Chapo Trap House and the rise of the dirtbag left

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

For the uninitiated, CTH is a very popular (to the tune of $30k+ per month coming in via Pateron) podcast by a group of foul-mouthed socialists with a tendency to tear into liberals with just as much (if not more) zeal than conservatives. They were recently profiled/critiqued in the New Yorker. The episode in which they respond to the article (mostly by viciously mocking the author and the New Yorker in general) is a decent introduction. There's also a critique of the critique, of course.

I'm interested in this growing notion of the "dirtbag left" and the increasing ranks of the DSA, which I recognize are partly separate phenomena. (There is an amusing schism in their demo between the very young and the very old.)

a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 01:11 (two years ago) Permalink

This was probably the best intro I ever read:

http://splitsider.com/2016/09/explaining-the-chapo-trap-house-podcast-to-the-uninitiated/

Which gets into the reference-heavy jag the show occasionally launches off on.

THE SKURJ OF FAKE NEWS. (kingfish), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 01:17 (two years ago) Permalink

these dudes sound pretty unpleasant tbh

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 01:22 (two years ago) Permalink

I follow some dem socialists on Twitter and it took me like three goddamn months that it was a podcast and not just some sort of weird meme

a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 01:23 (two years ago) Permalink

Can someone explain to me how this podcast and its Patreon patrons are connected to progressive causes by something stronger than the tether between Hot Shots: Part Deux and the US Navy?

The beaver is not the bad guy (El Tomboto), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 01:25 (two years ago) Permalink

I have only heard a few recent episodes, but the divide in airtime between vulgar comic riffs and actual discussion/intvws is pretty much 50/50

a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 01:27 (two years ago) Permalink

to answer yr question more directly Tombot I have seen a *lot* of tweets w/ CTH fans flaunting their newly received Socialist Organizer mailers/cards, anecdotal certainly but not nothing

a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 01:31 (two years ago) Permalink

They're still spending way too much time complaining about Hillary, the election and their critics. I find it amusing enough as a light podcast for driving but they're going to have to move on to keep listeners.

Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 01:33 (two years ago) Permalink

a vigorous and funny response to the alt-right is probably a good thing, but this just sounds like a load of jerks being jerks

iatee otm

illbient microtonal poetry Surbiton (imago), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 01:33 (two years ago) Permalink

This sounds pretty 'edgy'. I'll be interested to see what these guys do once they're out of high school.

DJ Untz Hall (Old Lunch), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 01:38 (two years ago) Permalink

I find it amusing enough as a light podcast for driving but they're going to have to move on to keep listeners.

Agreed, I think this will be a necessity after the inauguration anyway

tbh I mostly enjoy their eviscerations of liberal commentators/thinkers - fish in a barrel, sure, but undeniably satisfying

a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 01:39 (two years ago) Permalink

Have never listened to the show, read the article, I think i follow a couple of them on twitter. I hadn't realized they responded to the article with vicious mockery on their show, that's kind of a bummer since I saw them responding to outraged CTH devotees on twitter with essentially "chill the fuck out, it was a pretty good profile."

JoeStork, Wednesday, 4 January 2017 01:39 (two years ago) Permalink

in the following episode they emphasized that they were embarrassed by people defending them

a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 01:40 (two years ago) Permalink

I think the 'jerks being jerks' stuff is overstated. I've listened to 10-12 eps now and there's nothing really offensive? They pick on dweeby Twitter people and pundits.

The episodes where they read from Ross Douthat and Megan McCardle's books are the best I've heard, followed by the interview with Adam Curtis.

Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 01:47 (two years ago) Permalink

Can someone explain to me how this podcast and its Patreon patrons are connected to progressive causes by something stronger than the tether between Hot Shots: Part Deux and the US Navy?

It's an Air America show that can survive on its listener base, I don't think anyone's expecting them to start a revolution with a podcast. It's amusing to listen to a talk show with an actual left-wing viewpoint.

