Home / General / Mark Walker – Born to Whine

Mark Walker – Born to Whine

Comments
/
/
/
930 Views

Yep. And their belief in the 1st Am. and the free market seems to be highly situational as well!

Why, it’s almost as though they’re composed entirely of bullshit, lies and bile!

“Bruce is known to be on the radical left,” continued Walker, “and he’s got every right to be so, but I consider this a bully tactic. It’s like when a kid gets upset and says he’s going to take his ball and go home.”

No, no, no. Taking your ball and going home is a tantrum. Promoting and/or passing a transphobic law is bullying.

“Using inflammatory vitriol is not where I am,” he said. “I would just like to intellectually explain to Bruce Springsteen the safety aspect of this bill, which is about four pages long.”

I would like to see Rep. Walker try to intellectually explain anything. I think that would be funnier than watching a dog try to play trombone.

Sometimes people only hear one side of the story.

And sometimes they hear both sides and judge that one side is wrong, and therefore they will avoid North Carolina.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • postmodulator

    They still think the problem is that we haven’t listened to their explanations of their hatred?

    • Thirtyish

      Clapping harder is their specialty.

      • ASV

        Clapping can never fail, it can only be failed.

        • Judas Peckerwood

          Please clap. Please.

          • Warren Terra

            ¿Jeb’s campaign icon really ought to be a lightbulb, as used to portray Tinkerbell in stage productions … but flickering, at best.

            • efgoldman

              ¿Jeb’s campaign icon really ought to be a lightbulb

              What’s a ?jeb?

              • Hogan

                People have been exploring that question for a long time, and we appear to be no closer to an answer.

    • MAJeff

      They’re also upset that we refuse to accept their hatred as “love.”

  • DrDick

    But, but, but ….. Conservatives’ Freedumbs is s’posed to all be consequence free!

    • CP

      Yeah, you just gotta love that. Reminds me of Orson Scott Card a couple years ago throwing an apoplectic tantrum about the attacks on his freedom of expression because some people were boycotting the Ender’s Game movie. Orson Scott Card is entitled to my ten dollars, damn it! It’s his God given right! If I don’t give them to him, his freedoms are under attack! But also, fuck Democrats, because they’re all pinko-commie-socialists who want to rob Peter to pay Paul.

      • I watched that movie on streaming, and while visually compelling, it was otherwise a load of crap. The ending was telegraphed within the first 25 minutes. Made me glad I hadn’t paid to see it, nor paid for the book. OSC can bite my zombie dick…

      • Halloween Jack

        Card has never had the courage of his convictions. Not only is he a chronic whiner regarding the backlash for his homophobic views, he insisted that his call for the recriminalization of homosexuality wasn’t because he really wanted LGBTs to go to jail, but simply to drive them back into the closet. (As if that wouldn’t be bad enough.)

  • Hogan

    I would like to see Rep. Walker try to intellectually explain anything. I think that would be funnier than watching a dog try to play trombone.

    After reading his take on Fortunate Son, I think you’re being too kind.

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      I felt Walker’s take lacked discernment, myself…

    • Anonymous Troll

      It is not widely known, but one of the great studio jazz trombonists was a standard poodle. On vinyl, nobody knows you’re a dog.

      • efgoldman

        On vinyl, nobody knows you’re a dog.

        But it was obvious on the digital remaster.

  • Murc

    I’ve seen a lot of people bitching about how Springsteen should keep politics out of his music. And it’s like… do you even Springsteen?

    • Nobdy

      What do you mean Born in the USA is not a patriotic anthem about loving your country? I don’t get it.

      -Actual conservative alleged Springsteen fans.

      • efgoldman

        What do you mean Born in the USA is not a patriotic anthem about loving your country?

        It must be! No less than Sanctus Ronaldus Maximus used it for a campaign song [until Springsteen told him to cut that shit out].

      • ThrottleJockey

        I don’t understand why some liberals are so ambivalent–or outright hostile–to the idea of patriotism. Progressives can’t be patriotic? Is patriotism bad? Is there some reason to let conservatives coopt the word–same as they have Christianity?

        Bizarre.

        • Origami Isopod

          Gee, idk, because “My country, right or wrong” is a shitty and morally blinkered ethos?

          • Murc

            The actual quote is “My country, right or wrong; when right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.”

            • Origami Isopod

              While I knew that, I didn’t bring it up because the kinds of people who pat themselves on the back for their own patriotism aren’t aware of it. And they’d get hostile if you told them.

            • Mike G

              The people who like to wave that slogan like a bloody shirt never include the second part.
              Kind of like how the same people ignore the first part of the second amendment.

            • Matt McIrvin

              That was Carl Schurz’s response to the slogan, which came from a statement by Stephen Decatur that was something like: “Our country – In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right, and always successful, right or wrong.” He seems to have valued being in the right but not more highly than success, in other words.

          • ThrottleJockey

            Meh, I’m not sure why we should privilege some drunkard’s definition. Oxford says, “Having or expressing devotion to and vigorous support for one’s country“. What’s wrong with supporting your country? Or expressing devotion to it?

            I think every person on the planet should love their country. Loving your country no more means your country is always right than loving your parents or children means that your parents or children are always right. My father has some profound faults; I don’t love him any less because of it and I’m entirely devoted to his care.

            • Murc

              What’s wrong with supporting your country? Or expressing devotion to it?

              Because countries are organizational and political abstractions created for the purpose of governing people. My support and loyalty for the former is contingent upon how well they do the latter, and is in no way independent of it.

              • ThrottleJockey

                This phrasing reminds me of Sarah Palin in a sense. She loves her country and hates its government. You might be said to love its people and hate its nationhood.

                Don’t get me wrong I’m not trying to equate you with Palin, but there’s something intriguing going on here. I’m not sure what it is. I’ve actually never heard anyone say that they hate patriotism…even if their body language and words suggest that they’re squeamish about it…

                Have you traveled outside of the country much? I find that traveling outside of the country makes me “more” patriotic. Imagine watching the Rodney King riots from overseas. That was me. And then imagine being bombarded with questions from Africans how you could stand to be American. Awww-kward!

                • Origami Isopod

                  I’ve actually never heard anyone say that they hate patriotism

                  I’ve heard quite a few people say it.

                  I find that traveling outside of the country makes me “more” patriotic.

                  Funny, I find the opposite. I’m surrounded by people who weren’t indoctrinated into Amurkah Fuck Yeah, and my news isn’t filtered by media organizations catering to Republican politicians.

                • Murc

                  She loves her country and hates its government.

                  More or less how I felt during the Bush years, although a more accurate summation would be that I hated the people staffing said government.

                  You might be said to love its people and hate its nationhood.

                  Nationhood is an abstraction. How much I love or hate it is entirely dependent on the desirability of the role it fulfills and how competent it is at fulfilling it.

                  People aren’t abstractions. People are actually real. Of course I care more about them than about organizational fictions.

                  Have you traveled outside of the country much?

                  I go to Canada enough I have a NEXUS past. I went to France once for school about twenty years ago. That’s about it.

                • ThrottleJockey

                  I think the Watching Rodney King Riots Overseas thing was a real turning point in how I came to view patriotism…To go further even, I support American Exceptionalism as well, as Obama expressed it, that when this country lives up to its ideals its an exceptional country.

                • I’ve actually never heard anyone say that they hate patriotism…even if their body language and words suggest that they’re squeamish about it…

                  Oh come on. The contrary to patriotism/nationalism is cosmopolitanism and there’s plenty of defenders of the latter.

                  Plus, we need rather a lot of specific content before there’s anything worth discussing about “patriotism”.

                • What’s the specific content/anecdote exchange rate these days?

                • Thirtyish

                  The contrary to patriotism/nationalism is cosmopolitanism and there’s plenty of defenders of the latter.

                  That’s a good way to put it. I am a proponent of cosmopolitanism at the same time that I am ambivalent at best about patriotism.

                • efgoldman

                  People aren’t abstractions. People are actually real.

                  Sez you, an anonymous typist on the intartoobz.
                  TJ is so obtuse, though, he has to be real.

                • that when this country lives up to its ideals its an exceptional country.

                  Gosh that sounds great. Can you give me an example, outside of the space program, where America did that?

                • N__B

                  Can you give me an example, outside of the space program, where America did that?

                  After the space program, when Major Nelson gave Jeanie a home, even though she’s an undocumented alien.

