Twitter!

Music, books, movies, TV, games, hobbies, food, and potent potables. And forum games! Pour a drink, put on your smoking jacket, light a pipe (of whatever), and settle in.
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22529
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Twitter!

Post by JasonL » 10 Apr 2018, 19:53

So the ones I already linked puts the of trumps white supremacy coalition at 62.9 million voters.

Coates says stuff like this all the time:

“it’s likely that should white supremacy fall, the means by which that happens might be unthinkable to those of us bound by present realities and politics.” Elsewhere in the book he notes “that white supremacy was so foundational to this country that it would not be defeated in my lifetime, my child’s lifetime, or perhaps ever.”


"I feel it myself, for example, walking through Washington, D.C., or Brooklyn, where gentrification has blown through like a storm. And I feel it not just because of the black people swept away but because I know that “gentrification” is but a more pleasing name for white supremacy, is the interest on enslavement, the interest on Jim Crow, the interest on redlining, compounding across the years, and these new urbanites living off of that interest are, all of them, exulting in a crime."

That's from a Williamson piece on coates, directly quoting from Coates: https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine ... premacy-2/

https://theoutline.com/post/2341/who-s- ... i=et7po5lg

NFL protest fallout is white supremacy: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... upremacist

Warnings issued about looting - white supremacy: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/12/fl ... jaffe.html

Admissions policies - reinforcing white supremacy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 930de59f73

Tax reform: white supremacy - https://www.salon.com/2017/12/11/gop-ta ... ite-power/

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12330
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Twitter!

Post by Eric the .5b » 10 Apr 2018, 20:04

nicole wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 15:27
Eric the .5b wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 14:57
nicole wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 13:18
And I do also think left-center elites like the people running The Atlantic are far more forgiving of equally extreme leftish vs. rightish stuff, generally speaking, and that filters down to yes, the milieus that probably most of us exist in IRL don't treat the left and the right extremes the same way. It would be more socially acceptable for me to be known around work as an anti-gentrification activist like these people than as a pro-life activist of any variety.
OK. Let me put it this way to clarify: you and Jason keep citing left-wing things as "equally extreme" to given right-wing extremes...and your examples are, to be very blunt, not remotely as extreme.

How often do anti-gentrification protesters spend weeks protesting in front of realtor offices? How often do they chain themselves in the way of entrances? How often does some random anti-gentrifier walk up to the proprietor of a hipster art gallery and shoot them in the face? I submit that those things happen far less often than with pro-lifers.
Doesn't that suggest the pro-lifers are less extreme, since pro-lifers protesting in front of abortion clinics is a common fact of everyday life in a lot of places? And that one should treat an abortion clinic protester as more "normal" or "socially acceptable" than radical anti-gentrifiers? I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at with the reference to frequency there.
Perhaps, then, you could back up and specify what on Earth exactly you mean when you say "extreme" and when you assert that anti-gentrification protesters are as "extreme" as pro-life protesters. Because you are clearly using an idiosyncratic definition that I'm not going to spend any time trying to guess.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12330
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Twitter!

Post by Eric the .5b » 10 Apr 2018, 20:17

Alright, time for boldface.
JasonL wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 16:23
I’m getting caught up, but I’ll reiterate, I don’t see nearly the difference Jennifer and Eric do. Calling people white nationalists for existing or picking the wrong candidate...
Except, you're not linking anyone doing that. You're link Coates, et al talking about white supremacy.

Yes, the "white supremacy" thing is a terrible, confusing term, one so bad that it makes "privilege" look brilliant and clear. However, as I pointed out previously in this thread, it does not, in dipshit academic leftist-speak, mean white nationalism, neo-nazism, or anything of the like.

It means, basically, "systemic racism". In fact, It means pretty much exactly the sense of "racism" that lefty academics trot out when they say "black people can't be racist". I've literally seen dickish lefties go, "You freak out if I call that 'racism'? Then I'll call that 'white supremacy'—how do you like that?" in that many words.

