Subscribe via RSS Feed

Old man shouts at Clinton. And people of color who are doing it wrong. (Avec brief anti-tRump interlude.)

[ 112 ] April 18, 2017 |

I’ve finally forced my way through Sullivan’s article that starts out being about Chelsea Clinton but ends with him abusing the Bell Curve gallus gallus domesticus for perhaps the 11 zillionth time in his life. The headline of the piece is Why do Democrats feel sorry for Clinton? But a more accurate headline would be Do you want to watch this over-paid, over-hyped and unoriginal Limey throw dried poo for several paragraphs?

I’ve done what I could in this space to avoid the subject of Hillary Clinton. I don’t want to be the perennial turd in the punchbowl.

Another tally mark under the Failure column.

I’d hoped we’d finally seen the last of that name in public life — it’s been a long quarter of a century — and that we could all move on. Alas, no. Her daughter (angels and ministers of grace defend us) seems to be positioning herself for a political career.

There’s a word for the sort of person who’d hang and article on his hatred of Hillary Clinton and an unsubstantiated rumor that her daughter might enter politics.

And Clinton herself duly emerged last week for a fawning, rapturous reception at the Women in the World conference in New York City.

A quick search indicates Clinton has been a regular speaker, but Sullivan seems to be infuriated by the fact that she dares show her face in public and that people don’t throw things when she does.

And so I find myself wondering at odd times of the day and night: Why is Trump in the White House? And then I remember. Hillary Clinton put him there.

And the wind, cries, Cool story bro.

He has no strategy beyond the next 24 hours, no guiding philosophy, no politics, no consistency at all — just whatever makes him feel good about himself this second. He therefore believes whatever bizarre nonfact he can instantly cook up in his addled head, or whatever the last person who spoke to him said. He makes Chauncey Gardiner look like Abraham Lincoln. Occam’s razor points us to the obvious: He has absolutely no idea what he’s doing.

Self-awareness, thy name is not Andrew Sullivan.

Do you know the real reason Dr. Dao was so brutally tackled and thrown off that United flight? It was all about white supremacy. I mean, what isn’t these days?

White supremacy, the fatuous chucklehead chuckles fatuously. White supremacy couldn’t have possibly influenced how the authorities treated Dr. Dao because he was selected at random for involuntary de-boarding by a computer program.

And everyone knows that the law and computer programs in thair majesty forbid men of color and white men alike from being knocked around by the police.

It’s easy to mock this reductionism, I know, but it reflects something a little deeper.

As deep as a bell curve.

Asian-Americans, like Jews, are indeed a problem for the “social-justice” brigade.

I have no idea who makes up the “social justice” brigade in the fever room inside his skull. Possibly he envisions a horde of people who look like Hillary Clinton. One can only speculate about what Sullivan would do if confronted with the fact that Jewish people or Asian-Americans form and take part in their own social justice organizations, but that might involve the difficult – perhaps impossible – task of getting him to understand that they are actually people.

As an aside, I’m not sure about how meaningful the term Asian-American truly is considering the huge and diverse number of cultures encompassed by the six syllables. It seems as informative as saying someone is from Africa. At any rate, Sullivan finishes the article – that started out as another anti-Clinton rant – with a rapid fire JAQ off session.

I mean, how on earth have both ethnic groups done so well in such a profoundly racist society? How have bigoted white people allowed these minorities to do so well — even to the point of earning more, on average, than whites? Asian-Americans, for example, have been subject to some of the most brutal oppression, racial hatred, and open discrimination over the years. In the late 19th century, as most worked in hard labor, they were subject to lynchings and violence across the American West and laws that prohibited their employment. They were banned from immigrating to the U.S. in 1924. Japanese-American citizens were forced into internment camps during the Second World War, and subjected to hideous, racist propaganda after Pearl Harbor. Yet, today, Asian-Americans are among the most prosperous, well-educated, and successful ethnic groups in America. What gives? It couldn’t possibly be that they maintained solid two-parent family structures, had social networks that looked after one another, placed enormous emphasis on education and hard work, and thereby turned false, negative stereotypes into true, positive ones, could it? It couldn’t be that all whites are not racists or that the American dream still lives?

