No need for facts when there is a narrative to service, apparently.
That was bad enough the first time around.
From todays NYT, America's Lethal Politics:
Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.
Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.
Seriously? Are you kidding me? Was it not within the last week that Kathy Griffin held an effigy of Trump's severed head? And that is just the most recent of examples practically beyond numbering.
The source of the NYT's ignorance/difficulties with the truth has a name: David Leonhardt, the NYT's opinion section editor. From today's NYT email summary:
In our highly polarized country, political empathy is too scarce. Whether we’re on the left or the right, we tend to have a hard time seeing the world as the other side sees it.
So on the day of a senseless, politically motivated attempt at mass murder, I went back in time to read a column about an equally senseless, politically motivated attempt at mass murder — but one that evidently came from the other side of the political spectrum.
It was written by my colleague Ross Douthat, whom I consider a friend but with whom (you probably won’t be surprised to hear) I disagree on many issues. The column appeared in 2011, soon after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, then a Democratic member of Congress from Arizona. She was attacked by Jared Lee Loughner, who had expressed conspiratorial right-wing views.
Odds of the NYT acknowledging their intellectual decrepitude, nil; of printing my comment objecting to their decrepitude, not much better.
No wonder the NYT has been called Pravda On the Hudson.
106 comments:
For those who think Hodgkinson was unhinged, excluding for the moment that Progressivism is a form of insanity, there will be no comfort here.
Notably, the NYT edited its editorial, without acknowledgment or apology.
As Senator Palpatine would say, everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.
By the way, how dare those lefties beta males pack some heat like that? Weren't they supposed to be all in their pijamas, having nightmares with Trump?
And that 2nd Am. thing, isn't it working just right? People should bear arms to keep big brother govt in check. Why, isn't shooting the House leader just that?
I've been watching Instapundit (and other right wing blogospheres) taking for granted that Red America was an inch close to kicking the ass of Blue Beta America if they kept pushing. Now they are all crying scared that Gilfords was not their fault, nooooooo! And complaining about the Media, all the MSM fault and lies... who knew Red was so Beta too?
Hodgkinson is too old to be a pajama boy. He's just an old hippie.
Clovis:
You are Brazilian, so just as there are things I can't possibly understand about your milieu, there also many things I can't expect you to get about the US.
And one of them is this: the NYT is supposed to be a bedrock institution, no doubt with a point of view, but one that never strays to far from an honest perception and reporting of events through their priors.
Because of that, this editorial is a disaster. It is, perhaps, the very worst example of Op Ed journalism I have ever seen.
When the Giffords shooting happened, the NYT promptly and blatantly serviced The Narrative. Unfortunately, within days, reality intruded, and covered the NYT with merde.
That's bad enough the first time around.
Despite that glaring history, the NYT re-trafficked, no matter the hindsight, vile smears. David Leonhardt, the chief of the Op Ed section, has revealed himself as thoroughly loathsome. After the Op Ed had been up for a day or so, the NYT lamely corrected the Op Ed, and left the acknowledgment until the end. Instead, they should have admitted they were liars utterly devoid of even the tiniest hints of ethics or professionalism, and pulled the stinking heap entirely.
By all means, click again on the editorial, and read the comments. I have never seen so much angry criticism in one place, and please keep in mind the NYT audience.
Perhaps starting with /this, I started taking issue with Harry as a proxy for progressives, because they are all alike in their religious fervor. They will stoop to anything in order to make the rest of us submit. So just as Harry can't be spotted anywhere near an actual inconvenient fact, the NYT, despite having been clobbered the first time around, vomited forth this pile as if it was de novo.
Why they a) opened that to comments and b) thought that hundreds of people weren't going to call them out for the pathetic lackwits that they are is a real mystery. (Killers who are obviously Islamic terrorists shouldn't be judged too quickly, killers who are obviously schizo nut jobs can't be labeled conservative quickly enough. BTW, Now they are all crying scared that Gilfords was not their fault, nooooooo! is a perfect example of witlessly buying into the fact-free narrative.)
I hope Sarah Palin follows through with her threat to sue the NYT for their outrageous accusation that her cross hairs map was responsible for Giffords shooting. She might sue others who accused her of buying clothes with campaign funds as well. It was well known at the time that those clothes were purchased by a campaign aide and when Palin learned about them, she returned them.
I can't remember anyone so maligned in the media since Barry Goldwater was the recipient of the media full court press of hatred and lies.
Neither of those two had the means to fight against the onslaught. I think Trump will be able to turn the gun around on his accusers.
Skipper,
---
BTW, Now they are all crying scared that Gilfords was not their fault, nooooooo! is a perfect example of witlessly buying into the fact-free narrative.
---
No, it is not. I am aware there was no proven link about the crazie who shot Gilfords and any GOP platform.
And it doesn't matter a thing, really.
Among progressives, the *perception* of eliminationist rhetoric form the Right is the only fact that matter. They feel it deeply, and whenever they need to check if that perception is true, they have Trump and his long list of PC-forbidden statements, together with the long list of Americans cheering on him for that, to reassure themselves how deplorable all the rightwing nuts are.
See, they are sure you are dirty in your heart, whatever you actually do or not.
And now they are feeling themselves out of the game, the three branches of govt in the enemies hands, some may feel they have nothing to lose.
It is not so different from all the hate/garbage from the Right directed at Obama the last 8 years. It didn't matter the facts back then either, only the perceptions.
Talking about me being a Brazilian, I don't think I am losing anything here in translation. If anything, it may help me to I understand our times better than you, old friend. I've been in a "f**k everyone else but me" society my whole life. So I welcome you to reflect upon that (BTW, took it from Instapundit, to cite them a second time here).
If Skipper thinks I am a progressive, it just shows how little he knows about politics.
I have pointed this out more than once but he pays no attention.
I did not copy it so I cannot say it exactly but some sarcastic person on FB noted that when rightwingers sing the praises of firearms for everyone everywhere, and shooting first and asking questions later, they never imagine someone might shoot them.
It goes to their complete absence of empathy.
If Skipper thinks I am a progressive, it just shows how little he knows about politics.
Harry, you pass the duck test.
I did not copy it so I cannot say it exactly but some sarcastic person on FB noted that when rightwingers sing the praises of firearms for everyone everywhere, and shooting first and asking questions later, they never imagine someone might shoot them.
How about you provide just one example of a rightwinger singing the praises for firearms for everyone everywhere. Just one.
It goes to your complete absence of integrity. Just like the NYT.
[Clovis:] Among progressives, the *perception* of eliminationist rhetoric form the Right is the only fact that matter. They feel it deeply, and whenever they need to check if that perception is true, they have Trump and his long list of PC-forbidden statements …
Do you not see the logical disconnect?
