Home / General / That Time Connor Kilpatrick Told Michael Tracey to Hold His Beer

That Time Connor Kilpatrick Told Michael Tracey to Hold His Beer

Comments
/
/
/
227 Views

About 90% settled  in at the new abode and I’m planning a post about my old one, which I’ll remember very fondly. In the meantime, please enjoy this:

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • You’d think having all those neo-Nazis showing up to praise him in his mentions would make him reconsider his views.

    • aturner339

      That just means he’s succeeding in reaching the white working class in his mind.

    • Brien Jackson

      We’re not that far away from having a subset of Jacobites arguing that national socialism is better than neoliberalism.

      • PohranicniStraze

        a subset of Jacobites arguing that national socialism is better than neoliberalism.

        But will they be able to get Duke Franz of Bavaria to go along with that? He doesn’t seem all that receptive to Nazism.

        • mds

          *Sniff* That’s King Francis, please. For the truly nostalgic, the judges would also accept “The King across the water.”

  • farin

    The weird thing is that white supremacists look at them and say, “Our efforts to get white kids to think about their whiteness and not their class position have succeeded beyond our dreams.”

    It’s almost like things right-wingers do have effects, too!

    • Tybalt

      Yes, and when everyone’s working toward the same goal, well, here we are!

  • Malaclypse

    Yes, certainly no blame can possibly accrue to white dudes who have chosen to be fucking Nazis. Better to euphemize it as alt-right and imply liberals are to blame.

  • But isn’t it great that an account with only 70 or so tweets showed up to defend him? https://twitter.com/RobbieScallop/status/875930160620556288

  • White kids turn into genocidal goons with the least provocation is not the Total Sick Burn Own that he believes it to be.

  • Q.E.Dumbass

    While we’re on the subject of Jacobin, our friend Branko looks at the center/center-left anti-Corbyn sniping before the election, and proceeds to derive exactly the wrong lesson from it. The wrong lesson isn’t “moratoria on pre-election circular firing squads are unevenly applied,” which is debatable but legitimate; but rather, one which means that he and the pink purity bunnies never ever have to stop whining. Ever. He even starts out the essay by whining about a meme on pre-electoral conciliation:

    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/06/corbyn-jk-rowling-obama-blair-macron

    Also, it amuses me to no end that David Broder has apparently been reincarnated as a fire-breathing socialist.

    • kped

      I feel like I took crazy pills, but I need to keep pointing out to these people:

      Corbyn Lost. LOST.

      He did better than the last election, but he lost. May ran a disastrous campaign (telling old people you are going to raise their taxes 2 days before they vote…not a good idea?). But she is still Prime Minister.

      I think this needs to be accepted, he did not win, so these tales of victory need to stop.

      • shah8

        I do not think this is the right perspective. Corbyn effectively won himself a new chance at a soon upcoming election, with a clear goal and a genuine shot at winning.

        I don’t think “lost” is the right word, here.

        • EvanHarper

          Corbyn won but Labour still lost.

        • FOARP

          “I don’t think “lost” is the right word, here.”

          Was that Jeremy Corbyn giving a speech from 10 Downing Street this morning? No? Then he lost.

      • John Revolta

        “Another such victory and we are buggered”

      • Linnaeus

        Yes, it’s true that Labour lost this election in that it didn’t achieve a majority, so it didn’t win a victory, per se.

        But you have to look at the context of this election. The Conservatives had a huge lead in the polls and Corbyn had to deal with rebellions against him in his own party. It looked like an upcoming disaster for Labour and its epitaph was being written months before the election. Then the Conservative lead almost completely dissipated and now the Tories will be forced to try to put together a coalition with 10 zealots from Northern Ireland. Sure, a lot of that is due to May’s bungling during the campaign, but Corbyn turned out to be a better campaigner than most observers thought he would be. He’s earned an extension on his leadership and a chance to build on Labour’s gains (although he hasn’t quelled all doubts about his ability to lead and to govern, to be sure). That’s not a victory, but it’s not nothing, either.

        • Hogan

          It’s a victory for Corbyn. Not necessarily for Labour.

        • Two things I don’t see discussed: wereLabour’s gains because of May & in spite of Corbyn? Would another leader have been able to win a governing margin?

          Also, I saw some mentions on Twitter, which may have been BS, but sound plausible, that a lot of Labour candidates distanced themselves from Corbin. I’m not sure how you do that in parliamentary elections, but maybe there’s something to it.

          • EliHawk

            Well, when absolutely everyone thinks you’re going to lose, it’s easier to do that. Suspect plenty of Labour voters did it under the assumption that May was going to romp, so it’s OK to back the local Labour MP they liked, or to protest a Tory Government they didn’t like, rather than affirmatively put Corbyn in Number 10. (Remind you of any other recent elections?)

          • Linnaeus

            Would another leader have been able to win a governing margin?

            Maybe. Who would that leader have been?

            • jben

              Let me think… (trying to remember leadership candidates from 2015)

              Yvette Cooper? or Andy Burnham?… yeah I know it’s not terribly likely… but that’s all I got.
              Possibly Owen Smith would have done better. I mean, given the truly awful campaign that May ran I’d have to think most Labour candidates would have a decent shot.
              But than again, Corbyn did seem to get better at campaigning as time went on, and he does seem to have some appeal to disaffected voters-and even given the poll tightening, there’s no way I would have predicted Labour doing even this well. So… I dunno.

          • Hillary would have won.

          • FOARP

            “I’m not sure how you do that in parliamentary elections”

            Put your own name in big letters on the leaflets you hand out, don’t mention Corbyn, point out to people that it’s you they’ll be voting for etc. etc. etc.

            I think the fact that few thought he could win may have de-risked voting for him.

      • Nick never Nick

        This is not true at all in the Westminister system — unlike the US system of allocating total power based on a minimal win, in the British system, it’s possible to have your power drastically eroded through victory. Because the range of victory is nuanced instead of absolute, ‘victory’ has gradations, as does ‘losing’.

        The British system isn’t like electing a President, it’s like electing the President, House, and Senate simultaneously with the one vote. May chose to go from a situation in which she controlled the Presidency, House, and Senate to one in which she lost the House and Senate, and only gained the Presidency through cutting a deal. That’s a ghastly loss, even if she still sits, uneasily, on the throne. Furthermore, it’s one that means the next election is near, not far — she doesn’t get a fixed term to do stuff in. An election in that system isn’t absolute, it always contains the seeds of the next election in it, and right now they are close to sprouting. Unbelievable loss on May’s part — it should be significant that British analysts consider it the greatest political blunder since losing India or the War of Jenkins’ Ear, or whatever. ‘Greatest political blunder’ =/= victory.

        • FOARP

          “it’s one that means the next election is near”

          Not necessarily. We all thought the previous coalition wouldn’t last long, but instead it carried on for the full five years.

          And Jeremy Corbyn will be 73 years old in 2022.

      • AdamPShort

        In a parliamentary system it’s not that simple. Denying the current government a viable governing majority is a win for parties that are not in the government. There is of course another level of “winning” which is becoming part of the government, and then another level of winning that involves electing one of your party’s MP’s as Prime Minister, and then another level of winning that involves winning a majority of seats and therefore being able to fully implement your platform.

        Labour only did the first thing. Not great! But it is a win. Of course it is. The Tories went from a majority to a possibly-unviable coalition with a party that has no consituency in England. That’s a big deal. May made a miscalculation and Labour capitalized.

        • kped

          It’s not really a win to deny a majority. They weren’t going to have a strong position in EU negotiations regardless, because the EU has no incentive to do so. The EU was always going to make this as painful as possible so that it discourages other countries from leaving. And in fact, this election has given power to nutjobs in Ireland, who May will have to appease to get things done.

          Is the result better than it could have been? Absolutely! They still gained seats. But the over the top victory cheering I see from the online left is really quite silly. And really, on this side of the Atlantic, it’s just more of the endless American primary crap that’s is driving the coverage. It’s all very tiring.

          • AdamPShort

            “It’s not really a win to deny a majority.”

            Yes it is.

            I dont know you well enough to know if you are 1) a Corbyn hater who is chagrined that his dire concern trolling about how Corbyn’s leadership would doom Labour turned out to be foolish., 2) so sick of BernieBros that you have lost your mind a bit or 3) really quite obtuse. Or some combination.

            But the conservatives, who had a comfortable majority, called an election because they thought it would help them consolidate power and because everyone told them running against Corbyn would be a slam dunk. They lost double digit seats in that election and are now holding onto power by the thinnest of threads.

            If you don’t see that as a win for Corbyn and Labour, you’re highly motivated not to see it as a win for Corbyn and Labour.

            If your beef really is just that people are cheering too loud, well, the right is on the rise across the globe so those of us who are, you know, against that tend to celebrate a bit when something breaks our way. You should try it!

            • jben

              Well, I can’t speak for kped, but my more muted (tho still somewhat positive) reaction to the result has to do with a general cynicism about the electoral performance of center-left and left parties, and a nagging feeling that somehow they will manage to screw this up. I fear that this could be their high point. I know it’s not entirely rational, but it’s what I feel.

              I will admit that at times I have had more mild feelings of both 1 and 2, though.

            • jben

              To expand on my points above,

              1. Corbyn has indeed proved to be a much better campaigner than most people expected, and I think we can conclude that while he *might* hurt Labour some, he is not quite the huge electoral liability that many first thought. That said, he has not exactly proved his competence at running a government, or his ability to get the confidence of his MP’s. Moreover, there are certain matters, such as foreign policy and Brexit, where his instincts are genuinely quite terrible, and some of his political associates are not exactly good or competent people either. These things would remain problems no matter how many votes he got or how much he won by.

