Subscribe via RSS Feed

LGM: How the Left Has Become a Cult!

[ 199 ] March 20, 2017 |


According to this clownish performative centrist, various LGM writers are indicative of why the left has become a cult that can’t unite the nation. Why? Because we say mean things about Trump voters. His conclusion:

This is the modern Left. Intolerant and absolutist. It’s their way or the highway. Disagreement with them means your views are illegitimate (e.g., racist, sexist) and you might be insane (e.g., xenophobic). It makes them look more like a cult than a successful political movement. They are a gift to the 1% and their servants in Washington.

Totally dude. Allow me to speak for my co-bloggers that we all just so glad to wield this kind of power. It goes well with our giant checks from the Clinton Foundation.

I await everyone’s comments on this one.


Comments (199)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. aturner339 says:

    You’ll have to give him a minute to respond. He’s downstairs trying to misunderstand three word phrases.

  2. Philip says:

    See Erik Loomis’ (Asst Prof of History at the U or RI) essay “Dumbasses of America“, which illustrates why the Left has lost so much of its influence in America, and might be unable to effectively resist Trump.


    Many of these “idiotic white voters”, or their parents, voted for Democrats in the past — and can again in the future.

    Yes, when I think Loomis I definitely think “unsympathetic to the struggles of working class whites” /s

  3. NoMoreAltCenter says:

    LGM? Far Left? I am going to explode like every computer from Star Trek TOS.

    • q-tip says:


    • Do you actually not realize that many people identify “far left” as meaning “strong partisan liberal Democrat”, and that the actual far left is completely invisible in the United States, because of its decades of passionate infighting and navel-gazing? I’m actually beginning to feel bad about how much shit we’ve all been giving you. Maybe you’re not actually trolling. Are you sixteen? Did you just start caring about politics in the last year or so?

      • DAS says:

        However, there are many people who, in conflating “the left” with “left leaning partisan Democrats” will attribute the infighting and naval gazing of the far left to left leaning, partisan Democrats.

        Of course, as we see in this article, there is also a lot of projecting the intolerance of the GOP onto the Democrats.

        BTW, many GOoPs have said many a condescending thing about the WWC and otherwise insulted the same voters we Democrats are told “if you want them to vote for you, don’t call them names” … and the story of the 2016 election was that those voters didn’t say “both sides are insulting me, I’m not gonna vote for either side”, it’s that they came out and voted for a plutocrat who insulted them!

        • Little Chak says:

          I actually thought, “I love the poorly educated / I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue, and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose a single voter” was more insulting than “basket of deplorables”… but what do I know?

  4. Lord Jesus Perm says:

    Who is this?

  5. Nobdy says:

    Typical leftie, trying to gather your OBJECTIVELY DESPICABLE readers to wrap you in a cocoon of OBJECTIVELY DESPICABLE REASSURANCE.

    I agree with FM. Why, Loomis, ARE you so condescending towards Trump voters in your blog “Lawyers, Guns, and Outreach to Republicans: a Strategic Blog for Convincing Centrists to Support Democrats.” LGOtR:SBCCSD just won’t succeed in its stated goal of outreach to Republicans with this attitude!

  6. carolannie says:

    Yep. We ooze meanness out of every pore. After all, we have while Fox News empires, talk radio shows such as Limbaugh’s etc dedicated for the past 30 years to saying sweet truthful reasonable things about lefties to win us over to their side

  7. m0nty says:

    Clinton Foundation? My check says Soros, might as well cut out the middlemen.

  8. bizarroMike says:

    If this is going to be a cult, we should get matching sneakers and a cool secret handshake.

  9. Gwen says:

    It seems to me that we’ve all been here before. Is it just me or was there not quite-a-bit of concern trolling back in the GWB era that Democrats were just mean-meanies-of-meanness who didn’t understand Real America?

    Also, it seems to me that there can be no true forgiveness without repentance. People who voted for Trump, let us be candid, are not simply good people with whom we disagree; choosing between Hillary and Trump was not like choosing between brands of ketchup. It was between choosing a flawed-but-qualified public servant and a crackpot demagogue. These people have chosen and enabled a well-known-liar, con-man, and misogynist and put him in a position where he has already started hurting many, many people.

