The Blurting
Neo notes a phenomenon that may be familiar to some of you:
We’ve previously mentioned bizarrely emphatic and incongruous outbursts, the relevance of which to ongoing, often mundane conversations was hard to fathom, and which seemed driven by a compulsion to signal some imagined piety or status. A more subtle and common example occurred in January, when the family headed out to a Burns Night dinner at a restaurant adjacent to the university. Before the food appeared, we were treated to a brief poetry reading courtesy of a local academic. I was tempted to roll my eyes at the prospect, but he did get the crowd in good spirits. Until a poem about food and good company was somehow given, as he put it, “a political edge.” And so, we endured a contrived reference to Brexit – implicitly very bad – and a pointed nod across the ocean to a certain president, who we were encouraged to imagine naked.
At the time, I was struck by the presumption – the belief that everyone present would naturally agree – that opposition to Brexit and a disdain of Trump were things we, the customers, would without doubt have in common. That the poem’s sentiment of friendship and community was being soured by divisive smugness escaped our local academic, whose need to let us know how leftwing he is was apparently paramount. The subtext was hard to miss: “This is a fashionable restaurant and its customers, being fashionable, will obviously hold left-of-centre views, especially regarding Brexit and Trump, both of which they should disdain and wish to be seen disdaining by their left-of-centre peers.” And when you’re out to enjoy a fancy meal with friends and family, this is an odd sentiment to encounter from someone you don’t know and whose ostensible job is to make you feel welcome.
It wouldn’t generally occur to me to shoehorn politics into an otherwise routine exchange, or into a gathering with strangers, or to presume the emphatic political agreement of random restaurant customers. It seems… rude. By which I mean parochial, selfish and an imposition – insofar as others may feel obliged to quietly endure irritating sermons, insults and condescension in order to avoid causing a scene and derailing the entire evening. The analogy that comes to mind is of inviting the new neighbours round for coffee and then, just before you hand over the cups to these people you’ve only just met, issuing a lengthy, self-satisfied proclamation on the merits of mass immigration, high taxes and lenient sentencing. And then expecting nodding and applause, rather than polite bewilderment.
Update, via the comments. Two additional illustrations of the same phenomenon:
Last year, at an otherwise enjoyable social gathering, a woman I barely know suddenly told me, quite confidently and with a hint of satisfaction, that non-leftwing people are terrible, immoral and deserve to be shunned. I should stress there was no tentative exploration, just an explosion of opinion, declaimed as self-evident. I was rather caught off-guard and it took me a second or two to process the abrupt change in conversation and sheer level of presumption. We had, seconds earlier, been admiring the grounds of the venue, a country house.
After a bewildered pause, I pointed out that I was one of those terrible, immoral people that she was talking about, and suggested that maybe doctrinaire politics wasn’t the best ice-breaker, given the circumstances. And so, I had to be the accommodating one, the one who lets casual but quite emphatic insults pass without rebuttal.
Because we were at a goddamn wedding.
I also recall a visit to a friend’s place, years ago, where a handful of other people had gathered – mostly people I didn’t know. After maybe five or ten minutes of amiable chatting, one of the strangers suddenly, quite randomly, began a long and impassioned political tirade, the relevance of which escaped me. I forget the particulars, if indeed there were any, but the thrust of the young woman’s outburst was that conservative voters are bad people, driven solely and always by selfishness, wickedness, “hate,” etc. And that she, by implication, was an altogether loftier being, driven purely by compassion.
Again, there was an assumption that the rest of us – including me, a person she didn’t know – would be in wholehearted agreement, or at least defer to the general sentiment. The woman’s tone and demeanour made it clear than any demurral or factual correction would likely result in a heated and lengthy exchange. She was there to signal her piety – and we were there to bear witness to her self-determined magnificence. And so, not wanting to further derail a supposedly pleasant social gathering, I said nothing, and eventually, after much bluster, the rhetorical storm passed.
And I very much doubt that the young woman in question – whose declaration of piety was aired via the medium of loud selfishness – appreciated the patience and restraint that had been extended to her, if only to spare others a tiresome argument.
Update:
A few days ago I heard a quiz on BBC Radio 4. It’s called “The Third Degree”. It’s a genial enough affair, based on the amusing proposition that a team of university students plays against a team of dons from the same university. I quite like it.
The edition that I heard recently managed to squeeze in not one, but three, digs at Donald Trump (well, it was Radio 4). One was prompted by a question on golf. Ah yes, a question on golf and therefore it naturally follows that we poke fun at the skin colour and coiffure of the President of the United States because he owns golf courses, see?