Progressives' feelings of eliminationist rhetoric come from PC-forbidden statements. Since when do they get to impose the verdict of "eliminationist" upon those who voice opinions on subjects that Progs have deemed out of bounds?
But wait, there's more. This "eliminationist" lie came half a decade before Trump. Blaming it on him — and to be clear, his verbal and twitter diarrhea earns him no sympathy points — requires completely disrupting the time-space continuum.
It is not so different from all the hate/garbage from the Right directed at Obama the last 8 years. It didn't matter the facts back then either, only the perceptions.
To say that requires completely denying reality. Where were the rampaging mobs during the Obama administration? Please list for me all the leftwing speakers that were prevented from speaking. Or the government agencies that the rightwingers sicced on their opponents.
There was exactly zero political violence during all eight years of the Obama administration.
And as bad as the birther controversy was, it didn't involve elements of the government leaking fact free smears to journalists who were all too happy to spew it in turn like so much pig effluent.
Did that happen during the Obama administration?
... and name the many many bogus groups of victims similar to BLM funded by Soros et al. who pay demonstrators and bus them around the country to interfere with and attack innocent people exercising their Constitutional rights in an orderly way.
The left has perfected Projection.
'There was exactly zero political violence during all eight years of the Obama administration.'
Bundy. You defended him so you know about him
Harry, these are synonyms for socialism Comrade Google spit out.
As I am perfectly ignorant of history and all the other Jeopardy subjects, perhaps you could perform a public service and explain to me what are the differences among them?
Bolshevism, Collectivism, Communism, Fabianism, Leftism, Labor Movement, Leninism, Liberalism, Maoism, Marxism, Nazism, New Dealism, One-worldism, Progressivism, Radicalism, Rule of the proletariat, Socialism, State ownership, Statism, Totalitarianism and Welfarism.
Thanks.
Skipper,
----
Do you not see the logical disconnect?
Progressives' feelings of eliminationist rhetoric come from PC-forbidden statements. Since when do they get to impose the verdict of "eliminationist" upon those who voice opinions on subjects that Progs have deemed out of bounds?
----
Hmmm, since humans started talking?
Communications among tribes always suffered from misunderstandings.
Actually that's a good reason somewhat later humans developed the concept of civil discourse. Even later it gave us us the PC discourse. Then people got fed up by PC, and end up forgetting the civil thing too.
For example, you often ask why a religion you don't like can not be outlawed. It sounds a bit like eliminationist rhetoric to me. At the very least, it is hardly civil discourse.
----
There was exactly zero political violence during all eight years of the Obama administration.
-----
I lost count of the number of times I saw comments at Instapundit (by their ops or readers) along the lines I described before, "progs won't like what they'll get". If I can feel those simmering hints of violence from my afar position, I imagine your fellow citizens can too.
[Harry:] Bundy. You defended him so you know about him.
(Oh, BTW, you are welcome for the link. Easy once you learn how; took about 15 seconds.)
You are right; I had forgotten about Bundy. Easy to do, since that was so piddling compared to all the anti-fa fascists and campus PC fascists, and the plethora of prog cranial detonations over the last six months.
Noteworthy, for anyone who follows it, is that I don't once defend Bundy, but I do attack Harry for inability to use "racist" properly, and more instances of NYT-esque intellectual integrity.
[Clovis:] For example, you often ask why a religion you don't like can not be outlawed. It sounds a bit like eliminationist rhetoric to me. At the very least, it is hardly civil discourse.
Clovis, do me a favor and quote me directly.
I lost count of the number of times I saw comments at Instapundit (by their ops or readers) along the lines I described before, "progs won't like what they'll get".
Same as at Ace of Spades.
But I think you are losing sight of cause and effect. Events hosting conservatives have been cancelled by violent thugs who attacked people.
Note there are no examples to be found of the other way around.
That's the cause -- and please do follow my links above to all the incitements to violence coming from the left. If progressives keep it up, if they keep physically attacking people who have the temerity to express opinions contrary to the Mao-lings, then what do expect will happen?
Progs are perfectly capable of opposing Trump through normal politics. Instead, they have spent six months engaged in anonymous, baseless smears, outright lying, and violence.
Which is really stupid. Because, should the day come when Trump needs to go, the left, because it has become so unhinged, will have zero credibility.
Skipper,
---
[Clovis:] For example, you often ask why a religion you don't like can not be outlawed. It sounds a bit like eliminationist rhetoric to me. At the very least, it is hardly civil discourse.
Clovis, do me a favor and quote me directly.
---
No, because what you actually said doesn't really matter. That's the point I am trying to convey to you. What I subjectively remember of what you mean is what will guide me when further picturing your position.
That's how our FB/Twitter world works right now.
---
But I think you are losing sight of cause and effect.
---
Not really. I've been reading Instapundit (and now and then I get a link to Ace of Spades too) a few years for now, and that kind of comment has always been there. The Bundy episode is a good example, as Harry well remembered, of that mentality taken to practice.
---
Which is really stupid. Because, should the day come when Trump needs to go, the left, because it has become so unhinged, will have zero credibility.
---
Again, not true. You already accept so unhinged behavior by your President - and it actually got him elected - that whatever the left frets over, neither you ever gave them credibility, nor you ever would. You are only traficking in tribal warfare, reasserting your tribe superiority and howling aloud.
"Note there are no examples to be found of the other way around."
Well, well, I just finish my take here and go to Instapundit to check if I can give you a counter example. I get one in caps letter:
---
LEFTIES AREN’T GOING TO LIKE THE NEW RULES: BREAKING: Right-Wing Activists Jack Posobiec and Laura Loomer Rush Stage, Disrupt Controversial Rendition of ‘Julius Caesar.’ Is this dumb? Yeah, but that never stopped lefties and now they’re getting to see what it feels like to have your hair pulled.
Related: Ace: It is imperative we begin emulating the left in its tactics.
---
I won't bother to recreate the links. You can check yourself, if you will.
Clovis, talk about unhinged. What are right-wing activists? What has Trump done that is unhinged?
You equate disrupting a theatrical performance (paid for by taxpayers BTW) with the kind of violence performed by paid perpetrators bused around the country physically attacking people going about their lives peacefully with people commenting on a blog????
Where are the major media outlets telling barefaced lies about progs/lefties? Where was a comedienne holding up a severed head of Obama on television to the acclaim of the audience?
I voted for Trump because Hillary was unthinkable, but now I'm rooting for him to do a Samson and tear the figurative lion to pieces and bring the temple down on the heads of philistines (note: lower case 'p.'
