There was a famous Making Light thread about a psychopathic killer which was joined, IIRC, by the psychopath's stepdaughter. The details I give might be a bit off, but that was an amazing thread.
I keep thinking I'm going to discover one of you all is someone I know, but it hasn't happened yet. More identifying details, please!
I've wondered how much the small-world/x-degrees of separation/whatever effects are mediated by class distinctions. That is, running into an online acquaintance in real life seems peculiar, but how big is the relevant population of people who are likely to know a commenter at Making Light, or here? It's not the whole population of the US, or the world: it's a much smaller group defined mostly by education and professional status.
I think the Making Light community has some roots going back a lot further than the site itself, based in the science fiction writing, editing and publishing community.
"It's not a small world, it's a small middle class."
5: Right, but this coincidence traveled outside that community -- the couple getting married isn't, AFAIK, directly SF affiliated. But they're still in the class of people who are or are related to highly educated professional types.
Yeah, I agree, LB. That's why I don't think it's the "small world" part that's so interesting.
6: Yep, exactly. I'm wondering if we should be interpreting this as evidence of class segregation.
I always feel that coincidence like these are like a more general case of the Birthday paradox (or 'problem', or whatever you want to call it).
Brains in jars, people.
I think part of the attraction in online communities is that you can skip over the inane chit-chat ones has in an office (go sports team/how about that weather/what did you do this weekend) and get to more interesting conversations. But, in skipping those social lubricant conversations, you skip over these salient details in peoples lives.
4: Yeah, I've realized that DC seems so small for that reason. It's not a huge city, but 600,000 people is still a lot, and yet I unexpectedly run into people I know all the time. I at first thought it was strange to see my roommate (who I don't hang out with socially) at a party thrown by what turned out to be a mutual acquaintance, but tracing the job- and friend-lines back, it all made sense.
i told a couple of people this, but turns out a regular commenter here (i won't say who in case they'd like to keep super anonymous) and i went to high school together and were on the lit mag. my mind was sufficiently blown.
also, mike d, we met before, correct? before i really got into unfogged. unless i'm mistaken. but that was through dc blogging stuff.
13 - I've told some people this, but a semi-regular commenter here (I'll leave it up to him to embarrass himself) and I were in Boy Scouts together back in the day.
Who went to kindergarten with Ogged?
14 - yeah. you're friend knew my brother.
DC seems small because it's so segregated by race as well as class. Then slice it up by age, and exclude the people who don't like to have fun because they're joining the FBI or something, and you have about 150 people left.
Meanwhile in the other thread it seems that six or seven commenters go to the same shoe store.
I'm wondering if we should be interpreting this as evidence of class segregation.
I think there's much more fine grained segregation than that. And ogged is wrong: the small world thing is the most interesting thing.
Doesn't it take the fun out of it if you actually know people on here?
I prefer to have my own mental images of the Unfogged without reality interfering.
When I first went to university, moving into my first student flat, I found that among my flat mates I'd i) gone to school with the cousin of one girl, ii) briefly dated another one's ex-boyfriend's ex-girlfriend.
Scotland is a fairly small country, but these two people were from different towns/cities from me and lived on opposite sides of the country.
I also found out, another time, that two different ex g-friends of mine had dated the same guy, years apart. And neither of them had ever met.
Oh, and I've met two different Unfogged commentators. But that was because of Unfogged, rather than some 'small-world' thing.
it's amazing just how much of young white professional D.C. is concentrated around DuPont circle. I travel there a bit for work--turns out my office is:
--across the street from a nonprofit office where I'd volunteered for a week.
--5 mins. from the restaurant I went to when I stayed with a friend right after college
--A 10 min. walk from the apartment of my best friend from law school.
And I've run into people I know there, too.
Good thing Linkmeister wasn't a troll. Having to disenvowel a new step-relative could be embarrassing.
I think I'm connected, in one way or another, with 90% of the people here.
As was said already, I think this is part of the sociology of cosmopolitan middling classes in the 21st Century in general.
Not too long ago, a well-known anthropologist who works on southern Africa came to speak at Bryn Mawr. I'd never met the guy, but I loved his work, used it, cited it. He and I think alike about a lot of issues, and his stuff had a big influence on my first book. I'd met some of his grad students while doing work in Zimbabwe, thought they were impressive. So he and I had exchanged some indirect communications through various proxies about how we'd have to meet up someday, etc.
So he shows up at Bryn Mawr and there's a dinner before his talk. We're chatting and the subject turns to where people at the dinner grew up. The anthropologist and I discover that we both grew up in southern California. Then that we came from the same general area of southern California. Then that we went to the same high school. Then that he graduated three years before me. Then that we knew a lot of the same people. And I'm thinking, how is it that I did not know this guy? How is it that we ended up not just in the same line of work, but practically doing and writing the same kind of stuff?
I think these kinds of things happen a lot now, not just online. We rediscover our connections because we think of ourselves as strangers, due largely to travel and to modern forms of anonymity and privacy--but a lot of the educational, professional and cultural structures of cosmopolitan life act to create seeming "coincidences" all the time.
I went to preschool with one Unfogged regular.
I feel connected to each and every one of you rascals.
It was super funny when redfoxtainshrub and snarkout realized they were actually married in real life.
Making Light has strong Usenet roots, particularly the rasf hierarchy.
I feel connected to each and every one of you rascals.
I recently discovered that Heebie is my Siamese twin -- it's the damnedest thing. Hey Heeb, quit hogging the chair.
36:
No wonder she is so proud of her/your butt.
I make the bed, and Jesus McQueen steals the covers.
We rediscover our connections because we think of ourselves as strangers, due largely to travel and to modern forms of anonymity and privacy--but a lot of the educational, professional and cultural structures of cosmopolitan life act to create seeming "coincidences" all the time.
Yeah, but isn't that sort of remarkable? I seem to remember some claim that there is a set number of people who can work fruitfully on a project--I might be recalling Gladwell, so discount as appropriate--and I wonder if there is some similar thing going on.
Didn't someone here (ttaM actrrgramama?) say once that "it's not a small world, people. It's a small middle class."
DC is indeed crazy small, particularly if you frequent mid-scale bars in NW, but we're basically speaking of the 22-31 year-old professional class, who are all two degrees away from each other anyway.
I try to pretend I'm not part of that, because while I live in Adams Morgan I work at the very ass-end of the Metro, in (gasp) Maryland. I'm a self-hating commuter.
Everyday I curse the evil doctor that sewed us together as babies, knowing he'd cripple my glory with this gruesome anchor of a twin brother. Oh hey, Jesus. You're still here. Were you reading that?
Which isn't to say huge urban tribes are a bad thing; just that my grad school stint was at a very small, very incestuous place and beyond the vellum all I'd been looking forward to was a little social anonymity.
Doh, 40 totally ridiculously pwned by 6.
"I make the bed, and Jesus McQueen steals the covers."
I'll bet you don't bitch when he makes water into wine.
40 - just browsing through your blog, counterfly, and saw you wrote you'd seen me one weekend. you should have said hi! more unfogged connections!
Everyday I curse the evil doctor that sewed us together as babies, knowing he'd cripple my glory with this gruesome anchor of a twin brother.
Which one of you is Rosey Grier?
7-9: Not to be contrary, but I'm not particularly seeing the class thing. What distinguishes people who become part of a "commenter community" is that they have the time and inclination to hang out online. A job that allows for this, chained to the desk, all that. That may correlate with class, but that wouldn't be my first explanation.
In any case, what's more interesting, yeah, is that on blogs like this, few personal details are shared. A function of the anonymity mandate, which is both freeing and limiting.
I run into good friends all the time in NYC, nowhere near either of our neighborhoods. There's a guy I teach with whom I seem to see no matter what part of town I'm in or how unpredictable my being there is. We got past the whole "you're stalking me" joking and now it's just a fact. Wherever I am, there is Jesse.
I went to college with an ex of an unfoggeder, I found out recently.
But yes, stratified society, not particularly small world. One of my great joys in life is running into people I know.
The original "six degrees of separation", IIRC, was between middle-class Americans. Sociologist Stanley Milgram selected individuals across the country and had them try to get a letter to another individual. The letter contained discrete intervals of pain, demonstrating that everyone knew someone who knew someone who they would torture, given sufficient prompting by Kevin Bacon.
When heebie's not looking, I push the side of the monitor slightly so I have a better angle. Don't tell her.
The movie "Six degrees of separation" is one of my favorite all time movies.
Catherine, I don't care who knows, but I thought you were pretending to be in your 20s.