At least some of them are active with DSA and similar groups but they're also just relatively privileged liberal arts college NYC alt-media people.

Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 01:51 (two years ago) Permalink

I'm realizing I could have asked the same question about Das Racist (RIP) and gotten kind of the same answer and it would have been fine. Why I felt the need to ask it of a podcast as if that requires a different kind of "authentic" pedigree is weird, and my thinking needs unpacking on that

The beaver is not the bad guy (El Tomboto), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 02:00 (two years ago) Permalink

Can someone explain to me how this podcast and its Patreon patrons are connected to dirtbag causes?

rap is dad (it's a boy!), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 02:35 (two years ago) Permalink

I think I need it explained to me how they are not directly related

a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 03:20 (two years ago) Permalink

I've listened to most episodes, it's a great podcast. Their coverage of the primaries was often very funny. An early ep had a great guest who detailed the situation w teacher strikes in Mexico. Occasionally they do succumb to the more deluded and counter productive tendencies of hardcore Berners though.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 4 January 2017 03:43 (two years ago) Permalink

i'll out myself. matt's a thoughtful guy. felix is lol in most moods and he reminds me eerily of turkey-obsessed college friends i miss; also i found his les mis reading compelling. will clearly guides the whole thing and holds episodes together but imo is the blankest when he goes on the attack. some episodes really are just them giggling at their own press clips. thought it was completely hilarious that their william f buckley impression was actually a capt. peter peachfuzz impression.

difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 4 January 2017 04:40 (two years ago) Permalink

obviously the keep it negative dickhole zing crew should run podcasting

Whiney G. Weingarten, Wednesday, 4 January 2017 04:42 (two years ago) Permalink

I don't think "keep it negative" is a fair summation of their worldview

a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 04:44 (two years ago) Permalink

a vigorous and funny response to the alt-right is probably a good thing, but this just sounds like a load of jerks being jerks

maybe if we brainstormed some more descriptions of trump's hair

difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 4 January 2017 04:49 (two years ago) Permalink

afaict they're in the same gen x/millenial straddler segment as a bunch of my peers, sneer at the gen x detachment and corporate institutions equally, and are well-versed in the web communities that predate the 4chan weird bullshit, parallel to or members of somethingawful and other shit of the time

idk it's a thing where every political opinion coming from them seems like a deep-seated reaction from living through the late 90s and early 00s and that's the lens

mh 😏, Wednesday, 4 January 2017 04:49 (two years ago) Permalink

douthat rip is savage

I'm trying to catch up to the Trap House but these things are like 90 minutes long. I'm on episode 4. By the time they're talking about current events, Trump's first term will be over

Whiney G. Weingarten, Wednesday, 4 January 2017 05:24 (two years ago) Permalink

I thoroughly enjoy the Chapo Trap House. When I first discovered it it felt like a real catharsis to hear other people roughly my age or a little younger shredding New Democratism and bad centrist punditry of both liberal and conservative varieties but not in a lefty crank, counterpunch sort of way.

I can't say I love the new format with more regulars and preferred the dynamic of just Felix-Matt-Will. I like Amber and Virgil Texas individually I just don't feel like the show works as well with them regularly participating.

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 05:27 (two years ago) Permalink

ALSO as I think we talked about a little on the podcast thread, it seems harder for them to find their footing in a Trump world, now that the irrelevant centrist punditry has actually been rendered irrelevant.

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 05:39 (two years ago) Permalink

I'm trying to catch up to the Trap House but these things are like 90 minutes long. I'm on episode 4.

I've found that playback at 1.25x speed can be your friend.

THE SKURJ OF FAKE NEWS. (kingfish), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 05:52 (two years ago) Permalink

i couldn't get through an episode of this, even though i generally agree with them

it just... isn't funny at all, or insightful. probably because the things that are funny and insightful in sad leftist twitter aren't funny outside of sad leftist twitter

qualx, Wednesday, 4 January 2017 06:16 (two years ago) Permalink

Whiney, just listen to the Freeway Ross Douthat episode then skip to current events. Discussing the conventions doesn't really work as entertainment six months after the fact.

Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 06:20 (two years ago) Permalink

being a completionist about a politics podcast is the most onion a/v club thing i've ever heard

qualx, Wednesday, 4 January 2017 06:22 (two years ago) Permalink

I tried to listen to an episode but I just found it unbearable, but I realize I should have listened before I read that interview they did with Paste, which is hands down the most embarrassing thing I read last year: https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/07/chapo-trap-house-are-the-vulgar-brilliant-demigods.html

self-clowning oven (Murgatroid), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 06:24 (two years ago) Permalink

i've encountered enough asshole know-it-all leftists on twitter (including at least one of the chapo guys, i think) that i haven't exactly been eager to give this a try.

Wozniak on Kimye's Baby (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 06:25 (two years ago) Permalink

"I haven't listened to this but I don't like it based on reading an article about it" is the most boring and non-contributing thing you can possibly say.

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 06:28 (two years ago) Permalink

Except I did listen to it?

self-clowning oven (Murgatroid), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 06:29 (two years ago) Permalink

Like, "I tried to listen to an episode" is the first goddamn thing I say in my post

self-clowning oven (Murgatroid), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 06:30 (two years ago) Permalink

They do definitely reflect the worst of leftist Twitter at times. Like it's clear from recent episodes their way of continuing in Trump World will be to still hammer Clinton relentlessly land act like centrist democrats are worse than actual fascists. They are really mad at Hillary for losing to Trump when all I heard from them for months was that she was just as bad.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 4 January 2017 07:13 (two years ago) Permalink

The show works better for me when Matt or Amber bring up something that show they've done a but more homework on this stuff.

My particular fave episodes are stuff like having on Adam Curtis, Matt Karp on his book on Antebellum American politics setting up race science and eugenics shit trickling down to Breitbart, or even the pilot ep of sorts where they excoriate the weird mentality behind Michael Bay's "13 Hours."

THE SKURJ OF FAKE NEWS. (kingfish), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 07:23 (two years ago) Permalink

xp p sure they're mad at hillary for beating bernie with the weight of the DNC behind her, propping up trump as an easy win and then running an embarrassing general election campaign built on "of course i'll win"

qualx, Wednesday, 4 January 2017 07:45 (two years ago) Permalink

and given that this toolbag seems to be the presumptive 2020 favorite of the DNC, which has not shown any indication of shifting platform aside from a few pockets of support for keith ellison, keeping the fire under the democrats might be the only thing that saves us from 4 additional years of actual fascism

qualx, Wednesday, 4 January 2017 07:49 (two years ago) Permalink

Nerderik P.

salthigh, Wednesday, 4 January 2017 08:17 (two years ago) Permalink

The "weight of the DNC" that Bernie's ramshackle campaign couldn't overcome but Obama could somehow. We can blame this vague "rigging" for Bernie's loss (and not acknowledge that maybe he should campaigned in the south) but can't admit the Comey letter had an effect on Hillary's?

After the primary was pretty much over they called the differences between Trump and Clinton "a wash". Matt Christman perpetuated the deluded idea that the Bernie delegates at the Nevada caucus were "disenfranchised", just as one example. Granted it wasn't the job of the left to get Hillary elected (I'd have personally preferred Bernie for a number of reasons) but you don't get to act mad at her campaign for losing when you perpetuated the equivalency narrative throughout the campaign. Many Dems have been able to acknowledge that she was a vulnerable candidate that we were stuck with because not enough people ran but it seems like it would literally kill many on the left to just say "we got carried away".

Also, encouraging people to spread "Bernie Would've Won" memes is pretty asshole-ish and counter productive but I don't know maybe stopping actual fascism will require purging People who don't hate Hillary but I could be wrong.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 4 January 2017 08:23 (two years ago) Permalink

but you don't get to act mad at her campaign for losing when you perpetuated the equivalency narrative throughout the campaign

You kind of do? I listened to the post-DNC podcasts and a lot of commentary revolved around things that seemed iffy even at the time when it seemed like a lock - trotting out Mike Bloomberg, the lineup of neocon security/military people lining up for Hillary, etc.. It goes back to 2000/2002 - if you're going to present Republican-lite as the face of the party why wouldn't the voters who are into that just vote for real Republicans? They were also right back then on focusing on decency being poor judgement.

Were the Hillary fainting jokes in bad taste? Sure. That's still the most tiresome part of the podcast, but it's also a fairly small part of it.

Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 08:33 (two years ago) Permalink

Funny thing about Bloomberg is we was one of the few convention speakers who got kind of a positive reaction from the Bernie or busters there when he mentioned that he described himself as an "independent" what or John Lewis got anti-tpp chants. There was definitely messaging problems w HRC's campaign but given the consequences of the election (potential loss of social programs for one) people with visibility on the left seemed reluctant to encourage voting for the obviously better choice of the corny old lady and pickedvthr campsign apart for things all high level campaigns do becuae they were probably confident she was going to win anyway.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 4 January 2017 08:55 (two years ago) Permalink

Also, encouraging people to spread "Bernie Would've Won" memes is pretty asshole-ish and counter productive but I don't know maybe stopping actual fascism will require purging People who don't hate Hillary but I could be wrong.

― Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, January 4, 2017 3:23 AM (twenty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i don't think spreading memes has ever been productive in any direction

seriously didn't realize there were still people aside from high ranking democrat pols and frederik who think the answer to defeating trumpism over the next 4 years is to double down on the 2016 strategy

this is some gluing humpty dumpty together again shit

qualx, Wednesday, 4 January 2017 09:00 (two years ago) Permalink

that Bernie's ramshackle campaign couldn't overcome but Obama could somehow

yeah it's almost like these are two different candidates running on entirely different platforms with entirely different relationships to the DNC

how close are you to running out the "of course the DNC sank bernie, he wasn't a member of their party!" argument that was briefly popular 8 months ago in an entirely different america

qualx, Wednesday, 4 January 2017 09:04 (two years ago) Permalink

Yes, Mike Bloomberg is a well-known figure on the socialist lecture circuit. Hugely popular on the left. Yuge.

It is a reminder that the one thing worse than jokes about Hillary's medical problems is the narrative around BernieBros and "Bernie or Busters" where whatever ills that pop into your head can be ascribed to them.

The fundamental disconnect here appears to be your belief that the left's issue with Clinton is that she was "corny."

Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 09:06 (two years ago) Permalink

xxp obvs

Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 4 January 2017 09:06 (two years ago) Permalink

I never said "everything was perfect w HRC's messaging except that leftist twitter and this podcast didn't like it". I'd have preferred a different candidate but Hillary won the primary, she was obviously the better candidate compared to Trump. When you vote for a candidate you are voting a coalition into office. Making equivrlrncies beyeeen her and Trump was ridiculous then (kind of offensive actually when you put in perspective ) and looks even more ridiculous now. Maybe you can post the photo of them at a party together I've seen a million times and I'll withdraw that.

We have social media, we know the left got "carried away" I don''t see the point in denying that base level reality. I mean people were literally crying st the convention because they thought Bernie would get the nomination somehow.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 4 January 2017 09:12 (two years ago) Permalink

idk i just don’t buy that non-investors get much out of it. but im more broadly skeptical of how much wisdom abt economics can be extracted from raw dogging the news

flopson, Friday, 1 March 2019 22:56 (two weeks ago) Permalink

you can really tell the target audience

this really counts, though! i’m less familiar with the financial times but used to subscribe to the economist because there was a consistent, knowable point of view. if you know where you stand, you can triangulate against the house pov in your reading and get something out of it

they have an ethos, man

mh, Saturday, 2 March 2019 15:41 (two weeks ago) Permalink

economist is a lot more readable than FT imo

flopson, Saturday, 2 March 2019 20:20 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Weird, I hate the economist. It’s like an airplane mag for capitalism.

