Which Do You Want?

Instapundit links often to excesses of feminist advocacy groups, particularly in connection with sexual  accusations on college campuses.  He is at a university, so the issue likely looms larger for him than it would for others.  I only click trough about a quarter of them. Other issues loom larger for me.

One, by Harvard Law professor Janet Halley, looked intriguing, and it is. Trading the Megaphone For The Gavel in Title IX Enforcement.  She essentially asks feminist groups “Do you want to complain or do you want to govern?” and describes the distinction.

Advocates for any cause are not held to the same standards of fairness and judgment as people making decisions are. This makes me crazy in discussions, because the emphasis then switches to “How can I win?” instead of “What is the best answer?” They can interrupt, they can walk away, they can leave out important facts, they can end-run around procedures and go to public opinion. Run your memory over the things that religious groups, environmental activists, industry spokespersons, and social justice warriors of all stripes say in order to secure votes, funding, or customers. But those who govern, who make decisions, don’t have that luxury.

It is a very clarifying essay, and I wish her all the best in her career going forward.  I cannot imagine that we don't disagree enormously on a dozen crucial issues.  No matter. She can step back, she can reason, and she can tell her allies where they are wrong.  Elizabeth Warren cannot do that. Hillary Clinton cannot do that. Janet Halley likely overlaps with their views more than mine. But I would rank her six rungs above those others.

Not Funny

I read an article about comedians who aren’t funny. I don’t want to prejudice the discussion so I won’t discuss even a bit of it. I do have some initial thoughts.

One’s first viewing or hearing of a comedian has an enormous effect going forward.  If the first thing you heard them riff on was an exquisite send-up of something you agreed should be made fun of, then it will take quite a bit of that comedian being over-the-line offensive for you to turn on him. OTOH, if your first experience was something which offended you - Wait.  That’s not fair.  That’s not even half true – then that’s going to be there whenever you hear her again.

Finding something Not Funny because it just doesn’t grab you or is culturally too far off from you is different.  Humor from another time and culture has a way of being opaque to us. Occasional moments of Marx Brothers movies make me laugh, but in general, I just shrug. Yet sometimes we acquire a taste for a writer or performer. Neutral is not the same.

In the original AVI family before Romanians, there were usual nights where one person was reading off alone and laughing out loud.  Some blessed evenings, all four of us were cackling alone, yet shouting out bits and explanations to the others.  Gordon Korman, Dave Barry, and Scott Adams figured prominently in this. There were movies attended where we all laughed, and that part did carry through to acquiring Romanians. Chris and I saw Borat together and could not contain ourselves.

LOL, ROTFL, LMAO, and even LMFAO are seldom true.  We use them as signifiers of amusement, but it seldom a literal description.  I laugh out loud more than nearly everyone you know, I am sure, but those are brief and contextual to a live conversation. Very few comedians make me laugh.

Here's an interesting possible conclusion of that:  Very few comedians are funny.  They are amusing, and when we drink, pay money, and sit in crowds to watch them we may laugh, but they are more properly described as amusing. We chuckle and send the clips on to express a point of view.

What If They Can't?

There is a lot of talk about Islamic extremism that takes it as a given that if the reasonable Muslims would just be more forceful and staunch in their condemnation, it would help a great deal to calm all this down.

What if it really wouldn’t help much?

It may be fair to say that the experiment has not been run – that condemnation too quickly turns to hand-wringing worrying about possible backlash…that surveys show an uncomfortable amount (10-20%) of passive support for terrorists…that powerful figures in the Muslim world have not taken their responsibility seriously.  I agree with all three. But really, do we think that if the mostly reasonable multitude of shopkeepers, students, salesmen, and housewives  collectively decided they weren’t going to take it anymore, the murders would respond by saying “Oh, sorry then.  We’ll stop.  We thought you approved?.” More likely, they’d kill the shopkeeper first for saying it before moving on to infidels.

