SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2024
Plus, the 700 pages: Why did Candidate Harris (narrowly) lose this year's election after her (remarkably truncated) three-month campaign?
Given the way we humans are built, a large number of Blue American pundits have been offering simple, one-part explanations. With respect to any such effort, we'd offer two suggestions:
First, try to avoid explanations which don't even seem to make sense.
Also, try to get your pronouns in line. More specifically, try to avoid referring to us as them.
Last night, Jonathan Capehart sat in for Lawrence O'Donnell on The Last Word. At one point, this exchange occurred:
CAPEHART (11/22/24): You know, Speaker McClinton, there is this notion that Democrats lost because they leaned too far into identity politics, and that a stronger populist economic message was needed.
Do you agree with that assessment?
SPEAKER MCCLINTON: Absolutely not. We need to be honest. This nation does not want a woman in charge. That is what we need to agree upon.
We need to agree upon the fact that people understood everything our former president stood for, all of the promises he made on that campaign trail abut dismantling our democracy. The deadly insurrection that he provoked on the sixth of January in 2021.
Nevertheless, all of the things that occurred, they decided they didn't want what will probably be one of the most accomplished women to ever run to be the president—a former prosecutor both locally and at the state level, a member of the United States Senate, the first woman vice president.
That is what we need to acknowledge. This nation decided they [sic] didn't want that.
CAPEHART: How are you going to make sure they hear that?
And so on from there.
Who the heck is Speaker McClinton? To watch the full six-minute segment, you can just click this. To see the exchange in question, you should move ahead to the 2:40 mark.
According to Speaker McClinton, everyone who voted for Candidate Trump understood everything he ever said. And not only that—the 76.8 million people in question all understood the things he said in the same way she did!
Beyond that, we'll cite two historical facts:
In 2016, a preponderance of "this nation" did in fact vote to put "a woman in charge!" And in this year's election, the accomplished woman who was forced to conduct that shortened campaign came within a point and a half of winning the nationwide popular vote again.
Beyond that, we'll restate the point we made in the face of a recent statement by Bill Maher:
Blue Americans, when we refer to "America" or to "this nation," it probably helps to get our pronouns right. On an obvious political basis, it's better to refer to "this nation" as us—not to describe it as "them."
If you want to know who Speaker McClinton is, you can click right here. But so it frequently goes when those of us in Blue America continue laying the groundwork for additional future defeats/
We Blues! We tend to seek the one explanation for this year's (narrow) defeat. There can only be one such reason, and that reason doesn't have to make any obvious sense.
Also, the blame must all be laid directly on The Others—on the eternal Them. By the time we get through emitting our jumble, "this nation" won't even include the 74.4 million of Us!
Are we built for this line of work—for conducting a sensible discourse? For some time, we've been suggesting that the answer is no.
As further evidence from a different sphere, consider this wonderfully comical passage from Stephen Budiansky's book about the greatest logician since Aristotle. For background, see yesterday afternoon's post.
We focus here on a sidelight concerning Bertrand Russell. In the highlighted passage from page 108, Budiansky almost seems to be chuckling a bit at Lord Russell's expense:
Journey to the Edge of Reason: The Life of Kurt Gödel
[...]
SHAKY FOUNDATIONS
In deciding to take on the fourth of the challenges Hilbert had put forth at the Congress of Mathematicians in 1928, Gödel placed himself at the very center of the storm over mathematical foundations, which had broken with a deeply unnerving discovery Bertrand Russell had made at the turn of the century while working on Principia Mathematica. Russell's idea had been to establish the soundness of mathematics by showing how it could all be reduced to principles of logic so self-evident as to be beyond doubt. Defining even the simplest operations of arithmetic in terms of what Russell called such "primitive" notions, however, was far from an obvious task. Even the notion of what a number is raised immediate problems. The laboriousness of the methodology and notation was all too evident in the (often remarked) fact that that it took more than seven hundred pages to reach the conclusion, "1 + 1 = 2," a result which Russell and Whitehead described as "occasionally useful."
Say what? Russell and Whitehead spent more than seven hundred pages proving the fact that 1 + 1 = 2?
Budiansky seems to be chuckling a bit at this point. On the next page, he describes the way Russell wrestled with the discovery which came to be known as "Russell's Paradox."
This new paradox brought Russell up short. It seems to us that Budiansky may be chuckling again:
"Russell's Paradox," as it came to be known, echoed paradoxes that had been around since antiquity. The prototype is the Liar's Paradox, attributed to Epimenides the Cretan, who asserted, "All Cretans are liars." Russell noted that this was akin to the conundrum posed by a piece of paper on which the sentence, "The statement on the other side of this paper is false" is written on one side, and the sentence "The statement on the other side of this paper is true" on the other.
"It seemed unworthy of a grown man to spend his time on such trivialities," Russell later recalled, and "at first, I supposed that I should be able to overcome the contradictions quite easily, and that there was some trivial error in the reasoning." The more he thought about it, the more he realized it was a flaw in the reasoning too deep to be ignored.
Alas! Russell decided the contradictions couldn't be overcome, which led to the 700 pages and to the remarkable weight of the eventual text. According to Budiansky, Russell and Whiehead's "massive manuscript, with its complex notation which could only be written out laboriously by hand, had to be carted in a four-wheeler cab to the offices of the Cambridge University Press when it was finally done."
Did any of this activity actually make any sense? We're speaking here of received intellectual giants, but Budiansky seems to be chuckling a bit, and we can't say the answer to our question is obvious.
At any rate, before Hitchcock filmed the 39 Steps; Russell had produced the 700 pages. Those pages were built upon an apparent conundrum which lurked within an ancient paradox which, to be perfectly honest, was and is the embarrassing equivalent of a silly parlor trick.
That said, we humans have always tended to reason in such ways, from our greatest scholars on down to our current political tribunes. It isn't clear, in any way, that we were built for this type of work.
Why did people vote for Trump? Given the tens of millions of people involved, there may be more than one answer to that question.
Last night, one tribune offered a remarkably simple story, much like Thom Hartmann before her. In our view, her story didn't even seem to make sense.
ReplyDelete"Why did "America" vote for Trump?"
Because America wants America made great again.
And also because America wants liberal perverts and liberal idiots out of its government.
Say what you will about Republican voters electing a self-admitted sexual predator to be the President, but you can't say it isn't perfectly "on-brand".
DeleteThe largest group of Americans are always the non-voters. They include the roughly 33% of voting-eligible public who didn't vote, but also the many people who are not eligible to vote and yet affected by our government. Less than half of Americans did not vote. What did those people want or understand? It is right for McClinton to be specific and to call Trump voters "they" and not "us."
DeleteTypo correction: Less than half of Americans voted, the majority did not vote. Sorry for any confusion. If you add the people who voted for Trump to the people who voted for Harris, it comes up to less than half of the current US population (334.9 million / 2 = 167.45 million; 76.823 million for Trump + 74.312 for Harris = 151.135, then 167.45 - 151.135 = 16.315 more nonvoters than voters. Despite being too young or ineligible or unable or uninterested in voting, those people are affected by decisions made by those who do vote and we have no idea who they might have supported had they been required to vote. If Somerby is going to generalize from them (the people who voted for Trump) to us (all of the rest of the people in our country), he needs to be more mindful about it. Does the man in memory care really want his medicare reduced or taken away? He couldn't tell us by voting, but is it right to assume that the high-handed actions of Trump's appointees are what all of us want, as Somerby implies but doesn't come right out and say?
Delete16.315 million more voters
DeleteThis is hard -- 16.315 million more NON-voters, sorry
DeleteThe Termagant Team is ripping and hissing today!
DeletePP and Cecelia are tag-teaming each other to attack anonymous commenters, but they don't understand what the comments said so they criticize the fact that anyone is daring to be critical of Somerby, ignoring what was said.
Delete1:22 - You seem to be the one launching an unprovoked attack on me, and you are hiding behind anonymity to do so.
DeleteYou are just as anonymous, asshole.
DeleteHere is the meaning of the word "sic":
ReplyDelete"used in brackets after a copied or quoted word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original"
Here is Somerby's use of the word today:
"This nation decided they [sic] didn't want that."
Somerby also says:
"Also, try to get your pronouns in line. More specifically, try to avoid referring to us as them."
So, Somerby disagrees with the author's use of the pronoun "they" and shows his disapproval by misusing the word [sic] to suggest that the author McClinton has made an error when he chooses deliberately to say "they" instead of "us" in his own writing.
That is inappropriate. If Somerby wishes to argue that we are all doing something, instead of some other group doing it, Somerby should make the argument explicitly. His cute suggestion that the author has made an error while saying exactly what he meant to say, is dirty pool. It is the way Somerby usually avoids taking responsibility for his own opinions, for explicitly saying what he means, instead of using language inappropriately to force readers toward a conclusion he has not argued.
This is annoying of Somerby but, more importantly, it is wrong to do this. It is a propaganda technique of the sort that Somerby himself used to highlight 20 years ago, but no uses himself, shamelessly, to manipulate readers. And no, it isn't funny or cute. It is just dishonest.
Funny how McClinton’s claim has evidence on offer, whereas Somerby routinely makes sweeping claims about “Blue America” and human behavior, without a shred of substantiation.
DeleteSomerby is a very sensitive person when it comes to issues like racism and sexism, preferring to put his head in the sand; he’s just another sad old man.
Anonymouse 12:03pm, anonymices are the substantiation as to what Bob writes. Bob tells and anonymices show everyday.
DeleteWe get it that Somerby is criticizing blue tribe members (which many, if not most of the anonymous commenters here tend to be). But he isn't doing it on the basis of what anyone here has written because Somerby pretends not to read his comments.
DeleteCecelia claims that we are exhibiting the very behavior that Somerby criticizes, but why is that not disagreement with Somerby instead of exemplifying what he criticizes? For example, when we talk about Trump voters as "they," isn't it important that we on the left tend to see important differences between ourselves and those Trumpies, and do not see ourselves as one big group of "us" as Somerby suggests we should? We disagree with Somerby about the supposed similarities, when Somerby decides to call all of humanity incapable of "sensible discourse" after disparaging Russell and Godel because he (Somerby) cannot understand them, as if the behavior on the right typifies humanity. Somerby wants to call all of humanity depraved, so that he doesn't have to deal with why the values on the left differ from those on the right.
Cecelia, it is possible to call you a perfect example of the deficiencies of those on the right, which Somerby tries to gloss but cannot conceal, but it isn't worth the time pointing out how you exemplify Somerby's complaints too. When Somerby says "us" he means you too, and his picture of humanity is so dark that even you don't contradict it. You cannot support Somerby and still retain any self-respect, given that Somerby dislikes humanity so intensely. But keep trying.
Anonymouse 1:19pm, I’m not calling Blue Tribe members termagants. Not even in general as to Blue Tribe members. I’m calling anonymices termagants, because you are the perfect example of the term.
DeleteAnonymouse termagants don’t merely disagree with Bob and others, you wring your hands over them. You lecture, insult, bemoan, tsk, disparage, take vast umbrage, and just over all earn your money via ridiculous theatrics that would make an actor in a Mexican soap opera roll their eyes.
You’re as phony as Monopoly money and as absurd as a carnival clown. Daily. You say Bob hates humanity, but no one is less tolerant of others than you. You’re a ridiculous lot and you’ve found the one job that suits your fetid selves to a T.
Somerby calls humanity horrible names daily.
Delete"According to Speaker McClinton, everyone who voted for Candidate Trump understood everything he ever said. And not only that—the 76.8 million people in question all understood the things he said in the same way she did!"
ReplyDeleteThis is unfair to McClinton, who merely says "people" understood, not ALL people. It is Somerby who has broadened her assertion to include all Trump voters, not some of them, as would be the normal understanding of someone listening to her speak.
When someone says "people who chew gum dispose of it irresponsibly" are they saying that each and every person who chews gum does this? Our common understanding would be that some or perhaps most who chew gum would follow the generalization, but not each and every person without exception, as Somerby claims about McClinton's statement. Somerby is violating the pragmatics of language use and attaching an unspoken modifier "all" to the word "people" which more commonly is understood as "some people" or perhaps "most" or "many people". How do we know what people understand? Linguists study such things. Has Somerby studied the literature about how quantitative modifiers are used or implied in speech? Of course he hasn't. This is again how Somerby plays dirty pool with language to criticize yet another black female (Speaker Joanna McClinton of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives) who Somerby doesn't bother to introduce to readers who didn't watch Capehart's show.
And this shows the way Somerby will climb out on the thinnest of limbs to malign a black woman (his favorite of all targets in his essays here) for saying them instead of us, while speaking of Trump voters. Are Trump voters really typical of the entire nation, with their less than 50% of the popular vote? No, but Somerby really really wants to assert that "they" (those Trump voters) are now "us" because Trump won an election on a slim margin. And why is Somerby fighting to preserve Trump's assumed mandate like this? You'll have to ask him, but he'll never tell you.
"Who the heck is Speaker McClinton? To watch the full six-minute segment, you can just click this."
ReplyDeleteMaking readers click through a link and watch a 6 minute segment just to find out who the woman is, is demeaning to her. She deserves to be identified in text with her full title, not glossed over as if her position does not matter. This is the kind of shabby treatment women and minorities receive, part of how we are kept in our place and diminished, even when we hold credentials that should be respected.
This is what a micro-aggression looks like. It isn't the same as being denied service at a lunch counter, but it is the way white men constantly remind black women that we don't matter, aren't "real" elected representatives, aren't worthy of being paid serious attention. Somerby should be ashamed of this behavior, but it is how he dog whistles to his white supremacist readers that he is one of them (yes, them).
Somehow I could tell this was a microaggression from the very beginning.
DeleteYou mean where Somerby asks "Who the heck is Speaker McClinton?" That sounds pretty disrespectful to me, as phrased by Somerby.
DeleteYou're really putting the 'micro' in microaggression.
DeleteThat's for the person being maligned to decide, not you or Somerby as a complacent white observer.
DeleteAs a liberal, I’m getting pretty annoyed at progressives’ failure to realize that their incessant scolding about petty things like “microaggressions” creates a backlash that harms the electoral prospects of Democrats.
DeleteThere is no proof of that. It is like saying that black people won’t get civil rights until they stop complaining.
Delete"Why did people vote for Trump? Given the tens of millions of people involved, there may be more than one answer to that question."
ReplyDeleteAnd given that multitude of reasons for selecting Trump, how can they be called "us"?
"Are we built for this line of work—for conducting a sensible discourse? For some time, we've been suggesting that the answer is no. "
ReplyDeleteBecause Somerby has done no reading about what we people are like and how we think, he tends to base these conclusions on his own capacities. I am willing to allow that Somerby is not built for conducting sensible discourse, but I think he is atypical of the rest of humanity, being both elderly and perhaps never much of a thinker (failing philosophy course after course, by his own admission, while at Harvard). Now he struggles with Godel, in his late 70s, but wants to blame humanity, not his own personal limitations. That isn't sensible thinking at all.
"Russell produced the 700 pages. Just as it ever was, Blue America's "cable news" produced that last night's (well-intentioned) exchange.
ReplyDeleteWe humans! We love love love our simple stories. "
If it takes 700 pages for Russell to explain his theories, how simple can they be? Cable news fills up days of programming discussing complex issues from a variety of perspectives (at least on the center/left, perhaps just one perspective on the right). How simple are current events and news? Not very, based on cable news content and opinion. How can Somerby see the multitude of viewpoints, the body of facts, statistics, and ongoing disputes and call them one simply story that we all love? Talk about not making any sense! I suspect it is Somerby who is trying to impose simple stories on his readers, but unfortunately, he is too morose for his narrative to stick. Who on earth would want to believe the depressing mess that Somerby keeps peddling? Only the paid trolls and fanboys with their own agenda. The rest of "us" are not buying it.
When the poster comes here to remind you Republican voters only care about bigotry and white supremacy, let's all remember to act out-raged, call the poster names, and not provide one thing that could possibly make someone think the poster is incorrect.
ReplyDeleteAnd when someone says you have carnal relations with goats, be sure to act outraged, call names, and not provide one thing that could possibly make anyone think you don’t.
DeleteAside from laughing at such an assertion by someone on the internet who does not know me at all, the point is that Somerby and you, PP, never provide evidence of anything.
DeleteThere might be sensible discussion here if people like PP didn't disrupt it by personally attacking other commenters.
PP,
DeleteIn what world did JD Vance not call Trump "Hitler"?
The people who cheered-on Trump''s tax breaks for the rich and corporate elite, are "economically anxious" and "concerned about a rigged economy", and are not just a shit pile of bigots. I heard it from the mainstream media, so you know it's true.
Delete“America’s Hitler”.
DeleteVance pretty much nailed it.
12:33,
DeleteSure. If you take the words and actions of Republican voters into account, they look like a bunch of bigots.
But, what if you don't take their words and actions into account? Not so much now, right? That's all Bob is asking us to do.
12:27 - Just like I thought - you still haven’t proven that your girlfriend doesn’t go “Baaa!”
DeleteMy point: You can’t make an assertion (all Trump voters are racists) and then tell us to disprove it. The burden’s on you.
DeleteEspecially when 15% or so of blacks voted for Trump. Are we to believe they’re white supremicists, too?
DeletePP, Trump ran an arguably sexist/racist campaign (Haitians are eating pets, cat ladies make others miserable) and won the majority of the white male vote. That is evidence, not a coincidence. No one has said that black and Hispanic males cannot be misogynists, so they do not contradict the idea that Trump's campaign ran on bigotry.
DeleteGo google some of the analyses about the impact of racism/sexism on Harris's loss and Trump's win. Then you will be prepared to argue about evidence. Others here have already read that stuff, plus they have a historical understanding of how the racists left the Democratic party back in the 1960s (with civil rights) to become Republicans and create party platforms opposing racial progress. When Republicans talk about eliminating DEI and call Harris an affirmative action hire, we understand the context for such remarks. You apparently do not.
I see: Your “evidence” is “Google it!”
DeleteIsn't this true of all evidence?
Delete1:30 Blue pundits need to avoid nonsensical explanations and to use pronouns correctly.
DeleteI think McClinton used pronouns fine. It is Somerby who is making a nonsensical explanation today.
DeleteHalf a million or so black women voted for Trump. Are they sexist racists, too?
DeleteWho knows what their reasons were.
DeleteIf you admit that you don’t know their reasons, then you’re admitting that you can’t support your statement that all Republican voters are bigots.
DeleteWhite male Republicans are bigots. That was the original assertion, based on the majority of white males voting Republican. No one said anything about black women voters.
Delete@ 7:54 - google it.
Delete8:44 - “Republican voters only care about bigotry and white supremacy.” That’s the “original assertion.”
DeleteDo you ever tell the truth?
PP,
DeleteMy favorite part of your defense of bigoted Republican voters, is when you ignore when they shrugged their shoulders as Trump gave a HUGE tax break to the rich and corporations, but tried to overturn an election when black people's votes counted in the 2020 election.
What do you think got them so angry, the economy rigged for elites?
PP at 12:40,
DeleteTake the bat off your shoulder. At least give us an alternative reason for the Republican base voting for Trump.
Pro tip: Try to make it plausible.
"My point: You can’t make an assertion (all Trump voters are racists) and then tell us to disprove it. The burden’s on you."
DeleteThe burden is you won't accept the words and actions of Republican voters as "proof". What would you have me point to, instead?
I think the history of the Republican party is relevant to the statement that Republican voters only care about bigotry and white supremacism. PP wants to ignore it. I posted Heather Cox Richardson's rundown on racism during JFK's term and David in Cal said that couldn't be right because Lee Harvey Oswald met Castro (no one said a white supremacist killed JFK, like they did MLK Jr.). The article was about the racism of the Republican party during JFK's term, entirely ignored here.
DeleteYou aren't serious about your objection, PP. You are just attacking other commenters (who are expressing their own views, not yours) without being willing to discuss anything others say. PP never discusses the substance of comments, so it is no different when he objects to Republicans being called racist but isn't willing to talk about the Republican party's racism or Trump's racism. If you don't want to discuss any issues, leave other commenters alone, PP.
I am a soros-trained monkey Corby and I approve this message.
DeleteSuccessful white people are bigoted over lazy low life whites. Also can be bigoted against white folks with a different religion or nationality. You think that doesn't work with blacks? Don't be stupid. Caste systems exist in all tribes.
DeleteIf you think I’m defending Republican bigots you’re just dumb. Sorry, but true. The proposition put forward was that all Republican voters are bigots. That proposition is obviously false. That’s all I’m saying.
DeleteActually, your original argument had this structure: All Republican voters are bigots; prove they’re not. And I gave a counter-proposition: You fuck goats; prove that you don’t. And your silence speaks volumes.
DeleteMaybe the goats have no complaints?
DeleteSomerby wants to push the notion that Harris lost due to support for Trump, but this is not borne out.
ReplyDeleteThe past three presidential elections had the exact same Republican candidate, and very similar Dem candidates running on essentially identical platforms and campaigns, yet two of them lost; this circumstance provides clarification of the three most significant causes for Harris’ loss: lack of universal mail in ballots, sexism (and racism to a lesser degree), and increasingly sophisticated Republican dirty tricks.
Somerby wants you to focus on Trump voters and what “explains” them, but this is dumb electoral politics, and not what Dems should be focused on. Electoral politics is not about persuasion, it’s about motivating voters to actually vote.
This election had low turnout, particularly when factoring in population growth. Somerby wants you to consider the factors involved with Trump voting, yet Trump, in real terms, could not even match his 2020 support, when he badly lost.
Somerby’s post today goes from scolding reductionist arguments (even though it is core aspect of effective rhetoric) to an incoherent snark about paradoxes between philosophy and science. Somerby’s muddled thinking on this issue, plays to his agenda of muddying the waters, of manufacturing ignorance.
Here is a possible reason why some people voted for Trump. CBSNews reports:
ReplyDelete"Some social media posts are claiming that Trump, once he takes office next year, may issue another check — a likelihood that experts say is extremely slim. Posts on TikTok are suggesting Trump might issue another round of checks, while on X, some users are questioning if they're in line for a payment."
Jeff Tiedrich says:
"mind you, this stimulus check fantasy isn’t even a promise that Donny made while campaigning — fuck no, it’s a fever-swamp hallucination invented by the cultists themselves. these low-wattage dipshits are so in the tank for Dear Leader that he no longer has to pull the wool over their eyes — they’re perfectly content to hoodwink themselves.
tell me, how was Kamala supposed to reach these voters? by promising them two imaginary stimulus checks?"
But Somerby keeps saying we need to pay more attention to why people voted for Trump. How informative is this? Does it suggest that "they" are like the rest of us? Is all of America like these idiots? I see no evidence that such stupidity is a widely shared trait on the left, as Somerby claims.
https://www.jefftiedrich.com/p/this-week-in-stupid-november-23-edition
DeleteHe didn't say anything about Russia being bombed with high precision American missiles after getting the go ahead from President Biden?
DeleteIs it stupid to want Ukraine to protect their freedom against Russian invasion?
DeleteYou would think this Jeff person, if he really cared, would talk to his readers about how Russia is being bombed with American missiles - thanks to President Biden.
DeleteBut he didn't even mention it.
This "Jeff person" voted against Trump in the last election, so I think he understands the gravity of the situation in Ukraine, in ways that you do not.
DeleteRussia has had quite a strong reaction after being bombed by American missiles thanks to President Joe Biden.
DeleteShall the Ukrainians just surrender then? You Russia-lovers would like that, I'm sure. Why don't you go back to whatever right wing internet hell hole you crawled out of?
Delete4:49,
Deletehe probably doesn't talk about Russia being bombed because it was Russia that invaded Ukraine, remember?
Under President Biden's authorization, American missiles are bombing Russia.
DeleteWhy does it matter why? if American missiles are bombing Russia under President Biden's authorization because Russia invaded Ukraine or American missiles are bombing Russia under President Biden's authorization because of some other reason, the point is American missiles are bombing Russia. And that is very serious.
Courts have found that the manufacturer or seller of a weapon are not responsible for how it is used.
DeletePutin's clearly stated goal is Ukraine is the first step in restoring the USSR. That now includes several NATO countries. How does it not make sense to kneecap Putin using Ukraine as a proxy? Putin has been at war with the west since 2014. Get your head out of your ass and quit reading propaganda paid for by Putin. Like the lie that $200B has been spent there, and should be spent here. Nope, 90% is spent here manufacturing weapons.
DeleteIt does not make sense to kneecap Putin using Ukraine as a proxy because that is a dangerous approach that could lead to catastrophic outcomes and better outcomes could be achieved through diplomatic engagement.
Delete(The outcome of using Ukraine as a proxy has already produced a catastrophic outcome for Ukraine with over a half a million dead and no soldiers left to fight. The Ukrainian people was to negotiate a peace settlement, as you know.)
DeleteActually, your head is in your ass.
35,000 dead not half a million, 400,000 Americans died in all of WW2
DeleteWhy don’t Dems acknowledge that Harris was a mediocre candidate? It’s obvious that she was. Failure as a presidential candidate. Weakness at live interviews. Lack of a major accomplishment. Radical past positions, like free sex change surgery for illegal immigrants.
ReplyDeleteOne reason has been offered. You’re not supposed to criticize a black person.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fired-democrats-blast-dnc-after-surprise-layoffs-raising-questions-about-harris-campaign-spending/ar-AA1ujjtj?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=1d68b296e5af4309f2e0b3870ec9f4b0&ei=12&apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1
Deletehttps://x.com/dncstaffunion/status/1858452951372550236?s=42&t=oYvKLjVc8YzJIvwKoQTYBQ
DeleteWhy is this important to you, David?
DeleteGood question, Quaker. I think it’s because it’s important that people governing us be tuned in to reality. Racist officials who discriminate against blacks lead to bad policies. Also officials who discriminate for blacks.
DeleteHarris didn't run on transgender surgeries for prisoners or immigrant detainees. She filled out an ACLU questionnaire in 2020 saying she supported prisoner/immigrant detainee health care. The courts decided that included trans health care, including hormone treatments and mental health care. No trans surgeries have been performed and Harris has not been campaigning on their provision. This is a stupid non-issue.
DeleteBeing "mediocre" has nothing to do with discriminating against whites and in favor of black people. It does sound like David has some deep-seated fears about black people, requiring that he diminish their abilities into mediocrity in order to feel safe as a white man. Somerby did the same thing when he insisted, for days on end, that Ketanji Brown Jackson could not possibly be qualified for the supreme court despite her manifest accomplishments. This sounds like more of the same, applied to Harris, who certainly has more qualifications than Trump or Vance.
DeleteHarris wanted to blanket the restrooms of young teenage boys with tampons to insert into their tortured and undulating vaginas.
DeleteThere is a Freudian condition called vagina dentata in which a man fears being consumed by a woman's vagina. It is a castration fear. This guy sounds like he has a bad case of it, given the way he describes vaginas. Men who find women's periods icky need therapy. Men who consider transmen to be scary also need therapy.
Delete4:19 doesn't seem to be describing 'vaginas' in general. He seems to be describing' vaginas' that are carved into transwomen's bodies after their johnson has been sawn off.
DeleteThe phrase predates Freud by millennia and represents female power of annihilation and power of the life force at the same time.
DeleteIt's describing a biological female who has not yet had their vagina removed and replaced with a penis but who is nevertheless enjoying the affectionate and friendly camaraderie of his true sex's wash room. And who may, upon this visit, have a congealed, musky and tragic mess going on between their legs for which a government provided diaper could allay.
DeleteThere is no "affectionate and friendly camaraderie" in any was room I've encountered in my life. It is a place where you relieve yourself and hopefully wash your hands afterwards. This idea that it is a clubhouse is ridiculous. Calling natural body functions "a congealed, musky and tragic mess" is ugly and derogatory toward women (all women) and reveals not only sexism but psychological maladjustment. You need to see a shrink because no woman or man who thinks this way is healthy enough for a personal relationship and that is the tragedy here.
DeleteWomen don't wear "diapers" during their periods and you sound like a very messed up 12 year old.
Some young teenage boy's vaginas may be secreting a soft, gentle mass of exfiltrated feminine globules that despite smelling like spring violets, still need some kind of state-sponsored absorbent carpet that act as a receptacle. This was Harris's dream.
DeleteIf you keep this up, I will report this blog again to Blogspot for violation of their rules.
DeleteThat's beautiful, 5:23.
DeleteMen's biology can be portrayed as just as distorted as women's. That you would write stuff like this betrays sexism (hatred of women). I have reported @5:23 to Blogspot. @5:46 is no doubt the same troll.
Delete@4:11 - no Harris certainly didn't run on transgender surgery for migrants and prisoners. Similarly, Trump didn't run on grabbing women by the pussy. The point is that both had something in their record that their opponents could make an issue of.
Delete5:59 - you're being anti-trans. I spoke directly with Blogspot and they have flagged your account.
Delete@4:16 - thanks for calling me a racist. You have illustrated my point about the danger of criticizing a black person.
DeleteBTW I do not recall ever saying that Ketanji Brown Jackson was unqualified for the supreme court. Not even once. I certainly didn't say it for day's on end. Now that you've analyzed my psyche, you might try some self-analysis to discover why you have a false memory of what I said.
Somerby said it. Please read more carefully. Note that I said "Somerby did the same thing when..." Unless you are Somerby, I was not talking about you then.
DeleteIt is racist to deny the obvious capability of people with accomplishments and exemplary credentials in a field. You did that with Harris, who is better qualified than most men who have run for the office of president. Somerby did it with Ketanji Brown Jackson. When you call someone "mediocre" despite such credentials you are making it possible for a black person to ever be taken seriously, because there is no amount of achievement that would qualify them in your eyes.
Somerby likes to deny the meaning of expertise and credentials, even experience serving in a particular position. Trump has essentially done that too, by appointing a bunch of underqualified and completely unqualified people to important positions, ignoring scandals and mistakes in their pasts, as if there had been no vetting of those appointees. Even so, nearly all of his appointees are white men, with a handful of women included.
If you, like Trump, regard qualifications as unnecessary, you have no basis for calling Harris mediocre. She is easily as qualified as anyone Trump has appointed to this point, including JD Vance.
That's why your remarks here about black people being beyond criticism are ridiculous. Apparently rapists are beyond criticism too, for right wingers.
But Trump DID run on grabbing women by the pussy. That is why the bros supported him.
Delete'Somerby said it (that Ketanji Brown Jackson was unqualified to serve on the Supremen Court)'
DeleteOnly in your fevered imagination, not in the real world.
@6:05 - As you must know, there is no science supporting the idea that people with the body of one sex can somehow "really" be the other sex. I won't won't believe that people who are physically men are actually women until science confirms it. If following the science makes me anti-trans to some people, so be it.
Delete'@5:46 is no doubt the same troll.'
DeleteWrong. And why are you negative because I like someone's prose? Isn't that aesthetic discrimination? I'm going to report you to Blogspot. In fact I already have.
"...there is no science supporting the idea..."
DeleteI'm confused. Are you "following the science" or following the "no science"? Either way, you seem to imply that trans people don't actually exist.
"Racist officials who discriminate against blacks lead to bad policies. Also officials who discriminate for blacks."
DeleteIt's all about "the blacks" then, eh?
Anyway, my original question wasn't about black people and criticism. Rather, it was about your asking why Dems won't say Harris was "mediocre."
DeleteShe lost to Trump. Why does it matter what Dems say about her now? Do you think it's racist to not call her mediocre?
Pretty much, Quaker. Trans people who have their sex medically changed are real. But, not so-called trans people who keep the physical characteristics of one sex but who demand to be treated as the other sex.
DeleteNow, I must admit that science has not disproved the idea that someone physically a man is "really" a woman in some sense. I go with Carl Sagan's aphorism, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The idea that someone physically and genetically man is really a woman, simply because he says so, is an extraordinary claim. I need to see extraordinary evidence before I believe it.
My friend Jake was a masculine woman. She dressed pretty much like a man. Eventually she got a sex change operation and is now a man. But, until that operation she was a woman with masculine characteristics.
Yes, Quaker, I think it could be racist, in a sense, to not recognize that Harris was a mediocre candidate. (Of course, she's not at all a mediocre human being. Her mediocrity is as a presidential candidate compared to other Presidential candidates, such as Obama, both Clintons, both Bushes, Reagan, etc.)
DeleteOne definition of "racism" is "Discrimination or prejudice based on race." Prejudging Harris as better than she really is at something, because of her race, fits that definition.
Calling my comment "all about blacks" is a cheap shot. Other comments I've made here indicate that prejudice against Jews is the most important type of prejudice to me. Events in Holland, the World Court, many US campuses, etc. show that domestic and worldwide antisemitism are growing alarmingly.
DeleteIs. "is growing alarmingly."
DeleteIsn’t “are” correct?
Delete"Why don't Dems blah blah blah....because she's black." Why don't you repeatedly tell us who you are and then complain when we acknowledge that. Harris was so mediocre that she wiped the floor with Trump in the single debate she had with him. A debate that you stated you didn't watch, a remark about as likely truthful as that you have a trans buddy named Jake. Or are an atheist, later stating you are a jew. She made Trump look like the lying old codger he happens to be. While supporting wholeheartedly a racist does not make you one, your comments repeatedly about blacks and being a card carrying member of the Trump cult place you in the center of that Venn diagram. She lost the election to a candidate whose propensity for lying is several orders of magnitude above that of George Santos in shear numbers. You think that's ok. Like all Trump supporters you think that that quality and watching passively for hours while the mob he incited beat up over 140 police did not exclude him from being considered a candidate in a democracy he tried to subvert. You would like to tell us who Harris is, all the while telling us who you are and complaining when we acknowledge that.
DeleteYou can, incidentally, find many Democrats who will state that Harris was a mediocre candidate, invalidating your presumptuous claim. They will not say that she is unaccomplished; that would ignore her history, likely out of deep seated racism. They will say that a mediocre candidate, if that is the label a person who voted for a racist wants to tag her with, is a far better candidate than a lying clown who tried to overturn an election, and who for the grace of god and the valor of over 140 police almost got his VP killed or seriously injured on Jan 6.
DeleteLess than one percent of the population and don't hurt nothing but nasty assholes bigoted feelings. Why don't you let something you don't understand alone, get a real life, and start worrying about things that matter. Like Project 2025.
DeleteSomerby is one of the racists calling Harris mediocre (just as he has called other black people mediocre here). It may be what David in Cal and Somerby have in common, why David reads this blog.
DeleteThe problem with them looking at project 2025 is that they look at it as a win. It was such a popular concept that they lied about it until after the election.
DeleteHere is a discussion of the reality of being transgender, written by a doctor about a case study in which an infant experiencing a circumcision accident was raised as a girl. Spoiler: it didn't work because there is more to being male than having a penis, and more to being a girl than lacking one. This is some of the evidence David in Cal says he needs to see:
Deletehttps://www.amazon.com/As-Nature-Made-Him-Raised/dp/0061120561
The actual experiences of trans people matter and constitute evidence, along with the neuroscience and physiology of sex and its relation to gender. David has shown repeatedly he is entirely ignorant, and yet he feels entitled to interfere with other people's personal lives. Ditto Cecelia.
So, a drunk mohelim cut off your dick, Corby? Sorry about that. You could grow up a normal person.
Delete@11:24 - I am not interfering with other people’s personal lives. If a man wants to wear a dress, that his business. I would not interfere.
DeleteBut if a man wants to box or play volleyball against my daughter, that goes beyond his personal life. It affects my daughter’s life and health. If I am punished for calling a man who wears a dress “he”, my punishment affects me. It goes beyond his personal life.
Other athletes have the right to be better at sports than your daughter. Women routinely practice against men, especially at higher levels, to improve their own performance. Defeat is part of competition. There is no evidence that transitioning helps a trans person be better at sports, the physiological effects are complex. That makes this persecution of trans athletes, not a valid concern. It boils down to evidence again.
Delete@11:34. Read the book before mouthing off.
DeleteSo how long has your daughter been a pugilist DiC? Your so full of imaginary horribles. Why are you so worried about something that has no impact on your precious upper middle class retired life? Expect you dig the tranny porn and then spend all day praying for your sin.
Delete"This is a stupid non-issue." The problem is their news feed. They are bombarded 24/7 with carefully edited out of context "quotes". Every source is in panic mode over things like trans and the border. No context or detailed explanation. Just fostering hate and grievance. It's how authoritarians roll.
DeleteNotice these anti-trans people like Cecelia and David only care about male-to-female transitions and not the female-to-male ones. Freud would say something about that. Is it the purity of manhood that is being defended by Trump's bros? A man who doesn't want to be a man seems like a threat of some kind, whereas women trying to be men are OK. David says he doesn't care if a man wants to wear a dress, but that is not what transitioning is. That is called "cross-dressing" and men used to do it for sexual kicks, not to become women, while men enjoyed going to drag shows to watch men in realistic female performances, without having their manhood threatened. It was only when science was able to actually help men become women that this became any kind of issue.
DeleteI see this as more misogyny. Men cannot imagine why any man might want to become a woman, but when men do transition, they interfere with the subordination of women, because men don't want to persecute other men, just women. And deep down, men suspect that if they respond physically by being attracted to a transwoman, then maybe they might be gay, so there may be some homophobia involved too.
There is some reason why certain men cannot live and let live, and it operates unconsciously, so the bigots who react badly to transpeople cannot address their own fears, so they externalize them and then persecute trans people. It is ugly and not psychologically healthy.
Renee Richards went from being a very good forties something male club tennis player to one of the top ten women in the world after sex change. Later in life she said that had her surgery been done in her 20s she likely would have been number one, and that she had second thoughts about the fairness of her competing as a woman. Agree with those that see the inequity here. It can be adjudicated, however, without being the centerpiece of a political campaign. Good luck with the upcoming economy, for all your need to focus on this. Tax breaks for the wealthy and tariffs should work well. But keep focusing on this subject.
DeleteTo the extent that Cecelia is both a man pretending to be a woman online, but also a virulant transphobe (male-to-female, not female-to-male), conservative trolls like "her" are using stigmatization of trans people in their trolling. "Cecelia" has created this issue herself, by emphasizing "her" gender while attacking trans targets. It is not a very nice game "she" is playing here, but she has shown repeatedly that she has no empathy for anyone, like many Republicans but especially like trolls, who have the "dark triad" of personality traits (antisocial, narcissistic and Machiavellian). A lot like Trump himself. Why are so many Republicans so insecure about their manhood?
DeleteRenee Richards was ranked 20th in the world (among women) and was never higher than 22nd in any given year. Her own ideas about how good she might have been are not exactly scientific. Women's tennis then wasn't the serious sport it is now among women. Most women didn't participate in any kind of athletics then. She sued to be allowed to compete and won that right. It isn't as though she cheated or fooled anyone. She would not do well against modern female players, simply by virtue of transitioning. This should not be a political issue but should be left to physicians and the sport itself to regulate based on actual advantage or disadvantage, not presumptions that men are all necessarily better than women (see Billie Jean King vs Bobby Riggs).
DeleteThe Bulwark talks about the difficulties people have estimating the numbers of people with various characteristics, such as members of minorities of different types. This cognitive bias happens when people are asked to make conscious judgments, not when people do tasks relying on unconscious judgments. Kahneman & Tversky did many studies exploring the source of these biases and factors that affect them.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thebulwark.com/p/americans-have-one-very-strange-cognitive
In general, people who are asked to estimate the number (or percent) of people who belong to various minorities, they are way off, overestimating by a huge amount. This leads people like Cecelia to believe they will encounter trans people in bathrooms on a daily basis, when they are unlikely to ever meet a trans person in real life because of how rare they are in our population.
It would be interesting to know whether Republicans are more likely to hold such inaccurate cognitive biases compared to Democrats. It would explain their highly distorted perceptions about crime and immigration or Haitians taking over their neighborhoods and eating their pets.
The study cited does not talk about the impact of propaganda on inaccurate estimates of the frequency of minorities in a person's environment.
I don’t know anyone who has expressed the thought that transwomen are scary. They’ve expressed the thought that transwomen are men.
DeleteWhere in @3:44's comment does it say anything about transwomen being scary?
DeleteSounds like Trump's red tribe members are having trouble engaging in sensible discourse:
ReplyDelete"Behind closed doors, President-elect Donald Trump's transition team has become a somewhat fractious and chaotic environment according to a new report.
The Washington Post reported Saturday that "new camps have formed" at Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida with competing visions for how to prepare for the next four years. The outlet described "shouting matches, expulsions from meetings and name-calling" as frequent occurrences between various factions."
This is definitely a problem "they" are having, not "us" since none of us are welcome at Mar-a-lago.
Notice that Cecelia and PP also seem to have trouble with sensible discourse and "they" cannot seem to engage in any meaningful discussion with "us," the blue tribe members in blog comments.
Somerby seems to want the entire American population to be one big "us" but people just cannot stop forming themselves into smaller groups which "they" differentiate from the group based on such things as who is pro-vax and who is hard-core MAGA. I've even heard that within the Republican party, there are people who refer to each other as "they," not "us".
Meanwhile, Somerby is still chanting Kumbaya and wondering why Godel was considered great and Somerby himself is not.
I believe the only place where it can be said that Bob considers himself great is in your ass.
Delete@3:59 Descriptions of problems within Trumpworld that come from Trump's opponents should be taken with a grain ok salt. These critics were not invited to inside discussions by the Trump team And, they have a tendency to tilt their reports against Trump.
DeleteThese are Trump’s people in-fighting, not opponents.
DeleteTrue, @8:30. But the reports and descriptions of the alleged infighting come from Trump's opponents.
DeleteSo you are blaming the messenger for Trump's dysfunction and lack of leadership?
Delete@11:16. I am doubting the messenger.
DeleteSame thing.
Delete@12:03 - your comment looks a bit. like circular reasoning or begging the question. You’re assuming Trump is dysfunctional and lacks leadership. But those conclusions are based on reporters who I allege are unreliable.
DeleteYou are holding your hands over your ears and singing la la la I can't hear you. If you disbelieve anything you don't want to know, then you are not in touch with reality, and that is not only dysfunctional but part of the definition of mental illness. If Trump's supporters think this way, they are as messed up as Dear Leader, who doesn't know how to keep his appointees and henchmen from physical altercations, like birds of prey fighting over scraps of road kill.
DeleteIt takes a lot of denial to disbelieve the Washington Post, a not-liberal publication that refused to endorse Harris:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/11/23/trump-team-rivals-mar-a-lago/
America didn't vote for Trump. Some people in America voted for him. Others did not.
ReplyDeleteAnonymouse 3:59pm, your difficulty lies in the fact that you have an allergy. You’re allergic to opinions that you don’t harbor.
ReplyDeleteDon't be ridiculous.
DeleteIs there some reason you cannot manage to post your comments directly under the relevant person you are responding to (such as @3:59 above)? Others manage to do it. Why not you?
DeleteAnonymouse 5:18pm, you need to be on chide diet. No more than three time a day.
DeleteYou didn't answer the question. Is there some reason you cannot post your comments directly below the person you are responding to? Others get this right. Why can't you?
DeleteAnonymouse 5:41pm, not that I can think of.
DeleteThen please respect the norms here and put your comments where they make sense.
DeleteAnonymouse 6:31pm, I’ll try, but shite happens.
DeleteA day late but still relevant, here is Heather Cox Richardson's account of the assassination of JFK. It reminds us why there as such deep divisions between the left and the right in our nation.
ReplyDeletehttps://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/november-22-2024
This is why we are not "us". The right still cannot get behind the idea that all people matter and deserve respect and protection of their rights. Without that shared understanding, we cannot be a united country, no matter how much Somerby wishes to sweep these issues under the rug. I am ashamed for Somerby today.
Yes, Richardson's account does illustrate the deep divisions between right and left, but not as she intended. What she writes is not inaccurate, but she omits the most key fact: JFK was assassinated, not by a right wing nut, but by a left wing nut, someone who was probably aided by Communist Fidel Castro. She goes into the motivations of right wingers who didn't assassinate JFK but never addresses the motivation of the left winger who did assassinate him.
DeleteAnd you missed the point…
DeleteAnonymouse 8:10pm, oh, for goodness sakes. Just cry harder.
DeleteYou spend all your time here excoriating Bob and everyone on the planet who doesn’t think precisely as you think and then you invariably launch into bouts of self-pity and narcissistic whining that would make a buzzard hurl.
Anonymices are malign and nasty pieces of work and that’s a deliberate choice you operatives have made every step of the way, every day.
David missed the point but you're attacking me?
DeleteFinally some DiC solved the unanswered JFK assassination questions. Probably. But what about the mob man?
Delete"We love love love our simple stories. All too often, we'll tolerate nothing else. "
ReplyDeleteI would love love love to have a real president. How did we wind up with this Nazi asshole? Why must we tolerate him?
Before indulging yourself too much in mocking Russell & Whitehead's "Principia" maybe you should learn something (gasp! Bob -- even you!) about its history and context. Suzanne Langer's wonderfully clear and blessedly short book "An Introduction to Symbolic Logic" would be a good place to start.
ReplyDeleteSet theory is immensely useful. Kamala uses it when she refers to Venn diagrams. It was thought that one could define a set by a characteristics: "The set of all objects that share such and such characteristics". Russell's paradox is important because it shows that this doesn't always work
ReplyDeleteIt sucks Republican voters know zero about economics.
ReplyDeleteIt would be much better for society, if the angriest subset of voters knew the Republican party plan is "tax cuts for the rich, sacrifice for the working folk".
"Economically anxious" Republican voters are going to be so pissed about the next tax break for the rich and corporations increasing the deficit, they'll blame it on black people. You can take that to the bank.
ReplyDeleteThey cheered on Reagans Voodo economics, Shrubs disastrous tax cuts after inheriting Clinton's balanced budget. Remember Shrub sending out those $1,000 checks as the people had been harmed by overtaxation. Then rumps cuts. I'd say they are reckless, but it is a plan. If you take away those tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy about 80% of the deficit goes away. But no, they want a fiscal crisis so they can fk over their voters by slashing their SS, Medicare, Medicade, , education, etc. Balance the budget by harming the dumbass racists that vote for being nasty to the others.
Delete12:29 Pretty much on point. We are repeating history by rewarding, like Bush 2, a president who fucked up the only significant crisis of his tenure by lying to the public, delaying a response, and spreading misinformation that caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths, with the opportunity to wreck the economy.
DeleteIn 1999, a British nurse named Joanne Webber produced a fart measured at an astounding 178 decibels – as loud as a jet engine at take-off! This was accomplished with expert control of sphincter tension and gas velocity. A world record that remains unbroken over 20 years later.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.restonyc.com/whats-the-loudest-fart-ever-recorded/
https://www.facebook.com/fanny.farts.7