                • Eli Rabett

                  Oh come on. The contrary to patriotism/nationalism is cosmopolitanism and there’s plenty of defenders of the latter.

                  aka New York values

                • Manju

                  After the space program, when Major Nelson gave Jeanie a home, even though she’s an undocumented alien.

                  And you liberals still can’t figure out who really shot JR?

                • Matt McIrvin

                  People in much of Europe find the American notion of patriotism bizarre and dangerous: what we think of as a normal level of national feeling, accessible to liberals and conservatives alike, is to them a troubling sign of extreme-right authoritarian and racist sensibilities. And they’ve got the history to suggest that that might be the case.

                  There was something Sarah Vowell said in one of her books about talking to some people from Bosnia: she explained how most Americans felt about their country, national identity and the flag and they told her that that’s exactly how genocide starts.

                • Matt McIrvin

                  …And then there’s the Canadian notion of patriotism which leans heavily on the fact of NOT being the United States.

              • Ronan

                If you want to see the country as the state, sure. But if you see it as the people, with all their potential and peculiarities and vulgarities, then it looks better.

            • sonamib

              I think every person on the planet should love their country. Loving your country no more means your country is always right than loving your parents or children means that your parents or children are always right. My father has some profound faults; I don’t love him any less because of it and I’m entirely devoted to his care.

              Ok, you probably didn’t think of the worst-case scenarios, but they do exist. Children of abusive parents might be justified in hating them. Native Americans are also perfectly justified in hating whatever country they happen to live in. Similarly for Roma people in Europe.

              • ThrottleJockey

                Grandad grew up on an Indian reservation. I understand your point. Of course Native Americans are more patriotic than any of us since they’re the only native Americans.

                I don’t know any Roma, but most Native Americans, and most minorities in the US tend to be as “patriotic” as any other typical American…That’s why its interesting to come across people who hate the concept.

                • JL

                  Part of my family is Roma, and they ended up in Wisconsin, of all places, because the country they lived in (Bohemia) kicked them out.

                  There are a lot of ways that someone can define patriotism. What you think of patriotism depends on what, precisely, you define it to mean. There are senses in which you could say that I’m very patriotic (believing in and fighting for certain ideals of this country, trying to improve it), and senses in which I’m very anti-patriotic (I tend to dislike overt displays of nationalistic sentiment, and I think there’s a lot seriously screwed up about this country and a lot of things that a lot of countries do better). My experience with people using the word “patriotism” (whether it’s something they support or oppose) is that they usually mean the kind that I’m opposed to – overtly nationalistic, exceptionalistic, love-it-or-leave-it, that kind of thing. But there are certainly exceptions.

                  Semi-related: There’s this Steven Van Zandt song that Pearl Jam used to cover in concert a lot around when the Iraq War started, “I am a Patriot,” and I can remember that there were people not paying attention to the damn lyrics who would only hear the line “I am a patriot, and I love my country” and give a big cheer. But it’s actually a very sad song about someone who feels betrayed by their country, and like they have no good options because their society has gone wrong but it’s also where their family and community are.

                • Moondog

                  When I hear “patriot” I think

                  Patriot Act
                  Patriot Missile

                • (I tend to dislike overt displays of nationalistic sentiment, and I think there’s a lot seriously screwed up about this country and a lot of things that a lot of countries do better).

                  This is something that sometimes make me queasy about all of this. My family come from Northern Ireland, and I’ve seen how toxic various forms of “nationalistic sentiment” can be.

            • Mike G

              I’m reminded of Al Franken’s definition that conservatives love America like a four-year old loves his mommy. Everything mommy does is perfect, and anyone who criticizes mommy is bad.

              It is possible to have a mature appreciation for your home country, but the kind of people who grandstand about their patriotism usually have the infantile love concept of a four-year old, combined with a judgemental bullying-conformist authoritarian streak against anyone who insufficiently shares their view.

              Many of the same people often have a similar mentality about the Constitution and the Bible, as icons to which blind obeisance must be paid, and they are ever-eager to enforce such worship.

              • ThrottleJockey

                Yep.

            • Hogan

              America don’t give a shit what Oxford says. Around here, “patriotism” consists of purely formal expressions like reciting the Pledge of Allegiance or wearing a flag pin or playing the national anthem at sporting events. Not participating in any of those tends to get you the stink-eye from the official defenders of patriotism.

              I vote in every election. I show up for jury duty, and even serve on juries. Sometimes I attend and testify at meetings of government bodies. No one I know thinks that makes me patriotic, but it does more for my country than any fucking jewelry.

              If you have a problem, you should take it up with the people who’ve spent decades boiling “patriotism” down to empty gestures. You probably know where to find them.

              • Thirtyish

                +1

                I don’t care about being patriotic, however it’s being defined. There are civic activities I take part in, but do I regard “being American” as something to be proud of, or even an important aspect of my identity? No. At best, I don’t care about it, and at worst, I am on occasion embarrassed by it.

              • Ronan

                Well why let those people define it ? We are all nationalists, and in out own way patriots, whether we like it or not. Why not define it on our own terms ?

                • Thirtyish

                  We are all nationalists, and in out own way patriots, whether we like it or not

                  Nope.

                • Ronan

                  How aren’t we? Our primary frame of reference is our national identity . Our political action is national. The culture we grew up in is our nations. Even if you leave your country, move to another, you adopt another national identity, possibly an amalgamation. But there are (relative) only a handful of meaningful cosmopolitans.

                • Thirtyish

                  Because patriotism–especially as it’s been codified in American culture and popular politics–is an attitude. It’s an active sense of pride, superiority, and deference to one’s nation of origin or choice. Let me put it this way to you–I consider myself an American as a matter of fact, but it’s not something I’m proud of. It’s just a fact, like “I am Caucasian” and “I was born in X-city.” And when I travel abroad, I’m often struck by how much more there is to this world apart from my own, rather provincial country. That’s what makes me feel alive when I travel, not a sense of pride in ‘Merica. I don’t feel I “represent” America when I leave for travel, and I don’t particularly have a sense of homecoming to America when I return (whereas I do have a sense of returning to New York, or a sense of being “home”). But it’s not about nation or national identity for me. I am not patriotic.

                • Hogan

                  Some definitions have social force; others don’t. There are ways in which how I define it for myself, or even whether I define it for myself, doesn’t matter. And I’m not so invested in the word itself that I want to have that fight.

                • Hogan

                  Our primary frame of reference is our national identity.

                  What do you mean “we,” paleface
                  ?

                • Ronan

                  I agree there’s a lot to the rest of the world. A lot to be enjoyed and learned and experienced. And that our perspective shouldnt be limited and parochial But we didn’t grow up in the rest of the world,with others cultural references or shared histories. We grew up on a piece of land somewhere , socialised by local norms and relationships. Now if we move away, and become socialised into anothers culture It gets a little more complicated. But we’re still nationalists, just a slightly different kind.

                • Thirtyish

                  You obviously are working off of an idiosyncratic definition of “nationalism,” which suffice to say I don’t share.

                • CD

                  We grew up on a piece of land somewhere , socialised by local norms and relationships. Now if we move away, and become socialised into anothers culture It gets a little more complicated. But we’re still nationalists, just a slightly different kind.

                  1. If you want to make the banal claim that place matters, fine. But even granting a strong claim about the importance of local ties and norms, that does not necessarily add up to “nation,” a much bigger unit. Nations and nationalism are relatively new inventions, usually dated to the 19th century. Being Alsatian is not the same thing as being French…

                  2. Lots of people live in more than one place and keep strong family ties across the world. Many of us are shaped by, and continue to be shaped by, multiple cultures. Your idea that a migrant transplants and then re-roots and assimilates has been out of date for decades, if it was ever true. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmigrant

                  3. Please drop your annoying habit of generalizing to “we.” You want to talk about yourself, go ahead. I’m part of a multiply transnational family, as I think are many commenters.

                • Ronan

                  (1) yes, and if we lived in the 19th century this would be relevant

                  (2) and (3) I’ve accepted. From your link

                  “Despite an era of new diasporas and capitalism, migrant populations continue to root their identities in the nation-state. As a result, both political leaders of sending nations and migrants residing abroad have come to imagine the nation-state as deterritorialized.[1] The communities of origin no longer exist in one geographical place, but are spread throughout multiple sites and states. While the term transmigrant could be seen as suggesting a permanent state of being between two or more locations, some transmigrants may spend a large portion of their lives in this state of flux, others may live for long periods in one locality or another, and others may leave the sending community only one time, or never.”