Clovis, I don't think you understand the depth of the disgust among We, the People. The media claim Trump is up to 50% approval. If that's what they're touting, you can bet it's much higher.
I've never come across anything or anybody proposing we outlaw religions we don't like. I don't like any of them, but don't plan to lobby to outlaw them. Please elucidate.
Coup d’etat in progress.
Unhinged is in the eye of the beholder.
Must be reading GG.
Clovis, where are comparable actions coming from conservatives now or in the past?
Laura Loomer, right-wing zealot v. James T. Hodgkinson, run-of-the-mill nutcase . She interrupted a theatrical performance, he wanted to kill Republicans and would have had there not been gun toter he wasn't counting on, at the scene.
Roof.
I have quite a list of rightwing violence during the Obama years that Skipper must have forgotten
Harry, I doubt Skipper forgot anything because what you call "rightwing" is called fascist by the thinking world.
How about answering my questions about progs?
He already said he forgot Bundy.
I agree fascists are rightwingers, like Roof
Where's the list?
I already listed 2. You want more?
Dennis Marx
I got plenty more, too. Let me know wen you've had enough
Please provide links because Comrade Google didn't come up with a single hit on: right wing fascist violence in the US.
BTW I'm going to be 83 in a couple of months and don't know how much longer I can wait to learn the differences among the various socialist appellations I listed above.
Please elucidate while I'm still able to absorb the wisdom.
Erp,
---
Clovis, I don't think you understand the depth of the disgust among We, the People.
---
I have been trying to. Actually, I try my best to get the disgust of both sides (or the multiple sides, if you want to give more freedom to the many positions out there).
I try to do that down here too. I take more satisfaction at understanding it all, than at defending any particular position I may have.
To be fair, I take that back. Nowadays I take very little satisfaction at understanding. The cognitive dissonance I see among the crowds out there gives me quite a bit of displeasure. I believe it has something to do with the pitfalls of our information age...
Clovis, please elaborate because I'm not following you.
You may have never lived in, nor can imagine living in, a stable country where the rule of law is sovereign. It wasn't perfect, but to paraphrase Churchill, it was more perfect than any other society the world had ever known.
That's when the left, realizing that socialism wasn't going to happen here, revved up and we had the riots, the unions took over the government and the public schools and there were orchestrated marches, violence -- just like now.
That's why we're enraged.
There are no other "positions." Socialism does not and has never has "worked." We have the formula for freedom. Globalism is the same as reducing things to the lowest common denominator -- Venezuela is the latest example of the process.
Erp,
Yes, you are not following me.
Clovis, you're right, but since I can follow things that make sense, perhaps you can elaborate using simple works and short declarative sentences.
... sorry, I mean simple "words." I hate typing on the i-Pad, so I will return to the laptop now.
Erp,
---
but since I can follow things that make sense
---
Or, perhaps not.
Since you are part of the crowd in cognitive dissonance I mentioned, I do not expect you to understand much, no matter how simple and short my sentences get.
Try me. It's you who don't understand us. Your information is from enemies of the U.S. in the media and the academy and dismiss my first hand commentary as biased or worse.
Try me. It's you who don't understand us. Your information is from enemies of the U.S. in the media and the academy and dismiss my first hand commentary as biased or worse.
Dismiss? Not at all. Your comments were fully taken in account to arrive at my conclusions. I pay dear attention.
Your conclusion is cognitive dissonance, i.e., the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.
My thoughts, beliefs and attitudes have been consistent for my entire adult life. Please point out where you have seen that they have veered.
CurtisCAllen, Gavin Wright, Patrick Stein.
I got plenty more
Harry, Links please or don't waste your time.
[Harry:] Bundy. You defended him so you know about him …
I didn't have time to respond to this fully the first time around.
First, I have more than had it with your bullshit. The next time you want to attribute something to me, use a direct quote. That is normal journalistic practice, isn't it? Or were you as crappy a newsman as you are a blogger?
Here, just like every other time, you grotesquely mischaracterized what I said. Whether it is your memory or your integrity which is not to be trusted, I could not possibly care less.
At least several times I have asked you to use direct quotes. Next time you do it, I will delete your comment, and be quite specific as to why.
[HS:] Progressives' feelings of eliminationist rhetoric come from PC-forbidden statements. Since when do they get to impose the verdict of "eliminationist" upon those who voice opinions on subjects that Progs have deemed out of bounds?
----
[Clovis:] Hmmm, since humans started talking?
As if nothing as happened since then.
The US constitution is explicitly predicated upon natural law. It came into being a rather long time after people started talking. Which makes your reply at a right angle to the problem: within the context of natural law — which is the US context (and I'd love to hear a cogent argument against it) — those imposing PC-forbidden statements are demanding submission they aren't entitled to impose.
Why should anyone who doesn't share their exalted self-esteem tug a forelock in their direction?
[HS:] Clovis, do me a favor and quote me directly.
---
[Clovis:] No, because what you actually said doesn't really matter. That's the point I am trying to convey to you. What I subjectively remember of what you mean is what will guide me when further picturing your position.
Nonsense, it matters a great deal. You are taking a po-mo stance, which can end only in nihilism. If you disallow any appeal to first order knowledge (i.e., what I actually said, vs. whatever you choose to concoct) then ordered discourse is impossible: you are doing the full Harry. Words only mean what he chooses for them to mean, the only allowable facts are the ones that confirm his narrative, and if those aren't to be found, then make them up.
Oh, and what will guide me is this: if you are going to attribute something to me, then quote directly, otherwise I will delete your comment with prejudice. Just because your track record doesn't stink the place up nearly to the degree that Harry has doesn't make it any less repellant.
Okay, I should soften that previous para a bit. That may be the way FB and Twitter work, but that isn't the subject of this post. The NYT is supposed to operate at a far more rarified level than FB/Twitter. If it can't, or won't, then its subscription prices should be no greater than either.
As it turns out, in the editorial that was the subject for this post, the NYT lied far more prolifically than I gave it credit for.
Again, not true. You already accept so unhinged behavior by your President - and it actually got him elected - that whatever the left frets over, neither you ever gave them credibility, nor you ever would.
Just curious: what evidence do you have that I accept Trump's unhinged behavior?
To set the record straight, I think he is a compulsive liar. So far, his lies are so prolific, and so expected, that they have almost no effect: most people, including his supporters, have developed a noise filter in response. The rest, the NYT, Harry, et al, take his lies at face value, and then make up a host of their own. Since I subscribe to the NYT, although I'm not sure for how much longer, I get a several times weekly Op-Ed email authored by David Leonhardt, the head dude what's in charge.
In one, he stated, without a smidgeon of attribution, that Trump is a "thinly veiled racist."
Really? Based upon what, exactly? In NYT land, and Harry land, the smear is its own proof.
That works just fine for the self-exalted; unfortunately, should push really need to become shove, then the endless parade of smears ("golden dossier", Russian collusion allegations, vaporous overreactions, and blatant lying) will make progs far less credible than the kid that cried wolf.
LEFTIES AREN’T GOING TO LIKE THE NEW RULES: BREAKING: Right-Wing Activists Jack Posobiec and Laura Loomer Rush Stage, Disrupt Controversial Rendition of ‘Julius Caesar.’
Here is an example of where I think Ace has it wrong, and Popehat (a widely respected 1A lawyer) exactly right.
The difference is that Popehat understands where the real problem lies. It isn't the prog fascists themselves that are the problem, but rather the elements of authority abrogating their obligation to impose constitutional freedoms upon those unwilling to accept them.
Their epic failure to do so will inevitably give — because it is largely justified — the impression that there is only free speech for thee, and not for me. Whether Heather Macdonald or Charles Murray, the only acceptable response from responsible authorities would have been a crackdown on the offenders. Because that has yet to happen, and shows no sign of happening any time soon, then the only option left is mob rule.
It is far from imperative to emulate the left in their tactics; it is very imperative that government, since it is instituted in the US to protect natural law, that it does its damn job.
Oh, and for the record, I think the hecklers' veto is a repellant concept. While that play is encompasses much that is so repellant about the smug, preening, left, Posobiec and Loomer need the book thrown at them very hard, from very close range.
Along with every other asshole that pulls that kind of circus act.
Skipper, I couldn't agree more. However, heckling at a theatrical performance and shooting at people playing baseball or anywhere else are no way near the same thing.
I haven't been paying attention to the tweets and the pundits, so I don't know what Trump is lying about, but again it cannot possibly be of the same quantity or quality as the entire left crazy moonbats baying from sea to shinning sea running around wreaking havoc on the landscape.
We must return to the law of law.
[Harry:] I already listed 2. You want more?
Dennis Marx
How is it that you consistently manage to miss the point so entirely?
Making a list of people with anger management issues is child's play. The point you are missing is, or should be, simple: there is a locus of provocation. No matter how great that locus is (i.e., how much lies within the locus that isn't worthy of provocation), there will always be people outside it (i.e., those who will act violently.)
Bundy (whose violence isn't a patch on your garden variety anti-fa fascist) Roof, Marx, and anyone else you are going to trot out: they were violent despite the virtually complete lack of incitement to violence.
To wit: in labeling Roof a rightwinger, you sling a tarbrush that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Please, by all means, provide us links to significant, mainstream, rightwing publications that encouraged murdering people because of their race. Because, if you can't — and I am certain you can't — then you have shown yourself completely ignorant of contemporary American culture.
Let's assume that Felix Frankfurter had it right: you really shouldn't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre in the absence of an actual fire.
Then please justify Snoop Dogg pretending to put a gun to Trump's head, or Kathy Griffin holding an effigy of Trump's severed head, or watch Madonna wishing to blow up the White House, DNC consultants paying people to provoke violence at Trump rallies, the NYT deciding that late night comics' Trump routines are suddenly worthy of front page reporting, the losing VP candidate insisting Democrats must fight back in the streets.
I could go on, but even you must get the point by now.
Conservatives haven't constricted the locus of provocation. They aren't promiscuously slinging "fascist" and "nazi" all over the landscape, unlike, say, you and the entire rest of the left. By doing so, you shrink the locus of provocation: after all, if someone could actually be Hitler incarnate, who wouldn't do everything they could to kill him?
This puts you, and the rest of the left, in the role of radicalizing those prone to it. Yes, Hodgkinson was a horrible person; yes, he was as unstable as a vial of nitro on a hot August day. But you can't get away from the fact that leftist derangement left him outside the locus of provocation.
Imagine, instead of all the hyperventilating, progs had remained within shouting distance of reality. Would Hodgkinson still have been provoked?
And if you say no, then there is a great deal of explaining that suddenly needs doing for Islamic terrorism.
What balances these scales?
Clovis wrote: "Hmmm, since humans started talking?"
LOL.
The author Heinlein wrote that "man is not a rational animal - he's a rationalizing animal." Hey Skipper sometimes forgets that the vast majority of us act based on emotion and non-rational factors and then look for evidence to rationalize our behavior.
Clovis wrote: "I just finish my take here and go to Instapundit to check if I can give you a counter example."
LOL, part 2. Remarkable timing, that. :-)
[Clovis:] Since you are part of the crowd in cognitive dissonance I mentioned, I do not expect you to understand much, no matter how simple and short my sentences get.
How the heck is it you know you aren't the one suffering cognitive dissonance?
[Bret:] Hey Skipper sometimes forgets that the vast majority of us act based on emotion and non-rational factors and then look for evidence to rationalize our behavior.
No, I don't. I also don't forget that the NYT, DNC, et al aren't supposed to be the vast majority of us. Otherwise, why do they exist? I also don't think that government, which is supposed to a) have a monopoly on violence, and b) is instituted to protect our inherent rights, can, and should, do just that.
Which, if you read the Popehat link, would have been abundantly clear.
Sorry, late, long day. For some reason, I invented term so obtuse -- locus of provocation -- that it begs to be incomprehensible.
What I meant was "realm of moral regard": those within it are considered human, and deserve all consideration reserved for humans. Those outside it are subhuman.
The great victory of the Enlightenment and free markets has been to greatly expand the realm of moral regard.
Progs hope to shrink it.
Skipper: ... after all, if someone could actually be Hitler incarnate, who wouldn't do everything they could to kill him?
I, for one, wouldn't want anyone to kill him. I would want him tried in a court of law and shown to be the monster he is and then executed so everyone could be abundantly clear that he isn't some sort of hero like the murderer Che Chevara whose likeness in on t-shirts sold at Amazon.com and or other romantic "heroes" of the left.
Hey Skipper wrote: "I also don't forget that the NYT, DNC, et al aren't supposed to be the vast majority of us."
And why wouldn't they be? They're as human as the rest of us, no? Also part of being human is self-deception, cognitive dissonance, and the deception of others. Pretending to be rational when one is actually rationalizing is also as old as humanity.
Hey Skipper wrote: "Otherwise, why do they exist?"
To make money and to wield power. Greed and power are where it's at, my man.
Hey Skipper wrote: " I also don't think that government ... can, and should, do just that."
Ah well, government is also comprised of humans, so it will also be rather emotional and non-rational. Of course, that's maybe a good reason to limit government power.
Hey Skipper wrote: "I will delete your comment..."
Well, I can't and won't stop you, but in the many years this blog has been in existence, there's never been a non-spam, non-duplicate comment that has been deleted, and I personally would prefer we don't start now. None of us are perfect and we all irritate each other from time to time, but I'd prefer it if we leave the record intact.
Skipper,
---
How the heck is it you know you aren't the one suffering cognitive dissonance?
---
Quite simple, my friend: I am not the one complaining about hecklers' veto, while threatening to delete comments I did not bother to actually read.
I misquoted you on purpose, explaining why I was doing so, and you still did not get it. You need a better drink to go with your blogging...
Erp,
---
My thoughts, beliefs and attitudes have been consistent for my entire adult life. Please point out where you have seen that they have veered.
---
I already did, in private emails, and do not intend to bring it to this forum.
Skipper,
---
Popehat (a widely respected 1A lawyer) exactly right.
---
I tried but Google did not help.
What is a 1A lawyer?
According to Skipper, this never happened:
http://fox4kc.com/2014/06/02/traffic-rerouted-after-obama-dummy-found-hanging-from-bridge/
There are thousands of similar examples.
I had thought, following the throat-slashing murders of 2 men in Portland, that Skipper would drop his claim -- made often at RtO -- that leftist violence has no cognates on the right.
I was wrong.
Instead he raises his claim by, eg, absolving Roof's murders of political motivation.
I am not a fan of atrocity mongering; violence is as American as cherry pie. However, there is a qualitative difference between the leftist violence in the US over the past half century and the rightist violence that we have seen every few weeks in the 21st century.
To find an example of leftist violence of the same quality we see all the time nowadays, I think you'd have to go back 96 years.
I won't provide a link because I dislike giving clicks to murderous fascists, but if anyone seeks an example of "significant, mainstream, rightwing publications that encouraged murdering people because of their race," you can visit Coulter's site. She recently called for using a nuclear weapon on Tiajuana.
Skipper,
---
Nonsense, it matters a great deal. You are taking a po-mo stance, which can end only in nihilism. If you disallow any appeal to first order knowledge (i.e., what I actually said, vs. whatever you choose to concoct) then ordered discourse is impossible: you are doing the full Harry. [...]
That may be the way FB and Twitter work, but that isn't the subject of this post. The NYT is supposed to operate at a far more rarified level than FB/Twitter. If it can't, or won't, then its subscription prices should be no greater than either.
---
Well, I am not happy the World works like that now either.
But it does. In the NYT and everywhere else.
It is the only working explanation I got that takes on board all the crazie I've been seeing the last few years.
---
Just curious: what evidence do you have that I accept Trump's unhinged behavior?
To set the record straight, I think he is a compulsive liar.
---
Yet, you voted for him - which in my book counts as "accept".
I hope you agree I rightly quoted you on this one, so this comment survives your deleting rage...
Clovis, you made the accusation, but didn't supply evidence privately either.
Clovis, I think we made abundantly clear why we voted for Trump, i.e., there was hope he would rise to the occasion. It was and still is clear, Hillary was/is unthinkable and would only continue on the Soros et al. course to further disaster.
That is the reasonable course of action IMO. To refrain from voting is the coward's way, also IMO.
Erp,
---
Clovis, you made the accusation, but didn't supply evidence privately either.
---
Thanks for making my point. I told you my phrasing style couldn't matter less.
Clovis, "phrasing style"? What are you talking about? You accused me of saying/thinking one thing and doing another (cognitive dissonance) without supplying examples or evidence.
You have called me a liar when I've described things I've encountered/endured over the past 80 years all from your to date brief life in an isolated and insulated place with occasional forays to the outside world.
If anything, I am too linear a thinker and have been cursed with the Cassandra syndrome of being able to see things before they become apparent to others.
You on the other hand can't accept that the world isn't what you have been taught to believe it is with U.S. the great Satan and cause of all ills.
Erp,
I called you a 'liar'? Better you provide a quote for that, least Skipper may delete your comment too...
---
You accused me of saying/thinking one thing and doing another (cognitive dissonance) without supplying examples or evidence.
---
After a while, you can only give up.
BTW, I see your comments keep getting at personal level. Does my nationality and life really need to be brought to your argument?
You may take my point about congnitive dissonance as personal, but at least it is completely based on your arguments and positions to date on political matters. Correct me if I am wrong - and bring a quote with that correction, since this is now utterly required here - but I don't remember getting to your personal background here.
You called me a liar when I related the incident with a public health care worker and psychologist who returned a 2 year old boy being abused by his mother's boyfriend because at that time, he was her only source of income and you said, publicly here that your mother, a physician, said that couldn't happen.
You also agreed with Harry that I am a racist because I correctly pointed out that blacks/negroes/colored people/African Americans were better off under Jim Crow than they are under the new plantation slavery of custodial care.
Your place on the globe is a factor because you have already identified yourself as an academic living in Brasilia -- I didn't reveal that, and are seeing U.S. politics through the prism of lefty media and lefty academe.
I doubt you'd like me to opine on Brazil and its problems through the prism of the Carmen Miranda movies of my youth. They are probably a more accurate picture of Brazil than what you think you know about the U.S. from history classes and the media.
I am not going to take the time to find the actual quotes -- I'm sure you remember them.
Erp,
I remember them, and I know you got them all wrong. I once called you racist here, but it was not in the matter you related above. The 2 year old boy story is also being misconstrued by your memory.
It is very handy that you just provided a clear example of what I argued for Skipper - almost everyone is operating not on "what I actually said" but "whatever you choose to concoct" (in his phrasing - with precise quotes - which is not exactly what I posed, I don't think people are actually choosing to concoct it).
I once met a wise old lady in this blog that told me personal attacks reflect badly on the attacker.
It is a pity you chose to also demonstrate, in the same comment, how that previous lady is cognitivelly dissonating from the present one.
[Clovis:] What is a 1A lawyer?
Apologies, that was way too much shorthand. 1A := First Amendment.
[Bret:] Well, I can't and won't stop you [deleting comments], but in the many years this blog has been in existence, there's never been a non-spam, non-duplicate comment that has been deleted, and I personally would prefer we don't start now.
Let's review the bidding, shall we:
According to Harry: Bundy. You defended him so you know about him …
That is a flat out lie.
But wait, there's more: you can visit Coulter's site. She recently called for using a nuclear weapon on Tiajuana.
Another flat out lie.
I had thought, following the throat-slashing murders of 2 men in Portland, that Skipper would drop his claim -- made often at RtO -- that leftist violence has no cognates on the right.
Yet another flat out lie that Harry will completely fail to substantiate.
I can't count the number of times I have requested that Harry provide the same courtesy to me that I unfailingly do for him. Don't make people guess, don't make them hunt, don't make accusations completely removed from context.
Regardless, he continues to flagrantly lie. There are two primary problems here, as I see it. First, his lies are personal attacks — they attribute to me foolish or extreme positions. Second, his continual lying removes my agency — it doesn't matter what I have actually written, because he will just make something up.
This is your blog, not mine. So on further reflection, I won't delete his posts. The question is: what is the appropriate thing to do with regard to a serial liar like Harry?
[Clovis:] Quite simple, my friend: I am not the one complaining about hecklers' veto, while threatening to delete comments I did not bother to actually read.
I did read your comment, quite thoroughly, a couple times.
I can't help but note that equating the heckler's veto with defamatory comments doesn't pass a sanity check.
Here is what you said: No, because what you actually said doesn't really matter. That's the point I am trying to convey to you. What I subjectively remember of what you mean is what will guide me when further picturing your position.
That is, as I subsequently pointed out, an essentially post-modernist position. There is no possibility of even remotely approaching truth, since all non-trivial texts are subject to nearly an infinite number of interpretations.
So far, so good. After all, that is what you say here: your subjective memory is just as valid as any other interpretation.
But then you go off the rails in the same way that post modernism inevitably does: that all interpretations of any text are equally valid "what you said doesn't really matter". That's nonsense. Some interpretations are more useful than others. For instance, if you want me to think you are arrogant and lazy, writing what you did is an excellent way to go about it.
Or, if you want me to think that trying to carry on an intelligent conversation with you, having any sense of accountability, is a fool's errand, then writing what you did is also an excellent way to go about it.
Or, if you want me to think that you are no better than the trolls infesting social media, then job well done.
So it very much does matter.
Which I hope will guide you in further picturing my position.
(BTW, speaking of reading posts, I have essentially repeated what I have already said above.)
[Harry:] I had thought, following the throat-slashing murders of 2 men in Portland, that Skipper would drop his claim -- made often at RtO -- that leftist violence has no cognates on the right.
I was wrong.
Instead he raises his claim by, eg, absolving Roof's murders of political motivation.
Repeating myself again, I have never once claimed leftist violence has no cognates on the right. You are lying.
Regarding Roof, here is what I actually said, Harry:
Bundy (whose violence isn't a patch on your garden variety anti-fa fascist) Roof, Marx, and anyone else you are going to trot out: they were violent despite the virtually complete lack of incitement to violence.
To wit: in labeling Roof a rightwinger, you sling a tarbrush that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Please, by all means, provide us links to significant, mainstream, rightwing publications that encouraged murdering people because of their race. Because, if you can't — and I am certain you can't — then you have shown yourself completely ignorant of contemporary American culture.
If you think that constitutes absolving Roof's murders of political motivation, then it is a real contest whether lying or stupidity is your true superpower.
According to Skipper, this never happened:
Harry, who hung that Obama effigy from the bridge? If you say rightwingers, then according to you, this never happens.
Except that it does. A lot. As of last count, it hasn't happened more than 300 times. Indeed, given the percentage of the time that a solved hate crime turns out to be a hoax, it is more likely than not you just suffered a self-inflicted wound.
Skipper,
---
So far, so good. After all, that is what you say here: your subjective memory is just as valid as any other interpretation.
---
Sigh.
I wonder if your text interpretation was better in past. Anyway, I give up on you too.
Clovis, how about trying to explain yourself again. After all, perhaps, you might not have done a very good job of it the first time around.
Skipper,
Maybe it is my fault. I don't think it is, but if so, I am giving up on me too.
Let me try again.
A bit if mea culpa here. I really needed to re-read all the way to the top of the thread:
[Clovis:]Among progressives, the *perception* of eliminationist rhetoric form the Right is the only fact that matter. They feel it deeply, and whenever they need to check if that perception is true, they have Trump and his long list of PC-forbidden statements, together with the long list of Americans cheering on him for that, to reassure themselves how deplorable all the rightwing nuts are.
See, they are sure you are dirty in your heart, whatever you actually do or not.
And now they are feeling themselves out of the game, the three branches of govt in the enemies hands, some may feel they have nothing to lose.
I get that, the first time around. Jumping to a pre-conceived conclusion is very easy, so easy it is forgivable. So, to that extent, facts don't matter. However, the second time around is a real puzzler. Particularly when the refrain gets repeated: Muslims shoot up Christmas party -- conservatives to blame. Muslim shoots up gay bar, conservatives to blame.
Rinse and repeat.
Now here is where I take issue with your insisting it makes no difference. My reactions to you in the post above were purposefully provocative, but could well have followed from what you wrote. Now, change the situation where your characterization adhered closely to what I wrote: the room for adverse reaction is smaller.
Same with the NYT. People aren't stupid, and the internet allows checking up on things. Because the NYT has so often strayed so far from facts in pursuit of the narrative, that they have lost a great deal of credibility: what they say matters.
Worse, the promiscuous slinging of words such as "racist", "fascist", etc inevitably shrinks the circle of moral regard, and therefore just as inevitably puts some people closer to its edge. Hodgkinson was by all accounts very close to that edge to begin with, using those terms often enough is going to have consequences: it does make a difference.
Hodgkinson is really no different than an Islamist terrorist: in Hodgkinson's mind, aided by numerous examples from the MSM and pop culture, conservatives needed to be killed.
It is not so different from all the hate/garbage from the Right directed at Obama the last 8 years. It didn't matter the facts back then either, only the perceptions.
You are right, in substance it wasn't much different. (Although I'd argue that the birthers' charges were far less awful than relentlessly resorting to racist/fascist, etc.) But what is different, is that the garbage directed at Obama was widely ridiculed in the MSM, instead of, as with Trump being widely encouraged.
There were no editorials in the WSJ, for instance, that were so thoroughly shot through with lies as the one I cited above, no relentless pursuit of fact-free smears, and certainly no allusions, no matter how indirect, to assassination.
Here's how National Review reacted to the birther controversy at the time.
Hey Skipper: "...conservatives needed to be killed."
So. Don't they (need to be killed)? I mean from the perspective of a non-conservative, of course.
Many non-conservatives believe that conservatives are horribly evil (Hitler level of evil). This is what Clovis was saying, I think. And I think that this belief, for the most part, occurred BEFORE the NY Times or other media outlets fanned the flames of such beliefs. In fact, I think that: (a) the writings of the MSM didn't make that much difference; and (b) those writings are a reflection of the readership as opposed to instigating those beliefs on the readership.
If I believed that someone was at a Hitler level of evil and they had access to the enormous power of government of the United States of America, I'd do my best to help kill them and I'd be thrilled if someone brought them down. The last Hitler was rather hard on my ancestors (well, moderately distant cousins of my ancestors, but still).
So shooting or encouraging the shooting and killing of folks like Scalise or even Trump himself makes perfect sense for a liberal. Many liberals agree, for example this Huffington Post article.
As Clovis points out, it doesn't matter whether or not it's true or even vaguely possible. It only matters that they believe and believe it strongly. No amount of evidence is going to actually change their minds. They are True Believers and will not be swayed. The NY Times going quiet on the subject will make no difference at all. The NY Times refuting these believes with evidence will make no difference at all.
My guess is that we'll see increasing violence on both sides and a fair amount of cold blooded murder. I'll be amazed if nobody takes a shot a Trump.
But again, the media's writings are a reflection of their readership, not really the other way around.
It sounds like we agree that the vast majority of de-humanizing and demonization comes from the progressives.
However, unlike you, I do believe that what the MSM portrays does make a difference. Or, rather, that the MSM and its fans are totalitarian at heart, know that they are right, and therefore objective truth at best simply doesn't matter, and at worst gets in the way.
Your PuffHo link is a perfect example of progressive arrogance and dehumanizing. I doubt that a conservative equivalent exists anywhere that has anything like the reach of PuffHo.
Also, I happen to think if, say, the WSJ became a mirror image of the NYT, it would indeed make a huge, and awful, difference. That's why I think what the NYT prints does make a difference, in that the NYT is actively making things more unhinged.
Clovis, my memory is correct on both counts above, but I invite you to find the actual strings to prove that my memory is failing. I have not used personal attacks (prove me wrong, if you can). I repeatedly have said that you are misinformed as are most people under 50ish because in the 60's the left took over practically every area of information dissemination. That is not a personal attack. A personal attack is accusing someone of having a psychological/pathological condition without being able to provide a single example of aberrant behavior.
Trying to equate bad behavior during the Obama years with the bad behavior over the few months Trump has been in power is ridiculous. The media covered up or glossed over Obama and his handlers' behavior while grossly exaggerating Trump's behavior and the non/under-reporting the horrendous violence coming from Trump's enemies.
' In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the country.'
Anyone want to guess where that came from? (Country here is USA)
No, Harry.
First, how about you explain your lies. And explain how it is you are so certain rightwingers hung that effigy of Obama, when so very often it is progressives fomenting these hate crime hoaxes.
I know you were a journalist, but accountability is good for the soul.
Here's more journalism.
As for tit-for-tatism, which Republican administration would have had the nerve to do this?
Victor Davis Hanson weighs in.
Bret, I think some time back both you and my husband faulted Bush for being too gentlemanly and not fighting back -- especially against the media. I disagreed saying Bush believed politics was the "art of the possible," not about being king of the hill.
Now Trump is fighting back tooth and nail, not letting anything slide by and I'm not sure you approve and my husband is saying he's not effective because he's too combative and should ignore the media and full steam ahead.
:-)
erp wrote: "Now Trump is fighting back tooth and nail ... and I'm not sure you approve ..."
Ah well, it's pretty hard for me to "approve" of someone like Trump. Indeed, that he's the last best hope to stop the relentless progressive advance is actually kinda sickening to me. I mean, Trump? Really? That's the best we can do? Oy!
But narrowing a bit, yes I approve of his "fighting back tooth and nail" as it has opened a lot of people's eyes like I wrote a day or two ago. I just wish said fighting was done by someone a little more admirable. But ya hafta take what you can get, I guess.
Hillary is not POTUS and that trumps everything. I'm convinced she would have beaten any of the other Republican candidates.
Of course, I would have been happier with a General Patton, but unhappily none showed up. Also, we have nothing to apologize for with Trump. There isn't a single person, of any of the 57 varieties of sexes and sizes, on the left that isn't far worse in every measurable way.
Nothing to apologize for with Trump? I can think of one thing and, as Bret says, many people voted for Trump, all knew of it and, I assume, thought it was fine.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/02/donald-trumps-revisionist-history-of-mocking-a-disabled-reporter/?utm_term=.52269cf883e7
Washington Post is not a reliable source, so I have no reason to believe that link whatever it is.
I was surprised when I looked for a link. I would not have thought that anything rightwingers could do would be meaner, more mendacious and nastier than what I am accustomed to. I was aware that there had been a rightwing attempt to exculpate Trump for his disgusting behavior. But I was not aware how widespread, how dishonest and how indifferent to facts it could get.
I thought I knew how low rightwingers could go. I was wrong.
Harry, quite a collection of shame on this thread:
I did not copy it so I cannot say it exactly but some sarcastic person on FB noted that when rightwingers sing the praises of firearms for everyone everywhere, and shooting first and asking questions later, they never imagine someone might shoot them.
Some person who doesn't exist.
And …
Bundy. You defended him so you know about him
Noting at this point that you are a newsman, showing a newsman's respect for facts and accountability.
But wait, there's more!
… you can visit Coulter's site. She recently called for using a nuclear weapon on Tiajuana.
Ummm, no, she didn't. Clearly, you are incapable of learning …
I had thought, following the throat-slashing murders of 2 men in Portland, that Skipper would drop his claim -- made often at RtO -- that leftist violence has no cognates on the right.
… still incapable of learning …
Instead he raises his claim by, eg, absolving Roof's murders of political motivation.
Just before you parade your ignorance of the fact that the vast majority of solved "hate crimes" are hoaxes:
According to Skipper, this never happened:
Brilliant, Harry. Just brilliant.
I can think of one thing and, as Bret says, many people voted for Trump, all knew of it and, I assume, thought it was fine.
Considering what else was on offer, that is a very stupid assumption.
What's more, Trump has used that spastic hands thing other times, without there being a handicapped person in the audience. Dunno why, seems like a darn silly thing to do (although not nearly as silly as your serial lying), but he does it anyway (just like your serial lying).
erp:
The link is genuine, the outrage feigned. Trump has plenty to apologize for; he has an historical opportunity to rescue the Constitution from the progressive predations. Unfortunately, he is too ignorant, and shows no signs of learning.
There are other things he needs to apologize for, but that's OT. What is very on topic is bret's link. Amazingly, considering how egregious they were, I forgot all about those incidents. Substantiates my point: progs have become unhinged reactionaries, and are happy to burn the place down when they don't win.
Skipper, I actually remembered that incident, so I didn't have to give WoPo a click, and what I remembered is it had nothing whatever to do with a disabled person as you point out.
