Occupy failed because sleeping in a park doesn't do shit. — Hanover

If you are trying to say they weren't well organized enough, I'd agree, and would invite you to write an instructional pamphlet for the next attempt at a left-wing revolution. I suggest "Hanover's Guide on how not to Sleep in the Park and Actually Get Shit Done!" as a working title. Thank you for your service and "Viva la Revolución! :strong:

It's not this phantom "whataboutism". The material causes of misery among blacks, poor whites, hispanics, native Americans, et al grossly overwhelm the harm caused by someone saying "cotton picking". People get poor, stay poor, and sink deeper into poverty and suffering as a result of deliberate material arrangements kept in place for the convenience and benefit of the few. — Bitter Crank

If someone is deeply offended by "cotton picking" then that's a real harm, however much they might have material causes of misery. It's like saying to a poor man, "Don't complain about me calling you're a poor stupid piece of shit because you've got more important things to worry about." That just doesn't make sense. So yes, it is whataboutism because you're telling people not to care or not to act on issues important to them because you think there are more important things. It's the same line of reasoning when Trump is confronted with "But Putin kills journalists"... and he replies "Well, we kill a lot of people too". Or let's not worry about human rights abuses in China because things are worse in Saudi-Arabia. It's nonsense.

I've heard this what-aboutism so many times and it's just boringly easy to refute. I mean do you really think comparing a person of black heritage to an ape with the express intent of belittling them is the same as accidentally referring to yourself, not a black person, as a house n**** as a joke? Really? — Baden

The joke would be outrageous if Rush Limbaugh was asked to do some menial task and he responded by saying he was a house N and he wasn't fit for the fields. It's not funny. It references a horrible episode in American history where black people were divided into subgroups where those who had more European features (most notably skin tone) were permitted the better work in the house and the blacker ones were left out in the field. Hilarious Rush! You're too white to do that work. Yeah, good one.

So, you can't generalize without taking into account the behaviour of the target. Obama, whatever you say about him, and I don't like him either, was no Trump when it came to how he expressed himself. And would you be upset, for example, if a Republican said "Fuck the Ayatollah". I mean, does this apply to every target? Are we not justified in saying "Fuck X" publicly ever? In this case I don't support it, I think it was counterprocuctive, but I wouldn't rule it out tout court as being a legitimate form of protest. — Baden

Again, sit on what you consider to be your logical distinctions all you want, but every time it happens, you further polarize. The right does not buy into your distinctions, and candidly, neither do I. It pushes me more toward voting for Trump actually.

My point is that you've got to look at the practical application of these things and worry less about some academic distinction you want to make. If, for example, black people didn't care about being called cotton pickers, then such comments wouldn't be outrageous. They'd be just as logically offensive, but to be truly offensive, you have to actually have that emotion. By the same token, if it is the case that the right is being offended by the application of what they perceive as a double standard, it's of limited relevance whether they ought logically be offended. The simple truth is that they are, so stop it. If you think it's fair game to say "Fuck Trump," but you scream and yell at "Fuck Obama" (despite you're personally thinking he's less offensive than Trump), you're going to continue to insult the right. If that's what you wanted to do anyway, then have at it, but don't expect any great respect back at you.

I've refuted it not rationalized it. But feel free to try to rebut. I honestly don't think you have much on this one. — Baden

And I've refuted you and don't think you have much on this one. In fact, I think you're just hanging on to your argument because you feel you've already invested in it so you won't let go. Not really, but those are the sorts of things you like to say.

As to the first part, should we hold the President to the same standard as an actor? — Benkei

Trump didn't say "Fuck De Niro" though. His comments have been less than that.

Second, there's a qualitative difference between racist and mysogynistic comments Trump has made and the sort of crassness De Niro showed. — Benkei

What about what Maher said?

I do agree however that it's entirely likely the reactions to a Fuck Obama would have been different. On the other hand, no white president is going to get shit about his birth certificate either. So it seems the Left and the Right throw different types of insults at each other. — Benkei

I never thought the birther movement was racist. I thought it was stupid, but I'd have expected the same had Hillary's birthplace been suspect for some reason.

The joke would be outrageous if Rush Limbaugh was asked to do some menial task and he responded by saying he was a house N and he wasn't fit for the fields. It's not funny. It references a horrible episode in American history where black people were divided into subgroups where those who had more European features (most notably skin tone) were permitted the better work in the house and the blacker ones were left out in the field. Hilarious Rush! You're too white to do that work. Yeah, good one. — Hanover

You didn't answer to my point: Roseanne comparing a black person to an ape in order to belittle her is worse in degree of offensiveness to Bill Maher comparing himself to a house n**** as a joke. That's crucially important to recognize because we are arguing over the degree of outrage that's appropriate and that is proportional to the degree of offensiveness. I never claimed the joke was funny (in fact I said it was objectionable and Maher should have been punished more) nor did anyone else claim that, so you're arguing against a strawman rather than addressing the issue. The fact is your attempted equivalence does not hold therefore your argument fails. Period.

Again, sit on what you consider to be your logical distinctions all you want, but every time it happens, you further polarize. — Hanover

So, I should be illogical or not make distinctions? That's a pointless line to take. If we're not going to attempt to do an intelligent analysis, it's going to be a short and boring disagreement.

The right does not buy into your distinctions, and candidly, neither do I. It pushes me more toward voting for Trump actually. — Hanover

They're not my distinctions. I'm trying to apply reason here. So this is another pointless response. And telling me I'm pushing you towards voting Trump by analyzing the situation is flattering in an odd way but you can hardly expect me to modify my analysis in order to please you or anyone else. If you want to shoot yourself in the face to spite a political opponent, go ahead. I'll happily record the occasion and post it as a contender for the metaphorical Darwin awards.

My point is that you've got to look at the practical application of these things and worry less about some academic distinction you want to make. If, for example, black people didn't care about being called cotton pickers, then such comments wouldn't be outrageous. They'd be just as logically offensive, but to be truly offensive, you have to actually have that emotion. By the same token, if it is the case that the right is being offended by the application of what they perceive as a double standard, it's of limited relevance whether they ought logically be offended. The simple truth is that they are, so stop it. If you think it's fair game to say "Fuck Trump," but you scream and yell at "Fuck Obama" (despite you're personally thinking he's less offensive than Trump), you're going to continue to insult the right. If that's what you wanted to do anyway, then have at it, but don't expect any great respect back at you. — Hanover

The question we were arguing was not whether the right should be offended over the application of double standards, the question was whether there are actual double standards or not. You claimed there were. I've argued against that and told you why, and you've refused to reasonably engage. So, I don't accept there are double standards (at least in the examples we've dealt with. It's up to you to raise more if you want) to be offended by in the first place. The double standards argument appears to me to be an invention of the right in order to distract from the behaviour of some of their public representatives, spokespeople and fellow travelers, and a very weak attempt to justify that behaviour by drawing false equivalences. I've seen this strategy time and time again where pundits compare, for example, racist comments by a right winger to rude or vulgar comments by a left winger, two completely different categories of offense (though not in the case of Bill Maher where both comments were racist but in very different ways, one being a stupid attempt at being self-effacing, the other a straightforward racist attack).

On the example of DeNiro, I said he was wrong to say what he did, so it's not exactly accurate to say I said it's fair game. I said I understood the reaction. On Obama, I would not scream and yell if someone said Fuck Obama, I would probably on the contrary say, yes, Fuck Obama. I would think it hypocritical for an actor to say that in public if part of the reason for saying it was that the target was lowering the tone of public discourse as Trump is. But again, Trump deserves these kinds of insults more in the sense he does the same to others all the time. If right wingers are so bound up in their own partisan cloud of self-delusion that that simple common sense point cannot be admitted, it's again, their loss. I'm not going to stop pointing out reality because it's uncomfortable for them.