I’ve known lots of Italians over the years, none of whom had a kind word for the Mafia.  They might kid about having a cousin or classmate who could be called on to break someone’s knees or take them for a ride, but when the discussion got serious they could be deeply resentful about the stereotype and as condemning of organized crime as one might like.  (I’ve worked with Boston Irish who sorta defended it, but not Italians.) Maybe they could have done more, earlier, over a longer time. But the reality is that they did disapprove, but the criminals didn’t much care.

A lot of the terrorists seem to be semi-converts who don’t have a lot of actual Islamic study under their belts:  westerners of middle-eastern descent who take it into their heads to be take seriously a religion their parents are trying to shed or hold superficially. The trained-from-birth fanatic also exists, but he’s not the only strain.

I’d like to see the moderates courageously take the lead.  It would likely help some, and could hardly make things worse. But the idea that creating that change would solve the problem may be one more magic pony.  Evil doesn’t not go away easily, and defining it as someone else’s problem isn’t likely to work.

Vaccinations

Two small things about the vaccination controversy occurred to me today. Update:  No, three. Two-and-a-half.

There are other diseases and conditions claiming more lives than measles. But I think medically-trained folks have increased irritation because of the frustration of This should not be happening.  This was conquered territory. Victory was in our grasp. That's certainly my feeling, and it is likely to be greater for them.

Second, there is a qualitative difference in choosing to vaccinate - to do something to your child - rather than not doing something.  It is not merely that the child will feel some pain or will cry, or doesn't like it.  That might be a minor factor, but most parents are pretty used to doing things over a child's objection.  The merely quantitative evaluation, that there is 1/1,000 chance of something bad happening this way vs 1/100,000 chance the other way, leaves out the part of being the cause of something.  As in the ethics experiments where they ask people whether it would be okay to push one person in front of a train to save six others, being a participant changes the dynamic.

If your child is one of the ones who has some bad effect, there is the always going to be the idea I did this to her. When parents who are already worried about risks contemplate the action of needle going into skin or medicine going down throat, that unwillingness to take action that might turn bad may be part of what is going on behind the scenes.

Relatedly, either point 2A or point 3 - the moment of decision is where one's opinion, literally and figuratively comes to a point. It is the risk entering your child now. It is stark, it is either-or. For those who think of vaccines as something protective, this brings a sigh of relief.  Whew.  One less thing to worry about. But for wafflers, it's not so clear.

Tracking Stats Again

I have had a significant increase in traffic.  I hadn't known that.  Digging deeper, it comes from bit.ly sites that my computer warns me away from.

Jon Stewart

I was surprised to learn how limited his numbers are. From my outsider's perception, I thought he was a much bigger deal, and more influential.  However, Enten may have missed a trick here.  If Stewart is that popular with other media figures, that increases his influence, as they might be taking their cue from him what targets they should be aiming at. As with a musician's musician or a coach's coach, the usual numbers may not tell you everything.

Sportswriters, particularly of the ESPN variety, like to show that they are Real Journalists, and you do that by showing that you know the prevailing journalist opinion, not by rocking the boat very seriously. (Incidentally, this is rather sad when topics requiring real journalism spill over into the sports world, as they must. When the need for a variety of angles arises, the Lodge generally has a received wisdom.) It may be that sportswriters are the place to go to figure out what the approved narrative is going to be. They are drawn from a similar pool of college students that senses which way the wind is blowing. I have a recent example of a young writer from Grantland* clutching the breast over Stewart's impending retirement. I thought him rather narcissistic - to think of himself as "voiceless" after Bush's inauguration in 2001, what with half the Senate, a majority of the SCOTUS, and the major news outlets solidly in his corner is sadly comical - but I thought he represented a fair slice of the young and hip. Perhaps less so than I thought.

I usually found Stewart witty, even when I disagreed and thought him unfair. His vaudevillian delivery is wonderful. I've only seen clips, and that may not be a rep sample.  Yet even when I agreed and thought him spot on, to the point that I would myself send clips around, I usually felt a little dirty and regretted it afterward.  He's mean, and he doesn't always do his homework. He shoots quickly in an effort to be first-to-market with the joke. Humorous meanness is absolutely necessary in a society, and it is better to do it well, with occasional humility, than do it poorly.  I do fear that others meaner but less intelligent will take his place.

*That's an ESPN sector of columnists, for those of you who don't follow sports.

Referendum

Steve Sailer's column on Conan the Librarian turned into a referendum on Greg Cochran in the comments section. Odd.

Prayer Breakfast

President Obama took the opportunity at the national prayer breakfast to remind Christians that they also have violence in their history. 

My first response was to link to some discussion of history that I had written before. I put in some additional historical information in a comment over at Grim's Hall.  I am not the only one who went straight to the arguing over history part. Many of Obama's critics and supporters also went straight to the historical arguments, with all its Huguenots, Roundheads, Albigensians, Seljuqs, and Abbasids.

My inclination would ordinarily be to join them, trying to use a balanced understanding of history to inform current attitudes.  I expect I would learn something from both allies and opponents in the exchange, and hope that my original view was indeed closest to the facts.  That would be logical and wise.

That has nothing to do with what is happening here.  It took Governor Jindal's comment to shake me loose.  

It was nice of the President to give us a history lesson at the Prayer breakfast. Today, however, the issue right in front of his nose, in the here and now, is the terrorism of Radical Islam, the assassination of journalists, the beheading and burning alive of captives. We will be happy to keep an eye out for runaway Christians, but it would be nice if he would face the reality of the situation today. The Medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please deal with the Radical Islamic threat today

.

I was amused, but part of me thought that was also beside the point. I keep thinking getting to the truth of 1098 will be the foundation to getting to a correct answer now.  I expect that to be the long view, the Longfellow view: 

Though the mills of God grind slowly;
Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience he stands waiting,
With exactness grinds he all.

This is madness on my part.  Barack Obama does not hold his views because he misunderstands Medieval history.  He misunderstands Medieval history because of the modern  views he holds. That is absolutely true of the majority of his critics as well.  They have only superficial understanding of Medieval history, but use the chance fragments which flow their way in service of their modern attitude, discarding those that don't fit. It may be a glass houses problem for Obama to squawk about self-righteousness, but it is true nonetheless.  There are not only some reflexive jingoists out there, there are lots of 'em, and they won't shut up.  If Jay Walking and all the man-on-the-street, ambush-the-rubes videos have taught us anything, it is that no one out there knows much history, civics, science, or religion at all. (Favorite soapbox: this is not new.  It has always been this way.  It was not better in Ye Goode Olde Days.)

Where was I?

Yes, yes, all this by way of introduction.*

Getting the history wrong is not what Obama's critics are angry about (except maybe a few of us). Nor are Obama's supporters deeply concerned that the hoi polloi haven't taken enough World History 301: 476-1491 AD. They don't want them to have any new information about that thousand years, unless it has been vetted and approved as leading to the correct attitudes now.

For 90% of Americans, my guys, your guys, red fish, blue fish, actual historical information has no relevance except as a place counter in discussions about whose view will prevail today.  Do not quote to me statistics that conservatives are twice as likely to get the facts right, because I already know that only means they are right 21% of the time as opposed to liberals 11%, and at that level, who cares?

This discussion is about attitudes, and history is only brought in as a counter on the chessboard of 2015. Obama thinks the people who disagree with him just don't have the right attitudes, and that is their main problem. This has been characteristic of him throughout his career. Plenty of conservatives take the same attitude - Sarah Palin comes to mind - but they don't tend to get elected as much.  Reagan took a condescending "Yes they are liberals, but they are our liberals" attitude, but there was some affection there. Bill Clinton was nowhere near as bad as Obama, Carter was perhaps even worse.

It goes rather naturally with the territory.  When one is focused on the nation's enemies, the opposition at home is frustrating, but not hateful.  Liberals tend to downgrade the enemies abroad, focusing on their competitors for power here.  The reasons for this are varied - not all on the left would explain that the same way, but it remains so.

Yet that is secondary.  The focus on the attitude of the opposition, in and of itself, leads dangerously to the belief that one knows what their motives are.  One comes to believe in the ability to read minds - of black kids in Ferguson or white cops; of ISIS volunteers or Chris Kyle. We may guess, but we do not know.  Conservatives are still debating why it is that Obama believes the things he does, and we are nearly at the end of the period where it matters one whit. Liberals guess badly - with great assurance but badly - why the great unwashed, who are, incidentally, slightly better educated than they, believe what they do. Their guesses are more than a little evil.  I have read guesses by conservatives that are deeply evil about liberal motives

This flows from focus on attitude rather than behavior.  I give that to you for free as marital, parenting, and management advice as well.

*That's really my favorite line these last forty years, isn't it?

Unz Review

I am not that fond of the Unz Review.  It is on my sidebar because of Steve Sailer, and I also like some of what Pat Buchanan and John Derbyshire write.  I am experimenting with entering it a different way, so it may come to the top of the sidebar more often.  We'll see what happens with that.

Liberal Bias In Social Psychology

hbdchick linked to two articles by Lee Jussim, Ph.D. (in social psychology) over at Psychology Today. Liberal Bias in Social Psychology: Personal Experience I and Liberal Bias In Social Psychology: Personal Experience II.

Initial pieces to be aware of:  Dr. Jussim has a full-length disclaimer about what personal experiences, individual studies, and his entire series on bias does and does not mean. It is more than the standard boilerplate of small sample size, your-mileage-may-vary, further-research-is-warranted disclaimers.  He writes well, thinks well, and nonliberals cannot count on him always telling them things they would like to hear. Be prepared. Second, Psychology Today is as generally socially liberal as one would expect a popular magazine in the social sciences to be, so good on them for including Dr. Jussim at all.

In brief: They had research which illustrated and boldly stated that liberals had been much more biased and anti-science in their experiment, but they couldn't get it published.  They decided to make one change, simply removing the bold claim likely to stand out and offend liberals at first glance, and the paper was accepted.

In the other personal experience, they had a grant proposal which included this introductory paragraph:

 The field of psychology is dominated by liberals (Redding, 2001), and this political homogeneity can be problematic . . In fact, content analysis of all the articles published in American Psychologist during the 1990s revealed that 97% had liberal themes (Redding, 2001). Furthermore, recent research suggests many social psychologists would blatantly discriminate based on politics. About 37% admitted that, given equally qualified conservative and liberal job applicants, the liberal candidate should be hired over the conservative candidate (Inbar & Lammers, 2012).  

It was turned down, and the reasons given were fatuous.  They decided to resubmit the proposal with a new introductory paragraph which was almost a cartoon of liberal prejudice.

 Conservatives are often more skeptical of scientific research than are liberals, and they are often more willing to sacrifice science to achieve political goals (Anglin & Jussim, in preparation).  Furthermore, science has a long and checkered history of periodically being used and exploited as a tool to advance nefarious rightwing political agendas (e.g., social Darwinism; Nazi eliminationist practices; Herrnstein & Murray's (1994) claims about genetic bases of race differences in intelligence.

It was accepted.

Learning While Speaking

The traditional wisdom of many cultures reminds us that we learn much more by listening than we do by talking.  I've run across many clever ways that this has been put.

I think that's wrong.  I've learned while speaking throughout my life.  When you have to put an idea together on short notice, your thinking is focused, and the associated ideas which are most likely to be quickly understood by you are front-and-center in your own mind. When it's my topic that I have been thinking about recently, and am deeply concerned with this minute, I am the most likely person to come up with some new insight. I come up with new associations or analogies while talking all the time.