Everybody has things he/she should apologize for. I don't know anything about Trump, but as I said above, compared to the outright crooks, criminals, liars, rapists, traitors, charlatans, toadies, morons ... on the left, he's a veritable genius and saint and don't get me started on the RINO's.
Soros funds McCain's foundation???? Ryan is so full of himself, he's dangerous to himself and those around him. Poor guy, he's modeling his behavior on Obama, but unfortunately for him, he doesn't have a fawning media singing the Hallelujah chorus behind him.
Skipper, you really need to get a grip. Roof was Roof. Bringing up what someone else did does not change what Roof did.
You do the same a RtO, when I remark on events that occurred in 1945, you counter with events that occurred 20 and 30 years later. Protip: Time flows one way.
Since Skipper and erp have decided to defend Trump in what I regard as his most disgusting public performance, I will put you two in the group of rightwingers who are lower than I had realized (until yesterday) existed.
As Bret says, you can learn a lot from Great Guys. The knowledge can be unpleasant.
Harry, you probably do know that your example of Trump dissing a disabled person is bogus, what isn't bogus (it was actually well known to me as kid by reading the NY papers at the time) is that your idol Frankie deliberately and knowingly allowed Pearl Harbor to be bombed with the resulting loss of life just so Congress would be forced to declare war on the Axis and save Uncle Joe's chestnuts from the fire.
In your world, the lives of a few sailors pales before horror of the Soviet Union's defeat and collapse, but some of us think that it's not only treasonous and grounds for a firing squad, but far worse than whatever it is you think Trump has said or done to offend political correctness or offend the sensibilities of some snow flakes, with the emphasis on flake.
I used to think you were just one of those naive people who actually believed the slogans and nonsenses of lefty speak, but after all these years, I am convinced otherwise. You keep trying to defend the indefensible -- not an easy task, nor one you will ever succeed at.
[Harry:] Roof was Roof. Bringing up what someone else did does not change what Roof did.
How is it you are missing such an obvious point?
Let me repeat it for you: Bundy (whose violence isn't a patch on your garden variety anti-fa fascist) Roof, Marx, and anyone else you are going to trot out: they were violent despite the virtually complete lack of incitement to violence.
To wit: in labeling Roof a rightwinger, you sling a tarbrush that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Please, by all means, provide us links to significant, mainstream, rightwing publications that encouraged murdering people because of their race. Because, if you can't — and I am certain you can't — then you have shown yourself completely ignorant of contemporary American culture.
In contrast with the considerable incitement Hodgkinson had. I can provide very many examples; in fact, I already have.
Your reply indicates you have no idea what is going on in the culture, as well as suffering a profound reading comprehension disorder.
Since Skipper and erp have decided to defend Trump in what I regard as his most disgusting public performance, I will put you two in the group of rightwingers who are lower than I had realized (until yesterday) existed.
Once again, Harry, directly quoting me would be a huge help. I didn't defend Trump, I merely noted that as a matter of fact, Trump had used that same silly gesture elsewhere, which went completely unmentioned by liars like you. Of course, that he had done so before doesn't mean Trump wasn't mocking a disabled person, but, at the very least, it raises the possibility.
But for someone who engages in fact-free smears (IOW, a progressive) you can't be bothered with that. Just as you can't possibly acknowledge the difference between bringing up a fact, and defending someone.
You do the same a RtO, when I remark on events that occurred in 1945, you counter with events that occurred 20 and 30 years later. Protip: Time flows one way.
Not without a link Harry, I didn't.
How is it you are such a slow learner?
Harry, not to belabor the point, but no where did I defend Trump in any way. Please don't say that again until you are able to supply a direct quote. What I said is that he is far better in every measurable way, even in good looks, than Hillary who is unthinkable as POTUS.
I didn't see the "offensive" gesture, but it was explained adequately at the time as Skipper has made abundantly clear. Disabled people vote and those of them taken in by the propaganda machine that is the media may have been swayed away from voting for Trump.
Non-lefty media darlings who who have turned their lives upside down to run for public office do not offend potential voters by ridiculing them ala Hillary's "deplorables" and Obama's "bitter clingers."
Again, please don't put words into my mouth. I have an overabundance of them there already. Thanks.
Hey Skipper wrote: "Trump wasn't mocking a disabled person..."
Well, he WAS mocking a disabled person and I'd prefer more care with words here. It strongly looks to me that he was mocking a disabled person, not because that person was disabled, but because Trump mocks people moderately often using those exact same mannerisms and this person happened to be disabled.
As a result, I will absolutely defend Trump here. The idea that if a person has attribute X (for example, disabled or black or female or old or ...) that you can't criticize, insult, mock, etc. is absolutely PC bullshit as far as I'm concerned and I'm extremely glad Trump pointedly and repeatedly refuses to be tied down by PC bullshit. Sticks and stones and all that...
Bret:
There is a clear distinction here. Clearly, he was mocking a reporter who also happened to be disabled. Had that silly hand flailing Trump used been reserved solely for that specific person, then that would have been worthy of condemnation. Although making fun of someone for being overweight (Trump) or having the wrong color hair (Trump) combed the wrong way (Trump) is OK.
Snark aside, decent people distinguish between superficial characteristics and significant handicap: one is game, the other isn't.
And decent people also distinguish between a gesture aimed at a specific person, and one repeatedly used, regardless of handicap. Trump is an ass, but, near as I can tell, he is an equal opportunity ass; pulling out the special status card is just wrong.
(Kind of like attributing a hanging effigy of Obama to rightwingers is wrong, considering how often it is progs who are the perps.)
I agree with all that.
Skipper, I don't think Trump is slender, but I think some of his overweight is a bullet proof vest.
I think Melania too wears one sometimes.
She's so slender in some pictures, but in others seems thick around the middle.
Makes good sense to me.
Melania is a testament to female beauty as a force of nature.
No matter who the viewer is.
I find Melania stunning. I have a thing for the eastern european look anyway.
To me, she's by far the most beautiful first lady of any country ever (before her, Carla Bruni held the title when she was the first lady of France, but Melania eclipses her in my perception).
Back in the day, I was at the Dayton peace talks, representing the DoD.
Even though I was a complete non-entity.
After preventing Milosevic's airplane from landing at the wrong airport, I hosted the aircrew.
The flight attendants were Melanias. Every. One. Of. Them.
To pick a counter example, there's no way British flight attendants could achieve that level of the world stops rotating beauty.
It isn't fair.
Hey us Slavs rule in brains and beauty. Deal with it.
erp, I don't disagree.
Post a Comment