Via Farnsworth M Muldoon, a tale of feminist romance:
A discussion ensues. The teller of said tale, Ms Kelly Jo-Bluen, describes her interests as “feminism, international justice,” and “coloniality.” “White supremacist capitalist heteropatriarchy” is, we’re told, “the problem.”
Consider this an open thread, in which to share links and bicker.
I think the guy should consider himself saved. One of the oft-repeated rules of those who contribute to this fascinating blog is "Don't stick your dick into crazy". As to Ms Bluen, why are you eavesdropping on other peoples' conversations? Nothing better to do with your life?
Posted by: ACTOldFart | January 23, 2019 at 07:17
In the thread that follows, there is some doubt as to the veracity of the story. And so, I suppose you have to wonder which is worse. Being a feminist who thinks that the reaction described is edifying, something to crow about; or being a feminist who lies, repeatedly and in public, in the hope of showing just how awesome feminists are.
Posted by: David | January 23, 2019 at 07:27
I'm filing this in the 'It Never Happened' drawer...
Posted by: JuliaM | January 23, 2019 at 07:44
I’m filing this in the ‘It Never Happened’ drawer...
So, we’re leaning towards “Feminist who lies about imaginary dates to establish her feminist credibility”…?
She sounds a catch.
Posted by: David | January 23, 2019 at 07:47
I’m now trying to imagine what it would be like to be on a date with someone who prattles about “coloniality” and “white supremacist capitalist heteropatriarchy.”
I mean, how long would you have to stay before asking for the bill, and a cab, for one?
Posted by: David | January 23, 2019 at 08:01
So much BS.
If he exists, he's one lucky guy!
Posted by: bilbaoboy | January 23, 2019 at 08:20
So, we’re leaning towards “Feminist who lies about imaginary dates to establish her feminist credibility”…?
Yes. :-)
Posted by: Jen | January 23, 2019 at 08:30
Posted by: Frank | January 23, 2019 at 08:47
Kelly-Jo Bluen ("Feminist, PhD candidate, editor Millenium journal") is completely unknown to me. She may be well known, but what is so alarming is the 234,000 likes this resentful drivel managed to attract. And the replies... So many girls saying "I do the same. There's no debate to be had. Men are either allies or they're out"
Sargon's video about the SJWs' most recent day of hate showed up some of the many tweets showering invective and inciting violence against some kid (who made the mistake of being male, wearing a MAGA hat and looking smug on camera).
The toxic tweets all had 20K likes, and I thought "is this representative?". I mean I guess Twitter is where crazy, brainless GroupThink lives, but 234,000...?
Posted by: Henry | January 23, 2019 at 08:51
Proud courageous emancipated women get to play by the rules they keep demanding, sounds about fair.
Previously on Feminist Dating For Beginners…
Posted by: David | January 23, 2019 at 08:55
I was just on a date and got asked what I think of the political situation down south. I said I think its great! She started accusing me of being a racist, misogynist and part of the patriarchy and a against feminism and threatened to leave. I told her the date was done and she became wide eyed and said "You're just going to let me go?" I said yep I don't care one iota if you walk out the door and you can go anytime.
Posted by: Paul | January 23, 2019 at 09:30
Consider that a closed mind,
Posted by: Robert of Ottawa | January 23, 2019 at 09:58
...there is some doubt as to the veracity of the story.
I was going to add: " And the whole restaurant stood and clapped."
Posted by: Jonathan | January 23, 2019 at 10:21
I’m now trying to imagine what it would be like to be on a date with someone who prattles about “coloniality” and “white supremacist capitalist heteropatriarchy.”
Like passing a kidney stone, but not as relaxing, though with the right medications, the stone can at least be tolerated.
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | January 23, 2019 at 11:25
Cultural appropriation continues...
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | January 23, 2019 at 11:54
I’m now trying to imagine what it would be like to be on a date with someone who prattles about “coloniality” and “white supremacist capitalist heteropatriarchy.”
My first thought would be, "Crap. I must've died and gone to hell."
Posted by: Burnsie | January 23, 2019 at 11:55
Meanwhile, Diversity Remains Our Strength.
I sure hope there is at least one Polynesian in the Colorado House and Senate in case it ever becomes time to honor King Kamehmeha.
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | January 23, 2019 at 12:28
He cares, you see.
Mr Jones is now claiming it was a joke, but if so, I think it’s a telling one.
Posted by: David | January 23, 2019 at 12:56
The best comment in the thread is "Shut up and make me a sammich."
Posted by: The Phantom | January 23, 2019 at 13:02
The takeaway from such an incident:
Never stick your dick into crazy.
And please be assured that "crazy" is an accurate description of Social Justice Whores everywhere.
Posted by: Mark Matis | January 23, 2019 at 13:16
Heh.
Someone tell Darleen.
Posted by: David | January 23, 2019 at 13:36
Mr Jones is now claiming it was a joke, but if so, I think it’s a telling one.
From the comments I surmise that this is in regard to some of the company moving to Singapore? Like they couldn’t take the whole thing there if so threatened?
https://youtu.be/IvVuNkE-LMw
Posted by: WTP | January 23, 2019 at 13:39
I wouldn’t be so hasty to file in “that never happened.” I’ve had a girl walk out on me in a date because I said the words “Trump isn’t that bad”. Not even “I like Trump”!
Posted by: Mal Reynolds | January 23, 2019 at 14:40
I’ve had a girl walk out on me in a date because I said the words “Trump isn’t that bad”. Not even “I like Trump”!
I have noticed people ostentatiously disparaging Trump as a sort of social bonding exercise, randomly blurting out some comment, unrelated to anything at hand - and then being utterly non-plussed when I didn’t enthusiastically join in. The merest equivocation, even silence, seems to shake the wheels off. The disparaging was almost reflexive, often incongruous, not at all knowledgeable, and in several cases I don’t even think it was necessarily sincere. I got the impression that it was something the people concerned felt they ought to say, presumably to fit in, or to signal status.
It’s an odd thing to watch.
Posted by: David | January 23, 2019 at 14:53
Meanwhile in the "Everything is Racist" category, a Chinese model apologizes for an ad.
What is not clear is whether she was "racist" against Italians by making fun of their food, or against Chinese (which would be weird) because of trying to use chopsticks on Italian food - though again it makes no sense with the spaghetti, seeing as how the Chinese eat noodles with chopsticks.
The take home lessons are:
1. Looks like he Chinese are hopping on the SJW bandwagon (possibly because of their "social credit" crap);
2. SJWs have no dense of humor at all.
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | January 23, 2019 at 15:23
because of trying to use chopsticks on Italian food
The Other Half can eat bacon and fried eggs with chopsticks.
Just sayin’.
Posted by: David | January 23, 2019 at 15:29
If it's true he is lucky as can be that he caught the situation early and got a chance to bail out intact. No one needs that type of crazy in their life.
Posted by: Rick | January 23, 2019 at 15:47
Palate cleanser.
Posted by: Darleen | January 23, 2019 at 15:51
The Other Half can eat bacon and fried eggs with chopsticks.
This one is baffling, noodles we have addressed. I went out with a lady whose parents immigrated from China, who would eat egg rolls with chopsticks, and tried to show me how to roll up the Peking Duck in their pancakes like a Chinese burrito using just chopsticks and then eat them with chopsticks, so the cannoli isn't much of a reach either.
Maybe the Chinese are just trying their hand at cultural appropriation of the west by taking up the sport of recreational outrage.
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | January 23, 2019 at 15:53
Someone tell Darleen.
I need to get both now. :)
Posted by: Darleen | January 23, 2019 at 15:56
This one is baffling,
I’m not saying it’s a skill we should all strive towards, you understand. I’m just saying it can be done. If not by me.
Posted by: David | January 23, 2019 at 15:57
Regarding the "hating Trump is required" sub-thread, I often go out subtly of my way to steer conversations gently to where I can state how grand it is that Trump's been elected, both for the USA and for the world, especially the poorest.
The indignation that pops up is marvellous and comical to behold. Especially among the educated classes. I don't give a **** because I'm 67, white, male and a "Masterless Man". They can't get me fired from anything. it is lovely to behold their ire.
Posted by: David Davis | January 23, 2019 at 15:59
Palate cleanser.
I found myself smiling.
Posted by: David | January 23, 2019 at 16:03
This one is baffling...
Not the bacon and eggs, that would be a piece of cake to eat with chopsticks, I meant the whole thing about the ad raising a ruckus given what the Chinese already eat with the things.
Besides, I thought they'd be too busy reverse engineering everything made in the west and cranking out phones for Apple to be worrying about such trivialities.