It couldn’t be that discussing racism as though it is a specific set of behaviors that doesn’t change based on the victims and the attitudes of their oppressors is exactly the sort of intellectual slobbery that goes hand-in-hand with bigotry, could it?


But there’s a lot that’s conspicuously missing from this argument. Sullivan declines to mention that black people still face high rates of hiring discrimination because of their race; that black children continue to languish in segregated neighborhoods, where decades of racist economic and education policy have robbed their schools of resources and stripped their communities of the infrastructure to cope with the fallout; and that black fathers, on average, still manage to be among the most consistently involved in their children’s lives — despite that 1.5 million black men, including countless dads, are “missing” from daily life due to high rates of incarceration and early death.

But where Sullivan appears to be merely lazy, he is also boring. Blaming black pathology for racial disparities is one of the most tired tropes in American life. Martin Luther King Jr. addressed the “Asians and Jews versus blacks” question back in 1966 — more than 50 years ago. The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates debated the topic at length with New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait in 2014. Coates explained how, after slavery ended in the mid-19th century, white northerners who came to teach in Southern schools had a similarly low opinion of black culture.


But perhaps the most remarkable thing about Sullivan’s argument is how these notions of black deficiency keep getting resurrected as if they are new and revelatory. Some of this explains the resurgent popularity of Charles Murray. More than two decades after Murray co-wrote The Bell Curve — a widely disputed book of social science that argued that black people are less intelligent than whites — he continues to get invited by conservative groups to speak at college campuses across the country.


Comments (112)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Judas Peckerwood says:

    I’ve finally forced my way through Sullivan’s article…

    And right there is where you went wrong.

  2. Marek says:

    God I fucking hate this guy. I thought he retired?

    • Redwood Rhiadra says:

      He’s “retired” (i.e. stormed off in a snit and sworn never to write again) several times now.

      • Q.E.Dumbass says:

        Kind of like how Jay-Z’s intended to retire ever since Reasonable Doubt dropped; at any rate it would’ve been a good idea to hang up the mic after either The Black Album or at the latest American Gangster (that said, Jay-Z >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Andrew Sullivan). And I’m pretty sure this phenomenon is covered by one of the Internet laws.

  3. Judas Peckerwood says:

    I have no idea who makes up the “social justice” brigade in the fever room inside his skull.

    He’s talking about those horrible dirty hippies who fought to change the law so that he couldn’t be locked up because of his sexual orientation, and then won him the right to get married.

    Stupid libtard snowflakes!

    • postmodulator says:

      In 2002, Sullivan was still a Salon columnist. Whoever was editing Salon at the time (I want to say David somebody?) ended up posting an article where he said something like, “We’re all a bit tired of giving a supercilious Brit a platform just so he can side against us and with people who would like to burn him alive.”

  4. efgoldman says:

    Do you want to watch this over-paid, over-hyped and unoriginal Limey throw dried poo for several paragraphs?

    Does he even bother to dry it first?

  5. efgoldman says:

    I don’t want to be the perennial turd in the punchbowl.

    See how easy that is?

    I’ve done what I could in this space to avoid the subject of Hillary Clinton.

    Then clearly, there’s not much you could do to avoid your unhealthy (at best) obsession.

    As noted in another thread, Andrew really hates every woman in the history of the world but one: Sainted Maggie Thatcher. Who would have clapped him in jail if she could.

  6. Lee Rudolph says:

    I’m not sure about how meaningful the term Asian-American truly is considering the huge and diverse number of cultures encompassed by the four syllables.

    I suppose the other two syllables in “Asian-American” have been confiscated by some social-justice brigadier general for redistribution to Non-Model Minorities. You should be thankful you have any left at all!!!

