US Politics: Show Trials & Tribulations

[JGP]

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Can we dispense with the idiocy that Joe Rogan is anywhere close to David Duke in terms of extremist views.

Can we? Maybe. Rogan did, on his show, equate going to a black neighborhood to watch Planet of the Apes as stepping out of his ride into the Planet of the Apes. 

But... he doesn't get punched out on the daily by black MMA athletes in the UFC so maybe he's not that bad. Acceptance of casual racism is fucking weird, amirite

---  

Twitter is far from the be all and end all, but this Bernie/Rogan thing-- black and trans twitter are not having it. At all. Now, if it's not politically expedient to care about that it may not be a huge deal. But it's still a big deal. At least for now.

I'm less familiar with how long incredibly unwise gaffs like Bernie's possess traction in the US.  

---

Got to say, every now and then hand waves remind me of erasers.

[Kalbear]

David Duke was useful as an illustration that simply accepting an endorsement from someone uncritically is obviously not universally fine. That said, saying things like you'd accept Duke and say that (for example) we agree on monetary policy is pretty damn close to being fine with the nazis because the trains ran on time. 

The problem isn't a dude bro asshat. The problem is accepting them uncritically. 

[Gertrude]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

David Duke was useful as an illustration that simply accepting an endorsement from someone uncritically is obviously not universally fine. That said, saying things like you'd accept Duke and say that (for example) we agree on monetary policy is pretty damn close to being fine with the nazis because the trains ran on time. 

The problem isn't a dude bro asshat. The problem is accepting them uncritically. 

And no one is saying don't be critical and not to push back on the things you disagree on. Of course everyone is going to have a different line of what's acceptable and what's a deal-breaker. That's kind of the point. When you're choosing a new friend, you have many options and don't have to surround yourself with people that you deem unacceptable. Siding with Nazis because you like their stance on public transportation might be the best choice if the other choice is the Schmatzis who hate Jews and ALSO hate public transportation. Assuming you don't just nope right out and then all you have is people on the sidelines not voting and just yelling about things they don't like (and punching the occasional Schmatzi), and everyone else who are all voting for the gas ovens.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

Can we? Maybe. Rogan did, on his show, equate going to a black neighborhood to watch Planet of the Apes as stepping out of his ride into the Planet of the Apes. 

But... he doesn't get punched out on the daily by black MMA athletes in the UFC so maybe he's not that bad. Acceptance of casual racism is fucking weird, amirite

---  

Twitter is far from the be all and end all, but this Bernie/Rogan thing-- black and trans twitter are not having it. At all. Now, if it's not politically expedient to care about that it may not be a huge deal. But it's still a big deal. At least for now.

I'm less familiar with how long incredibly unwise gaffs like Bernie's possess traction in the US.  

---

Got to say, every now and then hand waves remind me of erasers.

Come on. If the left is never going to be able to make the distinction in both degree and kind between Joe Rogan and David Duke, then we're no better than how Republicans are now, and we're all well and truly fucked.

Just to add the usual disclaimer so that I don't get the "you're just a Joe Rogan douchebro", I don't watch his standup or listen to his podcast, and I'm only aware of him during the time I used to follow UFC.

Does Joe Rogan say a lot of stupid shit? Yep. Is some of it racist/transphobic, etc.? I will take your word for it that it is. Is accepting his endorsement problematic from a political standpoint? I'm willing to entertain the argument that it is.

But, from the couple of podcasts I've listened to in order to get an idea of just how bad of a left-wing boogeyman he is, he falls far outside the camp of "card-carrying Grand Wizard of the KKK". And attempting to make that point, even for rhetorical purposes is just plain stupid, and is right out of the right-wing fucking playbook - "not only will we disagree with this person, we will alter our perception of reality to turn him into a monster".

I get that the left needs to find a way to counter Republicans' "flood the zone with shit" media strategy, but countering it by adopting their playbook is just fucking stupid.

"Get more people in our media bubble and exclude people who may otherwise be allies except for some problematic shit they've said in their lives" is not an effective fucking strategy for governing, especially for Democrats who are already at a structural disadvantage when it comes to winning elections.

[Martell Spy]

Bolton Was Concerned That Trump Did Favors for Autocratic Leaders, Book Says
The former national security adviser shared his unease with the attorney general, who cited his own worries about the president’s conversations with the leaders of Turkey and China.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/us/politics/john-bolton-trump-book-barr.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Quote

 

WASHINGTON — John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser, privately told Attorney General William P. Barr last year that he had concerns that President Trump was effectively granting personal favors to the autocratic leaders of Turkey and China, according to an unpublished manuscript by Mr. Bolton.

Mr. Barr responded by pointing to a pair of Justice Department investigations of companies in those countries and said he was worried that Mr. Trump had created the appearance that he had undue influence over what would typically be independent inquiries, according to the manuscript. Backing up his point, Mr. Barr mentioned conversations Mr. Trump had with the leaders, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and President Xi Jinping of China.

Mr. Bolton’s account underscores the fact that the unease about Mr. Trump’s seeming embrace of authoritarian leaders, long expressed by experts and his opponents, also existed among some of the senior cabinet officers entrusted by the president to carry out his foreign policy and national security agendas.

 

 

[JGP]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Come on. If the left is never going to be able to make the distinction in both degree and kind between Joe Rogan and David Duke, then we're no better than how Republicans are now, and we're all well and truly fucked.

Just to add the usual disclaimer so that I don't get the "you're just a Joe Rogan douchebro", I don't watch his standup or listen to his podcast, and I'm only aware of him during the time I used to follow UFC.

Does Joe Rogan say a lot of stupid shit? Yep. Is some of it racist/transphobic, etc.? I will take your word for it that it is. Is accepting his endorsement problematic from a political standpoint? I'm willing to entertain the argument that it is.

But, from the couple of podcasts I've listened to in order to get an idea of just how bad of a left-wing boogeyman he is, he falls far outside the camp of "card-carrying Grand Wizard of the KKK". And attempting to make that point, even for rhetorical purposes is just plain stupid, and is right out of the right-wing fucking playbook - "not only will we disagree with this person, we will alter our perception of reality to turn him into a monster".

I get that the left needs to find a way to counter Republicans' "flood the zone with shit" media strategy, but countering it by adopting their playbook is just fucking stupid.

"Get more people in our media bubble and exclude people who may otherwise be allies except for some problematic shit they've said in their lives" is not an effective fucking strategy for governing, especially for Democrats who are already at a structural disadvantage when it comes to winning elections.

 

Insofar as what Rogan has or hasn't said, google some Black and/or trans activists that have been speaking out about it. There's plenty of receipts.

It's this kind of dismissive attitude that fuels poc and trans feelings of erasure though. Sure, you can say Rogan isn't that bad, but it's not your call. If Black people, for instance, say Bernie's tent isn't big enough for Blacks and racists but because it's deemed the least bumpy path to victory you pick racists? That's your whole ass hanging out. 

[general you, of course]

---

I'm not big on purity politics. It's a very real and divisive thing here in Canada for the left and center-left, and frankly, because of the vote split it's the only thing that's keeping right wing politicians even remotely close to power. But there's compromise and then there's compromised.      

[sologdin]

DMC--

though i have little use for his opinions about pearl harbor or HIV, i liked rev. wright's comments about US policy and chickens coming home to roost.  i could regard that last point as a litmus test and accordingly not support anyone who is sufficiently trifling to disagree with it (as i am certain all standard democratic candidates will disagree)--but that would be an exercise of personal purity rather than calculated electoral tactics. 

i suspect it makes sense for BHO to throw those on his left under the train while placating the center. sanders should be ditching people like me, therefore, and reaching out rightward to numbnuts?

kal--

does sanders in fact support rogan? maybe there's an implicit or even explicit endorsement there. but, again, how pure does it all need to be? i appreciate the comparison that HRC was happy to trumpet the endorsement of genocidaire kissinger and BHO sparkled with criminal colin powell's approval--these are actual criminals against humanity, as opposed to some internet numbnut who has awful beliefs and says dreadful things. there is, however, no comparison between these categories of wrongness.  rogan is similar to duke, yeah, perhaps a bit different in degree, but not in kind.  not sure what the candidate is supposed to do, other than say he doesn't agree with rogan on these points? a simple and civil statement of disagreement should be enough; this is one of the reasons we all don't like the current president, his inability to disagree without insult, condemnation, and threat. the point, i'd think, of parliamentary politics is to tolerate difference of underlying premises and ultimate policy preferences--even strident, absolute difference--while attempting to educate and persuade when warranted while compromising when practicable.

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

 

Insofar as what Rogan has or hasn't said, google some Black and/or trans activists that have been speaking out about it. There's plenty of receipts.

It's this kind of dismissive attitude that fuels poc and trans feelings of erasure though. Sure, you can say Rogan isn't that bad, but it's not your call. If Black people, for instance, say Bernie's tent isn't big enough for Blacks and racists but because it's deemed the least bumpy path to victory you pick racists? That's your whole ass hanging out. 

[general you, of course]

---

I'm not big on purity politics. It's a very real and divisive thing here in Canada for the left and center-left, and frankly, because of the vote split it's the only thing that's keeping right wing politicians even remotely close to power. But there's compromise and then there's compromise.      

Look, I don't know how to make this any clearer. I'm not saying that Joe Rogan is as pure as the driven snow. 

