I have avoided Breitbart for so long that I wanted to test my feeling that it's not for me. I got this far on the front page:
I cannot read this stuff. It's written to titillate people who are not me. Both of those headlines give off a (deniable) homophobic vibe.
पोस्ट्स
११८ टिप्पण्या:
I am not a big Breitbart media fan but am a big fan of Breitbart as a person. Big loss when he died.
I see nothing homophobic in those headlines at all. Yes they are clickbait but so is any headline in any media, including the NYT..
Am I missing something Professor?
Nice thing about the internet tubes, you can pinch off things that offend you.
I agree with Jefferson's Revenge. I don't read Breitbart.. but I also don't read propaganda rags that lie to me like the New York Times and the Washington Post..both who should return the Pulitzers they recieved for their Russian Collusion lies that they have YET to apologize for. THAT is worse than anything I see in those headlines.
Some more of your famous "cruel neutrality"?
The NYT and WaPo can lie to your face for fifty years, and you'll defend them to the death.
But you actively look for reasons to be offended by, and avoid, Breitbart.
Cognitive dissonance can be a bitch. (Opps I used the word "bitch"...does that make me a woman hater?)
I think you are reading too much into those headlines Ann.
Sorry my racism/Islamo-LBGT++- magnifying glass is in the shop being polished. Don't see it.
Thank God there are millions of others ever alert to sniff out these horrifying injustices.
I find use of the word "vacay" to be off-putting.
Don't get me started on "veggies."
Detesting Breitbart = virtue signaling in Madison. Too boring for further comment.
Detesting Breitbart = virtue signaling in Madison. Too boring for further comment.
Yeah, that recent Times article about how to clean your sex toys was pretty classy compared to this.
Like everything is racist, now everything is homophobic. Wokeness expands.
Would Ann faint upon reading even farther right sources such as The Gateway Pundit?
Would Ann faint upon finding posts from the even farther right commentator "Catturd"?
Would Ann faint upon reading the New York Times in 2022 (see next Althouse blog entry)?
The front page is way too busy.
I see "emasculation" as more feminist than homophobic. Discuss.
Right wing sites are now clickbait for the same intelligence as left wing sites. It's a business.
Andrew Breitbart had the Left’s number, how to turn their tactics back on them… all with a smile and a sense of humor.
A happy warrior.
Jefferson's Revenge said... "I am not a big Breitbart media fan but am a big fan of Breitbart as a person. Big loss when he died."
Same here, and I'm not sure Andrew would 100% approve of the media legacy bearing his name.
Vacay? Yes. Emasculated? Not seeing the gay angle.
I don't read Breitbart either. I try to do my thinking without a goal about where my thinking will lead me. I feel more confident in my disgust with the left knowing it was arrived at honestly.
It's homophobic to think emasculation is homophobic. You are assuming homosexual men are not masculine. It okay to assume Right wing hypermasculine phonies and Incels are self emasculated, however. Therefore Paul is the one emasculated here. Also, the vacay headline writer doth proteth too muth.
What's wrong with reporting that our Transportation secretary was on another vacation whilst a crisis was going on in our country?? How is THAT homophobic?? Because he is gay?? We can't bitch about them not doing their jobs, if they are gay or black?? Jesus. The left can't take what they love to dish out, can they??
How is Buttigieg being absent during a crisis, and derelict in his duties (again), not a legitimate news story? He will not be criticized in the regular mainstream press. And anyone who does express disapproval will be accused of homophobia. Just as when the supply chain was breaking down, and ships were backed up at the ports, while Pete and his husband smiled for the camera during a months-long paternity leave. To expect him to do his job is anti-gay, just as surely as asking a POC to do his job is racism.
And "emasculated"? That word is used all the time, in the context of rendering someone passive and inoperative. There's nothing homophobic about it.
Sometimes you disappoint, Professor. You're usually less knee-jerk than this.
Those are Rand Paul's words. And no- it's not referring to gayness. It's another way of saying they refuse to, or cannot take up the role of leadership. And in that- he's correct.
As for Breitbart- it is what it is. I rarely read it myself. It's too mucked up for me. The layout reminds me of a political version of The Enquirer. But that's their thing and they do pretty well with it. And they do offer up some good information if you can dig through the crap to find it. In that, it's like the NYT.
Apologies if this is a repeat post ... problems with blogger
"Emasculated" is a quote from a sitting Senator, and the extended quote is provided in video and text in the full article.
Should the media shield the public from that, perhaps akin to what many at NY Times would have for Sen. Tom Cotton? To my mind, to do so would be unelevated and undignified.
Also, suggesting that the term and accurate use in a quote (by Breitbart) does, or is intended to, give off a (deniable) "homophobic" vibe, itself, seems (deniably) written to titillate people.
"Emasculated" as used in context, by Sen. Paul, seems more likely to have be used in the sense that the GOP has been "deprive[d] of strength, vigor, or spirit" See (1): https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emasculate Nothing homophobic about that use, at least to an even-handed or "reasonably elevated and dignified" audience.
That said, headlines are often/usually meant to titillate, from the left and right. I find that less problematic when the headline is accurate, as in the present case (as a quote).
I understand the desire to avoid certain outlets, and I am thankful for memeorandum.com for facilitating choice to read different perspectives on same/similar items, and to do so with increased ability to avoid repeatedly undignified journalism. My recent experience leads me to find most MSM journalism increasingly and repeatedly less dignified.
Emasculation comes from a time before men rescuing women from a flood was toxic masculinity.
It has nothing to do with homophobia, another made-up term to describe people who don't agree with the latest perversion.
You are aware that "emasculated" is from a direct quote?
“Would Ann faint upon reading even farther right sources such as The Gateway Pundit?
Would Ann faint upon finding posts from the even farther right commentator "Catturd"?
Would Ann faint upon reading the New York Times in 2022 (see next Althouse blog entry)?”
I doubt Ann would faint, after all she’s read comments right here in her comments sections for many years.
I fail to see how they are homophobic.
Some people just see homophobia/racism/sexiis wherever they look.
Some singer just canceled a concert in Australia because, she said, the audience was a bunch of white racists. She had previously slammed all Australian as white racists.
Australians are boorish and rude to everyone. Nothing to do with race.
But she is black so she sees racism.
There was nothing in the story that showed any racism
(yawn)
"Would Ann faint upon reading even farther right sources such as The Gateway Pundit?"
Well, those mean libertarians made her cry, years ago, so who knows.
Anyway, "homophobia" is a culture-war trope, eagerly sought in the uncouth trashiness of righty media and deployed exclusively against deplorables. Case in point: attributing a "phobia" against homosexuals to Paul Ryan.
"Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said Wednesday on Fox Business Network’s “Kudlow” that Republicans had “emasculated” themselves by agreeing to the framework for an omnibus spending bill to fund the government through 2023.
Paul said, “This brings upon us the lie that Republicans really are fiscally conservative. The Democrats aren’t. They will not pretend to be fiscally conservative. Not one of them up here gives a darn about the debt. The Republicans all profess to be, but when you make them vote on the PAYGO resolution, pay as you go, that we can’t have new spending without offsetting it, they always vote to exempt it. So the omnibus will be 3,000 pages. We’ll get it two hours before they want to pass it. No one will read it. But hidden in the 3,000 pages will be we’re going to wave PAYGO.”
He added, “It would take 41 votes. Forty-one votes would stop the big spending. If 41, one of us said no and held our ground until there was a compromise, we could force Democrats to reduce spending. We have completely and totally abdicated the power of the purse. Republicans are emasculated. They have no power, and they are unwilling to gain that power back.”
Thanks for the reminder that I should read Brietbart once in a while.
WaPo is unreadable D-hack clap crap.
Agree with Temujin. again. 7:03
Rand is the very last of the real conservatives.
The GOP are big Spending/ Debt hiking Democrat LT. (Trump was as big a spender as the D's, too btw)
I don't read Breitbart because I they are gaslighting R's and D's.
To my eye both headlines are closer to the classic neutral tone than most I see quoted from NYT on this blog. I guess homophobia is in the eye of the beholder. And here’s my standard disclaimer that “homophobia” is a ridiculous slur because literally no one fears homos. It’s the crazy transactivists that are terrorizing children and families nationwide. All the gay people I know are fairly conservative.
"Am I missing something Professor?"
Yes. What you're missing is the programming that has been installed in leftists. That programming says that if you write a news article about a gay person that is critical of that person's job performance, you ONLY DID IT because you are a homophobe. Gay people are UNTOUCHABLES.
It's not because that gay person was fking off on vacation during a national emergency that related specifically to that gay person's job. It's ONLY because you are a homophobe and your speech constitutes hate speech.
That is the programming that has been installed in this person.
Maybe dilettanting around vacationing is a gay thing to do, I dunno. Is it?
He’s not my cup of tea either. But it’s important to lean in to some things that initially repel you.
There may be comfort in our bubbles, but not the whole truth.
The Gateway Pundit: my liberal friend’s fave go2 accusation of my source for news.
I get more varied info here- in the linked articles, Althouse musings(though close to the chest)& all comments that I have plenty of fodder for rumination.
Any other sources are read w/out looking at comment sections.
It’s all a lot to think on.
Or, as Jack Nicholson loudly proclaims in “A Few Good Men,” “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!”
Was Breitbart supposed to Bowdlerize Rand Paul’s direct quote to avoid triggering your tender sensibilities? I’m very glad they didn’t.
Put what really sets me off is your childish expression of distaste at the alleged homophobia of criticizing the Secretary of Transportation going off on vacation with a rail strike looking. Twenty-three months ago Joe Biden shut down wok on the Keystone pipeline, so oil from Canada comes to the US in the tank cars of the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad,making Democrat contributor Warren Buffett ever richer. Except if there’s a lengthy rail strike and a tough winter then that will be very, very bad for a lot of poor people. But it is homophobic to criticize Secretary Buttigieg for not actively working the problem because he’s gay. Is that about it?
You are not cruelly neutral. You’re just cruel. And heartless when it comes to anyone not named Althouse.
I have avoided Breitbart for so long that I wanted to test my feeling that it's not for me. I got this far on the front page:
[Image] I cannot read this stuff. It's written to titillate people who are not me. Both of those headlines give off a (deniable) homophobic vibe.
You have to give Ann credit for being somewhat honest here and taking a positive step forward.
She will not admit yet it is tribal class consciousness that allows her to accept obvious demeaning lies in order to retain her class membership, nor will she talk about her fundamental need to feel superior to other groups of people.
But she is taking steps to address it.
She knew at some level the weakness this post is showing and that takes courage.
I think she has been trying for a while.
The professor's bait is unappealing.
Yesterday’s article by Mia Mercado was any different?
"I cannot read this stuff. It's written to titillate people who are not me. Both of those headlines give off a (deniable) homophobic vibe."
I don't read Breitbart either, but "(deniable) homophobic vibe"? From those headlines?
Crikey!
Ann is a very proper lady of a certain generation. She sees Buttigieg as a nice-looking, clean-cut young man, and she feels protective of him. Rand Paul, on the other hand, is a noisy brute.
/ whyI do read the New York Times.
Sometimes the person seemingly being attacked for a group identity - racial, ethnic, sexual, political- is being attacked because the person is just being an ass. And I mean that in the ancient meaning, of behaving like an ignorant stubborn noisy quadruped similar to a mule, not in any homosexually referential manner. Buttegeig just maybe qualifies for this category, regardless of his sexuality.
Cruz and Rand Paul talk a good game, but never use their power to actually do anything.
I don't read Breitbart. Much of it is clickbait. Some idiot somewhere says something stupid, and they dig it up to give readers someone to attack. As with the singling out of some idiot on the right by left-wing media, it gives a distorting view of the world as a place with no sane middle ground, and the perceived nuttiness on the other side encourages those on one's own side to go further in their own nuttiness.
Still, I don't see anything homophobic about the headlines. Buttigieg isn't as bad as Sam Brinton, but he's incompetent, irresponsible, and politically tone-deaf. Is "vacay" offensive? I'd say it relates to his irresponsibility, not to his homosexuality. The Paul headline is retro -- we no longer identify power and agency with having testicles, or we feel we shouldn't -- but so many gay men are anything but emasculated that it's hard to think of Paul's words or the headline as a jab at gay men. You might have done better to see it aimed at women -- or eunuchs.