              I mean, I actually *agree* with much of his economic and political ideology, apart from the foreign policy and Brexit stuff. Heck, I suspect I would probably like him as a person as well! And I agree with Dave Brockington that a Labour government, even one lead by Corbyn, would be *infinitely* preferable to any conceivable Conservative government. Therefore I would vote Labour were I British and in a Labour/Tory seat. Hell I would even vote for Corbyn himself if I lived in North Islington! But no, I don’t exactly think he would be a good PM. I wouldn’t go nearly as far as say MacK, Daragh, or Elihawk (who as I recall thinks Corbyn is a “loony” who should never “be anywhere near power”). It is certainly possible that he could learn on the job, and be a good or even excellent PM. But it is much more likely that his inexperience and ideological inflexibility could cause serious problems were he to get into office-thereby meaning his primership could also be mediocre or even disastrous. This is particularly true given that the Brexit negotiations and process would be an extremely difficult situation for even the absolute best leader to deal with.

              2. While the Labour party has indeed done much better than almost anyone would have expected even a few weeks ago, and done so on a pretty left-wing platform, it has done this in a country that is actually quite different from the United States both demographically and in terms of political history. It is not at all clear that this strategy could be repeated in the United States. Therefore, it is rather absurd for various leftists to assume it could be carbon-copied here and use that assumption as basis for yet another attack on the dreaded “neoliberal” Hillary Clinton.

              • jben

                sorry it was so long. I just felt I needed to get some of this off my chest. And I actually agree that the result, while not strictly speaking a victory for Labour, is still quite heartening in many ways. It is perfectly understandable for leftists to be happy about the result!

          • bs

            Ahem. Confusing Northern Ireland with Ireland (Republic of) is identical to confusing the United States of Mexico with the United States of America: They sound a lot alike, but you’re just going to piss off everyone on both sides of the border when ya do.

      • Karen24

        Liberals really need to stop doing what you did here. Cornyn will not be PM, but Theresa May is so damaged that she won’t be able to get the dearest wish of her supporters — exit from the EU — on anything like good terms. She won’t be able to get much of her legislative agenda enacted, although the parliamentary system will give her more than ours would. She gets to stay PM over an angry and fragile coalition. Labour faced polls that showed May with an overwhelming majority and campaigned so that the Tories actually lost the majority entirely and nabbed the seat of at least one cabinet minister. Labour did something amazing and we should celebrate that.

        • Q.E.Dumbass

          “The immediately striking thing about all this article is the generally negative, querulous attitude, the complete lack at all times of any constructive suggestion. There is little in it except the irresponsible carping of sone douche who has never been and never expects to be in a position of power.”

          Although the whiny aside about criticism of Bernie-or-Busters is a rather big tell.

        • Redwood Rhiadra

          Theresa May is so damaged that she won’t be able to get the dearest wish of her supporters — exit from the EU — on anything like good terms.

          She won’t have a problem with that, because exit from the EU is also the dearest wish of Corbyn. Her only opposition will be those Labour members willing to defy the whip orders and a very small number of MPs from the smaller parties.

      • Come on, what’s next, you’re going to tell us Bernie didn’t win either?

        • kped

          Depends if you are talking about the “official” primary where he lost, or the secret results that the DNC hid from the world where he won!

      • Aexia

        I mean, I get that Labour should be celebrating the fact that Labour came very close to toppling May but that the end of the day she’s still PM, even if she had to coalition with ultra-right wing hardliners.

        But the “Corbyn’s near victory should be celebrated & offers the path for the future” crowd is also the “Clinton getting more votes than Trump means NOTHING and she needs to go away ASTAT” crowd so I have less patience for that line of argument.

    • ForkyMcSpoon

      I don’t follow UK politics closely enough to say for sure, but my impression was that the Labour intra-party sniping (among Labour politicians) was mostly before May called the election. If May hadn’t called the snap election, it would still have been three years away, so before then it doesn’t seem particularly relevant.

      It is unfortunate that American elections are so drawn out (while simultaneously more frequent than in the UK, with midterms), but it seems to me that the late primaries (when it should’ve been obvious to all that Clinton was going to be the nominee) through the general election are a pretty similar period.

  • alex284

    It’s good to be regularly reminded about how white people did nothing to create racial hierarchy in the US and certainly did nothing to promote it.

  • humanoid.panda

    The funny thing is how absolutely ignorant this tweet is in lifhtbof absolutely orthodox Marxist thinking. The alt right, to thee stent it is a movement, is not exactly a working class uprising. It’s made of college republicans, college dropouts, software developers which meant get dates , and dudes with various mental issues and criminal histories. In other words, the same admixture of petty bourgeoisie and lumpen proletariat that Marx was railing about back in 1849.

    Also, there is very little evidence Trump or the alt right triggered a stampede among white youth. Turnout among white youn people was as abysmal as usual, Trump did a little worse with them than Romney , and his approval with them is in the dumps

    • Murc

      Dude.

      Your phone has failed you grievously. It needs to be taught a lesson.

      I mean… wow.

      • Hogan

        Not grievously, I’d say. It totally nailed “petty bourgeoisie” even when it couldn’t manage “light of.”

      • humanoid.panda

        Lol. chubby fingers and light dyslexia are a bad combo

        • rea

          Takes small hands to tweet properly . . .

          • Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

            I vigorously endorse this covfefe.

        • I had trouble with autocorrect on my phone a few months ago and a front pager at Balloon Juice thought I might be having a stroke and inquired, solicitously, if I needed help. I’m pretty sure that I’d like to go out ranting on a blog so I wouldn’t have wanted him to call the EMTs for me, but it was sweet.

    • humanoid.panda

      Also, going down the rabbit hole i see him flogging an article about how Corbyn leo the WWC in Labour camp by accepting. re it. Fair enough and it was probably good strategy , but that raises an important question: what would Connor accept to bring the WWC to the Democratic camp ?

      • Hogan

        I’m going with a border wall and a Muslim ban.

      • King Goat

        A lot of the WWC is going to want a price too high. But I think we could significantly cut our losses there by things that don’t cost much at all. Trade racial affirmative action for class or geographic. Cut back on overly provocative things like BLM. Don’t frame things in racial ways so much (you can talk about Flint as terrible government, police abuse that affects whites and blacks, etc).

        • humanoid.panda

          Number one is a decent idea. Number two is, to put it bluntly ,idiotic : there is no central committee that can order the BLM to just knock off. And the third is just offensive.

          • King Goat

            We can lessen BLM by just not giving it out attention and support.

            And offensive? You know what’s *really* offensive? Having Trump and his neo-Nazi supporters in the WH and the GOP in charge of the federal branches and most state governments. If we can reverse that by doing what I propose people need to get over being offended.

            • humanoid.panda

              So Flint residents chugging poisoned water is just the price we need to pay? Because no way you can solve the problem if you cant name it.

              • King Goat

                Flint can be sold as ‘government poisons people’ or ‘government poisons black people.’ If 1 works better let’s run with that.

                • sharculese

                  You are, straight up, a sociopath. I used to think you were just a grandiose moron, but no, you’re a world-class creep.

                • King Goat

                  This is part of our problem. I’m a lifelong Democrat who happens to think we could do better changing our approach and optics, and you’re response is ‘you’re a sociopath!’

                  I mean, what do you call hard core conservatives when you meet them? Super sociopaths?

                • wjts

                  I mean, what do you call hard core conservatives when you meet them? Super sociopaths?

                  “Emperor Goat”?

                • King Goat

                  Again, this says a lot about you. I probably agree with you on 90% of policy issues. But I advocate a different approach for political tactics and so to you I’m a ‘conservative.’ This is a terrible attitude for anyone who wants actual democratic change as opposed to righteous preening.

                • wjts

                  “I am a life-long liberal. You can tell by my vociferous opposition to one of the most prominent and important civil rights movements of the last quarter-century.”

                • King Goat

                  “one of the most prominent and important civil rights movements of the last quarter-century.”

                  Yeah, they’ve accomplished so very much!

                • wjts

                  Yes, perhaps they would have accomplished more under your preferred program of shutting up and going away forever.

                • wjts
                • King Goat

                  Please.

                  Governments failing their citizens in this way should be addressed, and that doesn’t mean all government is indicted.

                  If everyone to the right of you on anything is a Republican then your going to be a member of a movement of about 10-15% of the population. Not a good approach in a democracy.

                • cpinva

                  “Flint can be sold as ‘government poisons people’ or ‘government poisons black people.’ If 1 works better let’s run with that.”

                  dude, i’m going to cut you a break, and assume you’re being sincere. here’s the problem with your proposal: had the residents not been mostly black, the white controlled gov’t wouldn’t have allowed them to be poisoned to begin with. the two are mutually inclusive, by definition. so race is a vital factor here.

                  you see what we’re all getting at?

                • King Goat

                  Governments fail white people all the time. Of course they fail black people disproportionately. But harping on that doesn’t seem to be solving the first or second thing. Because it’s not broadening our coalition, it’s narrowing it. So I’m suggesting we pitch more broadly. Black peoples concerns will still be in there, and there’s the upside that we’ll actually be in a position to help them.

                • ForkyMcSpoon

                  You’re pretty dumb if you can’t even recognize it should be sold as “Republicans poison people” rather than “government”.

                • King Goat

                  Well yeah, of course. I assumed everyone knew which government was responsible for the failure in Michigan.

                • aturner339

                  You are, straight up, a sociopath. I used to think you were just a grandiose moron, but no, you’re a world-class creep.

                  Came to that conclusion months ago. He really is the most pernicious of our trolls.