When my son's Canadian cousin went to an E. Coast hippy school, she became close to the daughter of one of my old Portland hippy friends, and later on to a student who had been in my son's day care center with him. It's a small hippy world.
Children of hippies seldom become hippies themselves. They tend to become culture people, though -- film, music, art, shit like that.
I fear that when they finally hang Heebie, Jesus will be negatively impacted even though he's innocent as a lamb.
Dang me, dang me, they oughta take a rope and hang me.
I want to see Wrongshore moo on Jeopardy. Does that count?
Recently I ran into somebody I knew in an airport away from home. At first I was stunned by the coincidence, then I started doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations and determined that the odds of running into that person at that airport on the same day I happened to be there were somewhat better than one in four.
So, I agree with arthegall, small-world coincidences can appear larger than they actually are for reasons not sociological at all. Which is not to discount sociological factors, of course.
Can I tell my favorite coincidence story? Can I? Can I? (Or really, I mean "May I?")
In 2001 I was teaching in Beijing. I'd just arrived and didn't know anyone. I was jetlagged and lonely for Sig Other back in the States. There was a knock at the door, and there stood a Very Handsome Man, obviously from the US. I was chilly and unfriendly, since my general assumption about white guys in China is that they're assholes, but later on it turned out that he was the only one who knew where to buy good used bikes, and then he turned out to be a nice guy after all. That wasn't a coincidence though; it was a friggin' miracle.
No, the coincidence was that he had grown up in South Minneapolis (which is where I live) and had actually been friends with Significant Other in high school; also that he was all left-wing and stuff and had actually been at the anti-WTO protests in 1999 in Seattle.
There's a Roger Miller cover band in Portland. The lead singer is Ray Stevens' nephew. Ray Stevens wrote over 500 songs.
I've seen unf in real life, ogged. YOu're not special.
while I live in Adams Morgan I work at the very ass-end of the Metro, in (gasp) Maryland.
You and me both. Live in Columbia Heights, work out past Shady Grove. At least I can get a seat on the train.
I agree with ogged that the coincidence is not the interesting part. Note that this thread alone (let alone the archives) should prove how wrong he is about the other part, though.
how wrong he is about the other part, though
Nuh uh.
Hm, oddly (very), it turned out not long ago that Populuxe was familiar with the blogging/posting of a long-term ex of mine, posted under an anonym. I'd been completely unaware of the ex's activity; bizarre indeed to hear "Hey, I think I know that guy!" Creepy, even.
Best coincidence story: When I was in high school, one year there were a couple of new transfer students. I had a class with both of them. One was a military kid who travelled with his parents, the other had been living with her father in Egypt. They were shocked to recognize each other -- it turned out they had gone to the same English school in Egypt the year before but had not known each other, nor that they would be going to the same Midwestern high school.
Not attributable to class, I think.
A partner at my old firm is a frequent commenter under his real name at Ann Althouse's. I have considered harassing him with comments about his office decor ("You sound like just the sort of nitwit who would have a [giant model ship] in his office and think it was cool.") but have restrained myself because it would be mean, and aside from his ghastly and immoral politics, I haven't got anything against him. He's a spectacular lawyer, not that that's one way or the other on this issue.
aside from his ghastly and immoral politics, I haven't got anything against him
"Aside from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"
i'd been reading unfogged for a year or so before i realized that w/d was a classmate. he figured it out much faster (b/c he is better at things, including paying attention and being a student) -- we were sitting 3 or 4 seats apart in a class. i thought he was the more annoying guy in the front. i didn't say anything until a meet-up, b/c i had no idea what the online / rw etiquette was.
i probably saw tia several times a week over the least couple years, and we spent a couple years together in college. i had no idea until the meet-up.
also, tim burke was (by far) my college roomate's favorite professor.
I regularly make politically ghastly comments on Althouse's site using the name of some tool lawyer with giant model ships in his office. What a coincidence.
I agree with ogged that the coincidence is not the interesting part.
What is wrong with you people?
Well, he was good to work for, astonishingly skilled, and never did a bad thing that I knew about to anyone directly. Just supported some truly ghastly people politically.
how much does 71 narrow it down, really?
What is wrong with you people?
Let me guess, we hate America?
73: I guess doing bad things to people indirectly isn't such a problem then?
76: Not if you don't get caught. But that goes for direct harms, as well, so maybe you were getting at something else.
75: When you make jokes like that, ogged, the terrorists win.
40 - Living in DC and working in Maryland is still cooler than working in DC and living in Maryland.
Eh, I'd happily thwart any political goals he might have, I'd just feel mean teasing him.
75: When you make jokes like that, ogged, the terrorists win.
So I ran into this terrorist, and it turned out he knew my cousin...
#65. Yeah. That's the most surprising net coincidence I've ever encountered.
he was good to work for, astonishingly skilled, and never did a bad thing that I knew about to anyone directly. Just supported some truly ghastly people politically.
A fine epitaph.
Next time you want to blow a couple hundred on booze, Counterfly, holla! Also, lend me a couple hundred dollars.
So I ran into this terrorist, and it turned out he knew my cousin...
Nobody's treating that as much of a coincidence.
Supporting ghastly people politically actually goes a long way towards making you a bad person in my books.
In Alabama, I shared an office with a guy from Ghana, who had a good small world story. When he first moved to Auburn AL, he was walking around the university campus, completely lost. He approached a woman whom he thought looked African to ask for directions. As he walked up to her, she recognized a tribal mark he had--a small brand under his left eye--and immediately addressed him in his people's language. It turns out they were from neighboring villages.
So I ran into this terrorist, and it turned out he knew my cousin...
knew s/b was
So I ran into this terrorist, and it turned out he knew my cousin...
Did you know that in some thesauri, "terrorist" is listed under "Palestinian"?
I'm so bad at remembering names that I have experiences like 28 more than I should- it will turn out that I know someone from the past, but their name alone was not enough to make me realize I knew them.
astonishingly skilled
I think you have to make an explicit case that we should prefer skilled ghastliness to inept ghastliness. I'm not saying you can't make such a case, I'm just saying you should make it explicit.
Supporting ghastly people politically actually goes a long way towards making you a bad person in my books.
Oh, but what if they leave polite and jocular comments on blog threads when they aren't busy supporting torture and illegal war? What then?
My mom was in London and ran into a woman that lived just up the street from us back home.
re: 92
yeah, but London is tiny.
I think you have to make an explicit case that we should prefer skilled ghastliness to inept ghastliness.
Excluding true horrors--cutting the arms off of children, etc.--do you really not take that as true?
yeah, but London is tiny.
However, it's quite some distance from North Carolina.
90: 'Astonishingly skilled' was meant to apply professionally, rather than to his political ghastliness. Politically, I would prefer it if the people I disagree with were uniformly bumbling idiots, on the theory that it would be easier to stop them.
94: Along those lines, I'd rather die by gas chamber than by crucifixion, but that's not much of an argument for being strapped down and having your lungs pumped with poison until you're dead.
98: besides, skilled ghastliness has so much less humour value.
In the previous I was assuming `ghastly' was a good bit more narrow than `people I disagree with'.
98: That's also true. It would also make it less easy for people I respect to befriend them. "Sure, so-and-so continues to support keeping war criminals and mass murderers in charge of the most powerful country in the world, but he's so charming around the office!"
I'm just putting this up here so ogged can see stras and I commenting at the same time from different locations.
101: Oh, fine, I'll firebomb his office. That work for you?
99: I'm not sure I see anything except the motivation for the analogy ban.
In Florence some years ago, I heard a voice I recognized as that of someone I knew in Portland, but I figured, why go out of my way to talk to him in Italy when I wouldn't do it back home? So I let him pass. The next day, I turn a corner in some tiny back alley, and Oh, hey, what a coincidence, fancy meeting you here.
I think you have to make an explicit case that we should prefer skilled ghastliness to inept ghastliness.
Excluding true horrors--cutting the arms off of children, etc.--do you really not take that as true?
I despise unskilled car thieves. Take my radio, take my car, whatever. We all do what we have to do. Don't fucking break my window or jack up my door lock and then not even take my car.
a friend of mine once ran into a girl from her highschool in a jungle in Mexico, real middle-of-nowhere chance encounter. Which must have been odd.
I'll firebomb his office. That work for you?
That's a little operatic. Shunning would be adequate. Maybe with an apologetic bouquet.
Meh, I think I'll take personally likable over politically acceptable. People believe things for complicated reasons, and it's not like any of us actually knows which policy will have the best outcome in the long run.
and it's not like any of us actually knows which policy will have the best outcome in the long run.
I do. But I'm not telling.
Oh, I forgot, you thought random unprovoked wars might be good ideas if executed by demonstrable incompetents.
