Open Thread and Link Farm, Broken Mirror Edition

sunday-in-the-park-redux

  1. Former congressional staffers have written a practical how-to guide, based on Tea Party tactics, for getting your members of Congress to resist Trump.
  2. That viral graph about millennials’ declining support for democracy? It’s very misleading. – The Washington Post
  3. Radiant.
    A 12-panel comic about women who painted radium onto watch faces.
  4. Sometimes There Are More Important Goals Than Civility – The Atlantic
    I like this article, but I disagree with the author implicitly accepting the right-wing framing that to speak about racism (etc) is inherently uncivil.
  5. Prejudice, “Political Correctness,” and the Normalization of Donald Trump – Medium
    Really excellent discussion of “political correctness” from Julia Serano.
  6. The Myopic Empiricism of the Minimum Wage, Bryan Caplan | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty
    I think this is the best argument against the evidence from the “minimum wages do increase unemployment” camp I’ve seen. I’m not persuaded by it, but it was interesting.
  7. The FBI Is Investigating Me Because I Tweeted A Joke About Fake News | The Huffington Post
  8. Texas Publishes ‘Objective’ Abortion Informational Brochure That Cites False Cancer Link
  9. The Next Battles Over Voting Rights – The Atlantic
  10. Men do not enjoy debauchery of stag dos, study finds | Life and style | The Guardian
  11. How Often Do Women Rape Men? – The Atlantic And also, a collection of reader responses, as readers tell their own stories.
  12. A webpage for providing help to male survivors of sexual assault.
  13. Austerity policies are supported by the finance world, not by most mainstream economists.
  14. Congress has spent 15 months “investigating” Planned Parenthood using McCarthy-like tactics – Vox
    And, very similarly:
  15. The House science committee is worse than the Benghazi committee – Vox
    Republicans using Congress’ powers to harass climate scientists. And now that they have unfettered power, it’s likely this will get worse.
  16. Student protestors call “Boys Don’t Cry” director a bitch.
    This is gross. Criticizing her work and process is fair; but meanness and harassment – and the use of misogynistic slurs – are not.
  17. The Feminist Message of the Dudes in Force Awakens | The Mary Sue
  18. Lawyer: Reno Boy Shot by School Cop Had Been Bullied, Beaten – ABC News
  19. Giving poor people cash gets them to spend more on good stuff and less on tobacco and alcohol — Quartz
  20. Donald Trump is right: Free trade is broken, but his “fix” would only make things worse. — Quartz
  21. The awful history of the minimum wage.
    I think the minimum wage is a good policy – but many of its original proponents were racists.
  22. Ode to the Unsayable by Keith Leonard | Tupelo Quarterly
    I liked this poem a lot.
  23. The Defense of Liberty Can’t Do Without Identity Politics – Niskanen Center
  24. Hate’s Insidious Face: UW-Milwaukee and the “Alt-Right” | Overpass Light Brigade
    Milo took the time to single out a trans student for public sneering and mockery, and act that was not only cruel but dangerous. (The student happened to be in the auditorium at the time; anything could have happened if she’d been recognized.) Major content warning on that link for transphobia, obviously. There’s a movement to revoke his speaking invitation next month in Seattle; I hope they succeed.
  25. I really like (and perhaps somewhat resemble) the “Wells For Boys” commercial from SNL.

This entry posted in Link farms. Bookmark the permalink. 

42 Responses to Open Thread and Link Farm, Broken Mirror Edition

  1. 1
    Elusis says:

    I did not expect to like that SNL “commercial” as much as I did.

  2. 2
    desipis says:

    Re #5:

    There remains a third stage of acceptance, one that acknowledges that conscious calls for equality are insufficient, as prejudice often occurs on an unconscious level and may manifest in more subtle ways for instance, through language, stereotypes, double standards, and systemic biases. Because these biases are virtually invisible to the dominant majority (who have the privilege of not having to deal with them directly), those who reach the third stage will recognize the minority/marginalized group as the only true experts of their own circumstances, and they will take active steps to understand the group’s perspectives and support them on their issues.

    What Julia Serano refers to as the “third stage of acceptance” is exactly the sort of thing that people are complaining about when they use the phrase “Political Correctness”. Claiming that someone who isn’t actively supporting a marginalized group in the exact way that that group demands, is someone who isn’t fully accepting of those individuals is exactly the sort of asinine “Identity Politics” that is pushing people away from the left.