And I've refuted you and don't think you have much on this one. In fact, I think you're just hanging on to your argument because you feel you've already invested in it so you won't let go. Not really, but those are the sorts of things you like to say. — Hanover

Yes, not really. In fact, not at all. Because you haven't responded to my arguments so much as simply expressed your dislike of them. And if you think I didn't refute you and therefore shouldn't have claimed I did, actually respond and defend the equivalences instead of just shrugging the point off on the basis of anyone can be offended by anything they like. They can. But not justifiably. And therein lies the rub.

But are we on the shore building intellectual sandcastles here or have we actually got our toes in the water yet? The meta-game is to be above it all and imagine we're making a contribution simply by analyzing how fucked up each side is. Meanwhile society as a whole drifts towards some -ism that we, for real ethical reasons, object to but don't or can't do anything about — Baden

Yeah, that's an apt criticism, and the Selma example is a good one. I've never been very politically active (mostly because I don't know how to interact with people outside bars and small gatherings) and that sometimes makes me liable to 'beautiful soul' armchair analysis. I still think the point I was trying to make is valid, but I do need to separate the wheat from the ivory starbucks meta-chaff.

--

I think my last post was sloppy and confusingly mixed up two different themes:

(a) authentic vs inauthentic outrage

(b) What sort of missteps are grounds for legitimate outrage?

I do think these are closely linked, but nevertheless distinct. I didn't outline very well the way in which I think they're related to one another.

(Separating the question of legitimacy from the question of authenticity opens up a category of 'authentic outrage for illegitimate reasons' which might appear troubling, but I don't think it is. I'll bracket that at this point, but I'd be willing to defending that in more detail, and will probably expand on it below)

@Hanover's post moved from diplomatic agnosticism regarding a specific example toward a broader criticism of a general climate of performative outrage. I was trying, in my post, to demonstrate that I acknowledge the existence of that climate (which I sincerely do find to be problematic) but also...

The also was this: Peformative outrage exists - moreover, illegitimate performative outrage exists, and is rampant. BUT. That doesn't mean that we should approach all outrage as opportunity to comment on a corrupt climate. People fake injuries all the time, for pills. Someone comes to a doctor, leg mangled - 'Well I can't say one way or the other in this case, but what I think is worth talking about how many people do fake."

But the other point is this: The political use of illegitimate occasions for outrage, whether the outrage is authentic or not, casts doubt on legitimate uses of outrage. Selma is clearly legitimate, whatever the degree of personal authenticity for the people involved. Whatever the artifice, it embodies an authentic outrage, but strategically. It worked.

What would work now?


So...oh but I don't know how to say what I want to say now. It's tip of the tongue.

Something like: You can argue for the pragmatic use of tactical outrage, and I think you're right, but that use will only be pragmatic as long as it actually moves people. Moves people other than the people who are already moved. If you reach a crisis point where everyone suspects that everything is politics and is inauthentic ---then that rationale utterly fails. I would argue that that's already happened (2016), and that the left, in denial, is sleepwalking to the same tune. There was plenty of tactical outrage directed at Trump. But, like a bad dream, any attempt by the democrats to capitalize on that outrage just made the rest of the country like trump all the more, ala Berlusconi.

Intellectually, ivory-starbucks, I have no problem suggesting to Hanover that he's mixing up levels. Pragmatically, sewer-thing, I think Hanover's dead right. If you want to mobilize on that level, you have to focus on what people feel - not what should they feel.

tldr: you can only ignore the meta stuff, as a pragmatic strategy, if the meta stuff hasn't already been baked into the object-level. It has been.

I doubt that the cancellation of Roseanne's show was meant as punishment. It was probably just an attempt to protect a brand. She's a Trump supporter. Trump isn't a popular president. What she said sounded racist. Trump has been accused of racism.

