THE AGE OF THE NOVEL: Premises concerning assault!

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2019

Sympathy for all victims:
As noted yesterday, we agree, if in a limited way, with one of Jennifer Weiner's reactions to Chanel Miller's substantially well-written book, Know My Name: A Memoir.

Miller's book "especially deserves to be read by the next generation of young men," Weiner writes in her glowing review of the book. As we suggested yesterday, Weiner perhaps goes on to over-emote about that large group of young men.

As we ourselves read Miller's book, a memoir about an act of sexual assault and its lengthy aftermath, we had that same general thought about her Chapter 4. In that well-written chapter, Miller describes the street harassment she says she experienced during the summer of 2016, when she was taking art classes in distant Providence, Rhode Island.

We also agree with something Lisa Ko wrote in a somewhat dogmatized column about Miller's book in the New York Times. We'll likely discuss Ko's column next week, but we ourselves took this thought away from Miller's impressive if imperfect book:
"There is no singular, or universal, survivor experience."
So wrote Ko in her column. For the record, Miller describes herself as both a "victim" and a "survivor."

("I have no qualms with this word," she writes, referring to the fraught term victim, "only with the idea that it is all that I am.")

Miller describes her long experience dealing with the sexual assault which occurred in January 2015, but also with her experiences with the legal system after she decides to file charges against the young man who was eventually found to have criminally assaulted her.

Based on her well-written account, it's plain that Miller has endured years of struggle in the aftermath of this assault. We often wondered, reading her detailed accounts, how her lengthy experience compares to the experiences of other people subjected to such assaults.

From Miller's accounts of her experiences, it's plain that she has struggled, in endless ways, to recover from that act of assault and from its legal aftermath. In part because she plainly is a "gifted young writer" (we're quoting Weiner), her extremely detailed writing made us wonder about the experiences of the many other people, mostly women, who endure such assaults.

That said:

We don't mean to say that Miller displays perfect judgment as she recounts her various experiences. Nor is there any earthly reason why she should be expected to do so.

Miller was still just 26 as she composed her widely-praised book. There's no reason to think that such a young person should display perfect judgment as she assesses these life-altering events.

As we'll discuss next week, we don't think she does.

In certain ways, it gets even worse than that! We think Miller's well-written book extends the culture of novelization which has become a major part of struggling liberal culture as exhibited by much older writers and talkers.

We liberals! Within this culture of novelization, we tend to disappear accurate facts and invent inaccurate "facts." We also tend to ignore basic points of logic, all in search of perfect morality tales peopled with perfect heroes and with perfect villains.

In our view, Miller's book is fascinating, in large part, because of the extent to which it adopts and extends this generally unhelpful culture. That said, we can hardly blame a gifted but very young writer for adopting the culture her elders have built, especially when that very young person is still trying to come to terms with a criminal act of assault.

Let's set Miller's well-written book to the side for the briefest of moments. We think the way her book has been assessed and reviewed by older, upper-end journalists brings this culture of novelization into view in a deeply instructive way.

As Miller's book has been reviewed, elementary facts have been disappeared. Elementary points of logic have been ignored.

In the process, elementary questions have gone unasked, unassessed, unanswered. In our view, one obvious potential villain has been permitted to walk away from the scene of this (extremely common) crime.

Next week, we'll review a few basic facts which have been almost wholly disappeared from the way this story is told. We'll also explore some basic points of disappeared logic.

We'll see these disappearances occur in Miller's well-written book, but also in the major reviews. As we do, we'll be working from three basic premises, the first of which is of course blindingly obvious:

First premise—no one should ever be sexually assaulted: We'll assume that this is obvious, That said, tribal impulses will encourage us to say that people who don't recite stale tribal dogma are failing to honor this premise.

In such ways, we keep enabling, and electing, people like Donald J. Trump. For at least the past three decades, our tribe has been extremely unimpressive, except to our own tribal minds.

Second premise—Chanel Miller was the victim of an act of sexual assault: We base this upon the unanimous verdict of a duly constituted jury. Within our journalistic conventions, when juries reach such decisions in criminal cases, allegations of criminal conduct are transformed into facts.

Why do we feel the need to say this? We do so because of the rather puzzling logic we will explore next week.

Third premise—it doesn't make sense to criticize the reactions of a victim of assault: In our view, Chanel Miller, a gifted young writer, has perhaps displayed imperfect judgment in some of the assessments she offers in her well-received book.

Our reaction would be, So what? We've never had an experience like the experience she describes. We have no reason to think that we would display perfect judgment in all ways in reacting to such an event.

We do think that upper-end, adult journalists should be held to conventional standards when they assess Miller's book and the events it describes. It seems to us that many upper-end journalists have hurried off to fail this test, in ways which help explain how our floundering, upper-end tribe has helped elect people like Trump.

Starting perhaps with the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, our tribe has tended to craft a series of novelized tales which recall the Brothers Grimm.

We reinvent facts and recast logic in search of illustrative moral fables with perfect heroes and villains. This conduct looks stupid to everyone else and in fact it pretty much is.

Even as we state our three basic premises, we'll promise one special treat. All next week, we'll be offering you a new villain, since that's what we liberal tribals seem to want and need.

That new villain will be a person who enabled the remarkably stupid drunken brawl which preceded the criminal act of assault which sent one young person to jail and has left another young person in a difficult process of recovery over the past several years.

For ourselves, we're not eager, as a general matter, to see people marched off to prison. For that reason, we won't be naming the name of our new villain, and we won't suggest that he should languish there.

We do think that this person behaved very badly in creating the brain-dead circumstance out of which this assault emerged. Our frequently ridiculous, floundering tribe has agreed to ignore all this.

We've done so because, like all human tribes, we tend to default towards dogmatic and dumb. Or so top major anthropologists keep telling us, despite the objections we lodge.

That act of assault should not have occurred. No one should be assaulted.

Next week: Are basic facts missing here?

119 comments:

  1. "Miller was still just 26 as she composed her widely-praised book. There's no reason to think that such a young person should display perfect judgment as she assesses these life-altering events.

    As we'll discuss next week, we don't think she does."

    What basis can Somerby possibly have for assessing this? He has most likely never been the victim of a criminal sexual assault himself. He is not female. How on earth can he evaluate her judgment in situations Somerby himself has no experience with whatsoever?

    It is offensive that Somerby sets himself up as the arbiter of what constitutes good sense in situations he will never live through. And he doesn't even realize how ridiculous he is making himself sound.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby admits this. He further says that Miller's book shouldn't be criticized because he has not been such a victim, but then he goes on and says that the media reviewing her book should be held to account for its judgment of her work (even though most of them were not assault victims either).

      So, that leaves us with Miller's book being flawed because Somerby questions her judgment, but it is the reviewers who should have given her bad reviews for her lack of judgment.

      Meanwhile, Somerby won't raise any actual criticism himself. Next week, he says. He's done that before -- promised that all will be revealed but then moved on without delivering.

      But if Somerby cannot judge Miller without walking in her shoes, how can her reviewers do so? And why won't Somerby allow her to express her subjective thoughts and experiences without assessing her "judgment" which he says cannot be "perfect" because of her age?

      This is fucked up.

      Delete
    2. "Miller was still just 26 as she composed her widely-praised book."

      Yes, obviously she should have waited until she was 50 to be assaulted at a frat party.

      Delete
    3. What basis can Somerby possibly have for assessing this [Miller’s judgment]?

      Hard to say until he tells us. Yeah, drawing out the blog entries is annoying, but why don’t we wait until he actually says before we take offense and head for the fainting couch?

      How on earth can he evaluate her judgment in situations Somerby himself has no experience with whatsoever?

      Are you seriously suggesting that we withhold judgment until we have the same experiences as those we judge? Could get you out of jury duty, I suppose.

      Somerby sets himself up as the arbiter of what constitutes good sense….

      Arbiter? Where do you get that? TDH will be expressing his opinion. Think you can somehow get over that?

      And he doesn't even realize how ridiculous he is making himself sound.

      Where is the self-awareness fairy when you need her?

      Delete
    4. TDH will be expressing a Right-wing opinion.

      Fixed it for you.

