Objectively intelligent.

[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?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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?

I read enough of 1619 to see that it was attempting to connect a bunch of things around a narrative that made slavery the most defining and essential element of the country's founding and operation since. It was factual to an extent, as I noted, but also trafficking in sophistry. You're either on that Woke Bus and willing to buy that stuff, or you're not. (In which case it's a target for critique.) It has a value, and I don't mean to suggest it doesn't. But it's also marbled with BS arguments. Cleverly so. It's impossible to take it apart - like a huge legal brief filled with carefully assorted out of context or slightly misquoted and misapplied authorities.

It has an agenda, and that agenda is more important to those invested in it, and those authoring it, than being dryly factual.* But that's progressivism in a nutshell, isn't it? The agenda is so important, so righteous, that facts should not stand in its way.

Conservatives think the same way. They'll countenance even worse things, like flagrant lying, to get what they want. They believe they're in a battle for the soul of the country, so turning one's head to QAnon loons, or trafficking in lies about the election, is fine.

This isn't equivalence, by the way. Conservatives are more overtly, openly anti-factual than progressives. But both are quite willing to chuck facts out the window as needed. Progressives just do it less. I think because they tend to have more defensible positions, the media coddles rather than scrutinizes them, and they tend to be better at messaging.

_______
* Anything started with a goal of creating a certain narrative operates from a find-the-facts-and-fit-them-into-the-narrative than a find-the-facts-and-let-them-tell-the-story position. The former is like research funded by industry participants. The studies on climate change funded by Exxon are going to be a whole lot different than those funded by the government.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I read enough of 1619 to see that it was attempting to connect a bunch of things around a narrative that made slavery the most defining and essential element of the country's founding and operation since. It was factual to an extent, as I noted, but also trafficking in sophistry. You're either on that Woke Bus and willing to buy that stuff, or you're not. (In which case it's a target for critique.) It has a value, and I don't mean to suggest it doesn't. But it's also marbled with BS arguments. Cleverly so. It's impossible to take it apart - like a huge legal brief filled with carefully assorted out of context or slightly misquoted and misapplied authorities.

It has an agenda, and that agenda is more important to those invested in it, and those authoring it, than being dryly factual.* But that's progressivism in a nutshell, isn't it? The agenda is so important, so righteous, that facts should not stand in its way.

Conservatives think the same way. They'll countenance even worse things, like flagrant lying, to get what they want. They believe they're in a battle for the soul of the country, so turning one's head to QAnon loons, or trafficking in lies about the election, is fine.

This isn't equivalence, by the way. Conservatives are more overtly, openly anti-factual than progressives. But both are quite willing to chuck facts out the window as needed. Progressives just do it less. I think because they tend to have more defensible positions, the media coddles rather than scrutinizes them, and they tend to be better at messaging.

_______
* Anything started with a goal of creating a certain narrative operates from a find-the-facts-and-fit-them-into-the-narrative than a find-the-facts-and-let-them-tell-the-story position. The former is like research funded by industry participants. The studies on climate change funded by Exxon are going to be a whole lot different than those funded by the government.

Thank you for the confirmation that you haven't read any of the 1619 project.

And, dude, you're not even hotter than Luxembourg.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Thank you for the confirmation that you haven't read any of the 1619 project.

And, dude, you're not even hotter than Luxembourg.

Ugh. Here, this is close to my proxy: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/201.../1619-s06.html

https://www.wsws.org/en/topics/event/1619

Those biased conservative socialists!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What else do they have aside from utopian goals?

"largely performative" my ass. Go ahead, evolve your argument now.

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.

I wasn't talking about Rogan, I was talking about the barstool conservatives.

Why is it that progressives and Trumpers insist on this enforcement of an unspoken fairness doctrine?

You're not obligated to attack 1776 at all. Say whatever it is you want to say. It's just that the things you choose to get exercised about are telling.

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

As my friend Hank says, isn't it pretty to think so? Some bullshit gets you going.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

"largely performative" my ass. Go ahead, evolve your argument now.

I wrote "largely" in the first post to which you were responding. I'm not evolving anything. You're incorrectly stating that I said it's entirely performative, which I did not. (Go back and read the words. You're wrong here.)

I wasn't talking about Rogan, I was talking about the barstool conservatives.

I think they're the same. They're "bros," to be sneered at like "Bernie Bros." I can't speak for all of them, but I'd bet the majority of them are quite socially liberal. BarStoolSports is not a conservative brand. More libertine than anything.

You're not obligated to attack 1776 at all. Say whatever it is you want to say. It's just that the things you choose to get exercised about are telling.

The sneaky are worth scrutinizing. Idiots aren't worth assessing. The same jaundiced eye I am applying to 1619 and progressivism generally is the same one I applied to the run up to the Iraq War and Bush's Administration generally. You're taking Slave's position in that argument here.

As my friend Hank says, isn't it pretty to think so? Some bullshit gets you going.

Bullshit that people insist is not bullshit because they believe in the agenda behind it is the worst kind of bullshit. It's the fulcrum on which bullshit shifts from something silly, to be ignored, into something dangerous.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The same jaundiced eye I am applying to 1619 and progressivism generally is the same one I applied to the run up to the Iraq War and Bush's Administration generally.

I suspect that you haven't read much of the 1619 Project and have formed your opinions on it on the basis that woke SJWs irritate you much more than their critics. Will Wilkinson's Substack on the subject is pretty strong, especially this:

There’s plenty to argue with in some of the essays and articles that make up 1619 Project, especially Hannah Nikole-Jones’ admitted overstatement of the extent to which the American Revolution was motivated by the desire to protect American slavery. That said, the broader story told by the 1619 Project is pretty close to the consensus view of contemporary academic American historians. Conservatives can’t stand this story. It shows us that nearly every American institution and pattern of social, political or cultural life has been structured (or disfigured) by white supremacy, enslavement, racial apartheid, and systemic discrimination.

Intellectually, you basically know that's right, but emotionally it's not something you have any interest in talking about, so while you aren't running out to say that you disagree with most historians because dunno, reasons, you are happy to say that you are annoyed by the 1619 Project for going and making that history the sort of public controversy that goes and enters your brainspace.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I suspect that you haven't read much of the 1619 Project and have formed your opinions on it on the basis that woke SJWs irritate you much more than their critics. Will Wilkinson's Substack on the subject is pretty strong, especially this:



Intellectually, you basically know that's right, but emotionally it's not something you have any interest in talking about, so while you aren't running out to say that you disagree with most historians because dunno, reasons, you are happy to say that you are annoyed by the 1619 Project for going and making that history the sort of public controversy enters your brainspace.

I read sections of it when it came out. I bounced all around the thing. And what I saw was a political piece dressed as history. But not really history. Because when pressed, the author of the centerpiece article argued it was not history.

She also said it wasn’t journalism.

So what it must then be is an essay?

Okay. As an essay, the argument the revolutionary war was fought to preserve slavery is both factually and facially... rubbish. Applying Hitchens’ Razor (that which is asserted without [sane] proof can be rejected without it), that claim is Up In Smoke.

I’m not annoyed by it. And I don’t think it was done by SJWs. I’m spotting what is obvious based the piece’s main claims: It’s advocacy.

I like my advocacy kept where advocacy ought to be kept - in a corner reserved for things deserving extreme suspicion and scrutiny.

And on the facts, it appears there’s a whole lot to scrutinize here: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ilentz/605152/

ETA: And when you build a thing around the claim the Revolutionary War was fought to preserve slavery, which almost everyone admits is untrue, and was a bad argument to make, you undercut the rest of what’s offered. You pull up the curtain and admit you’re so strongly wedded to an agenda that you’ll say something reckless to seek to push it forward. It’s like saying something outlandish in an opening at trial. The jury immediately doubts the rest, and for good reason.