And no, any variation of saying "systemic racism is behind Trump getting elected" is not remotely as extreme or batshit as any variation of saying "well, if we're gonna execute murderers, we might as well execute women who get abortions".

Quoting Wikipedia:
The term white supremacy is used in academic studies of racial power to denote a system of structural or societal racism which privileges white people over others, regardless of the presence or the absence of racial hatred.
The term's rise in popularity among leftist activists in 2016 has been characterized by some as counterproductive. A specialist in both language and race relations, John McWhorter has described its use as straying from commonly accepted meaning to encompass much less extreme issues which thereby cheapens the term and can shut-down productive discussion. Political columnist Kevin Drum attributes the term's growing popularity in 2016 to frequent use by Ta-Nehisi Coates, and he describes it as a "terrible fad" which fails to convey nuance and should be reserved for those who are trying to promote the idea that whites are inherently superior to blacks and not used for any type of less severe racist belief or action. The use of the academic definition of the term white supremacy has been criticized by Conor Friedersdorf for the confusion it creates for the general public in how it differs from the more common dictionary definition and he argues that it is likely to alienate those it hopes to convince.
And I completely agree with these complaints. However, the shittiness of the term doesn't change what Coates and company actually mean by "white supremacy". They are not saying that everyone who voted for Trump is a neo-Nazi.


ETA: Corrected a white-for-black, then just merged in my next post.
Last edited by Eric the .5b on 10 Apr 2018, 20:30, edited 1 time in total.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22529
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Twitter!

Post by JasonL » 10 Apr 2018, 21:25

If we take a poll of people reading Coates and endorsing him enthusiastically - what percent you think is drawing that distinction? Coates uses the term precisely because it is inflammatory. If its confusion, it’s confusion by design. It isn’t a mistake or lazy it’s intentional.

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 6174
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: Twitter!

Post by Andrew » 10 Apr 2018, 21:50

Is Williamson the one that the Trumpistas have hated for a while because he said that poor, rural whites can either wallow in their dying towns or take some initiative and work to improve themselves (that is, that protectionism to try to help them is dumb)? That would support Nicole's point that he's a bad example of getting ahead by triggering Team Blue if he's spent plenty of time triggering his own team.
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

The sun only shines when a woman is being sexually abused. - Warren

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22634
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Twitter!

Post by Jennifer » 10 Apr 2018, 21:51

Even for the quotes you chose here -- Coates saying he doesn't expect to see white supremacy/racism end in his lifetime (which I sadly must agree with) -- you seriously argue that's just as bad as Malkin justifying the mass internment of Americans, Coulter arguing that left-wingers literally are treasonous, WIiliamson calling for women to be tried for murder, and so on?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26265
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Twitter!

Post by thoreau » 10 Apr 2018, 21:57

Coates' followers bug me more than Coates himself; the fact that one guy is abusing a word is less important than the number of people volunteering to suck his dick in response. And Coates does have more to say than just "White supremacy! White supremacy!"

What do the Michelle Malkins and Ben Shapiros have to offer besides triggering? Which side has more people tossing out more red meat? Which side has politicians pandering to the tossers of red meat? This is about more than just head-to-head comparisons of individual red meat tossers.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22529
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Twitter!

Post by JasonL » 10 Apr 2018, 22:02

It is not clear to me that Coates has anything else to say than versions of that.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26265
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Twitter!

Post by thoreau » 10 Apr 2018, 22:08

JasonL wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 22:02
It is not clear to me that Coates has anything else to say than versions of that.
I remember being impressed by his article on mortgage lending practices in Chicago in the past. It was more than just "White supremacy!" It was a detailed account of the tangible consequences of discrimination on generations of people trying to be productive and get ahead.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26265
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Twitter!

