Cultural Observations of the GG thingee

You know who else likes the Golden Gate Bridge?

CONSPIRACY!!1!

3 Likes

Just trying to minimize the FMP (Flying Monkey Problem).

3 Likes

Was Anita on Democracy now recently? I haven’t listened to the show in a while…

4 Likes

Thanks! I will watch this soon!

I love the research that MDB has shared here.

Here’s some other interesting analytics.



Ken White, of Clark Brianco, over at Popehat, has a very long essay on this topic that, to my incomplete read, seems to bring something new to the discussion.

EDIT: to correct misattribution.

I take that with a grain of salt. That was written by Clark, not Ken, and Clark has had a long-running feud with Scalzi. While that piece doesn’t overtly side with GG, it is not without some axe-grinding over pre-existing fault lines.

3 Likes

Good catch, I missed the byline entirely.

I’m completely unclear as to what the article thinks GG is actually about.


Well, after reading the comments, I at least know which side he sides with. “Team Red.”

Which is… the GGers?

But not with out major misgivings.

Oh. Okay, then.


JeSUS:

I give individual people the benefit of the doubt, but to push back on the Blue narrative:

  1. I don’t know for sure that all of these people (or even any one of
    them) actually received threats or actually left their homes
  2. I do know that at least one of the people on the list is a sociopathic liar who says whatever gets her attention
  3. lying about death threats is not an unprecedented tactic on the
    left to gain sympathy. Google “fake hate crime” for dozens of examples.
5 Likes

Evo-psych? WW1? ISIS? I… But… My teeth hurt now…

2 Likes

That is some extraordinarily bad political analysis, and not just because he relies heavily on neoreactionary political conceptions. Collapsing all politics into a story about [incorrect] monkey evolution is entirely the wrong way to go about it, since it doesn’t describe the actual basis of modern political conflict.

2 Likes

It leaned very heavily on evolutionary psychology, and made a lot of very strange assertions. The most outlandish was the claim that women and other historically disenfranchised groups were now dominant in information technology – which, given that the proportion of women employed in IT has been shrinking, is quite obviously not the case.

Of course, the most objectionable thing about the piece is describing blatant misogyny and homophobia as morally neutral.

5 Likes

I like that it’s given us a neologism.

http://wondermark.com/sea-lion-verb/

3 Likes

Good GOD:

In the end, though, I don’t think the threats are that important. Who
amongst us has NOT received threats? I’m almost tempted to put the word
threats in scare quotes, because the norm seems to be to elevate a
tweet of the form “I hope you’re killed” to an actual allegation of
threat. When I’ve received threats from anonymous losers I laugh them
off. I find that some people (a minority, I hope) almost relish
receiving death threats (or death “threats”) because it gives them
ammunition in bravery debates.

Unspoken assertion: “I’m a straight white male in the western hemipshere, and my experience is universal.”


Then he trots out “more men are raped than women” and backs this up with “because: prison rape”.

Except the women receiving the threats are not in prison, so we have to exclude prison-rape from the larger stats on rape.

8 Likes

Yeah, I’ve had enough of Popehat now.

2 Likes

Yeah, which is a pretty boiler plate neoreactionary assertion, as many of them are men who work in the tech industry. It’s not exactly an original claim, but the branding is slightly new. It’s unsurprising that the libertarians at Popehat would fall so quickly to that line of thinking.

I see evo-psych employed almost always to make these claims, especially by right wingers. It’s historically and scientifically dubious that discrimination is natural at all, and then the implied leap of logic that natural equals good.

1 Like

Well, that’ll teach me to read a bit further into an article before linking it as “bringing something new to the discussion.”

This is not an excuse, but an explanation:

I got only as far as references to the English Civil War, and was lured by the “historically-ness” of it.

I apologize for bringing just another bit of GG dreck into this thread.

1 Like

I can’t blame you. I keep getting “popehat” confused with “antipope”, as in Charles Stross’s blog. And there was a lot of namedropping early in the piece.

1 Like

The alleged behavior is (at best) a breach of common sense, and (at worst) a major breach of journalistic ethics.

No.

At “best”, it’s private matter among three individuals that shouldn’t concern you in the least.

1 Like