Friday, July 08, 2022

Ways to Corner John Roberts... and why 'cornering' doesn't interest the paladins on our own side

At bottom, below, I'll make (yet-again) my case for agile tactics that might actually win the fight for fact-based rejection of lies. 

But let's start with a central nexus of today's rationalization for treason.

"The final days of the US supreme court’s term offered a clear look at the way its new 6-3 conservative majority is bluntly using its power to reshape American life, but its next term is also set to hear cases that could prove equally, or even more, consequential."

I make no promises. But I think folks despair too easily. One trick will be to corner Roberts and Gorsuch, the two rightists who might actually care - just a little - about the law and logic and history's judgement. Enough to perhaps squirm and realize they are cornered by some fresh tactics. 

I have offered some such - though alas, none of the brainiac legal minds on the Union side of this desperate struggle seem at all interested in trying a new argument, a new tactic. Here are just two from Polemical Judo:

1. FLIP the demands for Voter ID! Griping about ID requirements only makes dems look like they intend to cheat, even though nearly all the actual cheating is by the other side. So turn it around! Why are red states making it harder for their resident citizens of color or the poor or divorced women or naturalized to GET their ID? Closing DMV offices in blue counties for example?

That should be the point of attack using two words. Compliance Assistance. Republicans demand it for corporations and the rich. Whenever a 'new, onerous burden" of regulation falls upon them, government must provide assistance complying with the new regs. 

The fact that these states make voter ID compliance harder for the poor etc. is so blatant that it could even peel away just a few more 'ostrich republicans' - and that peeling away is - demographically - all we need. Moreover, some oligarchy-shills will feel cornered into some partial remediation. Roberts, at least, might feel cornered.

Do not dismiss that possibility with a shrug. That's lazy! The principle is pure. And I have seen no sign of any of our paladins using it. See the COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE maneuver

2. I've yammered before about how John Roberts admits that gerrymandering is a loathsome cheat! But his ROBERTS DOCTRINE justifies doing nothing about it because:

 (a) the Court can't interfere in the sovereignty of state legislatures - even if they were 'elected' via immense cheating - and

 (b) no proposed solution (e.g. neutral commissions) is proved INHERENTLY to solve the problem. Hence, he can rationalize that the replacement of elected map drawers with un-accountable 'commissioners' is no systematic improvement. So, leave the cheaters free to cheat!

Of course this is hypocritical and partisan. Both rationales (both!) are eviscerated here, with an offered Minimal Overlap Solution to gerrymandering that directly addresses every Roberts criterion and is simple and would work instantly. It needn't be applied in every case in order to demolish his Doctrine, showing there is at least one way to dismantle gerrymandering's worst cheat effects without replacing the legislature with commissions.

And again, not a single one of the paladins on our side is able even to conceive of the possibility of using such judo, instead of the same grunting sumo they've tried for decades.

== The way to corner and demolish lie-fetishists is... ==

"More than 100 Republican nominees for statewide office or Congress this year have falsely claimed that election fraud helped defeat Donald Trump in 2020. Almost 150 members of Congress — more than half of Republicans there — voted to overturn the 2020 election result." ...yet... "...it’s jarring to see how little effort its proponents have put into making an argument on behalf of their claims. They have offered no good evidence, because there is not any.

In fact... "the rare examples of cheating from 2020 tend to involve Trump supporters."

Alas, that's not the big problem, which is utter ineptitude by Dem pols and by pundits to apply basic psychology. 

Try going back to every episode of this mad-mania since 1778. The principal EMOTIONAL drivers behind royalist/confederate/MAGA treasons have been romanticism and machismo

These explain the racism, the gun-fetishism, the aversion to negotiation and obeisance to oligarchy. And replacement of fact with incantation. (The last one is also done on the far-left.)

Macho, especially can be eviscerated, by creating clearly-parsed and relentlessly hammered challenges, making their refusal blatantly an expression of personal cowardice. These challenges do not have to be demands for cash-wagers... though that approach is the most direct and the one these fellows fear most. (They always, always whine and writhe - embarrassing themselves - and then flee.) 

Dig it. Instead of following around the latest QAnon ravings, then the next, like Whack-a-Mole, perpetually whining "that's not true!" PICK A FEW and hang onto them. Pound away for months, if necessary - even years, despite every effort to change the subject and distract with newer lies and fables. Keep hammering as publicly as possible and demanding the foxites stand their ground, or else flee and admit that one was false. Only then move on to others.

Oh, you can offer a lengthy list of lies you intend to get to. But the trick is to sink your teeth into a few - or even just one - chomp hard and never let go, shaking a particular lie over and over until they are seen fleeing in disgrace. 

Sure, it seems hopeless to discredit each lie, individually, one by one, in the face of a lie-tsunami, when there are 40,000 registered Trump false statements, alone. But the thing you are discrediting is not the lie, but the liar

This Is In Effect What The Sandy Hill Parents Did To Alex Jones. And Dominion Voting Systems to Pillow Guy. Please look over those two statements and let them sink in. It has been laborious, but by far the most-effective approach.

And hell-yeah, offering cash stakes for a wager is another version that shows your own confidence. They never, ever step up with their own stakes, opening their cowardice and evasion to ridicule. Macho demolished. 

Alas, what the Dominion and Sandy Hook examples show is that 99% of the politicians and supporters of our good, Union side in this struggle appear to have the tactical sense or learning ability of a tadpole. The fact that no one in high places or punditry will even consider this method - which I have tested for almost a decade and lay out in Polemical Judo - is proof that aliens must be using an IQ reduction ray on us! 

Because even the smart-good side appears to have no savvy whatsoever.


83 comments:

Alan Brooks said...

Is Roberts being B-mailed? Comey said he lied at his confirmation hearings:
which is perjury. Perhaps he’s being hinted to that if he doesn’t go with the program, details about what happened when he was drunk at parties will leak out. Slowly, for maximum effect.

DP said...

Dr. Brin as much as I admire and respect your skills in logic and rhetoric you continue to act as if this was some sort of high school debating contest.

The Republicans see it as a knife fight.

You should do the same.

You and everyone else who values freedom needs to start fighting dirty and viscously like junk yard dogs.

Or we will lose these freedoms.

Paradoctor said...

DP: to oligarchs and their theocrats, cash wagering is a kind of knife-fighting, for it involves their God: cash. Those green pieces of paper bear the inscription "In God We Trust"; and a God evoked on the currency is a God of currency.

David Brin said...

Alas, DP, YOU are the one with the syndrome that makes us lose. You shrug off the pure fact that this fight is muti-spectral, requiring a wide range of tactics.

No one is more in-your-face about this struggle than I am. With straight up calls for confronting em with wager demands that eviscerate their cowardice. What the H@@@ do you think my demands to dissect BLACKMAIL are all about?

But goppers come in many styles and shapes and some are desperate hypocrites, needing to justify thei treasons with logical incantations. Your refusal to even consider how to use judo on them - when those types are linchpins to the Foxite edifice - is one of the reasons that we lose.

Alan, I'd say Roberts is 60% likely blackmailed. But if so, they let him have leeway for his homage-hypocrisy rationalizations. And it is quite possible that he is simply a dogmatist. Either way, what does it hurt for some attys to try the maneuvers I offer here, and so many others?

No. Those who shrug and say: "Why bother?" are the problem, here.

locumranch said...


Humans deserve respect.

All progressive & liberal argument springs from this contention, only to be rapidly bowdlerized by subsequent modification.

All humans deserve respect.

This statement is tautologically true, assuming that the term 'humans' is defined in terms of being 'deserving of respect', a belief that can be mathematically restated as 'Human = Deserving of Respect'.

All humans deserve respect without exception.

As the term 'all' is a simple restatement of the phrase 'without exception', it would be logical to assume that this statement is also true, but this is not the case because the typical progressive has redefined all those who are 'not-deserving of respect' as 'not-human' (not-Human = not-Deserving of Respect), a belief which is mathematically identical yet antithetical to the previously cited liberal contention.