Post by thoreau » 10 Apr 2018, 22:09

But even if we stipulate the worst about Coates, the Reds still beat the Blues on sheer numbers. The most respectable red meat tosser on the Blue side is (AFAICT) a stipulated aspect of Coates' work. Compared to the Reds, who win on numbers.

What's the Blue CPAC?
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12330
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Twitter!

Post by Eric the .5b » 11 Apr 2018, 02:47

JasonL wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 21:25
If we take a poll of people reading Coates and endorsing him enthusiastically - what percent you think is drawing that distinction?
Do you really want to change the question to "But what do their supporters actually think?" with Team Red talking heads?
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22529
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Twitter!

Post by JasonL » 11 Apr 2018, 07:39

You are giving them an unbelievable pass. Byline “white nationalists march” byline “administration and supporters white nationalists”, byline “ tax reform products of white nationalism” GTFO.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22529
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Twitter!

Post by JasonL » 11 Apr 2018, 08:16

Step right up in to the motte and bailey o' matic boys and girls! This amazing device will transmogrify any arbitrarily awful accusation or claim into something sterilized!

It's like using dog whistles for conservatives, but nobody will ever call you on it!

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8974
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Twitter!

Post by nicole » 11 Apr 2018, 08:28

Eric the .5b wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 20:04
nicole wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 15:27
Eric the .5b wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 14:57
nicole wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 13:18
And I do also think left-center elites like the people running The Atlantic are far more forgiving of equally extreme leftish vs. rightish stuff, generally speaking, and that filters down to yes, the milieus that probably most of us exist in IRL don't treat the left and the right extremes the same way. It would be more socially acceptable for me to be known around work as an anti-gentrification activist like these people than as a pro-life activist of any variety.
OK. Let me put it this way to clarify: you and Jason keep citing left-wing things as "equally extreme" to given right-wing extremes...and your examples are, to be very blunt, not remotely as extreme.

How often do anti-gentrification protesters spend weeks protesting in front of realtor offices? How often do they chain themselves in the way of entrances? How often does some random anti-gentrifier walk up to the proprietor of a hipster art gallery and shoot them in the face? I submit that those things happen far less often than with pro-lifers.
Doesn't that suggest the pro-lifers are less extreme, since pro-lifers protesting in front of abortion clinics is a common fact of everyday life in a lot of places? And that one should treat an abortion clinic protester as more "normal" or "socially acceptable" than radical anti-gentrifiers? I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at with the reference to frequency there.
Perhaps, then, you could back up and specify what on Earth exactly you mean when you say "extreme" and when you assert that anti-gentrification protesters are as "extreme" as pro-life protesters. Because you are clearly using an idiosyncratic definition that I'm not going to spend any time trying to guess.
Did you click the link? They throw rocks through windows and scream for people who are the wrong color to get out.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8974
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Twitter!

Post by nicole » 11 Apr 2018, 08:28

Andrew wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 21:50
Is Williamson the one that the Trumpistas have hated for a while because he said that poor, rural whites can either wallow in their dying towns or take some initiative and work to improve themselves (that is, that protectionism to try to help them is dumb)? That would support Nicole's point that he's a bad example of getting ahead by triggering Team Blue if he's spent plenty of time triggering his own team.
Yes, that’s him.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8974
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Twitter!

Post by nicole » 11 Apr 2018, 08:29

JasonL wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 21:25
If we take a poll of people reading Coates and endorsing him enthusiastically - what percent you think is drawing that distinction? Coates uses the term precisely because it is inflammatory. If its confusion, it’s confusion by design. It isn’t a mistake or lazy it’s intentional.
Yeah. No question he uses it because it’s inflammatory. Same idea behind the rhetoric of “black bodies.” Rhetoric like that was in fact developed with intent to trigger.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12330
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Twitter!

Post by Eric the .5b » 11 Apr 2018, 08:46

nicole wrote:
11 Apr 2018, 08:28
Eric the .5b wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 20:04
nicole wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 15:27
Eric the .5b wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 14:57
nicole wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 13:18
And I do also think left-center elites like the people running The Atlantic are far more forgiving of equally extreme leftish vs. rightish stuff, generally speaking, and that filters down to yes, the milieus that probably most of us exist in IRL don't treat the left and the right extremes the same way. It would be more socially acceptable for me to be known around work as an anti-gentrification activist like these people than as a pro-life activist of any variety.
OK. Let me put it this way to clarify: you and Jason keep citing left-wing things as "equally extreme" to given right-wing extremes...and your examples are, to be very blunt, not remotely as extreme.

How often do anti-gentrification protesters spend weeks protesting in front of realtor offices? How often do they chain themselves in the way of entrances? How often does some random anti-gentrifier walk up to the proprietor of a hipster art gallery and shoot them in the face? I submit that those things happen far less often than with pro-lifers.
Doesn't that suggest the pro-lifers are less extreme, since pro-lifers protesting in front of abortion clinics is a common fact of everyday life in a lot of places? And that one should treat an abortion clinic protester as more "normal" or "socially acceptable" than radical anti-gentrifiers? I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at with the reference to frequency there.
Perhaps, then, you could back up and specify what on Earth exactly you mean when you say "extreme" and when you assert that anti-gentrification protesters are as "extreme" as pro-life protesters. Because you are clearly using an idiosyncratic definition that I'm not going to spend any time trying to guess.
Did you click the link? They throw rocks through windows and scream for people who are the wrong color to get out.
And anti-abortion protestors have engaged in everything up to literal domestic terrorism - the kind that involves shootings and bombings, not screaming.

Again, what exactly is your personal, fucked-up definition of "extremism", here? I'm not going on a snipe hunt for wherever you're parked your goal posts.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22529
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Twitter!

Post by JasonL » 11 Apr 2018, 08:49

The starting point here is not who is worse, but the to me absurd claim that conservatives use triggering language for gain but liberals don't.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12330
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Twitter!

Post by Eric the .5b » 11 Apr 2018, 09:06

You've been arguing way more than that, Jason.
JasonL wrote:
11 Apr 2018, 07:39
You are giving them an unbelievable pass.
And you are arguing in unbelievably bad faith. Beyond that, you're coming across as actively seeking butthurt and a sense of victimization.

If this is your way of expressing that you voted for Trump, well...whatever. I voted for Bush, once. I even supported the Iraq invasion for a few years. I seem to recall getting some shit from that, some of it unfair. I still had to suck it up and not let my butthurt over that treatment veto my brain and pull me into political tribal bullshit.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 22991
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Twitter!

Post by Mo » 11 Apr 2018, 09:26

nicole wrote:
11 Apr 2018, 08:29
JasonL wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 21:25
If we take a poll of people reading Coates and endorsing him enthusiastically - what percent you think is drawing that distinction? Coates uses the term precisely because it is inflammatory. If its confusion, it’s confusion by design. It isn’t a mistake or lazy it’s intentional.
Yeah. No question he uses it because it’s inflammatory. Same idea behind the rhetoric of “black bodies.” Rhetoric like that was in fact developed with intent to trigger.
So were the pictures of aborted fetuses that pro-life protestors have on placards when they protest. I wonder if they turn off more people than they convert to their side because people with kids don't want to explain that kids when they just pop over to the supermarket.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22529
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Twitter!

Post by JasonL » 11 Apr 2018, 09:32

Eric the .5b wrote:
11 Apr 2018, 09:06
You've been arguing way more than that, Jason.
JasonL wrote:
11 Apr 2018, 07:39
You are giving them an unbelievable pass.
And you are arguing in unbelievably bad faith. Beyond that, you're coming across as actively seeking butthurt and a sense of victimization.

If this is your way of expressing that you voted for Trump, well...whatever. I voted for Bush, once. I even supported the Iraq invasion for a few years. I seem to recall getting some shit from that, some of it unfair. I still had to suck it up and not let my butthurt over that treatment veto my brain and pull me into political tribal bullshit.
I didn't vote for trump, I despise him and his coalition. I just think your claim is stupid on its face.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8974
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Twitter!

Post by nicole » 11 Apr 2018, 09:37

Mo wrote:
11 Apr 2018, 09:26
nicole wrote:
11 Apr 2018, 08:29
JasonL wrote:
10 Apr 2018, 21:25
If we take a poll of people reading Coates and endorsing him enthusiastically - what percent you think is drawing that distinction? Coates uses the term precisely because it is inflammatory. If its confusion, it’s confusion by design. It isn’t a mistake or lazy it’s intentional.
Yeah. No question he uses it because it’s inflammatory. Same idea behind the rhetoric of “black bodies.” Rhetoric like that was in fact developed with intent to trigger.
So were the pictures of aborted fetuses that pro-life protestors have on placards when they protest. I wonder if they turn off more people than they convert to their side because people with kids don't want to explain that kids when they just pop over to the supermarket.
I hope so!

It's not like I think Williamson is converting anyone to his side by talking about hanging. ESB is probably a bigger danger to my abortion rights than he is, in that sense.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 11405
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Twitter!

Post by Ellie » 11 Apr 2018, 09:48

JasonL wrote:
11 Apr 2018, 08:49
The starting point here is not who is worse, but the to me absurd claim that conservatives use triggering language for gain but liberals don't.
I do think, from where I'm standing, that a conservative can build "cred" by deliberately triggering liberals, and do that more successfully than a liberal triggering conservatives. And I think it boils down to the essential way both sides see each other. Conservatives think liberals are too sensitive and they want policies based on feeeeeeelings instead of cold hard facts. Liberals think conservatives are unfeeling monsters and they want policies based on greed rather than compassion. So a conservative can vindicate his team's view by deliberately triggering liberals and then saying, "See, look how oversensitive they are, they'll get upset about anything!" Whereas it doesn't reinforce anything on the liberal side to make conservatives feel hurt.

I do think there are plenty of examples where both liberals and conservatives use equally inflammatory language about each other or try to poke each other with sticks in equal amounts. But the sort of "make a name for yourself within your own team by pissing off the other side" fuels more conservative careers than liberal ones. Liberal careers built on pissing conservatives off are more about the whole "she bravely speaks truth to power and the machine doesn't like her honesty!" rather than anything "triggering."

I have absolutely no links to back this up and this is all just my gut feeling.
"NB stands for nota bene do not @ me" - nicole

User avatar
tr0g
Posts: 6672
Joined: 11 May 2011, 10:21
Location: At the shop

Re: Twitter!

Post by tr0g » 11 Apr 2018, 10:32

Ellie wrote:
11 Apr 2018, 09:48
Liberal careers build on pissing conservatives off are more about the whole "she bravely speaks truth to power and the machine doesn't like her honesty!" rather than anything "triggering."
Witness the Parkland children. They are saying the same shit about gun control and the same solutions the left has been pushing my entire adult life but they're brave survivors speaking truth to power instead of traumatized teens regurgitating the same tired arguments.
Yeah but how can you tell at a glance which junk a raccoon is packing? Also, gay raccoons? - Hugh Akston
Nothing you can say is as important as the existence of a functioning marketplace of ideas, go set yourself on fire. - JasonL

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12330
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Twitter!

Post by Eric the .5b » 11 Apr 2018, 10:47

JasonL wrote:
11 Apr 2018, 09:32
I didn't vote for trump, I despise him and his coalition. I just think your claim is stupid on its face.
Which claim? I don't think I've made any claim here that wasn't factual, aside from my attempt in my last post to make any sense of your complaints. You may find the facts stupid, but that doesn't make them untrue, even if you blow off the explanations of those facts from multiple people.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests