Topics:
How bad were Milo’s pedophilia comments? 8:21
Are evangelicals demonized? 5:40
Debating the limits of free speech 18:35
Is the media’s coverage of Trump unprofessional? 7:38
Is Trump anti-Muslim? 7:26
Ann’s “hypothetical Trumps” thought experiment 11:10
How not to oppose to Trump 3:36
ADDED: This might work:
पोस्ट्स
१४३ टिप्पण्या:
Ann, the problem is that besides one wishywashy post last Fall, you have not written critically of Trump. I don't think that is because of ideology. (It is my impression you don't really believe strongly in that much.) I think there are other things that draw you to Trump
Ann, Trump got ahead in politics by championing a conspiracy about the first African American President' place of birth.
Ann, Trump got ahead in politics by calling for a ban against Muslims right before the start of the primaries.
I must be misreading the time of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJhHwspZGcg
Ann, Trump got ahead by greatly lowering this country's political discourse with taunts of ""Lyin' Ted Cruz" and "Little Marco Rubio" and chants of "lock her up."
Ann, your thought experiment makes no sense because even many serious conservative individuals find him to be seriously unfit to be president.
But clearly you don't. Not because you like him on ideological grounds but instead he deeply appeals to you on another level. Hence, your inability to write critically of him like you do of most others.
Just own it.
O W, T:
Re DJT's success:
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/11/14215930/comey-email-election-clinton-campaign
On Liberals vs Conservatives on Compassion by a liberal who admits liberals are tightwads.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
Here is a video of Professor Harvey Mansfield, a profoundly conservative thinker, discussing with his former student William Kristol about Trump's troubling nature.
https://youtu.be/7tn_eJLOnGI
Where do they fit into your thought experiment?
Wow. Bob seems to be as perplexed by Althouse's alternate view of the reality that more than half of America shares. I think that Althouse truly believes things are the way she sees them and gets frustrated with those who oppose Trump, because she thinks that we are just being unfair to him. She does not see him in the same way we do and she's quite certain she has the more rational view. I don't know how Althouse cannot see just how conservative she really is because she can compare herself to her commenters, who are extremely right of center.
Althouse is unduly defensive in this podcast. I don't think Bob was all that rude. Try being a liberal commenter here and compare that to the interaction between Bob and Althouse.
Also bullying can go both ways. Althouse, don't you understand that liberals dislike Trump because they see him as a bully? It's so odd that you twist yourself in pretzels to defend his bullying behavior.
i continue to be mildly amazed and amused by the continued demands by 'one written' that althouse properly denounce trump. i guess 'once written' is threatening to deduct some of althouse's liberal points if the demanded denunciation is not well received. i just don't get why althouse should care what 'once written' thinks about trump or anything else.
and as far as the althouse commentariat by 'extremely right of center' perhaps you lefties out to get out more.
I do not view Ann as being politically conservative. Especially not a thoughtful principled conservative. Instead, Ann is classically nihilistic in her view of the world. And like many with that disposition, Ann finds those she perceives as being weak to be also non-sympathetic. Ann gravitates to those she sees as being strong.
The above captures much of why she finds Trump so appealing. The appeal is so strong that it has left her incapable of writing critically about him and what he represents.
"need to get out more".
pfft to blogger and the lack of an editing function. pfft, i say.
I almost get the impression Althouse simply takes a contrarian position when it comes to Trump, she doesn't like being pinned down. She tries to play the middle ground but then she says something that puts her smack dab in the Trumpist camp. Then when she's called on it she gets defensive. No matter what, when it comes to Trump, he's not wrong in her eyes because she has very creatively interpreted his words and actions into something she can deal with. She doesn't like the huge amount of pushback he receives and feels protective of him. I don't think he's deserving of such sympathy. Sorry, but I have to say it, Althouse is living in some alternate reality When it comes to Trump.
Wright seems not to get that free speech refers to more than just the first amendment, or that trying to shut people up is a censorious, closed-minded thing to do whatever the applicable law. "You mean once we get outside the three mile limit it's like no law and I can kill bad people? Cool."
So CPAC violated Milo's free speech? Any group must allow someone to come into their midst and say whatever hateful crap they want? I don't think so.
@Once,
Here is a video of Professor Harvey Mansfield, a profoundly conservative thinker
You know, Once, if you had a clue you'd be dangerous.
Mansfield is a Straussian. And, no, Straussians aren't going to be thrilled with a Trump-like figure. The only thing is, it's kinda tough to find much in American politics that Straussians care much for. Among the things they don't care much for is populism. Another one is democracy, even though they are very, very circumspect about who they say that to in public.
There's a reason Kristol said the other day that he prefers the Deep State to Trump, & that reason isn't pretty.
dhagood, I am not demanding that Ann "properly denounce" Trump. I am just point out that she is incapable of writing critically about him. (Much less than critical of him.)
Ann is now falling all over herself with "thought experiments" that try to make people believe that the rise of Trump is normal politics for this country.
