Not having political discussions with anyone anymore. Done. Too much insanity. Another dinner ruined. People are fucking crazy. Get a grip.— Bret Easton Ellis (@BretEastonEllis) July 16, 2017
Defending the American voter I'm yelled at in Sunset Tower for being a Trump apologist and colluding with Russia. Is the Left fucking NUTS? pic.twitter.com/Bavvq5IqEV— Bret Easton Ellis (@BretEastonEllis) July 16, 2017
Posts
132 comments:
"Is the Left fucking NUTS?"
Yes, just read the NYT or watch CNN.
Yes. They are nuts, including Fox News.
It's amazing they can't see it.
Maybe they know but are just playing a role to get votes or viewers.
Social Tragedy: when one social media moron exclaims about other social media morons.
Only a moron would talk about politics or religion outside of a tavern.
I take it that his question is rhetorical.
When I was a medical student, I worked one summer in the VA Psych hospital in Los Angeles.
It was 1962 and the deinstitutionalization movement was years in the future.
The patients were all men and almost all schizophrenic.
The psychiatrist, one of the most impressive people I have ever met, taught me a lot about psychosis. He was also in private practice and would not see anyone who was merely neurotic. Few psychiatrists wanted to treat psychotics because they are mostly broke and in those days had no insurance,
One of our craziest patients was brought in one day to a treatment conference that the boss held every Wednesday,
He asked the patient how things were going and got about 5 minutes of psychotic gibberish.
At that point, he interrupted the patient and said he could certainly understand because he had had a similar experience.
Then he repeated back to the patient, almost word for word, the same gibberish. Half way through, the patient started laughing.
He was not crazy (or very crazy anyway) and had been living there with "three hots and a cot" as they say ,for years.
The staff were too busy with "hotel functions", changing linen and meals, to talk much to the patients. When ever they did talk to him, he gave them a stream of crazy talk, and was otherwise left alone.
Harrington had seen through this.
Nobody who wants to live in a psych hospital is normal but this guy had fooled everyone for years and was content to have a bed and hot meals.
I wonder if any of the news people going on with Trump hysteria will just start laughing admit it has all been a scam?
@Michael K- LOL
But we do all miss Megyn Kelley. You get no sexual zeitgeist out of watching Tucker's confounded at his guest's stupidity look. Megyn always promised men a reward.
@Michael K, probably. And then they'll be torn to pieces by angry mobsof deplorable voters.
"Defending the American voter I'm yelled at in Sunset Tower for being a Trump apologist and colluding with Russia. Is the Left fucking NUTS?"
He needed to place a comma after "voter." How does one "defend the American voter?" He must mean defend having voted for Trump over Hillary. A large part of the Left wanted Bernie instead of Hillary. If your gay, don't say that you are "indeterminate sexuality." I won't tell you how to answer the question, but don't insult my intelligence. If you voted for Trump, you don't have to explain your decision, but when you come to your senses, you will resist the calamity known as Trump & the Republicans like normal decent thinking people.
If you still support Trump and his horrible Cabinet filled with billionaire cronies and sycophants after suffering six months of his lies, abject incompetence, and profound stupidity, then you are the one who is "NUTS".
Where did you find the picture of the fruitcake?
"Megyn always promised men a reward."
Yeah: if you were sufficiently woke she'd let you suck her cock.
I am Laslo.
I have been advising my patients to just turn off the news when they complain of fatigue and stress. All the shrillness and hysteria is bad for you.
Years from now some people are going to look really stupid and, I dare say, "evil".
I'm yelled at in Sunset Tower for being a Trump apologist and colluding with Russia
This evening I'm going to go see a showing of 2001: A Space Odyssey on IMAX at the Air and Space Museum in D.C. I'm kind of concerned, though, because there are a few Russian characters in the movie. I hope no one sees me there.
How were you defending the American voter? Defending someones bad decision is not defending that person. If yo defend scum people will think you like scum so the reaction is very predictable
Nope Brett; the media is nucking futs. And in their orgy of virtue signaling they have lost all connection to reality.
If you still support Trump and his horrible Cabinet filled with billionaire cronies and sycophants after suffering six months of his lies, abject incompetence, and profound stupidity, then you are the one who is "NUTS".
And if the economy, in spite of Democrats and "Resist" obstruction, is humming and unemployment is down and Russia is having to cut it's military budget again, like it did a couple of years ago because of low oil prices, and the Supreme Court has approved Trump's immigration reforms, then who's Nuts ?
Is the Left fucking NUTS?
Short answer? Yes!
I have been advising my patients to just turn off the news
I have literally turned off my TV since shortly after the election. Tonight I will watch it for almost the first time ( I watched a couple of hours of poker in the last eight months).
"Is the Left fucking NUTS?"
The left is fucking nuts. The answer is in the question.
Yes, the Left is fucking nuts. In January-February I thought this was merely the latest "Derangement Syndrome," after Clinton in the late 1990s, Bush, and Obama, each in turn.
But in the last month or two, I realize this is something more--it is a psychotic break.
Ellis is right, it's not worth trying to talk about these things, except maybe with people you are very close to and understand, and every word is not taken as a declaration of war. But just casual acquaintances or even "friends", no way.
Ya know Trumpit if the Democrat Party had offered the voters candidates that weren't Communist criminals or grifters, criminals and traitors you might be on to something.
Funny how both sides consider the other nuts. Maybe both sides are nuts, or maybe both sides are sane, or maybe one side is sane, the other nuts. It's all in the perception.
Is the left ******* nuts? Apparently yes.
Brooks has a column about the ethical failings of Donald Trump Jr. The comments say all republicans / all conservatives are morally and ethically bankrupt. Have they not looked at their own side? Their outrage over Don Jr is hard to take after months and months of defending Clinton!
