DTulpa
3yr ago
Yeah, and to most people born after their presidencies, all that is behind the smoky curtain of history. It's the perpetual meme that all that shady stuff that happened in the past is just the messy, unglamorous history of an imperfect nation - but we certainly don't act like that any more!
And I feel extremely silly for writing that, because the naivete is blinding by now. I considered myself more cynical than most, and the degree to which people went mask-off during Trump was shocking to me. At the very least, I expected them to manage their appearance better.
DTulpa
3yr ago
Times, technology, and visibility into these things change.
Is it normal to have former intelligence leaders and staff imply a candidate is committing or enabling treason? Is it normal to have the wider mainstream media actively suppress and turn eyeballs away from a scandal, against their usual approach? Normal for the adults in the room to heavily imply or outright claim their opponents are the literal reincarnation of Nazis?
Maybe it is. Perhaps all that's changed is the advent of Twitter, Facebook, the blogosphere, and ever-watchful eye of the internet to record everything for future analysis and dissection. And maybe now is the time to cut this beast down a size or two.
I'm used to media bias and political acrimony being things. I grew up through Clinton-Obama. The Trump years were fucking inexcusable.
DTulpa
3yr ago
I even really liked that album. I can't help but think of it when looking back at how totally off we were, since I was very much of that crowd. Nice production, though.
DTulpa
3yr ago
Fair enough argument, and I suspected this was the lean of your post. And Rowling is in many ways a victim of the kind of culture she herself enabled.
I wish there was a way for her to get her comeuppance without making life more irritating for everybody else. Le sigh.
So much of what pisses me off about these conversations is that I'm betting your description of her behavior is fairly accurate to a degree. The sticking point for me is the completely-bought framing that any of this qualifies as 'transphobia'; at least in a way that I could give weight to the term, as opppsed to simply granting and swallowing the activist line.
It seems obvious to me that if you dig deep enough, immutable differences between the sexes will reveal themselves. This does not automatically entail that trans people don't deserve respect or the same same basic protections and amenities as any other citizen. To my understanding, this is Rowling's position. And if there's a moat around her stance, its on what would have previously been largely agreed-upon, practical notions like "putting penises in womens' prisons and shelters is a bad idea". Compassion and universalism does occasionally need to reconcile itself with the hard limits of bad actors and material reality.
If the word 'transphobic' encapuslates even this, then it's a dead word to me. I register it as a hostile entity everywhere it comes up.
Now, I'll admit that I actually don't know much about who Rowling allegedly platformed or buddied up with. Perhaps they were truly terrible and a shade too red even for me. But if their statements and conversations are less "Delete trans people" and more "Your neovagina - bluntly - is incapable of fooling anybody", then I'm so over it.
Given that I recently copped a permanent sub ban and a weeklong site-wide admin ban for daring to make a three-sentence tepid defense of JK against activists (not trans people with any specificity) - charged with transphobia and 'promoting hate' - I think my disdain for this word has been freshly renewed, and replanted a few feet deeper towards core of my being.
DTulpa
3yr ago
That certainly seems to be the takeaway I'm left with, given how progs have boxed in these arguments. And I don't think they appreciate how psychically destructive it is. Like everything you were taught from your childhood upbringing to adulthood was actually just total bullshit, and we all decided this last year.
This is the kind of thing that annihilates any and all integrity of your political project, AFAIC. gj
There are many cringe stereotypes from previous eras that are now inexplicably being reassesed as authentic ethnic and cultural expressions.
It's certainly not unanimous, and it has resulted in many eyebrow-raising episodes like this one. But I can absolutely see a well-intentioned 2020s progressive pushing for watermelon and chicken during Black History Month, and being caught completely flat-footed when this doesn't go over well at all.
I'm not totally sure that's what happened here, but its not remotely in the realm of disbelief either. The cultural consensus of the 90s and 00s continues to fracture further, so I no longer use it as a touchstone for how I predict people to largely act today.
DTulpa
3yr ago
I have no nostalgia for the original film, mainstream action blockbusters aren't really my thing, and a 'nostalgia sequel' several decades since is usually an instant write-off. I'm also very cynical of the modern Hollywood landscape and its output.
So I did raise my eyebrow at all the positive word of mouth for Maverick. I figured I'd sign myself up for an experiment and see what all the fuss was about, expecting to be pleasantly surprised by the movie being fine, but that's about it. So I can't overstate the level of shock I experienced when I left the theatre liking it. Like, really liking it to the point where it was my film of the year; painfully but decisively edging out Northman and Everything Everywhere (both films I loved and am more likely to rewatch). Those are certainly more 'interesting' films with stuff to chew on. But the sheer triumph of Maverick's execution felt anomalous and worthy of attention.
The plot was predictable, and I could see all the the filmmaker tricks for setting up drama, humor, and romance getting telegraphed in realtime... but by god, it worked on me. And I'm not sure I can tell you exactly why it worked on me, despite all my intellectual defenses manning the barricades. I'll admit that time and place probably have something to do with it. Maverick wouldn't have been notable to me ten years ago, whereas my experience at the cinema last year felt like an oasis in a desert of films compromising themselves one way or another for 'modern audiences' or tinsel town sensibilities.
One consequence of seeing Maverick is that I am now more askance towards films attempting to be 'clever', 'heady', 'subversive', or 'topical'. These are not bad things to aspire to be, but I lately feel like so much of the conventional wisdom for making good characters, tone-appropriate humor, and satisfying narratives has been sacrificed for those things. Like a film or show isn't really legit or worthy of one's attention outside of a lazy weekend afternoon unless it's busting tropes, sending up conventions, or lampshading itself with a too-proud self-awareness.
Then Maverick comes along and reminds me that films are experiences, not masturbatory intellectual exercises. And if the experience worked for you, questioning how it works is like questioning a magic spell. As Mr Plinkett said, 'you may not have noticed, but your brain did'. Maverick felt scientifically designed to positively engage my senses with such satisfaction that my cynical brain was effectively being told to STFU, and that can really only happen to me if it's doing its job well.
(Additionally, all my friends who saw it have had similarly glowing reactions. I took my grandfather to see it as well, and the level of enoyment he had would seemingly indicate this man hard been starved of films he likes for decades.)
DTulpa
3yr ago
Both of those bullet points are completely compatible with reducing cop presence. Or if not presence, cop interactions - to diminish the overall surface area where police and black Americans interface with each other. The second point in particular gestures towards this.
DTulpa
3yr ago
BLM's specific argument (if one should exist) was that cops were engaged in 'open season' on black people - that it was their actual presence making life hard for the downtrodden.
You cannot pretzel that back to a vague, generalized, 'reasonable' complaint about 'failures of modern law enforcement practices, therefore BLM is on to something' without appearing dishonest or suspect.
DTulpa
3yr ago
Why is malice out of the question? Why is that so totally out of bounds given the pattern of behavior from the FBI over the last half-decade?
I understand the principle behind steelmanning and charitable interpretations, and wish to preserve them to the extent I can. But at a certain point it feels like like they're being abused and I'm being told to bury my head in the sand.
I will consider it noteworthy once everything in the Twitter files and the incestuous relationship between SV, the state, and the media (some of banned themselves being implicated in the drops) receives the same measure and moreso.
Unt then - No. I really dont find this noteworthy at all despite your insistence. The last 10 years has been a graveyard of high-minded tech companies loudly pledging their allegiance to free speech suddenly doing an about-face and reneging on that promise when it was convenient. The mainstream conversation about hypocrisy on social media platforms will not start at Elon Musk.
DTulpa
3yr ago
I know most peoples commitment to free speech is tenuous at best, but how many of such utterances are sincerely stated beliefs versus snarky backhands intended to remind progressives who was singing this tune not long ago?
And we cant just paper over the differences in application here. A sufficiently non-partisan crowd with warm sentiments towards the concept of free speech could be totally on-board with banning the amplification of public tracking data on completely generic grounds regarding public safety. That is not the same thing as banning people over jokes or misgendering.
I know that Elon's statements in support of 'free speech absolutism' has confused so much of the discourse around this. But he also said the platform would attempt to comply with the law, and ultimately wants Twitter to be a place for the 'sane 80%' (should such a thing exist), which of course would entail discrimination of some kind. Who exactly was expecting or wanting Twitter to turn into 4chan or kiwifarms?
DTulpa
3yr ago
People keep repeating this, but none of them have bothered to make the apples to apples comparison of discriminating against political viewpoints versus banning real-time location doxxing. Until they do, this is just more 'Boo Musk' weaksauce.
Wake me up when Elon starts banning people for referring to Rachel Levine by their preferred pronouns.
Are you going to start following them on Mastodon (or on Twitter when they return in a week), or will you forget most of them in a month's time?
I feel like so many invocations of the Streissand Effect are like that meme that's structured like 'Awareness + ???? = Profit'. Being kicked off a platform of immense visibility is surely at counterwinds with the small bump of notoriety you receive for a week.
Blue elites may have developed a disdain for Chappelle. For the rank and file (and anybody who grew up with his old show), Dave still has the cultural cachet of being the 'the GOAT' and for his BLM sympathies. The trans stuff is at most slightly unfortunate in their eyes, but not enough to tip the scales.
I honestly think the increase in the use of "groomer" is because people no longer care to be reasonable. Which isn't to say there there's no good reason to use the word, since I do believe that this modern phenomenon of "grooming" is a real thing that warrants the label in some form. But it is impossible to ignore its more salacious connotations.
Reasonsble concerns were registered, reasonable arguments were made, and the response was to accuse one of wanting trans/gay kids to die. There's clearly no oasis of high-minded discourse down that road. So if the battle requires responding in kind - tainting one's enemies as kid-fuckers - and there's more mileage to get from that, so be it.
This will, of course, result in innocent casualties. And apparently I'm supposed to be angry at the Right when they occur, but all I can summon is disdain for a Left that chose this ball, picked it up, and ran the whole field before the other team knew there was a game on. Shouldn't their steadfast refusal to entertain any sensible debate be held in judgment when these totally predictable consequences occur, even just a little bit?
Here and elsewhere I read commentary about how the "groomer" meme has gone too far, and the Right needs to talk more in a way that invites better understanding and doesn't cast heat at potential innocent bystanders. And I want to yawn so hard that my jaw falls into my coffee mug, because boy if we were all supposed to really care about this, we should have been less idiotic and cavalier about 'trans issues' as we have been the last few years. Best I can do is flail my arms and say "You were forewarned about playing with fire".
Throw the shithead in prison and give him the chair. I'll donate 20 bucks to the execution fund. But there will be no marches of solidarity or moments of introspection, because the CW still marches on around us.
DTulpa
3yr ago
Too many syllables, and I can't tell who its supposed to resonate with.
Is there a large contingent of Rs that would nod in agreement with the 'sanctimonious' label? Sanctimonious about what, exactly? The things that they already broadly align with him on?
It would be more understandable if Trump was appealing to Democrats with that jab. But it's still nowhere near catchy enough. Disappointed.
DTulpa
3yr ago
The concern is less that something dies and more that it reanimates as a zombie hungry for brains.
DTulpa
3yr ago
The entire reason 'nuclear weapons' are being deployed is because all others have seemingly failed. This never even becomes an issue in this timeline if the SocJus left had demonstrated any capacity to police its own and smoke out harmful ideologies amongst its ranks; if some figures of authority actually put their foot down and declared that this stuff is a bright red line that will not be crossed.
Instead, the Left just Presses X to Doubt and dismisses all criticism as conspiracy mongering, with mainstream support. And when their opponents start getting a little too mean, the Left says "Whoah buddy, I'd love to resolve this, but I don't think I can when you're this hot and bothered! Come back when you've cooled off!".
I see no reason why anybody should drop "groomer" from their lexicon in the face of this willful intransigence.
An organic phenomenon in circles of varying levels of progressiveness that is exported via mass media to circles that find it distinctly inorganic - because it's practically an alien signal from a foreign reality that doesn't reflect or align with theirs. And you may have noticed that a sizable part of our culture war is spilling-over resentment towards and reassesment of these memes; either due to being fed up with them to the point of dropping politeness or in some cases betrayed by what they feel were implicit lies sold through them.
Like, half (if not most!) of the argument around these issues is that critics find them largely inorganic and astroturfed! And all you can do is serially post strings of words amounting to:
"OK, but so what?"
"OK, but what could you even do?"
"OK, but like, doing anything would be coercive, no?"
You remind me of a friend who talks this way whenever we have a political discussion that trails into something he's either plainly uninterested in or (frankly) unable to seriously defend a pet position of his - his tack of course totally changing when, say, the conversation turns to Roe v Wade. He's a great guy, pretty sharp, makes a good debate partner to keep me on my toes, and so I look past that stuff.
This is just boring and low effort.
More options
Context Copy link