You know, in the absence of video showing Kirk saying many of the things he is accused of saying (none of which have been exactly denied), I looked at his own old tweets etc. His wholehearted, full-throated defence of RFK Jnr, a man who is looked on by the entire worldwide scientific and medical community as an idiot and a very serious risk to human health (at the very least responsible for 80 deaths in a measles outbreak in Samoa, and who knows how many to come in the US) were enough to absolutely confirm the opinion of his malevolent influence. And telling Taylor Swift " Engage in reality more and get outside of the abstract clouds. Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You're not in charge" makes it much harder to doubt the things he is alleged to have said about black people, and jews.
bc's point about AOC taking Kirk's comments (presumably that's what bc meant by "things"?) out of context reminds me. I think it was wonkie who said on another thread that she was going to counter people saying that Kirk had not said the things he is quoted as saying by showing video of him actually saying them. A compilation of that kind of thing would be enormously useful, particularly with brief lead-ins and what follows. Does anybody know if something like that exists? In any case, it would be interesting to hear anything substantiating that Melissa Hortman ever said, did or proposed anything that could be realistically compared to the many things we have evidence of Kirk saying or believing.
One thing that I’m struck by about Cruz’ defense of free speech (and Rand Paul’s I think) is not that we do this because strength comes from a diversity of opinions, but because the liberals might do it to us.
Yes, I noticed that with a few of the Rs taking this tack. It does seem contemptible, but the only thing that gives me pause is that even if a particular person saying it actually did feel it was a matter of principle, they might nevertheless make this argument to bring as many Rs, MAGAs etc along with them as possible under prevailing conditions. However, I can't offhand think of anybody this might apply to (although of course I am not all that familiar with all of their records), and given the current state of the GOP, this would probably be a tiny minority even if it existed.
What wj said. Although, in the case of e.g. Ted Cruz, his past record entitles us to suspect that there may be more to his apparently principled stand than meets the eye. Cynicism which prompts a jump a particular way after reading the (national) room is different from sticking bravely to your principles. But sure, better to do it than not, like so many of the others.
CaseyL: it's hard to convey intonation in text! They said "home is wherever WE are", i.e. surely as long as your parents are here, it's home. And that's not right, as my sibs and I know all too well. My upbringing had many privileges, and wonderful, character-forming experiences, but it did not give a certain kind of security and stability which I see in friends who never changed country, and often lived in the same house their entire childhood. My parents, apart from (I suppose) being people of their generation, were both born and brought up in the same country until well into adulthood, so I guess they had no concept of the kind of deracination which can result from the loss of e.g. a culture, pets, etc etc.
I was dragged around a lot as a child (4 countries), homes changed and parents said "but darling, surely home is wherever we are?" (for clever and worldly people they were remarkably clueless about children's psychology), so I have now lived in the same apartment in London for 47 years - longer than almost anybody I know has lived anywhere. I lived in LA for a year in the 90s, but kept my apartment and it was always "home". Even when I married, I split my time fairly equally between the North Country and my London pad, and since my husband died eight years ago I have been permanently in London. The idea of moving is fairly horrifying to me. I wish I were more flexible, but I have just turned 70, so maybe that's that.
I think the contributions of lawyers can be very helpful. I wonder whether, for example, pollo de muerte knows about our move? bj is a lawyer of course, and someone we have heard from over here, but I don't recall ever getting any criticism of the current regime from that quarter.
Funnily enough, I only posted that last Klein/Shapiro piece for the preamble about the reaction to Klein's last piece! I didn't even read the Shapiro stuff - I barely knew of his existence until he was interviewed by Andrew Neil, one of our best known rightwing journalists (and ex-editor of the Sunday Times), fearsome and respected enough that BoJo refused to be interviewed by him the last time he ran, and saw Shapiro (obviously completely unaware of who Neil was and his background) responding to his proper questioning by calling him a leftwinger! Andrew Neil merely chuckled and moved on. But it was such an astonishing exhibition of ignorance and arrogance (Shapiro hadn't even bothered to look up who was interviewing him), and such an example of the tendency of these people immediately and brainlessly to label anyone who disagrees with them "leftwing", that I lost any interest in ever hearing anything else from him again. However, I suppose this phenomenon is now so widespread in the US that journalists can't just decide to boycott any politician or commentator who displays it.
Yes, a preview button would be great if not too troublesome to set up. Otherwise, it's taking me time to get used to the new layout, but no doubt it will get easier with more use.
Since lj mentions it, and we are not far from the end of the month and I still have 8 free gift articles left, this is the relevant Ezra Klein piece that Ta Nehisi Coates was addressing:
In the hope that I am done going into moderation, and further to wonkie's point about Goebbels, this is from the NYT in 1939, under the headline Goebbels Ends Careers of Five 'Aryan' Actors Who Made Witticisms About the Nazi Regime:
I normally disable what cookies I can when on any new site. I do not recall being asked about this when I first logged on here. Apparently, I have "Third Party Cookies" enabled, for what that's worth.
I thought I would see how long that last comment was in moderation, because I think last night the average for mine was about 40 minutes. It's now 21.02, so it's been in almost three hours, and I'm bored with checking on it, so this is just a catch up before I shut up shop. As I mentioned, all my boxes except website are filled and ticked. And Priest, the time stamp seems to be UK Summer Time, which is GMT+1.
How/where do you make the account. I can't find a way, and a search brought up nothing. Below my comment box I have a box for my handle, a box for my email address, an empty box (I don't have a website) and an already ticked box for "Save my name, email and website in this browser for the next time I comment".
Aha, out of the gulag! It only took about 40 minutes for both to come out.
I know almost nobody who disagrees with me about Trump, so that (luckily) doesn't arise. The exception is someone fiercely clever who has been my close friend since we were 11, and she is a tribal Republican who actually voted for Trump 3 times. I don't talk to her about it, because a) I can't bear to hear what she might say, b) I love her, and also I am worried about her cognitive decline (starting long before Trump). Now let's see if it's the gulag again...
lj, two of my comments on wonkie's post (the second one sentence saying the first is awaiting moderation) have gone into moderation! I thought this is the kind of thing you should know about!
wonkie, this is a subject which I spend a lot of time thinking about. For me, it matters most with personal friends (because I don't really have a social media presence), and luckily most of mine are roughly on the same page as me, at least about purely political issues. One exception is the Israel/Gaza situation, where someone I have known since she was a child, and whose family was and is deeply entwined with mine, is still (or was still a month or so ago) reflexively defending Israel's actions in Gaza, although not in the West Bank. She was deeply upset by my attitude and my arguments, and although I kept (civilly) making them for a while (because she is a) bright, b) a liberal/lefty, and c) generally a really good person), I stopped because I do not want her to disappear from my life or that of my family. So we have a truce, and don't discuss it. The only other friends I know who were supporting Israel wholeheartedly when we last discussed it several months ago, are non-Jewish (unlike the other friend) and rather rightwing. It will be interesting next time we talk about it to see if their attitude has changed at all in the meanwhile. The only thing which gave them pause in our last discussion was my point that Israel's actions in Gaza have done more damage to Israel than anything I have ever seen in my lifetime.
But on the subject of what kind of effect this sort of extreme argument is having on the participants, I am really worried. I have seen more and more people (including people with whom I agree) becoming more extreme and unempathetic, insulting, even cruel, in their arguments, the longer these kind of things go on. It seems to me a sort of radicalisation: not entirely surprising I suppose in people who have been defined by others in hateful ways, threatened over long periods with e.g physical violence, rape, murder etc because of their opinions, or have seen people they respect so threatened. As well as certain public figures, I have seen this "radicalisation" happen even with a few people to whom I am very close. Personally, I spend a lot of time and effort trying to make sure this doesn't happen to me - I don't want my opinion to change for any reason other than exposure to new information, or other rational (as opposed to emotional) evolution. I hope I have been reasonably successful, but it is a worry.
And, of course, on a societal level, it is a disaster. We are rapidly becoming a world in which it is impossible to have rational discussions and disagreements on many important subjects. I feel very gloomy about it.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Un morceau de blog”
Fascinating stuff on autism - thank you novakant, lj and bc!
On “Precursors”
You know, in the absence of video showing Kirk saying many of the things he is accused of saying (none of which have been exactly denied), I looked at his own old tweets etc. His wholehearted, full-throated defence of RFK Jnr, a man who is looked on by the entire worldwide scientific and medical community as an idiot and a very serious risk to human health (at the very least responsible for 80 deaths in a measles outbreak in Samoa, and who knows how many to come in the US) were enough to absolutely confirm the opinion of his malevolent influence. And telling Taylor Swift " Engage in reality more and get outside of the abstract clouds. Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You're not in charge" makes it much harder to doubt the things he is alleged to have said about black people, and jews.
"
bc's point about AOC taking Kirk's comments (presumably that's what bc meant by "things"?) out of context reminds me. I think it was wonkie who said on another thread that she was going to counter people saying that Kirk had not said the things he is quoted as saying by showing video of him actually saying them. A compilation of that kind of thing would be enormously useful, particularly with brief lead-ins and what follows. Does anybody know if something like that exists? In any case, it would be interesting to hear anything substantiating that Melissa Hortman ever said, did or proposed anything that could be realistically compared to the many things we have evidence of Kirk saying or believing.
"
AOC's response seems pretty good to me. I wonder what bc makes of it...
On “Indefinitely isn’t what it used to be”
One thing that I’m struck by about Cruz’ defense of free speech (and Rand Paul’s I think) is not that we do this because strength comes from a diversity of opinions, but because the liberals might do it to us.
Yes, I noticed that with a few of the Rs taking this tack. It does seem contemptible, but the only thing that gives me pause is that even if a particular person saying it actually did feel it was a matter of principle, they might nevertheless make this argument to bring as many Rs, MAGAs etc along with them as possible under prevailing conditions. However, I can't offhand think of anybody this might apply to (although of course I am not all that familiar with all of their records), and given the current state of the GOP, this would probably be a tiny minority even if it existed.
"
What wj said. Although, in the case of e.g. Ted Cruz, his past record entitles us to suspect that there may be more to his apparently principled stand than meets the eye. Cynicism which prompts a jump a particular way after reading the (national) room is different from sticking bravely to your principles. But sure, better to do it than not, like so many of the others.
On “Rule Six, there is NO … Rule Six!…”
CaseyL: it's hard to convey intonation in text! They said "home is wherever WE are", i.e. surely as long as your parents are here, it's home. And that's not right, as my sibs and I know all too well. My upbringing had many privileges, and wonderful, character-forming experiences, but it did not give a certain kind of security and stability which I see in friends who never changed country, and often lived in the same house their entire childhood. My parents, apart from (I suppose) being people of their generation, were both born and brought up in the same country until well into adulthood, so I guess they had no concept of the kind of deracination which can result from the loss of e.g. a culture, pets, etc etc.
"
I wish you did belong here, hsh!
I was dragged around a lot as a child (4 countries), homes changed and parents said "but darling, surely home is wherever we are?" (for clever and worldly people they were remarkably clueless about children's psychology), so I have now lived in the same apartment in London for 47 years - longer than almost anybody I know has lived anywhere. I lived in LA for a year in the 90s, but kept my apartment and it was always "home". Even when I married, I split my time fairly equally between the North Country and my London pad, and since my husband died eight years ago I have been permanently in London. The idea of moving is fairly horrifying to me. I wish I were more flexible, but I have just turned 70, so maybe that's that.
On “IANAL, but…”
I think the contributions of lawyers can be very helpful. I wonder whether, for example, pollo de muerte knows about our move? bj is a lawyer of course, and someone we have heard from over here, but I don't recall ever getting any criticism of the current regime from that quarter.
On “Precursors”
Funnily enough, I only posted that last Klein/Shapiro piece for the preamble about the reaction to Klein's last piece! I didn't even read the Shapiro stuff - I barely knew of his existence until he was interviewed by Andrew Neil, one of our best known rightwing journalists (and ex-editor of the Sunday Times), fearsome and respected enough that BoJo refused to be interviewed by him the last time he ran, and saw Shapiro (obviously completely unaware of who Neil was and his background) responding to his proper questioning by calling him a leftwinger! Andrew Neil merely chuckled and moved on. But it was such an astonishing exhibition of ignorance and arrogance (Shapiro hadn't even bothered to look up who was interviewing him), and such an example of the tendency of these people immediately and brainlessly to label anyone who disagrees with them "leftwing", that I lost any interest in ever hearing anything else from him again. However, I suppose this phenomenon is now so widespread in the US that journalists can't just decide to boycott any politician or commentator who displays it.
"
And since Ezra Klein talks today about the reaction to that piece, here is his latest on that:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-ben-shapiro.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nk8.DjGX.vndkpD-Jytfn&smid=url-share
On “Time for a makeover: a webpage design thread”
Yes, a preview button would be great if not too troublesome to set up. Otherwise, it's taking me time to get used to the new layout, but no doubt it will get easier with more use.
On “We are all Usain Bolt now”
Maybe it's just me, but it's quite hard to interact with someone whose handle is '
On “Precursors”
Since lj mentions it, and we are not far from the end of the month and I still have 8 free gift articles left, this is the relevant Ezra Klein piece that Ta Nehisi Coates was addressing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination-fear-politics.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nU8.Vndl.HW2nTIeTvTs-&smid=url-share
On “Guestpost from Wonkie”
In the hope that I am done going into moderation, and further to wonkie's point about Goebbels, this is from the NYT in 1939, under the headline Goebbels Ends Careers of Five 'Aryan' Actors Who Made Witticisms About the Nazi Regime:
https://www.nytimes.com/1939/02/04/archives/goebbels-ends-careers-of-five-aryan-actors-who-made-witticisms.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nE8.IExY.Y2cofB8EzqsL&smid=url-share
On “Notes about commenting”
And, amazingly, that did not go into moderation! lj must have performed some magic...
"
I normally disable what cookies I can when on any new site. I do not recall being asked about this when I first logged on here. Apparently, I have "Third Party Cookies" enabled, for what that's worth.
"
Correction: the time stamp was 8.05, which is indeed GMT, so the first comment had been in moderation for almost two hours.
"
I thought I would see how long that last comment was in moderation, because I think last night the average for mine was about 40 minutes. It's now 21.02, so it's been in almost three hours, and I'm bored with checking on it, so this is just a catch up before I shut up shop. As I mentioned, all my boxes except website are filled and ticked. And Priest, the time stamp seems to be UK Summer Time, which is GMT+1.
"
Another test comment. Let's see
"
How/where do you make the account. I can't find a way, and a search brought up nothing. Below my comment box I have a box for my handle, a box for my email address, an empty box (I don't have a website) and an already ticked box for "Save my name, email and website in this browser for the next time I comment".
On “Guestpost from Wonkie”
Aha, out of the gulag! It only took about 40 minutes for both to come out.
I know almost nobody who disagrees with me about Trump, so that (luckily) doesn't arise. The exception is someone fiercely clever who has been my close friend since we were 11, and she is a tribal Republican who actually voted for Trump 3 times. I don't talk to her about it, because a) I can't bear to hear what she might say, b) I love her, and also I am worried about her cognitive decline (starting long before Trump). Now let's see if it's the gulag again...
On “Excelsior 2.0: more details about the site and requests”
lj, two of my comments on wonkie's post (the second one sentence saying the first is awaiting moderation) have gone into moderation! I thought this is the kind of thing you should know about!
On “Guestpost from Wonkie”
And again, for no reason I can make out, my comment is "awaiting moderation".
"
wonkie, this is a subject which I spend a lot of time thinking about. For me, it matters most with personal friends (because I don't really have a social media presence), and luckily most of mine are roughly on the same page as me, at least about purely political issues. One exception is the Israel/Gaza situation, where someone I have known since she was a child, and whose family was and is deeply entwined with mine, is still (or was still a month or so ago) reflexively defending Israel's actions in Gaza, although not in the West Bank. She was deeply upset by my attitude and my arguments, and although I kept (civilly) making them for a while (because she is a) bright, b) a liberal/lefty, and c) generally a really good person), I stopped because I do not want her to disappear from my life or that of my family. So we have a truce, and don't discuss it. The only other friends I know who were supporting Israel wholeheartedly when we last discussed it several months ago, are non-Jewish (unlike the other friend) and rather rightwing. It will be interesting next time we talk about it to see if their attitude has changed at all in the meanwhile. The only thing which gave them pause in our last discussion was my point that Israel's actions in Gaza have done more damage to Israel than anything I have ever seen in my lifetime.
But on the subject of what kind of effect this sort of extreme argument is having on the participants, I am really worried. I have seen more and more people (including people with whom I agree) becoming more extreme and unempathetic, insulting, even cruel, in their arguments, the longer these kind of things go on. It seems to me a sort of radicalisation: not entirely surprising I suppose in people who have been defined by others in hateful ways, threatened over long periods with e.g physical violence, rape, murder etc because of their opinions, or have seen people they respect so threatened. As well as certain public figures, I have seen this "radicalisation" happen even with a few people to whom I am very close. Personally, I spend a lot of time and effort trying to make sure this doesn't happen to me - I don't want my opinion to change for any reason other than exposure to new information, or other rational (as opposed to emotional) evolution. I hope I have been reasonably successful, but it is a worry.
And, of course, on a societal level, it is a disaster. We are rapidly becoming a world in which it is impossible to have rational discussions and disagreements on many important subjects. I feel very gloomy about it.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.