I should also note that 'gawp' tends to have a positive meaning, so it is not the right word. Appalled or aghast might be closer, but there's not a word for when something just short circuits any sort of judgement and you just stand there, slack-jawed.
"(etwas) bis zur Vergasung (tun)" (to do something up to the gassing)
It means to (have to) do something beyond the point where it gets really annoying/cumbersome/intolerable, e.g. having to work overtime constantly or a sports trainer or PE teacher forcing yet another round around the stadium (and then another, and another...)
Originating from WW1 and popular in the inter-war years. Since WW2 there is a taboo because most people assume it is referring to the holocaust. But it is still used, often unthinkingly.
Granted, being in a single family dwelling would tend to avoid that scenario.
No guarantee. These guys (and the police too) get addresses wrong all the time and will not listen (let alone admit fault). There is also a tendency to leave the place crashed and the pets shot. And don't try home defense or you'll join the pets.
Interesting stuff. My own feeling is that a big problem arises when people take positions that they don't really have a stake in, but use it to fight against the other side. This raises the question of whether an issue is something that a person is really committed to or if it is 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. So when Charles argues, after a long history of arguing for libertarian principles, how front doors of ICE facilities need National Guard protection, I wonder if he's for real or just trolling or possibly just doesn't know the difference.
It is rather illiberal to argue that someone's opinions doesn't matter, but I can think of a number of examples on both sides of people seemingly taking on opinions that don't really have a lot to do with them but arguing for them vehemently. This goes hand in hand with the larger issue of astroturfing and fake identities. It may be a lost cause, especially for larger platforms, but we can try to do a Candide and cultivate our gardens.
Sorry, cross-posted with nous because of tedious copy-editing! The only thing I need to add, having read his, is that I see no necessity for an "artificial [or even non-artificial] levelling of the sides". Arguing about something does not preclude one calling it immoral, or dangerous.
There’s no way to structure things in a way that looks even and balanced when the right has decided that they don’t need to listen to, work with, or care about anything and anyone on the other side.
Why do we need to "structure things in a way that looks even and balanced"? Any discussion we have on a blog surely just needs to be argued reasonably civilly, without tricks or ignoring the context - the kinds of things "the right" might argue here will not necessarily change their unwillingness "to listen to, work with or care about anything and anyone on the other side", but if they're commenting here there's presumably some reason for it, and as we have often seen in the past, such discussions can provoke interesting exchanges.
The problem, as nous notes, is that the “two sides” aren’t really comparable at this point.
Alas, this is inarguably so. But surely that is exactly what our discussions highlight? Most of us have already acknowledged that we do not or cannot have these conversations in real life. But isn't there some benefit to continuing to have them here, even if it is only (and I don't think it is) as a way to vent some of our feelings? After all, we still talk to Charles, and he still talks to us, even though his opinion of Ubu has (glacially slowly) somewhat changed?
I think a lot of people found the way that the early centrist blogs performed that even-handedness that russell identifies above to be productive and valuable for getting past ideological positions to something more dynamic. It was widespread enough that people learned how to do it as a sort of generic exercise. A lot of bright people have a hard time knowing how to get at that sort of cross-cutting commentary without falling back on the structures they have learned for writing those sorts of commentary.
That's not always a failure of good faith, sometimes it's just a struggle with form combined with an impatience with impasse.
But the effect of that, of course, is to create a sort of artificial leveling of the sides through equivocation, which hollows out the resulting conversation. That leads to a different form of impatience and frustration.
nous: well, I don't think we need to have things be (or look) even and balanced to want someone who is arguing in good faith to acknowledge that while approving of some things the government is doing, they also acknowledge that those things may pale into insignificance compared to some of the other things it is doing.
When Charles says "I agree with most of the criticisms of Trump. I don’t feel compelled to reiterate them.", but still argues in favour of suppression of the ICE protests in Portland, while ignoring for example what is fuelling the anti-ICE movements nationwide, I think that this shows a certain amount of bad faith (whether intentional or not). The context of the anti-ICE protests, including but not limited to the unwillingness of the states to have them operate in these ways, is an important element, surely? It is still possible to have conservative (and I am supposing libertarian) voices discuss how they do not disagree with everything the government is doing, but still despise and condemn others of their actions. You see it with people like David Frum, and the Lincoln Project people, for example. I do not think we should give up on aspiring to have rational, good faith discussions with people of opposing opinions.
I don't think the fault lies in CharlesWT so much as in the devolution of what passes for mainstream right wing politics. There's no way to structure things in a way that looks even and balanced when the right has decided that they don't need to listen to, work with, or care about anything and anyone on the other side.
An entire genre of blog commentary cannot function anymore, no matter how we try to replicate it.
On the street, sure. But consider the recent case of ICE busting into an apartment building and effectively taking everyone inside into custody. With getting back out of custody being a matter of having to prove your innocence. Being an old white guy like you or me not being any protection against finding yourself in cuffs (more likely zip ties), lying in the street for a couple of hours wearing whatever you happened to be using for sleep wear.
Granted, being in a single family dwelling would tend to avoid that scenario. But there's no reason that I can see that the same treatment might not be visited on, for example, everybody who happened to be in a particular store or restaurant.
I confess that I have considered the merits of routinely carrying my passport with me. Just to have some sort of proof of citizenship readily to hand.
"Papers, please!". (Except that there's no way these thugs say "please".)
I don't know if it is because I have been digging around the archives, but my sense is that Charles is trying to replicate those glorious conversations of old between liberal and conservative voices. Unfortunately, Charles (and Grok, I assume) are really only a pale imitation of those commenters past. First rule of holes, Charles.
And Charles, that was what I was getting at by asking if you had read that link: you were arguing in favour of the need for the feds to fight small numbers of "Antifa" protesters outside an ICE facility, in a state which had rejected their "help", while ICE and other DOJ forces are going after often harmless, blameless people because they look brown or speak Spanish, irrespective of any grounds for suspicion of illegality.
This is explicit, unlawful, and unaccountable state violence – in some cases extreme – toward harmless people.
***
It’s terrorism, by the government, directed toward peaceful residents, both legal and not. It’s not something we have seen here at this level, and as far as I can tell we have no means of curbing it
To be perfectly honest, I am less concerned about violence between folks like the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer and their ilk, versus "antifa" however that term is construed.
What I am most disturbed by is the violence brought by federal law enforcement, most especially ICE.
You can walk away from a Proud Boy vs. antifa fight. If they really insist on bringing to you, which is only likely to happen in situations you can pretty easily avoid, you can fight back to the best of your ability. Or just run away.
If ICE or the FBI or similar come for you, the options of walking away or fighting back are not really available. They'll get you jailed or shot.
This is explicit, unlawful, and unaccountable state violence - in some cases extreme - toward harmless people. It is utterly unnecessary for purposes of finding and dealing with people who are here without legal status.
It's terrorism, by the government, directed toward peaceful residents, both legal and not. It's not something we have seen here at this level, and as far as I can tell we have no means of curbing it.
I appreciate the suggestion, wj, but let's not overlook the larger point. It's not myself I worry about. The circumstances in which I, an aging white guy with no discernible foreignness about me, might need to prove my citizenship to an ICE "agent" on the street are circumstances in which you or anybody else could find themselves.
--TP
Charles, did you actually read russell’s link at 7.35? Is that necessary, or OK with you?
I agree with most of the criticisms of Trump. I don't feel compelled to reiterate them.
The government has more important things it could be doing than chasing down illegal immigrants who haven't broken the law, have jobs, and families. The ones who have been here for some number of years and stayed out of trouble should be given a path to becoming legal. More legal immigration should be allowed, and the bureaucratic nightmare of doing so should be fixed.
Afterword to my earlier comment about "play stupid games, win stupid prizes..."
I'd prefer that the prizes that people won for playing stupid games were the most gentle possible version of the prize that would actually relieve them of the urge to play stupid games and steer them into playing smart games that have prizes we all get to share to our mutual benefit.
Like Marty during the first He, Trump regime, CharlesWT now freely denounces He, Trump while supporting His anti-anti-fascist actions. The Libertarian(TM) attitude is getting awfully close to the MAGAt position on free speech: "I will defend to the death your right to agree with me."
Speaking of defending rights, russell pointed out upthread that those who insist they need guns to defend against government tyranny never seem to get around to defending other people's rights with them.
I ask CharlesWT in all seriousness: what does he want National Guard or even Regular Army troops to actually do in "war-ravaged" American cities?
I've been not dealing with this because it is less painful to me to be angry than to be sad. There are people whose death really hurts--I mean people I don't know but seem somehow permanent and essential so it's a shock when they die.
On “WTF moments at cultural borders”
Hartmut, holy shit...
I should also note that 'gawp' tends to have a positive meaning, so it is not the right word. Appalled or aghast might be closer, but there's not a word for when something just short circuits any sort of judgement and you just stand there, slack-jawed.
"
"(etwas) bis zur Vergasung (tun)" (to do something up to the gassing)
It means to (have to) do something beyond the point where it gets really annoying/cumbersome/intolerable, e.g. having to work overtime constantly or a sports trainer or PE teacher forcing yet another round around the stadium (and then another, and another...)
Originating from WW1 and popular in the inter-war years. Since WW2 there is a taboo because most people assume it is referring to the holocaust. But it is still used, often unthinkingly.
On “Citizenship”
Granted, being in a single family dwelling would tend to avoid that scenario.
No guarantee. These guys (and the police too) get addresses wrong all the time and will not listen (let alone admit fault). There is also a tendency to leave the place crashed and the pets shot. And don't try home defense or you'll join the pets.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
Interesting stuff. My own feeling is that a big problem arises when people take positions that they don't really have a stake in, but use it to fight against the other side. This raises the question of whether an issue is something that a person is really committed to or if it is 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. So when Charles argues, after a long history of arguing for libertarian principles, how front doors of ICE facilities need National Guard protection, I wonder if he's for real or just trolling or possibly just doesn't know the difference.
It is rather illiberal to argue that someone's opinions doesn't matter, but I can think of a number of examples on both sides of people seemingly taking on opinions that don't really have a lot to do with them but arguing for them vehemently. This goes hand in hand with the larger issue of astroturfing and fake identities. It may be a lost cause, especially for larger platforms, but we can try to do a Candide and cultivate our gardens.
"
Sorry, cross-posted with nous because of tedious copy-editing! The only thing I need to add, having read his, is that I see no necessity for an "artificial [or even non-artificial] levelling of the sides". Arguing about something does not preclude one calling it immoral, or dangerous.
"
There's something I'm missing here.
There’s no way to structure things in a way that looks even and balanced when the right has decided that they don’t need to listen to, work with, or care about anything and anyone on the other side.
Why do we need to "structure things in a way that looks even and balanced"? Any discussion we have on a blog surely just needs to be argued reasonably civilly, without tricks or ignoring the context - the kinds of things "the right" might argue here will not necessarily change their unwillingness "to listen to, work with or care about anything and anyone on the other side", but if they're commenting here there's presumably some reason for it, and as we have often seen in the past, such discussions can provoke interesting exchanges.
The problem, as nous notes, is that the “two sides” aren’t really comparable at this point.
Alas, this is inarguably so. But surely that is exactly what our discussions highlight? Most of us have already acknowledged that we do not or cannot have these conversations in real life. But isn't there some benefit to continuing to have them here, even if it is only (and I don't think it is) as a way to vent some of our feelings? After all, we still talk to Charles, and he still talks to us, even though his opinion of Ubu has (glacially slowly) somewhat changed?
"
I think a lot of people found the way that the early centrist blogs performed that even-handedness that russell identifies above to be productive and valuable for getting past ideological positions to something more dynamic. It was widespread enough that people learned how to do it as a sort of generic exercise. A lot of bright people have a hard time knowing how to get at that sort of cross-cutting commentary without falling back on the structures they have learned for writing those sorts of commentary.
That's not always a failure of good faith, sometimes it's just a struggle with form combined with an impatience with impasse.
But the effect of that, of course, is to create a sort of artificial leveling of the sides through equivocation, which hollows out the resulting conversation. That leads to a different form of impatience and frustration.
"
I'm not a mind reader and I don't wish to speak for Charles.
All of that said, his comments here strike me as an attempt to be even-handed. And to the degree that is so, I appreciate it.
The problem, as nous notes, is that the "two sides" aren't really comparable at this point.
"
nous: well, I don't think we need to have things be (or look) even and balanced to want someone who is arguing in good faith to acknowledge that while approving of some things the government is doing, they also acknowledge that those things may pale into insignificance compared to some of the other things it is doing.
When Charles says "I agree with most of the criticisms of Trump. I don’t feel compelled to reiterate them.", but still argues in favour of suppression of the ICE protests in Portland, while ignoring for example what is fuelling the anti-ICE movements nationwide, I think that this shows a certain amount of bad faith (whether intentional or not). The context of the anti-ICE protests, including but not limited to the unwillingness of the states to have them operate in these ways, is an important element, surely? It is still possible to have conservative (and I am supposing libertarian) voices discuss how they do not disagree with everything the government is doing, but still despise and condemn others of their actions. You see it with people like David Frum, and the Lincoln Project people, for example. I do not think we should give up on aspiring to have rational, good faith discussions with people of opposing opinions.
On “Citizenship”
Because, of course, everybody (even Steven Miller) has ancestors at some remove who were immigrants.
Stephen MIller.
tl;dr - Miller's great-grandfather came to the US in 1903.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
I don't think the fault lies in CharlesWT so much as in the devolution of what passes for mainstream right wing politics. There's no way to structure things in a way that looks even and balanced when the right has decided that they don't need to listen to, work with, or care about anything and anyone on the other side.
An entire genre of blog commentary cannot function anymore, no matter how we try to replicate it.
On “Citizenship”
On the street, sure. But consider the recent case of ICE busting into an apartment building and effectively taking everyone inside into custody. With getting back out of custody being a matter of having to prove your innocence. Being an old white guy like you or me not being any protection against finding yourself in cuffs (more likely zip ties), lying in the street for a couple of hours wearing whatever you happened to be using for sleep wear.
Granted, being in a single family dwelling would tend to avoid that scenario. But there's no reason that I can see that the same treatment might not be visited on, for example, everybody who happened to be in a particular store or restaurant.
I confess that I have considered the merits of routinely carrying my passport with me. Just to have some sort of proof of citizenship readily to hand.
"Papers, please!". (Except that there's no way these thugs say "please".)
On “Where are the 5 words?”
I don't know if it is because I have been digging around the archives, but my sense is that Charles is trying to replicate those glorious conversations of old between liberal and conservative voices. Unfortunately, Charles (and Grok, I assume) are really only a pale imitation of those commenters past. First rule of holes, Charles.
"
Exactly what russell said.
And Charles, that was what I was getting at by asking if you had read that link: you were arguing in favour of the need for the feds to fight small numbers of "Antifa" protesters outside an ICE facility, in a state which had rejected their "help", while ICE and other DOJ forces are going after often harmless, blameless people because they look brown or speak Spanish, irrespective of any grounds for suspicion of illegality.
This is explicit, unlawful, and unaccountable state violence – in some cases extreme – toward harmless people.
***
It’s terrorism, by the government, directed toward peaceful residents, both legal and not. It’s not something we have seen here at this level, and as far as I can tell we have no means of curbing it
That is the point.
"
To be perfectly honest, I am less concerned about violence between folks like the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer and their ilk, versus "antifa" however that term is construed.
What I am most disturbed by is the violence brought by federal law enforcement, most especially ICE.
You can walk away from a Proud Boy vs. antifa fight. If they really insist on bringing to you, which is only likely to happen in situations you can pretty easily avoid, you can fight back to the best of your ability. Or just run away.
If ICE or the FBI or similar come for you, the options of walking away or fighting back are not really available. They'll get you jailed or shot.
This is explicit, unlawful, and unaccountable state violence - in some cases extreme - toward harmless people. It is utterly unnecessary for purposes of finding and dealing with people who are here without legal status.
It's terrorism, by the government, directed toward peaceful residents, both legal and not. It's not something we have seen here at this level, and as far as I can tell we have no means of curbing it.
It's out of control.
On “Citizenship”
I appreciate the suggestion, wj, but let's not overlook the larger point. It's not myself I worry about. The circumstances in which I, an aging white guy with no discernible foreignness about me, might need to prove my citizenship to an ICE "agent" on the street are circumstances in which you or anybody else could find themselves.
--TP
On “Where are the 5 words?”
Charles, did you actually read russell’s link at 7.35? Is that necessary, or OK with you?
I agree with most of the criticisms of Trump. I don't feel compelled to reiterate them.
The government has more important things it could be doing than chasing down illegal immigrants who haven't broken the law, have jobs, and families. The ones who have been here for some number of years and stayed out of trouble should be given a path to becoming legal. More legal immigration should be allowed, and the bureaucratic nightmare of doing so should be fixed.
"
Charles, did you actually read russell's link at 7.35? Is that necessary, or OK with you?
"
"I told you so". LOL. Been sayin' that since 1967.
https://paulwaldman.substack.com/p/we-were-right
"
Afterword to my earlier comment about "play stupid games, win stupid prizes..."
I'd prefer that the prizes that people won for playing stupid games were the most gentle possible version of the prize that would actually relieve them of the urge to play stupid games and steer them into playing smart games that have prizes we all get to share to our mutual benefit.
"
Like Marty during the first He, Trump regime, CharlesWT now freely denounces He, Trump while supporting His anti-anti-fascist actions. The Libertarian(TM) attitude is getting awfully close to the MAGAt position on free speech: "I will defend to the death your right to agree with me."
Speaking of defending rights, russell pointed out upthread that those who insist they need guns to defend against government tyranny never seem to get around to defending other people's rights with them.
I ask CharlesWT in all seriousness: what does he want National Guard or even Regular Army troops to actually do in "war-ravaged" American cities?
--TP
"
Not so different from previous administrations
With all due respect, this is utter nonsense. Full stop.
A profile of Andy Ngo
Andy Ngo waded into a riot and got beaten up. I'm not justifying the violence, I'm just pointing out the obvious.
"
A profile of Andy Ngo
Andy Ngo: Polarizing Journalist, Ideological Divide
On “Jane Goodall RIP”
I've been not dealing with this because it is less painful to me to be angry than to be sad. There are people whose death really hurts--I mean people I don't know but seem somehow permanent and essential so it's a shock when they die.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
Antifa is a big threat to the US Constitution and the American people's civil liberties, unlike the powerless federal government.
I wonder if anyone will miss the sarcasm in that.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.