                  From me above

                  “Now if we move away, and become socialised into anothers culture It gets a little more complicated. But we’re still nationalists, just a slightly different kind”

                • CD

                  Your

                  we’re still nationalists

                  follows in no logical way from the stuff you quote.

                  National borders and governments are one thing. The ideologies people adopt are a different thing. Please think a little harder about this.

                • Ronan

                  “Migrant population continue to root their identities in the nation-state”
                  What else is this but nationalism ?

                  I’m also part of “a multiply transnational family” as you put it. The majority of my grandparents and parents siblings left the country. I left for a significant amount of time as did my parents. I have cousins and family living in numerous other countries and so on. But so what ? I understand identities are complex and contingent, but they are still overwhelmingly based on national lines not cosmopolitan. I don’t see where this is disputed in any of this ?
                  And I never Said “‘re roots and assimilates”. You can see in the letters and histories of diasporas the way they played with and imagined national identities . But they were still fundamentally national identities.

                • Hogan

                  Now if we move away, and become socialised into anothers culture It gets a little more complicated.

                  Or it stops being nationalism. We’re well into semantics here.

                • Ronan

                  But it doesn’t stop being a national identity. The migrant who moves to a different country (from the history I know) doesn’t discard their old national identity and adopt a new one, but has multiple uses for both. It could be to assimilate into the new country or reimagine the polity at home. But they are still using a nationalist frame of reference.
                  The second or third generation might be similarly caught between two worlds, but again they are framing it primarily in familial national identities.
                  The “nation” doesn’t have to be confined to geographic borders, you see this all the time in politicised diasporas who influence politics in numerous countries. But these are still fundamentally national identities. Most of the time They aren’t identities completely in flux or denationalised cosmopolitanism or transnational workers /religious solidarities , they are national identities. We live in a world where the nation is the primary unit of political organization and communal solidarity. None of this means it has to be an exclusive ethnic nationalism born in soil and blood. Just that these are still national identities.

                  But you know what, since you all disagree with me I’m willing to accept I might be off base here. But I’ll need an argument in response

                • How aren’t we? Our primary frame of reference is our national identity . Our political action is national. The culture we grew up in is our nations. Even if you leave your country, move to another, you adopt another national identity, possibly an amalgamation.

                  My collection of passports and accents say “Nope”.

                • Ronan

                  Okay. Let’s back it up here. People don’t like the word “nationalism”. Fine. And people think finding odd exceptions disproves the generalisation, but it doesn’t.
                  I’m pretty comfortable saying the vast majority here are nationalists, because any time a genuine distributional issue arises between domestic constituents and international (say in trade) the vast majority say it’s fine to prioritise the national. And I agree (although I’d prioritise differently) that this is fine. But there is no cosmopolitan moral agenda here, as a generality.
                  Thirtyish implies she considers herself a new Yorker first and American second. Again, fine. Plenty of people consider themselves from village/city x first, and national second. But this is either (1) rhetorical or (2) a regression. National identities were beneficial because they raised your solidarity above the family/clan/kin/village. A meaningful reversion to smaller geographic based solidarities is a step backwards.
                  So the final point, does being influenced by other cultures/having numerous passports/extended international families/feet in more than one country negate this? In some cases yes, but most no. There is no meaningful, broad internationalist identity. There are some (European, African, Arab, Muslim Catholic, worker) but very few consider themselves these first and nation second. When they do (say religion) it is still primarily a local and ethnic version, not transnational (although it might have international aspects)
                  So where (1) is this internationalist identity in a meaningful, collective manner ? (2) where are the institutions and rituals it would have had to develop to sustain itself above the nation? (3) where is the invented history and shared moral order that such an identity would need to be sustained ?

                • We are all nationalists, and in out own way patriots, whether we like it or not.

                  One problem with your discussion, Ronan, is that you conflate the content of our selves (personal culture, food choices, language) which is largely (for most people) determined by their upbringing and where they’ve lived over the years and the set ideological/political commitments which constitute (various forms of) patriotism or nationalism. These aren’t the same, and it’s only the first sense which makes your claim not risible.

                  Even the fact that we mostly do locally preferential politics isn’t a strong indicator of a patriotic or nationalist (in the ideological/political sense) mindset: most of the time there’s no choice offered and even when there is the affordances are all local. Plus, one can acknowledge obligations without being patriotic or nationalist per se, for example, one can be utterly committed to a world state without thinking that any particular government must have open borders.

                • Ronan

                  I didn’t mean to conflate these things in such a manner. What I meant to say is that our national cultural identity (which is predominant) combined with the way we imagine our social obligations (which is primarily national) combined with the political and societal institutions we have developed (which exist mainly at a nationAl level) mean that “we” (as a generality, though overwhelming majority) behave and imagine ourselves as belonging to national groups, and these are who our main obligations are too. I also don’t believe our ideological/political commitments really exist meaningfully outside our social cultural background.
                  A few things. I don’t doubt there are non nationalists out there, much as there are still Marxists. I think to hold such a position coherently you need to at least believe in the fundamentals, which in the case of Marxism would be the historic importance of the proletariat , the resulting class revolution and eventually the social ownership of the means of production. As such, to be meaningfully cosmopolitan you have to believe in the possibility, desirability (if not inevitability) of a global super state, and the homogenization of a global population sharing common (enough to be sustainable) cultural, moral, political and material interests.
                  I think both are empirically incorrect as explanations of history or plausible outcomes , but as normative or desirable outcomes then sure, both are held by people.
                  But much like the nationalist elites in a pre nationalist community this is (1) a niche, and so very limitedly held, set of beliefs, and (2) I think a person has to make the case for why this political project is desirable to what we have, what are the plausible mechanisms that will bring it into existence , and how would it function politically, institutionally , culturally .
                  And having said all of that , the overwhelming majority here have claimed to not be nationalists. To hate nationalism, see it as a cancer, to not have a nationalistic bone in their bodies. Then what odd political breed are we talking? Do we have literally every cosmopolitan in the world on this thread? Or are we (as I would conjecture) living in an age of anti nationalist false consciousness ?

                • I didn’t mean to conflate these things in such a manner.

                  But you did it again, here :)

                  What I meant to say is that our national cultural identity

                  What *is* that? I mean, consider people living on the borders between nations. They often have more (culturally speaking) in common with their inter-national neighbours than their intra-national neighbours. Or immigrants, who again might have way more of their cultural identity determined by their country of origin (indeed, seek to replicate it).

                  You can’t make claims about national identity without some clearer definition or you will make conflations.

                  (which is predominant) combined with the way we imagine our social obligations (which is primarily national)

                  Say what? I have lots of legal obligations to both my primary countries (e.g., to pay taxes), but I’m very unclear what my social obligations are to either *per se*. I should help my neighbours but that’s often just affordances and the only stabilities is that they are my *neighbors* not that they are *of this nation*. If my behaviour is situational, then it’s not robustly national (I’d argue). At least, you have to do more to show that.

                  combined with the political and societal institutions we have developed (which exist mainly at a nationAl level)

                  Again, we have lots of local government with local character.

                  mean that “we” (as a generality, though overwhelming majority) behave and imagine ourselves as belonging to national groups,

                  Eh. Evidence remains to be shown.

                  We are often citizens of a nation-state, but look at the UK wherein loads and loads of people identify as Scottish *rather than* British. (With an independence movement.) And many independence people are motivated by e.g., economic and social and political stuff rather than Scottishness per se.

                  and these are who our main obligations are too.

                  Or just those which are easiest to fulfil. Most of my daily obligations are to Chinese, German, or Saudi people, because those are the nationalities of the majority of my students and RAs at the moment (it shifts around) and the majority of my daily obligations are to them. (Including meeting with them, giving them advice, etc.)

                  I also don’t believe our ideological/political commitments really exist meaningfully outside our social cultural background.

                  Sure, but they aren’t mere emanations of them. If pay my taxes but work toward a world state to the degree I can, it seems weird to say that I’m a nationalist, just as the fact that I work toward a more integrated-into-GB Scotland would be necessarily an indicator that I’m a Scottish nationalist.

                • Ronan

                  Have to run to work so can’t reply at length. Two things though. Pro British Scots still have a national identity. Being British
                  Same with people on borders or in contested states. You can call it ethnicity or clannishness or sectarian based identity, but that’s still (more or less) just a more primordial national identity.

                  edit: and as mentioned with immigrants above, most still ground their identity in the nation state. It’s complicated, yes, but they’re all working in a nationalist frame

                • Have to run to work so can’t reply at length. Two things though. Pro British Scots still have a national identity. Being British

                  What if they aspire to be British but don’t feel they are?