                • Completely agree. Don’t know why the fuck he wasn’t banned months ago.

                • alex284

                  lol no.

                  as if white conservatives are so blind that they would never figure out what race the victims are here.

                  Racism exists. it’s a defining feature of American politics. has been since the beginning. pretending it is not is just what conservatives do to advance their agenda.

                • sharculese

                  “I mean, what do you call hard core conservatives when you meet them? Super sociopaths?”

                  Still just regular sociopaths. Because you’re all united in your disregard for human lives.

                • Pseudonym

                  Racism isn’t a distraction from the issue of class consciousness, it’s a weapon deployed to defeat class consciousness. Racism is exactly what led to Flint being poisoned, when white flight and deindustrialization left the remaining black population stuck with a financial emergency that led to an emergency manager appointed by the state. Deindustrialization occurred because auto companies moved factories to anti-union states in the South, states that largely became anti-union because of racist resentments. You can’t talk honestly about Flint without talking about racism.

            • Murc

              We can lessen BLM by just not giving it out attention and support.

              … really.

              We shouldn’t give attention and support to an organization with the incredibly radical and controversial message of “black people are people and their lives matter.”

              Last time I checked that was one of the core fuckin’ principles of the Democratic Party.

              • King Goat

                BLM’s name and approach turns off lots of people that otherwise would be Democrats in rather good standing (not with many of the leftist purists here, to be sure).

                • sibusisodan

                  This is to restate the problem. If ‘Black lives matter’ is sufficiently provocative as to change someone’s support, that person is not a Democrat in good standing. By definition.

                  Sounds like the price you’re asking other people to pay for this type of vote is rather high.

                • King Goat

                  That is an ass backwards way to think about this if we want to be successful in a democracy. ‘If they don’t like our name and tactic and but for them they’d help us achieve our goals, it’s them, not our name and tactics that are bad. So long to them, we don’t want them!’

                • Murc

                  BLM’s name and approach

                  I am willing to entertain criticisms about BLM’s approach (I thought what they pulled in Toronto last summer was counterproductive bullshit, for example) but anyone for whom their name, which is the most anodyne statement possible, is a turn-off is someone who is looking for an excuse, not a reason.

                • King Goat

                  Talk to white people that at least sometimes vote Democrat. Ask them what they think about ‘black lives matter.’ Bet you a dollar a significant number will say ‘I dunno, I think *all* lives should matter.’

                  Should they? No. Do they? Yes.

                • tsam

                  So let me get this straight–people call themselves liberals, yet are deeply moved by the racist cops making videos like any other terrorist would, posing with guns and making death threats– this means we should curb BLM’s radical message of “how about you stop shooting us.”

                  You see this and pick fights with BLM.

                • Pseudonym

                  It’s just not plausible that the Democratic Party could lie convincingly to white people that it’s not really anti-racist while still actually fighting against racism.

                • bs

                  I don’t think Goat’s a troll. He’s a Dixiecrat: that is, a Democrat right up until you want to start helping black people. That’s his bridge too far.

            • If the Democrats go down this path no number of Scott’s Nader posts will get me to vote for Democrats. I say that as a swing state voter who phonebanked for Clinton in the general election.

              How about the Democrats run an aggressively pro-black candidate who campaigns against the interests of coastal, white collar professionals? Based on the last election that’s more what we need. All the lawyers and other upper-middle class Democrats need to suck it up so that we can stop Trump.

              • rlc

                No. The US is a big place and your targeted segment is not a majority. The pro-black candidate is fine, but she needs to promote jobs and development in non-urban regions as well as in urban wastelands like the rustbelt (the vast majority of the country)

                I think you’d find that all ethnic populations would support that. The racist bigoted rump won’t ever, fuck ’em.

              • Clinton suffered as much from a slump in black turnout as anything. For the Dems to purge themselves of black activist elements now would be electoral suicide in addition to deeply morally wrong.

            • Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. – Bonhoeffer

              It has been profoundly said, and how true it is, that the only thing necessary for evil to exist is for good people to remain silent. – Edmund Burke

              First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.” – MLK

          • Davis X. Machina

            How much actual race-based affirmative action is still out there, a generation after Bakke?

            Seems to me the less there is, the more yowling I hear about what’s left.

            • King Goat

              All the easier to dump it then.

              Really. A Democrat ending racial preferences loudly would be big for cutting our losses. Ron Brown knew this.

              • humanoid.panda

                BS. This claim is belied by the fact that even Trump didn’t mention a word about affirmative action during the campaign ( he even vaguely supported it). And of course the most traction affirmative action got on last 8 years were retroactive denunciations of Obama and Sotomayor as beneficiaries

                And of course Obama himself was openly ambiguous about affirmative action…

              • Ron Brown knew this.

                So Killary arranged for a plane crash…

              • Malaclypse

                This makes perfect sense, once you completely forget that the actual reliable base of the Democratic Party is black people.

                • ThresherK

                  …also makes sense if KG believes that Dems giving up something makes the right stop soiling their pants about it.

                • King Goat

                  You think they’d be less reliable of a base if we ended affirmative action and replaced it with something that still disprortionately benefited them?

                • Hogan

                  If it still disproportionately benefited them it wouldn’t solve the problem.

                • King Goat continuing to say “they” and “we” when “they” means black people and “we” means Democrats is pretty much all you need to know about him.

                  Black people are not the Democratic Party’s clients. They are the Democratic Party.

              • cpinva

                “A Democrat ending racial preferences loudly would be big for cutting our losses.”

                so basically, you’re saying we should all become modern day republicans, and then we’ll start winning? geez, i don’t know guy, i feel like that’s already been done.

                • N__B

                  Been there and I’ve seen the hats.

                • King Goat

                  You think the only difference in our parties is racial preferences?

                • tsam

                  You’re right-we should ignore the racism and get some more votes. That’ll definitely level the field for black people.

                • All KG is saying is maybe the D’s should criticize a female rapper, call for more police, maybe sprinkle the phrase “super predator” in your speeches, shit like that.

              • djw

                I think Davis’ point is that the beliefs about race-based AA don’t match the perception *now*. There’s no particularly good reason to expect a significant change in that perception with a minor policy change, as long as minorities remain visible and not entirely powerless members of our coalition.

                • humanoid.panda

                  Right. The way the policy is practiced now is that universities have a complex scoring system that includes race and socio economic status, in a way that probably benefits rural folks at expense of Asian – Americans. This is not, mildly, how the program is perceived

                • King Goat

                  I think that’s awfully fatalistic. There has to be things a party can do to change perceptions of what it supports and what it doesn’t.

                • Hogan

                  And the party did those things in the ’80s and ’90s. And here we are.

                • djw

                  It’s consistent with what we know about political psychology and behavior. (seriously, you really need to read Democracy for Realists.)

                  I”m inclined to think “we have to abandon civil rights or we’re doooomed forever” is a but on the fatalistic side, but that’s just me.

                • Jackov

                  Class based preferences in college admissions is not a minor policy change.

                  Under a scheme designed to maintain current levels of diversity, the socioeconomic characteristics of white students attending college would be significantly altered.* Selective colleges could see the enrollment of students from families in the lower half of income quadruple with a correspondingly significant decrease in the percentage of whites students from families in the top income quintile.

                  *the impact on the non-white student pool is mixed with some studies suggesting a decline in affluent black students and others only minor changes in the pool

                  Also Bowen, Carnevale and Rose and Kahlenberg have all found students with lower SES receive no preference in admissions.

              • alex284

                Indeed. Just like Clinton’s crime bill in the 90’s totally ended the accusation that dems were soft on crime.

          • Sly

            Remember when the white left had a collective meltdown when Jamelle Bouie suggested that they’d try to accommodate white nationalism in light of Trump’s win?

            Good times.

        • Sly

          A lot of the WWC is going to want a price too high. But I think we could significantly cut our losses there by things that don’t cost much at all.

          “We” could?

          “Our” losses?

          • King Goat

            The Democratic Party.

          • JMV Pyro

            King Goat’s “thing” as far as I can tell is that he is mainly concerned with acquiring political power. If some group happens to get sacrificed so that power can be maintained, so be it.

            The fact that he sees African Americans/immigration activists/feminists as a “them” preventing “us” from winning is the tell. If this were the 1930s he’d be advising people not to bother fighting for anti-lynching policies because they might screw up this thing they’ve got with the segregationist.

            • sibusisodan

              No, that’s not quite right. Plenty of us are very interested in the tactics and strategy of acquiring political power.

              We argue about electability all the time for example. But it’s tempered with realism. When someone asks, but how do you do X, that gets wrestled with. Pros and cons, outcomes, all that.

              That’s not what His Caprine Majesty is doing. He’s using the question of electability and tactics to posture. All his answers are opaque and his remedies hidden. It’s not above board.

        • JMP

          Protesting against police murdering black people who have done nothing wrong is “overly provocative” and dropping that “don’t cost much at all”? What the flying fuck?

          Basically, that list amounts to “tell black people to go fuck themselves”. That’s hideous. No, no, FUCK NO!

        • “We” seems to imply you’re not talking about what Democrats can give up, but what white people can decide what non-white Dems will have to accept will be taken from them.

          There’s also that problem of affirmative action being, you know, good policy. But hey, whatever, we need the vote of Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel

          • bs

            Hint: King goat = cletus

        • “I think we could significantly cut our losses there by things that don’t cost much at all.”

          Don’t cost much to you, maybe. But politically? You think signalling to African Americans that we don’t care about their concerns is going to be good for the Democratic Party? ‘Cos bluntly, that’s what you’re doing here. I think we can leave the racism to the other party, how about you?