  7. aturner339 says:

    You would think that an immgrant might be aware of the costly nature of immgration to the US. You would think that a man as well read as Sullivan would be familiar with the basics of American history. But you’d be wrong because there is no nagging doubt that enough racism and misogyny cannot drown in a tidal wave of self satisfaction. The most terrifying thing about bigotry is how emotionally satisfying it is.

    Whiteness is a hell of a drug.

    • postmodulator says:

      Whiteness is a hell of a drug.

      You know what else is a hell of a drug? Drugs, and I understand he’s a big fan. (Not that I can throw stones.)

    • ForkyMcSpoon says:

      He wasn’t allowed to get a green card until after Obama lifted the HIV Travel and Immigration Ban, nor become a citizen until after gay marriage passed (just a few months ago, actually).

  8. ZakMcKrackenAndTheAlienMindbenders says:

    Apropos of white supremacist attitudes functioning differently in different situations/with different races, here is a thing I have had to explain to shitbirds who, like Sullivan, can’t wrap their itty bitty brains around the idea that a “model minority” could be targeted by authority figures. In my experiences as a social worker, I had the misfortune of dealing with the Chicago PD on more than one occasion (once standing between two goons in blue and a kid I was taking on a home visit back to the city because one of the cops thought he was “acting wiggy”) and I would bet money that when they stomped onto the plane and saw they were going to be dealing with a small Asian American man they thought “Jap dudes are pussies. We’ll just bark some orders at him and if he gives us any shit we just drag his rice-eating ass off the plane and he won’t have the balls to say shit.” (To be fair, they might also have assumed he was a different kind of Asian and used a different racist pejorative.)

    • efgoldman says:

      “Jap dudes are pussies. We’ll just bark some orders at him and if he gives us any shit we just drag his rice-eating ass off the plane and he won’t have the balls to say shit.”

      And they were so centered on getting him off in any way possible, they forgot (they ALWAYS forget) that some number of other people on the plane had active cell phones, with all the regular capabilities.

      • GeorgeBurnsWasRight says:

        Is their behavior even being “reviewed” by anyone?

        I’ll be amazed if there’s any negative consequences in their use of unwarranted force.

        • Pat says:

          I believe that United offered money to the passengers that witnessed them beating up the doctor. (WTF, indeed)

          The lead guy may have been put on leave.

          Thing is, they do have the right to force people off planes. I’m not saying that what they did was a good idea or right; I’m saying that legally, I believe that they can do that.

  9. thebewilderness says:

    The first rule of misogyny is that women are responsible for what men do.

    • lmontheinternet says:

      And for what men think they might do.

      If a Clinton says she’s not running for something, but a man doesn’t want to hear it, does she make a sound?

  10. cpinva says:

    the real question is, why does anyone continue to pay him to write? it isn’t as if he has an original thought, in his entire body, that he’s gracing us with.

  11. N__B says:

    Sullivan is more of an evergreen turd than a perennial turd.

  12. Origami Isopod says:

    But perhaps the most remarkable thing about Sullivan’s argument is how these notions of black deficiency keep getting resurrected as if they are new and revelatory.

    And daring. Because it’s only the censorious SJWs who are preventing Us from having A Real Conversation About The Human Biodiversical Scientimismic Factoid that black people are simply inferior.

  13. Ronan says:

    If Asian American isn’t a meaningful term because of the diversity of the group it’s describing, then how is “white” or “poc”?

    • Bruce B. says:

      The obvious answer is pretty much the correct one. Innately, they don’t. All such terms have meaning mostly because they live powerfully in the minds of people in positions to apply disparate treatment. They therefore people meaningful to their targets, and to untargeted people who want to help. But if they were not the basis of real-life discrimination, they’d be no more deeply significant than a bunch of other facts about how people present and identify themselves and their like-minded folks.

