Objectively intelligent.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Wouldn't those people be closer to classical liberals than conservatives?

I've started calling myself a classical liberal these days.

Pro-choice
Pro-gay marriage
Pro-legalization
Pro-saving the environment
Pro-privacy (extreme suspicion of the security state and internet barons)
Pro-law enforcement reform
Pro-justice reform

Neutral on religious rights (as long as they don't seek to impinge upon others, the religious are free to oppress each other in a consensual manner all they like)
Neutral on guns (background checks and bans on ludicrous assault weapons are fine)

Anti-most wokeism (people insisting where race is an issue it is the primary if not only significant issue, people who think 1619 holds water)
Anti-radicalism (rioters on right and left)
Anti-anti-science (people claiming there are 37 genders, climate change is a hoax, masks don't work, [insert other new age pseudoscience here])
Anti-anti-logic/reality (screwballs claiming one can have his or her "own truth," identity politics fanciers generally, those asserting empathy is the most important issue, conspiracy theorists of all sorts)

Conservatives insist on bullshitting each other and hewing to silly rules that are often built on rejection of science, logic, and fact. An old school liberal tries to see everything dispassionately, but with an eye toward greater inclusion, tolerance, and jettisoning the silly old rules. Barstool Conservatives seem to be an un-self aware and brash form of classic liberals.

He who cheers divided governance is not meaningfully pro any of those things.

He who thinks 1619 doesn't hold up...

He who thinks science says there are only two genders is scientifically literate.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Adder

He who cheers divided governance is not meaningfully pro any of those things.

He who thinks 1619 doesn't hold up...

He who thinks science says there are only two genders is scientifically literate.

Whoopsies!! Illiterate, not literate.

[Hank Chinaski]

https://www.atlasobscura.com/article...eid=e46763d4b9

Lawyers are no longer citizens?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

https://www.atlasobscura.com/article...eid=e46763d4b9

Lawyers are no longer citizens?

"But lawyers, unlike doctors (medical or otherwise), have no other title-based way to signal what they do, or, to be somewhat uncharitable, that what they do is special, and therefore that who they are is important."

I resemble that attack.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"But lawyers, unlike doctors (medical or otherwise), have no other title-based way to signal what they do, or, to be somewhat uncharitable, that what they do is special, and therefore that who they are is important."

I resemble that attack.

"moderate respectability with a dash of prestigious servitude?"

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

"moderate respectability with a dash of prestigious servitude?"

That's an excellent description.

Do you ever go to the counties where they call you, "Attorney [So-and-So]"? I can't handle that. I cannot stand referring to someone as "Attorney ________."

And yet I've been compelled to do it because everyone in the courtroom looks at you like a dick if you use "Mister."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's an excellent description.

Do you ever go to the counties where they call you, "Attorney [So-and-So]"? I can't handle that. I cannot stand referring to someone as "Attorney ________."

And yet I've been compelled to do it because everyone in the courtroom looks at you like a dick if you use "Mister."

I am now in my first state court case of my whole career. I cannot remember any federal court where that was the practice.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

He who cheers divided governance is not meaningfully pro any of those things.

He who thinks 1619 doesn't hold up...

He who thinks science says there are only two genders is scientifically literate.

Oh, bullshit. I'm as meaningfully pro as you.

Modern "progressivism" is largely performative. It's often a form of culture signaling. People like Portnoy, the subject of the article Less cited, are criticized despite being liberals because they don't fit the cultural profile that many people who call themselves progressives like to telecast. They're boorish, "bros," not effete in the manner a progressive with a NPR totebag would be.

Greenwald explained "progressive signalers" disdain for bros pretty well in a piece he did about Joe Rogan: https://theintercept.com/2020/09/22/...-backlash-why/

Rogan's left of almost everyone. But he's also unabashedly gruff. He violates the cultural stereotype of a progressive which people who are invested in branding themselves as progressives assiduously cultivate.

I am not a progressive. I am pro all of the things I cited above. By which I mean I am for them. But am I going to protest, perform? Become incensed? No. I simply have views. Like you. And like you, I do very little in regard to them but hold them.

I didn't say there are 2 genders. I said there are not 37. My punnet square indicates a number far below 37. And much of the science regarding new gender and sex theories, including the utterly ludicrous and scientifically indefensible rubbish that one's sex or gender is entirely a social construct, is not science at all. It's new age silliness packaged for credulous consumers who wish to talk about it in a cafe to telecast that they're enlightened.

I used to roll my eyes when that stuff would be said. For the past two years, I've just adopted the Gervais response - open mockery: "You're talking shit here. Total fucking shit. Get out of here with that."

And 1619 is a basket of facts mixed with bullshit, layered on the nonsense argument that slavery is the hub off which all spokes of American society developed and have turned. The Times has had to re-edit on the fly so many times in response to critics' citing errors that the paper doesn't even bother disclosing the edits anymore. https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-nyt-s...-1619-project/

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Oh, bullshit. I'm as meaningfully pro as you.

When you back government that will not do those things, you are not pro those things, no matter what story you tell yourself. When you do not vote for government that will do those things, you are not pro those things, no matter what story you tell yourself.

I am not a progressive. I am pro all of the things I cited above. By which I mean I am for them. But am I going to protest, perform? Become incensed? No. I simply have views. Like you. And like you, I do very little in regard to them but hold them.

I do the one thing we all can and should do to make those things happen: vote for candidates that will vote to do them. (Among other things)

And much of the science regarding new gender and sex theories, including the utterly ludicrous and scientifically indefensible rubbish that one's sex or gender is entirely a social construct, is not science at all.

The actual science is fascinatingly complex.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Modern "progressivism" is largely performative. It's often a form of culture signaling.

This is only true if you ignore their substantive agenda -- for example, the Green New Deal, single payer, etc. -- and focus on the things which irritate you, which is what you're doing.

People like Portnoy, the subject of the article Less cited, are criticized despite being liberals because they don't fit the cultural profile that many people who call themselves progressives like to telecast.

Would they call themselves liberals? I'm going to go for "no."

And 1619 is a basket of facts mixed with bullshit, layered on the nonsense argument that slavery is the hub off which all spokes of American society developed and have turned. The Times has had to re-edit on the fly so many times in response to critics' citing errors that the paper doesn't even bother disclosing the edits anymore. https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-nyt-s...-1619-project/

It is quintessentially you that you are irritated by the 1619 project but not the 1776 report, which is has fewer facts and more bullshit and ideology. It wasn't edited on the fly, but that's because it's authors surely see admission of error as an inappropriate sign of weakness.

You are, of course, completely entitled to be irritated by whatever irks you, but if you're trying to connect those irritations with some thread of intellectual principle, you're not there yet.

Incidentally, for whom did you end up voting?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

This is only true if you ignore their substantive agenda -- for example, the Green New Deal, single payer, etc. -- and focus on the things which irritate you, which is what you're doing.

I said largely. They do have an agenda. Single payer may actually work. GND is pie in the sky. What else do they have aside from utopian goals?

Would they call themselves liberals? I'm going to go for "no."

Don't know about Portnoy, but Rogan calls himself a liberal all the time. And he is. He's far left. Where he offends progressives, in addition to being an affront to their faux effete culture, is that he's a real, true liberal, in that he believes in total freedom of expression, entertaining opposing views of any kind, and tolerance rather than trying to force others to adhere to his views.

It is quintessentially you that you are irritated by the 1619 project but not the 1776 report, which is has fewer facts and more bullshit and ideology. It wasn't edited on the fly, but that's because it's authors surely see admission of error as an inappropriate sign of weakness.

Why is it that progressives and Trumpers insist on this enforcement of an unspoken fairness doctrine? If I make fun of AOC for embellishing her "fear of death" on the day of the Capitol attack, and sleazily invoking a prior assault to immunize herself from criticism when cornered about it, which she did, and which is conniving and creepy, am I also obligated to make fun of Marjorie Taylor Greene?

Or vice versa? If I make fun of MTG, must I also give equal time to making fun of AOC?

No. And nor am I obligated to attack 1776. First, because there is no equal time requirement. Second, and more importantly, because it's too absurd and stupid, like MTG, to bother attacking. Where would I start? 1776 is not even attempting to be honest. It's clearly propaganda and for that reason, no one is paying attention to it. 1619 is dishonest and biased, but it is factual in certain regards. It's sophistry. It deserves scrutiny because, unlike 1776, which is naked BS which can be disregarded in total without consideration, 1619 seeks to inject ludicrous fringe arguments into mainstream by weaving them into something that looks like serious scholarship.

You are, of course, completely entitled to be irritated by whatever irks you, but if you're trying to connect those irritations with some thread of intellectual principle, you're not there yet.

I have. It's simple. I'm citing bullshit where I see it.

Incidentally, for whom did you end up voting?

I didn't. In the end, I simply gave up on the concept. After months of hearing from my friends on the right and left, and considering the wretchedness both parties, I decided I deserved better than to have to make a choice I did not feel like making. My inner George Carlin held sway.

And I preserve my Switzerland position, which allows me latitude in conversations others do not enjoy.

But I am thrilled to not have to listen to that fat idiot everyday. Biden seems a refreshing burst of normalcy.

[Hank Chinaski]

I watched the first 2 seasons of Brockmire, and liked it. But for some reason I stopped. Any of you watch it all? Worth watching?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I said largely. They do have an agenda. Single payer may actually work. GND is pie in the sky. What else do they have aside from utopian goals?



Don't know about Portnoy, but Rogan calls himself a liberal all the time. And he is. He's far left. Where he offends progressives, in addition to being an affront to their faux effete culture, is that he's a real, true liberal, in that he believes in total freedom of expression, entertaining opposing views of any kind, and tolerance rather than trying to force others to adhere to his views.



Why is it that progressives and Trumpers insist on this enforcement of an unspoken fairness doctrine? If I make fun of AOC for embellishing her "fear of death" on the day of the Capitol attack, and sleazily invoking a prior assault to immunize herself from criticism when cornered about it, which she did, and which is conniving and creepy, am I also obligated to make fun of Marjorie Taylor Greene?

Or vice versa? If I make fun of MTG, must I also give equal time to making fun of AOC?

No. And nor am I obligated to attack 1776. First, because there is no equal time requirement. Second, and more importantly, because it's too absurd and stupid, like MTG, to bother attacking. Where would I start? 1776 is not even attempting to be honest. It's clearly propaganda and for that reason, no one is paying attention to it. 1619 is dishonest and biased, but it is factual in certain regards. It's sophistry. It deserves scrutiny because, unlike 1776, which is naked BS which can be disregarded in total without consideration, 1619 seeks to inject ludicrous fringe arguments into mainstream by weaving them into something that looks like serious scholarship.



I have. It's simple. I'm citing bullshit where I see it.



I didn't. In the end, I simply gave up on the concept. After months of hearing from my friends on the right and left, and considering the wretchedness both parties, I decided I deserved better than to have to make a choice I did not feel like making. My inner George Carlin held sway.

And I preserve my Switzerland position, which allows me latitude in conversations others do not enjoy.

But I am thrilled to not have to listen to that fat idiot everyday. Biden seems a refreshing burst of normalcy.

There are exactly two things Sebby cares about: Sebby and the right to be an asshole without facing criticism for it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

There are exactly two things Sebby cares about: Sebby and the right to be an asshole without facing criticism for it.

I care about being hotter than Switzerland.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I said largely. They do have an agenda. Single payer may actually work. GND is pie in the sky. What else do they have aside from utopian goals?



Don't know about Portnoy, but Rogan calls himself a liberal all the time. And he is. He's far left. Where he offends progressives, in addition to being an affront to their faux effete culture, is that he's a real, true liberal, in that he believes in total freedom of expression, entertaining opposing views of any kind, and tolerance rather than trying to force others to adhere to his views.



Why is it that progressives and Trumpers insist on this enforcement of an unspoken fairness doctrine? If I make fun of AOC for embellishing her "fear of death" on the day of the Capitol attack, and sleazily invoking a prior assault to immunize herself from criticism when cornered about it, which she did, and which is conniving and creepy, am I also obligated to make fun of Marjorie Taylor Greene?

Or vice versa? If I make fun of MTG, must I also give equal time to making fun of AOC?

No. And nor am I obligated to attack 1776. First, because there is no equal time requirement. Second, and more importantly, because it's too absurd and stupid, like MTG, to bother attacking. Where would I start? 1776 is not even attempting to be honest. It's clearly propaganda and for that reason, no one is paying attention to it. 1619 is dishonest and biased, but it is factual in certain regards. It's sophistry. It deserves scrutiny because, unlike 1776, which is naked BS which can be disregarded in total without consideration, 1619 seeks to inject ludicrous fringe arguments into mainstream by weaving them into something that looks like serious scholarship.



I have. It's simple. I'm citing bullshit where I see it.



I didn't. In the end, I simply gave up on the concept. After months of hearing from my friends on the right and left, and considering the wretchedness both parties, I decided I deserved better than to have to make a choice I did not feel like making. My inner George Carlin held sway.

And I preserve my Switzerland position, which allows me latitude in conversations others do not enjoy.

But I am thrilled to not have to listen to that fat idiot everyday. Biden seems a refreshing burst of normalcy.

I'm betting you've read very little of the 1619 Project. Yawn.

As to being Switzerland, yes, it's a weak, humorless little country full of Calvinist prigs that tries to cling to neutrality because it can't win a fight and tries to live by mooching off its neighbors because why would anyone deal with Switzerland unless you got a tax break. I see the appeal of Switzerland for you, but, let's face it, you're just not as good looking as Switzerland is.

Sebby, look, you're full of shit, we all know it, can you at least try to be mildly amusing while being full of shit?