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | January 23, 2019 at 16:03
The indignation that pops up is marvellous and comical to behold.
I can imagine. Though if you’re not in the mood for a discussion about politics, especially one where you’ll be swimming upstream, as it were, the incongruous Trump-bashing can be a little bizarre. I mean, when you’re in a small group of people discussing road resurfacing or bin collections, or something equally humdrum, and then someone randomly blurts out, with an air of expectation, how terrible they think Trump is, it’s a tad surreal. And when you don’t immediately agree, and return instead to the subject at hand, they look mildly annoyed that you aren’t playing the same game.
Posted by: David | January 23, 2019 at 16:09
It seems, looking back through history, that this 'capitalist heteropatriarchy' (the 'white supremacist' is just vaporous nonsense & can & should be ignored) is the reason an ambitious mediocrity like Kelly-Jo Bluen can peddle her nonsensical notions on the internet.
Posted by: aelfheld | January 23, 2019 at 16:12
I mean, when you’re in a small group of people discussing road resurfacing or bin collections, or something equally humdrum, and then someone randomly blurts out, with an air of expectation, how terrible they think Trump is, it’s a tad surreal.
"If I may ask -- do you hate Trump because of his policies, or because of what he represents, or because he lives rent-free in your head and makes so much noise in there that you feel compelled to blurt his name into an unrelated conversation?"
It's true, I have very few friends remaining.
Posted by: Governor Squid | January 23, 2019 at 16:37
It’s true, I have very few friends remaining.
Well, that’s sort of my point. It wouldn’t generally occur to me to shoehorn politics into an otherwise routine exchange, or to presume the emphatic political agreement of people I barely know. It seems… rude.
Posted by: David | January 23, 2019 at 16:47
I have noticed people ostentatiously disparaging Trump as a sort of social bonding exercise, randomly blurting out some comment, unrelated to anything at hand - and then being utterly non-plussed when I didn’t enthusiastically join in.
Thus far, five out of five of my lecturers this semester have drifted off-topic to disparage Trump. It took them less than 3 weeks.
Posted by: Tim Newman | January 23, 2019 at 17:03
It wouldn’t generally occur to me to shoehorn politics into an otherwise routine exchange, or to presume the emphatic political agreement of people I barely know. It seems… rude.
Churchill again - "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Posted by: Y. Knott | January 23, 2019 at 17:13
Thus far, five out of five of my lecturers this semester have drifted off-topic to disparage Trump. It took them less than 3 weeks.
You can imagine my surprise.
It may be just my experience, but I’ve also noticed that the incongruous political blurting, the presumption, generally, almost always, comes from people on the left. And the further left, the more likely it seems to be. Again, the presumed agreement is faintly insulting.
Posted by: David | January 23, 2019 at 17:19
At Christmastime, we spent an afternoon with some of my Lovely Bride's cousins, which included a number of proud Red Hat Gentlemen*. It was striking, and a bit unsettling, to get the political non-sequiturs from a perspective that is almost completely lacking in my quotidian urban life.
At one point, my devotion to the cause came into question with a provocative "Wassamatta?" My only reply was, "While I agree with you wholeheartedly about Hillary's character, as well as your assertion that any of us would be in prison had we committed even half the crimes she has, I'm left wondering how this is relevant to the birth of our Lord and Savior, or to celebrating time spent with family we don't often see."
Okay, so I might be paraphrasing. Still, it was a fairly odd sensation.
* When I am an old man I shall wear
Sweatshirts for schools I never attended,
With a red hat that says MAGA, and was made in China,
And I shall spend my pension
on cheap whiskey and pay-per-view,
And Keen hiking shoes,
and say we've no money for an unlimited data plan.
Posted by: Governor Squid | January 23, 2019 at 17:45
So, this happened to me two days after the presidential election in 2016. I was on a Tinder date (2nd date) in a restaurant, and the woman was talking about the shock and sorrow of everyone in her circle. I had seen the same thing in my office and I expressed sympathy, but I didn't express my personal feelings because I was pleased with the outcome. She eventually put it together and asked if I'd voted for Trump. I confirmed that I had. She then stood, raised her fist and announced to the entire restaurant that "Anyone who voted for Trump is my enemy!" Surprisingly, she then sat back down. The whole place was looking at me, so it was easy to make eye contact with our waitress. I smiled and asked for the check.