    • altofront

      In other words, the same admixture of petty bourgeoisie and lumpen proletariat that Marx was railing about back in 1849.

      This is really quite brilliant. And clearly, we should forget about Shakespeare and turn to Marx, who really seems to have Trump’s number:

      “In Bonaparte the imperial pretender was so intimately bound up with the adventurer down on his luck that the one great idea, that he was called to restore the empire, was always supplemented by the other, that it was the mission of the French people to pay his debts.”

      “At a moment when the bourgeoisie itself played the most complete comedy, but in the most serious manner in the world, without infringing any of the pedantic conditions of French dramatic etiquette, and was itself half deceived, half convinced of the solemnity of its own performance of state, the adventurer, who took the comedy as plain comedy, was bound to win. Only when he has eliminated his solemn opponent, when he himself now takes his imperial role seriously and under the Napoleonic mask imagines he is the real Napoleon, does he become the victim of his own conception of the world, the serious buffoon who no longer takes world history for a comedy but his comedy for world history.”

      “The Bonaparte dynasty represents not the revolutionary, but the conservative peasant; not the peasant who strikes out beyond the condition of his social existence, the small holding, but rather one who wants to consolidate his holding; not the countryfolk who in alliance with the towns want to overthrow the old order through their own energies, but on the contrary those who, in solid seclusion within this old order, want to see themselves and their small holdings saved and favored by the ghost of the Empire. It represents not the enlightenment but the superstition of the peasant; not his judgment but his prejudice; not his future but his past.”

      • Origami Isopod

        So maybe Napoleon always had his hand in his jacket because he was trying to hide how small it was?

        • Rob in CT

          Was Marx writing about The Napoleon of the small hand there, Napolean III?

        • Q.E.Dumbass

          IIrC it was because of scabies.

  • Malaclypse

    I am told I need to denounce the extremists in my community, and take responsibility for their – wait, I don’t need to do that? Remarkable. I feel – what’s the word? – privileged – not being expected to do that when white dudes are the ones who are assholes.

  • LosGatosCA

    Doesn’t explain why most crime is white on white, though.

    • Malaclypse

      We’re not cabable of self-government. Obviously.

      • cpinva

        now, now, we all know those are one-offs, not a reflection on the entire group.

  • King Goat

    Do people here think movements just can’t create* backlashes? Or is it that you don’t think recent approaches in ‘identity politics’ haven’t created what’s culminated (so far) in what we’re now seeing? I get the idea that it’s crappy to blame the movement for the backlashes ugliness, but maybe it’s less about blame and who is right and about undercutting the backlash (and the awful policy consequences that flow from it).

    *of course should be read as ‘played a factor in something that may have been there already but now is more manifest or active’

    • efgoldman

      Do people here think movements just can’t create* backlashes?

      So, the Nazis were a backlash to all the pushy, greedy Jews?
      I’m sure there are six million or so people who were really, really sorry.

      And Bull Connor and the dogs and fire hoses, and Viola Liuzzo, and Medgar Evers, etc etc were all an excusable backlash to be expected, after all.

      • King Goat

        There’s a lot of room between the Nazis and many Trump supporters. Come on.

        But, if you want to go Godwin, one might think about how far the Nazis benefitted from the public fear of the radical Communists and anarchists of the time.

        • fd2

          There’s a lot of room between the Nazis and many Trump supporters.

          There isn’t, actually.

        • Malaclypse

          You know that Stalin rather infamously told the German Communists to not go after the Nazis, right? So there’s an actual test case for your theory?

      • cpinva

        “So, the Nazis were a backlash to all the pushy, greedy Jews?”

        in fairness, the Nazi’s felt just awful about that afterwards. they realized they’d gone just a wee bit too far.

        “There’s a lot of room between the Nazis and many Trump supporters.”

        true, there are the “Hillary Haters(tm)” who, after nearly 30 years of rightwing propaganda, just viscerally despise her, for………….reasons!

    • humanoid.panda

      The question you are ignoring is “what is the backlash response to ?”

      There are three answers here
      1. Obama
      2. Immigration
      3. BLM
      4. Campus politics and their internet spillovers

      You can complain about number four, but it pales in significance to the other three. So what is your great idea to handle them ?

      • King Goat

        Well, I think BLM is terrible for Democrats and the left, so there’s that. Police violence against blacks is certainly worth attention, but since whites are victims of police violence too and overly provocative civil rights movements have squandered a lot of moral capital for much of white America, their approach is terrible.

        Immigration is a tricky one. On the one hand, there’s certainly a lot of awful racism involved in opposition to it. On the other, we can’t go open borders, and many key potential constituencies are hurt by immigration. I say we could do a lot of middle splitting by just not pushing for increased immigration.

        • Hogan

          Yeah, sure, racial justice, maybe in another hundred years. We’ll just have to wait and see.

          • wjts

            Prioritizing the interests and opinions of white middle/working class voters sounds like a sure-fire recipe for more liberal policy to me. If only Democratic politicians would provide the necessary Leadership for this to happen – perhaps they should form a Council?

            • sharculese

              Bravo.

            • Hogan

              Would there be room for Whites who are Citizens on this Council?

              • wjts

                The Council welcomes even Conservative Citizens if they have something to say on the subject. Let a thousand magnolias, daisies, and lilies of the valley bloom!

            • ThresherK

              Can I join the council’s Uptown wing?

            • King Goat

              We have to actually win elections to make any liberal policy, and whites are 70% of voters.

              • humanoid.panda

                .. and no Democrat won even 45 percent of their vote since 1964. So, we are talking about improving in the margins, and the idea that pretending that racial minorities don’t exist is the best way to improve in the margins is rather problematic

                • King Goat

                  No, many here aren’t talking about improving on the margins of anything. They want to keep the same approach that has led us to a very sorry political place. Heck, any talk of changing that approach gets you called a sociopath conservative that should be banned.

                • humanoid.panda

                  I’m there are a lot of people here who advocate different approaches – say Marc and to lesser extent me. But neither of them is called a conservative sociopath. And sorry the position that we can never, ever mention race is both morally deficient and politically suicidal ( what happens if minority turnout plunges because both parties compete for voters hostile to minorities?)

                • sibusisodan

                  > No, many here aren’t talking about improving on the margins of anything

                  Nonsense. There have been lots of conversations here about how to reach out to which marginal voter in order to regain power.

                  What you’re eliding is the price to be paid for various votes. You’re assuming that a very high price which you will not have to pay is good politics.

                • Q.E.Dumbass

                  @humanoid.panda: Marc or Murc? The former expressed overt sympathy for members of lynch mobs immediately after the election.

                • humanoid.panda

                  I meant Murc, and have no idea who Marc is…

                • Murc

                  One of my fondest memories is when Scott mixed up Marc and myself on a front-page post.

                • ColBatGuano

                  Heck, any talk of changing that approach gets you called a sociopath conservative that should be banned.

                  Funny how all your policy prescriptions seem to throw minorities under the bus.

            • Pseudonym

              I don’t think the DLC really prioritized working-class voters.

              • wjts

                Yes and no, I guess. At least part of the point was to win back Reagan Democrats.

                • efgoldman

                  At least part of the point was to win back Reagan Democrats.

                  Never happen. They’ll vote for the RWNJs until they die off (which is already happening, and which will accelerate when the ACA goes away).

          • cpinva

            “Yeah, sure, racial justice, maybe in another hundred years. We’ll just have to wait and see.”

            well now, you don’t want to do these things too quickly, you need to allow time for people to get used to the concept. this might take a while, say another two, three hundred years maybe. there is time, then there is “Southern Time(tm)”, the two are not the same.

            so much for my Star Trek fantasies.

        • humanoid.panda

          On BLM, even if you are correct in radicalism ( and as I note above it’s not like the “left” controls it, the idea that police violence is a color blind problem is silly. On immigration, the Democratic proposal was always more border security in exchange for amnesty, so what you are asking is basically same policy but bit more racist rhetoric.

          • humanoid.panda

            And of course, you totally ignored no. 1..

            • King Goat

              Because there’s no concession to make there.

          • As an aside, there have been BLM protests for white people killed by the police, a fact that is studiously ignored by people who have problems with the movement, including All Lives Matters types.

            • humanoid.panda

              In related news, the NRA is silent on acquittal of killer of innnocent gun owner Castille. Weird oversight.

            • King Goat

              Their brand overcomes their actions. Happens all the time. It’s why companies spend so much time and energy on branding.

          • cpinva

            not to be nit picky, but characterizing BLM as “radical”, is RWNJ codswallop. unless, of course, you define anyone/group that speaks out against injustice, of any type, as “radical”.

            now John Brown and his sons, those guys were definitely radical, but BLM?, not anywhere close to the same class.

            • humanoid.panda

              I dunno. I think radical simply means ” significantly removed from political center”. And to extent BLM has a political platform hard to argue it isn’t.

              • JMV Pyro

                The Movement for Black Lives Platform, while not endorsed by everyone taking part in BLM, is very radical in the context of American politics.

        • sibusisodan

          > Police violence against blacks is certainly worth attention, but since whites are victims of police violence too and overly provocative civil rights movements have squandered a lot of moral capital for much of white America, their approach is terrible.

          What did MLK write about white moderates? He was already proved right on that one. You don’t need to prove it afresh.

          • Murc

            What did MLK write about white moderates? He was already proved right on that one.

            You know, I’m legitimately not sure he was?

            King had a pretty jaundiced view of white moderates… but literally his entire civil rights campaign was specifically tailored to appeal to them without selling its soul, on the grounds that, you know… it absolutely required the support of white moderates. He was making the colossal gamble that given the choice between Bull Connor and himself, the white moderates would choose himself.

            Turns out that worked.

            I’m fine with playing the respectability game as long as you don’t sacrifice substance in favor of it. Style matters. It shouldn’t, but it absolutely does.

            • humanoid.panda

              There is a difference between tactical and stylistic moderation, which King practiced, and strategic moderation ( don’t ask too much too soon) which he abhorred. KG is intentionally or not eliding the difference

          • King Goat

            Yeah, that radical King, what with his strict nonviolence in the face of violence, dressed for church, not cursing in public and singing hymns, that’s a guy who didn’t give a damn about approach and optics!

            • sibusisodan

              This is deliciously not-quite-responsive.

              King’s tactical approach was to assume that there existed a level of shame which white people would not tolerate.

              His campaigns poked and prodded at that.

              And in response, the King Goats of his day asked why he had to be so provocative, had to cause so much tension, stir people up so much.

              It was responses like yours – the devotion to order over justice, the preference for absence of hostility over positive peace – which led to his Letter. It is responses like yours which hold back justice.

              • King Goat

                As Murc said King knew that in order for his prodding to get anywhere he had to be very disciplined in maintaining an approach that would not quickly alienate whites.

                • Murc

                  Would that you could follow King’s example.

                  For someone who is so very concerned about messaging, you’ve demonstrated precisely zero ability to craft messages in ways that might get it a more friendly reception than it does. Indeed, you often deliberately set out to alienate your audience here.

                • Dr. Waffle

                  And yet, a substantial number of whites were alienated by King anyway:

                  “In 1963, King had a 41% positive and a 37% negative rating; in 1964, it was 43% positive and 39% negative; in 1965, his rating was 45% positive and 45% negative; and in 1966 — the last Gallup measure of King using this scalometer procedure — it was 32% positive and 63% negative.”

                  http://www.gallup.com/poll/20920/martin-luther-king-jr-revered-more-after-death-than-before.aspx

                • wjts

                  Why did they choose such an unpopular leader? It’s like they were trying to lose!

                • Hogan

                  Yes, but his primary opponent, Malcolm X, was also terrible. Clearly we need to reform our process somehow.

                • wjts

                  What a bunch of SUPERGENIUSES!

                • I think King Goat is looking for a way to ask BLM to pull their flarn flarn pants up and stop wearing their hats backwards. Then they’d get the same wonderful response as MLK did and…

                  wait, let me try that again,

                  they’d be as appealing as MLK was and…

                  Wait, let me try that another way….

                • wjts

                  When you put it that way, BLM are pretty much the Flarn Flarn Macoute.

                • Rob in CT

                  And of course, not long after MLK was killed, the electorate of the time put Nixon in office…

                  First time as tragedy, second time as farce.

            • humanoid.panda

              King was a radical who cared about optics. Your mistake is that your pretend his tactics diminished his radicalism.

            • sharculese

              Shorter King Goat:

              MLK was one of the good ones.

              • Q.E.Dumbass

                KG’s written only two posts since Scott last replied to shah8. Scott doesn’t mention doing so, but you think he banned Goatse?

                • Hogan

                  It’s a Saturday night. I wouldn’t assume anything.

        • Murc

          On the other, we can’t go open borders,

          No, we choose to not go open borders.

          There’s a difference.

          • cpinva

            Israel & NK probably have the tightest borders of anywhere in the world, that isn’t an island nation. even with all that, people still sneak in/out. if someone is truly motivated, they will find a way.

        • rea

          The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day.

          R. E. Lee King Goat

          • King Goat

            Jesus, you’re deranged. I mean, really. Anyone to the right of you is of course a Confederate racist. You’ve suddenly made Confederate racist the biggest voting bloc in this country!

            • Dr. Waffle

              Donald Trump is the President, you dumb motherfucker. Racists may not comprise the biggest voting block, but they ain’t exactly an irrelevancy, either.

            • For all intents and purposes, they are.

        • JMP

          I will say, King Goat’s “Black people need to shut up and happily accept police murdering them!” arguments are exposing what a shit he truly is even more than his usual Clinton Derangement Syndrome bullshit.

          • JMV Pyro

            What I’m wondering is, who’s his audience? If he’s trying to market himself to the socialists here, he’s failing. Doubly so with the left-liberal types.

            For someone obsessed with marketing and optics, he’s utter shit at it.

        • SIS1

          What the hell is an “overly provocative civil rights movements”?

          One that makes the majority have to think? White America not wanting to own up to its issues is not the fault of the people who point it out. The fact that white people get shot and killed by cops and vastly smaller rates than minorities isn’t actually an argument against BLM.

          • gccolby

            I think the most generous possible interpretation is that BLM activists should wear suits and use clean language during their actions, cause that’s what SNCC activists did. I think that sort of ignores cultural changes since then; the real issue with the “respectability” of black BLM activists is mostly their blackness. Let’s not forget that MLK Jr, despite his careful cultivation of a respectable image, was still considered by many white Americans to be a provocateur, a traitor or even a thug. The gains here are at the margins. BLM isn’t radical because their behavior is more extreme than that of the Civil Rights Movement protestors, they’re radical because their demands – that black Americans be treated as humans by police and their larger communities – is something the majority of white Americans are profoundly uncomfortable with. And that’s why the Civil Rights Movement was radical, too.

            That’s not to say there haven’t been tactically foolish or misguided BLM actions. I’m sure there have been. But the tactically wise actions will also cause people who are resistant to the goals of the movement to get in a huff. It’s not much of an argument to point out that people get angry about BLM protests. Well, yeah – because they don’t agree with the goals of the movement and want cops to be able to continue to kill black people with impunity, because it makes them feel safer!

        • “I say we could do a lot of middle splitting by just not pushing for increased immigration.”

          The Obama/Hillary policy it is then.

    • Hogan

      Do people here think movements just can’t create* backlashes?

      Of course they can, which is why we shouldn’t have movements.

      • Malaclypse

        If history teaches any lesson, it is that white supremacy cannot be even slightly challenged.

      • N__B

        To paraphrase George Carlin, if you stop having movements, you’re going to spend a lot of time walking around the beach wondering why you’re getting larger all of a sudden.

      • King Goat

        We need movements. But successful ones are very mindful of muting backlash. Take the early civil rights movement. Non-violence. Dressing up in Sunday best. Being polite. Singing hymns. They were *very* disciplined, savvy and self conscious in undercutting backlash.

        • wjts

          And because they were so polite and nicely dressed, the CRM was met with universal acceptance and sparked no backlash whatsoever and racial harmony was found throughout the land until those nasty BLM activists went and ruined everything.

          • King Goat

            Of course there was and will be some backlash. The issue is, can you via tactics and approach undercut what will be there?

            • ColBatGuano

              They only used the fire hoses at half pressure!

        • efgoldman

          But successful ones are very mindful of muting backlash. Take the early civil rights movement.

          Goodman, Cheney and Schwerner
          Medgar Evers
          Viola Liuzzo
          Four little girls at a church in Birmingham

          And those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head.
          Yup, that backlash was sure muted.

          Fuck you, racist asshole

          • Linnaeus

            I seem to recall some major civil rights movement leader who was supporting a strike in Memphis some years back. Wonder what happened to that guy? Maybe he could provide some insight.

            • Hogan

              That guy was a flaming Communist who incited riots. Didn’t you hear that? It was in all the papers.

            • ThresherK

              He said exactly two things in his entire life, both of which prove he was a conservative.

          • sharculese

            I’m not sure King Goat has gone full-soullite yet, but it’s at least a half-soullite.

          • Murc

            Yup, that backlash was sure muted.

            Er. I hate to agree with King Goat about anything, but it seems like he’s kinda right about this?

            The civil rights movement absolutely did play the respectability politics game, and they played it at a super high level, and they did that because they realized they needed to make their opponents look like crazed agents of chaos and repression and themselves look like a white moderates idea of respectable folks so that those white moderates would grant them the political concessions they were asking for. In that sense, the backlash absolutely was muted; it wasn’t powerful enough to stop a massive raft of legislation from getting passed and the social and political mainstream changing for the better.

            Whether or not that should be emulated a half a century later under different circumstances is entirely open to debate, but that is what happened.

            • shah8

              To put things shortly, this is wrong.

              Reminder…Respectability politics is “pull up your sagging jeans”, Chris Rock going with his famous Ne and Ni performance, Bill Cosby’s poundcake, and some of Obama’s not so good inclinations.

              There was a respectability politics in the CRM era, and the CRM basically was formed out of a *rejection* of respectability politics. That rejection just didn’t take the shape of wearing loud clothes or dirty rags, or uncouth behavior, you dig? Resturant sit ins, for example, was not “respectability politics” in the least!

              • humanoid.panda

                Exactly this. The CRM avoided tactical mistakes and thought about ways to best reach mushy middle ( and BLM activists do probably should think about these tactical questions) . But it was unmistakably radical

              • Murc

                Resturant sit ins, for example, was not “respectability politics” in the least!

                My understanding is that people taking place in restaurant sit-ins were very carefully recruited, and that they were instructed in the strongest terms possible to comport themselves in keeping with societal standards of mostly respectable behavior.

                And that this was undertaken specifically because the people organizing said sit-ins were of the opinion that polite, well-dressed people trying to order a sammich getting hauled away by the cops while a jeering crowd looked on would elicit sympathy and possibly political concessions. Whereas it was thought that looking like scary black folks out to wreck up businesses would not get the results they wanted.

                That sounds a lot like playing the respectability politics game to me. If it isn’t that, is there a better term for it?

                • shah8

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respectability_politics

                  *sigh* The wiki doesn’t directly reference to the CRM, but it’s pretty good.