    Now to be sure, the Scripture also says we should soften our hearts. I am all in favor of “listening” to Trump voters and certainly I have no particular desire to see them hurt by government policy. But, as a wise man once said, “the right to free speech does not necessarily include the right to be taken seriously.” We can listen, but we shouldn’t pander. We shouldn’t let Trump voters dictate our destiny unless they have a real desire to admit that they were wrong and embrace a more progressive vision of the future.

    • Erik Loomis says:

      choosing between Hillary and Trump was not like choosing between brands of ketchup.

      I mean, from a certain perspective, one could see it that way, in that both choices really sucked and tasted terrible but Hillary was at least Heinz and Trump was from some sort of factory that the FDA never found.

    • Gwen says:

      And incidentally there *are* such people out there, who really want to work with us. One of the leaders of Indivisible ATX was at a meeting I just attended and she mentioned one of the more active members actually voted Trump in the GOP primary before realizing he was a moron and writing in “Bernie Sanders” on the November ballot.

      • los says:

        one of the more active members actually voted Trump in the GOP primary before realizing he was a moron and writing in “Bernie Sanders” on the November ballot.

        Do you have any idea which month’s GOP primary?
        I’m wondering how few months of Trump’s moronicisms[1] were necessary to “flip” that voter so far out of the GOP to write-in Sanders instead of voting McMullin, Johnson, or to write-in Rubio, Cruz, etc.

        1. and perhaps if any of Trump’s moronicisms were “outstanding”.

      • really want to work with us

        writing in “Bernie Sanders” on the November ballot

        Apparently not that much.

      • Abbey Bartlet says:

        before realizing he was a moron and writing in “Bernie Sanders” on the November ballotdoing something even more moronic


    • los says:

      Gwen says:

      It seems to me that we’ve all been here before… in favor of “listening” to Trump voters

      Yes, this sounds like deja vu again.

      • los says:

        (“Listening” to Trump voters sounds like deja vu again)

      • los says:

        Annnnd… Trumpcuck Perineummaximus still “inexplicably” sounds like a Bush voter.

      • Gwen says:

        Well, just to be clear — and I wasn’t clear — I think there’s two kinds of listening.

        There’s the sort of listening that is motivated by a belief that the person speaking has some sort of deep, mystical wisdom to share about the soul of Real America. This is the “listening” that pundits keep talking about.

        The sort of listening I’m talking about is “not slamming the door in their faces.”

        The difference being, I don’t really expect I’m going to learn anything useful, but I’m not going to dismiss it entirely out-of-hand.

    • los says:

      Gwen says:

      and certainly I have no particular desire to see them hurt by government policy.

      Yes, but…
      the ditto/tea/trumpcucks have descended to a level at which
      1. we can’t save them from hurting themselves, and
      2. hurting themselves badly is the only way that more than an infinitesimal portion of them can “wake up”.

    • JMV Pyro says:

      It seems to me that we’ve all been here before. Is it just me or was there not quite-a-bit of concern trolling back in the GWB era that Democrats were just mean-meanies-of-meanness who didn’t understand Real America?

      No kidding. Didn’t something like this also happen during the Reagan years? Seems like it happens every time we lose

      • Gwen says:

        Right. There is a fundamental asymmetry at work.

        When a Republican loses, it is because they ran a bad campaign or weren’t conservative enough or (more likely) because the Democrats “stole” the election. It’s four years of sniping and righteous indignation.

        When a Democrat loses, it should be a deep time of personal spiritual reflection and penance followed by re-education in the folkways of patriotism. It’s four years of Mandatory Truck Rallies.

    • efgoldman says:

      Scripture also says we should soften our hearts.

      Fuck that. I’m an atheist.

      We can listen

      Nope. I’m tired of listening. Every fucking day there’s another piece somewhere about interviewing and listening to really stupid, ignorant, racist assholes. I don’t have to listen to them.
      How fucking stupid do you have to be to hear that Mango Malignancy wants to take YOUR LIFE (food and medical care), acknowledge that as FACT, and say YOU’D FUCKING VOTE FOR HIM AGAIN?!??!!??


      • Gwen says:

        Well, again, I meant “listening” not “taking them seriously.”

        • efgoldman says:

          I meant “listening” not “taking them seriously.”

          I have foam ear plugs i bought in the drugstore, from when I did all night radio and needed to sleep in the daytime.

      • Stag Party Palin says:


        Oh yeah. I’m going to be golfing (public course, not a Trump) with one of them in a couple of days and if he says anything – anything! then he’s is going to get a niblick up his ass. If I can figure out which end is his ass.

      • catbirdman says:

        Dude, I tried watching Stephanopoulos yesterday and was treated to “a close friend and ally of the president, Christopher Ruddy, the CEO of the conservative website, Newsmax.” Ruddy joined the conversation from West Palm Beach. Fortunately it was on DVR and I could FF through nearly the entire segment — after ascertaining that it was as ridiculous as I’d imagined it would be — but seriously. This is what we’re reduced to now. And if we don’t take Mr. Ruddy’s pronouncements seriously enough we’re the reason grandma’s not getting her meals on wheels. Fuck them all.

    • DAS says:

      Is it just me or was there not quite-a-bit of concern trolling back in the GWB era that Democrats were just mean-meanies-of-meanness who didn’t understand Real America?

      It’s not just you. Wasn’t the GWB era when David Brooks bravely hobnobbed with real ‘Murkins ’round the Applebees salad bar and found out that they were insulted by liberal elitism?

      • efgoldman says:

        Wasn’t the GWB era when David Brooks bravely hobnobbed with real ‘Murkins ’round the Applebees salad bar

        And the Mustache of Understanding was interviewing cab drivers around the world for the real understanding of policy.

  10. jim, some guy in iowa says:

    the lg&m frontpagers are “key people” in the Democratic party? congratulations, I think

    this whole “don’t be mean to the trump voter” shtick keeps coming from people who don’t want to fucking *listen* to the trump voter

  11. Chetsky says:

    ISTR this Fabius Maximus as being, long ago, somewhat reasonable. At least, when it came to foreign policy. Maybe I misremember.

    But holy cow, this shitheel and his “oh, liberals are so awful for not listening to “.

    Fuck him.

    I have a friend who stayed in the closet his entire childhood, so he could stay alive. Not a fuckin’ identity issue, FM. Not a fuckin’ identity issue.

  12. alexceres says:

    Well, trusting Trump and voting to burn the country down to make yourself feel better is kinda insane ….

  13. DrDick says:

    I had no idea we were so powerful and central to American political discourse. Obviously I need a better wardrobe.

  14. Joe_JP says:

    Intolerant and absolutist.

    You may be right
    I may be crazy
    But it just may be a lunatic you’re looking for
    Turn out the light
    Don’t try to save me
    You may be wrong for all I know
    But you may be right

    And, per an earlier comment, I don’t like ketchup. Hillary Clinton was a pretty good if flawed flavor of barbecue sauce. Trump was a rancid bit of crazy sauce.

  15. solidcitizen says:

    I may have missed the point, but is the author basically saying at one point that FDR and “the Democrats” supported the explosion of a million or so Mexicans, so we should be cool with it today, too?
    Let’s lock up the Japanese while we’re at it. Or make sure black people really can’t benefit from government programs. I mean, FDR was cool with it. What, do you think you’re better than FDR?

  16. Breadbaker says:

    Don’t call them racist just because they favor policies that proportionally and intentionally disadvantage minorities.

    Don’t call them sexist just because their “small government” positions have a perpetual exemption for interfering in women’s use of their own reproductive organs.

    If we simply stopped doing that, they’d vote for Sanders, Warren, Hillary and indeed, Erik Loomis himself in a heartbeat.

    Got it. We’ll start doing that tomorrow.

    • Uneekness says:

      Yeah, this is kind of the nut right here. The price of reaching Trump voters is jettisoning … the things that make us liberal/left/progressive/whatever. They aren’t looking for economic populism, they are looking for cultural supremacy – the economic populism, such as it is, that comes from Trump is an adjunct to the cultural supremacy, not the animating force.

      So it’s important to note that the people interviewed, ARE NOT THEMSELVES REACHABLE. Them being mocked on this tiny corner of the internet means, um … less than a Fox News talking head slagging PoC after a cop murders a black teenager, maybe?

      (The important thing is the existence of the article itself, highlighting the inconsistencies in a Trump voters’ worldview and policy preferences, written in a non-judgemental, dry reportorial style. It can potentially reach independent voters feeling buyers remorse.)

  17. Cheap Wino says:

    Worst. Cult. Ever.

  18. JMV Pyro says:

    Does this mean all of those posts about graves have contained some kind of hidden code only the most indoctrinated can understand?

  19. Socrets says:

    Wait. You mean it’s the Clinton Foundation and not George Soros funding this blog?! NEOLIBERAL CLINTONISTAS!!!

  20. Sophia says:

    Funny how those of us who’ve spent decades in flyover country have little patience for “if we were just nicer to them!!”

    • Chetsky says:

      Trudat. Trudat.

    • Gizmo says:

      Screw it. It doesn’t matter how nice we are to some of these people. The best we can hope for is that good politics and good policy will make their lives better and they will stop trying to fuck things for the rest of us.

    • Uneekness says:

      No. Fucking. Shit.

      Twenty plus years of knocking on doors, nodding and gritting your teeth at the insanity that vomits out of their faceholes, and saying, “well, I see what you’re saying, but, actually, funny thing is, Candidate X isn’t gay/is a churchgoing Christian/actually has an A rating from the NRA… ” then realizing none of this fucking matters, as they start with the finger-jabbing and the spittle…

      • Gizmo says:

        Its not even hard to find Trump voters who voted for this guy, knowing that we was unfit for the office. They voted for him out of spite.

        I don’t think we’re gonna win those people over. The best we can hope for is to marginalize them. What we do know is that they are minority of the voters. Maybe these are the 35% of people who approve of him.

        • FMguru says:

          Yeah. We’re never going to win over the 27% crazification Republican base, or the 15% on top of that who make reasonable-sounding noises but vote R 99.9% of the time anyway. It’s just not going to happen. The idea of re-making the Democratic party to chase voters in NASCAR country is just nuts.

          Besides, Bill Clinton tried that back in the early 1990s. He signed execution warrants, backed a punitive crime bill, put Jesse Jackson and Sister Souljah in their place, and signed that dreadful welfare reform. His reward was the Gingrich landslide and an impeachment.

          We’re a thousand times better off trying to get new voters in Arizona or Georgia or North Carolina, or getting more people in Ohio and Michigan cities registered.

          • Just_Dropping_By says:

            The welfare reform bill post-dated the “Gingrich landslide” and the Democrats in fact gained seats in Congress after passing the bill….

    • SatanicPanic says:

      Amen to that. Fucking listen to these people, hear their words. It’s not that hard. They hate us. Believe it.

  21. corporatecake says:

    This has been said before, but I’m really fucking tired of any criticism whatsoever of Republicans and especially Trump voters being met with “this is why Trump won!” while they can call everyone to the left of Richard Nixon effete, elitist cucks who are actively working to destroy America and that’s a totally fair criticism that we should take to heart.

    • los says:

      this is why Trump won!

      The phrase looks like a joke created by Borowitz or a similar joker.
      Then… a trumpkin saw the phrase and accepted it as “fact”, because blaming the “libtards” for anything felt good.


    • MyNameIsZweig says:

      “this is why Trump won!”

      It’s the 2017 version of “this is why we can’t have nice things.”

  22. YosemiteSemite says:

    “their way or the highway”? I mean if you’re going to use the saying, get the miles out of it. The poetics is what makes it: “my way or the highway.” The doofus grammatical alteration makes him sound like, well, a doof. Rewrite the sentence. Imagine him with “Maybellene”: “As I was drivin’ really fast up over the hill/I saw Maybellene in a Coupe de Ville.”

  23. randy khan says:

    It appears that Mr. Maximus also is unable to distinguish a rebuttal from mockery.

  24. TIL that Thomas Frank’s book is called “LISTEN LIBERAL” and has a finger pointed at the reader on the front. It’s almost like he’s here hectoring me in person!

  25. IS says:

    Since when is xenophobia better described as insane than illegitimate or just wrong?

  26. Gizmo says:

    Erik Johnson is Right!

    The only upside I see to these ‘Go Talk to the Trump voters’ articles is that about half of them feature a moment where the reporter asks the right question, and the interviewee concedes (sometimes sheepishly) that they’ve been had.

    We just need about 270,000 more of these before the next election.

    • los says:

      where the reporter asks the right question, and the interviewee concedes (sometimes sheepishly)

      I occasionally see a concession on twitter, but when I check the altcuck’s main page, the altcuck is still retweeting infowars, etc.

      Empty Revelation (or Ephemeral Revelation)

    • efgoldman says:

      the interviewee concedes (sometimes sheepishly) that they’ve been had.

      And in the next sentence, they say they’d gladly vote for Citron Shitgibbon AGAIN!
      It’s like hearing a song you really, really hate over and over and over, and you can’t change the station.

      • FMguru says:

        The other thing I notice, when you do manage to get them to understand they’ve been hustled, is they immediately deflect the blame away from their own gullibility onto someone else, usually liberals (but sometimes the media or the whole stinking system). It’s never their fault, it’s always the liberals (for being so mean and condescending) or whoever. Thus, their stupidity goes unexamined and uncorrected and they fall back into it at the earliest opportunity (which makes them even angrier at liberals the next time they get taken) and so the cycle continues.

  27. EvanHarper says:

    The best part is that “future of the Left” graph that he posted. Did the entire European social-democratic take a united turn towards condescension right around 2007? Is that a plausible explanation for such a discontinuous and extreme shift? Is there perhaps some structural factor that arose in Europe right around 2007, and has not yet ended, that might provide a better explanation for this historic reversal of social-democratic ascendancy? Hmmmm…..

  28. Donna Gratehouse says:

    All these idiotic takes on how liberals need to suck up to Trump more are predicated on the absurd belief that no liberals live in Red America. We’re right here, guys, encountering and having work and personal relationships with Trump voters daily.

    And I can tell you from Arizona that they will never stop thinking liberals are sneering at them no matter what we actually do. Reason is they’re way more worked up about the Strawliberals invented by Fox News et al who are warring on Christmas and Black Panthering the voting booths and dressing like a different gender to sneak into bathroom. Nothing liberals really do to look down on conservatives compares to that.

    • Cheap Wino says:


      Eggsfuckingzactly. Are there enough fingers available to point to how much our media is complicit in creating these irredeemable ignoramuses?
      Yes, minor cult blogs treat Fox as it really is but they are legitimately respected as a news source nationally. And they never engage the left legitimately. It’s always strawman.

  29. Docrailgun says:

    I got about 3 phrases in and decided this was typical Heinlein-Randian “libtertarian” writing… the type where they spew word salad that actually means nothing in an attempt to prove a point with what they believe is witticism. MRAs, Gamergators, and especially people like Little Teddy Beale do this all the time.

  30. Merkwürdigliebe says:

    As someone who often disagrees with prevailing local sentiment around the margins, I will just say that there isn’t an awful lot of space left here for opinions that would be considered different but legitimate. One step out of the Line and you are immediately labeled sexist/racist/xenophobic = discussion is over, you are an evil, damaged person and your opinions need not be thought about. It really doesn’t take much.

    • Funny how in a comments section people often express strong disagreement with what others are saying! How dare they!

      • Merkwürdigliebe says:

        Eh…no. I don’t mind people disagree with me. I usually only post when I disagree with someone (otherwise, what’s the point?)

        I do mind being excommunicated as a monster for holding unsanctioned opinions – or, rather, I consider it unfortunate that on certain topics almost all opinions outside the local mainstream consensus are considered impermissible.

        E.g. when, some not too long time ago, I pointed out that law cannot realistically treat men and women with absolute equality, in the light of the fact that women can get pregnant and give birth to new human beings and men cannot,* I was treated as an unrepentant sexist. For pointing out the implications of a fairly uncontroversial biological fact.

        I’m not saying everyone here would react this way but it certainly is something to expect anytime I want to voice an opinion that doesn’t fall squarely within the accepted doctrine.

        *And I think I even included some caveat as not to erase trans people.

        • Rob in CT says:

          That’s not how I recall things going down.

          Or I’m remembering a different thread.

          • Q.E.Dumbass says:

            Here’s the thread Strangelove’s talking about.

            • Rob in CT says:

              So here’s the (portion of the) comment by Merkwürdigliebe that got a couple of other comments pissed:

              I agree that reproductive freedom is crucial to female social equality and most resistance to it comes from religious patriarchy. Abortion is therefore a stickier issue.
              But: – Limitations on late-term abortion are not something outside acceptable consideration (at which point a lot of the discussion is reduced to moving the line)
              – The proximate effects of a conservative success would be localized and reversible
              – The pro-life camp is just too large to be excluded from the Overton window
              – When it comes to childbearing, the sexes are always necessarily going to be unequal and there is nothing to be done about that short of major alterations to our physiology

              YMMV, but I see more there than the point about biology.

              • Merkwürdigliebe says:

                As usual, my memory was more favorable to my conclusions than the actual thread – but please note that I am on the pro-choice side, acknowledging the crucial role of reproductive freedom for gender equality, listing what I consider to be uncontroversial facts and arguing for a democratic political process where the other side gets a vote.

                Still not good enough to not be considered sexist (so not just someone to disagree with – someone outside the bounds of polite society).

              • So, some people didn’t like what you had to say about abortion. Some people found it to be sexist. They are as entitled to their opinion as you are to yours. They are as entitled to express their opinion as you are to express yours.

                Look, I get people don’t like being told that their opinions are sexist. Sometimes people disagree over to what extent an opinion is sexist. But this idea that it’s wrong to say that you think someone is saying something sexist -imagine if we applied that principle. That would mean that people would not be allowed to criticize sexism at all.

            • Merkwürdigliebe says:

              Yeah, that’s the one.

          • Merkwürdigliebe says:

            I don’t think you were explicitly present in that discussion (but I may be misremembering).

            It was one of the should-Trump-voters-be-considered-human-or-not posts. I was trying to differentiate between the aversion to standard Republican political program and the particular existential threat posed by Trump; Basically arguing that dismissing the entire GOP agenda as totally unacceptable and illegitimate is a recipe for civil war and that in a democracy, even some of the ideas you disagree with have to be at least included in the political discourse. Which led to my opinion that it is necessary to agree to disagree on abortion (I will vote for choice, Republicans will vote for “life” and the political process will decide the outcome), given that the pro-life side is just too numerous, some limitations (e.g. on third-trimester terminations) have a broad support and that at some point the disagreement is reduced to drawing the line somewhere. Which in turn led to the observation in question.

            So on second thought, yes – I was not called sexist merely for pointing out the biological difference, it was also for suggesting that the other side get a vote in the matter.

            • Rob in CT says:

              Yeah, QED linked it above.

              I was actually thinking of a different thread where you got into it with some of our lady commenters. But my memory of it is too hazy to even look for it.

            • Little Chak says:

              Hey. Hey! Abortions being made illegal in the third trimester is not “the other side getting to have a say in the matter”. It’s a restriction on the personal autonomy and right to self-determination of a person. Let’s say (wrongly) that it has broad bi-partisan support: It’s still, in many cases seriously, and in all cases to some degree, putting a person’s life in danger in order to satisfy the mob.

              We don’t do civil rights by popular vote in this country. If you think women’s rights to personal autonomy, the right of gay people to get married, and the rights of black schoolchildren to attend white schools should be put up to a popular vote, well, I just happen to think that is a fucking stupid idea.

              And because I think that it is a fucking stupid idea, it has thus been decreed that you are an irredeemable piece of shit who is outside the bounds of polite society. Or maybe that is a bullshit mischaracterization and you should fuck off with that.

              • Merkwürdigliebe says:

                It can be just as vigorously argued that not having the limitation is a fucking stupid idea that infringes upon the most fundamental rights to personal autonomy and bodily integrity of the unborn child – which is by that point generally ex-utero viable by current medical standards and can grow up to be a full human being, if you don’t kill it now.

                I’m not really taking a side here, just being deliberately contrarian to stress that the “shall not be put to popular vote” route does not take you very far in this instance.

                • Little Chak says:

                  So, what, viability means that a woman can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term? (Do “health of the mother” exceptions apply, or must we beg conservatives really, really nicely for them as we tell them how wonderfully compassionate they are?) What if the mother dies from pregnancy complications after being denied the right to abort? “Aw, shucks…too bad, so sad”?

                  Or, if she is allowed to end the pregnancy, the fetus must be extracted early and delivered alive? Who pays for the heroic efforts and medical care to treat the prematurely delivered babies under this policy? What if there are lifelong health complications for the baby as a result of being delivered early? Is the mother on the hook for that?

                  What about serious, catastrophic birth defects that are only detected in the third trimester? “Sorry, you’re just going to have to listen to your baby scream in agony for a few hours before she dies.” “Sorry, you’re just going to have to get used to the fact that your child has only enough brain material to blink, make gutteral noises, sweat, and digest food, and will have less intellectual capacity than a hamster for her short existence. It’s your fault that you can’t see this as a blessing.”

                  In other words, viability means the woman’s life is no longer her own.

                  Yeah, thanks, but no thanks. Third trimester abortions are very rare, and usually heartbreaking.

                  “By a popular vote, it has been decided that fetuses become people at the beginning of the third trimester, and that women cease to be people who can control what is happening inside their bodies. After six months of gestation, the fetus becomes a ward of the state, and the mother’s feelings and wishes are irrelevant, as she is now primarily an incubator. Upon successfully giving birth, the baby is no longer a ward of the state, but returned to her mother, and the mother’s personhood is restored.”

                  Wonderful. I’m so glad I didn’t have to give up anything significant to win back control of goverment.

                • Merkwürdigliebe says:

                  So by the sound of it, you aren’t actually opposed to third-trimester limitations, you just want to permit sufficiently broad exceptions.

                • Little Chak says:

                  Er, not really. On some personal level, I have an aversion to late-term abortions, but I’m quite sure my exceptions would be overly broad to just about all conservatives on the issue, in that I believe that women should be allowed to end their pregnancies for pretty much any reason.

                  For reasons too long to get into here, I don’t ascribe personhood at “viability”. But regardless, I don’t think there’s a healthy way to give the government the power to tell women that, past a certain point, they must carry their pregnancies to term. Having close friendships with women who have miscarried in the third trimester, the idea of miscarriages becoming crime scenes is something that chills me to the core.

                  We really don’t need that. It’s already bad enough when the mother of a dirt-poor family in Alabama gets charged with capital murder because she gives birth to a stillborn baby at home, but they bury the baby themselves and a nosy neighbor reports them to the police. (See “Mother, Mother” and the story of Marha Colbey from Just Mercy, among others.)

                • Merkwürdigliebe says:

                  The crime-scene remark is a good point which I have not taken into consideration.

                  On the other hand, I find it quite difficult to justify that the relative proportion of rights between the mother and the unborn child should be 100%:0% in favor of the mother, right until the moment of parturition. Anyone killing the baby after that point is unequivocally guilty of a murder so it’s hard to stomach that doing so two days earlier should be an entirely free choice.

        • los says:

          Merkwürdigliebe says:

          I usually only post when I disagree with someone (otherwise, what’s the point?)

          Add sometimes – not only subtract?

    • mds says:

      That’s it: You’re outta here, fella.

  31. King Goat says:

    Wow, that seemed like a cathartic night for many!

    Deflection is always easier than introspection. No time to read the piece linked to, but in my opinion it’s not about LGM writers or commenters having the power to control liberalism or the left. That’s deflection. It’s about being an example of a strain in the left, an increasingly common, visible strain that seems quick to label disagreement with racist/sexist/stupid and to not engage in any introspection about how the messages and tactics that feel so good and right to you might not be working. It’s also not about the other side does this, typically it’s the losing side that needs to think about changing, unless you like losing.

    • jim, some guy in iowa says:

      if you didn’t read the piece then you don’t really know what you’re talking about do you

    • an increasingly common, visible strain that seems quick to label disagreement with racist/sexist/stupid and to not engage in any introspection about how the messages and tactics that feel so good and right to you might not be working

      I have to say, most of the examples you gave of this yesterday were…unconvincing

      If people think, wrongly, that we’re out to take away their guns and bun hunting, you imply that pointing out that this wrong is condescending and what we really need to do is abandon all attempts at gun control

      If people think, wrongly, that environmental regulation is to blame for the demise of the coal industry in their state, you imply it is condescending to point out how wrong that is and instead give up on environmental regulations.

      And if people knowingly vote for an openly bigoted misogynist, you suggest it is wrong to call them out on it, because, you imply, we have more important things to worry about than officially sanctioned bigotry and misogyny.

      Nuts to that. I agree it is wrong to be bigoted against rural Americans, and there is some of that doing on and I abhor it – but it seems to me what you’ve been proposing is the wholesale abandonment of anything worthwhile the Democratic Party has stood for because certain people take offense at it

      • aturner339 says:

        I think this a perfect description of the particular brand of method trolling that became popular here after the election. Dollars to donuts it’s a Jenny brand troll who learned some new tricks.

    • Rob in CT says:

      Well, I’ve tried the be nice to the misguided approach in the past. Barack Obama went this route too. He was pretty successful in Presidential elections, but as we know all too well Dems got shellacked in non-Presidential elections. It wasn’t because liberals were mean (remind me, which party’s supporters came up with “fuck your feelings?”).

      The problem here is that the Right puts out a torrent of lies, and low-info centrist types believe many of them. Calming explaining that no, it isn’t true that Democrats want to use Death Panels to kill grandma just didn’t work very well (just to pick one example).

      I wish that low-info voters would, when confronted with a fact-based liberal and a winger spouting lunacy, correctly identify the fact-based person as more trustworthy. Far too often, however, what seems to happen is people use the simple heuristic of “the truth must be somewhere in-between.”

      Specifically regarding bigotry, I get that people don’t like being called bigots, especially when the accusation is unfounded. But it’s also, yaknow, true that bigotry is at the heart of the 2016 election (in particular, hate of immigrants/muslims and sexism being amped up beyond “normal” background levels). So we must dance around the truth in order to not hurt people’s feelings.

      While our opponents go ’round with “fuck your feelings” and the like. Which apparently doesn’t bother the delicate folks in the middle much.

      p.s. This Fabius Maximus guy has shown up in the comments here and spewed bullshit before. IIRC, he was pushing a muddled version of climate change denial, but I may not recall correctly. I do recall him being ridiculous.

      • FMguru says:

        Here he is in a climate thread from a few months ago, being every bit the pompous, tendentious pseudo-academic windbag his nym would indicate. No doubt Steven den Beste looks down on him approvingly from his great anime jerk-off shrine in the afterlife.

        His full LGM cv is here.

        • Rob in CT says:

          Yeah, there he is in all his “liars to the left, liars to the right” glory.

          He’s dishonest as well, as one of the exchanges w/me will show anyone who cares to look.

    • No Longer Middle Aged Man says:

      Deflection is always easier than introspection. No time to read the piece linked to, but in my opinion

      Have you considered writing fiction? You might be able to spin this bullshit out into a trollish version of Catch-22. Undoubtedly absent the latter’s wit and meaning, but you’ve got the openly ridiculous part down pretty well.

  32. Donalbain says:

    Loomis is good.
    Loomis is great.
    We surrender our wills as of this date.

  33. Frank Wilhoit says:

    It would be a simple matter to make this writer start his own cult. It could be done in a matter of minutes. He will start a water cult if his house is set on fire.

  34. I like how Maximus employs the tired trope of “See how this writer here uses terms and concepts most people aren’t going to immediately grasp or agree with? This proves “the left” is out of touch with regular folks!”

    Since most people don’t immediately grasp or agree with most left wing ideas, it amounts to a demand that we stop being left wing in public.

    • It amounts to a complete and total failure to understand pluralism, in favor of a demand that everyone agree with his “common sense” beliefs.

      It also amounts to a demand that no one be even a little less far to the right than he is. After all, “most people” agree with his “common sense” ideas about what the right wing is.

  35. grubert says:

    Simple rule; never pay attention to anyone with a nom de guerre from ancient Rome.

  36. altapow says:

    Oh my, any page that posts Roger Pielke, Sr. as an “eminent climate scientist” has already indicated that they lack necessary equipment for critical thinking. Responding on their pages gives them much too much legitimacy…and clicks. Don’t feed the trolls!

  37. One of his arguments is literally “what’s wrong with people wanting to defend their culture against immigrants”?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.