Its not the left really.
Or, maybe, one can call the haut-bourgeois social atmosphere "left" as a sort of religious-cultural alignment. Thats where the nuttiness really is.
Its not the "left" if the madness is best seen among the wives of wealthy business executives and professionals, the 1% indeed.
Ellis is right, I see the same thing here.
Yes and no, or sic et non as we hillbillies prefer (just a shoutout to rh).
Yes: they are caught in a collective hallucination and psychotic disdain for Trump and anyone who supports him. Let's call it Hodgkinson's disease.
No: for a big part of the left, the craziness is a calculated, earth-scorching attempt to delegitimate and destroy anything and anyone that stands in their way, at any time. Ellis' "ruined" dinner parties are minor collateral damage. In view of their utter contempt for the actual country and all-consuming lust for power, they would be nuts to be nice to Ellis.
Of course, it's also a gamble, since the election showed that, apart from the actual Trumpkins, for now there may be enough people left who react adversely to the scorching. People who should know better, like Ellis or Althouse, therefore earn the left's particular ire.
Yes. Next question.
"I wonder if any of the news people going on with Trump hysteria will just start laughing admit it has all been a scam?"
Is there a single media figure from the left who has been honest about this other than Glenn Greenwald? Maybe Michael Wolff. Otherwise they're all lemmings.
Blogger cubanbob said...
Ya know Trumpit if the Democrat Party had offered the voters candidates that weren't Communist criminals or grifters, criminals and traitors you might be on to something.
The Democrats' serious problem is that they have no "farm team." They have destroyed their lower office holders during the Obama era,
This all began with "Bush Derangement Syndrome" and the 2000 election hysteria followed by 9/11.
There is some similarity to the plight of the "America First" group after 12/7/1941.
Roosevelt, being a better politician than GW Bush, drove them out of public life. Lindbergh was not even allowed to enlist in the military.
The brief interlude when Democrats supported Bush was marked by his surrender to them on the Patriot Act. The unionized TSA and the other expansion of federal employees, all unionized, brought a whole fifth column into Bush's government.
The Democrats have lost 1000 office holders at all levels since then. They managed a 2006 Congressional majority and used it to destroy the economy via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Democrat fiefdoms.
Now, all they have post-Hillary, is Kamala Harris and abrasive far leftist and Medicare recipients like Warren and Biden.
Bernie is in deep trouble with his wife.
I might be crazy, too, with those choices.
"Both sides are nuts" is a false equivalency.
I will bet far more people who voted for Trump know that he's not a perfect candidate by far (although I'm liking him better; his VA chief has been draining the swamp, firing a good number of officials).
Trump is imperfect, he was not my first choice, but I decided better him than Hillary.
I am perfectly willing to defend my vote, and do that with facts, if anyone was willing to defend Hillary.
I don't see anyone on the left doing that. Instead, it's straight to tantrum-throwing juicebox-spilling diaper shitting and smearing it on the wall anger.
True nutballs really DO ruin political conversations. Nobody learns anything; there's no good humor; it is just depressing, when even basic facts are not understood by opposing parties as such.
One of the very worst examples of the kind of nutball incivility that I am talking about, were the claims that Barack Obama was not really born in Hawaii to an American mother. You just cannot get past something that stupid. There is no point in ever having any sort of discussion with such a person. End of conversation.
Yes. The Left is fucking nuts. Next question.
Thanks for taking one for the team, Bret. Yes, as the Left falls to ruin there's inevitably going to be some ugliness from the true believers. But that ugliness just hastens their demise. All in a good cause.
hillary started that, that's what's funny.
Anyhow, I remember when, in the distant past, young'uns were raised with "Don't speak about politics or religion at family gatherings."
One of the very worst examples of the kind of nutball incivility that I am talking about, were the claims that Barack Obama was not really born in Hawaii to an American mother. You just cannot get past something that stupid. There is no point in ever having any sort of discussion with such a person. End of conversation.
Yeah, you forgot the vaxxing thing
In civility is fantasizing about physically attacking a woman because you do not agree with her opinion.
Psychotic, cowardly, freakish fanaticism.
Hillary Clinton is not of the Left. Neither are the people who bankrolled her, the Economic Royalists of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood. Her campaign was not about Progressive policy but about how awful Donald Trump was (with no small help from his own words). The Left despises Hillary almost as much as they do Trump, and probably wouldn't be much happier with her Administration.
Chuck, remind me who brought up the Obama birth story ?
The Left despises Hillary almost as much as they do Trump, and probably wouldn't be much happier with her Administration.
Are you kidding ?
The Supreme Court would have two new members and the shut down of conservative talk radio would be far along with the FCC.
He needed to place a comma after "voter."
Probably not. The man does write for a living, you know.
How does one "defend the American voter?" He must mean defend having voted for Trump over Hillary.
Unless, of course, he himself voted for Hillary but understands the voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, and attempted to explain (to people he used to imagine were open-minded) why those voters made a rational economic decision when they voted for Trump.
The Left despises Hillary almost as much as they do Trump, and probably wouldn't be much happier with her Administration.
That's only remotely true if you replace "The Left" with "The Far Left." You seem to be buying into the media's redefinition of "left" and "center," which is to call liberal Democrats "centrist" and any Republican to the right of Lindsey Graham "Far Right."
@Bill Peschel That's an interesting observation. No one is willing to say that Hillary really was a better choice. What few Democrats I have seen on the tube admit that Hillary was a terrible candidate and ran a terrible campaign - of course the proof of that is in the pudding. Your point underscores Michael K's point that there does not seem to be a Democratic "Bench". Pelosi's support is nil and Schumer is a cipher. Of course having no spokesman is always a problem when a political party is out of the Presidency. There are a three or four Dem governors who might rise to the top, but not unless the Bernie wing is tamed.
Yes, the Left is fucking nuts.
Because of their nuttiness, they have made people who had qualms about Trump (like me) much more sympathetic and supportive.
The Leftwing riots, the campus protests to quash free speech, the Pussy Hats, the bogus Russia investigation, the softball sniper, are so over the top, that I feel obligated to defend and support Trump.
But, I would add, that substantively, Trump's immigration policy, fracking policy, climate change policy, SCOTUS appointment have all been exceptional on the merits.
So, now I feel real good about defending and supporting Trump.
That's only remotely true if you replace "The Left" with "The Far Left."
Fair enough.
The Supreme Court would have two new members and the shut down of conservative talk radio would be far along with the FCC.
If you were to take Hillary at her word.
Blogger Unknown said...
"Funny how both sides consider the other nuts. Maybe both sides are nuts, or maybe both sides are sane, or maybe one side is sane, the other nuts. It's all in the perception."
When I use logic and reason and you use "Trump! Unfit for office!", "Not my president!", "Collude!", Russians!" I'm reasonably certain I'm not the one that's nuts. You've got a long hike to convince the opposition that you are not nuts.
Michael K said...
Chuck, remind me who brought up the Obama birth story ?
Don't play that game with me. Don't you dare try to start in on the "Hillary started it." She didn't. She never said a word about it. Her sleazy (yes he is sleazy and it is on Hillary for employing such a sleazy shitbag) operative Sid Blumenthal seems to have made some vague suggestion to one or more reporters about it, but they essentially started nothing, in terms of the lengthy, explicit, ridiculous, shameless personal campaign undertaken by Donald Trump. Nobody ever said anything quite as silly and as phony as Trump's claiming in his own words on a national broadcast that he had sent his own team of investigators to Hawaii and that they were finding "amazing" things that would be detailed later.
Nobody gets away with deflecting "birtherism" on to Hillary. Hillary (1) never made any claims herself and (2) personally denounced those claims when she was asked about it.
And because this subject angers me so much, I want to add, if the sleazebag Sid Blumenthal was dabbling in birtherism, however phony, as a form of "oppo-research" in a campaign, it is nothing compared to the dubious nature of Donald Trump Jr.'s dabbling with reputed Russian government agents in the course of his own oppo-research on behalf of his father's campaign.
Again, its not the left.
If it were the left, actual Marxian socialists, it wouldnt matter.
The reason this madness matters at all is because its proponents, and victims, are the American gentry, and especially its aristocracy.
buwaya said...
Its not the "left" if the madness is best seen among the wives of wealthy business executives and professionals, the 1% indeed.
The 1% is behind Trump.
It is the .0001% that owns the media and funds the left that is pushing the agenda.
Chuck,
What is so disgusting about birtherism?
I really dont understand the rage here.
There are any number of leads that don't pan out, or obsessions/bees in the bonnet that actually matter, many of which are held by our leadership class as a whole. Heck, whole institutions and professions are nuts beyond recovery.
Really, this emotional reaction is over the top.
Perspective.
S. Blumenthal is interesting only because there are so very many S. Blumenthals. You have entire institutions full of S. Blumenthal analogues.
He is a type, not a man.
#StrongHillaryDefender
"...it is nothing compared to the dubious nature of Donald Trump Jr.'s dabbling with reputed Russian government agents in the course of his own oppo-research on behalf of his father's campaign."
Yes, the Left is fucking nuts.
buwaya what is so disgusting to me about birtherism is the stupidity of it all.
Naturally, I think Trump is stupid to traffic in such nonsense. People who believed in it, who parroted the birther talking points, have to be very stupid themselves.
The only alternative is that they are clever. That they know better, and know very well that Obama was born in Honolulu to an American mother, but who think that there is a stupid and gullible sub-class of Americans who do believe it. That may not be stupid in the first instance, but rather is simply dishonest and cynical beyond measure. And if such dishonesty and cynicism is your business model, then you are stupid.
This post by Althouse is tagged "Trump Derangement Syndrome." Is there anything that defines "Obama Derangement Syndrome" better than the Birther campaign?
Anybody who wants to seriously maintain any arguments in favor of Birtherism; even Trump has now abandoned you. Used the cause (for whatever the hell anybody can imagine Trump using it; the crassest low-level attention-seeking is the most direct rationale), and has now abandoned it.
Trump pushed the birth issue to the max and got Obama to produce something, birth certificate?, from Hawaii. Trump did that. Not Obama. Not so successful in getting the academic records, not yet anyway. I don't think the bid was big enough to get some mole in a university to cough it up. Yet.
And because this subject angers me so much, I want to add, if the sleazebag Sid Blumenthal was dabbling in birtherism, however phony, as a form of "oppo-research" in a campaign, it is nothing compared to the dubious nature of Donald Trump Jr.'s dabbling with reputed Russian government agents in the course of his own oppo-research on behalf of his father's campaign.
The most interesting thing, in the midst of all the anger and hate, is the claim that Chuck voted for Trump. Realistically, we all know our single vote does not mean a darn thing in the election. Voting for Trump while finding him beyond contempt, a liar, cheat, con man, makes Chuck, at best, hypocritical.
Lying about voting for Trump makes Chuck at best, a liar.
Credit where credit is due, Chuck is head and shoulders above the other anti Trumpkins in the way he incites argument. Icing on the cake is when Chuck calls for AA to restore civility to the conversatiom.
Most fun for me and others is when Chuck gets too involved and loses control, as when he threatened Greta and when he begins his PG13 cussin' and insults.
Staying honest, threatening a woman to prove your point really crossed the line. But that's just me, poorly educated average man and lacking the lawyerly and sophisticated imagination of IVY league, six foot, 190 pound athletic hunk of death, doom and destruction that is Michigan Chuck no doubt descended from the infamous Purple Gang of folklore.
But Obama's narcissism helped inflame the birthers what with the claim of African birth there on one of his bios from one of his autobiographies. Two autobios before he was 50, before he was president. LOL
Chuck,
There is so, so much that is stupid in US public policy, usually with billions and trillions plus, truly, human lives as consequences, and you get emotional about this?
It seems like obsessing about a pimple while dying of cancer.
Fabi said...
#StrongHillaryDefender
Hillary Clinton is the worst Democratic nominee since Al Smith. She is the avatar of all that is wrong and disgusting about the Clinton family. Corrupt; duplicitous; self-interested.
As president, Hillary could have been counted on to nominate several more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs to the Supreme Court. Causing irreparable damage to the United States for a generation, or two, or more.
I have never voted for a Clinton, at any level, ever. And I never will.
#HastagDestroyed
"I love the poorly educated."
Try to stay on topic, Chuck. Thank you.
Anyway, the madness of today makes reasonable dealings among the leadership class difficult if not impossible.
I think you, Chuck, should have a listen to, for instance, Dimon of JPMorgan. Perspective.
buwaya said...
Chuck,
There is so, so much that is stupid in US public policy, usually with billions and trillions plus, truly, human lives as consequences, and you get emotional about this?
This post, and these comments, are all about political "derangement syndromes." Is there any better, bigger, clearer example of a derangement syndrome, than the Birther claim?
Nobody gets away with deflecting "birtherism" on to Hillary. Hillary (1) never made any claims herself and (2) personally denounced those claims when she was asked about it.
Hmm, to feed the troll or not to feed the troll. OK here goes nothing...
The above is lawyerly deflection, a mere tactic. If she didn't order the code red, she hired somebody who would do it for her leaving her hands clean. I would be surprised that this worked on you if I thought anything of your sincerity anymore.
Also the birther tactic supported other points:
It was fun, turnabout, personalizing in the Alinsky sense. And put Obama on the defensive when nobody seemed to have very many ideas of how to put Obama on the defensive.
It was superficially legitimate in that Obama himself had provided the initial spark and continued to fan the flame.
Furthermore, as people like you wish to get any data on Trump they can to sniff around in it, who knows what raw material the birth certificate or ancillary reveals might have provided. Maybe you would have something salacious that wouldn't matter in the citizenship scheme but would still shame him or discredit him somehow. Like the Ryan divorce in Chi.
Finally, it made your side white with rage, which was reason enough-reason aplenty-to string it out.
"I love the poorly educated"
So do I.
So did, for instance, St. John Bosco, and St. Jean Baptiste De La Salle.
Blogger Chuck said...
"I love the poorly educated."
7/16/17, 12:51 PM
1) How would Jesus have felt about the poorly educated?
2) How do you feel about the poorly educated?
Fabi said...
Try to stay on topic, Chuck. Thank you.
Stop it, with your "Hillary defender" projections. Fuck you.
How does one "defend the American voter?
You point out that the US President is elected in a free and fair election by free people. Then you point out impeaching a freely and fairly elected president because you don't like him disenfranchises these people and undermines democracy.
And then you watch the reaction.
This post, and these comments, are all about political "derangement syndromes." Is there any better, bigger, clearer example of a derangement syndrome, than the Birther claim?
Obviously, anyone who continues to bring it up years after Trump agreed, after investigation, that Obama is American.
On to vaxxer ?
It was some other guy, not me, who said "I love the poorly educated. That's why I put it in quotation marks. Ask that other guy.
Stop it, with your "Hillary defender" projections. Fuck you.
Here we go.haha
Blogger Chuck said...
Fabi said...
Try to stay on topic, Chuck. Thank you.
Stop it, with your "Hillary defender" projections. Fuck you.
7/16/17, 12:56 PM
Ann, Meade, Mommy, Daddy!
For everyone else, try to be responsive to the post, don't make personal attacks on other commenters, bring some substance or humor to the conversation, and don't do that thing of putting in a lot of extra line breaks.
Chuck is being mean to Fabi!
And anyone can fall into madness.
Obsession is a mad thing because it is disproportionate. Sanity is composure and, especially, perspective.
Rage, if one must, in proportion to the actual consequence of the offense.
I must invent a rage-calibrator, which allocates rage-units by objective instrument readings of the causes of rage. This would prevent road-rage for instance, as it is never truly justified.
Chuck voted for Trump.
Brett Easton Ellis is defending Chuck.
Chuck is bashing Trump for something he knew before he voted for him.
I can see why BEE is done talking about it.
Blogger Chuck said...
It was some other guy, not me, who said "I love the poorly educated. That's why I put it in quotation marks. Ask that other guy.
7/16/17, 12:58 PM
The time of the President of the United States is too valuable. Your time is worthless so we're asking you. What did you mean by the quotation? You don't like it when people draw inferences so maybe you should start talking before we start drawing inferences.
It was some other guy, not me, who said "I love the poorly educated. That's why I put it in quotation marks. Ask that other guy.
7/16/17, 12:58 PM
Trump said it in reference to most people who were force fed public school education. Which is why he appointed someone who will hopefully provide parents, especially poor parents, the opportunity to choose which school their children attend.
If birtherism is "One of the very worst examples of . . . nutball incivility", as our 11:44am commenter puts it, how should we describe the belief held by tens of millions of Americans (some on the far right, but the vast majority on the far and near left) that George W. Bush either allowed the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon to be destroyed along with ~3,000 lives on 9/11/2001, or even made it happen with government explosives, all so he could start a couple of wars on false pretenses that would kill hundreds of thousands more? Believing that a president of the opposing party used suberfuge to acquire the job when he was technically unqualified for it seems to me infinitely less uncivil - indeed infinitely less droolingly insane - than believing that he's a mass-murdering monster.
Blogger FullMoon said...
This post, and these comments, are all about political "derangement syndromes." Is there any better, bigger, clearer example of a derangement syndrome, than the Birther claim?
Obviously, anyone who continues to bring it up years after Trump agreed, after investigation, that Obama is American.
On to vaxxer ?
If Trump agrees that Obama is an American, why did it take so long? It took me one sentence*, read in less than three seconds, to get it. What was Trump's problem?
The Vaxxer issue with Trump isn't exactly a political derangement syndrome. Vaxxers are general-purpose conspiracists. Typified by noted epidemiologist and pediatric neurologist Jenny McCarthy, M.D., Ph.D. (and Playboy centerfold). Who became a birther out of her own personal psychological damage from mothering an autistic child. I think that Vaxxers are overrepresented with parents of autistic children.
It was some other guy, not me, who said "I love the poorly educated. That's why I put it in quotation marks. Ask that other guy.
It was your entire post. Unless we are to assume you post random sentences without imparting or implying any meaning to them, I don't think it's out of line that people try to untangle what you're trying to say.
"This post, and these comments, are all about political "derangement syndromes."
No. This post is tagged Trump Derangement Syndrome. Singular. One particular syndrome. Yours.
Please stay on topic, Chuck.
*http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2008/Nov/09/hawaii811090361V3_b.jpg
And anyone can fall into madness.
"So much of the anti-Trump rhetoric is hysterical, hate-based and over the top. Take Chuck’s vituperation as an example: “lying assholes, mendacious Trump asshattery, Fuck you, You are a real fucking joke, You are an even bigger fool and a moron, God damn you eric!”
And that’s in the comments section of just one Althouse post. The rage is palpable."
Trump said it in reference to most people who were force fed public school education.
Trump said it in response to the media who ran stories saying his voters were "the poorly educated". As if they were somehow deficient, and that's why they liked him better than Hillary.
Trump's statement, "I love the poorly educated", told the world that he saw them as fully-functioning human beings, whose opinion and vote had the same weight as every other American.
The media should have been embarrassed, but they were too self-absorbed to understand their own self-righteousness.
Funny stuff, Bad Lieutenant!
But love is good.
Especially love for the unfortunate.
Jesus washed the feet of those who had dirty feet.
Loving the "poorly educated" is nails across the blackboard to some people, but its correct, and decent, just not put in a way they are accustomed to.
This reminds me of when George Bush said his favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ. The high and mighty sneered and laughed, but ... well, JC was indeed the most influential philosopher ever, even looking at things irreligiously. You would not have gotten Kant or Pascal or Hegel to disagree. Its just that saying so outright is not the done thing, today, nails across the blackboard.
The real fault is in those who hear that sound of nails across the blackboard. They are hearing it wrong.
FullMoon said...
"It was some other guy, not me, who said "I love the poorly educated. That's why I put it in quotation marks. Ask that other guy."
Trump said it in reference to most people who were force fed public school education. Which is why he appointed someone who will hopefully provide parents, especially poor parents, the opportunity to choose which school their children attend.
And of course I was one of the first and most ardent supporters of Betsy DeVos on the Althouse comments pages.
I thought Betsy DeVos' nomination was interesting because, like me, she seems to have never uttered a word of support for Donald Trump during the campaign, and more or less active opposition during the primary season.
She's been a great, loyal, active, generous supporter of the Republican Party and conservative causes for just about all of her adult life.
While I was composing my 1:04pm comment, the person I criticized in it wrote (12:54pm) "Is there any better, bigger, clearer example of a derangement syndrome, than the Birther claim?" I just gave one: the varieties of Bush Derangement Syndrome that are so common they have abbreviations: LIHOP nnd MIHOP (that Bush Let It Happen On Purpose, or Made It Happen On Purpose, It being the destruction of the World Trade Center).
Perhaps I should not have said that LIHOP and MIHOP are "infinitely" more deranged than Birtherism: infinity is awfully big. Better would be "several orders of magnitude more deranged". Will the commenter respond? If so, will his response include obscenities? Time will tell.
And because this subject angers me so much, I want to add, if the sleazebag Sid Blumenthal was dabbling in birtherism, however phony, as a form of "oppo-research" in a campaign, it is nothing compared to the dubious nature of Donald Trump Jr.'s dabbling with reputed Russian government agents in the course of his own oppo-research on behalf of his father's campaign.
Why? It's not like Trump's campaign removed the caps/guards from possibly accepting foreign credit card donations.
Dr Weevil said...
If birtherism is "One of the very worst examples of . . . nutball incivility", as our 11:44am commenter puts it, how should we describe the belief held by tens of millions of Americans (some on the far right, but the vast majority on the far and near left) that George W. Bush either allowed the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon to be destroyed along with ~3,000 lives on 9/11/2001, or even made it happen with government explosives, all so he could start a couple of wars on false pretenses that would kill hundreds of thousands more?
I would describe such people (can we agree to call them "Truthers"?) as NUTS. I would capitalize NUTS just the same way that Bret Easton Ellis did, in his Tweet the led off this post. You don't really expect me to write a single word of support for left-wing nutballs, do you? I condemn them with equal insistence (but with a bit less seriousness, since they now seem to be so powerless) as I do with Trump's own laundry list of derangement syndrome.
I just have to ask you; what would you call someone who insisted that everyone in the senior levels of the Bush Administration knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2001-3, and that the invasion of Iraq was based upon a known lie within that administration? You might call such a person, "Donald J. Trump."
Someone who condemns with "equal insistence" those who accuse a president of being a psychopathic mass murderer of his own fellow-citizens and those who accuse a president of not being qualified for the job seems to be going out of his way to equate things that are very different - as usual. As for what he "just has to ask" me, it's an obvious and contemptible case of evasion and whataboutery that requires no answer.
Of cours an honest commenter would have specifically stated that his "one of the very worst" evaluation was exaggerated and ill-thought out, and then corrected it explicitly to something like "far from the very worst". I'm not surprised this one didn't.
Dr. Weevil I have no graduated schedule of nuttiness for conspiracy theories or derangement syndromes. If you have gotten to any level of "nutty conspiracy theory" or "derangement syndrome," that's enough. Or better said, "that's too much."
So "one of the very worst" just means "pretty bad" to you? Or maybe you just can't bear to admit being wrong on any issue. If you spent more time and effort maximizing the quality of your arguments and less on the quantity you'd have more respect around here.
A matter of perspective - the entire Democratic party (and many of the you-know-whom of the Republican party), backed and protected the Fannie Mae / Freddy Mac management while they were engaged in their maddest antics.
These were a set of, objectively, the most disastrous decisions in the history of US public policy. But the lot of them have, somehow, escaped the consequences of public and private rage. A great many of these people, both elected officials and bureaucrats, are still in place, and still powerful.
Rage, anyone? Tumbrils and guillotines? Scheming vengeful women with knitted denunciations of the guilty, to put before the tribunals of the people? No?
George Bush said his favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ. The high and mighty sneered and laughed, but ... well, JC was indeed the most influential philosopher
Bush judged Christianity to be good, and believes its philosopher to have had extraordinary insight.
The high and mighty cannot tolerate a competing faith, or religious/moral philosophy, while their own is prone to conflation of logical domains, and indulgence in selective and opportunistic principles that follow their special interests and ostensibly prevailing polls.
If anyone said "no", they are either ignorant or lying.
Dr. Weevil you're a special annoyance today.
I am condemning ALL of the political derangement syndromes. Left and right. Anti-Trump and pro-Trump.
What seems to be different here at Althouse, is bringing Trump's own personal derangement syndromes into it. In these comments, before I got here, it seemed to be the general community feeling that the Left was the sole birthplace of derangement syndromes. And that Trump was purely a victim of a derangement syndrome.
Which is like calling the fictional Vito Corleone a "crime victim" when he was shot. He was, in a way, a crime victim. He was also a gangster who had risen to power as the head of a crime family, purveying some of the worst in violent crime.
I am not going to justify any of the excesses of the far Left. I am also not going to excuse Trump in any way. Speaking of his personal statements, tweets, and other excesses, Donald Trump is the closest thing we've ever had at or near the top of a major political party, to nutty derangement syndrome.
the entire Democratic party (and many of the you-know-whom of the Republican party), backed and protected the Fannie Mae / Freddy Mac management
Overlapping and convergent interests. While the enterprise had a distinctly Democratic face, it could not have progressed without Republican participation, a silent partner.
H.R.1409 (04/04/2001): Secondary Mortgage Market Enterprises Regulatory Improvement Act
1 sponsor. 0 cosponsors. It was destined to fail.
A, one, Republican sponsor.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie
Mae - Maxine Waters
H.R. 2575—THE SECONDARY
MORTGAGE MARKET ENTERPRISES
REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT ACT
Thursday, September 25, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Financial Services
The Democratic face.
With rare exception, it's typically leftists who won't shut their effing traps about politics. Unsolicited. At events completely unrelated to politics.
Don't believe me? See who starts it up next time. Nine times out of 10, it will be some sniveling leftist.
nn,
That is true of course, on a certain intellectual level. But on the unconscious, nails-across-the-blackboard level, there are I think other reasons.
Christ is, simply, declasse. All sorts of people, the uncredentialled and uncultured, still read him directly, as they do not read the works of Rorty. Bringing up Christ raises every sort of issue of status and pride.
"True nutballs really DO ruin political conversations."
Written by Chuck. Without even the slightest hint of self-awareness or irony.
Made my day. Thanks.
Jim at said...
With rare exception, it's typically leftists who won't shut their effing traps about politics. Unsolicited. At events completely unrelated to politics.
Don't believe me? See who starts it up next time. Nine times out of 10, it will be some sniveling leftist.
7/16/17, 1:43 PM
Plus which, if you try to take them seriously and respond to them, they ignore you, because obviously they can't compete with real arguments. The only way you can get their attention is to remind them that their mother had sex with farm animals.
The real problem with derangement syndromes is that they take perfectly normal people with them. Not "the far left", in this case, but the middling left, the institutional center, the academic system, and etc.
Such as perfectly sweet ladies of a certain age (I describe a type), possibly worth millions, over-invested in Facebook, learn who to dislike irrationally from the fashions passing among their friends. I don't think they know what Fannie Mae is.
Now, around here, in Althouse, one expects people that aren't so sweet, but more knowledgable, and more curious. And a devotion to perspective is a fundamental conservative trait.
Imagine that a thread being wrecked by a certain troll posting off topic.
The only thing Chuck is mad about is that Trump won. Republicans aren't supposed to win and they certainly aren't supposed to actually fight democrats.
Much of the "insanity" on the left is an instinctive threat display, like an anole lizard that puffs up it's throat to intimidate a predator.
On a subconscious level, they realize the party is in real danger of extinction.
Of course, some of them go too far, and start swinging bike locks, defecating on police cars, or shooting rifles at congressmen. That's makes it more threatening, and thus seems effective. So it's baked into the cake. It's part of the plan, as much as they plan anything.
Chuck said..."If Trump agrees that Obama is an American, why did it take so long? It took me one sentence*, read in less than three seconds, to get it. What was Trump's problem?"
What was Obama's problem? Didn't he withhold his birth certificate for months/years just to troll his detracters? Or maybe that's a rightwing myth. I'm not up on the birther saga. I defer to your greater knowledge.
They are mad because they wanted their black jebus to be president for life
Real Americans last November put an end to all of that traitorous bullshit!
Living in the bay area I only once made the mistake of talking politics at a social occasion when someone was loudly stating every president had affairs and with eyebrows raised I said "Even Harry Truman?" and after a 3 second delay "Especially Truman!" (They were defending Bill Clinton at the time in 1998 so this was blasphemy to even opine having open affairs in office may be aberrant behavior) Lefties are so very open minded until they are challenged. So I just avoid any political topic. In blue california its just assumed you hate republicans and if you don't somethings wrong with you. Such children.
it is nothing compared to the dubious nature of Donald Trump Jr.'s dabbling with reputed Russian government agents in the course of his own oppo-research on behalf of his father's campaign.
OK, Drago. I agree he's a lefty Democrat.
I had my doubts but this insane comment convinces me.
I thought chuck was a Krauthammer "He used the wrong fork !" snob but this is far enough off the sanity scale that I'm convinced.
Nuts? Yes they are and quite obviously so.
The real problem with derangement syndromes is that they take perfectly normal people with them.
I read an interesting column yesterday that compared this hysteria to the 1980s day care hysteria.
That also affected "perfectly normal people" who became lynch mobs and sent other "perfectly normal people' to prison for 20 year because of fanciful tales that went so as to include childrens' fantasies of being cut open with no scars created.
The McMartin Daycare site was dug up looking for tunnels the children described to credulous (or evil) interrogators.
I got quite interested in the subject and read a lot about it. It only ended when malpractice insurance companies refused to write policies covering psychologists' "Recovered Memories" treatment.
Then it was like turning off a switch. The phenomenon ended that quickly but, unlike the Salem witch trials, there were no apologies to the innocent who were harmed.
The only thing that might end this insanity might be a crashing defeat for the Democrats in 2018.
After that, Civil War, if it does not end.
"Is there any better, bigger, clearer example of a derangement syndrome, than the Birther claim?"
I'm thinking maybe the claim that W ordered the attack on the towers?
Sorry, I see the good Doctor already covered this. Chuck, you got to check your premises occasionally. Bad premise = wrong conclusion.
If yo defend scum people will think you like scum so the reaction is very predictable
Here now – no need to be so hard on the NeverTrumpers. They’re just fools; there’s no need to call them “scum.” They can be safely ignored.
Yes, the left is nuts. Read the dang news if you bother to any more. Batshit crazy is more like it. And I'm not a big fan of Republicans either. Folks have lost their dang minds. There is a significant part of the population who are tired of the way things have been going. Hence, President Trump. And all this crazy since his election just affirms their thoughts.
Jim at said...
"True nutballs really DO ruin political conversations."
"Written by Chuck. Without even the slightest hint of self-awareness or irony.
Made my day. Thanks."
I'm still laughing.
with the claim of African birth there on one of his bios from one of his autobiographies.
Until that blurb is explained, I remain skeptical. He either lied (for: Reasons) or it is the truth that he was born in Kenya.
There are no reporters walking maternity wards waiting breathlessly to call in scoops to their newspapers. They are called in like classified ads and run.
And if I wanted the blessings of liberty bestowed on my child, I'd get back home and make that call.
"If yo defend scum people will think you like scum so the reaction is very predictable
Here now – no need to be so hard on the NeverTrumpers. They’re just fools; there’s no need to call them “scum.” They can be safely ignored."
You have no idea how many of us think you Trumpists to be fools.
We are all well aware that there are tens of millions of people who think Trumpists are fools. Fortunately, their quantity is far more impressive than their quality. In fact, we've noticed that just about every one of them is 'projecting' his/her own utter foolishness on others. Some anti-Trumpers are so foolish they either (a) can't figure out how to pick a recognizable pseudonym so the rest of us can tell whether later comments come from them or someone else, or (b) don't care enough to do so. Most likely the latter in this case, since it's easy enough to append a pseudonym to every comment before posting it, as some 'Unknown's do.
"You have no idea how many of us think you Trumpists to be fools."
That's OK. because Hillary Clinton will never be president of the United States. You people seem to have a problem with how big of a deal that is.
Yes indeed he is an odd choice for a savior of the republic, but his instincts are sound and, quite frankly, I'm looking at any success with his agenda as a bonus.
The leftists and never trumpers are the ones making fools of themselves.
Trump is president
The left and GOPe go nuts
Success
Bay Area Guy said...
Yes, the Left is fucking nuts.
Because of their nuttiness, they have made people who had qualms about Trump (like me) much more sympathetic and supportive.
The Leftwing riots, the campus protests to quash free speech, the Pussy Hats, the bogus Russia investigation, the softball sniper, are so over the top, that I feel obligated to defend and support Trump.
But, I would add, that substantively, Trump's immigration policy, fracking policy, climate change policy, SCOTUS appointment have all been exceptional on the merits.
So, now I feel real good about defending and supporting Trump.
7/16/17, 12:15 PM
Yeah, me too. Another longtime embedded libertarian in the SFBA.
As with GK1, I avoid talking politics.
My husband does one better. Anyone brings up politics, he asks "do you really want to talk about politics?" and if they say "yes" he unsheathes a sword of argument based on 50 years of Hobbesian libertarianism, 500 years of Lutheran pastors in his ancestry and decorated with a double ruby in debate. Very few of his interlocutersmever bring up politics again.
I wish that we had more than one politician willing to unapologetically make the case for defending our civilization.
I wish it were a bipartisan project, with both parties on board.
I wish I could trust the Democrats to do what was best for the country.
I wish I could trust the Republicans to not be corrupt and spineless.
I wish we had a pure and shining exemplar, a modern Galahad, to lead us in this righteous cause.
But ladies and fuckwits, we don't live in that world. We have only one choice: The death of the West, or Trump. If we can save our civilization, if we can roll back the fifth column of the left, if we can gain another generation's time, then sure, we can argue over how polite our politicians should be required to be. We can argue over what sort of health care system would be best. But we cannot argue over the idea that western civilization is the best one available, and that our nation should be run primarily for the benefit of its own citizens. You know, securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, all that jazz. Until that question is settled, along with the hash of all leftist filth, we must make do with the champions we have available.
"But ladies and fuckwits, we don't live in that world. We have only one choice: The death of the West, or Trump."
That is both incredibly sad, and incredibly true. Fuck.
And the crazy thing is that most of the emasculated "men" and shrill "women" who spend so much time denouncing Western Civ are its biggest beneficiaries. How many diversity officers, campus rape counselors, professional bloggers and think-tankers would be needed in a pre-Enlightenment society?
I like my cushy, air-conditioned, white-collar existence, but if push came to shove I know how to fix and use weapons, I've trained and led troops, and I've built (and blown-up) bridges. Life would be harsher and harder, but I would get by (or die in battle, whatever). Oh sure, I suppose a few of those "men" could find positions as Court eunuchs, and a few of the prettier leftist ladies would made decent third wives or members of a harem, but that's about it. Forget about transgender rights unless maybe you're part of some sort of travelling comedy troupe. And ladies, enjoy pumping out 12 or so kinds before you get to die in childbirth.
You want to see a real patriarchy? Get rid of Western Civ, and put the straight white male back on top for real.
Personally, I'm inclined to think Barack Obsma's birth certificate was forged. Not that he wasn't born in Hawaii -- I accept that he was. But we're his parents legally married? Because the eight years of Obama's tenure in office convinced me that he's a bastard through and through.
Thanks Michael for explaining why the false memories stopped. Insurance. Who would have thought.
Agree Obama loved to troll his opposition, very Alinsky. Make the other side like by their own rules. So he did not provide a birth certificate for the longest time.
Clinton always used a third party for slinging dirt. Always had deniability.
Can Althouse describe how a zeitgeist, any old zeitgeist will do to satisfy logic's known realm, being contemporaneously described as "new" lacks not a crypto-despicable redundancy born of a seemingly genetically-based condescension?
Isn't it just another so-called zeitgeist, just different, specifically meaning that any zeitgeist by definition must always be current. Otherwise it ain't no damn zeitgeist to begin with.
It would be "the old spirit of 'that" age" or "the new spirit of 'that' age" not the spirit of 'the' age, in order for a redundancy to not occur (to me).
You can't have a new spirit of an age. Different zeitgeists for different ages and contained within that concept is the logic I feel excludes the "new" label from being accurately applied here.
The ''birther/Trump' issue that has been brought up has a relevance, here.
Trump pushed the birther thing, creating or amplifying a leftist hysteria. Trump found out he was able to control both the left and the presidency. After he conceded, this resulted in the left, at a pinicle of anger and hysteria, nowhere to direct it.
While not a complete reason, Trumps tweets and off-hand comments are designed to unhinge the left (not sure how many hinges they have). They have the inability to recognize that pretty much every tweet of this design actually has no everlasting substance. For example, when he tweets about crowd size (small crowd, he tweets big!), the left go nuts on something that does not matter one iota.
"You have no idea how many of us think you Trumpists to be fools."
Not that many but you sure are loud.
Buwaya said,
Again, its not the left.
If it were the left, actual Marxian socialists, it wouldnt matter.
The reason this madness matters at all is because its proponents, and victims, are the American gentry, and especially its aristocracy.
It's a curious thing that, since the rise of modern leftism in the French Revolution, there has been an alliance (of varying strength and duration) between the sans-culottes and what we can call for lack of a better word "the establishment."
The haute bourgeoisie rarely shied away from finding ways to co-opt the populist dynamics that the socialist left sought to encourage and profit from. Establishment leaders seemed to realize that a) the left were rarely well-organized enough to be an existential threat and b) if they could form an invisible alliance with them--keeping them in control--their power would never actually be threatened.
It took some time for this dynamic to find its stride but here we are today: the American "progressives" are totally in bed with the Goldman Sachs/Ford Foundation/Carnegie Institute/Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation pushing pseudo-leftist causes like "fighting climate change" or "transgender rights." Both here and in Europe "the left" has been thoroughly tamed and easily deployed as an instrument of the very class enemies they (the left) think they are fighting.
Karl Marx might shudder but Antonio Gramsci would be proud.
History teaches this: Civilizations usually disintegrate from within. Outside forces merely take advantage of the weakness resulting from the decadence. That is what the Islamic terrorists are doing.
"You have no idea how many of us think you Trumpists to be fools."
LOL, apparently, you guys had no idea how deeply America despised Hillary.
Detested, more accurately.
Post a Comment