Here's what she wrote:
I read your blog since 2001I invite your comments in the allegedly abhorrent comments section.
And you really lost your way in the days of Trump. I stopped somewhere mid election 2016. Your comment section became abhorrent. While you like to champion free speech, the speech you host on your blog is disgusting. I suppose you thought there was money for your retirement in becoming the Trump blog (Simon is such a genius!) because why else would you become the comment section for his followers? A man who accomplished nothing without his dad making deals for him? You should be ashamed. Shame on you. I see today you are excuse making. Just shame on you in the same shame that the Donald didn't want to acknowledge he knew who Duke was in 2016 and on this Saturday wanted to make sure he still did not offend. You should be so ashamed, but I fear you are proud of yourself like a lawyer who defends the devil. Your [sic] always looking for an angle. You're wrong.
And here's a poll:
Posts
156 comments:
And you, a (former) law professor!
While you like to champion free speech, the speech you host on your blog is disgusting.
This sentence parodies itself.
Missing poll option:
Althouse would give the Devil benefit of law, for her own safety's sake.
Althouse hosts a disgusting and abhorrent comments section.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
LOL Iggy
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
All that vitriol and nothing about Russia? I guess the talking points are swinging back from "Trump is illegitimate" to "Trump is a Nazi" this week.
My observation is that pre-retirement, some of your posts (while always well-written) seemed somewhat forced from the left-of-center perspective. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
Someone on the left would probably agree with those "left-of-center" posts, and would likely view the shift negatively.
If it's not a new low, I'd ignore it.
I've been a reader since roughly 2005 (can't say exactly, but since one of your first Instapundit links) and what I'd most like to know is, who's Simon?
The emailer could not be more wrong.
A friend of the devil is a friend of mine.
Proud, check. Like a lawyer, check. Champions free speech, check.
Your tolerance is intolerable. Your lack of shame is shameful.
Let this be a warning. If you don't shape up they'll tell people your real name!
Oh. Wait. Then if you don't shape up they'll get you fired!
Oh. Wait... Google will shadowban your posts!
According to many in the comments section, the white nationalists are all Democrats.
Emailed rants are cheaper than an hour with the therapist but are they more/less/as effective?
none of the above? seriously?
I checked four!
Althouse and the angle
Althouse the lawyer
Althouse the free speech one
and proud Althouse
Yes! I've been a reader since your DARPA days, and there once a Simon who posted very serious comments. Is it that Simon? Why?
That one must be from the author of the famous anti Governor Walker chant, " SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!"
It's not the most disgusting and abhorrent comments section, I think.
I'm with you Clint. I went for Althouse should be ashamed. Not sure about what, in particular, but you can't go wrong with that.
If we are going to hear from ghost readers, I'd rather hear from Sir Archie.
Shame is underrated. Our society could use a little more of it.
In the first three sentences, Althouse (the lawyer) seriously hurt the credibility of the emailer. Emailer: I've been reading since 2001. Althouse: Blog started in 2004.
"Yes! I've been a reader since your DARPA days, and there once a Simon who posted very serious comments. Is it that Simon? Why?"
Yes, there's a commenter Simon, who used to be very active here (years ago). Is that the reference in the email? He had nothing to do with anything about trying to monetize the blog.
I've got to say, I don't know what DARPA is. I'll have to blog it to understand what "days" I once had.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)... the agency of the U.S. Department of Defense responsible for the development of emerging technologies for use by the military?
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
They invented the internet before Gore did.
Speaking of Trump, I notice he has been channeling Tom Waits:
He's got the fire and the fury at his command
But you don't have to worry, just hold onto Jesus' hand.
We'll all be safe from Satan when the thunder rolls.
We just gotta help me keep the devil way down in the hole.
If I get home before daylight, I just might get some sleep tonight.
In 1984, I worked for people who used DARPAnet to access the supercomputer at Los Alamos to figure out how many Americans would die by blast and fallout in various Soviet attacks. Big data bases for the time of population and weather. Fun job!
The DARPA days probably is supposed to be a reference to the earlier days of your blogging, even though it's not really chronologically accurate. (DARPA being involved in the very early internet.)
I toyed with the idea of checking "Althouse is proud," because I think you are and I think the (former) holder of an endowed chair ought to be. But in context I thought checking it was meant as a slam against.
Shame is a woman thing.
Pudendum comes from pudor, shame.
Having read Althouse for a good few years, I've noted that Althouse is a lawyer, understands the law, is a person and sometimes wrong in her analysis (but mostly right, er, correct). And the vast majority of commenters further the discussion and lends insight into the issue at hand.
In Obamas presidency the leftist commenters poked the rightists with 'suck it up, losers' and the rightists did do and were very grumpy. With minor outbursts of vitriol.
Currently, there is a strong leftist obnoxiousness, and mostly leftist fringe around the country demonstrating fascism at its finest (sic).
Althouse calls out such behavior for analysis. I'd consider Althouse to be moderate left in political views, but the original point, above, still stands.
I get it now. It's a joke, like saying back when you were blogging with a chisel on a stone tablet.
I have been coming here for about + - 10 years. The e mail has not a clue about the substance of Althouse.
There are things I dont agree with her take. So What? I could do my own blog, but nobody would read it. So our good host allows a venue to offer my view here, a couple times a week, and that's is purely for my personal edification, nothing more. People still dont care about what I think, and that's as it should be.
Of Course Ann looks for an angle. I know this because she tells us so, often. "I have not blogged about this because I could'nt find an angle that hasn't been presented already, or is of interest to me". It is the reason she writes, her blog, her angle.
The Charlotte riots are of interest not because of the Nazi's or Antifa's, but because free speech. All that seem to thing the govt could just deny them the permit to march is clean and simple, forget that the people in power get to make that determination. Is that the govt you choose? The people in power telling you, your speech is deplorable and irredeemable, and will be stopped?
That is what is at stake, fidelity to the constitution. You either do, or dont.
The comment section here is by far the best I have found. The level of intelligence, and breadth of experience is awe inspiring. Of course there are trolls, but even the trolls are several notches above the other comment sections that are nothing short of school yard taunts.
I've been reading Althouse since 2010. Linked from Instapundit probably.
I'm not sure what the email writer's problem is.
If I liked the blog, but not the comments, I would just read the blog and ignore the comments. If I stopped liking the blog, I would stop reading it.
Or do they think that being a long reader gives them virtual management over it where they can dictate what you may and may not discuss?
Disgusting means beyond analysis, usually.
At least it did for Kant.
What the system can't process.
Darpanet was invented to pass around porn.
Nerds have two interests.
I get it now. It's a joke.
I cracked myself up.
Yeah -- it was a riff on the emailer's reference to 2001. I've also learned that all us crusty old men that comment here lighten up a little when we reminisce.
When the emailer wrote "Simon" did she mean "Meade"? It's a totally different name!
Spent the night in Utah in a cave up in the hills.
AA should be ashamed? Really?
Say it loud
She's white and she's proud
When I have the time, I come here to read the consistently interesting posts and the comments, and occasionally comment myself. Doesn't that describe a lot of people here?
Jeeze. And I come here just for the disgusting and abhorrent comments. Don't stop, Althouse. Pleeeeeze don't stop.
@Althouse, "chisel" implies Iron Age. I'm sure your blog goes way back before then! Didn't you used to write in cuneiform on clay tablets?
To be the Devil's Advocate is a very proud and important tradition. Of course you would defend the devil. I don't trust the person who wouldn't.
"When the emailer wrote "Simon" did she mean "Meade"? It's a totally different name!"
I considered that. She's not much of a reader of this blog if she doesn't know who Meade is. Meade isn't his first name, but it's not hard to learn his first name, and there's no point in guessing wrong.
"To be the Devil's Advocate is a very proud and important tradition. Of course you would defend the devil. I don't trust the person who wouldn't."
When you adopt the role of Devil's Advocate, you're not really defending the devil. You're taking the devil's side of the argument in order to put the other side to the strongest test. If the seemingly right side really is right, the devil's advocacy should strengthen the truth of what is right. Fearing the devil's advocacy is showing that you're afraid what you want to be right isn't really right.
In "Letters to a Young Contrarian," Christopher Hitchens talks about performing the role for the Catholic Church:
"At the direct request of the Vatican, I was invited to give evidence for the opposing side in the hearings on Mother Teresa’s impending canonisation. It was an astonishing opportunity to play Devil’s Advocate in the literal sense, and I must say that the Church behaved with infinitely more care and scruple than my liberal critics. A closed room, a Bible, a tape-recorder, a Monsignor, a Deacon and a Father—a solemn exercise in deposition, where I was encouraged to produce all my findings and opinions. I’ll tell you all about it at another time; the point is that the record is not now the monopoly of the fundamentalists."
Hitchens, Christopher. Letters to a Young Contrarian (Art of Mentoring) . Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
With Trump in office Althouse has had to do a little bit more twisting in the wind of equivocation to keep her blog attracting interest. Yesterday's comments seeking rationalization about James Fields actions in an effort to examine the evidence which included the thought that he couldn't be the same man in the photos of him taken at the rally or the suggestion that Fields may have been frighten by the counter protestors and therefore rammed into the folks who blocked his way in a moment of panic. But I find here art/cultural musings interesting and provocative, and read the political comments to get a clearer view of contemporary conservative thought among the posters. I look forward to more Althouse, including the comments.
People still dont care about what I think
Message: I care
We get that you're from Iowa, but does the 2 mean you're also from somewhere else?
This poll needs an All of the above.
Hitchens also has this, in "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything":
"As it happens, I am one of the very few people who has ever taken part in the examination of a sainthood “cause,” as the Roman Catholic Church calls it. In June of 2001 I was invited by the Vatican to testify at a hearing on the beatification of Agnes Bojaxhiu, an ambitious Albanian nun who had become well-known under the nom de guerre of “Mother Teresa.” Although the then pope had abolished the famous office of “Devil’s Advocate,” the better to confirm and canonize an enormous number of new “saints,” the church was still obliged to seek testimony from critics, and thus I found myself representing the devil, as it were, pro bono. I had already helped expose one of the “miracles” connected with the work of this woman.... I was invited by the Vatican into a closed room containing a Bible, a tape recorder, a monsignor, a deacon, and a priest, and asked if I could throw any light of my own on the matter of “the Servant of God, Mother Teresa.” ... On the first anniversary of her death, two nuns in the Bengali village of Raigunj claim to have strapped an aluminum medal of the departed (a medal that had supposedly been in contact with her dead body) to the abdomen of a woman named Monica Besra. This woman, who was said to be suffering from a large uterine tumor, was thereupon quite cured of it. It will be noticed that Monica is a Catholic girl’s name not very common in Bengal, and thus that probably the patient and certainly the nuns were already Mother Teresa fans. This definition would not cover Dr. Manju Murshed, the superintendent of the local hospital, nor Dr. T. K. Biswas and his gynecologist colleague Dr. Ranjan Mustafi. All three came forward to say that Mrs. Besra had been suffering from tuberculosis and an ovarian growth, and had been successfully treated for both afflictions. Dr. Murshed was particularly annoyed at the numerous calls he had received from Mother Teresa’s order, the “Missionaries of Charity,” pressing him to say that the cure had been miraculous. The patient herself did not make a very impressive interview subject, talking at high speed because, as she put it, she “might otherwise forget” and begging to be excused questions because she might have to “remember.” Her own husband, a man named Selku Murmu, broke silence after a while to say that his wife had been cured by ordinary, regular medical treatment. Any hospital supervisor in any country will tell you that patients sometimes make astonishing recoveries (just as apparently healthy people often fall inexplicably and gravely ill). Those who desire to certify miracles may wish to say that such recoveries have no “natural” explanation. But this does not at all mean that there is therefore a “supernatural” one. In this case, however, there was nothing even remotely surprising in Mrs. Besra’s return to health. Some familiar disorders had been treated with well-known methods. Extraordinary claims were being made without even ordinary evidence. Yet there will soon come a day in Rome when a vast and solemn ceremony will proclaim the sainthood of Mother Teresa, as one whose intercession can improve upon medicine, to the entire world. Not only is this a scandal in itself, but it will further postpone the day when Indian villagers cease to trust quacks and fakirs. In other words, many people will die needlessly as a result of this phony and contemptible “miracle.” If this is the best the church can do in a time when its claims can be checked by physicians and reporters, it isn’t difficult to imagine what was rigged in past times of ignorance and fear, when the priests faced less doubt or opposition."
Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (pp. 253-254). Twelve Books. Kindle Edition.
" I’ll tell you all about it at another time; "
Did he ever? God bless Hitchens.
And, yes, that was the compliment that I was trying to give you. With no opposition the truth doesn't get its full airing.
get a clearer view of contemporary conservative thought
You're dumber than I realized.
We don't think.
Simon is the voice in her head that tells her what to say when she can't think of anything.
It's too bad. She probably was going to cut you in on some money from Nigeria if you had pleased her more.
The apostates are always the most hated.
It's amazing that the Comments section of the Althouse blog is readable at all. You want unreadable? Try the comments in the Washington Post -- an overflowing vomitorium from their arena of pedestrian ideas.
She says she will no longer read. But she will continue. Forever and ever.
"The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of beauty is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, but indifference between life and death." --Elie Wiesel
We're not being invited into the Althouse Portal?
I too am a long time reader of this blog, going back to at least 2006, maybe earlier. I was there for the Meade/Althouse gathering (Meade, this is HUGE) and all that followed.
This is the only blog on which I regularly read the comments and comment myself.
I'd actually say there's a better class of commentors here than most blogs.
And despite reading just about every post Althouse has posted for well over ten years, I'm still not sure if she supports Trump or not.
Regardless, a friend of the devil is a friend of mine.
This is another example of how the progressive Left have curiously taken their cues from Christian Fundamentalism of the last century and Puritans before that.
It's curious because it assumes 1) an established universal stance from which to call someone back into the fold. 2) that you care what they think even though they don't know you, but they use a relational kind of moral admonition 3) shaming works in a non-shame oriented society 4) that the history of Christian Fundamentalists in say shaming gays or adulterers or alcoholics or you name it for their supposed sins causes those shamed to change their ways. Shame is a curious thing because in a close knit group or shame-based culture, it can be very powerful. But lacking such context, it actually becomes counter-productive. The fact we have a gay-pride month comes directly from the attempts at shaming. Rejecting the shame results in embracing the label.
The Christian Right was, to say the least, entirely ineffective in its social causes in the last 30 years, which makes it a curious model to follow for current progressive fundamentalists. But, it's an expression of assumed power and moral superiority when the evidence of such is not there.
Nobody likes blustery morality.
I don't see the point of commenting on sites with many hundreds of comments for every post. Who reads that shit?
In terms of comment sections, Althouse has much better quality than, say, Instapundit. Which is often filled with penis-parades on any given topic, full of sound and fury, strutting and fretting to establish a veneer of superiority.
Paddy, I'll be cynical and say it keeps the troops in formation and the money flowing.
Ralph, I'm cynical with you on that. That was the nature of much of the Christian Right too.
Idealists are easily manipulated.
I started reading your blog sporadically a couple years ago. If I had to critique- I see two failures in the content of your character: on reproduction rights - you think like a child. You also show a tendency to get lost in HOW someone says something rather than focussing on WHAT they're saying. I dunno if that is a lawyer thing or a chick thing.
Other than those two nits, it's a superior blog. One of my other favourite bloggers said it this way: "women bloggers tend to be consumed with three things: themselves, other women, and their reproductive plumbing and other crotch issues...". I would be most fascinated with the demographics of your blog, to be honest. I will bet most are men.
"This is another example of how the progressive Left have curiously taken their cues from Christian Fundamentalism of the last century and Puritans before that. "
I disagree.
The progressive left is taking their cues from Darwin. The righteous strong eat the evil weak. They aren't brazen enough yet - not quite yet - to actually physically batter or kill the weak, but they are clearly headed in that direction.
For now they only kill your reputation and your ability to make a living.
"You also show a tendency to get lost in HOW someone says something rather than focussing on WHAT they're saying."
In other words, she is getting lost the cheese, instead of focusing on the underlying pizza. Right?
Not true. To paraphrase St. McLuhan: The Cheese is the Pizza.
I wanted to check "Althouse has a competitive streak", or maybe the simpler "Don't mess with Althouse", but it wasn't there.
You also show a tendency to get lost in HOW someone says something rather than focussing on WHAT they're saying.
That's why I read the blog. Anybody can recite.
"You should be ashamed."
Pretty much a movement motto, isn't it.
How did such a huge cohort of people become so shame oriented?
"You also show a tendency to get lost in HOW someone says something rather than focussing on WHAT they're saying. I dunno if that is a lawyer thing or a chick thing."
The how and the what are inseparable. It's a clarity thing.
I've been reading this blog since I saw Ann on Bloggingheads. I remember seeing the Althouse Michelle Goldberg episode and being intrigued. Ann is generally fair, but I must admit that since the election the anti-anti Trump takes are getting really annoying. That and cross posting all the Scott Adams stuff.
I like the comment section here a lot. Like every other site it has its share of trolls and hateful bigots but it also has some smart conservatives like buwaya, mike, and rhhardin (To name a few). Occasionally I see them post stuff that makes me go "Hmm, interesting...".
"I would be most fascinated with the demographics of your blog, to be honest. I will bet most are men."
According to Google Analytics, the audience is 85% male, 15% female.
"I wanted to check "Althouse has a competitive streak", or maybe the simpler "Don't mess with Althouse", but it wasn't there."
All the choices are based on the email. I had fun breaking down the specific criticisms, especially the multipart ones.
"@Althouse, "chisel" implies Iron Age. I'm sure your blog goes way back before then! Didn't you used to write in cuneiform on clay tablets?"
I daubed it on a cave wall with iron oxide.
Chisel bone with flint. Stick through septum. Voila!
Big Mike said...
@Althouse, "chisel" implies Iron Age.
Ancient Egyptians were carving stone with copper alloy chisels more than a thousand years before the Iron Age.
According to Google Analytics, the audience is 85% male, 15% female.
I wonder if Google will take steps to correct this.
85% male, 15% female
Partly transitioned.
Ann's blog is consistent in its quality - and sometimes quirkiness - of subjects. She also attracts a group of commenters the majority of whom seem to be interested in facts and intelligent conversation. If she exhibits a bias I would have to agree that it is toward a "cruel neutrality". I believe that she makes our leftist friends uncomfortable because she tends to look at events as they are, rather than through a prism of preconceived notions. I don't think she is pro-Trump at all, but unlike so many others she is quite objective about what is actually happening around him, not looking for whatever negative angle she can find, which is so out of synch with most of the "press" that it distorts the views of anti-Trumpers.
I voted:
Althouse hosts a disgusting and abhorrent comments section.
But I would add:
And I love it!
I daubed it on a cave wall with iron oxide.
Maybe, by 2001, the email author meant this: The Dawn of Commentators. Also Sprach Zarathralthouse.
Wish there was a way to quarantine the pointless shouting into a single thread.
You not only advocate for free speech but you attract commenters who think.
My beloved mother, like Hitchens, believed that religion is the scourge of mankind. It's the only topic on which we could not converse. Not because of my fanatical Christianity but because of her fanatical atheism. She died in May after a week or so of calling out to God.
I voted for the most ridiculous answer in honor of the ridiculous email.
"I've been reading Althouse since 2010. Linked from Instapundit probably."
Me too...from Instapundit. Think around 2007? Before Meadehouse anyway. I have always made a point of being exposed to what I think of as conservative thought so I don't end up living stupid in an echo chamber. I was listening to a radio show and Glenn was being interviewed and was touted by the host as someone with an unusually clear and balanced opinion, so I checked it out. Followed for a while but really started to hate the predictable nature of his take and of his tone, and ended up feeling much more connected here.
started to hate the predictable nature of his take and of his tone, and ended up feeling much more connected here
Snark said...
"Oh bullshit. Althouse was in full-blown rationalization mode this weekend."
I do have to agree with this. Sometimes everything feels alien here. This weekend was one of those times.
Dude, get your story straight.
~
"Be sincere with yourself. Whether men love or hate, admire or despise you, is of but little moment. Speak only what is true, do only what is right; for, after all, the object of greatest importance is to faithfully discharge our duty. Adopt only those of my sentiments which you believe are true, and reject all the others; and whatever religion you may ultimately embrace, remember that its real duties are independent of human institutions - that no religion upon earth can dispense with the sacred obligations of morality - that an upright heart is the temple of the Divinity - and that, in every country and in every sect, to love God above all things, and thy neighbor as thyself, is the substance and summary of the law - the end and aim of religious duty." The Profession of Faith of a Savoyard Vicar, Rousseau, 1762.
Rousseau too played the devil’s advocate against revelation arguing for deism. Then too far against natural emergency (order emerging out of randomness) in the last, greatest, best gasping shot for deism, before it too ran headlong into a takedown in 1859.
I enjoy Rousseau the Romantic and his blog in proto-pamphleteering. Blogger that he was, he never found a real home on earth, so his homeless walkabouts, Reveries of a Solitary Walker, are his best stuff, and, for the same sorts of reasons, I visit this blog, not caring as much about who Althouse really is or isn’t (imageo Althouse), as caring about the reveries of the camp of solitary walkers here.
I do feel like there has been a degree of intellectual corruption here in the Trump age. It feels to me like Althouse's best instincts have turned on her in the current Zeitgeist. Looking for an angle has become contortion. Being lawyerly has become rationalizing. Cruel neutrality has become anything but neutral. The value of contrarianism has degraded. Being dispassionate requires a selectivity that is not always in evidence.
My thoughts only. For some I understand that the blog has bloomed in recent months and she is providing even more valuable content. Already in the minority here, it does make me feel even further to the outside. Sometimes I wonder if the whole experience is even good for me.
"Partly transitioned."
LOL
"I wonder if Google will take steps to correct this."
Also LOL.
" It feels to me like Althouse's best instincts have turned on her in the current Zeitgeist. Looking for an angle has become contortion. Being lawyerly has become rationalizing. Cruel neutrality has become anything but neutral. The value of contrarianism has degraded. Being dispassionate requires a selectivity that is not always in evidence."
@Snark - I thoroughly agree and you put it much much better than I could. I am a long-time reader/lurker who tried very briefly a few weeks ago to (finally) join the conversation here. But it was much harder than I had imagined.
I am very disheartened by this blog.
Or do they think that being a long reader gives them virtual management over it where they can dictate what you may and may not discuss?
It works for lifelong republicans!
the speech you host on your blog is disgusting
Only a few of us are disgusting. Most are deplorable.
Please hit the Althouse Amazon Portal after making your deplorable comments within this teabagger safe space.
"I am very disheartened by this blog."
I do understand that feeling. I'm sure it seems very odd to people who percive nothing amiss to consider that people would feel that way, about a blog, and not choose the rather simple solution of packing up and reading somewhere else. But there's an investment. And like any deteriorating relationship, it's not always easy, clear or straightforward.
Althouse disgusts all the right people.
with an additional sentence or two the emailer could have had a genuine manifesto. So close...
"When the emailer wrote "Simon" did she mean "Meade"? It's a totally different name!"
I considered that. She's not much of a reader of this blog if she doesn't know who Meade is. Meade isn't his first name, but it's not hard to learn his first name, and there's no point in guessing wrong.
I thought of that too because I remember being a casual reader of this blog around the time that both Simon and Meade commented here (and before Meade met and courted you IRL) and I recall thinking that Simon was competing with Meade for your attention.
I hope Simon doesn't read this because I think I know who he is from another blog and I like him, although it seemed clear to me that he wasn't going to win that matchup (seems like a fine and intelligent guy but too much of an orthodox conservative to suit Althouse.)
On the first choice, you misspelled "angel".
I do feel like there has been a degree of intellectual corruption here in the Trump age. It feels to me like Althouse's best instincts have turned on her in the current Zeitgeist. Looking for an angle has become contortion. Being lawyerly has become rationalizing. Cruel neutrality has become anything but neutral. The value of contrarianism has degraded. Being dispassionate requires a selectivity that is not always in evidence.
My thoughts only. For some I understand that the blog has bloomed in recent months and she is providing even more valuable content. Already in the minority here, it does make me feel even further to the outside. Sometimes I wonder if the whole experience is even good for me.
As a conservative I've always felt that this blog was enjoyable and valuable for understanding the moderate liberal position. These days it seems like Althouse is one of the last few standing classical liberals (as opposed to progressives) and I think as the progressive movement has overtaken the Democratic Party she's been quite critical of that change. That is refreshing for conservatives, who by and large (IMO) respect classic liberals even when we disagree. The fact that so much of the blog has become about Trump is in my estimation due to the amount of attention given to him by progressives, and Althouse's negative reactions which are read by some left wingers as support for Trump instead of rejection of the extreme anti-Trump zeitgeist.
@snark As I tried - very unsuccessfully - a few weeks ago to explain, I read this blog in a conscious attempt to leave the famous "bubble" i.e. to expose myself to other points of view.
But there is just so little actual engagement with the topics at hand. If someone said to me of a politician whom I admire, "I don't like that person because they do X, Y or Z..." I would be happy to argue the point. I might agree with them on that issue. There is no one in national or international politics of whom I think, "Everything they do is fabulous and right!"
Here, though, if you express a criticism of Trump, you are immediately labelled a "lefty", which I absolutely hate. People on the blog have no idea what my views are on political issues. And this labelling happens in order to dismiss completely the content of what I have to say. I am a lefty; the commenters know what I mean and what I want to say, before I have had a chance to say it; and they have dismissed those arguments, too.
Also, if you say you are worried about the direction of the country under Trump, or merely concerned, you are "virtue signalling", which again I hate! How can I in all honesty express myself if many words or phrases or thoughts really are out of bounds? Can one no longer express compassion for fellow citizens or fellow human beings?
There is so little compassion on this blog, and that surprises me as I always felt Althouse was, at heart, quite compassionate. I don't think that any longer.
One more thing: Althouse used to be the person I turned to who examined language and uncovered meaning behind it. She would often write about, say, Obama during his first campaign and "unpack" something he said or something someone wrote about him.
But these days, Althouse seems noticeably naive. She will present text from Trump,say, or from Putin at face value. She refuses to unpack the meaning behind what they say, or, often more importantly, what they don't say. She doesn't "read" dog whistles, even when everyone else can.
When Trump talked about Charlottesville and the "many-sided" violence, *everyone* knew what he meant. That he was signalling to the alt-right that he supports them. Only Althouse seemed to not get it. She wrote simply: "Some people think this "on many sides" nonspecificity is a problem. For example, Chuck Schumer: “Until @POTUS specifically condemns alt-right action in Charlottesville, he hasn’t done his job.”"
There was a time, I feel, when Althouse could have been counted on to examine the silences, the ellipses, the "unspoken" in language and unpack them. Now she won't do it. Why?
Umm, did nobody figure out that the writer thought she was writing to Glenn Reynolds? And that "Simon" is Roger Simon?
CStanley says: These days it seems like Althouse is one of the last few standing classical liberals (as opposed to progressives) and I think as the progressive movement has overtaken the Democratic Party she's been quite critical of that change. That is refreshing for conservatives, who by and large (IMO) respect classic liberals even when we disagree.
Yes! I remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan, for example. Where are the Democrats like him today?
Per Kitty M: When Trump talked about Charlottesville and the "many-sided" violence, *everyone* knew what he meant. That he was signalling to the alt-right that he supports them. Only Althouse seemed to not get it.
Talk about hearing dog whistles that aren't there! And you accuse Althouse of being naive? You are not just naive but irredeemably stupid.
@mockturtle "Talk about hearing dog whistles that aren't there! And you accuse Althouse of being naive? You are not just naive but irredeemably stupid."
I am definitely stupid because I don't understand your point. Can you explain it to me?
Let me before that explain what I meant: I was expressing my displeasure that Althouse didn't give us her take on the problem of Trump's "many sides" comment. Trump's response was condemned by many people. But Althouse didn't unpack it or examine it herself. This was just an example of what I often miss here.
> Now she won't do it. Why?
Althouse isn't your bitch.
@mockturtle - Also "You are not just naive but irredeemably stupid" is just the kind of nasty and personal reaction which I got a lot when I started posting a few weeks ago and which put me off this site.
So if Althouse is reading: here is a great example of your fantastic commenters embracing free speech to push the conversation forward and engage with different points of view.
@chuck. "Althouse isn't your bitch."
Absolutely. I agree. And I agree with all versions of "It's her blog", "She can write what she likes", "You shouldn't dictate how she does things," etc etc
I am simply sharing my opinion of the blog, as I understood the post to be inviting me to do.
Kitty, you said: When Trump talked about Charlottesville and the "many-sided" violence, *everyone* knew what he meant. That he was signalling to the alt-right that he supports them. Only Althouse seemed to not get it.
Now you are saying that 'many people' rather than 'everyone' knew what he meant. He meant nothing of the sort. Both sides exhibited unacceptable violence and, for that matter, the police did nothing to quell the violence. The problem with you is that you assume everyone lives in your bubble and it comes as an unpleasant surprise to find so many people who think differently and who don't analyze every Trump utterance as some kind of right-wing code.
> I am simply sharing my opinion of the blog,
My impression was that you were trying to shame Althouse into accepting your views. Have you seriously considered the possibility that you are wrong? Wrong about Trump, wrong about dog whistles, wrong about Althouse?
I can't remember the exact year I started reading AA, but Little Green Footballs was still a thing. Then Charles Johnson went completely nuts, if he wasn't already. What year was that, anyway?
@mockturtle. Thank you for the explanation! But I must say I disagree with you completely. You say "so many people ... don't analyze every Trump utterance as some kind of right-wing code". This is what the Daily Stormer wrote:
Less than a half-hour after Trump’s live remarks, the Daily Stormer had declared the president’s words as a signal of tacit support for their side: "Trump comments were good. He didn’t attack us. He just said the nation should come together. Nothing specific against us. He said that we need to study why people are so angry, and implied that there was hate … on both sides! So he implied the antifa are haters. There was virtually no counter-signaling of us at all. He said he loves us all."
The neo-Nazi live blog also noted that Trump had refused to respond when a reporter asked about white nationalists who supported him. “No condemnation at all,” the Daily Stormer wrote. “When asked to condemn, [Trump] just walked out of the room. Really, really good. God bless him.”
I say the way Trump chose to respond to Charlottesville had positive resonance on the far-right. It was a dog-whistle. They understood perfectly well that Trump was protecting them in that moment. To claim anything else is very naive (which I am sure you are not).
Most people is the Daily Stormer? @Kittym, you are seriously nuts.
@KittyM -- I totally get where you are coming from. There are a lot of commentators whose pride in their own openmindedness seems built on a catalog of insults and cliches. It's not just the stupid invective that's the problem; it's the tedious repetition of the same labels and same opinions slapped onto every event.
The commentators that bring something unique to the political discussions keep shrinking.
By the way, I checked every box, including "None of the above." You hang around here long enough, you see a little of everything.
@chuck
Wait! You misunderstood me!!!
I mean that *most* people ("all the people I spoke to") understood that Trump's response was a dog whistle *to* the far-right.
In other words, most people (including lots of Republicans) understood that Trump's words would be taken as comfort by the far right. The quote from the Stormer is evidence that the far-right *did* take them that way = they *were* a dog whistle.
That most people understood this is in all the papers, all the public comments by various politicians etc etc . Here for example from Poltico:
"Republican lawmakers this weekend took President Donald Trump to task over what they deemed a weak response to white supremacist groups and violent clashes in Charlottesville, Virginia, the latest sign that Trump’s grip on the party may be weakening. The outspoken group included past Trump antagonists such as Sens. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Marco Rubio of Florida, but it also included prominent conservative voices who aren't known as fierce critics of the administration, such as Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Cory Gardner of Colorado."
Sorry is that clear? I didn't mean most people = The Daily Stormer!!! Of course not!!!
Sorry is that clear? I didn't mean most people = The Daily Stormer!!! Of course not!!!
But you apparently meant 'most people' as 'all the people [you] spoke to". You must really get around! Sorry if your bubble doesn't include any intelligent folk. Stick around. You might learn something.
My take on why Althouse didn't comment on the "many sides, many sides" issue is that she's not much interested in bones that are already being chewed.
Trump's reaction was utterly disgraceful. I don't know that he was literally whistling to neo-Nazi's. I think he was probably aware of the general attitude of his base (well represented on this weekend's comment threads) and catered to them.
But the emptiness of his words was almost immediately exposed, not by his critics, but by contrast with the statements of his allies:
Ted Cruz: The Nazis, the KKK, and white supremacists are repulsive and evil, and all of us have a moral obligation to speak out against the lies, bigotry, anti-Semitism, and hatred that they propagate. Having watched the horrifying video of the car deliberately crashing into a crowd of protesters, I urge the Department of Justice to immediately investigate and prosecute this grotesque act of domestic terrorism.
Paul Ryan: The views fueling the spectacle in Charlottesville are repugnant. Let it only serve to unite Americans against this kind of vile bigotry. Our hearts are with today's victims. White supremacy is a scourge. This hate and its terrorism must be confronted and defeated.
@KittyM -- You're wasting your time. If your words can be misconstrued they will be.
@ Henry. I agree with you. Thanks for your comments.
@mockturtle I really would rather have a discussion about the actual substance of the debate. "But you apparently meant 'most people' as 'all the people [you] spoke to". " Look I mean everyone I spoke to you, everyone I read about in the paper and online, loads of Republican politicians, etc etc.
And look - I'm here so I'm open.
It always - always - cracks me up when some shameless leftist gets all indignantly finger-waving shame, shame, SHAME!
Shouting his or her moral superiority always brings me to the side of that person's argument. Every time.
Dopey yes but not abhorrent.
@jim " shameless leftist gets all indignantly finger-waving shame, shame, SHAME!" But what should I say / write if I genuinely am upset? If I genuinely think someone - say Trump - behaved badly?
How should I express that genuine honest indignation or anger or whatever so that you will take me seriously?
I haven't anywhere "shouted my moral superiority". But I do think Trump has behaved immorally here. How can I bring that to this conversation without being dismissed as someone who is "shouting my moral superiority" so that you will hear my side of the argument and give me a chance to possibly - just possibly - convince you?
There are a lot of distasteful right-wing squatter in the comments section who never cease to insult anyone who doesn't agree with them. Their crazy reactionary ideas are off the chart. I won't name names except that one of them resembles a turtle.
Apparently, Trump finally got the memo today. He pretty much says what Cruz and his own Vice President already said. The punchline is this: "in a hastily scheduled White House event."
Kitty: The substance of the debate is whether or not Trump was 'signaling' right-wing extremists in his statement that 'many sides' were involved in violence. Althouse and most of us here apparently didn't think so. You do. There is no debate, just a difference of opinion.
@mockturtle "The substance of the debate is whether or not Trump was 'signaling' right-wing extremists in his statement that 'many sides' were involved in violence. Althouse and most of us here apparently didn't think so. You do."
True! Thanks.
Let's say, based on the Daily Stormer, that I do *and* the Daily Stormer does!
If you - and Althouse and others - don't think so, then you must agree that he did an extremely bad job of responding, since lots and lots of people thought he *was* signalling to the far right. One of the jobs of president is to make clear public statements and not to make things worse. In this, he certainly failed.
Abhorrent Althouse domiciles disgusting deplorables!
Keep alliteration alive!
Let's say, based on the Daily Stormer, that I do *and* the Daily Stormer does!
Until today, I had never heard of this publication. But, then, I'm not a Neo-Nazi.
KittyM
I believe that Trump was quietly making the point that the Nazi, White Supremacist, Nationalist haters were exercising their right to freely assemble. In saner times that is how his remarks would have been taken. We have a First Amendment which you may or may not believe to be apt, but it is the First Amendment, not the twelfth or twentieth, and its importance to our freedom is paramount. If you would like to have some speech designated as hate speech, wrong an unlawful, remember who is President and who might have a hand in defining those concepts.
The daily stormer? Kitty M! Shame on you. Too bad we don't know your real identity or we would turn you in to the bosses who would be compelled to fire you. Oh, you don't subscribe? Oh, you don't have a peek now and then? Tell that to the thought police hater.
And you really lost your way in the days of Trump. I stopped somewhere mid election 2016. Your comment section became abhorrent.
Indeed the commentators literally changed during the past election cycle. From a majority bent toward hard left liberals and the "Magic Negro" in the 2012 cycle to a predominance of self-serving po' white Scots Irish, described unflatteringly in "Hillbilly Elegy," whose economic livelihood declined dramatically under Obama's EPA attack on fossil fuels. Coal mines, coal-fired power plants, and steel manufacturing from iron ore shut and what were once-upon-a-time, high-risk, low reward jobs became no jobs.
Then along came Trump with a song and dance that convinced not only the economically depressed but the conservatives and religious folks who wanted to turn political losses into economic and ideological victory. In simplistic terms (and simplicity is all that Trump's mind can handle), the former NY liberal launched his campaign talking about Mexican rapists and rants about mass deportation, for sure bans on Muslim immigration, the shutting down of mosques, and the building of a wall around America.
Conservative-oriented blogs, such as Althouse and Legal Insurrection remained relatively conservative because comments has some degree of monitoring but the likes of American Thinker got so bad, I quit reading articles and comments. On the other side, Conservative Tree House, Don Surber and Gateway Pundit adopted "all Trump all the time" and I got myself banned from Gateway Pundit and my comments rarely appeared on Conservative Tree House. To Don Surber's credit, he accepted my negative Trump posts.
Whatever happened on this site was caused by nasty commentators whose first inclination is and was to gang up on Never Trumpers, who didn't believe that Trump offers a better option than Clinton.
Patrick Henry said, at least according to old history books, ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,". Does this have no meaning to Americans today? Should we not defend free speech, even if we find it abhorrent?
@Henry, my take is that Trump is just oblivious. Also possible that once the immediate moment passed, he didn't want to play "second fiddle" to anyone.
"My take on why Althouse didn't comment on the "many sides, many sides" issue is that she's not much interested in bones that are already being chewed. Trump's reaction was utterly disgraceful. I don't know that he was literally whistling to neo-Nazi's. I think he was probably aware of the general attitude of his base (well represented on this weekend's comment threads) and catered to them."
I thought he might be reacting the way I was: careful not to assume you know what happened when you are hearing the first descriptions.
Remember all the trouble Obama got into with his "cop acted stupidly" remark.
Remember the terrible damage done by taking "hands up don't shoot" as the truth in Ferguson.
The first report is often spin.
"Umm, did nobody figure out that the writer thought she was writing to Glenn Reynolds? And that "Simon" is Roger Simon?"
It's a theory I considered but rejected. Yes, Instapundit started in 2001 and I didn't. But why would you address email to me if you were trying to write to Instapundit? Then, there's the reference to retirement, which relates to me. And finally, no one refers to Roger Simon as "Simon." It's always "Roger Simon."
BTW, starting a comment with "Umm" is considered quite rude. It would be more polite to begin "Hey, morons..."
I've never heard of the Daily Stormer before either. It seems like the best way to attack Trump is to get a white supremacy site to post support about him, which then raises outrage by those who apparently have a longstanding relationship with the Daily Stormer.
It's curious that people don't think this is part of the overall goal.
It's about controlling the conversation. I'm on record of never liking Trump, not for decades, but it's pretty absurd to think he's been a closet white supremacist all these years. But, using those issues puts Trump on a battlefield of the Left's choosing, and then allows those who actually don't want genuine conversation to control what is talked about.
It's why I, as someone who doesn't like Trump, really wishes people would talk about Trump who he is, and his actual position on issues, rather than the politically useful caricature that's about controlling political battles.
Trump is pretty good about controlling his battlefields but this issue is a winner for the Left, as they can get white supremacists on their side making statements that put Trump on the defensive.
It makes me wonder if Soros money is being funnelled to such groups some way.
KittyM, Trump condemned hate and violence on many sides--there was hate and violence on many sides.
That's immoral?
That's a tacit OK for the hateful and violent? Up your logic.
We do not yet have proof that Fields acted maliciously, though most of us, including me, believe it to be true. Unlike Obama and "the police acted stupidly", Trump isn't prejudging the killer. Nor should his jury, if there's a trial.
I didn't like Trump's call for unity. We're supposed to be free and free to disagree. He should have called for tolerance, self restraint, and civility, but you'd have called him a hypocrite, and to an extent you'd be right.
Fuck, should have refreshed and saved some trouble.
PaddyO:
You are correct that the left finds it expedient to expand the ranks of the ultra hard right loons, to employ the technique of the SPLC to create the impression that there are neo-nazis under every rug and all of them Trump supporters. Thus it is that the heavy readers of the daily stormer are progs.
@althouse "I thought he might be reacting the way I was: careful not to assume you know what happened when you are hearing the first descriptions."
Thank you for responding to this conversation. The reaction that you describe here is a good example of what seems (to me) to have changed in your posts. I got to know your blogging as a place on the internet where (amongst other things) public statements were taken apart, analysed and examined in a "cruelly neutral" fashion. I remember with great respect and fondness some blog posts from the Democratic candidate campaign in which Obama beat Hillary, where you brilliantly analysed the sexist language and symbols around some political ads. The posts were so smart and funny and as a reader, although I knew you skewed right from *my* perspective, I never knew which way you would "go" on any particular matter.
That has changed. I now always or almost always can guess what your "take" will be when you post - and even *whether* you will post on a particular subject.
This statement - that you "thought he might be reacting the way" you were - is so naive, given Trump's campaign, given who he brought with him into the White House, given everything we have learned about the ideas and people who are important to him. I just can't quite believe that someone as smart as you is that innocent. Don't you read David Frum? David French? Podhoretz? Many at the National Review? All conservative thinkers, all of whom are struggling with a president who shows us time and again that he is outside the norm and that you simply *cannot* expect from him the same level of even-handed, thoughtful, rational response we are accustomed to from the American presidency of whatever political colour.
Let me put it another way: you've read his tweets, right? Don't you think it is *interesting* that his tone is so different here to the way he responds to other incidents?
Dear Professor Althouse, I suppose at the end of the day I find this blog is missing everything that is at the very least interesting and new about Trump. You so often dismiss something under the tag "Trump Derangement Syndrome" and that way you miss so much that is extraordinary about this presidency and everything that is important. What a shame.
Kitty, what a breath of fresh air you are. And kudos for sticking with this thread. I have enjoyed reading your comments, and they really brought another perspective into focus of this event in a way that wouldn't have happened otherwise, I think.
Henry said: "There are a lot of commentators whose pride in their own openmindedness seems built on a catalog of insults and cliches." Bingo.
"The commentators that bring something unique to the political discussions keep shrinking." You win again. I came here in 2009 and have stuck with it through the years for another perspective mostly from the commenters and the topics from AA. I notice that a few prominent commenters have left, and that's disappointing. The diehards seem to hone their insults by the day. People used to be a LOT nicer.
"You're wasting your time. If your words can be misconstrued they will be." Yes, that's sad. I still find an occasional clearing of the fog (as in this thread) where a back and forth really gets going. My aim is to challenge my own thinking as much as possible. That can be a painful process as confirmation bias is so often the order of the day.
Ann: "BTW, starting a comment with "Umm" is considered quite rude." Civility bullshit! And, I don't think so at all.
"I just can't quite believe that someone as smart as you is that innocent. Don't you read David Frum? David French? Podhoretz? Many at the National Review? All conservative thinkers, all of whom are struggling with a president who shows us time and again that he is outside the norm ..."
No, I don't read them. I'm very aware that the Establishment GOP regards Trump as an intruder into their domain. I haven't noticed them saying much of anything that is interesting to me. I am not interested in getting constant updates on a topic that doesn't change much: conservative ideology. I'm interested in the new things that Trump is doing, including radically changing how people can speak about politics. Some of it is amazingly crude, but it's also straightforward in that it seems to come straight from the head of a real human being who did perhaps the most amazing thing I've ever seen one person do. I've never seen someone stand so strong in the face of endless, ruthless opposition. The strength in the face of adversity is entirely new. It's also incredibly weird and very fresh and very stale simultaneously. Quite fascinating. And I should read Frum and Podhoretz?? That's not me.
even-handed, thoughtful, rational response we are accustomed to from the American presidency of whatever political colour.
You seem to have forgotten Obama slyly giving people the finger during a speech. Did you hear what he said about Trump, then a private citizen, at one of those stupid DC dinners? Did he ever denounce the antifa and race riots on his watch?
She doesn't "read" dog whistles, even when everyone else can.
The only people who seem to be able to hear dog whistles are liberals (and I guess dogs)
As a Trump supporter, why is it that I have been unable to hear these dog whistles?
If he is talking to me, why can't I hear him? (but you can)
Ann & 5:31: Excellent! Thank you!
I don't know exactly when I started reading you but it was when Instapundit began to link you. I started reading Instapundit right after 9/11 so I can see where 2001 comes from. About the only comments sections I read regularly are yours and Megan McCardle's since they are likely to have interesting comments.
One of the best things about this blog is that AA rarely buys The Narrative. We conservatives rarely buy The Narrative--not the prog kind, obviously, not the constant MSM drivel, not the misrepresentation of any and every event, not the Trump-is the-end-of-the-world lamentations, not even the BS pseudo-narrative the GOP shovels our way. The why and how may differ, but it's one reason AA is sympatico to us, and irritating to conventional progs invested in The Narrative and the Party Line. Plus the things some of us conservatives want to conserve are actually, you know, once-upon-a-time liberal values--free speech, for one.
But from my lurking days I do miss Simon.
@Joe -- You may be right. Never assume evil when you can assume obliviousness But what unbelievable obliviousness. It's a stubborn obliviousness, utterly free of the demands of context and history.
@Paddy O -- You're right. Trump is not a closet white supremacist. He does have a long record as a law-and-order zealot, which may be as pertinent to his reaction to Charlottesville than his obliviousness.
There's something about Trump that reminds me of the way Peter Guralnick describes Elvis Presley in Last Train to Memphis. An awkward performer in his early days, uncertain about his genre (country, or gospel, or blues), he responded to whatever made his audience respond. The moves, the vocal thundering, the look. Here is one Elvis Fan that could be describing Trump:
Elvis Presley was a genius. He didn't express himself the way the middle classes do, which is with wordplay and being able to explain his actions and reactions. He acted on gut instinct and expressed himself by the way he held the microphone, by the way, he moved his hips, by the way, that he sang down the microphone.
Trump knows his audience. But despite being hyper-verbal, his connection to his supporters does seem almost a nonverbal knowing. Given a fiasco like Charlottesville, his response is instinctive and bizarre. Much has been written about his "on many sides" utterance. But the next line is bizarre in a completely instinctive way:
It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama. This has been going on for a long, long time."
That egocentric personalization of racial conflict by a coddled race-exploiting millionaire is grating, at its oblivious best, but at the same time it resonates perfectly for anyone who thinks Barack Obama always gets a pass.
"But enough about me. What do you think about my new dress?" -- That's our president.
...as pertinent to his reaction to Charlottesville as...
Sebastian said...
One of the best things about this blog is that AA rarely buys The Narrative.
I agree 100%.
KittyM, reading your notes here, I sense an intense dog whistle of Trump-hate, with some desperate mute work to try to convince us of your moderation, I am guessing because you think an appearance of moderation will make you be more convincing. I think no one is fooled. Come, put down your whistle and plunger, embrace Trump with all the rest of us, revel with us in our naïvité as we dance around the angling AA.
@Friedrich Engel's Barber "I sense an intense dog whistle of Trump-hate" That is not what a dog-whistle is.
I am not a fan of Trump. I am open about that. I am interested in opposing viewpoints.
Post a Comment