                  Again, conflating the commitment with the determinants of identity.

                  Same with people on borders or in contested states. You can call it ethnicity or clannishness or sectarian based identity, but that’s still (more or less) just a more primordial national identity.

                  But there’s no content to your claim. This isn’t “nationalism” or even “national identity” if *every* social grouping grounds a distinct “national” identity which makes us all “nationalists”.

                  You need some way for someone to *not* be a nationalist, at least in theory. People feel part of various social groups. Not all of them are nations. People have various attitudes to being part of those social groups, not all of them positive. The relation to a “nation” that involves certain structures (e.g., organising myth, and these days, some notion of the appropriateness of having an associated state) and certain affective valences (pro…at least) that’s reasonable called “nationalism” is very common, but not universal. It just isn’t. Conflating positive feelings toward substructures or adjacent structures to nations with nationalism just confuses things.

                  edit: and as mentioned with immigrants above, most still ground their identity in the nation state. It’s complicated, yes, but they’re all working in a nationalist frame

                  Eh. Because you define it so. But that’s not very interesting.

                  (I’m happy to believe most people are socialised to some degree in a specific sort of nationalism, but that’s different than your original claim.)

                • People feel part of various social groups. Not all of them are nations.

                  I’m not seeing any difference between “nationalism” in its successively watered-down definition, and “granfalloonism“.

                • Ronan

                  “But there’s no content to your claim. This isn’t “nationalism” or even “national identity” if *every* social grouping grounds a distinct “national” identity which makes us all “nationalists”.”

                  I agree as an empirical matter you’d need to break it down more. For the purposes of this argument, where the objections to ‘nationalism’ were parochialism and limited in group mentalities I allowed group identities below the nation to be classified as national. To what extent they’re national and to what extent theyre sub national, or in addition to national, is contingent on the case in question.

                  “You need some way for someone to *not* be a nationalist, at least in theory. People feel part of various social groups. Not all of them are nations. People have various attitudes to being part of those social groups, not all of them positive. ”

                  Fair enough. I’ve made exceptions for non nationalists. Al Qaeda, for example, I agree are primarily non national. There are regional and transnational identities above the nation (pan Arab, European, religious, professional/technocratic, cosmpolitan etc) and below the nation (clan, ethnicity, sectarian, racial) and mostly independent of or in addition to it (gender, sexuality, class, racial/ethnic/sectarian can go here as well) My contention is that most the first category (which was the main topic of conversation) is relatively trivial.

                  “The relation to a “nation” that involves certain structures (e.g., organising myth, and these days, some notion of the appropriateness of having an associated state) and certain affective valences (pro…at least) that’s reasonable called “nationalism” is very common, but not universal. It just isn’t. Conflating positive feelings toward substructures or adjacent structures to nations with nationalism just confuses things.”

                  I agree it’s not universal. But it’s common enough for the sorts of generalisations Im making.

                  “Eh. Because you define it so. But that’s not very interesting.”

                  Well, I wouldn’t say *only* my definition necessarily. CD linked to a wiki entry that (from my reading) supported my contentions. ‘Diasporas still ground their identities in the nation state”
                  I would say as well from my observations (accounting for motivated reasoning) and reading (accounting for selection bias) it seems to me that immigrant groups collectively (as diasporas) still frame identities and politics in national/ethnic terms, whether that is in the new or sending country. Very few adopt collective primary identities above the nation/ethnic group.

                  My main point is still that I don’t know how people here who were define themselves against nationalism are not nationalists, though? I agree I’m adopting a very broad church terminologically . But (1) no one has made a positive normative case for an above national identity, (2) no one has made an empirical case that they exist non trivially, and (3) as a simplified model I think ‘nationalism’ captures and explains all of this.

                • I agree as an empirical matter you’d need to break it down more. For the purposes of this argument, where the objections to ‘nationalism’ were parochialism and limited in group mentalities I allowed group identities below the nation to be classified as national. To what extent they’re national and to what extent theyre sub national, or in addition to national, is contingent on the case in question.

                  But what’s the point then? “Everyone has identities that are smaller than the world” doesn’t say anything at all about nationalism *or* parochialism or limited in group mentalities. One can have a strongly localised identity *and* be cosmopolitan. “My likes, preferences, food choices, etc. are strongly grounded in my home town, but I consider myself as a citizen of the world.” is perfectly cohernet and pretty essentially cosmopolitan.

                  Fair enough. I’ve made exceptions for non nationalists. Al Qaeda, for example, I agree are primarily non national.

                  Why? I mean individual members. Al Qaeda isn’t a nation. Nor is IBM. But so?

                  There are regional and transnational identities above the nation (pan Arab, European, religious, professional/technocratic, cosmpolitan etc) and below the nation (clan, ethnicity, sectarian, racial) and mostly independent of or in addition to it (gender, sexuality, class, racial/ethnic/sectarian can go here as well)

                  My contention is that most the first category (which was the main topic of conversation) is relatively trivial.

                  Non-nationalists? Nationalists? What?

                  Well, I wouldn’t say *only* my definition necessarily. CD linked to a wiki entry that (from my reading) supported my contentions. ‘Diasporas still ground their identities in the nation state”
                  I would say as well from my observations (accounting for motivated reasoning) and reading (accounting for selection bias) it seems to me that immigrant groups collectively (as diasporas) still frame identities and politics in national/ethnic terms, whether that is in the new or sending country.

                  I agree that it’s common.

                  Very few adopt collective primary identities above the nation/ethnic group.

                  You mean like “Iranian-American”?

                  My main point is still that I don’t know how people here who were define themselves against nationalism are not nationalists, though?

                  But if they adopt a narrower reading of nationalism (which they are against) and you adopt a broader version (which you strive to make everyone satisfy), then you’re just equivocating.

                  I agree I’m adopting a very broad church terminologically . But (1) no one has made a positive normative case for an above national identity,

                  Er…ok, 1) by focusing on identity, you continue to confuse things, 2) nearly any free trade or free movement or regional pact is reasonably cosmopolitan thus arguments for them are arguments for trans-nationalism, 3) we can

                  (2) no one has made an empirical case that they exist non trivially,

                  Oh come on. I’m North American as well as European.

                  and (3) as a simplified model I think ‘nationalism’ captures and explains all of this.

                  Only by defining away the phenomenan under dispute.

                • Ronan

                  I will have to reformulate my theory and come back to it at a later date, and be clearer in my thinking and presentation.
                  Bear in mind, Bijan, that this is not a full( or even meaningfully partial) concession. I do accept though that my “everyone’s a nationalist” model might be at best trivial at this stage of development

              • efgoldman

                +1776

              • Brad Nailer

                “Having” to stand up during the seventh-inning stretch, put my hand over my heart and sing “God Bless America,” a rancid holdover from 9/11, is enough to make me glad that I don’t live close enough to any pro-baseball towns to consider going to a game. I would sit–you want me to stand? Then sing “Take Me Out to the Ballgame” like we used to–but I’m sure somebody would say something. Good time for a pee break.

            • AMK

              In any context that matters, the “country” these conservatives belong to is the CSA, not the USA. Race, bugfuck religion, feudalism and backcountry lawlessness as the markers of “Americanism” versus Enlightenment reason, rule of law, and the values of shared citizenship. Jamestown versus New Amsterdam. We didn’t shoot enough of these people after the first civil war, so now we know have to grind out the second for another generation or two until the demographics change.

              • Thirtyish

                I don’t think “another generation or two” is going to fix the problem if we’re still facing its repercussions in 2016.

            • Donalbain

              The nearest I come to patriotism is during sporting events, but even then it is a fluid thing that acknowledges the arbitary nature of nations. For example, I support Scotland at all sports other than cricket, England at cricket, GB&UK at Olympic events and Europe when it comes to golf..

          • Gabriel Ratchet

            Saying “my country, right or wrong” is like saying “my bus driver, drunk or sober.”

            • My employer, honest or corrupt.

            • “My bus driver, drunk or sober: if drunk, to be kept drunk; if sober, to be made drunk.”

        • Murc

          Is patriotism bad?

          Yes. So is nationalism. It’s a cancer.

          I’m loyal to a set of ideals and principles. The degree to which I have any patriotism or loyalty to a nation-state is precisely contingent upon how well it adheres to them.

          • Thirtyish

            Patriotism is especially noxious because it’s so mindless. It’s one thing for an eight-year-old to be proud of its country. For an adult, it looks kind of, well, meaningless.