In reference to Buttigieg, one problem that gays, women, minority groups, and pretty much everybody face is, do you want your group or yourself to be accepted as you are with the behaviors you have, or do you want to assimilate to an idea of competence and responsibility. Do you want to be Sam Brinton or do you want to be Rick Grenell (or some other half-way competent and responsible gay politico)?
There's a divide within groups between those who want to have their eccentricities approved and validated by the world, and those who strive to overcome the stereotypes. If you're Mayor Pete, you can't have it both ways. If you present yourself as a competent administrator, you'll be judged by your managerial abilities and commitment to your job. If you're criticized for your failures, you can't just blame homophobia.
Why was Rand’s quote selected as the top story?
Obviously they chose to go big on readers’ fear of losing their masculinity, a ridiculous right wing hobbyhorse.
The Hostess is a typical liberal: finding offense via gay/racial/ethnic assumptions that have little or NO base in reality. And her "rightwing" (sic) comment at 9:25 comments are right in line. It is truly laughable that the entire Left has no idea of their sex and libs like Ann are projecting that topic as a right-wing "hobbyhorse" (sic).
It must get ponderous to be so fixated.
Marcus B. THEOLDMAN
I always looks for
I don't waste time with what's left of Breitbart. But... Homophobic?
I think "emasculated" here is obviously taken to mean something more like castration. As, for example, the idea that a stallion that is gelded is therefore removed of its potency. Paul is saying that the whatever-doing by the GOP makes the party ineffective. Not foppish, or cartoonishly gay, or whatever Ann surmises.
To my surprise I somewhat agree with the first two sentences in Howard's post.
This is what democracy look like when the express will of the people are thwarted where peaceful protesters like ashley babbitt are murdered and medals are given
Where cities burn and all charges are dropped where the most disgusting abominations are celebrated
perhaps "emasculated" wasn't the best choice of word...
..In this day and age of hyper-sensitivity to words.
Rand is spot on regarding the R-party and their spending hypocrisy. They don't do their jobs and read the legislation or bills - or anything - and they spend money like the corruptocrats.
Rome if you want to.
We need to pass it first - to see what is in it.
The NYT and WaPo can lie to your face for fifty years, and you'll defend them to the death.
I’ve never noticed our hostess defending those shitrags, and I’ve been reading this blog almost from the start. In fact, she systematically critiques them. As a cis white female of a certain boomer age, she has a lifelong respect for their institutional status that precedes by decades any other US quotidian publication that is generally available today. It’s instinctive for her to reach for them as one would reach for toilet paper. That isn’t the same as a defense of what they publish.
- Krumhorn
As Ann hops on her homo horse for clickbait.
Why was Rand’s quote selected as the top story?
Well there used to be this thing called the "news" where the media wrote and talked about things that were actually happening. Perhaps Breitbart is trying to bring that back?
Obviously they chose to go big on readers’ fear of losing their masculinity, a ridiculous right wing hobbyhorse.
Riiight...because the Leftwing and popular culture haven't been attacking, insulting and denigrating men and masculinity for the last forty years.
School haven't been drugging young boys into docility for the last thirty years.
"Toxic masculinity" isn't a well-used phrase. (Has anyone ever seen the phrase "toxic femininity" ever used?)
Law professors don't respond to the legitimate complaints of men by calling them splooge stooges.
It's all in our heads.
I don't see the problem with the two headlines. Bringing back a phrase from the early 70s,
"What you see is what you get."
Is it homophobic to report that Mayor Pete is missing in action during a threatened rail strike? I guess so--for some people.
In fact, she systematically critiques them.
As to style, not content. She still relies on them to inform her.
Fella was taking a Rorshach test. He saw sexual content in every ink blot. Therapist says "You seem to be sexally obsessed". Me?! You're the one with all the dirty pictures!
>Ann Althouse said...
"Obviously they chose to go big on readers’ fear of losing their masculinity, a ridiculous right wing hobbyhorse."<
"Obviously," but of course... (Almost as risible as the "homophobic" bit.)
This is sex (sorry, "gender")-obsessed delusion. Perpetually search for anything that might be conflated to a gender slight and hop on.
Breitbart readers laugh at this especially spurious example of it.
Ann,
Obviously they chose to go big on readers’ fear of losing their masculinity, a ridiculous right wing hobbyhorse.
I am a reader, and a woman. You also are a reader, and a woman. Do either of us "fear losing our masculinity"? As for "ridiculous right wing hobbyhorse," well, if you are constantly being told that masculinity, as such, is "toxic," then I think men might have a tiny little grievance there. Don't you?
And as for Buttigieg: What Big Mike said. I don't remember any tender solicitude from you about Ted Cruz being in Cancun while his state was freezing; is Buttigieg immune from criticism b/c of his gayness? I do understand that your maidenly ears ought to be protected from language like "vacay," but surely the larger question is what, if anything, Buttigieg was doing about the threatened railway strike. (The threat isn't over yet, as you'll of course know.)
Obviously they chose to go big on readers’ fear of losing their masculinity, a ridiculous right wing hobbyhorse.
How many years did you spend in academia learning how to conclude such drivel. “Obviously” my left buttock.
Is the homophobia you're seeing in the Buttigieg headline:
a) in his name ("Butt")?
b) do only gay couples go on vacation?
c) do you believe the headline is implying that Pete is getting "railed" on vacation by his husband?
You're really stretching it there. "Emasculated" is hardly a homophobic word either, and seems pretty consistent with Rand Paul's style of discourse but at least it involves testicles so if any ball-talk is sexual, one could understand (if not agree with) your impression of that headline.
What's the second homophobic one, then; the "Breitbart" banner? Breitbart post-Andrew is mostly not for me, either - and anytime I drop into reading the comments on any story it confirms that it's definitely not for me - but that Buttigieg railway strike vacation headline isn't even close to being what you think it is. You're just primed to think even a mention of a gay official in a right-wing publication is automatically "homophobic". Most could call that a blind spot; it's certainly not neutral (cruel or otherwise).
It’s unreadable. It’s the Salon of the right.
The right wing hobby horse isn't fear of losing masculinity. It is legitimate pushback against pervasive demonization of masculinity.
How, exactly, are those headlines "homophobic"? Are homosexual men emasculated as some sort of general rule in the eyes of the Left? Paul had it correct- the Senate Republicans surrendered any political leverage they will have come January by agreeing to this lame duck deal with the Democrats- this was an up and up Democrat bill McConnell agreed to pass before majority Republicans in the House even have a chance to get sworn into office.
The second headline is misleading, though- it isn't like Buttigieg is taking any trains around Europe- no doubt he is flying in private aircraft everywhere, with just enough official duties involved to pass the bill to the taxpayers- like any other government official.
Krumhorn: "As a cis white female"
Thanks. Now I don't have to take any of your comments seriously.
Marcus B. THEOLDMAN
"Why was Rand’s quote selected as the top story?
Obviously they chose to go big on readers’ fear of losing their masculinity, a ridiculous right wing hobbyhorse."
It may simply be included as a NEWSWORTHY provocative quote from a sitting Senator about the power dynamics of his party. Maybe, “to go big on readers’ fear of losing their masculinity, a ridiculous right wing hobbyhorse” but not obviously.
Emasculation is having someone by the balls.
And squeezing.
IMhumbleO.
"Emasculated" is a quote from a sitting Senator, and the extended quote is provided in video and text in the full article.
Should the media shield the public from that, perhaps akin to what many at NY Times would have for Sen. Tom Cotton? To my mind, to do so would be unelevated and undignified.
Also, suggesting that the term and accurate use in a quote (by Breitbart) does, or is intended to, give off a (deniable) "homophobic" vibe, itself, seems (deniably) written to titillate people.
"Emasculated" as used in context, by Sen. Paul, seems more likely to have be used in the sense that the GOP has been "deprive[d] of strength, vigor, or spirit" See (1): https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emasculate Nothing homophobic about that use, at least to an even-handed or "reasonably elevated and dignified" audience.
That said, headlines are often/usually meant to titillate, from the left and right. I find that less problematic when the headline is accurate, as in the present case (as a quote).
I understand the desire to avoid certain outlets, and I am thankful for memeorandum.com for facilitating choice to read different perspectives on same/similar items, and to do so with increased ability to avoid repeatedly undignified journalism. My recent experience leads me to find most MSM journalism increasingly and repeatedly less dignified.
prior posted comment removed because of my error using blogger, or for content... IDK
And as for Buttigieg: What Big Mike said. I don't remember any tender solicitude from you about Ted Cruz being in Cancun while his state was freezing; is Buttigieg immune from criticism b/c of his gayness? I do understand that your maidenly ears ought to be protected from language like "vacay," but surely the larger question is what, if anything, Buttigieg was doing about the threatened railway strike. (The threat isn't over yet, as you'll of course know.)
Well said. I was struck by the "homophobic" tag, too.
Did Paul use the word 'emasculated'?
Is it being used in context?
If so, I see nothing homophobic about this term.
I have never even thought of that word in that sense ever until reading this post.
I always think of the henpecked husband...the Wally Cox (!) type.
Sometimes a headline is just a headline.
I read about one Breitbart article a month, so maybe I'm out of it...
'Obviously they chose to go big on readers’ fear of losing their masculinity, a ridiculous right wing hobbyhorse.'
Sorry...reading Rand's quote it seems that he was talking about republicans inability to stand up for their principles.
They let the dems walk all over them without a fight.
Zero, nada, zilch to do with homosexuality.
And from what I've seen, republicans are fine with gay people, just not the radical ones pushing it in their faces and trying to mutilate kids. Because yes, it is the same radical gay crowd that is fueling the radical trans agenda.
Do what you want in private...I give zero fucks.
But start messing with my kids and you're going to have a problem...
Just who has bigger balls than Douglas Murray?
"Obviously they chose to go big on readers’ fear of losing their masculinity, a ridiculous right wing hobbyhorse."
I don't fear losing my masculinity. I don't think about "my masculinity" at all.
I think it's undeniable that it's the left who are obsessed with sexuality.
That's why I don't go to sites like this either.
From our hostess: Why was Rand’s quote selected as the top story?
Maybe the top story was chosen by an algorithm based on what the readers were clicking on, and Breitbart's readers were interested in what Rand Paul had to say. Or maybe Breitbart knows its audience is interested in Rand Paul articles, so it runs them at the top of the page when they come up.
I'm also not quite following the homophobic angle for using emasculation. If anything, I'd think gay men are doubly wary of emasculation. Regardless, it's not the top story anymore.
As for the Buttigieg headline, I'm guessing the "vacay" is the part that suggests to you deniable homophobia. That feels a bit of a stretch to me, but maybe I'm unaware of trite contractions being the domain of the LGBTQ community.
I don't see the "vacay" headline anymore, but I think the new headline would have been a much better case for your assertion of deniable homophobia. I saw the headline: "Report: Papa Pete takes Europe vacation as rail worker strike looms." I've never heard him called Papa Pete before, so is that an allusion to "daddies" in the gay community? Oddly, after clicking the link, the article title is: "Report: Pete Buttigieg on Vacation in Europe amid Potential Rail Workers Strike."
No homophobia there unless you are going to interpret "Rail Workers" as a euphemism.
"Right wing sites are now clickbait for the same intelligence as left wing sites. It's a business."
Agree with rh.
Ann Althouse said...
Why was Rand’s quote selected as the top story?
Obviously they chose to go big on readers’ fear of losing their masculinity, a ridiculous right wing hobbyhorse.
***********
What a crock.
Paul is obviously referring to the GOP losing its political power..
But if you want a much stronger allusion to physical emasculation, recall Jizzy Jackson's commenting in a TV Green Room that he intended to cut Barak's balls off.
Jesse a right-winger?
Who knew?
narciso said...
This is what democracy look like when the express will of the people are thwarted where peaceful protesters like ashley babbitt are murdered and medals are given
Where cities burn and all charges are dropped where the most disgusting abominations are celebrated
12/15/22, 9:32 AM
THIS^^^
Homophobia is in the eye of the beholder, Ann!
Depending on one's mindset, another homophobic vibe about Pete from Wiki: "He became one of the first openly gay men to launch a major party presidential campaign."
Only gay guys can be castrated? Is "vacay" bad because it rhymes with gay?