                • LeeEsq

                  This might be talking past each other. shah8 and humanoid panda do not see King’s branch of the CRM as respectability politics because the CRM was actively demanding and trying to get change from White America. Respectability politics is about controlling your own group’s behavior in the hopes that the other group will mystically magically change on their own accord. As Jews would put it, “don’t make a shanda in front of the goyim.” Because the CRM was making demands and doing provocative actions, it is not respectability politics even though they behaved and dressed in an aggressively middle class manner.

                  You see behaving and dressing in middle class manner as a type of respectability politics because the CRM was trying to argue African-Americans are just as aggressively middle classed as White Americans and can be trusted with political, social, and economic rights.

                • Murc

                  Hmm, interesting. We might not be that far apart. Literally the first sentence:

                  Respectability politics or the politics of respectability refers to attempts by marginalized groups to police their own members and show their social values as being continuous, and compatible, with mainstream values rather than challenging the mainstream for what they see as its failure to accept difference.

                  Now, I read that, and my first thought was “how do the tactics used by King and the other moderate leaders of the civil rights movement not absolutely fit into that rubric? Nonviolence, presenting themselves according to the standards of respectably comportment, invoking God and Country to justify themselves, that seems absolutely of a piece with respectability politics as defined above.”

                  And then I thought “hmm. That definition can also be read as being utterly exclusive. That is, if you incorporate other tactics as well, especially tactics that are perceived as more radical such as openly violating the law and daring people to do something about it, then you by definition cannot be engaging in respectability politics, even if some of your tactics look like it. By that definition King can’t have been engaging in respectability politics because he used radical tactics in addition to his less-radical optics.”

                  I’m not sure I agree with that interpretation but it seems like that’s where you’re coming from, shah8? I think?

            • Dr. Waffle

              Minus the whole getting assassinated thing, the backlash against MLK Jr was very muted!

            • Hogan

              If Birmingham 1963, Freedom Summer, the Edmund Pettus Bridge, Cicero 1966, and the King assassination were a muted backlash, I’d hate to live through an unmuted one.

              • Murc

                Not unmuted. More muted. There’s a difference, is there not?

                Like, a more muted backlash from what we actually got would have been “none of those things happen, but white racists bitch and moan a lot and slow-roll things wherever they can.”

                A less muted backlash would have been “Birmingham 1963, Freedom Summer, the Edmund Pettus Bridge, Cicero 1966, and the King assassination all happen, and also we get no legislation and the feds shrug their shoulders and let the south keep running its terror state.”

                There are degrees, surely?

                • TinEar

                  Okay but if that’s so then what the hell are we talking about? The backlash to BLM so far consists almost entirely of white racists bitching and moaning on the internet. So by the logic of this argument (which I am implying is terrible, if that isn’t clear) BLM is actually way the hell ahead of MLK when it comes to muting backlash.

                • Hogan

                  But the backlash didn’t stop after the laws got passed. If you lengthen the time frame to include Nixon, the Burger/Rehnquist/Roberts Court, Reagan, and the various racial/moral panics of the ’90s and ’00s, among other things, we’re a lot closer to your second result than I’d like to be. The Voting Rights Act is close to a dead letter. Police continue to treat black neighborhoods as occupied territory. School integration and affirmative action are now prohibited forms of racial discrimination. So now what?

                • Murc

                  So by the logic of this argument (which I am implying is terrible, if that isn’t clear) BLM is actually way the hell ahead of MLK when it comes to muting backlash.

                  Yes? I kind of agree with this, as evidenced by my pro-BLM posts upthread?

                  But the backlash didn’t stop after the laws got passed.

                  Also yes? This is self-evidently true?

                  If you lengthen the time frame to include Nixon, the Burger/Rehnquist/Roberts Court, Reagan, and the various racial/moral panics of the ’90s and ’00s, among other things, we’re a lot closer to your second result than I’d like to be. The Voting Rights Act is close to a dead letter. Police continue to treat black neighborhoods as occupied territory. School integration and affirmative action are now prohibited forms of racial discrimination. So now what?

                  You… keep on fighting in the most effective manner available to you?

                • Hogan

                  And so we’re back to KG’s “Everybody but me is doing it wrong.”

                • Murc

                  And so we’re back to KG’s “Everybody but me is doing it wrong.”

                  … we are?

                • Hogan

                  KG believes there are tactics that movements can use to defuse or minimize backlash, citing the CRM as an example, and you agreed.

                  The backlash to the CRM, unfolding over many years, now controls all three branches of the federal government and a number of states, and has undone many/most of the CRM’s gains. So, not a great example. And you agreed.

                  Which brings us back to KG. Who doesn’t know what the right thing to do is, or who the right candidate to nominate is, but is absolutely confident that we are all wrong and should take KG’s advice about tactics.

                • Murc

                  KG believes there are tactics that movements can use to defuse or minimize backlash, citing the CRM as an example, and you agreed.

                  Right…

                  The backlash to the CRM, unfolding over many years, now controls all three branches of the federal government and a number of states, and has undone many/most of the CRM’s gains. So, not a great example. And you agreed.

                  Wait… what? When the hell did I agree to this?

                  The backlash to the CRM absolutely has not undone many and/or most of the CRM’s gains. Not at all. I strenuously object to this and I never agreed with it.

                  Which brings us back to KG. Who doesn’t know what the right thing to do is, or who the right candidate to nominate is, but is absolutely confident that we are all wrong and should take KG’s advice about tactics.

                  This seems like an accurate description of KG, whose grasp of tactics, strategy, history, and politics is quite weak overall.

                  I am capable of thinking that while agreeing with him on specific points at the same time.

        • I would refer you to Dr King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail, which was a response to the people of the day who were lecturing him about being restrained and polite, not breaking the law and all that. Of course they sang hymns and wore their Sunday best, this movement sprang out of the churches, but it was a movement that brazenly defied authorities and broke the laws and was highly controversial- there was a considerable backlash, not only from overt segregationists but also from “moderates” who thought these protesters were going too far. Sound familar?

      • cpinva

        “Of course they can, which is why we shouldn’t have movements.”

        my Dr. has told me i should have at least three movements a day, for good flushing. i find these also make me feel better, so i am, regretfully, going to have to decline to join your “No Movements(TM)” movement. oh, wait………………

        i’ll show myself out.

      • Without movements, everyone would be full of shit. Come to think of it, this may explain King Goat.

    • I get the idea that it’s crappy to blame the movement for the backlashes ugliness

      This statement is contradicted by everything else in the comment.

      • King Goat

        That’s because you’re unwilling or unable to see that what’s right and just and what works politically to advance what’s right and just might not be the same thing.

        • Nah, it’s because I can spot a fauxgressive dipshit even when he insists he’s a brave teller of truths.

        • Sly

          The thing is, it’s neither right nor just to prioritize giving free shit on the Federal dime to people who, at best, shrug their shoulders when sworn officers of the law murder a child in broad daylight and yet wail and gnash their teeth when a professional athlete takes a knee during the Star Spangled Banner in protest of that murder.

        • cpinva

          “That’s because you’re unwilling or unable to see that what’s right and just and what works politically to advance what’s right and just might not be the same thing.”

          and you’re unwilling to accept the possibility that the reverse is true. pretty much all the freedom movements throughout history were loud, sometimes (very) violent. the people stifling your freedom do so for economic reasons. it’s beneficial to them, they aren’t going to willingly give that up. it has to be made clear that not giving it up is going to be more costly to them.

          in this country (except for the “Recent Unpleasantness(tm)”, that’s mostly transpired with not a massive scale of violence, because we have laws that smart people put together, to encourage that freedom. but sometimes, the demand has to be made loudly. well, actually, it almost always has to be.

        • The Dark God of Time

          Take this in the spirit in which it is given:

          Go fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw.

      • shah8

        Why do you bother with this guy?

        • sharculese

          It’s Saturday afternoon. Smacking around a total piece of shit who thinks he’s a brave heterodox genius is a relaxing weekend activity.

        • Malaclypse

          Shah is correct. Taking the pledge.

          • sharculese

            I’ve made this distinction before but it’s been a while, so I’ll repeat it.

            On threads about substantive developments we shouldn’t let assholes derail with their bullshit. On threads that are already “get a look at this asshole” it should be okay to fuck with assholes in comments.

            Edit: especially if the asshole in question is on board with what the asshole in the OP is saying. This is how we remind lurkers that some people are just selfish dicks.

        • Why do you bother to ask why I bother? (Is this meta?)

          • shah8

            Mostly a “why would a front-pager feed the troll, particularly when he’s this virulent?”. There was a teensy bit of nonsensical floating concern and interest in your wellbeing.

            • Scott Lemieux

              “Why are you writing about this?” comments are, without exception, useless.

              • shah8

                Writing is too broad a term, Scott.

                Dude, if I were running a blog, I’d have long since IP banned the guy, particularly for comments like those in this thread. Think about what he’s saying and extend the logic. He’s way over in Steve Sailor territory and worse, but dressing it all up in current controversies and (only very thinly) nominally acceptable reasoning. And his history has largely been about derailing threads. That’s what he does, and personally, perhaps, maybe, we should be smarter and more careful than Br’er Rabbit, ok? There’s no argument happening with him. He’s just here to make us unwell, using performative reasonableness, and we shouldn’t engage.

                • Q.E.Dumbass

                  I’m guessing the reason KG hasn’t been banned is that a) there’s generally some daylight between him and TVTray, NMAC, et al. and b) his posting behavior is offensive/annoying but not unambiguously bad faith*. Although his comments here and the tendency to derail threads all the time are pretty ironclad reasons for nuking his account; I was under the impression that an April-May hiatus was due to an account suspension.

                  *I.e., he’s a clear-cut crank, but it’s not clear whether he’s actively trying to piss people off.

                • Nah, I don’t agree. He’s been unambiguously posting in appallingly bad faith for almost the entire time he’s been commenting. His “Dems shouldn’t have nominated Clinton or Sanders and instead should’ve nominated someone awesome who didn’t run” shtick has been in bad faith from the start. I don’t know why he wasn’t banned months ago.

                • King Goat

                  Yes, because there’s just no way someone could believe Hillary and Sanders were terrible choices. Only bad faith!

                  Projection is a hell of a drug.

                • The fact that you elided your complete inability to identify a better candidate from your “summary” of my argument pretty much proves my point. You’re a dishonest sack of shit who’s clearly not engaging in good faith.

                • King Goat

                  Specific question: how am I derailing this thread? Isn’t it about the role of ‘identity politics’ on the left and its social/electoral consequences? Because that’s all I’ve been talking about.

                  I think by ‘derail’ you mean, ‘didn’t fall into a chain of narrow agreement with everyone else’ on the subject

                • Bah, “identity politics”, right. We all know what that means, don’t we? It means “politics pertaining to identies that are not mine or I don’t consider important”. Because if we want to be strictly accurate, all politics is “identity politics”.

                  I mean, remember what you said earlier, how we should stop doing affirmative action by race and instead do it by class or georgraphy? Um… situating oneself in a class or defining people by location is identity politics. What you’re saying is, let’s pretend racial identities are of no significance. Which is utter nonsense, and it’s sending a clear message to many current supporters “we are going to throw you under the bus”.

                • aturner339

                  Yeah he’s all troll. No doubt on that. I won’t tell our hosts what or what not to do but bad faith? Its name is Goat.

                • Q.E.Dumbass

                  Well, I was considering it from a potential front-pager’s perspective. I also agree that derailing alone merits banhammering. (although re: cpinva’s reply below).

                • King Goat

                  Way over in Steve Sailor territory? Fuck you. What a baseless slander. Fuck you. Steve Sailor argues blacks are genetically inferior and such, all I’ve said here is that framing issues in racial ways is often not a political strategy that works for us, meaning the Democrats.

                  Blatantly dishonest and libelous, and people want me banned? Fuck you.

                • Scott Lemieux

                  Sorry, my mistake — thought you were referring to the OP.

              • ThresherK

                My bribe offer still stands.

                • Q.E.Dumbass

                  What was the offer again?

            • cpinva

              because (just for myself), he seems like he’s almost borderline rational. perhaps, by giving him (and i’m assuming it’s a him) something to ponder, he might just fall over that border, into sane world. probably not.

              • JMV Pyro

                He’s a practitioner of Sealionning. Pretending to be rational and an affected desire to understand/help is part of the act.

                It’s a different type of trolling then the more aggressive kind that NMAC or Jenny engage in, but it’s still trolling.

        • random

          Have had him on pie filter for a while now. Thanks cleek!

    • ToddTheVP

      One party wants everyone to like them, the other party dgaf. Guess which of these parties has been vastly more successful at driving policy over the last forever.
      From Lincoln’s amnesties through Obama’s every policy–liberals fatal need to be liked by conservatives have objectively made the country worse and Democrats need to realize that and put on their adult pants going forward.

      • cpinva

        then i must be the “odd liberal out”, because i definitely do not give two nanny-goat shits whether anyone likes me or not, i don’t have to. but if getting someone to like me is all it takes to get them to see the light, then i’m willing to make that sacrifice.

        • humanoid.panda

          Well it’s a wee but more complicated than that: liberals are a multi class, multiracial coalition, which means it’s not going to be as coherent as GOP

      • gccolby

        Democrats need to get elected to make policy, and conservatives have a significant structural advantage in elections to federal offices. Whether or not that means liberals have a “need to be liked” by conservatives, I don’t know, but while this comment might make you feel all tough and smart, it doesn’t actually constitute a useful analysis of what Democrats need to do to win elections. What would it mean to not “need to be liked by conservatives,” and how would Democrats go about this while still winning elections and making that better policy? It’s not actually all that easy a question to answer, which is why there’s so much to argue about here. To say nothing of the arguing that happens in the real world between the people holding actual positions of influence in the party. Like, I know you think “put on your adult pants” is some kind of tough-minded recommendation, but what the hell does it actually mean in terms of how to campaign? How to write and sell a platform? How to legislate? Please do tell. Be specific.

  • Mike in DC

    “Gosh, there’s all these working class votes to be had, if only we dial it back a bit on all that civil rights stuff.”

    And some of the people saying this are the ones accusing the center-left/Establishment left of being morally compromised. Huh.

  • aturner339

    You know in additon to being inane this idea that racism is a response to white people being reminded they are white like they “forgot” or something is positively maddening. Truly it is the greatest troll of this post racial age.

    • Scott Lemieux

      Yeah, exactly. The idea whites are inherently neutral on everything but class and white identity politics only happens in response to civil rights activism is just absurd. As is the idea that class appeals can make white people forget their race.

      • BubbaDave

        Remember that Colbert bit? “I don’t see color. People tell me I’m white, and I believe them, because I say things like ‘I don’t see color.'”

        • Hogan

          ” . . . and I believe them, because I can hail a cab.”

  • humanoid.panda

    On a related topic, did anyone catch the big Wapo story about rural voters? Yes, the socialists are right they suffer from economic anxiety. Their preferred solutions are less regulations, lower taxes, kicking immigrants, and slashing federal programs that pay for urban parasites. ( also, to be fair more onfrartacture and less trade agreements).

    And that’s the thing: more populism is good policy and good politics. It might even reduce margins in rural areas to extent that villifying the rich might counteract vilification of “globalists” – as happened with Romney. But there is no white socialist majority walking through that door.

    • aturner339

      I saw that too. At some point we will begin to understand that nativism is a real thing that may well be popular but certainly isn’t populist.

    • Davis X. Machina

      Drum’s take:

      It focuses on the rural-urban divide, and seems to suggest that although people in rural areas are more likely to say that jobs and the economy are a big concern, they actually feel about as positively as urban dwellers.

      • humanoid.panda

        It seems like a misread in my opinion : rural people feel about as well individually as urban dwellers, but they have darker view of their communities. Drum acknowledges this in his post ..

    • cpinva

      i’m not clear on how “less regulations” is supposed to overcome poorly educated and stupid? can someone explain this to me?

    • xq

      Their preferred solutions are less regulations, lower taxes, kicking immigrants, and slashing federal programs that pay for urban parasites.

      This is an example of how you can get very different results depending on question wording. Gallup says only 9% of Americans think corporations pay too much in taxes. The WaPo poll says 79% of rural Americans think it is “very important” or “somewhat important” for the federal government to reduce taxes on their local businesses to improve the job situation. My interpretation is that most people, not being economists, don’t have strong opinions on how to create jobs but do, at a fairness level, feel that corporations are not contributing enough.

      • humanoid.panda

        Which clearly indicates a way to reduce margins: attack banks and large corporations…

        And another point: Trump won 66 perfent of the rural vote, but his disapproval rate is 44 percent. Which means that a good campaign could probably get to 40 percent vote in ritual areas without going full KG…

        • 40 percent vote in ritual areas

          Do you have any idea how hard it is to integrate whistlestop-and-Town-Meeting scheduling with the phases of the moon and the always tricky Virgin Management Supply Chain?

          • LeeEsq

            Plus the costs of renting a ziggurat with a working sacrificial altar are astronomical.

    • BiloSagdiyev

      Onfrartacture gets fresh covfefes to market!

    • JMV Pyro

      I’ve been making my way through Hofstadter’s Age of Reform and it’s kind of surreal how much of what he wrote about can still be seen today.

      • I should read more Hofstadter. “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” only gets more relevant with every passing year, sadly.

  • ForkyMcSpoon

    On a more positive note, has anyone noticed that the anti-“idpol” types* are at least not generally suggesting Democrats throw us homos under the bus?

    Now it’s just limited to the T part of LGBT. Progress!

    *who are not all leftists, there are centrists making similar claims about what the Democrats need to do…

    • cpinva

      ok, i had to stop and figure out what the “T” stood for. i really need to get out more!

    • Redwood Rhiadra

      Oh, once the Socialist Dixiecrats get Jim Crow back, you can be sure they’ll be coming after all the progress the LGBT movement has made. The Only War Is The Class War, and everything else is a distraction that must be stopped.

  • LeeEsq

    The Democratic Party doesn’t even really partake in identity politics. At least to my knowledge no Democratic politician with national level recognition or even state level recognition used the language and ideas of the Social Justice/Intersectionality Left as campaign rhetoric in the same way that Republican politicians adopt and use the language and ideas of the Internet Right. What happens is that people impute identity politics onto the Democratic Party and its’ politicians because they want to. They do this so they can have an excuse to not vote for the Democratic Party because they don’t want to.

    • aturner339

      The GOP is the only working ethnic party in US politics. The Democrats are labeled the party of “identity politics” because it contains all the “other” identities.

    • Brien Jackson

      No, what happens is that whiny white bros who are just beginning to realize they can’t convince themselves they’re THE BASE any more have convinced themselves that all of these black people and women only like Obama and Hillary because of their race/gender.

  • Joe_JP

    Was looking at the NYT at the library and passed Bret Stephen’s column for the first time. First paragraph:

    “In the matter of immigration, mark this conservative columnist down as strongly pro-deportation. The United States has too many people who don’t work hard, don’t believe in God, don’t contribute much to society and don’t appreciate the greatness of the American system.”

