The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    James Lindsay on Joe Rogan's Show

    A three-hour conversation. 



    Apparently his new book is faring well as to pre-publication orders


    This is the big immediate problem now related to wokeness

    So this is the American election campaign right here. #Trump from last night — and every night till November 3rd.

    — Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) July 4, 2020

    the rioting vigilante portion of the woke really gave the GOP a super culture wars meme to run with.

    And liberals can kill many coalitions by labeling Lindsay types as Trump supporters, when he is not, he proudly claims the "liberal" label.

    Wondering what Joe's advisors are going to do. Wish he had spoken out sooner about the peaceful protests vs. vigilante "revolution."

    I should have used this retweet of the video; I caught that clip only because James Lindsay "liked" this retweet of it:

    Wondering how he will handle the whole situation...he could fuck things up easily, that said he has a TON of experience arguing with trolls on twitter so should have refined language by now...stay tuned

    It's looking like one suggestion from Project Lincoln types when Trump brings up the danger of the lefty mobs is going to be to keep hammering on 'rona:

    It's a new schtick for him and he's actually not very good at it yet. He just read it off the teleprompter badly as is usual for him. He hasn't yet figured out how to play it up to rile up his fans and anger the left. I guess he'll get there though. It's a good issue for him.

    I agree as I watched part of it (horrifyingly juvenile and insincere delivery, like teacher making the bad kid recite something, scary in that!). I wonder whether he can do it, actually, made me think of how  it might be that he can't really do the righteous anger and passion thing necessary for that particular gig. All he can get genuinely upset about is things to do with himself. And jobs jobs jobs/that he can bleat about successfully. He can make fun of people that's what he does at the rallies. (A reminder that he doesn't stand for much in particular at all, i.e. his non-interventionist stands are wishy washy, not passionate.) Yes the topic is tailor made for many of his fans, and what he has exploited of them in the past, but I am not sure he can deliver here. (It's Bannonite, that's for sure, but Steve's not there any more.)

    Thing is it's not just tailor made for his fans. As I'm sure you know this resonates across the board. Moderates that might decide that, well I guess those confederate statues do have to go, can't get on board with this wholesale destruction of any and all historical statues. And it offends the old school liberals that used to say, I disagree with every thing you said but I will defend your right to say it with my last breath. Perhaps Trump is so bad and so  hated that nothing can move many moderates or liberals away from his opponent. But if anything can this would be it.

    Yes, and that's why I am curious to see how Lindsay and other warriors like him handle it. And I do hope Biden eventually makes clear as well. In the past he's not been shy about what we call "Sister Souljah moments", so there's that, but this time hold-your-nose-GOTV is crucial as far as far left is concerned (i.e. "Bernie Bros") so it's problematic.

    I hate all these memes. It's just a way to insult someone with out having to engage or explain. But people love to bypass conversation or debate and name call instead. So they look for "acceptable" insults.  I discount anyone who uses any of these memes as intellectually stunted.  As far as far left is concerned (i.e. "Bernie Bros")  it's problematic.


    You post that as if you are throwing Arta's own words back at her. But that's my post you're quoting for the most part and she  made no indication how much or how little she agreed with me. I don't assume she agreed since we have disagreed as often as we agreed. Nor do I assume you agree with me since we've so often disagreed, yet you use my words here as if you do. I don't like you taking and using my words like that. It seems disingenuous to me. Speak your own mind and express your own opinions in your own words.

    One of my own opinions is that "memes" serve a couple different purposes. Sometimes they are an acceptable shortcut in discourse. "Cancel culture" is one I think fits that category. Sometimes they are just an insult agreed upon by people wishing to throw that particular insult every time an opportunity comes up. Do you agree that "Bernie Bro" is a meme?  Do you agree that it is an insult?  Have you noticed the lectures on what is acceptable discourse here at dag?  Is Arta intellectually stunted by your stated standard? 

     "Do you agree that "Bernie Bro" is a meme?  Do you agree that it is an insult?"

    Is that your opinion? I'd like to hear why you think it's similar to "Karen." While it's sometimes used as an insult mostly it's just a descriptive term without any negative connotation. Don't some male supporters of Sanders consider themselves Bernie Bros? No one considers themselves a Karen. I'm willing to reconsider that if you have a good argument.

    "Have you noticed the lectures on what is acceptable discourse here at dag?"

    Honestly no. I only know when I think someone has crossed a line and when I post about it. I don't out source that to other people so it's one of the subjects I don't pay much attention to here.

    If you have some problems with my post I'd prefer you address the post directly. Not use me in your disagreement with Arta.

    Yes, my opinion is that Bernie Bro is a meme. It is a common one with Arta. I also think that it is an insult as commonly used and as Arta used it above my response. 

    Honestly no. I only know when I think someone has crossed a line and when I post about it. I don't out source that to other people so it's one of the subjects I don't pay much attention to here.

    You have brought me up multiple times as an example of something you disagreed with in discussions I was not participating in. So has Arta. 

    Also,you say above: " But that's my post you're quoting for the most part and she  made no indication how much or how little she agreed with me." 

      The first sentence of her response was: "Yes, it's a stereotype, that's what they do, make a bunch of people into a group that acts similarly."   

    Sounded like agreement to me. 



















    oh puhleez Bernie Bro is a name applied to strident activists on social media that make it a point that they will not vote for anyone else but Bernie, and denigrate all other candidates with negative ops. it is a choice about how to politically represent oneself, it is not the same thing at all and is not a slur as some think that kind of rough and tumble is the only way to win at politics.  Karen's don't proudly say they are Karens.

    Example: Jolly Roger here would have prefered Bernie as a candidate but is far from a "Bernie bro."

    Lulu, if you're going to start with your old paranoid thing where everyone has a political agenda behind everything they say,  then please do that with someone else. I don't do that and am not interested in it and REALLY don't give a fuck what other pseudonyms on the internet support or don't support politically. I don't see why anyone would even bother to share that except as socializing in passing and I certainly don't think arguing about politics with someone online as a good use of time. I do this to analyze what is happening in the news and I want to hear others input on what's happening. I'm not interested in persuading anyone to change their mind politically. I don't think that's possible if they are intelligent news readers. I DO very much enjoy analytic opinion about news. And I will ridicule only if I think someone is falling for bullshit spin or news items posted with a political agenda.

    Just please stop reading into things like I have an evil agenda. Why would I be so powerful for chrissake. It's ridiculous. There are so many smarter writers out there and more powerful people than me out there why don't you go argue with them. I'm just not into what you are into doing. I got the impression you had changed, you were being pleasant, but now it's going to start up again? I'm like a secret neo-con or something trying to mislead 6 people on dag, puhleez.

    OK, your explanation is noted. All of those Karens that you use a meme to describe but which don't call themselves Karens, they do exist then, right?  And presumably they don't call themselves by that meme because they know that it is a meme used derogatively.    But it is alright to use a meme to group them. OK.

    Except "Karens" are based on color and sex, i.e. racism And misogyny to lump them all together. Míra Sorvino and Ashley Judd were "difficult to work with" so blacklisted, until you find out their "Karen behavior", infraction, was not sucking off the boss. 

    The guy who posted the Dogpark Karen video turned out to be a violent heroin addict who sicced some prostitutes on his ex-girlfriend and recorded the beating. 

    Did Bernie Bros get that kind of bum rap? Did they or didnt they swarm website and Hillary fans in their enthusiasm? Aside from the implications that Its mostly makes (And most aggressive behavior on the internet or anywhere Is from testosterone mals), where's the insulting stereotype? Sure, not all are young. What else ya got? Did Hillary really have Parkinsons, run a pedophile ring out of a pizza joint, kill Seth Rich?

    My point from the beginning was that memes could be accurate and useful as shorthand or they could be denigrating and insulting as two possibilities. I didn't suggest all memes are the same. I did point out that one comment calls the use of memes a sign of intellectual deficiency and in a response that agrees with the comment a meme is used. I thought it was funny. 


    Apologies to Emma for creating a distraction to a good entry. Lindsay is very interesting and Rogan has a format and style to bring it out at length. 

    I've given some thought to the idea that Bernie Bros is a negative meme that is insulting to those it refers to and that it's used for the purpose of insulting them. I just don't see it. What do you think BB means if it's a meme? All I could think of was male supporters of Sanders that are very active on social media and very aggressive in defense of their candidate and in attacking his democratic opposition. It's a matter of opinion whether that is a negative assessment. Some consider it a point of pride. Are there not a significant number of male supporters of Sanders that are active and aggressive on social media? BB seems like just a descriptive term to me.

    There were in my opinion a significant number of Obama supporters on TPM that were likely mostly male that were extremely active there, and reportedly on many other progressive sites, and very aggressive in defense of Obama and in their attacks on Hillary and her supporters. People were calling them Obama-bots. I never used that nomenclature because it was clearly designed to insult. The word alone has a negative connotation. Bernie Bros is not imo. 

    How is it that you see the name as negative or insulting and what do you believe  it means as a meme?

    As for Arta and I both criticizing you that may be true. But I don't know what Arta thinks of you because I don't care about other people's opinion of the other people here. I care about their opinion on the issues we discuss. But I think it unlikely that we agree on our opinion of you. I like debate. I want people to make a vigorous defense of their ideas. I don't care about "winning or losing" the debate and I hate debate that avoids difficult discussions because a person realizes they don't have a good argument and is afraid to lose. If I disagree I try to chose a person's strongest points to argue against. I expect them to chose my strongest points to critique. 

    Arta has made it just as clear that she hates debate. It makes her feel bad and sad. That's not why she comes here.  I think it's ok that we're here for different reasons and we both may have some problems with you. But what ever Arta's critique of you is I think it highly unlikely it's the same as mine. Our focus and reasons for coming here are totally different.

    Fair enough, you have thought about it and you don't see it and you ask:  How is it that you see the name as negative or insulting and what do you believe  it means as a meme? I think that whether it is a derogatory meme come down to the context of its usage and that context usually makes it derisive. No doubt some/many used it as a mere descriptive of their political opponents with no derogatory personal connotation intended. Others, quite obviously, use the term as a slur ranging from mild and mostly just dismissive of the target to very antagonistic. I just did a google search and going only by the page headings it is obvious that many agree that it is a personal attack.  The Urban Dictionary says:  A Bernie Bro is an insufferable, self-righteous, left wing activist, who refers to everyone who doesn't share his narrow political views, a.k.a. anyone who doesn't 'feel the Bern'. That definition seems right to me and is the attitude behind its use that I see often. 

      Arta is very opinionated, as is every person who is active here, and very explicit about how she likes things to be discussed at dag. I do not intend to make her angry or sad when I disagree with something she posts or says but I don't accept her rules of engagement.    

     "A Bernie Bro is an insufferable, self-righteous, left wing activist, who refers to everyone who doesn't share his narrow political views, a.k.a. anyone who doesn't 'feel the Bern'. "

    Wow, if that's how you define it then it is a very insulting meme. But that's not the general gist of it's meaning I've got from seeing it used or discussed. I can't speak for Arta but that wasn't what I thought she meant when she used it. Perhaps I just don't understand the term but since I rarely use it myself and I rarely see it used by other people I'm not going to spend a lot of time pondering it.

    eta: Did a little searching and found this at Vox

    when supporters of Clinton or critics of Sanders complain about "Bernie Bros," they're not actually talking about Sanders supporters as a whole. They're talking about a specific subset of Sanders supporters who are particularly active on social media (especially Twitter) and can be particularly aggressive in defending their candidate.


    when supporters of Clinton or critics of Sanders complain about "Bernie Bros," they're not actually talking about Sanders supporters as a whole. They're talking about a specific subset of Sanders supporters who are particularly active on social media (especially Twitter) and can be particularly aggressive in defending their candidate.

    Your quote leaves off the first two words of the first sentence, "Often, though," which somewhat changes the meaning from "sometimes but not always" to a definitive blanket statement covering all who use the term.  In the common usage of the term, the usage which makes it an issue, the fact that someone might only be referring to a subset of Sanders supporters when they use the term in political discourse does not change the critical derisive connotation of the term when it is used as it is normally is. The term has the same meaning intended by the user regardless the size  of its object. No one ever said, "Some of those ardent Sanders supporters are actually Bernie Bros." 

    I try to take the minimal sized quote that accurately reflects it's meaning. Often though to me means most of the time. It wasn't my intention to change the meaning. I felt my excerpt was largely accurate.

    If my and the Vox definition of Bernie Bros is more accurate than the Urban Dictionary then I do not see it as insulting.  I think I can be correctly categorized as an aggressive debater. It's a factually correct analysis of me and imo of those referred to as Bernie Bros. People can form a subjective opinion as to whether it is good, bad, or irrelevant but it is not objectively an insult to call some one an aggressive debater.

    Whether BB is an insult depends on how it is defined. I can not accept the Urban Dictionary's as the definition in common usage. I found varying definitions from a few sources and none were any where near as extreme as the UD.

    Bannon might be there - So many Ppl like Manafort and Stone "exited" but never really left. Rudý? Who knows.

    I read something recently major White House connected media like WaPo or similar said several wanted him back and Trump asks what he might think about this or that but Bannon does NOT want to be there at all. Which makes me think some low level campaign person talks to him and that why we saw some Bannon-style language in the speech BUT it was stupidly simplified, far more simplistic than Bannon would word it.

    Actually Hindu numerals- rank appropriation, if you have enough money, which the Caliph did.

    On addressing the problem of the Trump campaign now embracing the meme of culture war against an intolerant radical totalitarian left, today I see Radio Free Tom (of Never Trumpers) is struggling with it. I think that he feels it necessary to do a long thread of tweets, and cannot come with a short pithy retort, is an indicator of how dangerous this is as to the electoral politics:

    here's the rest of the tweets pasted because it's easier to copy and paste 'em

    I mean, I have blistered everyone from Obama to Hillary Clinton, and across the seas to Putin and Assad. For years, I was an outspoken conservative. But I never encountered McCarthyist thuggery like the kind I've gotten from the Cult of Trump. So spare me the hand-wringing. /2

    I am not blind to the totalitarian streak on the left. I wrote about it - and at The Federalist, back in the day, no less. Amazingly, no one on the left tried to get me fired for it or told me I'd be hung as a traitor or left endless f-bombs on my voicemail at work. Imagine. /3

    Look, the Democrats always have short-pants Stalinists in their midst. The GOP has always had theocratic wanna-be ayatollahs in *their* midst. The difference is that the GOP is now in power and owned, completely, by its fringe - one that is frantic with fear and anger. /4

    The people who want to pull down statues without reading the nameplates (or without reading a book) are idiots. Many are the children of privilege. Some are even stupid enough to think they're leading a revolution. They're not. Calm down. /5

    Leftist revolution here is about as likely as the Civil War 2.0 porn that Trump's kooks love so much (not least because those same young people would freak out if no-kidding socialism was ever implemented). Meanwhile, right-wing attacks on the Constitution? Happening now. /6

    "Oh noes, the college kids are gonna take over the country!" is one of those cyclical things that conservatives worry about - usually as an indication of how little faith conservatives have in their own ideas and how much they fear their own personal weaknesses./7

    But what about the culture war, right? Here's an open secret: most GOPers never really cared that much about the culture war. They say they do, and they wave the flag and decry the behavior of poor people and brown people and people in cities, but that's mostly a show. /8

    How can I say this? Because you don't see much of that culture war reflected in the personal behavior of most self-identified conservatives, who are as decadent as anyone else. These are not Amish stoics. They just don't like *other* people being decadent, too. /9

    What are they, then? They're white people, who liked the world (or imagine they did) the way it looked when they were kids, and use the culture war as a proxy for resentment and nostalgia. The behavior of political evangelicals since 2016, especially, finally outed all that. /10

    You want me to worry about college Marxists? Yeah, I'll get right on that as soon as we dislodge the febrile anti-constitutionalists of the GOP. I have plenty of concerns about the left. But right now, I'd like to deal with the obvious and demonstrated threat from the right. /11

    I've been hearing about leftists taking over the country since I was a kid. It was supposed to happen in the 60s, after the 80s, etc etc. And the culture war, such that is, was over decades ago. But I never thought I'd have to fight over the Constitution - with the *right*. /12

    So take all your fears of rampaging drag queens and how Joe Biden is controlled by the College Spartacists, and put 'em in a sock, pally. I'll be first in line to oppose extremist left-wing dumbassery - once we defeat far more dangerous people like Barr and McConnell. /12x

    For one good example, here's Jr. for Team Trump, quoting Jason Miller in the WSJ:

    Bill Kristol, on the other hand, keeps his argument very short:

    (Ironically, I am reminded from old tyme Iraq war discussions of neo-conservatism that his father Irving was a Trotskyist in college)

    getting so popular and controversial that he's got Twitter troubles right now

    Hey, i can join all my famous martyr friends.

    PP I see he got back on Twitter today. Did you give up trying?

    I keep writing them every few days, they keep ignoring me. Lindsay was back on within a day.

    ran across him talking about how it's difficult for him with right wing media outlets, to avoid them using him as a tool for their own ends:

    Emma you made a side comment recently on a news item that it seemed the New York Times has gone unbelievably woke all of a sudden.

    I am not as obsessed with all the journo drama going on over there as many are but in this item in today's news I think is an important indicator of what's going on there, there is more confirmation of that. That the whole Tom Cotton op-ed thing wasn't just a one-time thing about Tom Cotton but was evidence of a change in editorial preference to a please a target younger audience of young wokees by keeping young wokee contributors happy:

    Bari Weiss Is Leaving the New York Times

    The writer and editor has self-expelled from the newspaper, she tells VICE.

    By Laura Wagner @, July 14

    [....] A controversial figure inside and outside the paper, Weiss leaves in the wake of what she recently described as a civil war at the Times between "(mostly young) wokes" and "(mostly 40+) liberals." That war reached its apex when Opinion head James Bennet, who had been widely tipped as a potential replacement for top Times editor Dean Baquet, left the paper after publishing an op-ed in which Senator Tom Cotton called for the use of military force against protestors.[....]

    There is a link to her letter of resignation there and an excerpt from it.

    There's something going on, but Tom Cotton seems a bad example. The right Is fixated on getting a twisted, mendacious version of "facts" in as first strike, so that becomes the viewpoint, the standard against which other opinions are judged. The guest opinion column format can be misused, not treated in good faith, like White House leaks to Judith Miller - once a sources of valuable inside information turned into callously taming the system.

    We see how News agencies have had to start fact-checking Trump real time. The opinion page can't be assumed to be carte blanche, though some people will respect and adhere to the supposed tradition/rules of the game.

    (I had an ironic thought that the 1st Amendment Is giving way in importance to the personal security-focused 2nd, with nearly 20 years post-9/11 cultural repositioning?)

    Here's part of a thread on the woke vs old folk matter, pls click for rest:

    Ok, after that, then get outside your liberal box and see this from the perspective of Never Trumpers. Just ran across this retweeted by Radio Free Tom/Tom Nichols:

    Pretty sure Conway's being tongue-in-cheek here.

    About the only time I read anything from NYTimes is when someone I follow links to something that sounds interesting. Most often those are opinion columns and long-read features. Only rarely do I read links to NYTimes news since I have already read the same national and international stories on other sites and local NY news is of little interest to me.

    IIRC, my comment that you are referring to was on the local story about the idiot (NYC's version of Florida Man) who accidentally set his own house on fire with fireworks. I thought the story was interesting but the journalism shoddy. It seemed to be trying so hard to excuse the likely future Darwin Award winner's actions. What a missed opportunity to write a hilarious cautionary tale. Had to be written by someone humorless and wokees as a group do seem to be uniquely lacking in ***lowercase***black humor. Then I remembered this tweet -- note the timestamp:

    from: About the NYT Institute

    The New York Times Student Journalism Institute is run by The New York Times in partnership with the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY.

    The Institute is offered once a year in May. Participants must be enrolled college students (or December or May graduates) who are members of these leading national organizations focused on diversity: the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the Asian American Journalists Association or the Native American Journalists Association or students (or December or May graduates) at a historically black college or university.

    There is no cost to attend the Institute. Students are provided with room and board and all of their costs, including transportation to and from the Institute, are paid by The New York Times Company.

    from: About the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY

    We are the only publicly funded graduate journalism school in the heart of the media capital; indeed, in the entire Northeast. Our mission is to serve the public interest – by training new journalists who will bring much-needed diversity to newsrooms, by helping mid-career journalists retool their skills, and by partnering with other media organizations to find new paths to excellence.

    Our low tuition rates, along with the added backing of private donors, allow candidates for our master’s degrees in journalism and social journalism to receive a world-class education at an affordable price.

    Other diversity initiatives mentioned on the CUNY-Newmark About Us page:

    from: About the Knight Diversity Initiative

    The Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism houses this diversity initiative; its goal is to address under-representation in U.S. newsrooms and build a stronger pipeline of academically excellent and digitally trained minority journalists.

    Since the summer of 2015, Knight’s grant has paid for all expenses to bring 18 aspiring journalists to New York City for two months — June and July — to receive digital-journalism training and participate in media internships. The members of each cohort were also in the running for five full scholarships to earn their master’s degree in journalism at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism, if they apply and are admitted to the J-School.

    from:  About New York City News Service

    The NYCity News Service is an award-winning media outlet that feeds stories to news organizations of all types and sizes, and produces in-depth special reports.

    The News Service is based in Midtown Manhattan and run out of the newsroom at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY.

    Stories are reported, written and prepared by students, under the close supervision of the school’s news director and professors—all veteran journalists, led by Dean Sarah Bartlett.

    The NYCity News Service aims to provide incisive coverage of the city’s many and varied neighborhoods, which do not receive enough journalistic attention. The NYCity News Service strives to tell New York stories in multiple media formats, reflecting the energy, concerns and diversity of the city. The pieces are held to the highest and most professional standards of fairness and accuracy. We will accept no less.

    There is a lot of emphasis on diversity in future journalists' training. Not surprising they appear to be heavily woke.



    Like it or not, it's not just in journalism. All the twenty-somethings and many thirty-somethings who took humanities courses in college were indoctrinated with wokeness, it seems. Lots of us weren't paying attention to this change.

    Businesses were and are and are paying attention and marketing to this cohort because they are the ones who will have the money to spend on things like subscriptions, books, music, entertainment etc. (and er, art for their home, if you get my drift). It's just about money with the NYTimes, maintaining a good chunk of elite educated readership.

    I saw it already at the big auction houses five years ago, the changes they were making in the way they operate. Coronavirus lockdown just allowed them to accelerate what they were trying to do.

    It's worldwide among first world educated young people.

    I don't like it but it is what it is. Those that don't agree with it have become a niche market as far as business is concerned. For now. For sure it will change, change is the only constant. But I will probably be dead by the meantime, ignoring is not smart, I think.

    P.S. what's going on at the NYTimes is like nothing compared to what is going on in the museum world! What they publish is mild compared to what you're going to start seeing in museum exhibitions. It's like the Reign of Terror for any older people trying to keep museums open while many are near bankruptcy....

    Most of Lindsay's examples are not exaggeration because he's mainly dealing with academic "scholarship" from where it is most entrenched already.

    This picture struck me as very symbolic of the situation about which I wrote above:

    Google image search matches people at a protest in Cracow Poland. Cracow? Why?

    Martin Gurri has some thoughts about the phenomenon, not Cracow per se.

    Because Cracow Is a largish progressive city.

    And all around the world there were marches of support for Black Lives Matter (the concept, not necessarily the group)


    Polish 96.9%, Silesian 1.1%, German 0.2%, Ukrainian 0.1%, other and unspecified 1.7% (2011 est.) note: represents ethnicity declared first

    Latest Comments