Seriously, I'm struggling to understand your suggestion of homophobia. Seems like all you've got is that two top stories (which aren't top stories now, of course) involve (1) masculinity and (2) a gay guy. But they don't point out that he's gay, and the story doesn't have anything to do with him being gay, so that second one is entirely you. Which leaves the use of the word emasculate, to which I say: not a homophobic slur.
This is the real test of Ann's honesty here.
The Conservative Treehouse.
Sundance is an incredible journalist and writes at a level at least as high as Althouse does on this blog.
There is nothing click baity about that site.
But they will challenge anyone who thinks the NYT's is a source of information.
’Obviously they chose to go big on readers’ fear of losing their masculinity, a ridiculous right wing hobbyhorse.’
Wow.
No homophobia there unless you are going to interpret "Rail Workers" as a euphemism.
************
You mean for "pulling a train"?
Look back 50 or 60 years, when men still ruled, talk of "emasculation" was everywhere, on the left as much as or more than on the right. It was a way of talking about power and losing power put into a gendered perspective. It still is, though the word "emasculate" isn't much used. How many young women encourage/disparage others by saying "grow a pair" or "woman up" or (as I heard in a film) "grow some ovaries"? No need to make this about the supposed deep psychology of right-wing men. Maybe it was just a slow news day. Buttigieg on vacay doesn't energize the readers.
John Boehner cries at the unveiling of Nancy Pelosi's picture and everybody calls him a pussy. It's not about gender or sexuality anymore, it's about weakness and wimpiness. Woman up, Althouse.
As usual, every time the topic involves gays, Ann sheds 30 IQ points.
Breitbart doesn't give Althouse the warm fuzzies about homosexuality and abortion in its coverage.
each for them as one would reach for toilet paper
========
one reaches for clean toilet paper.
one tosses away shit-coated-rag [NYT WaPo etc.] after sniffing? / blogging?
Two sexes and sex-correlated genders. The transgender spectrum features the same sex and contrasting genders. Homophilia is a transphobic condition celebrated with albinophobic pride and parades.
It's not a "ridiculous" right wing fear of losing their man card. They are actively giving up their manhood, man juice and masculinity by worshipping the most feminine US President in history. Right wingers are leading the way in obesity which kills testosterone and form the Incel army quietly quitting heterosexuality. The signs are everywhere. The fetishized gun culture the constant fear of darker skinned people, the pathological titillating obsession they have with gays, trans and grooming, the fear of women, especially educated women.
Essentially Trumpian's whom identify as male suffer from a hypochondriac form of battered wife syndrome. They are committing testicular seppuku.
Male homosexuality is disgusting. Men playing in one another’s shit kills. I watched this happen in NYC and SF. 10s of millions dead.
I’m alive today because I’m disgusted with this shit.
It’s not homo-phobia. It’s homo-disgusted. That’s just basic health. Even hetero orgiasts know this, which is why they won’t allow into their midst any man who engages in male to male penetration. They don’t want to die from the disgusting sexual practices of homosexual men.
You’re a Satan worshipper. Men degrading and humiliating themselves with this shit amuses and titillates you.
Attempts to solicit hatred of people are what are offered for sale from most media these days.
No thank you.
Breitbart sometimes offers such, but I don't think the emasculation reference is such (we're not being led to hate McConnell).
"This is the real test of Ann's honesty here. The Conservative Treehouse. Sundance is an incredible journalist and writes at a level at least as high as Althouse does on this blog. There is nothing click baity about that site."
What's the test? I can't even understand the notion that there's a test here.
I don't think The Conservative Treehouse is a news site. Isn't it political commentary? I'm looking for equivalents of the NYT and Washington Post, not other bloggers. Other than Instapundit, I don't read political blogs. I don't like reading about politics. I want an array of possibly surprising topics.
The idea that I'd read political analysis if it's not "click baity" is just plain weird. Why would you think that of me? You failed my test, by the way. It's a test of whether my blog is for you. You don't seem to get me at all. Yet you want to *change me.* You don't know what you are doing and you don't even know you don't know. Ugh.
the constant fear of darker skinned people,
What population demographic in the United States creates the vast majority of violent crime?
I'll give you a hint...they're about 5% of the population and they commit over 50% of all violent crime. Second hint: a lot of them blame all of their problems on Whitey.
I'm looking for equivalents of the NYT and Washington Post, not other bloggers.
Case closed.
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick!
Color me wrong! As it turns out, after reading the dissenters in the comments, Breitbart readers are quite reasonable and intelligent. Not even a little delusional or unhinged. Nope.
Another reason why Ann does not "read other blogs."
It gets in the way of your delusions. What do you think the chances of that story making it to the NY Times or WaPoo?
Ach. Althouse's reaction has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with being The Supportive Hypersensitive Mother of a Gay Son. It's a particular type of Karenism and Althouse intends to get every merit badge for the sash.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. I would do the same if I had a gay child, though perhaps a bit less publicly and without hysterically casting away my vaunted cruel neutrality.
But there are certain merit badges that demand exactly that....
"I'm looking for equivalents of the NYT and Washington Post... I don't like reading about politics. I want an array of possibly surprising topics."
Jesu. Everything I've read in the NYT and WAPO is larded with their political bias. I don't read them anymore because I'm never surprised.
Prof. Alt house said: “You failed my test, by the way. It's a test of whether my blog is for you”
I guess I should have understood, given your law school background, there’d be an implicit end of semester “test” for readers of this blog. We all wish to do well in your online “classroom”, so perhaps you will be kind enough to explain your readership “test” clearly and exactly (and no fair warning that if you don’t know, you’ve already “failed”).
Specifically: (1) should only “elevated and dignified” sources such as the NYT and WaPo be principally relied on for political and cultural themes, opinions and reporting; (2) should we support abortion because it’s the cause celebre of educated middle class white women (many of whom are well past their childbearing years); and (3) must we read every news article through the lens of LBGTQ ++ victim hood, looking for, finding and condemning even the most tenuous of (deniable) dog whistles?
Real question:
For those of us who share Ann's reaction to Breitbart and similar but do want to read conservative/MAGA ideas, reporting, etc, what are the go-to sites?
Thanks.
I think you could have titled this post - "I am a snob"
Daniel12 said...
Real question:
I think I’m a lot like the commenters on this blog; to get MAGAt insight, I like to start my morning with some Qanon drips, or good old mountain Q, as I like to call it.
Infowars is also super informative. Alex Jones is a balanced, composed and hyper intelligent purveyor of pure gospel.
Now that Saint Elon has cleaned up Twitter, I also like his musings and the witticisms of Scott Adams; his predictions are as good as gold.
"I guess I should have understood, given your law school background, there’d be an implicit end of semester “test” for readers of this blog. We all wish to do well in your online “classroom”, so perhaps you will be kind enough to explain your readership “test” clearly and exactly (and no fair warning that if you don’t know, you’ve already “failed”)"
What a ludicrous criticism! I don't think like that at all. I was making fun of a person who had brought up the idea that there was a test here, who said: "This is the real test of Ann's honesty here."
I will accept an apology but you really misread me.
"I think you could have titled this post - "I am a snob""
I'm just disheartened by people who read me but don't get me.
I am writing on this blog daily for the past 19 years because I find what I am doing intrinsically rewarding. That is, I read where it works for me. I have my taste, and I go to what's interesting to me to write about. If that has value for readers, I am very happy to have those readers. But I am not interested in reading things as a means to an end of pleasing *other* readers who want other things. I don't have issues that I'm pushing and I don't care about persuading people about this or that political position. If you tried to pay me to do that, I wouldn't accept the work. If you don't actually like this blog the way it is, then you should go somewhere else and find something to read that you like. Telling me to write something else is just not getting me at all.
I don't have issues that I'm pushing and I don't care about persuading people about this or that political position.
We splooge stooges would disagree with you.
Of course you do not Ann. Not your worldview. Why should you since folks have a tendency to read things that reinforce what they think. You are liberal, we get it, and that is fine. But even those of us who disagree with your view still hang around your spot. All good. Continue with what you do. And thanks.
I often read Althouse, and at least some of the comments, in the morning, and then go to Breitbart. Both offer heterodox views, albeit from somewhat (but not entirely) different perspectives. It's funny that Anne is triggered by Breitbart. I, too, miss Andrew; taken (along with Rush) way too soon.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा