SecondJon @SecondJon@social.cleverlibre.org

Thank you Hollywood, for making it easy to get over Moviepass' failure. Can't bring myself to watch your movies for free lately.

Andrew Klavan interviewed Glen Beck, of all people. I hadn't heard Beck in a few years. I think he has a new book he was plugging about outrage and how it can be both addictive and counter productive. His estimate was that maybe 15% of each end of the spectrum may just want society to be torn down, and don't want to productively engage. While sad, that leaves 70% who should focus on reaching across and understanding each other. I think his idea is that a much smaller percent than 70 is needed to be transformational, that we should be focused on reaching across to each other in constructive dialog and not get engaged in the outrage trap.

I don't know how much I agree or disagree with Beck on issues, but this is something I can get on board with. Glad #qoto has this mindset. It could have a wide ranging impact.

Can democrats advance their agenda by destroying a person with claims of a bad thing they did as a minor, decades ago, a claim with little to no detail and everyone named as a witness denying it, after they hold onto the claim for months, treating the accuser as nothing more than a political ploy? Stay tuned to see how this new slimy political tactic works by democrats afraid their power is at risk in an election year.

If it works, we may have lost our democracy.

NYT Headlines of one Obama nominee and one Trump nominee on same issue :

“Nominee Ducks Questions on Presidential Powers and Subpoenas”

VS

“Nominee Follows Precedent by Offering Few Opinions.”

A few concerns with this long piece.

https://longreads.com/2018/09/18/no-i-will-not-debate-you/

- The author says that the Alt/ Far Right and White a Supremacists are beyond world governments. I think the Alt Right and white supremacists in America are a small group of idiots. Their rallies seem to have more reporters than attendees. I don't buy the conspiracy theory.

- The piece declares that public debate is wrong. Altogether.

- The author uses these terms synonymously:
Far Right
White Supremacists
Neo-Nationalists
Alt-Right
Neo Nazis
New Right

I think that kind of false equivalence allows one to lump everyone you disagree with into a group to which you can attack, insult, and refuse to hear from, but it also means that if you prefer things she sees as "to the right" of her, you're a neo nazi far right white supremecist.

Maybe this explains her view of world governments are controlled by these very evil people. Everyone who is to the right of her is equally the embodiment of evil, which would create a very dire dystopia in her worldview.

- "But the idea that politeness and civility is owed to anyone in a position of power is one of the great gotchas of liberal thought."

I appreciate that she can at least identify that she disagrees with liberal ideas, perhaps what I'd call classic liberalism. As an author of 6 books and being invited to the same state as Bannon who she's saying deserves no civility because of his position if power, she seems to be at the same level. So this is a declaration that she should not be shown civility. I disagree. I think she's relying on people to disagree with her own assertion and to show her civility. It's the very lack of civility she criticizes in the bogey man of the Alt supremacist Neo Right, yet she is endorsing the same idea.

- She attacks everyone on the right as if they're all nazis, but upholds the virtue of the occupy camps as steps toward utopia (ignoring that they were rape camps at times, a strange utopia), and has not a bad word for antifa (the group that says that if they don't like what they assume you have to say they physically attack you into silence).

- On classic liberalism including the idea of engaging in ideas other than your own ideology: "I don’t believe that holding this position makes anyone evil or stupid. I understand why people cling to it like shipwreck survivors on a floating door.

I guess I'm primarily bothered by 2 things here :

1. Do not listen to different ideas. Never listen. Never engage. Never debate. Never, never, never.

2. What's good for those who agree with me is wrong for those who disagree with me.

This is a hit piece against :
1. Classical Liberalism.
2. The Reach Across idea of engaging with differing ideas and treating each other with excellence.
3. Anyone to the right of her, grouping everyone who isn't a "progressive" into the Neo Nazi category.

This all seems more polarizing, more divisive, more echo chambery when we need the opposite.

@RolandDeschaine
It's probably safe to say: DO NOT ______ Tuna sandwiches in shared work spaces.