      Delete
    5. I’m so excited my broken Marriage has been restored. “We recently made up, even though it was difficult. It’s been more than a month now, and everything feels like it’s returned to normal. He has began to treat me better, and it’s been a healing process for both of us. The nightmare that had lasted for almost 2 years before we broke up is finally over. It’s like we fell in love all over again! We’ve both put the past behind us, and are trying to move forward – and for the first time in a long time, the future looks a lot brighter. I can’t express in words how grateful I am Dr Great! It’s like we’ve finally rediscovered those things about each other that made us fall in love in the first place. All of the worrying and stress has simply vanished. Thank you Dr Great for saving my broken Marriage and brought my husband back to me!”. Me and my husband are living together happily again.. All thanks to Dr Great. If you have any problem contact Dr Great now and i guarantee you that he will help you contact him through

      infinitylovespell@gmail.com or infinitylovespell@yahoo.com

      WhatsApp +2348118829899

      website http://infinitylovespell.website2.me/

       blog http://infinitylovespell1.blogspot.com




      I’m so excited my broken Marriage has been restored. “We recently made up, even though it was difficult. It’s been more than a month now, and everything feels like it’s returned to normal. He has began to treat me better, and it’s been a healing process for both of us. The nightmare that had lasted for almost 2 years before we broke up is finally over. It’s like we fell in love all over again! We’ve both put the past behind us, and are trying to move forward – and for the first time in a long time, the future looks a lot brighter. I can’t express in words how grateful I am Dr Great! It’s like we’ve finally rediscovered those things about each other that made us fall in love in the first place. All of the worrying and stress has simply vanished. Thank you Dr Great for saving my broken Marriage and brought my husband back to me!”. Me and my husband are living together happily again.. All thanks to Dr Great. If you have any problem contact Dr Great now and i guarantee you that he will help you contact him through

      infinitylovespell@gmail.com or infinitylovespell@yahoo.com

      WhatsApp +2348118829899

      website http://infinitylovespell.website2.me/

       blog http://infinitylovespell1.blogspot.com





      I’m so excited my broken Marriage has been restored. “We recently made up, even though it was difficult. It’s been more than a month now, and everything feels like it’s returned to normal. He has began to treat me better, and it’s been a healing process for both of us. The nightmare that had lasted for almost 2 years before we broke up is finally over. It’s like we fell in love all over again! We’ve both put the past behind us, and are trying to move forward – and for the first time in a long time, the future looks a lot brighter. I can’t express in words how grateful I am Dr Great! It’s like we’ve finally rediscovered those things about each other that made us fall in love in the first place. All of the worrying and stress has simply vanished. Thank you Dr Great for saving my broken Marriage and brought my husband back to me!”. Me and my husband are living together happily again.. All thanks to Dr Great. If you have any problem contact Dr Great now and i guarantee you that he will help you contact him through

      infinitylovespell@gmail.com or infinitylovespell@yahoo.com

      WhatsApp +2348118829899

      website http://infinitylovespell.website2.me/

       blog http://infinitylovespell1.blogspot.com

      Delete
    6. hello everyone Have you heard of this man, a spell caster and a herbal doctor ? DR HARRY what a great man, black magic really work, well I know this man must be giving a great regards due to what he have done in my life,Am from UK, I travel to Texas  for business I have to spend 2 months over there during to the business I meet this girl what a petty girl well she draw my attentions I was interest on her I decide to speak to her, how I felt for her, and I was having it in mind that I should propose to her, I spend time with this girl, and will were in love very tight, and will had sex together, all I was thinking about is how to introduce her to my parent before I propose to her because I really love her when it was time for me to go back to my country, but due to business my time do not permit me I have to go back fast, but all was already done, and she were to come after 2 weeks  to visit me so that I can introduce her to my parent when I was back my doctor decide to do his duty work and test me and give me some treatment but he found out that I have HIV, it was so surprised to me that she have HIV and she refused to tell me about it, and she allow me to have sex with her without condom, but I feel like crying I decide to behave like a man, all I think about is I will not be about to have children anymore then due to that I was force to look for help, I believe there is no cure in HIV, but I decide to try magic if it can work for me. I search for magic power men then I found a man called DR.HARRY  how it cured HIV within 7 days spell, well I did not conclude immediately because of who I Am I thinks this can work and it cannot also work, I give a try this man go according to the post I see, and his spell work within 3 weeks  I was cured totally, with the little I have i have to send a car to this man because of his good work but only God can tell who this man his, let me stop from here because I know there are many people who need his help that is why I have to write about him, He can cure all kinds sickness or illness and cast any spell likePENIS ENLARGEMENT PREMATURE EJACULATION LOW SPERM COUNT ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION HIV/AIDS HERPES ALS CANCER DIABETES GET YOUR EX LOVER BACK SPELL MONEY SPELL LOTTERY SPELL BREAKING CURSE SPELL PROTECTION FROM WITCH CRAFT SPIRITUAL ATTACK SPELL WIN COURT CASE SPELL  etc email him drharrysolution@gmail.com   visit His website  https://drharryherbaltempl.wixsite.com/solutiontemple or call.....whatsapp +2349036417079

      Delete
    7. hello everyone here i am Michael Freckleton a medical doctor from France but currently in Miami  , i want to share a great testimony of how Dr HARRY  herbal mixture cream saves me from shame and disgrace, my penis size was a big problem to me as the size was really so embarrassing and discouraging, a 39 year old full grown man like me having 4 inches penis and to worsen it i don't last in sex i cant even last two minutes it was really a thing of shame my wife was really tired of me because my sex life was very poor , she never enjoyed sex, i was always thinking and searching for solutions everywhere until last two months when i saw a testimony of how Dr HARRY  herbal mixture cream have been helping people from the globe,i saw one MR PAUL KEWAH  testifying of how Dr HARRY helped him enlarge his penis size so i decided to give him a try ,i visited his website link  https://drharryherbaltempl.wixsite.com/solutiontemple    we talked and he gave me steps to follow which i did and to my greatest surprise in less than two weeks of taking the herbal mixture cream my penis grow to 8 inches i couldn't believe my eyes and as i speak now my penis is now 10.5 inches long and i was amazed when my wife said i satisfy her so well now all thanks to Dr HARRY  herbal mixture cream,i will forever be grateful To him i also learnt that Dr HARRY also have the herbal cure to problems like
      PENIS ENLARGEMENT
      ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION
      DIABETES type 1 and type 2
      HERPES GENITAL WART
      LOW SPERM COUNT
      WEAK ERECTION
      BREAST ENLARGEMENT
      PROSTRATE CANCER
      HIV/AIDS
      SPELL OF ALL KINDS LIKE EX BACK,CANCEL DIVORCE,BREAK UP SPELL ,PREGNANCY SPELL,PROMOTION SPELL,JOB SPELL
      ALS
      HPV 123
      PILE
      ASTHMA
      HEART FAILURE
      PREMATURE EJACULATION
      HEPATITIS A,B,C AND MANY MORE
      so if you you are suffering from any of this problems please do not hesitate to contact him now email drharrysolution@gmail.com website  https://drharryherbaltempl.wixsite.com/solutiontemple    you can call him or Whatsapp Dr Harry via whatsapp +2349036417079 thanks    

      Delete
  2. "Next week, we'll review a few basic facts which have been almost wholly disappeared from the way this story is told. We'll also explore some basic points of disappeared logic."

    Thus Somerby kicks the can down the road. No disappeared facts today. When next week comes, he'll no doubt move on to some other urgent topic, such as the way Gore was treated in 2000.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "We liberals! Within this culture of novelization, we tend to disappear accurate facts and invent inaccurate "facts." We also tend to ignore basic points of logic, all in search of perfect morality tales peopled with perfect heroes and with perfect villains."

    You zombies don't need any facts or logic. You zombies a priori reject all facts and logic. Because: Believe Women.

    And that's all there is to it, dear Bob.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We don't have to believe Miller's account of things when she says she was unconscious. Two male grad students verified it. Because she was unconscious, she doesn't have any details to be believed or otherwise.

      But that doesn't bother Mao. He doesn't need any facts or logic either.

      It is somewhat confusing that Somerby seems to want to make this a he-said, she-said when there is no she-said and there are not only two eyewitnesses but also physical evidence of criminal penetration.

      Is Somerby perhaps going to quibble about whether this is "rape" or not? Or is he going to revive the argument that any woman who leaves her house is fair game and women shouldn't be allowed to drink because this is what it leads to, or some such?

      We can't know because Somerby, as usual, won't make himself plain.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete

    3. Let me help you out, 12:59 pm. I don’t like seeing you making a lot of conjectures and needlessly getting yourself all outraged. It’s not fair to you.

      Could it be that TDH has no doubts that Chanel was sexually assaulted, I mean since he’s stated that and all?

      Could it be that TDH is going to make some points about how via things such as emphasis and de-emphasis, and contextualizing, such incidents can be honed into service for larger societal tropes and narratives?

      You know- novelized.

      Delete
    4. If it is a common practice for burglars to leave the door open while doing their work, so they can have a quick exit if someone arrives unexpectedly, does that make mention of the fact a "larger societal trope and narrative"? Wouldn't it just be something burglars usually do?

      Similarly, if there are commonalities between what happened to Miller and how she was treated by the courts, and other women in a similar situation, does mentioning those commonalities constitute a "larger societal trope and narrative"? Or is it simply what sexual assault is like and how it is addressed in our society?

      Could you tell the difference between the two? On what basis can Somerby do that?

      Delete
    5. We'll have to see how Somerby frames examples of his concerns.

      My bet from what I've read, is that he' will highlight the disappearing of certain aspects of the case that don't comport with a more honed and focused narrative.

      Personally, I'd start with attributing the attempt to protect sexual assault victims from complete public exposure (as contrasted with the treatment of the accused) as one more diminution by the patriarchy.

      "Watch patriarchy work: Miller’s assailant becomes the Stanford Swimmer. He gets a name, a face, a back story. Newspapers published details of his athletic prowess, with a photograph that Miller dryly notes could have doubled as a LinkedIn profile picture. “I was never called girl, only victim,” Miller writes, quoting the police report: “He stated that he kissed VICTIM while on the ground. He took off the VICTIM’s underwear and fingered her vagina. He also touched the VICTIM’s breasts.”'

      Delete
    6. Somerby has already mentioned Miller's loss of memory and complained that it wasn't attributed to alcoholic blackout. He is no doubt going to mention her drinking habits, as if passing out drunk were equivalent to asking for it. A decent human being doesn't roll a drunk, much less take liberties like those Miller quotes from the police report. So, Somerby is apparently going to imply that Miller could have somehow given consent and forgotten it due to excess alcohol, as if that made sex with an unconscious person OK. And he is going to complain that these non-exonerating details were omitted by Weiner (as he has already hinted).

      A trial is stacked so that the defendant has every opportunity to go free. That must seem unfair to Miller and she blames the reluctance of courts to prosecute and convict sexual assault perpetrators. That is not solely Miller's opinion but has been well documented by advocates against sexual violence. If Miller wishes to call it "the patriarchy" instead of legal tradition, she has that right. She is the author of her book.

      Miller is not the only person who thought that Turner was treated too well. It is why Persky was recalled. Enough of the voting public agreed with Miller to remove him from his job. The prosecution in that case recommended six years, not months.

      You do not need to remove anonymity of victims in order for courts to treat female victims as honest to God human beings. It is clearly wrong when the court repeats Turner's mistake, repeating the objectification of the woman who was attacked.

      But here is the problem with Somerby's complaint. There is no possible excuse for what Turner did. None. Attempting to excuse him by complaining that details were omitted shows a disregard for that fact. There is no excuse for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman. Somerby's attempt to argue that there are mitigating circumstances that should be mentioned, is where he goes wrong.

      We are supposed to feel sorry because Turner has to register as a sex criminal for the rest of his life. Well, he is one. People have the right to know it, so that they won't accidentally drink too much and provide him with another opportunity to assault an unconscious person (yes, women are people). He is dangerous and the community needs to know it. If he is ashamed, he should be. There is no excuse for what he did.

      Delete
    7. I'm starting to conclude that you're a disgruntled future anthropologist of the cohort who comes to Somberby during his nocturnal emissions. Or something like that...

      I'm not going to argue what TDH might say in the future.

      I don't know why you Anons can't distinguish between abetting assault, from thinking that putting all the facts out there when reporting on a story is highly important,and thinking too that journalism shouldn't consist of the honing news stories into the stuff of chattering class narratives, even when it's in service to narratives that are substantive.

      I can't do any of those things anymore than I could convince you that defendants necessarily have the presumption of innocence.

      The only thing I can say that might be worthwhile to you is to take some deep breaths.

      Delete
    8. As has been explained repeated, the book written by Miller was not a court trial. She has no need to "put all the facts out there" and she is not reporting anything. She is writing a book about her subjective experiences and she selects what is important for her to say. It is not reporting of any kind. The trial is long over, it did consider the facts and the jury and the appellate court both found Turner guilty. Then the public found him guilty again when they recalled Persky.

      I find Somerby's reference to "nocturnal emissions" offensive, especially coupled with anthropologists. You have to know that nocturnal emission is the term for wet dream, which is the spilling of semen during sleep, with or without dreaming. Somerby is calling anthropologists jerk-offs. It is an ugly image, about on a par with Maddow shoving cash into her pants and some similar ugly things Somerby has said that cause me to think he isn't right in the head.

      Your calling him a great thinker makes you faintly ludicrous in the context of such remarks.

      Delete
    9. Maybe you should go look for her elsewhere. We have more than enough conservatives in the comments -- you won't be missed here.

      Delete
    10. "I find Somerby's reference to "nocturnal emissions" offensive"

      Off to the safe space! Quickly.

      Delete
    11. I thought nocturnal emissions were about Pep Boys that stayed open late.

      Delete
    12. I'm glad this is funny to you.

      Delete
    13. But here is the problem with Somerby's complaint. There is no possible excuse for what Turner did. None.

      There are two problems with your complaint. The first is that TDH has not tried to excuse what Turner did. Yet. Perhaps he will. Why don’t we wait and see?

      Secondly, California law definitely provides an excuse for what Turner was charged with. He was indicted on counts of rape, sexual assault, and attempted rape; he was convicted of sexual assault. (Rape requires intercourse as an element; assault, only touching.)

      The rape charge was for the circumstance of the incapacitation of the victim (i.e., no capacity, no consent), and an element of the crime is that the alleged rapist knew or should have known that his partner couldn’t have legally assented to sex. The jury declined to convict for rape.

      The sexual assault (actually sexual battery) charge requires that the act be willful on the part of the assaulter and unwanted on the part of his victim.

      Turner claimed that he had consent.

      Delete
    14. @8:05P, Cecelia's jibes are at clueless commenters like you. Not at the topic of rape. If you don't want to be ridiculed, don't make ridiculous comments. Easy.

      Delete
    15. Maybe you should go look for her elsewhere. We have more than enough conservatives in the comments -- you won't be missed here.

      Who made you hall monitor? Or for that matter, the Queen of Romania with your imperial first plural plural.

      I'd miss Cecelia's comments.

      Why don't you get a clue? We have more than enough ignoramuses here in the comments.

      Delete
    16. Deadrat, thanks for your cordiality. .

      There are some people who would be much better off-healthier, happier- if they found a less troubling to them...blog.

      And it ain’t me.

      Delete
    17. "Who made you hall monitor? Or for that matter, the Queen of Romania with your imperial first plural plural.

      I'd miss Cecelia's comments.

      Why don't you get a clue? We have more than enough ignoramuses here in the comments."

      And he doesn't even see the problem with his own imperial "we".

      The biggest indicator that Somerby has turned to the dark side is that these trolls think this is their special place.

      Delete
    18. And he doesn't even see the problem with his own imperial "we”.

      Er, Sparky? That whooshing sound you just heard? It was the point going over your head. You’re probably so used to it that you don’t really hear it anymore.

      The “more than enough” sentence was meant to mock @5:09P’s grandiose phrasing. See? I even quoted 5:09P a few lines above. And you still missed it.

      How embarrassing for you. Do I have to mark these things as facetious so you get it? I could, but it wouldn’t be as much fun for me.

      For the record, I’m never serious about telling even the most clueless (like you,for instance) to go away. It’s not my blog, and if TDH wants to put up with ignoramuses (like you, for instance), spell casters, and Mumbai Movers, who am I to say otherwise?

      (Please look up the definition of a troll. It’s not just someone you disagree with or someone who ridicules you. We have a couple here — Mao and Centrist come to mind — whom you can study.)

      Delete
    19. Trump always says he was just joking too, when he says something foolish. You can say that your "jokes" are just too deep for the likes of me, but that makes you sound as stupid as Trump does. And yes, sarcasm is marked by tone of voice, so if you use it in print, you need to signal it. And yes, so does irony and satire because they too depend on dual signals that are available in speech but not in print. And retreating behind "I was just being clever" makes you sound pathetic. As I said to Cecelia, do you find rape funny?

      You say it is up to Somerby to defend his blog, and yet you rush in to defend him from all criticism. Rushing is evidenced by a whole string of comments, following anyone and everyone who expresses a criticism, bulldog tenacity until the last syllable of dissent is beaten down.

      You are no different than Mao or Centrist (who I happen to agree with). You post as frequently, you are always responsive and never offer anything substantive to discuss. Your tone is abusive, often without anyone doing anything to set you off. You seem to get off on being ugly, so that fits all the definitions of troll. I don't think anyone reads you any more. A string of "TDH didn't say that" like a broken record isn't any kind of comment. There is not even anything there to disagree with.

      Delete
    20. You can say that your "jokes" are just too deep for the likes of me, but that makes you sound as stupid as Trump does.

      Since the word jokes is in scare quotes, I’m guessing you don’t find my little jests amusing. Well, no accounting for taste. This joke (or “joke,” if you prefer) wasn’t particularly deep. It’s just that you missed it. Why not simply say so? Unless, of course, you just wanted an opportunity to call me stupid. Which is OK by me.

      And yes, sarcasm is marked by tone of voice, so if you use it in print, you need to signal it. And yes, so does irony and satire because they too depend on dual signals that are available in speech but not in print.

      A friendly word of warning. We’re in violent agreement here, and you may awaken the critics of this position and find we’re on the same side. In this particular case, I’d argue that mimicry of phrasing is an important clue that helps determine intended tone. Well, should help anyway.

      You say it is up to Somerby to defend his blog,

      I do? When? TDH has never defended his blog, at least not here. I don’t expect him to start now.

      and yet you rush in to defend him from all criticism.

      This is manifestly untrue. I think he's far into the weeds on science and popular science writing. I think his theory is absurd that being nicer to feral Trumpers will make a difference.

      bulldog tenacity until the last syllable of dissent is beaten down

      OK, that’s a fair cop. I do turn into that guy on the internet who has to have the last word, but “beaten down”? What possible ability do I have to beat anyone down? You do realize that everyone who comments here may simply ignore me, right?

      you are always responsive and never offer anything substantive to discuss.

      It’s a comment section. I’m not writing my own blog here. And as for substantive, did you read my response to Pedler in this comment section about the Trayvon Martin killing. Did you read my comments on election law and the legal interpretation of the phrase “other things of value”? Have you read any of my public service announcements explaining the errors and mendacity of David in Cal and his sources?

