WHEN HUMANS SEE OTHERS: Kevin Drum's readers began to see Others!

THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 2022

After that, they started to hit: Reporting to us from the future, a wide array of expert sources describe a peculiar fact. These highly-acclaimed but despondent experts invariably tell us this:

In the future, Gene Brabender is widely regarded as the greatest anthropologist of all time!

This claim seems peculiar because the late Gene Brabender was a rawboned right-hander for the Baltimore Orioles and the Seattle Pilots / Milwaukee Brewers. He wasn't highly "educated" in any conventional sense.

He's best remembered as a key figure in Ball Four, Jim Bouton's iconic 1970 book about the Seattle Pilots' 1969 season. According to future experts, Brabender is widely considered the greatest anthropologist because of this iconic statement, as quoted in Bouton's book:

"Where I come from, we just talk for a little while. After that, we start to hit."

According to Bouton, that was Brabender's angry reaction to annoyingly nuanced discussions out in the Pilots' bullpen. In the future, experts regard Brabender's statement as the most concise account of human nature ever recorded on Earth.

According to these disconsolate experts, we humans could only tolerate a small degree of ambiguity or nuance. After that, we would get angry—and then, we would "start to hit."

We would express our anger in two basic ways, these future experts all say. On the one hand, we would start to see Others—and then we'd accuse them of crimes.

This so-called "criminalization of everything" has been on wide display of late, even within our own liberal tribe. On our favorite "cable news" TV shows, we constantly voice the desire to arrest any Other who moves. 

We see forgeries forgeries forgeries forgeries forgeries fake forged documents. We see vigilantes crossing state lines—and the pattern continues from there.

This "criminalization of everything" is on constant nightly display within our own tribe's "cable news." As a tribe, we long to get Others locked up—as many Others as possible. 

We think and talk about little else. We alienate and dismiss a broad range of voters as we behave this way.

This "criminalization of everything" has been apparent on our highest-rated cable news show for at least a decade. But before we can charge a wide range of Others with crimes, we have to believe in their existence— and we have to let ourselves loathe them.

In recent weeks, Our Own Rhodes Scholar has been dreaming nightly fever dreams about getting the forgers locked up. According to experts, these are the kinds of hard-wired reactions which have led to our species' never-ending succession of racial / ethnic / religious / tribal wars, down through the annals of time.

Back in 1999, a terrified fictional little boy said that he could see dead people; more broadly, we humans are wired to see Others. As we noted at the start of the week, this wiring was called into stark relief when Kevin Drum offered a puzzling post last weekend under this unacceptable headline:

Fox News viewers don’t deserve contempt. Save it for the folks fleecing them.

Is Kevin Drum allowed to say that? His post had created a test!

In his post, Drum began by weirdly saying that "rank-and-file viewers of Fox" are "victims as much as the rest of us." He described such people as "marks in a con game run by Rupert Murdoch." 

This seemed to suggest that Fox viewers don't realize that that they're being fleeced by Fox—that they're misled by the network's various cons. 

In fairness, Drum also said he wasn't able to feel "empathy" for Fox viewers. He merely said that Fox News viewers "don't deserve the contempt" we should aim at Fox News personnel.

Fox viewers don't deserve our contempt! In response to this strange suggestion, his readers began seeing Others.

As of today, 51 reactions have been offered in reaction to Drum's post. That includes 20 first-order comments and 31 responses to same. 

On balance, no one has really seemed to agree with Drum's modest proposal. Many have seemed to reject his suggestions. For example, Commenter 2 offered this:

COMMENT 2: I suppose in a world in which none of this mattered, where our health and our democratic system of government were not in grave danger, we could afford to make such distinctions.

But no, we don't live in that world, and anyone who spouts anti-science or fascist propaganda needs to be called out forcefully.

You'll note that this commenter has already wandered away from Drum's proposal. 

Drum spoke about Fox News viewers in general. This commenter said we need to go after "anyone who spouts anti-science or fascist propaganda."

According to experts, this is what happens when we humans start seeing Others. We'll only tolerate nuanced distinctions for a little while. After that, we start to hit!

On balance, Commenter 3 also seemed to reject Drum's proposal. His or her comment drew an approving response:

COMMENT 3: In my experience, most Fox News types are also huge assholes. Sure, to some extent they're being conned, but the con is designed to appeal to selfish, racist, sexist, xenophobic jerks. AKA Republicans.

RESPONSE: In my experience, they also tend to be gun owners, so having sympathy while afraid of them is simply not possible...Where so many have multiple weapons & some give them to kids, I just cannot sympathize.

Commenter 3 described most Fox viewers. Would he view the rest of the network's viewers as victims? In his comment, he didn't say.

According to experts in The Brabender Cult, such niceties quickly melt away when we humans start seeing Others. We'll only cogitate for a little while. After that, we start to lash out.

All in all, we wouldn't say that a single commenter voiced agreement with Drum's point of view. A number of commenters basically missed the point of what Drum said. Others made comments like these:

COMMENT 6: Nope. They are not victims. They deserve all the scorn, ridicule, and contempt we can muster. And I’d also suggest beating the crap out of them if you can. Left-wing deaths squads! Why can’t we get some of these gangsters to whack them? We let them out of jail, now do some good!

COMMENT 9: I don't necessarily agree. Fox viewers want to hear this stuff, if they didn't, Fox wouldn't be selling it. In other words, I think it's the viewers driving the content.

[...]

Don't get me wrong, Hannity, Carlson, lowest of the low, and they know what they're doing, but the people showing up want to hear this stuff.

COMMENT 12: It's hard to vilify an entire group of people who failed to develop a crap detector by the time they became adults. But I usually do so anyway.

COMMENT 14: Even if they are victims, it doesn't mean they aren't victimizing. They deserve contempt, even if for different reasons (e.g., many of them are just simply assholes).

COMMENT 15: I had an interesting exchange upthread with iam4man which has caused me to think a little bit differently about Kevin’s argument that Fox News viewers don’t deserve our contempt. Upon more careful reflection, I think that, on the whole, they derive our contempt because they are as much in on the joke as Tucker or Hannity. My reason is that Fox News viewers remain loyal and don’t suffer from anything like the cognitive dissonance one might reasonably expect.

COMMENT 16: Its OK, Kevin, I have contempt enough to cover both, with an extra share for the fleecers

COMMENT 17: I work with many of these people. Hard to have sympathy for them. Maybe for their families, who, in several cases I see, disagree strongly with the Trump fan.

COMMENT 18: No, no, there are millions of people who need their political-cultural biases reinforced.

COMMENT 19: Fox News viewers know exactly what they're buying (with their attention and ad dollars) and they want it. If it wasn't Fox, it would be someone else. Even they have been outflanked by new, even more wing-nutty outlets like OAN. The base knows it lives in an alternative reality and it *prefers* that reality. They idea is to live forever in white, Christian, small town 1950. These stations give them that.

So it went, from beginning to end. As we noted on Tuesday, the most sympathetic comment may have come from Commenter 11:

COMMENT 11: The reality is there's more than one type of Fox News viewer. Some are racist jerks who know, deep in their hearts, that the outcomes they want are profoundly wrong and unjust. But they support the things they do (and consume the news they consume) out of resentment and bitterness. They're like Gollum. I know one or two like these. And there are also Fox News viewers who genuinely are entirely bereft of the ability to analyze what's going on in the world. And they really do believe the stuff Murdoch pushes on them. Such people are profoundly ignorant.

The world is a complicated place.

Do Fox viewers deserve our contempt? This commenter didn't explicitly say. Instead, he offered this:

Fox News viewers aren't all alike. Some Fox viewers are profoundly ignorant. The rest are even worse.

Drum had gone out on a limb this day. Strangely, he had said that we should regard Fox News viewers as victims. Weirdly, he had said that they don't deserve our contempt.

When Drum floated these heretical thoughts, his readers began to see Others. No one seemed to agree with Drum's mildly humane point of view.

According to Brabender, what had occurred? In the words of the world's greatest student of human nature, Drum's readers "started to hit."

Just like that, Kevin Drum's readers began seeing Others! Of an evening, they may watch the Maddow Show, a popular program which has long been built around "the criminalization of everything."

Drum' s readers began to see Others! Tomorrow, we'll tell you more, much more, about the hard-wired, brain-eating syndrome which has driven our war-inclined species since we first crawled on dry land.

Tomorrow:  Basic intelligence down


115 comments:

  1. Let's not focus on our own shortcomings right now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And this echoes on forever like a funeral dirge on repeat.

      We'll look for shortcomings in ourselves, right after we finish stomping out the opposition with no mercy.

      The two couldn't possibly be related...

      Delete
    2. You think we should wait to pushback on fascists, why?

      Delete
    3. The vast mobilizations against the establishments of both major parties that dominated the 2016 presidential struggle were a consequence of a realization wages and working conditions are deteriorating,and that the challenges facing our children are intense.

      Trump’s triumph came over the bitter opposition of older Republican elites; while the Clinton campaign had to pull out all the stops to contain the wave of protests from millions of ordinary Americans who actively supported an insurgent candidate running openly as a democratic socialist.

      Times are changing.

      Delete
    4. "You think we should wait to pushback on fascists, why?"

      Reading comprehension.

      Delete
    5. Insightful comments 1:20 PM.

      Delete
    6. Not fast enough.
      Trump still ruled as a standard issue Reagan Republican.
      Of course, Republican voters were so upset that Trump gave yet another tax break to the elites, they—checks notes—tried to ban the teaching of CRT in pre-schools.

      Delete
    7. The message of the 2016 voters is quite clearly not that they are some mobilized gang of racists but that huge numbers of voters from both sides of the aisle are sick and tired of the current winner-take-all economy for the rich and the politicians that enable it. That's the whole game. Accusing Trump voters of being en masse racists with inferior brain structures is about as dumb as it gets.

      Delete
    8. Sorry but, that’s all Bob does focus on.

      Delete
    9. Bernie endorsed Clinton and tried to send his followers to support her campaign -- if only to keep Trump out of office. This huge mobilization on the left never actually happened the way the Bernie Bros envisioned it, and their failure to follow Bernie was what cost Hillary the electoral votes in WI and MI. But Comey had a worse impact on Hillary's campaign than anything the Bernie progressives did.

      Bernie was never an "insurgent" candidate. He participated in the nominating process, just like everyone else, and he didn't win the nomination. Bros who voted for Trump out of misogyny or disappointment pretty much deserve what they got (and consigned the rest of us to endure).

      Rationalist thinks you're insightful. You might want to do so temperature taking on the health of your political understanding. Bernie wisely supported Biden, earlier and louder this time, to actually defeat Trump in 2020. You all should have been there in 2016 too but had to behave like spoiled children instead.

      Delete
    10. I voted for Clinton and never supported Sanders in any way.

      Delete
    11. "...to contain the wave of protests from millions of ordinary Americans who actively supported an insurgent candidate running openly as a democratic socialist."

      Meh. He wasn't really a candidate.

      We strongly suspect that he was brought in to agitate some yutes, and give them the impression that they belong to the D party.

      Had he wanted to win, he would've won.

      Delete
    12. Trump voters: applauded Trump giving a huge tax break to the establishment elites, and tried to overthrow the Capitol because black peoples votes counted in an election.
      But please don’t call these racists “racists” because it upsets them.

      Delete
    13. Berto that is such a tremendously ignorant response.

      Delete
    14. Not ALL Republicans are bigots. Let's not lump the mythical ones who aren't bigots in with the actual Republicans.

      Delete
    15. The vast mobilizations against the establishments of both major parties...

      Revisionist history: Clinton won her party's nomination in a walk.

      Trump rode down the escalator breathing noxious racist hate and electrified the noxious hateful republican base.

      Trump spent four years doing nothing except cutting taxes for the richest 1 percent, screaming about "repealing and replacing" the ACA, while wobbling his fat ass around his various golf clubs and got himself impeached twice, setting a new world record. He lied every time he addressed the American people. And for that he got more votes than the first time.

      You know I actually know people who voted for Trump and believe me, economic anxiety was the furthest thing on their racist brains.

      Delete
    16. Do those facts hurt your fee-fees, 2:29?
      Maybe Republicans who hate cancel culture (el oh el) can ban me from posting them here

      Delete
    17. "The Trump voters are all racists and the Bernie voters were all misogynists? Does that really make sense?"

      Actually it does.

      1. The racism of Trump voters speaks for itself.
      2. The misogyny of Bernie Bros (not necessarily his supporters) was evident in the fact that they spread more lies about Clinton than the Republicans did, often the same ones. It was also evident in the attitudes toward women of Bernie himself. After Bernie lost the nomination, the Bros just couldn't bring themselves to vote for a female candidate and they continued to disparage her and obstruct her campaign. Much of this was encouraged by Russia, which also donated to Bernie's campaign and encouraged the division between the Bros and the DNC (which Russia had hacked and then leaked memos divisive to Bernie and others in the party). The Bros were not good losers but blamed their failure to follow procedures and their losses on DNC obstruction, not their own lack of electoral expertise (about deadlines and campaign procedures). Bernie was always in trouble with the FEC too, while blaming everything on Hillary.
      3. Bernie's lack of enthusiasm for Clinton was made obvious by his demeanor at the Democratic Convention, so he effectively undermined her campaign while pretending to support it. His snit was reflected by his supporters. If Bernie had been a stronger force, his lack of enthusiasm would have torpedoed Clinton. As it was, it took the additional interference by Comey to bring her poll numbers down and it took the social media campaign to give the needed margins to WI, MI and PA.

      The only people who talk about a Bernie insurrection are Bernie supporters. Others have a better grasp on reality.

      Delete
    18. Sanders won millions of votes, including a shocking upset in the Michigan primary, and swept through many western state caucuses like a prairie fire. But the Clinton campaign’s care and feeding of the Democratic Party Super-delegates, her control of the Democratic Party machinery, and the enormous advantages she started with proved just enough to secure her victory.

      Why was Bernie filling huge halls while Clinton could barely get 200 people to hear her speak? Why did he start such a huge movement with no corporate money against Clinton who was swimming in Wall Street cash and bragged about her friendship with Henry Kissinger? Easy. Because he spoke frankly to the American people about the unfair economic system that politicians like Clinton enable and facilitate.

      Delete
    19. https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2016/11/not-a-clinton-rally.jpg

      Delete
    20. I took Somerby's advice and listened to "the Others".
      Spoiler alert: It's all bigotry and white grievance.

      Delete
    21. More deception by conservatives:

      https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/08/09/politics-sites-mismatched-clinton-rally-image-goes-viral/

      Obviously, a photo of Clinton doing a mic check before a rally proves nothing about her popularity. For that, just see the popular vote totals for Clinton compared to Trump.

      Delete
    22. Clinton did not fill big halls in the same way Sanders and Trump did. She also didn't receive small donations from real people anywhere close to the magnitude Trump or Sanders did. The money Sanders raised from real people was unprecedented. He stirred people by speaking directly to our undeniably unfair economic system. The same unfair system that Clinton coddles and shepherds.

      Delete
    23. Sorry sweetheart! I know you love Clinton!

      Delete
  2. Somerby and Drum say to save the contempt for those spreading propaganda, not those consuming it. The problem with this is that Trump supporters, conspiracy theorists and other right-wingers are all spreading the propaganda and reinforcing each other's beliefs.

    Our bridge club has had a longstanding "no politics at the table" rule, since way before Trump. That's because half of our members come from a nearby university and half from the nearby Air Force base. It has kept us happy with each other for years.

    With Trump's candidacy in 2015, Trump supporters started to break that rule with impunity. Similarity, Trump supporters began to do things like steal lawn signs and deface property of those supporting other candidates. The very clear attitude that civility doesn't matter, rules are for chumps, and the glee at being given permission to disregard the rights of others (by Trump at his rallies) all became evident as friendships went out the window.

    Somerby and Drum seem to be saying that we should focus on the preachers, not the congregation. However, as in evangelical churches, every member of the church is a preacher and there is no division between the congregation and those who are its leaders. They ALL break the rules and disregard the norms of polite interaction. They are thus all to blame for the polarization and stress in our society.

    Somerby and Drum are wrong. There is no way to interact with these people because THEY will not allow it. The contempt belongs squarely on the shoulders of every single person who gleefully disrupts a school board meeting, calls in a death threat to a public official, goes maskless to the grocery store, or spits on immigrants who cut their lawns. Because ALL of these people are complicit in what has happened to our nation. Every single last one of the them. And yes, they ALL deserve our contempt.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Humanity is not working hard enough to use higher reason to combat all the stresses that reduce us to icons of "evil". All humans can be stupid and perhaps those with the most ill advised applications of pride-filled intelligence can provide the most spectacular examples. Having a wealth of anything artificially takes away stress, or pushes it away in a dangerously irrational fashion. Too much power, too much money, too much fame creates moral diseases like eating too much bad food. In a richer world where we dangerously think we are MORE rational, more well-informed, living MORE in a paradise- any irritation becomes an irrational threat, and uncomfortable resurgence of the real world that we know- deep underneath our good natured placidity- was always there. Time to slaughter the scapegoat then. Time to send the self-thirsty, opportunity-starved young to war. It used to be that the elites had to show their worth and earn their glory by leading those wars, with sometimes disastrous results due to their damaged psyches. Now the gods of Olympus hire all levels of shills to put between themselves and stress and fight fear on only the grandest, most distant scales. Now the diseases of the "great" can threaten the entire planet by keeping the "masses" fighting each other. A grand circular suicide. They know it and don't believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Leftists always hate regular people. It’s why they burn local government buildings, businesses, and police departments.

    It’s because the people next door deserve it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And this is why no one likes you, Cecelia.

      Delete
    2. What was the giveaway, Cece? That they want black votes to count in elections?

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse 11:48am, I know.

      Delete
  5. "This "criminalization of everything" has been apparent on our highest-rated cable news show for at least a decade. "

    This makes it sound like Maddow is making up things to call crimes. She isn't. There are sufficient crimes being committed by conservatives that she is only describing what is evident to all. The right has been committing numerous crimes and liberals are tired of it and want it to stop.

    Awhile back, I made a list of Trump's crimes. The new ones include his plotting to stay in power by setting aside a legal election result. The 1/6 insurrection which Trump and his associates planned and encouraged was illegal and has already resulted in quite a few arrests, despite the investigation being in early stages. Maddow doesn't have to invent crimes. Trump cannot function without committing them.

    When an elected official commits a crime, whether it is Gaetz or Boebert or a cabinet member or the president himself, it is news that needs to be reported on our cable news stations. That is what Maddow has done, while also explaining why whatever was done constitutes a crime.

    Somerby has manufactured a supposed blood lust on Maddow's part because it clashes strongly with the female nurturing role and will make Maddow seem more unnatural, more vulnerable to criticism, but Somerby's intent is to undermine the left in any way he can. Mostly he sounds ridiculous doing that, abetted by his chorus of conservative trolls in the comments. No liberals are fooled by Somerby's tripe.

    We get it that the right doesn't like it when its leaders get called out for their wrongdoing. If it becomes too big of a pain, perhaps they'll stop committing crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. IAnonymous 11:47am, if Somerby is a conservative then who are the trolls here?

    This isn’t a blog by and for anonymices. That you want to usurp it and work hard to do that answers my first question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you list all the things, besides white grievance and bigotry, that matter to Republican voters (if you can)?

      Delete
    2. Bob is neither a conservative or liberal, which is fair enough. He’s a fruitcake.

      Delete
    3. Greg, considering your time spent here, that’s an indictment on your judgment.

      Delete
    4. Greg comes across as a complete dunce who can barely construct a coherent sentence. I'm sure he's a nice person.

      Delete
    5. 12;16,
      I love it. Keep them busy trying to accomplish impossible tasks.

      Delete
    6. To you 12:57, to you. But you are the king around here of shooting your mouth off….with zero to back it up.

      Delete
    7. I'm sorry but you don't come across as smart or insightful and your writing is cretinously bad and often incomprehensible That's just the way it is.

      Delete
    8. If you enjoy writing your political thoughts here though, by all means, have at it!

      Delete
    9. It is more than you have been doing, @3:05.

      Delete
  7. Bob’s one way street moralism is getting awful thin and repetitive, pass the plate Pastor Bob. Drum used to defend DH and treat it as worth reading. But that was years ago, I wonder if he’s embarrassed by that now.

    ReplyDelete
  8. To note the obvious: attempting to steal the election, attacking the Capital, using the White House for a political convention, these things were always illegal. Ignoring them is to be complicit. And there have yet to be chants at Democratic Conventions calling to throw the opposition candidates in jail. So Bob, you and the horse you rode in on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many DNC members had to resign after the 2016 Democratic convention?

      After Trump was elected there were riots in cities, including DC and during the inauguration which many Dem pols boycotted.

      I understand that your perspective on this is like the one you hold for our voting system. It’s sound and sacred unless a Republican wins.

      Delete
    2. Holy projection, Batman.
      Checkout the bullshit 12:21 is shoveling.

      Delete
    3. "It’s sound and sacred unless a Republican wins."

      Doncha know the definition of "democracy"? The political system where Dem party rules.

      Delete
    4. Batman’s parents were murdered by street thugs. His best friend is a police commissioner.

      Everyone knows he’s conservative.

      Delete
    5. Is it your position Trump was the popular vote winner in 2016 or the actual winner in 2020? I also recall a huge, utterly peaceful woman’s March in Reaction to the 2016 election, the sparse crowd at his inauguration did not riot.

      Delete
    6. As to your DNC question, none that I know of. But whatever you are trying to explain/justify, you are making zero sense.

      Delete
    7. Sorry, I meant before the convention.

      If you’re still having trouble with the question, ask Sanders supporters.

      Delete
    8. I see, you can’t answer that nonsense. But what about you support of the big LIES, yes or no.

      Delete
    9. Who won in 2020 Cecelia?

      Delete
  9. It doesn't matter whether we think all of the Fox viewers are alike or not. The all watch Fox. That's good enough for me. They are all contributing to the pandemic.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hopefully Biden will nominate some 20-year old Antifa member to SCOTUS, to balance out the fascists placed on the Supreme Court by Republicans.
    If Biden gets a second nominee, he can nominate someone who believes in consent, to balance out the sexual predators, Republicans put on the Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or better yet- he goes for Harris.

      Delete
    2. Anyone who isn’t a piece of shit is a good choice.
      It really will show the stark differences between the two parties.

      Delete
    3. If you think the sole requirement for a SCOTUS justice is not being a pos, the differences are starker than anyone but you imagined.

      Delete
    4. Cecelia,
      I couldn't possibly agree more.

      Delete
    5. There is no requirement that a Supreme Court justice be a lawyer or a former judge. They have law clerks and other staff to handle the legal aspects.

      Harris was the District Attorney of the state of California. She is well qualified to be on the Supreme Court, but I think she is needed elsewhere.

      Delete
    6. Marcel, you’re countering an argument that did not make.

      Delete
    7. You said:

      "If you think the sole requirement for a SCOTUS justice is not being a pos, the differences are starker than anyone but you imagined."

      You are implying that there are requirements for the Supreme Court (beyond not being a pos). I am saying there are not explicit qualifications.

      "The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law."

      Delete
    8. Anonymouse 2:36pm, oh, thanks. A confirmation process where Schumer says “POS?” and the senators all do a thumbs up or down would save time.

      Delete
    9. See, now that remark just isn't funny. Unless you're a pos yourself.

      Delete
    10. Unlike the last three nominees, Republicans don’t have enough thumbs up this time.

      Delete
    11. Berto, Republicans don’t have thumbs.

      Delete
    12. What is that supposed to mean?

      Delete
    13. Cecelia,
      You can't see them, because they are sitting on them.

      Delete
    14. Marcel, google “opposable thumbs”.

      Delete

  11. May we suggest once again, dear Bob, that your friend Drum is an arrogant asshole?

    He is, in fact, one of those who fleece; fleecing gullible liberals, day in and day out, is his job. He's paid to do it. Just like your girlfriend Rachel, the Stanford graduate and Rhodes scholar.

    We wouldn't be surprised if your friend Kevin Drum acquired his fleecing skills in equally prestigious liberal education camps.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Drum is arrogant in the sense that he’s the typical noblesse oblige liberal thinker when it comes to his political contrarians, but he’s certainly not a hack.

      Delete
    2. This use of "noblesse oblige" is pretty silly.

      First, here is the definition:

      "the inferred responsibility of privileged people to act with generosity and nobility toward those less privileged"

      Given that the left does not represent privilege, attributing privilege to liberals makes no sense at all. The wealthy and upper classes have always been Republicans in our country. Increasingly, the right has become the party of white upper class people who are the most entitled members of our society.

      In contrast, the Democrats have traditionally been the party of immigrants, working people (of all colors), those with lower incomes and less status in our society. These are the people seeking change, and the left stands for change of all kinds. Those who are privileged do not want to see things change in ways that might threaten their privilege, so conservatives work hard at resisting the changes called for by liberals.

      Cecelia may think that people with an education are privileged and that certainly used to be true, but with the advent of student loans, not so much. The educated are more likely to have empathy for the poor, acceptance and tolerance of diversity, and an understanding of how our economy works and how to address social problems. That is what a good education does for you. So, highly educated people have been increasingly becoming Democrats. Women are drifting to the left too, largely because of the anti-woman health policies and sexism of the right. They can recognize their own self interest and see that it is with the left, not the right. But none of that constitutes privilege, in the sense it is used in the phrase noblesse oblige (which references an inherited wealth, landed upper class built on family standing, nobility, and their duty of charity to the poor on their estates).

      So, once again, Cecelia has no idea what she is talking about.

      Delete
    3. In our opinion, he certainly is a hack.

      The last time we tried to read his dembottery was in the fall of 2016, and we could hardly avoid vomiting.

      The phrase dear Bob likes so much manifest the same: a typical liberal asshole with no self-reflection whatsoever. Fox News is fleecing, while pedo-CNN tells it like it is. Yeah, right.

      Delete
    4. Democrat party has traditionally been the party of slaveholders. And, being currently the party of global finance, it still is.

      Delete
    5. Yes, Anonymouse 1:49pm, It’s only uneducated wealthy Republicans who are privileged and not the saintly, wise, and educated liberals who are imbued with the qualities that cause them to know what the masses truly need.

      Oh… and metaphors are whack.

      Thank you for this!

      Delete
    6. Privilege is a word that has a meaning too.

      Definition: privilege -- "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group"

      It isn't a matter of opinion who has the privilege in our society -- sociologists study it. It is white, male, upper class, rich people who have privilege. The Republican party is the party of such people, so it cannot turn around and claim that the liberals are showing noblesse oblige (which only goes with those who have privilege).

      You are writing ignorant things because you don't know what the words you use actually mean. Not every negative attribute of the right can be turned around and applied to the left, without making you sound terminally silly.

      In a country where anyone can become educated if they invest the time and effort, you make yourself and your fellow conservatives sound ridiculous every time you blame liberals for being educated.

      "Noblesse oblige" is not a metaphor, but I would agree that you are whack.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 2:32pm, aside from the fact that party demographics are changing, I certainly can use the term “noblesse oblige” in the context of modern day hierarchies, just as the clout of fame has led to the cliche of “Hollywood Royalty”.

      I know know that your penchant to cry foul on any allusion made by your contrarians is a sincere effort on your part. It’s not just a device.

      You truly are this concrete, literal, and superficial.

      Delete
    8. And now you demonstrate that you have no idea what the words concrete, literal and superficial mean. Or contrarians either.

      You didn't use the term noblesse oblige in the context of Hollywood royalty. You used it in a context where it doesn't fit at all. I am not objecting to the use of metaphors. I am objecting to the improper use of terms you apparently do not know the meanings of, or one would assume you would use them more accurately.

      Just try forming a habit of looking up semi-familiar words to make sure they actually mean what you have loosely taken them to mean.

      I can't help but think that your larger misconceptions about Trump and the world might arise from misunderstandings at the word-level, or perhaps a tendency to just gloss over what ideas are being communicated without thinking about them closely.

      You never do quite say what you mean and I can see others here struggling to understand what you are saying when you haven't quite said what you think you have. You could probably fix that, with a little effort, assuming it is not deliberate trolling.

      Delete
    9. Anonymouse 3:39pm, Oh, I had no idea that you were saying that I used the term “noblesse oblige” in the context of not understanding it’s history.

      I thought you were arguing that I was wrong to use that term because its specific history doesn’t fit as a description of anyone who votes Democratic because that enlightened cohort is composed of highly learned cultural leaders and the regular people whose self interest has led them to the protection and benefactions of these patrons.

      Thanks for clearing this up.

      Delete
    10. Cecelia has certainly cleared up who she is and why she is here.

      Delete
    11. Sarcasm has no place in a good faith discussion. But why would anyone think you are here to discuss anything in good faith.

      This is why we feel we cannot have Republican friends. They behave like Cecelia when you don't accept whatever they say at face value. Thinking is hard work and Cecelia refuses to do it. I don't have any use for people like her and I don't know why Somerby keeps arguing that we should be paying any attention to them at all.

      If I feel contempt it is because folks like Cecelia drive me to it. She won't even do Greg the courtesy of replying to his simple question about whether she believes that Trump won. Contempt is the most appropriate reaction to people who act like her.

      Delete
    12. Oh, is that the question Greg asked?

      I have seen no evidence that counters the results of the 2020 election.

      Any other hoops?

      Delete
    13. She's a wit, ain't she.

      Delete
  12. Drum went to University of California at Irvine, not a bastian of liberalness. He thinks of himself as a centrist, not a liberal. Mao is just making noise. There is no reason to respond to anything he writes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymouse 1:46pm, you may be someone’s mother or father, but you aren’t mine.

      Delete
    2. Awwww, are you one of those poor beknighted single parented children with no chance to learn? Poor widdle you!

      Delete
    3. Right. So go try and tell someone else what to do.

      Delete
    4. They aren't here bothering other people. You are. Stop it and try to pretend you are a normal human being, or go somewhere else.

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 2:25pm, our host, in his liberality, allows us both at his blog. Stop trying to hog the settee.

      Delete
    6. Try behaving like someone who belongs on a settee.

      Delete
    7. Your lap isn’t a settee.

      Delete
  13. "After that, they started to hit..."

    Somerby rips this from a different context entirely (baseball) and applies it to a situation in which only one side has been doing any hitting. This is not a both-sides situation when it comes to politically motivated violence. The right has a lock on that.

    But Somerby doesn't bother with the truth any more. I doubt he knows what the truth is -- immersing yourself in Fox News does that to a person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’ll give a little sympathy for Bob here. He was never any good at these kinds of illusions, but he keeps trying. Should have taken some creative writing at Harvard.

      Delete
  14. If you immersed yourself in anything other than your backside you’d know that the violence has gone both ways. That includes police too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it hasn't. The right has a nasty habit of attributing rioting due to poverty and criminal opportunism to the political left. It is a deliberate lie designed to equate peaceful protests with riots. It is an example of right-wing dishonesty.

      Delete
    2. Anonymouse 1:52pm, I know that you can’t see or hear when you close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and loudly hum, but your actions don’t render the whole world deaf and blind.

      Delete
    3. You are trying to slip off with “everyone’s guilty so nobody is guilty.” If you don’t see Trump’s rape of the Capital as a singular outrage, you are pathetic.

      Delete
    4. No one is saying there aren't riots. We are saying that studies have shown that 85%+ of the BLM protests were peaceful, that rioting is not being committed by protesters but by criminals and opportunists under cover of the riots, and that the degree of danger arising in our country from the extremist left is far outweighed by the violent extermist right according to HHS, national security experts, and places like the SPLC. There are facts about this stuff, evidence, it isn't a matter of you saying one thing and me another -- there is an independent reality that does not support your assertions.

      Delete
  15. Cecelia, you have gone full Mao. You once affected something like the Republican friends I grew up arguing with, leading with a thin of of rational sounding verbiage. But you made your choice. It’s all insults and lies now.

    ReplyDelete
  16. If I watch Fox News, I am horrified by what I hear there, not only by Tucker Carlson.

    I cannot understand how others can watch and nod their heads and agree with it.

    It is hard not to conclude that there is something terribly wrong with the people respond that way. I'm not sure contempt is the right word, but I don't want anything to do with people who think and feel that way. They strike me as dangerous to associate with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymouse 2:13pm, you’re not going to be able to live by DoorDash, Amazon, and Zoom forever.

      Delete
    2. So, DoorDash and Amazon delivery people are Democrats but are expected to show noblesse oblige because of their privilege? Shall I tell them that when they request a tip?

      Delete
    3. No, they’re Republicans. The people suspiciously sizing them up thru the curtains are you.

      Delete
  17. Greg, dear, I can honestly say that you have never disappointed me.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So your answer is, Trump won?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg, what was your question?

      Delete
    2. Poor Cecilia. The poor, poor victim. We should regard her as such.

      I wuv you, Cecelia. Do you need help tying your shoes?

      Delete
    3. I wuv you too, mh, but get away from my shoes.

      Delete
  19. “Of an evening, they may watch the Maddow Show, a popular program which has long been built around "the criminalization of everything."

    This is almost certainly not true. Most of Drum’s liberal commenters are highly critical of the mainstream media, including MSNBC. They don’t need to be convinced of Republican perfidy by Rachel Maddow.

    But it “may” be true.

    Somerby has built up Maddow into his own personal George Soros/bogeyman figure. In Somerby’s world, Maddow is Liberal Number One, Thought leader for all liberals in America, including Drum’s commenters, who all are waiting to be filled with her instructions on how to think.

    That also “may” be true.

    ReplyDelete
  20. “It's a mental and a moral sickness to want to lock everyone up. On a national basis, it's a road to national perdition.”

    No one is asking that everyone be locked up. Just people guilty of crimes.

    And it seems to me that allowing criminals to try to overturn our democracy is a surer road to national perdition than wanting to give fairly charged wrongdoers their turn with the justice system.

    ReplyDelete
  21. “we should regard Fox News viewers as victims.”

    Why? Who is holding a gun to their heads?

    Does using the word “victims” give Somerby a thrill because it makes him feel morally superior?

    ReplyDelete
  22. “We must not be enemies," Lincoln said. 

    Has Somerby heard of the Civil War?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sure. Flynn leading the chant of “lock her up” because of Hillary’s great crime of ____??

    No different than Maddow pointing out the potential criminality of forged electoral documents which were part of a pre-conceived plot to overturn the election.

    No difference there. Nope. Nada.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They merely gave her lawyer and aides (and their laptops…) immunity, and Peter Strzok reworded Comey’s summation of her acts.



      Delete
    2. Hillary was "woke", the Right's new word for "ni**er lover".

      Delete