I don’t know if you’re @'ing me or not, but it seems perfectly fine to say that people who don’t support M4A are bad, as it is perfectly fine to say JR tends to be a sack of shit whose endorsement should have passed without acknowledgement.
You seem to be very close to saying straight up that issues like transphobia and misogyny are niche concerns invented by educated liberals to satisfy their perpetual need to feel morally superior, which seems to imply that these issues aren’t worth caring about, or that nobody authentically cares about them, which is wrong.
When I go on a rant against someone on social media who is whining about getting dunked on I often use the “if you don’t want people to think you are a xyz then don’t be one.”. These people are ashamed of what they are and what they support deep down and it’s why the fall back is to claim that people are being mean to them or bullying them.
This whole Bernie Bros are mean is exactly that. If you don’t want us to think that you are a corporate sellout with no intention to do a single beneficial thing for the working class (or think that you support someone who does) then don’t. You don’t get to sell out your constituency for decades (or support politicians who do) and then whine and complain when people call you out for it.
Just like the caravan and sjws and campus culture, any “issue” that goes away quickly was a sham. If you fell for it, spread it or still believe it, you’re a mark. We are usually above falling for these false outrages. Let’s continue to be.
The same people who whine about being personally attacked by Bernie Bros for not supporting M4A, or having the wrong foreign policy, or whatever, are constantly doing the same to other people for violations of liberal orthodoxy. There’s an example right there in your post where you refer to Rogan as a “sack of shit”; lib types aren’t going to call you out for that, but if I go call someone a “sack of shit” for not supporting M4A, it’ll be whining about uncivil Bernie Bros and their inability to be polite to us nice liberals.
The extent to which even mild transgressions against liberal orthodoxy are treated as sins of the most heinous kind is ridiculous. I’m talking about things like this:
Upon accepting the Rogan’s endorsement, Sanders faced backlash on social media from those offended by the podcast’s comments on transgender people — as well as the nation’s leading LGBTQ group, the Human Rights Campaign.
Alluding to those comments, HRC’s David said in a statement Rogan has “attacked transgender people, gay men, women, people of color and countless marginalized groups at every opportunity.”
“In 2019, 25 transgender people were killed because of the type of transphobia that Rogan stokes,” David added.
Bolded is frankly absolute bullshit and is an obviously offensive charge to level at Rogan. Rogan is guilty perhaps of insensitivity and of being hurtful to trans people; that’s it. The HRC endorsed Clinton over Sanders in 2016. To repeat, Clinton is close friends with Kissinger and voted for the Iraq War. Kissinger’s actions in Vietnam and the invasion of Iraq both resulted in tens or hundreds of thousands of people killed and maimed. If you don’t think Clinton is a more morally reprehensible person than Rogan you’re a moral imbecile.
The extent to which people are cast out from the liberal “club”, as the high priests of the movement attempted to do to Rogan, has nothing to do with actual real-world harm done and everything to do with maintaining the hegemony of an educated elite. Educated liberals are confident they don’t know anybody who would be mildly transphobic like Rogan, all their friends understand the niceties of discourse well enough not to do that. Therefore, he is beyond the pale, cast him and his fans into the fires of hell. They’re less confident that they don’t know anyone who supported the Iraq War, or who is OK with the staggering level of inequality which maintains the privilege of the Ivy League elite. So can’t we be a little polite about those things? Why do these Bernie Bros have to get so mad?
I’m not saying that transphobia and misogyny aren’t genuine issues, but I am saying that the oversized importance they take on in the liberal movement is not real concern for people, but rather a fight for power within the coalition. This is what that looks like:
This is purely and simply a resistance to reorganizing the liberal coalition in a way which includes people like Rogan and excludes people like Tanden. This reorganization is desirable because Tanden does vastly more damage to the advancement of a just and humane politics in America than Rogan ever has, or is even capable of doing. If you disagree with that sentence then we’re not on the same political team.
It’s not complicated, centrists like HClinton and Buttigieg constantly concern troll. They probably don’t see themselves as bad people and truthfully, how can one say who is and isn’t really a good person. That said they daily support systems like for profit healthcare which whatever philosophical bent you prefer in ideologue-land, here in the real world kill probably thousands a day in the ‘greatest country the world has ever known.’
When they go to sleep at night, they probably tell themselves they are the right side of history but this is just how things work, you have to be practical and work within the system. The truth is that great change has virtually never come from within the system unless the profit of the power depended on it, and waiting for these people to turn the boat with us is a total waste of time.
They do not. They concern troll because with Buttigeig for example, he will criticize paying for rich people’s college while neglecting to mention his plan doesn’t pay for poor people’s trade schools. He is aware when he makes the argument that he is arguing in poor faith. Again, I don’t think he thinks he is a bad person, he’s just a guy playing the game for the ‘ultimate good’ or whatever.
Great post, but it’s definitely millions in Vietnam (and Cambodia and Laos). Hundreds of thousands of direct deaths in Iraq (~150k killed directly from 2003-2006 and 650k excess deaths over that time (low estimate 450k from 2003-2011)) and millions of excess deaths from indirect effects.
They sleep well on giant piles of money. HRC is worth $100M. I know there’s talk about how Pete isn’t rich, but he’s just not rich yet. I guarantee if he has any future in politics he retires with at least tens of millions.
How can you ever say what one’s exact motives are? It’s kind of pointless to try to guess. Even rational people will take nihilistic positions outside of the vacuum of a pen and paper. They exist in the real world and every person alive supports things that will be considered clearly immoral not far into the future. It is impossible to see the world without perspective. Is it possible that they are just selfish tv personalities willing to suppport anything for personal gain? Certainly but to try to prove it is futile and completely tangential to what the correct action is today. The correct action is to set these types aside and make a better day for everyone tomorrow.
Let’s say I believe that some Bernie supporters are too mean, but that I also believe that Ron Paul is a sack of shit, do you have a problem with me believing both things? I’m assuming you would not have problem with that, or at least you’ll agree that it’s not inconsistent to believe that some Bernie supporters are too mean and simultaneously believe that some other truly terrible person x is worthy of being called a sack of shit (pick a sack of shit worse than Ron Paul. Pol Pot, Pinochet, Post Malone). Inconsistency would be if people who genuinely deserved civility did not get it. This is subject to individual judgment obviously, but clowns like Ron Paul don’t deserve civility, and Joe Rogan doesn’t either (same goes for any other dork web geek like Sam Harris or, sigh, even Richard Dawkins these days).
When you say Rogan is “guilty perhaps” of x, I hope you are saying this being very well informed about what he says and what kinds of guests he has on (regularly)? I mean you say “that’s it” as if you fathom the totality of his output; do you?
Did you look this up?
The Human Rights Campaign ( HRC ) is the largest LGBTQadvocacy group and political lobbying organization in the United States.[2] The organization focuses on protecting and expanding rights for LGBTQ individuals, most notably advocating for marriage equality, anti-discrimination and hate crimes legislation, and HIV/AIDS advocacy. The organization has a number of legislative initiatives as well as supporting resources for LGBTQ individuals.
I guess I’ll go for the chessmate. The Human Rights Campaign is an LGBTQ advocacy group, not Amnesty International. They have no special interest in foreign policy or how many people America#1 kills overseas. Clinton’s sismance with Henry Kissinger is as relevant to them as it is to the American Quilting Society.
Is it morally imbecilic to think that Rogan is worse than Hillary Clinton? The better question is is it imbecilic to think Rogan is worse than Jimmy Carter? Nobody reigns innocently, after all.
Like I’m really trying to be civil, so I’m going to tell you to go swallow a spider.
Rogan is one of the most popular media figures in the country. He is quite clearly in the arena of politics. Neera Tanden runs some DC think tank, the horror. A dozen Neera Tandens don’t have the media juice of a week’s worth of Joe Rogan podcasts. I think it’s pretty appropriate to scrutinize him.
At any rate, if you’re trying to achieve a reorganization away from educated elites like Neera Tanden to aggrieved bros bewildered by social change like Joe Rogan, that reorganization is already President.
If you have any pull with the forthcoming superintending tribunals, I prefer a firing squad please. My neck has been getting a little fat lately, I’d like to avoid a departure like the Queen of Scots got, if possible.