    As we move into the third stage of acceptance, more subtle expressions of prejudice may also be deemed unacceptable (e.g., using particular language, perpetuating certain stereotypes).

    The idea that activists (or members of a maginalized group) have the omniscience required to judge the totality of the net outcome of using different words as their impact diffusely spreads throughout societies (sub)consciousness, and therefore determine the (politically) “correct” words to use in order to achieve a particular desired social outcome, is utterly absurd.

    Soft appeals only work if members of the dominant majority are open to changing their minds. Some are, of course, but many others are stubbornly resistant to relinquishing their prejudice. And still other people (who personally identify as “more evolved” on the issue) may nevertheless continue to tolerate the bigoted behavior of others. In these latter cases, “hard appeals” may be necessary — this could include “calling out” the person in question (in either a public or private fashion) or, in the case of institutions, staging a public act (e.g., a protest, boycott, sit-in, and so on) to garner attention for the issue and to put pressure on the organization to change its ways.

    There are two serious moral failings in this reasoning:
    1) Assuming a right to dictate to society what the social norms will be.
    2) Given a right to change social norm exists, assuming a right to be an arsehole about it.

    If one side of politics is seen as a group trying to enforce its will on an unwilling majority, that side of politics is not going to do well in a democratic system. To the extent that politicians on left (i.e. the Democratic Party in the US) associate themselves with such activists, they are loudly announcing to the electorate that they don’t care one bit what the electorate wants, because they (the politicians and activists) know “better”. Behaving like some sort of moral elite is not a great way to get votes.

  3. 3
    Harlequin says:

    1) Assuming a right to dictate to society what the social norms will be.

    I’m not sure I understand this objection. What Serano is describing here is, basically, “trying to convince other people to behave the way you’d like them to,” which seems totally legitimate to me. Most groups do that in all sorts of ways–it’s why we have social mores at all (they didn’t just spring out of nowhere). When I object to right-wing efforts like this, it’s because I think the norms they’re pushing are bad, not because I think it’s wrong for them to advocate for their norms.

    To the extent that politicians on left (i.e. the Democratic Party in the US) associate themselves with such activists, they are loudly announcing to the electorate that they don’t care one bit what the electorate wants, because they (the politicians and activists) know “better”. Behaving like some sort of moral elite is not a great way to get votes.

    The Moral Majority seemed to do okay. So do the bucketloads of conservative politicians in the US who campaign against the supposed moral degeneracy and anti-family policies of the “coastal elites.”

  4. 4
    RonF says:

    Re: #1, the very first sentence:

    Donald Trump is the biggest popular vote loser in history to ever to call himself President-Elect.

    The left loves to focus on this, but it’s meaningless. The election did not depend on the popular vote, so the popular vote doesn’t reflect support for a given candidate. Knowing that their Presidential vote wouldn’t make a difference, how many Republicans in California or Massachusetts didn’t vote at all? And yes, you can say the same for Democrats in red states, but that doesn’t negate my point – if anything, it emphasizes it.

  5. 5
    RonF says:

    Re: #5:

    Political correctness (noun): a pejorative term that may be applied to any attempt to promote or enforce social norms (specifically those norms aimed at reducing stigma or increasing the acceptance of some minority/marginalized group) that the person uttering the phrase considers to be confusing, ridiculous, unnecessary, and/or inconvenient.

    To put it another way, “political correctness” is not an ideology, nor is it a specific set of behaviors. It is simply a slur that people utter when they want to dismiss an expression of social justice activism that they do not like. One person’s “political correctness” is another person’s common decency or righteous activism.

    My definition would be different: an attempt to control writing and speech so as to make it difficult to express ideas or concepts that do not conform to left-wing ideology. See newspeak from George Orwell’s 1984 (which was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual).

  6. 6
    Ampersand says:

    Yes, Ron, being asked to say “African American” instead of “negro” is EXACTLY like when Winston Smith was shot in the back of the head by the government.

  7. 7
    LTL FTC says:

    Re #16:

    These posters voiced a range of responses to the film including: “You don’t fucking get it!” and “Fuck Your Transphobia!” as well as “Trans Lives Do Not Equal $$” and to cap it all, the sign hung on the podium read: “Fuck this cis white bitch”!! The protestors waited until after the film had screened at Peirce’s request and then entered the auditorium while shouting “Fuck your respectability politics” and yelling over her commentary until Peirce left the room. After establishing some ground rules for a discussion, Peirce came back into the room but the conversation again got out of hand and finally a student yelled at Peirce: “Fuck you scared bitch.” At which point the protestors filed out and Peirce left campus.