      • Ronan says:

        Right, but the main arguments against the “model minority” hypothesis have been (1) Asian is a broad category , you have to be more specific (I agree!)(2) conflating the history of discrimination suffered by African Americans and Asian Americans obscures more than it clarifies (I agree! Indeed I’ve made this point often)
        But I don’t think people can have their cake having eaten it here. Either the histories and oppressions of these diverse groups ( “people of colour”) can be conflated or they can’t (I say can’t). If the African American (and perhaps Native American) history in the US is sui generis then why dilute it in this broad category ? What analytical , rather than political or rhetorical, use is poc?
        What is (1) the oppression/discrimination (2) the lack of privilege that meaningfully unites people of colour ? If there’s something called white privilege that applies even to white people who emigrated to the US in the past few decades, then how doesn’t this also apply to those non white groups who don’t face the systematic discrimination that African Americans face?
        So what analytical use are these terms (beyond heuristics or conversational shortcuts, where I see some value. Or when they have some specific demographic use, explaining voting behaviour , or some more general group characteristic )

        • Bruce B. says:

          Asian-American experiences are conflated by people discriminating against them. Likewise with people of color. And the people doing that discriminating very commonly conflate themselves as white, with or without any more-or-less explicit claim that their particular flavor (however defined) is the center of real whiteness.

          And I’m not going to bother with your questions. If you genuinely don’t have any good answers already on hand, I can’t do your homework for you.

          I have to say that I don’t remember you being this much of a jerk about race/ethnicity/etc. matters in the past, and wonder in a low-energy way about whether you’ve gone downhill or memory isn’t serving me well. Disappointing, either way.

          • Ronan says:

            I’ve answered the discrimination part by noting that the point is often made that discrimination isn’t comparable.

            “And I’m not going to bother with your questions. If you genuinely don’t have any good answers already on hand, I can’t do your homework for you”

            It’s not exactly a position specific to me. I’ve changed my mind on it (and on BAEM* in the UK) in part because of critiques I’ve read from minorities.

            As per your final para. Fine, then don’t reply to them.

            * black.and ethnic minority.

        • Chetsky says:

          If you genuinely don’t have any good answers already on hand, I can’t do your homework for you.

          Bruce B.’s right. You should cultivate enough relationships with different ethnicities of Asian-Americans, different … “vintages” (some long-standing American lineage, some more-recently-arrived), and get to where you can ask them what they really think about these issues. Or maybe think about reading more widely and carefully. *Lots* has been written about this subject.

          Unlike Bruce, I don’t actually give you credit for arguing/debating/discussing in good faith — your comments strike me as those of clever yet stone-cold trolls. But maybe you can learn. Maybe.

          • Bruce B. says:

            I’m not giving him any credit for good faith here; he doesn’t deserve it. I’m remarking on how that feels like a lapse, because in the past he’d post things that were worth giving it to. Just to clarify.

          • Ronan says:

            I am arguing in good faith. The argument might be wrong or stupid, but it’s genuine.

    • Because “white” and “person of color”, etc. are defined according to cultural parameters, not geographical ones.

      • Asteroid_Strike_Brexit says:

        What difference does that make? Having a collective term for Americans of Asian ethnicity is worthwhile in the correct context. We all know what we are talking about when referring to Asian-Americans as distinct from African-Americans or any other group of people. Who is fooling themselves otherwise?

        • Ronan says:

          We all know what we’re talking about, but I think it’s often more interesting to see what’s going on within the broad “racial” categories, to look specifically at ethnic groups, cohorts etc. You’re missing a lot by sticking to the broader grouping.
          On some things, I think You can still talk meaningfully about a larger group Id, ie the “Latino vote”. This is the argument in Matt barretos “Latino america” iirc, that you can talk non trivially about a collective Latino political identity since the anti immigration upsurge of the 90s.( Interestingly, though not unsurprisingly, there’s evidence that a “linked fate” identity has increased for Latinos since the election.) But when talking about mobility, income etc does it make sense to talk about Latinos rather than Mexican/Cuban/Puerto Rican Americans etc? I think the second category clarifies more, and that is true also for Asian Americans (and obviously outside America)
          But yeah, you have to draw the line somewhere, and its often going to be quite arbitrary.

