July 19, 2019

"For a left magazine to remove a classic gay-left essay is close to unheard of. But the remnants of The New Republic did exactly that last week..."

"... after publishing an article by Dale Peck on the candidacy and character of Pete Buttigieg, the first openly gay candidate for president in American history.... At the heart of the essay is a point that could, in someone else’s hands, have yielded a potentially nuanced insight into Buttigieg’s psyche. Buttigieg only came out four years ago; it seems his first serious relationship was and is with the man he married. Buttigieg is thereby more a homosexual than an acculturated 'gay.'... Like many others over the centuries, Buttigieg channeled this repression into becoming a classic example of 'the best little boy in the world'.... Peck tells us: Buttigieg is the gay equivalent of an 'Uncle Tom,' and he coins the term 'Mary Pete' to smear him as such.... [Peck's] 'gayer-than-thou' act is a classic of identity politics.... The point of the gay-rights movement for the left was to join other oppressed groups in overturning the entire liberal democratic and capitalist system. The point of the gay-rights movement for those of us on the right was to expand the space in which gay people can simply be themselves. That may mean embracing the identity of queer nonbinary whatever, or it may mean simply getting on with life as an individual who happens to be gay. No one is wrong to be the person they want to be. There is no right way or wrong way to be gay. I thought of Peck’s argument when confronted this week by a speech by Democratic congresswoman Ayanna Pressley.... 'We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice.' That’s why the hard left hates Buttigieg. Because he is a gay man who does not have what they believe is the correct 'queer voice.'"

Writes Andrew Sullivan (in NY Magazine).

135 comments:

doctrev said...

Uh oh. If the left is so woke they're shoving HIV positive Never Trumpers out, while the right openly reviles the cuckservatives who love their sodomy more than their nation, where does that leave Andrew?

Go back to Britain before you get yourself in trouble.

Dave Begley said...

For the Left, Mayor Pete is like The Squad. They are both immune from criticism. Intersectionality rules.

Kamala will be the nominee.

mccullough said...

What does Mayor Pete think of Sarah Palin’s uterus?


mockturtle said...

The difference is between homosexual relationships and the 'gay lifestyle' with all its sordid bathhouse behaviors and dire consequences. Yes, identity politics. Blacks who aren't 'black enough', gays who aren't 'gay' enough, women who aren't feminist enough. No individuality or actual thinking allowed. Sad.

rehajm said...

There is no right way or wrong way to be gay

Apparently, there is.

CJinPA said...

'We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice.'

How is this going to work in a future majority-minority nation? That's not a rhetorical question, I really don't see how a nation could survive this political view (which is in ascent) and the coming demographics.

n.n said...

Some are less joyful, carefree, and lighthearted than others. #NoJudgment

traditionalguy said...

Apparently Sweet Pete made a big mistake by choosing to be a Gay Man. And his children and grandchildren will also be highly affected by his choice. Free Will can be a dangerous thing.

But if Everyone was gay, then it would not matter. That seems to be the message Pete wants to spread.

Bay Area Guy said...

Peck tells us: Buttigieg is the gay equivalent of an 'Uncle Tom,' and he coins the term 'Mary Pete' to smear him as such.... [Peck's] 'gayer-than-thou' act is a classic of identity politics..

Ahh, the annals of the Left. Mayor Pete, goddamit, is not gay enough!

I chuckle:)

Mike Sylwester said...

In Sullivan's article, that is not all one long paragraph.

PhilD said...

"by a speech by Democratic congresswoman Ayanna Pressley.... 'We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. ..."

To me that qualifies congressperson Pressley as an inveterate racist. Good of her to say such things in the open. It really shows who the real neonazis are.

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Sylwester said...

Ayanna Pressley
We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice.

How come Browns and Blacks are "faces", but Muslims and queers are not "faces"?

Mike Sylwester said...

A face wants to be just a face.

It's a combination of a throat and a mouth that wants to be a voice.

AllenS said...

I don't care if you're a homo or not, but if you're white, you're a damm fool to be a Democrat.

John henry said...

I don't understand that Milky Loads is on about. I saw bits and pieces of the article and I agree that it should probably never have been published. It was pretty offensive.

However, once published, the magazine should have said "We thought this was a good idea, some disagree, but having taken the decision we will live with it."

Pretty sill tempest in a toilet if you ask me.

errrr... I mean baño. Un bufetaz en un baño (Sorry AOC)

John Henry

John henry said...

Trad guy,

Did Mayor Pete decide to be gay?

I thought he had to be born that way.

Maybe his being a volunteer is the problem.

John Henry

Mike Sylwester said...

We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice ...

We don't need Ayanna Pressley -- either her face nor her voice.

