How can you know I've never said one thing about a particular topic unless you yourself have been stalking me? https://t.co/vbGqSqlnNC— Ann Althouse (@annalthouse) September 25, 2017
I'm responding to this:
When Trump was actually— Mark A.R. Kleiman (@MarkARKleiman) September 25, 2017
"disciplining and repressing"
HRC in gendered ways
(stalking her, "What a nasty woman!")
Althouse was silent. https://t.co/l6gLaM6ncM
He's reacting to something we discussed at some length last night in "Classic liberal manipulation: Creating the fear that you will be thought of as uncaring."
I have to deliver a second push-back.
@MarkARKleiman assumes a woman must attend to women's issues to maintain her own right to defend herself when attacked. That's sexist!— Ann Althouse (@annalthouse) September 25, 2017
And notice that the idea is that I must not only take care of the women's issues, but that I must do it the right way, the Democratic-Party-supporting way. I'm supposed to take as a given that Trump was "’disciplining and repressing’ HRC in gendered ways." Ridiculous. By the way, what's with the quotes on "disciplining and repressing"? That seems original to Kleiman, so I guess it's air quotes, mocking me for saying that he is using a technique that manipulates women (and other people) by scaring us into worrying that we lack empathy. I did say "And that is how women are disciplined into insignificance." And you better believe I believe that.
And I don't like being disciplined by being told that I must support political candidates because they are women. At least Kleiman doesn't threaten me with hell for failing to support the woman.
पोस्ट्स
११५ टिप्पण्या:
He is stalking you. It isn't the deplorables that progressives obsess about. They can be dismissed. It's the apostates that get progressives all wee-wee'd up.
Hillary is a nasty women. Hillary used a PRIVATE SERVER while head of the State Dept to fill her own coffers in secret.
Normal women with a moral compass agree - Hillary is nasty. She is known to treat anyone who stands in her way like dirt.
Ask the people of Haiti.
Click on the Mark Kleiman tag to see how this guy has treated me in the past.
And he's a lawprof... at my old law school, NYU.
Kleiman is leading us to a socially just, equal, and more tolerant society.
All aboard! Who's not on board?
GET on BOARD.
NOW!
"notice that the idea is that I must not only take care of the women's issues, but that I must do it the right way, the Democratic-Party-supporting way." Gotta stay on the plantation, in a manner of speaking.
"mocking me for saying that he is using a technique manipulates women by scaring us into worrying that we are lack empathy." Hate to support Kleiman in any way, but you left yourself open to mockery. Playing the woman card is unbecoming and unnecessary. The technique is used against men just as easily.
"I did say "And that is how women are disciplined into insignificance."" Not for the last half century. And your own reaction disproves it. But I do like the Alinskyite make-them-play-by-their-own-identity-politics-rules vibe here.
Leaving aside the poor-woman shtick, it is of course true that progs like Kleiman like to impose discipline. It is the leftist MO. Resist!
I don't like being told I should support a political candidate because she's a woman period.
Interesting that Clinton in her own book says that she can't offer "absolution" for women who didn't vote.
Who is this idiot Kleiman, and why does he care about opinions or non-opinions by Althouse?
If he wants to disagree on any substantive issue, he can and should express his opinion here.
Professors who reside within the bubble must periodically demonstrate their superiority to other bubble-dwellers. And so we have Kleiman taking on Althouse. Now he can talk about this at a twee cocktail party this weekend when someone dressed at Barneys asks him what's up.
Can I assume that Trump also disciplined Cruz, and Rubio, and all of them, in a "gendered way"? Or does that only apply to women, and only to women Kleiman approves of?
According to the Alinsky playbook, by the way, we should all be furiously demanding that Kleiman apologize and also be fired, and his boss too.
I'm up for it!
Don't punch down.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/276485/
"Men must confront men who disrespect women"
Kleiman - stop it right now!
Trump stalked Hillary? That's so stupid I'd assume it was meant ironically...but he must mean it. Really stupid.
I'm going to assume your assertion that Kleiman must have been stalking you to know you've never said one thing about a topic is intentionally hyperbolic, Professor A, and designed to point out how stupid Kleiman's use of that term is in context.
Right? You don't really think someone following your posts and making "nasty" comments on your work over a long period of time is the same as stalking, right?
