TUESDAY, DECEMBER 24, 2024
So too with our tribunes today: Different chroniclers of the first Christmas have left different stories behind. Wisely and helpfully or possibly not, Nicholas Kristof writes about this matter in this morning's New York Times.
His column takes the form of an interview with historian Elaine Pagels. At the start of the column, Kristof describes it as "the latest in my occasional series of conversations about Christianity, aimed at bridging America’s God gulf."
Millenia have passed; different stories remain. Here's part of today's conversation, with Kristof's statements italicized:
A Conversation About the Virgin Birth That Maybe Wasn’t
Merry Christmas! This is a time when Christianity celebrates miracles and wonder—and “Miracles and Wonder” is the title of your fascinating forthcoming book. It raises questions about the virgin birth of Jesus...
I love these stories from the Gospels. The skies opened up when I heard them. They picture human lives drawn into divine mystery: “God in man made manifest,” as one Christmas carol says. But at a certain point I had to ask: What do they mean? What really happened? They are not written simply as history; often they speak in metaphor. We can take them seriously without taking everything literally.
[...]
You note that Matthew and Luke both borrowed heavily from Mark’s account but also seem embarrassed by elements of it, including the paternity question. Is your guess that they added the virgin birth to reduce that embarrassment?
Yes, but this is not just my guess. When Matthew and Luke set out to revise Mark, each added an elaborate birth story—two stories that differ in almost every detail...
For the record, we admire Kristof's values. At any rate, Matthews and Luke told different stories, and these stories remain.
Today, our faltering nation's faltering discourse is a Babel of divergent representations. As a general matter, it all depends on where you go for your stories!
(At this point, let's avoid such words as "information," "news" or "facts.")
Depending on where we go to hear our stories, we contemporary Americans will often hear completely different topics discussed. On occasions when members of different political tribes hear accounts of the same topic, we may hear completely different presentations about the topic at hand—completely different stories.
So it goes in this modern age, in the aftermath of the "democratization of media." First came the new technologies, then came the democratization!
After that, the deluge, sometimes described as a Babel.
We're left with welters of contradictory stories. Sometimes, fruitcakes are charged with the task of dispensing these divergent tales, crackpots industrialists among them.
How did it [ever] get this far? For amusement purposes only, we recall the story of Chatty Cathy, as told by the leading authority on the revolutionary talking toy. She was a cherished Christmas gift at an earlier point in time:
Chatty Cathy
Chatty Cathy was a pull-string "talking" doll...manufactured by the Mattel toy company from 1959 to 1965. The doll was first released in stores and appeared in television commercials beginning in 1960, with a suggested retail price of $18.00...
After the success of Chatty Cathy, Mattel introduced "Chatty Baby" in 1962 and "Tiny Chatty Baby," "Tiny Chatty Brother" and "Charmin' Chatty" in 1963. The last doll to have the word "chatty" in its name in the 1960s was "Singin' Chatty" in 1965.
[...]
The Chatty Cathy doll "spoke" one of eleven phrases at random when the "chatty ring" protruding from its upper back was pulled. The ring was attached to a string connected to a simple phonograph record inside the cavity behind the doll's abdomen. The record was driven by a metal coil wound by pulling the toy's string. The voice unit was designed by Jack Ryan, Mattel's head of research and development.
When it arrived on the market in 1960, the doll played eleven phrases, including "I love you," "I hurt myself!" and "Please take me with you." In 1963, seven more were added to the doll's repertoire, including "Let's play school" and "May I have a cookie?" for a total of 18 phrases...
The popularity of Chatty Cathy led to many pull-string talking dolls flooding the toy industry...
And so on from there. According to the leading authority, the Chatty Cathy doll "was a fanciful depiction of a human."
So too, perhaps, today!
Some experts now suggest that Chatty Cathy also led to the invention of the modern-day Fox News Channel contributor, a type of performer who is sometimes being compared to a pull-string talking doll. Such performers have the ability to repeat something like eleven phrases at any point in time, almost always after some other contributor has just emitted the same remark.
Similar arrangements appear elsewhere in the realm of "cable news," even in the mainstream press corps. Members of different tribal communities may be able to see this pattern among the contributors on one cable channel, though possibly not among the contributors on some other net.
We Americans! We hear one set of stories in certain arenas, a whole different set somewhere else. In a December 1 guest essay in the New York Times, Olga Guralnik tried to explain why we may be inclined to assume that the only stories which are partially or wholly bogus are the stories the other tribe hears.
Dr. Guralnik "is a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst practicing in New York." We thought her essay was insightful. Online, it appears beneath this lumbering headline:
As a Couples Therapist, I See the Same Destructive Patterns in Our Political Discourse
We expect to review this essay before our current search reaches its end. We endorse the use of the D-bomb—the use of the word "destructive."
Our current search involves a problem dogging many of us in Blue America. Many of us seem to have a very hard time answering these questions:
How did we ever lose to a person like Candidate Trump? Why would any decent person have decided to vote for him?
We think there are a boatload of answers to that second question. In our view, when we Blues can't think of even one, that may signal a problem with us.
Dr. Guralnik explores that syndrome in her recent guest essay. In these letters, Times subscribers replied.
Last night, we Blues were being told about Gaetz and Trump and Elon Musk, whose steady stream of bogus claims and weird remarks never seems to end.
Over on the Fox News Channel, viewers were offered stories, this very morning, about the way "this far-left Pope" directed the hapless President Biden to issue yesterday's commutations. It seemed to us that quite a bit of information was missing from the way this story was being told.