      • Ronan says:

        My understanding is that person of colour was developed by black feminists to acknowledge the discrimination suffered by Latino and native women. I get its political uses in identifying shared experiences of white racism, but I don’t see what cultural parameter is defines beyond that?

    • ForkyMcSpoon says:

      I would say that the immigration histories are a big factor.

      With 3rd or greater generation Asian-Americans, I imagine there’s some cultural leveling (not least because there may also be some intermarriage).

      But you still have plenty of 1st and 2nd generation Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Indian, etc. immigrants, and they often live in separate ethnic enclaves, etc.

      On the other hand, white immigration has slowed significantly, and there’s plenty of intermarriage there. Plenty of white people have backgrounds from four or more European countries. A lot of the old white ethnic neighborhoods (Little Italies and the like) have since shifted demographically due to the dispersal of the later generations and newer immigrant groups moving in, or the area gentrifying.

      But in areas with enough concentration, you still see effects of particular white ethnicities. For example, Italian-American culture seems to still be very much a thing in the NY/NJ area. So yes, there is something to the diversity among white folks.

      On the other hand, in areas like the Triangle (Raleigh-Durham), where a lot of the growth has been Americans moving from other parts of the country, you would see a lot of those differences being leveled.

      I’d also say a factor is that European-Americans seem more comfortable with being grouped that way than Asian-Americans are.

    • I don’t suppose the concerted effort that 18th and 19th century slave-owners made to erase the ethnic and cultural identity of the slaves they brought over from Africa is relevant here.

    • libarbarian says:

      Because these rules are only in effect when they are useful.

      Pedantically pointing out that Asian-Americans is a broad term is useful for Shakezula at the moment because it lets her zing someone she wants to zing.

      Have no fear, she will be using it again the moment it is useful for her to do so again.

      • sibusisodan says:

        It seems trivially obvious to me that an appropriate grouping to describe power dynamics or the effects of oppression would not necessarily be specific enough to explain the causes of it.

        Given that Sully is trying to do the latter here, it’s appropriate to point out that it’s not fine-grained enough to be convincing.

        • libarbarian says:

          I don’t see any attempt to “explain” the causes or origins of anything.

          I don’t see any discussion about black people or any comparison with Asians.

          I see the “trivially obvious” observation that “white supremacy”, while real, is also frequently trotted out as an explanation of all sorts of things in cases where there is little evidence for it.

  14. louislouis says:

    I suppose it’s good people debunk him on the “if blacks are victims of racism, riddle me this: Asians and Jews” trope, though it’s less of an argument than an irritated tic, which explains why it’ll never die.

  15. kped says:

    Like i said in the other post about Sullivan, this should never have gotten past an editor, just due to the fact that it’s so incoherent. The end (the race stuff) has nothing to do with the Clinton stuff. It’s such a jarring topic change. And…it’s so fucking stupid.

    Does he get by because he has a British accent? Does it trick people to thinking he is smart? I mean, we have decades of evidence to the contrary on that front, so why does he keep getting hired? It’s not like he’s a good writer (see: This fucking blog post). I don’t get it.

    • efgoldman says:

      this should never have gotten past an editor, just due to the fact that it’s so incoherent.

      I don’t think he has an editor. Seriously.

      • kped says:

        Wouldn’t be a shock. I believe Joan Walsh said that they didn’t have editors at Salon after she left (this was during the height of the HA! Goodman posting there), and she meant it literally. So I wouldn’t be shocked if other places lacked editors, or gave carte blanche to “stars” like Sullivan. And I suppose it’s working, people have been hate reading the hell out of this article.

        But still…it’s so bad. At least other poor arguments are logically constructed, but Sullivan’s piece really does read like a drunk uncle ranting about everything he hates.

        “i hate this woman, why are they so lazy? And did you see the chinaman on the plane? Why didn’t he just leave? and let me tell you about the blacks, golly they ain’t the smartest crayon
        in the box. Ruining the country i tell you, why can’t they be more like the Jews? They’re good with money and smart to boot”

  16. fledermaus says:

    “I’ve done what I could in this space to avoid the subject of Hillary Clinton.”