All humans deserve respect with exceptions.

This is the final & bowdlerized form of the main liberal contention, one that revokes and denies the 'human' identity of all those immoral deplorable lying treasonous pro-life republican palefaces that the modern progressive reviles.

And, what do you do with all those non-human vermin who are undeserving of human respect & common courtesy ?

You punch, persecute, imprison and murder them because they are most certainly 'not-Human' which then allows you to confiscate their ill-gotten wealth and repurpose their non-human hides for lampshades & couch cushions.

There's no reason to use logical judo (polemic) on non-humans.


Best

David Brin said...

"Humans deserve respect.

All progressive & liberal argument springs from this contention, only to be rapidly bowdlerized by subsequent modification."

Nothing better proves that we are dealing with a strawmanning idiot. It reveals an absolute lack of even a scintilla of understanding. We're waaaaaay over here. But seriously, stay over there till you are done masturbating.

Tim H. said...

This amused me:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/07/08/jon-stewart-2024-democrats-00044146

Though the idea of Tucker Carlson running is revolting.

Larry Hart said...

Dr Brin:

But seriously, stay over there till you are done masturbating.


Quoting The West Wing's Leo McGarry,
"Thanks for loading me up with that image."

Alan Brooks said...

Pardon, meant to write Kavanaugh, not Roberts, whom Comey said lied at the SCOTUS confirmation hearings.
But, perhaps Roberts is being B-mailed as well.

Alfred Differ said...

We all know Kavanaugh lied in the confirmation hearings. There is nothing to blackmail him about in that. Presenting more witnesses to his lies won't cut it. Even if he were on tape admitting it, I doubt he could be convicted in the Senate until a new GOP President is in the WH.

Bringing down Kavanaugh legally will require something recent and disgusting to his supporters.

Alfred Differ said...

locumranch,

All progressive & liberal argument springs from this contention...

Nah. That's a paraphrasing failure in at least two dimensions.

1. No one here claims progressives claim these.
2. Broad brush leaves no room for human variation.

No doubt this is how you see progressives and liberals, though.

Do you even realize the two groups aren't the same? I doubt it. Your world is full of monsters.

DP said...

Dr. Brin with all due respect we have a 10-year old rape victim here in Ohio who had to flee the state in order to get an abortion. That is America's future unless we start fighting back, and fighting just as viscously and being just as dirty as the GOP - none of whom showed the slightest empathy for the plight of that young girl.

We got to this point because we were too nice and civil while the GOP was carrying through a plan that extended over multiple decades, maintaining a laser like focus on their goals and working their plan with utter ruthlessness. While we Dems were sitting around self assured in the rightness of our cause, the republicans were plotting to take away a freedom. After this comes gay marriage. And after that Brown v Board of education is in their sites. They won't stop until they have repealed the 20th century.

Meanwhile we Dems act like Charlie Brown who after losing a little league baseball game 184 - 0 wondered: "How can we lose when we are so sincere?". Like Charlie Brown, we Dems have been clueless nice losers who finish last.

I'm tired of being Charlie Brown.

It's time to stop being nice.

Robert said...

Bringing down Kavanaugh legally will require something recent and disgusting to his supporters.

I suspect even being found with a dead boy or a live goat wouldn't do it. Your right-wing crowd seems to ignore morality except as a weapon to bludgeon their opponents with; it's certain nothing that actually applies to themselves (and even less to their leaders).

Larry Hart said...

Robert:

Your right-wing crowd seems to ignore morality except as a weapon to bludgeon their opponents with; it's certain nothing that actually applies to themselves (and even less to their leaders).


Absolutely correct. Bringing down Kavanaugh or any right-wing icon wouldn't be the result of finding them hypocritical on personal morality. It would have to be something that violates the grass-roots Republicans' own Q-Anon values. Like if he was caught on tape calling Trump an idiot. Or if he actually performed an abortion with his own hands. Or turned out to be a secret Muslim.

Larry Hart said...

DP:

Meanwhile we Dems act like Charlie Brown who after losing a little league baseball game 184 - 0 wondered: "How can we lose when we are so sincere?". Like Charlie Brown, we Dems have been clueless nice losers who finish last.


I think we've trusted that Republicans were sincere in their stated values, and that no matter how they set the rules, we could win in whatever venue they insisted upon. We're just now noticing the glaring fact that they don't play by consistent rules. Which is the very "situational ethics" and "moral relativism" that they accuse us of as pejoratives. But as already noted here many times, hypocrisy doesn't bother them. In fact a good rule of thumb is that whenever they complain about something liberals do, it's something they themselves are guilty of.

What we have to do is stop letting them always decide the rules of the game. It's why I think President Obama should have stated "I take silence as consent" in the matter of seating Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court. And why Democrats should be willing to expand the court and/or repudiate Marbury vs Madison altogether.


I'm tired of being Charlie Brown.

It's time to stop being nice.


Time to stop being suckers. Not to stop being compassionate or caring about equality and justice. Otherwise, what's the point of "winning" if we have to become them in order to defeat them?

Or as Captain America put it in Giant Size Invaders #1, "We still want to be the good guys when we win." Yes, WWII was a different era, but the point stands.

And maybe more to the point, we can't win by way of an army of Brownshirts storming the Capitol and killing police, and even if we had our own version of FOX News, who would be watching it? Their tactics aren't the type which advance our ends.

However, I agree with you to the extent that "being nice" in general doesn't not require pacifism in the face of attack. That's locumranch's fallacy--the assertion that if you are willing to kill in self-defense, you are no different than your attacker.

David Brin said...

DP ignores what I say in order to preen that he is the one standing and fighting, while I am all "can't we just reason together?"

I am VASTLY more aggressive in this fight. I seek and write about and have published and promoted a wide range of tactics, many of them very, very in-yer-face aggressive. (IYFA)

And yes, others that use logic and the law to corner those who such tools can (perhaps) still affect.

In recommending only screaming berserker frontal assaults, SFA, DP plays right into their hands, since they know exactly how to deal with SFA. It is their food. Though truly are you actually out there doing even that?

Sorry. All I see is laxiness all around me. My fellow blues absolutely unwilling to lift an eyelid to consider new tactics that aren't the comfy same-old.

Jon S. said...

"Time to stop being suckers. Not to stop being compassionate or caring about equality and justice. Otherwise, what's the point of "winning" if we have to become them in order to defeat them?

"Or as Captain America put it in Giant Size Invaders #1, "We still want to be the good guys when we win." Yes, WWII was a different era, but the point stands."


"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he become a monster."

Or, even older, "What doth it profit a man to gain the whole world, but lose his own soul?"

David Brin said...

"Goodguys" is only comparative when your own side did Cologne and Tokyo and Hiroshima and Dresden. And comparative is okay! We are clawing our way out of caves and much and fear and justifications for horrible evils.

What matter is that each generation is trained to CRITICIZE the faults of the previous ones. And that is the inarguable moral superiority we have over certain powers who answer human rights complaints with "what about you??"

Ideally, not a single civilian 'collateral damage' should be remotely acceptable, even in war. But if the line of (disgustingly) 'acceptable keeps moving by an order of magnitude per generation, at least we are moving forward.

David Brin said...

And that 'moving forward' propelled by transparency and criticism is what makes us inarguably the Good Guys.

locumranch said...


Dr. Brin is completely correct as my above comment qualifies as 'strawmanning' as it is not meant as a response to the current topic, but as a partial response to & a bridge from the last thread.

Alfred is partially correct, too, as the political differences between the live-and-let-live Liberal & the morally prescriptive Progressive could not be more pronounced.

But, Larry (as usual) is wrong as what he describes as "locumranch's fallacy" is a generally accepted truism first proposed by Nietzsche, now seconded by Jon_S:

He who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself; and if you gaze too long into the abyss, the abyss will gaze into you.

Because I've spent my life defending the deliberately ignorant against the monstrous, this is why (1) my "world is full of monsters" and (2) why certain self-righteous 'Nazi Punchers' have already become what they hate most.

