What's still hurting my brain is the cognitive dissonance that comes from agreeing that we need to unpack why Clinton lost in spite of the fact that she's currently edging on a 3 million vote advantage.
What's still hurting my brain is the cognitive dissonance that comes from agreeing that we need to unpack why Clinton lost in spite of the fact that she's currently edging on a 3 million vote advantage.
Last edited by Dead & Messed Up; 12-11-2016 at 09:53 PM.
Yeah, the fact that the choice of less than 100,000 people outweighs the choice of the majority of the electorate just because they're from the right states is tough to justify. But that's the system and the Clinton campaign failed to operate effectively within that system.Quoting Dead & Messed Up (view post)
last four:
black widow - 8
zero dark thirty - 9
the muse - 7
freaky - 7
now reading:
lonesome dove - larry mcmurtry
Letterboxd
The Harrison Marathon - A Podcast About Harrison Ford
Was there any plan for Hillary to go to Wisconsin/Pennsylvania/Florida after her faint episode? Legit curious.
Right -- of course they're important. But I've come to think that most issues around identity politics are so staggeringly obvious that they should be a "gimme." Human dignity shouldn't be up for what is, mostly, a high school level debate.
Instead, being a Democrat means waiting for idealogical scraps to fall off Wall Street's table. The DNC plays progressives for suckers in the exact manner that the GOP plays the evangelical Christians: Lotsa lip service to core values while repeatedly fucking them over.
Those 3 million votes are statistically interesting but meaningless to the contest.
It's sorta like arguing over a baseball game and saying that your team should have won because they got more hits despite getting less runs. Well, runners on base isn't the game. Runners past the plate is. Complaining -- and worse, arguing that the rules should be changed -- is bad sportsmanship.
Edit: To clarify, my post here is more a reaction to what I've seen on social media; I don't interpret your reaction as a complaint, per se
Last edited by Irish; 12-12-2016 at 06:03 AM.
Also, I haven't paid attention to it in years, but when did MSNBC go full lunatic fringe? They're worse than Fox News.
And yet the right continues to operate as if the rights of anyone not white, cis, straight, and male are most definitely up for debate (speaking as a white, cis, straight male). Has to be a counterbalance from somewhere.
This is very well put. Hadn't seen this comparison before and I quite like it.
last four:
black widow - 8
zero dark thirty - 9
the muse - 7
freaky - 7
now reading:
lonesome dove - larry mcmurtry
Letterboxd
The Harrison Marathon - A Podcast About Harrison Ford
Absolutely. My only feeling now is that it won't come from anybody in the DNC leadership. They played identity politics in the most cynical way possible over the course of Hilary's campaign and it didn't work for them.
And anybody who is truly progressive -- or God forbid socialist -- gets smeared. (They did it to Sanders during the primaries and they're doing it to Keith Ellison now.)
Thanks, man. I appreciate that.
I'm with you on this. My modest two cents is that this is more than a statistical curiosity or the setup to an odd baseball analogy.
I believe that the emphasis can manifest itself in blinkered ways, but it can be essential when, say, Paul Ryan shows up on TV with a stretchy smile and collapses nuance by arguing that they now have a "mandate" to honour.
Last edited by Gittes; 12-12-2016 at 10:35 PM.
Yeah, I'm not arguing against the idea that Clinton made mistakes that led to her losing (not visiting her "firewall" was profoundly stupid), or that she didn't lose fair and square (like you say, these are the rules we're playing this stupid game by), but it's just surreal.
I just keep thinking that she's edging on a 3 million popular vote advantage, and I wonder at what point a vote's loss of power becomes truly problematic. The other thing to remember is that electors are not proportioned out to population - a vote in Wyoming has nearly four times the power of a vote in California. My father in Iowa, IIRC, has a vote worth about 50% more than mine.
And yes, the USA is a constitutional republic with certain bulwarks designed against true populism, but it truly is a disenfranchising experience. I can only imagine how the people who have to suffer stricter ID laws feel.
Well, they are, sorta. Electors match Congressional seats. Most of that is based on population. Wyoming is an outlier because their total representation is so low they get the minimum of electors. The opposite end of the spectrum makes as little sense. A popular vote would mean that New York and California would decide every single presidential election. (I said this to a friend of mine in LA, and he yelled back, "Good!")
The electoral college becomes more important the more power the office of the president gains. A top down perspective encourages a two party system and entrenched power bases.
I'm less worried that my presidential vote doesn't count as much as someone in middle-America and more worried that the Democrats have all but ceded control of every office but the Presidency (and they aren't good at winning it).
I think it's more disenfranchising to have no where to go, because neither party represents your interests (eg: "Many in Milwaukee Neighborhood Didn't Vote---and Don't Regret It").
This is about where I find myself. I can't vote for a Republican because they are ghoulish and callous. Now I've finally figured out that I can't vote Democratic, either.
Only for the first time or two you exit the two party system. After that it feels like rebelling, like being part of the next wave of progression. Lets destroy this system, not by legislation, but by voting outside of the two (one) parties, proving the media out of touch, and dismantling the entire thing without violent revolution.
Last edited by Skitch; 12-13-2016 at 12:51 AM.
I'll also go ahead and say this, even if my central point may get mistakenly read as a petty extension of concluded arguments, a self-righteous tangent, or just outright ignored (I'll remind folks that I've readily reacted to obnoxious stuff from users whose contributions I otherwise admire, no prior history of disagreement, etc.). Or it will prompt ire from the catalyst of my complaint, who seems fussily concerned with the optics of his message board career. I'll make the point anyway because I think it's more important than the risk of causing momentary, minor irritation by criticizing a bit of careless writing.
I'll begin by referring to the kinds of messages Duca has received on Twitter as a result of that article (this is not to suggest an equivalency, but to provide context). The second message is a rebuttal, but the first is obviously bullshit (see below). I'll also remind people that Duca has written for The New Yorker, HuffPo, The Nation, etc. Part of my point, though, is that she would warrant respect even if Teen Vogue was her first outlet. Also: if you pay attention to what other female freelancers discuss, you would realize they are contending with gender-specific hurdles within the context of their careers, and shouldn't be stigmatized solely because of the perceived cachet of the publications that are willing to commission their work.
It'd be swell if I could browse this forum without running into dead ends through the excesses of someone's well-established, but occasionally wearying, writing style: "Lauren Duca is a twenty-nothing writing for Teen Vogue (?!)" I realize this was attended by specific criticisms of her argument, but the placement and phrasing of the statement makes it stand alone from the complaints about the article, and it emerges as a theatrical indictment. The fact that Teen Vogue is apparently incorporating political writing into their remit is not inherently bad or worthy of ipso facto incredulity ("?!"). Also troubling is the cruelty of referring to a female freelance writer as a "twenty-nothing," amidst other condescending terms of address. Whether deliberately or not, this smacks of a kind of reverse ageism that I've already vaguely detected in several other posts by the same user. And, yes, I realize Duca has dealt with much worse than this as a result of her taking a gig at Teen Vogue and using that venue to hazard a thoughtful consideration of the political climate. My point remains. If you disagree with the content of her article, address it with civility and grant Duca — and the possibility of Teen Vogue positively addressing its readership in new ways — more respect in the process.
I'm not sure if the thread will keep on rolling past this post, but that's everyone's prerogative. I know I haven't made many friends over the years by repeatedly appointing myself the sanctimonious arbiter of message board decorum, but I say this because I care, because it made me bristle. I don't always have the emotional wherewithal to get into arguments about every troubling thing on here — that'd be untenable, unhealthy, etc. — but I had the energy and clarity to do so today. It's hard to express stuff like this without worrying about accusations of virtue-signalling, but that's less important than my point. To those who will recommend the ignore function or a more selective navigation of threads, I will say that certain incisive aspects of the discussion currently going on is precisely what I'd prefer not to avoid. After all, Irish can sometimes be a fount of points that are either cogent or interesting, even if I sometimes find the execution a bit frustrating. Again, I'd be saying something similar if it were another user entirely (but at the same time, as I noted, there's relevant, user-specific shades to this).
Last edited by Gittes; 12-13-2016 at 01:41 AM.
This is eminently reasonable. (So do I write-in "Jello Biafra," or is it better to include the entirety of The Dead Kennedys in my vote?)
Edited to add: More seriously, I think I'm gonna become more active at the local level, too.
lol, what?
This is so bizarre I don't know how to respond.
I mean, you burned over 600 words before calling me out by name. You might want to take a page from some of my other fans and just type "WTF IRISH" in the quick reply box and leave it at that -- because between playing board cop, tone-policing, and your temperamental nature, you've left me with no substantive way to respond to you. (Never mind, based on past experience, my complete lack of motivation to do so.)
If you want to make a point, absolutely do it. New blood on the forum is always a good thing. But nobody owes you a specific response to anything you post, and personally I'd appreciate it if you'd leave me out of it.
Last edited by Irish; 12-13-2016 at 01:55 AM.
Right. This is coming from someone who, IIRC, once sought out a script to remove all of his posts, scorched-earth style, and then returned to the forum upon being called a "drama queen" by someone, so as to then opine about his intense sense of ownership over his posts, and his concerns about them being hurtled into a new forum (??). Someone who, IIRC, has directed a "fuck you" message at someone who jokingly replied to his post, and, speaking of temperament, sometimes leans into condescension when people question his posts. Some folks are too harsh in their responses to you, granted, but does that account for every blow-up of yours?
None of what I just wrote connects with my "bizarre" comment at all, right? Anyway, let's not distract from the more salient point.
Oh, brother. It was clearly about you almost from the get go, so why does this even matter? I even quoted you.
I'm not "new blood" at this point, but anyway. I'm not demanding a response from you, Irish. You can feel free to not respond. You can also feel free to feign laughter, if that's what that is, and seemingly try to belittle legitimate criticisms through that, or through deflections about user names or word count, etc. That's your right. It's silly, but it's your right. It's also a bit rich that you'd prefer to be "left out of" warranted criticisms about your own posts (is that what your signature is meant to suggest?). This forum must be your own criticism-free playground for your posts? Is that right?
No "WTF Irish" from me (I know you think smugness serves you well in these contexts, but please). This isn't a superficial, casual, stop-and-go slighting of your idiosyncrasies; it's an in-depth engagement with a recent post, so spare me your attempts at diminishing. Or not. Up to you. But perhaps don't kid yourself that the disingenuousness you've apparently elected to use to gloss over things is in any way appropriate. Given your post history — is there a user on this forum you haven't butted heads with? — I can understand why it'd be tempting for you to chuckle away all quibbles about your writing, but keep in mind that some of the complaints coming your way just might be justified.
Last edited by Gittes; 12-16-2016 at 08:04 AM.
Your post was ~600 words, and 400 of them were about me. It wasn't so much about Teen Vogue, and it wasn't its own, self-contained argument.
If you want to defend young writers and Teen Vogue's editorial direction, that's cool. It's an open board and everyone's entitled. I'm asking that you do it without involving me in the way that you are.
Keep in mind I really don't give a shit, bro.
If I'm a rhetorical tyrant, I'm a tyrant you can scroll past. If you don't like my writing, don't read it.
Year one, third party virgin cares about this candidate or that.This is eminently reasonable. (So do I write-in "Jello Biafra," or is it better to include the entirety of The Dead Kennedys in my vote?
Edited to add: More seriously, I think I'm gonna become more active at the local level, too.
Year two, anybody but R or D.
Year three, write in Weird Al, Jesus, a claw hammer, a plastic bucket, just please for the love of everything dont buy into the two party lie....
No, that's not true. If you want to latch onto a new desperate tack for your response, then OK, but: not true. It was about your approach vis-a-vis the stupid comments you made about Duca and Teen Vogue (the one I quoted, but there's also other condescending bits I didn't directly quote), so why on earth would you be surprised that I was frequently addressing you throughout? If you think your own only recourse here is to confusedly issue mischaracterizations as retorts, then that's your right. But here's a news flash: when a strain of obnoxiousness runs through multiple posts of yours and the response that calls you out for the most recent example (the one inflected by, deliberately or otherwise, reverse ageism) includes a considerable emphasis on you, then maybe don't act like that's not playing fair? Yes, Irish, the retort was about you because you wrote the post and it's symptomatic of your heedlessly intense style. And, yes, my point regarding Duca was given ample consideration. Those two aspects of my post colluded to form a criticism of your remark, so get real. This reply of yours strikes me as a transparent and, in its lack of accountability, odious deflection.
You mean reasonably, and with specific, detailed elaborations about why I took issue with your post? That's one way to dodge complaints: rearrange, mischaracterize, and deliver back to sender with a note: "Unacceptable; it suggests I was wrong about something."
This is just…like, a bald affectation, right?
What? Did you even read my post? Also just noticing that you claimed you have zero motivation to reply to me, but here you are, and there you were…what, a few days ago?
So, you didn't read my post. OK.
Last edited by Gittes; 12-13-2016 at 09:03 AM.
But NY and CA are not historically predictive of popular vote totals. Remember that popular vote in nearly all cases (five exceptions) matched to electoral victories in US presidential elections. So we can actually observe which states are predictive of national popular vote totals. And they're swing states whose makeup more accurately reflects that of the nation. Nevada, Ohio, Missouri, and others have been meaningful bellwethers in the past and present.
Presidents win because of overall shifts in voting trends.
NYC and CA aren't holding the nation hostage but for our heroic electors.
"reasonably"
When you passive aggressively call someone out, criticize their style (like, why?), assume bad faith and sinister motives, and sling around words like "stupid" and "obnoxious," what sort of response do you think you'll get?
I can't fathom what you hope to gain from this.
I agree with most of your post, but I'm curious about these two points. Especially the second one.
Yeah. As if identity politics isn't itself rooted in economic anxiety.
That's a very good point. My suspicion is that we can't use metrics from one system to guess another, because the rules of the game effect how people play. Meaning, these voting trends are unique to the Electoral College system. If we change the system, it's possible the trends could wildly change.
eg: California always has a lower turnout because of timezones -- people don't feel the urgency to go to the polls when the rest of the country has already voted and the outcome is clear.
Edited to add:
Take the 1996 election. Clinton won with 70% of the electoral vote but only an 8.51% margin in the popular vote. It was clear early on in the evening that Dole was gonna lose. Without the electoral college -- and near instant returns -- the popular vote totals might have looked differently (because more Californians might have turned out, one way or the other).
(Also, I dunno anything for sure. I'm taking a stab in the dark. But pure popular vote mechanisms scare me, for various reasons.)
Last edited by Irish; 12-13-2016 at 03:40 AM.
The scare quotes are unearned, as you're referring — with some inaccuracies — to our discussions outside of the post in question (the post in question — my post — is what I was describing as reasonable, but I don't think the external discussions are as unreasonable as you think). Part of the length of my post was due to me fretting about how the post might be perceived, its context in what I admitted was a history of occasionally flaring up at problematic posts, etc. As for any vehemence, that must be understood within the context of my specific and justified complaint about your remarks. I meant it as a reasonable post. It didn't include words like "stupid" (more on that down below). I was also treading very carefully, making sure to not be unequivocal about certain points if I wasn't 100% certain, and trying to be charitable toward your overall contribution as a user, which are not negligible. If this was only about the surface idiosyncrasies — if I wrote 600 words about your use of "FFS" and "RDJ'll" — then you could call me unreasonable, but I was trying to talk about one post in particular. Yes, I did so with reference to your style and manner of communicating, which is hardly irrelevant here, and which I think lends itself to excesses like your earlier remarks. One user, who I won't single out by name, once exasperatedly tried to remind you that your opinions aren't fact, but you often present them as such, perhaps in a bid toward crafting a distinct voice. This is only part of the equation as far as your tone is concerned; it's also unnecessarily instructive and intransigent, and therefore pairs poorly with ignorant remarks like your Teen Vogue quip.
For saying something shitty? Yes, I did. How about addressing that shitty thing you said, maybe, instead of anxiously leading us down alternate paths? If you're referring to other arguments, wherein I'm responding to your willful engagement with my posts, then, yes, realize that when you respond to me, I may comment on that response within the flow of that conversation (even when you choose to abruptly exit, while perhaps reminding yourself that "choosing not to respond is never the same as -shudder- being wrong!"). So, yeah, I may refer back to past activity on this forum as I contribute new activity to this forum.
Yeah, that discursive territory is wholly uncharted when it comes to your posts, right? No one has ever justifiably taken issue with your communicative style? Please. If you want to communicate the way you do, you can, but if you think it's always 100% unproblematic, or unassailable, then you're deluding yourself.
So, I should make this post extra long and draw us further from my key criticism by contextualizing this? Let's be clear, I've never assumed "sinister motives" from you; that's a mite dramatic. Yes, I detected some contempt due to the forceful way you kept dismissing my posts, and that offended me. At first, a few years ago, I got the impression that you were the one of the nicest people here. You gave me a warmer welcome than most. That level of respect has not completely abated — try to stifle your skepticism here — and I still like reading what you have to say sometimes.
It's amusing that you're arguing that rhetorical excess can shut down pathways for real communication when this is precisely the kind of problem I have with your posts, and what set us off on a combative path in other discussions.
I tried to approach you more tactfully upon return from your self-imposed exile. I went about it awkwardly. I thought I might still find ingress into a better kind of dialogue with you, but then I saw one of your first orders of business upon returning was delving straight into the same tedious disagreements as last time — responding to a post of mine, dismissing it — with barely a peaceable breadcrumb. That seemed like a poor approach. But that pertains to our history of disagreement. My point here was principally about your style vis-a-vis the unwelcome comment about Duca and Teen Vogue, which is what we should be discussing now.
I slung around "stupid" because those specific remarks were stupid. Did I summarily dismiss your entire post, let alone the entirety of your post history? I have a sense (albeit imperfect) of who I'm dealing with, given your blow-ups, so I'll make something extra clear: this is not the same as calling you stupid — like the way you responded to [ETM]'s (admittedly excessive) needling by authoritatively declaring him to be a "dim" person, which he is not.
I considered ignoring your comments but then I began to feel guilty about doing that. Like I said, I can't address everything that I find problematic because, like many people, I lack the emotional budget to spend thriftlessly on arguments (alongside bearing through the usual quotidian challenges) — it'd become untenable and depressing. But I felt compelled to say something because I felt I had enough equanimity to do so tonight, and this wasn't the first time I detected something like this in your posts. This was a particularly flagrant instance of the reverse ageism shades I had detected, and I thought providing a criticism might help shift the tonal dial a bit so that navigating this forum (which is generally quite good and edifying and funny, etc.) would be a little better.
Last edited by Gittes; 12-14-2016 at 06:20 AM.
Mostly:
- Policy wonks tend to get lost in the weeds and forget what the policies are supposed to for. People want services from their government. They want free shit, and they want it to be frictionless. Social Security and Medicare are good examples of "free shit without friction." You don't have to do anything, really, to benefit from those programs. Nebulous tax credits and legislation like Obamacare, on the other hand, are pure wonkbait; they rarely deliver actual relief. They are mealy mouth policy disguised as help, and they mean "fill out forms and wait" instead of the more direct "money in your pocket."
- On election night, The New York Times had a page that reported the results in "real time." They had a bunch of fancy graphics with maps, charts, and dials -- several of which jittered and moved (see my post here). Turns out, all those movements and changing dials were fake. It was scripted animation tied to the reader's CPU, not real results. The New York Times did that to make the page stickier, to increase "engagement." It worked, but doing shit like that is dirty and nowhere near actual journalism.
- The Washington Post published an article reporting on a group called "PropOrNot," which alleged that they had research and evidence that a whole slew of independent media outlets were pushing propaganda and "fake news" that "benefitted Russia." They even had a list! While some of the named outlets were fringe weirdos, more than a few were legit third-party outlets who were both well known and award-winning. This didn't matter though, because the Washington Post reported everything PropOrNot claimed without fact checking any of it. Meanwhile, the people running PropOrNot remained anonymous, and their "research" never materialized. It was pure red-baiting bullshit and, ironically, would have fit anyone's definition of "fake news." The editors at the Post later tacked an addendum onto the article, but never retracted it.
- A week or so after the PropOrNot piece, The Washington Post reported that CIA sources claimed "Russia hacked the election" and put Donald Trump in office. This was more red-bait bullshit, because their only source was both unofficial and anonymous and there was zero direct evidence. But instead of digging, they published a story they didn't really have (which is, like, a Journalism 101 mistake) and other big media outlets ran with it. (NPR claimed they they had "independently confirmed" the story, but their report too was based on anonymous sources and zero hard evidence.) This isn't just sloppy, it's dangerous. This nebulously sourced story became "true" after it was repeated enough times across the media spectrum, and eventually it trickled down to even small outlets like Teen Vogue, whose "fiery op-ed" opened with the line, "The CIA officially determined that Russia intervened in our election" --- except, that's even an accurate reflection of the original story. (Teen Vogue has since, after all the retweets, likes, and kudos they received online, changed their lede). The whole thing is like a bad game of 'telephone,' except there's superpowers and nukes involved.
I find this frustrating because there's a lot of mainstream journalists are totally freaking out over "fake news" and the public's lack of trust in media, but then they either (1) directly contribute to the problem or (2) make it actively worse by spreading around paranoid bullshit.
Last edited by Irish; 12-13-2016 at 04:31 AM.
I appreciate some of the concerns behind your latest post. Obviously, there has already been confirmation that Russia's involvement in the lead-up to the election was bona fide and not apocryphal. This does not preclude publications from making errors while trying to define that involvement, and any such errors are worthy subjects for discussion, given the seriousness of the topic and the risks associated with misinformation. However, if you're thinking this latest post exonerates the wording of your earlier remarks, or provides you with a righteousness with which to disguise your previous carelessness, it doesn't. It's especially wrongheaded to approach your criticism, in your second post on the previous page, the way you did. That is, by standing from on high and directing declamations toward folks who accepted some top-tier publications' ostensibly erroneous claim to verification (Duca/Teen Vogue's acceptance was perhaps due to the trustworthy status of those publications, and the nature of the claims being made). Some trusted publications ostensibly made an unusual sourcing error; that's your claim. You're also saying — understandably, I think — that there were poorly worded alterations in the specifics, as this information went through other publications. That's what you should have focused on. Instead, you also decided to unjustifiably harp on the young writer at Teen Vogue, whose article inadvertently stumbled in this context. Focusing solely on the content of Duca's article — what you saw as her vague/inaccurate phrasing — without using unnecessary and condescending terms like "kid" and "twenty-nothing" would have been better. But you made sure to let us know how wacky you think it is that Teen Vogue is pursuing political coverage, and you cluelessly tossed a few unnecessarily derisive nicknames at an earnest writer.
Last edited by Gittes; 12-14-2016 at 07:05 AM.
lol, okay. This was fun but I'm done
Posting Permissions
forum
Reply With Quote