Different people hear different stories, sometimes laden with different ornaments cast in the role of the only relevant facts. This is the cultural arrangement we've chosen—or perhaps, this is the cultural arrangement which has now chosen us.
Last weekend, somewhat improbably, Rob Schneider opened for Donald J. Trump at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest 2024. As we noted yesterday, we knew Rob a tiny tad in the summer of 85.
He did a 15-minute set. You can see his performance here, starting at the six-minute mark.
As a general matter, we thought Rob's judgment wasn't especially great on this particular occasion. We refer to such unhelpful comments as this:
What an election! I haven't seen a man beat a woman that brutally since the Olympic Games.
The Democrats still seem confused as to why they lost the election...Let me clear it up.
In our view, he touched on a couple of decent points before veering back off the track.
As part of an ongoing revolt from below, American discourse is currently being commandeered by a gaggle of male comedians. This is true on the woeful Gutfeld! show, but also in other locales.
As a general matter, this strikes us as an amazingly bad idea. That doesn't mean that such observers may not, on occasion, say something which may possess a certain amount of merit.
Chatty Cathy started out with just eleven phrases. In the 1960 marketplace, that was more than enough.
In the modern marketplace of ideas, a similar state of affairs seems to obtain. This is the cultural challenge our modern "nation" is facing.
Will our own Blue America have what it takes to rise to this cultural / corporate challenge? We know of no reason to think that we will.
It seems to us that we the humans may not be wired for that work. It seems to us that Dr. Guralnik made a decent attempt to explain.
"Such performers have the ability to repeat something like eleven phrases at any point in time, almost always after some other contributor has just emitted the same remark."
ReplyDeleteEg "President Elon"
What’s weird is how Musk has a tendency to stutter and stammer through every public speaking appearance, emitting garbled incoherent nonsense before pulling himself together and emptily promising that he will have major accomplishments in the next year, certainly in the next two years, most definitely before the end of the decade…blah blah blah
DeleteBut it never happens.
Worse, mostly what Musk promises are THINGS THAT ALREADY EXIST, AND ARE ALREADY BETTER AND CHEAPER THAN HIS VERSION. Either that, or they’re things we don’t need. Mars? Brother, please.
Trump does the same thing, a better health plan is always two weeks away, but it never happens.
These two clowns are both snake oil salesmen, and both sexual predators to boot.
I wouldn't mind sending people to Mars, but that project was already underway long before Musk started talking about it and began Space X. I've attended several talks by JPL about the Mars Rover project and there are already benefits to the govt work on remote medicine in support of the Mars Project (which has nothing to do with Musk). I agree with you that Musk is co-opting other people's work to promote himself.
DeleteHow did someone who is supposedly doing so much innovative work (which takes a lot of money) manage to become so wealthy? That makes me suspicious.
There is an interesting storyline in the second season of The Resident (on Netflix) that concerns development of medical technology and con-men and grifters in that market, the damage they do to patients, and the work needed to actually validate the efficacy of real medical products and drugs. This framework, to protect the public, is what Musk is now talking about dismantling. But how many people watch such shows and would know to beware of the empty promises and fake personas of con artists in tech fields?
"Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there"
DeleteDoes anyone blame advertisers of products for repeating the same catch phrases over and over again? Trump's "Make America Great Again" is his brand now, MAGA. If the right and left campaigners find and repeat such slogans over and over, it is because it works.
But that is not what news reporters are doing. They repeat the same news over and over while it is current, because people drop in and want to know what happened that day. That isn't sloganeering, it is reporting to a changing audience, even when someone says the same thing as someone else just said on the same or a different show. These are not shows with storylines that are watched from beginning to end, as Somerby said yesterday they were. These are shows with short segments focused on particular news events or issues, that change through the course of a show, even if they are repeated on the next show or on a different channel. That's the nature of current events. It is why the NY Times is not one long story.
This is not to be confused with opinion or analysis or commentary or discourse. Somerby routinely conflates these with the news itself, perhaps out of ignorance or perhaps to sell his attacks on the press. Educated consumers of news recognize the difference. None of us think that Paul from upstate NY is a qualified news analyst or informed reporter or anyone worth listening to as anything but a guy with an opinion in a small town. But Somerby represents these excerpts as more, exemplifying some opinion he is trying to put across, just as Chatty Cathy has nothing whatsoever to do with politics.
Chatty Cathy doesn't represent humanity. She is a toy resembling a toddler intended for girls who enjoy playing at being mommies (with cultural encouragement). How repetitive are toddlers and what do they say? I doubt Somerby has any idea, given that he has no children and was not given any such toy in his own youth. I imagine he may have mocked his sisters, if they had such dolls but when boys' dolls came on the scene (recall G.I. Joe) they had to call them action figures to avoid the stigma of girly things. So Somerby is using Chatty Cathy to malign the press, not because that doll has any relevance to anything happening on any cable station. And that is sexist and ugly. But Somerby despises women and that leads him to write these things.
Speaking of grifters and conmen:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBCxzHxpda8
"(At this point, let's avoid such words as "information," "news" or "facts.")"
ReplyDeleteThis is Somerby usual approach to discussing news. He doesn't believe in facts, even though he, like the rest of us, lives in a shared reality that can be objectively known.
It matters whether a newspaper reports facts and provides reliable information to its readers. Reporters do the best they can, unless they work for Fox or one of the right wing propaganda media. Then they do concoct fictional stories to manipulate unwary readers. Somerby should be discussing the difference between these two approaches to knowledge of current events. Instead he pretends they are all the same, all stories that cannot be trusted. That is a lie meant to undermine trust in news media, including the ones that get most facts correct in their reporting.
It isn't bias that makes the stories on the right pernicious while the ones on the left are mostly reliable. It is the way the right wing conducts politics that makes this true.
Today, Somerby tries to gaslight us into believing that it is only our bias that makes the right wing liars and the left relatively truthful. That is a lie. Somerby should know better than to push this idea on his readers. There are actual studies showing that right is less well-informed on current events, that the right wing media are more biased than the left, that misinformation and disinformation and propaganda are the main purpose of right wing media, whereas the left is still trying to report news.
Only by setting aside all concern for truth can Somerby write the huge stinking pile of garbage he has served up this morning. He should be ashamed of enabling the right wing's propaganda efforts this way, but instead he joins the right in pulling the wool over his readers' eyes. At Christmas time! This makes Somerby not just an asshole, but an evil person.
Chat GPT:
DeleteThe irony in the this response lies in several layers of the writer’s reasoning and behavior, which reflect the very tendencies they criticize in others:
Critique of Bias While Displaying Bias
The writer accuses Somerby of undermining trust in media by treating all stories as unreliable. Ironically, the writer exhibits their own form of bias by categorically dismissing right-wing media as inherently deceitful while portraying left-wing media as "mostly reliable." This black-and-white thinking contradicts their critique of Somerby for failing to acknowledge nuance.
Claiming Objectivity While Using Emotionally Charged Language
The writer insists on the objectivity of certain media outlets and accuses Somerby of rejecting facts. However, their response is heavily laden with emotional, hyperbolic language (e.g., "huge stinking pile of garbage," "evil person"), which undermines their claim to objectivity. This emotionally charged tone may lead readers to question their impartiality.
Accusation of Gaslighting While Arguably Gaslighting
The writer accuses Somerby of gaslighting by suggesting that both left- and right-leaning media engage in biased storytelling. Ironically, their response could be seen as an attempt to gaslight readers into believing that left-wing media is unequivocally truthful and that any criticism of it is inherently dishonest or malicious. This mirrors the behavior they attribute to Somerby.
Moral Condemnation of Simplistic Narratives While Using One
The writer condemns right-wing media for creating "fictional stories to manipulate unwary readers" and Somerby for failing to differentiate between reliable and unreliable narratives. Ironically, their own response simplifies a complex issue into a moral dichotomy, where one side is truthful and virtuous while the other is deceitful and malicious. This simplification mirrors the manipulative storytelling they decry.
Accusing Somerby of Enabling Division While Perpetuating It
The writer frames Somerby’s argument as enabling right-wing propaganda and undermining societal trust. Yet their rhetoric, which vilifies the right and dismisses differing perspectives as lies, contributes to the same cultural divisions they blame Somerby for exacerbating.
The overarching irony lies in how the writer's response exemplifies the very dynamics of polarization, cognitive bias, and emotional reasoning that they claim to critique. This highlights the pervasive challenge of maintaining self-awareness and objectivity in polarized discourse.
The response misses several key aspects that could enhance their understanding and engagement with the topic:
DeleteThe Nuance of Somerby’s Argument
The writer interprets Somerby’s critique of media narratives as an outright rejection of facts. However, Somerby seems to be emphasizing the subjective and constructed nature of stories in media rather than dismissing facts entirely. The writer misses the opportunity to engage with this nuanced perspective, focusing instead on moral outrage.
Their Own Cognitive Biases
The writer appears unaware of their own biases, particularly their unwavering trust in left-leaning media and categorical dismissal of right-wing outlets. This lack of self-awareness prevents them from recognizing that their perspective might also be influenced by subjective narratives and confirmation bias.
The Complexity of Media Ecosystems
The response simplifies the media landscape into a binary opposition: left-wing media as reliable and right-wing media as deceitful. This misses the complexity of how media operates, including the structural, cultural, and economic factors that influence reporting across the political spectrum. Not all left-leaning media is reliable, nor is all right-leaning media entirely false.
The Role of Perception in Trust
The writer overlooks the psychological factors that influence trust in media. Trust is not just about the accuracy of facts but also about alignment with values, identity, and cultural context. Somerby’s critique may be an attempt to explore these dynamics, but the writer dismisses it as a dishonest attack.
Empathy for Opposing Viewpoints
The writer criticizes Somerby for equating narratives from different political tribes but fails to explore why right-leaning audiences might distrust left-leaning media. This lack of empathy or curiosity about opposing viewpoints reinforces the polarization they claim to oppose.
The Psychological Impact of Polarized Discourse
The writer misses an opportunity to reflect on the broader psychological consequences of a polarized media environment. For example, they do not consider how tribalism and echo chambers contribute to distrust, misinformation, and an inability to engage constructively across political divides.
Productive Engagement with Criticism
The response is more focused on condemning Somerby than on constructively engaging with his ideas. This defensiveness prevents a deeper analysis of whether there is validity to Somerby’s concerns about the nature of modern storytelling and media representation.
By focusing solely on defending their in-group and discrediting Somerby, the writer misses an opportunity for self-reflection, constructive dialogue, and a more nuanced understanding of the issues at hand. Recognizing these blind spots could foster greater awareness and more meaningful discussions.
A therapist might offer the following advice to the writer of the response, aimed at fostering self-awareness, emotional regulation, and constructive engagement:
Delete1. Reflect on Emotional Reactions
Advice: Take a moment to identify the emotions driving your response. Are you feeling anger, frustration, or fear about Somerby’s perspective? Acknowledging these feelings can help you approach the discussion with greater clarity and balance.
Why: Strong emotions can cloud judgment and make it harder to engage in productive dialogue. Recognizing and processing them can lead to more thoughtful responses.
2. Examine Your Assumptions
Advice: Reflect on the assumptions you’re making about Somerby’s intentions. Could there be an alternative interpretation of his critique that isn’t malicious or dismissive of truth?
Why: Assumptions about others’ motives can create unnecessary conflict. Considering multiple perspectives fosters understanding and reduces defensiveness.
3. Practice Intellectual Humility
Advice: Consider the possibility that both left-leaning and right-leaning media have strengths and weaknesses. Acknowledge that no one perspective is completely free from bias.
Why: Intellectual humility helps in recognizing that truth is often complex and multifaceted. This can open the door to deeper insights and meaningful conversations.
4. Cultivate Empathy for Opposing Views
Advice: Try to understand why people on the right might distrust left-leaning media or resonate with different narratives. What values or experiences might shape their perspectives?
Why: Empathy doesn’t mean agreeing; it means seeking to understand. This approach reduces polarization and makes dialogue more constructive.
5. Focus on Constructive Criticism
Advice: If you disagree with Somerby, articulate your points with calm reasoning rather than emotional condemnation. Ask questions or propose alternative views without personal attacks.
Why: Constructive criticism invites dialogue and demonstrates respect for differing opinions, fostering healthier interactions.
6. Engage with Nuance
Advice: Avoid painting either side of the political spectrum in overly simplistic terms. Acknowledge the complexity of media ecosystems and the role of both structural and individual biases.
Why: Nuance allows for a more accurate and fair discussion, which strengthens your argument and invites others to engage.
7. Mind the Language You Use
Advice: Refrain from using harsh, judgmental language (e.g., "evil person," "huge stinking pile of garbage"). Instead, focus on the ideas you disagree with and why.
Why: Tone matters. Harsh language can alienate readers or listeners and diminish the impact of your points.
8. Explore Your Own Values
Advice: Reflect on why this topic feels so important to you. What values or beliefs are at stake, and how can you express them in a way that reflects your best self?
Why: Understanding your motivations can help you respond authentically and constructively, even in emotionally charged situations.
9. Practice Self-Compassion
Advice: Recognize that feeling strongly about issues is natural and reflects your care for truth and justice. Be kind to yourself if you find it difficult to stay calm or balanced in such discussions.
Why: Self-compassion reduces self-criticism and fosters resilience, helping you engage more effectively over time.
10. Engage in Dialogue, Not Debate
Advice: Approach disagreements as opportunities for mutual learning rather than battles to be won. Seek to understand before seeking to persuade.
Why: Dialogue builds connections and understanding, even when people ultimately disagree.
AI is plagued by empty promises.
DeleteHere we see some of the shortcomings of Chat GPT: it fails to comprehend asymmetries, it falsely suggests there exists “left-wing media”, and it seems unaware that there are numerous studies that substantiates the claims of the “writer”.
Yawn.
LOL!!
DeleteThis is unhelpful to any actual discussion.
DeleteAgree, that’s the point, that’s what these trolls want, to stifle discourse. They don’t care that their AI generated text is nonsense, they just want to gum up the works.
DeleteJesus is a myth.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the Gospels both copy and contradict each other is unsurprising and irrelevant.
Similar to how you have to break a horse to ride one, religious indoctrination is a form of abuse, particularly pernicious when imposed upon our youth, often leaving our young victims wounded for life.
Kristof is a wealthy elitist centrist neoliberal that tried to, in carpetbagging fashion, run for governor in Oregon, because he owns a vineyard there; however, he was rejected by the state since he was not a resident (he tried to claim he had residency because he was just like the migrants that work his vineyard, but Oregonians weren’t having it, didn’t fall for a “gentleman farmer” obnoxiously trying to claim he was just like a migrant laborer). Kristof had raised $3 million for this effort, he just kept the money when his scheme fell apart.
There is a field of social psychology that studies mind control, radicalization of viewers via internet youtube channels and websites (also called red pilling), indoctrination of viewers into extreme beliefs held by a group that resembles a cult. This is what happened to many of the Q-Anon members and probably all of the Fox viewers. This seems to be what happened to Somerby when he decided he had to watch Fox in order to help liberals understand the Others and find the rare facts that the right is being told but that is being withheld from the left. It is entirely possible that Somerby is not a cynic but that his tenuous hold on reality (based on philosophical nihilism and unwillingness to trust or hold any info as true) led him to consume and absorb right wing talking points, which he now echoes in his blog.
DeleteI have suspected that Somerby might be schizophrenic because of his lack of anchoring in reality, but also because of his job history. But you don't have to be suggestible or have a weak grip on reality to be brainwashed by the right, if you watch such shows constantly.
Occasionally Meidas Touch will read one of Trump's sales pitches for contributions or selling bibles or high tops. Such letters start by telling the reader that Trump loves them, that they are one of the most important supporters of his campaign, that they have key insider status and access to info others do not have. This is an emotional message designed to woo a contributor and fulfill emotional needs. Someone hooked into this will be gratified and send more money, but this is the same approach used by cults to recruit, or by internet grifter to perpetrate scams such as catfishing and romance scams aimed at the elderly and lonely people online. Trump's right wing political grifting is no different.
Somerby may have fallen for this aspect of Fox News during his hours of watching. It is very difficult to pry people lose from these approaches, unless they expend their life savings or are contacted by police, or have some rude awakening. This stuff has broken up marriages and families.
While I might feel sorry for Somerby, what he is doing in turn to his readers is bad. The presence of various right wing trolls also suggests that he has been recruiting or that he has been supplied with support here because his own writing is viewed as useful to right wing purposes. I don't know what is true, but whatever it is, it bears so correspondence to reality and can't be good for Somerby.
Your diagnostic skill as a psychiatrist may be somewhat wanting.
DeleteYou can't diagnose someone without examining them in person. This is speculation, as is clearly stated above.
DeleteMike Johnson reneged on a bipartisan deal he made with the Dems in order to facilitate marching orders from Musk/Trump; however, this effort failed, Musk/Trump lost.
ReplyDeleteThe Dems won.
The Dems won in part because 38 Republicans broke with Musk/Trump.
Interesting times.
"As part of an ongoing revolt from below, American discourse is currently being commandeered by a gaggle of male comedians. "
ReplyDeleteAnd yet Somerby's metaphor for this phenomenon is Chatty Cathy?
In one of his oddest remarks ever, Somerby calls the dolls designed for girls to play with a "fanciful depiction of a human". That isn't what a doll is, as girls understand. But Somerby doesn't care what dolls are -- he is busy telling us that Rob Schneider (who has always been conservative and thus is not part of any current uprising, from below or anywhere else) is not as good a political comedian as Somerby fancies himself to have been, although he makes some valid points (what lefty would say that about a speaker at TPUSA?).
Rob Schneider is Adam Sandler's charity case, appearing in bit parts in all of his films. They are both conservatives and always have been:
"Sandler has not publicly discussed his political opinions. It has been reported that he is a registered Republican. He performed at the 2004 Republican National Convention, and donated $2,100 to Rudy Giuliani's 2008 presidential campaign."
So, it is no surprise to see Schneider popping up at a conservative rally, among well-known Republican comedians and actors.
Somerby might have analyzed why politics on the right has focused so much on entertaining at their rallies, and so little on discussing issues. Trump himself is a clown in public. But calling political discourse a Chatty Cathy (obvious insult intended because of the gendered reference to a girly doll with 11 phrases) shows Somerby's sexism. Further, he ignores the female comedians who skew left, such as Tina Fey (another SNL alum). Fey recently spoke to the ACLU, saying:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2017/04/02/tina-fey-tells-college-educated-white-women-who-voted-for-trump-you-cant-look-away/
As for Chatty Cathy, remember when Barbie had a pull string and said "math is hard" resulting in outrage among grown women who objected to the low expectations presented to young girls. Those of us who were young in that time period have not forgotten. It is why Greta Gerwig's Barbie movie was a hit. Somerby has been panning her films since she began her career.
Here is another prime example for those of you conservative trolls who think Somerby is not sexist. When he wants to insult the press, he digs deep and finds an allusion to girls' toys, while telling us that Rob Schneider spoke some sense to him at a Turning Point rally.
To be fair, as a leftist, I find Gerwig’s work problematic (although it’s so lightweight, it’s culturally insignificant, not worth bothering to critique), but you can’t get worse than Sandler and Schneider, they are the bottom of the barrel, getting rich off twisting and warping the minds of pre pubescent boys (or those stuck at that level) - it’s gross, and likely points to their own suffering of abuse, a cycle that is not easily broken.
DeleteSomerby’s denial of the prevalence of oppressions like sexism and racism, is equally gross.
So your broader point is well taken and well said.
Not everyone who does bad things suffered abuse. Not everyone who has suffered abuse does bad things as a result. The cause-and-effect relationship between childhood abuse and bad acts by adults is tenuous. Looking at someone heinous and examining their childhood for abuse amounts to confirming a preconceived hypothesis through selective confirmation bias. Most people cope, so the reasons for adult misbehavior have other contributors, such as poor coping skills, lack of social support, or subsequent influences, not inherent to the traumatic events of childhood.
DeleteJerry Kagan is a major opponent of theories that suggest that childhood events determine how an adult will behave:
"Jerome Kagan's analysis of attachment theory, often referred to as the "temperament hypothesis," suggests that a child's innate temperament plays a significant role in determining their attachment style, meaning that some babies are born with predispositions to react differently to their environment, which influences how they form attachments with caregivers, rather than solely depending on the caregiver's behavior alone; this contrasts with the traditional attachment theory which emphasizes the primary role of parenting in shaping attachment patterns."
Whatever her artistic merits, Gerwig is a feminist and represents an important perspective in film. Somerby's criticisms have been attacking that aspect of her work. Somerby isn't much of a film critic from a technical or artistic standpoint.
DeleteHe objected to Gerwig's changing the ending of Little Women without realizing that Gerwig had restored Alcott's preferred ending to that story, for example.
It is well established that humans are innately egalitarian. The overwhelming evidence indicates that the personality traits linked to behavior that causes unhealthy societies is primarily the result of unresolved trauma, typically in childhood. This is a proximal cause, with the ultimate cause having to do with broader issues related to the systems and institutions of our modern society.
DeleteBiases can result from siloed interests, which is why it’s better to approach these subjects through an interdisciplinary lens.
Individual treatment may benefit from narrow, case by case concerns, but that plays little role in determining what benefits society.
Agree, Somerby’s attack on Gerwig is aligned with his general distaste for women, in particular, that challenge his misbegotten views.
DeleteThis response misses several key aspects that could enhance your understanding and engagement with the topic.
Delete12:15 - What’s a “proximal” cause?
Delete11:04 - You tell us that girls know that a doll is not “a fanciful depiction of a human.” So, please let us guys in on the secret — what is a doll if it’s not a fanciful depiction of a human?
DeleteSomerby stole the phrase "fanciful depiction of a human" from Wikipedia (without attribution). Calling Wikipedia "the leading authority" may seem cute to Somerby but it doesn't lead readers to the source, nor does it gain Wikipedia any donations, which it has been seeking lately.
DeleteI explained what a doll is elsewhere. First, it is not a depiction of a human at all. There are no children or adults who look like Chatty Cathy or most dolls. There was once a realistic infant doll but it didn't catch on. The doll is supposed to stand for or resemble a child for use in fantasy play by girls, but the horrible things girls do to their dolls indicate that girls do not consider the dolls real at all, and may consider them surrogate objects on which to displace anger or jealousy toward siblings.
Chatty Cathy didn't look like the girls who played with her, especially not at the beginning when she was blue eyed and blond haired. She was more of an aspirational ideal foisted onto female children, than anything resembling the girls themselves (who come in all sizes and shapes with individual faces). Famous research by Mamie Clark in the 1940s showed that black girls chose white dolls (which do not resemble themselves) and consider the white dolls to be more desirable, suggesting that they incorporated cultural beliefs about racial inferiority even when playing with dolls. Dolls also serve that purpose for white girls who early on understood that the proportions of Barbie dolls are a male ideal to which they must aspire in order to be pretty. So dolls like Chatty Cathy are used to socialize girls into gender roles, which studies showed did occur.
What did Chatty Cathy say? "When it arrived on the market in 1960, the doll played eleven phrases, including "I love you", "I hurt myself!" and "Please take me with you". In 1963, seven more were added to the doll's repertoire, including "Let's play school" and "May I have a cookie?", for a total of 18 phrases."
What does this tell you about what our society expects of women? We are supposed to give love, not expect it. We are fragile and get hurt. Look at studies of what happens to female characters in the movies, even today. They get hurt, scream a lot, are threatened or hostages, and their pain is something male moviegoers seem to get off on. Girls learn that their lot in life may be to suffer while offering unrequited love. "Please take me with you." suggests a lack of agency and no expectation that Chatty Cathy has any right to be anywhere. Would a mother need to have her child say "please take me with you" in real life? Of course not. This is not realism but training for later life when girls will beg their husbands to take them out or stay home with the family, they will suffer pain and perhaps feel unworthy of being loved due to their appearance. A girl without that blond hair and blue eyes will feel substandard, even if she is white instead of black, and no child is fooled by the black versions of Chatty Cathy that eventually came out.
Here are the phrases. What would this mean if a doll were actually intended to represent the life of a little girl? "Fanciful" is too kind a word. Think barren, limited, restricted, boring, appearance-oriented. Pipi Longstocking was fanciful. How different did she look and behave compared to this doll? Somerby glosses the stereotyping and the dearth of imagination of those who created the doll, undoubtedly men.
""I love you"
"I hurt myself!"
"Give me a kiss"
"Let's have a party!"
"Please carry me"
"Will you play with me?"
"Please change my dress"
"Please brush my hair"
"Where are we going?"
"Please take me with you"
"I'm hungry"
"May I have a cookie?"
"Do you love me?"
"Tell me a story"
"What can we do now?"
"Let's play school"
"I'm so tired"
"Let's play house"
Children squirm to avoid being kissed by adults, especially strangers, in real life. What adult decided that Chatty Cathy should ask to be kissed? That is not the only creepy phrase above.
Well, I guess I’m sorry to hear that you may have unresolved issues from playing with dolls as a child, but you still haven’t told me what a doll is, apart from being a fanciful depiction of a human. (And telling me what, in your view, a doll “stands for” does not tell me what a doll “is.”)
Delete@7:23. A proximal cause of flooding was hurricane Helene. A distal cause was global warming. Proximal means near (immediate). Distal means far (long term, not acting directly on an event but still influencing it).
DeleteMy issues are resolved, @9:32. A doll is a socialization tool of the patriarchy used to teach female children gender roles. I said that clearly above.
DeleteSomerby has vague, murky complaints about the “democratization of media” (similar to his nebulous complaints about the efficacy of democracy in general), but his citations are always focused on corporate media, thus his musings questioning democracy ring hollow.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, polls indicate that a majority of voters that closely or moderately follow news media, voted for Harris.
Sure, corporate media is garbage, no shit Sherlock. Corporate does have an unhealthy and outsized influence among politicians and pundits, but it does not have much influence among the electorate, and it was not determinative in this election.
Somerby ignores independent media, which is becoming the main focus of left wing support now that the mainstream (corporate) media interfere against Biden and Harris and helped put Trump back in office. Left wing sources are talking explicitly about building a Fox-like network of independent sources to counteract the bias on both the right and in legacy journalism. That is where all the action is now, but Somerby is oblivious to what is happening. And talk about repetitive! Somerby invented it.
DeleteMy advice to Republicans, hire lots of bodyguards.
ReplyDeleteAs a Republican, I own lots of guns, but do not fear, I only use bullet ballots for ammo.
ReplyDeleteI voted for Trump because he was willing to demonstrate, even in front of children, how to fellate a man.
ReplyDeleteTrump puts the demon in demonstrate.
DeleteBob complains that the "democratization of media" led to a Babel. I agree with Bob as regards communication However, this Babel may lead to better policies, because widely-believed falsehoods can be refuted.
ReplyDeleteSo says the lying bastard fascist prick who comes here every day to spread misinformation and rightwing propaganda falsehoods. Go take a flying fuck, Dickhead in Cal. Shouldn't you be enlisting for our impending war with Panama?
Deleteanon 11:45, what kind of Xmas spirit is this. you disagree with D in C - but he is almost always polite, in spite of being reviled so dementedly. You're method of criticism isn't necessary, and doesn't show you i a good light. Lighten up! If you want to criticize D in C, why not use reason to do so.
DeleteAC/MA, DiC is not polite. What precisely is his purpose coming here to spread lies and misinformation, do you suppose? Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and yours.
DeleteFussbudget at 1:08 does his/her/its inevitable tsk-tsk weigh-in. David is a mendacious, despicable racist prick no matter how polite he is.
DeleteRefrain from using harsh, judgmental language. Instead, focus on the ideas you disagree with and why. Tone matters. Harsh language can alienate readers or listeners and diminish the impact of your points. If you If disagree with DiC, articulate your points with calm reasoning rather than emotional condemnation. Ask questions or propose alternative views without personal attacks.
DeleteI don’t read beyond her first “fascist” or pri… or fu…
DeleteYou know it’s her. Unlike most anonymices, she can make a salient and objective point, but it’s not worth being covered in spittle. Just move on.
You read every word Cecelia. You live for it.
DeleteHer who?
Delete2:31 - Merry Christmas and drop dead.
DeleteIf you If disagree with DiC, articulate your points with calm reasoning rather than emotional condemnation.
DeleteYep, been there, done that.
There are no channels that are designed to be consumed 24/7 the way Somerby says he watches Fox. If the shows seem repetitive to Somerby, perhaps it is because of the way he watches them. Most people drop by to catch up on the news, or because some on-screen performer appeals to them, but they have lives full of other activities and don't spend all their time in front of the screen. Even different takes on current events would seem repetitive because they must report the facts not just their interpretations, and if Somerby has already heard that synopsis, then it will be repetitive, but just to him, not to others hearing the same thing for the first time.
ReplyDeleteSurveys are showing that most voters had too little info, not too much. Political operatives tend to devise a series of catch-phrases and short issues statements and they do repeat them, because most voters are not consuming campaign info 24/7 either. Even Trump repeats the same stories over and over. The audiences are not supposed to be the same at each rally.
This strikes me as a specious complaint. Advertisers know that repetition is essential to moving a viewer from mild interest to a buying decision. A lot of repetition. It may be true that news shouldn't be persuasion, but there are only so many new stories each day because they depend on events in the real world. Making up additional stories for Somerby's entertainment because he's heard the most important current events by 10 AM, is not the function of mainstream media.
Somerby: I’ve got nothing.
ReplyDeleteEveryone else: We know!
Arthur Miller has resurrected himself to posthumously write a new play:
ReplyDeleteDeath of a Blog
The mainstream media is sanewashing Trump's threats against Mexico, Greenland and Panama, suggesting this is like the westward expansion of the 1800s. Actually this is more like Hitler's invasion of Poland. Why is this talk receiving a bye from the media and other observers, including Somerby?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.jefftiedrich.com/p/why-is-cnn-sanewashing-trumps-threats
This is the kind of thing the alternative left media is talking about. Why isn't Somerby noticing this behavior by the mainstream press that is his focus? Just like he believed the mainstream news and didn't question it when it was telling the same poopy pants jokes against Biden as Gutfeld was. Somerby is about as far from a media watchdog as you can get. He spends all of his time promoting right wing sources and ignoring real events on the left, as CNN helps Trump advance his plans to attack sovereign nations and allies instead of sounding an alarm about it.
This is nothing like Hitler's invasion of Poland. Hitler's invasion of Poland involved troops and tanks and killing people. Trump's threats are just words.
DeleteJokes. Like the ones about his border security.
DeleteHitler didn't invade Poland on Day 1. This is actually very similar to Hitler's provocation with Poland. Hitler demanded the Polish Corridor from Poland. Trump in his ignorant unprovoked belligerent demands to Panama is demanding they hand over the Panama Canal, their sovereign territory.
DeleteIt's false to suggest “left-wing media” exists.
DeleteJeff Tiedrich's pieces are written to reinforce a shared sense of moral panic among readers who already distrust Trump. They sacrifice complexity for impact which makes them facile breeding grounds for groupthink. This type of media does a disservice to the cause it seeks to advocate.
DeleteIt's like candy. It feels good but it's bad for you.
It would be a huge mistake to take what he writes seriously. Doing so would cause readers to focus more on criticizing and mocking opponents than on promoting their own values. The last thing we need is more Democrats looking at complex issues in black-and-white terms.
“ Trump's threats are just words.”
DeleteEmpty words, or…?
We’re working on developing left wing media. It will exist.
DeleteAgreeing with someone is not “groupthink”.
Delete"Long-term funding for first responders with lingering health issues from the 9/11 terror attacks was dropped from the federal budget to avoid a government shutdown last week, prompting criticism from the workers and their unions."
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"We think there are a boatload of answers to that second question."
ReplyDeleteA boatoad of answers? Anyone know where I might find a list of them?
Can you not think of many?
DeleteI can think of about 30 off the top of my head.
DeleteJeez, y'all aren't much fun.
DeleteOur Host has been endlessly promising a list of reasons why Trump won since right after the election. Yet, the list has yet to appear. My question was rhetorical or ironical or some other intellectual shit.
Quaker -- see "10 Reasons to Vote for Donald Trump"
ReplyDeletehttps://townhall.com/columnists/jennybethmartin/2024/11/01/10-reasons-to-vote-for-donald-trump-n2647052
Also see other lists of reasons at
https://www.google.com/search?q=reseasons+to+vote+for+trump&sca_esv=3a8e7eb7e7e5ec6f&sxsrf=ADLYWIJuPM1AXRITJaLvN1oaFXlAL6pAUA%3A1735076729807&source=hp&ei=eStrZ5rULtSn0PEP5pTm6As&iflsig=AL9hbdgAAAAAZ2s5iSAMprKQKsq5EXa6D8vuo7P9Fnw7&ved=0ahUKEwja9IrBsMGKAxXUEzQIHWaKGb0Q4dUDCBs&uact=5&oq=reseasons+to+vote+for+trump&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhtyZXNlYXNvbnMgdG8gdm90ZSBmb3IgdHJ1bXBIpZsCUPAHWKaZAXAFeACQAQCYAXOgAbkVqgEEMzEuM7gBA8gBAPgBAZgCHaACwBCoAgrCAgcQIxgnGOoCwgIKECMYgAQYJxiKBcICBBAjGCfCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIREC4YgAQYsQMY0QMYgwEYxwHCAg4QLhiABBixAxiDARiKBcICBRAuGIAEwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMY0QMYxwHCAggQLhiABBixA8ICCxAAGIAEGLEDGMkDwgILEAAYgAQYkgMYigXCAg4QABiABBixAxiDARiKBcICBRAAGIAEwgILEC4YgAQY0QMYxwHCAhQQLhiABBixAxjHARiYBRiaBRivAcICDRAAGIAEGLEDGEYY-QHCAg4QLhiABBjHARiOBRivAcICCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BwgIHEC4YgAQYCsICBxAAGIAEGArCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICChAuGIAEGLEDGArCAgoQABiABBixAxgKwgIIEAAYgAQYogTCAgUQABjvBcICBxAhGKABGArCAgUQIRirAsICBRAhGKABwgIHEAAYgAQYDZgDB_EFy-seVDCyP-CSBwQyNy4yoAeXvQE&sclient=gws-wiz
Basking in the warmth of Christmas Eve, the Anons courageously inform me that Our Host is nothing but an evil, sexist, racist, ignorant, misogynistic, lying, schizophrenic asshole.
ReplyDeleteAnd a very Merry Christmas to you, too!
You forgot pedophile.
DeleteSomerby has said several times that he is not religious. He may not be celebrating Christmas the way you do, JC. The same goes for other commenters here.
DeleteOn what planet should warning people about evil be put off because it is the day before a holiday? Please note that Somerby considered this day fit to carry on with his agenda. Does evil misogyny belong as a part of the "warmth of Christmas Eve"? Have you helped your sig other with any of the holiday preparations yourself? You seem to be some distance from your own kitchen or hearth.
Guess what — you’ve discharged your duty to warn, over and over and over and over and over again. We get it — you think he’s a bad dude.
DeleteI don’t think you do get it.
DeleteOh, if I disagree it must be because I don’t get it? How arrogant and conceited you are!
Delete"Some experts now suggest that Chatty Cathy also led to the invention of the modern-day Fox News Channel contributor, a type of performer who is sometimes being compared to a pull-string talking doll."
ReplyDeleteThe various right wing "contributors" and hosts and even the politicians could all benefit from thinking about Just Ken and the male identity crisis portrayed in Gerwig's Barbie movie. These guys don't seem to know how to be men or even what it means to be male (aside from ball-tanning and too much spray tan). The abundance of sex crimes committed by the men Trump has gathered around him suggest these guys have no idea how to behave toward women and have odd notions about what aggression is for (invading Canada, Panama, Greenland, Mexico because you want something they own?). Even J.D. Vance doesn't know who he is or what to do next.
The women on the right resemble drag queens in their makeup and dress and are caricatures of femininity, much like Cecelia here. That may be why transwomen and drag queens are so threatening to the right. If anyone can dress up to look "pretty" (even Laura Loomer) then what makes a woman an actual woman? They keep asking the left to define woman because they really want to know. The Barbie Movie explores those questions in a more serious way than Somerby, even while he suggests that those lost boys were abused as children, not that they may have been taught to pursue an empty sense of masculine entitlement that has not materialized no matter how big a tantrum they throw. Sadly, real women don't want to have much to do with Kens who don't know who they are without power and wealth.
I would feel sorry for Musk except he is too big an asshole. In that way, Musk and Trump are kindred souls. Somerby blames his mother for everything he doesn't like about his life. But a real man takes responsibility for his own choices.
“Somerby blames his mother for everything he doesn’t like about his life.”
ReplyDeleteThis is one weird, drive-by smear. Where do these Anon Somerby-Haters come from, anyway? And don’t they have anything better to do with their time?
Somerby wrote and put on a one-man show about his relationship with his mother. He used to mention her more often in the first decade of this blog.
Delete