Posted by: Rob | January 23, 2019 at 17:57
Alone with his patriarchy
Not a euphemism.
Posted by: [+] | January 23, 2019 at 18:09
I smiled and asked for the check.
I’ve been saying for some time that there ought to be a book about catastrophic dating experiences.
Posted by: David | January 23, 2019 at 18:21
Churchill again - "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Who Knew ? I didn't know vegans were a thing back in Churchill's times.
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | January 23, 2019 at 18:33
David,
Mr Jones is now claiming it was a joke, but if so, I think it’s a telling one.
The use of the "royal we" by smug leftists is always darkly humorous.
Posted by: Spiny Norman | January 23, 2019 at 20:26
...catastrophic dating experiences.
But women don't poop or so I've been told. Should I be checking the ground below the bathroom window?
Posted by: Steve E | January 23, 2019 at 20:33
I'd be staggered if she didn't just make it up.
Posted by: Tony Tea | January 23, 2019 at 20:44
catastrophic dating experiences
"After our meal, we repaired back to my house for a bottle of wine and a scientology documentary."
Catastrophic all right.
Posted by: Baceseras | January 23, 2019 at 21:06
Mr Jones is now claiming it was a joke...
It is what the leftists always say, the Morrissey clown who tweeted that the Covington kids should be put into a wood chipper later claimed he was just being "satirical", however...
...he then blocked his account.
It is always the same with these clods - say something vile or profoundly stupid, get called on it, say they were joking, run away and hide. A normal person would learn not to be a total asshat, or at least own what he said.
Catastrophic all right.
Maybe not, the Leah Remini expose of the Scientologists was interesting and pretty good (unless one is a Scientologist, poor sap).
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | January 23, 2019 at 21:34
If I had a twitter account, I'd be busy asking if this lady is "erasing the existence of trans people" by failing to refer to the "White supremacist capitalist CISheteropatriarchy" rather than just the "White supremacist capitalist heteropatriarchy".
Posted by: Hippogryph | January 23, 2019 at 21:42
Besides, I thought they'd be too busy reverse engineering everything made in the west and cranking out phones for Apple to be worrying about such trivialities.
My guess is it’s about saving “face”, after interpreting the ad as making Chinese customs appear maladaptive. It’s not as if racism towards non-Chinese doesn’t fly around fast and freely among the Chinese.
I mean, when you’re in a small group of people discussing road resurfacing or bin collections, or something equally humdrum, and then someone randomly blurts out, with an air of expectation, how terrible they think Trump is, it’s a tad surreal.
One of the reasons why I walked away from my one and only white collar career. It was at a great company, and those I worked with weren’t bad people overall, but when it came to politics, and to applying critical thinking to anything that had been politicized, it was too often like being surrounded by a troop of irate trained monkeys.
Posted by: Squires | January 23, 2019 at 22:01
Thus far, five out of five of my lecturers this semester have drifted off-topic to disparage Trump. It took them less than 3 weeks.
And you're in Europe! (Is it France or the UK for your lectures?)
It's also quite annoying to have TDS pop up in random entertainment. Like, say, a German brass band touring the US. Then you are put in the awkward position of having paid $40 for f-ing krauts to hector you about someone you didn't even vote for, that doesn't have any say in said krauts' governance.
These people make you choose sides, and frankly, it's an easy choice once forced.
Posted by: Sam | January 23, 2019 at 22:06
...the Leah Remini expose of the Scientologists was interesting and pretty good
The wife watched that. Meh. Seems the whole sham is crashing down what with the internet being a thing now. Ms Remini's rack, however, was interesting enough to keep me watching the parade of clueless saps insisting they were not clueless saps. 3 stars.
=)
Posted by: Sam | January 23, 2019 at 22:15
Poor woman. Only chance for children isa turkey baster. And even that simple machine may reject her.
Still there is an upside. Her genes will die with her.
Posted by: Vuil | January 23, 2019 at 22:32
Ms Remini's rack, however, was interesting enough to keep me watching...
True, that was an attraction not to be missed, but I read this book when I was a kid and have been fascinated by charlatans, flummery, and quackery since.
It is a good book, though written in 1957, it is still relevant - maybe more so.
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | January 23, 2019 at 22:43
It's also quite annoying to have TDS pop up in random entertainment. Like, say, a German brass band touring the US. Then you are put in the awkward position of having paid $40 for f-ing krauts to hector you about someone you didn't even vote for, that doesn't have any say in said krauts' governance.
There is a related phenomenom here in Yerp: Murcans who at the earliest opportunity tell you how much they hate and are embarrassed by Trump or, 10 years ago, by Bush.
Posted by: a different James | January 23, 2019 at 22:49
Americans love to be embarrassed by America when overseas. Now Trump allows Americans to be embarrassed by America without having to go abroad, which, as some of you may not know, is full of foreigners.
Posted by: Adam | January 23, 2019 at 23:04
"...I’ve also noticed that the incongruous political blurting, the presumption, generally, almost always, comes from people on the left. And the further left, the more likely it seems to be. Again, the presumed agreement is faintly insulting."
I've dubbed this type of people Progatarians; and, it seems, a large part of Progatarianism consists of proselytizing among their fellow citizens, so that the unclean may be identified and properly chastised. "Heal, I say! Reject the evil Orange One and all his works of false economic glory! Those positive trends are LIES, I tell you, LIES!"/ stretches out hand and makes Sign of I'mWithHer.
Posted by: Sort-Of-Mad Max | January 23, 2019 at 23:04
Americans love to be embarrassed by America when overseas.
Americans embarrassed by being American at home or abroad are what we Normalo-Americans call AINO (Americans In Name Only), Geo-Americans, "Americans", commie bastards, or democrats.
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | January 23, 2019 at 23:11
a large part of Progatarianism consists of proselytizing among their fellow citizens, so that the unclean may be identified and properly chastised.
Ingroup/Outgroup signalling. Been around forever. Lots of people don't much like evolutionary psychology not because it's wrong, but because it's right: it explains human behaviour much, much better than the alternatives, and in a way that makes people very uncomfortable.
Pace the topic at hand, although I've never had a date go quite like that, as an avid hobby gamer I've had a long standing policy that the only response to anyone bringing their personal psychological or psychosexual issues into the game is "F*ck off away from my table, and don't come back". I've recently had to extend this to include toxic politics. The nerd kingdom has had an unwritten unquestioning acceptance rule forever, and the backlash to being told they can't screech about Trump, "the Church" or the trans issue du jour has resulted in some truly epic meltdowns. But the people still showing up who just want to play some games have all noted how much less drama there is now and how much more fun we're having.
Posted by: Daniel Ream | January 23, 2019 at 23:46
"If I may ask -- do you hate Trump because of his policies, or because of what he represents, or because he lives rent-free in your head and makes so much noise in there that you feel compelled to blurt his name into an unrelated conversation?"
It's true, I have very few friends remaining.
I live in NYC where Dems outnumber Reps 7-to-1, yet there are only a couple people who will address me on the subject of politics or Trump. OTOH, I know plenty who didn't vote for Trump, and we remain friends because politics isn't the reason for our friendship. Admittedly, this is atypical in the USA today.
More likely, for most people here (and elsewhere, from what I've observed), Trump lives rent-free in their heads, and they do feel compelled to mention him in almost any conversation. My reaction to them I will now be calling the Covington Catholic smirk, as my usual reaction is bemusement.
Posted by: Forbes | January 24, 2019 at 01:10
I have noticed people ostentatiously disparaging Trump as a sort of social bonding exercise, randomly blurting out some comment, unrelated to anything at hand - and then being utterly non-plussed when I didn’t enthusiastically join in.
You mean it they other way around, I think, that they were completely plussed ... um, notwithstanding that there is no such word. But the confusion is scrutable.
Posted by: Hopp Singg | January 24, 2019 at 01:20
I’ve been saying for some time that there ought to be a book about catastrophic dating experiences.
Tolstoy expressed the sentiment in another regard. Though, the dating experiences would have a sublime, unique humor associated, lacking in the family situation which tends toward misery.
“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”
―Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina
Posted by: Forbes | January 24, 2019 at 01:24
Having no dog in the hunt, The Guardian weighs in on the Covington kids - "How conservative media transformed the Covington Catholic students from pariahs to heroes".
Yes, those dumber than a creosote post conservatives managed in bad faith once again to fool the smartest people evar "journalists" into believing that what happened actually happened. Sneaky bastiges.
Seeing as how you fall in the category of "A fanatic...who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.", I'll go with about the same time the Sun goes supernova.
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | January 24, 2019 at 02:01
The Guardian weighs in on the Covington kids
I understand it's a lot easier to sue for libel in the UK. It would be nice to see the Grauniad socked with a hefty judgement.
Posted by: pst314 | January 24, 2019 at 02:10
Re: Covington, the obsessive focus on the red hats the students are wearing as the clear manifestation of ultimate evil upon this earth is a bit rich coming from lefties, who have gone about bearing the logos of mass murderers - Che, Stalin, Mao - for generations.
Posted by: TimT | January 24, 2019 at 02:37
. . . gone about bearing the logos of mass murderers - Che, Stalin, Mao - for generations.
There are solutions. One can join in---and then see who notices.
Posted by: Hal | January 24, 2019 at 04:04
Even if Leah Remini's scientology doco is pretty good, still, who thinks that and a bottle of wine is a good play for date night? Alvy Singer, and who else?
Posted by: Baceseras | January 24, 2019 at 04:47
I understand it's a lot easier to sue for libel in the UK.
So I tweeted the Guardian libel to Robert Barnes, the attorney that gave media and celebs until Friday to correct the record or be sued come next week.
Posted by: Darleen | January 24, 2019 at 04:48
Morning, all.
You mean it the other way around, I think
I see the savages in the colonies have ruined another word, inverting its bloody meaning.
Posted by: David | January 24, 2019 at 06:32
the backlash to being told they can’t screech about Trump, “the Church” or the trans issue du jour has resulted in some truly epic meltdowns.
Again, it’s the rudeness of the blurters and screechers, the casual taking of liberties. I.e., the presumption that (a) you’ll agree, or at least be cowed, or (b) not mind being cornered and obliged to argue the issue, thus derailing an otherwise pleasant and friendly gathering. There’s a sort of social tone-deafness.
Posted by: David | January 24, 2019 at 06:48
Re the MAGA hat / fake news saga, this is surprisingly good:
Quite long, but worth reading in full.
Posted by: David | January 24, 2019 at 07:12
It may be just my experience, but I’ve also noticed that the incongruous political blurting, the presumption, generally, almost always, comes from people on the left.
In the UK and Europe I've found it's less of a left/right thing than a sneering middle class/everyone else thing. My lecturers aren't particularly left-wing, but they are middle class and seemingly keen to demonstrate how sophisticated they are on subjects outside their particular expertise. There are a couple of exceptions, who taught me last semester: one is an Indian chap who detests communists and watches Jordan Peterson videos.
Posted by: Tim Newman | January 24, 2019 at 07:16
And you're in Europe! (Is it France or the UK for your lectures?)
Switzerland, but my lecturers are European. To be fair, they're not completely deranged, it's just more of an annoying tic than an obsession.
Posted by: Tim Newman | January 24, 2019 at 07:18
My lecturers aren’t particularly left-wing, but they are middle class and seemingly keen to demonstrate how sophisticated they are on subjects outside their particular expertise… It’s just more of an annoying tic than an obsession.
That was my take in a couple of the incidents I was thinking of:
The lack of factual detail, or any discernible reason for raising the subject, was what made it bizarre. It wasn’t obvious why it was happening or how to respond. My guess is that the seemingly random Trump-bashing was an attempt at social positioning or bonding, albeit ham-fisted and misjudged. It occurs to me, belatedly, that because one of the blurters knows I’m gay, he may have assumed that disliking Trump somehow follows from that.
Which, on reflection, is also faintly insulting.
Posted by: David | January 24, 2019 at 07:34
I’ve also noticed that the incongruous political blurting, the presumption, generally, almost always, comes from people on the left. And the further left, the more likely it seems to be. Again, the presumed agreement is faintly insulting.
That's also true of Brexit in the UK. If you appear capable of stringing three coherent words together (OK, I don't always manage that) then some people assume that you aren't stupid enough to have voted Leave. The fact that their fervent belief in Remain is based on their almost total ignorance about either the EU or sensible peoples reasons for voting Leave is particularly galling.
Sometimes you just have to keep quiet because it's neither the time or the place to have the half hour, more or less hostile, conversation that might just lead them to accept that you aren't a drooling hater of all things European as opposed to just the EU.
Posted by: JS | January 24, 2019 at 08:57
Sometimes you just have to keep quiet because it’s neither the time or the place to have the half hour, more or less hostile, conversation
Well, that’s the thing. Despite what I’m doing here, now, with you lot, I don’t generally start political conversations, in person, with people I don’t know well. It seems impolite, an imposition. Happily, I’m not so insecure that I need to make strangers think I’m more virtuous or sophisticated than I actually am, which probably helps.
Posted by: David | January 24, 2019 at 09:05
...one is an Indian chap who detests communists and watches Jordan Peterson videos.
If he spent a significant portion of his life in India, you may have the Maobadis to thank for that.
Posted by: Squires | January 24, 2019 at 09:05
This is surprisingly good.
It is:
That.
And:
That's also true of Brexit in the UK. If you appear capable of stringing three coherent words together (OK, I don't always manage that) then some people assume that you aren't stupid enough to have voted Leave. The fact that their fervent belief in Remain is based on their almost total ignorance about either the EU or sensible peoples reasons for voting Leave is particularly galling.
That, too. I've found that the enthusiasm for the EU among the bien pensant middle classes is usually rooted in some vague notion of internationalism that is automatically A Good Thing, when really they have a very vague grasp of the basic EU functions. I find that I can derail most attempts to get me to join in with their blethering by asking a couple of questions such as "Who currently holds the presidency of the Council of the European Union?" and/or "For what does article 42 of the Treaty of Lisbon provide?". To date, not one EU-phile has answered successfully, and most steer away from the subject thereafter. I was harangued once after using this stratagem by a former lawyer colleague who was quite drunk and belligerent. "But that's not important!", to which my response was "If you don't know what 'it' involves, then you aren't best placed to offer an opinion as to its significance". That shut her up, and she played nice afterwards.
Posted by: Lancastrian Oik | January 24, 2019 at 09:29
I remember one person, pre-Referendum, trying to tell me the EU system of unelected Commission and elected Parliament was as democratic as the UK's elected Commons, unelected Lords. He was unaware that in the EU system it is only the Commission that has the power to propose and repeal legislation and was frankly quite surprised to learn it.
Posted by: TomJ | January 24, 2019 at 10:25
Happily, I’m not so insecure that I need to make strangers think I’m more virtuous or sophisticated than I actually am, which probably helps.
That.
Posted by: Alice | January 24, 2019 at 10:27
That.
Well, it’s not, I think, an entirely trivial point. Having taken several personality tests over the years, for amusement, I always score very low on neuroticism. This may help explain my dislike of leftist psychology, which, on the whole, strikes me as dishonest, contrived or downright twitchy.
Hence much of this blog.
Posted by: David | January 24, 2019 at 10:42
"keen to demonstrate how sophisticated they are on subjects outside their particular expertise"
This phenomenon seems to have become more popular with the increased availability of the internet, where you can you can pretend you already knew something by quickly looking it up. And where you can find all kinds of "proof/backup/evidence" for the craziest and most offensive notions.
Posted by: PiperPaul | January 24, 2019 at 11:05
Oik's observation works for just about leftist focus subject matter.
Enthusiasm for [ISSUE] among the bien pensant middle classes is usually rooted in some vague notion of [ISSUE] that it is automatically A Good Thing, when really they have a very vague grasp OF [ISSUE].
Posted by: PiperPaul | January 24, 2019 at 11:15
I see the savages in the colonies have ruined another word, inverting its bloody meaning.
Which goes double for why I have such a hard time remembering wtf it means. No offense but I’ve always found that to be quite a stupid word. Damn near Orwellian in its composition. It’s like double-plus-ungood. Though either way we savages deservedly stand guilty as charged.
Posted by: WTP | January 24, 2019 at 11:45
“I like to eat bacon and eggs with chopsticks.” _____ Yes. ______ No
OK, you pass. The Other Half may be in trouble, though. Especially if he marked Yes to “ I was pleased when I got a flamethrower for Christmas.”
Posted by: Pogonip | January 24, 2019 at 11:49
No offense but I’ve always found that to be quite a stupid word.
If someone says aloo-min-um, I’m going to start throwing chairs.
Posted by: David | January 24, 2019 at 11:52
Are those chairs made of wood or alumin... [bonk] [dies]
Posted by: Zionist Overlord #73 | January 24, 2019 at 11:55
Socialist students bewildered by economics.
Posted by: David | January 24, 2019 at 11:55
You know the left has really changed in this country when you find its denizens glorifying America’s role in the Vietnam War and lionizing the social attitudes of the corporate monolith Procter & Gamble.
I’ve become somewhat amused by the great number of (leftist) people who are suddenly all about how they were in the Vietnam War. How we lost that thing I’ll never understand. I mean if everyone who claims to have been there really had been there, that little shard of a country would have broken off and fallen into the South China Sea.
Posted by: WTP | January 24, 2019 at 11:58
Well, to be fair to the socialist students, I think most economists are bewildered by economics for the very same reasons.
Posted by: WTP | January 24, 2019 at 12:01
The Guardian weighs in on the Covington kids
Possibly one of the most dishonest pieces I've ever read. President Trump is right to call them fake news.
Posted by: Jonathan | January 24, 2019 at 12:14
...who thinks that and a bottle of wine is a good play for date night? Alvy Singer, and who else?
I'm glad you have chosen to be the arbiter of all things dating, but for all you know the lady in question wanted badly to watch it and was giddy as a school girl when she found out the guy had recorded it, and it was her idea for the date.
Lighten up, Francis.
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | January 24, 2019 at 12:16
I was looking at headlines and (of course) there was a trans story. I didn’t read it but something occurred to me. We’ve all been fooled by drag queens whose appearance was totally convincing. So why is it that male-to-female transsexuals are about as convincing as Flip Wilson’s Geraldine? I’ve never seen one who wasn’t obviously a male awkwardly pretending to be a female. How come they can’t learn how to pass and the queens can?
Posted by: Pogonip | January 24, 2019 at 12:31
This is surprisingly good.
It is OK to a point, having read the whole thing, Miss Flanagan can't help but to do that which she derides.
White Hair Man Bad. Yes, we must keep up the NPC leftist pretense that Pence is a neo-Puritan who wants to impose a Christian theocracy.
Then, utterly failing of introspection, she does precisely what she pretends to be appalled about.
To date, no one I have seen has actually identified the boys in the second video, and having seen it, it is unclear what they said, but the Covington kids "seem" to her to be guilty. In the second instance, in the photo the black player has his back to the "leering" kid so even if he was "leering" it probably had little effect, not that you can really tell what the kid's facial expression was, but it must have been bad, because of the unidentified yobs in the second video.
It has been pointed out that the Covington kids dress/paint up as all sorts of things. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Covington kids, having dressed/painted in black previously, deliberately chose the black motif because of the opposing team (which, for all we know had as many white players as black) but to Miss Flanagan they are obviously at fault of something (probably racism), again, because of the second video.
The bottom line is Miss Flanagan's article is not much more than a smokescreen and her own brand of virtue signal that she is "better" than those who instantly made a flawed Megillah out if the whole event.
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | January 24, 2019 at 12:59
How we lost that thing I’ll never understand.
A popular topic for SSC discussions - the bottom line, in generally Clausewitzinan terms, is failure of national will - a political loss, not a military one.
The question of how that came to be is complicated but involves things like our vaunted media doing things like Cronkheit saying we lost during the Tet Offensive (the list of journalistic malfeasance is long), even though the commies were actually pounded like tent pegs, all the agitators rioting on campuses, etc., etc.
Militarily we lost because despite the fact that the military campaign is what forced Le Duc Tho to sign on to the peace accords (i.e., at that point we had essentially won), after the US pull out in 1973, the democrats rammed through the veto-proof Case-Church amendment that prohibited any further US support to South Vietnam without congressional approval - which wasn't going to happen. Le Duc Tho, being a commie, obviously wasn't going to abide by the peace accords, but not being totally stupid, realized that his pals in congress weren't going to do anything, began the offensives of 73-75 that eventually led to the fall of Saigon.
A different case occurred with the Yom Kippur War when Nixon authorized Operation Nickel Grass which provided the materiel to replace Israeli losses, and without which Israel might have lost. It is speculative that the same result might have occurred in Vietnam during the initial North Vietnamese offensives of the the pullout.
Posted by: Farnswoth M Muldoon | January 24, 2019 at 13:31
Yeah. I was just joking. I agree about why we “lost”. Tho the corruption and idiocy of the South Vietnamese government deserves a good bit of credit as well. Either way, all wars are fought between the ears.
Posted by: WTP | January 24, 2019 at 13:38
I agree about why we “lost”
Given that we are now having mil-mil exchanges and training with Vietnam, and that because the Vietnamese socialist system was collapsing they have been embracing capitalism, it could be argued that this was actually a very, very, slow victory.
Posted by: Farnsworth M Muldoon | January 24, 2019 at 13:48