    Wow!

    If you don’t operate under the protective cover of the correct identity, reading something like this would make any creative person want to avoid touching any trans character or issue with a ten-foot pole. Even if you do have identity cover, you may not even be safe. Why take the risk?

    Even Transparent, which was written by someone with a trans parent IRL, had a team of consultants to “monitor the politics of representation.” Note how the consultants don’t give feedback about lived experience or perspective, but are there as explicitly political minders. That’s … weird, to say the least.

    At least if there are no trans people in a particular work, the complaints about lack of representation are framed generally at an industry instead of at a specific creator.

    Is that really what this torrent verbal abuse is supposed to accomplish?

  8. 8
    desipis says:

    Harlequin:

    What Serano is describing here is, basically, “trying to convince other people to behave the way you’d like them to,” which seems totally legitimate to me.

    “Trying to convince” is the “soft appeal” which I wasn’t criticising. There’s a difference between trying to get someone to voluntarily not do something by convincing them that it is immoral, and trying to pressure someone not to do something by imposing a personal cost on them. The later is moral only if there is general agreement (i.e majority democratic support) for the standards and the associated punishment. Given Serano’s “activists” are trying to impose standards that are distinctly not generally supported, their actions are not moral. The “soft appeal” is the way of civilised people in a free society, the “hard appeal”, when not democratically supported, is how dictators in totalitarian regimes behave.

  9. 9
    desipis says:

    Re #16: After reading that screed by [name deleted by Amp], anyone who claims that Milo Yiannopoulos is the hateful one needs their head checked.

  10. 10
    Chris says:

    RonF:

    My definition would be different: an attempt to control writing and speech so as to make it difficult to express ideas or concepts that do not conform to left-wing ideology.

    Interesting. What would you call attempts to control writing and speech so as to make it difficult to express ideas or concepts that do not conform to right-wing ideology, if not “political correctness?”

    See newspeak from George Orwell’s 1984 (which was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual).

    This is boilerplate, parrotting language, and you can do better. I’d also say Orwell would not define the term “political correctness” in the way you have, since he was himself a left-wing writer.

    despis:

    The later is moral only if there is general agreement (i.e majority democratic support) for the standards and the associated punishment.

    This is, frankly, ridiculous. So protests (which were among the “hard appeals”) against slavery were immoral? Sit-ins at lunch counters were immoral? There certainly was not a “general agreement” or “majority democratic support” for the standards or punishment those protesters were pushing. If people really practiced what you’re arguing for here, nothing would ever change.

    Re #16: After reading that screed by [name deleted by Amp], anyone who claims that Milo Yiannopoulos is the hateful one needs their head checked.

    That doesn’t even make sense. Both the protesters in this case and Milo Yiannopolous can both be “hateful;” there is no contradiction there.

  11. 11
    Ampersand says:

    Hi, Desipis.

    It’s very obvious from link #24, that the person in question would prefer not to have their name spread in association with Milo’s speech. I’ve deleted the name from your comment, and if you bring up the name again, I’ll ban you from this site.

    As Chris says, your logic is obviously wrong.

    But more importantly, there’s a world of difference between Milo targeting someone for mockery, versus the person Milo targeted being furious because she’d been targeted. What Milo did was pre-planned and malicious, and came from a professional public speaker. That’s just being a scumbag. Getting mad and saying furious things because you’ve been targeted by a bully isn’t even in the same league.

  12. 12
    Harlequin says:

    desipis:

    “Trying to convince” is the “soft appeal” which I wasn’t criticising. There’s a difference between trying to get someone to voluntarily not do something by convincing them that it is immoral, and trying to pressure someone not to do something by imposing a personal cost on them. The later is moral only if there is general agreement (i.e majority democratic support) for the standards and the associated punishment.

    Hmm. I think Serano’s “hard appeals” are still ways of convincing (as opposed to ways of forcing)–there’s a continuum, but I have a hard time seeing protests as forcing other people to change. (For every #NoDAPL there’s a Wisconsin teacher’s strike and the protests that followed, which did nothing to stop that bill.) Hard appeals are trying to convince through something like shame rather than something like reason, but, again, that’s a tactic that’s used in lots of ways, large and small, by lots of people, to affect other people’s behavior. They’re still appeals and not diktats, after all.