It all swerves into a nasty racist stew that doesn't play particularly well.

I never thought the birther movement was racist. — Hanover

Wait, really?

Here's a poll from 2015. The pollster gets a B rating from 538, and shows a tiny Democratic lean.

You can argue race is not a factor here. You could say thinking Obama was born somewhere else is just ignorance, like most Americans not being able to pick out Estonia on a map, something like that. After all, only 60% of usual Republican primary voters seem to know where Ted Cruz was born. You can say there's no pattern to the opinions of Trump's primary supporters, and I won't be able to prove you wrong. There's no proof to be had either way here.

I'm just asking, do you really look at numbers like these and see no evidence that race was part of birtherism?

I don't accept there are double standards — Baden

Isn't the disagreement precisely over whose double standard everyone should follow?

you have to focus on what people feel - not what should they feel — csalisbury

Not only is that true, but, as Arlie Russell Hochschild argues in Strangers in Their Own Land, Republicans deeply resent being told by the Left how they should feel, who they should care about, what they should be outraged about and what not.

Do I think it's something to get outraged over? I won't tell an African American how he ought react. I do remember though when the good Jesse Jackson called NYC Hymie Town and when Andrew Young called Mondale's aides smart ass white boys. I was insulted neither time. It just lets me know their real opinions, as if I didn't already know. — Hanover

Is it okay for a person to behave violently, or to trample on the speaker's right of free speech, in reaction to words? I don't think so.

You make a point with the comparison of reactions to spoken words (yours and an African American; you may be different races, but you're both human). Why are there different reactions to the same words and phrases among the same group of minorities? Not all blacks would react the same to some racial slur. Is it racist for you to group all African Americans together if they all have the same reaction to words?

The fact that there are different reactions needs to be looked at and the rejection of any implication that there are things that certain groups of people can't say (which is racist), or that anyone's free speech rights should be hindered. Fight ignorant speech with logical speech. Use your own free speech to bring reason back to the discussion. The goal of the user of the word is usually trying to bait the person into getting side-tracked off the main discussion. The insult is just a means to an end and the listener fell for the trap.

Trump didn't say "Fuck De Niro" though. His comments have been less than that. — Hanover

Less in what sense? Less intelligent? If you think Trump has been less egregious than De Niro, I really don't think our standards are similar enough to have common ground on this. Trump has called on supporters to "knock the crap" out of a protester; which is just incitement to violence. He has a history of making claims that belie his racism/xenophobia; claims about that Mexican judge, the birther thing, the mother of a dead muslim US soldier wasn't allowed to speak, both sides at fault in Charlotsville, suggesting most Mexicans being bad people. Grabbing them by the pussy.

Let's not get into his Twitter.

So no, where De Niro expressed a clear dislike of Trump in a pathetic way, Trump expresses xenophobia and racism as President of the USA and continually demonstrates continually not to represent the interests of all US citizens (which is fine during campaign time).

What about what Maher said? — Hanover

That was a racist comment. Not sure what the point is. Maher is a comedian, not the president. Different standards.

I never thought the birther movement was racist. I thought it was stupid, but I'd have expected the same had Hillary's birthplace been suspect for some reason. — Hanover

Really? So after providing evidence it was still questioned. His birthplace wasn't suspect at all moving from 2011 onward. How long did it last though and why? Because some whiteys couldn't handle a black president; one of them being Trump, who's a racist and simply based on that fact alone doesn't really deserve any political support.

Trump is a racist with Neo-nazi sympathies as Charlottesville showed but Hanover will vote for him anyway because of those lefties and their outrage.