But calling someone out for saying problematic shit (which I'm totally cool with) is way different than lumping Joe Rogan in with David Duke, and saying that people who sometimes say problematic shit are the same as a fucking Klan Grand Wizard, and that people who say problematic shit don't belong in the Democratic party.

I mean, you can say it, and you can politick like that, but you're not going to win shit for elections.

[JGP]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

Look, I don't know how to make this any clearer. I'm not saying that Joe Rogan is as pure as the driven snow. 

But calling someone out for saying problematic shit (which I'm totally cool with) is way different than lumping Joe Rogan in with David Duke, and saying that people who sometimes say problematic shit are the same as a fucking Klan Grand Wizard, and that people who say problematic shit don't belong in the Democratic party.

I mean, you can say it, and you can politick like that, but you're not going to win shit for elections.

Eh. If your main worry is that Kal's chosen example might offend the casual racists because it equates them to the real racists, I really don't give a shit how clear you make it. 

[Kalbear]

@sologdin - that might be enough depending on what it is. Sanders hasn't done that, and what he has done is basically pushed back on doing anything at all and gotten mad at those who want him to acknowledge anything wrong. 

Moreover, because he has not done the expected bare minimum and has gone on that attack, there aren't a whole lot of assumptions that can be made other than "hes good with all of rogan".

My suspicion is that Sanders and his team just dont care that much. We saw this with the endorsement of that young turk earlier last year, where he had to walk it back eventually after a lot of outrage - but a competent team would never have let it come to that because they would have gotten ahead of it, and either not endorsed or required penance from the guy first. Sanders does this a lot.

[Jace, Extat]

Joe Rogan and some of his more... normal-ish followers might actually be compelled to vote against Trump. I wouldn't be putting my money on it, but at least he also seems to hate that orange fuckwit. 

That's called an ally. We can crush his libertardarian fever dreams after the tyrant is dispensed. 

How goddamn hard is that train of thought to follow? Or is it better to restrict the definition of victory until it's fucking unachievable?

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, sologdin said:

i suspect it makes sense for BHO to throw those on his left under the train while placating the center. sanders should be ditching people like me, therefore, and reaching out rightward to numbnuts?

I should have spent 30 seconds looking Wright up on Wikipedia.  I, too, was thinking of his "God damn America" sermon which got played on a loop for, like, two weeks straight by every cable news channel - and of course the actual argument of those sermons is something I and many people agree with, but instead the media just activated nationalism to pose him as a threat.  But, refreshing my memory, he made quite a bit of anti-semitic remarks blaming the "zionists" for Obama turning on him.  Considerably more offensive, I'd say, than anything I've read from Rogan, so perhaps that wasn't the best comparison.

As for Sanders' electoral strategy, his supporters have been touting how he can reach the "disenfranchised" white males in the middle that Rogan represents, essentially either Obama-Trump voters or nonvoters.  And that's one way to win - another is to boost turnout (and support) from leftists that are sick of establishment party candidates (and which went 3rd party rather than Hillary at concerning rates in 2016); and another is to boost minority turnout and try to return it to rates closer to Obama than Hillary.

Obviously, ideally you want to bring in all three.  But when your campaign touts Rogan's endorsements, and then minorities point out his influence perpetuates an offensive mindset, it's probably best to then disassociate from at least Rogan's comments, if not Rogan himself.  That does not mean you stop trying to appeal to Obama-Trump voters, but you can't have it both ways:  if you're going to try to be the all-inclusive candidate that will be the most "electable," then you should acknowledge and respond to the valid criticisms of Rogan that one aspect of your election constituency (in the Fenno sense) is raising.

[JGP]

5 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Joe Rogan and some of his more... normal-ish followers might actually be compelled to vote against Trump. I wouldn't be putting my money on it, but at least he also seems to hate that orange fuckwit. 

That's called an ally. We can crush his libertardarian fever dreams after the tyrant is dispensed. 

How goddamn hard is that train of thought to follow? Or is it better to restrict the definition of victory until it's fucking unachievable?

That's what you call an ally though, Jace.

Your thoughts aren't hard to follow. The problem is they're also choices, and there will be too many people feeling ignored or left out to discount. The plus side of that I suppose [and you can call it that, I think] is they'll move toward Warren or Biden, so instead of making cool for Bernie's fuck up focus more on whichever one of them wins the primary. 

[shrugs]   

 

[Jace, Extat]

I call anything that can advance my position an ally until it no longer serves a purpose. It's a more nuanced and effective way of looking at the world.