Also, I can't "deduct some of her liberal points," because, as I stated above, I don't see her as having many liberal or conservative principled positions.
Actually antonym, the new member ofvthe national security council staff, formerly decius, and codevilla, a firmer naval intelligence analyst CIA operative and house staffer have been poisituve about trump, they are west coast straussians
About having principled positions, Once Written may have a point. When Bob tried to pin Althouse down on something she, several times, fell back on a position of having no position on the issue, yet she argues so vociferously for her viewpoint... until she's pinned down, wash, rinse, repeat. Once again it seems like a contrarian thing, don't kinow. The whole conversation was strange.
Good job on the Milo topic, Althouse.
He was the victim, but he is being treated as the pedophile, because of his flamboyant, provocative approach to politics that has pissed off the Left.
Bob's a decent fellow, but he's such a Beta Male. Hard to watch him.
Bob's a Beta Male? Althouse thought he bullied her.
By the way, Bob Wright is incorrect --- Milo Y. doesn't believe in gay marriage.
When Kevin Jennings was mandating this as policy, where was the reaction then, I don't want to know about milo's propensities any mire than I have to.
Trump came late to birtherism, which was started by mark.Penn, becausevin truth they coyldnt find any ideological angle.
Should we force victimhood on Milo if he is an adult and doesn't want to be a victim?
Sorry about the typos, sid blumenthal who is nearly as left, he started out in joyrnslism,,collecting Kennedy conspiracy theories he packaged as govt by gunplay, suggested the tack.
A 23 year old priest that engages in sex with a 14 year old is not fit for the pulpit. That should be the political opinion that comes out of Milos experience. Non partisan.
One wonders why diversity laden progressives do not wish to hear the diversity represented by a Milo. He has a definite unique viewpoint and social behavior.
Ann blithely waved off that Trump was completely silent about the six Muslims who were murdered in their house of worship right across our border. The shooter is a fan of Trump and of Le Penn. Trump did publicly speak out about the Muslim who brandished a sword at a Paris Museum a few days latter, even though no innocents were hurt.
I am sure Trump will not speak out and condemn the man who last night shot three people in Missouri because he thought they were Muslims. (Actually, from India.) I am sure Ann will be just fine with that.
Link to article about the terrorism (inflamed by Trump) against Muslims in Missouri.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article134459444.html
"Once Written" Trump got to the political poker table by denigrating the media. It was the only path for him to get a seat. As they appointed themselves gatekeepers. Once seated Trump was about jobs and security. The birther stuff is not significant. And as thin as the "not my president" hashing. A bluff or a negotiation is not a lie. Except maybe to the loser at the game. Both Obama and Trump have stated winning is what it is about.
I do admit that I find Althouse's silence on certain current events odd. She seems to be dismissive of the investigations that are going on surrounding the Trump/Russia connection. It's potentially a huge story, yet she ignores it, why?
"The Birther Stuff" is what Trump used seven years ago to transfer his general pop culture notoriety into the political realm. It was not insignificant; it was his key.
@Once,
Link to article about the terrorism (inflamed by Trump) against Muslims in Missouri.
You miserable, lying fuck. You want people to take you & your liberal moralizing seriously, & yet you lie like a rug.
That article you linked to mentions nothing --NOTHING --- about Trump. It mentions no motive at all. Yet you blame Trump. With no evidence.
You know why? Because you are so twisted with your pussy-ass & dogmatic political ideology that you can't see what is & what's not in front of your nose anymore. YOU put the "by Trump" in there, & you're so fucked in the head you probably can't see why the rest of us go "Wait a minute...." when you do that.
Bob is wrong on the speech codes. Very wrong. People need to learn to think critically for themselves. Bob is doing his kids a huge favor by being willing to let them hear bad thoughts and think critically about them. Then make a reasoned well thought out decision. That is how hate speech gets isolated to the minority of weak thinkers.
You did great. Love the visuals, the bemused self-confidence. Felt bad for Bob feeling so bad.
Donald Trump won the election. Rodham is a felon skating, and Teletubbie Rodham is HISTORY. To assert PRESIDENT TRUMP lied and played political games to CRUSH THUNDER THIGHS RODHAM is beyond SPECIOUS. Rodham GOT HER CAN KICKED TO THE.....HEH HEH..CURB.
That is REALITY. Rodham LOST. Rodham is without any moral compass. No matter. Rodham is DONE, EL FINITO.
So are 4 AMERICAN men who served the WITCH in BENGHAZI. Libtards do not care.
Trump, Althouse, and Trump supporters are upset that Trump isn't being seen as a legitimate President, that he's not given the respect he deserves, yet Trump tried for years to delegitimize Obama, as Once Written pointed to. How disrespectful was that?Althouse argued to Bob that we should just calm down and accept that he's president. That was condescending. Why should we give Trump that honor after how he hounded Obama? Trump demanded to see Obamas birth certificate and educational records, yet Althouse has never said Trump is wrong and hypocritical in witholding his tax records. There is so much in the way Althouse seems to deal with Trump that makes absolutely no sense.
