They’re always watching – that’s why I blog naked.
That’s the DUMBEST fucking thing I ever heard!
November 4, 2008My former homepage blog has degenerated into parody. From Mandos:
If you are one of those who are deliberately planning not to vote, fine. It’s actually a choice I respect. Someone convinced me a while back that there are cogent reasons for checking out. But if you’re going to vote, vote Obama. And if you’re going to abstain out of anger at Obama, vote Obama.
Yes, even if you think he stole the primaries. Even if you think that he used false accusations of racism to destroy the primaries. Even if you think that his supporters make use of misogyny. Even if you hate Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s guts (and there’s lots of reason to do so). Even if you think that the RBC thing was messed up and an enormous case of pants-on-fire cheating. Even if you think he is the Manchurian Candidate, or at least an empty suit. Even if you think his backers negated your primary vote. Even if you detest the pernicious influence of Kos. Even if you really, really want to field dress the horse he rode in on. Even if you think he’s no progressive or lefty or what have you (he isn’t).
Why? Because it’s turned out that meta matters. The American public is by and large in favour of a social-democratic policy consensus. But that doesn’t necessarily effect how things go at the ballot box. How things go at the ballot box is related to all kinds of meta issues. And the meta that matters now is that, regardless of the truth of the matter, it is widely held that Obama is winning on a populist platform. That perception is the 0.0001% margin you get out of the elections, even if it is very likely that you’ll get nothing else.
Because it’s unlikely you’ll get anything else. Except perception. Perception is how the game is played. And it is a game, no matter that it involves people’s lives, and no matter whether you like it or not. Chances are, the world is going to be worse after the election than before no matter who wins, but that’s not the point. Building perceptions is. Meta.
I guess if we can’t stop it we should just lie back and try to create the perception we enjoy it, right Mandos? As for “meta,” you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means:
Meta (from Greek: μετά = “after”, “beyond”, “with”, “adjacent”), is a prefix used in English in order to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.
[…]
A meta-answer is not a real answer but a reply, such as: “this is not a good question”
[…]
Any subject can be said to have a meta-theory which is the theoretical consideration of its meta-properties, such as its foundations, methods, form and utility.
In addition to a prefix, “meta” is sometimes used as an adjective (“that statement was meta”).
“Meta” is not a noun, it is either a prefix or an adjective that modifies a noun. Unless you attach it to another word or use it to modify a noun, it is a meaningless term.
Thank-you Lambert, for banning me from your blog. I mean that sincerely, because I would hate to be associated with the farce it has turned into. Every day there are examples of religious bigotry, unhinged Palin Derangement Syndrome, false accusations of racism and/or hypocrisy.
If that’s PB 2.0, I want nothing to do with it.
Strawmen and Smears
October 25, 2008A few weeks back a blogger we admire named Anglachel surprised a few of us slamming The Confluence in this post:
Back in early June, I condemned the willingness of pro-Hillary supporters to deliberately take up the racist, ratfucking bullshit of the Right to spread smears about Michelle Obama, in Visceral Reactions. The epicenter for this type of assault was (and remains) No Quarter, run by a Republican (Hillary supporter or not) and very friendly to Republican interests. Recently, The Confluence has begun serving up the same ugly mix, which is why I have dropped it from my blog roll and will have nothing to do with PUMA. The current set of posts (no, I will not link to them) serves up a toxic brew ostensibly about the current financial market and Obama’s connections to it, but is actually little more than regurgitation of the Republican racist assault on equal opportunity lending.
There is an obvious reason she did not link to (or quote from) the posts she is referring to – they don’t exist. Oh, dakinkat and Lady Boomer put up some excellent and informative posts on the financial crisis, but not one of them was a “regurgitation of the Republican racist assault on equal opportunity lending.” Wouldn’t you expect such a serious charge to be backed up be specific evidence?
Today Anglachel posted this:
As I read the newspapers and the blogs about the mortgage meltdown, a certain pattern is emerging. Toxic mortgage = subprime mortgage = low income borrower = minority borrower.