I note, though, that Trump digs these days no longer get the whoops and squeals of delight that they used to get in the Early Days of Trump. The affirmative laughter and applause seem now more routine, more, if you will, by rote. As though they’ve been completely absorbed into lefty social discourse. It’s like saying “Bless you” after someone sneezes.
One was prompted by a question on golf.
It’s an odd thing to witness and remarkably common. I see it routinely and must have experienced it first-hand at least a dozen times. But who goes to an everyday non-political event or social gathering – say, a restaurant – and casually assumes that everyone there, including dozens of complete strangers, will obviously share their own, rather specific politics and, more to the point, will wish to hear about them?
It’s just a little tone-deaf, and parochial, and a little self-regarding.
A few years ago, I got a otherwise wonderful e-mail from a professional author I like that was only marred by the stated assumption that I just had to agree with that author’s left wing views, given that he apparently regarded me as both intelligent and civilised. I’m afraid I mentally winced when I read that, and sighed sadly as I replied in a neutral fashion that ignored any political element. I’ve since lost several close friends by simply stating a relief that Australia didn’t go down the left wing path at our last federal election…
I’m obviously not as intelligent and civilised as I seem!
It is an odd compulsion and not, I think, symmetrical. It seems much more common among lefties. And so, over the years I’ve had some peculiar exchanges. Sort of, “We barely know each other, have spoken briefly, maybe twice, and we’re in the middle of sorting out your borrowing of some equipment. Why are you suddenly and randomly telling me your rather niche political views? Am I supposed to agree with you, or defer to you, or are we supposed to argue? And is now really the time?”
It’s just a little tone-deaf, and parochial, and a little self-regarding.
More than a little, I’d say. And there’s a rather unsettling logical dislocation, or at least among the lefties I know (almost all of my friends are lefties – I live in London). They all fancy themselves as free-thinking, progressive, imaginative. They’re all resolutely anti-bourgeoisie. Yet, the stultifying uniformity and conformity of their thinking is surely impossible to miss.
Apart from anything else, voting for remain in the EU referendum was a vote for the establishment, for the status quo. It was an act of conformity. Somehow, though, remainers are quite incapable of seeing it. It’s pretty bonkers.
More than a little, I’d say.
There’s an obliviousness, a selfishness, a sense of imposition. In that, by preening in this way, publicly, as illustrated above, you’re putting others in the position of being insulted or irritated or condescended to, while being obliged to say nothing in order to avoid a fuss and derailing the entire evening. It’s just rude.
It really doesn’t disturb me when so-called liberals/leftists do this. That’s just a duck quacking like a duck…granted it IS now about damn near everything, but that’s in their DNA. It’s when my “conservative” friends and many “conservative” pundits do so. Especially when the Trump hatred expression manifests itself in the context of a discussion or event that is only political in the sense that the left has politicized everything. For instance, in all of this hurricane hysteria, I posted a joke meme of Morpheous (or wtf his name is) from The Matrix saying “What if I told you that you can get water from your tap?” A Kasich-supporting friend who suffers from considerable TDS piped in to say “Then you don’t live in Flint, MI”. Now such a thing coming from one of my leftist friends, par for the course. Or consider the “conservatives” who have fallen for the 4chan hoax that the OK hand gesture is a white power symbol. This sort of thing I find much more concerning.
Last year, at an otherwise enjoyable social gathering, I had a woman I barely know suddenly tell me, quite confidently and with a hint of satisfaction, that non-leftwing people are selfish and terrible, and deserve to be shunned. I was rather caught off-guard and it took me a second or two to process the abrupt change in conversation. We had, seconds earlier, been admiring the grounds of the venue, a country house. After a bewildered pause, I pointed out that I was one of those terrible, selfish people she was talking about, and that maybe doctrinaire politics wasn’t the best ice-breaker, given the circumstances. And so, again, I had to be the accommodating one, the one who lets casual but quite emphatic insults pass without rebuttal.
Because we were at a goddamn wedding.
I can’t say I care about Trump, but this is depressingly accurate about Brexit. Alarmingly, people seem to have decided that this is appropriate behaviour for the office, which strikes me as a new development. Remoaners are bullies who are making working life increasingly unpleasant.
The particular vice of the metropolitan left is to believe that their opinions are normative (and yet simultaneously transgressive). To the extent that they’ll entertain heterodoxy at all they regard it as somehow quaint and needing justification.