And that Althouse still doesn't see that Trump mocked the disabled reporter is almost unbelievable. I think Bob was shocked by Althouse's take on the incident.
YoungHegelian, Trump has fanned anti-Muslim sentiment in this country for over a year now. Not even you can deny it. That terrorist in Missouri last night told the bartender that he just shot three people from the Middle East. Before he did so he screamed at them to get out of "my country!"
It is completely fair to draw a line between what Trump is saying and doing and these terrorist acts against Muslims.
So Once....I guess you were given a timeout instead of being permanently shitcanned.
And you plan to used that time hectoring Althouse again?
I think we havent yet seen Obamas educational records.
I wonder why.
@unknown,
You know Trump released the Personal Financial Disclosure with the FEC that he was required to do, right?
You also understand that a tax return for someone who owns controlling interest in a multi-billion dollar closely held corporation is just waaaaaay more complicated than 1) someone like HRC whose income is straight-forward speaking fees & some investments & 2) someone like Bill Gates whose primary wealth is in a publicly traded company whose day to day value is tracked by the stock market. For one thing, in a privately held corporation, there's the question of valuation of the holdings, which is a very complicated question. What are real estate assets worth? Present market value of comparables? Price bought minus depreciation? It's worth what you can sell it for, but you don't know that until you actually sell it.
With too many people out there waiting for the return with knives out, if I was Trump's lawyer, I'd tell him if it's not legally required fuggeddaboutit.
Mil comes from what is colloquially known as londonistan, where (captain hook) Abe Hamza, anjem choudhary, lieutenants of Ubl, hamas found sanctuary for some 20 years, the latest suicide bomber released from gitmo with a 600,000 bounty along with a host of their brethren come from there.
The media IS the enemy of the people.
No question about it. Its been true for decades.
The American volk are the perpetual villains in anything and everything, fathers and white males are the causes of all problems and objects of hate, achievement is evil and weakness is power.
The perversity is total and impossible to miss.
@Once,
It is completely fair to draw a line between what Trump is saying and doing and these terrorist acts against Muslims.
Because there were no anti-Muslim incidents before Trump came along, right?
So, do all the Dems who coddled & supported Black Lives Matter take the blame for those five cops shot in Dallas? Or, does only the other side stoke up hate in your twisted world view?
Milo got shafted for even daring to speak about a topic that is clearly though to talk about and say something that could be CONSTRUED as being pro pedophilia. As Althouse Mentioned, he talked about how his mother was from Germany and in Germany the age of consent is 14. BUT he actually thought it was too low.
He was actually ok with the age of consent as it is.
However, He has the experience of being someone who was sexually active at a very young age. And he knows that at the time he didnt' have the view that it was harmful. Apparently he was also molested, and I think based on a lot of stories i hear about from gay men, this is often how they are ushered into the gay lifestyle. After he was molested he went out of his way to engage in sex with men. This seems to be a pattern for a lot of people who go through this.
You also see this same rationale with groupies. I happened to read about groupie that had an affair with David Bowie when she was 14, and she doesnt view her situation as a rape at all.
Theres's aslo a tape of George Takei Howard Stern describing what happened to him at camp. Basically he got a hand job from a 20 year old counselor when he was 13 or 14. But he doesnt notice that it was stautory rape at alll. And neither does anyone on the show.
So when Milo was talking about people under the age of consent believing they were able to cosnent is right. How many kids in high school are sexually active by the time they are 15? They all assume they can cornet even though the law LITERALLY says they can't.
I dont know how you can discuss the topic without brining up this dichotomy. At any rate Milo said he was an outlier. just because he didn't view himself as a a victim he coudln't say that other thirteen year olds would have the same attitude. And based on some of his bitter humor, about the subject I'm not even sure if he WAS actually able to deal with it.
So, Milo got eviscerated and labeled a pedophile supporter simply for saying something that was sloppily worded, but was not even saying he was ok with pederasty.
I hope he actually gets back on his feet and continues with his career, because I actually like Milo a lot. Sure, he's an asshole. But he's actually an asshole towards people who need an asshole to tear them a new one. If his book ever comes out, I'll definitely buy it.
The terrorist in Quebec, who murdered six and wounded nineteen, was a Trump supporter. You would think the president would want to publicly state his outrage and state his opposition to all terrorism.
https://cdn.ampproject.org/c/amp.timeinc.net/time/4654434/alexandre-bissonnette-quebec-mosque-shooting-donald-trump-marie-le-pen/?source=dam
We have reached peak troll.
We have reached peak troll.
It's safer when Ann has settled in for the night.
Why does Milo get shitcanned, but Pussy Grabber in Chief is not impeached?
The oddest comment from Althouse "I don't think he does that". This is truly unmoored from reality. So odd. I didn't want to think Althouse was that far down that rabbit hole when it comes to Trump.
Why is it the common understanding here that if you post critically of Trump on this blog then you are a troll? (And Ann claims this is not a conservative blog.)
