David Thompson
Subscribe

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad

« Our Betters Make Laws | Main | Friday Ephemera »

December 16, 2020

Comments

Karl

https://twitter.com/urcrazytoo/status/1338416779186597888

It is, I suppose, fatuous to suggest not having children you can't afford?

Liz

The replies show it's not 'a meaningless sneer'.

David

The replies show it’s not ‘a meaningless sneer’.

Ah, but that’s only because you’re not “outward and forwards” in your thinking, you lowly peasant, you.

randian

"Considerate" and "tolerant" are just about the last words I'd use to describe these people.

David

The replies show it’s not ‘a meaningless sneer’.

You do have to marvel at the conceit that the most obvious reason one might have a term for mocking the habitually self-flattering and routinely censorious is to “stand in the way of thought and discussion.”

Given the notorious woke tendency to shut down discussion and inhibit thought – a tendency that ranges from feigned tears and emotional bullying to mob hysteria and exultant thuggery – it’s almost funny.

Karl

We used to call these people 'considerate', 'tolerant', 'charitable'.

I used to call those people 'Commie Bastards'.

Mags

Other words are available.

That's still horrible.

Trilby

It is, I suppose, fatuous to suggest not having children you can't afford?

That aside, you would think they had sufficient time to prepare for the impending arrival. It's not as though it just 'fell out', so to speak, surprising all and sundry.

non servator

"Woke", like "social justice warrior", was a term self-applied by these people. Until everyone else started using it to mock them, at which time it became a pejorative.

Governor Squid

It's hardly the first time they've poisoned a word to the point where they have to go find a new one with which to label themselves.

Right now, the betting pool isn't about whether "progressive" is to be binned -- it's about which focus-grouped feel-good word will replace it.

cayleygraph2015
"Woke", like "social justice warrior", was a term self-applied by these people. Until everyone else started using it to mock them, at which time it became a pejorative.
See also: "Liberal", as in "leftist" rather than "classical liberal".
Darleen

Totally off-topic ... for your enjoyment ... not quite as fun as being there and this year walking the neighborhood isn't allowed. I used to take my kids when they were younger and many of the homeowners would be out on the driveways with cookies and hot chocolate, candy canes and a few dads as Santas.

H

Though of course this may be due to our more primitive faculties and not being “outward and forwards” in our thinking.

As our gracious host would say 'Vanity is a powerful drug'.

WTP

See also: "Liberal", as in "leftist" rather than "classical liberal".

Does this happen to other people? It seems every time I reference the term "classical liberal", even amongst the more highly functional/educated people that I know, I have to explain what it means. Then when I do explain it, everyone looks at me like I'm reciting some sort of Scientology dogma.

Sporkatus

'considerate', 'tolerant', 'charitable'

Or, at least, that they are the people that insist that *you* must be 'considerate', 'tolerant', and 'charitable', according to a standard they hold for *you*, and which always shifts according to the whimsy of the Mad Ocelot God that only they can hear, and which is more interested in punishment than actual tolerance, consideration, or charity.

Gagoola the witchfinder must be allowed to sniff out evil, you see. How dare you say she's doing it to rule and persecute and indulges a sadistic glee in so doing?

David

As our gracious host would say ‘Vanity is a powerful drug’.

When interacting with the ostentatiously leftist, and in particular the self-styled woke, it can save a lot of time and needless bewilderment if you look for signs of self-flattery and in-group status-seeking. They’re often hard to miss and they do tend to explain a lot of what you’re seeing.

Despite which, we’re apparently expected to believe that the endless, contrived and opportunistic scolding, a signature of the woke, is actually some kind of chore, endured reluctantly, and heroically, and only for the betterment of others. Rather than, as seems more likely, a form of recreation.

anon a mouse

Despite which, we’re apparently expected to believe that the endless, contrived and opportunistic scolding, a signature of the woke, is actually some kind of chore, endured reluctantly, and heroically, and only for the betterment of others. Rather than, as seems more likely, a form of recreation.

Or as C.S. put it: "but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Sporkatus

As note, thoroughly rich that they invoke Orwell, when the entire self-adoption of the term was that they laid claim to a Higher Consciousness and different mental state - a rejection of what they saw as false consciousness. Orwell, for his faults, was allergic to the idea of generating in oneself an altered vocabulary and highly-abstracted perversion of meaning to generate a "deeper truth".

Them: "Our brains work so differently, they don't even understand the world the way you do"
Us: "...that's one way to put it."
Them: "How dare you say we're crazy! This is just like Orwell!"

DARVO

Darleen

Does this happen to other people?

Yep. And the leftists also look insulted and charge I'm "appropriating" their name while many non-leftists contend "liberal" has become synonymous with Leftism so why bother with trying to distinguish between the two?

::::sigh::::

JuliaM

’ I used to take my kids when they were younger and many of the homeowners would be out on the driveways with cookies and hot chocolate, candy canes and a few dads as Santas.’

And, Darleen, I guess it’s considered ‘progress’ that it no longer happens? 🙁

Sam

I've been doing a lot of "outward and forward" thinking lately, specifically the outward and forward ballistic properties of certain metallic objects and their potential counter-effect on human authoritarian tendencies.

Governor Squid

Then when I do explain it, everyone looks at me like I'm reciting some sort of Scientology dogma.

I try not to be too condescending when I explain that while the Federalist Papers may not rise to the level of Holy Scripture, they remain crucial to understanding the sort of nation we're supposed to live in and the sort of citizens we're supposed to be. If my audience want to paint America as a cult and the Founders as cult leaders, that's on them.

anon a mouse

and this year walking the neighborhood isn't allowed

You're doing it wrong.

Stroll down the streets in a black hoodie whilst waving a "BLM" flag and topped off with a "Pussy Hat", and you'll be applauded by those who fancy themselves your superiors...

cayleygraph2015
Does this happen to other people?

Yep. And the leftists also look insulted and charge I'm "appropriating" their name while many non-leftists contend "liberal" has become synonymous with Leftism so why bother with trying to distinguish between the two?

I usually don't use the term "classical liberal" if I'm not pointing out how common usage of the term "liberal" has changed.

It's partly because of how often I need to explain it, but mostly because of implied smugness.

The term "liberal" is saturated with the smugness of technocrats & people who think they're smarter than you because they know that Patriotism isn't Good and Rioting isn't Bad; it's always the other way around!

The term "classical" is saturated with the smugness of people who learned in school that Classical Art, Classical Literature, and Classical Music were good and important, but never learned what made them good and important -- beyond witty quotes of people praising the classics as good and important.

The smugness infesting "classical" is stale, of course; few schools argue that The Classics are Good and Important anymore. Nonetheless, I keep running into it.

But that's besides my point, which is: The term "classical liberal" connotes decades of the smuggest mediocrities ever to walk the earth, even though the actual philosophy it defines is about as good as mortals can make.

Darleen

I guess it’s considered ‘progress’ that it no longer happens?

I'm sure the people would love to do it and will get back to it next year.

WTP

Federalist Papers

My from-California-so-he-thinks-his-politics-are-GOP-MotR neighbor tried to "plainly" explain to me that 2nd Amendment was about a "well trained militia". I pointed out that if one reads the Federalist Papers it is rather clear (and I forget if it was Madison or whomever) that the right to bear arms is clearly meant for the individual citizen. "Well the Federalist Papers (which while I suspect he had heard of them didn't recall WTF they were) are not the Constitution".

The term "classical liberal" connotes decades of the smuggest mediocrities ever to walk the earth, even though the actual philosophy it defines is about as good as mortals can make.

Agree. But I do make the effort. I think it is important to use such that I don't get dragged into a "you're one of those selfish libertarian" corners. One thing that reeeeeeally starches my shorts is that while I'm not one to virtue signal about the volunteer/charity work that I have done (partly because it's not a lot, partly because what efforts I have made in that regard constantly bring me into conflict with people who can't differentiate twixt "hand up" and "hand out") is these people who accuse me of being selfish have no f'n idea that I probably put more of my own time and energy into helping others than they do. They just want (someone else) to pay more taxes and if I'm not for that, I must be mean, mean rich guy.

As for the Christmas thing that Darleen touches on, this may amuse. We like Indian (dot not feather) mixed snacks and do make the occasional Indian dish. Yesterday wife and I went to our local Indian (again, DNF) grocer to pick up a few bags. Indian guy running the store hardly had any accent at all...not that this assumption isn't/wasn't "RAAAAYCIST"...so when he asked us how our Christmas was going we talked a little about it and buying gifts in this damnpanic thing and (due to minimal accent) I thought to ask if he was Christian (also note, I have had a couple of Christian Indian co-workers). He said no, Hindu but he greatly enjoyed the season. He then wished us a "Merry Christmas". I then had an appointment with my Muslim doctor a little while ago. There was no problem with either of us wishing each other a Merry Christmas, though he did throw in the "Happy New Year" as well. Now there aren't many people I know who are Muslim whom I closely associate with (today anyway) such that "Merry Christmas" would come up, but a number of my Indian (DNF) ex-coworkers had pleasant attitudes toward Christmas. A couple would even drop a Christmas card at my desk, though that was probably mostly due to a slight misunderstanding of the interesting "Going to America? Americans Do This Stuff" training or books they read. The reason I bring this up is, this year more than ever it seems when I wish a natural-born-ish American at a store checkout or such a "Merry Christmas" there seems to be a good bit more snark in the "Happy Holidays" reply that I get. Which I suspect is supposed to be its own form of SJW virtue signaling.

Runcie Balspune

Right now, the betting pool isn't about whether "progressive" is to be binned -- it's about which focus-grouped feel-good word will replace it.

Progressive has gone the way of Conservative, there is small-p progressive, and Progressive which has nothing to do with being small-p progressive at all.

pst314

"Well the Federalist Papers (which while I suspect he had heard of them didn't recall WTF they were) are not the Constitution".

It's frustrating: the left changes the meaning of words and then retroactively insists that historical uses of those words are in accord with the left's new definitions.

But sometimes it's just due to natural slippages in meaning: Consider this famous passage from the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." By happiness the Founders did not mean pleasure or joy--although many people assume that is what was meant. Rather, the Founders were referencing the philosophical discussion and debates of the time in which happiness meant something like personal growth and the flowering of human achievement--the right to exercise whatever one's God-given abilities were to achieve one's full potential. This was in opposition to the traditional, class-oriented European idea that people's opportunities and rights were rightly limited by the class they were born into: a peasant would always be a peasant and should not attempt anything else.

Daniel Ream

Well the Federalist Papers [..] are not the Constitution

Fair dinkum: he's right. If you want to be a textual originalist, smuggling in other works is fraught. But that's neither here nor there; a "well regulated militia" means individual citizenry, equipped with military grade weaponry, and trained in its use and able to work together. That's what "militia" has always meant. The notion that "militia" has to mean the National Guard or something is a peculiarly 20th century phenomenon.

The basic rules of English come into play as well. "The importance of a well regulated militia to the defense of the state" is a subordinate, explanatory clause. Semantically, it does not in any way modify the scope of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Your friend's argument is akin to those illiterates who claim the Founding Fathers didn't mean "military" weaponry. The Founding Fathers owned private artillery.

asiaseen

"We believe passionately in freedom of speech at Little, Brown and we have always published authors with controversial or challenging perspectives - and we will continue to do so.

However, not when an author gets labelled an islamaphobe after spat caused by a comment on the age of one of the wives of the Number 1 man on earth.

Julie Burchill's book, Welcome to the Woke Trials, about her experiences with the cancel culture has been cancelled.