    Tagline had something to do with “non-immigrants” or something. I’m not sure who is reading this shit, but I ain’t.

    • Mayur

      I am a veteran of the NYC restaurant industry. The many (sometimes undocumented) immigrants I have worked with are religious, INSANELY hard-working, and believe strongly in the American system, and they’re also the people who enable us all to eat and drink for about $20 a cover less than we would without them, if restaurants could function at all.

      By contrast, this jackhole phones in his columns, has insufficient morality to demonstrate belief in ANY higher power, and clearly hates the American system given his support of anti-scientific nonsense, bigotry, and inequality. Plus his contribution to society is worth less than what my dog drops on the street.

      Fuck him.

      • Origami Isopod

        has insufficient morality to demonstrate belief in ANY higher power

        Since when is morality correlated with religious belief?

    • EliHawk

      Yeah, it was one of those too clever by half “Keep the immigrants, deport the old line nativists” takes.

    • BubbaDave

      “In the matter of immigration, mark this conservative columnist down as strongly pro-deportation. The United States has too many people who don’t work hard, don’t believe in God, don’t contribute much to society and don’t appreciate the greatness of the American system.”

      But enough about Trump…

  • Pseudonym

    I’m not very familiar with Connor Kilpatrick, but in reading more of @ckilpatrick’s tweets I think this is actually an unfair comparison. For one thing, I don’t think anyone is as crappy as Michael Tracey. But I think Connor was trying to make a different point than what it sounds like when taking that tweet in isolation. It’s not a point that I necessarily agree with or that I’d expect anyone else to accept, but it is something for me to consider.

    Something he posted a bit later:

    telling people to ponder over their whiteness doesn’t by itself lead to empathy. Also: solidarity > empathy

    And then later:

    Marx believed that the conditions of life and work of the proletariat would force the working class to behave in ways that would ultimately transform society. In other words, what Marx said was: We’re not talking about going door-to-door and making workers into ideal socialists. You’ve got to take workers as they are, with all their contradictions, with all their nonsense. But the fact that society forces them to struggle begins to transform the working class. If white workers realize they can’t organize steel unless they organize black workers, that doesn’t mean they’re not racist. It means that they have to deal with their own reality, and that transforms them. Who were the workers who made the Russian Revolution? Sexists, nationalists, half of them illiterate. Who were the workers in Polish Solidarity? Anti-Semitic, whatever. That kind of struggle begins to transform people.

    These are very debatable points, but the idea that class consciousness is the road to addressing racism isn’t as offensive as the idea that class consciousness is more important than addressing racism. I think it would be more illuminating to argue about the merits or lack thereof of the former postulate.

    Or maybe I’m the only one who misinterpreted this at first, in which case, carry on.

    • Brien Jackson

      But you can’t take these tweets in isolation from the white brocialist/Berniecrat attacks on Democrats of color for being insufficiently pro-Bernie either.

    • I’d link you to the arguments between Kilpatrick and Jamelle Bouie that informed a lot of our interpretation of where Kilpatrick is coming from, but Bouie essentially purged his Twitter feed to escape harassment from brocialist flying monkeys.

      • Pseudonym

        Ah, I wasn’t aware of that background. I’ve generally tried to ignore the Democratic primary civil war reenactments.

    • Gareth

      The Russian Revolution transformed them into people who would cheerfully shoot a 13-year-old boy in the head.

      • Pseudonym

        I certainly don’t get the socialist left’s love for the Russian Revolution. Are they trying to make socialism look unappealing? Why not start praising Juche as well?

        • Origami Isopod

          Why not start praising Juche as well?

          Why not. They’ve got the best dance moves.

          That said, while Communist Russia was awful, so was Tsarist Russia. This isn’t what-aboutism, this is pointing out that if you put people into desperate situations, you increase the chances that they will do horrible things.

  • rlb_nw

    Love LG&M except when author assumes reader is already in on the joke.
    For example, who the frick are Connor Kilpatrick and Michael Tracey? Vacuumslayer might have included a link to assist puzzled reader.

    • You’re right. I’ll try to fill in the blanks a bit more next time.

  • glasnost

    Way too lazy to get into the topic at hand – I don’t even agree with KG – but as someone else who likes to occasionally disagree with the groupthink, it’s pretty disgusting how commenters here literally equate disagreement with trolling. The reason KG isn’t banned is because disagreeing with you is not actually trolling, and at least most of the front pagers actually understand the difference.

    Speaking for myself only, although I’m never actually going to stop voting for Democrats because wildly intolerant culture warrior asshats from the cultural left exist and act like dicks on the internet – because it’s a trivial issue in the real world – it does drive me to concede the rhetorical point to my dad.

    • I mean, the points KG is making are legitimately disgusting, but…to each his own. I’m not even sure I’d refer to him as a troll, but he is awful and deserves every ounce of shit he gets.

      • glasnost

        Just to get this out of the way because no doubt I’m going to be accused of something contrary to the following statements:

        1. BLM is an obviously worthy cause. I don’t read KG as disagreeing with this, either.

        2. I don’t think BLM made a meaningful negative impact on the Democratic Party in this election. KG disagrees.

        3. If #2 wasn’t true, i.e. the choices made by the leaders of this movement were harming the electability of Democratic Party politicians for some reason – it would, in fact, be legitimate, to make public suggestions that those movement leaders should do different things in their advocacy. This is just generically true about any individual cause or movement. There’s basically no cause more important in America than getting the Democratic Party elected.

        My underlying point here isn’t about any of these individual statements. It’s a lot simpler – my take on KG is that he’s just another LGM reader who reads it for the same reason I do – he agrees with what the front pagers are saying. He’s a high-information Democratic voter. Individual commenters on this site, even ones who say unpopular things, are likely reflective of how significant numbers of actual Democrats think.

        If you think, as I do, that KG is wrong about some part of is argument, another option, rather than “OMG troll ban him and drink his blood”, is to actually have a discussion. This comment section has exactly one way of interpreting and dealing with any one who questions the sacred cow of the day, which is hostile mockery and calls for punishment. It’s worse than offensive, it’s stupid. It sure as hell hasn’t changed KG’s actual opinion on the topic. And anyone else reading who might be sympathetic to anything about what he’s saying – like me, for example – and who knows how many lurkers – just see one guy, KG, making a rational, wrong argument about politics and other people, in response, acting like dicks. A very rational response is “politics is an invitation to get shit on, remind me to go back to video games instead” Persuasion: it’s a thing. Our politicians spend a lot of time trying to do it. Successful political movements spend a lot of time trying to do it. This blog is mostly about alienating the shit out of anyone who comments on it who offers an opinion independent of the three hundred or so regulars who dominate it.

        While I’m on this topic, I appreciate you just … responding to me in this thread like I’m a human being, not an imaginary alt-right operative. You should try it with KG. The other front pagers do a reasonable job of responding to ad hominem with same, but responding to people trying to discuss ideas with … discussion. There’s kind of an underlying golden rule for not being a dick that involves doing this. You’re usually the single worst front pager for shitting on people trying to have a conversation.

    • aturner339

      KG isn’t disagreeing he’s baiting.

    • Origami Isopod

      Right, if you don’t believe the Democratic Party should throw black people under the bus, and you’re outraged at suggestions that they do, you’re a victim of groupthink.

      I’m perfectly okay with a community imposing that sort of groupthink on its commentariat. If you’re not, you have the rest of the internet to make your case.

      • glasnost

        I also have this blog to make my case, as is ably demonstrated by your abject failure at orchestrating my deportation.

    • sharculese

      “wildly intolerant culture warrior asshats”

      Oh fuck this, this is some world class bullshit. If thinking we shouldn’t completely write off helping large groups of people makes me ‘wildly intolerant’ in the eyes of certain shrinking violets, then I’m happy to be called wildly intolerant. We will not compromise on inclusion, not ever, not for any reason. Full stop.

      Also your dad sounds like a fucking child.

      • Origami Isopod

        Also your dad sounds like a fucking child.

        Like father, like son.

      • glasnost

        If thinking we shouldn’t completely write off helping large groups of people makes me ‘wildly intolerant’ in the eyes of certain shrinking violets

        That doesn’t make you wildly intolerant. It means you disagree with KG. I also disagree with KG. “Wildly intolerant” is people that can’t listen to anyone else make a contrary argument in good faith without calling it “trolling” and/or calling for them to be banned.

        Here’s an example:

        He’s a practitioner of Sealionning. Pretending to be rational and an affected desire to understand/help is part of the act.

        This is some orwellian stuff, where abusive behavior is expanded to include markers of literally the exact opposite of abusive behavior. Engaging in rational discussion is an advanced form of trolling whose identifying aspect is “doing what normal people do in discussion”. Expressing an affected desire to understand/help is .. exactly normal empathetic/civilized discussion, a positive mark of human decency, now reclassified as advanced trolling, all in the service of banning people from arguing.

        Anyway, to go back to the original point – arguments about where to draw the line and how much unpopularity and political backlash to endure in the name of a good cause are almost definitionally within the bounds of legitimate political discussion. Lots of people are wrong about the right answer, if there even is one.

    • Chetsky

      A nice thing about coming to a post after it’s been up a while, is reading it backwards, thread-by-thread. And when I see that a thread has been hijacked by KG … I don’t even bother starting to read. B/c yaknow, life’s too short.

  • Justin Runia

    I was trying to get worked up, but dangit if that Friday hot-take from McArdle didn’t Suck Up All the Oxygen, burning as bright as it did with gleeful idiocy. Need to get the carburetor cleaned out on the olde rage machine…

It is main inner container footer text