          • jim, some guy in iowa

            where patriotism goes off the rails is when it goes blind. Same with faith- Springsteen talks about that during the intro to “War” on the live album from the 80s- that blind faith in your leaders will get you killed

            • Thirtyish

              Right, and that’s the problem with it. Well that and the fact that, post-1967 or so, it’s been used as a rhetorical and moralistic weapon.

            • No, no; War was Eric Burdon, Blind Faith was Eric Clapton.

            • ThrottleJockey

              where patriotism goes off the rails is when it goes blind.

              Yes, that’s how I was raised. Being patriotic means more than waving a flag and carrying a NRA card…I think Obama called all these companies that invert so that they can escape US taxes unpatriotic earlier this week…Blithely mouthing platitudes about the Founding Fathers while doing everything possible to hurt your community is profoundly unpatriotic.

          • ThrottleJockey

            Interesting. I distinguish nationalism and patriotism. To me nationalism is simple jingoism whereas patriotism is simple love of country.

            Why would other Americans believe progressives have their best interests at heart if your support for them only extends to how much they agree with you?

            • Murc

              Why would other Americans believe progressives have their best interests at heart if your support for them only extends to how much they agree with you?

              They shouldn’t. Which is why it’s a very good thing that my support for my fellow man is, for the most part, in no way contingent on how much they agree with me.

            • Bill Murray

              Meh, I’m not sure why we should privilege some drunkard’s definition. I don’t think you’re a drunkard, but basically your own words otherwise fit here

              Also, why would other Americans believe conservatives have their best interests at heart if your support for them only extends to how much they agree with you? Is a much more accurate statement. These days, politically, only conservatives shoot you if they don’t agree with you. I’m sure you have a cousin that shot somebody once because they didn’t agree with them, and who is more liberal than you

              • ThrottleJockey

                I’m not saying that conservatives have other people’s best interests at heart…I’m saying that people have to “trust” you before they can “believe” you–no matter how right about the facts you are…If you say that you don’t love your country–ie, hate patriotism–then its hard for them to trust you.

                • efgoldman

                  I’m saying that people have to “trust” you before they can “believe” you–no matter how right about the facts you are…

                  I trust conservatives explicitly and implicitly…
                  To be tribal, hateful, spiteful, and fearful, and to act, accordingly, like the assholes they are.

            • sonamib

              I don’t think your definition of patriotism is very widespread. If it only means “I care about this country because that’s where I lived all/most of my life” then yeah, almost everyone is patriotic. People care a lot more about both good and bad events that happen in their own community, and will focus most of their energy trying to improve their own community. The only non-patriots would be extremely disenfranchised minorities.

              But in the definition I’m familiar with, patriotism is not just “my country is subjectively better because that’s where I live”, it’s “my country is objectively better than others, can do no wrong, and that’s why I’m unconditionally loyal to it”.

              • ThrottleJockey

                I think what we’re seeing is that there are many colloquial definitions of “patriotism”. My Oxford-based definition was pretty mainstream where & when I grew up. In other social groupings at other times, however, its obviously acquired a quite different meaning.

                I have a friend whose Latino. He’s pretty damn liberal. But on 9/12 he went and volunteered to enlist, outraged at what happened on 9/11. He is very patriotic and he’s also comfortable being called patriotic.

                I think it was Nobdy who said he volunteered hundreds of hours helping clean up the aftermath of 9/11. While I would call that a patriotic act, he *might* be very uncomfortable with being called patriotic.

                • sonamib

                  Ok so we agree and there’s no point arguing semantics :P

                • Gabriel Ratchet

                  I prefer Ambrose Bierce’s definition, myself:

                  Patriotism, n. Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name. In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit it is the first.

              • ThrottleJockey

                LOL, it was a semantic question–a Rorschach test. People legitimately define patriotism differently based on the term has been bandied about in their lives.

                I do genuinely like people who are “excessively” proud about their country. I love listening to my Greek friend’s father brag about how Greece “invented” the whole of Western civilization. Or how my Croatian friend can name every famous Croatian in the Western Hemisphere and regularly drops Croatian trivia into everyday conversation. Or my Filipino friend whose now a Canadian citizen but hates admitting it because she loves the Philippines. For me, at least, this diversity makes the planet richer.

                • Amanda in the South Bay

                  Its all amusing TJ anecdotes until your Croatian friend’s cousin gets tried for war crimes for massacring Bosnian Muslims in the 1990s.

                  The point being is a very slippery slope from amusing anecdotes you like saying (as if you have one for every occasion!) to…basically the shit that goes on in Europe, in the east. Oh, and edited to say Northern Ireland.

                  Oh, and edit again: Your Greek friend sounds so amusing, but shit like Greece not recognizing the name of Macedonia…nationalism rears its ugly head again. Its not all funny TJ anecdotes of the “progressives are the true bigots” type.

            • Ronan

              The distinction can be summed up by the old Bob carpenter song silent passage:

              “Before the war I had no need for travelling
              Indeed, I do not know what made it so important to leave
              And after all this time I found that I’m avoiding me
              For nothing more or less than fear
              of what I have to gain from staying in the clear
              Although it’s only coming home that brings you near”

          • Ronan

            This is a pretty caricatured view of “nationalism.” You can’t reduce it to its worst manifestations any more than you can any other complex and contingent ideology/mode of social organisation .
            Nationalism has enabled us to institutionalise democratic governments, build communal identities that are both meaningful and (potentially) inclusive, organise society around something approaching the common good (admittedly at times for a restrictive definition of common good) . What do you want instead ? Imperialism ?
            What are your ideals and principles independent of your social obligations and collective ideology ? They don’t amount to a hill of beans

            • Linnaeus

              Yeah, I was going to say something along these lines. Nationalism is a complex thing; certainly it can be manifested in some very ugly ways, but it’s also been the primary impetus for anticolonialist and anti-imperialist movements.

              • Thirtyish

                That gets into an interesting discussion about the power structure behind patriotism and nationalism, which I don’t have time to get into right now. But I do question whether anticolonialism can be properly understood as a form of nationalism.

              • sonamib

                but it’s also been the primary impetus for anticolonialist and anti-imperialist movements

                Ok, anti-imperialism as we know it doesn’t exist without nationalism. But nationalism is only a circumstancial ally that should be dropped as soon as possible, just like the USSR was after WW2. Otherwise your country might end up following the authoritarian steps of a Nasser, Kadhafi, or Suharto.

          • JustRuss

            To me, patriotism means trying to make your country better. Insisting it’s awesome because you happen to live their is just tribalism.

        • toberdog

          Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

          • In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

            • N__B

              The way this election is going, Bierce’s definition of “November” may be more pertinent.

        • The Lorax

          I’m a liberal and am deeply patriotic. As was Lincoln and FDR. As is Obama. There are lots patriotic liberals, actually.

          • The Lorax

            MLK, too.

        • I’ve got 500 combat hours, two Air Medals and a DFC that says I’m plenty patriotic.

          • Manju

            Yeah but I went shopping.

      • Halloween Jack

        The whole album is a terrific downer. “Now I work down at the car wash, where all it ever does is rain” (from “Downbound Train” is one of the most depressing lines in all of music.

  • Mike Rogers

    IThe takeaway from the culture wars is that the progressives are never satisfied. After winning LGB, they didn’t even call a truce before pushing T.

    What’s next after T?

    Just something to think about.

    • sleepyirv

      “Liberals are never satisfied with getting liberty for MOST people, they want it for ALL people! What’s next after that, monkeys?”

      Just something to blankly to stare at because you don’t understand the points you are making, much less counterarguments.

      • Mike Rogers

        What about liberty for women? You’d force them to share locker rooms with people who possess penises. Do you have a daughter?

        T’s are a tiny miniscile minority, but when it comes to sexual politics it’s the left that seems to be for “the one percent”.

        Just something to think about.

        • Warren Terra

          My gawd, what about sexually aggressive whispering tone … Lesbians? What if they’re in the locker room with your daughter the daughter you own?

          Or maybe we could worry about regulating inappropriate behavior, instead of concocting hypothetical situations to legislate about states of being.

          • Nobdy

            To be fair we do keep men out of women’s locker rooms, which is why women are completely safe from sexual assault by men.

            Right? That’s how it works?

            Meanwhile gay men have been using male locker rooms forever and assault or inappropriate behavior by gay men against straight men in locker rooms is virtually unheard of (I am not talking about consensual gay sex in locker rooms, which is common but more a nuisance than a threat).

            It is almost like sexual assault is more about culture and power than seeing nude bodies.