    Ol’ Andy, he made a multi-decade career of not avoiding the subject of Hillary Clinton. He is not going to stop now.

  17. Karen24 says:

    Anyone want to talk about the Georgia 6th race? All the best and brightest are saying there will be a runoff, with Ossoff just short of 50%. He’s at 50.4 right now with 53% of the returns in but the remaining returns are hard-core areas of Fulton County. What’s interesting to me is that 1. He’s beating the polling by a few points, and 2. this was a 20 point swing toward Team Blue since November. While last year my fears were that the Dems were complacent, now I’m slightly afraid we’ll get demoralized and give up, when this thing is still something we can win. He will need to keep his voters and find something around 2% more to either switch from an R to him or to stay home in June. That is far from impossible despite the usual Dem whinging.

    • Q.E.Dumbass says:

      Are the hard-core areas hardcore Dem or hardcore Repub?

      • Karen24 says:

        Repub, sadly.

        Still, it looks like he’ll just BARELY miss 50%, which means the runoff is quite feasible for him.

        Also, the most enthusiastic Trumpster candidate among the real ones is now 5th out of 5.

    • efgoldman says:

      He’s at 50.4 right now with 53% of the returns in

      And results came to a flying stop some time ago.

      • kped says:

        Yeah, stuck at 54% reporting for awhile now.

        There will be a runoff, and it will be a tough fight. Despite turning on Trump, this is still a very red district. But he has a shot, and it will be close.

        • Karen24 says:

          Very close. It’s important to note that the top two Republicans, Karen Handel and Judson Hill, together have 28% and it’s hard to see that increasing much above 30% tonight. Dan Moody and Bob Gray ran as much against Karen Handel as against the Dems. Those last two were enthusiastic Trump candidates and they have 11% together. If it’s possible to make those guys’ supporters stay home, that would be enough.

      • Karen24 says:

        It’s going to be a long night. Still, it’s really nice to see him keeping it that close in a deep red district.

      • Karen24 says:

        A friend of mine just retweeted a reporter who said Fulton county was having “technical difficulties and actually on the phone to tech support.” Make of that tidbit what you will.

    • I do worry about the demoralisation somewhat, but then I remember who’s president and stop worrying quite so much, because I suspect he’s quite likely to keep energising Democrats (by pissing us off) and demoralising Republicans (by not actually following through on any of his campaign promises). Then again, you were correct to worry about the election so much and most of us weren’t, so what do I even know.

    • PunditusMaximus says:

      Dems got demoralized under Obama, not complacent. They’re neither, now.

      • Do you have any evidence for this? For once?

        • I do actually think this may be somewhat accurate, but for different reasons than PM probably does; it’s simply that supporters of a president’s party tend to be somewhat demoralised after the honeymoon period fades and the ordinary difficulties of politics (particularly in our high-veto-point system) come into play. So PM probably blames this on Obama; I see it as inherent in the system.

          • ForkyMcSpoon says:

            I think there was also complacency. They took the sanity and competence of the Obama administration for granted.

            The people who figured that Trump couldn’t be that bad… they seemed to have forgotten the Bush years (or in the case of the younger voters, to not have really been aware during them).

            But there was also demoralization, of course. We won the presidency, we won the House and Senate, yet we couldn’t get all the things we wanted.

            (I’m relatively certain the next time Democrats win unified control, however, the filibuster won’t be kept around to fuck us over like that. My god, what could’ve been in 2009 without that fucking filibuster…)

          • PunditusMaximus says:

            I got pretty fucking demoralized after the combo of “everybody from GS gets a job” and the first batch of Republican daddies, but whatevs.

            Also, “We’re gonna let Repulicans pineapple us with the filibuster, even though we know they’re gonna repeal it the second it’s inconvenient.”

  18. PunditusMaximus says:

    “Christ, what an asshole.”