    The “soft appeal” is the way of civilised people in a free society, the “hard appeal”, when not democratically supported, is how dictators in totalitarian regimes behave.

    Dictators in totalitarian regimes tend to use things like imprisonment and murder, not protests and sit-ins. This analogy seems obviously over the top.

  13. 13
    desipis says:

    It’s very obvious from link #24, that the person in question would prefer not to have their name spread in association with Milo’s speech.

    I’m not sure I agree someone who goes out of their way to make themselves a political identity, by giving a television interview to campaign for a political outcome, including details of their full name and transgender status, has the right to avoid having their name associated with criticism of their political actions. But I do respect your rules, so I’ll avoid mentioning their name.

  14. 14
    kate says:

    The left loves to focus on this, but it’s meaningless. The election did not depend on the popular vote, so the popular vote doesn’t reflect support for a given candidate. Knowing that their Presidential vote wouldn’t make a difference, how many Republicans in California or Massachusetts didn’t vote at all? And yes, you can say the same for Democrats in red states, but that doesn’t negate my point – if anything, it emphasizes it.

    In states where the election results aren’t going to be close turnout is always suppressed on both sides. There is no reason to think that the popular vote would be more in Trump’s favor if the election had been based on the national popular vote. To the contrary, the democratic base generally experiences more loss from discouraged voters then the Republican base does.

    And it is not “meaningless”. A commenter at Mark Kleiman’s blog summed it up for me:

    We are the largest, most prosperous states. We have the bulk of the country’s population. Every year we get bleed more and every year we accept that the Southern and rural states have “super voter” status that give them a functional veto over everything and forces us to accept that they are the “real Americans” and their values are the authentic ones.

    I’m from the state where the Boston Tea party happened. I am a “real American”. The states that I have lived in for most of my life are donor states – we give more money into the federal government then we get back. The fact of the matter is, we’re perfectly capable of taking care of ourselves. We (in MA) had healthcare on a state level before the U.S. as a whole did, and we’ll continue to have it after the Republicans take it away from the rest of the country. We’ll continue to take care of our elderly and our poor. Hell, we’ll probably wind up paying less in taxes. I’m cut up because I actually care about the people who are going to be devastated by Trump’s presidency and the Republican policies that will be instituted as a result.
    And, I’m increasingly terrified by Trump’s reckless foreign policy and possible ties to Russia.

  15. 15
    RonF says:

    Chris @10:

    Interesting. What would you call attempts to control writing and speech so as to make it difficult to express ideas or concepts that do not conform to right-wing ideology, if not “political correctness?”

    The same. Do you have some examples of such?

    Kate @ 14:

    There is no reason to think that the popular vote would be more in Trump’s favor if the election had been based on the national popular vote.

    I didn’t say it did. What I’m saying is that we simply don’t know, as the campaigns would have been run differently and voters would have acted differently.

    To the contrary, the democratic base generally experiences more loss from discouraged voters then the Republican base does.

    What is this assertion based on?

  16. 16
    Ruchama says:

    I’ve seen more political ads since moving to Ohio than I ever have in any other place I’ve lived.

    I’m visiting my parents, and my mother, plus many of the mothers of my friends from high school, are knitting hats for the Pussyhat Project, for the Women’s March on Washington. I’ve let myself get roped into crocheting some hats. They’re silly, but I’ve got some spare time, so why not. Plus, I can’t march, so I guess I can do something. https://www.pussyhatproject.com/

  17. 17
    Mike says:

    RonF@15

    Chris @10:

    Interesting. What would you call attempts to control writing and speech so as to make it difficult to express ideas or concepts that do not conform to right-wing ideology, if not “political correctness?”

    The same. Do you have some examples of such?

    The Florida law that forbids doctors from talking about guns. The ?Texas? law that requires doctors to state that abortions cause breast cancer. The campaign by Exon and other corporations against global warming science. The term “death tax”.

  18. 18
    kate says:

    What is this assertion based on?

    Percentage of voters turning out is consistently lower among young people (who trend democratic), than among old people (who trend republican); lower among
    people of color (who trend democratic) than among white people (who trend republican); lower among poor people (who trend democratic) than among the wealthy (who trend republican).

  19. 19
    nobody.really says:

    Link Farm Update–China’s famous elevated bus in now just a giant roadblock. Here’s the latest:

    1. Now that the pilot project is over, the test bus is rusting in place on the road, forcing Chinese drivers to navigate around it.

    2. It might have all been a kind of crowdsource funding scam.

    3. The concept of a road-straddling bus dates back at least to a 1969 cover story in New York Magazine!

  20. 20
    Ampersand says:

    That is very disappointing although also potentially a really good location for a set piece in an action movie.

  21. 21
    RonF says:

    Mike @ 17:

    The Florida law that forbids doctors from talking about guns. The ?Texas? law that requires doctors to state that abortions cause breast cancer. The campaign by Exon and other corporations against global warming science. The term “death tax”.

    The Florida law forbids doctors from asking their patients if they own a gun. They can talk about guns all day long if they want to. The point of that law is to keep an official record of gun ownership from being made that the government could then access. Yeah, I know, medical records are supposed to be confidential and all that. The point of this law is people in Texas don’t trust the Federal government – which is pretty much one of the foundational principles of why we have the form of government we have. Information the doctor does not have is information the government can’t make the doctor – or, in reality, some poor schmuck in I.T. when the FBI or the ATF show up with a subpoena – divulge.

    Forcing doctors to state that there’s a link between abortion and breast cancer looks pretty sketchy to me, too. Sounds unconstitutional, in fact.

    I have no exposure to whatever Exxon is up to and frankly no time right now to research it. But they’re certainly free to make whatever case they can with regards to climate change or global warming. That’s not an attempt to control how other people can express themselves with regards to the topic.

    The term “death tax”? Again, what effort have the people using that term made to control what others call it?

  22. 22
    closetpuritan says:

    RonF: So, given your comment @21, you can perhaps see why people in the other thread (here, for example) are perhaps not so ridiculous to worry about potential government databases?

    The term “death tax”? Again, what effort have the people using that term made to control what others call it?

    The “death tax” stuff seems to mostly come from intellectual and/or country club type conservatives, who don’t seem to use “hard appeal” tactics so much. It is very much analogous to social justice people coming up with new words, though. An example where conservatives frequently use “hard appeal” tactics to discourage certain phrases is the “War on Christmas”.

  23. 23
    nobody.really says:

    Things I learned from Alas, a Blogroll: the relationship between black and brown.

    Not Sorry Feminism
    Anti-Black Racism is the Fucking Worst Ever Holy Fuck

    Fivethirtyeight
    Are The Browns Really Going To Go 0-16?

  24. 24
    Adrian says:

    RonF @21, doesn’t the government already have a record of gun ownership? I thought that was part of the purpose of registering gun sales? Obviously, many guns escape the notice of the Firearms Records Bureau. They were given or stolen or inherited or smuggled. And many guns would escape the notice of nefarious snoopers-through-the-records-of-pediatricians…because some pediatricians would successfully keep their records private, and some gun-owning parents lie, and some gun-owners never see pediatricians anyhow.

  25. 25
    kate says:

    Adrian @24 – My understanding (correct me if I’m wrong, Ron), is that some states register guns, but many states do not, and the federal government does not.

  26. 26
    Mandolin says:

    Political correctness:

    Say merry Christmas, not happy holidays!

    Seriously, if that ain’t political correctness, what is?

  27. 27
    Mandolin says:

    There are conservative sites where you can be banned for typing god without a capital “G.”

    I belong to a message board where (due to requests of religious and conservative folks) we are supposed to put curse words in a special color they can program their browser not to see.

    We all have our bugaboos. It doesn’t actually bother me–it’s natural. What bothers me is that it’s only called political correctness when one side does it.

    (Much like tax mooching is considered “liberal” when which states pay for the red ones to have nice things? Which, again, I don’t mind doing. I want them to have nice things. But I also want a fucking equal say in my government, and for some reason the concept of ‘it’s bad to have taxation without representation’ stops being embraced by some conservatives when it’s democrats who get shafted.)

  28. 28
    desipis says:

    There are conservative sites where you can be banned for typing god without a capital “G.”

    I think it’s different when there’s a group of like-minded people who put in place rules with broad agreement. It becomes political correctness when one group tries to enforce rules onto another group.

    From what I’ve seen when there’s a larger politically agnostic group and a smaller group of conservative minded people who want space that’s conformant with their political/religious beliefs they will go off and form a smaller group with that explicit purpose. However, when it’s a smaller group of progressive minded people, they seem to be much more likely to become militant and try to impose their views on the larger group in a way that causes significant division within that larger group. That’s where I think there’s a difference between left and right in terms of political correctness, and why it’s generally used to refer to the left.

  29. 29
    Ampersand says:

    Poll: Conservatives most likely to be offended by holiday greetings – The Washington Post

    Most people, sensibly, aren’t offended by either “happy holidays” or “Merry Christmas.” But far more conservatives are offended by “happy holidays” than liberals are offended by “Merry Christmas.”

    However, when it’s a smaller group of progressive minded people, they seem to be much more likely to become militant and try to impose their views on the larger group in a way that causes significant division within that larger group.

    Is there any evidence that this is true, or this just your subjective impression? It’s easy to think of examples of conservatives banding together to hound people for wrongthink – just think of the harassment Anita Sarkeesian has received, for example.

    I’m not saying it never happens in the other direction. But a subjective belief that the people you disagree with behave badly much more often than the people you agree with, in a manner that is not subject to objective measurement, seems likely to be an example of partisan bias.

  30. 30
    desipis says:

    But a subjective belief that the people you disagree with behave badly much more often than the people you agree with, in a manner that is not subject to objective measurement, seems likely to be an example of partisan bias.

    I tend not to agree with conservatives all that much either, so if I am biased, I’m not sure it’d really fit as partisan bias.

    From the PPP report:

    When PPP did a poll on the holidays immediately following the 2012 election, 52% of Americans said they believed in Santa Claus, to 45% who said they did not. We’ve re-upped that question in the wake of this year’s election, and belief in Santa Claus has gone all the way down to 31% with non-belief shooting up to 59%

    uh…

  31. 31
    Ampersand says:

    With all due respect, Desipis, you certainly agree with some conservatives – anti-feminists and anti-SJWs – quite a lot. And where you do disagree publicly with conservatives, you do so with noticibly less passion, frequency and interest than you use in your disagreements with (say) feminists – at least, you do judging from what I’ve read, on your blog, in comments here, and in comments on other blogs.

  32. 32
    desipis says:

    Thinking that I’m conservative because I criticise progressives seems to be rather binary and tribalistic thinking. I might be to the “right” of you and this blog, but that doesn’t make me right wing.

  33. 33
    Ampersand says:

    I just think that’s odd, Desipis. You seem to be saying that it’s poor thinking – or, as you put it, “binary and tribalistic” – to get a sense of your political placement based on the political views you have in fact stated over and over.

    That just seems silly to me. Of course I place people’s political positions based on their stated political opinions. That’s not unfair; it’s the fairest thing in the world to draw conclusions people’s political opinions based on what they say about political issues.

    I’m not saying that you’re the most right wing person in the world – obviously, you’re not. But if you have left-wing opinions – for example, if you’re pro-choice – that’s something you haven’t chose to emphasize or frequently mention in your public writings. (Or at least, those I’ve seen in various places.)

    Why do so many anti-feminists love this rhetorical trick, saying “ah-HAH! You’ve noticed that I virtually always argue against progressive views, and that makes you a tribalistic thinker! Placing me based on what I’ve actually said is primitive thinking!” Why not just own your views? Surely you don’t think being an anti-feminist and an anti-SJW – both of which are very fair conclusions about you from what you’ve written, and both of which are views that fall under the conservative umbrella in our culture – is something to be ashamed of.

  34. 34
    desipis says:

    anti-feminist and an anti-SJW… are views that fall under the conservative umbrella in our culture

    Well there’s the problem. Is that the only justification you have for putting me on the conservative side?

    I support the concept of government regulation; I even support direct government participation in the economy in some cases; I support universal health care and free education; I find organised religion distasteful; yes, I’m pro-choice; I support significant redistribution of wealth; I support policies to tackle climate change and protect the environment; I support workers rights and the idea of organised labour; I even support the concept of social justice…

    Yet, because I criticise the current zeitgeist of the social justice left, its SJWs, its social authoritarianism, its obsession with putting people into groups, giving them labels (e.g. “anti-feminist”) and judging them as nothing more than a member of that group, its desire to control everything and everyone, what they say, think and feel, and its constant bitterness towards white people and men, I’m suddenly a conservative?

  35. 35
    Ampersand says:

    Desipis, before I reply, I’m hoping you’ll clarify something for me. Am I member of the “social justice left” and “SJWs,” as you use those terms?

  36. 36
    desipis says:

    To some extent yes, but in some ways no. To clarify a bit: some of the positions you take are, but the way you run this forum isn’t.

  37. 37
    Ampersand says:

    Well there’s the problem. Is that the only justification you have for putting me on the conservative side?

    Yes, it’s true; I think of you as someone who espouses right-wing positions because approximately 90% of the times I see you writing about politics, what you’re doing is espousing right-wing positions.

    Now, you’re saying that this is unfair, because you actually hold some liberal views that I’ve either rarely or never seen you argue for in public.

    Well, okay. That’s fair enough. I’m completely willing to accept that the impression I have of your politics, based on reading what you’ve written (that I’ve seen), isn’t actually representative of your overall politics.

    You think that it’s grossly unfair of me to have made a judgement about your politics based on what you’ve written (that I’ve read) about politics; I disagree. But now that I have more information, I’ll modify my views.

    That said, let’s take a look at this:

    Yet, because I criticise the current zeitgeist of the social justice left, its SJWs, its social authoritarianism, its obsession with putting people into groups, giving them labels (e.g. “anti-feminist”) and judging them as nothing more than a member of that group, its desire to control everything and everyone, what they say, think and feel, and its constant bitterness towards white people and men, I’m suddenly a conservative?

    I think it’s fair to say that you are not merely in dispassionate disagreement with “the current zeitgeist of the social justice left.” Rather, it’s clear that you are very passionate about this issue, to the extend of describing “SJWs” with what I can only call contempt and disgust.

    I’m curious – can you link me to an example of you criticizing, say, pro-lifers in similarly passionate terms, with similar levels of loathing and contempt for those you criticize? Or climate change? Or environmentalism? Or labour rights?

  38. 38
    Ampersand says:

    Things I learned from Alas, a Blogroll: the relationship between black and brown.

    Not Sorry Feminism
    Anti-Black Racism is the Fucking Worst Ever Holy Fuck

    Fivethirtyeight
    Are The Browns Really Going To Go 0-16?

    LOL!

  39. 39
    Ampersand says:

    Desipis:

    I’m not sure I agree someone who goes out of their way to make themselves a political identity, by giving a television interview to campaign for a political outcome, including details of their full name and transgender status, has the right to avoid having their name associated with criticism of their political actions. But I do respect your rules, so I’ll avoid mentioning their name.

    I genuinely appreciate you respecting the rules of this forum.

    But I’m curious: Obviously, you’re saying that because this student has publicly given an interview in which they self-identified as trans, therefore you mentioning her name in this forum was appropriate. But are you also saying that what Milo did was appropriate? (I’d assume not, but better to ask than to assume.)

  40. 40
    desipis says:

    I’m curious – can you link me to an example of you criticizing, say, pro-lifers in similarly passionate terms, with similar levels of loathing and contempt for those you criticize? Or climate change? Or environmentalism? Or labour rights?

    No. I’m not sure what your point is though. The passionate terms I’ve used are going to be a reflection of the loathing and contempt I’ve received when expressing my opinion on the topic. It’s possibly comes down to the specific environments I spend time in, but I don’t think I’ve ever been personally attacked when I advocate for abortion, environmentally friendly technology, or labour rights.

    But are you also saying that what Milo did was appropriate?

    I’m not exactly clear on what Milo did or said. I looked for some sort of video or audio recording, but couldn’t find one.

  41. 41
    kate says:

    The passionate terms I’ve used are going to be a reflection of the loathing and contempt I’ve received when expressing my opinion on the topic.

    Would that be opinions like those on this thread, where @101 you linked to a piece arguing that the star on this image is really meant to be a sheriff’s badge. And it’s o.k. because (@106):

    Brietbart has been explicitly anti-political correctness, and openly not concerned about offence. The point is to use people’s offence to political effect, which is something left leaning protesters do all the time. Which is quite different from being actively supporting antisemitism.

    Opinions like that?

  42. 42
    kate says:

    Or this opinion, from the same thread I linked to @ 41:
    Amp asked @ 46:

    Do you also claim that it’s uncharitable to think that Bill Cosby may be a rapist?

    And you replised @ 47:

    Believing he may be a rapist? Sure.
    Believing he is likely a rapist? Sure.
    Believing he is without a doubt a rapist, to such an extent you can’t understand someone believing he isn’t a rapist? No, I think that’s uncharitable.

    Opinions like that?