State of the Discussion

We've done dark writing on light media since at least the ancient Egyptians. For a variety of reasons, including how the human vision system works.

Images huh?

I've been playing around with Google AI Studio.

Here are before and after images using the prompt, "A woman walks to an excursion boat, probably in Port Aransas, 1907. Please restore the image by removing noise, adding missing detail, sharpening, and colorizing."

I'm not sure about that, I'll never see them in a show, and from a lot of the articles, it looks like they have been slammed with fan mail. They may feel like they are being villianized (is that a word?) and canceled for 'just' telling jokes and trying to make a living, but I think they are fooling themselves pretty profoundly and a letter from a person who occasionally watches a joke they do on Youtube is not really going to have the traction that is needed.

I've changed text color. I'm wondering if the dark version, where it is white on a black background might be better.

As Michael notes, you've got to use the tools at the bottom, going old school with the tags doesn't work. The tools also include adding an image attachment, which people have struggled with.

The tags (<b>, </b> etc) don't seem to be working any more (for reasons I bet some of you understand, but I don't). It's a pity, I think they really add.

ps As my last comment probably makes clear, but just in case not: I mainly believe in civility <b>to</b> the person/people with whom you are actually arguing. Civility <b>about</b> people you have strong and justifiable opinions on is a different thing, at least in my opinion.

I should add, I'm more concerned here with gaining the upper hand in how the issues get framed than I am with electability. Newsom fits fewer prejudices than do Pritzker or Buttigieg. I just don't think that what he is saying cuts through enough to change the conversation, and I think the conversation we are having is a losing conversation for the Dems.

Pete might lose, but at least he would be heard.

I cannot resist replying to you russell. I agree with every single word you say about Stephen Miller. I do not think it is demonisation to describe him as a bad person.

<i>A civility that just means “we don’t talk about that” is going to choke us.</i>

Agreed with every fibre of my being. I think my participation on ObWi shows very clearly that "not talking about that", and practising a civility that implies agreement, is not my way!

As a note, in Kamala Harris’ recent book, she said that she wanted Buttgieg, but thought that it was ‘asking too much of America’ (if I remember the quote correctly). I’m not second guessing that, I’m just imagining an America where it wouldn’t be asking too much.

I agree with her. I, too, would have liked Buttigieg. (Nothing against Walz, who I thought did a great job.). But I also thought that, for too many voters, it would have been too much. Actually, too much even with an old white guy at the top of the ticket.

But good on her for thinking Buttigieg would be a good choice. And for standing up and saying so.

Like lj, I can imagine an America where it wouldn't be. But even before the results came in I was pretty clear that we ain't there yet. Someday. Someday.

Yup, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. In my case because it looks to me like at the moment it is the "right" (if these categories are even useful any more) that is clearly being far more uncivil than most of the "left" (again IMO the "left" seems to specialise more in implied guilt, or at least invalidation, by association or history). And one thing is for sure, I'm definitely not in favour of "performative civility" which can definitely be used for "bad aims". I don't think calling for civility (as I understand civility) is about exerting power. I think it is about an attempt to avoid demonisation, and the inevitable descent into intractable silos, from which (as far as I can see) no good (or repair, in Gay's word) ever comes. And it is an attempt to remember, in Pro Bono's formulation, that one's ideological opposites are human. So be it. In russell's inimitable words, peace out.

lj: I certainly don't think one should ignore someone's history if, like Kirk, they have a consistent record of saying the same kind of thing. But if they make good or interesting arguments, while being not particularly offensive, I consider it an irrelevant distraction to use their nationality, their previous professional experience or their ideological difference from oneself to discredit them or make their argument suspect, rather than something actually in the argument itself. It seems to me the very recipe for constructing a bubble around oneself.

On the other hand, I certainly consider it relevant in certain circumstances to consider someone's background to explain why they might make an argument with which one disagrees, because emotional past experiences certainly affect one's opinions, even if not in logically justifiable ways. So, in e.g. the case of Gay, the fact that she is a second generation Haitian immigrant could certainly make one understand why in the wake of a lifetime of discrimination and recent accusations that Haitians have been eating Americans' dogs and cats, she might be enraged enough to make an argument that civility is unnecessary, or a mistake. But it doesn't make the argument right.

I often think this when bereaved relatives make understandably heart-rending arguments against their family member's murderer receiving parole, or life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. Their suffering is real, and a life sentence. But, IMO, that does not and should not triumph over a rational attempt to do the right thing. And, again IMO, civility (respect and politeness not agreement or capitulation) is an essential ingredient for the possibility of continuing meaningful debate and even sometimes change.

The first issue I notice (and it's as much because it's something different) , I supposeis that new comments are entered at the beginning. Rather than at the end.

I think I prefer to write responses, especially in long threads, at the end. If only so I can flip back and forth to check the comment I am responding to.

And just found another. Apparently wj as a name doesn't fit the (not specified) format. Trying variations until I find one that works

In an ideal world, people wouldn’t be looking to him or people like him for leadership, but it may be all we have.