I hope it doesn't count as a man trying to discipline a woman's speech or actions when I say that it might be better to not misuse a term yourself while pointing out how another person misused that term, unless your misuse is clearly intentional and meant to highlight the nature of the misuse by the other party.
You just know the asshole posts here. Has too. Couldn't possibly resist.
I got a woman,
Mean as she can be
I got a woman,
Mean as she can be
Sometimes I think
She's almost mean as me
A black cat up and died of fright
'Cause she crossed his path last night
Oh, I got a woman
Mean as she can be
Sometimes I think
She's almost mean as me
She kiss so hard, she bruise my lips
Hurts so good, my heart just flips
Oh, I got a woman
Mean as she can be
Sometimes I think
She's almost mean as me
The strangest gal I ever had
Never happy 'less she's mad
Oh, I got a woman
Mean as she can be
Sometimes I think
She's almost mean as me
She makes love without a smile
Ooh, hot dog that drives me wild
Oh, I got a woman
Mean as she can be
Sometimes I think
She's almost mean as me.
Who is this Mark Kleiman who teaches at a third rate institution? Is he some big thinker?
"Playing the woman card is unbecoming and unnecessary. The technique is used against men just as easily."
1. I absolutely stand by playing the woman card in this case.
2. I say here and in the earlier post that it is done to men too.
3. It is more easily and more commonly done to women. Women, in general, are more subject to and more sensitive to demands that they be nice, caring, empathic. Look around and pay attention.
@Ann Althouse:
And he's a lawprof... at my old law school, NYU.
I may be wrong, but I don't believe he is a law professor. He is a professor of public policy. To my knowledge, Kleiman never attended law school or ever taught at a law school.
@Bay Area Guy:
Who is this idiot Kleiman, and why does he care about opinions or non-opinions by Althouse?
Kleiman has written a lot over the years in the area of criminal justice policy (particularly drug policy), and that is how I first became acquainted with him. I got a broader exposure to his worldview when he started appearing on Bloggingheads. Kleiman is left-of-center and what you might call a data-driven leftist, even if one disagrees with the conclusions he draws from that data. But he is more empirically rigorous than a lot of progressive commentators. He has a mutual respect for Heather MacDonald, considerably to his right but also a data-driven empiricist. That said, as is obvious from his appearances on Bloggingheads, Kleiman has a contemptuous, bullying personality in which he is never shy to attack the individual character of people with whom he disagrees. I used to be a regular reader of his blog, Reality-Based Community, but eventually it became too difficult to see his points through the smug. And coming from me, that's saying something.
p.s. Kleiman's recent habit of dyeing his once glorious grey beard is also troubling.
And now the purges start.
The reason Hillary lost is the inadequate enthusiasm for the cause displayed by previous Obama voters.
They must be attacked, humiliated and driven out of polite society, tarred with the mark of evil.
How else will these small minded idiots ever get the chance to be an apparatchik?
@J. Farmer, I very much agree with your take on Kleiman (though I was never as close an observer). Smart and hard-working. It is too bad that he is in a part of the world of thought where even smart hard-working people turn into creeps.
Comrade Althouse. By being the first to stop clapping you have demonstrated your lack of enthusiasm for the Party and it's great Leader!
3. It is more easily and more commonly done to women. Women, in general, are more subject to and more sensitive to demands that they be nice, caring, empathic.
It would be nice if the sex sides were even. They are not. Women in 2017 are surfing a current of undeserved noblesse oblige.
It's hurting. Already the male/female ratio in college is approaching 40/60. Men are not marrying. Men are abandoning their children. This is the death of western culture.
"Right? You don't really think someone following your posts and making "nasty" comments on your work over a long period of time is the same as stalking, right?"
Of course, I want people to read the blog and put things up because I want them to be read and love the regular readers and don't regard regular reading (and commenting) as stalking.
BUT: Some people do have a stalking mentality. They're not reading this in the normal way.
BUT: I don't think Kleiman is reading the blog or understands me very well. He occasionally notices me and reacts to me according to what seems to be a stereotype, that I'm a woman (and erstwhile lawprof) who doesn't toe the liberal line and must be disciplined. I think this most recent thing came in reaction to a tweet of mine, not from reading the blog. His knee-jerk response — that I don't "care" — is squarely in my zone.
And I do agree with Bob Ellison that I'm punching down.
Am I the only one out there who's had it to here with the whiny bean-counting identity politics? After this weekend, I just want to primal scream STIFLE YOURSELVES, PEOPLE.