      Just because you don’t like what I write is no reason to dismiss it as empty.

      Your tone is abusive, often without anyone doing anything to set you off.

      Guilty. Ignorance and foolishness set me off, but maybe you think that’s not “anything.”

      You seem to get off on being ugly, so that fits all the definitions of troll.

      Guilty for values of ugly equal to rude, snide, boorish, and contemptuous. And trust me, I’m even more unpleasant in person. But I’m not a troll. Mao and Centrist are trolls, posting comments solely to get others to react. “Dembot zombie!” and “Trumptard!” — sound familiar? Can you not tell the difference between a troll and someone who argues a position not your own?

      As I said to Cecelia, do you find rape funny?

      Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. And I mean that in the nicest possible way. I find you and your ignorance, foolishness, and misplaced outrage ridiculous. But that’s different.

      Delete
    21. Sorry, I don't have a lot of sympathy for Miller. Her feelings about the event?

      When did feelings become so important? Not all feelings are valid.

      I know women who have experienced far worse than she, and they don't carry on 1/100th as much as she does. She was also 22 and hanging out with a teenager. Why too does she drink so much to begin with?

      Years ago I was almost killed by a drunk driver. I have zero sympathy for drunks. They were both in the wrong.

      Delete
  4. "...remarkably stupid drunken brawl..."

    This is how Somerby characterizes a frat party.

    Brawl means "a rough or noisy fight or quarrel". Is that what a party is?

    Was Miller knocked out by a stray punch? Was the attack part of some fight that broke out? I don't recall that as a "fact" in any account of Miller's assault.

    She passed out and was sexually assaulted by Brock Turner, who took advantage of her unconsciousness to indulge his sexual impulses. He was caught in the act and detained. Was that the brawl part?

    Miller said (on 60 Minutes): "Instead of investigating the crime that's at hand, we interrogate the victim and go after her character and pick her apart and openly defile and debase her…" Miller said. "Nobody can say, 'That's enough.' I can't say, 'Don't talk to me like that.'"

    And this is exactly Somerby's impulse. He goes after Miller's
    "judgment" and her age and her right to write a book that tells her experiences from her perspective, which she has every right to do. As if by attacking her "judgment" he can somehow remove the blame from Brock Turner and place it on liberals and unnamed villains and her book reviewers and anyone but the young man who attacked her. Can any so-called brawl excuse Turner for removing her bra and panties and assaulting her while she lay unconscious? Two Swedish grad students caught him in the act, but no "brawl" caused him to do that to Miller.

    I suspect that Somerby is going to suggest that frat parties be supervised and that 22 year olds not be permitted to drink, or that women should have chaperones or that youth be confined to their rooms until they reach age 50 and are out of danger. Who knows what he is going to try to say about what caused Turner's actions to excuse them, but you can bet he will try to shift the blame next week, if he ever gets around to telling us what he means by attacking Miller's book, because surely she must have "asked for it" in some way, if only by existing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He goes after Miller's "judgment”

      Goes after? He disagrees with Miller’s judgment, a disagreement he hasn’t yet detailed. Is Miller’s judgment beyond criticism?

      and her age

      TDH says her age is a mitigating factor.

      and her right to write a book that tells her experiences from her perspective, which she has every right to do.

      Where does TDH say Miller has no right to be an author?

      As if by attacking her "judgment" he can somehow remove the blame from Brock Turner

      Has TDH even mentioned Turner?

      Can any so-called brawl excuse Turner for removing her bra and panties and assaulting her while she lay unconscious?

      No, of course not. The only “excuse” in California law requires that Truner’s actions not to have been willful. Where does TDH say that the preceding brawl excused Turner?

      Delete
    2. And yes, it does depend on the definition of "it". Your literal denials of Somerby's intentions don't get him off the hook. We will see, if he has the guts to follow up on his teases, exactly what he intends to comment on. In the meantime, he has been talking about facts left out and he called attention to Weiner's omission about Miller's memory loss (again, not saying what the omission was). This kind of coyness, where he challenges Miller and Weiner both, without putting up anything specific, is unfair to both writers. But that is how Somerby operates. He never comes right out and says anything -- then you come in on cue and deny he meant whatever he is implying, so Somerby leaves the feeling hanging in the air that Miller is not being truthful (fully honest) and Weiner is supporting her out of blind liberal loyalty, while never actually saying anything specific that can be addressed.

      This is a very ugly tactic to be using in the context of sexual assault, which I and many other women do care about. Somerby's cuteness looks like cowardice and you should be a lot more careful about what you lend your weight to, in advance of his actual comments, should he make any. So many times, he promises greater clarity then changes the subject abruptly and never returns to it.

      And yes, he is "going after" both Miller and Weiner and liberal women who have been supporting those who have come forward as part of the #METOO in addition to those who have gone through the justice system like Miller. We do take this seriously because assault hurts women and it is time for it to stop.

      Delete
    3. Your literal denials of Somerby's intentions don't get him off the hook.

      I usually say that I have no reliable access to TDH’s intentions, so let’s evaluate what he actually has to say.

      We will see, if he has the guts to follow up on his teases, exactly what he intends to comment on.

      I find the drawn-out episodes annoying, but as Bluto says about the beer at the Delta house rush party, “It don’t cost nothin’.”

      But that is how Somerby operates. He never comes right out and says anything

      Well, he certainly takes his take coming around to saying something.

      — then you come in on cue and deny he meant whatever he is implying

      I usually deny that he meant what you’re inferring. That’s different.

      so Somerby leaves the feeling hanging in the air that Miller is not being truthful (fully honest) and Weiner is supporting her out of blind liberal loyalty, while never actually saying anything specific that can be addressed.

      Well, he flat out says that her judgment falls short of perfect. But why don’t we wait to see what he’ll cite?

      This is a very ugly tactic to be using in the context of sexual assault

      TDH is talking about her writing. I don’t know what he objects to because he hasn’t said. Why don’t we wait until he tells us before we decide how ugly he’s being?

      Somerby's cuteness looks like cowardice

      Why is that?

      and you should be a lot more careful about what you lend your weight to, in advance of his actual comments, should he make any.

      I have no weight to lend. I’m just some random guy in cyberspace. And I’m not endorsing any of his comments in advance. I’m saying I don’t know what he’s going to say.

      So many times, he promises greater clarity then changes the subject abruptly and never returns to it.

      Could you cite an example.

      And yes, he is "going after" both Miller and Weiner and liberal women who have been supporting those who have come forward as part of the #METOO in addition to those who have gone through the justice system like Miller. We do take this seriously because assault hurts women and it is time for it to stop.

      Again, it’s not necessarily an attack to question someone’s judgment on how she presents her life through her writing. I don’t think TDH is going to some out in favor of sexual assault.

      Delete
    4. Your opinion that you don't think TDH is going to some (sic) out in favor of sexual assault , and $5 will get you a cup of coffee.

      Delete
    5. "He goes after Miller's
      "judgment" and her age and her right to write a book that tells her experiences from her perspective, which she has every right to do. "


      True, but that doesn't make her perspective valid.

      Delete
  5. Somerby obsesses over Trayvon Martin's killing and suggests people got mad at George Zimmerman because they simple-mindedly needed a purely evil villain to hate.

    While it's true that most liberal recountings of the Martin killing do not emphasize or skip entirely the fact that Martin got on top of Zimmerman and was hitting him, many liberals think this fact falls into the So What? category.

    Zimmerman stalked Martin, ignored a 911 operators instructions to back off, and initiated the hostile confrontation that resulted in his shooting Martin. Was Martin wrong to feel threatened by this behavior? Was Zimmerman right or reasonable for behaving this way? Does Somerby believe all this had nothing to do with Martin's race?

    In most states, Zimmerman's actions — even before he shot Martin — would have been criminal. Only Florida's lax gun laws kept him out of jail. And of course, after being acquitted of murder, Zimmerman was later imprisoned for a different violent crime. But he's not a bad guy!, says Somerby, because, actually, it's Zimmerman whose been treated unfairly in liberal's common beliefs about the death of Trayvon Martin.

    This event does not support Somerby's weird obsession with telling liberals their wrong. And his emphasis on the Overlooked Fact here suggest that what he believes is that Trayvon Got What He Deserved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby obsesses over Trayvon Martin's killing and suggests people got mad at George Zimmerman because they simple-mindedly needed a purely evil villain to hate.

      Obsesses? Really? Has TDH written a blog entry on Zimmerman since 2013?

      TDH “suggests” that anger at Zimmerman is solely due to needing a villain? Really? Can you quote TDH to that effect? As I recall, most of TDH’s focus was on bad reporting.

      While it's true that most liberal recountings of the Martin killing do not emphasize or skip entirely the fact that Martin got on top of Zimmerman and was hitting him, many liberals think this fact falls into the So What? category.

      Many liberals? Really? How did you conclude that? And if that’s true, isn’t that rather sad?

      Zimmerman stalked Martin

      Nope. You either mean that in a technical legal sense or in the vernacular. The former is a crime in Florida and requires repeated behavior. The latter means that Zimmerman treated Martin the way a hunter treats a prey animal. We have no information that would allow such a judgment.

      Zimmerman followed Martin. This in itself is not a criminal act.

      ignored a 911 operators instructions to back off

      Nope. The 911 operator asked, “Are you following him?” Zimmerman says yes, and the operator says “We don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman says OK.

      and initiated the hostile confrontation that resulted in his shooting Martin.

      There is no evidence that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. We simply don’t know who made the first threatening move.

      Was Martin wrong to feel threatened by this behavior?

      What behavior? Zimmerman following him?

      Was Zimmerman right or reasonable for behaving this way?

      Behaving how? Following Martin? Hard to say. It was certainly legal. For shooting Martin? Again, hard to say without knowing about the last minutes of Martin’s life. For carrying a gun? That seems unreasonable to me, but that was also legal.

      Does Somerby believe all this had nothing to do with Martin's race?

      I don’t know. Has TDH claimed it had nothing to do with race?

      In most states, Zimmerman's actions — even before he shot Martin — would have been criminal.

      In some states, your actions as judged by the consequences must be proportional to the threat. I think Ohio is one. Shooting an unarmed opponent in a fist fight likely wouldn’t be legal. Several states impose a general duty to retreat in face of a threat; others exempt one’s home. Since we don’t know whether Zimmerman could have retreated once the fight began, how can you conclude that even in these states Zimmerman would be guilty of criminal behavior?

      Before he shot Martin, Zimmerman was following him in public and on public property. I know of no state that criminalizes such behavior. Do you?

      Only Florida's lax gun laws kept him out of jail.

      Florida’s gun laws kept Zimmerman from being charged with a firearms offense. But it was Florida’s laws on self-defense that made his defense a slam dunk.

      And of course, after being acquitted of murder, Zimmerman was later imprisoned for a different violent crime.

      And that affects the homicide how?

      But he's not a bad guy!, says Somerby, because, actually, it's Zimmerman whose been treated unfairly in liberal's common beliefs about the death of Trayvon Martin.

      I don’t think TDH has ever opined on whether Zimmerman is a “bad guy” or not. But if “liberal’s” (I assume you mean liberals’) common beliefs reflect your own, then liberals are wrong on many points.

      And his emphasis on the Overlooked Fact here suggest that what he believes is that Trayvon Got What He Deserved.

      Can you quote TDH to this effect? Considering how much novelization you’ve done on Zimmerman’s killing of Martin, I’m not sure I should trust what you “suggest.”

      Delete
    2. Zimmermann was not guilty of any murder or manslaughter. Within our journalistic conventions, when juries reach such decisions in criminal cases, allegations of criminal conduct are transformed into untruths.

      Delete
    3. 'This event does not support Somerby's weird obsession with telling liberals their wrong'

      Nothing weird about it. TDH is a Trumptard, a gallant defender of Roy Moore, Donald Trump, Ron Johnson, Brock Turner. QED

      Delete
  6. “First premise—no one should ever be sexually assaulted: We'll assume that this is obvious, That said, tribal impulses will encourage us to say that people who don't recite stale tribal dogma are failing to honor this premise.

    In such ways, we keep enabling, and electing, people like Donald J. Trump.”

    Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct, including sexual assault, by more than 20 women. Many of these surfaced during the 2016 campaign. He was on tape bragging about doing this (Access Hollywood tape). By voting for this man, Republicans have sent a rather clear message: Sexual assault is ok.

    So Somerby gets even this basic premise wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You think this premise is wrong, Spritzig, because Republicans disagree with it?

      Delete
    2. Nope. It is wrong because it isn’t tribal dogma to oppose sexual assault. And, apparently, the fact that Republicans don’t say this , er, “recite stale tribal dogma”, is supposedly why we enable and elect Trump. Again, nope. Apparently, their refusal to cite “stale tribal dogma”, ie say that sexual assault is bad, really does mean that they are ok with sexual assault, ie they are “failing to honor this premise”, since they voted for an assaulter.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, but could you translate this into English. I’m having a hard time following and freely admit that the fault may be mine.

      TDH states what he call the “first premise,” that no one should be sexually assaulted. You say that TDH “gets even this basic premise wrong.” Now apparently, the antecedent to “this” is not, as I had assumed, TDH’s first premise. He names two other things as premises, but those don’t appear germane here.

      You say

      Nope. It is wrong because it isn’t tribal dogma to oppose sexual assault.

      OK, the negative means that I’m wrong when I posit that you think the first premise is wrong because Republicans disagree with it. I think you’re saying that it (the first premise?) is wrong because it doesn’t accord with tribal (I assume Republican) tribal dogma.

      Have I got that right?

      You continue
      Apparently [referring to TDHs’s views?], their [Republicans?] refusal to cite “stale tribal dogma”, ie say that sexual assault is bad, really does mean that they are ok with sexual assault, ie they are “failing to honor this premise”, since they voted for an assaulter.

      Again, maybe it’s just me, but I can’t follow this. TDH rarely wastes his time on Republicans. He a jeremiah of the left. When he writes

      We'll assume that this is obvious, That said, tribal impulses will encourage us to say that people who don't recite stale tribal dogma are failing to honor this premise.

      I think he’s talking about non-Republicans, and the “state tribal dogma” is the one that says questioning Miller’s account
      will lead to charges that the questioner approves of sexual assault.

      Delete
    4. I don’t know what the political parties are doing, but I’m having trouble with the basics, such as finding anything that discusses the case by referencing the facts.

      That may be because Miller’s book is relatively new, therefore the buzz is about that, but every piece I’ve found so far would make a good outline of a script for a Lifetime movie.

      Delete
    5. No one believes that Somerby approves of sexual assault, but some of us are beginning to suspect he will try to defend Brock Turner.

      Delete
    6. That’s outlandishly unbelievable, 10:43am.

      That suggests that in such a scenario, Anonymices would be honest enough to distinguish that there’s a difference between some defense of Brock Turner and “being ok with sexual assault”.

      Delete
    7. There are men who honestly believe that women have lost nothing when they are forced to engage in sex with a man they do not wish to be with.

      There are men who honestly believe that women have sex with men, regret it and then lie about whether they were forced or not.

      There are men who believe that women will pick a random man and accuse him of wrongdoing when he has done nothing wrong at all.

      There are men who believe that they are owed sex with a given woman because they want it, regardless of her wishes, because it costs the woman nothing and is important to the man. They also believe that if they do not receive sex regularly, something bad will happen to them.

      There are men who hate women who appear to be more successful than they are in the world, at business or academics or sports or some chosen area of endeavor. They believe that women should always be worse than men, subservient to them and at their command. Because women are inferior beings.

      If you doubt me about any of these assertions, go visit some of the darker spots on the internet. Read the manifestos of recent shooters. Examine the literature of the white supremacist organizations. Listen to sermons of fundamentalist preachers. Read Jordan Peterson and his ilk.

      So, it is not inconceivable that Somerby, a white male of a certain age, who has had no demonstrable ongoing relationship with a woman, might habor such feelings, even though he obviously knows it is not socially appropriate (hence the lip service to opposing sexual assault, contradicted by negative remarks about the victim). Somerby has said nothing to indicate that he has positive regard for women or that he is capable of relating to them in an adult manner.

      Delete
    8. I believe there are damaged and mixed-up men and that there are men who are evil.

      I believe the same is true for women.

      Whether you are a man or a woman it's very wrong of you to attribute such things to anyone based upon such paltry and ridiculous criteria and upon things that are complete assumptions on your part.

      I hope no one ever treats you so unfairly. Shame on you.

      Delete
    9. Somerby's choice of topics to write about is idiosyncratic. Unlike other political blogs, he is not driven by current events. He routinely ignores the things that get covered elsewhere, including media screwups and things that you might think would attract media commentary.

      So how then does Somerby decide what to write about? I believe he is driven by his own psyche (if not by Russian supervisors/funding sources). What does he pick to talk about? Stormy Daniels and what a con artist she is (no mention of Trump's adultery). Moore and what a raw deal he is getting when the media treats his interest in barely legal teens as if it were a symptom of interest in much younger girls (who he has been accused of molesting). And a whole variety of attacks on female journalists and women who are professors and have written books (sometimes on philosophy or cosmology/astronomy). All critical. And when the Democratic candidates line up for inspection, he defends Biden (who has been accused of being handsy) and criticizes Harris and Warren for trivialities. No mention of Gabbard's many weirdnesses, since she is a fellow traveler. No mention of the flaws of the male candidates. This is an exercise in taking down female front-runners.

      I don't believe it is unfair to examine the bulk of Somerby's obsessions and draw some conclusions from them. This is what Somerby does all the time -- calling Maddow horrible names because she has the gall to be successful in a profession he perhaps wished to enter, despite having no credentials whatsoever (whereas Maddow has a doctorate and has now written several books).

      Somerby treats women unfairly nearly every time he opens his mouth. Shall we all just stand by and watch him do it, or shall we, like those Swedish grad students, intervene? Miller doesn't deserve Somerby's damning of her very personal book because it reminds him of his own dark side. He needs to clean up his act and come to terms with his feelings about women. As must our society, because women aren't going to stop, any more than I will here.

      Delete
    10. First of all Somerby hasn't damned Chanel Miller's book, he's called her a gifted writer and agreed with NYT journoJennifer Weiner that young men in general should read it.

      What he has said is that the ethos of "selling the car" has gone beyond politicians and the denizens of tabloid organizations into our intellectual chattering class and that this is very dangerous indeed.

      Stormy Daniels as feminist is pretty obvious, so we'll move on to Maddow, who is arguably to liberals what Tucker Carlson and the poor Sean Hannity is to conservatives. If you look in the archives you can read TDH being tough on the likes of Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann, the liberal media lions of bygone times as distant as 2009.

      Roy Moore was another example of media gilding the lily when of-age girls became "children" in their eyes. Men in their early 30's were suddenly pedophiles for finding 18-year-olds attractive! That's an oddity! TDH also talked about the then-new claim from the woman who said she was underage when Moore took up with her.

      Of course none of TDH's many statements delineating the wisdom of Moore's behavior from the media typing him as a child molester was enough for his detractors.

      With that, let me say that I don't know how long a reader you've been here, but I'd bet my house that if Somerby bothered reading this stuff after so many years, that it's his defenders that he'd find off-putting, presumptuous, and sloppy. We would annoy the hell out of him. With YOU it would be all patient magnimity. That's how he rolls. He shoots in the tent. That's how he is, but he regularly knocks it out of the park as a thinker.

      As for the personal stuff, ever considered that the gate may swing the other way? Would be a problem for you, or any of our buiness?

      Delete
    11. 'That's how he is, but he regularly knocks it out of the park as a thinker. '

      Did you just use Somerby and a form of the word 'think' in the same sentence ?

      Delete
    12. Cecelia, you need to be careful with this.

      "Men in their early 30's were suddenly pedophiles for finding 18-year-olds attractive! "

      If you looked at the photos of the girls he was dating who were 18, they all look considerably younger. It is not uncommon for a man who is attracted to children to deal with their urges by seeking out girls who are technically legal but look like the children they would rather be "dating." This doesn't make their attractions normal. It means they have found a legal way to indulge their attraction. Adult men who are attracted to adult women, seek out more sexually developed and obviously sexually aware girls, even if 18. They don't seek out the girls who are 18 but look 14 and dress like they are 14. Men know this about each other. You are naive if you don't know it about men. Somerby knows it, but he argues as if he didn't. That is deceptive.

      Delete
    13. Somerby defended Roy Moore gallantly, something even other Rs were reluctant to do. But then, Somerby is a Trumptard.

      Delete
    14. So how then does Somerby decide what to write about? I believe he is driven by his own psyche (if not by Russian supervisors/funding sources).

      And you know this how?

      What does he pick to talk about? Stormy Daniels and what a con artist she is (no mention of Trump's adultery).

      TDH points out that Stormy is a grifter looking for a payday, and he doesn’t think she’s the heroic figure that some in the press seemed to think. Why would Trump even come into this?

      Moore and what a raw deal he is getting when the media treats his interest in barely legal teens as if it were a symptom of interest in much younger girls (who he has been accused of molesting).

      TDH isn’t worried about Moore. He’s concerned that journalists were tut-tutting Moore’s legal, consensual relationships while ignoring the “credible” (TDH’s word) charge of assault by a woman who was underage at the time of the attack.

      And a whole variety of attacks on female journalists and women who are professors and have written books (sometimes on philosophy or cosmology/astronomy).

      Criticizing people’s work may be misguided or on point, but whatever it is, it isn’t an “attack” on a person. And the cosmology book was written by a man.

      And when the Democratic candidates line up for inspection, he defends Biden (who has been accused of being handsy)

      Defends? He’s said that the busing issue from 50 years ago isn’t germane. TDH thinks Biden is too old.

      and criticizes Harris and Warren for trivialities.

      The horror!

      No mention of Gabbard's many weirdnesses, since she is a fellow traveler.

      Fellow traveler?

      No mention of the flaws of the male candidates.

      He thinks they’re all … er, what’s his word? Oh, yeah … terrible

      This is an exercise in taking down female front-runners.

      What capacity allows TDH to take down anybody?

      I don't believe it is unfair to examine the bulk of Somerby's obsessions and draw some conclusions from them.

      Unfair? There’s no referee to adjudicate. It’s certainly unfounded, so your conclusions have no force, but that’s different.

      Shall we all just stand by and watch him do it [treat women unfairly], or shall we, like those Swedish grad students, intervene?

      Who’s we? You? My little heroine. What “intervention” did you have in mind? Acting the fool in this comment section? How brave, how effective!

      He needs to clean up his act and come to terms with his feelings about women.

      He needs to? Who are you, his mother or his therapist?

      As must our society, because women aren't going to stop, any more than I will here.

      Oh, that I believe. Your ignorance and lack of insight are unstoppable.

      Delete
    15. 'What capacity allows TDH to take down anybody?'

      Fortunately he doesn't have that capacity, otherwise he would be a 'useful idiot' instead of a 'useless idiot'.

      Delete
    16. " He was on tape bragging about doing this (Access Hollywood tape). "

      I hate Trump. He's the worst. But in the Access Hollywood tape he did nothing of the sort. He facetitiously said he liked to grab women and kiss them -- clearly joking -- and then said that when you're a big celebrity you can do anything, grab em by the pussy, anything. Which with some women might be true.

      He never said he DID that. He admitted nothing. And they were all clearly joking around.

      Do people not know how listen? Or do they only hear what they want to hear?

      Delete
  7. The arguments in support of Turner include Miller's drunken state and her history of previous drinking and the presence of a third-party's DNA on her panties. They suggest that Miller might have given consent before she passed out. But, I don't believe that is a thing -- it doesn't make sense for a woman to give consent to sex while unconscious all while also being too drunk to give any consent. Turner's supporters cannot have this both ways -- if she was too drunk to remember and had alcohol problems, she was also too drunk to give consent, and there is no situation where having sex (or fondling or penetrating) a woman while she is unconscious is OK. And that is what Turner did, according to observers.

    His appeal, based on the fact that he was fully clothed and his pants were zipped up so he wasn't contemplating rape, was denied last year. Neither the jury nor the appeals court found his defense plausible.

    Women's drunkenness doesn't give men license to assault them. I don't know what is hard for Turner's supporters and Somerby, apparently among them, to understand about that.

    Turner claims that she gave consent and that they were making out by the basketball court (in full view of the public), not behind a dumpster. I don't know many women who would willingly consent to have sex in full public view beside a basketball court, drunk or not. And if a woman (who claims she is in a committed relationship and would never have gone with Turner) is too drunk to say no to making out by a basketball court, she is too drunk to give consent to anything. That should be obvious, even to Somerby.

    Shouldn't Somerby be talking about Brock Turner's youth and lack of judgment? Why isn't he?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, so he is back to the "bitches be lying" defense. Miller no doubt consented and then forgot about it and Turner was left holding the bag when Miller passed out, but now she is denying everything and he is the poor victim, just for rearranging her underwear and trying to shove objects up her nethers while she was passed out. Or maybe some mysterious other person came and did that while he stood helplessly by, then he didn't know what to do about it when those two grad students caught him running away?

      Somerby insists on logic and reason. Does any of that sound logical or reasonable? The jury didn't think so either. But Somerby does. I think Somerby needs to reread Aristotle before commenting on these fraught topics.

      Delete
    2. 'Somerby insists on logic and reason. '

      Somerby insists on illogic and lack of reason. That is why he supports Trump, Roy Moore, Brock Turner and Ron Johnson.

      Delete
    3. Shouldn't Somerby be talking about Brock Turner's youth and lack of judgment? Why isn't he?

      Yeah, it's an outrage! Ask for your money back.

      Does any of that sound logical or reasonable?
      Any of your army of straw men? Of course not.

      Delete
    4. "Shouldn't Somerby be talking about Brock Turner's youth and lack of judgment? Why isn't he?'

      Yeah, it's an outrage! Ask for your money back."

      Not asking for my money back, but I do want it to be noted for the record that Somerby has once again chosen to attack the woman (Miller) while ignoring the greater crimes of the man (Turner). Whether it is "judgment" or the greater crime of sexual assault, Somerby ignores Turner in order to focus on Weiner and Miller. He is plainly targeting women.

      Delete
    5. How much is Maddow charging Bob to watch her show?

      Delete
    6. Not so noted. Questioning a person's written work isn't attacking that person. Turner's crimes were settled by a jury. TDH wants to talk about Miller's response to those crimes.

      Delete
    7. 'TDH wants to talk about Miller's response to those crimes.'

      TDH wants to defend Turner, just as he defended Roy Moore, Donald Trump and Ron Johnson.

      Delete
    8. "TDH wants to talk about Miller's response to those crimes."

      Miller was the victim. What do you suppose the response should be to waking up and finding someone standing over you, removing your underwear, fingering your vagina? How would YOU or Somerby have any idea what the appropriate response to that should be? Somerby wants to talk about logic and reason. On what planet does a logical or reasonable response apply to such a situation? Somerby wants to talk about Miller's judgment. Since this has NEVER happened to Somerby, guaranteed, how does he have any idea what the proper judgment should be about such an experience?

      So, Somerby wants to tell Miller (and us presumably) how to think and feel about this situation. As if he could say anything worth hearing.

      Miller gave a victim statement at Turner's sentencing. She is upset because the court didn't listen, didn't hear her. Now Somerby wants to tell her and us how to think about what happened to her. No. The point of Miller's book contradicts that impulse of Somerby's. It is his turn to listen. And yours, deadrat.

      Delete
    9. Any other topic that should be out of bounds for discussion by Somerby? Any other subject where this cad, whose every utterance you seem to pour over, daren't go....from any direct or ancillary aspect of the topic?

      Do tell, because you seem to be quite comfortable with emoting on the assault endlessly and turning the crime into your own personal ranting treatise on the perfidy of xy chromosomes of which TDH is Exhibit A. YOU have no qualms with making the topic reek from the smoke of a dozen other fires all lit by the marks that TDH has woefully missed, by your account, over the years.

      Lord knows...you haven’t spared Chanel Miller from being your personal talisman in what is obviously an old grudge, as you do go on and on about what irreverent horrors might be uttered by TDH...or...just as sinisterly...not uttered by him though he promised.

      So please make a list, oh Miss Streep-Bernhardt-Shatner, of all the subjects that must be discussed in the manner you dictate, so I can make a point of harping on them any time and any way I wish.

      Or better yet- get over yourself.

      Delete
    10. 'Any other topic that should be out of bounds for discussion by Somerby?'

      it seems the following topics are already out of bounds for discussion by Somerby

      1) Criticizing the likes of Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs
      2) Criticizing (other than in passing) the likes of Trump, Moore etc.

      Delete
    11. This should solve all your issues.

      https://tinyurl.com/y2tt7p6j

      You’re welcome.

      Delete
    12. Centrist is the guy at the poker table who throws in his hand after you show aces over jacks and asks, "Why didn't you call 'Bingo!'"

      Delete
    13. I was just thinking that ten minutes after Centrist’s hand went up the back of a ventriloquist dummy, he’d be chiding it for not discussing the right topic.

      Delete
    14. I was just thinking that ten minutes after Centrist's hand went up the backside of a ventriloquist dummy, the dummy would put its hand up Centrist's backside so we couldn't figure out who was chiding who.

      Delete
    15. That is not a pretty picture and you just caused me to drop my tablet.

      Delete
    16. Now, Deadrat and Cecilia, given that the two of you have seem to have your heads planted firmly on one lobe of TDH's backside, I am not sure you are in a position to comment on others.

      TDH calls himself a liberal, but acts like a Trumptard. If he were to acknowledge that he's a Trumptard dedicated to defending Trump, Moore, Johnson, Turner and company, I'd get my amusement on some other blog.

      Delete
    17. And the last post was me. Unlike Trumptards, I like to be truthful.

      Delete
    18. Centrist,

      Thanks for using a nym. When you decide to actually engage with an argument, your nym will distinguish you from the Anonymi and make it easier to have a dialogue. Now, it just makes it easier for me to skip most of your mostly-trollish responses. Just like I do with Mao.

      Am I supposed to argue that I don’t always agree with TDH? I don’t think you’re particularly interested. For a while, I hoped to goad you into defending your claims by posting PU|SU, but you don’t seem particularly interested in that either.

      Spouting nothing more than “Trumptard, trumptard, trumptard!” amuses you? Seem odd to me, but it’s your time to waste as you see fit.

      Delete
    19. Republicantard, Republicantard, Republicantard.

      Fixed for accuracy.

      Delete
    20. "Women's drunkenness doesn't give men license to assault them."

      It clearly didn't start out as an assault.

      But you know what her drunkeness DOES allow? The criticism that she has no right to take a moral high ground against anyone. It's pretty audacious for her to do so.

      Delete
  8. “Within our journalistic conventions, when juries reach such decisions in criminal cases, allegations of criminal conduct are transformed into facts.”

    No. When juries reach such decisions, they acknowledge that the prosecution gathered enough evidence and made a case convincing enough to find the defendant guilty under the law.

    It does not mean that a thing that happened wasn’t a fact if they do not find the defendant guilty. There are various reasons why a jury would find a defendant not guilty, and not all of them are because the defendant was truly not guilty. It also doesn’t mean an incident didn’t in fact occur in cases where there isn’t sufficient evidence to bring charges.

    For example: a woman is raped, she knows the perpetrator, but there is no physical evidence and no eyewitness. The prosecution might be unable to bring charges due to lack of evidence. But that does not mean that the criminal act didn’t occur, or that it wasn’t a fact.

    Of course, the reverse is true as well: an innocent person can be found guilty.

    Somerby is straining to say that Miller was assaulted, while also implying that that may only be true because a jury said so.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks to liberals, we no longer have slavery in this country. Black citizens and women have the right to vote, thanks to liberals.

    Thanks to liberals, we no longer live in the age of Jim Crow. Thanks to liberals, racism is viewed with disdain.

    Thanks to liberals, men can no longer get away with sexual assault and rape. These crimes were virtually unpunished for the first 100,000 years of human existence. Because liberals made an issue of it, women are now taken seriously by the legal system when they come forward with accusations of assault and rape. Forensic science was pushed to find ways of obtaining evidence of rape, so it doesn’t always have to be “he said/she said.”

    Thanks, liberals.

    But we have to keep pushing. Now is no time to quit the fight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not surprising that liberal zombies believe they make the sun rise every morning. That's fine. After all, they are zombies.

      My only concern is the hot air they're constantly emitting. It seems to affect the climate. Negatively, some say. It upsets poor Greta.

      Delete
    2. Are you really that goddamn stupid, Mao, or you just jagging off as usual?

      Delete
    3. Mao,
      What do you care if they're zombies? Zombies eat brains. How the fuck could zombies effect you?

      Delete
  10. 'In such ways, we keep enabling, and electing, people like Donald J. Trump. '

    Certainly Somerby has been enabling and electing people like DJT. He is a Trumptard, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I kind of like this game. Can we spot the missing “basic facts?”

    In the NYT article, Turner was given “merely 6 months” in jail. But, he lost his scholarship, and registered as a sex offender. Welp, so much for rehabilitation. He’s marked for life. That doesn’t seem “merely.” That fucker is screwed in so many ways. Is that it?

    Maybe it was the fact that she was mistakenly described as “white” by her probey.

    “She wrote her statement at a moment she felt particularly worn-down by the trial, after she learned the probation officer on the case had twisted her words to recommend a moderate county-jail sentence for Mr. Turner and, adding insult to injury, misidentified her as white (she is half Chinese).”

    I saw her picture in the linked-to article. What color is her skin? What, the fuckin’ probey couldn’t see the epicanthic folds of her eyes to see that she was clearly a minority, and not white? What an asshole!

    Is that it? Well, I must admit, reading a NYT article is a poor substitute for the book itself. Maybe I’m on the wrong track here.

    I agree with Bob. Any assault is bad, and I shudder to think of what Ms. Miller went through. And sending people to prison – at least in our country – should be a last resort (since the whole industrial-prison complex needs to be reformed). Do not mistake this as any sympathy I might have for the crimes of her assailant.

    This is rarefied air. Not sure how many people are parsing a memoir over a two week period, but I’m in. I’ll be stupid, and uninformed, as usual.

    Leroy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’ve never seen you be stupid or uninformed.

      Delete
    2. Leroy, are you saying you might actually read her book?

      Delete
    3. Cecilia, I’ve been stupid and wrong a bunch of times, even on this comment board. You must have missed those posts. But thanks for the sentiment.

      10:42
      No, I probably won’t read Miller’s book, though I can see the implication. That’s where the “stupid and uninformed” part comes in. Because if I’m going to read someone’s critique of a book, the only way I could truly understand the arguments put forth by someone like Bob would be to have read the book myself.

      Fortunately, since he always casts these endeavors as media criticism (which I think is a fair assessment of his MO), then I don’t have to read the book to, possibly, counter his views. I only need to agree or disagree with his assessments vis-à-vis the lens through which he’s focusing on the subject.

      The fact that he even read the book, and is sympathetic with the author, should put to rest any accusations of misogyny, which appear here from time to time. Fat chance, I suppose, ever since he’s garnered the unenviable position of being labeled a “Trumptard,” in an ongoing fashion, by truly stupid people.

      Leroy

      Delete
    4. "The fact that he even read the book, and is sympathetic with the author, should put to rest any accusations of misogyny, which appear here from time to time."

      Not if he has read the book in order to put down Miller, find facts to exonerate Turner and generally reinforce his existing sexist views.

      Delete
    5. “Not if he has read the book in order to put down Miller, find facts to exonerate Turner and generally reinforce his existing sexist views.”

      Look. I’m sippin’ tequila as I write this. Maybe I’m wrong, 2:20, but I think you’re out of your fucking mind. Bob doesn’t even mention Turner in his essay. Are you hoping he will, to prove your point, which has been, as always, that Bob is a misogynist? Is that you, Elba?

      Elba, can you perhaps lead us to examples of Somerby’s “sexist views” to prove your point about his “sexist views?”

      Sorry if I sound mean. I’ll leave you with a bit of inspiration. This is great. Trust me.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJkzi3c-Ea0&feature=youtu.be&t=710

      Leroy

      Delete
    6. Make sure to hear Lea at 44:20

      Leroy

      Delete
    7. Leroy, I have been pointing out instances of Somerby's "sexist views" for weeks now. Pay attention.

      Delete
    8. 9:43
      The fact that you put your own writing in scare quotes says everything about your arguments on this topic, dontcha think?

      Hope you watched the link I provided, I shed tears for the beauty of it.

      Leroy

      Delete
    9. Not interested in your links. You are an example of why liberals think there is no point in talking to Trump supporters.

      Delete
    10. 1:57
      You're dumb as can be. I have a personal friend, whom I adore (we've jammed together on several occasions), and he supports Trump. We will never see eye-to-eye, but I love the guy as if he were my brother.

      So fuck off, you cretin.

      Leroy

      Delete
    11. The heart wants what it wants. I've been here longer than you, so if anyone is leaving, it will be you. Keep pretending you didn't vote for Trump, you piece of crap. I'll bet your mother named you comrade (and it wasn't a spelling error).

      Delete
    12. Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him.
      Fyodor Dostoevsky

      Delete
    13. The goal of our criminal justice system is not to "understand" criminals.

      Delete
    14. Is that a Dostoevsky quote, or a Ward Churchill quote?
      _-------+

      September 11, 2001: Always Forget

      Delete
    15. It's Dostoevsky from Crime and Punishment.

      Delete
    16. "Any assault is bad, and I shudder to think of what Ms. Miller went through."

      If she was blackout drunk and unconscious she wasn't aware of anything. Which she admitted to.

      That's what makes her carrying on so preposterous now. Does she have a grievance? Of course. But the angst is ridiculous.

      Delete
  12. At Palmer Report they are talking about the defamation suit brought by Summer Zervos against Donald Trump. I was struck by this line:

    "Since many Republican men think women who report sexual assault are lying most of the time, the revelations this court case will doubtless expose will probably have little or no impact on them."

    This seems to be yet another instance where Somerby claims to be liberal while expressing Republican views.

    It may be that Somerby brought up Miller's sexual assault in order to question the credibility of victims and innoculate the public against such cases in advance of accusations against Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Omg that is a very sleazy accusation.

      Delete
    2. Meh. Standard, garden variety dembottery.

      Delete
    3. innoculate [sic] the public against such cases in advance of accusations against Trump.

      Firstly, in advance? Wikipedia has a list of 15 such allegations against Trump in the last three years.

      Secondly, inoculate the public? How many people do you think read this blog?

      Delete
    4. There are 43 new accusations in a book that just came out.

      The organizations working to re-elect Trump are conducting disinformation on multiple sites all over the web and social media. Each small increment contributes to the bigger job. That is how they did it in 2016.

      Delete
    5. Oh, please 8:53P, the Russian disinformation campaign was targeted and mostly used large platforms like Facebook. What's the target here, trolls, idiots, and perpetually angry Anonymi? You think feral Trumpers are gonna spend time on a blog whose owner thinks Trump is mentally ill and who spends a large chunk of his time talking about NAEP scores?

      Ahhhh! There a Trump operative under your bed!

      Made you look.

      Delete
  13. http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/10/respect-their-authoritay

    This is why Sanders cannot win the Democratic nomination or the general election. He is just as clueless about women's issues and he would need both black and female voters to win.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’ll save everyone the trouble of going to the LG&M blog. Apparently Bernie was asked the following question in South Carolina:

      If I’m your son, what advice would you give me next time I’m pulled over by a police officer?

      The answer, which the poster found unacceptable and which he labeled shocking, callous, and violent (!) was to treat the officer “in a polite way” and further to

      respect what they are doing so that you don’t get shot in the back of the head …

      I’m not sure what the right answer was supposed to be. Act as belligerent as possible so as to increase your chances of getting shot in the back of the head?

      This reminded me of LA street performer Swami X. Back in the day, he’d say that he’d go up to cops and say, “I’m not afraid of you and your guns.” The police he reported would respond, “Ah, but we’ve got bullets.”

      Delete
    2. Hold police accountable or shoot the cop first, are both better answers.

      Delete
  14. I’m so excited my broken Marriage has been restored. “We recently made up, even though it was difficult. It’s been more than a month now, and everything feels like it’s returned to normal. He has began to treat me better, and it’s been a healing process for both of us. The nightmare that had lasted for almost 2 years before we broke up is finally over. It’s like we fell in love all over again! We’ve both put the past behind us, and are trying to move forward – and for the first time in a long time, the future looks a lot brighter. I can’t express in words how grateful I am Dr Great! It’s like we’ve finally rediscovered those things about each other that made us fall in love in the first place. All of the worrying and stress has simply vanished. Thank you Dr Great for saving my broken Marriage and brought my husband back to me!”. Me and my husband are living together happily again.. All thanks to Dr Great. If you have any problem contact Dr Great now and i guarantee you that he will help you contact him through

    infinitylovespell@gmail.com or infinitylovespell@yahoo.com

    WhatsApp +2348118829899

    website http://infinitylovespell.website2.me/

     blog http://infinitylovespell1.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  15. تأسيس شركة في جبل علي
    المناطق الحرة تسعى لمساعدة الشركات الجديدة في عملية التأسيس ومن إحدى أهم الخطوات لوضع خطة أعمال قابلة للتطبيق هي معرفة التكاليف المبدئية لتأسيس الشركات، ويمكننا مساعدتك في تمويل مشروعك من خلال المستثمرين المتعاملين معنا ومع أفضل شركات الاستثمار في الامارات فما عليك سوى عمل خطة المشروع واستعراضها بشكل مبسط لإيجاد المستثمر المناسب من قبلنا كما أن الحكومة توجه دعماً قوياً للمتعهدين الإماراتيين، وهناك العديد من المنح المتاحة للأشخاص الذين لديهم خطة عمل قوية.

    تاسيس شركة فى المنطقة الحرة بدبى
    الاستثمار فى جبل على
    تاسيس شركة فى جبل عبى

    ReplyDelete
  16. تأسيس الشركات في دبي فريق عمل محترف على أتم الاستعداد لمساعدتك في تأسيس أعمالك التجارية بدبى وبفضل خدماتها المتكاملة، يمكنك تأسيس شركتك بكل سهولة
    للمزيد عن
    خطوات الاستثمار فى دبى
    تاسيس شركة فى دبى
    الاستثمار فى دبى

    ReplyDelete
  17. JUST MADE IT
    Hello world, so I'm beyond grateful to Chief Dr. Ebore for helping me with a very powerful spell to get the lottery winning numbers. I won the lottery of 448.4 million US Dollars a week ago in a jackpot from 7 lottery play. The first thing I bought was a house with all the features I never dreamed I'd have. From there, I manifested my perfect dream car. I want to appreciate Dr. Ebore for his loyalty and magical works. It exists only in the right hands and with it everything is possible... He is also good in get your ex love back, healing, pregnancy, lottery winning and other spells etc. If you need any of this spell you can get in touch with him. Google mail:- EHITEMPLE@GMAIL.COM,
    WhatsApp number:- +1 (972) 383 9289 Love & Light!.

    ReplyDelete
  18. i am ERIC BRUNT by name. Greetings to every one that is reading this testimony. I have been rejected by my wife after three(3) years of marriage just because another Man had a spell on her and she left me and the kid to suffer. one day when i was reading through the web, i saw a post on how this spell caster on this address AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com have help a woman to get back her husband and i gave him a reply to his address and he told me that a man had a spell on my wife and he told me that he will help me and after 3 days that i will have my wife back. i believed him and today i am glad to let you all know that this spell caster have the power to bring lovers back. because i am now happy with my wife. Thanks for helping me Dr Akhere contact him on email: AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com
    or
    call/whatsapp:+2349057261346










    i am ERIC BRUNT by name. Greetings to every one that is reading this testimony. I have been rejected by my wife after three(3) years of marriage just because another Man had a spell on her and she left me and the kid to suffer. one day when i was reading through the web, i saw a post on how this spell caster on this address AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com have help a woman to get back her husband and i gave him a reply to his address and he told me that a man had a spell on my wife and he told me that he will help me and after 3 days that i will have my wife back. i believed him and today i am glad to let you all know that this spell caster have the power to bring lovers back. because i am now happy with my wife. Thanks for helping me Dr Akhere contact him on email: AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com
    or
    call/whatsapp:+2349057261346

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hello everyone. I was heartbroken because i had very small penis, not nice to satisfy a woman, i had so many relationship called off because of my situation, i have used so many product which i found online but none could offer me the help i searched for. i saw some few comments about this specialist called Dr osemuhau and decided to email him on so I decided to give his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me, he gave me some comforting words with his herbal pills for Penis t, Enlargement Within 1 week of it, i began to feel the enlargement of my penis, " and now it just 2 weeks of using his products my penis is about 9 inches longer and am so happy..feel free to contact Dr osemuhau on(drosemuhau@gmail.com) him this number +2348168714427 or https://www.facebook.com/Dr-Osemuhau-Herbal-Medicine-111115653769173

    ReplyDelete