The proposed Blackmail solution is weak, as the so-called 'Blackmail Victim' is actually a criminal rather than a victim -- elsewise the victim could not be blackmailed -- so any blackmail solution must necessarily require the simultaneous destruction of both blackmailer & victim.

In effect, the appropriate response to Blackmail is MORE BLACKMAIL wherein society threatens & exacts the most monstrous, devastating and horrifying punishment on all the involved parties, whether they identify as victim or perpetrator.

Society must become more monstrous & intolerant than blackmail itself if it truly wishes to eliminate blackmail as a cultural norm.


Best

David Brin said...

While he has toned down thenoxious nastiness, he's still an ongoing example of articulate unreason.

STill, here's a rare example of something worth answering, and not just a spew:

"The proposed Blackmail solution is weak, as the so-called 'Blackmail Victim' is actually a criminal rather than a victim -- elsewise the victim could not be blackmailed -- so any blackmail solution must necessarily require the simultaneous destruction of both blackmailer & victim."

Except my ongoing recommendation is a Truth & Reconciliation Commission that deals out clemency to blackmail victims who help defeat the greater harm, the blackmailers.

Of course there is a sliding scale. None of the blackmailed get away with their reputations safe and some know they will not be forgiven, no matter what. Though the first to step up will also be heroes. Also, when enough step up and the blackmail rings are smashed, then the files and pictures come out and it will be too late for some to get that clemency.

Alas, such worth-answering posers are rare from the poor creature.

Unknown said...

Larry Hart - re hypocrisy:

I remember reading about Larry Flint's reaction to the Republican pile-on about the Bill Clinton Sex Scandal - offering cash for proof of infidelity on the part of Bill's accusers. A number of high-ranking GQP pols crashed and burned, but that was back when hypocrisy mattered a little bit and Fox News* could not be relied upon to cover it all up.

*Legally, Fox Entertainment, by their own lawyers' argument

Is the Brin hypothesis here that verifiable blackmail schemes - by Russia, or Koch, or whomever - are waiting to be uncovered, but the political will to do so does not exist? I suspect it's all a bit more diffuse than that, though I'm willing to believe Rep. McCarthy when he opined, among "discreet" "friends", that Trump and Rohrabacher were being bribed by Russia.

Pappenheimer, who was just berated by his own aged father that a vote for Democrats meant less inheritance (via taxation) when that day came. A country's money might tend to get devalued when there's civil strife, credible threats of secession, and climate catastrophe around.

David Brin said...

"Is the Brin hypothesis here that verifiable blackmail schemes - by Russia, or Koch, or whomever - are waiting to be uncovered, but the political will to do so does not exist?"

Yep.

The present situation makes no sense unless it is systematic and mutally reinforcing. Take Madison Cawthorne being invited to GOP sex orgies. The way to keep the blackmailed from ever getting angry enough to rebel is to draw them in to ever-deeper turpitudes that then get normalized in their minds.

Alfred Differ said...

locumranch,

Society must become more monstrous & intolerant than blackmail itself if it truly wishes to eliminate blackmail as a cultural norm.

Hogwash. Eliminating the potency of blackmail is easier done by forgiving the little sins when the sinner helps reveal the larger ones.

We do this frequently to get to the people at the top of a chain or criminal behavior. Promise to rat out the guy above you in exchange for...

In Kavanaugh's case, I'd be willing to let him be IF he ratted out those holding his leash and then resigned. Same rule applies to some legislators too.

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

"Society must become more monstrous & intolerant than blackmail itself if it truly wishes to eliminate blackmail as a cultural norm."

Hogwash. Eliminating the potency of blackmail is easier done by forgiving the little sins when the sinner helps reveal the larger ones.


Yes, I really don't get this idea that the only thing that someone can be blackmailed over is if they committed a crime. It wasn't so long ago that a gay man could not get a security clearance because it was assumed he'd be susceptible to being blackmailed--not because he'd go to jail for being gay, but because of the hit to his reputation.

Blackmail also works in the sense of "Do what we want or we'll rape your children and kill your family." That has nothing to do with criminality on the victim's part.

Larry Hart said...

Dr Brin:

"Goodguys" is only comparative when your own side did Cologne and Tokyo and Hiroshima and Dresden. And comparative is okay! We are clawing our way out of caves and much and fear and justifications for horrible evils.


Not entirely. "Good guys" also has to do with exactly what it is which drives one to fight.

Remember Captain Kirk, and "The Savage Curtain":

Yarnek : Your good and your evil use the same methods; achieve the same results. Do you have an explanation?

Kirk : You established the methods and the goals...

Yarnek : For you to use as you chose

Kirk : What did you offer the others, if they won?

Yarnek : What they wanted most. Power.

Kirk : You offered me... the lives of my crew.

Alfred Differ said...

Larry,

He still might have trouble getting that clearance if the rest of his lifestyle depends on people not knowing. Stressors upon someone in that line of work add up and then people do stupid things. *

That just supports your point, though. It's not just about breaking the written laws. It's more broadly about breaking unwritten laws.


* This is a big part of why I currently use my real name on the internet. I have to have a clearance to do my job. Hiding behind anonymity creates the perception that I might have something TO hide. I can do and believe all sorts of non-standard things in the open and not risk blackmail. If someone tries to squeeze me, I'd have to shrug and say "Go ahead and tell them... while I document who just threatened me." 8)

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

That just supports your point, though. It's not just about breaking the written laws. It's more broadly about breaking unwritten laws.


Yes, the point I was trying to make is that locumracnch seems to assert that blackmail is a legitimate means of punishing criminals, and/or that circumventing blackmail means pardoning criminals for their crimes.

Blackmail is primarily about threatening embarrassment. Revelation of one's crimes is a form of embarrassment, but it's not the only one. Even "unwritten laws" is a little strong. Sometimes, it's just about opening up private behavior to public scrutiny.

For example, why at this point would a Donald Trump "pee-pee tape" be embarrassing? Many of us already believe he would do something like that, tape or no. Many of his supporters would think having the Obama bed peed on is a great idea. The surfacing of a tape wouldn't change the mind of either of those as to whether Trump is good or bad. Yet, the image itself would be devastating. Not because of the information it provides, but because of the visual image itself.

Alfred Differ said...

locumranch,

Because I've spent my life defending the deliberately ignorant against the monstrous, this is why (1) my "world is full of monsters"...

Are you still trying to defend them?

I've usually found the label difficult to apply. "Deliberate" ignorance comes to close to "thinks different than I do". The sad truth is most people do. (Heh.)

You've been told many times here that you do the strawman target thing a lot. I think I just saw you waffle a couple posts up saying your words refer back to the previous thread... and I don't believe you. I think the strawman accusation is bouncing off your head as if it conflicts with a prior perception model. To some of us it looks like deliberate ignorance, but I'm not so sure anymore. Looks to me more like you can't imagine a monster being a monster because you mistook it for one.

There is a middle ground between ally and monster.

Alan Brooks said...

The GOP created the perfect, delayed-reaction, storm with Reaganism; commencing at least forty years ago.
Back then, they argued that their Gipper was the antidote to Carter. Later in the ‘80s, crime rates ascended and they called for more prisons and harsher sentencing guidelines.
Today they use the ‘breadlines’ slippery-slope ploy: they insist progressivism will eventually lead to breadlines. Must confess I didn’t catch on until January 6th. In fact, thought dead people voted, until someone on FB said otherwise. The GOP’s propaganda has been honed for four decades—and came on cats’ paws until perhaps 2015.
Their internal propaganda is a variation on ‘hang together or we’ll be hanged separately’: Stand together or we’ll be standing on breadlines together. (Gipper’s 12th Commandment.)

David Brin said...

Alfred, we've well established that he is a flatlander abolutely terrified by talk of concepts like a 3rd dimension. Every frantic yammer is distilled to "I DO know wht's going on! See?" And pointing to completely irrelevant strawmwn, alas.