I am not a twitterer so I can't see the original altercation but I guess it might involve some curious explanations of the boss-man's predilections.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55331063

non servator

Rephrasing asiaseen's comment: Communist and lifelong Labour voter Julie Burchill's "Welcome to the Woke Trials: How #Identity Killed Progressive Politics" has been cancelled by Little, Brown Book Group after the author made "Islamophobic" comments toward British journalist and leftist activist Ash Sarkar.

Sporkatus

The Founding Fathers owned private artillery.

The English Army advanced on Lexington and Concord merely to enact safe and sensible gun control, hater.

One of the contortions of modern discourse I frankly gawp at is that the Supreme Court presumed to forbid short-barreled rifles and shotguns on the premise neither were a regular military weapon - and since then, not only have several classes of short-barreled rifle entered ordinary military *and civilian police* use, but the cri du jour is that the evil, nasty, no-good, very bad AR-15 is unacceptable on the grounds that it's a military weapon. The standard issue arm of militaries, in fact. Uh...

John Lewis

Little, Brown & Co, who have made a considerable song and dance about their decision not to publish Julie Burchill, are owned by Hachette who despite the noisy protestations of their junior staff have decided to proceed with publishing Jordan Peterson’s forthcoming book.

Steve E

...the noisy protestations of their junior staff...

Imagine getting into the publishing business with a goal to censor books.

Uma Thurmond's Feet

"Well the Federalist Papers (which while I suspect he had heard of them didn't recall WTF they were) are not the Constitution".

From what I remember from my Con Law course, the writing of the amendment is key:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If it was only about a militia, then it would have read:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and its right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

But it's not. The addition of "the right of the people" -- not militia members -- means just that. The people.

The Federalist Papers just confirm that's what they meant.

(And truth be told, the Con Law teacher, who clerked under Felix Frankfurter, criticized the FF for not making one more pass to make it clear. Of course, he also had a lot to say about the dog's dinner known as "Roe v. Wade.")

Runcie Balspune

It's frustrating: the left changes the meaning of words and then retroactively insists that historical uses of those words are in accord with the left's new definitions.

A classic case of the word "man", which originally referred to a human or person, but now exclusively seems to mean "male" regardless of context.

Originally from proto-Germanic "Mann" meaning "person"

In Old English a male is wer, as in werewolf, and a female is wif, as in midwife.

Also "nazi", originally a member or sympathiser of the national socialist party, or sympathetic to authoritarian and racist causes, now means "someone I disagree with", especially when used by someone (ironically) sympathetic to socialist, authoritarin and racist causes.

pst314

Also "nazi", originally a member or sympathiser of the national socialist party...now means "someone I disagree with"

Yes indeed. Likewise "fascist". Anyone who pulls that sh*t puts themselves in the "not worth knowing" category. Unfortunately, that is a very large fraction of liberals.

And that's still another example: "liberal" has been appropriated in America by the liberty-hating left.

Pooklord

Sporkatus: The ban on short barreled rifles and shotguns was always arbitrary and nonsensical.
"Short barreled rifles can be more easily concealed you see, so criminals might carry them."
So what about handguns? Oh . . .

The unanswerable question for me has always been whether gun control laws are enacted out of ignorance, capriciousness or general stupidity.
I can only wonder.

Alex

Pooklord, embrace the healing power of “and.”

Darleen

But it's not. The addition of "the right of the people" -- not militia members -- means just that. The people.

There is also the matter of the word "regulated". In modern usage we associate it with government -- e.g. regulatory statutes. That something that is "well regulated" is something that is run by government. But the common usage of the phrase "well regulated" at the time of the writing of the Constitution had nothing to do with government. It meant something that functioned well or was well calibrated.

2A could be phrased A well functioning Militia or A functional Militia

David

That’s still horrible.

Yes. But it does reveal, quite vividly, the kinds of psychology to which wokeness appeals, and to which it gives license. And so these creatures feign piety and compassion, while indulging every nasty little urge to cross their nasty little minds.

See also the woke knitting saga. And pretty much anything in the archives in which woke-lings invoke their wokeness.

Farnsworth M Muldoon

The unanswerable question for me has always been whether gun control laws are enacted out of ignorance, capriciousness or general stupidity.

Pick the correct answer from the choices below:

a) Yes, all three.
b) Most assuredly, all three and then some.
c) Beyond any shadow of a doubt, consider the source.
d) All of the above.

From the Before Times, brought to you by US Mail before that spate of school tank shootings in the '50s.

pst314

But the common usage of the phrase "well regulated" at the time of the writing of the Constitution had nothing to do with government. It meant something that functioned well or was well calibrated.

Thanks for pointing that out, Darleen. Now if we could only persuade leftists to admit this. But then, if they stopped lying they might stop being leftists.

pst314

The unanswerable question for me has always been whether gun control laws are enacted out of ignorance, capriciousness or general stupidity.

You left out "a desire to make ordinary people as helpless as possible": if people cannot defend themselves then they will naturally tend to welcome ever more infringements of liberty in the hope that this will protect them from criminals. Speaking of which, I haven't seen many reports lately of criminal prosecutions of citizens who used violence to defend themselves from criminals. Have bloggers, in despair, given up talking about this?

pst314

criminal prosecutions of citizens who used violence to defend themselves from criminals

I was thinking specifically of criminal prosecutions in the UK.

pst314

Home Office report claims that grooming gangs come from "diverse backgrounds".

Analysis rips apart the report, showing the many dishonest tricks that were used to conceal the truth.

Is it unfair to regard this report as a betrayal of the British people? Treason, if you will?

pst314

From the Before Times, brought to you by US Mail before that spate of school tank shootings in the '50s.

The preferred weapon to defend your neighborhood from Giant Mutant Atomic Armadillos.

Nikw211

While in the normal course of things I disagree with the use of "trigger warnings", I would not want anyone to be caught short by the alarmingly powerful effect of this purgative, courtesy of The Guardian,

You have been warned.

Nikw211

Totally off-topic ... for your enjoyment

Loved it!

Didn't expect to see quite so many festive AT-AT walkers, but still loved it.

I thought we had some pretty brightly decorated houses over here in the UK, too, until I visited friends in Texas in December 2011. It felt like walking through the mind of Tim Burton in a good mood.

WTP

Now if we could only persuade leftists to admit this. But then, if they stopped lying they might stop being leftists.

Yeah...no. It's not the leftists who need to be convinced, it's the general population. THIS is the right's problem. This appeal to reason is nice if you're in an honest court of law. The court of public opinion isn't honest, but it's very, very real and potentially far more powerful once they get riled up. Logic doesn't rile people up. I don't like this any more than anyone else. Probably dislike it more than anyone else. But that's simply the reality of life, history, etc. I feel we are at the edge of a very dark age. As much as Trump (used to) annoys me, he's the only leader I see out there who understands this. Hence my lack of faith in Ted Cruz. I mean I like the guy intellectually, and for an intellectual he has some charisma. But that and bazillion dollars isn't going to make him an effective leader. The most charismatic intellectuals have charisma appeal slightly higher than a dishrag. I don't like it, but that's just the way the world is.

cayleygraph2015
2A could be phrased A well functioning Militia or A functional Militia
The second amendment doesn't mean an individual right to guns. It clearly only applies to militias satisfying the associative property.

;-)

WTP

until I visited friends in Texas in December 2011

Just this AM saw a post from an old high school teammate who lives in Texas now. What she posted of the Christmas lights in her neighboring, more upscale community that she and hubs take their evening constitutional through each night was simply fantastic. And not in the tacky, overdone Clark Griswold sense either.

Sporkatus

So what about handguns? Oh . . .

This was in the midst of a fling a large number of big cities were having with requiring registration of handguns, so can rightly be considered a devious first step necessary to make sure that *once handguns were banned* that those attempting to circumvent a ban would have had their legs cut out from under. And that in the meantime all handguns were subject to confiscation if not registered, etc.