Shouting Thomas said...

Is there anything more tiresome than faggotry?

God, please bring on a new era.

This dreary shit seems to have been going on forever.

tcrosse said...

What must Peck think of Sen. Booker?

Lewis Wetzel said...

"No one is wrong to be the person they want to be."
What if I want to be a person who wants to be a murderer? Or a person who hates homosexuals?
How in the world can people write crap like "No one is wrong to be the person they want to be"?

Bay Area Guy said...

Here's the leftwing 3 step:

1. Them: I propose we do X

2. Us: I don't like X -- it's bad for the country.

3. Them: If you don't support X, You're a racist!

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Shouting Thomas said...

Has there ever been a more tiresome asshole writer than Sullivan?

How long as he been scapegoating straights for his AIDS?

Couldn’t have had anything to do with the butt fucking.

That guy is all about assholes.

Mike Sylwester said...

Ayanna Pressley should have said Faces of Color and Voices of Color.

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

What's the gay equivalent for John Derbyshire's "black black blackety black!"?

Mike Sylwester said...

We don't need Democratic congresswoman faces that don't want to be a Democratic congresswoman voice.

n.n said...

I thought he had to be born that way.

The transgender spectrum may be genetic. It may be a transversal orientation that develops following conception. It may be a later life progression of a phenotype, perhaps forced by nurture or normalization.

Ralph L said...

Where's Sullivan on the trans crap? I'll bet he's avoided it to save his own ass, but it's a bigger danger to his mainstreaming-gay activism than anti-Buttigieging.

As for the accompanying anti-Trump screed, where was he during the Cult of Obama and his enforced invincibility?

Otto said...

Ann seems fixated on queers and lesbians. A true cultural Marxist.

John henry said...

Mayor Pete has no natural children. Likely never will.

Nor does Kamala Harris. Most likely too old now.

Why should we trust someone in the presidency who are evolutionary dead ends with no skin in the game?

John Henry

chuck said...

Gay is now a political orientation, it has nothing to do with sex.

Mike Sylwester said...

I subscribed to and loved The New Republic for many years -- through the Sullivan years.

I am trying to remember why I stopped subscribing. Here's what I remember, vaguely:

* I generally agreed with the articles about homosexuals, but those articles gradually occupied too much of the magazine.

* There were too many articles about philosophy and literature that were too long.

* There were too many articles about Israel.

Frankly, though, I don't remember for sure why and when I gave up on the magazine.

A few years ago, I looked at the digital version and I was disgusted by how leftist it had become.

Jim at said...

Ahh, the annals of the Left.

You misspelled ......

Mike Sylwester said...

It seems OK to use the expression black faces when talking about African-Americans.

Bruce Hayden said...

So Buttigieg and his brand of relatively monogamous homosexuality was useful when they gays pushing for full gay acceptance and gay marriage. They were helpful because gays could be portrayed as normal, little different than heterosexuals, except for their innate sexual orientation, instead of the “fuck any male that moves” promiscuity that brought us the AIDS epidemic, that ultimately killed so many gays of my generation. I thought that I knew a lot of them, but a good friend of mine, active in the NYC art scene in the 1970s and 1980s tells of losing people she knew, artists and musicians, at a rate of one a week for awhile. With the level of gay promiscuity going on at that time, no wonder much of the country was resistant to gay marriage. It looked like a scam. But I think that it was gays like Buttigieg who are little different from heterosexuals in their promiscuity, who convinced much of America to accept gay marriage. Now that is behind them though, gays like Buttigieg can now be safely discarded from the movement as not being gay enough.

Sebastian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sebastian said...

"No one is wrong to be the person they want to be."

Nah-uh. Sorry, Andy. Everyone is wrong to be the person progs don't want them to be.

"There is no right way or wrong way to be gay."

Actually, Pressley just schooled you: there is the politically correct way to be gay, and there's the wrong way.

"Because he is a gay man who does not have what they believe is the correct 'queer voice.'"

You got it, Andy. It's all about correctness. Cuz it's all about power. You aren't that dim, are you, Andy?

Now, you got a choice: go left or go right. The left despises and wants to control you. We on the right don't. Your choice.

Same choice for the Althouses of America.

Craig Howard said...

Apparently Sweet Pete made a big mistake by choosing to be a Gay Man.

No one chooses to be gay. We've been saying that for a thousand years since it became a religious issue. But some of you just figure we're all lying because -- well, I haven't the faintest idea why you think that.

J. Farmer said...

I'm usually a sucker for gay contrarianism, but that article was pretty awful. The fact that the mayor's sexuality is such a yawn should be cause for celebration. But, of course, for the activist wing, the struggle can never be won because that would entail a loss of purpose and identity. For what it's worth, the single best book about the intersection of homosexuality and politics is Andrew Sullivan's Virtually Normal. And the single greatest quote about homosexuality belongs to Christopher Hitchens: "Homosexuality isn't just a kind of sex; it's a kind of love."

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

It is appropriate that on the day that the new The Lion King opens, I am reminded of how a pack of hyenas will turn on their own.

rcocean said...

One thing I love about identity politics is that it allows people like Sullivan to be honest. Before he went public and became "Super-gay Man" he didn't really disclose his politics and views which were being driven his homosexuality.

But now, we understand that pretty much everything he writes is influenced by his Gayness. So, we can take that into account. Like, his hatred of the Religious Right or his love of MJ (which helped him deal with AIDS). And so his defense of Mayor Pete is really a defense of himself. He wants "The Gay community" to have room for diverse Gay voices. If Sullivan was still in the closet, I wonder what kind of nonsense he'd have written.

whitney said...

I think this is being over thought completely. A Bitchy Queen wrote a nasty envious article about a more successful Queen. Anyone that has ever worked in a restaurant is unsurprised

PM said...

Sure seems complicated to be gay these days, especially, the 'right kind' of gay.
No one's more restrictive than the 'inclusive' folks.

Night Owl said...

The divisive identity politics of the left is doomed to failure in the long run. The simplified notion of brown "voices" vs white "voices" is laughable to those who are mixed race. And gays and muslims are not allowed to express their individuality, but must speak the right code or be rejected and called bigoted names? How backward is that.

By the time Trump is out of office another generation of integrated young people will have been exposed to the regressive lunacy that is modern day leftism. And more and more of them will reject it.

Dividing people by skin color and into distinct identity groups is the opposite of progress; it's racist and retrograde.

J. Farmer said...

Dividing people by skin color and into distinct identity groups is the opposite of progress; it's racist and retrograde.

It's also unavoidable. Race is one of the most significant fault lines in all of human identity.

rcocean said...

IRC, Peck's article was that Mayor Pete shouldn't be trusted because he's going to stray from his "Marriage". He'd skipped over the "Wild and Crazy" phase that most Gays go through and gone straight into marriage. And the last thing you want is a President "hooking up" with Gays on Grinder. Supposedly, this was satirical. But it brings up the point, that while President JFK** could boink interns, prostitutes, and Gangster Molls on a daily basis, with no problem, having a Gay President commit adultery would probably weird everyone out and end in resignation.

** = Of course, if Nixon had one this in 1961-1963, the Press would've broken their "Rules" and reported it, because of blah, blah, insert left-wing phony reason.

Francisco D said...

The difference is between homosexual relationships and the 'gay lifestyle' with all its sordid bathhouse behaviors and dire consequences. Yes, identity politics. Blacks who aren't 'black enough', gays who aren't 'gay' enough, women who aren't feminist enough.

I have a slightly different take.

Woke leftists do not like gays, blacks and other "oppressed" people if they are comfortable with their identities and their lives. They have to suffer oppression in order to be useful to the Left.

rcocean said...

A Lesbian President wouldn't have a sex scandal. Or at least no one would care. So, Harris is safe.

mockturtle said...

Lest we be too smug in our inclusiveness, we should ask ourselves if we are sometimes guilty [mea culpa] of castigating anyone who claims to be a Republican [like Chuck?] but who doesn't like Trump or those in the GOP party who are never-Trumpers and imply that they are Leftists? We enlightened ones can be petty, too, can we not?

Night Owl said...

"It's also unavoidable. Race is one of the most significant fault lines in all of human identity."

It doesn't have to be. In this country young people are by and large not racist. And a lot of that is due to inter-marriages. I don't see that trend dying.

rcocean said...

I wonder if Tennessee Williams would've written better plays if he could've come out of the closet. Pretty much every leading lady is a thinly disguised Tennessee Williams and every leading man, the sort of guy Williams was attracted to. Stanley was modeled after his then current boyfriend who was very macho and uncultured.

Comanche Voter said...

Interesting that old Milky Glutes should refer to the "remnants of The New Republic". Sounds like the mag has fallen on hard times.

As for the criticism of Mayor Pete and his supposedly monogamous relationship. I suppose the bulk (or at least a significant plurality) of the American public has come to accept gay marriage. I've got half a dozen or more "out" gay couples living in my immediate neighborhood and on lots of points they are just as "boring" as the straight couples. We all get along just fine.

My college roommate and fraternity brother came "out" and had a wild few years from his mid 20s into his mid 30s before settling down in a monogamous relationship with a fellow he ultimately married. At age 25 my wife and I would not have approved. Fifty years on it's all a big so what?

So Mayor Pete's life style is all a big yawn. But the author of that hit piece was pitching a hissy fit because Petey's gay life wasn't "pitch perfect". Well buddy, who said everyone has to sing from the same sheet music? Grow up.

narciso said...

you can ask milo, who is rather open in his enthusiasms, yet he probably can't transit through londinistan,

mockturtle said...

They have to concoct oppression in order to be useful to the Left. FIFY

But, yes, I get your point.

J. Farmer said...

@Night Owl:
'
It doesn't have to be. In this country young people are by and large not racist. And a lot of that is due to inter-marriages. I don't see that trend dying.

That's a bit like saying we don't have to be tribal. And yet we undeniably are. It's hardwired into our brains.

JackWayne said...

An in-kind donation to Pete’s campaign. So he’s not really gay-gay? Yawn.

wild chicken said...

The Trump post is on top now. At least Sullivan correctly describes him of more of a Mussolini type than a Hitler.

Trump is warming to his reign and do I may have to vote against him next time.

*Sigh*

mockturtle said...

Per rcocean: I wonder if Tennessee Williams would've written better plays if he could've come out of the closet. Pretty much every leading lady is a thinly disguised Tennessee Williams and every leading man, the sort of guy Williams was attracted to. Stanley was modeled after his then current boyfriend who was very macho and uncultured.

From what I've read of Tennessee Williams, he was out of the closet. But society wasn't ready for gay plays at the point [Was The Boys in the Band the first American 'out' gay play?]. And yes, like his female leads, he was often used and exploited by his lovers. Best American playwright ever, IMO. [Was the invisible 'Skipper' in COAHTR his character, I wonder?].

Night Owl said...

"We enlightened ones can be petty, too, can we not?"

Speak for yourself. :)

Chuck doesn't bug me the way he seems to bug most of you. He's just another person with opinions that sometimes seem silly to me, but so what? That defines most opinions on the internet. This new fashion of being outraged over every thing you disagree with is just tiresome. I'm ready for this fad to end, aren't you?

mockturtle said...

That's a bit like saying we don't have to be tribal. And yet we undeniably are. It's hardwired into our brains.

Farmer, you and buwaya keep insisting on this and I believe you are wrong.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Francisco D,

Woke leftists do not like gays, blacks and other "oppressed" people if they are comfortable with their identities and their lives. They have to suffer oppression in order to be useful to the Left.

I fully buy this. Woke leftists only like gays, blacks and other "oppressed" people as tools for the leftist cause. Woke leftist actively dislike gays, blacks and other 'oppressed" people if they are successful, or Pro-American, or, God forbid, conservative.

That's how they roll.

J. Farmer said...

@mockturtle:

Farmer, you and buwaya keep insisting on this and I believe you are wrong.

You don't believe we're tribal?! Here's how I can prove it to you. Do you treat your family different than you treat strangers?

J. Farmer said...

Remember, for 99% of human history, there was no civilization.

J. Farmer said...

At least Sullivan correctly describes him of more of a Mussolini type than a Hitler.

I think he's more of a Silvio Berlusconi type.

Night Owl said...

"That's a bit like saying we don't have to be tribal. And yet we undeniably are. It's hardwired into our brains. "

Do our tribes necessarily have to based on skin color? Why not economics.

Our wealthy ruling class benefits when people are divided along race, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. It keeps us regular joes from realizing that maybe we have more in common with each other then we do with the lifestyle of the rich and famous.

Why not reject attempts to force us into "tribes" that others define for us.

Qwinn said...

"No one chooses to be gay. We've been saying that for a thousand years since it became a religious issue. But some of you just figure we're all lying because -- well, I haven't the faintest idea why you think that."

Hmmm, maybe because the successful argument that was put forth by gays when they were trying to get the American Psychiatric Association to take homosexuality off the list of mental disorders in the early 70's was precisely that it IS a choice? Sure, they dropped that once it worked and it became politically useful to turn on a dime and argue the exact opposite...

mockturtle said...


You don't believe we're tribal?! Here's how I can prove it to you. Do you treat your family different than you treat strangers?



Not necessarily. But I reject your premise about the onset of 'civilization', as well, so we have no common foundation on which to build our arguments. And I wasn't intending to start one, either, just pointing out that not everyone accepts your theories as gospel.

Ralph L said...

Why should we trust someone in the presidency who are evolutionary dead ends with no skin in the game?

May, Macron, and Merkel made a mess.

I had a college friend who grew up in Bermuda. She was all for their intermarriages, I wasn't, but they may be our best hope. But public housing doesn't seem to be as integrated as much as trailer parks are, so cities will still have problems.

Gunner said...

Why does Mr. Peck, a forty-something gay man, write like he is a 15 year old spoiled white girl?

mockturtle said...

And incidentally, Farmer, my family, e.g., children and grandchildren, includes American black, Filipino, Hispanic and Korean as well as white.

J. Farmer said...

@Night Owl:

Do our tribes necessarily have to based on skin color? Why not economics.

You can't tell someone's economics by looking at them.

Why not reject attempts to force us into "tribes" that others define for us.

Is your family something that others define for you? Race is just a very large extended family. Why do you prioritize your immediate family's needs over, say, some kid in Cameroon?

Night Owl said...

My family is Irish and Puerto-Rican, with all skin colors. A "tribe" defined by skin color doesn't work for me and mine.

J. Farmer said...

@mockturtle:

And I wasn't intending to start one, either, just pointing out that not everyone accepts your theories as gospel.

I didn't really consider that an argument. I considered it a discussion over something we disagree on. No need to take it personally.

And incidentally, Farmer, my family, e.g., children and grandchildren, includes American black, Filipino, Hispanic and Korean as well as white.

Fine. That has nothing to do with anything I said. My point is that people prioritize the need of their immediate families over the needs of strangers. That is the essential nature of tribalism. Borders are another example.

rcocean said...

And I think Sullivan and people like him are more the Trotsky type. I'm sure he would agree.

J. Farmer said...

My family is Irish and Puerto-Rican, with all skin colors. A "tribe" defined by skin color doesn't work for me and mine.

That's the continuum fallacy. "Skin color" is merely a proxy.

Night Owl said...

And sure you can tell people's economics by looking at them. Ask any mean girl.

Night Owl said...

"That's the continuum fallacy. "Skin color" is merely a proxy."

(I have no idea what this means.)

mockturtle said...

I suspect Farmer grew up in either an all-white or highly segregated environment. Not all of us did. Interestingly, here in Fairbanks, AK, there a quite a few blacks and Asians as well as native folk. There is an Air Force base here so perhaps that accounts for much of the multiracial environment. But even among the natives I see no indication of 'hardwired' tribalism here or anywhere else in AK, nor at home in AZ. Racial and ethnic intermarriage has blurred any distinction [which is a hollow distinction at any rate] of race. But, as the Night Owl wisely suggests, economic class is a far more quantifiable distinction.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

If Pete was coming on strong in the candidacy race this would never have been printed. But he’s a no-hoper so he has to be culled. Now. The frenetic fear of the Donks is palpable.

daskol said...

I know a few people who are very hostile to Mayor Pete, Bernie and Betsy lovers. I suspect that it's the Mayor's perceived inauthenticity behind their antipathy, some combination of his corporate background, technocratic outlook, feints at Christianity--in short, his failure to be the queer voice his queer self should be.

Wa St Blogger said...

'We don’t need any more [white] faces that don’t want to be a [white] voice. We don’t need [male] faces that don’t want to be a [male] voice. We don’t need [Christians] that don’t want to be a [Christian] voice. We don’t need [straights] that don’t want to be a [Straight] voice.'

Yes, we should all be true to our most base identities. Every soyboy, straight, white, male who advocates for LGBT, women, black, hispanic, rights should be shunned and ridiculed. If you are not loud and proud about your true self everything you are a traitor to your kind and deserve ostracization.

The left wants to foment race/sex/religious wars. Yeah, that will end well for the minorities.

J. Farmer said...

@mockturtle:

I suspect Farmer grew up in either an all-white or highly segregated environment. Not all of us did.

I grew up in Tampa, Flrida. Here are the demographics: 46% white, 26% black, 23% Hispanic, 3% Asian. I also lived in Thailand and South Korea in my 20s.

But even among the natives I see no indication of 'hardwired' tribalism here or anywhere else in AK, nor at home in AZ

The minute you stop making distinctions between your family members and strangers, then you can lecture me about your supposed lack of tribalism.

[which is a hollow distinction at any rate]

Tell that to a black person who needs a bone marrow transplant.

J. Farmer said...

Read Robert Sapolsky's Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst if you want a deep dive on the subject.

Tommy Duncan said...

"We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice."

This is political correctness on steroids. You are confined to the set of views that are assigned to your identity group. Do not attempt to be an individual or you will be exiled and punished for your Think Crime.

The only thing George Orwell got wrong was the year.

TJM said...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Francisco D said...

You can't tell someone's economics by looking at them.

Restaurant servers are pretty good at that. In the Chicago suburbs, the most casual guy in the room (but with nice hair) is usually the richest. The well dressed ones are upwardly mobile middle class. Poorer people tend to dress up, but with cheap, currently fashionable clothes.

Sales people usually get that. The slob who walks into the car showroom in dirty jeans and t-shirt often buys the most expensive car ... in cash.

J. Farmer said...

@Francisco D:

I think that is confusing economics with economic status. Telling if someone is rich or poor is not the same as telling if someone is a Keynesian or an Austrian or a socialist or an anarcho-capitalist.

wild chicken said...

I think of tribalism as more about extended family as well as immediate. Your clan. But we've lost a lot of clan loyalty in the last 50 years. People used to actually know their third and fourth cousins, I hear.



Caligula said...

"Buttigieg is thereby more a homosexual than an acculturated 'gay.'"

Does the author even consider that The True and Only Path of Woke Righteousness has become so narrow and so full of twists and curves that at some point people are just going to go entirely off of it and start pushing back at those who demanded they walk it?

mockturtle said...

The purity of political correctness is much like the latter stages of the French Revolution where, at one point, NO ONE was revolutionary enough. Off with his head!

mockturtle said...

Tribes form and stay together for reasons of survival, which includes economic and self-defense factors. Religion can also be a factor but not skin color. Would I treat a white person better than a black or Asian person just because he/she is white, like myself? No, I would not. Maybe Farmer would.

mockturtle said...

I think of tribalism as more about extended family as well as immediate. Your clan. But we've lost a lot of clan loyalty in the last 50 years. People used to actually know their third and fourth cousins, I hear.

And we know what happens with too much inbreeding: You end up like the British Royal Family.

J. Farmer said...

@mockturtle:

Tribes form and stay together for reasons of survival

That is precisely why they are hardwired into the human brain.

Would I treat a white person better than a black or Asian person just because he/she is white, like myself? No, I would not. Maybe Farmer would.

Oh please get off your high horse. People are judged on their individual character, not their group affiliation. All groups contain good and bad.

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

mockturtle: I suspect Farmer grew up in either an all-white or highly segregated environment.

No, it's homogeneous environments that tend to make people oblivious to the tribal nature of human beings.

Growing up in a pretty much all-white social environment, in a segregated American city, I absorbed all the nice liberal coca-cola commercial, anti-"racist" views about human nature. Any sort of "tribal" tendencies were taught, not innate, and only uneducated trash thought otherwise. It wasn't really until I lived outside that environment (away from whites, away from Western pieties) that it sank in that this was a lot of nonsense.

I do not think "tribalism" is inherently a bad thing, as you seem to. It just is. Humans are what they are. It doesn't mean you hate, or aren't interested in, non-tribe members. (It can get ugly, of course, as anything human can get ugly when there is competition for limited resources.) Nor does it mean that tribal identities are some kind of eternal essence: tribes change, evolve, dissolve - but tribalism remains.

Bruce Hayden said...

“A Lesbian President wouldn't have a sex scandal. Or at least no one would care. So, Harris is safe.”

Except maybe from her partner. Lesbians appear often to quickly move to little sex in their relationships, but far more vicious fighting than you usually see in either straight or gay relationships. Remember when the Secret Service was conflicted when one of their primaries (FLOTUS) apparently routinely physically assaulted another primary (POTUS), including throwing an ashtray at him? I suspect that with a lesbian couple in the WH, there might be quite a bit of that. But the, It has long been rumored that that FLOTUS was a lesbian.

Ken B said...

Every time I see Jodie Foster I feel a slight jolt, a wee intake of breath. It’s annoying in a movie because it happens on every cut. No-one has ever had quite so strong an effect on me.

Will anyone argue that I *chose* that response? Ridiculous. But it's the response at the core of being straight.

If I didn’t choose being straight then neither did any gay choose to be gay.

Night Owl said...

I think that is confusing economics with economic status. Telling if someone is rich or poor is not the same as telling if someone is a Keynesian or an Austrian or a socialist or an anarcho-capitalist.

True. But your average person could not define those terms and doesn't really care about economic theories. They hear words like "capitalism" and "socialism" defined simplistically by politicians, but few could really explain or care what the differences are.

I was talking about economic status, which is easily definable even to the uneducated, and matters a lot to most people.

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

mocK: Would I treat a white person better than a black or Asian person just because he/she is white, like myself? No, I would not. Maybe Farmer would.

Whoa, mock. You are hauling one huge buttload of unwarranted assumptions here.

pious agnostic said...

I don't think anyone chooses their sexual orientation.

I think everyone chooses their sexual behavior.

I think by choosing to repeat certain sex acts, any individual can become inured to even the most awful stuff.

Whether you were born straight or born gay, nobody was born getting sexual pleasure by being pooped on. But it's out there if you want to Google it.

Or maybe I'm wrong. It happens.

mockturtle said...

Angle-Dyne protests: Whoa, mock. You are hauling one huge buttload of unwarranted assumptions here.

What, specifically?

mockturtle said...

Urban ghetto black culture is quite different from that of blacks growing up in small towns, highly integrated environments or even in the rural south. To say that skin color is the defining trait is ridiculous.

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

mock to JF: "I think of tribalism as more about extended family as well as immediate. Your clan. But we've lost a lot of clan loyalty in the last 50 years. People used to actually know their third and fourth cousins, I hear."

And we know what happens with too much inbreeding: You end up like the British Royal Family.


Possession of an extended family ≠ inbreeding.

mockturtle said...

Angle, as you well know, prior to greater mobility, people often married cousins and other 'clan' members. Even first cousins. And the British Royal family is related to other [especially German] royal families, many of whom married cousins and other close relations.

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

mock: What, specifically?

That someone who believes that tribal tendencies are hard-wired won't judge people as individuals and probably thinks it's OK to be a jerk to people not of his own race.

mockturtle said...

I didn't say he did. I said 'maybe' he would, as he was implying it was hard-wired into his brain.

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

Angle, as you well know, prior to greater mobility, people often married cousins and other 'clan' members. Even first cousins. And the British Royal family is related to other [especially German] royal families, many of whom married cousins and other close relations.

Which still doesn't make "extended family" a synonym for "inbreeding". (I am a member of a large multi-racial/ethnic extended family. I know my xth's and my twice-and-thrice removeds. No inbreeding problems in sight. Nor would there be any if the dominant ethnic gang of the extended family - northwestern European whites - had just kept on marrying other people of nw Euro descent.)

Moreover, JF's comment about the decline of extended family relations hardly suggests some kind of advocacy of dysgenic levels of cousin-marriage. So I'm not seeing how your comment about inbreeding follows from JF's comment.

Howard said...

You trumpsters are a tribe that Farmer wants to join

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

mock: I didn't say he did. I said 'maybe' he would, as he was implying it was hard-wired into his brain.

The "maybe" doesn't follow, either. And his personal feelings have no bearing on the truth of his assertion, anyway.

In any case there is no reason to simply *assume* any such thing, since he's right here, and you could ask him, if you're curious about such OT information.

mockturtle said...

I am a member of a large multi-racial/ethnic extended family. I know my xth's and my twice-and-thrice removeds.

How quaint.

Michael K said...

Did I mention that Howard is a troll ?

Phidippus said...

Shouting Thomas @7/19/19, 1:14 PM: Hear, hear! My thoughts exactly.

As John Derbyshire said in this connection, "How perfectly disgusting." (YMMV, of course.)

Honest, I'm a live and let live guy, but please stop rubbing my nose in your personal issues. Too much information for civilized life. Boundaries, people, boundaries. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Ye gods, that this even needs to be said.

Lydia said...

Why should we trust someone in the presidency who are evolutionary dead ends with no skin in the game?

You can have "skin in the game" even if you've never had kids of your own. Read this piece Kamala Harris wrote about her stepchildren and then tell me she's got no investment in the future.

robother said...

Sullivan: "The point of the gay-rights movement for the left was to join other oppressed groups in overturning the entire liberal democratic and capitalist system."

This offers the best explanation of why the whole Trans thing erupted right after the SCOTUS gay marriage ruling. For the leftist LGBTQ movement, gay marriage opened the door to mainstream homosexuality. Not only did the Left lose the issue as something to beat straight bourgeois culture with, but marriage itself threatens the radical alienation that is at the heart of the Progressive project to remake the entire society. Civility "conservatives" who seek to appease the SJW with concessions should realize that only whets their appetite for more extreme measures.

mockturtle said...

Robother asserts: Civility "conservatives" who seek to appease the SJW with concessions should realize that only whets their appetite for more extreme measures.

Yep. An inch---->a mile. It should have been nipped in the bud.

Laslo Spatula said...

Evidently, to be authentic Mayor Pete would need to do a guest appearance on "So You Think You Can Fist?".

I am Laslo.

Howard said...

Teh gay realy gets you cucks hot and bothered, eh Lazlo

buwaya said...

I may be misunderstood -
Tribes are inevitable, but it’s not at all impossible to integrate outsiders, even racially distinct outsiders.
I grew up in such a society, and seen many more.
Colonialism ran a hundred such experiments.
Consider Mexico.
That place is, in the main, one mestizo tribe. You can exclude some outlying areas and various tribal minorities, but these are minorities.
The bulk of the population is what my father in law was, as we know from genetic analysis, 50% white and 50% Indio. Almost all Mexicans are some sort of mestizo, even the Indians.
But Mexico is Mexico, one tribe.
Whatever their faults they have a particular and distinct identity.

In the US today however you have a very different situation. After a hundred years or so, maybe, this place may settle on a unified identity, but not without a lot of trouble.

buwaya said...

And it matters a very great deal who integrates with whom.
Consider Germany. If the point was to import a supplemental population because the Germans were failing to reproduce, then they went about it in the worst possible way. They chose some of the least compatible people on earth. I have no idea what it would take to make those people Germans, if it’s possible at all.

If they had organized the whole thing in a proper German manner they would have sought compatible, useful and trouble-free people.
They could have had their pick of SouthEast Asia say.
Heck, they would have done far better to import a million Mexicans.
Had they done something that rational they would now have a couple of million productive ersatz Germans, and Merkel would be enormously more popular.

Francisco D said...

Howard said... Teh gay realy gets you cucks hot and bothered, eh Lazlo

One less martini tonight Howard, and you might have made better sense.

On a positive note, the olives probably have some of the fiber you need.

Michael K said...

But Mexico is Mexico, one tribe.
Whatever their faults they have a particular and distinct identity.


I'm not so sure. The people you know are not the very dark, very small Indian women begging in the streets of Ensenada. Their malnourished babies are by their side. They don't speak Spanish, let alone English. They are from villages with little, if any, Spanish blood. When I was reviewing workers comp claims in California, a third were these central Mexico immigrants, all illegal ands claiming, at best, a second grade education. They are illiterate and don't speak any modern language.

buwaya said...

The people you saw are a minority in Mexico, Indios of one flavor or another.
The US seems to be getting a disproportionate number of them.
But they are not representative.

mockturtle said...

Buwaya@9:50PM: Very good points, as usual. A nation is certainly better off with Hispanic or East Asian migrants than with Middle Eastern if it wants them to integrate into its culture, as shortsighted Europe is learning at its peril.

PhilD said...

'mockturtle': "as shortsighted Europe is learning at its peril"

I remember a special issue of 'Newsweek' end of the 1980s (a time when Newsweek was definitely right of center) called, I believe, "The changing face of Europe". I'm still angry when I think of it. See, the problems there already were were of course because of the racism of us, Europeans. What if there was a large group which didn't integrate and caused problems? It was all because of 'colonialism' that they were hostile to us. We just had to take it, be better, become more 'melting pot' like the big fat USA showed us. Why we had to accept the immigration of a hostile population (normally, as 1939 shows, a cause for war) wasn't explained. Oh, and islam wasn't, as far as I remember, even mentioned.
So while I do agree with your 'shortsighted Europe' you aren't any better, to keep it nice.

DEEBEE said...

https://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/BROWN.jpg

Michael said...

Would Mayor Pete encourage his husband to have an abortion. What if he wanted one?

Kevin said...

It seems OK to use the expression black faces when talking about African-Americans.

Individuals generally refer to their black ass.

Which is problematic when you plan to follow that with a comment about their voice.

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

mock: How quaint.

No idea what that's supposed to mean, but I'll assume it isn't "Yes, you're right, 'extended family' is not a synonym for 'inbred'".

exhelodrvr1 said...

The "tribe" has become less family-oriented over the past 50 years, primarily, I suspect, because of the increasing mobility of our society. People don't stay in close proximity to where they were born nearly to the extent that they used to, and if they move, the entire group of families, or a significant subset of it, doesn't move together.

Narayanan said...

Does Mayor Pete know how much commonality with VP Pence on fidelity to partner?
They are both being attacked!

They should hold Fidelity Summit!

Narayanan said...

exhelodrvr1 said...
The "tribe" has become less family-oriented ... Etc.

What is impact of Digital Community and exclusive platforms?

Narayanan said...

How did Gramsci influence West? If Translation into English was only recently?

Sam L. said...

Sooooo, a gay man that doesn't talk in a gay voice. The HORROR!! The horror... CLEARLY, he's not a REAL Democrat.

mockturtle said...

Angle: No, extended family is not synonymous with inbreeding. Only when a large clan is confined to a area with no one to marry but cousins. Some of my mother's ancestors were tobacco farmers in the 'hollers' around Asheville, NC. Hillbillies, one might call them. Marrying cousins was not only common but almost unavoidable.

mockturtle said...

And as to the 'how quaint', I was just being snotty. ;-)

james said...

Snatches of sanity from Sullivan occasionally over the last year or so. Of course, he's stuck. He can't go back again. And he'll never challenge the left from the inside like he did the right. Because the cost of doing the former is much higher that that of doing the later. And he's not that brave.