Remember when he said "Stifle yourself, Hillary!" Or was it "Delete your account!"
Nice pushback Ann, not that you owed him an explanation. The fact that you felt compelled to respond implies control on his part.
I guess I should have read the thread first!
"When Trump was actually disciplining and repressing HRC in gendered ways Althouse was silent..."
I seem to recall Althouse covering this.
It was when the actors switched sexes in a debate reenactment.
I seem to remember no one liked male Hillary, either.
I am Laslo.
"that I'm a woman (and erstwhile lawprof) who doesn't toe the liberal line and must be disciplined"
On Twitter, things got a little out of hand.
BUT: Some people do have a stalking mentality. They're not reading this in the normal way.
Alright, well, now I'm not sure how to feel.
I agree with your description of Kleiman and how he reads/misreads your blog, and how he has done so over time. I agree that's abnormal, and that Keliman comes across as a jerk--as intentionally jerky, in fact. I fully support your "calling out" and criticizing him for his jerky-ness.
BUT: I don't think what he does--nor his jerkiness--is "stalking" and I don't think it's helpful to misuse that label in that way; that's especially true when Kleiman himself misuses the label in the example you cite.
The guy's a jackass towards you and acts like a jerk. Let's all just call him a jerky jackass. I feel like accuracy is more rhetorically powerful than inaccurate hyperbole (though possibly only in the long run).
Ah, this is why you make the big bucks', Althouse (joke, joke)...every good site has its Kleiman and 'MARK' seems to be yours. I feel your pain.
These people lurk everywhere and some are well paid to be that way - witness Bret Stephens, employee of the NYT (as of this week anyway). In his 9/24 NYT editorial homage to himself, he extols the moral need and glory of 'openminded disagreement'- going on for thousands of philosophical (and banal) words about how critical it is to "serious journalism" - yet, smack in the middle of this extended Sermon From The Mount he chooses to single out FOX news as "populist pap" and bemoans the fact (in his own head) that "US Journalism" avoided criticizing the “white working class” during "the election" (wtf?! They did?!?) - thereby aiding election of the 'immoral Trump'.
Lord protect us from these self-righteous, moralistic and hypocritical hacks of 'Journalism'.
Would that they would just stay (all but an heroic one!) in their Locker rooms like the Pittsburgh Steelers.
That's the left in a nutshell: relentlessly pound at an "identification" (I'm with her) then forbid anyone addressing the subject on their terms. They want to herd their enemies into Wolkencuckcucksheim where language addles meaning and their defined reality defies your eyes. "Look at me, I'm a teapot."
Oh, and Kleiman: "X doesn't believe what they claim to believe, otherwise they'd agree with me" is just about the lamest form of argument possible. It's a tiny notch above "X only thinks what they think because they're not as intelligent as me."
"If Althouse really cared about CTE then..." is lame. She's too polite to say it, but the proper response is "Fuck off, jackass. If you're going to question my motives and sincerity then we can't have an actual discussion--if your first move is to say I'm arguing in bad faith then there's no point in engaging with anything else you might have to say."
"At least Kleiman doesn't threaten me with hell for failing to support the woman."
Not that you are likely to be intimidated if he does.
Guess what Mark whatever your name is, Hillary, Madeline et al, WOMEN ARE CAPABLE OF CRITICAL THINKING AND MAKING RATIONAL DECISIONS!
If someone says, "she is a nasty woman", then does that mean he is STALKING her?
"X doesn't believe what they claim to believe, otherwise they'd agree with me" is just about the lamest form of argument possible. It's a tiny notch above "X only thinks what they think because they're not as intelligent as me."
Wow, you have TTR nailed.
Althouse:
"1. I absolutely stand by playing the woman card in this case.
2. I say here and in the earlier post that it is done to men too."
And then you wonder why Insty readers make comments about logic. If he does the same thing to men then he's not doing it to you because you're a woman. He's doing it because he disagrees with you and this is how he treats dissent. So the "woman card" just misrepresents what is going on. It's like with bad cops. There are bad cops who shoot people because they feel entitled to use deadly violence. This affects all people who come into conflict with such cops. These people are usually the poor and so disproportionately black. But it isn't just cops hating on blacks, and presenting the problem that way misrepresents it and gets in the way.
"Disciplining is what we do." -The Left
"Stalking" is a strong word, implying intent to do things like rape. Online, it mostly implies creepiness, with a tilt toward bullying.
If you have a blog called Althouse, and you happen to be a pretty woman, you're gonna get some stalking.
People don't talk about this stuff enough. A couple of years ago, Conan O'Brien did a piece about "Fox News Anchors or Porn Stars?" that included Jenna Lee (sp?). She was figured to be a porn star because, well, she's beautiful. How did this one get past editing?
Pretty ain't stupid, and stalkers gonna stalk. [I wish someone would stalk me! Oh, maybe not.]
AA: "I have to deliver a second push-back."
No, ya don't. Nothing to gain by arguing with an idiot. They just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Twitter is so awful. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anybody with a Twitter account, under any circumstances, for anything that happens on Twitter.
If you've got a Twitter account and a Facebook account and blog (this will sound like I am picking on Althouse, when I am not; it applies equally to about a billion other people, right?), the notion that anyone is "stalking" you is a bit like posting a sex video of yourself online and then griping that anyone who views it is a Peeping Tom.
Surprised I am first to point out that the "you don't care about those who...." is used by some of the commenters here occasionally. Doesn't affect me, 'cause basically I don't care about anybody but myself.No sympathy, no empathy no feelings at all. Pure sociopath, and proud of it.
How can you know I've never said one thing about a particular topic unless you yourself have been stalking me?
You yourself. Kinda like "I myself" except declined to the second person. One of my pet peeves. Kida like the garner vs, get controversy.
"Kleiman is leading us to a socially just, equal, and more tolerant society.
All aboard! Who's not on board?
GET on BOARD.
NOW!"
No, that's not a Pullman car with bar service, it's a cattle car. No more questions!
I think we need a new tag hereabouts:
You, a woman!
It is more easily and more commonly done to women. Women, in general, are more subject to and more sensitive to demands that they be nice, caring, empathic. Look around and pay attention.
Right on!!
The it discussed is being shamed for not being sufficiently womanly, not empathetic to other women, not following and supporting "women's" causes. Telling us there is a special place in Hell for women who don't (blindly) support other women. It goes on and on ad nauseum.
The liberals like this Kleiman guy cannot stand an independent thinker and especially cannot stand the idea that an actual (gasp) woman can have an independent point of view. Actually, they cannot stand that ANYONE has a different point of view from their own bubble thinking.
How DARE you, a woman, dissent from the role that has been assigned to you!! There must be something wrong with you. You must not be a 'real' woman then. They will want to FIX you . The same goes for Blacks, Hispanics or any other ethnicity who have strayed off the reservation and stepped outside of their assigned box. They are obviously not 'real' Blacks, 'real' Hispanics.
So they try to shout you down, shame you and force you to get back inside the lines that they have drawn.
Some people will fall for this and will kow tow, cave in because they don't want to "feel" bad about themselves or just want to have everyone STFU about it. What they don't realize is that the more they push at us, the less likely we are to even listen to anything they say.
Independent thinkers and those of us who have run out of our lifetime allotment of GAFs (give a fucks) are like the Honey Badger. I ran out of my GAFs about the age of 32.
p.s. Kleiman's recent habit of dyeing his once glorious grey beard is also troubling.
Back when I had facial hair, it was a lot greyer than the rest of the hair on my head. (Although my head hair is catching up now). So I shaved off the facial hair. I'm vain, yes.
Today I saw a man with a very dark beard, but totally grey hair on his head, except at the base of his skull, below the ear line. You could draw a line between grey up top and dark on the bottom of the skull. It looked very cool, and as far as I could tell in passing, natural.
Men who dye are just kidding themselves.
Quotes that do not quote, but rather serve to emphasize a narrative with adjudicated deniability.
Doesn't stalking imply a certain amount of sexual attraction? I didn't see that kind of chemistry between Hillary and Trump, or, for that matter, between Hillary and anyone. I follow Hillary with a certain amount of morbid fascination, but I wouldn't characterize this interest as stalking.......So far as I know, Hillary has not inspired a single porno movie, whilst Sarah Palin has been the driving force behind quite a few. This data point is rarely taken into consideration when discussing the sexual positions of the different parties.
I can picture all the liberal to progressive women who've died since 2008 finding themselves in "a special place in Hell" for their treatment of Sarah Palin. :-)
No I can't. I'm an atheist.
Professor Althouse's ability to change her principles of charitable and pragmatic reading depending upon which verdict she'd like to reach is striking.
I disapprove of beard shaming. Men should be allowed to wear their beards any way they like......I used to have a red beard. For some reason, red beards are kind of cool, but red hair is not. Now it's gray. I was sad to see it go, but, at least, now I'm not bothered by stalkers. I wouldn't dye it because that takes time and trouble, and the whole purpose of a beard is to avoid the trouble of shaving every day.
@Madman, I used the product Just for Men on my mustache until the last surviving hairs on top went grey. Then I stopped using it and went totally grey "overnight."
Democrats are the most dangerous organization in the country.
Professor Althouse's ability to change her principles of charitable and pragmatic reading depending upon which verdict she'd like to reach is striking
Then you should be able to provide plenty of compelling examples.
Doesn't stalking imply a certain amount of sexual attraction?
Kleiman is pulling Althouse's ponytail.
Chuck said...
Twitter is so awful. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anybody with a Twitter account, under any circumstances, for anything that happens on Twitter.
I sent my first tweet yesterday! Sent? Made? I dunno.
Took a picture of my nephew and his friends @the Atlanta United game in our new stadium, hashtagged it with ATLUTD so they'd put the picture on the huge screens...and didn't get up there.
Possibly my user name was a problem, or maybe they don't like accounts with no other activity, but my first tweet was a bust.
/end story
"1. I absolutely stand by playing the woman card in this case.
2. I say here and in the earlier post that it is done to men too.
3. It is more easily and more commonly done to women. Women, in general, are more subject to and more sensitive to demands that they be nice, caring, empathic. Look around and pay attention."
I side with you against Kleiman, of course. But this is not the strongest rejoinder.
It may be pointless to argue about things you "absolutely" stand by, but I know of no evidence that "women, in general" etc. But I will add one caveat: I do not know, based on "looking around," if that is the preferred research method to determine what women "in general" experience, how women shame each other into "caring," among themselves.
Paying attention to the rhetorical ploys people use, out in public, I do see a lot of false invocations of the women-are-special feminist meme, so I tentatively maintain my original point that playing the woman card is both unbecoming and unnecessary--based, of course, on my high regard for Althousian rejoinders on issues that do not raise special feminist sensitivities. As I noted, I do like the Alinskyite back-at-you flavor of the rejoinder to Kleiman, but I take it that you meant it.
Since I do not "absolutely" stand by any claim that is subject to empirical refutation, I will change my mind when the WNBA starts raising money for prostate cancer research.
Doesn't stalking imply a certain amount of sexual attraction?
Kleiman is pulling Althouse's ponytail.
... while chasing her around the playground. Ah, the young old days, where girls were mature, and boys expressed themselves with clumsy appeals.
Children are so sexist.
@Farmer: "eventually it became too difficult to see his points through the smug. And coming from me, that's saying something." Because you normally like a little dose of smug with your points?
Kidding, kidding!
As a successful blog owner I'd imagine you receive a lot of this. Ladder climbers of the blog world. As a woman you represent a soft target to these guys. Sad. He must not have spent much time here. And aiming a bit high I'd say. He should spend a bit more time in the lower weight classes before attacking a heavyweight.
Althouse:
Punching down!! Excellent. Do hope he reads that one. Ouch
"To my knowledge, Kleiman never attended law school or ever taught at a law school."
He's taught at Harvard Law School (per Wikipedia). His focus is very much on drug legalization, which is a law topic. You don't have to go to law school to be a law professor. It's a loose enough term.
I gave up guilt for Lent.
I clicked the Mark Kleiman tag and it appears you were stalking him first. I object to your calling him a liberal when he is clearly a socialist. That's a blood libel, or at least fake news.
I try and look at Twitter neutrally: A platform which allows quick node to node connection. Great for real-time updates, and a lot of condensed information in brief bursts.
It's also apparently curated by groups somewhat united by common political and ideological beliefs, it tends to crowd out deeper and sustained thought, allows anonymity, discourages civility, and attracts all kinds of people with nothing else to do.
If we were back on the schoolyard, I would have given Mark Kleiman an atomic wedgie by now.
Jesus. Althouse is going nuts over this inconsequential nonsense. North Korea has declared war on the US and she focuses on this petty stupid shit. Boring shit too.
Ann Althouse said...
"Playing the woman card is unbecoming and unnecessary. The technique is used against men just as easily."
1. I absolutely stand by playing the woman card in this case.
2. I say here and in the earlier post that it is done to men too.
3. It is more easily and more commonly done to women. Women, in general, are more subject to and more sensitive to demands that they be nice, caring, empathic. Look around and pay attention.
Is it your intent to treat him to the reverse by referring to reading your work as stalking? Is this another of your maxims: gender based criticisms are fine as long as they benefit women?
"To my knowledge, Kleiman never attended law school or ever taught at a law school."
He's taught at Harvard Law School (per Wikipedia). His focus is very much on drug legalization, which is a law topic. You don't have to go to law school to be a law professor. It's a loose enough term.
Comedy ensues.
I think a man could stalk another man and a woman could stalk another woman. I don't see how that behavior is confined to man to woman.
Haha. Althouse's righteous indignation is up. Pass the popcorn. Kleiman is barking up the wrong tree.
What really sucks is how hard it is to get your own blog and discuss whatever you like.
To be fair, North Korea has been declaring war on the US every week or so for 70 years.
Maybe they mean something by it this time.
Well said, Dust Bunny! I held onto my GAFs a little longer than that. My husband of 40 years and the love of my life was a master manipulator. I knew it and he knew that I knew it but the game continued well into his illness.
I don't see how that behavior is confined to man to woman.
It doesn't have to be so confined. The standard is expressed here:
3. It is more easily and more commonly done to women.
Meade,
Please get Ann back on the reservation before she hurts herself or someone else.
Rick, Althouse was referring to creating the fear of being perceived as uncaring as being more commonly used on women - not stalking. You're the one who made stalking specific to women.
Rick, Althouse was referring to creating the fear of being perceived as uncaring as being more commonly used on women - not stalking.
Yes. So if being used more easily and often against women makes the "uncaring" accusation sexist doesn't the stalking accusation being used against men more easily and often make it sexist as well?
exhelodrvr1 said...
"Meade,
Please get Ann back on the reservation before she hurts herself or someone else."
Killjoy
Silence is assent!
Which in Kleiman's world means you have a duty to yap and opine on every issue under the sun, obviously from a leftwing perspective, of course.
I doubt Kleiman has had too many harsh tweets about Antifa violence or squelching 1st Amendment rights. But, that would mean reading the twit's twitter account.
It's a parallel to being black and not jumping on the BLM bandwagon or addressing 'race issues'. You will be accused of being a 'house ni**ah'. And, just as with women, the best action is to ignore the taunts. Easier said than done, however.
So if being used more easily and often against women makes the "uncaring" accusation sexist doesn't the stalking accusation being used against men more easily and often make it sexist as well?
Apples and oranges. Not equivilant in the least.
As a woman, it's insulting that a pustule filled with testosterone is trying to bully me to vote, think and advocate a certain way because I have boobs and ovaries.
To be fair, North Korea has been declaring war on the US every week or so for 70 years.
Maybe they mean something by it this time.
To be fair, North Korean has been in a state of war with the US for nearly 70 years.
Seeing Red asserts: As a woman, it's insulting that a pustule filled with testosterone is trying to bully me to vote, think and advocate a certain way because I have boobs and ovaries.
And that my racially mixed daughter found such anger--even hatred--on social media that she voted for Trump.
What would an "ungendered" criticism of Hillary be? "It lies?"
Gender was a large part of Hillary's campaign, so it would be be pointless to un-gender her.
Actually, I'd like to see someone address the claim that Hillary's polling lead shrank after every public appearance.
She certainly comes off as unlikeable to me. But if that could be established then perhaps her failure to appear in battleground states has an explanation.
Rick - Althouse didn't say that men engage in internet stalking more frequently than women.
Left Bank of the Charles said... "I clicked the Mark Kleiman tag and it appears you were stalking him first. I object to your calling him a liberal when he is clearly a socialist. That's a blood libel, or at least fake news."
Well, I just went back and read all of the posts with the tag and you are absolutely wrong. The first post links in a nice way to a Bloggingheads clip and the second one is a completely flattering description of the New Yorker article about him. The third one is just raising an interesting question that follows on after something he said about LSD (that it shouldn't be a one-off spiritual experience (I suggested that a one-time religious experience could be valuable going forward)).
After that, I'm responding to something just outrageous that he said about me, a piece in the Washington Monthly titled "Defending the Indefensible: Ann Althouse on Trump’s Blood Libel." What he said was a ludicrously bad attack, and I should have hit him much harder for it. He had decided to brutalize me because I didn't get in line and hate Trump. I wrote: "Really, what is Kleiman so mad about? Maybe he's mad that he can't get his mind around what happened in the Middle East in the last few years. It's painful to think about. And it seems that he'd like everybody with any credibility — including me, because I'm a law professor — to direct all energies into Trump hating. But that's exactly what I resist. I don't even like Trump, but I hate the demand to hate him. That's not my beat. I'm looking at other things. The effort to intimidate me into hating Trump provokes me into defending him. And he's less "indefensible" than your use of the term "blood libel," Mark."
I used the word "stalking" as a riposte to his use of "stalking" (re Trump on the debate stage with Hillary). The use of the same word had a comic effect. In my sense of humor, anyway. It's also a way of saying he ought to consider whether what he's seeing in another man is really something that he himself displays. Maybe that's why if offends him so much: On some level, he would have to admit that it's an ugliness that resides in him.
And it seems that he'd like everybody with any credibility — including me, because I'm a law professor — to direct all energies into Trump hating.
Yup. "CONFORM!" the Left shouts just after congratulating itself for its love of individual freedom and counterculture values. "Good thing we're not like those gray flannel suit-ed robots on the Right!"
. But that's exactly what I resist. I don't even like Trump, but I hate the demand to hate him. That's not my beat. I'm looking at other things. The effort to intimidate me into hating Trump provokes me into defending him.
Double Yup! I have an emotional reaction similar to that myself, lately. I feel like the stupid attacks on Trump--including stuff out of left field/completely off topic by certain Life Long Republicans--makes me reflexively take a tougher "defend Trump's actions" approach than I otherwise would. I truly do not believe that a culture-war focused President is what the nation needs right now, but I can't help but cheer when the one we have tweaks and attacks the Left, even when he does so in silly and/or clumsy ways.
Ann Althouse said...I used the word "stalking" as a riposte to his use of "stalking" (re Trump on the debate stage with Hillary). The use of the same word had a comic effect. In my sense of humor, anyway.
Yeah, ok, good--that's what I was asking for clarity about earlier in the thread--it seemed like you could either have meant it rhetorically (for comic effect, highlighting Kleiman's absurd use of the term) or seriously as though you thought he actually did engage in behavior that could be considered stalking.
It's also a way of saying he ought to consider whether what he's seeing in another man is really something that he himself displays.
I don't think Kleiman's behavior is stalker-ish, but I DO think you're 100% correct to point out that Kleiman's attitude toward you is at least as infected by "gendered" problematics (!) as Trump's is to Hillary. You nailed him on that, for sure.
Maybe that's why if offends him so much: On some level, he would have to admit that it's an ugliness that resides in him.
Being a smug Lefty means never having to admit to any ugliness. That's one of the big perks!
But that's exactly what I resist. I don't even like Trump, but I hate the demand to hate him. That's not my beat. I'm looking at other things.
I know, the demands to fall in line and hate Trump just make me see how risably imbecilic the demands are. There are reasons to dislike Trump, but generally they apply in spades to the Clintons, so until somebody comes up with something that Hillary or Bill hasn't done, and worse, I don't want to hear about it.
It may be that Kleiman is just a lonely, single, ageing, overweight, childless zonker trying to get a woman's attention any way he can.
If so, mission accomplished.
tim in vermont...There are reasons to dislike Trump, but generally they apply in spades to the Clintons, so until somebody comes up with something that Hillary or Bill hasn't done, and worse, I don't want to hear about it.
Well..."he's no worse than the Clintons" is maybe an OK reason to vote for the guy over Hillary but not a great reason to not criticize him now, as President.
You're right insofar as the accusations against Trump are frequently states as "he's the WORST EVER" on some topic or "his actions/statements are without precedent!" when one only has to look back to the last administration for clear precedent or, often, worse behavior.
Chuck said, "Twitter is so awful. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anybody with a Twitter account, under any circumstances, for anything that happens on Twitter."
I'm 100% with Comrade LLR on this one. Facebook, but Twitter even more so, are outlets for the national id slouching toward the complete elimination of adult standards of social behavior. It's bad enough that we Boomers were the first generation to have our literary thinking capacity steadily undermined by television screen watching, but with internet screen watching our kids and grandkids are exponentially losing the capacity to reason in favor of emoting.
Notice how easily more and more of us are provoked into outbursts of pique on these media, completely oblivious to any sort of moral or ethical stop sign. And while President Trump is Exhibit A of such carelessness, perhaps over-the-top Trump hatred is merely jealousy of his mastery of the Twitter medium.
This is how debased we have become: it's now socially acceptable to display our idiocy, impulsiveness, demons, narcissism, and lack of self-control on public media that can reach half the world's population in a nanosecond.
What internal, subconscious belief system would suggest that is a good thing?
Professional lady said...
Rick - Althouse didn't say that men engage in internet stalking more frequently than women.
A) Reality is not contingent on whether Althouse affirms it.
B) The comparative isn't internet stalking but rather whether characterizing a man's comments as stalking is more effectively shaming than similarly characterizing a woman's comments.
I see the real problem with this stretching into a days' long exposition that we're spending so much energy on a guy who calls himself "MarkARK".
Sounds like a real windowlicker, that one.
And no, I'm not a stoner, although I reckon this would probably be a funnier comment if the reader were high.
Even the way he writes it indicates the second syllable is to be shouted, or at least given greater volume and percussive accent than the first. "MarkARK".
Like a dog's bark, stuttered like Max Headroom.
Rick - Althouse explains it at 1:59. Mark what's his name brought it up first and applied it to a male.
"but with internet screen watching our kids and grandkids are exponentially losing the capacity to reason in favor of emoting. "
The feature of the internet that strikes me the most is not the ease of emoting, but the advantages it offers for reasoned discourse. If you want to check facts, it is easy, instant. If you need data relevant to public policy, its there. The entire wisdom of the human race (except that which is under modern copyright) is available to compare and contrast.
Its never been easier to have a useful, educational, well informed debate. But this happens so rarely that I am at a loss to explain it. Perhaps there no longer is anyone who is interested.
buwaya said...
Its never been easier to have a useful, educational, well informed debate. But this happens so rarely that I am at a loss to explain it. Perhaps there no longer is anyone who is interested.
Debate is not driven by people who want it to be well informed. The political class that controls the media and cultural institutions that frame the debate are more successful controlling stupid tools. Hence Russians hacked everything! and white supremacy!
Many of us are interested and it is a hard slog. But we are winning.
Sometimes hard to tell whether Prof. Althouse's comments represent deliberate trolling or simple careless error. She writes:
"By the way, what's with the quotes on "disciplining and repressing"? That seems original to Kleiman, so I guess it's air quotes..."
In fact, was quoting her own tweet, directed at me: "This is how men discipline and repress women." Since Twitter doesn't use Blue Book style, I didn't mark the grammatical changes with square brackets.
@bu: "Its never been easier to have a useful, educational, well informed debate. But this happens so rarely that I am at a loss to explain it. Perhaps there no longer is anyone who is interested."
Hey, I know someone who can help!
The guy who just wrote: ""It’s not “carnage,” and it’s not a reason to panic or adopt cruel, stupid policies, but it really isn’t good news. Yes, year-to-year homicide rates are statistically noisy, especially at the city level, because homicide is a relatively rare event. But an increase of roughly 20% over two years isn’t just statistical noise. And though there are indeed dramatic increases for identifiable local reasons in places such as Chicago, that’s not what’s driving this train: the 2016 increase showed up in small tows as well as big cities. But the real reason to be concerned isn’t that homicide is up two years in a row; it’s that it was flat in the two previous years, pretty clearly breaking the 20-year downtrend starting in 1994."
But then, I am at a loss to explain why a guy like that would want to pick fights with Althouse. Sure, she is not the most data-driven blogger around, but outside of wonkdom she offers a place for discussion of just about anything. Maybe TDS overrides everything.
Kleiman
Well bless your heart. You rush in to prove she is punching down.
@Mark Kleiman,
You commented here to quibble about quotation marks?
Why not make a substantive point? We are dying to know what caught your panties in the ringer today!
My God, I love this site.
And I don't like being told I should support a political candidate because he's a woman.
Go ahead Althouse, call him out for being the pussy that he is.
"This is how debased we have become: it's now socially acceptable to display our idiocy, impulsiveness, demons, narcissism, and lack of self-control on public media that can reach half the world's population in a nanosecond.
What internal, subconscious belief system would suggest that is a good thing?"
Vat do you think, comrades? Does this sound like advocacy toward a return to bourgeois values? Does he stand in the vay of progress?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा