Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

So. You're discussing online pornography somewhere - perhaps irl, but more likely online. You mention a concern about coercion - effect of pornography on the brain - etc. Someone disagrees with you; they wave away your concern, and roll out an eloquent, slightly hackneyed panegyric to Freedom of Expression. Censorship would be worse, they say, although you hadn't suggested censorship.

Scenario two. You're discussing the middle east, and perhaps sharia law. Someone comes along with a praise of 'life's wholesome, natural pleasures', 'wine, women'; they become misty-eyed as they say how sad it is that some people, blinded by fanaticism, would seek to restrict these things. Their descriptions of worldly pleasures seem - slightly stiff? Slightly rote?

Scenario three. Subject is racial abuse. The by now familiar figure I've been portraying rolls up to tell you that 'However unfortunate it may be that some people feel offended by another individual's choice of words', censorship would still be worse, stifling the natural flow of free conversations. Again, you hadn't suggested censorship.

Does this type of person actually exist? I am describing three different people, who I have actually encountered over the last five years or so; but I mean, have I encountered a style, or set of ideas, that is bigger than these three people? If it does exist, is it fair to call it 'Creepy Liberalism'? Is there already a name for it?

I am unsure whether this thread is worth doing, because it being of interest to anyone apart from me depends on the type of person I'm thinking of actually existing. But still.

cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:06 (five years ago) Permalink

seems like the common thread for this fellow is a conflation of legal permissiveness (along the axis of "freed of expression" vs "censorship") and moral/ethical endorsement of that thing? as in, they dont seem to understand that you can offer full throated opposition to something without at the same time calling for governmental/legal recourse in order to rectify it.

ryan, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:10 (five years ago) Permalink

i'm w/ u man. fuck free speech. xxp

Mordy , Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:10 (five years ago) Permalink

But yes, those people/person do exist. Why call it "creepy liberalism"? I haven't encountered any true liberals that have been this way, it has usually always been conservatives/libertarians or just plain ignorants.

Yes, there's a definite misunderstanding of what 'freedom of speech'/First Amendment refers to in the general public, and I even last week had to explain to someone how Kickstarter pulling a fundraiser for its content was not a violation of said amendment, but at this point I think the only way to solve that problem is to follow the example of the ending of Return of the Living Dead

Neanderthal, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:11 (five years ago) Permalink

really the best way to reply to these clowns is just to quote the First Amendment, given how short it is.

Neanderthal, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:14 (five years ago) Permalink

I think a better description of this attitude is "ignorant and/or uneducated"... obv. tho I don't think its cool to curtail free speech just because its not the government doing it. "Free Speech" has larger connotations than merely the purview of the first amendment.

This Is My Design, and I Used Helvetica (Viceroy), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:23 (five years ago) Permalink

viceroy otm

Mordy , Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:24 (five years ago) Permalink

but free speech isn't being curtailed if the government isn't preventing it. There's a reason why I can't just walk into my business and shout "EY, SUCK MY OLIVE-OIL SCENTED DICK K THX" and expect to still have my job the next day.

Neanderthal, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:30 (five years ago) Permalink

like if your business removes your posts from the company e-bulletin board, it's lame, but while it's corporate censorship, really isn't a violation of free speech.

Neanderthal, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:34 (five years ago) Permalink

most of these sound like early-20s white libertarian-leaning dude opinions

mh, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:34 (five years ago) Permalink

N.B.

Am aware that my OP there may look as if I'm trying to ridicule people I've disagreed with/make out that people who happened to disagree with me on said issues = weirdo.

I'm not - I do think the idea of free speech is a very important one.

Also: this was in a UK context, which may or may not be important.

cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:41 (five years ago) Permalink

Ryan:

seems like the common thread for this fellow is a conflation of legal permissiveness (along the axis of "freed of expression" vs "censorship") and moral/ethical endorsement of that thing? as in, they dont seem to understand that you can offer full throated opposition to something without at the same time calling for governmental/legal recourse in order to rectify it.

Yeah, that conflation of the legal and the ethical is definitely part of this style. I've wondered if there's a persecution complex at work here - person always seeing state oppression everywhere, but not in a clear-sighted way. That hunted, haunted psyche might be where the 'creepy' is coming from.