Naturally, the NFA in general was conceived in weaselry to pass a court fixated not on "is there a legitimate reason to do this" but "can you pretend that this doesn't give an enema to Constitutional principle if you squint really hard?" No logical reason or questioning of motive required, nor of a slippery slope or poor precedent.

This also before gun ownership lobbies had really spooled up and taken an aggressive tack against fees and licensing and the like, as the bait-and-switch of registration drives for future confiscation was not yet so blindingly apparent to the public at large.

David

People who are largely thinking outward and forwards rather than inward and backwards. We used to call these people ‘considerate’, ‘tolerant’, ‘charitable’.

How could we ever think otherwise?

Daniel Ream

The English Army advanced on Lexington and Concord merely to enact safe and sensible gun control, hater.

You can have my 32-pounders when you pry them from my cold, dead artillery crew.

RNB

Remember when a certain class of atheists decided they wanted to be described as 'brights' (analogously to 'gay')?

pst314

You can have my 32-pounders when you pry them from my cold, dead artillery crew.

6" cannon balls. You've got big balls. [salutes]

Adam

"The second amendment doesn't mean an individual right to guns. It clearly only applies to militias satisfying the associative property."

And to further clarify,"It is not to be confused with operator ring or operator assistance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_composition#Properties

In early days - in fact well into the 19th Century - it was not unusual for militiamen to be expected to provide their own weapons. So, the right to arms applied to individuals who would make up the militia. You could not have a militia without having individuals independently possessing firearms.

pst314

Yeah...no. It's not the leftists who need to be convinced, it's the general population. THIS is the right's problem. This appeal to reason is nice if you're in an honest court of law. The court of public opinion isn't honest, but it's very, very real...

I agree whole-heartedly. (1) You cannot persuade leftists to abandon ideas they embraced for illogical and perverse reasons. (2) Few people in general are persuaded by reasoned arguments. (Insert joke about massive piles of CATO Institute white papers.) And that applies just as much to reason-worshipping Skeptics™ as to any random sample of the population.

Governor Squid

The Founding Fathers owned private artillery.

Because what's the point of getting a Letter of Reprisal if all you can bring to the battle is a pea-shooter? I'm honestly disappointed that Congress hasn't issued Letters of Marque to ships patrolling the Horn of Africa. They're happy to exercise every illegitimate power they can think of, but do they take advantage of this really cool power that's actually listed in their instruction manual? Of course not.

Sporkatus

reason-worshipping Skeptics™

Among the most difficult to sway with reason, because they worship the "reason" of people holding higher status in the pretend-meritocracy of scientism and progressivism. Those in charge are the smartest, and the most moral, and it would be dangerously impudent to question them.

They will shy away from any cogent argument which challenges their preconceptions like a vampire, because anything which resembles Thought but isn't approved must be The Unthought. A soul-corrupting seductive wrongness. If they allow themselves even to consider an Unperson's Unthought, even for a moment, it may infect and cast them into the outer darkness.

One place you can vividly see the phenomenon in action is in the arrogation of any and all plausible note of conspiracy or misconduct in government to being identical to belief that JFK was killed by Rasputin. They feign humor and mock, but their vehemence and anger is unmistakable, along with fear. "You can't say such things!" They sense in you the devil - or possibly just "conspiracy cooties".

And they say Leftists aren't religious. Nor childish.

Of humorous note: the modern self-appointed Skeptic Community's involvement in science fiction and fantasy conventions, where with one breath they will claim any visionary on flimsy (and conspiracist grounds) of having been a Skeptic in their soul, in another breath try to reconcile the current SJW vogue with the Human Wave high-concept science fiction tradition of such as Asimov (and their own guilty pleasure taken in fantasy), and in another breath conduct seminars to Voxsplain how biological sex differences are a myth. No, really.

Sporkatus

do they take advantage of this really cool power that's actually listed in their instruction manual?

The worst thing about being "condescended to by one's inferiors" is that they aren't even cool inferiors.

David

You’ve got big balls. [salutes]

[ Peers over spectacles. ]

Watcher In The Dark

The crisis for Mozza will be when someone comes along and declares him 'Not woke enough.'

When you paddle in the stream of wokeness, there is always a tidal wave of greater woke waiting upstream ready to wash you away.

Jay Guevara

"Woke" is ghetto speak. Hard pass.

Pooklord

Farnsworth A Boys Anti-Tank rifle! For less than a 100 bucks . . . .
It is but to dream. Although I suspect my local range would frown up it. I imagine it would make short work of our berms.

pst314

"Woke" is ghetto speak.

Didn't know that. Wondered if it was derived/descended from "conscious" which was used a lot by vegans and such types but never bothered to try to find out.

Pooklord

"frown upon it". more coffee needed.

Sporkatus

"Woke" was as far as I can tell a word which originated in the Not-A-House-Slave, Honest, establishment of the vote plantation, to indicate that one had "woken up" -> become "woke", being aware of the Secret Truth underlying everything. White Supremacy, Patriarchy, etc. - all the usual suspects to blame in a varying blend for Why Am I Not Queen By Now, You May Ask.

An announcement to all and sundry that one had suffered a mental break now fueling a confirmation bias/conspiracy theory and found oneself surrounded by witting and unwitting conspirators against one. Sorry, that one "awoke" and jettisoned the false consciousness that not everyone was out to get them. Woke, but not Awakened.

Pace Wolfe, it's more authentic if it's not proper English.

It was then adopted by upper-middle-class white wine moms and other smugginses to signal that they were Down With The Struggle, so far as was convenient to social preening - grammatic awkwardness be hanged.

Pooklord

"Smugginses". Ha! Perfect. I shall use it at the first opportunity.

pst314

Sporkatus, thank you. I learn all sorts of things here.

Sporkatus

Woke, example usage:
"I used to think not all white people were like that. But then I got woke."

Really tragic. Defining a moment of "getting religion" in the freeing capacity of blaming other people for your problems. In its native environment, disheartening. In its expanded environment of shrewish childless businessmen's wives in the HOA, friendless librarians, and baristas, more than a little bit ridiculous.

smugginses
Meant by me to be a portmanteau of "smug" and "juggins", in the comic plural. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have done it.

David

This week’s Ephemera has been compiled and should materialise in... three hours.

Daniel Ream

and in another breath conduct seminars to Voxsplain how biological sex differences are a myth

I blame transhumanism. There's been a curious shifting of the goalposts from "in the future, we will be able to rewrite our brains and our biology to whatever we want" to "our brains and biology are whatever we want right now".

It's really no different from Fans are Slans, or Otherkin, or Trekkies. There's a very large proportion of F/SF fandom that can't handle the real world and retreats into their favorite fictional setting as a coping mechanism. Once upon a time we made fun of them for this. Now we celebrate it.

pst314

One place you can vividly see the phenomenon in action is in the arrogation of any and all plausible note of conspiracy or misconduct in government to being identical to belief that JFK was killed by Rasputin.

I have indeed noticed a Strange Lack of Skepticism regarding the claim that ever bigger government is an undoubtable good. My personal suspicion is that much of the Skeptic movement was started by leftists as just one of many ways to tear down our civilization in preparation for the Glorious Socialist Future.

pst314

It's really no different from Fans are Slans...

That's a slogan that I haven't heard in a while. Not that fans don't tend to think they are superior, but they don't voice that particular slogan anymore.

...or Otherkin...

Making run-of-the-mill fans seem superior by comparison. :-O

pst314

"our brains and biology are whatever we want right now"

The Blank Slate Hypothesis Dogma does seem to be extremely popular with that crowd.

anon a mouse

"And not in the tacky, overdone Clark Griswold sense either."

"overdone" is not a commonly used word in Texas. Save for beef, that is.

Sporkatus

Strange Lack of Skepticism...ever bigger government

I had a coworker, fervent Redditor: not to put too fine a point on it, but something of a dunce.
He fancied himself a libertarian, but earnestly endorsed *aspects* of socialism because he and his mom had been on food stamps once; he who could not be contained on "it's the corporations/religion, man" and whose favorite phrase might as well have been "there ought to be a law". So much for any adherence to the free market, then.

Finally, I asked him to consider that the single biggest corporation - with a monopoly on force and no fear of consequences for almost anything it might do - was Government Inc. It seemed for a moment that realization flickered in his eyes...

Just a moment, though.

Daniel Ream

That's a slogan that I haven't heard in a while.

Not since the 1950's anyway. My point was that this has been going on for quite a while.

In 1952, it takes a special kind of self-absorption to think "Yeah! We're super-intelligent and totally persecuted for it! Just like the Jews"

pst314

In 1952, it takes a special kind of self-absorption to think "Yeah! We're super-intelligent and totally persecuted for it! Just like the Jews"

"It has nothing to do with our poor hygiene and lack of social graces!"

Jim Whyte

Quite the thread here, inspiring these comments:

Cayleygraph:

Among classical liberals I always self-identify as a Hoary Old Tory (var. High Church Monarchist). Annoys the hell out of people, but there it is.

WTP:

Yanquis would do well to look at the historical roots of the U.S. Bill of Rights, which are in the Bill of Rights (1688 Ch. 2 1 Will. and Mar. Sess. 2). When you read them side by side you see some virtually identical wording. The 1688 Bill was large in the minds of the Founders. The Bill is clear that it's not about a reserve army but that "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."

Leaving aside the religious test, unique to the time, it's explicit that the arms are "for their defence". It codifies the right of armed self-defence. That is the valid interpretation of the Second Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights. Not the National Guard; not deer season in the Alleghenies; not restricted to when you're a-fixin' a squirrel perloo. Arms for your defence.

Darleen and UTF point out the explicit phrase "of the people". Correct, and that stems directly from the 1689 Bill. The true meaning of "well-regulated militia" becomes a side-issue once that is recognized.

Spork:

First, minor pedantry: by the 1770s it was the British, rather than the English army, and (as fans of Yosemite Sam will be fully aware) it was heavy on Hessians.

Nextlywise, on the matter of AR-15s, they are recently (post-Wortman massacre) banned up here, as is the FN-FAL and derivatives. So, to be precise, that's the Army's current rifle (C7/C8) and its immediate predecessors (FN C1 and C2). Governments don't greatly care about this right any more.

Farnsworth:

The Boys was mostly made by BSA in the UK and by Inglis in Canada. Much later I was peripherally concerned with a soil cleanup on the Inglis plant.

RNB:

My planned rejoinder - wish I'd got a chance to use it on an atheist of the evangelical wing - was "A bright? How nice. I'm a 'good'."

PST:

On ideas embraced for illogical reasons, there is always Dean Swift's aphorism: "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."

Spork, Dan, PST:

"Sporkatus, thank you. I learn all sorts of things here." Ditto.

I had never taken enough interest in SF/F to know about Fans are Slans, but a few moments Wikiry informed me. I recognized A.E. van Vogt's name from Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies In The Name of Science, which roasts Vogt for his interest in dianetics and in the (now almost universally forgotten) Bates eye-exercise techniques. SF/F lives on credulity like that...well, and poor hygiene, and lack of social graces.

pst314

I recognized A.E. van Vogt's name from Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies In The Name of Science, which roasts Vogt for his interest in dianetics and in the (now almost universally forgotten) Bates eye-exercise techniques.

I'd completely forgotten about the Bates eye exercise hokum.

Dianetics was sometimes mocked as "Diuretics." Isaac Asimov told a funny anecdote (in his autobiography?) about being pressured by editor John Campbell to be tested by the E-Meter, a test which revealed just how credulous Campbell was.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blogroll