Young Hegelian, President Obama and others who have spoken out against racial disparities in the criminal justice system quickly and forcefully spoke out against the murdering of those brave officers in Dallas. Trump has not done the same about those murdered in Quebec and now Missouri. See the difference? (But don't worry, Ann brushes it off too.)
So Milo is guilty of insulting people? Off with head huh? What kind of a country are we living in when Lenny Bruce v2 is not acceptable?
And he wAS a supporter of the need democrats and megadeth in that order. Please obama has been pouring acid in that wound for eight years and the result is at least two cities burned, Dallas, falcon heights, Brooklyn philafelphia most recently whittier although that last was Jerry browns contribution
When even bystanders in whington are shot, whole swaths of Berkeley were ravaged because they can't listen to some.criticism
@Once,
President Obama and others who have spoken out against racial disparities in the criminal justice system quickly and forcefully against the murdering of those brace officers in Dallas
Oh, please! Did he ever tell anyone in BLM or any of the Dems who supported them to chill? Did he ever say "Maybe we're going a little too heavy on the anti-cop shit here & the brothers need to understand why they're feared on the streets."? No, he just said the same ol' pathetic blather he always did, & he hoped it would all go away.
Clearly, he fooled some folks if you're representative.
Washington state, I meant, and its nit bevausr of milo's personal habits,
That's all that fits on his cue card hegelian.
Also YoungHegelian, to respond to a point you made about Professor Mansfield--do you know who else were critical of populism and too much direct democracy? The Framers of the U.S. Constitution.
I suspect that you probably did not know that.
YH,
""Any violence to police officers is a reprehensible crime and needs to be prosecuted," Mr. Obama said. "But even rhetorically, if we paint police in broad brush without recognizing that the vast majority of police officers are doing a really good job and are trying to protect people and do so fairly and without racial bias, if our rhetoric does not recognize that, then we're going to lose allies in the reform cause."
"Maintaining a truthful and serious and respectful tone is going to help mobilize American society to bring about real change -- and that is our ultimate objective," he said."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-defends-black-lives-matter-movement-as-protests-heat-up/
Ann, I feel that you mischaracterized Milo Y.'s comments. He wasn't just refusing the label of "victim." He also was implying that, generally, such male adult/underage male sexual relationships helped the younger male to learn how to behave in sexual relationships with partners, as though adults who engage in sexual interactions with underage people perform a public service. But we wouldn't say that an adult teacher was performing a public service by engaging in a heterosexual relationship with an underage person. The latter is rightly regarded as criminal activity. The former should be as well.
@Once,
do you know who else were critical of populism and too much direct democracy? The Framers of the U.S. Constitution.
It ain't "direct democracy" that gives the Straussians the heebie-jeebies, Once. It's democracy. Tell me, what did the ancient political writers think about democracy? It was the polis who killed Socrates, was it not?
@PB&J,
Blather. When did he ever call out anyone on his side by name? Did he ever meet with the police union heads and tell him he was behind them? Did he ever rebuke anyone in BLM, even the nasty hangers-on like Malik Shabazz? Did he ever sit down with the Black Congressional Caucus & say "this has gone too far".
You guys take pretty words to be something. I consider such talk political window dressing.
Bob appears to be tormented by losing his last 100 attempts at argument to superior intellects. Especially cute, blue eyed ones.
Althouse was winning, up to the point where she mocked the man for his obvious disability. Actually, I must admit that was entertaining too. I see he got a bit of revenge in the titling of the video over at his website. It was a good watch for those of us missing Hannity and Colmes. Hannity, however, wants her own show.
Indeed, worse re Obama, was that he was the head of the party and the chieftain of the political operation that generated, funded and controlled the activities of BLM, and moreso of the propaganda arm that promoted it, going back to Rodney King and Ferguson.
These were his direct political tools.
That was dope
So many things stump poor Bob, but he still insists that he is the smart one about everything.
As for Trump's response to the Jewish questioner, Trump reacted to the Talmudic reasoning in the question. He has known NYC Jews all his life, and that control thought bubble still irritates him.
As for hating Muslims, all sane infidels do.
Unknown said...
I do admit that I find Althouse's silence on certain current events odd. She seems to be dismissive of the investigations that are going on surrounding the Trump/Russia connection. It's potentially a huge story, yet she ignores it, why?
Because it has been discussed, and as an intelligent person Ann properly views it as a big nothing burger.
I will go further and say that none of you actually believe it and the only reason it is a big story is you stupidly think you can undermine Trump with it. Everyone else just looks at you like you are an idiot every time you mention it because there is zero evidence for it and it is at best a feverish wish of a diseased mind.
Once written, twice... said...
Why is it the common understanding here that if you post critically of Trump on this blog then you are a troll? (And Ann claims this is not a conservative blog.)
Because almost every one of you comments in bad faith. Ritmo is the only lefty in these comments that has any intellectual honesty.
After president "more flexibility after the election" and SOS Hillary "reset button" Clinton sold 20% of North American Uranium for Clinton Foundation donations it is a joke watching you guys go off on the Russians now on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
BTW, this:
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/were-all-cucks-now
starting at around 22 minutes does the reverse of Althouse's so-called "hypothetical Trumps" thought experiment.
Another reason it isn't clear Trump was mocking the reporter for his disability is that Trump's imitation bore no resemblance to how that reporter actually speaks. If you have seen clips of that reporter. So I think Trump was just doing a stock imitation that had nothing to do with the target being disabled, or anything specific about that individual.
"...or anything specific about that individual."
That's my understanding, too. He would never mock a disabled person.
He was actually referring to Rosie Fiorina.
Carry on.
6:32 Ann: Let me just finish …
But no, she is not allowed to finish. When weak debaters sense a good point coming from a debate opponent they interrupt and talk over. Never fails.
8:54 Again he interrupts but doesn’t have the nerve to talk over her again. The interruption is similar in it’s goal to what in theatre is called "stepping on lines,” which is to diminish and blunt the other’s performance, whether on stage or on Bloggingheads. Even though the speaker is allowed to go on speaking after the enforced pause the point the speaker is trying to make is disjointed. So Bob still comes out ahead, the rascal.
Note to Bob: Turn off the fucking cellphone. Catch up on the goddam calls and texts afterwards.
31:18 Typical Bob: “Leave aside my child …” Bob keeps posing arguments from which he keeps having to backtrack after Ann knocks them down.
Advice to Bob: Never attempt to debate the constitution with a retired constitutional law professor. Avoid issues of legality and constitutionality like the plague. Stick to moral posing, virtue signaling and sanctimonious pronouncements about Trump’s “bigotry.”
32:36 – Ann: “That’s what speech codes do, Bob.” When Bob tries to float the idea that limiting speech is defending freedom of speech. How charmingly 1984-ish of Bob.
41:19 Ann: “It’s sort of like everybody is just … uh … has gone mad …,” referring to the MSM’s war against Trump.
No, the madness started many years ago. They’ve been lying for a long time. It has perhaps become more noticeable recently because Trump doesn’t take shit lying down. He fights back, he Tweets their ass.
Note #2 to Bob(@ 47:17): Trump is NEVER “out of control.” A “strong reaction,” as Ann puts it later on, is not being out of control.
Forgot to note the time: “ … can’t we get to something that is more real.” Ann, referring to the bogus anti-Muslim charge wrongly but casually attached to Trump by all the Bobs in America.
I’ll answer that. Not a chance, Ann.
61:33 – Bob: “… a mosque burned down in Texas …”
Yeah, Bob. A mosque WAS burned down in Texas. Guess who burned it down … a Muslim who attended the mosque as a worshiper. NOT a Trump supporter. NOT a rightwing conservative bigot, but a MUSLIM. Do a little research before serving up your slander.
link
Didn’t view the last 25 minutes.
I give you both credit for engaging in a free-flowing discussion or debate of ideas based on topical events. I never found debating easy to do. It was enjoyable to watch even if some of it was bickering. Go ahead and bicker - you both maintained civility. Ms. Althouse is easy on the eyes, so that gave her an edge in the debate.
The discussion of Free Speech, and limits placed on it (and by whom), was interesting to me.
Please do more bloogerheads TV with different people whether they are like-minded or not, so long as they are intelligent, courteous people who have something interesting to say.
Are you invited to talk only with Bob? Or is that your choice? Or are you not given different options?
would love to see an Althouse -Lowry or Althouse -McWhorter bloggingheads.Mostly those three bring real intellectual heft to an argument.
Sorry, Ann. I didn't catch any of that.
I was looking at your chest.
I think that Robert Wright is not a loving enough person to want a supermodel.
Enjoyed the bloggingheads (kind of long :) but I wish Ann had pushed back more on the Muslim issue instead of brushing it aside. She already made a strong point: opposing same sex marriage is not the same thing as hating gays or feeling uncomfortable around them... Wright made that comparison twice and she rebutted it.
She should have done the same thing here. Islam in the 20th century has a lot of problems that no other major religion in the world has. It has hundreds of thousands of actual jihadists. More, something over 15% of Muslims anywhere (according to polls), support the jihadists even if they're not doing it themselves. More, something over half of Muslims everywhere (according to polls), more in Muslim-majority countries, agree with very "old-fashioned" points of view about things like gays and apostates: death or severe punishment.
None of this means that Muslims aren't good loyal citizens of this country. But a lot of them are having real problems with modern civilization.
A few liberals acknowledge this: Bill Maher and Sam Harris are good examples. Mostly they try hard to gloss it over.
Wright seems sure, from all his evidence, that Trump is anti-Muslim. Push back: Are you doing the same thing as you did with gays - turning a maybe realistic response to the severe problems of world Islam into a statement that "Trump is anti-Muslim"? Which of your pieces of evidences are just examples of your own conflation of these issues?
"Sorry, Ann. I didn't catch any of that.
I was looking at your chest."
Disgusting sexist pig. No one is definitely looking at you, even with your head down.
Once written, twice... said...
"It is completely fair to draw a line between what Trump is saying and doing and these terrorist acts against Muslims."
Good point, OWT. Maybe you should impeach him. Or just have the election anulled. That's the ticket! I bet that so-called judge in Washington would be happy to annul the election! Have Soros buy you some lawyers and file a suit!
Once written, twice... said...
"Ann, the problem is that besides one wishywashy post last Fall, you have not written critically of Trump."
That's impeachable right there! You can have Althouse impeached and annulled too! How do you get Soros to fund you, anyway? Did you have to fill out a grant proposal, like with the Ford Foundation?
AA needs to find a sharper foil. Bob is obtuse.
I'd like to read Milo's comments on Bob Wright's facial hair choices. That salt-and-pepper stuff doesn't work when the dark mustache above a white beard makes your default look a frown. It's kind of a bitchy-resting-face problem.
I liked rob Wrights book on Darwin, that was probably the last thing I liked from him.
what one therapist thinks:
``The one-sided, unipolar or split-off mythology of the innocent child
and victim has the capacity to hinder our therapeutic work with sexually
abused children - or adults. The manner and method many therapists use
to deal with the guilt feeling of ``abuse'' victims amply demonstrates
my point. Children who experience sexual abuse often feel guilty. They
have the impression that they, somehow, were at fault. Older children,
in particular, have ambivalent feelings about the abuse. They are
uncertain whether the experience did not provide them with a certain
pleasure. They often wonder if they failed to defend themselves or
possible encouraged the perpetrator. Many psychologists reject these
guilt feelings out of hand as completely unjustified. They maintain that
in no way can there be a question of guilt. They encourage children to
forget the guilt, to put it out of their minds.
``This therapeutic position can be harmful for the psychological development
of a child. Therapists simply think of and accept the child as a victim.
They energetically reject and deny any attempt on the child's part to assume
any responsibility for what happened or at least to recognize his or her own
ambivalence. Therapists thereby impose a victim psychology upon the child,
a psychology which says that for everything that happens there is always
someone to blame. They nip in the bud the child's growing awareness that
he is at least partially responsible for much that happens to him - or at
least for the back and forth tension between rejection and acceptance. This
therapeutic position does not take the child seriously as a human being.'' p.61
_From the Wrong Side_ Adolf Guggenbuhl-Craig, Spring Publications, 1955
For the record, I listened to the whole thing and enjoyed it.
1) It would be interesting to take a stopwatch to it and see who talked the longest. Wright, it seemed to me, spent more time trying to derail or contradict what you were saying than setting forth his own views. Even the positive arguments he did advance felt more like gotchas than anything he was deeply committed to. That combative attitude may be causing him to shortchange himself.
2) It was very telling that Wright cannot stand to listen to his own audio. A few years ago I heard audio of myself arguing with someone and was floored at how peevish I sounded and, well, no smoke without fire, I sounded peevish because I was.
3) I think Wright's tendency to yell at you is more a reflection of his impatience with a certain set of ideas than with you. Wright cannot imagine anyone who argues as you do as being in good faith and, consequently, tends to fear rather than listen.
4) I wonder if Bill Clinton's sexual misbehaviours and way many of his supporters were willing to defend him or, at least, find his behaviour irrelevant to their assessment of his politics wouldn't be a better example to use with regard to your thought experiment that you and Wright discussed towards the end.
1995 not 1955
What's wrong with his face? Why does Bob Wright always have a stupid look on his face?
I'm for deporting illegals, if you need somebody.
We get to say who comes here, not the person who wants to come here.
The question asked is what does the US get out of it. If it's something worthwhile, and that person wants to some, then there's a deal possible. If one side or the other doesn't come out ahead, then there's no deal.
That's what happens in ordinary life every day all the time. Mostly no-deals are the case. When a deal happens, it's because both sides find it advantageous, and that's how the standard of living of the nation goes up.
Nothing about loving.
The US isn't a charity.
Milo insulting people is wrong. He's overturning political correctness against PC pushback. He's showing it can be done, as Trump did.
Imus said that when he hung out with Trump long ago that Trump was "Don Rickles funny."
Robert said...
"Another reason it isn't clear Trump was mocking the reporter for his disability is that Trump's imitation bore no resemblance to how that reporter actually speaks. If you have seen clips of that reporter. So I think Trump was just doing a stock imitation that had nothing to do with the target being disabled, or anything specific about that individual."
Exactly. Trump has used that voice and gestures to imitate Senator Cruz, bank presidents, and even himself. It's a terrible imitation to use, as it looks spastic, and is a bit uncomfortable to watch.
Once written, twice... said...
Ann blithely waved off that Trump was completely silent about the six Muslims who were murdered in their house of worship right across our border.
Now you're just lying.
If you want to find out how Zeus tastes, laddie, you're going about it the right way.
Speaking of silent, where is the second shooter? Eyewitness testimony said there were two shooters to the best of my recollection.
Inverting an observation from Rush, whenever you're inclined to say "protection" substitute "regulation."
I can never watch those things because I get too distracted by Bob Wright's mannerisms.
There have always been things that are beyond the pale.
But you get to move the pale.
Ethnic conflicts around the world are caused by diversity, not a lack of a speech code.
It's a cultural power struggle.
One country one culture is fairly peaceful. Draw the boundaries right.
I'm working all sorts of eastern European countries that didn't exist in the 50s, from cultures deciding that they'd rather rule themselves.
I just watched the Milo segment. Althouse came loaded for bear on this one. Wright got steamrolled.
The American approach to ethnic diversity is everybody agrees with the American rules.
You can say any fucking thing, being one of them.
If you don't agree, you don't get to immigrate here.
Agreeing means, when you're offended, you say defend his right to say that. That way you get to say what you want. He defends you.
You agree about being Americans.
So CPAC violated Milo's free speech? Any group must allow someone to come into their midst and say whatever hateful crap they want? I don't think so.
There is a culture which makes the First Amendment just a backstop.
The culture has been KILLED by the Left.
40 years ago, the idea of banning "hate speech" (however one defines it) was a non-starter on campuses. Now, it's a serious belief amongst faculty and students.
You don't find this more than a bit upsetting?
Perhaps you would if it was ME deciding what speech is "hate speech".
As C.W Cooke of NR asked last year, hasn't the rise of Trump made you question what the size of government in the US should be?
An ELECTION shouldn't lead to Democrats losing their mind and riot and threaten secession. I mention Democrats because they're still the only ones who have done that.
He was the victim, but he is being treated as the pedophile, because of his flamboyant, provocative approach to politics that has pissed off the Left.
Especially since Takei and Maher advocated the identical thing they claim Milo is.
I am sure Trump will not speak out and condemn the man who last night shot three people in Missouri because he thought they were Muslims. (Actually, from India.) I am sure Ann will be just fine with that.
It's the President's job to opine on all crimes?
That article you linked to mentions nothing --NOTHING --- about Trump. It mentions no motive at all. Yet you blame Trump. With no evidence.
He/she would also likely not enjoy having the riots at Berkeley tied directly to the Left's denigration of Trump supporters.
So, do all the Dems who coddled & supported Black Lives Matter take the blame for those five cops shot in Dallas? Or, does only the other side stoke up hate in your twisted world view?
I'd also ask, since they're victimized far more frequently, how much the Left's love affair with "Palestine" and their BDS bullshit has caused the attacks on Jewish cemeteries.
Being American is a voluntary deal. You come out ahead at the cost of letting others come out ahead. You're better off than you'd be not agreeing to it.
Why isn't genocide a good idea?
It's pretty simple to give a reason. You don't need to ban it.
I'm pretty sure only the mildly (or more) mentally impaired will be able to maintain Trump hatred for all eight years.
If Althouse maintains this blog that long, it will be really interesting. I will send all my Amazon purchases through her portal just for that information.
I'm going go ban all Muslims from entering the country.
That doesn't mean that Trump wishes them ill. He just doesn't want them here. He wishes them all the best in their own country, where Sharia law is the culture.
It's not the culture here because it's unAmerican.
In their own country, there's no conflict with being an American.
Muslims who'll defend a lady's right to draw a Mohammad cartoon are welcome in America.
Wright picks weird examples of outrageous statements, ones that are easy to argue in particular.
PC says that they must not be argued. Perhaps argument is the enemy of PC.
What did the ministers mean by Islam is evil?
I could argue it easily.
Look under the label.
Althouse concedes that so easily too.
Terrorist-oriented Muslims.
You want to go broader; will they defend another American's right to draw Mohammad cartoons, is the test.
Will they agree to American rules, in short; or do they want the Middle East brought here.
Trump is systematically biased again unAmerican immigrants.
How do we know what's unAmerican? The constitution.
Not one person in a thousand realizes that evidence is e-vidence. Coming out of seeing.
Excellent DV. Always good to see Althouse talking on BHTV.
Althouse is using the classic ad hominem argument, helping Wright find a more appealing form of anger.
I'd just argue him into the ground.
People who supported Trump knew what a deal was. Both sides have to come out ahead.
The left is about America making deals where America loses.
Trump says no, Americans and the other side both have to come out ahead, otherwise no deal.
Appeal to that.
Once again: McConnell said that his job was to make Obama a one-term president shortly before the 2010 elections, as the GOP was set to retake the House. He also said that if Obama followed Clinton's pattern, the GOP would be prepared to meet him halfway.
Bob Wright has read too many DNC emails.
Wright hates Trump's bragging. What did he think of Obama's? He didn't notice it.
Amadeus 48: I just watched the Milo segment. Althouse came loaded for bear on this one. Wright got steamrolled.
I like the image of Althouse armed and loaded for bear, driving a streamroller.
Wright perhaps could look into Augustine, where charity meant thinking the best of somebody rather than the worst. That's how it wound up being soul-saving.
A few centuries later it meant giving money, which is not soul-saving.
Wright goes long on straw men and Althouse calls him on it.
Angel-Dyne--
Oops! Got me. Cliche piled on cliche. Block that metaphor! Maybe it makes it fresh?
But thanks for your appreciation.
All these dimensions just means that PC is everywhere; so opposing it is everywhere.
The old solo Althouse podcasts came off as scatterbrained. A format change might be called for.
There's a phone call rule by the way, the "Okay" rule.
It takes three "okay"s to end a phone call.
RE: handicapped reporter
"Why would he do that?"
Because it is a very effective way to establish authority with a large proportion of the population that responds to signals of hierarchy and dominance.
Likewise, why did he call Marco "little Marco"? Same reason.
Amadeus 48: Oops! Got me. Cliche piled on cliche. Block that metaphor! Maybe it makes it fresh?
But thanks for your appreciation.
You did make it fresh! Too strict an application of the "no mixed metaphor" rule can be a real killjoy sometimes.
I'm sure Bob Wright considers himself to be a fair and independent minded person. Yet, he was more than willing to brand Milo with the vilest of labels without having bothered to listen to the audio himself. That's a lot of things; none of them is fair or independent minded.
Bob Wright is obnoxious beyond acceptable. His speaking voice is terrible to begin with and when he gets going he's shrieking. So jarring. He is extremely rude and talks over his diavlog partners. I only listen to him when he talks to Althouse or Mickey Kaus.
I go way back with bloggingheads. Both Mickey and Bob are sexists and Mickey comes across as homophobic. I remember their running dialog on "Brokeback Mountain" which was discussed in several sessions. And I know why Mickey's twitter a/c has the goats.
Not a single time have I seen Wright win an argument with reasoning. He called 9/11 "a brush back pitch" by Al Queda and went nuts when someone in the Times said he had a fondness from terrorism. (I can't remember the exact phrase the writer used, it wasn't fondness).
I did notice that in the Althouse diavlog on Deflategate he was almost respectful of Ann's well developed ideas on this subject.
As another commenter wrote, an Althouse discussion with Glenn Loury would be awesome.
I've done many dvs with Glenn Loury. You can find them at the site.
Wright is a shallow-minded ditz who wouldn't grasp the concept of liberty if it bit him on the ass. Seriously. Restrictions on speech strengthen the 1st amendment? When I use the term "happy-face fascist," it refers precisely to the kind of muddle-headed, well-meaning little lickspittle campus operative that people like Wright and the fictional character Diana Moon Clampers represent.
Speech codes aren't enforced by threat of expulsion? He just assumes that? Good on Althouse for calling him on that idiocy. Too bad the idiocy kept coming and there was no way to call him out on it. He's as sloppy and uncritical a thinker as Michelle Goldberg was, and Althouse almost hung up on her in frustration once.
Milo has argued at length AGAINST same sex marriage. Yet observe how supremely confident Wright was in his ignorance.
Astounding.
Wright had absolutely no idea what was and wasn't said in the infamous interview that led to Milo's (temporary) downfall.
This is a very superficial observation, and it is not really fair, but I must say, Bob Wright is getting hard to watch. He has always been a scatterbrained ditz and hard to listen to (because he's an emotional mess with apparent psychological issues). But now he is become Dorian Gray.
Ann speaks for me on the substance, and did a great job defending Western Civilization. But, the atmospherics suck, because they included too much of this increasingly repulsive man, and all of his disgusting mannerisms, and weird lefty affectations. Other than that, Bob is a great man.
Dear Althouse, I didn't watch the whole thing, just the first and last 20 min., and I haven't read the comments, so ordinarily I wouldn't post a comment, but I just want to say:
It looks as though retirement from the professoriate is agreeing with you. If I'm right, I'm happy for you.
My guess is that one thing you miss about your career is the engagement with others, and the opportunities to open minds to new ideas. Your blog does provide you with these opportunities to some extent. If you decide to use modern technology to introduce such engagements to new audiences, that would be great. Keep us posted.
FWIW, you can't be a priest at 23 years old. It takes 4 years of post graduate seminary at the very least. So, unless the man in question started college at 15, he was not an ordained Roman Catholic priest. Maybe he was a deacon by then? Or in minor orders? The perceptions of a 13 year old in that position are obviously suspect and therefore the memory of the relationship may not be perfect. If he was a priest, he wasn't 23, if he was 23, he wasn't a priest.
Titus said...
"Sorry, Ann. I didn't catch any of that.
I was looking at your chest."
"Disgusting sexist pig. No one is definitely looking at you, even with your head down."
Yes. And?
I thought i gained something from Ann's discussion but the blogger fellow made me feel like I was listening to impulsive shallow noise. Why would anyone pay attention to him. This goes for a lot of other people as well.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा