It seems to me that every thread on ObWi has been more or less open in the 17 years I've been hanging around. In fact, my general sense is that "open" threads tend to stay on a single topic more than others do. In that spirit, let me say this on the page-layout theme:
Showing 20 Recent Comments would be better than the current 12.
If paging the Comments is really necessary, I'd appreciate more comments per page, at least.
One trouble with too-frequent posts is that conversations in Comments sometimes fizzle out prematurely, as people move on to comment under the latest post.
wj, you provoke me to trot out one of my favorite dictums once again:
The optimist thinks we live in the best of all possible worlds.
The pessimist fears this may be true.
I know, I know: you're not saying we live in the best of all possible worlds, since your optimism amounts to saying that a better world might arise from the ashes of the current debacle. Do you think we will live long enough to see it?
I give the possibility less than even odds, myself, because I don't see how we get there without a lot of fuss and bother. Maybe civil-war-level fuss and bother, because deMAGAfication will be fiercely resisted by the anti-anti-fascists. And it's not clear that deMAGAfication would even be on the agenda if the Democrats ever regain power.
"Look forward, not back" they will say again. "The MAGAts stole the SCOTUS fair and square" they will mumble. "Fire the army of yahoos who signed up to be ICE 'agents'? Tut, tut, there are civil service rules, you know" will be their position. They will not uproot and incinerate the poison ivy planted among the hydrangeas by the MAGAts, is what I'm saying.
Maybe, with "a lot of work", you can take back the GOP and I can put some backbone into the Democratic Party, but I have my doubts on both fronts. And I'm not even sure what the actual "work" would have to be.
Well, at least I managed yesterday to install a motion-activated porch light for the benefit of my mailman, who will soon be trying to find the mail slot in my front door after dark.
Chris Hayes might be right: "I think we increasingly live in a postgaffe, even a postscandal society." Or he might be wrong.
But I say this much is true: "electability" ain't what it used to be. John Kerry was more "electable" than Howard Dean. Hillary Clinton was more "electable" than Barack Obama. Then she was more "electable" than Bernie Sanders. Was "electability" what got He, Trump nominated in 2016? Not by the pundits' definition of "electability", I think.
It encourages me that Democratic office holders have started to use (some of) George Carlin's seven words. Some Americans may still be priggish enough to hold it against them, but a lot more Americans use all seven of those words in everyday conversation.
Alas, everyday conversation is seldom about politics. Maybe it's different in "swing" states, but here in MA we libruls seldom "talk politics" with friends and neighbors who might be MAGAts. So they (and we, I suppose) only get information and hear opinions from "the media" -- mass or social, but mainly personally selected. Sticking to conversation about the weather or the local sportsball team is The American Way, I guess.
russell: For folks heading out to No Kings tomorrow, stay safe and to whatever degree you can bring joy to it. I’m sorry to say I won’t be out there
No worries, russell -- I filled in for you. I even managed to wear a yellow shirt and cobble together a sign:
There were many, many signs, almost all hand-made. My favorite one was "STOP TRUTH DECAY". Lots of people, all ages from toddlers to geriatrics. Perfect weather here in Watertown, and a festive atmosphere. No unpleasantness of any sort, just 3-4 cops directing traffic through the tangled intersection that is Watertown Square. Some of the hardier souls headed into Boston for that rally, afterward.
I am anti-fascist. One implication of that is: I want criminals locked up, not people who the government says are criminals. Lawyers surely understand the distinction. So when bc points me to government sites which lay out accusations of doxxing, I appreciate it -- but I don't take it for granted that I'm getting the whole story there. Since I am personally in no position to "get the whole story", I am content to let courts do it. Back when Gitmo was a hot topic, I pointed out that habeas corpus is not merely a defendant's right, it's also one of mine: if the government, acting in my name, wants to lock somebody up, I want to know the reason why. Anti-anti-fascists may feel differently, of course.