Thing about blackmail is whom it empowers. The blackmailer has an aim to steal or to hurt far more than the blackmail victim.

They must have tests to assess who might have courage someday and step up to turn the tables. That is why the blackmailer MUST follow up with lures into further, deeper turpitudes. I doubt Lindsey Graham is about normal homosexuality anymore. Especially when he just won 6 more years during which that could settle down. No, in his case and many others, I don't expect they'd take up any clemency for truth offers, They are in it, all the way to hell.

Alfred Differ said...

I don't expect they'd take up any clemency for truth offers...

I suspect that is true in many cases. The only way I've seen that slide into Hell avoided involved family intervention. Someone they loved made it clear they couldn't stand for what was happening. Doesn't always work, of course, but it's better than nothing.

What a blackmailer does is rather evil, but luring the target into deeper trouble is closer to tradecraft than crime I think. It takes experience as a blackmailer to be any good at that. Places where one can learn that skill aren't numerous.

---

In our training classes on the subject, they make it very clear that what someone did that got them blackmailed might be tolerable from a clearance perspective, but allowing the blackmail to continue won't be. Allowing oneself to remain a victim is the textbook definition of a security risk. People often think the definition describes a spy (James. James Bond.) but the fools who remain victims are much more numerous. They get used, used again, and eventually turned. Tradecraft.

---

One of the guys I know at work is a charming fellow. Very charming. Disarming smile. Smooth voice. You can't help but be friendly with respect to him. I know damn well he is properly trained, though. I can feel it. If he was up to no-good, I'm pretty sure he'd succeed and none of our ideas would cleave his assets from him until others with proper training revealed them.

Problem is... knowing someone is another person's asset is valuable to the counter-intelligence people. They should be using Sen Graham as much as his handler tries.

Alan Brooks said...

And the blackmailee isn’t always a criminal: if a politician is blackmailed over a minor matter (say he had an affair decades ago) then he’s only covering his political derrière, not committing a real offense.
——
Again, GOP propaganda is effective. To this day there are millions who think that Reagan ended the Cold War—when only the Warsaw Pact was dissolved. And now the hiatus has finished, the Cold War continues in tandem with China’s challenge.
I don’t dislike Trump personally, as he is nothing more than a figurehead; the Spokesreptile for, well, one of you can describe better what it is Trump is the figurehead for.

Larry Hart said...

Alan Brooks:

I don’t dislike Trump personally, as he is nothing more than a figurehead;


Not sure I agree. Trump is a figurehead in the way that Hitler was supposed to be, and look how that turned out.

I agree that Trump is no tactician or strategist, but he's a complete narcisist willing to throw the country, the world, and even his own family under the bus in order to avoid any modicum of personal exposure. He's a clear and present danger to the entire country.


the Spokesreptile for, well, one of you can describe better what it is Trump is the figurehead for.


It depends what you're talking about. To the unwashed masses, he's the spokesperson for white Christianist grievance. But that's a means to an end to get their votes and money. His handlers were certainly after the supreme court, but I doubt they really care about abortion. They want tax cuts and deregulation.

But if his real handlers are in Moscow, then their goal is the disintegration of American democracy and therefore American influence and power in the world. And this is one reason why I keep saying we can't entirely ourselves to the GQP level just to beat them. Because that only helps the enemies whose actual goal is to foment civil war.

DP said...

My apologies Dr. Brin, but the rot is too deep and pervasive to be solved with polemics and wagers.

Just ask a Gen-Xer (and it's got nothing to do with avocado toast)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/07/opinion/work-busy-trap-millennials.html

My generation, X, was the first postwar cohort to be downwardly mobile, but millennials were the first to know it going in. Our country’s oligarchs forgot to maintain the crucial Horatio Alger fiction that anyone can get ahead with hard work — or maybe they just dropped it, figuring we no longer had any choice. Through the internet, we could peer enviously at our neighbors in civilized countries, who get monthlong vacations, don’t have to devote decades to paying for their college degrees, and aren’t terrified of going broke if they get sick. To young people, America seems less like a country than an inescapable web of scams, and “hard work” less like a virtue than a propaganda slogan, inane as “Just say no.”

The pandemic was the bomb cyclone of our discontents; it not only gave all us nonessential workers an experience of mandatory sloth — which, for many, turned out to be not altogether unpleasant — but also dredged up a lakeful of long-submerged truths. It turns out that millions of people never actually needed to waste days of their lives sitting in traffic or pantomime “work” under managerial scrutiny eight hours a day. We learned that nurses, cashiers, truckers and delivery people (who’ve always been too busy to brag about it) actually ran the world and the rest of us were mostly useless supernumeraries. The brutal hierarchies of work shifted, for the first time in recent memory, in favor of labor, and the outraged whines of former social Darwinists were a pleasure to savor.

I think people are enervated not just by the Sisyphean pointlessness of their individual labors but also by the fact that they’re working in and for a society in which, increasingly, they have zero faith or investment. The future their elders are preparing to bequeath to them is one that reflects the fondest hopes of the same ignorant bigots a lot of them fled their hometowns to escape. American conservatism, which is demographically terminal and knows it, is acting like a moribund billionaire adding sadistic codicils to his will.

More young people are opting not to have kids not only because they can’t afford them but also because they assume they’ll have only a scorched or sodden wasteland to grow up in. An increasingly popular retirement plan is figuring civilization will collapse before you have to worry about it. I’m not sure anyone’s composed a more eloquent epitaph for the planet than the stand-up comedian Kath Barbadoro, who tweeted: “It’s pretty funny that the world is ending and we all just have to keep going to our little jobs lol.”

In the actual dystopian future we now inhabit, the oligarchs have realized they can work everyone harder, pay them less, eliminate benefits, turn every human institution from medicine to corrections into a racket, charge far more for basic rights and services than people in any other nation would stand for without revolting, and get rich beyond the penny ante dreams of a Carnegie or Astor.

In the past few decades, capitalism has exponentially increased the creation of wealth for the already incredibly wealthy at the negligible expense of the well-being, dignity and happiness of most of humanity, plus the nominal cost of a mass extinction and the destruction of the biosphere — like cutting out the inefficient business of digestion and metabolism by pouring a fine bottle of wine directly into the toilet, thereby eliminating the middleman of you.

DP said...

An even better essay is "America: The Farewell Tour" by Chris Hedges. Some quotes:

“The idiots take over the final days of crumbling civilizations. Idiot generals wage endless, unwinnable wars that bankrupt the nation. Idiot economists call for reducing taxes for corporation and the rich and cutting social service programs for the poor. They project economic growth on the basis of myth. Idiot industrialists poison the water, the soil, and the air, slash jobs and depress wages. Idiot bankers gamble on self-created financial bubbles. Idiot journalists and public intellectuals pretend despotism is democracy. Idiot intelligence operatives orchestrate the overthrow of foreign governments to create lawless enclaves that give rise to enraged fanatics. Idiot professors, "experts", and "specialists" busy themselves with unintelligible jargon and arcane theory that buttresses the policies of rulers. Idiot entertainers and producers create lurid spectacles of sex, gore and fantasy. There is a familiar checklist for extinction. We are ticking off every item on it.”

On the prison for profit industry, the most perfect form of capitalism:

“Prisoners are ideal employees. They do not receive benefits or pensions. They earn under a dollar an hour. Some are forced to work for free. They are not paid overtime. They are forbidden to organize and strike. They must show up on time. They are not paid for sick days or granted vacations. They cannot alter working conditions or complain about safety hazards. If they are disobedient, or attempt to protest their pitiful wages and working conditions, they lose their jobs and are often segregated in isolation cells. The roughly one million prisoners who work for corporations and government industries in the American prison system are a blueprint for what the corporate state expects us all to become. And corporations have no intention of permitting prison reforms to reduce the size of their bonded workforce. In fact, they are seeking to replicate these conditions throughout the society.”

Comparing America and Rome:

“The decision by the ruling elites in ancient Rome—dominated by a bloated military and a corrupt oligarchy, much like the United States—to strangle the vain and idiotic Emperor Commodus in his bath in the year 192 did not halt the growing chaos and precipitous decline of the Roman Empire. Commodus, like a number of late-Roman emperors, and like Trump, was incompetent and consumed by his own vanity. He commissioned innumerable statues of himself as Hercules and had little interest in governance. He used his position as head of state to make himself the star of his own ongoing public show. He fought victoriously as a gladiator in the arena in fixed bouts. Power for Commodus, as it is for Trump, was primarily about catering to his bottomless narcissism. He sold public offices to the ancient equivalents of Betsy DeVos and Steven Mnuchin. Commodus was replaced by the reformer Pertinax, the Bernie Sanders of his day, who attempted in vain to curb the power of the Praetorian Guards, the ancient version of the military-industrial complex. The Praetorian Guards assassinated Pertinax three months after he became emperor. The Guards then auctioned off his position to the highest bidder. The next emperor, Didius Julianus, lasted sixty-six days. There would be five emperors in AD 193, the year after the assassination of Commodus. Trump and our decaying empire have ominous historical precedents.”

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/58060792-america-the-farewell-tour

Alan Brooks said...

Larry, Trump isn’t nearly as smart as Hitler. What Trump has is up-to-date electronic communications, and countless backers big and small. (He could hire someone to brush his teeth for him.) Trump is a crafty nonentity writ large; lets not perceive him to be larger than he actually is.
Trump was surprised he was elected: his wife had to coax him onstage right after the election. He’s a cringing little man—we have to believe we can bring him down.

Larry Hart said...

Alan Brooks:

Trump isn’t nearly as smart as Hitler.


Heh.


What Trump has is up-to-date electronic communications, and countless backers big and small. (He could hire someone to brush his teeth for him.) Trump is a crafty nonentity writ large; lets not perceive him to be larger than he actually is.


All true. But he's also a bull in a china shop. He doesn't require intelligence or cunning to wreck stuff. He successfully bluffs his way past the courts, and he doesn't give a whit about the appearance of impropriety in any use of power.

As far back as 2016 when most rational Americans were laughing him off as a clown, I was quoting one of Dr Brin's characters from Sundiver after her subsequent realization from her meeting with Bubbacub. "This sophont is dangerous!"


Trump was surprised he was elected: his wife had to coax him onstage right after the election. He’s a cringing little man—we have to believe we can bring him down.


It's not just about his abilities. As long as he's useful to his handlers, he won't go down. I've been thoroughly disabused of the notion that the Republican Party is losing its grip on power.

Larry Hart said...

Pappenheimer

Pappenheimer, who was just berated by his own aged father that a vote for Democrats meant less inheritance (via taxation) when that day came.


With all that is going on in the country and the world, it beggars belief that people still vote for Republicans specifically because of taxes. Even when they talk about "socialism", they don't seriously mean gulags and labor farms--they just mean that taxes might be raised to pay for social programs.

It's also amazing that "the government will get some of your free money" is supposed to be a deal-breaker. I'm currently willing to pay over $5 a gallon as a donation to Ukraine. I considered the hit that my 401k took in 2020 as a contribution to the DNC.

locumranch said...

locumracnch seems to assert that blackmail is a legitimate means of punishing criminals, and/or that circumventing blackmail means pardoning criminals for their crimes.

Yes, this is exactly what I'm asserting.

In order to maintain social control, the Social Contract once used positive & negative incentives, aka 'Reward & Punishment', aka 'Carrot & Stick' and aka 'Operant Conditioning', the problem being our current reliance on unopposed NEGATIVE reinforcement following the gradual collapse of the Social Contract's positive incentives. IMO, this is the gist of what DP is trying to say when he complains about a disincentivized & enervated Gen X.

Shame, Discomfort, Embarrassment, Disapprobation, Punishment: These are examples of traditional negative incentives.

Blackmail, accompanied by removal of the negative (uncomfortable) stimulus upon obtaining compliance: This is a classic descriptor of Negative Reinforcement.

It is my belief that our host errs when he assumes that blackmail (1) exists in a power vacuum and (2) is uniformly bad & evil, especially when blackmail is often indistinguishable from the negative shaming & guilt-based reinforcements routinely offered up by the stereotypical jewish mother.


Best
_____

A quick word about positive incentives, rewards, carrots & reinforcements for hard work, responsibility, sacrifice, productivity, marriage and proper behaviour:

More & more men (all ages) are just gonna sit this one out until society pays us what it owes us.

Higher taxes are a negative incentive, too, btw.

Alan Brooks said...

Locum, the corporate tax rate was about 50% in the 1950s.
——
Larry, the summer Watergate began, Nixon was projected to win the ‘72 election by a landslide. And he did. Many despaired; but Nixon only had a couple of years left in office—it wasn’t over until the fat lady sang.
So (if you don’t mind mixed metaphors)
let’s not throw in the towel just yet.

Larry Hart said...

Alan Brooks:

but Nixon only had a couple of years left in office—it wasn’t over until the fat lady sang.


A different era. Those Republicans still put country before party, or at least saw value in maintaining a healthy America. Today, not so much.


So (if you don’t mind mixed metaphors)
let’s not throw in the towel just yet.


I'm not, but my attitude is draconian. As G Gordon Liddy is quoted, "The secret is not minding."

Larry Hart said...

locumranch:

Blackmail, accompanied by removal of the negative (uncomfortable) stimulus upon obtaining compliance: This is a classic descriptor of Negative Reinforcement.


I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that the compliance incentivized by the blackmail isn't always preventing someone from committing crimes. More often, the victim is incentivized to commit crimes that he otherwise wouldn't in order to forestall embarrassment over something that isn't necessarily a crime.

David Brin said...

I am not bothering much with locum... most just quick skims for things like this:

"Yes, this is exactly what I'm asserting."

Amazing. He sees an example of an adversary doing accurate PARAPHRASING in order to verify that thedissent is accurately aimed... yet it is something that L never, ever does, instead issuing (spewing) one strawman after another with the net effect that he has zero credibility here and generally our response is skim and zzzzzzzzz

--

DP very much of what you said - in your lengthy exegesis of grumbles and plaints - is true.... though much exaggerated. I will not minimize your disappointments and pain. Though again, you display what you showed before...

...and absolutely stunning - almost solipsistic - lack of perspective at any level. Certainly not the context of 6000 years of brutal, grinding poverty, ignorance and rule by priests and feudal overlords with capricious power of life/death over anyone who complained. For all its faults, this is the only civilization that made tens (hundreds) of millions of environmentalists... and scientists and innovators and passionate problem solvers. And you.

I am accused of being an 'optimist' because I point out the other side of the situation... as in Peter Diamandis's ABUNDANCE or Pinker's THE BETTER ANGELS (both of which you must read, if you have a grain of honest curiosity.) In fact, I give only a 40% chance we'll make is to a shining future and 60% that the oligbarchs will succeed against us, as they did against Athens.

What angers me is the way guys like you clutch dark maunderings as an excuse for the one central aim, laziness. Optimism would demand rising ourt of lethargy and taking action, as I do every single day.

This all began because I was willing to parse differences AMONG our foes, designing different tactics for different types... including legalisms to undercut the rationalizations of 'ostrich republicans.' I have seen the method work, though it is laborious. Peeling away even a few influential rationalizers... like Liz Cheney... can matter.

You responded that made me naive. Perhaps. But lecturing me not to bother is counterproductive, since I am fighting to save YOUR lazy ass. Even worse, finger wagging me for not being aggressive toward Foxite traitors is just... plain... weird.

Unknown said...

Dr. Brin,

Not an optimist today. Try me on Thursday.

Sparta beat Athens in the Peloponnesian war, through Persian gold and Athenian hubris (looking at you Alcibiades), but you know, modern Athens remains an important trading port and center of government and learning. Modern Sparta has about 17.000 inhabitants and few museums dedicated to past glory.

The only reason for Washington DC to even be a place is as the capitol of the US. When the USA falls, DC will be a swamp with ruins in a century or so. Kim Robinson pointed out how vulnerable the place is to AGW-exacerbated flooding in a semi-recent novel.

You give us 40% odds of getting to a Good Place. I'd set the odds lower, but still better than Mycroft/Michelle gave to Manny and Professor de la Paz.

Worth a shot. Too old to leave. And all my books are here.

Pappenheimer

Larry Hart said...

Pappenheimer:

Too old to leave. And all my books are here.


I can't help being an American, even if "America" ceases to exist in the real world, or if the reality of the real-world incarnation doesn't live up to the ideal. What matters is the inspiration of the story. That's always been the case, from Camelot to Ragtime to Hamilton. Same with the story of Christ.

Somehow, I became a believer in the promise of Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, and Hamilton. If the United States of America had never existed, some clever writer would have had to invent it as a setting.

Alfred Differ said...

America DOESN'T exist... except for all the clever writers and those of us who want to believe in the stories.

I grew up in the Boy Scouts and didn't leave until I was about 15 when one of their hypocrisies became a bit too obvious to me. Most of the Oath stuck with me, though. Clever writers and those who followed convinced a boy to believe. And I did. And I still do.

I'd give us a 3 in 4 chance of a shiny future largely because it is already happening.

Paradoctor said...

When asked if blackmail is a legitimate means of punishing criminals, locum said, "Yes, this is exactly what I'm asserting."
Oh! So he's definitely an idiot. So I skipped.
What a time-saver! Thank you, locum. Don't hesitate to be definite again!

Alfred Differ said...

locumranch,

"Yes, this is exactly what I'm asserting."

Ugh. Straight forward of you to admit that... but ugh.

I'm supposed to say something about two wrongs not making a right. Maybe something about ends not justifying means. I think I'll skip it, though. I'm sure you've heard it elsewhere.

Positive and negative feedbacks are still active all around you. If you feel a lot more negative than positive, that likely speaks to the setting you've chosen for your act.

---

Jewish mothers use something like blackmail? Heh. Every mother I've ever met used negative shaming, but to equate them shows you miss the point of shaming.

1. If I finger wag at you, I intend to influence you to stop something. The shame is likely revealed for it to be effective.

2. If I blackmail you, I intend to profit from threatening to shame you. The shame is not revealed for it to be effective.

Jon S. said...

Perhaps now you're learning why I stopped paying attention to loco's screeds years ago. Did wonders for my state of mind. :-)

Larry Hart said...

Alfred:

1. If I finger wag at you, I intend to influence you to stop something. The shame is likely revealed for it to be effective.

2. If I blackmail you, I intend to profit from threatening to shame you. The shame is not revealed for it to be effective.


Yes, that was the point I was trying to make without understanding why it is not self-evident.

Blackmail isn't about changing the victim's behavior. It's about forcing him to keep doing bad stuff he wouldn't have done otherwise.

Ok, I'm overly influenced by fiction, but because "Criminal Minds" is no longer on Netflix, I've been scratching the itch with "Blacklist". It's basically the same thing except with the FBI going after international terrorism instead of serial killers. Anyhow, there have been several plots involving really elaborate blackmail schemes, such as an evil medical researcher who infects random citizens with an engineered virus to which only he has the cure. He then compels his victims to perform tasks for him in exchange for each new stage of the cure.

This is so far from "shaming the victim into not doing bad things" that it is in fact the opposite thing.

Larry Hart said...

Gotta love the snark...

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2022/Senate/Maps/Jul12.html#item-3

Like Steve Bannon (see above), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is also under subpoena right now. Of course, Bannon's came from a House committee, whereas Graham's came from Fulton County DA Fani Willis. So, there is a difference there. However, the Senator, despite being a lawyer and a former JAG officer (and, arguably, a current JAG off), ...

Alan Brooks said...

I’m not opposed to what LoCum writes, because I don’t quite comprehend him. He almost makes sense—but not quite.
Question is: why would he blog here? He could go to Pat Buchanan’s blog, just say, and find kindred spirits. Apparently, he visits CB mainly to hone his entrenched opinions.
But what’s it all about? Seems it always comes down to nature versus nurture. There’s an emblematic scene in the film ‘Cold Mountain’ wherein the protagonist is walking in a pristine meadow in Carolina, and saying that the Confederate cause was to keep the meadow the same. The agrarian status quo.
LoCum isn’t a Confederate; he’s too conflicted to be one, anyway. Yet he is espousing status quo views. Sort-of a Ross Perot ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ mentality. LoCum doesn’t want to be pinned down (cornered), so he hedges, tangling his thoughts.
——
Not that Kavanaugh [and many other figures] would be brought down by perjury at confirmation hearings or drunken antics indulged in decades ago.
But subtle long-term pressure by blackmailers naturally can do the trick. Perhaps I was excessively influenced by Watergate, however it is a perfect example of a perfect political storm. Nixon was killed politically by a thousand small cuts over two years. This is obvious but unknown to the majority of citizens.

Robert said...

Blackmail isn't about changing the victim's behavior. It's about forcing him to keep doing bad stuff he wouldn't have done otherwise.

I'm going to disagree. Blackmail is about changing the victim's behaviour. It's used mostly for bad things, but there are cases of blackmail for good purposes.

I did one such myself when I was young (18). I was in first year uni, and one of my old classmates told me that my old high school had cancelled a big UNICEF fundraiser because the principal was trying to pressure staff into coaching a school team* — basically 'if you have the time to work on the fundraiser you have time to coach, which is more important'.

I contacted the principal and threatened a really big stink if he followed through with it. Stories in the paper, radio, on TV… He tried to bully me but I was no longer a student there and resistant to it. (Also a cocksure young smartass.) He did try bullying the student leader of the fundraiser, and staff, but when an actual reporter started calling the school he realized that I was serious and magically the fundraiser was back on.

Whether that counts as blackmail or attempted blackmail I'll leave up to you, because I actually had to follow through with the threat to get results.

This also formed the plot of Dick Francis' novel Reflex, in which a photographer caught people doing what they shouldn't and extorted donations to a charity and good behaviour.


*Coaching is unpaid and voluntary up here.

Larry Hart said...

Robert:

"Blackmail isn't about changing the victim's behavior. It's about forcing him to keep doing bad stuff he wouldn't have done otherwise."

I'm going to disagree. Blackmail is about changing the victim's behaviour. It's used mostly for bad things, but there are cases of blackmail for good purposes.


I should have said "Blackmail isn't about remediating the bad behavior that the blackmailer is threatening to reveal." Possibly with the word "necessarily" or "typically" in there.

Alan Brooks said...

Our house interlocutor—or interloper—here claims that whites are now being oppressed. But they live longer than blacks. If such is being oppressed, we should all be more oppressed.
Of course, the histrionics are are problem, from all quarters. But Replacement Theory is based on emotion and defensiveness; plus a measure of self-pity.
One would have to ask oneself: would one wish to be black? No. For starters, black women, as most women, don’t usually feel safe going out at night. So they have two strikes against them.

David Brin said...

Guys you are troll-fedding.

Black mail is about more than 'Do what I want (subvert the nation wreck US politics, get me govt graft etc)". It generally includes setting up FOLLOW-UP eventsorgies and other perversions - as described by Madison Cawthorne -
that have two effects.

- They provide the blackmailer with vastly more clear and decisive things to blackmail with

- they offer the blkackmailed an inner sense of community and elite normality to rationalize 'what I'm doing isn't so bad.'

It's often the followup stuff - as with the Moscow Embassy Marine Guards - that anchors it in.
Surely that's the case with Lindsey G.

Alan Brooks said...

‘Course, they can’t reveal the ulterior reasons they peddle Replacement Theory, as it gives the game away.
Half my family is from the South; when we visited, the complaint was about their not being left alone to have white descendants, and retain the patrimony existing since Jamestown.
Which in practice means ‘we can interfere with your lives, but not vice versa. You are the upstarts who wish for radical change—we are only reacting against your hubris’.

Larry Hart said...

Alan Brooks continued:

One would have to ask oneself: would one wish to be black? No. For starters, black women, as most women, don’t usually feel safe going out at night. So they have two strikes against them.


Dave Sim used to throw out there as a gotcha line against feminism that "No one wants to be a woman." Even back in the day, I used to throw out Ayn Rand as an example of someone who would have agreed with his positions on gender relations, and yet loved being a woman. I believe she said something like, "I can't imagine being a man, because I love men so much."

These days, with so much emphasis on transgender women, I think Dave's assertion stands self-evidently refuted.

locumranch said...


I'm clearly wearing out my welcome, so I will take an extended break after leaving you with a brief question & few explanations:

So, Mr. Big Shot, do you think your friends would be so impressed with you if they knew that you were a chronic bedwetter until age 15 ?

Note how the above question (1) references a shameful, humiliating or compromising behaviour, (2) contains an implied threat about the revelation of said behaviour, (3) emphasizes the potential negative consequences of such a revelation and (4) is designed to give the utterer power, influence or control over said perpetrator. This is the very definition of the term 'Blackmail'.

black·mail
/ˈblakˌmāl/
noun

the action, often treated as a criminal offense, of demanding payment or ANOTHER BENEFIT from someone in return for not revealing compromising or damaging information about them.


Note also that the caucasian race is a global minority which accounts for about 7% of the world's humans. This is a statistical fact. And, as minority status is said to confer 'disadvantage' and 'disadvantage' is said to equal 'oppression', then it follows that the human subcategory 'white' equals a disadvantaged & oppressed human minority.

These are YOUR terms & YOUR word usage, people, so you're not entitled to be either shocked or dismayed when fellow humans use your language in such a way that places you at a linguistic disadvantage.

Consider the purchase of a dictionary.


Best

Alfred Differ said...

Heh. My bingo card got a few marks on it with that last one.


Dictionary attack

Twisting Chain (no possible tangents)

Absurd Conclusion: Premise denied instead of proof method


Oh. And the fallacy at the end that he wanted to reach by any means, but that's the free spot on the bingo card.

Alan Brooks,

...because I don’t quite comprehend him.

That's a big part of why our host tolerates him here. We get to see each other and try to make sense of it all. Bubble popping. [That's why I don't hold back on my opinions either. Exposure to diversity is annoying, but people who learn how to scratch that itch make better compromisers.]

My personal opinion is locumranch is conditioned to expect negative feedback from previous years and experiences and he gets it here. Loads of it.

Some of what he says makes some sense, though, if you start from a condition of learned helplessness. I don't recommend that. It's too easy to give up fighting for something good when you don't believe good is possible let alone reachable.

Alan Brooks said...

Personally, don’t dislike you, anymore than I dislike Trump. Am not going to even write that you’re Wrong. But you provide scant evidence. The white complaint today is the same as that which I heard in the South long ago. Then, though, the Southern workers were a bit more content—because it was before unions were diminished.
The cracker plaint then was that ‘whites came from Europe and made something out of this continent’. Yes, with great assistance from slaves and ‘coolies’, plus countless others who lived worse off than we have. (So far.)
I don’t want you to cease blogging here, due to curiosity as to whether you have something to say that hasn’t been said since 1619.
You could write that Communist infiltration of progressive organizations confused laborers. You could write that not all unions have had a positive influence, and provide examples of such. You could write on how K-16 education might not be as good as it could (possibly) be.
You could accept it that rural denizens are no more moral than anyone else. This isn’t the 19th century when they saved every scrap of yarn; and during the 19th c. slaves helped them grow some of the fibers in the yarn.
Much more.
But instead you’re all over the road in your comments: you may be conflating scatter-brained thinking with being broad-minded. You are a medical professional? Well, you wouldn’t succeed as a sociology or poli-sci professor.

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

Heh. My bingo card got a few marks on it with that last one.

Dictionary attack


"6 foot tall, 180 pound Rocko beats up all the little kids at the park every day. But since there are five of them and only one of him, he is the oppressed one. By definition. It's in the dictionary."

Not to mention that the drawn out definition of blackmail which he provides proves everyone else's point, not his. That the purpose isn't to get the kid to stop wetting the bed, but to victimize the kid. So I won't mention it.

A.F. Rey said...

And, as minority status is said to confer 'disadvantage' and 'disadvantage' is said to equal 'oppression', then it follows that the human subcategory 'white' equals a disadvantaged & oppressed human minority.

These are YOUR terms & YOUR word usage...


I have to say, locum, that that was a particularly dumb strawman, one that would make the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz bow in submission. :D

It really takes willful blindness to say that the Left believes minority status automatically confers "disadvantage" and "oppression" when one of the leading Leftist organizations is "Other 98 Percent" and how they are being oppressed. Did you forget about them? Did you forget that the Left believes that the oligarchs, who are by definition a minority in any political entity, oppress everyone else? As do the tyrants and the fascists?

When two seconds of thought brings up an obvious refutation of your point, you really need to start thinking about how you missed that in the first place. :)

Alfred Differ said...

Larry,

Yah. His dictionary definition for blackmail is actually decent. Our host's version is an extension that shows what people with with knowledge of tradecraft can do when demanding ANOTHER BENEFIT.

My primary concern is blackmail of politicians with access to state powers, so I think it's reasonable to focus on state actors who are VERY likely to have tradecraft experience. Do that, and it becomes clear why this has to be a counter-intelligence effort.

Larry Hart said...

Der Oger might find these responses from Germans about Germany's court system interesting. There's too much to quote the whole thing, but no paywall.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2022/Senate/Maps/Jul12.html#item-7

...
E.B. in Hanover, Germany: While the German Federal Constitutional Court was modeled in no small part on the Supreme Court of the United States (in particular with its ability to strike down laws it deems unconstitutional) it has (in my view as a non-lawyer) more often than not propelled progress and has in particular tried to accommodate changed perceptions of the public. For example, quite recently it has interpreted into a pretty vague article in the Basic Law (our constitution) the obligation of the government to introduce legislation to (even more fully) combat climate change, based on the article's requirement to protect the "natural basis of life."

When conservatives tried to block same-sex civil unions in 2001, the Court declared that because civil unions are not marriages, there is no problem. In 2017, when we introduced same-sex marriages, the Court did not see a problem with this either, most probably because perceptions in the public on what "marriage" means had begun to change. On the other hand, regarding abortion, while the Court has more or less stated that life begins with conception and thus stroke down an abortion law it felt had put too little weight on that approach, it basically pre-formulated a compromise which it would accept: Today, elective abortion is not actually lawful but no one involved will be prosecuted if certain (not trivial but arguably not too burdensome) conditions are fulfilled. This seems a good compromise, because nobody is positively happy with it, but it has basically settled the matter.

The Court has a very high reputation, which may be connected to their judges (who retire after twelve years on the bench or reaching age 68) being elected by a two-thirds majority in either the Federal Diet or the Federal Council. So, to the extent there are hardliners or extremists among German jurists, they usually just don't manage to arrive at the Court.
...

Paradoctor said...

What to do about trolls? Two blogs that I frequent have different responses.

The comments section attached to "Sinfest" is well-censored. If you differ from Tatsumi Ishida's defensive fringe outrage, then you are banned. As a result his comments section is moribund. Censorship is a guarantor of mental decay: CIAGOMD. His strip is worn out, having run out of jokes years ago. He can still draw, but it's all drivel. I keep looking because it's a train-wreck, and also to keep a wary eye out for the latest damfoolery.

This is in dramatic contrast to the "Field Negro" comments section. Its host lets everyone comment. As a result there are regular thoughtful commentators, but also there is a swarm of anonymous haters flooding the zone with excrement. I think Field does this to let white boys like me see for ourselves just what toxicity that honest Black folks must endure.

I have learned there not to feed the trolls. You cannot reason them out of the vile libels that they did not come to by reason. But though there's no point in talking _to_ trolls, there is point, and pleasure, in talking _about_ them. Hone your analysis. Dissect their mental and moral defects. Seek unsympathetic understanding.

Do not feed the trolls, but do eat them. Metaphorically.

Paradoctor said...

Trolls are needy, but what do they want? Not validation, for they go where they do not like and say what will never be agreed to. Nor do they seek information. Perhaps what they want is an argument, but they do not try to win the argument, for that would require logic and evidence. My theory is that they seek loss and humiliation. It's an S&M thing. The proof is that they don't go away until they are humiliated. I propose that we give them what they want.

Alfred Differ said...

My theory is this particular one likes our host's attention. 8)

Tony Fisk said...

My theory is that he fancies himself as a contrarian: n. a person who opposes or rejects popular opinion, especially in stock exchange dealings. (OED)

In the context of this group, I suppose that's so, in a pythonesque way.

Robert said...

Trolls are needy, but what do they want?

Attention. The worst thing you can do to a troll is deprive them of attention.

Positive or negative, it shows people care about them.

Larry Hart said...

Paradoctor:

Perhaps what they [trolls] want is an argument, but they do not try to win the argument, for that would require logic and evidence


Sealioning perhaps? Never conceding defeat, but just dragging the argument out point by irrelevant point, as if always advancing?


The proof is that they don't go away until they are humiliated. I propose that we give them what they want.


Kinda ruins the forum, though, which might be want they want.

Tony Fisk:

My theory is that he fancies himself as a contrarian: n. a person who opposes or rejects popular opinion, especially in stock exchange dealings. (OED)


That would certainly apply to Canadian comics writer/artist Dave Sim, and loc echoes Dave in many ways, including British spelling.

Alfred Differ:

My theory is this particular one likes our host's attention. 8)


If I had a gun to my head to pick one, that would be it.

reason said...

Larry Hart,
re the German constitutional court. (I am not German but live in Germany so I am aware of it). I think a couple of things to remember here:
1. Germany has a proportional electoral system - governments are always coalitions and compromise is something they are used to seeking. I really think Americans greatly underestimate the poisonous effect the two-party system has. It not only encourages zero sum thinking, but it also makes corrupting the referees a winning strategy - multiple players want fair referees.
2. Yes, the German court doesn't just say yes or no, it makes suggestions at about what legislative approaches it would accept.

Paradoctor said...

Larry Hart:
You can humiliate a troll without ruining the forum if your stinging rebuke is polite, accurate, sharp, well-reasoned, and well-spoken. Speaking about them in the third person removes the attention factor. If they choose to object to the rebuke, then they must identify themselves as its target, and thus accuse themselves.

Larry Hart said...

@Paradoctor,

I'm not arguing cross purposes with you. But "ruining the forum" is when it becomes all about discussing the troll.

David Brin said...

Tony hi! I got a message about that pwiki account. Are you still maintaining it?

Locum serves a function. I can clearly and openly calibrate my troll tolerance standards. He deliberately skates several cliff-edges and gets banned for months when he goes over them. A couple of stupider trolls gleefully yowled venom and hateful fecal-hurls and were trivial to get rid of.

Alfred Differ said...

So in the interest of not discussing trolls (I typo'd that as drools once and liked it)...

(*) Do the paladins at least agree on who is a paladin?

I ask because a get-together would at minimum support a place to discuss which strategies they are actually using.


I think of paladins a bit like t-cells. They point to dangers and occasionally that's enough. Robust foes require the rest of the immune system to activate, though, and cause specialist cells to arrive on the scene. Some work in acidic environments. Some in basic ones. Other's flood the area and drown the attacker in so much fluid that they are flushed out. (Achoo!)

So for any paladins here... who are the specialists who back you up when your frontal assault is rebuffed? Who saps the castle walls? Who designs your siege engines from local materials? Who maps the countryside to describe what an effective siege must do?

Don Gisselbeck said...

Regarding trolls, I like the way MCToon "debates" flatearthers. Relentless, calm, well-searched, and constantly pushing to stay on subject.

Larry Hart said...

This could be me...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/04/opinion/these-truths-we-holdand-share.html

...
Our founders bequeathed to us something radical, something unprecedented: the tools with which to build a multiracial, multiethnic, pluralist democracy that extends the privilege of American identity to all.

My love of America — of the American idea — is unwavering. This laboratory of liberty is worth saving, worth improving.

But I fear we are mired in a culture of absolutism and tearing ourselves apart at the seams.
...


Then the inevitable bothsiderism, right?

...
Everything right now, it seems, is black or white, all or nothing, perfect or unacceptable. Every venue has become a theater for performatively asserting our own virtue or righteousness, or for denying someone else’s. The so-called microaggressions keep getting smaller, the disproportionate penalties bigger. Nuance and complexity, let alone compromise, are nowhere to be found. In their place is a pervasive, paralyzing cynicism. And in turn, our extreme challenges remain extremely unsolved.

Even among those with whom we largely agree, we’ve normalized intolerance and incivility. Among those with whom we disagree, we shame and cancel. We dehumanize and demonize.
...


Not quite. it's about time this was said explicitly.

...
Certainly, not everyone is equally culpable or complicit. To suggest that the people and groups denigrating human rights and human dignity are somehow on equal footing with those of us defending them is wrong. This would imply a false moral equivalence.

And make no mistake about my own view: The advocacy of those working to reimagine our society is of a different category from — asymmetrical to — the backlash of those rolling back our rights and fighting to restore an unequal past. The former is challenging us to be better, more inclusive, more equitable. The latter too often is daring us to be worse.
...

Larry Hart said...

Ok, I'll send this Texas woman the money to pay a fine if she loses the case, therefore setting precedent that a fetus isn't a person...

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/11/us/pregnant-woman-hov-lane/index.html

Brandy Bottone was driving in the HOV lane meant for at least two people per vehicle in Dallas, Texas, two weeks ago when she was pulled over by police. The officer noted there didn’t seem to be anyone else in the car, but Bottone had a retort – she was 34 weeks pregnant.

“He said, ‘Is there somebody else in the car?’ And, looking around, I said, ‘Yes there is,’ and he said ‘Well, where?’ I pointed at my stomach and I was like, ‘Right here,’” she told CNN on Sunday.

“He said, ‘Well, it’s two bodies outside of the body, so that doesn’t count.’ I was kind of in shock, and I was like, ‘Well, in light of everything that’s happened, and I’m not trying to make a huge political stance here, but do you understand that this is a baby?’”

The interaction, first reported by The Dallas Morning News, came days after the US Supreme Court ruled there is no federal right to abortion and declared abortion rights can be determined by each state. Texas, like other states led by conservative officials, has pushed to restrict abortion and has defined a fetus or unborn baby as a “person” in its penal code.
...

Robert said...

I saw that. An excellent idea :-)

Der Oger said...

Der Oger might find these responses from Germans about Germany's court system interesting. There's too much to quote the whole thing, but no paywall.

Thank you!

Sorry for my late answer, have been busy this week. Some thoughts and additions:

- Technically, in the EU, the national courts are lower in hierarchy than the EU Court. I believe there are one or two cases when our courts have been overruled by the EU Courts.
- While the abortion rights decisions are now in focus of public interest, there have been a number of rulings that ultimately helped to form the society we live in today. Examples would be the Lüth decision (wherein Lüth, a public official, was considered within the regulations for free speech when he publicly condemned a film director employed by the Nazis after the war and demanded him to be cancelled), Brokdorf (putting limits on the state on how they can deal with public protests and even riots) and the Air Security Law (which was introduced after 9/11, and would have allowed the state to shoot down passenger vehicles that would have been abducted by terrorists but got vetoed by the court).
- Theoretically at least, judges are under the same restrictions than other public servants to refrain from unconstitutional activities; doing so could lead to removal from office. In reality, the hurdles are quite high, and I believe neither of the Trump candidates would have "qualified" as "politically unreliable". They just won't have gotten the necessary votes, at least not, if not candidates from the other side of the aisle would not also have gotten a seat, too.

David Brin said...

onward
onward