Geoff > Status Update

Jonathan wrote: "So, currently on Breitfart: Obama is apparently some sort of criminal mastermind (despite also being incompetent) who needs to be arrested asap and, along with his buddy Soros, is not only funding ..."

Sigh - the president can't order a wiretap, that's not legal. So the question is only if Trump is utterly stupid and ignorant of the law (he is) or if this is some kind of calculated maneuver to distract from the Russia revelations (it probably is) - if it's the former he's delusional and really needs to study law, if it's the latter I got to say that's a pretty lame attempt.

Either way, this is a big fuck up from Trump - if it's not true he is either delusional or a liar - if it is true it means there was substantial evidence for a federal judge to order the wiretap. (Again, it would not have been Obama but a federal judge as part of a federal investigation.). He had better hope it's the former, because the latter could remove him from the presidency.

Geoff wrote: "Either way, this is a big fuck up from Trump - if it's not true he is either delusional or a liar - if it is true it means there was substantial evidence for a federal judge to order the wiretap. (..."

In that case I hope it's the latter.

Oh and Geoff - according to Breitbart you and your fellow protestors in DC this week were all paid by Soros and Obama - the proof being how quickly you made professional looking signs... lol

Jonathan wrote: "Oh and Geoff - according to Breitbart you and your fellow protestors in DC this week were all paid by Soros and Obama - the proof being how quickly you made professional looking signs... lol"

Lol I didn't have a sign, and I commented above how many of the signs were clearly pieced together from office supplies. Sad!

Even Republicans in congress are calling for him to produce evidence of his claims immediately. They have to be getting sick of this shit too, right?

Talk about an embarrassment to the office of the President of the U.S. Jeez, we thought Reagan in his last couple years was embarrassing; then it was the Clinton scandal that was; then it was some of the simple-minded things that Bush the younger said. But this makes all those embarrassments look like just preludes to the main act.

(I actually didn't even tune in to the news at all today - some great basketball on - Maryland - Mich. St was such a killer game, and Duke-UNC was pretty epic. The conference tournaments this week and then the NCAAs are going to be a lovely distraction from all things Trump. College basketball is my opiate of the masses of choice.)

Ted wrote: "Talk about an embarrassment to the office of the President of the U.S. Jeez, we thought Reagan in his last couple years was embarrassing; then it was the Clinton scandal that was; then it was some ..."

It's something to behold, huh? It's like watching a slow motion ten car pileup, that are somehow all clown cars.

Punch the Nazi.

The following sort of gets at why I yawn every freakin' time gr starts to "debate" "free speech" ::
https://itself.blog/2017/03/08/the-gr...

"The Groundhog Day theory of free speech, where we have to start from zero every time an idea comes up, where we have to act like history never happened — that is not a model of free speech worth defending. Some things are true, some things are false, and some things are profoundly dangerous. If free speech isn’t an engine for collaboratively discerning those distinctions, then it’s sheer nihilism."

I don't need to give a platform to the advocation of genocide anymore than I need to give a platform to someone who wants to "debate" whether rape is really wrong.

In other words, it's the old Hegelian point that reasoned discourse does in fact have a result is not always only process. Like with the question of climate change.

Excuse me for not participating in The Great Debate over the last few days - have been travelling.

I am really very confused about the Swedish no-go zones, if people haven't already forgotten about them. On the one hand, I was at an international research meeting yesterday in Brussels and found myself sitting next to the Swedish delegate, a very sensible woman I've known for years. I asked her what her take on this was. She said she'd once ended up by accident in a bad part of Göteborg where nearly everyone is a migrant, and been escorted out by a couple of policemen who told her she should have had more sense. She described it as a pretty scary experience.

On the other hand, I looked at the map of Stockholm (I am kind of forgetting my Swedish geography) and confirmed my hazy memories... Rinkeby is close to where I used to work, at the Swedish Institute of Computer Science in Kista. It's about 3 km from my old office to Rinkeby underground station. SICS is still at the same address. Normally, large research institutes are not situated in or on the edges of no-go zones.

I am going to have to go check this out for myself.

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "Punch the Nazi.

The following sort of gets at why I yawn every freakin' time gr starts to "debate" "free speech" ::
https://itself.blog/2017/03/08/the-gr...

"The Groundhog..."

Right on, Kotsko. I want to read his Satan book too.

Manny wrote: "Excuse me for not participating in The Great Debate over the last few days - have been travelling.

I am really very confused about the Swedish no-go zones, if people haven't already forgotten abou..."

Rinkeby is infamous in Sweden and recently have had some international press when an Australian news crew was attacked there. Just the other day journalist Tim Pool, who seemed to be set on proving that there were no no-go zones in Sweden, had to be escorted out of Rinkeby by the police for his own safety.

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "Punch the Nazi.

The following sort of gets at why I yawn every freakin' time gr starts to "debate" "free speech" ::
https://itself.blog/2017/03/08/the-gr..."

And the inevitable follow=up post : Who Decides?!!!??!!!
https://itself.blog/2017/03/08/who-de...

"Whenever this kind of suggestion comes up, it is inevitable that someone will ask, “Who decides?!” This comment is not meant to open up a discussion along the lines of “Well, maybe we could form a committee, etc.” No, it’s meant to shut down the discussion altogether, because presumably the idea of some particular human agent being in charge of such decisions is utterly intolerable. No one, no one could possibly be trusted with such power!"

Niklas wrote: "Rinkeby is infamous in Sweden and recently have had some international press when an Australian news crew was attacked there. Just the other day journalist Tim Pool, who seemed to be set on proving that there were no no-go zones in Sweden, had to be escorted out of Rinkeby by the police for his own safety."

There certainly seem to be people there who don't like English-speaking TV journalists. Well, I speak fluent Swedish and am not in the habit of filming people. Come August, I'll go take a look myself.

@Nathan "N.R." re: free speech

Well, I agree Nazism and white supremacy are both bad and wrong. But I still have to take exception to the argument:

"If free speech isn’t an engine for collaboratively discerning those distinctions..."

Well, but free speech isn't an engine for collaboratively discerning anything. Free speech is free speech.

If we want to credit that Groundhog's Day argument, we have to recognize that it is an anti-free-speech argument.

I'm more of a radical pro-free-speech kind of guy, though. I think even dangerous and wrong ideas need to be protected--protected in the sense that we protect the right to express and analyze them, even to do so anew.

Friend Nicole shared this wonderful article last night

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/0...

In my opinion, the important debate the left should be having is not whether Richard Spencer or Yianaogsuthwg##@ have a right to free speech, but whether this fixation on memes and cultural objects is distracting us from questions of real power.

'The jokey, superior, blankly sarcastic tone of limitless derision is ubiquitous online, but it is essentially universal in left spaces. Snarky gloating is now almost impossible to avoid in left-wing spaces, the old vision of the dour communist now entirely old fashioned compared to the digitally-enabled class clown. Strange that this attitude has grown at a time of near-total defeat for the left. Strange that so many on the left gloat like the Harlem Globetrotters while they lose like the Washington Generals. Or perhaps not so strange.'

Zadignose wrote: "I'm more of a radical pro-free-speech kind of guy, though. I think even dangerous and wrong ideas need to be protected--protected in the sense that we protect the right to express and analyze them, even to do so anew."

Territory and authority. Congress shall not abridge etc etc. But our social bodies, like universities, have no obligation to give a stage to assholes; assholes who are not enrolled. Meanwhile, the real battle--not presently being waged--is the right to speech during the time which you punch your clock at work. That is where the abridgement of free speech is happening.

And wrong and dangerous ideas should be rejected. And and and 'express and analyze them' is fundamentally different from advocating them.

"International Women's Day (IWD), originally called International Working Women's Day...."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...

Just going to leave that there...

David wrote: "'The jokey, superior, blankly sarcastic tone of limitless derision is ubiquitous online, but it is essentially universal in left spaces. Snarky gloating is now almost impossible to avoid in left-wi..."

David, who or what is "THE LEFT" that you're so hostile to? What other groupings of people do you recognize, distinct from THE LEFT, that you respect more? Which others do you recognize as not worth either feeling respect or contempt for?

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "And wrong and dangerous ideas should be rejected"

Who determines this?

To me, wrong and dangerous ideas are communism/marxism.

To you, it could be the complete opposite.

Neither, in my opinion, should be suppressed.

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "Territory and authority. Congress shall not abridge etc etc. But our social bodies, like universities, have no obligation to give a stage to assholes; assholes who are not enrolled..."

It's true that free speech does not mean the guaranteed provision of a forum and an audience. And if I were on a committee to invite and host lecturers, I'd probably vote to avoid most of the lunatics and cranks.

We don't necessarily have to swing to extremes either.

I'm horrified by the recent outburst of moronic babble from neo-fascist, paranoid, vicious, hateful, racist monsters. Campuses don't necessarily have to invite holocaust deniers to speak just to show they're open minded.

But I have also, at times been disturbed by the silencing of alternative views on campuses, and you know what I'm talking about, extreme sensitivity to speech leading to the persecution of faculty members who dare to suggest that university students are adults who can choose their own Halloween costumes, banned-word lists, demands for trigger warnings, and all that. The trolls are coming out at least in part because we've been shouting STFU at them so long that we've radicalized them.

Oh yeah, and the Black Bloc anarchists really need to be harshly condemned for bringing violent tactics to protests. They threaten to fuck everything up for everybody and play right into the fascists' hands.

Zadignose wrote: "Oh yeah, and the Black Bloc anarchists really need to be harshly condemned for bringing violent tactics to protests. They threaten to fuck everything up for everybody and play right into the fascis..."

the word 'fascist' gets thrown around wayyyyyy too easily in these parts.

Nick wrote: "Who determines this?

The categorical imperative.

Nick wrote: "the word 'fascist' gets thrown around wayyyyyy too easily in these parts. "

Dunno Nick, sounds about right to me:

"Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies."

Geoff wrote: " Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation"

This sounds very familiar... except not from Repubs.

I don't disagree with your literal definition. I just don't think it applies to the overwhelming majority of republicans. In fact, many on the left are just as guilty, if not more so.

Nick wrote: "Geoff wrote: " Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation"

Thi..."

You had an argument until Trump, and this cowardly congress. Trump/Bannon are fascists to the core. Their economic policies are the definition of fascist. The majority of Republicans might not be, but they're willing to accept it to get what they want. What's the difference at that point?

And I'll echo Chomsky here - the Republican party in the United States in 2017 represents the greatest threat to the survival of the human race in the history of mankind. They want to destroy the climate and they openly advocate the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons. They aren't only fascists, they're nihilists in the service of semiocapitalism. Since the Repubs effectively no longer believe in small government, what exactly are they for beyond personal profit at all costs, including the decimation of the human race?

Nick wrote: "This sounds very familiar... except not from Repubs.

I don't disagree with your literal definition. I just don't think it applies to the overwhelming majority of republicans. In fact, many on the left are just as guilty, if not more so."

Umm. Who or what are we looking at? If we are looking at Trump, his cabinet, those seated members of government who are strongly aligned with him, and his surrogates/mouthpieces, we're seeing the closest thing to fascism the U.S. has ever seen.

We might all want to make excuses for our own uncles or cousins (or selves?) who voted that way, as being the "overwhelming majority of republicans," but then they're just the dupes. The campaign and the presidency so far have been all about America-First nationalism, racist, xenophobic fear-mongering, war chants, militarization, preparation for armed conflict, exploitation of people's economic fears and woes, "national rejuvenation" (Make America Great Again), delegitimization of the free press... (with the unspoken but rather obvious motive of power and money grab behind the scenes/in plain sight) the whole thing screams fascism so loudly one must be intentionally deaf to not hear it.

It's a very very ugly scene, and oops, I'm back on the anti-Trump bandwagon again. And I'm depressed.

Ted wrote: "David wrote: "'The jokey, superior, blankly sarcastic tone of limitless derision is ubiquitous online, but it is essentially universal in left spaces. Snarky gloating is now almost impossible to av..."

I was quoting the article. It explains at length.

Self-critique is an honorable leftist tradition.

Talking about no-go zones in Sweden, immigrants, fascists/neo-Nazis and the IWD: I found this iconic photo that depicts all of these:

(see article)

David wrote: "Self-critique is an honorable leftist tradition."

Yebbut... self awareness, not that hideous Maoist-style self-criticism beloved of SJWs who seem to think everyone has to beat themselves up in public discussion and forever bow and scrape saying "I am not worthy", and anyone who doesn't is an enemy. That gives it a very, very bad name.
(So many times when I've seen people advocating this sort of thing, I've seen some history of abuse and depression in their bio, as they tend to be very public about that stuff, and rather than working to get through that - because they distrust therapeutic ideas, seeing them as some kind of monolith - they re-enact it on themselves and others via politics.)


Zadignose wrote:"But I have also, at times been disturbed by the silencing of alternative views on campuses, and you know what I'm talking about, extreme sensitivity to speech leading to the persecution of faculty members who dare to suggest that university students are adults who can choose their own Halloween costumes, banned-word lists, demands for trigger warnings, and all that. The trolls are coming out at least in part because we've been shouting STFU at them so long that we've radicalized them."

Totally agree.

Zadignose wrote: "Oh yeah, and the Black Bloc anarchists really need to be harshly condemned for bringing violent tactics to protests. They threaten to fuck everything up for everybody and play right into the fascis..."

Right right right. There's the equivalence between Left and Right. Anarchists breaking a few windows are just as bad as Trump dismantling the EPA. And SJWs are the Leftist equivalent of banning Muslims from the USofa. You guys remember who the real enemy is?

Well, it's about who has the power. If some of the hardline SJWs who hold power in student unions were actually running a country and legislating about freedom of speech and turning all manner of minor misunderstandings into criminal offences, then yeah I'd think it was appalling. Would affect a larger proportion of people too.

As a stance I consider it equally objectionable. Some days, more so.

Antonomasia wrote: "Well, it's about who has the power. If some of the hardline SJWs who hold power in student unions were actually running a country and legislating about freedom of speech and turning all manner of m..."

I get kind of tired of this meme. Please raise your hand if you've personally been harmed by one of these malignant SJW and weren't in a position to hit back.

Antonomasia wrote: "Well, it's about who has the power."

Very much so. Where are these dangerously powerful SJWs? Aren't they just gnats we all get so much joy out of swatting?

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "Zadignose wrote: "Oh yeah, and the Black Bloc anarchists really need to be harshly condemned for bringing violent tactics to protests. They threaten to fuck everything up for everybody and play rig..."

It's not a question of equivalence or who's more wrong. In this case I'm referring to a self-defeating tactic. Or... anyway a tactic to undermine the resistance to Trump. Right wing extremists have at times tried agitation tactics and bribery to stir up violence and disruption at rallies because it will alienate the peaceful protesters and lead to less support, while at the same time giving apparent legitimacy to the right. They want to make every opposition rally look like a dangerous phenomenon to fear and create a pretext to crack down on political protest. And here, with antifa doing the agitating, it just plays right into the Trump supporters' hands. Why do their dirty work for them. And why sully our own hands with violence, even if it's lesser or it's supposedly more justifiable?

I.e., whether we object ethically or not, it's wrong strategically.

The point is, I said it's about who's got the power. Trump & cronies have the power to implement their policies on a national scale so can carry out a different kind of harm.


But people have had their careers affected, e.g. sales of art works, or been booted out of political organisations, never mind the kind of social fallings out, reputation ruining and resultant depression that occur when people are vehment about political views of all kinds (not just these) at the level of power which these things do have in society. It is an approach which should also have less power than it has. Trump's racist cabinet should have less power too, but it has more at the moment.

And given that there are actually people I used to know or people my friends know who HAVE been turned on to some areas of right wing or conspiracist politics lately because of their objections to these views (whether or not they have personally been badmoithed beyond online mudslinging I am not sure) - not just abstract people in news reports - I think it more important than ever that the more open minded people on the left try and get that stuff dialled down. It IS losing votes and support.

The general impression from the media is that that side of the left has to stop being so rigid, and is. I think it's an important part of the conversation to actually show that not everyone on the left thinks that being white equals being a white supremacist or whatever.

People like that read social media, and if they can see there is actually an alternative to being an SJW or an Alex Jones fan - hey, there are actually people on the left who think some that stuff is bullshit and extreme too - then it's more worthwhile as activism than a lot of online political conversation.

I stand by what I said in 2397. Sorry about the window panes, the Halloween costumes, the hurt feelings, and not being able to say "bull dyke" at Berkeley, but the Republicans are trying to destroy the only climate we know of in the universe that supports life, and Trumpists believe there should be more nuclear weapons on earth and that countries should be using them, and the alt-right led by the second most powerful man in the world wants to ban an entire religion from our country! Jaysus F. Christ people!

Feels like there wasn't any point to what I said above... but

a) yes I can see these people don't have as much power (outside a few student organisations and other cliques)
b) their vociferous activities (as reported by a media who could have ignored them more if they'd known the potential effects) *are* steering some people who were on the left towards more rightwing opinions because if you object to that stuff, look for others who feel the same and happen not to know a few other really decent people on the left who also do, the stuff you end up reading is broadly right wing.

As I've said either here or elsewhere I think the climate situation is too far gone and too serious for something like the Paris agreement to be much more than pissing in the wind anyway. So yeah, Trump is somewhat worse than business as usual under Hillary, but it's not like she would have really made large scale change.

She wouldn't be dismantling the EPA or cutting 25% from NOAA's research budget or attempting to instigate a new nuclear arms race or be trying to ban Muslims and people who look like they might be Muslim from living in our country that's for goddamn sure.

And you're wrong - the climate situation isn't too far gone and the Paris agreement was a first major step in the right direction.

Antonomasia wrote: "As I've said either here or elsewhere I think the climate situation is too far gone and too serious for something like the Paris agreement to be much more than pissing in the wind anyway."

It has been obvious for some time that the right's strategy has been to transition smoothly from "we don't have enough evidence" to "it's too late".

I still don't quite understand why they're doing it though. Large-scale destruction of the Earth's ability to sustain life doesn't really seem to be in anyone's interests. The explanation that makes most sense is that people aren't actually rational, and only operate on short-term reasoning. All other species are like that: why should we be different?

Trump is the right's answer to leftist/liberal identity politics. The left has largely made its own bed with this one imo.

Niklas wrote: "Trump is the right's answer to leftist/liberal identity politics. The left has largely made its own bed with this one imo."

White male Americans don't need identity politics - they are the identity of politics. All you PC-bashing Dick Spencer types all I gotta say is boo-fuckin-hoo.

Manny wrote: "Antonomasia wrote: "As I've said either here or elsewhere I think the climate situation is too far gone and too serious for something like the Paris agreement to be much more than pissing in the wi..."

Never underestimate humanities' ability to believe what is in its selfish interest to believe and ignore the rest. From interaction with people at pretty high levels in a number of oil majors I can confirm that what happens is that the 1 piece of research that allows them to keep doing what they are doing, trumps the 1000 pieces of research that show the opposite.

But something like this: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/en...

gives a good indication of how the self-rationalisation works - they admit to the need to slow down climate change etc but the emphasis is more on the demand, the need, and the "vital" role their products play - and that only "practical solutions that are reliable, affordable and cost effective" should be considered (look at p31 of the full version of the report on the linked page)