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Saturday, 2 March 2019 20:22 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Lol @ “rawdogging the news.”

I guess tbf this stuff is relevant to my work so I’m not really just trying to jam info into my head at random.

Bloomberg Businessweek is v good btw.

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Saturday, 2 March 2019 20:24 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I like the Bennet writings on gender and the Me Too movement in the NYT, to say that they only focuses on actresses and media personality is not really good research.

Van Horn Street, Saturday, 2 March 2019 21:35 (two weeks ago) Permalink

nfw online ny media leftists read less nyt than ft. just judging by stuff they rt/quote it’s a blowout

flopson, Saturday, 2 March 2019 21:36 (two weeks ago) Permalink

It seems to me she implies she is only the only one to prefer FT but that all the left detests NYT.

Van Horn Street, Saturday, 2 March 2019 21:39 (two weeks ago) Permalink

god these descriptions are so corny:

I feel like this is my fault, since they described me thusly: “a writer for the intercept who occupies the class first wing of the online left, arguing that liberal identity politics and call-out culture are distractions from true populist politics.” pic.twitter.com/P8XZpZ2cbS

— Briahna Joy Gray (@briebriejoy) March 8, 2019

makes me never want to go on the internet ever again. "socialist kingmaker"?? "socialist power couple"?? barf.

(I'm sure all of these people would object to these characterizations too of course).

Evans on Hammond (evol j), Friday, 8 March 2019 15:03 (one week ago) Permalink

reminded by that, the bruenigs' podcast is pleasant, listen in on a married couple, and you can learn about the nordic model of state ownership

XxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxx (dylannn), Friday, 8 March 2019 15:08 (one week ago) Permalink

I don't think I can ever get past Mrs. Bruenig being anti-choice, that was real disappointing to learn (I'm assuming I'm not mischaracterizing her position, that she's not merely personally opposed. maybe i'm wrong).

Evans on Hammond (evol j), Friday, 8 March 2019 15:14 (one week ago) Permalink

she has a deeply weird position on it that isn't restricted to her personal views, and she's remarkably evasive about it

Simon H., Friday, 8 March 2019 15:17 (one week ago) Permalink

That issue has been muddied enough that I'm not sure what her current stated position is? I got the impression her stance is a rhetorical one, with the idea that an actual pro-life platform requires economic and social support structures that don't exist in the US that would, if implemented, naturally drive the abortion rate toward zero.

So while in theory she could support a candidate or platform that banned or highly restricted abortion, she wouldn't do so unless said platform also included said social support. The terminology she uses strikes me as another attempt to reframe the debate and honestly, the rest of her stances and writing are decent enough that I have to sigh and shrug and agree to mildly disagree

mh, Friday, 8 March 2019 15:24 (one week ago) Permalink

I was kinda hoping Chapo would do a reading series on the NYMag piece. People I know were interviewed for it and either grossly distorted or just cut out for saying actual substantive stuff.

One of my favorite points I've seen a few people make is that they spent apparently little or no time going to actual DSA meetings to watch the surprisingly grinding and boring hard work of actual politics these people are doing. Instead they went to a book party with the pretty people. But of course that's the lens NYMag views everything through.

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Friday, 8 March 2019 15:27 (one week ago) Permalink

i took it to be about that mh, abortion is immoral but creating a society where abortion doesn't exist would require state funding for healthcare childcare education rather than a law against abortion, abortion under the current situation (in the west and the rest of hte world) often isn't a choice (but they never talk about abortion on the bruenigs if that helps)

XxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxx (dylannn), Friday, 8 March 2019 15:41 (one week ago) Permalink

She talks about it as little as possible. But she has publicly spoken about being a "pro-life socialist" and what a special unicorn that makes her in one or two places in the past.

I'm hoping Chapo doesn't cover the NYMag piece tbh (though Matt did make fun of McElwee's quotes on twitter). There's already way, way too much content on the Brooklyn left. There are other places!

Simon H., Friday, 8 March 2019 15:47 (one week ago) Permalink

those nymag blurbs make me want to gouge my eyes out

Neus Anneus (voodoo chili), Friday, 8 March 2019 16:16 (one week ago) Permalink

nymag would've called stalin, "rough around the edges with a manly mustache, you don't wanna get on this fashionable brute's bad side!"

Neus Anneus (voodoo chili), Friday, 8 March 2019 16:17 (one week ago) Permalink

Liz Breunig is a devout catholic and that basically all the info I need to know re what informs her abortion stance.

officer sonny bonds, lytton pd (mayor jingleberries), Friday, 8 March 2019 16:20 (one week ago) Permalink

im more of a Matt stan but since ive followed liz she’s never brought up abortion or emphasised those views in any way, yet there are always 1000 people in replies to unrelated tweets on any topic screaming at her abt it

flopson, Friday, 8 March 2019 17:02 (one week ago) Permalink

it looks like they're in it for the purity politics, but really it's because most of them think they finally found a valid reason to yell at a woman imo

mh, Friday, 8 March 2019 17:10 (one week ago) Permalink

there's plenty of women who give her shit for it tbh

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 8 March 2019 17:12 (one week ago) Permalink

holding my tongue here

mh, Friday, 8 March 2019 17:14 (one week ago) Permalink

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 8 March 2019 17:15 (one week ago) Permalink

Yelling directly at someone on twitter is pretty dud but 'abortion on demand without apology' is a criterion for my solidarity and that's classic

moose; squirrel (silby), Friday, 8 March 2019 17:21 (one week ago) Permalink

not to be an annoying stinker, but if it's ok to be like "abortion is wrong" and still be part of "the left" because you don't specifically advocate for the criminalization of abortion; would it be ok if she was like "homosexuality is wrong" if she didn't oppose equal rights? where is the line?

to be clear: i don't think anyone should be yelling at her on twitter

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 8 March 2019 17:25 (one week ago) Permalink

If it was her personal belief and she kept it to herself 100% of the time I doubt anyone would care. Alas she has written/spoken about it a few times, publicly, and that's never coming off. (on my phone and don't have links handy)

Simon H., Friday, 8 March 2019 17:27 (one week ago) Permalink

yeah i mean she has definitely spoken about it publicly. people aren't just assuming it from her catholicism (plenty of catholics are pro-choice)

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 8 March 2019 17:28 (one week ago) Permalink

i do think framing this particular scenario as a bunch of dudes being super-eager to yell at a woman online is dumb and honestly belittling to Bruenig. yes, dogpiling on people on Twitter is generally lame but I don't think this situation is extra-bad because of her gender.

Evans on Hammond (evol j), Friday, 8 March 2019 17:31 (one week ago) Permalink

while we’re having a liz breunig struggle session, i’m pretty sure her position on homosexuality is that it’s cool to be gay as long as you don’t act on your desires which uh

invited to an unexpected ninja presentation (bizarro gazzara), Friday, 8 March 2019 17:31 (one week ago) Permalink

those two things seem diff to me, ymmv

flopson, Friday, 8 March 2019 17:33 (one week ago) Permalink

xp jim

flopson, Friday, 8 March 2019 17:34 (one week ago) Permalink

re: bg's post

oh noooo

mh, Friday, 8 March 2019 17:35 (one week ago) Permalink

fwiw it was Mike not me who implied (even he didn’t actually specify) it was men in her replies. all forms of idiots with nothing better to do with their lives have united in this cause

flopson, Friday, 8 March 2019 17:35 (one week ago) Permalink

hate to be the bearer of bad news 🤷‍♂️ xp

invited to an unexpected ninja presentation (bizarro gazzara), Friday, 8 March 2019 17:35 (one week ago) Permalink

those two things seem diff to me, ymmv

― flopson, Friday, March 8, 2019 9:33 AM (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

they're not the same thing but they're fairly binary moral issues which pretty much anyone from centre-right leftward is generally expected to have the "right" opinion regarding

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 8 March 2019 17:37 (one week ago) Permalink

as i said, ymmv

flopson, Friday, 8 March 2019 17:52 (one week ago) Permalink

i was looking around for the evidence of BG’s claim and couldn’t find it but stumbled upon this book review by liz of a memoir by a celibate lesbian christian. kinda skimmed it but didn’t see the smoking gun. i have an aunt who is a minister of a united church in rural Ontario and im 99.9% sure is lesbian, and is on the political left. my father (her brother) and i have speculated about whether or not she’ll come out after her mother dies, guess this out-celibate thing is a third way option i hadn’t considered. Christianity is so weird lol

flopson, Friday, 8 March 2019 17:58 (one week ago) Permalink

Eli Valley vs Meghan McCain FITE

This is one of the most anti-semitic things I’ve ever seen. Also, this reveals so much more about you than it does me... https://t.co/IdfGuWcJZu

— Meghan McCain (@MeghanMcCain) March 8, 2019

Simon H., Friday, 8 March 2019 18:13 (one week ago) Permalink

didn't realize there were non-gay UCC ministers

moose; squirrel (silby), Friday, 8 March 2019 18:14 (one week ago) Permalink

wau

moose; squirrel (silby), Friday, 8 March 2019 18:14 (one week ago) Permalink

"This is one of the most anti-semitic things I've ever seen" [retweets it to 631k followers]

ebro the letter (Whiney G. Weingarten), Friday, 8 March 2019 18:31 (one week ago) Permalink

I will clarify that it was overly broad of me to imply there's a class of people who feel emboldened to yell at Elizabeth Bruenig over other targets because of misogyny and they're the primary noisemakers

on the other hand, there are definite reasons why women would yell at a woman over a man who has said the same stance, including misogyny

mh, Friday, 8 March 2019 19:05 (one week ago) Permalink

new ep of the Antifada w/ Matt that seems to be sickeningly timely

In this episode, we discuss the 'controversial' French 'novel' that is 'just asking questions' about the Migrant Invasion, the Great Replacement, and Yt Genocide. How did a 1970s book by some grenouille asshole named Jean Raspail become a prophetic lodestar for an ascendant white nationalist movement? How does a historical materialist analysis help us understand why dickheads like Steve Bannon and Marine Le Pen are lauding this novel 50 years later?

http://podbay.fm/show/1372879721/e/1552633440?autostart=1

Simon H., Friday, 15 March 2019 14:47 (six days ago) Permalink

I would listen to pretty much any ep of any pod that has Christman on it. We should compile a list.

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Friday, 15 March 2019 15:07 (six days ago) Permalink

there's a pretty complete list of all their side appearances over on the subreddit

Simon H., Friday, 15 March 2019 15:12 (six days ago) Permalink

i didn't like this tweet, but i am putting in this thread for you to look at:

pic.twitter.com/PirIC5kr1I

— Redneck Kong (@MICHAELfilm94) March 20, 2019

goole, Wednesday, 20 March 2019 04:49 (yesterday) Permalink

this is disgusting

beto would never do anything that cool

i'm w/ tato, super hot AND weird!! (bizarro gazzara), Wednesday, 20 March 2019 07:27 (yesterday) Permalink

ahsjfhshfj https://t.co/FJqqaPAbXi pic.twitter.com/SEt7QBbCnF

— libby watson (@libbycwatson) March 20, 2019

Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Wednesday, 20 March 2019 17:34 (yesterday) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.