But yes, we played with them
So did we. And we watched US television programmes – Alias Smith and Jones was a favourite: “in all the trains and banks they robbed, they never shot anyone”, but there was plenty of gunplay.
And yet there’s very little gun culture in the UK. For non-sociopaths, the social norm that shooting people is bad overrides childhood enthusiasm for things that go bang.
…someone reminisced about cap guns, which I haven’t thought about for probably sixty years. But yes, we played with them
So did we. And we watched US television programmes – Alias Smith and Jones was a favourite: “in all the trains and banks they robbed, they never shot anyone”, but there was plenty of gunplay.
And yet there’s very little gun culture in the UK. For non-sociopaths, the social norm that shooting people is bad overrides childhood enthusiasm for things that go bang.
I loved NYPD blue and had a crush on Delaney and Brenneman, but my true love was Dennis Franz, lol – he’s great in this interview
https://variety.com/2018/tv/features/nypd-blue-25-anniversary-dennis-franz-amy-brenneman-gordon-clapp-1202943540/
On his character:
When [Steven and David] were describing him, he was racist, he’s a womanizer, alcoholic, homophobic, he was a loose cannon, he didn’t believe in God, religion, foul mouthed. I said, “Well, who the hell is going to care about this guy?” Their response was “Well, you will make that happen.” I said, “Well, thanks for the confidence. I appreciate that, but how?” They said, “It’s in your nature.” I kind of realized this is a guy at one time probably was a good provider and a good husband and father. I know he’s always been a good cop. Things probably were all going right in his life, but then something went wrong and he started this downhill slide. I’m formulating this in my head thinking that, “Okay, we’re catching him at the very bottom of his slide. Hopefully this is going to be an uphill battle for him from this point on.”
I loved NYPD blue and had a crush on Delaney and Brenneman, but my true love was Dennis Franz, lol – he’s great in this interview
https://variety.com/2018/tv/features/nypd-blue-25-anniversary-dennis-franz-amy-brenneman-gordon-clapp-1202943540/
On his character:
When [Steven and David] were describing him, he was racist, he’s a womanizer, alcoholic, homophobic, he was a loose cannon, he didn’t believe in God, religion, foul mouthed. I said, “Well, who the hell is going to care about this guy?” Their response was “Well, you will make that happen.” I said, “Well, thanks for the confidence. I appreciate that, but how?” They said, “It’s in your nature.” I kind of realized this is a guy at one time probably was a good provider and a good husband and father. I know he’s always been a good cop. Things probably were all going right in his life, but then something went wrong and he started this downhill slide. I’m formulating this in my head thinking that, “Okay, we’re catching him at the very bottom of his slide. Hopefully this is going to be an uphill battle for him from this point on.”
I loved Alias Smith & Jones as a kid.
And of course Pete Duel died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
I loved Alias Smith & Jones as a kid.
And of course Pete Duel died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Did the gun lobby play a part in the production of these old TV (or previous radio) Western shows e.g as advertisers (as Big Detergent did for the original ‘soaps’)?
Like Janie said, No. The gun manufacturers didn’t really take over the NRA until the mid-60s. Until then, the NRA actually supported gun control laws. (True fact!)
It’s like all those sword (and sorcery) movies and games haven’t led to a bunch of people wearing swords around and having duels. The TV shows weren’t really the driver.
Did the gun lobby play a part in the production of these old TV (or previous radio) Western shows e.g as advertisers (as Big Detergent did for the original ‘soaps’)?
Like Janie said, No. The gun manufacturers didn’t really take over the NRA until the mid-60s. Until then, the NRA actually supported gun control laws. (True fact!)
It’s like all those sword (and sorcery) movies and games haven’t led to a bunch of people wearing swords around and having duels. The TV shows weren’t really the driver.
It seems like a paradox: I cite all those TV shows as evidence of the place of the gun in our national mytholody, and yet wj and I agree that the TV shows weren’t the driver of the current pathology.
I don’t think it’s really a contradiction. The TV shows were part of a mythic backdrop on which the machinations of the gun lobby could draw (in both senses). I used to joke (not really a joke) that if I were a hacker (I’m not), the first thing I’d do would be to…well, never mind. Just in case. 😉
It seems like a paradox: I cite all those TV shows as evidence of the place of the gun in our national mytholody, and yet wj and I agree that the TV shows weren’t the driver of the current pathology.
I don’t think it’s really a contradiction. The TV shows were part of a mythic backdrop on which the machinations of the gun lobby could draw (in both senses). I used to joke (not really a joke) that if I were a hacker (I’m not), the first thing I’d do would be to…well, never mind. Just in case. 😉
I stand corrected — it was in the mid-70s that the gun manufacturers took over.
I stand corrected — it was in the mid-70s that the gun manufacturers took over.
i watched all the Looney Tunes cartoons a hundred times each, and i’ve never once dropped an anvil on anyone.
i watched all the Looney Tunes cartoons a hundred times each, and i’ve never once dropped an anvil on anyone.
I will be unsurprised if someone at least tries to do a “noble hacker” show. I would note that several spy shows and cop shows these days include a hot-shot hacker among the good guys on the team. (Privacy concerns? What are privacy concerns?) So they’ve got a start.
I will be unsurprised if someone at least tries to do a “noble hacker” show. I would note that several spy shows and cop shows these days include a hot-shot hacker among the good guys on the team. (Privacy concerns? What are privacy concerns?) So they’ve got a start.
I grew up watching a ton of TV, much of which was quite violent, ranging from the antics of the 3 Stooges to stuff like The Rifleman, where every week Lucas McCain was regrettably put in the position of having to shoot some people with his Winchester.
Some people are bad, and, regrettably, good people are obliged to shoot them. Or, at least, beat the crap out of them, or otherwise see violence rained down on their heads. Pretty much the plot of (wild @ssed guess) half the TV shows made from 1955 to 1965.
Maybe everybody – all cultures, all societies – are violent like that, I really can’t say. We are.
Meanwhile, we have a sheriff’s captain in GA explaining that the maladjusted young white dude with a gun du jour found it necessary to slaughter a bunch of people because he ‘had a bad day’. Nothing to do, of course, with the fact that they looked kinda different.
I’m not sure what it takes to root crap like this out of a society. I’m not sure it’s possible. In any case, probably best to avoid disaffected white dudes.
I was heartened to see the older Asian woman in San Fran kick the sh*t out of her assailant. They took him away in a stretcher. Does that make me a bad person? If so, I can live with it.
America is a violent place.
I grew up watching a ton of TV, much of which was quite violent, ranging from the antics of the 3 Stooges to stuff like The Rifleman, where every week Lucas McCain was regrettably put in the position of having to shoot some people with his Winchester.
Some people are bad, and, regrettably, good people are obliged to shoot them. Or, at least, beat the crap out of them, or otherwise see violence rained down on their heads. Pretty much the plot of (wild @ssed guess) half the TV shows made from 1955 to 1965.
Maybe everybody – all cultures, all societies – are violent like that, I really can’t say. We are.
Meanwhile, we have a sheriff’s captain in GA explaining that the maladjusted young white dude with a gun du jour found it necessary to slaughter a bunch of people because he ‘had a bad day’. Nothing to do, of course, with the fact that they looked kinda different.
I’m not sure what it takes to root crap like this out of a society. I’m not sure it’s possible. In any case, probably best to avoid disaffected white dudes.
I was heartened to see the older Asian woman in San Fran kick the sh*t out of her assailant. They took him away in a stretcher. Does that make me a bad person? If so, I can live with it.
America is a violent place.
Ironically the anti-gun lobby has perhaps sold more guns than the gun lobby.
Ironically the anti-gun lobby has perhaps sold more guns than the gun lobby.
Rawhide, The Rebel, Cheyenne, and Sugarfoot, Wagon Train, Roy Rogers, Laramie, and The Big Valley, with the incomparable Barbara Stanwyck.
Zorro was a western.
A common theme of many of these westerns was the Civil War veteran lighting out for the territories after the war, armed, natch, but reluctant to use violence, despite the aggregate death toll of the genre.
I just re-watched the movie “Shane”, and among other virtues, if you listen closely, it is a meditation on violence … the evil of it, and it’s unfortunate necessity, by “professionals” in the context of who gets to own what land (cattle barons versus sodbusters) and where the fence lines will be, if they must be, lest anyone still harbor the mythic idea that the American West in many ways was anything more than a Mafia protection racket wrapped in red, white, and blue bunting.
The Director, George Stevens, was a combat veteran of World War II, and he hated the shallow depiction of gun violence in Hollywood, particularly of the John Wayne variety, though “Red River” is a fine movie.
My favorite western movie is a modern one “Lonely Are The Brave” with Kirk Douglas and an amazing cast .. screenplay by Dalton Trumbo … based on a several-page short story, and then novel, by Edward Abbey, in which these themes are shot forward into the middle 20th century.
There is gunfire, but mostly by law enforcement. The anti-hero, Kirk Douglas, does take down a police helicopter in rough territory, but aims his shot to minimize the chance of killing the pilot and co-pilot, and thus pilot Bill Bixby has to hike his way out and lives to muse about exactly what this cowboy just might be up to.
There’s also a poignant unrequited love thread running thru it, as there is in “Shane”, which is very sexy in an understated way.
There is a wonderful horse in the movie, and if you don’t want to witness a man blubber with inconsolable grief in the last ten minutes of a film, you don’t want to watch the movie with me.
Only the last ten minutes of “The Swimmer”, with Burt Lancaster, based on a short story by John Cheever (not a western to be sure, but he is an anti-hero wanderer thru the iffy territories of suburban backyards, can wreck me in quite the same way.
In my next life, I’m going to make a film about a large band of cowboy sidekicks … Walter Brennan will be the sidekick leader, which is to say, not a leader … who separate from their movie lead men and women and set off on a cattle drive of their own, a long line of cook wagons commandeered by irascible, uncommonly wise (in the manner of Jay Silverheels’ Tonto), but half-assed cooks, which ends up going in circles and up countless box canyons trying to find the cattle that ran off in the first five minutes of the movie, but on the way have plenty of senseless fistfights and square-offs over who among them makes the best pot of beans, and if you don’t like them, or rather if you choose to kvetch about their quality, all of the characters can reach back into their cook wagons for the inevitable double-barreled shotguns, which misfire when most needed in hilarious ways, much like Daffy Duck getting his duck bill repositioned on his head after dealing with Elmer Fudd.
There will be no love interests in this show, but the characters will suffer from painful longings out on the lonesome high prairie and the occasional inappropriate advances after imbibing rotgut ’round the campfire.
I imagine, say, Gabby Hayes and Andy Devine deciding their brokeback affection for each other is in fact appropriate despite the depredations of their fellow cookies, but they have to shoot the whiskey priest in the next town for refusing to bless their union, and then Rod Dreher can feel his religious liberty appropriately violated and quote at length from his last book regarding Hell and handbaskets.
John Wayne and uh, J…Ja..Jim… ja… ji jiJimmy Stewart also have a little discussion about the passing role of the gun in John Ford’s “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance?”
Lee Marvin plays Donald Trump to a fitting end, while prairie scum Strother Martin sneers his way to a spit-on image of the soulless Lindsay Graham.
John Wayne is on the right side in this one, though not without doubts.
Rawhide, The Rebel, Cheyenne, and Sugarfoot, Wagon Train, Roy Rogers, Laramie, and The Big Valley, with the incomparable Barbara Stanwyck.
Zorro was a western.
A common theme of many of these westerns was the Civil War veteran lighting out for the territories after the war, armed, natch, but reluctant to use violence, despite the aggregate death toll of the genre.
I just re-watched the movie “Shane”, and among other virtues, if you listen closely, it is a meditation on violence … the evil of it, and it’s unfortunate necessity, by “professionals” in the context of who gets to own what land (cattle barons versus sodbusters) and where the fence lines will be, if they must be, lest anyone still harbor the mythic idea that the American West in many ways was anything more than a Mafia protection racket wrapped in red, white, and blue bunting.
The Director, George Stevens, was a combat veteran of World War II, and he hated the shallow depiction of gun violence in Hollywood, particularly of the John Wayne variety, though “Red River” is a fine movie.
My favorite western movie is a modern one “Lonely Are The Brave” with Kirk Douglas and an amazing cast .. screenplay by Dalton Trumbo … based on a several-page short story, and then novel, by Edward Abbey, in which these themes are shot forward into the middle 20th century.
There is gunfire, but mostly by law enforcement. The anti-hero, Kirk Douglas, does take down a police helicopter in rough territory, but aims his shot to minimize the chance of killing the pilot and co-pilot, and thus pilot Bill Bixby has to hike his way out and lives to muse about exactly what this cowboy just might be up to.
There’s also a poignant unrequited love thread running thru it, as there is in “Shane”, which is very sexy in an understated way.
There is a wonderful horse in the movie, and if you don’t want to witness a man blubber with inconsolable grief in the last ten minutes of a film, you don’t want to watch the movie with me.
Only the last ten minutes of “The Swimmer”, with Burt Lancaster, based on a short story by John Cheever (not a western to be sure, but he is an anti-hero wanderer thru the iffy territories of suburban backyards, can wreck me in quite the same way.
In my next life, I’m going to make a film about a large band of cowboy sidekicks … Walter Brennan will be the sidekick leader, which is to say, not a leader … who separate from their movie lead men and women and set off on a cattle drive of their own, a long line of cook wagons commandeered by irascible, uncommonly wise (in the manner of Jay Silverheels’ Tonto), but half-assed cooks, which ends up going in circles and up countless box canyons trying to find the cattle that ran off in the first five minutes of the movie, but on the way have plenty of senseless fistfights and square-offs over who among them makes the best pot of beans, and if you don’t like them, or rather if you choose to kvetch about their quality, all of the characters can reach back into their cook wagons for the inevitable double-barreled shotguns, which misfire when most needed in hilarious ways, much like Daffy Duck getting his duck bill repositioned on his head after dealing with Elmer Fudd.
There will be no love interests in this show, but the characters will suffer from painful longings out on the lonesome high prairie and the occasional inappropriate advances after imbibing rotgut ’round the campfire.
I imagine, say, Gabby Hayes and Andy Devine deciding their brokeback affection for each other is in fact appropriate despite the depredations of their fellow cookies, but they have to shoot the whiskey priest in the next town for refusing to bless their union, and then Rod Dreher can feel his religious liberty appropriately violated and quote at length from his last book regarding Hell and handbaskets.
John Wayne and uh, J…Ja..Jim… ja… ji jiJimmy Stewart also have a little discussion about the passing role of the gun in John Ford’s “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance?”
Lee Marvin plays Donald Trump to a fitting end, while prairie scum Strother Martin sneers his way to a spit-on image of the soulless Lindsay Graham.
John Wayne is on the right side in this one, though not without doubts.
Ironically the anti-gun lobby has perhaps sold more guns than the gun lobby.
Yeah, but who got the money?
Ironically the anti-gun lobby has perhaps sold more guns than the gun lobby.
Yeah, but who got the money?
“Ironically the anti-gun lobby has perhaps sold more guns than the gun lobby.”
Yes, but the liberal anti-Covid-19 lobby can’t seem to sell the vaccine to the same shitheads.
I mean, if we waited around until Herman Cain shot himself, he might have lived another two weeks as a beacon of freedom.
Funny, how conservatives and libertarians and the Governor of New York can’t seem to sell guns and/or vaccines without resorting to massive kickback schemes.
“Ironically the anti-gun lobby has perhaps sold more guns than the gun lobby.”
Yes, but the liberal anti-Covid-19 lobby can’t seem to sell the vaccine to the same shitheads.
I mean, if we waited around until Herman Cain shot himself, he might have lived another two weeks as a beacon of freedom.
Funny, how conservatives and libertarians and the Governor of New York can’t seem to sell guns and/or vaccines without resorting to massive kickback schemes.
Nothing to do, of course, with the fact that they looked kinda different.
If the shooter is being truthful, the fact that most of the victims are Asian may be incidental.
“ATLANTA – Authorities on Wednesday said a gunman suspected of killing eight people, six of whom were Asian women, at three spas may have frequented the businesses but that it was too early to determine if the shootings would be considered a hate crime.
…
Atlanta Police Chief Rodney Bryant said it was too soon in the investigation to say whether the shootings were a hate crime. “We are just not there as of yet,” Bryant said in a news conference early Wednesday.”
Atlanta spa shootings suspect charged with murder; too soon to tell if killings were racially motivated, police say
Nothing to do, of course, with the fact that they looked kinda different.
If the shooter is being truthful, the fact that most of the victims are Asian may be incidental.
“ATLANTA – Authorities on Wednesday said a gunman suspected of killing eight people, six of whom were Asian women, at three spas may have frequented the businesses but that it was too early to determine if the shootings would be considered a hate crime.
…
Atlanta Police Chief Rodney Bryant said it was too soon in the investigation to say whether the shootings were a hate crime. “We are just not there as of yet,” Bryant said in a news conference early Wednesday.”
Atlanta spa shootings suspect charged with murder; too soon to tell if killings were racially motivated, police say
What exactly does that have to do with the place of guns in the national psyche and mythology? In fact, the portrayal of the west as “wild” in all those movies and TV shows, regardless of the reality, is part of the point.
Longer history than that. “Wild West” shows started shortly after the Civil War. They were remarkably popular east of the Mississippi River, where people didn’t know any better. “Buffalo” Bill Cody’s show toured Europe a number of times, occasionally appearing before royalty. The first American-made cowboy movie, The Great Train Robbery released in 1903, shot in NYC/NJ, is loaded with guns and violence in the style of the Wild West shows and dime novels generally, and was immensely popular.
A different complaint about western movies and TV shows… You can tell when the film industry moved from NYC/NJ to Southern California because “the West” quit looking like lush rural New Jersey and began looking like arid Southern California. Western Kansas, where so much of cowboy West is set, doesn’t look like either.
What exactly does that have to do with the place of guns in the national psyche and mythology? In fact, the portrayal of the west as “wild” in all those movies and TV shows, regardless of the reality, is part of the point.
Longer history than that. “Wild West” shows started shortly after the Civil War. They were remarkably popular east of the Mississippi River, where people didn’t know any better. “Buffalo” Bill Cody’s show toured Europe a number of times, occasionally appearing before royalty. The first American-made cowboy movie, The Great Train Robbery released in 1903, shot in NYC/NJ, is loaded with guns and violence in the style of the Wild West shows and dime novels generally, and was immensely popular.
A different complaint about western movies and TV shows… You can tell when the film industry moved from NYC/NJ to Southern California because “the West” quit looking like lush rural New Jersey and began looking like arid Southern California. Western Kansas, where so much of cowboy West is set, doesn’t look like either.
If the shooter is being truthful, the fact that most of the victims are Asian may be incidental.
Oh for mother-fucking fuck’s sake.
Here’s the relevant Onion headline: “Atlanta Police Rule Out Mass Shooting As Cause Of Death After Suspect Says He Didn’t Shoot Anyone.”
Here’s the cop whose drivel that was:
If the shooter is being truthful, the fact that most of the victims are Asian may be incidental.
Oh for mother-fucking fuck’s sake.
Here’s the relevant Onion headline: “Atlanta Police Rule Out Mass Shooting As Cause Of Death After Suspect Says He Didn’t Shoot Anyone.”
Here’s the cop whose drivel that was:
A relevant opinion piece.
A relevant opinion piece.
It is, as they say, too soon to talk about it.
Trump issued the hit in his anti-Chinese rant the other day. As is the Republican filth attempting to run Gavin Newsome out of office with the Chinese flu.
The Atlanta shooter was a Christian.
How come white Christians get many more massages than I do (None)? How is it that THEY have all the fun.
Time to profile the lot of them.
And by the way, this lying outrage about immigrants bringing the virus over the border?
North Dakota and other blood red states, such as Texas, seem to welcome the spread and genocide of the pandemic.
Time for illegal immigrants to hit the bars, free of commie masks and toting weapons.
Step up and act like an American.
It is, as they say, too soon to talk about it.
Trump issued the hit in his anti-Chinese rant the other day. As is the Republican filth attempting to run Gavin Newsome out of office with the Chinese flu.
The Atlanta shooter was a Christian.
How come white Christians get many more massages than I do (None)? How is it that THEY have all the fun.
Time to profile the lot of them.
And by the way, this lying outrage about immigrants bringing the virus over the border?
North Dakota and other blood red states, such as Texas, seem to welcome the spread and genocide of the pandemic.
Time for illegal immigrants to hit the bars, free of commie masks and toting weapons.
Step up and act like an American.
nooneithinkisinmytree — I asked you to stay out of my threads. Nothing has changed.
nooneithinkisinmytree — I asked you to stay out of my threads. Nothing has changed.
A different complaint about western movies and TV shows… You can tell when the film industry moved from NYC/NJ to Southern California because “the West” quit looking like lush rural New Jersey and began looking like arid Southern California. Western Kansas, where so much of cowboy West is set, doesn’t look like either.
Once I was old enough to understand what was going on, I stopped being able to watch Spaghetti Westerns without thinking constantly about the fact that I was looking at arid parts of Italy and Spain and that the Mexican characters were being portrayed by tanned Southern European actors. Having lived in Arizona for several years as a kid probably doesn’t help.
A different complaint about western movies and TV shows… You can tell when the film industry moved from NYC/NJ to Southern California because “the West” quit looking like lush rural New Jersey and began looking like arid Southern California. Western Kansas, where so much of cowboy West is set, doesn’t look like either.
Once I was old enough to understand what was going on, I stopped being able to watch Spaghetti Westerns without thinking constantly about the fact that I was looking at arid parts of Italy and Spain and that the Mexican characters were being portrayed by tanned Southern European actors. Having lived in Arizona for several years as a kid probably doesn’t help.
Janie, if you wish, please delete my comments.
Thanks.
Janie, if you wish, please delete my comments.
Thanks.
As is the Republican filth attempting to run Gavin Newsome out of office with the Chinese flu.
California being how it is, and the California GOP being how it is, Newsom wouldn’t have a problem if there weren’t Democrats who are pretty unhappy with his performance with regard to the virus.
As is the Republican filth attempting to run Gavin Newsome out of office with the Chinese flu.
California being how it is, and the California GOP being how it is, Newsom wouldn’t have a problem if there weren’t Democrats who are pretty unhappy with his performance with regard to the virus.
If the shooter is being truthful, the fact that most of the victims are Asian may be incidental.
The options here appear to be:
* disaffected young white dude shot up Asians because they seem foreign
* disaffected young white dude shot up young women because they were making him think bad thoughts
* both
Or maybe there is some other weird reason.
Still seems kinda messed up, though. Right?
If the shooter is being truthful, the fact that most of the victims are Asian may be incidental.
The options here appear to be:
* disaffected young white dude shot up Asians because they seem foreign
* disaffected young white dude shot up young women because they were making him think bad thoughts
* both
Or maybe there is some other weird reason.
Still seems kinda messed up, though. Right?
In many ways the western and the cop show are overlapping genres and mythologies – consider Fort Apache and Fort Apache, the Bronx.
Not at all surprising in many ways, considering that they are both concerned with policing borderlands and are driven by a rugged individualist ideology. Furthermore, that ideology is usually embedded in some way in a matrix of patriarchy and the nuclear family with the hero being the man who is sanctioned with the use of redemptive violence applied in morally ambiguous ways to restore society and the safety of the non-masculine community against the threat of Others. The gun is the magical talisman that allows the hero to stand up against the overwhelming odds of collective threat from others.
Quick Film 101 reading of the genre.
In many ways the western and the cop show are overlapping genres and mythologies – consider Fort Apache and Fort Apache, the Bronx.
Not at all surprising in many ways, considering that they are both concerned with policing borderlands and are driven by a rugged individualist ideology. Furthermore, that ideology is usually embedded in some way in a matrix of patriarchy and the nuclear family with the hero being the man who is sanctioned with the use of redemptive violence applied in morally ambiguous ways to restore society and the safety of the non-masculine community against the threat of Others. The gun is the magical talisman that allows the hero to stand up against the overwhelming odds of collective threat from others.
Quick Film 101 reading of the genre.
A lot of apocalyptic fiction has some significant overlap with Westerns, too, in pretty much the same ways you describe, nous. (Not the biggest revelation, but worth mentioning.)
A lot of apocalyptic fiction has some significant overlap with Westerns, too, in pretty much the same ways you describe, nous. (Not the biggest revelation, but worth mentioning.)
The gun is the magical talisman that allows the hero to stand up against the overwhelming odds of collective threat from others.
And then there was Kung Fu…
The gun is the magical talisman that allows the hero to stand up against the overwhelming odds of collective threat from others.
And then there was Kung Fu…
I was reading about the guy who punched the older Asian lady. As it turns out, he also hit an 83-year-old Asian man. They’re still trying to determine if race was a factor, natch. Maybe it was just because they were old, right? (That’s sarcasm, btw, if that wasn’t obvious enough.)
I was reading about the guy who punched the older Asian lady. As it turns out, he also hit an 83-year-old Asian man. They’re still trying to determine if race was a factor, natch. Maybe it was just because they were old, right? (That’s sarcasm, btw, if that wasn’t obvious enough.)
Maybe it was just because they were old, right?
Well, age might be a factor, too. Especially if he had seen enough Kung Fu movies…. 😉
Maybe it was just because they were old, right?
Well, age might be a factor, too. Especially if he had seen enough Kung Fu movies…. 😉
I have this weird Watchmen-esque plot-line in my head about that lady being a legendary former crime-fighter known as Masked Vengeance, who struck fear in the hearts of even the most hardened criminals in 1970s San Francisco. Little did her attacker know….
I have this weird Watchmen-esque plot-line in my head about that lady being a legendary former crime-fighter known as Masked Vengeance, who struck fear in the hearts of even the most hardened criminals in 1970s San Francisco. Little did her attacker know….
Kung Fu – interesting product of its time with the yellowface lead and the orientalism. I wonder what it might have been had the studio had the courage to cast Bruce Lee in the role he developed, rather than chickening out and casting Caradine.
Kung Fu – interesting product of its time with the yellowface lead and the orientalism. I wonder what it might have been had the studio had the courage to cast Bruce Lee in the role he developed, rather than chickening out and casting Caradine.
Just for the record, I know what the NRA once was. That’s why I said ‘gun lobby’ without naming the NRA. I should have said ad departments of gun manufacturers instead.
Btw, in 1911 there were complaints that the Western was effectivelky dead as a movie genre because all possibilities had been exploited ad nauseam already.
The question that comes to my mind is when did the gun become the explicit object of idolatry in the movies? I doubt that it started with Winchester 73. Was it the Western to start with?
I noticed a tendency to the concept of lucky/unlucky gun in quite some pretty old war movies (e.g. any guy carrying a Luger is likely to die, bad guy or not. It does not even matter, whether he owned it from the start or picked it up by chance during the movie. And that fate may hit more than one character).
Just for the record, I know what the NRA once was. That’s why I said ‘gun lobby’ without naming the NRA. I should have said ad departments of gun manufacturers instead.
Btw, in 1911 there were complaints that the Western was effectivelky dead as a movie genre because all possibilities had been exploited ad nauseam already.
The question that comes to my mind is when did the gun become the explicit object of idolatry in the movies? I doubt that it started with Winchester 73. Was it the Western to start with?
I noticed a tendency to the concept of lucky/unlucky gun in quite some pretty old war movies (e.g. any guy carrying a Luger is likely to die, bad guy or not. It does not even matter, whether he owned it from the start or picked it up by chance during the movie. And that fate may hit more than one character).
Well, there were ads for toy guns, which were about as common as toy dolls.
I used to play army with my brother and his friends (funny, I don’t remember playing cowboy games). I can’t remember anyone’s parents banning toy guns, but there was one boy who had an order of magnitude more than anyone else. His dad was a cop…. He also had a massive collection of comic books, which weren’t allowed in my house, my parents having bought into red scare notions about comic books.
But I still think my answer holds: guns for adults were not advertised on TV. I don’t remember ever seeing an ad for a gun or ammunition on TV. Are there gun ads even now? I don’t watch TV enough to know. When I do watch, it seems to be mostly cars.
Well, there were ads for toy guns, which were about as common as toy dolls.
I used to play army with my brother and his friends (funny, I don’t remember playing cowboy games). I can’t remember anyone’s parents banning toy guns, but there was one boy who had an order of magnitude more than anyone else. His dad was a cop…. He also had a massive collection of comic books, which weren’t allowed in my house, my parents having bought into red scare notions about comic books.
But I still think my answer holds: guns for adults were not advertised on TV. I don’t remember ever seeing an ad for a gun or ammunition on TV. Are there gun ads even now? I don’t watch TV enough to know. When I do watch, it seems to be mostly cars.
CharlesWT: Ironically the anti-gun lobby has perhaps sold more guns than the gun lobby.
Look up “deepity”.
Incidentally, I hate “hate crimes”. I know it’s a well-established term-of-art at this point, but it muddles the distinction between bigotry and malice.
–TP
CharlesWT: Ironically the anti-gun lobby has perhaps sold more guns than the gun lobby.
Look up “deepity”.
Incidentally, I hate “hate crimes”. I know it’s a well-established term-of-art at this point, but it muddles the distinction between bigotry and malice.
–TP
Hate crimes are thought crimes. People should be judged for their actions. Not what they may or may not have been thinking when they acted.
Hate crimes are thought crimes. People should be judged for their actions. Not what they may or may not have been thinking when they acted.
The question that comes to my mind is when did the gun become the explicit object of idolatry in the movies?
Consider The Great Train Robbery from 1903. I believe there are guns on prominent display in every scene. In the square dance scene all of the men dancing are wearing holsters with revolvers. When the “dude” comes in they do the bit with shooting into the ground at his feet to make him dance. When the telegraph operator comes into the dance to report the robbery, the men grab additional long guns stacked in the background before taking off in pursuit. Or the final shot, with a desperado type in front of a blank background, pulling out his revolver and emptying it directly at the camera. It is, however, a western fetish about guns; the 30-40 people herded off the train during the robbery, all dressed like the dude, all appear to be unarmed.
For a twelve minute movie, the body count is impressively high.
The question that comes to my mind is when did the gun become the explicit object of idolatry in the movies?
Consider The Great Train Robbery from 1903. I believe there are guns on prominent display in every scene. In the square dance scene all of the men dancing are wearing holsters with revolvers. When the “dude” comes in they do the bit with shooting into the ground at his feet to make him dance. When the telegraph operator comes into the dance to report the robbery, the men grab additional long guns stacked in the background before taking off in pursuit. Or the final shot, with a desperado type in front of a blank background, pulling out his revolver and emptying it directly at the camera. It is, however, a western fetish about guns; the 30-40 people herded off the train during the robbery, all dressed like the dude, all appear to be unarmed.
For a twelve minute movie, the body count is impressively high.
The difference between those people and Q is that God established the Roman Catholic Church and charged it with teaching his moral code to all humans.
The difference between those people and Q is that God established the Roman Catholic Church and charged it with teaching his moral code to all humans.
Hate crimes are thought crimes. People should be judged for their actions. Not what they may or may not have been thinking when they acted.
Ah, yes. Because intent is never a consideration in criminal proceedings.
Hate crimes are thought crimes. People should be judged for their actions. Not what they may or may not have been thinking when they acted.
Ah, yes. Because intent is never a consideration in criminal proceedings.
The difference between those people and Q is that God established the Roman Catholic Church and charged it with teaching his moral code to all humans.
Doh. How silly of me to have forgotten.
That settles that then.
The difference between those people and Q is that God established the Roman Catholic Church and charged it with teaching his moral code to all humans.
Doh. How silly of me to have forgotten.
That settles that then.
Michael Cain, I think there is a difference between just having lots of guns and shooting in a movie and fetishizing the gun as an object. For comparision: about any ‘knight’ movie has lots of swords in it and there is a lot of fighting but only in some films the (or a) sword becomes a main point of explicit focus. LotR has a lot of swords ‘with character’ (i.e. not exchangable) but few would accuse Tolkien (or even Peter Jacksons LotR movies) of sword p0rn.
Michael Cain, I think there is a difference between just having lots of guns and shooting in a movie and fetishizing the gun as an object. For comparision: about any ‘knight’ movie has lots of swords in it and there is a lot of fighting but only in some films the (or a) sword becomes a main point of explicit focus. LotR has a lot of swords ‘with character’ (i.e. not exchangable) but few would accuse Tolkien (or even Peter Jacksons LotR movies) of sword p0rn.
I think the real high water mark for the gun fetish in popular American culture comes with Dirty Harry. There was the myth of redemptive violence before that film, and there was the sense that having a firearm gave one the ability to enforce one’s own agency and project order. But Dirty Harry (and maybe Taxi Driver on the opposite side of things) really solidified the talismanic aspect – at least off the top of my head. I’m sure a Film Studies person who specializes would have a more granular view.
I mean, there’s always Wanted Dead or Alive and Steve McQueen’s “Mare’s Leg,” but that doesn’t seem like it made the same cultural splash as Harry’s .44.
I think the real high water mark for the gun fetish in popular American culture comes with Dirty Harry. There was the myth of redemptive violence before that film, and there was the sense that having a firearm gave one the ability to enforce one’s own agency and project order. But Dirty Harry (and maybe Taxi Driver on the opposite side of things) really solidified the talismanic aspect – at least off the top of my head. I’m sure a Film Studies person who specializes would have a more granular view.
I mean, there’s always Wanted Dead or Alive and Steve McQueen’s “Mare’s Leg,” but that doesn’t seem like it made the same cultural splash as Harry’s .44.
Okay, not high water mark, more like impact crater. Silly metaphors.
Okay, not high water mark, more like impact crater. Silly metaphors.
Do You Feel Lucky, Punk?
Do You Feel Lucky, Punk?
If the shooter is being truthful, the fact that most of the victims are Asian may be incidental.
The psychological illiteracy of this opinion is such that, unusually, I have nothing else to add. (Not to mention that JanieM said everything that otherwise needed to be said.)
Ah, yes. Because intent is never a consideration in criminal proceedings.
Exactly. Anyone in any doubt should look up the term “mens rea”, which is one of the two elements necessary to constitute a crime, the other being the rather obvious “actus reus”.
If the shooter is being truthful, the fact that most of the victims are Asian may be incidental.
The psychological illiteracy of this opinion is such that, unusually, I have nothing else to add. (Not to mention that JanieM said everything that otherwise needed to be said.)
Ah, yes. Because intent is never a consideration in criminal proceedings.
Exactly. Anyone in any doubt should look up the term “mens rea”, which is one of the two elements necessary to constitute a crime, the other being the rather obvious “actus reus”.
There’s a difference between judging intent and hate crimes codified in law.
There’s a difference between judging intent and hate crimes codified in law.
There’s a difference between judging intent and hate crimes codified in law.
Care to expand on that?
Because it seems at first blush like both involve judging what was going on in someone’s mind at some point in the past. Indeed, showing the kind of ongoing prejudice that supports charging a hate crime seems easier than judging intent at an instant.
Just for the record, I tend to agree with your earlier point that it would generally be better to just charge on actions, rather than motivation. But the question remains.
There’s a difference between judging intent and hate crimes codified in law.
Care to expand on that?
Because it seems at first blush like both involve judging what was going on in someone’s mind at some point in the past. Indeed, showing the kind of ongoing prejudice that supports charging a hate crime seems easier than judging intent at an instant.
Just for the record, I tend to agree with your earlier point that it would generally be better to just charge on actions, rather than motivation. But the question remains.
“Hate crime” is, as TP said, a dumb phrase, one of many that have caught on and that we can’t get rid of now.
But these aren’t the only laws that differentiate seriousness or penalties depending on who the victim is. Laws about elder abuse come to mind, and laws relating to harm to children, where the extra vulnerability of the victim is taken into account irrespective of the state of mind of the perp.
If you’re a person of color in this country, or LGBTQ+, or a woman, or in some contexts elderly, you’re at extra risk of being targeted, and just walking around knowing that every day of your life is a stress that some people don’t have to carry. Thus “hate crimes” don’t harm only their direct victims, they harm entire communities.
Beyond that, I’m not sure how many more empty-headed too-clever-by-half, deepity (what a great concept!) sound bites I’m going to bother to acknowledge.
“Hate crime” is, as TP said, a dumb phrase, one of many that have caught on and that we can’t get rid of now.
But these aren’t the only laws that differentiate seriousness or penalties depending on who the victim is. Laws about elder abuse come to mind, and laws relating to harm to children, where the extra vulnerability of the victim is taken into account irrespective of the state of mind of the perp.
If you’re a person of color in this country, or LGBTQ+, or a woman, or in some contexts elderly, you’re at extra risk of being targeted, and just walking around knowing that every day of your life is a stress that some people don’t have to carry. Thus “hate crimes” don’t harm only their direct victims, they harm entire communities.
Beyond that, I’m not sure how many more empty-headed too-clever-by-half, deepity (what a great concept!) sound bites I’m going to bother to acknowledge.
Hate crime and civil rights violation laws seem to be an effort to circumvent rules against double jeopardy. Potentially, someone could be charged and tried multiple times for the same crime.
Hate crime and civil rights violation laws seem to be an effort to circumvent rules against double jeopardy. Potentially, someone could be charged and tried multiple times for the same crime.
The difference between those people and Q is that God established the Roman Catholic Church and charged it with teaching his moral code to all humans.
prove it
The difference between those people and Q is that God established the Roman Catholic Church and charged it with teaching his moral code to all humans.
prove it
It’s always interesting to see where (and when and if) people’s opposition to a legal concept like hate crimes map in comparison to that person’s stance on capital punishment as deterrence. Seems to me like both are working on an economy of spectacle, where the act is aimed not at the subject of the action, but at the observers who self-identify with the subject.
It’s always interesting to see where (and when and if) people’s opposition to a legal concept like hate crimes map in comparison to that person’s stance on capital punishment as deterrence. Seems to me like both are working on an economy of spectacle, where the act is aimed not at the subject of the action, but at the observers who self-identify with the subject.
God established the Roman Catholic Church
that’s certainly their version.
hate crime
A hate crime is a crime perpetrated against someone who belongs to a protected class, *because* they belong to a protected class.
It seems reasonable to me to distinguish between beating somebody up because they’re black, or gay, or a woman, vs beating them up because you want their money, or maybe just because you’re a violent jerk. And, to punish them differently, based on that distinction.
YMMV
God established the Roman Catholic Church
that’s certainly their version.
hate crime
A hate crime is a crime perpetrated against someone who belongs to a protected class, *because* they belong to a protected class.
It seems reasonable to me to distinguish between beating somebody up because they’re black, or gay, or a woman, vs beating them up because you want their money, or maybe just because you’re a violent jerk. And, to punish them differently, based on that distinction.
YMMV
Just for the record, I tend to agree with your earlier point that it would generally be better to just charge on actions, rather than motivation. But the question remains.
I happened to be in the neighborhood and this is somewhat up my alley. Mens rea denotes the level of mental culpability that is an element of a given crime. Most states following the Model Penal Code recognize four culpable mental states: intentional, knowing, reckless and negligent.
Typically, the higher the mental state, the more severe the punishment. The actor’s state of mind is inferred from the facts of the crime. Was it murder or accidental disharge of a firearm? Or, self defense (which is technically different since it is an affirmative defense and not an element of the offense).
If someone shoots someone 10 times or hits someone in the head 10 times with a bat or ax or whatever, the jury can infer intent. If someone is racing down the street, grossly above the speed limit, fully intending to drive like a bat out of hell and that person hits and kills someone else, the state would have to prove intent to kill, not intent to drive like hell to prove intentional homicide. More likely, the charge would be reckless.
Mens rea goes to the outcome, not the volitional nature of the act.
The hate crime thing raises some fair questions. Is murdering someone for their money not quite as bad as murdering (intentional homicide) someone for the ethnicity? Why isn’t murder just murder?
Another concern is subjectivity: the volume (or percentage or proportion or whatever–math is not my thing) of white on black crime is lower than the other way around. Is all, some or no black on white crime also a hate crime? What about white on black? The belief–this is not a total outlier these days–that white people have a unique and special animus for minorities seems to be a thing with proponents of hate crime and people who do not share that belief are not warm to a class of crimes that, when it all shakes down, are considered to be primarily committed by white people because, you know, white people are that way.
This is particularly so since, as I said, comparing apples to apples, blacks commit more crimes against whites than the other way around, so why should the lesser carry the presumption of greater mal intent than the greater.
I am pretty comfortable with the notion that those most interested in codifying hate crimes are not intending to come down harder on blacks than the law already does. So, yes, there are questions and concerns.
Since I’m here, it would be nice if the Catholic Church would focus on its own problems and, like Paul and Jesus did, leave the civil authorities to worry about civil matters. Or, it if has to say something, just limit itself to promoting traditional male/female marriage and keep quiet about the rest of it. Calling out gay people for being gay is just as disturbing and divisive as calling out any other group of people for being members of that group. As a Catholic-lite, i.e. Episcopalian, it is fundamental doctrine that God created all of the universe and everything in it and that we are all enjoined to love our neighbor without exception. Logic compels the notion that God clearly created gay people who are also quite clearly people who therefore must be loved as much as anyone else. So, leaving aside decades of CC criminal complicity, the mote in the eye and all of that, the CC and all religions should just leave gay civil marriage the hell alone. Even if–for the sake of argument–homosexuality was right up there with consuming distilled spirits as the worst that humans could ever do, if God can create and maintain the universe, He can probably sort things out fairly well when and if the need arises.
Back to work.
Just for the record, I tend to agree with your earlier point that it would generally be better to just charge on actions, rather than motivation. But the question remains.
I happened to be in the neighborhood and this is somewhat up my alley. Mens rea denotes the level of mental culpability that is an element of a given crime. Most states following the Model Penal Code recognize four culpable mental states: intentional, knowing, reckless and negligent.
Typically, the higher the mental state, the more severe the punishment. The actor’s state of mind is inferred from the facts of the crime. Was it murder or accidental disharge of a firearm? Or, self defense (which is technically different since it is an affirmative defense and not an element of the offense).
If someone shoots someone 10 times or hits someone in the head 10 times with a bat or ax or whatever, the jury can infer intent. If someone is racing down the street, grossly above the speed limit, fully intending to drive like a bat out of hell and that person hits and kills someone else, the state would have to prove intent to kill, not intent to drive like hell to prove intentional homicide. More likely, the charge would be reckless.
Mens rea goes to the outcome, not the volitional nature of the act.
The hate crime thing raises some fair questions. Is murdering someone for their money not quite as bad as murdering (intentional homicide) someone for the ethnicity? Why isn’t murder just murder?
Another concern is subjectivity: the volume (or percentage or proportion or whatever–math is not my thing) of white on black crime is lower than the other way around. Is all, some or no black on white crime also a hate crime? What about white on black? The belief–this is not a total outlier these days–that white people have a unique and special animus for minorities seems to be a thing with proponents of hate crime and people who do not share that belief are not warm to a class of crimes that, when it all shakes down, are considered to be primarily committed by white people because, you know, white people are that way.
This is particularly so since, as I said, comparing apples to apples, blacks commit more crimes against whites than the other way around, so why should the lesser carry the presumption of greater mal intent than the greater.
I am pretty comfortable with the notion that those most interested in codifying hate crimes are not intending to come down harder on blacks than the law already does. So, yes, there are questions and concerns.
Since I’m here, it would be nice if the Catholic Church would focus on its own problems and, like Paul and Jesus did, leave the civil authorities to worry about civil matters. Or, it if has to say something, just limit itself to promoting traditional male/female marriage and keep quiet about the rest of it. Calling out gay people for being gay is just as disturbing and divisive as calling out any other group of people for being members of that group. As a Catholic-lite, i.e. Episcopalian, it is fundamental doctrine that God created all of the universe and everything in it and that we are all enjoined to love our neighbor without exception. Logic compels the notion that God clearly created gay people who are also quite clearly people who therefore must be loved as much as anyone else. So, leaving aside decades of CC criminal complicity, the mote in the eye and all of that, the CC and all religions should just leave gay civil marriage the hell alone. Even if–for the sake of argument–homosexuality was right up there with consuming distilled spirits as the worst that humans could ever do, if God can create and maintain the universe, He can probably sort things out fairly well when and if the need arises.
Back to work.
it would be nice if the Catholic Church would focus on its own problems and, like Paul and Jesus did, leave the civil authorities to worry about civil matters.
Which leaves the civil question of what is appropriate action against the institution when it covers up crimes of its members? Somehow mere monetary sanctions seem inadequate.
Logic compels the notion that God clearly created gay people who are also quite clearly people who therefore must be loved as much as anyone else.
Amen, brother, amen.
it would be nice if the Catholic Church would focus on its own problems and, like Paul and Jesus did, leave the civil authorities to worry about civil matters.
Which leaves the civil question of what is appropriate action against the institution when it covers up crimes of its members? Somehow mere monetary sanctions seem inadequate.
Logic compels the notion that God clearly created gay people who are also quite clearly people who therefore must be loved as much as anyone else.
Amen, brother, amen.
Why isn’t murder just murder?
This is a very good question. I will offer my opinion, FWIW.
Murdering someone because they belong to some demographic category or other deprives them of their life, and in addition attacks the idea that everyone deserves equal status under the law.
So, it’s murder, plus a violation of a fundamental guarantees that are the basis of this nation as a polity. And, which have cost us a great deal to establish and maintain.
So I see it as not just murder, but also something in addition to murder. Not a different kind of murder, but murder plus. Not least because the act itself is rarely if ever just about the violence, it’s virtually always about attacking the status of the victim.
It strikes me that insisting on the idea of equal status under law is worth defending on its own merits. So I’m fine with ‘hate crimes’ as a concept.
Why isn’t murder just murder?
This is a very good question. I will offer my opinion, FWIW.
Murdering someone because they belong to some demographic category or other deprives them of their life, and in addition attacks the idea that everyone deserves equal status under the law.
So, it’s murder, plus a violation of a fundamental guarantees that are the basis of this nation as a polity. And, which have cost us a great deal to establish and maintain.
So I see it as not just murder, but also something in addition to murder. Not a different kind of murder, but murder plus. Not least because the act itself is rarely if ever just about the violence, it’s virtually always about attacking the status of the victim.
It strikes me that insisting on the idea of equal status under law is worth defending on its own merits. So I’m fine with ‘hate crimes’ as a concept.
A hate crime is a crime perpetrated against someone who belongs to a protected class, *because* they belong to a protected class.
Murdering someone because they belong to some demographic category or other deprives them of their life, and in addition attacks the idea that everyone deserves equal status under the law.
Having protected classes seems to belie the idea of equal status under the law.
A hate crime is a crime perpetrated against someone who belongs to a protected class, *because* they belong to a protected class.
Murdering someone because they belong to some demographic category or other deprives them of their life, and in addition attacks the idea that everyone deserves equal status under the law.
Having protected classes seems to belie the idea of equal status under the law.
At the very least, any reasonable person should be able to recognize that spray-painting swastikas on a synagogue is different from spray-painting your initials on a retaining wall under an overpass. But, gee, both are spray-painting on someone else’s property, right? That’s just vandalism! Or not.
At the very least, any reasonable person should be able to recognize that spray-painting swastikas on a synagogue is different from spray-painting your initials on a retaining wall under an overpass. But, gee, both are spray-painting on someone else’s property, right? That’s just vandalism! Or not.
Wrs
Also, I’m not entirely happy with McKinney’s comment on mens rea; if Anders Breivik had only succeeded in killing one youth Labour activist on that island, and his manifesto was adduced in evidence, I imagine that would be a pretty clear evidence of mens rea. I’m not claiming that youth Labour activists should belong to a protected class, I’m talking about the principle of mens rea.
Also, I do not believe the following statement is correct, or true in any sense in this form:
The belief – this is not a total outlier these days – that white people have a unique and special animus towards minorities seems to be a thing with proponents of hate crime
If you had put the word “some” before “white people” or “proponents” it would be unarguable, or in the former, banal. But if you actually think what you have written, your understanding of the true issues seems rudimentary and stereotyped. I think almost nobody here much liked that lecture on White Fragility, (although I thought it contained some interesting points) but if this is what you took away from it or similar theories, that is rather fascinating. Talk about confirmation bias – “animus” is not the same thing as “unconscious bias”.
Wrs
Also, I’m not entirely happy with McKinney’s comment on mens rea; if Anders Breivik had only succeeded in killing one youth Labour activist on that island, and his manifesto was adduced in evidence, I imagine that would be a pretty clear evidence of mens rea. I’m not claiming that youth Labour activists should belong to a protected class, I’m talking about the principle of mens rea.
Also, I do not believe the following statement is correct, or true in any sense in this form:
The belief – this is not a total outlier these days – that white people have a unique and special animus towards minorities seems to be a thing with proponents of hate crime
If you had put the word “some” before “white people” or “proponents” it would be unarguable, or in the former, banal. But if you actually think what you have written, your understanding of the true issues seems rudimentary and stereotyped. I think almost nobody here much liked that lecture on White Fragility, (although I thought it contained some interesting points) but if this is what you took away from it or similar theories, that is rather fascinating. Talk about confirmation bias – “animus” is not the same thing as “unconscious bias”.
has perhaps sold
may be incidental
seem to be an effort to circumvent
seems to belie the idea of equal status under the law
CharlesWT, could you ever be bothered to make an actual argument? Or are you just trolling?
Try reading something like The Color of Law, by Richard Rothstein, if you have any sincere willingness to learn something beyond superficial gotcha-level word play about how much “equal status under the law” people of color have “enjoyed” in this country.
I’m sure the book wasn’t serialized in Reason, but you can get a used copy for eleven bucks at AbeBooks, or a copy through interlibrary loan for nothing. They do have libraries in Houston, right?
has perhaps sold
may be incidental
seem to be an effort to circumvent
seems to belie the idea of equal status under the law
CharlesWT, could you ever be bothered to make an actual argument? Or are you just trolling?
Try reading something like The Color of Law, by Richard Rothstein, if you have any sincere willingness to learn something beyond superficial gotcha-level word play about how much “equal status under the law” people of color have “enjoyed” in this country.
I’m sure the book wasn’t serialized in Reason, but you can get a used copy for eleven bucks at AbeBooks, or a copy through interlibrary loan for nothing. They do have libraries in Houston, right?
Or in other words, when black people are in fact equal under the law in all ways, and maybe even when the effects of 400 years of their *not* being equal under the law in myriad ways from slavery to redlining to voter suppression, we can talk about getting rid of the alleged inequality under the law of protected classes.
Or in other words, when black people are in fact equal under the law in all ways, and maybe even when the effects of 400 years of their *not* being equal under the law in myriad ways from slavery to redlining to voter suppression, we can talk about getting rid of the alleged inequality under the law of protected classes.
“…voter suppression are corrected…”
Writing too fast.
“…voter suppression are corrected…”
Writing too fast.
russell’s opinion misses the other reason for hate crime as an additional consideration. Hate crimes are related to terrorism. It’s not just an attack on an individual, it’s an attack on a an entire class of people who are targets because they are marked as part of that class. The crime is committed against the victims, but it is also a symbolic attack on the entire class. The person targeted was, in a sense, often targeted vicariously.
And the class need not always be a protected class under federal law. Many states include law enforcement and emergency responders. Utah does not define any protected groups but still has hate crime legislation.
russell’s opinion misses the other reason for hate crime as an additional consideration. Hate crimes are related to terrorism. It’s not just an attack on an individual, it’s an attack on a an entire class of people who are targets because they are marked as part of that class. The crime is committed against the victims, but it is also a symbolic attack on the entire class. The person targeted was, in a sense, often targeted vicariously.
And the class need not always be a protected class under federal law. Many states include law enforcement and emergency responders. Utah does not define any protected groups but still has hate crime legislation.
Try reading something like The Color of Law, by Richard Rothstein, …
Aside from disagreeing with the author on a few points, the libertarian press has had favorable things to say about the book. No doubt because the author points to various levels of government as the source of the maladies he describes. 🙂
Try reading something like The Color of Law, by Richard Rothstein, …
Aside from disagreeing with the author on a few points, the libertarian press has had favorable things to say about the book. No doubt because the author points to various levels of government as the source of the maladies he describes. 🙂
CharlesWT — on the one hand, you’re incorrigible. On the other, I gotta give you credit for your equanimity in the face of a lot of sarcasm from me. Or at least apparent equanimity, which is the only kind that matters in pixels, I guess.
Beyond that, if you think humans would have done better without government in the areas the book covers, I’ve got a bridge to sell you….
Sheesh.
CharlesWT — on the one hand, you’re incorrigible. On the other, I gotta give you credit for your equanimity in the face of a lot of sarcasm from me. Or at least apparent equanimity, which is the only kind that matters in pixels, I guess.
Beyond that, if you think humans would have done better without government in the areas the book covers, I’ve got a bridge to sell you….
Sheesh.
Interesting discussion. My own theory is that rather than the west being a boring place, it was more a melting pot of post Civil War PTSD. People have kind of lifted up the cover on it, long before the concept was named (see John Wayne as Ethan Edwards in the Searchers) but the emphasis on masculinity, the hair trigger responses to questions of honor, the role of women (fighting for a woman’s honor was always a good excuse to kill someone, which occurs parallel to the massive institution of frontier prostitution), the darwinian racism. Its mythic dimensions are what fuel libertarian musings like Charles WT’s
It just seems to confirm Larkin’s observations
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48419/this-be-the-verse
Interesting discussion. My own theory is that rather than the west being a boring place, it was more a melting pot of post Civil War PTSD. People have kind of lifted up the cover on it, long before the concept was named (see John Wayne as Ethan Edwards in the Searchers) but the emphasis on masculinity, the hair trigger responses to questions of honor, the role of women (fighting for a woman’s honor was always a good excuse to kill someone, which occurs parallel to the massive institution of frontier prostitution), the darwinian racism. Its mythic dimensions are what fuel libertarian musings like Charles WT’s
It just seems to confirm Larkin’s observations
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48419/this-be-the-verse
No doubt because the author points to various levels of government as the source of the maladies he describes. 🙂
This is akin to the tired and still (ayei!!!!) commonly invoked glibertarian argument asserting racial segregation was essentially “foisted” on the South by “government”. To state this so-called argument is to refute it.
Oh, and open thread? Well, well, well. A little bragging about my governor is in order!
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/03/leadership-is-better-than-playacting-dumb-ideas-of-leadership
Thank you Jay (my middle name)!
No doubt because the author points to various levels of government as the source of the maladies he describes. 🙂
This is akin to the tired and still (ayei!!!!) commonly invoked glibertarian argument asserting racial segregation was essentially “foisted” on the South by “government”. To state this so-called argument is to refute it.
Oh, and open thread? Well, well, well. A little bragging about my governor is in order!
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/03/leadership-is-better-than-playacting-dumb-ideas-of-leadership
Thank you Jay (my middle name)!
Having
protectedclasses demonstrably not subject to equal treatment either de jure or de facto seems to belie the idea of equal status under the law.Having
protectedclasses demonstrably not subject to equal treatment either de jure or de facto seems to belie the idea of equal status under the law.bobbyp, links to pictures of Clickbait need trigger warnings. 😉
I’m thinking of replacing “Clickbait” with “TFG” in honor of Biden calling him “The Former Guy.” It doesn’t hurt that it can also mean Thank Fucking God or Too Far Gone. Then again, he can’t be too far gone for me. The further the better.
bobbyp, links to pictures of Clickbait need trigger warnings. 😉
I’m thinking of replacing “Clickbait” with “TFG” in honor of Biden calling him “The Former Guy.” It doesn’t hurt that it can also mean Thank Fucking God or Too Far Gone. Then again, he can’t be too far gone for me. The further the better.
TFG is getting revenge on the media he complained about so much. Since he left the stage, CNN’s viewership has dropped by 50%. On the other hand, he made them a lot of money for four years.
TFG is getting revenge on the media he complained about so much. Since he left the stage, CNN’s viewership has dropped by 50%. On the other hand, he made them a lot of money for four years.
On the other hand, he made them a lot of money for four years.
Why do you think I called him Clickbait?
If the media can’t make a profit without facilitating the destruction of the country, then they should find something else to do.
On the other hand, he made them a lot of money for four years.
Why do you think I called him Clickbait?
If the media can’t make a profit without facilitating the destruction of the country, then they should find something else to do.
As usual, I quibble with McKinneyTexas.
Why isn’t murder just murder?
One could say that 9/11 was just 3,000 murders, but one would sound a bit daft.
Another concern is subjectivity: the volume (or percentage or proportion or whatever–math is not my thing) of white on black crime is lower than the other way around. Is all, some or no black on white crime also a hate crime?
“Math is not my thing” can justify Truthiness, I suppose. But some sort of non-gut evidence would be better.
His assertion aside, McKinney’s question has an easy a priori answer: some. We can all postulate a black lesbian beating a random stranger to death for being white. Or maybe for being straight, who knows? I’d call it a hate crime either way. But we can also easily postulate the reverse. And of course we can all postulate an unspecified person killing an unspecified stranger for cutting him off in traffic.
It’s easy to postulate, if all we’re doing is philosophy. If we’re trying to figure out how to manage our society, we have reality to deal with. For instance, when a gang of gay guys tie a straight kid to a fence and beat the crap out of him, it will certainly be worth rethinking what “protected groups” to define in law.
As a Catholic-lite, i.e. Episcopalian, it is fundamental doctrine that God created all of the universe and everything in it …
Call it doctrine, call it postulate, it ain’t necessarily so.
… and that we are all enjoined to love our neighbor without exception.
A severable clause, I hope. I mean, does one have to accept the origin doctrine in order to espouse the love injunction?
In what we laughingly call “real life”, the injunction to Love Thy Neighbor gets complicated anyway. A Catholic Libertarian(TM) — such a person can be postulated if not seriously imagined — might have a very different notion of how to love his neighbor than that neighbor does. Does support of, or opposition to, a minimum wage count as greater love? From whose perspective? And how does a Catholic-lite Episcopalian show greater love for an unintentionally-pregnant neighbor? By opposing, or by supporting, her right to choose?
We all, capitalist Christians and soshulist atheists alike, can sincerely love our neighbors and still be wrong about how to do it. From our neighbor’s point of view, I mean.
–TP
As usual, I quibble with McKinneyTexas.
Why isn’t murder just murder?
One could say that 9/11 was just 3,000 murders, but one would sound a bit daft.
Another concern is subjectivity: the volume (or percentage or proportion or whatever–math is not my thing) of white on black crime is lower than the other way around. Is all, some or no black on white crime also a hate crime?
“Math is not my thing” can justify Truthiness, I suppose. But some sort of non-gut evidence would be better.
His assertion aside, McKinney’s question has an easy a priori answer: some. We can all postulate a black lesbian beating a random stranger to death for being white. Or maybe for being straight, who knows? I’d call it a hate crime either way. But we can also easily postulate the reverse. And of course we can all postulate an unspecified person killing an unspecified stranger for cutting him off in traffic.
It’s easy to postulate, if all we’re doing is philosophy. If we’re trying to figure out how to manage our society, we have reality to deal with. For instance, when a gang of gay guys tie a straight kid to a fence and beat the crap out of him, it will certainly be worth rethinking what “protected groups” to define in law.
As a Catholic-lite, i.e. Episcopalian, it is fundamental doctrine that God created all of the universe and everything in it …
Call it doctrine, call it postulate, it ain’t necessarily so.
… and that we are all enjoined to love our neighbor without exception.
A severable clause, I hope. I mean, does one have to accept the origin doctrine in order to espouse the love injunction?
In what we laughingly call “real life”, the injunction to Love Thy Neighbor gets complicated anyway. A Catholic Libertarian(TM) — such a person can be postulated if not seriously imagined — might have a very different notion of how to love his neighbor than that neighbor does. Does support of, or opposition to, a minimum wage count as greater love? From whose perspective? And how does a Catholic-lite Episcopalian show greater love for an unintentionally-pregnant neighbor? By opposing, or by supporting, her right to choose?
We all, capitalist Christians and soshulist atheists alike, can sincerely love our neighbors and still be wrong about how to do it. From our neighbor’s point of view, I mean.
–TP
Back to my notion of the West as a PTSD theme park. Tarantino, when asked what he imagined Rick Dalton would do in Tarantino’s imagined future, he said
What could have easily have happened—even if he had a little bit more success in the 1970s than maybe I give him credit for—what I could really see happening, because it happened to a lot of these guys, is that by the late 1970s, early 1980s, a lot of these macho ’50s and ’60s television leading men they showed up on TV shows again but as the older cop who’s the boss of the younger cop that sends them out on the missions.
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a29710757/quentin-tarantino-rick-dalton-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-ending/
While Tarantino is postulating an imaginary universe, that connection kinds of brings us back to watching cop dramas.
Back to my notion of the West as a PTSD theme park. Tarantino, when asked what he imagined Rick Dalton would do in Tarantino’s imagined future, he said
What could have easily have happened—even if he had a little bit more success in the 1970s than maybe I give him credit for—what I could really see happening, because it happened to a lot of these guys, is that by the late 1970s, early 1980s, a lot of these macho ’50s and ’60s television leading men they showed up on TV shows again but as the older cop who’s the boss of the younger cop that sends them out on the missions.
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a29710757/quentin-tarantino-rick-dalton-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-ending/
While Tarantino is postulating an imaginary universe, that connection kinds of brings us back to watching cop dramas.
I strongly suspect that the Atlanta guy acted at least partially out of anti-Asian sentiment but the anti-women sentiment seems to have been the primary motivation.
To use a hypothetical: if around here a guy shot up the brothel next door (not next door to me; there is none I know of) it would be very likely that the vast majority of the victims would be of Eastern European descent. Would that prove anti-Slavic prejudices on part of the shooter? I think not, simply because it would take some effort to find a neighbourhood brothel around here that is not predominantly Slavic as far as the (female) sex workers* go.
Had the Atlanta guy ‘just’ shot up the massage parlor(s) next door and just claimed sexual frustration, I’d consider that as ‘sufficient’ reason without implying racial bias per se. But unless nearly all massage parlors in Atlanta are Asian dominated, the fact that he chose 3 Asian ones would give reasonable rise to suspicion that there was more than just misogyny involved.
*no assumption about whether it is volontary
I strongly suspect that the Atlanta guy acted at least partially out of anti-Asian sentiment but the anti-women sentiment seems to have been the primary motivation.
To use a hypothetical: if around here a guy shot up the brothel next door (not next door to me; there is none I know of) it would be very likely that the vast majority of the victims would be of Eastern European descent. Would that prove anti-Slavic prejudices on part of the shooter? I think not, simply because it would take some effort to find a neighbourhood brothel around here that is not predominantly Slavic as far as the (female) sex workers* go.
Had the Atlanta guy ‘just’ shot up the massage parlor(s) next door and just claimed sexual frustration, I’d consider that as ‘sufficient’ reason without implying racial bias per se. But unless nearly all massage parlors in Atlanta are Asian dominated, the fact that he chose 3 Asian ones would give reasonable rise to suspicion that there was more than just misogyny involved.
*no assumption about whether it is volontary
Having protected classes seems to belie the idea of equal status under the law.
In exactly the same way that laws against theft and robbery belie the idea of private property.
Having protected classes seems to belie the idea of equal status under the law.
In exactly the same way that laws against theft and robbery belie the idea of private property.
why shouldn’t it be a crime to target people who, because of who they are, have long been targets of undeserved violence?
murder is one thing.
targeting people whom we have collectively decided have already had all the targeting they deserve is another thing.
why shouldn’t it be a crime to target people who, because of who they are, have long been targets of undeserved violence?
murder is one thing.
targeting people whom we have collectively decided have already had all the targeting they deserve is another thing.
whom?
ye olde garbage word fell out of my hopper.
whom?
ye olde garbage word fell out of my hopper.
To toss the fox in the chicken coop, I don’t see much difference between a hate crime and a lot of definitions of terrorism. Frex, the first part of Walzer’s definition
Terrorism is the deliberate killing of innocent people, at random, to spread fear through a whole population [and force the hand of its political leaders]
Or the definition the UN often uses
Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them. (bold mine)
That latter would include killing because of a sex addiction…
To toss the fox in the chicken coop, I don’t see much difference between a hate crime and a lot of definitions of terrorism. Frex, the first part of Walzer’s definition
Terrorism is the deliberate killing of innocent people, at random, to spread fear through a whole population [and force the hand of its political leaders]
Or the definition the UN often uses
Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them. (bold mine)
That latter would include killing because of a sex addiction…
I don’t see much difference between a hate crime and a lot of definitions of terrorism.
Just off the top of my head, I’d say terrorism generally (albeit not necessarily) involves attacking/damaging more than one person. If only to make clear what characteristic is being targetted. Whereas a hate crime, as I understand the concept, might be imputed from a single victim — given evidence elsewhere of group animus.
However, I find myself taken with the idea of prosecuting for terrorism, rather than hate crimes. It feels like it might be easier to prove. And it avoids arguments about who ought to be a “protected class.”
I don’t see much difference between a hate crime and a lot of definitions of terrorism.
Just off the top of my head, I’d say terrorism generally (albeit not necessarily) involves attacking/damaging more than one person. If only to make clear what characteristic is being targetted. Whereas a hate crime, as I understand the concept, might be imputed from a single victim — given evidence elsewhere of group animus.
However, I find myself taken with the idea of prosecuting for terrorism, rather than hate crimes. It feels like it might be easier to prove. And it avoids arguments about who ought to be a “protected class.”
That latter would include killing because of a sex addiction…
My sense is that “sex addiction” was being put forth as an excuse, rather than a justification. And a pretty lame excuse at that.
That latter would include killing because of a sex addiction…
My sense is that “sex addiction” was being put forth as an excuse, rather than a justification. And a pretty lame excuse at that.
USA PATRIOT 802(c), paraphrased:
“domestic terrorism” is defined as activities that are dangerous to people which appear to be intended to influence or coerce citizens or the government.
it’s not a crime. but it is entirely about intent.
USA PATRIOT 802(c), paraphrased:
“domestic terrorism” is defined as activities that are dangerous to people which appear to be intended to influence or coerce citizens or the government.
it’s not a crime. but it is entirely about intent.
The way that I tend to think about it, the fuzzy difference between hate crime and terrorism comes down to the relationship of the act to the media. A hate crime is aimed at a particular group of people and is an act of intimidation or a declaration of the perpetrator’s sovereignty over the other. In that sense it is a (sort of) private act of communication. The “weapon” being wielded is the weapon used in the crime to inflict injury upon the other.
Terrorist, on the other hand, wield the media as their weapon. They plan their acts as spectacle, intended to be seen and reproduced. The actual weapon used to attack the other is chosen to maximize the sensationalism of the act and to draw attention to the cause. Terrorism has a statement to make – explicit or implicit. It’s a camera-ready hate crime with a manifesto.
The way that I tend to think about it, the fuzzy difference between hate crime and terrorism comes down to the relationship of the act to the media. A hate crime is aimed at a particular group of people and is an act of intimidation or a declaration of the perpetrator’s sovereignty over the other. In that sense it is a (sort of) private act of communication. The “weapon” being wielded is the weapon used in the crime to inflict injury upon the other.
Terrorist, on the other hand, wield the media as their weapon. They plan their acts as spectacle, intended to be seen and reproduced. The actual weapon used to attack the other is chosen to maximize the sensationalism of the act and to draw attention to the cause. Terrorism has a statement to make – explicit or implicit. It’s a camera-ready hate crime with a manifesto.
Sorry to go back a bit, but when I wrote my Anders Breivik bit I was in bed, and not thinking well enough.
Of course, the best example would have been Dylann Roof: If he had driven into the parking lot outside that church, and purposely driven into and killed a black guard, or parking attendant, and then got out of his car armed with semi-automatic weapons and been stopped as he tried to rush into the church, and not been able to kill anyone else, it seems clear to me that his previous writings and the presence of the weapons would have established mens rea adequately enough that the one killing by vehicle could not have been presented as anything other than part of a hate crime, the rest of which was prevented by luck and effective intervention.
I have no views on “hate crime murder” versus “terrorist act of murder”, either works for me, and I can see merit in both or either definition.
And as for the “sex addiction” element of this latest spree of hate crime murder in Atlanta, what looks clear is that this was a young man tormented between his mad religiosity and his natural sexual urges, and as so often happens the mad religiosity made him turn his self-hatred outwards towards the women with whom he had been “sinning”. This was what made me be so rude about CharlesWT’s assumption that if they (or at least some of them) were women he had slept with it invalidated the theory that it was a hate crime directed at Asian women – the pyschological mechanism is, of course, the direct opposite of that. And that doesn’t even take into account the weird western sexual stereotyping of Asian women, which might or might not also have played a part.
Sorry to go back a bit, but when I wrote my Anders Breivik bit I was in bed, and not thinking well enough.
Of course, the best example would have been Dylann Roof: If he had driven into the parking lot outside that church, and purposely driven into and killed a black guard, or parking attendant, and then got out of his car armed with semi-automatic weapons and been stopped as he tried to rush into the church, and not been able to kill anyone else, it seems clear to me that his previous writings and the presence of the weapons would have established mens rea adequately enough that the one killing by vehicle could not have been presented as anything other than part of a hate crime, the rest of which was prevented by luck and effective intervention.
I have no views on “hate crime murder” versus “terrorist act of murder”, either works for me, and I can see merit in both or either definition.
And as for the “sex addiction” element of this latest spree of hate crime murder in Atlanta, what looks clear is that this was a young man tormented between his mad religiosity and his natural sexual urges, and as so often happens the mad religiosity made him turn his self-hatred outwards towards the women with whom he had been “sinning”. This was what made me be so rude about CharlesWT’s assumption that if they (or at least some of them) were women he had slept with it invalidated the theory that it was a hate crime directed at Asian women – the pyschological mechanism is, of course, the direct opposite of that. And that doesn’t even take into account the weird western sexual stereotyping of Asian women, which might or might not also have played a part.
This was what made me be so rude about CharlesWT’s assumption that if they (or at least some of them) were women he had slept with it invalidated the theory that it was a hate crime directed at Asian women …
I didn’t think about whether he had had any previous contact with the victims. I just thought that just because most of the victims were Asian wasn’t proof that he was targeting Asians. If the massage parlors employed mostly Asians, most of his victims would have been Asian regardless of his motivations.
This was what made me be so rude about CharlesWT’s assumption that if they (or at least some of them) were women he had slept with it invalidated the theory that it was a hate crime directed at Asian women …
I didn’t think about whether he had had any previous contact with the victims. I just thought that just because most of the victims were Asian wasn’t proof that he was targeting Asians. If the massage parlors employed mostly Asians, most of his victims would have been Asian regardless of his motivations.
I may have misinterpreted, CharlesWT. It was in response to your this:
If the shooter is being truthful, the fact that most of the victims are Asian may be incidental.
“ATLANTA – Authorities on Wednesday said a gunman suspected of killing eight people, six of whom were Asian women, at three spas may have frequented the businesses but that it was too early to determine if the shootings would be considered a hate crime.
This seemed to suggest to me that your assumption was, if he was being truthful about having frequented them, it invalidated the possibility that their Asian-ness was a factor in the killings. Sorry if this was not what you were trying to say.
I may have misinterpreted, CharlesWT. It was in response to your this:
If the shooter is being truthful, the fact that most of the victims are Asian may be incidental.
“ATLANTA – Authorities on Wednesday said a gunman suspected of killing eight people, six of whom were Asian women, at three spas may have frequented the businesses but that it was too early to determine if the shootings would be considered a hate crime.
This seemed to suggest to me that your assumption was, if he was being truthful about having frequented them, it invalidated the possibility that their Asian-ness was a factor in the killings. Sorry if this was not what you were trying to say.
I should have been clearer that I meant if he was being truthful about his moral distress as being his motivation for attacking the massage parlors. I haven’t kept up with the news. I don’t whether they’ve established that he had been to any of the massage parlors as a customer.
I should have been clearer that I meant if he was being truthful about his moral distress as being his motivation for attacking the massage parlors. I haven’t kept up with the news. I don’t whether they’ve established that he had been to any of the massage parlors as a customer.
One piece of local Atlanta information – the street/area of the attacks has a number of “adult” venues. The shooter drove past other potential targets (if all he was after was killing sex workers/strippers) before pulling in to a “spa” with the word “Asian” in the name. So incidental it was not.
One piece of local Atlanta information – the street/area of the attacks has a number of “adult” venues. The shooter drove past other potential targets (if all he was after was killing sex workers/strippers) before pulling in to a “spa” with the word “Asian” in the name. So incidental it was not.
I skimed some of the coverage on the Atlanta shootings and it looks to me like the shooter is a Rorschach blot that people see their favorate narrative in.
One of the headlines said the shooter had visited the spas before.
I skimed some of the coverage on the Atlanta shootings and it looks to me like the shooter is a Rorschach blot that people see their favorate narrative in.
One of the headlines said the shooter had visited the spas before.
One of the headlines said the shooter had visited the spas before.
Yes, Charles. This is how it can work. If you think extramarital sex is super-sinful, but you can’t resist visiting massage parlours for sexual purposes, you (if you are a particularly fucked up character who has been indoctrinated by a particularly fucked up church) a) hate yourself and b) turn your guilt outwards where it turns into violence towards the sinful temptresses who lure you. If they are also Asian, about whom many American men have strange fetishised fantasies, then those are the temptresses you will try to destroy.
One of the headlines said the shooter had visited the spas before.
Yes, Charles. This is how it can work. If you think extramarital sex is super-sinful, but you can’t resist visiting massage parlours for sexual purposes, you (if you are a particularly fucked up character who has been indoctrinated by a particularly fucked up church) a) hate yourself and b) turn your guilt outwards where it turns into violence towards the sinful temptresses who lure you. If they are also Asian, about whom many American men have strange fetishised fantasies, then those are the temptresses you will try to destroy.
Not the first time an edited video goes viral. And then turns out, intentionally or not, to be misleading.
“The full video (the relevant section starts at about 13:50) makes clear that Baker was not providing his own commentary, but rather summarizing what Long had told the investigators. The “bad day” line was proceeded by a clarification that this was Long’s own explanation, as related to the police. Baker did not endorse it.
Nor did the captain endorse Long’s statement that the killings were unrelated to racism. He makes clear he’s relaying comments from Long. “He claims that—and as the chief said this is still early—but he does claim that it was not racially motivated,” said Baker. Again, the police spokesman is telling reporters what Long said, not applying his own spin. […]
It would be naive of the police—or the public, or anyone else—to accept what alleged killers say at face value. It’s similarly naive to assume that the sex and ethnicity of the victims tells us everything we need to know about the crime. The police should investigate the matter dispassionately, and relay to the public whatever information they gather. Too often, law enforcement uses such press conferences to engage in wild speculation; this was a refreshing example of the cops not doing that.”
The Media Got It Wrong: Police Captain Didn’t Say the Atlanta Spa Killer Was Having a ‘Bad Day’: The full video shows that Jay Baker was paraphrasing what Robert Aaron Long told investigators about his motivations.
Not the first time an edited video goes viral. And then turns out, intentionally or not, to be misleading.
“The full video (the relevant section starts at about 13:50) makes clear that Baker was not providing his own commentary, but rather summarizing what Long had told the investigators. The “bad day” line was proceeded by a clarification that this was Long’s own explanation, as related to the police. Baker did not endorse it.
Nor did the captain endorse Long’s statement that the killings were unrelated to racism. He makes clear he’s relaying comments from Long. “He claims that—and as the chief said this is still early—but he does claim that it was not racially motivated,” said Baker. Again, the police spokesman is telling reporters what Long said, not applying his own spin. […]
It would be naive of the police—or the public, or anyone else—to accept what alleged killers say at face value. It’s similarly naive to assume that the sex and ethnicity of the victims tells us everything we need to know about the crime. The police should investigate the matter dispassionately, and relay to the public whatever information they gather. Too often, law enforcement uses such press conferences to engage in wild speculation; this was a refreshing example of the cops not doing that.”
The Media Got It Wrong: Police Captain Didn’t Say the Atlanta Spa Killer Was Having a ‘Bad Day’: The full video shows that Jay Baker was paraphrasing what Robert Aaron Long told investigators about his motivations.
CharlesWT: … moral distress …
Is this the politically correct term for “psychopathy” now?
I have heard Libertarians(TM) describe prostitution as a “victimless crime”. Does this murderer’s “moral distress” make him something of a victim after all?
–TP
CharlesWT: … moral distress …
Is this the politically correct term for “psychopathy” now?
I have heard Libertarians(TM) describe prostitution as a “victimless crime”. Does this murderer’s “moral distress” make him something of a victim after all?
–TP
Perhaps I should have put “moral distress” in quotes…
Perhaps I should have put “moral distress” in quotes…
I don’t care that the sheriff was paraphrasing the perpetrator’s characterization. That was not information that needed to be shared with the public in that context. A simple “the arrestee denies that he was racially motivated, but the investigation is still ongoing and that question remains open” would have been plenty. Release whatever extra information is appropriate in a press release that has been gone over by a competent press liaison.
I don’t care that the sheriff was paraphrasing the perpetrator’s characterization. That was not information that needed to be shared with the public in that context. A simple “the arrestee denies that he was racially motivated, but the investigation is still ongoing and that question remains open” would have been plenty. Release whatever extra information is appropriate in a press release that has been gone over by a competent press liaison.
A simple “the arrestee denies that he was racially motivated, but the investigation is still ongoing and that question remains open” would have been plenty.
By now the spokesman probably agrees with you.
A simple “the arrestee denies that he was racially motivated, but the investigation is still ongoing and that question remains open” would have been plenty.
By now the spokesman probably agrees with you.
I wonder how often police give professed motivations of minorities an airing in the press briefing.
I wonder how often police give professed motivations of minorities an airing in the press briefing.
By now the spokesman probably agrees with you.
Probably, but the crucial question is not whether he agrees with me, it’s whether he’s going to learn from it, say that publicly, and work to become better, or if he’s going to try to turn this into an attack on the media and on political correctness in order to shift the blame and rally the partisans to his side?
My bet is that he goes to ground and lets others do the latter without stepping in to try to stop it.
I think the odds of the first happening are fairly long.
By now the spokesman probably agrees with you.
Probably, but the crucial question is not whether he agrees with me, it’s whether he’s going to learn from it, say that publicly, and work to become better, or if he’s going to try to turn this into an attack on the media and on political correctness in order to shift the blame and rally the partisans to his side?
My bet is that he goes to ground and lets others do the latter without stepping in to try to stop it.
I think the odds of the first happening are fairly long.
“The full video (the relevant section starts at about 13:50) makes clear that Baker was not providing his own commentary, but rather summarizing what Long had told the investigators.
This would be vastly more convincing if we didn’t also have those anti-Asian posts from Baker.
“The full video (the relevant section starts at about 13:50) makes clear that Baker was not providing his own commentary, but rather summarizing what Long had told the investigators.
This would be vastly more convincing if we didn’t also have those anti-Asian posts from Baker.
Disaffected young white guy has a bad day, goes out and buys a gun, walks into massage parlors mostly staffed by Asian women, and shoots whoever happens to be available, killing several.
To my eye, it’s a smorgasbord of f***ed-up-edness.
Was it because they were Asian? Was it because they were sex workers? Was it simply because they were women? Was it because he’s involved in some conservative religious thing that makes nookie evil and the only way he could exorcise his personal demons was to kill anyone who made him think bad thoughts?
It’s hard to choose. Could be all of the above.
I understand that all kinds of people kill all kinds of other people, for all kinds of reasons, and I understand that white people have no exclusive lock on hating people who aren’t like them.
But disaffected young white guys seem, to me, to be over-represented in incidents of random mass murder.
And anybody with half a brain would know better than to parrot the guy’s “I was having a bad day” comments as a public statement.
The dude shot 8 people dead, because he couldn’t manage his own shit. It’s a disturbingly common occurrence.
Is it because it’s too freaking easy to get a gun? Is it because disaffected young white dudes seem prone to working out their crap by shooting people? Is it because fundamentalist religion is a toxic mind-f**k? Is it because Asian people seem foreign and weird to people raised in a culture where ‘normal’ equals ‘white’? Is it because American men have a weird fetish about Asian women? Is it because our culture has such a toxic and porn-ridden understanding of human sexuality? Is it because sex workers are vulnerable to the weirdness generated by all of the above?
It seems to me that it’s all of that.
I’m sure we’ll get all of the bizarre and gory details over the next few days, and I’m sure it’s basically gonna be a great big ugly stew of all of the above.
This is a violent freaking country, and too many people deal with their issues by shooting themselves or other people.
Disaffected young white guy has a bad day, goes out and buys a gun, walks into massage parlors mostly staffed by Asian women, and shoots whoever happens to be available, killing several.
To my eye, it’s a smorgasbord of f***ed-up-edness.
Was it because they were Asian? Was it because they were sex workers? Was it simply because they were women? Was it because he’s involved in some conservative religious thing that makes nookie evil and the only way he could exorcise his personal demons was to kill anyone who made him think bad thoughts?
It’s hard to choose. Could be all of the above.
I understand that all kinds of people kill all kinds of other people, for all kinds of reasons, and I understand that white people have no exclusive lock on hating people who aren’t like them.
But disaffected young white guys seem, to me, to be over-represented in incidents of random mass murder.
And anybody with half a brain would know better than to parrot the guy’s “I was having a bad day” comments as a public statement.
The dude shot 8 people dead, because he couldn’t manage his own shit. It’s a disturbingly common occurrence.
Is it because it’s too freaking easy to get a gun? Is it because disaffected young white dudes seem prone to working out their crap by shooting people? Is it because fundamentalist religion is a toxic mind-f**k? Is it because Asian people seem foreign and weird to people raised in a culture where ‘normal’ equals ‘white’? Is it because American men have a weird fetish about Asian women? Is it because our culture has such a toxic and porn-ridden understanding of human sexuality? Is it because sex workers are vulnerable to the weirdness generated by all of the above?
It seems to me that it’s all of that.
I’m sure we’ll get all of the bizarre and gory details over the next few days, and I’m sure it’s basically gonna be a great big ugly stew of all of the above.
This is a violent freaking country, and too many people deal with their issues by shooting themselves or other people.
It seems to me that it’s all of that.
I’m sure we’ll get all of the bizarre and gory details over the next few days, and I’m sure it’s basically gonna be a great big ugly stew of all of the above.
Seconded. I only went into the toxic religious stuff because it seemed that that particular mechanism might not in one case be being fully understood. I may have been mistaken about that, and all the other elements you mention are unarguably true. And, as a lovely Texan woman I know says: “That’s enough of me for you!” (on this thread, anyway).
It seems to me that it’s all of that.
I’m sure we’ll get all of the bizarre and gory details over the next few days, and I’m sure it’s basically gonna be a great big ugly stew of all of the above.
Seconded. I only went into the toxic religious stuff because it seemed that that particular mechanism might not in one case be being fully understood. I may have been mistaken about that, and all the other elements you mention are unarguably true. And, as a lovely Texan woman I know says: “That’s enough of me for you!” (on this thread, anyway).
Asians in the US are like Schrodinger’s cat. If they are spa employees shot by a white guy, they are oppressed and discriminate against people of color. But they turn into white adjacent people if they try to get into Harvard.
Asians in the US are like Schrodinger’s cat. If they are spa employees shot by a white guy, they are oppressed and discriminate against people of color. But they turn into white adjacent people if they try to get into Harvard.
Andrew Sullivan weighs in. Perhaps a new Olympic sport could be jumping to conclusions.
“But the theory behind hate crimes law is that these crimes matter more because they terrify so many beyond the actual victim. And so it seems to me that the media’s primary role in cases like these is providing some data and perspective on what’s actually happening, to allay irrational fear. Instead, they contribute to the distortion by breathlessly hyping one incident without a single provable link to any go this — and scare the bejeezus out of people unnecessarily.
The media is supposed to subject easy, convenient rush-to-judgment narratives to ruthless empirical testing. Now, for purely ideological reasons, they are rushing to promote ready-made narratives, which actually point away from the empirical facts. To run sixteen separate pieces on anti-Asian white supremacist misogynist hate based on one possibly completely unrelated incident is not journalism. It’s fanning irrational fear in the cause of ideological indoctrination. And it appears to be where all elite media is headed.”
When The Narrative Replaces The News: How the media grotesquely distorted the Atlanta massacres
Andrew Sullivan weighs in. Perhaps a new Olympic sport could be jumping to conclusions.
“But the theory behind hate crimes law is that these crimes matter more because they terrify so many beyond the actual victim. And so it seems to me that the media’s primary role in cases like these is providing some data and perspective on what’s actually happening, to allay irrational fear. Instead, they contribute to the distortion by breathlessly hyping one incident without a single provable link to any go this — and scare the bejeezus out of people unnecessarily.
The media is supposed to subject easy, convenient rush-to-judgment narratives to ruthless empirical testing. Now, for purely ideological reasons, they are rushing to promote ready-made narratives, which actually point away from the empirical facts. To run sixteen separate pieces on anti-Asian white supremacist misogynist hate based on one possibly completely unrelated incident is not journalism. It’s fanning irrational fear in the cause of ideological indoctrination. And it appears to be where all elite media is headed.”
When The Narrative Replaces The News: How the media grotesquely distorted the Atlanta massacres
The media is supposed to subject easy, convenient rush-to-judgment narratives to ruthless empirical testing
since when?
The media is supposed to subject easy, convenient rush-to-judgment narratives to ruthless empirical testing
since when?
The media is supposed to subject easy, convenient rush-to-judgment narratives to ruthless empirical testing
“The media” is way, way too amorphous a term to be of any use in this. Some parts of the media usually try to do this. Other parts (tabloids leap to mind) definitely never do so.
The media is supposed to subject easy, convenient rush-to-judgment narratives to ruthless empirical testing
“The media” is way, way too amorphous a term to be of any use in this. Some parts of the media usually try to do this. Other parts (tabloids leap to mind) definitely never do so.
I came across this fascinating article (H/T the Economist Daily Espresso email). The journal PLoS ONE reports on studies of what happens when you feed seaweed to cattle.
Even those who hate the very idea of climate change may be taken by the prospect of 20% more weight gain.
I came across this fascinating article (H/T the Economist Daily Espresso email). The journal PLoS ONE reports on studies of what happens when you feed seaweed to cattle.
Even those who hate the very idea of climate change may be taken by the prospect of 20% more weight gain.
The media is supposed to subject easy, convenient rush-to-judgment narratives to ruthless empirical testing.
but, but, but….Is not Mr. Sullivan a part of said media? So where are the results of his ruthless empirical tests? But hey, I am only asking questions.
Now, for purely ideological reasons, they are rushing to promote ready-made narratives, which actually point away from the empirical facts.
This is (purely speaking) pretty rich, coming from Andrew fucking ideological blowhard Sullivan.
The media is supposed to subject easy, convenient rush-to-judgment narratives to ruthless empirical testing.
but, but, but….Is not Mr. Sullivan a part of said media? So where are the results of his ruthless empirical tests? But hey, I am only asking questions.
Now, for purely ideological reasons, they are rushing to promote ready-made narratives, which actually point away from the empirical facts.
This is (purely speaking) pretty rich, coming from Andrew fucking ideological blowhard Sullivan.
Andrew Sullivan is a self-important bloviating hateful idiot.
Or, what bobbyp said.
Andrew Sullivan is a self-important bloviating hateful idiot.
Or, what bobbyp said.
Sullivan is trying to build his substack ethos, same way that Greenwald is. They are trying to free themselves from editorial entanglements while drumming up a reliable readership.
I really don’t believe that substack could ever actually be an antidote to media bias because it is too beholden to social media funding models that reward catering to confirmation bias. It’s a platform built to amplify the cult-of-personality guru crap that these guys already struggle with.
What we need is slower news cycles with better, more transparent editorial review. I don’t really see that happening, though, with the wide open media ecology we currently have (not to mention the institutional astroturfers).
Sullivan is trying to build his substack ethos, same way that Greenwald is. They are trying to free themselves from editorial entanglements while drumming up a reliable readership.
I really don’t believe that substack could ever actually be an antidote to media bias because it is too beholden to social media funding models that reward catering to confirmation bias. It’s a platform built to amplify the cult-of-personality guru crap that these guys already struggle with.
What we need is slower news cycles with better, more transparent editorial review. I don’t really see that happening, though, with the wide open media ecology we currently have (not to mention the institutional astroturfers).
A South African’s perspective on racism in the US.
Americans Whine Too BLOODY MUCH! (YouTube)
A South African’s perspective on racism in the US.
Americans Whine Too BLOODY MUCH! (YouTube)
a 25 minute complaint about people who whine to much?
a 25 minute complaint about people who whine to much?
i was so flabbergasted, i lost an ‘o’
i was so flabbergasted, i lost an ‘o’
Good God, CharlesWT, how can you give even three minutes of attention (the amount I watched) to that mediocre man spouting meaningless anecdata about stupid, ignorant comments he gets from acquaintances and (for heaven’s sake!) people who comment on his Youtube channel? What on earth is its value? Why do you think it is worth watching?
As I think I have mentioned before, there was many years ago ( 1991 I think – when NPR was still a respectable media organ) a radio series called “Race in America”, in which the journalist interviewed black South African students studying in the US, who said that in many ways the racism in the US was worse than in late-apartheid South Africa, and that supposed desegregation and racial mixing in the US were very skin-deep. The series won an award from the National Association of Black Journalists, as I recall, and though this was 30 years ago, and of course things will have changed, it seems to me the equivalent of the kind of media which might be worth searching out, rather than this worthless rubbish.
Good God, CharlesWT, how can you give even three minutes of attention (the amount I watched) to that mediocre man spouting meaningless anecdata about stupid, ignorant comments he gets from acquaintances and (for heaven’s sake!) people who comment on his Youtube channel? What on earth is its value? Why do you think it is worth watching?
As I think I have mentioned before, there was many years ago ( 1991 I think – when NPR was still a respectable media organ) a radio series called “Race in America”, in which the journalist interviewed black South African students studying in the US, who said that in many ways the racism in the US was worse than in late-apartheid South Africa, and that supposed desegregation and racial mixing in the US were very skin-deep. The series won an award from the National Association of Black Journalists, as I recall, and though this was 30 years ago, and of course things will have changed, it seems to me the equivalent of the kind of media which might be worth searching out, rather than this worthless rubbish.
Not that I am agreeing that racism, and other ills, are necessarily worse in America than various other countries. I am speaking up for worthwhile, informed journalism and opinion.
Not that I am agreeing that racism, and other ills, are necessarily worse in America than various other countries. I am speaking up for worthwhile, informed journalism and opinion.
Charles WT beat me to posting Sullivan’s brutal, fact-laden take down of woke media jumping immediately to the entirely wrong conclusion and letting preconceived narrative drive a fact-free reporting spree that, among other things, is remarkably at odds with the realities of hate crimes.
The response here–dismissive hand waving because AS isn’t one of us–is unfortunate, particularly given the recurring sub-theme that conservatives and Republicans need to listen outside their narrative to find out what reality is actually like.
As Sullivan documents with actual, compelling facts, the Woke Movement and the notion of structural racism is grounded on thin to non-existent evidence, particularly when it comes to ‘hate crimes’. It would be great if someone here could actually address Sullivan’s statistics and demonstrate why he is wrong.
Wokey-ness creates its own injustices and inequities, which is no surprise–anyone who has read Ibrem Kendi objectively can figure that out. Here is more on the ongoing shittiness at Smith College: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/black-intellectuals-demand-smith-college-apologize-to-smeared-workers-end-anti-bias-training/?utm_source=onesignal&utm_medium=push&utm_campaign=article
A black woman makes shit up, gets a cook and a janitor in hot water and Smith can’t do anything but mutter ridiculous woke platitudes while the cook and the janitor are thrown under the bus. But, you know, equity.
Charles WT beat me to posting Sullivan’s brutal, fact-laden take down of woke media jumping immediately to the entirely wrong conclusion and letting preconceived narrative drive a fact-free reporting spree that, among other things, is remarkably at odds with the realities of hate crimes.
The response here–dismissive hand waving because AS isn’t one of us–is unfortunate, particularly given the recurring sub-theme that conservatives and Republicans need to listen outside their narrative to find out what reality is actually like.
As Sullivan documents with actual, compelling facts, the Woke Movement and the notion of structural racism is grounded on thin to non-existent evidence, particularly when it comes to ‘hate crimes’. It would be great if someone here could actually address Sullivan’s statistics and demonstrate why he is wrong.
Wokey-ness creates its own injustices and inequities, which is no surprise–anyone who has read Ibrem Kendi objectively can figure that out. Here is more on the ongoing shittiness at Smith College: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/black-intellectuals-demand-smith-college-apologize-to-smeared-workers-end-anti-bias-training/?utm_source=onesignal&utm_medium=push&utm_campaign=article
A black woman makes shit up, gets a cook and a janitor in hot water and Smith can’t do anything but mutter ridiculous woke platitudes while the cook and the janitor are thrown under the bus. But, you know, equity.
Woke Movement
Ah, it’s capitalized now. Kinda like the woman in a book discussion I attended who was blathering about how she didn’t know why “Antifa chose a drug addict as its poster boy.” As though “antifa” as an organization with a decision-making process, or any structure at all, is anything other than a Fox News bogeyman.
Woke Movement
Ah, it’s capitalized now. Kinda like the woman in a book discussion I attended who was blathering about how she didn’t know why “Antifa chose a drug addict as its poster boy.” As though “antifa” as an organization with a decision-making process, or any structure at all, is anything other than a Fox News bogeyman.
I honestly can’t stop laughing at “Woke Movement.” The capitalization tells you all you need to know about the thought process.
Time to go clean the attic.
I honestly can’t stop laughing at “Woke Movement.” The capitalization tells you all you need to know about the thought process.
Time to go clean the attic.
“Racism does not have a good track record. It’s been tried out for a long time and you’d think by now we’d want to put an end to it instead of putting it under new management.” ―Thomas Sowell
“Racism does not have a good track record. It’s been tried out for a long time and you’d think by now we’d want to put an end to it instead of putting it under new management.” ―Thomas Sowell
The capitalization tells you all you need to know about the thought process.
Not necessarily. Personally, I often capitalize a word or phrase just to make it stand out. (Much the same as using italics or bold face.) It’s about making it easier (I hope) for the reader to catch what the actual topic of the sentence/paragraph is. (Pretty sure that isn’t the thought process you are thinking you see.)
The capitalization tells you all you need to know about the thought process.
Not necessarily. Personally, I often capitalize a word or phrase just to make it stand out. (Much the same as using italics or bold face.) It’s about making it easier (I hope) for the reader to catch what the actual topic of the sentence/paragraph is. (Pretty sure that isn’t the thought process you are thinking you see.)
Poppycock.
But I will rephrase: The capitalization — knowing as much as I do about the source — tells ME all I need to know about the thought process.
Kinda parallel with the fact that I read the Dish for years, years ago, and came to the conclusion that AS was a vicious asshole. He’s also IIRC an Oxford Union debating star. In that guise, which is his permanent public guise, he is ike a lawyer. He will relentlessly marshall facts that support what he believes, and he gives no quarter in terms of acknowledging that there might be another angle on whatever the issue happens to be. He gets no clicks from me.
Poppycock.
But I will rephrase: The capitalization — knowing as much as I do about the source — tells ME all I need to know about the thought process.
Kinda parallel with the fact that I read the Dish for years, years ago, and came to the conclusion that AS was a vicious asshole. He’s also IIRC an Oxford Union debating star. In that guise, which is his permanent public guise, he is ike a lawyer. He will relentlessly marshall facts that support what he believes, and he gives no quarter in terms of acknowledging that there might be another angle on whatever the issue happens to be. He gets no clicks from me.
Janie, you may well be correct with regards to Sullivan. But I think the general case is problematic.
Janie, you may well be correct with regards to Sullivan. But I think the general case is problematic.
Sullivan and “Woke Movement” are two separate issues.
“Woke Movement,” coming from a guy who habitually comes here to argue with phantoms in his head onto which he has slapped our names (metaphorically speaking), is bogeyman nonsense.
Sullivan and “Woke Movement” are two separate issues.
“Woke Movement,” coming from a guy who habitually comes here to argue with phantoms in his head onto which he has slapped our names (metaphorically speaking), is bogeyman nonsense.
Wokey-ness creates its own injustices and inequities
this feels a lot like “that face that you’re not tolerating my intolerance proves how intolerant you really are!”
it’s finding a side issue to pick at in order to avoid dealing with the issue that was raised in the first place.
it’s a strawman.
Wokey-ness creates its own injustices and inequities
this feels a lot like “that face that you’re not tolerating my intolerance proves how intolerant you really are!”
it’s finding a side issue to pick at in order to avoid dealing with the issue that was raised in the first place.
it’s a strawman.
face/fact
face it, that suck at proofreading is a fact.
face/fact
face it, that suck at proofreading is a fact.
Sullivan is an idiot because, in order to attack the media, he does not just ignore the context in which the Atlanta murders happen, he sets out to demonize the act of considering the larger context entirely because he is more intent upon damning “wokeness” than he is to consider the atmosphere of racial animus that the right has been stoking against asians since the start of the pandemic. In his framing it is entirely about the motives of one person in isolation and any wider consideration is evidence of a pernicious agenda.
Bollocks.
Likewise, the NR piece and McKinney locate their true enemy not in the administrative overreaction (motivated by the need to protect the Smith brand and public image more than by any concern with justice), which is something that has been criticized on the left as well, but rather the mandate for sensitivity training.
This Woke Movement Leftie looks at the Smith College situation and thinks that the people who end up harmed in the stories are not the poor people who have to attend one more bullshit mandated training session that eats an hour of unpaid labor, but rather the janitor and the adjunct who are the victims of the school administration “kicking down” to avoid bad PR.
Here, BTW, is how a real woke lefty responds to the crap at Smith College: https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/race-class-power-and-privilege I don’t agree with it entirely, but I’m glad to see someone addressing the bigger picture that Sullivan is trying hard to crop out of his story entirely.
Sullivan is an idiot because, in order to attack the media, he does not just ignore the context in which the Atlanta murders happen, he sets out to demonize the act of considering the larger context entirely because he is more intent upon damning “wokeness” than he is to consider the atmosphere of racial animus that the right has been stoking against asians since the start of the pandemic. In his framing it is entirely about the motives of one person in isolation and any wider consideration is evidence of a pernicious agenda.
Bollocks.
Likewise, the NR piece and McKinney locate their true enemy not in the administrative overreaction (motivated by the need to protect the Smith brand and public image more than by any concern with justice), which is something that has been criticized on the left as well, but rather the mandate for sensitivity training.
This Woke Movement Leftie looks at the Smith College situation and thinks that the people who end up harmed in the stories are not the poor people who have to attend one more bullshit mandated training session that eats an hour of unpaid labor, but rather the janitor and the adjunct who are the victims of the school administration “kicking down” to avoid bad PR.
Here, BTW, is how a real woke lefty responds to the crap at Smith College: https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/race-class-power-and-privilege I don’t agree with it entirely, but I’m glad to see someone addressing the bigger picture that Sullivan is trying hard to crop out of his story entirely.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that sometimes people see racism when there is none (because I’m pretty sure that actually does happen, anyway). What does that mean about how we should respectively react to or proactively address actual or potential racism?’
If you believe that you are witness to a particular case of misattributed racism, how do you then determine how often similar cases occur?
Does someone here want to make the case that misattribuation of racism is a worse problem than actual racism? And what do you propose to do about it, particularly without allowing more actual racism to occur and go unaddressed?
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that sometimes people see racism when there is none (because I’m pretty sure that actually does happen, anyway). What does that mean about how we should respectively react to or proactively address actual or potential racism?’
If you believe that you are witness to a particular case of misattributed racism, how do you then determine how often similar cases occur?
Does someone here want to make the case that misattribuation of racism is a worse problem than actual racism? And what do you propose to do about it, particularly without allowing more actual racism to occur and go unaddressed?
From the article at nous’s link:
If there’s any lesson that we ought to take away from last summer’s protests, it’s that systemic inequalities are first and foremost a matter of policy and practice, not of mind-sets or even of values and culture.
From a Connie Schultz column written after John Lewis died:
From the article at nous’s link:
If there’s any lesson that we ought to take away from last summer’s protests, it’s that systemic inequalities are first and foremost a matter of policy and practice, not of mind-sets or even of values and culture.
From a Connie Schultz column written after John Lewis died:
What does that mean about how we should respectively react to or proactively address actual or potential racism?’
that depends: is your actual goal is to shit on straw-libz, or not?
What does that mean about how we should respectively react to or proactively address actual or potential racism?’
that depends: is your actual goal is to shit on straw-libz, or not?
One further thought on the Smith College situation(s)…I wonder if either the janitorial staff or the adjunct professors in religious study have any form of collective representation?
If these situations were to occur at my institution (and these things do, actually, occur) the admin would make some sort of public statement reaffirming their commitment to social justice (just as Smith College did), but then the OEOD would investigate and the ombudsman might get involved and the campus grievance steward (moi) would reach out to the adjunct professor to see that there had been some sort of investigation done with due diligence before any disciplinary action was taken regardless of the professor’s political affiliation. I can say this from experience.
And it’s hard to take the right wing’s moral high horse seriously when they build databases to record any perceived slight against a conservative student by a “cultural marxist” professor and trot out their unvetted numbers at every opportunity when the culture war beckons.
One further thought on the Smith College situation(s)…I wonder if either the janitorial staff or the adjunct professors in religious study have any form of collective representation?
If these situations were to occur at my institution (and these things do, actually, occur) the admin would make some sort of public statement reaffirming their commitment to social justice (just as Smith College did), but then the OEOD would investigate and the ombudsman might get involved and the campus grievance steward (moi) would reach out to the adjunct professor to see that there had been some sort of investigation done with due diligence before any disciplinary action was taken regardless of the professor’s political affiliation. I can say this from experience.
And it’s hard to take the right wing’s moral high horse seriously when they build databases to record any perceived slight against a conservative student by a “cultural marxist” professor and trot out their unvetted numbers at every opportunity when the culture war beckons.
There are a variety of things which are not worth my attention.
Anything written by Andrew Sullivan is in that category. Lectures from white South Africans about whether people in my country are dealing with racism well or not are another.
Black people are treated differently than white people in this country. This seems so blindingly obvious to me that I’m astounded it’s even controversial. When I say this, McK will often point out that his practice has hired black people, women, Muslims, and even black women Muslims.
To which I say, kudos. Well done. America is not an elite law practice based on Houston, arguably the most diverse city in the country.
Asian people have, for some time now, been telling us that they, too, are not treated the same as white people in this country. Maybe we should listen to what they are saying, regardless of whether the disaffected young white loser with a gun du jour was motivated by a hatred of Asians, specifically, or women in general, or sex workers in general.
To ignore the fact that the people who were making today’s tragically violent young white male think bad thoughts were, in fact, (a) women and (b) Asian begs a number of questions. As does the prevalence of Asian women in today’s retail sex industry.
Also – if you are looking for cases of Wokeness Gone Out Of Bounds (Janie, please excuse my caps), Smith and Oberlin and similar university environments are the place to look. Just like America is not McK’s law practice, America is not Smith and Oberlin.
There are a variety of things which are not worth my attention.
Anything written by Andrew Sullivan is in that category. Lectures from white South Africans about whether people in my country are dealing with racism well or not are another.
Black people are treated differently than white people in this country. This seems so blindingly obvious to me that I’m astounded it’s even controversial. When I say this, McK will often point out that his practice has hired black people, women, Muslims, and even black women Muslims.
To which I say, kudos. Well done. America is not an elite law practice based on Houston, arguably the most diverse city in the country.
Asian people have, for some time now, been telling us that they, too, are not treated the same as white people in this country. Maybe we should listen to what they are saying, regardless of whether the disaffected young white loser with a gun du jour was motivated by a hatred of Asians, specifically, or women in general, or sex workers in general.
To ignore the fact that the people who were making today’s tragically violent young white male think bad thoughts were, in fact, (a) women and (b) Asian begs a number of questions. As does the prevalence of Asian women in today’s retail sex industry.
Also – if you are looking for cases of Wokeness Gone Out Of Bounds (Janie, please excuse my caps), Smith and Oberlin and similar university environments are the place to look. Just like America is not McK’s law practice, America is not Smith and Oberlin.
Janie, please excuse my caps
LOL.
Janie, please excuse my caps
LOL.
Black people are treated differently than white people in this country. This seems so blindingly obvious to me that I’m astounded it’s even controversial.
People who don’t see this are often merely oblivious. The ones who really bother me are the ones who agree that blacks are treated differently . . . and think that’s how it should be.
Black people are treated differently than white people in this country. This seems so blindingly obvious to me that I’m astounded it’s even controversial.
People who don’t see this are often merely oblivious. The ones who really bother me are the ones who agree that blacks are treated differently . . . and think that’s how it should be.
it’s striking how often the right loses its shit over various attempts to get people to think about treating certain groups of other people with respect.
it’s striking how often the right loses its shit over various attempts to get people to think about treating certain groups of other people with respect.
People who don’t see this are often merely oblivious. The ones who really bother me are the ones who agree that blacks are treated differently . . . and think that’s how it should be.
Or the ones who think Black people are treated differently in that they’re lucky ducks who get all the breaks from various programs, be they government programs or corporate programs. All while white people have to work for what they get! It’s not fair!
People who don’t see this are often merely oblivious. The ones who really bother me are the ones who agree that blacks are treated differently . . . and think that’s how it should be.
Or the ones who think Black people are treated differently in that they’re lucky ducks who get all the breaks from various programs, be they government programs or corporate programs. All while white people have to work for what they get! It’s not fair!
they’re lucky ducks who get all the breaks from various programs
In college, I knew a couple of kids who got in on affirmative action. Without exception, they worked their asses off. It was the entitled (inevitably white) frat boys who coasted — they would do fine anyway, thanks to family connections, so they didn’t bother.
“Legacy admissions” — the worst of all special treatments, but somehow never a concern.
they’re lucky ducks who get all the breaks from various programs
In college, I knew a couple of kids who got in on affirmative action. Without exception, they worked their asses off. It was the entitled (inevitably white) frat boys who coasted — they would do fine anyway, thanks to family connections, so they didn’t bother.
“Legacy admissions” — the worst of all special treatments, but somehow never a concern.
Now that we have two mass shootings in one week, the second involving a person of apparent Mid-Eastern/Muslim ethnicity/faith, killing ten or so apparently white people, can someone here explain the intersectional significance of this incident vs the one in Alabama?
Not a disturbed white male.
No POCs’ (perhaps) were victims.
Where does this fit in the narrative?
Or, does the narrative only apply when it is a white person killing POC’s?
Why do I suspect the same media that instantly found white supremacy to the be cause will counsel patience and a thorough investigation, a la Ft. Hood?
Now that we have two mass shootings in one week, the second involving a person of apparent Mid-Eastern/Muslim ethnicity/faith, killing ten or so apparently white people, can someone here explain the intersectional significance of this incident vs the one in Alabama?
Not a disturbed white male.
No POCs’ (perhaps) were victims.
Where does this fit in the narrative?
Or, does the narrative only apply when it is a white person killing POC’s?
Why do I suspect the same media that instantly found white supremacy to the be cause will counsel patience and a thorough investigation, a la Ft. Hood?
Where does this fit in the narrative?
Probably, it fits in as part of the narrative about the need (unless you a gun manufacturer or a Congressional Republican, of course) for increased gun control.
Where does this fit in the narrative?
Probably, it fits in as part of the narrative about the need (unless you a gun manufacturer or a Congressional Republican, of course) for increased gun control.
Now that we have two mass shootings in one week, the second involving a person of apparent Mid-Eastern/Muslim ethnicity/faith, killing ten or so apparently white people, can someone here explain the intersectional significance of this incident vs the one in Alabama?
My first thought is, was it a grocery store that was somehow specific to white people?
Now that we have two mass shootings in one week, the second involving a person of apparent Mid-Eastern/Muslim ethnicity/faith, killing ten or so apparently white people, can someone here explain the intersectional significance of this incident vs the one in Alabama?
My first thought is, was it a grocery store that was somehow specific to white people?
My second thought is, is Alabama so full of Asian women that, if you go out shooting people, most of them will happen to be Asian women?
My second thought is, is Alabama so full of Asian women that, if you go out shooting people, most of them will happen to be Asian women?
, can someone here explain the intersectional significance of this incident vs the one in Alabama?
first, explain why you felt the need to bring up intersectionality.
, can someone here explain the intersectional significance of this incident vs the one in Alabama?
first, explain why you felt the need to bring up intersectionality.
Now that we have two mass shootings in one week, the second involving a person of apparent Mid-Eastern/Muslim ethnicity/faith, killing ten or so apparently white people, can someone here explain the intersectional significance of this incident vs the one in Alabama?
I don’t really understand what you’re asking here.
How it “fits in the narrative” is that people shoot themselves and each other a lot here in the US.
If they do so because they hate certain other people a priori and therefore decide to kill them, it’s arguably a hate crime.
If they do so because they’re batshit insane or profoundly emotionally unbalanced, it’s probably not a hate crime. It’s just another FUBAR day here in the US.
I’d say the jury is out as regards all of that for both shooters.
Now that we have two mass shootings in one week, the second involving a person of apparent Mid-Eastern/Muslim ethnicity/faith, killing ten or so apparently white people, can someone here explain the intersectional significance of this incident vs the one in Alabama?
I don’t really understand what you’re asking here.
How it “fits in the narrative” is that people shoot themselves and each other a lot here in the US.
If they do so because they hate certain other people a priori and therefore decide to kill them, it’s arguably a hate crime.
If they do so because they’re batshit insane or profoundly emotionally unbalanced, it’s probably not a hate crime. It’s just another FUBAR day here in the US.
I’d say the jury is out as regards all of that for both shooters.
the guy was, by all accounts i’ve read, mentally disturbed – paranoid, delusional and very anti-social.
he was also opposed to Trump’s immigration policy, but also pro-life and anti-gay.
maybe he just didn’t have much shit start with and he lost it all yesterday for reasons having nothing to do with the culture wars.
we can be sure the Islam angle will tickle Fox in all the right places, though.
the guy was, by all accounts i’ve read, mentally disturbed – paranoid, delusional and very anti-social.
he was also opposed to Trump’s immigration policy, but also pro-life and anti-gay.
maybe he just didn’t have much shit start with and he lost it all yesterday for reasons having nothing to do with the culture wars.
we can be sure the Islam angle will tickle Fox in all the right places, though.
Well, if the shooter has at least a 1% chance of being Middle-Eastern or Muslim, it will neatly fit another narrative: THE TOWEL-HEADED SAND N|GGERS ARE OUT TO KILL US ALL. MUSLIM BAN NOW! INTERNMENT CAMPS NOW. BOMB SOME M-E COUNTRY (except Saudi Arabia) NOW! Also impeach Biden and Obama (and Hillary).
Well, if the shooter has at least a 1% chance of being Middle-Eastern or Muslim, it will neatly fit another narrative: THE TOWEL-HEADED SAND N|GGERS ARE OUT TO KILL US ALL. MUSLIM BAN NOW! INTERNMENT CAMPS NOW. BOMB SOME M-E COUNTRY (except Saudi Arabia) NOW! Also impeach Biden and Obama (and Hillary).
the one in Alabama
which one was that?
i don’t see anything on WaPo, CNN about any major incident in AL. even Breitbart isn’t crowing about anything in AL right now.
the one in Alabama
which one was that?
i don’t see anything on WaPo, CNN about any major incident in AL. even Breitbart isn’t crowing about anything in AL right now.
Oh, Atlanta. I just kind of went with it thoughtlessly. Atlanta’s probably what he was referring to.
Oh, Atlanta. I just kind of went with it thoughtlessly. Atlanta’s probably what he was referring to.
but Robert Long isn’t middle-eastern / Muslim, is he?
went to a hardcore Christian church and certainly doesn’t look very ME.
i’m having a hard time knowing what i’m failing to be upset about!
but Robert Long isn’t middle-eastern / Muslim, is he?
went to a hardcore Christian church and certainly doesn’t look very ME.
i’m having a hard time knowing what i’m failing to be upset about!
The Colorado shooter was from Syria. So the McKinney logic is:
Syrian (ME/Arab/Muslim) guy shoots white people. No problem for libs.
White guy shoots Asian women. Libs scream, “Racism!”
Libs are silly.
The Colorado shooter was from Syria. So the McKinney logic is:
Syrian (ME/Arab/Muslim) guy shoots white people. No problem for libs.
White guy shoots Asian women. Libs scream, “Racism!”
Libs are silly.
It’s all capitalized Woke Intersectionality.
It’s all capitalized Woke Intersectionality.
oh. “the second involving a person of apparent Mid-Eastern/Muslim ethnicity/faith” threw me.
i feel so much better.
…
guns suck. they need to be much harder to get and keep. no, i do not care about the 2nd amendment and loathe those who fetishize it. improve access to mental health treatment. and set the intersection of gun owners and the mentally ill to the null set.
that’s what i take away from the CO shooting.
oh. “the second involving a person of apparent Mid-Eastern/Muslim ethnicity/faith” threw me.
i feel so much better.
…
guns suck. they need to be much harder to get and keep. no, i do not care about the 2nd amendment and loathe those who fetishize it. improve access to mental health treatment. and set the intersection of gun owners and the mentally ill to the null set.
that’s what i take away from the CO shooting.
can someone here explain the intersectional significance of this incident vs the one in Alabama?
Well, if we are looking at this intersectionally, then the pieces of it we have so far would have to be:
Young male of Middle Eastern heritage raised in a working class suburb of Denver who may have been bullied and who may have had some mental illness affecting his judgment. He is reported to have been anti-LGBTQ (for cultural, rather than religious reasons) and short tempered when he felt slighted.
Intersectionally, he’s a member of a demonized minority who felt singled out. He’s also a product of a very patriarchal honor culture. He’s living in a state with a lot of very vocal gun rights types. He’s susceptible to paranoia. There is a lot of anti-government conspiracy rhetoric on boil in the Front Range area.
As to how this plays into Atlanta, things to consider intersectionally – he bought the weapon used in the attack the same day as the ATL shooting. There is a possibility he was angered at the way that someone appeared to target minorities or he may have been inspired by the shooter’s retributive action. Hard to say. Hell, it could be both of those things. We are not rational actors.
But intersectional thinking would want to try to consider all of these dynamics to try to find the ones that can be acted upon to make this sort of event less likely in the future.
– fewer guns in the hands of unstable people
– better anti-bullying work
– better mental health access
– less isolation and demonizing of muslims*
– detoxifying masculinity
– better media literacy dealing with conspiracy
None of these will be easy.
can someone here explain the intersectional significance of this incident vs the one in Alabama?
Well, if we are looking at this intersectionally, then the pieces of it we have so far would have to be:
Young male of Middle Eastern heritage raised in a working class suburb of Denver who may have been bullied and who may have had some mental illness affecting his judgment. He is reported to have been anti-LGBTQ (for cultural, rather than religious reasons) and short tempered when he felt slighted.
Intersectionally, he’s a member of a demonized minority who felt singled out. He’s also a product of a very patriarchal honor culture. He’s living in a state with a lot of very vocal gun rights types. He’s susceptible to paranoia. There is a lot of anti-government conspiracy rhetoric on boil in the Front Range area.
As to how this plays into Atlanta, things to consider intersectionally – he bought the weapon used in the attack the same day as the ATL shooting. There is a possibility he was angered at the way that someone appeared to target minorities or he may have been inspired by the shooter’s retributive action. Hard to say. Hell, it could be both of those things. We are not rational actors.
But intersectional thinking would want to try to consider all of these dynamics to try to find the ones that can be acted upon to make this sort of event less likely in the future.
– fewer guns in the hands of unstable people
– better anti-bullying work
– better mental health access
– less isolation and demonizing of muslims*
– detoxifying masculinity
– better media literacy dealing with conspiracy
None of these will be easy.
Guns should be melted down and sold for scrap. If you want to hunt critters, do it with sticks and rocks, the old fashioned conservative way, the way that it was done for thousands of years.
i’m having a hard time knowing what i’m failing to be upset about!
u are a liberal. therefore you should hang your head in shame at every opportunity.
Guns should be melted down and sold for scrap. If you want to hunt critters, do it with sticks and rocks, the old fashioned conservative way, the way that it was done for thousands of years.
i’m having a hard time knowing what i’m failing to be upset about!
u are a liberal. therefore you should hang your head in shame at every opportunity.
I should also add that my list could be generalized to say that the two root causes for most of the things at work there are fundamentalism (i.e. dogmatic tribalist anti-pluralism) and patriarchy, whether on the push or on the pull side of the equation.
Mental illness gives those things a lower energy threshold and firearms just add magnitude to the direction of the grievance’s vector.
I should also add that my list could be generalized to say that the two root causes for most of the things at work there are fundamentalism (i.e. dogmatic tribalist anti-pluralism) and patriarchy, whether on the push or on the pull side of the equation.
Mental illness gives those things a lower energy threshold and firearms just add magnitude to the direction of the grievance’s vector.
Why do I suspect the same media that instantly found white supremacy to the be cause will counsel patience and a thorough investigation, a la Ft. Hood?
I don’t know about “the same media”, but why are you asking anybody here these questions? Are you labouring under the delusion that anybody on ObWi is sympathetic to any kind of mass shooter, and looking for excuses for them? Looking for reasons, explanations or motivations is not the same thing as looking for excuses. I ask you yet again, McKinney, why do you make anybody here into some deranged straw man to berate for your fictional “Woke Movement”, which, if it even exists, has often been roundly criticised here?
Why do I suspect the same media that instantly found white supremacy to the be cause will counsel patience and a thorough investigation, a la Ft. Hood?
I don’t know about “the same media”, but why are you asking anybody here these questions? Are you labouring under the delusion that anybody on ObWi is sympathetic to any kind of mass shooter, and looking for excuses for them? Looking for reasons, explanations or motivations is not the same thing as looking for excuses. I ask you yet again, McKinney, why do you make anybody here into some deranged straw man to berate for your fictional “Woke Movement”, which, if it even exists, has often been roundly criticised here?
someone here explain the intersectional significance of this incident vs the one in Alabama?
As I tell my students, you shouldn’t use words in your writing if you don’t understand them.
But that Alabama/Atlanta transposition is certainly a tell of McT in troll mode. If pattern holds, in a few days, he’ll post a multiparagraph epistle that starts off with how busy he is and they proceeds to emotively defend his position, miraculously eliding any mistakes he’s made and he’ll disappear for a week or two to return triumphantly, none the wiser that we all remember. What it leaves me wondering is if he only behaves like that here, or if he does this everywhere.
someone here explain the intersectional significance of this incident vs the one in Alabama?
As I tell my students, you shouldn’t use words in your writing if you don’t understand them.
But that Alabama/Atlanta transposition is certainly a tell of McT in troll mode. If pattern holds, in a few days, he’ll post a multiparagraph epistle that starts off with how busy he is and they proceeds to emotively defend his position, miraculously eliding any mistakes he’s made and he’ll disappear for a week or two to return triumphantly, none the wiser that we all remember. What it leaves me wondering is if he only behaves like that here, or if he does this everywhere.
McT in troll mode
He has another one?
McT in troll mode
He has another one?
lol. I think he could, if he engaged and acknowledged points of others rather than play lib-owning lawyer. Though you are right, he’s pretty much stuck on that setting. But another brick is laid, and he’s now the commenter who thinks Alabama and Atlanta are the same place.
lol. I think he could, if he engaged and acknowledged points of others rather than play lib-owning lawyer. Though you are right, he’s pretty much stuck on that setting. But another brick is laid, and he’s now the commenter who thinks Alabama and Atlanta are the same place.
Ironically, the Alabama/Atlanta thing is a throwaway. I make enough typing mistakes these days (always in a hurry, always multi-tasking) that I’ll give him that one.
The rest of it though…I do not appreciate being made into a whipping boy (so to speak) for someone else’s obsessions. In real life I would run very very far away from that kind of abuse.
Ironically, the Alabama/Atlanta thing is a throwaway. I make enough typing mistakes these days (always in a hurry, always multi-tasking) that I’ll give him that one.
The rest of it though…I do not appreciate being made into a whipping boy (so to speak) for someone else’s obsessions. In real life I would run very very far away from that kind of abuse.
McKinney does sometimes come around to realize he mostly or at least somewhat agrees with something approaching an ObWi consensus on whatever issue after coming in with a lot of bluster and caricature. There is hope, if hope is what you’re after.
McKinney does sometimes come around to realize he mostly or at least somewhat agrees with something approaching an ObWi consensus on whatever issue after coming in with a lot of bluster and caricature. There is hope, if hope is what you’re after.
Ironically, the Alabama/Atlanta thing is a throwaway.
Sure it is, and I tend to cut a lot of slack for typing mistakes, but it’s not the transposition that tells me something, it is the indication of rushing to throw the jab. It makes me think that AlaMcT doesn’t give a shit for the 10 dead people, he only wants to score a debating point.
McKinney does sometimes come around to realize he mostly or at least somewhat agrees with something approaching an ObWi consensus on whatever issue after coming in with a lot of bluster and caricature.
Assumes facts not in evidence…
Ironically, the Alabama/Atlanta thing is a throwaway.
Sure it is, and I tend to cut a lot of slack for typing mistakes, but it’s not the transposition that tells me something, it is the indication of rushing to throw the jab. It makes me think that AlaMcT doesn’t give a shit for the 10 dead people, he only wants to score a debating point.
McKinney does sometimes come around to realize he mostly or at least somewhat agrees with something approaching an ObWi consensus on whatever issue after coming in with a lot of bluster and caricature.
Assumes facts not in evidence…
What’s rare, from McKTX, is participating in comments about a topic that is up for back and forth discussion that doesn’t have a pointed ideological valence. A few nods to boobyp about golf on occasion maybe. Marty chimes in on music and food, and some other personal things. McKinney almost always only drops a comment bomb on a topic that suits him, and his amount of subsequent engagement has been noted by others. I am not frequent here, so I don’t have much purchase for criticizing that, and he has responded non-dogmatically to suggestions I have presented about constitutional reforms. And he has reported how the political environment created by TFG has created issues for him personally/socially. But dammit engage constructively.
What’s rare, from McKTX, is participating in comments about a topic that is up for back and forth discussion that doesn’t have a pointed ideological valence. A few nods to boobyp about golf on occasion maybe. Marty chimes in on music and food, and some other personal things. McKinney almost always only drops a comment bomb on a topic that suits him, and his amount of subsequent engagement has been noted by others. I am not frequent here, so I don’t have much purchase for criticizing that, and he has responded non-dogmatically to suggestions I have presented about constitutional reforms. And he has reported how the political environment created by TFG has created issues for him personally/socially. But dammit engage constructively.
Agree with hsh in a minor way…I remember McK responding as a fellow-human being and not an ideological scourge to a post I wrote at the beginning of the pandemic.
Agree with lj that the urge to score debating points is distasteful at best. It makes me mostly ignore what McK writes, because it’s always the same simple-minded nonsense, and lawyerly debating is not a game I care to particpate in. My entire adult life has been awash in lawyers, enough is enough.
Agree with Priest and can’t count the times McK has sailed in, dropped some bombs and disappeared because he was “busy” as soon as he got some cogent pushback. This goes back years and years and years. I remember the first time I noticed it was in a discussion about taxes early in Obama’s first term.
But this also leads me to say that the discussion of copyright in the other thread has been one of the most interesting (to me) in a long time, and I note that though there has been significant disagreement, everyone has been more or less cordial, curious, and respectful. Thanks folks! It’s a complex, many-tentacled topic, and there’s a lot to think about.
Agree with hsh in a minor way…I remember McK responding as a fellow-human being and not an ideological scourge to a post I wrote at the beginning of the pandemic.
Agree with lj that the urge to score debating points is distasteful at best. It makes me mostly ignore what McK writes, because it’s always the same simple-minded nonsense, and lawyerly debating is not a game I care to particpate in. My entire adult life has been awash in lawyers, enough is enough.
Agree with Priest and can’t count the times McK has sailed in, dropped some bombs and disappeared because he was “busy” as soon as he got some cogent pushback. This goes back years and years and years. I remember the first time I noticed it was in a discussion about taxes early in Obama’s first term.
But this also leads me to say that the discussion of copyright in the other thread has been one of the most interesting (to me) in a long time, and I note that though there has been significant disagreement, everyone has been more or less cordial, curious, and respectful. Thanks folks! It’s a complex, many-tentacled topic, and there’s a lot to think about.
boobyp? LOL. Well, if the boob fits….
boobyp? LOL. Well, if the boob fits….
hey “conservatives”, do you ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?
suckerfest
hey “conservatives”, do you ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?
suckerfest
Totally unbelievable but supposed to be going to court. IANAL, and if being one would allow me to understand this, I’m glad I’m not.
Totally unbelievable but supposed to be going to court. IANAL, and if being one would allow me to understand this, I’m glad I’m not.
So umpty thousand unreasonable people did accept them as fact, explicitly egged on by the unreasonablest one of all, and relied on the truth of her claims to storm the US Capitol on January 6. If I were one of those, and not already in jail, maybe it’s Sidney Powell I’d be going after next, before I got put away for a long time for believing her shit.
Never mind the umpty million who believed them and would still tear the country apart if the right trigger (no pun intended) came along.
So umpty thousand unreasonable people did accept them as fact, explicitly egged on by the unreasonablest one of all, and relied on the truth of her claims to storm the US Capitol on January 6. If I were one of those, and not already in jail, maybe it’s Sidney Powell I’d be going after next, before I got put away for a long time for believing her shit.
Never mind the umpty million who believed them and would still tear the country apart if the right trigger (no pun intended) came along.
view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process
I read this as an attempt, and a pretty lame one at that, to avoid professional sanctions for bringing frivolous suits. Which is what she is looking at, in addition to the civil penalties Dominion is asking for.
view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process
I read this as an attempt, and a pretty lame one at that, to avoid professional sanctions for bringing frivolous suits. Which is what she is looking at, in addition to the civil penalties Dominion is asking for.
The right deed. If, perhaps, for the wrong reason — depending on where this goes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/24/kristi-noem-transgender-athletes-bill-veto/
It appears that the Governor of South Dakota has shot herself in the foot. Over transgender athletes, as it happens. Frankly, I’m just pleased to see her national ambitions in trouble. Regardless of why.
The right deed. If, perhaps, for the wrong reason — depending on where this goes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/24/kristi-noem-transgender-athletes-bill-veto/
It appears that the Governor of South Dakota has shot herself in the foot. Over transgender athletes, as it happens. Frankly, I’m just pleased to see her national ambitions in trouble. Regardless of why.
Ted Cruz: “what happens in this committee after every mass shooting is Democrats propose taking away guns from law abiding citizens.”
Ted Cruz: “what happens in this committee after every mass shooting is Democrats propose taking away guns from law abiding citizens.”
It appears that the Governor of South Dakota has shot herself in the foot.
cancelled!
It appears that the Governor of South Dakota has shot herself in the foot.
cancelled!
cancelled!
Yup. But cancelled by her own side.
cancelled!
Yup. But cancelled by her own side.
And yes, the locution “shot in the foot” was used with malice aforethought.
And yes, the locution “shot in the foot” was used with malice aforethought.
But that Alabama/Atlanta transposition is certainly a tell of McT in troll mode. If pattern holds, in a few days, he’ll post a multiparagraph epistle that starts off with how busy he is and they proceeds to emotively defend his position, miraculously eliding any mistakes he’s made and he’ll disappear for a week or two to return triumphantly, none the wiser that we all remember. What it leaves me wondering is if he only behaves like that here, or if he does this everywhere.
LOL. My comment was pretty much a drive-by and my proofreading underscores that point. In my modest defense, many here frequently make their points against a conservative position by adding in dashes of hyperbole, so I won’t take myself to the woodshed on that account.
A point I intended to make is the disparate treatment of two near-simultaneous mass shootings by the prog left and some appreciable number of OBWI commenters. When it’s a white guy killing minorities, the immediate default is “hate crime”. When it’s a minority killing whites, it’s “hmm, we’ll need to study this one, looks complicated, probably some mental illness issues here.”
I realize I am generalizing, but since intersectionality keys off of ethnicity and gender self identification, I find the difference in approach . . . interesting.
BTW, my view is that any mass shooting is, first and foremost, a function of profound mental illness (or disorder or some other suitable descriptor) which exacerbates whatever underlying pathology there might be, e.g. invidious racism, misogyny, etc.
That is, you start with a f’d up viewpoint about something, add in uncompensated psychopathy or something like that, keep on slow boil for however long and, on rare occasions, you get a shooter. IOW, the universe of f’d up unstables is most likely much larger than those who act on it.
Here’s a NYT link that makes my point. Also, before dismissing Sullivan out of hand, you might want to check out that link. It is well written and well documented.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/24/us/boulder-colorado-shooting
And, yes LJ, I am busy. I’m actually hip deep in sorting out a very complicated conflict of law question on a case that I can’t justify delegating. Since I dropped Conflicts as a class in law school after reading my first assignment because it was too dense and boring, and since I’ve managed to go my entire career having nothing to do with Conflicts of Law and now, I’m really in it, it makes my research into the Frankfurt School seem like reading Dr. Suess.
And yes, LJ and Janie and Priest, I do drop in, drop a bomb and leave. It really is the press of business. I will prove this point late this year or early next year. I’m winding down my practice and moving out of Houston and into a limited practice outside of Austin at year end. Once I’m there, I will be a regular here. Apologies in advance.
Back at it until my next drive by.
But that Alabama/Atlanta transposition is certainly a tell of McT in troll mode. If pattern holds, in a few days, he’ll post a multiparagraph epistle that starts off with how busy he is and they proceeds to emotively defend his position, miraculously eliding any mistakes he’s made and he’ll disappear for a week or two to return triumphantly, none the wiser that we all remember. What it leaves me wondering is if he only behaves like that here, or if he does this everywhere.
LOL. My comment was pretty much a drive-by and my proofreading underscores that point. In my modest defense, many here frequently make their points against a conservative position by adding in dashes of hyperbole, so I won’t take myself to the woodshed on that account.
A point I intended to make is the disparate treatment of two near-simultaneous mass shootings by the prog left and some appreciable number of OBWI commenters. When it’s a white guy killing minorities, the immediate default is “hate crime”. When it’s a minority killing whites, it’s “hmm, we’ll need to study this one, looks complicated, probably some mental illness issues here.”
I realize I am generalizing, but since intersectionality keys off of ethnicity and gender self identification, I find the difference in approach . . . interesting.
BTW, my view is that any mass shooting is, first and foremost, a function of profound mental illness (or disorder or some other suitable descriptor) which exacerbates whatever underlying pathology there might be, e.g. invidious racism, misogyny, etc.
That is, you start with a f’d up viewpoint about something, add in uncompensated psychopathy or something like that, keep on slow boil for however long and, on rare occasions, you get a shooter. IOW, the universe of f’d up unstables is most likely much larger than those who act on it.
Here’s a NYT link that makes my point. Also, before dismissing Sullivan out of hand, you might want to check out that link. It is well written and well documented.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/24/us/boulder-colorado-shooting
And, yes LJ, I am busy. I’m actually hip deep in sorting out a very complicated conflict of law question on a case that I can’t justify delegating. Since I dropped Conflicts as a class in law school after reading my first assignment because it was too dense and boring, and since I’ve managed to go my entire career having nothing to do with Conflicts of Law and now, I’m really in it, it makes my research into the Frankfurt School seem like reading Dr. Suess.
And yes, LJ and Janie and Priest, I do drop in, drop a bomb and leave. It really is the press of business. I will prove this point late this year or early next year. I’m winding down my practice and moving out of Houston and into a limited practice outside of Austin at year end. Once I’m there, I will be a regular here. Apologies in advance.
Back at it until my next drive by.
My own immediate response to the Atlanta shootings was of course to focus on the religious nutjobbery. But I doubt anyone here would disagree about your mental instability theory, McKinney. What some of us vehemently disagree about is whether unstable nut jobs with whatever forms of other pathology should have easy (or any) access to guns.
My own immediate response to the Atlanta shootings was of course to focus on the religious nutjobbery. But I doubt anyone here would disagree about your mental instability theory, McKinney. What some of us vehemently disagree about is whether unstable nut jobs with whatever forms of other pathology should have easy (or any) access to guns.
you start with a f’d up viewpoint about something, add in uncompensated psychopathy or something like that, keep on slow boil for however long and, on rare occasions, you get a shooter.
Close. But say rather: You start with a f’d up viewpoint about something, add in uncompensated psychopathy or something like that, keep on slow boil for however long, add in readily available guns and, on rare occasions, you get a shooter.
Every country has psychopaths. Every country has people with f*d up viewpoints. All of those boil just as long as here. But other developed countries don’t have mass shootings. Certainly not with the frequency that we do.
you start with a f’d up viewpoint about something, add in uncompensated psychopathy or something like that, keep on slow boil for however long and, on rare occasions, you get a shooter.
Close. But say rather: You start with a f’d up viewpoint about something, add in uncompensated psychopathy or something like that, keep on slow boil for however long, add in readily available guns and, on rare occasions, you get a shooter.
Every country has psychopaths. Every country has people with f*d up viewpoints. All of those boil just as long as here. But other developed countries don’t have mass shootings. Certainly not with the frequency that we do.
I realize I am generalizing, but since intersectionality keys off of ethnicity and gender self identification…
Try again. It’s not that hard.
Intersectionality has nothing to do with self-identification and it does not key off of ethnicity. It started out as a critique of feminism and the sort of essentializing that you are yourself trying to critique. Simply put, it argues that many sorts of prejudice can affect people (in both helpful and harmful ways) at the same time in the same situation (race, gender, sexual orientation, yes, but a lot of other things too). And it’s not “self-identification” because in a lot of these situations the individuals involved have no say in how they are identified and treated. Think of the straight, white boy who is poor and is picked on for appearing effeminate.
It takes work to misread and mischaracterize intersectionality so thoroughly. I’m not sure if that is your own biases at work or the selection effect of the biases in your reading habits, but it’s easily remedied by the smallest bit of reading of the people responsible for the concept.
Probably a better use of limited reading time than Sullivan’s substack.
I realize I am generalizing, but since intersectionality keys off of ethnicity and gender self identification…
Try again. It’s not that hard.
Intersectionality has nothing to do with self-identification and it does not key off of ethnicity. It started out as a critique of feminism and the sort of essentializing that you are yourself trying to critique. Simply put, it argues that many sorts of prejudice can affect people (in both helpful and harmful ways) at the same time in the same situation (race, gender, sexual orientation, yes, but a lot of other things too). And it’s not “self-identification” because in a lot of these situations the individuals involved have no say in how they are identified and treated. Think of the straight, white boy who is poor and is picked on for appearing effeminate.
It takes work to misread and mischaracterize intersectionality so thoroughly. I’m not sure if that is your own biases at work or the selection effect of the biases in your reading habits, but it’s easily remedied by the smallest bit of reading of the people responsible for the concept.
Probably a better use of limited reading time than Sullivan’s substack.
maybe pay more attention to what the “left” is actually saying about this. nobody is saying he’s a sane guy who just wanted to kill a bunch of Asians for no reason. his fundamentalist background and the way that turns peoples’ natural sex drives against them is always part of the conversation. it’s more like: this guy’s ridiculous upbringing fucked him up in a bunch of ways and left him incapable of dealing with his problems responsibly, so he took his anger out on a bunch of Asians – as in he drove to three different places to find more and more Asians to kill.
we don’t know enough about Allisa to know what his motive is, and his choice of targets doesn’t offer many clues.
they’re both mentally ill. only one of them deliberately chose a specific ethnic group to kill.
b.t.w., the top-rated comment on Breitbart’s current story on this is:
and the top reply to it is:
so, umm… maybe some conservatives could use some scolding, too.
maybe pay more attention to what the “left” is actually saying about this. nobody is saying he’s a sane guy who just wanted to kill a bunch of Asians for no reason. his fundamentalist background and the way that turns peoples’ natural sex drives against them is always part of the conversation. it’s more like: this guy’s ridiculous upbringing fucked him up in a bunch of ways and left him incapable of dealing with his problems responsibly, so he took his anger out on a bunch of Asians – as in he drove to three different places to find more and more Asians to kill.
we don’t know enough about Allisa to know what his motive is, and his choice of targets doesn’t offer many clues.
they’re both mentally ill. only one of them deliberately chose a specific ethnic group to kill.
b.t.w., the top-rated comment on Breitbart’s current story on this is:
and the top reply to it is:
so, umm… maybe some conservatives could use some scolding, too.
But other developed countries don’t have mass shootings.
Certainly less effective and requires more effort, in countries without easy access to guns, you get things like mass stabbings.
But other developed countries don’t have mass shootings.
Certainly less effective and requires more effort, in countries without easy access to guns, you get things like mass stabbings.
you get things like mass stabbings
An example, please, of some place getting as many as two (2!) incidents of fatal stabbings of more than a dozen persons in a year.
(Feel free to drop the number of the “mass” stabbed to 10, if necessary.)
you get things like mass stabbings
An example, please, of some place getting as many as two (2!) incidents of fatal stabbings of more than a dozen persons in a year.
(Feel free to drop the number of the “mass” stabbed to 10, if necessary.)
An example, please, of some place getting as many as two (2!) incidents of fatal stabbings of more than a dozen persons in a year.
I did say stabbings were less effective than shootings.
A list of incidents in which several had a death toll of ten or more.
“A series of uncoordinated mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks in the People’s Republic of China began in March 2010. The spate of attacks left at least 25 dead and some 115 injured. As most cases had no known motive, analysts have blamed mental health problems caused by rapid social change for the rise in these kinds of mass murder and murder-suicide incidents.”
School attacks in China
More generally.
“A mass stabbing is a single incident in which multiple victims are harmed or killed in a knife-enabled crime.”
Mass stabbing
“Incidents where several persons have been stabbed with intent to cause harm to many victims”
Category: Mass stabbings
An example, please, of some place getting as many as two (2!) incidents of fatal stabbings of more than a dozen persons in a year.
I did say stabbings were less effective than shootings.
A list of incidents in which several had a death toll of ten or more.
“A series of uncoordinated mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks in the People’s Republic of China began in March 2010. The spate of attacks left at least 25 dead and some 115 injured. As most cases had no known motive, analysts have blamed mental health problems caused by rapid social change for the rise in these kinds of mass murder and murder-suicide incidents.”
School attacks in China
More generally.
“A mass stabbing is a single incident in which multiple victims are harmed or killed in a knife-enabled crime.”
Mass stabbing
“Incidents where several persons have been stabbed with intent to cause harm to many victims”
Category: Mass stabbings
McTX: When it’s a white guy killing minorities, the immediate default is “hate crime”. When it’s a minority killing whites, it’s “hmm, we’ll need to study this one, looks complicated, probably some mental illness issues here.”
MAN BITES DOG
vs
DOG BITES MAN
At first blush, a Woke Lib might see the first headline as part of a familiar pattern and the second as something “complicated”.
The Somnolent Con position seems to be that, no matter the headline, the Woke Lib reaction is always wrong.
I look forward to the glad day when McKinney will have the time to stand his ground around here.
–TP
McTX: When it’s a white guy killing minorities, the immediate default is “hate crime”. When it’s a minority killing whites, it’s “hmm, we’ll need to study this one, looks complicated, probably some mental illness issues here.”
MAN BITES DOG
vs
DOG BITES MAN
At first blush, a Woke Lib might see the first headline as part of a familiar pattern and the second as something “complicated”.
The Somnolent Con position seems to be that, no matter the headline, the Woke Lib reaction is always wrong.
I look forward to the glad day when McKinney will have the time to stand his ground around here.
–TP
First shot today. Posts from friends/contemporaries about the same accumulating. I don’t have anything incisive to say about this. It’s a good thing, and I guess I want to leave it at that, No political point to make or points to score.
First shot today. Posts from friends/contemporaries about the same accumulating. I don’t have anything incisive to say about this. It’s a good thing, and I guess I want to leave it at that, No political point to make or points to score.
My comment was pretty much a drive-by and my proofreading underscores that point.
So, you admit you just want to stir shit? Why? Is it because your woke partners are getting tired of your shit and so you have to vent here? And please don’t tell me that you’ve asked them if you are out of line and they said of course not. If you behave there like you do here, I’d say anything to be shut of you.
And yes, LJ and Janie and Priest, I do drop in, drop a bomb and leave. It really is the press of business.
Once again, I wonder, why? What sort of personality does it take to try and start arguments that you don’t have any intention of finishing? Can you be more of a douche?
Once I’m there, I will be a regular here. Apologies in advance.
Don’t be surprised if you get a lot of (imho deserved) shit. It probably won’t be from me, I only wade in when I reach the point where I’m sick of it and feel like there might be the sliver of a chance that you might see how totally unhelpful your behavior is, but each time, it seems to make no impression on you,
and to my mind, you’ll have to work quite hard to prove that you have something worthwhile to contribute here.
My comment was pretty much a drive-by and my proofreading underscores that point.
So, you admit you just want to stir shit? Why? Is it because your woke partners are getting tired of your shit and so you have to vent here? And please don’t tell me that you’ve asked them if you are out of line and they said of course not. If you behave there like you do here, I’d say anything to be shut of you.
And yes, LJ and Janie and Priest, I do drop in, drop a bomb and leave. It really is the press of business.
Once again, I wonder, why? What sort of personality does it take to try and start arguments that you don’t have any intention of finishing? Can you be more of a douche?
Once I’m there, I will be a regular here. Apologies in advance.
Don’t be surprised if you get a lot of (imho deserved) shit. It probably won’t be from me, I only wade in when I reach the point where I’m sick of it and feel like there might be the sliver of a chance that you might see how totally unhelpful your behavior is, but each time, it seems to make no impression on you,
and to my mind, you’ll have to work quite hard to prove that you have something worthwhile to contribute here.
What sucks is it would (I think) be beneficial to the conversation here to have good faith interlocutors expressing different ideas without the lawyerly point scoring. I’m thinking of Sebastian, who now seldom appears, or Andrew, who can’t, obviously. Others can suggest some different commenters.
What sucks is it would (I think) be beneficial to the conversation here to have good faith interlocutors expressing different ideas without the lawyerly point scoring. I’m thinking of Sebastian, who now seldom appears, or Andrew, who can’t, obviously. Others can suggest some different commenters.
Good point, Priest. I don’t know how to conjure someone up, and it’s probably even harder now than it used to be. As I already said, I thought we had a pretty good discussion in the copyright thread, even though there seemed to be some pretty serious disagreements there.
As to McK, if I go out to a contra dance and someone comes along and succeeds in turning it into mixed martial arts or mud wrestling, I’ll go find something else to do. Some of the people at the dance might also enjoy martial arts or wrestling, so they can continue to have a good time on the spot. Blogs are voluntary and fluid, so no surprise if they evolve as time passes.
Putting it another way, I’m not interested in being the target of bomb-throwing. Some people here don’t seem to mind it, and/or have better defenses (and offenses!), and/or know how to play that game better than I do. Again, c’est la vie. It’s not today’s worry, at least.
Good point, Priest. I don’t know how to conjure someone up, and it’s probably even harder now than it used to be. As I already said, I thought we had a pretty good discussion in the copyright thread, even though there seemed to be some pretty serious disagreements there.
As to McK, if I go out to a contra dance and someone comes along and succeeds in turning it into mixed martial arts or mud wrestling, I’ll go find something else to do. Some of the people at the dance might also enjoy martial arts or wrestling, so they can continue to have a good time on the spot. Blogs are voluntary and fluid, so no surprise if they evolve as time passes.
Putting it another way, I’m not interested in being the target of bomb-throwing. Some people here don’t seem to mind it, and/or have better defenses (and offenses!), and/or know how to play that game better than I do. Again, c’est la vie. It’s not today’s worry, at least.
Intersectionality prevents me from commenting further on this issue. 🙂
Intersectionality prevents me from commenting further on this issue. 🙂
The upside to mass knife attacks is that it is really hard for the attacker to stab you through the door or wall, or across the plaza or down a school hallway. And a “good guy with a knife” is not going to accidentally stab someone across the room if he misses or the knife fails to expand.
Knives are hard to defend against*, but books and computers are pretty effective shields against them. Not so much against most of the firearm rounds that are fashionable with the mass shooting aficionados.
I’ve shot a lot of firearms and did years of training with knives in Filipino Martial Arts. I’ll take the knife rampage every single time.
*And the majority of what gets shown as “knife defense” ranges from completely ineffective to dangerously wrong in real life.
The upside to mass knife attacks is that it is really hard for the attacker to stab you through the door or wall, or across the plaza or down a school hallway. And a “good guy with a knife” is not going to accidentally stab someone across the room if he misses or the knife fails to expand.
Knives are hard to defend against*, but books and computers are pretty effective shields against them. Not so much against most of the firearm rounds that are fashionable with the mass shooting aficionados.
I’ve shot a lot of firearms and did years of training with knives in Filipino Martial Arts. I’ll take the knife rampage every single time.
*And the majority of what gets shown as “knife defense” ranges from completely ineffective to dangerously wrong in real life.
Yes, you rarely hear of a drive-by knifing…
Yes, you rarely hear of a drive-by knifing…
I belive there has been an increase in mass stabbings (and the use of cars as weapons without the use of explosives) since the rise of ISIS.
And the reason these guys give is that in most countries it is easier to get hold of a heavy vehicle (and knives of course) than of firearms or explosives. Mass stabbings by non-religious psychos remain extremly rare and amok driving* has been added to the toolbox of RW extremists (even with some occasional nods to the Islamist pioneers) but no one else’s (at least around here).
Cynic that I am I tend to believe that a lot of the ‘private’ massacrists are lazy cowards. Shooting is just so much more convenient and less icky than wielding a melee weapon. It’s not just about the numbers.
*as opposed to reckless driving and illegal races on public streets
I belive there has been an increase in mass stabbings (and the use of cars as weapons without the use of explosives) since the rise of ISIS.
And the reason these guys give is that in most countries it is easier to get hold of a heavy vehicle (and knives of course) than of firearms or explosives. Mass stabbings by non-religious psychos remain extremly rare and amok driving* has been added to the toolbox of RW extremists (even with some occasional nods to the Islamist pioneers) but no one else’s (at least around here).
Cynic that I am I tend to believe that a lot of the ‘private’ massacrists are lazy cowards. Shooting is just so much more convenient and less icky than wielding a melee weapon. It’s not just about the numbers.
*as opposed to reckless driving and illegal races on public streets
Yes, you rarely hear of a drive-by knifing
Waiting for the return of the scythed chariot.
Yes, you rarely hear of a drive-by knifing
Waiting for the return of the scythed chariot.
“I am not anti-gun. I’m pro-knife. Consider the merits of the knife. In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We’d turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus, knives don’t ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives.”
Molly Ivins
“I am not anti-gun. I’m pro-knife. Consider the merits of the knife. In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We’d turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus, knives don’t ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives.”
Molly Ivins
In the UK we’ve had an epidemic of stabbings of young men, some gang-related, for a few years. This, understandably, has led to much worry and attention, and public outcry. There were 259 homicides using a sharp instrument (including broken bottles) in the year ending March 2019, down from 285 the previous year. The UK has a population of approximately 68 million.
In the UK we’ve had an epidemic of stabbings of young men, some gang-related, for a few years. This, understandably, has led to much worry and attention, and public outcry. There were 259 homicides using a sharp instrument (including broken bottles) in the year ending March 2019, down from 285 the previous year. The UK has a population of approximately 68 million.
Oh, and for completeness’s sake, in the same year, 33 people in the UK died by firearm, 3 more than the previous year.
Oh, and for completeness’s sake, in the same year, 33 people in the UK died by firearm, 3 more than the previous year.
Ah, Molly Ivins! When will we see her like again?
Ah, Molly Ivins! When will we see her like again?
Knives also have the advantage of being useful in the preparation of food, not to mention whittling! You can even whittle, for instance, a wooden spoon, which is also useful in the preparation of food. Crazy, right?
Knives also have the advantage of being useful in the preparation of food, not to mention whittling! You can even whittle, for instance, a wooden spoon, which is also useful in the preparation of food. Crazy, right?
So, you admit you just want to stir shit? Why? Is it because your woke partners are getting tired of your shit and so you have to vent here?
(Ok, one more time.)
No, not really. Think about it: many of the lefty commentariat here–not just JT–often make incendiary, ad hominem statements about conservatives, Republicans, Christians, white males, etc. Not substantive comments, but personal attacks.
There is no objection–except some push back on JT, mainly from JM–to 99% of the ‘inside the bubble’ bomb throwing. You certainly have no problem with it and have been known to throw your own.
I do not make personal attacks and rarely personalize discussions–except now, which is unavoidable. The opposite cannot be said for you and for many here when responding to me.
I make a point of trying hard not to argue my own authority, i.e. “as a lawyer”. Again, not so from others.
Nous, for example, responds to my general commentary about intersectionality by saying, in effect, “you don’t know what you are talking about” when, if fact, intersectionality is basically race/gender centric with subsequent add-ons. It actually has a bit of a point to it, but, IMO, is grossly over-extended and over-done. And, it is chock full of internal contradictions, such as the example of the disparate treatments of the two shooting incidents.
What sucks is it would (I think) be beneficial to the conversation here to have good faith interlocutors expressing different ideas without the lawyerly point scoring
Here’s another point of view: first, why single me out as a lawyer? Is your profession relevant? Nous and LJ are academics–is it fair game for me to dis their perspectives as theoretical and not grounded in reality because, you know, they don’t actually produce stuff? It’s one thing for a lawyer, or a doctor, to take a know it all attitude based on their own self-conferred authority, but it’s another to dismiss someone’s argument as lawyerly without addressing substance.
Personal attacks against me (Marty and Charles) are commonplace here and virtually no one here objects. I have no issue with that, but I find complaints about by good or bad faith somewhat amusing given the context of this and the general approval of lefty hyperbole without comment.
Another thing: sharp points and even bomb dropping isn’t trolling. “Trolling” is an intellectually lazy excuse for dismissing someone and not taking the time or trouble to see if you or someone like you might not be missing something. Jesurlaic (I know I’m butchering her name) was brilliant at very pointed, very acerbic comments that once I got over the pain in my groin, generally produced an interesting exchange and, from my point of view, although we often disagreed vehemently, we kept it friendly and got on fairly well. The difference is that she was substantive, not personal and not insulting (usually).
I’ve been around here as long as most. Get pissy about this or not, I really don’t care, but the focus and outlook here has narrowed alot. Most of the really great headliners are long gone and seem to have no interest in returning. The exchanges here were far more interesting and substantive than today, but still, there are quite a few folks here I like to have discussions with. The tolerance here for external challenges to conventional viewpoints (conventional here, not elsewhere) is not high, and it isn’t because I or the other few of us are not nice enough or measured enough, etc. in how we address people. Too often, too many here just can’t be bothered to examine their own views and find challenges to same to be personally offensive. So, instead of doing a bit of hard mental work, the default is name-calling and dismissal.
I don’t mind any of that, but a bit of universal humility and self-examination might be in order before casting judgment. IOW, LJ and others are in no position to criticize, period full stop.
Adios. I really have to let this go.
So, you admit you just want to stir shit? Why? Is it because your woke partners are getting tired of your shit and so you have to vent here?
(Ok, one more time.)
No, not really. Think about it: many of the lefty commentariat here–not just JT–often make incendiary, ad hominem statements about conservatives, Republicans, Christians, white males, etc. Not substantive comments, but personal attacks.
There is no objection–except some push back on JT, mainly from JM–to 99% of the ‘inside the bubble’ bomb throwing. You certainly have no problem with it and have been known to throw your own.
I do not make personal attacks and rarely personalize discussions–except now, which is unavoidable. The opposite cannot be said for you and for many here when responding to me.
I make a point of trying hard not to argue my own authority, i.e. “as a lawyer”. Again, not so from others.
Nous, for example, responds to my general commentary about intersectionality by saying, in effect, “you don’t know what you are talking about” when, if fact, intersectionality is basically race/gender centric with subsequent add-ons. It actually has a bit of a point to it, but, IMO, is grossly over-extended and over-done. And, it is chock full of internal contradictions, such as the example of the disparate treatments of the two shooting incidents.
What sucks is it would (I think) be beneficial to the conversation here to have good faith interlocutors expressing different ideas without the lawyerly point scoring
Here’s another point of view: first, why single me out as a lawyer? Is your profession relevant? Nous and LJ are academics–is it fair game for me to dis their perspectives as theoretical and not grounded in reality because, you know, they don’t actually produce stuff? It’s one thing for a lawyer, or a doctor, to take a know it all attitude based on their own self-conferred authority, but it’s another to dismiss someone’s argument as lawyerly without addressing substance.
Personal attacks against me (Marty and Charles) are commonplace here and virtually no one here objects. I have no issue with that, but I find complaints about by good or bad faith somewhat amusing given the context of this and the general approval of lefty hyperbole without comment.
Another thing: sharp points and even bomb dropping isn’t trolling. “Trolling” is an intellectually lazy excuse for dismissing someone and not taking the time or trouble to see if you or someone like you might not be missing something. Jesurlaic (I know I’m butchering her name) was brilliant at very pointed, very acerbic comments that once I got over the pain in my groin, generally produced an interesting exchange and, from my point of view, although we often disagreed vehemently, we kept it friendly and got on fairly well. The difference is that she was substantive, not personal and not insulting (usually).
I’ve been around here as long as most. Get pissy about this or not, I really don’t care, but the focus and outlook here has narrowed alot. Most of the really great headliners are long gone and seem to have no interest in returning. The exchanges here were far more interesting and substantive than today, but still, there are quite a few folks here I like to have discussions with. The tolerance here for external challenges to conventional viewpoints (conventional here, not elsewhere) is not high, and it isn’t because I or the other few of us are not nice enough or measured enough, etc. in how we address people. Too often, too many here just can’t be bothered to examine their own views and find challenges to same to be personally offensive. So, instead of doing a bit of hard mental work, the default is name-calling and dismissal.
I don’t mind any of that, but a bit of universal humility and self-examination might be in order before casting judgment. IOW, LJ and others are in no position to criticize, period full stop.
Adios. I really have to let this go.
TBH, when I first heard about the Atlanta guy, I didn’t think ‘racism’, because I haven’t really been that aware of Asians as a demographic subject to racist attacks.
So, a learning moment, for me.
I was unsurprised to find that it was a messed up young white dude working out his internal sexual conflicts by shooting people. That is, sadly, not an uncommon event.
I didn’t know the guy in CO was Muslim or Arab at first, so my initial assumption was just messed up dude acting out for whatever reason. Which is what it seems to be.
I wouldn’t have been shocked, upon finding that the guy was Muslim or Arab, to discover that some kind of religiously motivated animus toward Americans was the motive. Because that’s also, sadly, not uncommon.
Mostly, in both cases, I just got depressed at what seems to be the return of our regularly scheduled acts of random bloody gun violence.
And for the record, I don’t really care if people have guns. I care about people who are going to shoot other people having guns. It shouldn’t have been very hard to prevent either of these incidents with really simple, common-sense regulation.
History of paranoid delusion? No gun for you.
Want to walk in and walk out with a gun, same day? Maybe wait a week.
But I’m a flaming liberal, so whatever.
I think McK’s point about the narrowing of viewpoint here has some merit, and I also miss folks like hilzoy, Andrew, van, Sebastian, Eric Martin, Jesurgislac, Katherine, Gary Farber, and any number of others. Even slarti seems to have gone silent long enough that we should probably assume we’ve heard the last from him here.
I don’t really miss the oral rape guy, or the guy with the horses who thought it was a good idea for his kid to beat the shit out of her gay bunkmate. I’m sure we all have our own personal list.
I really miss the alien space bat guy, gloriously and harmlessly nutty people make my world go around. They put a nice shine on my day.
We do our best to keep the lights on, even if with just the more modest talent pool that remains.
I personally would look forward to more frequent participation from McK. Everybody has some aspect of their online style that bugs some other people. Eat the meat and spit out the bones.
TBH, when I first heard about the Atlanta guy, I didn’t think ‘racism’, because I haven’t really been that aware of Asians as a demographic subject to racist attacks.
So, a learning moment, for me.
I was unsurprised to find that it was a messed up young white dude working out his internal sexual conflicts by shooting people. That is, sadly, not an uncommon event.
I didn’t know the guy in CO was Muslim or Arab at first, so my initial assumption was just messed up dude acting out for whatever reason. Which is what it seems to be.
I wouldn’t have been shocked, upon finding that the guy was Muslim or Arab, to discover that some kind of religiously motivated animus toward Americans was the motive. Because that’s also, sadly, not uncommon.
Mostly, in both cases, I just got depressed at what seems to be the return of our regularly scheduled acts of random bloody gun violence.
And for the record, I don’t really care if people have guns. I care about people who are going to shoot other people having guns. It shouldn’t have been very hard to prevent either of these incidents with really simple, common-sense regulation.
History of paranoid delusion? No gun for you.
Want to walk in and walk out with a gun, same day? Maybe wait a week.
But I’m a flaming liberal, so whatever.
I think McK’s point about the narrowing of viewpoint here has some merit, and I also miss folks like hilzoy, Andrew, van, Sebastian, Eric Martin, Jesurgislac, Katherine, Gary Farber, and any number of others. Even slarti seems to have gone silent long enough that we should probably assume we’ve heard the last from him here.
I don’t really miss the oral rape guy, or the guy with the horses who thought it was a good idea for his kid to beat the shit out of her gay bunkmate. I’m sure we all have our own personal list.
I really miss the alien space bat guy, gloriously and harmlessly nutty people make my world go around. They put a nice shine on my day.
We do our best to keep the lights on, even if with just the more modest talent pool that remains.
I personally would look forward to more frequent participation from McK. Everybody has some aspect of their online style that bugs some other people. Eat the meat and spit out the bones.
Nous, for example, responds to my general commentary about intersectionality by saying, in effect, “you don’t know what you are talking about” when, if fact, intersectionality is basically race/gender centric with subsequent add-ons. It actually has a bit of a point to it, but, IMO, is grossly over-extended and over-done. And, it is chock full of internal contradictions, such as the example of the disparate treatments of the two shooting incidents.
And you still don’t know what you are talking about, which was the entire point of what I wrote. You fundamentally misunderstand, misrepresent, and misuse “intersectionality” as a concept. Which is funny, because you use the concept as the basis of many of your arguments.
Intersectionality isn’t full of internal contradictions and it doesn’t center on race and gender. It is, in point of fact, an attempt to *decenter* conversations too narrowly fixed on race or gender *in order to* examine the overlaps, contradictions, and inconsistencies introduced by too narrow a focus.
If you want to argue that the people who are critiquing a situation are biased in their application of intersectionality, then say that. I might agree. But do try to actually understand the concept first, and try to represent it accurately.
That would be a nice change, and a sign that you were actually listening and engaging in good faith.
Nous, for example, responds to my general commentary about intersectionality by saying, in effect, “you don’t know what you are talking about” when, if fact, intersectionality is basically race/gender centric with subsequent add-ons. It actually has a bit of a point to it, but, IMO, is grossly over-extended and over-done. And, it is chock full of internal contradictions, such as the example of the disparate treatments of the two shooting incidents.
And you still don’t know what you are talking about, which was the entire point of what I wrote. You fundamentally misunderstand, misrepresent, and misuse “intersectionality” as a concept. Which is funny, because you use the concept as the basis of many of your arguments.
Intersectionality isn’t full of internal contradictions and it doesn’t center on race and gender. It is, in point of fact, an attempt to *decenter* conversations too narrowly fixed on race or gender *in order to* examine the overlaps, contradictions, and inconsistencies introduced by too narrow a focus.
If you want to argue that the people who are critiquing a situation are biased in their application of intersectionality, then say that. I might agree. But do try to actually understand the concept first, and try to represent it accurately.
That would be a nice change, and a sign that you were actually listening and engaging in good faith.
“ such as the example of the disparate treatments of the two shooting incidents.”
Because they were two different incidents ?
“ such as the example of the disparate treatments of the two shooting incidents.”
Because they were two different incidents ?
I think McK’s point about the narrowing of viewpoint here has some merit, and I also miss folks like hilzoy, Andrew, van, Sebastian, Eric Martin, Jesurgislac, Katherine, Gary Farber, and any number of others.
I think I agree with the former, and I definitely agree with the latter. As for the alien space bat guy (whom I don’t remember), I positively yearn for his participation.
I don’t myself mind McK’s lawyerliness, having also been subject to many lawyers in my life, but without resentment. What I think McKinney misses that many here actually mind, is that he seems to berate us (meaning the main ObWi commentariat) for a bunch of attitudes and opinions which we don’t necessarily have (or have in very nuanced ways), and have often specifically disavowed. He’s right that many of us speak slightingly (or worse) of rightwingers, but on the whole we don’t necessarily pin it to our own rightwing commenters, or hold them responsible. There are exceptions: we (understandably) gave Marty a helluva hard time for his contention that TFG had not substantially transgressed or broken norms, athough I notice he did not come back to repeat this after 1/6. And occasionally, bad temper breaks out and people accuse our rightwingers of only caring about tax cuts. But I don’t think we turn Marty, McKinney, or Charles (let alone wj) into straw men to beat for the many excesses of the right (e.g. voter suppression). I may be wrong. But I think this is a big part of it. Hot-button issues which McKinney confronts us about: cancel culture, intersectionality, self-ID, racism theory, BLM, support for Marxism/authoritarian regimes. It would be easy to ask “us” what “we” think; instead McKinney confronts us rather aggressively, as if we are active supporters of all these things. If he asked, he might be surprised (although he has been told in the past, and tends to ignore it). In my opinion, it is this heedlessness which annoys so many here. Others’ MMV.
I think McK’s point about the narrowing of viewpoint here has some merit, and I also miss folks like hilzoy, Andrew, van, Sebastian, Eric Martin, Jesurgislac, Katherine, Gary Farber, and any number of others.
I think I agree with the former, and I definitely agree with the latter. As for the alien space bat guy (whom I don’t remember), I positively yearn for his participation.
I don’t myself mind McK’s lawyerliness, having also been subject to many lawyers in my life, but without resentment. What I think McKinney misses that many here actually mind, is that he seems to berate us (meaning the main ObWi commentariat) for a bunch of attitudes and opinions which we don’t necessarily have (or have in very nuanced ways), and have often specifically disavowed. He’s right that many of us speak slightingly (or worse) of rightwingers, but on the whole we don’t necessarily pin it to our own rightwing commenters, or hold them responsible. There are exceptions: we (understandably) gave Marty a helluva hard time for his contention that TFG had not substantially transgressed or broken norms, athough I notice he did not come back to repeat this after 1/6. And occasionally, bad temper breaks out and people accuse our rightwingers of only caring about tax cuts. But I don’t think we turn Marty, McKinney, or Charles (let alone wj) into straw men to beat for the many excesses of the right (e.g. voter suppression). I may be wrong. But I think this is a big part of it. Hot-button issues which McKinney confronts us about: cancel culture, intersectionality, self-ID, racism theory, BLM, support for Marxism/authoritarian regimes. It would be easy to ask “us” what “we” think; instead McKinney confronts us rather aggressively, as if we are active supporters of all these things. If he asked, he might be surprised (although he has been told in the past, and tends to ignore it). In my opinion, it is this heedlessness which annoys so many here. Others’ MMV.
My impression is that Charles is more of a Libertarian than a right-winger. Which is definitely a different animal. Neither are liberals, of course. But not at all the same nonetheless.
My impression is that Charles is more of a Libertarian than a right-winger. Which is definitely a different animal. Neither are liberals, of course. But not at all the same nonetheless.
He is, wj. But McKinney obviously feels enough of Charles’s opinions qualify him for inclusion.
He is, wj. But McKinney obviously feels enough of Charles’s opinions qualify him for inclusion.
Knives also have the advantage of being useful in the preparation of food…
And, unlike firearms, you can pick your teeth after eating the food with a suitably sized knife.
As to this McKinney fellow, I understand he is a conservative who golfs. I hear that is a fairly common pairing, and wonder if it says more about conservatives or about the game.
Now a golfing commie, that would be something.
Knives also have the advantage of being useful in the preparation of food…
And, unlike firearms, you can pick your teeth after eating the food with a suitably sized knife.
As to this McKinney fellow, I understand he is a conservative who golfs. I hear that is a fairly common pairing, and wonder if it says more about conservatives or about the game.
Now a golfing commie, that would be something.
Hey, the rwnjs think Obama is a commie. And he plays golf.
Hey, the rwnjs think Obama is a commie. And he plays golf.
Planet Golf: Golf In Cuba
Pyongyang Golf Course
Venezuela – Top 5 Golf Courses
🙂
Planet Golf: Golf In Cuba
Pyongyang Golf Course
Venezuela – Top 5 Golf Courses
🙂
Imitation the best form of flattery?
China accused of forcing 570,000 people to pick cotton in Xinjiang
Imitation the best form of flattery?
China accused of forcing 570,000 people to pick cotton in Xinjiang
Of course there is the story of how Kim Jong-il shot 34 under par on his first round of golf at the age of 51. I bet he could have given Trump a run for his money on the course.
Of course there is the story of how Kim Jong-il shot 34 under par on his first round of golf at the age of 51. I bet he could have given Trump a run for his money on the course.
Humility is a two way street. My profession is (generally) not relevant because it has no effect on the manner and structure of my comments. Good faith would be demonstrated by engaging with what people, here, are discussing and advocating or criticizing, instead of bringing in something from the world at large and pinning that point of view on most of the commentariat here. Or pulling one line out of someone’s comment, and, removed from its’ context, ascribing meaning and intent that a charitable reading in context would not support. But the meta-horse has suffered enough, so for my part I will leave it with that.
Humility is a two way street. My profession is (generally) not relevant because it has no effect on the manner and structure of my comments. Good faith would be demonstrated by engaging with what people, here, are discussing and advocating or criticizing, instead of bringing in something from the world at large and pinning that point of view on most of the commentariat here. Or pulling one line out of someone’s comment, and, removed from its’ context, ascribing meaning and intent that a charitable reading in context would not support. But the meta-horse has suffered enough, so for my part I will leave it with that.
I should leave this with Priest’s comment, but I already wrote this so…
AlaMcT gets called out and so doubles down. Who here is surprised? Can’t really admit you are being an ass, can you?
Here’s hsh’s list of hedges in describing your ‘contribution’ here.
McKinney does sometimes come around to realize he mostly or at least somewhat agrees with something approaching an ObWi consensus on whatever issue after coming in with a lot of bluster and caricature.
Just like a regular Mahatma Gandhi!
But on to AlaMcT’s missive
(Ok, one more time.)
Because you aren’t going to accept any point of the generally uniform criticism of you, other than to admit that you do drop-bys, which aren’t trolling, they are just a natural reaction to being insulted and treated so badly. Gotcha.
[folks here] make incendiary, ad hominem statements about conservatives, Republicans, Christians, white males, etc.
Point them out. If they are thick on the ground like you say they are, they should be easy to find. It’s like someone says ‘geez, people are stupid’ and you get up a head of steam and say ‘are you saying I’m stupid? Well, I’m not stupid, you are!’
There is no objection–except some push back on JT, mainly from JM–to 99% of the ‘inside the bubble’ bomb throwing. You certainly have no problem with it and have been known to throw your own.
But mommy, he hit me first!
Of course, I’m not saying I haven’t said something mean, it’s a process of communication when dealing with disagreements. But the absence of any kind of, you know, examples, kind of weakens your case.
I do not make personal attacks and rarely personalize discussions–except now, which is unavoidable.
And because you don’t do that, we spend all of our time explaining how we aren’t Marxist intersectionalists who are just grumpy because rapture was achieved sometime after we dropped two nuclear devices on Japan. Honestly, the self-parody here is gold!
Here’s a challenge, when you feel put upon, point it out. Say what it is. I personally believe that when you put it down in black and white and discuss it, you may see that there is some other point there, beyond your tender ego. And I personally believe that you don’t do that for some mix of reasons associated with your profession, your identity and your upbringing, so that actually pointing out that you felt put upon by some comment actually opens you up for further attacks. But maybe you are just being attacked, so here’s your chance to prove me wrong. But don’t try to do it by doing some cursory wikipedia dive of the Frankfurt school.
Personal attacks against me (Marty and Charles) are commonplace here and virtually no one here objects.
Yes, line up the team, you’ve got to fight with everyone else. Suffice it to say, I think that we realize that you three are different people and have different viewpoints and attitudes. I have gotten on those two (as I used to get on she who will not be named) because they occasionally behave in a way that I don’t feel helps us have discussions here. People being assholes is not necessarily a right-left thing, though there doesn’t seem to be a random distribution of assholes for whatever reason. That you ground all your complaints in your perceived take on our politics suggests a problem with your take.
to dis their [nous and I] perspectives as theoretical and not grounded in reality because, you know, they don’t actually produce stuff?
What is this catch all category of ‘academic’? I teach English to Japanese undergraduates. I think that I do it well. I like to read and find out about the world. I’ve gone into detail about the things I like and do and experiences I’ve had. Wtf is this ‘academic’ box you want to drop me into? This, from your previous message.
it makes my research into the Frankfurt School seem like reading Dr. Suess.[sic]
Yet another tell. Two ways to read this, either what I am working on is so much more difficult than what you are or you are acknowledging that you didn’t really understand anything you read about the Frankfurt school. It’s funny how both reading could be true.
But do go on about ‘producing stuff’. I’m really trying to discern what you actually produce as a lawyer. Other than an overwhelming miasma of attacks hidden under the guise of ‘making sharp points’.
Another thing: sharp points and even bomb dropping isn’t trolling. “Trolling” is an intellectually lazy excuse for dismissing someone and not taking the time or trouble to see if you or someone like you might not be missing something.
Troll wants to define trolling so he isn’t a troll. If you can’t see that getting people to spend their time debating vacuous points that you drop in the comments is the definition of trolling, there’s not much hope for you. But it’s interesting why you are doing it. Because all the people here are, according to you
often make incendiary, ad hominem statements about conservatives, Republicans, Christians, white males, etc.
So your answer is to insult back. Yeah, that’ll work.
I’m sure you’ve been insulted plenty of times, but it’s more because you define yourself as those categories rather than mark out yourself as a individual. You are pretty much locked into the definition of yourself and you can’t get out. It’s sad.
Sure the point of view has narrowed. We’ve just had 4 years of a criminal in office who has tried to dismantle the country. ‘but why aren’t you people nicer to us’. Gawd, the self-pity in your comment is off the charts.
The exchanges here were far more interesting and substantive than today, but still, there are quite a few folks here I like to have discussions with.
Ahh, the good old days argument. Yeah, I miss them too. But what do you propose to fix it? Certainly not change your behavior, eh?
I don’t mind any of that, but a bit of universal humility and self-examination might be in order before casting judgment. IOW, LJ and others are in no position to criticize, period full stop.
Given that you only write when you mind, this seems a bit off. But if you will go back, I only entered in this after several other people pointed out the lacunae in your thought, I’d say everyone else has your number. Which is why you drop bombs, because you can’t actually defend your position. It’s terrible, but the way I know you realize you lost your argument is that you slink off for a while and then come back. It is clear that you take nothing on board from what is pointed out except to make off handed references to what you remember.
So I await with bated breath your arrival. Have fun in Austin, given its demographics, it’s going to be filled with a lot more people you will despise who will probably come to despise you when you show you can’t see outside your own viewpoint.
I should leave this with Priest’s comment, but I already wrote this so…
AlaMcT gets called out and so doubles down. Who here is surprised? Can’t really admit you are being an ass, can you?
Here’s hsh’s list of hedges in describing your ‘contribution’ here.
McKinney does sometimes come around to realize he mostly or at least somewhat agrees with something approaching an ObWi consensus on whatever issue after coming in with a lot of bluster and caricature.
Just like a regular Mahatma Gandhi!
But on to AlaMcT’s missive
(Ok, one more time.)
Because you aren’t going to accept any point of the generally uniform criticism of you, other than to admit that you do drop-bys, which aren’t trolling, they are just a natural reaction to being insulted and treated so badly. Gotcha.
[folks here] make incendiary, ad hominem statements about conservatives, Republicans, Christians, white males, etc.
Point them out. If they are thick on the ground like you say they are, they should be easy to find. It’s like someone says ‘geez, people are stupid’ and you get up a head of steam and say ‘are you saying I’m stupid? Well, I’m not stupid, you are!’
There is no objection–except some push back on JT, mainly from JM–to 99% of the ‘inside the bubble’ bomb throwing. You certainly have no problem with it and have been known to throw your own.
But mommy, he hit me first!
Of course, I’m not saying I haven’t said something mean, it’s a process of communication when dealing with disagreements. But the absence of any kind of, you know, examples, kind of weakens your case.
I do not make personal attacks and rarely personalize discussions–except now, which is unavoidable.
And because you don’t do that, we spend all of our time explaining how we aren’t Marxist intersectionalists who are just grumpy because rapture was achieved sometime after we dropped two nuclear devices on Japan. Honestly, the self-parody here is gold!
Here’s a challenge, when you feel put upon, point it out. Say what it is. I personally believe that when you put it down in black and white and discuss it, you may see that there is some other point there, beyond your tender ego. And I personally believe that you don’t do that for some mix of reasons associated with your profession, your identity and your upbringing, so that actually pointing out that you felt put upon by some comment actually opens you up for further attacks. But maybe you are just being attacked, so here’s your chance to prove me wrong. But don’t try to do it by doing some cursory wikipedia dive of the Frankfurt school.
Personal attacks against me (Marty and Charles) are commonplace here and virtually no one here objects.
Yes, line up the team, you’ve got to fight with everyone else. Suffice it to say, I think that we realize that you three are different people and have different viewpoints and attitudes. I have gotten on those two (as I used to get on she who will not be named) because they occasionally behave in a way that I don’t feel helps us have discussions here. People being assholes is not necessarily a right-left thing, though there doesn’t seem to be a random distribution of assholes for whatever reason. That you ground all your complaints in your perceived take on our politics suggests a problem with your take.
to dis their [nous and I] perspectives as theoretical and not grounded in reality because, you know, they don’t actually produce stuff?
What is this catch all category of ‘academic’? I teach English to Japanese undergraduates. I think that I do it well. I like to read and find out about the world. I’ve gone into detail about the things I like and do and experiences I’ve had. Wtf is this ‘academic’ box you want to drop me into? This, from your previous message.
it makes my research into the Frankfurt School seem like reading Dr. Suess.[sic]
Yet another tell. Two ways to read this, either what I am working on is so much more difficult than what you are or you are acknowledging that you didn’t really understand anything you read about the Frankfurt school. It’s funny how both reading could be true.
But do go on about ‘producing stuff’. I’m really trying to discern what you actually produce as a lawyer. Other than an overwhelming miasma of attacks hidden under the guise of ‘making sharp points’.
Another thing: sharp points and even bomb dropping isn’t trolling. “Trolling” is an intellectually lazy excuse for dismissing someone and not taking the time or trouble to see if you or someone like you might not be missing something.
Troll wants to define trolling so he isn’t a troll. If you can’t see that getting people to spend their time debating vacuous points that you drop in the comments is the definition of trolling, there’s not much hope for you. But it’s interesting why you are doing it. Because all the people here are, according to you
often make incendiary, ad hominem statements about conservatives, Republicans, Christians, white males, etc.
So your answer is to insult back. Yeah, that’ll work.
I’m sure you’ve been insulted plenty of times, but it’s more because you define yourself as those categories rather than mark out yourself as a individual. You are pretty much locked into the definition of yourself and you can’t get out. It’s sad.
Sure the point of view has narrowed. We’ve just had 4 years of a criminal in office who has tried to dismantle the country. ‘but why aren’t you people nicer to us’. Gawd, the self-pity in your comment is off the charts.
The exchanges here were far more interesting and substantive than today, but still, there are quite a few folks here I like to have discussions with.
Ahh, the good old days argument. Yeah, I miss them too. But what do you propose to fix it? Certainly not change your behavior, eh?
I don’t mind any of that, but a bit of universal humility and self-examination might be in order before casting judgment. IOW, LJ and others are in no position to criticize, period full stop.
Given that you only write when you mind, this seems a bit off. But if you will go back, I only entered in this after several other people pointed out the lacunae in your thought, I’d say everyone else has your number. Which is why you drop bombs, because you can’t actually defend your position. It’s terrible, but the way I know you realize you lost your argument is that you slink off for a while and then come back. It is clear that you take nothing on board from what is pointed out except to make off handed references to what you remember.
So I await with bated breath your arrival. Have fun in Austin, given its demographics, it’s going to be filled with a lot more people you will despise who will probably come to despise you when you show you can’t see outside your own viewpoint.
The exchanges here were far more interesting and substantive than today . . .
I was going to stay away from this, but this line is irresistible (the more fool I). “You worms can never live up to hilzoy, but that just makes it all the more fun to come by and try to smash things up every now and then.”
A line from LOTR pops into my head, as they so often do: “A lesser son of great sires am I, but I do not need to lick your fingers…”
*****
GftNC: I don’t myself mind McK’s lawyerliness, having also been subject to many lawyers in my life, but without resentment.
GftNC has apparently interpreted my earlier comments as resentment of lawyers, which she doesn’t share.
Well, I don’t think that’s what I said, but I’m not going to search back. Because I’m not good at mixed martial arts doesn’t mean I resent martial arts practitioners, but whatever.
It’s really more that I have better things to do than hang around and serve as a stand-in for the bogeymen McK needs to bash every now and then to reassure himself what a superior moral and intellectual being he is. “Intersectionality” indeed. (Thanks for trying, nous. 😉
Life is short, the world is full of fascinating ways to spend a few more precious hours, days, years. Reading McK’s self-satisfied, vituperative sermons isn’t one of them.
The exchanges here were far more interesting and substantive than today . . .
I was going to stay away from this, but this line is irresistible (the more fool I). “You worms can never live up to hilzoy, but that just makes it all the more fun to come by and try to smash things up every now and then.”
A line from LOTR pops into my head, as they so often do: “A lesser son of great sires am I, but I do not need to lick your fingers…”
*****
GftNC: I don’t myself mind McK’s lawyerliness, having also been subject to many lawyers in my life, but without resentment.
GftNC has apparently interpreted my earlier comments as resentment of lawyers, which she doesn’t share.
Well, I don’t think that’s what I said, but I’m not going to search back. Because I’m not good at mixed martial arts doesn’t mean I resent martial arts practitioners, but whatever.
It’s really more that I have better things to do than hang around and serve as a stand-in for the bogeymen McK needs to bash every now and then to reassure himself what a superior moral and intellectual being he is. “Intersectionality” indeed. (Thanks for trying, nous. 😉
Life is short, the world is full of fascinating ways to spend a few more precious hours, days, years. Reading McK’s self-satisfied, vituperative sermons isn’t one of them.
Sadly, Austin ain’t what it used to be (defined by when I lived there 86-91). Gentrified, sprawl, traffic. On a political note, when looking into it a couple years ago, the gerrymandering dissecting Austin has resulted in the circumstance that the house I lived in for three years in West Campus is on one side of a congressional district boundary. Cross the street to what was then the Camino Real student ghetto apartment building and you’re in a different district. Both of which extend out geographically to suburban/exurban realms. Ah, Democracy!
Sadly, Austin ain’t what it used to be (defined by when I lived there 86-91). Gentrified, sprawl, traffic. On a political note, when looking into it a couple years ago, the gerrymandering dissecting Austin has resulted in the circumstance that the house I lived in for three years in West Campus is on one side of a congressional district boundary. Cross the street to what was then the Camino Real student ghetto apartment building and you’re in a different district. Both of which extend out geographically to suburban/exurban realms. Ah, Democracy!
“Intersectionality” indeed. (Thanks for trying, nous. 😉
I’ve been a teacher for a while now. Sometimes you answer questions or offer commentary not because you think that your interlocutor is listening, or engaging with your argument, but because you think there are others around who may also have those misconceptions, and who could just possibly be listening.
And even if there aren’t any around, the search engines may be listening, so…
“Intersectionality” indeed. (Thanks for trying, nous. 😉
I’ve been a teacher for a while now. Sometimes you answer questions or offer commentary not because you think that your interlocutor is listening, or engaging with your argument, but because you think there are others around who may also have those misconceptions, and who could just possibly be listening.
And even if there aren’t any around, the search engines may be listening, so…
@nous: I’d take a class from you on a number of subjects that you comment on here if I were within reach, and if I weren’t so lazy (?not sure that’s the right word; tired might be more like it) at this point in my life.
Speaking of classes, though — I’m taking a fun and quite enlightening Cambridge Center for Adult Education class — two Friday nights on Diana Ross and the Supremes, second meeting tomorrow night. The CCAE apparently didn’t do online classes pre-pandemic, but it sounds like they might continue even after it’s not entirely necessary anymore.
Intersectionality isn’t entirely irrelevant to the subject matter, now that I think of it.
@nous: I’d take a class from you on a number of subjects that you comment on here if I were within reach, and if I weren’t so lazy (?not sure that’s the right word; tired might be more like it) at this point in my life.
Speaking of classes, though — I’m taking a fun and quite enlightening Cambridge Center for Adult Education class — two Friday nights on Diana Ross and the Supremes, second meeting tomorrow night. The CCAE apparently didn’t do online classes pre-pandemic, but it sounds like they might continue even after it’s not entirely necessary anymore.
Intersectionality isn’t entirely irrelevant to the subject matter, now that I think of it.
When I started looking up stuff about intersecionality, I was stymied for a while because it was being referred to, but I couldn’t find out where it started. Because I was searching thru journals that dealt with social issues and such and it was only later that I found that it was actually from a legal scholar.
This is a highly unusual level of disdain for a word that until several years ago was a legal term in relative obscurity outside academic circles. It was coined in 1989 by professor Kimberlé Crenshaw to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics “intersect” with one another and overlap. “Intersectionality” has, in a sense, gone viral over the past half-decade, resulting in a backlash from the right.
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/20/18542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination
When I started looking up stuff about intersecionality, I was stymied for a while because it was being referred to, but I couldn’t find out where it started. Because I was searching thru journals that dealt with social issues and such and it was only later that I found that it was actually from a legal scholar.
This is a highly unusual level of disdain for a word that until several years ago was a legal term in relative obscurity outside academic circles. It was coined in 1989 by professor Kimberlé Crenshaw to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics “intersect” with one another and overlap. “Intersectionality” has, in a sense, gone viral over the past half-decade, resulting in a backlash from the right.
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/20/18542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination
Delurking for a moment to post an observation or two …
In grand ObWi tradition, it seems that McTX’s point (why are some commentators treating the most recent mass shootings differently) has been overwhelmed by a focus on one word in his rather long post (but he capitalized it).
Never change, ObWi, never change.*
I won’t speak for McTX, but “intersectionality” has a foothold in the law and that means at least two things: (1) the concept will not survive first contact with the court system without being perverted/changed/misunderstood; and (2) a given attorney’s reaction to the concept will be almost entirely based on whether it helps or hurts their ability to win cases.
For the moment, intersectionality seems to be mostly applied by courts in the areas of discrimination (employment and criminal law) and family law.** For folks who defend employment related discrimination claims***, intersectionality represents not only an extra vector of attack that they must defend against, but a legitimate process problem for their clients. It’s one thing to police against gender or racial bias in an organization since those things are obvious. Next, we layer on sexual orientation which is not always obvious making discrimination more difficult to quash. Now we have intersectionality which would seem to open a Pandora’s box of non-obvious issues that an employer must consider.
The non-obvious problem intersects with the perception that it is difficult/impossible for an organization to inquire about intersectionality factors without risking a claim just for asking. As an aside, it is a very short trip from this perception to complaining about “cancel culture”.
And even if an organization is armed with all relevant intersectionality factors, they won’t have any easily followed flowchart as to how to deal with a given combination of factors like we have for gender, race, sexual orientation.
It should go without saying that just because something is hard does not mean it is not worth doing, but businesses see anything that doesn’t contribute to the bottom line as a distraction and when a concept like intersectionality makes anti-discrimination efforts much more difficult (at least in the short term), then it will be demonized.
* Not sarcasm.
** Apropos to another thread, it has also cropped up in a SCOTUS dissenting opinion filed by Breyer regarding trademarks on the issue of whether intersectionality should be applied to prohibitions on granting “immoral or scandalous” marks under the Lanham Act.
*** I don’t practice in any of these areas, but I know folks who do.
Delurking for a moment to post an observation or two …
In grand ObWi tradition, it seems that McTX’s point (why are some commentators treating the most recent mass shootings differently) has been overwhelmed by a focus on one word in his rather long post (but he capitalized it).
Never change, ObWi, never change.*
I won’t speak for McTX, but “intersectionality” has a foothold in the law and that means at least two things: (1) the concept will not survive first contact with the court system without being perverted/changed/misunderstood; and (2) a given attorney’s reaction to the concept will be almost entirely based on whether it helps or hurts their ability to win cases.
For the moment, intersectionality seems to be mostly applied by courts in the areas of discrimination (employment and criminal law) and family law.** For folks who defend employment related discrimination claims***, intersectionality represents not only an extra vector of attack that they must defend against, but a legitimate process problem for their clients. It’s one thing to police against gender or racial bias in an organization since those things are obvious. Next, we layer on sexual orientation which is not always obvious making discrimination more difficult to quash. Now we have intersectionality which would seem to open a Pandora’s box of non-obvious issues that an employer must consider.
The non-obvious problem intersects with the perception that it is difficult/impossible for an organization to inquire about intersectionality factors without risking a claim just for asking. As an aside, it is a very short trip from this perception to complaining about “cancel culture”.
And even if an organization is armed with all relevant intersectionality factors, they won’t have any easily followed flowchart as to how to deal with a given combination of factors like we have for gender, race, sexual orientation.
It should go without saying that just because something is hard does not mean it is not worth doing, but businesses see anything that doesn’t contribute to the bottom line as a distraction and when a concept like intersectionality makes anti-discrimination efforts much more difficult (at least in the short term), then it will be demonized.
* Not sarcasm.
** Apropos to another thread, it has also cropped up in a SCOTUS dissenting opinion filed by Breyer regarding trademarks on the issue of whether intersectionality should be applied to prohibitions on granting “immoral or scandalous” marks under the Lanham Act.
*** I don’t practice in any of these areas, but I know folks who do.
PdM, that’s an interesting perspective on it and I can see how intersectionality in the confines of the legal system can cause all sorts of problems. My response to that is that the world is not the legal system and it is important to understand how layers of identity can impact on the way we think about how things should be. I don’t know about others, but what I feel is that the legal system is (or should be) a place of last resort and ideally, situations where we feel we have to contest things should be few and far between.
In my mind, it raises the recent news about Duckworth and Hirono
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/white-house-to-add-senior-level-aapi-liason-after-ultimatum-from-sens-duckworth-hirono
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/03/24/what-the-duckworth-aapi-episode-revealed-492220
and this anecdote
“To be told that, ‘Well you have Kamala Harris, we’re very proud of her, you don’t need anybody else’ is insulting,” Duckworth told reporters on the Hill on Tuesday, calling the words a “trigger” for her. “Multiple times I’ve heard that. And that is not something you would say to the Black caucus: ‘Well, you have Kamala, we’re not going to put any more African Americans in the Cabinet because you have Kamala.’ Why would you say it to AAPI?”
(I’d really like to know exactly what was said)
Not sure if I really agree with the fact that this shows the precarious state of the Biden agenda, which assumes that it rests on constantly appeasing different interest groups. I tend to think of it more like a bicycle: If the Biden White House decides to rest on its laurels and stop or slow down, it’s going to fall over like a bicycle. But keep moving forward with a progressive agenda, it will have stability. (I just looked up ‘why does a bicycle stay upright’ and found that it isn’t really all that clear
https://www.bikeradar.com/features/your-bikes-secret-to-staying-upright-is-actually-a-mystery/
I also wonder about the assertion that how useful it is that Biden isn’t ‘feared on the Hill’. While being feared may get stuff done, it leaves a bitter taste.
PdM, that’s an interesting perspective on it and I can see how intersectionality in the confines of the legal system can cause all sorts of problems. My response to that is that the world is not the legal system and it is important to understand how layers of identity can impact on the way we think about how things should be. I don’t know about others, but what I feel is that the legal system is (or should be) a place of last resort and ideally, situations where we feel we have to contest things should be few and far between.
In my mind, it raises the recent news about Duckworth and Hirono
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/white-house-to-add-senior-level-aapi-liason-after-ultimatum-from-sens-duckworth-hirono
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/03/24/what-the-duckworth-aapi-episode-revealed-492220
and this anecdote
“To be told that, ‘Well you have Kamala Harris, we’re very proud of her, you don’t need anybody else’ is insulting,” Duckworth told reporters on the Hill on Tuesday, calling the words a “trigger” for her. “Multiple times I’ve heard that. And that is not something you would say to the Black caucus: ‘Well, you have Kamala, we’re not going to put any more African Americans in the Cabinet because you have Kamala.’ Why would you say it to AAPI?”
(I’d really like to know exactly what was said)
Not sure if I really agree with the fact that this shows the precarious state of the Biden agenda, which assumes that it rests on constantly appeasing different interest groups. I tend to think of it more like a bicycle: If the Biden White House decides to rest on its laurels and stop or slow down, it’s going to fall over like a bicycle. But keep moving forward with a progressive agenda, it will have stability. (I just looked up ‘why does a bicycle stay upright’ and found that it isn’t really all that clear
https://www.bikeradar.com/features/your-bikes-secret-to-staying-upright-is-actually-a-mystery/
I also wonder about the assertion that how useful it is that Biden isn’t ‘feared on the Hill’. While being feared may get stuff done, it leaves a bitter taste.
The world is not the legal system, but I think you underestimate the impact of that system outside of actual litigation or conflict resolution. When conservatives talk about unintended consequences, it isn’t limited to what happens in the legal system, but extends to how actors change their behavior in reaction to what happens in the legal system.
Of course critical legal thinkers would point out that these unintended consequences are a product of a legal system that is conflict based and ultimately designed to maintain the status quo in terms of wealth and power, and I think they have a point but I don’t see a way forward to fundamentally change that.
The world is not the legal system, but I think you underestimate the impact of that system outside of actual litigation or conflict resolution. When conservatives talk about unintended consequences, it isn’t limited to what happens in the legal system, but extends to how actors change their behavior in reaction to what happens in the legal system.
Of course critical legal thinkers would point out that these unintended consequences are a product of a legal system that is conflict based and ultimately designed to maintain the status quo in terms of wealth and power, and I think they have a point but I don’t see a way forward to fundamentally change that.
“I tend to think of it more like a bicycle: If the Biden White House decides to rest on its laurels and stop or slow down, it’s going to fall over like a bicycle.”
Bicycle? No.
SHARK. Joey the Shark.
(stolen from some other blog)
“I tend to think of it more like a bicycle: If the Biden White House decides to rest on its laurels and stop or slow down, it’s going to fall over like a bicycle.”
Bicycle? No.
SHARK. Joey the Shark.
(stolen from some other blog)
The world is not the legal system, but I think you underestimate the impact of that system outside of actual litigation or conflict resolution.
Just for openers, people change behavior in order to not run afoul of the legal system. And that behavior becomes (perhaps in a generation or two) the cultural norm. That or a flashpoint in the culture wars.
The world is not the legal system, but I think you underestimate the impact of that system outside of actual litigation or conflict resolution.
Just for openers, people change behavior in order to not run afoul of the legal system. And that behavior becomes (perhaps in a generation or two) the cultural norm. That or a flashpoint in the culture wars.
Of course they do, but I think you are assuming that the change is generally good. It isn’t always. An unintended consequence of making discrimination claims more subjective and nuanced (which intersectionality tends to do or at least is perceived to do) is that managers will decide that it’s cheaper to hire CIS white males.
Of course they do, but I think you are assuming that the change is generally good. It isn’t always. An unintended consequence of making discrimination claims more subjective and nuanced (which intersectionality tends to do or at least is perceived to do) is that managers will decide that it’s cheaper to hire CIS white males.
you underestimate the impact
I think I do get the impact and that’s why I feel that engaging in that sort of behavior in discussion forums is ultimately defeating the purpose of the forum. That intersectionality cannot be shoehorned into the legal system suggests the legal system has difficulty adapting to the realities on the ground.
I don’t see a way forward to fundamentally change that
I don’t think you fundamentally change that, you increase the number of alternatives, using mediators, negotiators, alternative fora, etc. to make the legal system a system of last resort. Unfortunately, those sorts of alternatives don’t just magically appear, they need to be organized and managed. But if you take a line that the best government does as little as possible, then the legal system will step in to arbitrate.
I should also note your first point in your earlier post. You wrote
McTX’s point (why are some commentators treating the most recent mass shootings differently)
That is adopting AlaMcT’s framing. Commentators weren’t treating them differently, they were discussing one but not the other. If I was talking about the Korean war, dropping in with some complaint that I wasn’t talking about WW1 would be the parallel. And unfortunately, there were 7 mass shootings in those 7 days.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/23/us/7-mass-shootings-7-days-trnd/index.html
If one wanted to have a meaningful discussion about the Colorado incident, one might also observe that Colorado is the home of Columbine and Aurora, so one might ask why. But that would require something more than a drive-by comment to own the libs.
So we should call things for what they are. AlaMcT’s taking time out of his busy schedule to engage in what-aboutism is trolling. Period, full stop.
you underestimate the impact
I think I do get the impact and that’s why I feel that engaging in that sort of behavior in discussion forums is ultimately defeating the purpose of the forum. That intersectionality cannot be shoehorned into the legal system suggests the legal system has difficulty adapting to the realities on the ground.
I don’t see a way forward to fundamentally change that
I don’t think you fundamentally change that, you increase the number of alternatives, using mediators, negotiators, alternative fora, etc. to make the legal system a system of last resort. Unfortunately, those sorts of alternatives don’t just magically appear, they need to be organized and managed. But if you take a line that the best government does as little as possible, then the legal system will step in to arbitrate.
I should also note your first point in your earlier post. You wrote
McTX’s point (why are some commentators treating the most recent mass shootings differently)
That is adopting AlaMcT’s framing. Commentators weren’t treating them differently, they were discussing one but not the other. If I was talking about the Korean war, dropping in with some complaint that I wasn’t talking about WW1 would be the parallel. And unfortunately, there were 7 mass shootings in those 7 days.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/23/us/7-mass-shootings-7-days-trnd/index.html
If one wanted to have a meaningful discussion about the Colorado incident, one might also observe that Colorado is the home of Columbine and Aurora, so one might ask why. But that would require something more than a drive-by comment to own the libs.
So we should call things for what they are. AlaMcT’s taking time out of his busy schedule to engage in what-aboutism is trolling. Period, full stop.
I’ve been thinkin about Rosemary, thinkin about the law, but most of all I’ve been thinkin about the Jack of Hearts
Especially in light of PdM’s initial response, which is interesting but goes nowhere near what I think so many of us react to in McKinney’s drive-bys. And maybe that’s because PdM is a lawyer too?
Earlier, it was loose talk on my part: I wasn’t saying I don’t resent lawyers (although I don’t), I was saying I didn’t resent their lawyerly shtick, which is different.
But as I think about that shtick, I realise that maybe it’s the particularly adversarial nature of McK’s contributions that rubs so many of us up the wrong way. To be challenged for something you don’t believe, in a really adversarial way, is pretty annoying after all.
I’ve had my share of run-ins on ObWi, but I don’t think that when I’ve gone in full-bore it’s been to win, I think it’s been to clarify what I think, as opposed to what my interlocutor says I think. (Except occasionally when we’ve been arguing about facts, or evidence at any rate.) And I think that’s pretty common on here. Whereas, McKinney seems fixated on winning, which I guess is understandable for a trial lawyer, but not necessarily conducive to the kinds of discussions we tend to have here.
Janie made the excellent point that in the copyright/patent discussion (which I was too ill to take part in, not that I had pronounced views either way), there were varying degrees of strong but civil disagreement. And, if I recall correctly, nobody was trying to win. People were putting their point across with some passion and feeling, but nobody was insulting or trying to humiliate or shame anyone. And maybe sometimes McKinney is trying to do that, and maybe (particularly under the regime of TFG) some of us have been moved to do that to rightwingers who we felt to be inadequately outraged by the dangerous and criminal actions of that FG. I think it was Janie upthread who said something about having endured four years of a criminal regime, with the damage it has done, and I do think that has had knock-on effects, here and everywhere.
I’ve been thinkin about Rosemary, thinkin about the law, but most of all I’ve been thinkin about the Jack of Hearts
Especially in light of PdM’s initial response, which is interesting but goes nowhere near what I think so many of us react to in McKinney’s drive-bys. And maybe that’s because PdM is a lawyer too?
Earlier, it was loose talk on my part: I wasn’t saying I don’t resent lawyers (although I don’t), I was saying I didn’t resent their lawyerly shtick, which is different.
But as I think about that shtick, I realise that maybe it’s the particularly adversarial nature of McK’s contributions that rubs so many of us up the wrong way. To be challenged for something you don’t believe, in a really adversarial way, is pretty annoying after all.
I’ve had my share of run-ins on ObWi, but I don’t think that when I’ve gone in full-bore it’s been to win, I think it’s been to clarify what I think, as opposed to what my interlocutor says I think. (Except occasionally when we’ve been arguing about facts, or evidence at any rate.) And I think that’s pretty common on here. Whereas, McKinney seems fixated on winning, which I guess is understandable for a trial lawyer, but not necessarily conducive to the kinds of discussions we tend to have here.
Janie made the excellent point that in the copyright/patent discussion (which I was too ill to take part in, not that I had pronounced views either way), there were varying degrees of strong but civil disagreement. And, if I recall correctly, nobody was trying to win. People were putting their point across with some passion and feeling, but nobody was insulting or trying to humiliate or shame anyone. And maybe sometimes McKinney is trying to do that, and maybe (particularly under the regime of TFG) some of us have been moved to do that to rightwingers who we felt to be inadequately outraged by the dangerous and criminal actions of that FG. I think it was Janie upthread who said something about having endured four years of a criminal regime, with the damage it has done, and I do think that has had knock-on effects, here and everywhere.
It’s one thing to have your views challenged, and another to have them mischaracterized and derided based on that mischaracterization. I suppose sometimes it can be a matter of genuine misunderstanding, but it often doesn’t seem like that’s what’s going on.
When I wrote my multi-hedged comment (hat tip to lj), it was only half sarcastic. There have been a few issues where, once we got into the details and beyond the generalizations about the liberal/left/Dem hive-mind, McKinney and I came to some measure of agreement – on things like gun control, taxes, and no-knock (I initially typed “no-know,” which also works from what we’ve seen) warrants.
That’s why I find generalized discussions about which “side” is worse so frustrating and pointless. You can’t get anywhere. There’s no possible solution to what is an unspecified problem. Even when you narrow it down to a particular issue, if you get more fixated how people on either “side” talk about the issue rather than discussing what specific people – the ones you can actually engage with directly here on this very blog – think in detail, you don’t always know what it is you agree on or disagree on.
Just the phrase “gun control” gets people in a tizzy, but even keeping guns out of the hands of convicted murderers in prison or small children is a form of gun control. I doubt anyone who isn’t crazy wants zero gun control. So it’s not a question of gun control or no gun control. It’s a question of how much gun control and what kind of gun control. And I’m using this purely as an example, not to start another debate on gun control.
It’s the same with taxes. Very few people (Charles?) seem to want to abolish taxes. But when you talk about it in generalities and use certain words, it sets people off. But if you say we should have another marginal rate of 50% on individual income over $1M, suddenly you aren’t such a Marxist.
Crap! Gotta go!
It’s one thing to have your views challenged, and another to have them mischaracterized and derided based on that mischaracterization. I suppose sometimes it can be a matter of genuine misunderstanding, but it often doesn’t seem like that’s what’s going on.
When I wrote my multi-hedged comment (hat tip to lj), it was only half sarcastic. There have been a few issues where, once we got into the details and beyond the generalizations about the liberal/left/Dem hive-mind, McKinney and I came to some measure of agreement – on things like gun control, taxes, and no-knock (I initially typed “no-know,” which also works from what we’ve seen) warrants.
That’s why I find generalized discussions about which “side” is worse so frustrating and pointless. You can’t get anywhere. There’s no possible solution to what is an unspecified problem. Even when you narrow it down to a particular issue, if you get more fixated how people on either “side” talk about the issue rather than discussing what specific people – the ones you can actually engage with directly here on this very blog – think in detail, you don’t always know what it is you agree on or disagree on.
Just the phrase “gun control” gets people in a tizzy, but even keeping guns out of the hands of convicted murderers in prison or small children is a form of gun control. I doubt anyone who isn’t crazy wants zero gun control. So it’s not a question of gun control or no gun control. It’s a question of how much gun control and what kind of gun control. And I’m using this purely as an example, not to start another debate on gun control.
It’s the same with taxes. Very few people (Charles?) seem to want to abolish taxes. But when you talk about it in generalities and use certain words, it sets people off. But if you say we should have another marginal rate of 50% on individual income over $1M, suddenly you aren’t such a Marxist.
Crap! Gotta go!
But as I think about that shtick, I realise that maybe it’s the particularly adversarial nature of McK’s contributions that rubs so many of us up the wrong way. To be challenged for something you don’t believe, in a really adversarial way, is pretty annoying after all.
To be challenged in a really adversarial way (and out of the blue, most often, and rudely or even abusively) for something you do believe can be pretty annoying, for that matter.
I don’t have time at the moment for the long explanation I’d like to write, but the adversarial nature of the drive-bys from McK is part of it, and the fact that it’s a win/lose model, but it’s not just that.
McK acts a lot like one of the lawyers I know IRL, who never, ever, ever, ever, ever steps onto a playing field (metaphorically speaking) where he can’t be simultaneously a player, the ref, and the commissioner of the league. Not only is it about winning and losing, he doesn’t participate if he can’t make the rules. If you deviate from his script, you get hammered.
And “script” offers a different metaphor: McK writes the script and you can say your lines if you want, but he never says any lines from your script.
I think almost everyone else here, certainly the remaining regulars, and that includes Marty (as angry as I can get at him, and I think it’s fair to say he at me) — we write the script collaboratively to some significant extent.
That’s a better explanation of why I have no interest in threads where McK plays a significant role. That, plus yet another metaphor, this also a theatre one: we’re all (as my old guru used to say, the same one who said “Don’t bite hooks”) characters in each other’s movies. The more people understand that that’s true, and that the real people out in the world aren’t identical with the characters in our heads, the more space there is to have interesting (fun? enlightening? productive?) interactions together. As has been observed many times, McK uses us as stand-ins for some phantoms in his head that he is determined to beat down, and as far as I can tell doesn’t give a flying banana about the fact that we are not those phantoms.
*****
GftNC — yes, I never think you’re trying to win.
An as for PdM: he came on here to make fun of us because we didn’t follow McK’s script, thus illustrating my point for me. The thing is, we don’t actually have to talk about what McK wants to talk about, and we don’t have to follow his rules or his script, and we don’t have to acceded to his substitution of us for his demons.
lj and GftNC already addressed PdM’s points at length, though, and now I’ve written more or less the long comment I wasn’t going to write, so…time to get to work.
But as I think about that shtick, I realise that maybe it’s the particularly adversarial nature of McK’s contributions that rubs so many of us up the wrong way. To be challenged for something you don’t believe, in a really adversarial way, is pretty annoying after all.
To be challenged in a really adversarial way (and out of the blue, most often, and rudely or even abusively) for something you do believe can be pretty annoying, for that matter.
I don’t have time at the moment for the long explanation I’d like to write, but the adversarial nature of the drive-bys from McK is part of it, and the fact that it’s a win/lose model, but it’s not just that.
McK acts a lot like one of the lawyers I know IRL, who never, ever, ever, ever, ever steps onto a playing field (metaphorically speaking) where he can’t be simultaneously a player, the ref, and the commissioner of the league. Not only is it about winning and losing, he doesn’t participate if he can’t make the rules. If you deviate from his script, you get hammered.
And “script” offers a different metaphor: McK writes the script and you can say your lines if you want, but he never says any lines from your script.
I think almost everyone else here, certainly the remaining regulars, and that includes Marty (as angry as I can get at him, and I think it’s fair to say he at me) — we write the script collaboratively to some significant extent.
That’s a better explanation of why I have no interest in threads where McK plays a significant role. That, plus yet another metaphor, this also a theatre one: we’re all (as my old guru used to say, the same one who said “Don’t bite hooks”) characters in each other’s movies. The more people understand that that’s true, and that the real people out in the world aren’t identical with the characters in our heads, the more space there is to have interesting (fun? enlightening? productive?) interactions together. As has been observed many times, McK uses us as stand-ins for some phantoms in his head that he is determined to beat down, and as far as I can tell doesn’t give a flying banana about the fact that we are not those phantoms.
*****
GftNC — yes, I never think you’re trying to win.
An as for PdM: he came on here to make fun of us because we didn’t follow McK’s script, thus illustrating my point for me. The thing is, we don’t actually have to talk about what McK wants to talk about, and we don’t have to follow his rules or his script, and we don’t have to acceded to his substitution of us for his demons.
lj and GftNC already addressed PdM’s points at length, though, and now I’ve written more or less the long comment I wasn’t going to write, so…time to get to work.
I think I do get the impact and that’s why I feel that engaging in that sort of behavior in discussion forums is ultimately defeating the purpose of the forum.
I honestly am not clear what point is being made here.
That intersectionality cannot be shoehorned into the legal system suggests the legal system has difficulty adapting to the realities on the ground.
That’s without a doubt. No one should claim that English common law jurisprudence has a perfect batting average or is responsive. That’s actually a feature and not a bug to its defenders. Common law seeks to promote commerce by having laws that protect individual property rights with judge-made law that was designed to change very slowly. It should be seen as an explicit trade-off between efficiency/cost on the one hand and justice on the other.
I don’t think you fundamentally change that, you increase the number of alternatives, using mediators, negotiators, alternative fora, etc. to make the legal system a system of last resort. Unfortunately, those sorts of alternatives don’t just magically appear, they need to be organized and managed.
To a business manager, all of that sounds like one giant sucking sound on their bottom line. They want a rule that can be followed so the issue can be put on the back burner. Which kind of defeats the purpose of forcing them to meaningfully confront these issues, but I can tell you that’s the thought process. And in their mind, it’s morally defensible.
And to be clear, I’m not advocating these positions that my hypothetical business manager would take. I’m just letting you know that I’ve been in the room while these issues are being negotiated and this is the good version of the thought process. It can be much darker.
I think I do get the impact and that’s why I feel that engaging in that sort of behavior in discussion forums is ultimately defeating the purpose of the forum.
I honestly am not clear what point is being made here.
That intersectionality cannot be shoehorned into the legal system suggests the legal system has difficulty adapting to the realities on the ground.
That’s without a doubt. No one should claim that English common law jurisprudence has a perfect batting average or is responsive. That’s actually a feature and not a bug to its defenders. Common law seeks to promote commerce by having laws that protect individual property rights with judge-made law that was designed to change very slowly. It should be seen as an explicit trade-off between efficiency/cost on the one hand and justice on the other.
I don’t think you fundamentally change that, you increase the number of alternatives, using mediators, negotiators, alternative fora, etc. to make the legal system a system of last resort. Unfortunately, those sorts of alternatives don’t just magically appear, they need to be organized and managed.
To a business manager, all of that sounds like one giant sucking sound on their bottom line. They want a rule that can be followed so the issue can be put on the back burner. Which kind of defeats the purpose of forcing them to meaningfully confront these issues, but I can tell you that’s the thought process. And in their mind, it’s morally defensible.
And to be clear, I’m not advocating these positions that my hypothetical business manager would take. I’m just letting you know that I’ve been in the room while these issues are being negotiated and this is the good version of the thought process. It can be much darker.
Especially in light of PdM’s initial response, which is interesting but goes nowhere near what I think so many of us react to in McKinney’s drive-bys. And maybe that’s because PdM is a lawyer too?
When I started typing it was because I thought it was funny that in all likelihood McTX’s negative perspective on intersectionality was a function of his particular circumstance as a lawyer who deals with what I assume are mostly commercial issues. So it started as a tongue in cheek “you guys need to empathize with McTX’s identity as a lawyer” but I forgot to nail the punchline.
I personally don’t mind McTX’s drive-bys because it makes interesting skeptical for me as a lurker … and keep in mind I’ve been lurking here since the aughts after following a link from the pre-Atlantic andrewsullivan.com (before he became completely insufferable). Without someone shaking things up, this place starts to suffer just a bit from sclerosis of thought. Not that anyone cares if I’m enjoying my lurking or not, but there it is.
Especially in light of PdM’s initial response, which is interesting but goes nowhere near what I think so many of us react to in McKinney’s drive-bys. And maybe that’s because PdM is a lawyer too?
When I started typing it was because I thought it was funny that in all likelihood McTX’s negative perspective on intersectionality was a function of his particular circumstance as a lawyer who deals with what I assume are mostly commercial issues. So it started as a tongue in cheek “you guys need to empathize with McTX’s identity as a lawyer” but I forgot to nail the punchline.
I personally don’t mind McTX’s drive-bys because it makes interesting skeptical for me as a lurker … and keep in mind I’ve been lurking here since the aughts after following a link from the pre-Atlantic andrewsullivan.com (before he became completely insufferable). Without someone shaking things up, this place starts to suffer just a bit from sclerosis of thought. Not that anyone cares if I’m enjoying my lurking or not, but there it is.
this place starts to suffer just a bit from sclerosis of thought
Setting aside the fact that tastes differ, and that one person’s enjoyment of the exploration of nuance, and the comfort of being among like-minded friends, is another person’s “sclerosis of thought” (doctor talk borrowed by a lawyer, but who am I to complain about metaphors), I am reminded of a birthday card I got last month:
“My doctor asked if anyone in my family suffers from insanity . . . I said no — we all seem to be enjoying it.”
this place starts to suffer just a bit from sclerosis of thought
Setting aside the fact that tastes differ, and that one person’s enjoyment of the exploration of nuance, and the comfort of being among like-minded friends, is another person’s “sclerosis of thought” (doctor talk borrowed by a lawyer, but who am I to complain about metaphors), I am reminded of a birthday card I got last month:
“My doctor asked if anyone in my family suffers from insanity . . . I said no — we all seem to be enjoying it.”
“spectacle” and not “skeptical” … you win this round, autocorrect.
“spectacle” and not “skeptical” … you win this round, autocorrect.
They want a rule that can be followed so the issue can be put on the back burner. Which kind of defeats the purpose of forcing them to meaningfully confront these issues,
I’m not sure they want a clear rule to follow in order to avoid confronting the issue. I think sometimes they simply do not understand the issue. Which makes confronting it difficult. A rule means they can at least avoid giving offense, even if they don’t understand.
Now it might be great to educate them, so they do understand. But frequently those who are upset that others won’t “confront the issues” are actually the other side of the same coin. The issues are so stark to them that they simply can’t see that others really don’t understand. That is, that they aren’t seeing refusal to address the issue, but lack of understanding. Creating the education to address that (effective, student-oriented, education; not the usual “awareness” HR classes) is a lot harder, and more time consuming than simply denunciations. It is, if you will, harder on their bottom lines.
They want a rule that can be followed so the issue can be put on the back burner. Which kind of defeats the purpose of forcing them to meaningfully confront these issues,
I’m not sure they want a clear rule to follow in order to avoid confronting the issue. I think sometimes they simply do not understand the issue. Which makes confronting it difficult. A rule means they can at least avoid giving offense, even if they don’t understand.
Now it might be great to educate them, so they do understand. But frequently those who are upset that others won’t “confront the issues” are actually the other side of the same coin. The issues are so stark to them that they simply can’t see that others really don’t understand. That is, that they aren’t seeing refusal to address the issue, but lack of understanding. Creating the education to address that (effective, student-oriented, education; not the usual “awareness” HR classes) is a lot harder, and more time consuming than simply denunciations. It is, if you will, harder on their bottom lines.
I don’t have much to add, here, to the collective discussion of the blog dynamics, except to say that if McKinney was, in actuality, coming at this from the direction that Pollo de muerte outlines, then his *actually making* that argument here would be a productive and welcome change.
I don’t have much to add, here, to the collective discussion of the blog dynamics, except to say that if McKinney was, in actuality, coming at this from the direction that Pollo de muerte outlines, then his *actually making* that argument here would be a productive and welcome change.
My “Crap! Gotta go!” wasn’t a parody of McKinney. I snoozed a reminder for a video conference, and it didn’t come back until zero minutes beforehand (aka “now”).
My “Crap! Gotta go!” wasn’t a parody of McKinney. I snoozed a reminder for a video conference, and it didn’t come back until zero minutes beforehand (aka “now”).
For my part, I’d like to encourage any commentator who’s tolerably civil and thinks facts matter. McKT easily meets that standard.
And what GftNC said.
For my part, I’d like to encourage any commentator who’s tolerably civil and thinks facts matter. McKT easily meets that standard.
And what GftNC said.
I think I do get the impact and that’s why I feel that engaging in that sort of behavior in discussion forums is ultimately defeating the purpose of the forum.
I honestly am not clear what point is being made here.
Just to answer PdM’s implicit query, I’d point to Janie and GftNC’s point about winning vs. keeping the game going. I’d also point out that watching people battle it out in the comments is basically FB/Instagram/YouTube’s current model.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/technology/from-voter-fraud-to-vaccine-lies-misinformation-peddlers-shift-gears.html
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fights-over-the-covid-19-vaccine-are-everywhere-on-facebook/
A lot of reporting localizes the problem
https://www.vox.com/recode/22335801/algorithms-artificial-intelligence-facebook-instagram-recommendations
But I think it is much more than simply changing algorithms. It’s cultivating a sense where people aren’t really tolerant of food fights in comment sections. While my issues with Japan are volumes and that distaste of conflict can serve to hide lots of severe problems, it also helps deal with others
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/26/opinion/qanon-japan-janon.html
I’ll finish here by noting that there’s an interesting discussion along the lines of how we actually use intersectionality in sorting out societal problems that I’ll ponder as classes start here, so stay tuned.
I think I do get the impact and that’s why I feel that engaging in that sort of behavior in discussion forums is ultimately defeating the purpose of the forum.
I honestly am not clear what point is being made here.
Just to answer PdM’s implicit query, I’d point to Janie and GftNC’s point about winning vs. keeping the game going. I’d also point out that watching people battle it out in the comments is basically FB/Instagram/YouTube’s current model.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/technology/from-voter-fraud-to-vaccine-lies-misinformation-peddlers-shift-gears.html
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fights-over-the-covid-19-vaccine-are-everywhere-on-facebook/
A lot of reporting localizes the problem
https://www.vox.com/recode/22335801/algorithms-artificial-intelligence-facebook-instagram-recommendations
But I think it is much more than simply changing algorithms. It’s cultivating a sense where people aren’t really tolerant of food fights in comment sections. While my issues with Japan are volumes and that distaste of conflict can serve to hide lots of severe problems, it also helps deal with others
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/26/opinion/qanon-japan-janon.html
I’ll finish here by noting that there’s an interesting discussion along the lines of how we actually use intersectionality in sorting out societal problems that I’ll ponder as classes start here, so stay tuned.