Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I would consider it an honor to have my posts narrated by Ron Howard.





[RON HOWARD: "Whatever, dude."]

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Even if it's limited to Andy Griffith Show Ron Howard?

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Weird. Until you posted this I never realized I always hear Flower's posts as Andy Griffith Show Don Knotts:confused::confused:

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Whoopsies!! Illiterate, not literate.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Oh, bullshit. I'm as meaningfully pro as you.

Modern "progressivism" is largely performative. It's often a form of culture signaling. People like Portnoy, the subject of the article Less cited, are criticized despite being liberals because they don't fit the cultural profile that many people who call themselves progressives like to telecast. They're boorish, "bros," not effete in the manner a progressive with a NPR totebag would be.

Greenwald explained "progressive signalers" disdain for bros pretty well in a piece he did about Joe Rogan: https://theintercept.com/2020/09/22/...-backlash-why/

Rogan's left of almost everyone. But he's also unabashedly gruff. He violates the cultural stereotype of a progressive which people who are invested in branding themselves as progressives assiduously cultivate.

I am not a progressive. I am pro all of the things I cited above. By which I mean I am for them. But am I going to protest, perform? Become incensed? No. I simply have views. Like you. And like you, I do very little in regard to them but hold them.

I didn't say there are 2 genders. I said there are not 37. My punnet square indicates a number far below 37. And much of the science regarding new gender and sex theories, including the utterly ludicrous and scientifically indefensible rubbish that one's sex or gender is entirely a social construct, is not science at all. It's new age silliness packaged for credulous consumers who wish to talk about it in a cafe to telecast that they're enlightened.

I used to roll my eyes when that stuff would be said. For the past two years, I've just adopted the Gervais response - open mockery: "You're talking shit here. Total fucking shit. Get out of here with that."

And 1619 is a basket of facts mixed with bullshit, layered on the nonsense argument that slavery is the hub off which all spokes of American society developed and have turned. The Times has had to re-edit on the fly so many times in response to critics' citing errors that the paper doesn't even bother disclosing the edits anymore. https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-nyt-s...-1619-project/

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

[NARRATOR: "Judge Reinhold was not amused. In fact, when Coltrane's phone rang during the hearing, playing 'The Final Countdown,' he was found in contempt."]

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

https://www.atlasobscura.com/article...eid=e46763d4b9

Lawyers are no longer citizens?

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

"But lawyers, unlike doctors (medical or otherwise), have no other title-based way to signal what they do, or, to be somewhat uncharitable, that what they do is special, and therefore that who they are is important."

I resemble that attack.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

"moderate respectability with a dash of prestigious servitude?"

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

That's an excellent description.

Do you ever go to the counties where they call you, "Attorney [So-and-So]"? I can't handle that. I cannot stand referring to someone as "Attorney ________."

And yet I've been compelled to do it because everyone in the courtroom looks at you like a dick if you use "Mister."

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

When you back government that will not do those things, you are not pro those things, no matter what story you tell yourself. When you do not vote for government that will do those things, you are not pro those things, no matter what story you tell yourself.

I do the one thing we all can and should do to make those things happen: vote for candidates that will vote to do them. (Among other things)

The actual science is fascinatingly complex.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I am now in my first state court case of my whole career. I cannot remember any federal court where that was the practice.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

This is only true if you ignore their substantive agenda -- for example, the Green New Deal, single payer, etc. -- and focus on the things which irritate you, which is what you're doing.

Would they call themselves liberals? I'm going to go for "no."

It is quintessentially you that you are irritated by the 1619 project but not the 1776 report, which is has fewer facts and more bullshit and ideology. It wasn't edited on the fly, but that's because it's authors surely see admission of error as an inappropriate sign of weakness.

You are, of course, completely entitled to be irritated by whatever irks you, but if you're trying to connect those irritations with some thread of intellectual principle, you're not there yet.

Incidentally, for whom did you end up voting?

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I said largely. They do have an agenda. Single payer may actually work. GND is pie in the sky. What else do they have aside from utopian goals?

Don't know about Portnoy, but Rogan calls himself a liberal all the time. And he is. He's far left. Where he offends progressives, in addition to being an affront to their faux effete culture, is that he's a real, true liberal, in that he believes in total freedom of expression, entertaining opposing views of any kind, and tolerance rather than trying to force others to adhere to his views.

Why is it that progressives and Trumpers insist on this enforcement of an unspoken fairness doctrine? If I make fun of AOC for embellishing her "fear of death" on the day of the Capitol attack, and sleazily invoking a prior assault to immunize herself from criticism when cornered about it, which she did, and which is conniving and creepy, am I also obligated to make fun of Marjorie Taylor Greene?

Or vice versa? If I make fun of MTG, must I also give equal time to making fun of AOC?

No. And nor am I obligated to attack 1776. First, because there is no equal time requirement. Second, and more importantly, because it's too absurd and stupid, like MTG, to bother attacking. Where would I start? 1776 is not even attempting to be honest. It's clearly propaganda and for that reason, no one is paying attention to it. 1619 is dishonest and biased, but it is factual in certain regards. It's sophistry. It deserves scrutiny because, unlike 1776, which is naked BS which can be disregarded in total without consideration, 1619 seeks to inject ludicrous fringe arguments into mainstream by weaving them into something that looks like serious scholarship.

I have. It's simple. I'm citing bullshit where I see it.

I didn't. In the end, I simply gave up on the concept. After months of hearing from my friends on the right and left, and considering the wretchedness both parties, I decided I deserved better than to have to make a choice I did not feel like making. My inner George Carlin held sway.

And I preserve my Switzerland position, which allows me latitude in conversations others do not enjoy.

But I am thrilled to not have to listen to that fat idiot everyday. Biden seems a refreshing burst of normalcy.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I watched the first 2 seasons of Brockmire, and liked it. But for some reason I stopped. Any of you watch it all? Worth watching?