[sologdin]

pushed back on doing anything at all and gotten mad at those who want him to acknowledge anything wrong. 

his campaign and electoral persona would benefit from a bit of humility and critical self assessment, yeah.  if he is starting to fall into the normal far left delusion of believing oneself indispensable to the revolution, perhaps it's time to retire.

anti-semitic remarks blaming the "zionists"

goodness. what a mess. it may be comparable, though--anti-semitism, racism, heteronormativity, transphobia: these doctrines normally come bundled. it'd be incongruous to find a goose-stepping nazi who is remarkably sensitive on transgender politics or an enlightened klansperson who takes breaks from beating interracial couples to march in a pride parade.

i can't imagine that anyone is actually objecting to sanders because vaguely defined and perhaps hastily generalized roganites are likely to vote for him. it's kinda an unwarranted double essentialism in the objection--not that rogan has a transphobic or racist belief, but that he has a transphobic or racist contagion that has moreover been communicated to sanders. and if we vote for sanders now, then we can catch what he's got; so he needs quarantined along with rogan and duke and hitler and sauron.  it'd be simpler if rogan says I Feel the Bern because Sanders is transphobic and that's why I endorse him. am fairly certain that i just made that up, however (does that mean it is now an internet rumor?)

ally until it no longer serves a purpose

very bolshevik.  keep the left and right anarchists as well as the mensheviks in the supreme soviet against the liberals; when the liberals are toast, everyone against the right anarchists. and on down the line until only secretary general stalin remains.

[Jace, Extat]

6 minutes ago, sologdin said:

 

ally until it no longer serves a purpose

very bolshevik.  keep the left and right anarchists as well as the mensheviks in the supreme soviet against the liberals; when the liberals are toast, everyone against the right anarchists. and on down the line until only secretary general stalin remains.

as a matter of goddamn fact when I saw you made a post I was intending to call you in as an efficacy witness.

If you don't mind me doing so, Mr. Sologdin, may I ask you how Vladimir Lenin got back to Russia to lead the revolution?

[JGP]

4 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I call anything that can advance my position an ally until it no longer serves a purpose. It's a more nuanced and effective way of looking at the world.

 

Ok then, Machiavella

 

[chuckles] 

 

3 minutes ago, sologdin said:

i can't imagine that anyone is actually objecting to sanders because vaguely defined and perhaps hastily generalized roganites are likely to vote for him. it's kinda an unwarranted double essentialism in the objection--not that rogan has a transphobic or racist belief, but that he has a transphobic or racist contagion that has moreover been communicated to sanders. and if we vote for sanders now, then we can catch what he's got; so he needs quarantined along with rogan and duke and hitler and sauron.  it'd be simpler if rogan says I Feel the Bern because Sanders is transphobic and that's why I endorse him. am fairly certain that i just made that up, however (does that mean it is now an internet rumor?)

 

To the bold, soggy, not from what I've read. Most criticism, some of it quite harsh, has more to do with his 'celebration' of the endorsement [Kal's larger point, less the details] I mean, Bernie could've possibly come out relatively unscathed in comparison if his campaign had just taken it in stride and otherwise ignored it. Or maybe not, I don't know. Rather than that it was announced like a point of pride. I follow a lot of black and poc activists and most of them are furious. Absolutely livid. Unlike trans and their allies however, some of the former have expressed a reluctant willingness to pinch their noses.  

[Zorral]

7 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

as a matter of goddamn fact when I saw you made a post I was intending to call you in as an efficacy witness.

If you don't mind me doing so, Mr. Sologdin, may I ask you how Vladimir Lenin got back to Russia to lead the revolution?

By train. Before the nazis got them running on time.

Also, it is difficult not to immediately have come to mind in response to the declaration that Rogan's bigotry toward whichever group isn't as bad as David Duke, that a murderer-in-cold blood, who murders a single person, isn't anywhere near as bad as a serial killer, so ... Yay?

 

 

[James Arryn]

6 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I call anything that can advance my position an ally until it no longer serves a purpose. It's a more nuanced and effective way of looking at the world.

It’s basic r-p, and not all that nuanced. The problem...among the problems with taking a constant hard-line r-p stance is that you have to keep winning or when you finally lose, you’ll find that you have furthered/empowered a ton of people who oppose your ‘purpose’.
 

Classic example being all the people who co-signed onto a Hitler party they considered a joke because it achieved some other aim, only to later realize they won the skirmish but lost the war by arming the enemy. In a better world many would at present be feeling that way about supporting Trump, but we haven’t seen much of that yet, aside from folks recanting ~ protest votes. Another more immediate cost is that you might alienate a bunch of otherwise allies who don’t break things down into simple black and white ‘nuance’ as you do and are therefore reluctant to support someone co-signing on attacks on people like themselves or just because they find it offensive.

Basically, realpolitik is an important part of any political calculus, but unless you want to build on quicksand you need at least some foundational principles.

[JGP]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

It’s basic r-p, and not all that nuanced. The problem...among the problems with taking a constant hard-line r-p stance is that you have to keep winning or when you finally lose, you’ll find that you have furthered/empowered a ton of people who oppose your ‘purpose’.

Yep. 

Kicking the can down the road only creates a tripping hazard.