Admitting such a thing is to declare oneself something of a blowhard, as anti-blowhard-irritation is the likely driver behind all the condescending cleverness against speakers.  An actual love for wisdom is not primary among the critics - else they would admit how often the learning-while-speaking people get it right, being swifter of thought.  Yes, blowhard is the risk, and I have been there many times. A bargain at twice the price.

The closest analogy would be writing.  We all believe that sitting to write about something is excellent training for thinking, and likely to result in fresh insights and wisdom. Speaking is the shortcut version of that. Is it superior to listening? Often it is. Different errors result, but I don't think more errors.

Choosing The Worst Poster Children

bs king appended a link to Slate Star Codex in her comment in Accusations, which reminded her of my 2012 post about Fanatics, choosing the ambiguous rather than the clear-cut events to rally around. His essay is better.

Well, that's settled then.  Everyone agrees with me. 

Unexpected Reunion

Vanderleun posted this story today.  Merely linking to it does not seem enough.

Unexpected Reunion By Johann Peter Hebel

(The story extolled by Kafka as the most wonderful story in the World)
At Falun in Sweden, a good fifty years ago, a young miner kissed his pretty young bride-to-be and said, ‘On the feast of Saint Lucia the parson will bless our love and we shall become man and wife and start a home of our own’. ‘And may peace and love dwell there with us’, said his lovely bride, and smiled sweetly, ‘for if you are everything to me, and without you I‘d sooner be in the grave than anywhere else’. ‘When however, before the feast of Saint Lucia, the parson had called out their names in the church for the second time: ‘If any of you know cause, or just hindrance, why these two persons should not get joined together in holy Matrimony’ -Death paid a call. For the next day when the young man passed her house in his black miner’s suit (a miner is always dressed ready for the funeral), he tapped at the window as usual and wished her good morning all right, but he did not wish her good evening. He did not return from the mine, and in vain that same morning she sewed a red border on a black neckerchief for him to wear on their wedding day, and when he did not come back she put it away, and she wept for him, and never forgot him.

In the meantime the city of Lisbon in Portugal was destroyed by an earthquake, the Seven Years War came and went, the Emperor Francis I died, the Jesuits were dissolved, Poland was partitioned, the Empress Maria Theresa died, and Struensee was executed, and America became independent, and the combined French and Spanish force failed to take the Gibraltar. The Turks cooped up General Stein in the Veterane Cave in Hungary, and the Emperor Joseph died too. King Gustavus of Sweden conquered Russian Finland ,the French Revolution came and the long war began, and the Emperor Leopold II was buried. Napoleon defeated Prussia, the English bombarded Copenhagen, and the farmers sowed and reaped. The millers ground the corn, the blacksmiths wielded their hammers, and the miners dug for seams of metal in their workplace under the ground.

But in 1809, within a day or two of the feast of Saint John, when the miners at Falun were trying to open up a passage between two shafts, they dug out from the rubble and the vitriol water, a good three hundred yards below the ground, the body of a young man soaked in ferrous vitriol but otherwise untouched by decay and unchanged, so that all his features and his age were still clearly recognizable, as if he had died only an hour before or had just nodded off at work. Yet when they brought him to the surface his father and mother and friends and acquaintances were all long since dead, and no one claimed to know the sleeping youth or to remember his misadventure, until the woman came who had once been promised to the miner who one day had gone below and had not returned. Grey and bent, she hobbled up on a crutch to where he lay and recognized her bridegroom, and more in joyous rapture than in grief, she sank down over the beloved corpse, and it was some time before she had recovered from her fervent emotion. ‘It is my betrothed’, she said at last, ‘whom I have mourned these past fifty years, and now God grants that I see him once more before I die. A week before our wedding, he went under ground and never came up again’. The hearts of all those there were moved to sadness and tears when they saw the former bride-to-be as an old woman whose beauty and strength had left her, and the groom still in the flower of his youth; and how the flame of young love was rekindled in her breast after fifty years, yet he did not open his mouth to smile , nor his eyes to recognize her; and how finally she, as the sole relative and the only person who had claim to him, had the miners carry him into her house until the grave was made ready for him in the churchyard.

The next day when the grave lay ready in the churchyard and the miners came to fetch him she opened a casket and put the black silk kerchief and red stripes on him, and then she went with him in her best Sunday dress, as if it were her wedding day, not the day of his burial. You see, as they lowered him into his grave in the churchyard she said, “Sleep well for another day or a week or so longer in your cold wedding bed, and don’t let time weigh heavy on you! I have only a few things left to do, and I shall join you soon, and soon the day will dawn’.

‘What the earth has given back once it will not withhold again at the final call’, she said as she went away and looked back over her shoulder once more.
(Translated by John Hibberd)

Accusations

There is discussion all over the internet about Sulcowicz carrying her mattress to shame ex-friend Nungesser who she calls rapist.  I had enough of it quickly, but thought that a discussion over at Grim's Hall, might be worth it, but it attempts to go into men's perceptions versus women's perceptions of such events, which is way out ahead of the data.

Well, that is an interesting subject, just as fraternity attitudes leading to rape culture, with reference to Rolling Stone's reporting of what happened at UVA is an interesting subject.  The problem is, we don't know whether there is any grounding in fact of any of the events.

The most likely scenario is that either Sulcowicz or Nungesser is mostly lying about what happened, not that they have different perspectives.  Similarly, the most likely UVA reality at this point is that the accuser was lying, because there are no supporting bits of evidence and many which contradict her.  That UVA fraternity guys may be jerks or even rapey may be true, but no longer has anything to do with this story. In another setting, I might say the evidence leans toward an accuser even though she can't prove it.

But right now, there isn't evidence. Nor does it look like there will be any.  See my post Fanatics about a half-year ago.

Update:  Megan McArdle compared this to the recovered-memory and Satanic-ritual-abuse witch hunts 20-30 years ago, and that shook me deeply.  All mycommenting on the new drawing of lines (mostly among the young, who do not remember those horrors and seek to change their own immediate culture) will be influenced by that.  I cannot recall any statement of mine which encouraged that evil in the 80's, but I certainly said little against it, and did not oppose it.

Plus, I may have conveniently forgotten some evil that I did do.

Manacles and Chains

I don't link as often as I used to to longer, thoughtful pieces by our little group here, figuring that many of you are already seeking them out on your own, however occasionally.

I'm not sure that has been a good decision on my part.  I write much shorter essays now myself, and am gravitating to short-attention-span writing, just like those damn kids these days who can't shoe a horse.  Many of you will guess the author of Manacles and Chains: Reflections on Mark 5:1-20.

Kinder, Gentler, Socialism

There was a division in socialist thought more than a century ago, and I think it continues to be significant.  Overview statement: the division was gradual, so that many who are on one side of the divide believe in their hearts that "socialism" refers to Socialism A, an approach to life not entirely distinct from democracy, with dignity and respect for the everyman as opposed to the grasping rapacious rulers.

A century ago, there was a brand of socialism that was rather Whiggish, highlighting the importance of the common man (and, more than communism or fascism, woman).  The other strain, a more Bolshevik art, deteriorated into an abstract New Soviet Man, looking off onto the horizon, sheaves of wheat in his arm, sweat on his brow, with a remarkably well-fed and robust peasant woman. She seemed to be somehow fair and smooth of skin despite her many hours of toil in the brutal sun. There was some reference back to actual workers in socialist realism art, but mostly, they were cardboard, 2D figures. I saw this up close when I was in Budapest and went out to Szobor Park, a displayed collection of massive statues on the outskirts of the city, preserved from the omnipresent public art that remained after the Iron Curtain collapsed. (Worth the visit if you go there.)

It is hard to draw clear lines, because their eyes were not as ours.  Is Millet's earlier The Gleaners actually sympathetic to the peasants, or still condescending, respectful only by comparison? Fifty years later, we have a painter who is quite explicit about his regard for the importance of the small events of everyday people. Carl Larsson is now known mostly in the US as a Swedish specialty, whose paintings of family life in the old country have an entirely sentimental air.  The figures in his works - his own family, primarily - are clearly prosperous, plump, and adorable. They look like a fantasy of common everyday folk, a distillation of bourgeois sensibility. Yet Larsson had been quite impoverished as a child and was under no illusions how the poor actually lived.  He saw himself and his family as part of them, who had had a little success and made a little money, but was much the same.  He was certainly regarded that way at the time, with no disdain or resentment from the common folk.. What criticism he did get was from elites.

I have a friend from years ago, Gordon Carlisle, who remains in that tradition of socialist art that even conservatives get the import of. In fact, as times moves forward in its irritating, inexorable way, it will increasingly be regular folk, culturally if not politically conservative, who appreciate what is being expressed by Gordon. He has had commissioned murals along the otherwise bleak and ugly downtown walls of the mill cities of New England, in addition to his cheerier backgrounds. Please note that these are not those ridiculous monstrosities that larger cities commission, with huge heads of national protest or rebel figures, over-obvious symbols, and screaming letter. Those remain, BTW Socialism B, clear descendants of Soviet socialist realism art. In Socialism A, There are labor figures, but they are workers.  If they have been drawn into protests or strikes, it is unfamiliar territory. Manchester residents may recognise this location.

If you are in Concord, ask me to show you a particular display of his which continues to captivate me after all these years, seven paintings he did for our hospital when he was an intern.

Which brings me to my controversy.  There was an American artist who started as an illustrator and gravitated greatly toward the comic attributes of the lives of everyday folk.  But there is considerable overlap with those above. How is this so very different, for example?

A Philosopher Walks Into A Coffee Shop

A lot of the references to philosophers (then economists) went over my head over at Slate Star Codex, but I warmed up to it and laughed out loud once we got to William of Occam.  The site itself is quite excellent.  If any of you caught the research about women being less welcome in those disciplines which are perceived to need that spark of genius, he does an efficient takedown here.

Homonormativity

A frequent contributor* who has far more familiarity with the insane regions of liberalism than I, sends this link from a site called Everyday Feminism (which seems to be the precise opposite) entitled Homonormativity 101. By turns irritating and amusing, it becomes eventually just sad. These are people for whom nothing can ever go right, trapped in resentment against all the others, who they believe are carefree and uncaring. There is a very CS Lewis Screwtape/Great Divorce/Last Battle air to this, with the doors of Hell all locked from the inside.

This came within the context of our discussion of what has happened to Jonathan Chait since he wrote his recent essay crying "enough already" to the continual faultfinders farther left than he is. Her observation:

"Either way, I do wonder if the left is going to eat itself rather soon.  From what I hear from many of my liberal friends who work for various non-profits, it's getting rough.  Even (relative redacted) said that (prominent liberal employer) was taking weird heat for what it didn't address.  All sorts of "well if you really want to help poor people, you have to actually do LGBT rights stuff, because many homeless teens are LGBT."  But I just saw a friend post an article about how white and attractive gay men were "silencing" women and people of color by being front and center in that movement....so it's not like going there helps.  It's all kind of the intersectionality issue I've been so annoyed with.  Basically it's lots of people proclaiming that you're not doing everything simultaneously.  Oh, and yelling about everything on Twitter = addressing it all.  Working to deeply/meaningfully address anything = look at all the things you're not doing!!!"

*Who prefers to be referred to as "an anonymous source close to the situation."