Good points and I want to get back with more when I have time. Short and dirty version for now is legitimate outrage only, authentic or inauthentic doesn't matter. Also the 50% or so of Republicans who, according to polls, think Obama was a Muslim, supported the birther movement, think global warming is a liberal conspiracy etc. are not worth trying to move, and I wouldn't try to move them. And neither are a lot of other Republicans. The pragmatic effort is to occupy the middle ground particularly that of swing voters and marginalize the right, and particularly the racist/islamophobic/anti-semite elements through, amongst other things, outrage. This will likely increase the intensity of hate towards the left by many on the right but they've only got one vote each. By the way, Trump didn't win the general imo because of the outrage directed by the left against the horrible things he said (this is more like why he won the Republican nomination because that's where extremists have way more say); he was at his highest in the polls for the general actually when he was being moderate and at this lowest after the outrage at the pussy-grabbing comments. And anyway, it was mostly about the economy and name recognition and the fact he's been on TV for so long. And it's also more like he won because Hillary was just about the worst possible person the Dems could have run and stimulated outrage on the other side (and even on her own side amongst the left). So, outrage worked but in the wrong direction.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-racist-apprentice-tape-sexist-claims-producer-678944

“We recorded constantly. We went into the boardroom to set up discussions about how and who should get fired [on the show] without talking and saying directly who got fired, so there was a big, long exchange, all of which was recorded,” he said. “Out of those exchanges came some really unfathomably despicable words said by this guy who is a TV star. I heard it. I watched it, and those things are somewhere in some warehouse.”

Asked more specifically about the content of the tapes and whether they contain only disparaging comments about women, Pruitt said, “No, very much a racist issue.” Pressed further on whether it was about African-Americans, Jewish people or all of the above,” Pruitt responded “yes” to all three.

...
Nobody, Pruitt says, ever confronted Trump about his offensive remarks."

More outrage was needed about this kind of stuff not less.

I'd agree, and would invite you to write an instructional pamphlet for the next attempt at a left-wing revolution. — Baden

He could just send them a copy of Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals. Alinsky wasn't right about everything, but he was right about some things. Like, the Occupy people could have rented a safe deposit box in one of New York's premier banks and occupied the box with a few fish and dead squirrels. They could have arranged to track dog shit into the executive suites -- at least up to the reception desk.

Asked more specifically about the content of the tapes and whether they contain only disparaging comments about women, Pruitt said, “No, very much a racist issue.” Pressed further on whether it was about African-Americans, Jewish people or all of the above,” Pruitt responded “yes” to all three. — Baden

Vice is trying to deal with the exec of the show to get the tapes released. I think Cornell mentioned something like 14 uses of the "n" word by Trump in a single recording.

It seems credible to me as it's unlikely all those that witnessed and reported it are lying, and let's face it considering Trump's actions and words before and after becoming President, it fits right in to who he is, but until the tapes come out it's unprovable so I hope they get them out, and then watch the Whitehouse implode as it tries to spin the "n" word. Hopefully, mass protests and civil disobedience to follow until he's impeached.

Isn't the disagreement precisely over whose double standard everyone should follow? — Srap Tasmaner

There'll always be bias and there'll always be a degree of double standard in that sense, but the specific argument is over whether outrage from the left (and centre) directed against individuals on the right can be classed as illegitimate/hypocritical based on examples of the sort Hanover provided. I'm saying "no" as even under a cursory analysis, the equivalences he's tried to draw fall apart (or at least don't hold enough to make said outrage illegitimate/hypocritical to any significant degree). Hanover appears to be responding to that by saying something like "Republicans don't care about this kind of analysis, they're still going to see this as a double standard and still not going to see the outrage as legitimate/fairly directed". Which is fine as I still consider that fighting the ideological fight to marginalize those who engage in racist/anti-semitic/Islamaphobic comments is worthwhile in a wider ethical context and is of pragmatic use, maybe not in the sense of convincing those whose ideology is already fully baked in of anything, which is generally futile anyway, but in winning over those in the center ground that can be got on side to the extent that it disempowers the objectionable discourse at least to some degree. And that's about the best that can be hoped for.