I'd vastly rather look to someone else. But that requires there be someone else who a) is willing to stand up, and b) has the media expertise available to get the message out effectively.

And I suppose I quote this to show why I think it worth zeroing in on the arguments people actually make, rather than those people’s origins, past statements etc.

This is interesting in light of a lot of the conversation, both here and out in the world. A lot of the martydom of Kirk requires overlooking his origins and past statements. The discussion between Klein and Coates features Coates pointing out the history behind a lot of this and Klein basically wanting a clean slate, which has him suggest that that if the Democrats would just run pro-life candidates in Nebraska, everything would be fine.

Newsom is an interesting case, he's setting himself up as anti-Trump, but his whole history is one of virtually limitless ambition and very much wanting to be President. In an ideal world, people wouldn't be looking to him or people like him for leadership, but it may be all we have.

Still, I don't have to post his memes or start fighting with people who do (at least I don't think I need to) From the Marshall quote, a distinction I'd make is that when Marshall is talking about commentators, he means people with a mass audience, like Klein, who have a tightrope to walk because their livelihood depends people following and agreeing with their arguments.

For us everyday folks, I realize it might be tiring to have to keep up with this, and we all dream of being able to set aside the history. It's an alluring fantasy to think that we can separate ourselves from history and rely on our expressed good intentions. Part of the fury at 'woke' is that it may seem like good intentions mean nothing, and it just becomes history all the way down and for some people, there is a glee in pointing out these things. But it seems like an important part of the puzzle that Gay is Haitian-American and Leslie is British and it illuminates (at least for me) a good bit of why, though the UK has not gotten as bad as the US, Starmer is flailing so badly in regards to Reform.

Josh Marshall has an interesting post today about fighting this/getting back from this. This should be a gift link:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/power-is-the-order-of-the-day-and-other-beds-trump-has-made

But weirdly the bit that made me sit up related to some of the difficulties I have had here posting things by people who then get dissed by virtue of some of their past policies, jobs etc:

There’s a sort of dance I see among commentators reacting to Newsom’s various engagements with Donald Trump. Praise his fight but don’t praise it too much because then one gets looped into whatever list of things this or that group doesn’t like that Newsom has done in the past, gets branded as a Newsom advocate, gets involuntarily associated what what I guess is best labeled as Newsom’s politician’s “slickness.” I realized I was giving too much weight to these things, even as I told myself I wasn’t.

And I suppose I quote this to show why I think it worth zeroing in on the arguments people actually make, rather than those people’s origins, past statements etc. Not that those things are irrelevant, and context is always valuable, but I do believe that an argument should mainly be evaluated on the strength of its actual argument, rather than the history, character or other attitudes of the person making it. I wonder if this was what Donald was getting at when he talked about (using Chomsky as an example) having to cast about and find alternative sources to quote for an argument, that would not generate distracting conversation about their other views.

Always great to see people standing up.

Of course, as soon as the MAGAts notice that people (who are not white people!) are undercutting their precious tariffs, the Native Americans will become targets as well. The treaties that the US government has with the various tribes notwithstanding -- abrogating treaties is a standard MO with these people.

Still, good on them for taking the initiative. I hope it makes them all filthy rich.

Historically, these sort of efforts (denazification, debaathfication) haven't gone so well. Lustration (the process of decommunization) was a mixed bag (Czechoslovakia good, Poland and Hungary, so/so, Romania pretty bad) but when you think that Czechoslovakia split and you see what has happened in Hungary and nearly failed in Poland, (and Romania is still a basket case) rooting out the Trumpist elements will probably not work. Spain offers another model (the "Pact of Forgetting" or Pacto del Olvido, but that would probably have folks here (including me) rip out our hair with the level of collective false memories that would be generated.

to get back to anything like a pre-Trump normal, we’re going to need some kind of national de-MAGA-fication. We will need to root the bastards out, along with their sick ideologies.

Do you see that happening? Do you think we can muster the political will to do it? Do you think a sufficient sector of the population even want it?

Agreed, it will be necessary to root them out. Fortunately, the ones in the Executive Branch are pretty much self-identified by their willingness to accept Presidential appointments from Trump. And, if one President can appoint them, another can fire them. That won't find all of them, but I would guess enough to start turning things around. The bigger challenge will be the massive loss of expertise the various agencies are experiencing.

Rooting them out of the Judiciary will be a lot harder. Easy enough to identify the Federalist Society members; that being, IMHO, a huge red flag. But establishing grounds to impeach and remove them would be an enormous challenge. I'm not sure how we go about neutralizing them otherwise. Beyond making sure none of them are in single judge areas, which makes venue shopping so easy at the moment.

Can we muster the political will? I think so. I think enough of the population will want it. The bigger challenge will be finding the leadership among politicians to step up. A bunch of officeholders are going to need to be primaried, I suspect. On top of those voted out in the General Elections. But I think it can be done.

Will that get us back to the status quo ante? No. That's going to take years of rebuilding the nation's soul. But I expect we will get there. Dispite the best efforts of the Daughters of the neo-Confederacy.