It may also be, as neanderthal says

I haven't encountered any true liberals that have been this way, it has usually always been conservatives/libertarians or just plain ignorants.

i.e. the hijacking of 'free speech' as an idea by people who are not really in full sympathy with it, or only want to instrumentalise it. Disjunction between the demeanour and the actual politics thus being the source of creepy.

cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 03:46 (five years ago) Permalink

you're harping on the lib vs conservative angle but Caring Way Too Much About False Instances of Censorship is a pleasure enjoyed equally by assholes of both orientations

ty based gay dead computer god (zachlyon), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 08:22 (five years ago) Permalink

Am aware that my OP there may look as if I'm trying to ridicule people I've disagreed with/make out that people who happened to disagree with me on said issues = weirdo.

Wellll, maybe just a little

dj hollingsworth vs dj perry (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 08:26 (five years ago) Permalink

I feel that this group maybe intersects with the people who call anyone who criticizes any particular group "racist". Like, recently there was incident here in Finland where a local conservative politician posted some blatantly racist, eugenics-influenced comments on his Facebook profile, which unsurprisingly lead to people calling him a Nazi... And then a totally clueless celebrity radio host decided to chide in, saying that it was wrong to criticize the politician, because that's "racist against the Nazis", and he should be free to post whatever he wants.

But yeah, I think these kind of people generally fall into two groups, neither of which I'd call "liberal" in the political sense of the word:

1) Libertarians, who think that having political/civil rights equals being free to say whatever you want about any person or group with no consequences.

2) Conservatives, who twist liberal concepts to benefit their own goals. Racism debates such as the above, where anti-racism is condemned as a "form of racism too", are a particularly good example of this.

Tuomas, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 08:44 (five years ago) Permalink

i suspect that an unquestioning defence of free speech without recognizing the complexities of edge cases is something that can only come from a position of privilege, ultimately

for many people a really special folder makes a huge difference (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 09:47 (five years ago) Permalink

hang on i think i mean that "free speech" only really exists as a legal concept and that's okay and an important concept but it has never really been a trump card in any legal system, it feels simple-minded to adhere to it as such

for many people a really special folder makes a huge difference (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 09:54 (five years ago) Permalink

Scenario two. You're discussing the middle east, and perhaps sharia law. Someone comes along with a praise of 'life's wholesome, natural pleasures', 'wine, women'; they become misty-eyed as they say how sad it is that some people, blinded by fanaticism, would seek to restrict these things. Their descriptions of worldly pleasures seem - slightly stiff? Slightly rote?

Certainly though cardamom, even if you don't care about the consumption of alcohol or equal rights for women, you surely must be appalled by sharia's strictures against music, right?

how's life, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 10:08 (five years ago) Permalink

I mean, this board is called I Love Music.

how's life, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 10:09 (five years ago) Permalink

fp

dj hollingsworth vs dj perry (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 10:17 (five years ago) Permalink

This board is called "I Love Everything", though. So I assume we love the pleasures of flesh just as much as music.

Tuomas, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 10:27 (five years ago) Permalink

Surely the free speech argument works in both directions here? If you have a problem with p0rn or sharia you're covered by the 1st amendment just as much as the other guy, no? I'm not saying you should have to have a debate about free speech in order to raise your concerns, but it might be a way to shut down arguments with idiots.

29 facepalms, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 10:31 (five years ago) Permalink

Rly we need the details and positions held during these arguments if this thread is to be any more than 'i talked to a bad man and another bad man' response 'oh no u talked to a bad man oh no'

dj hollingsworth vs dj perry (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 10:53 (five years ago) Permalink

most of these sound like early-20s white libertarian-leaning dude opinions

Mostly this, although I've also heard some of them from ppl who were not young or white or dudes.

Tottenham Heelspur (in orbit), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 11:00 (five years ago) Permalink

most of these sound like early-20s white libertarian-leaning dude opinions

― mh, Monday, July 1, 2013 10:34 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yah, not sure what exactly is novel about "creepy liberals"

xp

well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 11:05 (five years ago) Permalink

@ darraghmac - I know, and my inability to supply more details kind of undercuts my question. I mean I can't even be sure I'm not remembering a strawman.

@ how's life - I wasn't in favour of sharia law at the time. It was more that of all the ways one might criticise it, this person's seemed to have something a bit odd about it.

cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 11:55 (five years ago) Permalink

but now you are in favor of sharia law, right?

call all destroyer, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:00 (five years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I knew what you were saying. I was just fucking around. xp

how's life, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:01 (five years ago) Permalink

xp Well, the mu'atizil school of ethics is interesting, but I can only access their ideas in translation

cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:01 (five years ago) Permalink

Screw my spelling today. It's Mu'tazilah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27tazila

cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:04 (five years ago) Permalink

gbx otm. liberals are often creepy.

Me and my pool noodle (contenderizer), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:08 (five years ago) Permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThrZ9-sS6aM

abcfsk, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:35 (five years ago) Permalink

Conservatives, who twist liberal concepts to benefit their own goals.

this sort of bad faith argument is so common on the right i wish it had a name. the general strategy is almost a reductio ad absurdum in which, say, some concept of fairness that leads the left to things like affirmative action is then the same idea that leads conservatives to decry affirmative action as "discriminatory." ("Blacks are the real racists because they talk about race so much," is another favorite one.)

the irony to all this is that it's an absolutely self-defeating gesture because while it's intended to push back against some imagined liberal hegemony, it's instead parasitic on it--there's really no such thing as contemporary conservatism beyond this automatic adolescent rebellion against the left and liberalism. you could almost say it takes place within the assumptions of liberalism in that notions of "social justice" and fairness are equally central but "twisted" into a parody version of themselves. i guess this is what happens when conservatism is unmoored from anything like tradition and replaces it with radical individualism/autonomy (ie, freedom from society).

ryan, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 13:35 (five years ago) Permalink

there's really no such thing as contemporary conservatism beyond this automatic adolescent rebellion against the left and liberalism

This is v. interesting

cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:15 (five years ago) Permalink

it's an overstatement, but i think it applies at least in part to the "media" version of conservatism (talk radio, NRO, etc...)

ryan, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:15 (five years ago) Permalink

this is what i'd describe as football fan politics, more akin to cheering for a nebulous team, right or wrong, and it definitely has a leftist equivalent

for many people a really special folder makes a huge difference (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:17 (five years ago) Permalink

Definitely. The bad faith characterisation aspect too.

dj hollingsworth vs dj perry (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:18 (five years ago) Permalink

just came across an interesting passage from Aldous Huxley who defines being a partisan as "egotism at one remove"--a mechanism which allows you to indulge in just about any vice and call it virtue.

ryan, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:22 (five years ago) Permalink

there's also a strong element of the coopting of weighted language -- there are phrases that are commonly used, such as "gun control," which are relatively useless when used as intended because they bring up the baggage attached by groups against the concept

mh, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:26 (five years ago) Permalink

or, god help us, what people think "feminism" means

mh, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 14:26 (five years ago) Permalink

when the right invokes 'free speech' or 'racism' to undermine a common leftist position/belief, is that analogous in any way to the left evoking 'security' as a reason why eg the united states shouldn't use drone strikes. (bc they're undermining their own security by radicalizing more terrorists.) in both cases these aren't ideals that are generally associated w/ the political side and you suspect that maybe they're only being brought up as ideological concern trolling.

Mordy , Tuesday, 2 July 2013 15:12 (five years ago) Permalink

i think it's fair game to address an opposition position and try to show that it fails on its own terms as long as you're honest in what you're doing

for many people a really special folder makes a huge difference (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 15:32 (five years ago) Permalink

Mordy, doesn't it depend on whether the ideal is inherent in the original critique or just bolted on?

cardamon, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 18:39 (five years ago) Permalink

Why call it "creepy liberalism"? I haven't encountered any true liberals that have been this way, it has usually always been conservatives/libertarians or just plain ignorants.

― Neanderthal, Tuesday, July 2, 2013 5:11 AM (17 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Really? I see liberals (you know people who read the Guardian or the NYT) making comments like the ones mentioned in the OP very often, especially the third type. like if you followed the recent discussions around the EDL in the UK you'd see self identified "lefties" (ugh @ that term, but I use it specifically to differentiate from leftists) saying "well yeah the EDL are bigots but hey - free speech" or condemning antifash groups for confronting fascists instead of "engaging in reasoned debate" or some bullshit (also see the Tea Defence League thing or a typical Guardian CiF thread). Usually the people invoking free speech in this context aren't the ones who are affected by the bigotry in question, makes it easy.

My god. Pure ideology. (ey), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:00 (five years ago) Permalink

how do lefties vs leftists pls

dj hollingsworth vs dj perry (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:01 (five years ago) Permalink

i mean i suppose people on all sides do it, I did when I was 19, but just didn't get why he picked that side in his description

Neanderthal, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:03 (five years ago) Permalink

i assume "leftie" = kneejerk football fan leftists and "leftist" = anybody who holds left-leaning political views

for many people a really special folder makes a huge difference (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:04 (five years ago) Permalink

lol fuckin splitters

dj hollingsworth vs dj perry (darraghmac), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:09 (five years ago) Permalink

nah cos the former is a subsection of the latter? i mean, i am avowedly a leftist but i try hard not to be a leftie on the whole

for many people a really special folder makes a huge difference (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 2 July 2013 21:10 (five years ago) Permalink

ILX has its "Defend the indefensible" threads, which are a variant of this.

I think most of these start with an OP who dislikes something and then people who like that thing respond?

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Tuesday, 29 May 2018 20:59 (six months ago) Permalink

Oh, I totally switched the defend the indefensible and the name something you don't care about thread in my head in my response.

Yerac, Tuesday, 29 May 2018 21:03 (six months ago) Permalink

nitsuh very much otm

This is not a result of some sea change in human psychology. It’s an issue of infrastructure. The types of arguments we once venerated — the kinds of critical-thinking dialectics that educators tell us hone the brains of students — make sense in orderly, deliberative settings, places like classrooms and courtrooms and Platonic dialogues. But that is not where online speech takes place anymore. Social-media platforms knocked out the walls of an infinite series of salons, turning them into one gigantic city square teeming with protests and counterprotests, each faction equipped with slogans and banners, each trying to command space and crowd out the opposition. They turned all speech into public pronouncements, and thus all conversation into a strange form of activism, part of a zero-sum battle over which ideas will find a foothold in our collective attention. In the midst of an information war, to express any opinion, sincerely or not, is seen as giving it space and therefore material support. Nobody stands in the middle of a march holding a sign that says, “What if One of Our Demands Is Unwise?”

It’s often argued that this makes our conversations increasingly polarized, dogmatic, intolerant of complexity and logically sloppy. It’s less often pointed out that this might be because they aren’t really “conversations” in the first place.

marcos, Tuesday, 29 May 2018 21:05 (six months ago) Permalink

^^^ Yeah there is no baseline, foundational level of knowledge in these discussions. You have 20 year old bots from arguing with niche experts in their field. Or people saying that these are inarguably shithole countries even though they have never been outside the 48 states.

Yerac, Tuesday, 29 May 2018 21:10 (six months ago) Permalink

kevin that "speech-as-inquiry" vs "speech-as-activism" distinction is interesting and makes sense to me.

also this resonates a lot w/ me:

personally, as my professional life becomes more ‘inquiry’-based, I’ve struggled a bit to adapt to the new boundaries of discourse, though I’ve grown to accept that this is what is best for the people to whom it matters the most

there are a lot of moments when i want to say to folks "i'm not really sure about that" or "is this really how we want to talk?" or "i think things are more complex than that" and i decide not to say anything. "do i really need to say this" is something i ask myself a lot, and often the answer is no. sometimes it is hard to ask a question or express an opinion without seeming like an asshole with a shitty opinion or giving credence to assholes with shitty opinions, and in those moments i decide not to say anything

marcos, Tuesday, 29 May 2018 21:10 (six months ago) Permalink

a big part of it is meaning. half the time discussions are going on where everybody is coming at it with different meanings. one person spends all day reading about X and they come into a thread to talk about it and there is all this context they are bringing in that nobody else knows. or that only like minded media consumers know.

then there is the "responding to trolls" horrible shit that clogs things up, where someone makes a stance against an imagined stance that isn't even being made itt. then you end up arguing against someone who is arguing against an imagined viewpoint nobody actually stated. it's almost entirely pointless.

Hazy Maze Cave (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 29 May 2018 21:10 (six months ago) Permalink

like i think a big problem with the US 2016 election was you constantly had the entire world is weighing in on US politics and what is typical left for the US is not typical left for the world so those kind of discussions inevitably caught on fire and careened towards the sun

Hazy Maze Cave (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 29 May 2018 21:12 (six months ago) Permalink

In real life I gauge a lot about whether to say anything and usually lean towards always saying something, but this likely comes from being a woman and wanting my opinion always heard. I may temper my response but I try to make sure it's clear. Like the last time this occurred was during a dinner in a european country with a Russian colleague of my spouse. He was complaining that the private music (and regular education) school his kids went to was going to start busing in lower income students and he wanted them to switch schools. This type of socialism HE DID NOT LIKE. The whole country was becoming too socialist. I thought about it and couldn't let it go and just said "well, part of going to school and education is learning to relate to people of different classes and backgrounds. It's something that only helps us later." The guy just nodded and switched the conversation. Ha! Oh, but I also asked "isn't Russia kind of socialist???" (i had no clue).

Yerac, Tuesday, 29 May 2018 21:21 (six months ago) Permalink

I have very strong opinions but I try to be a “cooler head” which sometimes actually means I just don’t say anything. I don’t really enjoy or revel in getting riled up about much of anything for whatever reason, I enjoy debating ideas but maybe in a way that does give that room to the other side in a way I also don’t enjoy for the reasons marcos mentions.

Like my folks (especially my mom) get doom and gloom about everything Trump does. Even this Roseanne thing this morning. I find it all absurd in a terrible way but I also think getting extremely offended by Roseanne in 2018 is weird, I don’t want to simply dismiss things like that as meaningless but getting up in arms about everything seems a but counterproductive.

I had a brief moment recently where I got pissed at an alt-right dude I know and I hated that I showed my hand like that, I don’t want to let it get to me. That may also be part of it. I don’t think of it as self-censoring but maybe more strategic in a sense. Idk.

omar little, Tuesday, 29 May 2018 21:27 (six months ago) Permalink

It's weird right. Because sometimes I think people's bad hardcore opinions are because no one ever challenged them or told them they were wrong as a youngster. Or maybe they are rebelling against always being told they are wrong. Which one is it?

Yerac, Tuesday, 29 May 2018 21:31 (six months ago) Permalink

sometimes both. some shitty opinion could be one person's iconoclasm and another's received wisdom.

21st savagery fox (m bison), Wednesday, 30 May 2018 02:00 (six months ago) Permalink

omar otm, I am still guilty of getting overwrought on ilx or in some casual conversations about things but my general tendency in life is to stick with "that's fucked up" or "I disagree" or "I stand with that guy" on things where my personal stakes are low

just too much effort to get too invested and it puts you out in a way that just standing firm and saying "nope" doesn't

mh, Wednesday, 30 May 2018 16:44 (six months ago) Permalink

I think part of the problem in 2018 with playing devil's advocate is that people are invested in trolling for the sake of trolling and just want people to get caught out. Really playing devil's advocate is about helping to define and firm up a position counter to what you're postulating, but people are putting out positions where their personal stances are vague or undefined and they're more invested in the argument than they are the stakes of the issue.

Devil's advocate is a good position for challenging your own position, not for defining it from scratch. And you have to be willing to find the correct take in the balance of responses.

mh, Wednesday, 30 May 2018 16:49 (six months ago) Permalink

i do read things other than NYT op-eds, fwiw, but I saw this as a bit of a companion piece to that nabisco essay I posted last week

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/magazine/who-gets-to-decide-what-belongs-in-the-canon.html

This is to say that fandom and spectatorship, of late, have grown darkly possessive as the country has become violently divided. Especially in this moment when certain works of canonical art are in fact at risk of becoming morally obsolete — both art that degrades and insults and the work of men accused of having done the same. There’s a camp of fans — who tend to be as white and male as the traditional canon makers — who don’t want that work opened up or repossessed. They don’t want a challenge to tradition — so please, no women in the writers’ room, say superfans of the animated comedy “Rick and Morty,” and no earnest acknowledgment that Apu is a bothersome South Asian stereotype, say the makers of “The Simpsons.” It’s all too canonical to change.

You can see the reactionary urge on every side. We’ve reached this comical — but politically necessary — place in which nonstraight, nonwhite, nonmale culture of all kinds has also been placed beyond reproach. Because it’s precious or rare or not meant for the people who tend to do the canonizing. If Korama Danquah, writing for a site called Geek Girl Authority, asserts that the sister of Black Panther is more brilliant than the white billionaire also known as Iron Man, she doesn’t want to hear otherwise. “Shuri is the smartest person in the Marvel universe,” goes the post. “That’s not an opinion, that’s canon. She is smarter than Tony Stark.” “Black Panther,” according to this argument, is canon not only because it’s a Marvel movie but because it matters too much to too many black people to be anything else.

But that’s also made having conversations about the movie in which somebody leads with, “I really liked it, but ...” nearly impossible. This protectionism makes all the sense in the world for a country that’s failed to acknowledge a black audience’s hunger for, say, a black comic-book blockbuster. But critic-proofing this movie — making it too black to dislike — risks making it less equal to and more fragile than its white peers.

The intolerance of the traditional gatekeepers might have spurred a kind of militancy from thinkers (and fans) who’ve rarely been allowed in. Bloom’s literary paradise is long lost, and now history compels us to defend Wakanda’s. But that leaves the contested art in an equally perilous spot: not art at all, really, but territory.

interesting part at the end noting how the stifling of dissent by gatekeepers is a universal phenomenon. you could argue the single example by a website I've never heard of makes a somewhat flimsy case, but I think most would acknowledge this happens everywhere if they're being honest

k3vin k., Sunday, 3 June 2018 20:35 (six months ago) Permalink

It very much does, anything important and “canonical” has its own police who attempt to exert control over the discourse around it. Cf. ILM

El Tomboto, Sunday, 3 June 2018 21:52 (six months ago) Permalink

Has this been posted yet? One of the weirder and creepier campus stories of late: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/1/17417042/niall-ferguson-stanford-emails

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Sunday, 3 June 2018 22:00 (six months ago) Permalink

LGM got real heated about that but I think lemieux and loomis both already had google news alerts tuned for Niall Ferguson, they hate that smarmy fuck (and with good reason)

El Tomboto, Sunday, 3 June 2018 22:04 (six months ago) Permalink

Aside from all the larger things that are wrong with this, it's just stunningly petty. Wtf mid-50s dude who has Chaired programmes at Ivies and advised a leading government and American Presidential candidate gets invested in digging dirt on a 19- or 20-year-old undergrad running for a position in his student government.

No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Sunday, 3 June 2018 22:22 (six months ago) Permalink

It’s like he feels threatened!

Would love to hear a Niall Ferguson-themed parody cover of Losing My Edge

El Tomboto, Sunday, 3 June 2018 22:37 (six months ago) Permalink

A bit off-topic, but a good enough place for this piece by K.T. Nelson on comedy in the Trump era

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/nekqvg/the-conservative-war-on-comedy-is-full-of-shit

mfktz (Camaraderie at Arms Length), Friday, 8 June 2018 21:52 (six months ago) Permalink

I love everything about this proposal for a conservative, Omaha-based Saturday Night Live rip-off https://t.co/4dNnE3BDtw pic.twitter.com/3o9lhsbUvl

— Will Sommer (@willsommer) June 7, 2018

mookieproof, Friday, 8 June 2018 23:15 (six months ago) Permalink

My favorite things about that are (1) the "sketch ideas" are all either just sketch titles or maybe the *beginning* of a sketch idea with nothing further and (2) somehow a bunch of comedy writers and performers will just materialize in omaha, along with all of the crew needed to produce a high-quality television show. Well thought out

Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Saturday, 9 June 2018 01:56 (six months ago) Permalink

I think they first need to create a conservative UCB and Groundlings from which to snatch up and coming wingnut comic performers. It will take maybe 3 months if they are motivated.

President Keyes, Saturday, 9 June 2018 02:57 (six months ago) Permalink

That whole thing is itself a perfect SNL sketch about beleaguered right wingers trying to create their own late night comedy show.

Eliza D., Saturday, 9 June 2018 12:37 (six months ago) Permalink

My favorite things about that are (1) the "sketch ideas" are all either just sketch titles or maybe the *beginning* of a sketch idea with nothing further

yes its a SNL copy

laurel or hardyhearin (darraghmac), Saturday, 9 June 2018 15:46 (six months ago) Permalink

three months pass...

Oh joy, Jonathan Haidt has gotten worse, and has apparently doubled-down on fetishized reasonableness against all else

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/20/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-review

The point of the style is to signal the distance between the authors and the partisans of identity who are too emotional to think clearly. The fact that Lukianoff and Haidt claim the authority to police discourse becomes clear the first time they discuss the role “overreaction from the right” has played in recent campus wars – at least halfway through the book. They quote death threats that Princeton professor Keeanga Yamahtta-Taylor received in 2017, including “lynching and having the bullet from a .44 Magnum” put in her head. “One might conclude,” Lukianoff and Haidt write, that if she and two other professors who received such threats “had spoken in a more deliberative style, befitting a professor, they would have had no trouble”.

Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Thursday, 20 September 2018 14:52 (two months ago) Permalink

fetished reasonableness is actually an innate foundational human value

ogmor, Thursday, 20 September 2018 15:11 (two months ago) Permalink

a-a-and some ELBOW PATCH jackets too!!

j., Thursday, 20 September 2018 16:59 (two months ago) Permalink

if she and two other professors who received such threats “had spoken in a more deliberative style, befitting a professor, they would have had no trouble”.

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence, your honor.

The assumption here is that the anger directed at these professors was grounded not in a violent disagreement with their positions, but was merely an overreaction to the tone in which they were presented. Observation of current political discourse will quickly uncover thousands of examples which contradict this assumption.

A is for (Aimless), Thursday, 20 September 2018 17:03 (two months ago) Permalink

one month passes...
one month passes...

My best friend's daughter attends the preeminent NYC arts high school. Let's call it Fame HS.

The big musical production opening tomorrow is The Sound of Music. What has the new principal decreed? I guessed.

No swastikas.

...

But yeah, liberal fascist thought-policing is just a delusion on the part of ol' Dr Morbius.

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 6 December 2018 02:17 (one week ago) Permalink

(for those who don't know, the show takes place in 1930s Austria, and the Nazis are the villains)

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 6 December 2018 02:19 (one week ago) Permalink

What about armbands with two thick black Xs instead?

Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Friday, 7 December 2018 22:48 (one week ago) Permalink

It's just not TSOM without the swastikas, is it? For me they are absolutely key to its enduring appeal.

mfktz (Camaraderie at Arms Length), Friday, 7 December 2018 23:05 (one week ago) Permalink

So the Von Trapps decide to flee what? Austrian Grinches?

I Accept the Word of Santa (Noodle Vague), Friday, 7 December 2018 23:20 (one week ago) Permalink

I mean Liberal-fascist thought-policing is kind of a delusion, it would be more reasonable to say "there's a cadre of well-meaning idiots in the world" and they've always been with us

I Accept the Word of Santa (Noodle Vague), Friday, 7 December 2018 23:23 (one week ago) Permalink

Should be "well"-meaning but too many quotation marks

I Accept the Word of Santa (Noodle Vague), Friday, 7 December 2018 23:24 (one week ago) Permalink

I can’t believe you are defending these people who changed a play so it wouldn’t stigmatize Nazis.

Trϵϵship, Friday, 7 December 2018 23:27 (one week ago) Permalink

the chances that that was their motivation as basically zero

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 7 December 2018 23:29 (one week ago) Permalink

lol

Trϵϵship, Friday, 7 December 2018 23:30 (one week ago) Permalink

Perhaps it would be helpful to change it completely because I don't want to support nazis but otoh by the end of TSOM I am sort of rooting for anyone who can stop the Von Trapps continuing to sing and they are in the best position to make that happen.

mfktz (Camaraderie at Arms Length), Friday, 7 December 2018 23:34 (one week ago) Permalink

xp. damn it, i thought you were being earnest, that's your MO

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 7 December 2018 23:36 (one week ago) Permalink

If you hate TSoM you *are* the Nazis basically

I Accept the Word of Santa (Noodle Vague), Friday, 7 December 2018 23:36 (one week ago) Permalink

This sounds a bit silly.

Never changed username before (cardamon), Saturday, 8 December 2018 01:43 (one week ago) Permalink

This sounds fine with me. I don't really need the Nazis in The Sound of Music to have authentic period uniforms for me to know they're Nazis.

Guayaquil (eephus!), Saturday, 8 December 2018 04:11 (one week ago) Permalink

yes, plus TRIGGERS! OOOH, TRIGGGERSSSSSSSS

sensssssssitivity > history

pick a different fucking play

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 8 December 2018 06:52 (one week ago) Permalink

I understand instead of goose-stepping, they'll be popping and locking

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 8 December 2018 06:53 (one week ago) Permalink

*'knuck if you buck' plays* smile if you heil

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 8 December 2018 07:16 (one week ago) Permalink

lollll

j., Saturday, 8 December 2018 07:36 (one week ago) Permalink

:D that's gonna be stuck in my head all day

I Accept the Word of Santa (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 8 December 2018 09:36 (one week ago) Permalink


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