Today’s Word Is Optics
So anyway, there’s a large, lavish room in which wealthy and statusful people are giving each other prizes. Then, rather incongruously, a particularly wealthy and statusful person steps onto the stage and shouts “Fuck Trump!” At which point, the other wealthy and statusful people rise to their feet, applauding, and whistling, and cheering. As if something terribly brave had just taken place.
And those doing the applauding, and whistling and cheering, seem oblivious to the message being sent by this display. Specifically, that “Fuck Trump!” translates as something like: “Fuck Trump and all of the people who voted for him.” Some of whom, perhaps many of whom, may have grown tired of being openly and gleefully disdained by people much richer and more statusful than themselves, their self-imagined betters, and who may find their only obvious recourse to such disdain is to vote for Donald Trump again.
Via sH2 in the comments.
this recent gem from the television host Bill Maher
Readers may recall when the Guardian’s George Monbiot also wished for a crippling economic recession, regardless of the cost to those less comfortable than himself. He was vexed by the existence of designer saucepans, which signalled the apocalypse or something.
which is not what was being discussed.
It isn’t about The Two Words, so much as when, where and by whom they were said. The context, the venue and participants, and their class-and-status-positioning, are, shall we say, of interest.
This.
Daniel, Sherman, Squid, and various others here. I have a genuine question for y’all, asked without any malice.
What part of Do Not Feed the Troll are you having difficulty with?
I ask in all seriousness; I think someone even mentioned this before.
I believe that President Obama will continue to be called that, Hal. Unless things are different in your reality.
the odds that DeNiro can string five complete sentences together which state precisely what Trump has done which is so disagreeable?
Would he mention that he is a multimillionaire whose pet project gets government subsidies and Trump suggested cutting them?
https://colmilquetoast.blogspot.com/2017/08/taxpayer-subsidies-for-millionaires.html
Meanwhile in academia, channelling Critical Theory through Glam Rock
http://www.thenational.scot/culture/15071775.Profile__The_Glasgow_Glam_Rock_Dialogues/
If anyone has trouble with comments not appearing, email me and I’ll rattle the spam filter.
Would he mention that he is a multimillionaire whose pet project gets government subsidies and Trump suggested cutting them?
Heh. That, as they say. It’s also worth noting how slyly Mr De Niro frames a reduction in taxpayer subsidy as “hostility towards art,” as if no other motives or concerns could possibly exist, and then conflates taxpayer-subsidised art with “other… life-saving… programs.”
Do weaponizing the IRS and Dinesh D’Souza count?
I believe that President Obama will continue to be called that, Hal.
. . . . There’s that bit about former office holders vs current office holders and how to refer to whom. Mr. Washington and all that.
Do weaponizing the IRS and Dinesh D’Souza count?
Oh—and actually going back to the original question—the note is much more a matter of . . . . . . Under a real dictator, people who say bad things about Dear Leader are shot, imprisoned for life, or simply disappear. That they can say these things with impunity means our republic is working as intended.
So it doesn’t really matter whether Dear Leader is named Obama or Trump . . . .
So your reality is different as I expected.
Daniel, Sherman, Squid, and various others here. I have a genuine question for y’all, asked without any malice.
As Dionne Warwick put it,
So your reality is different as I expected.
As being noted . . .
Hal, you specifically asked if there were any occurrences of Obama’s muzzling critics. Do the instances I cited count?
I know, guys, and I apologize. Perhaps we can agree on a reasonable frequency for rebuttals? I’d hate for any newcomers to naively assume that the rest of us take Wonko seriously. Maybe a monthly allowance where those of us with pent-up frustration can vent a bit?
Whatever we come up with, just don’t tell David about it; he’s far too gracious a host to allow such goings-on.
just don’t tell David about it; he’s far too gracious a host to allow such goings-on.
I’m too busy feigning ignorance of the pimping and racketeering.
Perhaps we can agree on a reasonable frequency for rebuttals?
The military solution for distasteful tasks, a duty roster.
Hal,
Have you ever thought about starting your own blog?
Asking for a friend…
Trump is right now dealing with North Korea. Obama dealt with Iran. Both will likely be failures, in the long run, because the partners are faithless.
It is interesting to see the difference in the way this has been reported in New Zealand. No censoring is needed. Obama simply got the benefit of any doubt that Trump does not get.
a particularly wealthy and statusful person steps onto the stage and shouts “Fuck Trump!” At which point, the other wealthy and statusful people rise to their feet, applauding
If, in some improbable parallel universe I were speaking after Robert De Niro I would hobble to the mike on my semi functional legs and say: “With regard to Mr. de Niro’s Crass comment, and your approval, if I were half the man I used to be I would take a flamethrower to this place!” 😉
It may be true that both Iran and North Korea are faithless. But the difference is not between them, but between Obama and Trump. Obama is also faithless, but Trump is not. I believe Trump will attack a non-compliant North Korea in a way that Obama would never attack a non-compliant Iran.
That’s the difference. They’re both evil dictators, but they both like not being obliterated by an enemy supremely more powerful than them. They’ll comply enough to remain safely outside of Trumps ire.
Hal,
Have you ever thought about starting your own blog?
Asking for a friend…
Oh, still as commented . . . .
Mmmmm.. a Trump sex doll.
.. should make a squillion judging by the number of wealthy leftoids who want to have coitus with him.
I was aghast to find out Bob DeNiro is worth 200 million rasbuckniks; now I find it’s more like 300 million. Yep, the guy could write a few checks to his pet causes, couldn’t he?
And speaking of ol’ Bob, bet he’d like THIS to go away:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-sex-scandal-that-wouldnt-lie-down-1185127.html
But it’s OK, you see; he just used the SERVICES of the underage sex ring; he wasn’t, like, INVOLVED or anything.
The irony here is that De Niro seems to have come across as a “wannabe-Trump”:
1. He’s full of braggadocio (though Trump doesn’t routinely stoop to peppering his statements with foul language).
2. He’s intimately involved in high-flying real estate developments (through his company, Nobu Hospitality).
3. He’s a skilled actor (and like all actors, he loves an adoring audience).
So, perhaps some of his ridiculous bile stems from plain old-fashioned envy?
Another side of Robert De Niro:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-sex-scandal-that-wouldnt-lie-down-1185127.html
Oh no, I failed to check whether anyone had posted that. (Grabs coat and runs for the door before David can alert the henchlesbians.)
Have you ever thought about starting your own blog?
The question was straightforward. The answer, an evasion.
Do weaponizing the IRS and Dinesh D’Souza count?
Wait, exactly how does one weaponize Dinesh D’Souza?
“Wait, exactly how does one weaponize Dinesh D’Souza?”
The usual; bolt a fricken’ LASER to his fricken’ HEAD.
Have you ever thought about starting your own blog?
The question was straightforward. The answer, an evasion.
Heh.
Or, in simple terms, either you didn’t read the answer, or you didn’t like it.
Or, in simple terms, either you didn’t read the answer, or you didn’t like it.
Perhaps I misread the answer. The one I read said:
A straightforward answer would be “yes” or “no”.
A straightforward answer would be “yes” or “no”.
Aso—You didn’t like the answer.
You didn’t like the answer.
So it seems. I tend to dislike an evasion, equivocation, or deflection that purports to be an answer.
You didn’t like the answer.
So it seems. I tend to dislike an evasion, equivocation, or deflection that purports to be an answer.
Or, in short, the answer is fine then, given your own description of what you dislike.
An issue may be the concept of nuance.
As usual, my answer was and remains totally accurate and honest, where two of the answers that would have been quite dishonest are “Yes.” and “No.”.
An issue may be the concept of nuance.
Alas, I fear that I am too simple-minded to distinguish nuance from gibberish.