Meh, I think I'll take personally likable over politically acceptable.
Ogged, which of those letters asking for Scooter Libby's release did you write?
Was Scooter likable? I'm not taking Wieseltier's word for it.
111 was, em, a little inflammatory. Sorry about that.
109: this is what I meant about the difference I'd make between `ghastly' and `someone I disagree with'. We don't know what policy willl have the best outcome, but we can identify some that don't have a chance, or worse.
Personally likeable with different politics isn't a problem. Affable but supports & encourages actual scumbags isn't so good.
That's it, I'm going to swim. With Republicans!
it's not like any of us actually knows which policy will have the best outcome in the long run
I find this position increasingly less tenable every day.
106: That's sort of what I was talking about. I've been mugged a few times, but one had a certain craftsmanship that I could appreciate after the fact.
You and ogged are going to throw down at the meetup, right, slol?
I went to college with a once-and-a-while commenter here.
Oh, and then there's the Apo connection, but that doesn't count, since that's how I ended up here.
Oh, come on. Maybe in general we can say "we don't know what policy will have the best outcome," and maybe that has meaning if we're talking about the tax code or education. But in specific we can say, "torture is not a good policy, nor is indefinite detention without charge, nor is general and consistent disregard for core constitutional liberties or indeed the entire idea of procedural justice." And people who think otherwise are kinda reprehensible.
So if your lawyer friend is, or shares opinions with, John Yoo, I don't care how charming he is. Not a good person.
I don't think there's a way to say this without being shrill, so here goes: I can't be friends with anyone who doesn't repudiate Bush and almost* all of his works.
*I'm sure there's something they didn't louse up entirely or break deliberately. It was a good idea to have the UN investigate the Hairiri assassination, but I suspect it was Chirac's, and it hasn't panned out very well anyway. Um. There's got to be something.
106: That's sort of what I was talking about. I've been mugged a few times, but one had a certain craftsmanship that I could appreciate after the fact.
You come to appreciate professionalism after a few times.
That's it, I'm going to swim. With Republicans!
You didn't tell me the youthful lifeguard is a Republican. I withdraw my encouragement.
It was a good idea to have the UN investigate the Hairiri assassination
Wow, you're really reaching, aren't you? I think Drezner had a list of things the administration did right a while ago, but it wasn't real long.
Making Light has strong Usenet roots, particularly the rasf hierarchy.
I think you can generalize that to the blog community as a whole, actually. I recognize you from Usenet, and at least two other commenters here and I used to participate in the same small Usenet group and associated mailing lists. I also keep running into people I know from Usenet elsewhere on the net.
Then there was the time I realized that a cousin of mine (who I don't know that I've ever actually met) was commenting on both Yglesias's site and Crooked Timber.
Eh, there are people who I will work to thwart, and then there are people I am impelled to be personally hostile to. If their political opinions are evil, I'll do all the thwarting I can, but I know enough apparently decent people with inexplicably awful politics that I'm not going to consider them 'not good people' based on that alone.
The disagreement and disapproval are still there, I just don't need the personal hostility without stronger evidence of personal evil.
You and ogged are going to throw down at the meetup, right, slol?
I thought I was going to have a bake-off with Megan. I don't know what's got into me this morning.
(Actually, I do. I just can't share it without Revealing Stuff! See, ogged is right after all.)
58=>92 (or is it the other way around?). The "I was in London/Paris/Florence/Tokyo and ran into an old neighbor/classmate/acquaintance/SO" coincidence is really not that improbable. Tourists who go there tend to congregate in the same places. If they are of the same socioeconomic status, the chances are even better.
then there are people I am impelled to be personally hostile to
See, there's the difference between us: I have to be impelled not to be personally hostile to people. "Personally hostile" is my default position.
It's really time-saving, as far as making friends goes.
123: They're decent policy-wise on homelessness (shift to permanent supportive housing) and decent on fighting AIDS in Africa (much more money than ever before, not sure where they're at with their condomania).
I despise unskilled car thieves. Take my radio, take my car, whatever. We all do what we have to do. Don't fucking break my window or jack up my door lock and then not even take my car.
And if you can't be bothered to steal the whole radio, don't just take the face, damnit.
131: Personally hostile, for me, involves things like mocking office decor or the occasional firebomb. Lurking in a surly manner and not interacting with people I do spontaneously, but don't consider hostile. Unless they attempt to interact with me, at which point I become hostile.
People believe things for complicated reasons, and it's not like any of us actually knows which policy will have the best outcome in the long run.
Sure we do. Let's say we have two policy options we're considering: "war with Iran" versus "no war with Iran." Now, people believe things for complicated reasons, and it's possible that someone pushing to drop tac nukes on Iranian facilities isn't simply a bloodthirsty brute who's internalized a lust for empire, but at the very least all available evidence from the last several years points towards the very strong conclusion that the "war with Iran" option is fantastically stupid in addition to being hideously immoral, and someone who advocates for that policy is either stupid or immoral for doing so.
Similarly, someone who defends the Bush administration's stance on torture, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretaps, limitless executive power, etc. is probably either very stupid or very bad. The fact that Americans have the luxury to separate political views from everyday evaluations of morality, and thus have pleasant watercooler chat with people who think torture is cool, doesn't make those people good.
From dsquared's secret review:
one of the indications of Noel Coward's genius is that he came up with a way of being honest about a friend's play to their face when you didn't like it (he'd say "darling, good was not the word!" or "well, you did it again!")
One of my grad. school professors said of one of my books, "It's really well written!"
LB, I guess we differ there. I won't be personally hostile to the person (perhaps to an action) but I will write them off for things like that. No hostility, no stress, just minimal engagement. I do think that it is a pretty bad reflection on their character, and there is only so much time in the day. This obviously doesn't apply to the `people who disagree with me' sort of polictical differences.
132.--I'll give them the first (though I haven't followed that issue closely), but it's hard for me to give them the second, considering their pig-headed insistence on abstinence-only and their resistance to the various compromises proffered on generic drugs.
Let me put this argument a different way: I don't, as a rule, make friends with racists. It's socially acceptable - and expected, I think, in liberal circles - to shun outspoken bigots. But somehow it's not considered socially acceptable to shun someone for knowingly supporting an administration that tortures prisoners and is responsible for the deaths of nearly three quarters of a million people, because, y'know, that would be shrill.
137: and there is only so much time in the day...
Most of which has to be spent critiquing other people's social lives on the Internet.
I can't be friends with anyone who doesn't repudiate Bush and almost* all of his works.
A gay guy I used to work with used that line on me. "You're not Republican are you? Okay, we can be friends."
The fact that Americans have the luxury to separate political views from everyday evaluations of morality, and thus have pleasant watercooler chat with people who think torture is cool, doesn't make those people good.
Why would you care if they were good (assuming some broad agreement on "good")?
I get a sick feeling when I meet nice people or fun people or smart people with horrible views. I avoid them to the extent possible. One of my oldest friends is a Krauthammer hawk now, and I've basically lost him. I don't want to try. Another is a Stalinist, more or less, and I've lost him too. The former is a nice, fun, interesting guy, whereas the latter is even more interesting but can be very unpleasant.
Most of which has to be spent critiquing other people's social lives on the Internet.
Yeah, because all this is is a critique of somebody's social life, and not an effort to use moral suasion to stigmatize people who support abominable policies which have resulted in the death and displacement of millions of actual human beings.
140: Isn't "shunning" a bit ... operatic, for a practice that more likely deserves a soundtrack by The Cure or My Chemical Romance?
Am I missing much by not reading this thread?
I feel kind of weird about this whole conversation, because this guy isn't even a friend -- he was a socially distant boss who I think highly of professionally. I just don't have enough malice toward him to harass him despite the fact that it would be funny.
But I do have other friends with similar views, and I don't think shunning is always necessary or appropriate.
I just read this yesterday, forget where: honest, intelligent, supportive of Bush- you can only ever be two of the three.
149: One must shun, or be shunned.
This thread kind of horrifies me in a Style-section sort of way. "Darling, simply everyone goes to the Hamptons sooner or later!"
I think it's partly class and partly east coastness. One of the things that struck me at the DC meetup was the feeling that omg, I'm in a room with the rising young media/culture stars of tomorrow. Kinda cool. But weird! And once I was in another major east/south city, giving a talk, and mentioned that my sister and her husband lived there, and my hosts asked why, and I said b/c of his job (which is a museum curator), and everyone was all impressed that oh, JC! is your brother in law!
So yeah. Small intellectual world, especially in the east. Is my diagnosis.
Am I missing much by not reading this thread?
Ogged and w-lfs-n have seen Unf in real life, Ray Steven's nephew is in a Roger Miller cover band, and LB's going to kill a former colleague. I think that's about it.
I'm in a room with the rising young media/culture stars of tomorrow
And Apo!
152: I'm sure people out West have their own Serendips: tattoo shops, tanning booths, car customization shops -- places like that, if MTV isn't lying to me.
154- An excerpt of that. Ah, the irony...
98
".... Politically, I would prefer it if the people I disagree with were uniformly bumbling idiots, on the theory that it would be easier to stop them."
So you are delighted with the Bush administration?
Personally I expect people I disagree with will be in power at least half the time and I would prefer they not mess things up too badly.
(there seems to be more Funny on the other thread, today.)
The problem is that they aren't all bumbling idiots. Plenty of the people working for the Bush administration are competent and intelligent, they just have no interest in the damage they're doing so long as they can hold on to power.
If they were stupider, they wouldn't have successfully weaseled Bush into office in the first place. (Bush himself seems pretty dim, or at least willing to act as if he were, but that doesn't make everyone who works for him a moron.)
So you are delighted with the Bush administration?
They are only bumbling idiots in foreign policy, a realm in which their priorities are not too different from the Democrats'. On the home front they've done an amazingly skillful job of empowering corporations and filling the government with people who hate the government.
The reason why we feel it's fine to socialize with people who support monstrous policies is because most of the policies we're talking about don't directly affect us. We don't know anybody who's been tortured; very few of us know anyone who's been killed or injured fighting in Iraq; nobody who's spent five years in Gitmo for having the wrong last name is going to show up at your dinner party. Pretty much everyone knows gay people whose rights are being denied by Republicans across the country, but it's remarkably easy to disassociate Person X's vote for Senator Y with Senator Y's denial of Person Z's basic humanity.
Part of this is because we live in a country where most of our elected leaders' actions have their most devastating consequences outside the country. Most Americans, at best, treat politics as a hobby, and why would you distance yourself from a friend or acquaintance or colleague over a hobby? But much of the rest of the world is living and dying by our little hobby.
I should say that I'm not picking on LB per se; this is a longstanding issue for me that doesn't have much to do with her model-ship-owning former boss.
163: Will being rude to people make it easier to persuade them to vote as I vote and listen to the music that I listen to?
163: Well, but treating it as a hobby is realistic on some level, because, as we all beat our breasts about, none of us is making much of difference either way.
My political beliefs are sensible and moral and if I were running the world, it would be a marvelous place full of peace and unions and fluffy bunny rabbits eating limitless supplies of candy, but I'm not, and I'm not affecting the people who are in any significant way. So I don't get a whole lot of 'being a good person' credit for having decent political beliefs. Similarly, my old boss isn't actually doing any harm, concretely, by supporting the Iraq war: his beliefs, individually, don't make much if any difference. So I'm hesitating calling him a bad person for them.
165: Flippanter, I've got some bad news for you. Anyone who's still a self-identified Republican in 2007 is never going to be persuaded by anything significant you say.
Why is everyone assuming LB's lawyer frenemy is a torture supporter? She didn't specify who these ghastly people are who he supports. (Could be Giuliani, for instance. Pretty ghastly, but in a different way.)
154: I have never agreed more with John Emerson than I do on the followup to that post.
Similarly, my old boss isn't actually doing any harm, concretely, by supporting the Iraq war: his beliefs, individually, don't make much if any difference.
Of course he's doing concrete harm. Are you really about to embrace the principle that members of a political movement have no moral responsibility for what that political movement does?
I don't actually know torture or not specifically. I know committed Republican and war supporter.
155: You and me, baby. Solidarity.
156: But see, that's the thing; it isn't "people" out west. I'm sure there's some crazed little world in and around the LA movie/television scene, but I wouldn't have the first clue. I have an old college friend in SF whose boyfriend is a well-connected social climber--but the boyfriend's from the southeast (and is some kind of freakish log cabin Republican to boot, but whatever).
I think every city has its political/arts scene. But it seems to me that in most of the west, political elites are actively hostile to intellectual-type elites, and also the distances between places are so huge that you don't really have, say, the NY/DC back and forth. Even LA/SF back and forth is really only feasible if you can afford to fly, which means yeah, Hollywood elite types do it but up and comers can't. So it's all much more atomized. If people are ambitious in that vein, they move east (mostly--as my brother in law did, come to think of it) or else they settle into the role of local/regional talent, which is a lot less well-connected.
167: But my trivial whimsies have moved mountains.
Why is everyone assuming LB's lawyer frenemy is a torture supporter?
Anyone who supports the current administration and hasn't been living in a cave on Mars with a prominent lobotomy scar on their head is a torture supporter.
170: What supporting evil people makes you morally responsible for abstractly is what we're talking about. Is his support of those evil people an actual cause of anything bad happening? I'm pretty sure not.
A friend of mine who comments here with infrequency has a special gift for running into people who know her. We were on a five-hour layover in Frankfurt once and, walking through the airport, heard someone call her unusual name from a distance. She runs into people in bars in Germany, in coffeehouses in Amsterdam, wherever she goes. Our immediate social circle is fairly well-traveled but not rich and not jet-setting; we took a lot of road trips in college, some of us have occasionally saved and scraped to manage a week in another country, that sort of thing, but none of us have regular destinations abroad and tons of time to visit them with which to increase the odds of random runnings-into. I'm always curious to hear what bizarro six-degrees wackiness has caught up with her lately.
I think it says less about her or my or our class, though, than it does about the rarity of the truly outgoing in our society. I am extremely shy and rarely make new friends unless forced into it by being around more outgoing people. KJ is extremely outgoing and gregarious and easy to talk to, easy to get to know. People like that break down the self-imposed seclusion in which a lot of us live in a way that makes them easy to remember and easy to use as a bridge to build or recognize other connections.
Stras, if LB walks into this guy's office tomorrow and shoots him in the head, in what significant way will the world be different?
170: It seems the point is that as members of a kind of socially privileged class, we're all complacent. Which, well, yeah. That's how things work. Libertarians and liberals sometimes share the annoying belief that Each Man is an Island Unto Himself and can--indeed should!--totally Shape His Moral Universe. But 'taint the way it is. We're part of big national and international groupings, including class groupings; but we're also, ultimately, small and local and part of that means getting along with the members of our tribe.
Is his support of those evil people an actual cause of anything bad happening?
Inasmuch as support for those people probably means voting for/giving money to their campaigns and/or influencing susceptible other people similarly to support those people, sure it is. Where's our resident ethical philosopher?
And with that little comment tossed into the mix, I have to take PK to swim lessons, and shall sadly not be around to find out if it sinks with a ripple or explodes. Damn.
165: Probably not directly, but if people who don't take politics seriously -- people who vote based on which candidate they would like to have a beer with, for example -- realize that taking politics seriously is not just for vegans and post office employees but for "normal" people like themselves as well, they might start doing so too.
I'm not surprised by the position sj is taking here, but I am a little puzzled by slol. Is he really arguing that we should cut off all social contact with our political adversaries?
180: Well, sure, but at too small a scale to actually affect anything.
What supporting evil people makes you morally responsible for abstractly is what we're talking about. Is his support of those evil people an actual cause of anything bad happening? I'm pretty sure not.
Well, yeah, but see SJ's racism analogy.
(And with that ban violation, I'm off to a meeting...)
176: And yet if no one supported those people, they wouldn't be able to commit the atrocities they've committed, and are committing. You seem to be arguing that each individual Republican bears no responsibility for the crimes of the administration, and yet all of them taken together are responsible for putting into power - and keeping in power - that same administration. Without political support, Bush and Cheney would just be two old fat men with spotty business records. Add to them millions of guys like your old boss and they're war criminals in charge of the world's most powerful country. So how do those Republicans bear no responsibility for their actions?
I am a little puzzled by slol. Is he really arguing that we should cut off all social contact with our political adversaries?
Not really. I'm saying I personally have a hard time holding polite conversation with people who hold certain political views -- those on the Yoo list, above. I would not cheerfully socialize with them. I admire LB's greater suavity and fortitude.
Of course we should not cut off social contact with all political adversaries -- if I did, I wouldn't have anyone to talk to at all, as the people with whom I never disagree without politics can be counted on the fingers of no hands.
186: No responsibility is wrong; obviously when you aggregate all of the Bush supporters they're a huge problem. But each individual effect is small enough that it's outweighed by someone's actions on things they have some more direct connection with.
And, mostly I'm with you and with slol, but there are circumstances where personal considerations override.
a Stalinist, more or less...interesting but can be very unpleasant.
Hey, I think I know that guy.
On a related note, I was just in the other room at work and Sean Hannity was on the radio, I asked who put it on, and it was a guy who's an immigrant (although asian, not hispanic) who said he likes conservative talk radio. Why would you like listening to people who hate you?
187:I have not broken bread with a Republican, including and especially family members, for more than twenty years.
Altho, come to think of it, I have broken bread with about ten people.
190 appears to be variant on "Hitler was a vegetarian, and was kind to Eva & his dogs." There is not a double entry accounting system of moral turpitude, with assets & liabilities.
All stras is saying is give peace a chance.
192: The anti-immigrant immigrant phenomenon is widespread. For some reason, once you get your green card/citizenship you turn into a Lou Dobbs apostle.
192
"... Why would you like listening to people who hate you?"
Common enemies.
195
Nothing particularly puzzling about it, new immigrants compete most directly with recent immigrants.
So much for my nuanced position. I could be civil, and that's about it, with someone who tried to justified torture, but what I object to is things like this,
Anyone who supports the current administration and hasn't been living in a cave on Mars with a prominent lobotomy scar on their head is a torture supporter.
Just not so. A lot of people barely follow politics or the news at all, and have complicated or mysterious reasons for supporting one party over another; who they vote for just doesn't tell us much about them. We, here assembled, are total outliers in America in how much we care about issues and how much we know about them. When a political blogger supports Bush it says one thing about him, when my friend who doesn't follow politics at all does, it says something else.
Nothing particularly puzzling about it, new immigrants compete most directly with recent immigrants.
I don't think a lot of legal Mexican immigrants enjoy hearing racists come up with strategies for exterminating illegal Mexican immigrants.
SP's office mate being Asian makes him more likely audience, I suppose.
190
I basically agree with this. Do the shunners also advocate shunning people with pernicious religious beliefs?
This seems like an appropriate time to mention that my odious, Limbaugh-listening Republican brother-in-law is planning on running for governor in an eastern state in the not-too-distant future. I think he doesn't stand a chance, but my track record as a political prognosticator is pretty weak. I am prepared to reveal certain personal details if I must, but I'm sincerely hoping it doesn't come to that.
And now someone else from my office who witnessed the exchange is going to reveal that we're both posting on here without knowing it.
179:b is one of the few who understands the superstructure, at least to the extent that there is such a thing. But hey, "bourgeois consciousness" is an oxymoron. I read the 30 economist blogs, both of the leftist sites, and twisty. Thus I achieve a balanced perspective.
I don't know how we got to `shun'. What's wrong with maintaining work-only level interactions with someone? Assuming they are good at what they do, I mean. It's entirely possible to respect someones ability to do a job without respecting them personally. In any career, you are probably going to run into people like this. Just disengage. This isn't the same thing as shunning anyone.
I'm not at all sure JBS was addressing me, but for that matter why would someone with pernicious religious beliefs be different than someone with pernicious political beliefs, or whatever?
202: A couple of hours ago, Hilzoy posted an article slamming Giuliani in the ObWi comments. Fifteen minutes later, a Giuliani hating partner sent me the same article. If he were an associate rather than a partner, I'd be asking if that were where he'd found it.
199
"I don't think a lot of legal Mexican immigrants enjoy hearing racists come up with strategies for exterminating illegal Mexican immigrants."
Exterminating probably not, sending back to Mexico maybe. Cesar Chavez opposed illegal immigration for economic reasons.
205- Hilzoy is a partner at your firm? Cool!
No, Hilzoy is a philosopher from a wildly distinguished academic family -- she's not so much anonymous as trying to be ungooglable by her students.
Speaking of anonymity, Digby's apparently outing herself tonight at some conference.
when my friend who doesn't follow politics at all does, it says something else.
206: If you listen to people like Hannity and Boortz, what you get is people saying things like "We need to stop the invasion. The country is full. What will it take to get these gutless wonders in Washington to build a REAL WALL? Keep them all out! We don't need any more people who can't speak English. We've got buses, we've got bulldozers, send them back and let them pile up along the border if they want. Someone can get rich driving a few taco trucks down there." Somehow I think Cesar Chavez would be more sympathetic to the illegal immigrant than to that message.
204
"I'm not at all sure JBS was addressing me, but for that matter why would someone with pernicious religious beliefs be different than someone with pernicious political beliefs, or whatever?"
Logically I don't think it is different but people seem more willing to give it a pass. For example people on this site seem more tolerant of Moslems than Republicans.
211: Actually, some Moslems have different beliefs from other Moslems. Also, they are not a unified force in our society, such that a rank-and-file Moslem would be understood to be a supporter of Osama bin Laden. Also, you're an idiot.
198:Christ, the elitism. Thomas Frank bullshit.
"Politics" is not only what Matt Stoller does and MY writes about, it is also stepping over the bum on the sidewalk. People pays their taxes and have an idea of where the money goes, and rationalize their interests into ideologies on every level of society, education, and intelligence. Politics and philosophy is what people do, badly maybe, but constantly.
The incredible distance we have fallen from 1900 when every factory worker was presumed able & willing to listen to Emma and read Kautsky is disgusting. Michael Moore is one of few out there with a heart & brain, and he is fat, and not up to peer review by the likes of SEK.
Fucking Laputans.
people on this site seem more tolerant of Moslems than Republicans.
Probably because Muslims have no practical effect on my life whatsoever, while Republicans have run all three branches of the United States government for the past six years.
Zach, if you need someone to whom you can tell all the dirt in order to launder the sourcelisten to you without prying, please feel free to email me. This message in no way meant to indicate intense, burning nosiness.
(I'm also kidding in case it's not obvious though if my Republican ex-BIL ran for governor I'd tell everyone because it would be way the hell too entertaining to keep my mouth shut.)
195: Some of the most homophobic people I've met have been black and some of the most racist people I've met have been gay. And the most libertarian "fuck helping the poor" was some dude who's parents were ass-poor in the middle of Kentucky who worked one job through high school and two through five years of college to get an engineering degree so he wouldn't have to be poor any more. If he could do it, so could anyone.
people on this site seem more tolerant of Moslems than Republicans
I beg to differ.
Digby's apparently outing herself tonight at some conference.
Huh. I'm pretty curious about this. Digby really is great.
211: Neither republicanism nor Islam are inherently pernicious, so I don't really see what you are going with that.
Ogged, we're mocking you, not your religion.
Isn't she? I'm looking forward to finding out some biography.
I predict that Digby will turn out to be one of the Democratic candidates currently considered an also-ran. (or his wife) The blogs will go into turmoil as they try to justify not supporting his candidacy.
Say, have I told you the one about the illegal immigrant, the Republican, and the Prophet (pbuh)....
220, 224: You guys are going to hate it when she turns out to be Mark McKinnon.
What's wrong with maintaining work-only level interactions with someone?
Nothing, and this is basically what LB's doing with this guy. What she's not doing is mocking him personally in blog comments (er, in comments to a blog that he comments on, that is). Some people apparently find this course of action problematic.
215: Thanks, RMcM, I may take you up on that if and when he declares. I still can't get my mind around it, because I'd like to believe that he's too much of a tool to win, but he's corporate, connected, ex-military and does a lot of public speaking. All the basic ingredients the GOP machine needs to fashion a plausible candidate.
227: ooh, I love the Kids In The Hall.
I too am very curious about Digby. Whence this rumor? And how do you already know she's a she?
Somehow I think Cesar Chavez would be more sympathetic to the illegal immigrant than to that message.
You might be surprised. Recent immigrants tend to be pretty supportive of keeping more immigrants out. Chavez, of course, wasn't any kind of immigrant, and at least in his early years he wasn't very sympathetic to them.
231 - i heard it will be at the take back america conference taking place now in dc.
231, 233: I've seen it on a dozen blogs today, and yes, it's the TBA conference; I don't have any knowledge other than today's posts. I was pretty sure she was female from reading the blog, and had it confirmed through RL gossip from another blogger. (I suppose I could still turn out to be wrong.)
The rumor is pretty well substantiated.
I wouldn't worry, Zach, Ollie North is pretty played out these days.
(Seriously, if you need someone to vent to, that's cool. I was kidding about the laundering the source bit.)
236: Are you Digby? Am I Digby? I'm sensing a Spartacus moment in the offing.
198: This is where the "stupid" part of the "stupid or immoral" thing comes in.
Chávez was opposed to strikebreakers and scabs. In the farmworker trade out West, illegal immigrants are the strikebreakers and scabs.
Unions these days are also opposed to illegal immigration for more or less the same reasons, but for some reason, the immigration politics crowd is only mentioning Chávez these days. I wonder why that is?
235: The biggest piece of evidence I've seen was that once, coblogger tristero referred to digby as "Digby himself" on the blog. A sly joke or a slip? It seems unlikely that a coblogger wouldn't know. Given the former possibility I didn't take it too seriously.
All this talk and nobody is addressing the biggest news of all: Segolene Royal is back on the market!
The less energetic form of a cow-orker.
Why would you like listening to people who hate you?
Legal immigrants who were jerked around by the system (= pretty much anyone who immigrated) often feel very upset that someone may have avoided all the red tape and just get a green card because the government won't enforce the rules or will 'reward lawbreakers.' It's not universal, but people ime pretty much fall into the 'omg illegals are getting what i had to wait for so unfair!' camp or the more supportive 'illegals had the right idea avoiding USCIS like the plague.'
241b -- not exactly. The labor movement used to support employer sanctions because of the theory that undocumented workers undercut wages, but for the last decade they've been led by unions like UNITE HERE and SEIU that have organized many new immigrants, sin y con papeles alike. The AFL-CIO officially changed its position in 2001, I think, endorsing amnesty and revoking support for employer sanctions. Immigration enforcement has tended to play into the hands of the employer: got a union drive? Call INS/ICE! The labor movement figured there was more to be gained by allying themselves with undocumented workers and their oftentimes legally residing families.
I also gather that there are many more undocumented workers than there were in the 1980s, so embracing them might be that much more pragmatic.
Checking in late to say that Ogged and SCMT are both wrong. What's really interesting/surprising/cool is that TNH got the setup to be able to deliver a line like "Unless there are two weddings tomorrow morning in Mesa that answer to that description, he's marrying my mother." Life just doesn't provide opportunities that very often.
Strangasmelo and slolernr are right. Why is everyone tiptoeing around the fact that some people are just fucking bastards. They hold reprehensible views and support reprehensible politicians and political policies. That makes them fucking bastards and I honestly can't understand the reluctance to describe them as such. Supporting reprehensible political positions is pretty much a text-book definition of a fucking bastard.
Is it some kind of weird etiquette thing? Some broken relativism?
Um, because I like some people who are fucking bastards by that definition? I'm not saying that it's always wrong to hate someone personally for their politics, but I'm not willing to agree that it's compulsory, regardless of how bad the politics are.
re: 256
No-one's saying that bad people can't be likeable on a personal level. Doesn't stop them being bad people.
Of course all of us probably have friends and relatives who, to some degree or another have views we, as individuals, may find disagreeable. And all of us probably have some views that our other friends and relatives may find disagreeable.
But we shouldn't be total relativists about this, and there ought to be a cost for supporting utterly reprehensible positions. As has already been said on this thread, we are quite comfortable with the idea that people with perniciously racist, homophobic or misogynist views ought to be viewed as, to a certain extent, persona non grata. I don't see why that shouldn't apply to equally reprehensible views of other types.
I'm not saying we ought to be going about actively hating people, or scorning them to their face, but:
Hey, Chad may support torture and the forcible takeover of sovereign nations, but you know what, he's a good guy and I wouldn't like to judge him.
It's nearly 16 years since Thatcher ceased being Prime Minister, but, to this day, I couldn't be friends with someone who continues to believe in her or her policies.
256 -- oh sure, I suppose you wouldn't condemn Hitler if he were friendly to you at the office and a charming conversationalist.
I'd bet money Digby is a man. Unlikely that we wouldn't know by now if s/he is a woman -- it just seems like one of those fundamental things you always know even about the pseudonymous.
one of those fundamental things you always know even about the pseudonymous
That's been proven wrong repeatedly in these very comments.
260: Isn't that argument exactly the same in reverse? We don't know she's a man in precisely the same way we don't know she's a woman (well, I know because someone told me), and the fact of her sex is just as fundamental whichever it is.
I don't know what I don't know but will I stop not knowing it soon?
Michael Moore is one of few out there with a heart & brain, and he is fat, and not up to peer review by the likes of SEK.
Don't drag me into this, bob. I liked the movie, and like Moore. You can be infuriated with people you appreciate, you know.
Aw, SEK, you know you'd be nicer to Moore if you weren't such a ravening white supremacist.
re: 265
Voyeuristic white supremacist.
265: It's hard, you know, what with him also being overweight. I try, but I can't quell my inner fatty-hater.
Ditto on the 'why all the tiptoeing around?'
Declining to maintain a friendship with someone whose political views are abhorrent is not shrill. There would be two reasons to break contact: because they are abhorrent; and because the person in question should be held accountable for her/his views.
Things are a little different with a professional or family relationship. Of course.
Going with the accountability issue, this is fucking important, people: as remarked somewhere above, political positions are, contrary to popular belief, not harmless hobbies we poke about with.
But I'm repeating quite a bit that's already been said.
Yes, let's subsume everything to the political! Surely that is the way to a broad range of fulfilling and enjoyable friendships and other life experiences.
Ditto on the 'why all the tiptoeing around?'
Are you people kidding me? LBJ was (a) a deeply corrupt and bad person who (b) on the basis of lies, committed the country to a war that took an order of magnitude more American lives than Iraq and, depending on your counts, at least twice as many non-American lives as have been lost in Iraq, and yet (c) did more to move the US forward than any President since FDR, and certainly more than I and all of my family, living or dead, has or will do. Many people, post-school, realize that much of life works likes this, and that bad people do good things for good reasons all of the time. I don't even know what "good people" means, in any robust way.
Many people, post-school, realize that much of life works likes this, and that bad people do good things for good reasons all of the time. I don't even know what "good people" means, in any robust way.
Tim, sorry, but this is a little absurd. Take that route and you wind up unwilling to judge any actions on any basis whatsoever. Because you never know how it might come out! Huh?
Please also note that I, anyway, don't speak of good and bad people but of good or bad policies, positions, beliefs.
I, anyway, don't speak of good and bad people
But Tim can look into their souls, y'see.
Please also note that I, anyway, don't speak of good and bad people but of good or bad policies, positions, beliefs.
Which makes you distinct from, as far as I can see, exactly no one taking any position at all on this thread. Except possibly stras. Hooray for comity, I guess.
270: "There aren't good guys! You realize that, don't you? I mean, you realize there aren't evil guys, and innocent guys; it's just, it's just... it's just a bunch of guys!"
re: 273
Except possibly stras.
And me.
Seriously, though, there's something just fucked up about that level of commitment to not judging people.
I'm not sure we're all really that far apart. Anyone who reflectively sides with Bush or Yoo or their policies, while in possession of the basic facts, is, pretty much by definition, a bad person. But these are the end times, and end times make bad law. I want to leave room for people who differ about NAFTA or affirmative action or corporate regulation to break bread with each other happily.
278: Who's got that kind of committment to not judging people? I'm the big softy in this thread, and I'm judgmental as anything and mean as a snake.
Um, because I like some people who are fucking bastards by that definition?
So you like some people who are fucking bastards—so what? Serious question. Lots of reprehensible people are, in person, fine fellows and a joy to be around. All that means is that it's possible to be friendly with reprehensible people. And I'm sure a lot of people who are do great good in the world are intolerable jerks in person. And?
278: Which level? Everybody judges. I've previously admitted that I have a tendency, which I hope is weakening, to be overly judgmental.
Lots of reprehensible people are, in person, fine fellows and a joy to be around.
Indeed, though this strikes most people as strange and deserving of consideration. You might say they're moved to wonder.
Natargacam, don't you have people in your country who vote a certain way out of ignorance despite not being entirely ignorant people, just having no concept of what is an appropriate criterion for voting?
If people vote for Rudy Giuliani because "He'll stand by his principles", it's a stupid thing to do, but the very fact that these people take no time to think about things logically means that politics is a very small part of their life, and therefore it might be inappropriate to judge them on something that they don't actually have strong opinions on.
I've heard the Prince of Darkness is quite a charmer.
This is germane to me because I just had to be polite to the best friend of someone I love. Let's call her "L." L works for the Republican party in an affluent area, which basically means that she sets up fundraisers for candidates at rich people's houses.
L is my family member's best friend. I am not willing to publicly pick a fight with L, but it is taking more and more strength to hold my tongue when she says blithely, "Well, the Republican party around here is pretty moderate!" I can't figure out whether she is literally blind to the torture issue or whether she just doesn't care.
Which is to say: Look, plenty of people are great policymakers but terrible parents. Other people are great parents (or co-workers) with ghastly public policy views. Sometimes I manage to focus on the part I appreciate about the person, sometimes not. I don't have any problem with saying some views are beyond the pale, and I won't socialize with or sit quietly by as someone expresses them. But it's also true that you can't make *all* beliefs beyond the pale, because that way lies madness.
I don't know what my point is. I think I'm just exhausted by the realization that you can't rely on a reasonably sentient human being to condemn torture.
and therefore it might be inappropriate to judge them on something that they don't actually have strong opinions on.
This wasn't directed to me. But here I differ. Participatory democracy, folks, citizenship. People voting on matters they haven't bothered to understand burns my ass.
Can I forgive them for it if I must? Sure. But only if I must for other reasons -- see caveat above about, say, clueless relatives with whom relations should be maintained for other reasons.
Otherwise, no, if I'm dealing with alleged adults, they have a responsibility to understand what they're doing.
The whole "I forgive you, you forgive me" dynamic is, in civic affairs, dysfunctional. No wonder we're a sick society.
Perhaps I am misreading people's responses to strangasmelo and slolernr above? but it seemed pretty clear to me that there was a general reluctance to make judgment on the part of some of the commentators. 279 and 283 seem slightly at odds with earlier comments.
re: 286
Of course there are ignorant people everywhere.
re: 288
I don't have any problem with saying some views are beyond the pale, and I won't socialize with or sit quietly by as someone expresses them. But it's also true that you can't make *all* beliefs beyond the pale, because that way lies madness.
That makes sense to me.
279: I dislike being such a hater, so I'll say what I was first inclined to say on reading this, apropros of the Sweet Nothings thread:
Blessed are the peace-makers, baby.
I avoid people with horrible views just because many of them are nice, likable people in many respects. I don't want to get friendly and then have to figure out how to react to some whopper about nuking Tehran or something like that. It's depressing either way, but having someone quote Krauthammer is more depressing than just not seeing that person.
I have a female friend from my teens* with whom I more or less consciously severed contact (or at least whose company I ceased to seek out) because she was basically a white supremacist.
* someone who once saved me from a pretty severe beating and who, on a personal level, I liked very much...
Sometimes it also depends on the concentration of people with crazy beliefs. Varies from location to location. It's easy to disassociate from people with offensive beliefs if you've got plenty of other options.
Neil (254), that's just what I thought when I wrote it.
As much as I'd like to take credit, that was DaveL.
Since this thread keeps reminding me of it, I wanted to point out that "Dongs of Sevotion" is a great album title. And it contains a few great songs.
I'll just say that I'd find it a little weird to break off a friendship with someone over a disagreement on politics, because I've never started a friendship by quizzing someone as to their political beliefs, nor have I expressed that my friendship would be conditional on them supporting the right politician. Given that there's only two viable political parties, if you pick one, chances are there's something despicable about someone in that party. Maybe we should only be friends with people who don't vote. Or make sure we discharge our hefty moral obligations by writing comments in comment boxes. Aren't people friends with people for a variety of reasons, perhaps without discussing politics?
I mean, christ, I'm related to someone who protests at abortion clinics. If there's an area of politics, I guarantee you she and I disagree. Vehemently. But the right course here is to ostracize her? How do you imagine that working? You realize that's half of the country if you count Bush voters.
You don't have to pick either party, but if I know someone who wants to nuke Tehran I cut them off. There's more at stake than "D" and "R". I'm not really a "D" anyway.
279: But these are the end times
Ogged, did a couple of very polite African-American Jehovah's Witnesses come to your door last weekend and bring this up? 'Cause I think they came by my place, too!
279" "end times make bad law" is the best thing I have read, with the possible exception of "I alone am left to tell the tale."
"How do you imagine that working? You realize that's half of the country if you count Bush voters."
I manage, at least to the level of treating everyone kindly and generously, but as strangers. I don't ask names or professions, and talk about the weather and dogs. They don't get in my house.
Emerson only talks about a no-relationship policy.
Did the Digby matter get resolved?
A retired colleague of mine ran into Yoo at a wedding reception, and called him a war criminal. This was in '02 or '03, I think.
For some reason, the comment I just made at nearly 12 EDT has a timestamp closer to 8 pm. Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?
If the person's got reprehensible political views but is otherwise a genuinely good fellow, then you can tell him "jesus, that's appalling"
I know some Bush supporters. When they start in, I say something along the lines of "that's the stupidest goddamn thing I've ever heard." Sometimes they engage, sometimes they change the subject. But we can still talk about basketball and movies. shrug.
I know some Bush supporters. When they start in with something appalling, I don't say it's appalling. I say some variant of "That's the stupidest goddamn thing I've ever heard you say. Do you actually listen to yourself?"
Charming, I know. Sometimes they engage, sometimes they change the subject. But we're still able to talk about basketball and drinking and whatnot.
Weird. My first comment disappeared, then reappeared.
As God is my witness, my comments aren't ending up at the end of the thread. Testing: right now the last comment I see is Ogged's 321 at 9:47 pm.
I can't believe people really have to "decide" about things like this. If the person's got reprehensible political views but is otherwise a genuinely good fellow, then you can tell him "jesus, that's appalling" when he says he wants to nuke Tehran. (Which imho is probably more productive than simply refusing to speak to him.)
If he's *not* a genuinely good fellow, then he'll act like a dick if you disagree with him, and you won't want to be friends any more.
316: You can't fool me. There ain't no sanity test.
A very good friend has a coy little sticker on her car's bumper that says "YP4B". I came to see her one day and said, "You're a young professional for Bush, aren't you?" She's the sort of person who rather likes a fight, but is just not up for having her political opinions taken as a faux pas first and an argument second. So she's kind of given up on being an out Bush voter. Our last political discussion was before the Iraq invasion in 2003.
I think it would be a small, good thing for me and for her to engage politically; I suspect that her politics are rather psychological in origin, sort of BigMan-tropic; she likes superheroes, and there's an attendant fascism to that sort of thing. She may even have less discomfort with torture than I do, although I don't know. I should probably give her a chance to rationally defend her arguments, rather than attributing some strange susceptibility to authoritarianism to her.
But what on earth would I or her or the nation or the suffering Iraqi people gain from my refusal to speak to her? I have barely any patience at all for people who feel that they can heal the world just by putting out good vibes (and there are many). But to think that ostracizing people for their views builds power or peace is a step lower than that, I think.
In any case, B said it all upthread a ways.
Bollox! I just lost a long, on-topic pair of paragraphs about my friend the YP4B. (You figure it out; I did.) Anyway, she's cool. Hating people for their politics is slightly less useful than "putting out good vibes", which latter is too many people's idea of their responsibility to the public world.
Also, 323: you can't fool me. There ain't no sanity test.
Odd. I can't seem to post. For attempt the third, i'm just gonna go with
323: you can't fool me. There ain't no sanity test.
People voting on matters they haven't bothered to understand burns my ass.
And what counts as "understanding?" This is why we vote for representatives, rather than holding countless referendums: you can't expect everyone to be knowledgeable about all the "important" issues, so we vote for people who are likely to represent our priorities, broadly construed. What's troubling is when people have strong, false opinions. Plain ignorance doesn't bother me so much.
Strong, false opinions seem to me most often to fit into the category of incoherence between what one self-identifies as beliefs and what one actually wants for oneself. Most of the casually conservative youths I've met don't actually hold a single conservative principle, if you ask them if, in a local instance that involves themselves, they think it's fair.
304: Wow. I'm no physiognomist, but a Victorian would have things to say about Mr. DeLorenzo.
I think I'm just exhausted by the realization that you can't rely on a reasonably sentient human being to condemn torture.
Substitute "decent" for sentient above, and you get my conflict: I really do know genuinely decent people who are reasonably politically aware and who also have a high level of tolerance for torture (to pick one example). Gosh, this country is loaded with racists who are just sweethearts to be around -even if you're a member of a non-favored race.
306: He also looks like he's been dead for several years, so glass houses and all that.
304: I just don't see how it's not totally obvious that these kinds of arguments about who gets the vote and not aren't just absurdly flawed. DeLorenzo is happy to say one person is "nuts" and another's not, but where does that stop? Emotional disorders? Autism spectrum disorders? Mental retardation? History of drug use, prescription or otherwise? How sane and intelligent do we require people to be to vote? Isn't the voting community already pretty self-selecting in a disturbing way that favors white, educated Christian males who watch television?
That is, even if one imagined these kinds of decisions needed to be made, the bureaucracy it would take to validate and invalidate voters would be, well, fucking ginormous.
309: Oh, ha. I just remembered that not much bureaucracy is needed because it's not like everyone would be tested for IQ, sanity, drugs, mood, etc. Just the freaks who might vote for someone to give them health care. I don't imagine Mr. DeLorenzo is willing to submit to all that.
If the person's got reprehensible political views but is otherwise a genuinely good fellow, then you can tell him "jesus, that's appalling"
I think this is rather oversimplified. I don't go around telling my co-workers this sort of thing for a lot of reasons, but chief among them is that, hey, I have to go on interacting with these people. Ditto extended family members. Ditto friends of family, and friends of significant others.
Ditto the postal clerk, the banker, the low-level municipal officials, the library staff, and other folks I interact with regularly in my small suburb. I see them weekly if not daily. I'm friendly with them to the point where I know about their family and work, and they know about mine. If I started saying the most blunt version of whatever I'm thinking when they suddenly spout some in-my-opinion awful policy perspective, I'd be cutting off a whole lot of relationships.
That said, being able to say "That's appalling" and still have a relationship is one of my criteria for a true friendship. Which I can count on the fingers of one hand. (The friendships, not the criteria.)
So here's an example. On a recent visit, I discovered that one of my aunts apparently has some strong opinions about the perfidy of Iran and Iranians. Obviously, this is not simply a political issue for me, but I'm guessing that for her, a Utah Republican, it taps strongly into political identity (and massive, blithe enwhitelment). I let her know immediately and rather sharply that we weren't going to talk about that any more, and then got ballistically angry on the phone and by email to some of my other relatives.
It's all smoothed over now (I felt a bit ashamed of myself when my cousin made a very lovely apology on behalf of his mother), but I'm sure not going to feel easy around her for a while and will go out of my way not to be trapped in conversation with her.
I lost a friend during the run-up to the Iraq war, primarily because of a giant political blowup that my then-boyfriend had with him and secondarily because, well, I had a boyfriend, and this friend wasn't it. We had some nasty political fights towards the end, though. He was very much a liberal hawk, and I later found him in the credits (as R.A.) of a prominent liberal hawk's book. We were simply living in different worlds between 2001-2003.
I certainly couldn't marry an active supporter of the Bush administration. I'm friends with a couple, but not very close friends; this didn't strictly arise out of a political litmus test--I run in very liberal circles--but it definitely leads to occasional fights & even more weird tension & trying to avoid certain subjects.
But as far as refusing to be pleasant/ professional/totally detached casual acquaintances with someone, & actually shun them? You'd have to be personally & substantially involved in doing serious harm to people for me to think that's any kind of of moral obligation. And even that can get overriden in a professional setting, of course.
None of this depends on thinking that they might be right & I might be wrong & I shouldn't judge....I judge people for the political & religious views all the time.
309, 310: Exactly. If you liked literacy tests, you'll really love sanity tests.
I wonder how Yoo's colleagues deal with him. That's a guy I would have trouble being civil to.
Should we move the mistimed comments, or leave them as a testament to my genius?
325:
Yeah, our basic humanity kicks in at some point. I have an instinctive aversion to being a jerk, which is what shunning would entail. However, other people are jerks all the time, so I have no problem advocating their shunning of Republicans. Comparative advantage and all that.
327:
I've addressed this question before. Berkeley clearly has a shortage of either a)torches or b)pitchforks. Stupid elitist coastal enclaves.
A retired colleague of mine ran into Yoo at a wedding reception, and called him a war criminal. This was in '02 or '03, I think
That's great. Do you know how Yoo reacted?
Appalling, stupidest thing you've ever heard, whatever. Same diff.
It's surprisingly hard to offend people. And really, if your co-worker is saying something appalling, *they're* offending you, and they don't seem too worried about it.
A woman whose kid goes to school with and takes TKD classes with PK was talking to me recently and said that she'd stopped going to Planned Parenthood after many years b/c she found out her ob/gyn was . . . a lesbian! I made a "wtf?" face and said, "so?!?" and she stammered some explanation about being uncomfortable, and I said kinda stiffly that I thought probably a *lot* of the folks who worked in women's health care were probably lesbians, because being a lesbian would tend to raise one's feminist consciousness.
I totally thought hey, hopefully I've offended her, but apparently not. She's really friendly whenever I run into her. Weird.
The bar ought to be set pretty high on the whole 'I'd really rather not be friends with someone who thinks that way' thing. I wouldn't seriously advocate we all go about ostracizing half the people in the country [your country or mine].
But, I'd still want to argue that there are viewpoints that are unacceptable, and that we ought to judge people who hold those viewpoints poorly, and sometimes, for some subset of those views, it would seem appropriate not to go ahead and treat those people like their worldview was all fine and dandy.
That seems like a perfectly normal thing to believe. I'm sure *all* of us can thing of things that, if someone believed them, we'd *really* not want to be around them much. I think on that we'd all agree. If not, you're wierd.
I'm thinking here of views of the 'hey, slutty chicks deserve to be raped', 'All Jews should be killed', variety.
So, instead, the source of disagreement is where do we draw that boundary. For me, personally, I'd draw that boundary, perhaps, in a place that catches a somewhat wider group of people -- I really do, on an intellectual and on an emotional level thing a certain subspecies of right-winger are total scum -- but I don't think anyone would seriously deny that they'd also draw a similar boundary.
337:For me it is even deeper than that. Maybe it is just a paranoia, but can I associate with the bourgeois and straights without succumbing to the temptations of materialism, liberalism, a destructive tolerance? It ain't easy.
Hey if the decent reasonable people like Hanlon & Friedman thought it was way cool to invade Iraq, maybe they had good reasons I should consider.
The demonization of my opposition is a deliberate and calculated tactic. I do not want to seriously entertain their point of view. Ad hominems and credentialism work in both directions, an argument can gain weight because you pesonally like the advocate. Best to keep relationships and affestions out of the way, and indifference or tolerance or ecumenism is itself a source of doubt.
Better to just irrationally choose to hate. Alienation is a strategy.
BPhd & all-- I dunno. I think one thing you all are missing (or just not mentioning) is that not being friends with someone on account of their political views is, at least sometimes, not a matter of being outraged or angry (though one might be), but of other dimensions of friendship interactions with regard to which are precluded by the political views at issue.
Eg. one thing about friends is that you can call on one another in times of need and distress. About the last person I'd want to call upon in a time of distress that is caused by the fact that I have no access to the legal institution of marriage is someone who opposes my having said access. Such 'distress' is for folks like me all to common, ranging from the petty to the very big, the daily to the rare. So when, as occasionally happens, I find out that someone who seemed like such a nice guy/gal opposes the legal recognition of marriage, that definitely puts a limit on the kinds and depth of relationship I might have with that person-- and not out of anger or outrage (though I'm sometimes outraged at the moment I find out).
I still believe in the power that personal relationships can impact political views.
I know a number of otherwise conservative Republicans whose views on homosexuality have been changed due to interactions with homosexuals
There was a recent controversy at a summer pool over whether a lesbian couple should have a family membership. Both women in the couple are far less than attractive. I actually heard people say, "That is just nasty to think about!"
I responded, "LOOK AROUND!! THAT is just nasty to think about regarding virtually everyone at this pool (lifeguards excepted)."
It is hard to change people's views when you are talking about "them" or "those people" instead of a nice, caring couple that you see being good parents/people.
140: I read your comment a couple of times, & I'm still not sure exactly what you are trying to say, apropos of *friendship* --rather than, say, common decency, civility, getting along in a group, etc... (though it is late)
oops-- 341 should be addressed to 340, not 140
I said "personal relationships." In other words, I interact professionally and socially with people with whom I disagree. Otherwise, they never hear the voice of reason (mine, of course!).
Ah. Well, so do I (I mean interact socially & professionally with persons with whom I vehemently disagree. Some of whom I regard as completely out to lunch, some of whom I think blinded by bigotry, some of whom--overlapping category-- I think are working out or deflecting their own neuroses/issues on to political positions, and some of whom I just think are wrong) But being friends is another matter altogether.
You can't avoid polite contact, and mildly friendly interaction makes life go easier. But for me, strongly offensive political opinions (the Bush 28%, law-of-the-jungle freemarket ideologues, liberal hawks) makes real friendship impossible.
The issues I've thinking of aren't artichoke price support type issues that you can just ignore. And to me real friendships tend toward "let it all hang out", and I don't want to hear a Zionist let it all hang out talking about Palestinians.
Man, I just can't make it through this thread. But I just have to contribute!
I have been surprised by how few people from the hacker scene I've run across in the political blogger sense. On the other hand, I have been occasionally startled to realize who is reading my posts on TPM.
I shouldn't be surprised, though: I didn't know The Editors was a blogger (or rather, didn't know that my friend was The Editors) until I sussed it out from biographical details, having found his blog through Atrios.
It's surprisingly hard to offend people.
Coming from B, I think you have to take this statement as authoritative.