I read her post several times, and it’s one of the prettiest strawmen I’ve ever seen. Now I’ll be honest, I don’t know shit about economics. I can’t even balance a checkbook. But I can play connect the dots, and Anglachel hasn’t connected the dots.
Nowhere in her post does she provide an example of anyone, on the left, right or center making the case that minority borrowers were the cause of the mortgage meltdown. She alleges that there is a “pattern” that appears in newspapers and blogs, but doesn’t back up that allegation with a shred of proof. It doesn’t matter how good a job she does of disproving that allegation, because it’s just a strawman argument.
I’m still not ready to address her two earlier posts, which included this astounding claim:
Alegre and Red Queen have recent posts up about the basic fact that rape is a problem with men. It is something you men evidently enjoy doing and don’t really want to see stop happening, though perhaps you’d prefer it not happen to your current female, unless you’re the one doing it.
The word that comes to mind when I read that is misandry.
With “Friends” Like These . . .
October 23, 2008So I’m over at TGW and I see a post on how this election may increase the percentage of women in Congress from 16% to 19% and I decide to post this comment:
I was still a kid when “Women’s Lib” supposedly happened. That was damn near four decades ago.
By this point women should occupy something like 45%-55% of elected offices.
I didn’t figure that was controversial, but this morning I see this response from someone named “Zee”:
myiq! A foray here, how exciting. However…after a quick look at your webpage, you may be related to Mormons who are “good people” but the cult definitely deserves to crash and burn. I’m sorry, yeah, I hate all religions as they are mostly paternalistic crap, but some, such as Islam where they practice gender apartheid to the point where male firefighters let schoolgirls burn to death rather than TOUCH them and the MORMONS, where the men are “gods” of their own planets in their ludicrous afterlife and women just part of a harem to pump out ghost babies to populate said planets, deserve all the ridicule they get and then some.
“Tolerance” is bullshit in these cases.
Zee was referring to this post of mine, where I called out a commenter at Corrente for religious bigotry against Mormons. here was my response to Zee:
After we round up the Moslems and Mormons, do we gas them with Zyklon-B and burn the bodies?
Yeah, I Godwined, but I thought it was appropriate. I don’t know who “Zee” is, and frankly I don’t want to know, but I’m assuming that TGW doesn’t endorse or share Zee’s views. I’m not endorsing Mormonism, Islam or any other religion. I practice heathenistic hedonism, but that’s because it scares away the Jehovah’s Witnesses and leaves my Sundays free for watching football.
Freedom of religion (which includes freedom from religion) isn’t just a liberal value, it’s a constitutional right. Us lefties have demonized Christian conservatives for being intolerant of other religions, and we have seen charges of racism made whenever someone suggests that Obama is a Moslem or even when they use his arabic middle name.
But for the second time in two days I see someone spouting religious bigotry on a supposedly progressive blog. The first one was more disturbing because despite numerous responses not one person called it for what it is. It’s bigotry:
A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.
Bigotry, whether in the form of racism, sexism, homophobia, nationalism, religious intolerance or even partisanship is WRONG. Progressives used to have principles.
Liberals still do.
Religious Bigotry? Bringiton!
October 22, 2008What else do you call this except religious bigotry?:
The Republicans are liars, remember? All the Pro-8 ads that have been running are filled with lies, thanks to the Mormon cash, and like Dominionists the Mormons by faith believe that it is perfectly acceptable to lie to achieve “God’s” ends.
I’m related to some Mormons. Some Republicans too. They are all good people, and unlike the person quoted above, there is no bigotry in their minds or hatred in their hearts. Sadly, this isn’t the first time Corrente has permitted some truly deranged posts and comments. And as I said before, the partisanship trap is intellectually lazy and bad for our nation.
I would have left a response over at Corrente but Lambert kicked me out for making his blog look bad. So much for the high ethical standards of PB 2.0
Progressives used to have principles. Liberals still do.