Objectively intelligent.

[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.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

[NARRATOR: "Judge Reinhold was not amused. In fact, when Coltrane's phone rang during the hearing, playing 'The Final Countdown,' he was found in contempt."]

Luckily it was just a mock trial.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

"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.

[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!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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!

Dear lord, do you even read before posting dreck like that?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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

You'll note Sebby's critiques always involve attacking an author personally, characterizing their intent, or otherwise throwing a bunch of adjectives that don't - and this is critical - require actually reading or digesting the position he is criticizing.

That would be too much work.

[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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You'll note Sebby's critiques always involve attacking an author personally, characterizing their intent, or otherwise throwing a bunch of adjectives that don't - and this is critical - require actually reading or digesting the position he is criticizing.

That would be too much work.

Did I attack the author of 1619 personally? I think you might want to reread.

Also, this argument that unless I read the full 100 pages of the thing, I can’t comment on it, despite its having been condensed to executive summaries in dozens of article, is facile.

It’s a broad compilation of essats which sought to create the impression they were rigorously researched history, or journalism. But the essential scaffolding is that of an OpEd, a piece of advocacy.

No one started this project with an eye toward discovering if there was an alternative history that’d been missed. It was 2019, and that created a compelling marketing campaign for a narrative telling the story that we were at the 400th anniversary of the nation’s true founding. From a branding perspective, it was perfect. And Trump was even in office. How much more incendiary a climate could there be into which to lob this narrative?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You'll note Sebby's critiques always involve attacking an author personally, characterizing their intent, or otherwise throwing a bunch of adjectives that don't - and this is critical - require actually reading or digesting the position he is criticizing.

That would be too much work.

It's important to Sebby to posit that progressives are the mirror image of conservatives, because it's foundational to his self image as the guy in the middle who is above it all. Who is largely performative in US politics today? Maybe the political movement that dispensed with a platform? You know, the one that likes to carry flags and mount them in numbers on pick-up trucks, the better to irritate libs with their convoys and boat parades. Boat parades!

So forget stuff like the Green New Deal and single payer and defunding the police and all that. Progressives: largely performative.

Sebby is irritated by progressives, so he calls them largely performative. His scorn for conservatives follows different dimensions.