  19. Asteroid_Strike_Brexit says:

    It couldn’t be that discussing racism as though it is a specific set of behaviors that doesn’t change based on the victims and the attitudes of their oppressors is exactly the sort of intellectual slobbery that goes hand-in-hand with bigotry, could it?

    That white people have oppressed Asian-Americans so much that they earn more than they do requires explanation, one that is not provided.

  20. Lt. Snore says:

    I <3 Charles Murray!

    • petesh says:

      Man: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I’m not going to just stand…!!

      Mr. Barnard: OH, oh I’m sorry, but this is abuse.

      Man: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.

      Mr. Barnard: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.

      Man: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.

      Mr. Barnard: Not at all.

      Man: Thank You. (Under his breath) Stupid git!!

    • Murc says:

      You should be taking advantage of this massive arbitrage opportunity by copying the best practices in a low fixed cost industry and going all out to hire a rainbow coalition workforce at wages between the market price and their marginal product of labor.

      … you mean, we should behave like sociopaths. Wow. Just wow.

  21. Thlayli says:

    Far be it from me to take Sully’s side, but I have to say …

    On the United thing, when it came out that the victim was Asian and people started saying “this wouldn’t have happened to a white person”, I was a little surprised. As someone who has seen police remove a white person from a plane, it never occurred to me that it wouldn’t happen to a white person.

    • GeorgeBurnsWasRight says:

      As someone who has seen police remove a white person from a plane, it never occurred to me that it wouldn’t happen to a white person.

      Did the white person suffer as much physical injury?

      The police could have just carried this guy off the plane – he was small and not that overweight – and the whole incident would have been very different IMO. There would still have been lots of public upset that a passenger could be treated this way, followed by experts and lawyers saying, “This actually is legal.” And this would have been just one more example of how corporations have the power to screw people.

      • sam says:

        also, WHY was the white person removed from the plane? was it to make room for airline staff, or because of their behavior?

        I don’t think anyone in the history of the world has had a problem with the removal of belligerent/drunk/assholes from planes. This was not that.

  22. los says:

    Conservatives can’t stop clamoring for Chelsea Clinton to run for (an unknown) political office.
    In comparison, almost nobody urged Trump to run for anything.
    How can Chelsea Clinton resist?

    • GeorgeBurnsWasRight says:

      I see parallels with Dylann Roof, who hated Black people so much he had to seek out some random strangers at a church who weren’t bothering him at all so he could act out his hatred.

      Chelsea isn’t running for political office, but her mere existence angers RWNJs so much that they have to construct a psychodrama in which they can punish her. The only plus is that (so far) their hatred isn’t being expressed violently.

  23. Donna Gratehouse says:

    The Bell Curve hypothesis, in addition to being bad, fails to account for the hostility toward Black people baked into this country. Even if you truly believe Black people are intellectually inferior what explains centuries of slavery, lynching, redlining, forcibly segregated schools, housing and job discrimination, brutal targeting by law enforcement, etc. etc.?

    And the hatred toward the Black man who is a Harvard educated lawyer with a perfect nuclear family who succeeded in being elected President of the United States twice? What’s that about? His “genetic inferiority”?

  24. Dr. Ronnie James, DO says:

    Not to threadjack from the main topic of Sullivan’s refractory misogyny, CDS and Fail, but this illustrates two things that irritate me about this derogatory use of “SJW” and seem to rarely get discussed explicitly:

    1) It implies social justice is a worthless thing, a premise that depends on some really nasty beliefs, which rarely get called out.

    2) *Everyone* involved in politics is a “social justice warrior,” including, to pick an example at random, everyone fighting for that baker’s God-given right to not put two grooms on top of the cake.

    • ThresherK says:

      I don’t call it a threadjack:

      It’s tangential to media figures not very different from Sully.

      I can’t stomach reading Sullivan, so no proof. But if he ever used SJW in anything but the MGTOW manner, I’ll eat my straw hat.

    • Murc says:

      I’ve actually asked a few people who do use it derogatorily about this, people who I’m reasonably positive don’t know each other, and I’ve gotten a few different but related responses, which do have a certain internal logic and consistency.

      Basically, they’re using it ironically. When they say “SJW bullshit” they usually mean “this person thinks being angry online and posting GIFs on tumblr is actually fighting for social justice in some way, that they’re the heirs of like, civil rights marchers or something. They’re pathetic and sad.” They usually have a long list of things that, according to them, is what “REAL fighting for social justice” looks like. Some of those lists actually include decent things; others basically amount to “Go Galt” or “join the Black Bloc.”

      Those guys can be pretty bad, but at least some of them actually do have their hearts in the right place and are just “ur doing it wrong GIT OFF MY LAWN MILLENIAL” folks who have a recognizably decent moral code otherwise. They use the term like we might use “keyboard kommando.”

      The other, worse people use “SJW scum” in the same way they might use “feminazi.” That is, they think the people they’re referring to are engaged in a conspiracy to destroy western civilization, that their profession to fight for social justice is a delusion at best or an outright lie at worst. These are your race realists and MRAs and suchly, people who believe that the fact that other folks are willing to call out their own bullshit means they’re an oppressed class. They’re mad as hell that a bunch of folks they see as subhuman scum bent on destroying their culture and society have claimed the mantle of “justice” and so hurl it back in their faces as an implied slur.

      Both those positions are varying degrees of “wrong” or “actively horrible” but like I said, they’re at least internally consistent.

      • Murc says:

        To put it another, much more inside-baseball way: for a lot of folks, they talk about “SJWs” the way Erik talks about people who “want to feel self-righteous.”

        • Dr. Ronnie James, DO says:

          Thanks – that’s a good clarification. I get the impression Sullivan’s use tries to have it both ways, but in that poseurish awkward way where it’s clear he’s trying too hard to show how down he is with an in-group he clearly doesn’t understand – a characteristically “Sullivan” trait.

  25. C.V. Danes says:

    And so I find myself wondering at odd times of the day and night: Why is Trump in the White House? And then I remember. Hillary Clinton put him there.

    No, Mr. Sullivan. People like you put him there.

  26. sam says:

    Fun story. back when I was in college and minoring in sociology, I took an urban sociology class with a professor who turned out to be a Murray acolyte. This was at the exact time that The Bell Curve had been released, so when he started citing Murray in class, my ears perked in a way they might not have even a semester previously, because there had been so much notoriety about the book when it was released.

    He would regularly spout racist/classist nonsense dressed up as science. I finally called him on his bullshit one day in the middle of class (I was kind of a loudmouth back then) when he started in on how the “official” poverty statistics were “clearly” misleading because all “those” people get secret money by working off the books and in-kind benefits (food stamps, housing vouchers, etc.) were worth SO MUCH that they weren’t “really” poor. I challenged him on this, and pointed out that he often presented information in this one sided, biased way, and left him kind of sputtering because apparently no one had ever questioned his authority before. After class, I had multiple classmates actually come up and thank me because they had all felt the same way, but everyone was afraid to challenge the professor (which I think is understandable, given the power dynamics at play).

    But here’s the kicker – 99% of the shit he was spewing was probably stuff Sullivan would have loved. EXCEPT. He also went off one day about how, in crowded urban environments, you see an increase in (and I remember this exactly, because I was so stunned by it) “antisocial, urban pathologies, like murder, rape, and…homosexuality”.

    Sullivan has spent his entire life trying to be accepted by a club that thinks he’s just as disordered as the populations that he shits on.

    • lmontheinternet says:

      The will to be One Of The Good Ones and thereby avoid Being One Of The Bad Ones is very strong. “Don’t put ME in jail for my sexual orientation, I agree with you on hating everyone else!”

    • ForkyMcSpoon says:

      Right-wing sociologists are a rare breed.

      Anyway, it’s true. I became homosexual after moving to the city. There are so many brunch spots, it just naturally rubs off on you.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.