Being anti-fascist does NOT mean I dismiss everything some Acting US Attorney says about any particular case. Maybe the facts ARE exactly what the "official government website" (with its "Democrats have shut down the government" banner) says they are. I get more suspicious when it comes to statistics. Have there been vastly more cases of ICE-doxxing than, say, judge-doxxing? Have more ICE agents than judges been harmed as a result of being doxxed? I don't know what "official" government statistics show, but I have a hunch the present government might fudge them a bit.
Being a layman, I can accept that The Law forbids publishing certain personal information about some categories of federal employees. Maybe that includes IRS clerks, maybe not, but either way I haven't heard about an epidemic of IRS clerks being doxxed. Running afoul of The Law by posting flyers like "This Revenuer lives in your neighborhood" doesn't seem to be worth the trouble for anybody. So maybe the doxxing of "brave" ICE agents is motivated by their high-handed brutality, not their official "duties", as others have pointed out.
BTW, as a layman, I can not claim to know what the Hatch Act has to say about partisan propaganda on "official government websites", but also as a layman I have to say: yeesh!
Being a naturalized citizen, I have to write a whole 'nother wall of text on immigration policy, but for the moment I only have time to ask: is it true or false that you have to be on US soil to ask for asylum?
bc: Doxing produced masks, which engender fear and are then criticized as fascist.
I'd like to know more about this "doxing". I do not trust Kristi Noem's statements about it any more than I trust her DHS 70% statistic. Let's hear about a few actual cases.
I am quite prepared to believe that there have been instances of people being publicly identified as ICE "agents", and I can easily believe those people were annoyed and embarrassed. But what else happened?
bc: Criticizing a side for “othering” by what seems to be to be “othering” of another sort isn’t a winning proposition.
Criticizing Nazis for "othering" Jews by politely refraining from "othering" Nazis is surely a losing proposition -- if the audience is mainly Nazi supporters. People might support the Nazis for all sorts of reasons other than Jew hatred, you see.
I'm sorry to tell you, bc, that those of my fellow Americans who are indifferent to, never mind approving of, the Gestapo tactics of Dear Leader's brown-shirted (literally!) masked thugs will always be "others" to me. If they choose to shrug off fascism, how would you advise people like me to reason with them?
Whatever your advice might be, I say this much is true: they are more likely to listen to you than to me. We godless America-hating soshulist anit-fascists are automatically suspect. Assuming you are anti-fascist yourself, maybe you should caution them about "othering". Maybe you can point out to them that the fascism is part of a package deal with the tax cuts for billionaires (and whatever else) they voted for. If it turns out that doing that gets you "othered" by them, welcome to the club.
LJ,
Frankly, it gives me the willies. Too funereal, too haunted-house-ish. Readable, but ... meh.
First time commenting from my phone, BTW. Let's see how it works.
--TP
I doubt I could read a book or a newspaper using white text on a black background. I have seen web pages like that, and found them just barely tolerable, FWIW.
And yes, this darker font on white background is grrreat.
--TP
The link is to Charlie Pierce's blog on the Esquire web site. It uses a pretty similar commenting format, but I think you need a subscription (~$20/yr) to get at the comments. That one uses threads -- you can reply to a comment -- but only 3 levels deep, I think. It has thumbs up/down tracked separately, and a notification function so you (a subscriber) can see who liked, disliked, or replied to your own comments. So, quite more elaborate than what I'm seeing here, but I've grown to like it.
CharlesWT, thank you for responding, and thank you for the content of your response. It's a good start toward civility when we can agree that "Trump shouldn’t be mobilizing the National Guard".
Without intending to criticize you in the least, I'd ask you and everybody else to think about what "an excuse" means. ISTM that "an excuse" implies an audience. There must be somebody to whom the "excuse" is offered as a valid justification. In the present context, I doubt it's He, Trump's conscience, for He seems to have none. I doubt it's the MAGAts, for they need none. So, the corporate media, maybe?
wj, I don't know about you, but "20-30 years from now" there's a good chance I will not be around to "look back". One might say I don't really have a "stake" in what 2055 America will look like. For many of "we" here, the long run is becoming less relevant every day.
GftNC, sometimes it's not true that "nobody forces you to interact with" people whose views are "morally repugnant". And I'm not talking about the obvious case of fascist ICE "agents" vis a vis anti-fascist protesters. I'm talking about ordinary social situations in which you'd be called uncivil if you argue with the MAGAts present, and uncivil if you decline to attend. The shameless can always take advantage of "civility".
CharlesWT, if "two wrongs don't make a right" does that mean that 3 wrongs do? In the Portland context, I ask you again: what would you want the Guard or the Army to actually do? And, not incidentally, what do you imagine Herr Trump wants them to do? (P.S. the "forum similar to this one" 10-15 years ago wasn't the old ObWi, was 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
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 am a US citizen. I passed a test, swore an oath, and have a certificate to prove it. The certificate is too precious to carry around like a driver's license. And it features a warning in red caps: "IT IS PUNISHABLE BY US LAW TO COPY, PRINT, OR PHOTOGRAPH THIS CERTIFICATE WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY", which sounds like carrying a photocopy around is verboten. That leaves me in the same position as everybody who entered the US via the maternity ward: unable to tell somebody with "ICE" stenciled on his jacket to fuck off. Imagine not being allowed to show your driver's license to a cop who pulls you over on suspicion of not having a driver's license. Real Murkins lack that much imagination, of course, and since most of them don't speak Spanish anyway ...
--TP
In some old Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon, a colonel rushes into the general's office and reports "Sir! Sir! Our anti-anti-missile missile just shots itself down, sir!" I am reminded of that whenever some anti-anti-fascist talk pops up.
Of course "Antifa"(TM) is a brand name like "X" or "Truth Social" -- not a descriptor. It's much less ... risible? contemptible? ... to be anti-Antifa(TM) than to be anti-anti-fascist, especially if you are Libertarian(TM) or just plain pro-liberty.
I understand the motivation behind the sentiment that protest must never inconvenience anybody. It's one way to make sure that protest goes unnoticed, so that those who support the status quo can feel righteous. Any protest that's loud or annoying is tantamount to war, right?
CharlesWT trolls by day, presumably because he's busy thinking serious Libertarian(TM) thoughts at night. Thoughts like Antifa(TM) Headquarters being a hotbed of "activists" dedicated to overthrowing the Libertarian(TM) and other pro-fascist parties.
Or maybe CharlesWT has inside dope (and I use the word advisedly) that Portland is in fact a violent hellscape at night. If I could be sure of that I might turn pro-fascist myself. Not libertarian, though; that would be a bit too much.
Without having read any of the links yet, I have to ask this: could anyone, even Ezra Klein, assert that Charlie Kirk was "doing Christianity the right way"?
bc, thanks for your reply. I am sorry to say it depresses me. Your tenor seems to be that Kirk was just a little too ... strident? extreme? Which word is more apt depends on whether he was mainly a provocateur or an ideologue. I think he was both, of course, but YMMV.
The "Prove Me Wrong" schtick was theater, not debate. Whether your position is popular or not, odious or not, sincere or not, the burden of proof in a debate is on you, the person asserting the position. Imagine me asserting that "Santa Claus is real" and demanding to be proved wrong.
Anyway, thanks again for replying. Maybe we do have some common ground in at least one way: canonizing Charlie Kirk is just a little too much.
In the "Kuzushi and Charlie Kirk" thread I wrote: I give Saint Charles of Kirk credit for one thing: unlike the gun fetishists we used to joust with on the old ObWi, he was willing to admit that an occasional massacre is the unavoidable cost of, and an acceptable price to pay for, our god-given 2nd Amendment. And I meant it. Although his position disgusts me, I really do appreciate the honesty of it. Here's the "full clip", to avoid accusations of quoting him out of context.
I mention it because this, from bc, caught my eye: There was a lot I didn’t agree with, and some of his interactions somewhat resemble what was described.
Out of sincere, no-fooling curiosity, I wish bc would mention one or two of those things he didn't agree with. We might have common ground, somewhere.
--TP
I once declared on the old site that it was perfect IMO. Being fickle, I say this one is perfect too. Lacking Michael's god-like powers, I am not tempted to customize the presentation for myself, and anyway I like it as is. FWIW, my laptop browser is Firefox and my Android browser is Chrome. From the start, I set Chrome to show me the laptop version of the page, as I had done on the old site. Works for me.
A preview function would be nice, but I haven't seen its absence be a problem so far.
So, that's my 2 cents worth of opinion. My gratitude for setting up the new site and for creating the archive site is boundless.
The Roman governor of the Roman province of Judea allegedly crucified Jesus of Nazareth for calling himself (or being called by others, perhaps) "King of the Jews". So, yes?
MAGAts are generally ignorant of the content, let alone the history, of their "faith". Or maybe not. Maybe "Christian Nationalist" is not an oxymoron but the modern-day culmination of the Jesus cult. Forget that whatever Jesus of Nazareth thought of "nationalism", American "patriotism" never crossed his mind. Ignore what namby-pamby Christians have to say about welcoming the stranger or caring for the poor, it's what the multimillionaire pastors of megachurches have to say that counts. Or what "martyrs" like Charlie Kirk have to say, for that matter.
The Gospel According to Saint Charles of Kirk got a curious sort of publicity boost by dint of his death. On the one hand, his "martyrdom" is purported to require veneration of his dedication to spreading his gospel. On the other hand, quoting it verbatim is blasphemy, according to the MAGAt Inquisition.
The MAGAts are determined to canonize Saint Charlie, but to forbid quoting him. Come to think of it, they don't like libruls quoting Jesus of Nazareth either.
--TP
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Thread”
It seems to me that every thread on ObWi has been more or less open in the 17 years I've been hanging around. In fact, my general sense is that "open" threads tend to stay on a single topic more than others do. In that spirit, let me say this on the page-layout theme:
Showing 20 Recent Comments would be better than the current 12.
If paging the Comments is really necessary, I'd appreciate more comments per page, at least.
One trouble with too-frequent posts is that conversations in Comments sometimes fizzle out prematurely, as people move on to comment under the latest post.
Please excuse my nitpicking. Carry on.
--TP
On “I got depressed so I bought hydrangeas”
wj, you provoke me to trot out one of my favorite dictums once again:
I know, I know: you're not saying we live in the best of all possible worlds, since your optimism amounts to saying that a better world might arise from the ashes of the current debacle. Do you think we will live long enough to see it?
I give the possibility less than even odds, myself, because I don't see how we get there without a lot of fuss and bother. Maybe civil-war-level fuss and bother, because deMAGAfication will be fiercely resisted by the anti-anti-fascists. And it's not clear that deMAGAfication would even be on the agenda if the Democrats ever regain power.
"Look forward, not back" they will say again. "The MAGAts stole the SCOTUS fair and square" they will mumble. "Fire the army of yahoos who signed up to be ICE 'agents'? Tut, tut, there are civil service rules, you know" will be their position. They will not uproot and incinerate the poison ivy planted among the hydrangeas by the MAGAts, is what I'm saying.
Maybe, with "a lot of work", you can take back the GOP and I can put some backbone into the Democratic Party, but I have my doubts on both fronts. And I'm not even sure what the actual "work" would have to be.
Well, at least I managed yesterday to install a motion-activated porch light for the benefit of my mailman, who will soon be trying to find the mail slot in my front door after dark.
--TP
On “Politics thread”
Chris Hayes might be right: "I think we increasingly live in a postgaffe, even a postscandal society." Or he might be wrong.
But I say this much is true: "electability" ain't what it used to be. John Kerry was more "electable" than Howard Dean. Hillary Clinton was more "electable" than Barack Obama. Then she was more "electable" than Bernie Sanders. Was "electability" what got He, Trump nominated in 2016? Not by the pundits' definition of "electability", I think.
It encourages me that Democratic office holders have started to use (some of) George Carlin's seven words. Some Americans may still be priggish enough to hold it against them, but a lot more Americans use all seven of those words in everyday conversation.
Alas, everyday conversation is seldom about politics. Maybe it's different in "swing" states, but here in MA we libruls seldom "talk politics" with friends and neighbors who might be MAGAts. So they (and we, I suppose) only get information and hear opinions from "the media" -- mass or social, but mainly personally selected. Sticking to conversation about the weather or the local sportsball team is The American Way, I guess.
--TP
On “What’s up, doxx?”
russell: For folks heading out to No Kings tomorrow, stay safe and to whatever degree you can bring joy to it. I’m sorry to say I won’t be out there
No worries, russell -- I filled in for you. I even managed to wear a yellow shirt and cobble together a sign:
There were many, many signs, almost all hand-made. My favorite one was "STOP TRUTH DECAY". Lots of people, all ages from toddlers to geriatrics. Perfect weather here in Watertown, and a festive atmosphere. No unpleasantness of any sort, just 3-4 cops directing traffic through the tangled intersection that is Watertown Square. Some of the hardier souls headed into Boston for that rally, afterward.
--TP
On “Opinions on settings”
Am I a "subscriber"? Or is it just my Firefox browser that's filling in my name and email automatically?
--TP
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
I am anti-fascist. One implication of that is: I want criminals locked up, not people who the government says are criminals. Lawyers surely understand the distinction. So when bc points me to government sites which lay out accusations of doxxing, I appreciate it -- but I don't take it for granted that I'm getting the whole story there. Since I am personally in no position to "get the whole story", I am content to let courts do it. Back when Gitmo was a hot topic, I pointed out that habeas corpus is not merely a defendant's right, it's also one of mine: if the government, acting in my name, wants to lock somebody up, I want to know the reason why. Anti-anti-fascists may feel differently, of course.
Being anti-fascist does NOT mean I dismiss everything some Acting US Attorney says about any particular case. Maybe the facts ARE exactly what the "official government website" (with its "Democrats have shut down the government" banner) says they are. I get more suspicious when it comes to statistics. Have there been vastly more cases of ICE-doxxing than, say, judge-doxxing? Have more ICE agents than judges been harmed as a result of being doxxed? I don't know what "official" government statistics show, but I have a hunch the present government might fudge them a bit.
Being a layman, I can accept that The Law forbids publishing certain personal information about some categories of federal employees. Maybe that includes IRS clerks, maybe not, but either way I haven't heard about an epidemic of IRS clerks being doxxed. Running afoul of The Law by posting flyers like "This Revenuer lives in your neighborhood" doesn't seem to be worth the trouble for anybody. So maybe the doxxing of "brave" ICE agents is motivated by their high-handed brutality, not their official "duties", as others have pointed out.
BTW, as a layman, I can not claim to know what the Hatch Act has to say about partisan propaganda on "official government websites", but also as a layman I have to say: yeesh!
Being a naturalized citizen, I have to write a whole 'nother wall of text on immigration policy, but for the moment I only have time to ask: is it true or false that you have to be on US soil to ask for asylum?
--TP
"
bc: Doxing produced masks, which engender fear and are then criticized as fascist.
I'd like to know more about this "doxing". I do not trust Kristi Noem's statements about it any more than I trust her DHS 70% statistic. Let's hear about a few actual cases.
I am quite prepared to believe that there have been instances of people being publicly identified as ICE "agents", and I can easily believe those people were annoyed and embarrassed. But what else happened?
--TP
"
bc: Criticizing a side for “othering” by what seems to be to be “othering” of another sort isn’t a winning proposition.
Criticizing Nazis for "othering" Jews by politely refraining from "othering" Nazis is surely a losing proposition -- if the audience is mainly Nazi supporters. People might support the Nazis for all sorts of reasons other than Jew hatred, you see.
I'm sorry to tell you, bc, that those of my fellow Americans who are indifferent to, never mind approving of, the Gestapo tactics of Dear Leader's brown-shirted (literally!) masked thugs will always be "others" to me. If they choose to shrug off fascism, how would you advise people like me to reason with them?
Whatever your advice might be, I say this much is true: they are more likely to listen to you than to me. We godless America-hating soshulist anit-fascists are automatically suspect. Assuming you are anti-fascist yourself, maybe you should caution them about "othering". Maybe you can point out to them that the fascism is part of a package deal with the tax cuts for billionaires (and whatever else) they voted for. If it turns out that doing that gets you "othered" by them, welcome to the club.
--TP
On “Excelsior 2.1”
LJ,
Frankly, it gives me the willies. Too funereal, too haunted-house-ish. Readable, but ... meh.
First time commenting from my phone, BTW. Let's see how it works.
--TP
"
I doubt I could read a book or a newspaper using white text on a black background. I have seen web pages like that, and found them just barely tolerable, FWIW.
And yes, this darker font on white background is grrreat.
--TP
"
Testing. Testing. Testing. How about a link.
The link is to Charlie Pierce's blog on the Esquire web site. It uses a pretty similar commenting format, but I think you need a subscription (~$20/yr) to get at the comments. That one uses threads -- you can reply to a comment -- but only 3 levels deep, I think. It has thumbs up/down tracked separately, and a notification function so you (a subscriber) can see who liked, disliked, or replied to your own comments. So, quite more elaborate than what I'm seeing here, but I've grown to like it.
--TP
On “Where are the 5 words?”
CharlesWT, thank you for responding, and thank you for the content of your response. It's a good start toward civility when we can agree that "Trump shouldn’t be mobilizing the National Guard".
Without intending to criticize you in the least, I'd ask you and everybody else to think about what "an excuse" means. ISTM that "an excuse" implies an audience. There must be somebody to whom the "excuse" is offered as a valid justification. In the present context, I doubt it's He, Trump's conscience, for He seems to have none. I doubt it's the MAGAts, for they need none. So, the corporate media, maybe?
--TP
"
wj, I don't know about you, but "20-30 years from now" there's a good chance I will not be around to "look back". One might say I don't really have a "stake" in what 2055 America will look like. For many of "we" here, the long run is becoming less relevant every day.
GftNC, sometimes it's not true that "nobody forces you to interact with" people whose views are "morally repugnant". And I'm not talking about the obvious case of fascist ICE "agents" vis a vis anti-fascist protesters. I'm talking about ordinary social situations in which you'd be called uncivil if you argue with the MAGAts present, and uncivil if you decline to attend. The shameless can always take advantage of "civility".
CharlesWT, if "two wrongs don't make a right" does that mean that 3 wrongs do? In the Portland context, I ask you again: what would you want the Guard or the Army to actually do? And, not incidentally, what do you imagine Herr Trump wants them to do? (P.S. the "forum similar to this one" 10-15 years ago wasn't the old ObWi, was it?)
--TP
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?”
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
On “Citizenship”
I am a US citizen. I passed a test, swore an oath, and have a certificate to prove it. The certificate is too precious to carry around like a driver's license. And it features a warning in red caps: "IT IS PUNISHABLE BY US LAW TO COPY, PRINT, OR PHOTOGRAPH THIS CERTIFICATE WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY", which sounds like carrying a photocopy around is verboten. That leaves me in the same position as everybody who entered the US via the maternity ward: unable to tell somebody with "ICE" stenciled on his jacket to fuck off. Imagine not being allowed to show your driver's license to a cop who pulls you over on suspicion of not having a driver's license. Real Murkins lack that much imagination, of course, and since most of them don't speak Spanish anyway ...
--TP
On “Where are the 5 words?”
In some old Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon, a colonel rushes into the general's office and reports "Sir! Sir! Our anti-anti-missile missile just shots itself down, sir!" I am reminded of that whenever some anti-anti-fascist talk pops up.
Of course "Antifa"(TM) is a brand name like "X" or "Truth Social" -- not a descriptor. It's much less ... risible? contemptible? ... to be anti-Antifa(TM) than to be anti-anti-fascist, especially if you are Libertarian(TM) or just plain pro-liberty.
I understand the motivation behind the sentiment that protest must never inconvenience anybody. It's one way to make sure that protest goes unnoticed, so that those who support the status quo can feel righteous. Any protest that's loud or annoying is tantamount to war, right?
--TP
"
CharlesWT trolls by day, presumably because he's busy thinking serious Libertarian(TM) thoughts at night. Thoughts like Antifa(TM) Headquarters being a hotbed of "activists" dedicated to overthrowing the Libertarian(TM) and other pro-fascist parties.
Or maybe CharlesWT has inside dope (and I use the word advisedly) that Portland is in fact a violent hellscape at night. If I could be sure of that I might turn pro-fascist myself. Not libertarian, though; that would be a bit too much.
--TP
On “Ad futurum”
lj,
My vote is: keep the current layout and save yourself some ... fun(?) And thanks again!
--TP
"
nooneithinkisinmytree,
It's great to see you again! I hope you're doing well despite the fact that most of what you warned us about for years has come to pass.
--TP
On “Ezra Coates DESTROYS Ta-Nehisi Klein!!!”
Without having read any of the links yet, I have to ask this: could anyone, even Ezra Klein, assert that Charlie Kirk was "doing Christianity the right way"?
--TP
On “Precursors”
bc, thanks for your reply. I am sorry to say it depresses me. Your tenor seems to be that Kirk was just a little too ... strident? extreme? Which word is more apt depends on whether he was mainly a provocateur or an ideologue. I think he was both, of course, but YMMV.
The "Prove Me Wrong" schtick was theater, not debate. Whether your position is popular or not, odious or not, sincere or not, the burden of proof in a debate is on you, the person asserting the position. Imagine me asserting that "Santa Claus is real" and demanding to be proved wrong.
Anyway, thanks again for replying. Maybe we do have some common ground in at least one way: canonizing Charlie Kirk is just a little too much.
--TP
"
In the "Kuzushi and Charlie Kirk" thread I wrote: I give Saint Charles of Kirk credit for one thing: unlike the gun fetishists we used to joust with on the old ObWi, he was willing to admit that an occasional massacre is the unavoidable cost of, and an acceptable price to pay for, our god-given 2nd Amendment. And I meant it. Although his position disgusts me, I really do appreciate the honesty of it. Here's the "full clip", to avoid accusations of quoting him out of context.
I mention it because this, from bc, caught my eye:
There was a lot I didn’t agree with, and some of his interactions somewhat resemble what was described.
Out of sincere, no-fooling curiosity, I wish bc would mention one or two of those things he didn't agree with. We might have common ground, somewhere.
--TP
On “Time for a makeover: a webpage design thread”
I once declared on the old site that it was perfect IMO. Being fickle, I say this one is perfect too. Lacking Michael's god-like powers, I am not tempted to customize the presentation for myself, and anyway I like it as is. FWIW, my laptop browser is Firefox and my Android browser is Chrome. From the start, I set Chrome to show me the laptop version of the page, as I had done on the old site. Works for me.
A preview function would be nice, but I haven't seen its absence be a problem so far.
So, that's my 2 cents worth of opinion. My gratitude for setting up the new site and for creating the archive site is boundless.
--TP
On “Precursors”
Was Jesus, the Christ, a nationalist?
The Roman governor of the Roman province of Judea allegedly crucified Jesus of Nazareth for calling himself (or being called by others, perhaps) "King of the Jews". So, yes?
MAGAts are generally ignorant of the content, let alone the history, of their "faith". Or maybe not. Maybe "Christian Nationalist" is not an oxymoron but the modern-day culmination of the Jesus cult. Forget that whatever Jesus of Nazareth thought of "nationalism", American "patriotism" never crossed his mind. Ignore what namby-pamby Christians have to say about welcoming the stranger or caring for the poor, it's what the multimillionaire pastors of megachurches have to say that counts. Or what "martyrs" like Charlie Kirk have to say, for that matter.
The Gospel According to Saint Charles of Kirk got a curious sort of publicity boost by dint of his death. On the one hand, his "martyrdom" is purported to require veneration of his dedication to spreading his gospel. On the other hand, quoting it verbatim is blasphemy, according to the MAGAt Inquisition.
The MAGAts are determined to canonize Saint Charlie, but to forbid quoting him. Come to think of it, they don't like libruls quoting Jesus of Nazareth either.
--TP
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.