            Confession: I was in some school theater with a joint-sex changing area. I saw some boobies. I did not assault anyone and the women survived. Frankly it was not particularly erotic, even though they were perfectly nice boobies, because I was more focused on giving a good performance and making sure my costume was right than gawking at my castmates. Also it was just a stressed out not very nice smelling atmosphere. There’s a reason men stop fantasizing about sneaking into the women’s lockerroom or bathroom when they leave teenage years. There are much better ways to get your rocks off than watching a bunch of women pop pimples and change tampons.

            • ThrottleJockey

              Ewwww, you said the ‘t’ word!

              • Ronan

                Theatre ?

                • JL

                  I’m guessing either “teenage” or “tampons.”

                • Ronan

                  Ah yeah, you’re probably right. I hadn’t read the whole thread at that stage so didn’t get the context of mike Rogers peculiar hobby horse

            • Jackov

              Certain colleges have had co-ed bathrooms for over 25? years. TTBOMK there have not been problems beyond a little embarrassment attributed to sharing dorm bathrooms despite the staggering rates of sexual misconduct on campuses.

          • N__B

            Do you possess a penis? I have a few…I’m looking at the trade-in value.

            • Origami Isopod

              I hear you can resell them at St. Mark’s Place at a considerable markup. But that was almost 25 years ago, so maybe it’s changed since then.

        • Nobdy

          If you don’t ‘force’ girls and women to share locker rooms with people who ‘have penises’ then you force them to share locker rooms with people who ARE men but happen to have vaginas.

          That seems worse to me.

          Also transwomen generally aren’t shaking their genitals at anyone. They want to get in, use the locker room, and get out without trouble. If a girl happens to glimpse a penis she’ll live. It may be an opportunity to explain diversity. Penises aren’t magical and girls don’t turn to salt or burst into fire upon viewing them.

          • toberdog

            I recently forgot to lock the door to a unisex bathroom in Colorado. A person of the apparently female persuasion opened the door and had a clear view of my peeing penis. We both survived. I was almost certainly more embarrassed than she was.

            • Honoré De Ballsack

              I had a similar experience once, but the woman only saw my penis for a second…although I sort of wish (wait for it) it had been longer.

              Enjoy the buffet! I’ll be here all week.

          • Penises aren’t magical

            DOIN IT RONG. You gotta harvest them at full moon with a golden sickle.

        • Judas Peckerwood

          T’s are a tiny miniscile minority, but when it comes to sexual politics it’s the left that seems to be for “the one percent”.

          And howabout dem Jooz, amirite?

          • efgoldman

            And howabout dem Jooz, amirite?

            Well, at least in the locker room, one can tell which ones they are.

            • Hogan

              Or narrow it down, anyway. I’m a goy, but you wouldn’t know it from my wedding tackle.

              • DocAmazing

                Go Skins!

                • Hogan

                  Still LOLing at this.

                • efgoldman

                  Go Skins!

                  At last! A solution to the racist DC football team: The Washington Foreskins!

                • N__B

                  A solution to the racist DC football team: The Washington Foreskins!

                  It does add amusing overtones to them playing their division rivals, the Giants.

                • Origami Isopod

                  If DC was facing USC in an all-star game, we could see a headline like “Trojans Come Down Hard on Foreskins.”

                • Too bad the Texas Oilers became the Tennessee Titans.

                • Origami Isopod

                  How about a cross-sport match between the Foreskins and the Clippers?

                • N__B

                  Yeshiva U could field a team called the Fighting Mohels.

                • Ahuitzotl

                  The Washington Foreskins .. symbolic of the colossal prick that owns the team?

              • Yipee! Most Jennie threads are pretty boring, but this one was worth the price of entry.

        • JMP

          There aren’t many trans people, so it’s ridiculous to care about their rights! Does this creep even realize what he’s writing, that he is making statements that prove that he is a vile excuse for a human being?

        • MAJeff

          They’re safer in those locker rooms than they are in the churches pushing this legislation.

    • OMG, it’s U!!!

      • Warren Terra

        Actually, it’s usually Q. But as we all know from playing Boggle, where there’s a Q, there’s U.

        • Thirtyish

          I beg to differ. “Qi” has saved my ass on many occasions.

          • Warren Terra

            Not in Boggle it hasn’t, for at least two reasons.

            • Thirtyish

              Whoever said I play by the rules?

              • Bill Murray

                IOKIYAT

            • I’m so afraid. So very afraid. Of…Z.

              • Hogan

                And what Lovecraftian Seussian horror lurks . . . after Z?

    • Julia Grey

      What’s next after T?

      U?

      Edit: Damn, not fast enough.

      What do you imagine is after T, Mike? (Since you’ve given this soooo much thought yourself.)

      • Mike Rogers

        My guess? We’re the culture to give in to every demand of the T’s, the left would probably move on either to polygamy or zoophilia.

        For progressives, the point is to keep “progressing”–consequences be damned.

        Just something to think about.

        • Warren Terra

          If that is your guess, it says a lot about you. Way more about you than it says about the interests of liberals in defending the rights of consenting adults.

        • Judas Peckerwood

          Just something to think about.

          Opines the trash-being incapable of rational thought.

        • DrS

          Really what is the conservative obsession with having sex with animals? It’s really perverse.

          Just something to think about.

          • Judas Peckerwood

            Hey, they have sex with each other. Talk about perverse and disgusting!

          • CD

            Polyzoophilia.

            Just something to think about.

            • N__B

              Polystyrenephilia.

              Just something to think about.

          • Really what is the conservative obsession with having sex with animals? It’s really perverse.

            It’s always projection.

        • Julia Grey

          would probably move on either to polygamy or zoophilia.

          Polygamy — does not require statutory recognition as a fundamental right or element of basic human dignity

          Zoophilia — no consent possible

          • Mike Rogers

            The Zoophiles disagree on that one. Check out Tumblr sometimes.

            There is no end goal for progressives, the point is to keep on progressing.

            Men have penises, and women have vaginas.

            Just something to think about.

            • KadeKo

              What is it with righties and asking everyone else to familiarize themselves with “scholastic research” that would get them kicked off a public library’s computer?

              • CD

                Exactly! *I’m* not the one searching for multimedia about bestiality. Hope the dude is clearing his cookies.

                But yes, apparently oppressing trans people is our sole remaining bulwark against sexing the animals.

            • Origami Isopod

              The Zoophiles disagree on that one. Check out Tumblr sometimes.

              Who says zoophiles are all liberals? Are you completely unaware that conservatives do things in bed other than het missionary under the covers with the lights out?

              • efgoldman

                Are you completely unaware that conservatives do things in bed other than het missionary under the covers with the lights out?

                Funny how that ultra-liberal state of Utah led (may still lead) the country in porn consumption, based on numbers of clicks.

                • CD

                  Like Mike Rogers, they’re diligently researching the horrors progressivism would bring. I hear some people do this research twice a day.

                • Bill Murray

                  It must be close to the lead in polygamy, too

            • JL

              Check out Tumblr sometimes.

              I am going to guess that you saw some furry porn and got confused about what it was.

            • Pamoya

              Sex and gender are way more complicated than that. Please do yourself a favor and learn something: http://neurosciencenews.com/gender-identity-sexual-orientation-2482/

          • Thirtyish

            Your reasoning is wasted on this individual, Julia.

        • Origami Isopod

          the left would probably move on either to polygamy or zoophilia.

          The right has those bases covered already: the FLDS on the one hand, and Neal Horsley on the other.

        • JR in WV

          I love our puppies! All of ’em.You gotta problem wit dat???

        • Pseudonym

          Thad Cochran is a progressive? No thanks, you can keep him.

    • Hogan

      Just something to think about.

      Your catchphrase could use some work.

      • Thirtyish

        That seems to be an oft-employed rightist troll tic. “The fact is/The fact of the matter is” guy springs to mind.

        • Origami Isopod

          Are you thinking of Gary Ruppert?

          But, yes, argument by assertion is a fond tactic of (a) dishonest and lazy arguers, and (b) authoritarians. There is considerable overlap.

    • Warren Terra

      Obviously as Americans we drink coffee, and spurn T, ever since he Sons Of Libery!

    • Judas Peckerwood

      Can you possibly really be that evil/dumb?

      • Thirtyish

        My regards for the human race are admittedly on the low side, but yes, believe me–some people really are that malevolent and/or dumb.

        • Origami Isopod

          +1. This isn’t even a particularly low bar. It’s depressingly common.

    • What’s next after T?

      U?

      • Anonymous Troll

        Not me. I’ve never gone after a T in my life. I just have a wide stance.

    • MAJeff

      Cry harder, pig.

    • pushing T.

      I assume that ‘T’ is short for Thionite.

  • Thirtyish

    Um, Jennie, people?

    • efgoldman

      Um, Jennie, people?

      Dunno’. Arguments are dead stupid, but the sentence structure seems too coherent.
      OTOH, it is using the JenBob tactic of starting with a wrong but argued glibertarian position toward ever more offensive, in the [vain] hope we don’t notice.

      • JL

        I don’t think there’s anything glibertarian about this person’s argument, just plain old conservative. Whatever else you can say about glibertarianism, libertarians don’t generally get so horrified at the thought of trans people (or LGBQ people, for that matter) being able to have basic rights.

    • Warren Terra

      Well, the initial comment I didn’t take seriously, I thought it was a joking representation of a likely winger viewpoint. The follow-up comment, suggesting that once we as a society stop bashing gays you should worry for Fido, rather less so.

      • efgoldman

        Also, he’s in Scott’s RTW thread below, making an equally rightist==>>>offensive series of comments.

    • Origami Isopod

      This guy’s punctuation and spelling are much better than Jennie’s, if his arguments are as facile and lazy.

      • CD

        And more passive-aggressive.

        Just something to think about.

  • Peterr

    “I would just like to intellectually explain to Bruce Springsteen the safety aspect of this bill, which is about four pages long.”

    Just a guess here, but I suspect that if/when the good Representative Walker travels to a non-English speaking country, he speaks more loudly and more slowly so that the locals can understand him.

    • Judas Peckerwood

      And triumphantly pushes his copy of Talkin to Furriners for Dummies in their face to prove that he’s doing it right.

  • Thirtyish

    I would just like to intellectually explain to Bruce Springsteen the safety aspect of this bill, which is about four pages long.”

    Okay, everything this guy has to say on this topic is bullshit, but I’m especially calling bullshit here. This statement is beyond parody. I can’t decide which word or concept expressed here–“intellectually,” “safety aspect,” the idea that the blithering going on for four pages is somehow supposed to lend credibility–is the more idiotic.

    • The old “I’ll work myself into a lather because you don’t believe my lies and then claim to be Mr. Voice of Reason” gambit.

      I feel sorry for his wife.

    • Bill Murray

      I think intellectually explaining something requires a Vulcan mind meld

  • efgoldman

    Unfortunately, SIL is from NC, and has a large family there, which he, my daughter and granddaughter are bound to visit twice a year. Unless they were to pack enough food, gasoline, whatever for the whole trip, there’s no way they can avoid spending money there.

    • Peterr

      “Hey, Large NC Family . . . I know we come to town a couple of times a year and impose on you for hospitality and such. How about this year we all meet somewhere else, so that you don’t have to play host?”

      Just a thought.

      • Warren Terra

        Sure, but if the large extended NC family all want to get together locally, it costs a little gas money, a little groceries (plus the rare out of town guest paying for a hotel room, unless there’s a guest room available). If they all want to get together elsewhere it’s hotel rooms for all, many restaurant meals. Not really a fair ask.

      • efgoldman

        Just a thought.

        Way too many. Dozens of cousins.

        • N__B

          Cull the herd, then hold a barbecue.

      • Halloween Jack

        They could head over the mountains, like the von Trapps! Although then they’d be in Tennessee, which isn’t doing too much better on the LGBT front.

    • Unless they were to pack enough food, gasoline, whatever for the whole trip, there’s no way they can avoid spending money there.

      Enough ammo and they could avoid spending money entirely!!!

      • efgoldman

        Enough ammo and they could avoid spending money entirely!!!

        Nah. Granddaughter’s not big enough yet to carry a bandolier and a pistol.

    • JL

      They could spend money at LGBTQ-owned businesses, or donate to North Carolina and/or Southern LGBTQ organizations (scroll down if you follow that link, as it’s a chain of tweets with more suggestions). Or to the ACLU of North Carolina and Lambda Legal, which are jointly challenging the law.

  • Nobdy

    Actually I agree with Walker, he just left part out. This IS like when a kid [sees someone doing something morally reprehensible and justifiably] gets upset and [to avoid being complicit in the evil] takes his ball and decides to go home.

    See, Little Mikey, when you declare your intention to set the cat’s tail on fire for your own sadistic pleasure none of the other, well asjusted, kids are going to play with you. They see you as a little psycho who enjoys hurting vulnerable beings and they don’t like that.

    Frankly I think the backlash has been too small. These people are explicitly pushing for segregation in our country in 2016. They need to be soundly and firmly rejected.

    • efgoldman

      They need to be soundly and firmly rejected.

      The discriminatory part of the bill is what has everyone upset (properly so) but it contains several additional evils, including forbidding municipalities from setting minimum wages.
      Meanwhile, in the Republiklown bubble…..
      It’s also unenforceable.

      • efgoldman

        Urgh! Three links are too many? Help me, front pager, you are my only hope.

        • howard

          yes, i’ve been there, efgoldman: 2 links is what ya get….

          • Peterr

            Until your next comment. Then ya get two more . . .

          • Bill Murray

            2 links good, 3 links bad?

            • Warren Terra

              Some comments are more equal than others.

          • sonamib

            yes, i’ve been there, efgoldman: 2 links is what ya get….

            In LGM blog, 3 links get YOU!

  • CP

    Sometimes people only hear one side of the story.

    Josh: “You, you’re listening to me, but you’re not understanding me!”
    Toby: “No, I’m disagreeing with you. That doesn’t mean I’m not listening to you or not understanding you. I’m doing all three at the same time.”

  • Julia Grey

    What ARE these so called “safety aspects” of the bill?

    Or perhaps I should ask what these hysterics imagine them to be?

    • Warren Terra

      It’s about keeping the womenfolk you own safe from meeting people with lifestyles or religious beliefs inconsistent with the ones you provided for them.

      • Nobdy

        If you let actual transwomen into the right locker room that means that Larry the Cable Guy can put on a frock, go into the lockerroom, stare at your daughter changing while he shouts “hubba hubba homina homina homina AWOOGA” and there’s NOTHING you can do about it because that’s the law.

    • Thirtyish

      There are none. The idea of “safety” is deployed here as heteronormative anxiety mainly on the part of insecure men being projected as concern for “innocent” women and/or children.

      • Thirtyish

        I should add that it’s actually even more disingenuous than that. What they’re really objecting to with inclusive bathrooms is the idea of transgender identities being legitimate. Because they don’t want to consider that reality, they instead couch their agenda in terms of “safety” (they’re just looking out for the poor women and children, doncha know), but it’s complete bullshit. Remember that conservatives generally don’t see rape as that big of a deal anyway.

        • toberdog

          What they’re really objecting to with inclusive bathrooms is the idea of transgender identities being legitimate.

          Yes.

  • Joseph Slater

    I’m curious about the specific mention of the fact that the bill was “about four pages long.” Is the idea that truly bad laws are longer, or shorter?

    • Nobdy

      I think he means that it is four pages long so cannot be summed up in a soundbite, but he could mean it is four pages long so it is simple to explain. It is almost like he is not a careful thinker who expresses himself clearly.

    • Thirtyish

      He thinks that length must somehow imply validity of content. You know, kind of like how a child reasons.

      • See also, Ann Coulter’s book “All Liberals should Be Drawn and Quartered” is very scholarly because it has a ton of footnotes.

        • Warren Terra

          That reminds me of a fun time when someone powerful on the Right (Bill O’Reilly probably) was going after Al Franken’s latest book (this was when he was a comedian, or maybe a radio host), and saying it wasn’t serious because it had no footnotes. It had a ton of endnotes, but the winger critic was perfectly correct: not a footnote to be seen.

          • Franken also had a bit where someone would randomly pick one of Coulter’s footnotes and he would show how it in no way supported what she claimed it did.

          • The opposite. In Lies and the Lying Liars Franken went after Coulter for having endnotes but not footnotes. Franken’s book was full of footnotes, but also had exactly one endnote, which read “see, this was really hard to find, wasn’t it?”

  • Nadabupkis

    It’s always about the crotch with the right-wingers. Why are they so obsessed with crotches? How do they walk down the street with all those (clothed) crotches nearby without their heads exploding?

    The “safety” argument is ever more nonsensical than the “fraud” argument for voter ID.

  • Julia Grey

    What is Larry the Cable Guy going to see in a woman’s bathroom that he doesn’t see on the streets outside it?

    Seriously, people, women don’t stand at urinals and bare their cooches in there. There are STALLS with doors that LOCK.

    Maybe the guys are just afraid that women will dress like guys and get a look at their dicks in THEIR bathrooms.

  • Julia Grey

    Next thing you know they’ll be telling lesbians they can’t use the locker room because they might look upon their fellow women and … what? Slavver?

    • Peterr

      No, they’d likely be fine with that.

      It’s the gay guy in the men’s locker room that worries them, because they *know* that they are all so irresistibly attractive that the gay guys won’t be able to resist themselves.

      • Origami Isopod

        50% that, 50% that they themselves won’t be able to resist that sweet, sweet buttsecks. Which is why they need laws passed against it: to save them from themselves.

      • efgoldman

        It’s the gay guy in the men’s locker room that worries them

        Well, sure. Just go back and read the newspapers from the good old days when all the gays were in the closet. Look at the thousands of reports of inappropriate sexual behavior in men’s bathrooms and locker rooms. Thousands.
        Or maybe not.
        Howkum all these klowns don’t worry about some woman finding them irresistible and attacking them? Makes just as much sense.

    • Mike G

      “Lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they’ll only let one girl go to the bathroom.” — Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn (R-of course)

      “At least, that’s the way it plays in my imagination,” he should have added.

      • There’s nothing in southeast Oklahoma. I’ve been there.

        • Thirtyish

          That was what always stuck out for me about that statement. I mean, if you’re going to broadcast a wet dream make up a story like that, at least set it in Oklahoma City or Tulsa (or, I dunno, even Enid or Lawton), where there are actually people, and schools.

          • so-in-so

            Then those people might point out you are wrong!

      • AMK

        If only that were the case. Maybe then Oklahoma and the rest of the South would finally put a dent in teen pregnancy and fetal alcohol syndrome.

      • they’ll only let one girl go to the bathroom.

        How do they choose her? Is there a lottery at the beginning of the year or something?
        I guess it’s a lesson in self-control and willpower for the rest of the school.

  • howard

    i went down 57 comments just to be sure that no one else has said it, but how can def leppard and justin bieber possibly not cancel now?

    • solidcitizen

      That was my thought. But $$z.

    • Moondog

      90 percent of US net users don’t know from crtl-F

      Dan Russell, one of Google’s anthropologists, conducted a largeish survey of user behavior and discovered that 90 percent of American Internet users don’t know that crtl-F will let them search documents including Web pages.

      • William Berry

        OK, I’m stupid. Ctrl F doesn’t do anything on my desktop. so what are you talking about?

        Honest question.

        • Hogan

          In a browser, with a web page open, you can use Ctrl-F.

          Your desktop is something other than a document. Display? Anyway, it has to be a document. (Also works for PDFs if they’ve been through OCR.)

          • The Temporary Name

            Mac is the Apple-F.

            • Thom

              On an iPad it is a little different. Enter the search name in the address bar, and then select “on this page” at the bottom of a series of choices.

            • Hogan

              Ah. Yes. Best check my Windows privilege.

              • Colin Day

                It works in Linux, too.

              • N__B

                Windows privilege.

                That’s the funniest thing you’ve ever said.

  • Julia Grey

    So, essentially, the “danger” is that a man who identifies as male but is pretending to be a woman might SEE something? Something not covered by a towel or shower curtain in locker rooms that break out into 2 types: mostly-modest and don’t-give-a-damn-who’s-looking.

    But the woman who is SEEN doesn’t ever know she is being looked at by a cis-male who has gone to some length to look like a woman? Gee, that’s scary. Yeah.

    • JR in WV

      Many many years ago my dad took us all to the Fiesta Bowl, where WVU played Notre Damm – both teams were undefeated. Very exciting. First time in Arizona, too.

      The packages my dad bought included Alumna receptions with cash bars, and a BBQ at a faux ghost town Indian village outside of town. Huge place, with a shortage of women’s bathrooms for an affair with all the beer you could drink.

      So, being very practical West Virginians, and noticing that there was a long line at the women’s restrooms, and NO Line at the men’s restrooms, someone saw that most of those stalls in the men’s room were unused. So there was a line of women going into the men’s rooms, using the stalls, and going back to the party.

      And No One thought that was anything by efficient use of available facilities. Including my mom and wife. I’m thinking 1989 or so. I’ll look it up if anyone cares.

  • Julia Grey

    To me, “danger” implies some kind of perceptible harm.

    I don’t see any in being SEEN when I am unaware of it.

    And if I were afraid of being seen by any stray pervert, I could always become one of those OBSESSIVELY modest women in the locker room, poor darlings.

  • tsam

    Good like us, baby we were born to whiiiiiiiiine!

    • N__B

      Non-T Johnny was sitting on a fire escape watching the kids playing down in the head
      He called down “hey little heroes…break time’s long but I guess it isn’t very sweet around here anymore”

      • tsam

        Aw crap. That was sposta be Tools like us. FUWP.

        • N__B

          WordPress, gotta live it every day
          Let the broken links stand
          As the price you’ve gotta pay
          Keep pushin’ till it’s understood
          These WordPress starts treating us good

  • Which statement is true?
    A. There is no such thing as PC, it’s a made up word, a politicians word.
    B. Everything is PC or un-PC depending on where you stand.
    C. The words “Politically Correct” and “Politically Incorrect” are
    synonyms.
    D. Anti political correctness is the real political correctness.
    E. All of the above.
    The correct answer is E.

  • ringtail

    When I read about these gender bathroom laws I just. Can’t. Even…

    I want to scream “Are we adults? Are we really awl gwossed out at the yucky bathroom stuff??”

    In bootcamp I pissed in a port-a-potty with four other men at the same time, with the door closed, while full open mouth screaming and another man timed it for us. That, in RWNJ world is perfectly acceptable, laudable behavior by the salt of the earth.

    But letting everyone have the dignity of a place to take care of their most basic bodily functions, that’s somehow uncouth, against god?

    • efgoldman

      I want to scream “Are we adults? Are we really awl gwossed out at the yucky bathroom stuff??”

      No. Yes.

      • jim, some guy in iowa

        now *this* sums up America a lot better than anything that mentions patriotism

  • I’ve actually seen co-ed bathrooms over in Italy. It’s one room with a bunch of sinks in it.

    The other room has stalls with floor-to-ceiling doors. There’s no way for anyone to possibly see anything.

    • Thom

      Floor to ceiling doors are also the norm in South Africa, though there the public toilets are segregated by sex.

  • AMK

    I get that this whole bathroom thing is an attack on transgendered people to bother some God in the base now that the rest of the country has forced them to treat regular gays as human beings.

    But at the same time, if you’re a transgendered person, why does it matter what bathroom you use? If you’re a man who wears lipstick and rompers and that’s your self-expression, all the power to you. But even if you can afford the kind of $$$$$ surgery that Caitlyn Jenner got, no non-transgendered man in that bathroom is gonna start checking you out. You’re not “fooling” us.

    • If you’re a man who wears lipstick and rompers and that’s your self-expression

      First of all, fuck you.

      Second, trans women tend to worry less about being “checked out” and more about being “murdered” and/or “raped”.

      In conclusion, fuck you.

      • sonamib

        What stepped pyramids said. Please don’t be a bigot, AMK.

    • Abbey Bartlet

      Nine months later, I would like to suggest that you go fuck yourself.

  • TBplayer

    I haven’t had time to read all the comments, so someone else might have beaten me to this, but I’m guessing that the same people who think Bruce Springsteen has no right to decide where to he will or will not play concerts think it’s perfectly OK for a government employee to refuse to provide their legally mandated services to a gay person (yes, I’m talking to you, Kim Davis). Or for a business claiming to be open to the general public to deny service to gay people.

  • Nutella

    The reasons usually given by the authors of these bathroom bills is that cis-het men who sneak into women’s bathrooms to ogle the ladies can’t be stopped if the existence of trans people is allowed to confuse the issue of who is a man.

    In other words, it’s yet another example of expected bad behavior by cis-het men requiring punishment and/or restrictions for everyone who is NOT a cis-het man.

  • Julia Grey

    Serious question: would a trans person who is in no way attempting to “pass” as their self-identified gender really try to use the bathroom identified with their self-identified gender (that’s not their birth gender, and not the gender they appear to possess)?

    As you noted, there’s little reason for them to do so. If they are at the stage of still attempting to “pass,” it would blow their cover.

    Edit: Whoa, somehow I posted this in the wrong place.

It is main inner container footer text