One of the striking things about the Brexit ‘debate’ is how membership of ever-closer union between 28 countries is apparently not something that needs to be positively argued for; it’s seen as neutral and the burden of proof is entirely on the other side.
The foundational belief is that our half-hearted and undemocratic membership of the most ambitious political project of all time is the settled, safe, default option. If you disagree you can expect hostility and ridicule.
For those who missed it, Martin Durkin’s Brexit: the Movie.
A Kasich-supporting friend who suffers from considerable TDS piped in to say “Then you don’t live in Flint, MI”.
The utter irrationality of this ilk is what is beyond comprehension. Whether it is Trump or Brexit, every manner of doom since the first fish walked onto dry land is the fault of either, and no amount of evidence will ever convince them otherwise, Flint being a case in point.
“Trump’s fault”
         ”happened before he was president in a democrat run city”
“he should have fixed it”
         ”it is a municipal problem, not federal”
“it should be a federal problem”
         ”why”
“EPA”
         ”so Obama should have fixed it”
“he can’t fix all of Bush’s problems” – and on and on.
Brexit, I actually saw this somewhere (paraphrased),
“we won’t be able to get oranges”
         ”why”
“we won’t be able to get them from Spain”
         ”we’ll get them from US or South America then”
“all that shipping causes climate change”
         ”Israel is close and grows oranges” [small BDS diatribe follows].
There is just no convincing either group regardless of evidence. I have an acquaintance, a professional, accomplished, otherwise apolitical, who goes into a mini-froth because she cannot convince her Israeli relatives that Trump is a raging anti-semite, the main damning evidence seems to be his choice of coiffure, not actual words or deeds.
I see it routinely and must have experienced it first-hand at least a dozen times.
The west is in cultural decline. Such episodic displays reflect our inability to see things for what they are, instead making them about what we feel. We blame circumstance after we’ve created it. Our public masters, in a fit of capitulation, I suppose, we see as celebrity figureheads and not as the mechanics of republican democracies. Orange Man just bad and did you see that a Hollywood lunatic might run for the presidency? Cue posing and swooning.
Consider a local setting I frequent. An older couple of loud and proud progressive stripe used to consistently display this sort of progressive plumage. They being white one of their tropes was the hackneyed down-with-white-people. No justification is offered for this aggression, which they meant quite viciously. Life has been rearranged by anecdote and pop sentiment.
This being the public sermon I eventually suggested that no culture merited eradication, and that a cultural invasion no justification is found in skin color or any other feature. It was a brief, succinct observation: You don’t tear down civilization and defend it on any grounds.
A short time later the old man loudly, and in public, proceeded to lambaste me that I “didn’t like poor Mexicans!”, a wholesale fabrication he must have come to after not considerable thought (and apparently unaware that I am the product of poor immigrants myself who frequents the corner restaurante a few times a week). It was an emotional outburst that gutted the entire point – one that in a healthy culture doesn’t have to be made at all – and replaced it first with bigotry, then projection, then hysteria, and finally aggression. I sat there, staring.
I eventually adopted the first line defense: don’t tell me what I think. This didn’t go well either and he made a great show of sarcastic umbrage, demonstrating in a little play act how desperately out of sorts my passively defending myself against mad progressive aggression was: Now he would have to physically avoid the far too easily offended who in one fell swoop had become the aggressor.
The next day, having given all this more not-considerable thought, apparently he found a new track through his fever swamps. I was no longer to be avoided, and in fact, I had become, in 24 hours, a mortal threat. To show progressive resolve he pranced over to advise – all this in righteous Loud Voice – that defending against such aggressive projection constituted a threat upon his life. Such that he needed to announce it from twelve feet. And that there would be no apology for the previous outbursts, an apology I’d never so much as mentioned.
The point is that this cascade of madness came from one brief piece of reason I’d mentioned to his wife, and through stages progressed so severely that a normal ethic made the utterer a mortal threat to crazy people.
I don’t suspect this is rare. In the 50 year void of sense and responsibility civilization has turned on itself to the point it’s made cesspools out of its former institutions, stripped meaning from life, and rejected integrity almost as a engineered scourge. There’s no reason to think this won’t manifest as madness. It’s what it’s designed to be, after all.
I also have noticed this…it is almost hard to believe that he is on their mind so much, that they must blurt out something (they perceive to be bad) about him at random intervals.
Interesting.
I have an acquaintance, a professional, accomplished, otherwise apolitical, who goes into a mini-froth because she cannot convince her Israeli relatives that Trump is a raging anti-semite, the main damning evidence seems to be his choice of coiffure, not actual words or deeds.
Good old appearances-centrism, habitat of the mad. And yet:
It wouldn’t generally occur to me to shoehorn politics into an otherwise routine exchange…
It’s involuntary and autonomic–Trump Tourettes.
“In that, by preening in this way, publicly, as illustrated above, you’re putting others in the position of being insulted or irritated or condescended to, while being obliged to say nothing in order to avoid a fuss and derailing the entire evening.”
But that’s one of the big differences between conservatives and liberals, isn’t it? A conservative knows that enduring a few minutes of annoying discourse on opposing values doesn’t have to ruin a whole evening, and so feels both capable of showing and obliged to show restraint. Whereas for your average liberal, having to endure such a thing in itself ruins the event for them, so they feel no obligation to show courtesy because they feel they’ve been shown none; indeed, allowing people not to be disturbed is the bigger sin, for them.
Speaking for my immediate peer group: the political dynamic changed starting in 2008 with Obama’s election. Before then only a small portion of my social circle were political junkies, with most people simply not having an opinion. Politics was a boring, nerd subject.
But then 2008 came and I lost track of the people saying “this was the first election I participated in / paid attention to”. Of course all of these neophytes were on the Obama train, having been previously inculcated to mainstream tastes via Hollywood, local news, etc. This new cohort was stereotypically ignorant of history from Creation through 2007, but earnest to cash in the hope and change dividend created by voting for a black guy.
It’s only gone downhill from there. John Stewart taught them that snark was an acceptable substitute for vigorous debate. Then CNN/NBC/MSNBC et al became the Daily Show. Every criticism of Obama was racist and from there it was a short hop to “everything is racist”. Since climate change was an existential threat and racism/sexism/etc permeated society it slowly became acceptable to insert political battles into literally every subject.
Still high from 8 years of talking down to ideological opponents from behind their black shield and the most concerted propaganda efforts in recent memory they were simply not mentally prepared for Hillary’s loss, especially not to a guy like Trump. That broke them and dropped many a mask. But it all started, at least from my perch, with vast swathes of previously apolitical types adopting the leftist narrative and morphing into shock troops, who now enforce the “personal is political” viewpoint.
To Charlie Suet,
I can’t say I care about Trump, but this is depressingly accurate about Brexit.
I take it you are British, so whether you care about our President or not really doesn’t matter. But you should realize the same kind of people you think depressing for how they try to marginalize Brexit supporters, try to marginalize President Trump supporters. They seem to have succeeded with you in the latter case. You should also realize that the U.S. is essentially a two party system. Since 1852, only nominees from either party has become President. In the last election, only two people had a chance. It was to be either Trump or Hillary Clinton.
However much you don’t care for Trump, I hope you have enough sense to see he is a better choice than the spiritual heir of the previous president, whose actions in office include returning the bust of Winston Churchill from the White House, and patting your Queen on the head, as though she were a doddering senile elderly. Actually, Clinton is quite despicable and criminal in her own rights.
And adding to what Stephen J said – for a long time the Left didn’t have to face opposing views on a daily basis. A conservative has to shrug off a ton of ideological shade just to go to the movies, or watch a local news broadcast, or enjoy basically any modern music. So they have practice. Lefties, thanks to first talk radio then the internet, have now learned that opposing viewpoints exist, and LOTS of people hold them.
However much you don’t care for Trump, I hope you have enough sense to see he is a better choice than the spiritual heir of the previous president…
However much anyone might not care for Trump, they invariably do so out of a mistaken sense of what’s important and necessary and what, on the other hand, is mere appearances. There are the mechanics of a constitutional republic and then there is everything else. Those mechanics had been neglected for a good 150 years only for an accidental orange man to happen upon a few and restore them.
Or does the US need a monarchy (or a film industry or a corrupt academy) to manage national ethic, spirit, and sense? We already have a weak-minded civil religion and it’s sacked the place just as much as progressivism.
Until the right learns that it’s ostensible.
I’ll second OldBruin’s remarks, and emphasize that a lot of Trump voters weren’t voting for him, but voting against Hillary, whose crimes are many and varied.
For that, they find themselves called fascists, Nazis, deplorables, and idiots.
I’ve found Trumpism showing up in fiction, too. I kinda expected it in the Sherlock Holmes pastiche which was set in a post-civil war Washington DC and turned Holmes and Watson into black lesbians. (That the book was written by a white woman in Cambridge, Mass., was an amusing byproduct.)
What was startling and more unfortunate was a novel by Australian John Birmingham, which was self-published after he lost his contract with a major publishing house. It was a time travel novel and meant to be light entertainment, but he couldn’t help setting one of his scenes in post-apocalyptic Seattle, overrun with Homeland Security goons at the behest of Bad Orange Man, etc. etc. (Glad to see that my review on Amazon of “A Girl in Time” was placed in the #2 slot, behind S.M. Stirling.)
Recently, Conan O’Brian released a series of podcast interviews with Dana Carvey. Not surprisingly, they opened the first episode bashing Trump. But I was surprised that the second episode opened up with Obama, cracking jokes about what he would do as a movie producer for Netflix, and for two minutes, I could fantasize what those years would have sounded like if comedians actually, you know, did their job.
Then they reverted back to Trump-bashing, but it was glorious for awhile.
I had two people come to my front door looking for support for the NDP. I lauded them for putting themselves out there to support their beliefs, but that they had picked the wrong house. The male asked if I did not feel grateful for living on “unseeded” Algonquin land? I asked him when I could expect a representative of the Algonquin nation to show up and thank me for all the “free shit” I have been paying taxes for all my life ,I am 70.
At that the lady sputtered “are you a Trump supporter?” Her nostrils did actually flare. Yes. I. Am. They all have the same AOC look, as if they have just received a high colonic with ice water. That others do not share their views is shattering. Little Gretaeasta’s all.
David, can you please rattle the spam filter?
David, can you please rattle the spam filter?
There’s nothing in there. Try again?
Fashion recommendation.
Or fad, as the case may be.
she cannot convince her Israeli relatives that Trump is a raging anti-Semite
Hmmm… has an Orthodox Jewish daughter, son-in-law, grandkids who he obviously adores
Moved US embassy to Israel’s capitol, Jerusalem
Recognized Israel’s authority over Golan Heights …
If Trump is a “raging anti-Semite”, he’s a piss-poor one.
For that, they find themselves called fascists, Nazis, deplorables, and idiots
and white supremacists, even the Jewish, black and Latino supporters.
This phenomenon has overtaken a writing group I have belonged to for a number of years, to the point that I no longer attend meetings. Two of the members seem unable to let a gathering pass without regaling us with some irrelevant diatribe against the present POTUS.
The first is a retired university professor of English. Last year, he bounced into the meeting and chortled, “As we speak, Hurricane [X] is destroying Mar-A-Lago!” I was going to ask if he thought the property was uninsured or if he was celebrating a lot of people being put out of work, but was pre-empted by the second member snarling “Good!” with as much vitriol and hatred as he could muster. He being a veteran professional actor, that was a considerable.
Mr. Number Two arrived at our last meeting fresh from a reading of “The Mueller Report” staged in our city by a number of left-wing political groups, including his own SAG-AFTRA. (Pity Mr. Mueller was not able to attend. He might have made out better in front of Congress.) He insisted on reading a bit of poetry he had favored the report-reading audience with. It concerned the POTUS and was unexpectedly vulgar, coarse, and obscene — even though I thought I had the measure of this man’s TDS.
I have lost most respect for the first man and all respect for the second. When I met him, thirty years ago, he was affable, witty, and (seemed) open-minded. (Though just mentioning the Koch Bros. even back then could reduce him to spittle-flecked cursing.) Over the last three years, his hatred of Donald J. Trump has reduced him to a scowling, hate-filled shell.
If Trump is a “raging anti-Semite”, he’s a piss-poor one.
Along with the funky hair-do, the secondary rant is “Republican politicians are anti-semites”. There was no explanation why, if that were so, Nixon would have ordered Operation Nickel Grass during the Yom Kippur War, Bush would send Patriot batteries and troops to Israel, or noted Republican Franklin Roosevelt ordered the St. Louis filled with Jewish refugees turned away at Miami in 1939, etc., etc.
Facts just bounce off like BBs from a tank.
This strikes me as being a little like something that Hannah Gadsby (rightly) pointed out in her woke AF comedy show Nanette – comedians lazily make stuff like rape jokes because it creates tension, and comedy relies on the pattern of tension-release. She is quite right, though her solution is dangerous: she says to male comedians who make rape jokes “That’s not for you”. It’s a form of identity politics, in other words – only certain identities may make certain jokes.
When a lefty makes a silly reference to Trump or Brexit for easy laughs, they want to rely on a shared understanding – they *know*, implicitly, that there haven’t been many lefties in comedy or the arts for a long time. And they’re reaffirming that identity by demonstrating how you perform being a lefty publicly (and ensuring that right wingers are excluded from their group). It’s easy to do this. It’s lazy.
My difference from Gadsby is that I don’t think the answer is ‘that’s not for you’. Anybody with sufficient insight can write and speak on any topic whatsoever. But don’t just do it for cheap laughs. Be honest. Think about what you really want to say. Because if you end up relying on dull cliche, you will not say anything of substance.
And in many ways, it strikes me, the anti-Gadsby is Dave Chappelle, whose latest comedy show Sticks and Stones is a very clever anti-PC piece. Chappelle tells the story halfway through about doing the Chappelle Show and being told he couldn’t say the word ‘faggot’ on air. “And it only came to me that night…. the next day, I said to her, ‘How is it that I am allowed to say the word ‘nigga’ with absolute impunity, and yet I cannot say a single ‘faggot’ on my show?’ ‘Because, Daaaave’, she said, ‘You aren’t one.’ I said, ‘But I ain’t a nigga either.'”
There now. That wasn’t so hard, was it? Thoughtful comedy with bite – and only a wee bit transgressive of progressive norms….
There was no explanation why, if that were so, Nixon would have ordered Operation Nickel Grass during the Yom Kippur War…
Not to mention that some important Democratic Party constituencies are anti-Semitic, even violently so.
Nixon would have ordered Operation Nickel Grass during the Yom Kippur War
There’s some new talking point popping up lately about Nixon. Somewhat contextual to the substance of this post, and sorry but I don’t recall where I was reading this…mostly because it itself was a nonsequitor, but in some recent article, the writer kind of bent the narrative to make a statement about what an awful anti-semite Nixon was. Now I’m not well enough versed in the details of Nixon’s various and sundry prejudices. Not that he’s unique for his time in history, but this writer stated such a thing without explaining…ummm…KISSINGER!!!…I mean the guy was right there with Nixon all along. I understand that it is entirely possible that Nixon could have been an anti-semite of some degree and still had a Jew as ONE of his top advisors, but HTH do you casually call Nixon an obvious anti-semite without addressing that elephant in the room? It seemed so forced to me and now I wonder if it wasn’t part of some packaged narrative.
. . . and emphasize that a lot of Trump voters weren’t voting for him, but voting against Hillary, whose crimes are many and varied.
Meet the Trump Democrats . . . . which turned up online just a few days after the 2016 presidential election.
Mr. Number Two arrived at our last meeting . . . . He insisted on reading a bit of poetry he had favored the report-reading audience with.
It’s occasions like that can leave one inspired to also also display poetry, also Just Because, and thus hopefully any further displays will just go away . . . .
A poet who reads his verse in public may have other nasty habits.
― Robert Heinlein
RNB said: “This phenomenon has overtaken a writing group I have belonged to for a number of years, to the point that I no longer attend meetings.”
Yes, no kidding. The entire SF/F genre is riddled with it. I refer you to the Sad Puppies Campaign of several years for elucidation. Since 2016 things have gone so crazy there are essentially two warring camps of authors. The Big Five publisher dead-tree authors of the Loyal Left, and the Amazon independent authors representing pretty much any other viewpoint.
Even weirder though, this TDS thing has taken over -knitting circles- to the point where the entire yarn industry is taking notice. Ladies knitting circles, new frontier of Leftist take over.
In the lead up to the 2004 US presidential election, I remember that Cecilia Uddén*, a reporter for Swedish Television (our version of the BBC, taxpayer funded and every bit as awful), said there was no need for Swedish journalists to be impartial when speaking about that election… since almost all Swedes supported John Kerry. I’m going to guess that the people you’re talking about, David, have the same mentality. Most people in Great Britain dislike, if not hate, President Trump, and most of the ones who don’t keep their mouths shut. So no need to think twice before mocking and ridiculing President Trump in Great Britain (or anywhere else in Western Europe) for leftists. Not even at a restaurant.
*Uddén used to work for the Swedish Communist Party’s official magazine… which shouldn’t surprise anyone. Janne Josefsson, arguably Sweden’s best known journalist and one of the few journalists I actually trust, worked for Swedish Television and Swedish Radio (BBC and BBC Radio would be the equivalents) for 40 years and he’s said that almost all of the “journalists” who worked for those “companies” back in the 70s were Maoists.
Most people in Great Britain dislike, if not hate, President Trump, and most of the ones who don’t keep their mouths shut. So no need to think twice before mocking and ridiculing President Trump in Great Britain
s/Great Britain/Canada/g
But that’s one of the big differences between conservatives and liberals, isn’t it?
I’m not sure about the particulars, but I do think there’s an asymmetry, statistically.
I’ve mentioned before a visit to a friend’s place, years ago, where a handful of other people had gathered – mostly people I didn’t know. After maybe five or ten minutes of amiable chatting, one of the strangers suddenly, quite randomly, began a long and impassioned political tirade, the relevance of which escaped me. I forget the particulars, if indeed there were any, but the thrust of the young woman’s outburst was fairly standard – that conservative voters are bad people, driven solely and always by selfishness, wickedness, “hate,” etc. And that she, by implication, was an altogether loftier being, driven purely by compassion.
Again, there was an assumption that the rest of us – including me, a person she didn’t know – would be in wholehearted agreement, or at least defer to the general sentiment. The woman’s tone and demeanour made it clear than any demurral or factual correction would likely result in a heated and lengthy exchange. She was there to signal her piety – and we were there to bear witness to her self-determined magnificence. And so, not wanting to further derail a supposedly pleasant social gathering, I said nothing, and eventually, after much bluster, the rhetorical storm passed.
And I very much doubt that the young woman in question appreciated the patience and restraint that had been extended to her, if only to spare others a tiresome argument.
Regarding the asymmetry, this, by Thomas Sowell, comes to mind.
. . . . . there are essentially two warring camps of authors. The Big Five publisher dead-tree authors of the Loyal Left, and the Amazon independent authors representing pretty much any other viewpoint.
Where would one go for a more detailed grand report, list of details, examples, comprehensive reading, whatnot?
She was there to signal her piety – and we were there to bear witness to her self-determined magnificence.
LOL. That.
Last week my daughter was on a cello course, and on the last day I sat with her in a masterclass where another young woman was working on the Elgar concerto. The master in question (in his 60s) managed to insert Brexit into his comments on bowing etc. He did then apologise: but the apology was along the lines of, “I promised myself I wouldn’t, but I just couldn’t keep it in.”
this TDS thing has taken over -knitting circles
That reminds me of a t-shirt that was popular with female leftists in the 1970’s when so many leftists were openly supportive of terrorism: “Ladies Sewing Circle and Terrorist Society”.
But that’s one of the big differences between conservatives and liberals, isn’t it?
—
I’m not sure about the particulars, but I do think there’s an asymmetry, statistically.
…After maybe five or ten minutes of amiable chatting, one of the strangers suddenly, quite randomly, began a long and impassioned political tirade, the relevance of which escaped me … the thrust of the young woman’s outburst was … that conservative voters are bad people, driven solely and always by selfishness, wickedness, “hate,” etc. And that she, by implication, was an altogether loftier being, driven purely by compassion.
Again, there was an assumption that the rest of us – including me, a person she didn’t know – would be in wholehearted agreement, or at least defer to the general sentiment. The woman’s tone and demeanour made it clear than any demurral or factual correction would likely result in a heated and lengthy exchange. She was there to signal her piety – and we were there to bear witness to her self-determined magnificence.
The fundamental structural element of leftism, which is authoritarianism, is force. The core of individual leftist piety is the assumption that such force is simultaneously perfected and invisible – that it exists in all things but doesn’t exist at all. This is the shared leftist experience.
The personal profile of forceful zealots lacking both the respect of the rights of others and the insight to see their antisociability concerning all of this is obvious denial. The malign form is outrage at all resistance to itself, and naturally the manifestation is a bushel of inversions: Rhetoric, morality, public policy and ethic, and the genuine meaning of all of this including the very words involved.
Really serious forms rise to psychopathy and clinical evil. This blog seemingly exists to observe the various layers, whether or not to comment on them specifically.
This then makes the sociopolitical axis wildly asymmetrical: The left is fundamentally antisocial – right down to the fundamentally intolerant tenets of its ersatz religion – and it conceals this malignancy and self-deception at every turn and phase. This is because it is fundamentally a organization of force, one it cloaks in what it calls democracy.
The left authorizes its fundamentally intolerant force with simple momentum and it uses subjective narrative to peddle it.
But it’s the underlying personal elements that make its practitioners and purveyors so offensive, non-responsive, irrational, and toxic. Genuine virtue stems eternally from private, personal effort. Leftism rejects and betrays this essential component with the first community vote to, for example, share the resources against a single dissenting vote. Then, long, long before it reaches national office it’s become malign, corrupt, and wretchedly offensive.
Everything in the left manifests from corrupt humanity because such force is simple intolerance, and intolerance of the original personal right is the beginning of the deconstruction of those rights. The political rightist must identify not just the left at a philosophical level but himself, such as rightism may be, if he and it so much as expect to survive as a civilization. The right made the mistake of seeing the left as a permanent traveling companion and a necessary component of free speech.
With this blunder the right accepted the left as a co-equal partner. It is not.
This was when the right lost civilization, not just because the left historically adopts violence and overthrow, but because the left had to be insane to do so. The left cannot and will not manage itself according to the rules and laws of just, functional civilization – which does not include the present corporatist oligarchy, it must be pointed out, because that is just another form of central force, including the ostensibly right-leaning elements frequently with it.
Authoritarianism exists to overrule and overwrite the individual. Only a psychopathy could fuel such a thing. Therefore the right compounds its blunder ever time it argues in kind, expects reasonable debate, expresses surprise or bewilderment at the irrationality, or negotiates. The right historically touches this tar, having somehow expected not to be pitched.
“I promised myself I wouldn’t, but I just couldn’t keep it in.”
The election of Obama led the left to think that permanent and total rule by the left had arrived, which tempted many to take off their masks of civilization and reveal the Stalinist that was always there. The election of Trump enraged the left into even further acts of lunacy. Although shocking, it is nonetheless good to know what our “friends” on the left really are and what they really intend for us.
Charlie Suet: ever-closer union between 28 countries
That slogan “ever closer union” sounds so warm and cuddly, until you realize that it’s not just lovers who want to be closer, it’s also rapists.
Farnsworth Muldoon: who goes into a mini-froth because she cannot convince her Israeli relatives that Trump is a raging anti-semite
The American left now labels every civil and legal opposition to its demands as racism, fascism and so on. A mere “I disagree” proves that one is a Nazi.
Case in point: The San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution declaring that the National Rifle Association is a terrorist organization, specifically because it opposes legislation to limit and abolish the Constitutional right of citizens to own firearms.
https://reason.com/2019/09/04/san-francisco-supervisors-declare-the-nra-a-domestic-terrorist-organization/
https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7568748&GUID=DF64490F-D8BC-4BF7-A43D-287F02BECCCA
I suppose it is impossible to sue the members of the Board for defamation.
“Ladies Sewing Circle and Terrorist Society”.
Not to be confused with The Anaheim, Azusa, And Cucamonga, Sewing Circle, Book Review, And Timing Association.
Case in point: The San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution declaring that the National Rifle Association is a terrorist organization…
Particularly rich given an appeals court in that abysmal state of a state overturned the conviction of an illegal alien who murdered a young woman in San Francisco with a handgun because of some specious nonsense that he only had it momentarily after he picked it up, shot her, and threw it in the water right after.
Proof, if needed, that there are far more horse asses in the world than there are horses.
I suppose it is impossible to sue the members of the Board for defamation.
Probably by the same token you can’t prevent outsiders from crashing governments and monetary systems, or prevent or remove sedition from Congress.
Probably by the same token you can’t prevent outsiders from crashing governments and monetary systems
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/340363/
via Ace
So, per the sf board of stupes, the NRA is a domestic terrorist organization. Do they plan to insist SFPD arrest mailcarriers and other postal workers who deliver NRA mail to members? Interfering with the mail used to be a federal crime. I wonder if it still is after the semi-privatization of the USPS.
@Darleen
If Trump was running in the Israeli elections, he’d win for sure. Jews over here have figured it out.
Hillary, not so much.
Belated as it is, I hope you and your partner had the wedding of a lifetime and wish you both the very best for the years yet to come.
Hopefully, you will have by now received a small token of my appreciation (and celebration) of your nuptials, not to mention this fine [wipes layer of dust from cherry red leather bar stool top] establishment.
In fact, to mark the occasion in proper style, I won’t say no to one of the more recent additions to the jar of pickled eggs.
No, not that one. Goodness, no.
Yes, that one will do nicely.
Again, (belated) congratulations!
Hopefully, you will have by now received a small token of my appreciation
I am be-pinged. Bless you, sir. May you be spared the realisation that you’ve put a double-size duvet inside a king-size duvet cover, resulting in a surprising amount of lateral duvet movement and wee hours arguments about who’s hogging the bloody thing.
Oh, no, DuvetWars!