commented on The Green Party Responds to Dan Savage, Says He's "Dead Wrong"
Democrats: You only run prez candidates! Try some fucking grass roots why don't you?
Greens: We are grass roots. We run every election we can, no matter how small. It's an uphill battle, but we're working our butts off. ::provides link::
Democrats: ::points and laughs:: You hardly ever win! Look at those small, insignificant strides you've been making. You're losers. I don't like losers. You don't win. I like people who win. As Democrats, we will win on everything we do.
commented on House Dems Boo Sanders
So, re-posting the piece from Politico was just a clever ruse on Dan's part to lure unsuspecting Sanders supporters into taking some troll-bait and venting their spleens in response?
My guess is yes, partially. My guess is that this article was posted solely to generate clicks. There's simply no other intellectual reason to post it. It's not news. It's just catty clickbait. Check out this article
from the same site. This is the status quo business model of websites today. Every "media" site does it now. The Stranger is no different. Here's a relevant quote:
“The low point arrived when my editor G-chatted me with the observation that our traffic figures were lagging that day and ordered me to ‘publish something within the hour,’” Andrew Leonard, who left Salon in 2014, recalled in a post. “Which, translated into my new reality, meant ‘Go troll Twitter for something to get mad about — Uber, or Mark Zuckerberg, or Tea Party Republicans — and then produce a rant about it.’
And it works. You're here posting. I'm here posting. Dan's just a "victim of the future" like Leonard.
Plus, have you read Terry's twitter? If Dan didn't use his position at The Stranger to push a Clinton presidency, his home life would be unbearable.
commented on Go Read "N*gger," Seattle University Humanities Dean Told Black Student Who Complained About Curriculum
Is "An African-American student at the college" the same person as the "black student at Seattle University" in the opening paragraph? It seems like this is the case, but it reads like these are two different people.
The student isn't quoted directly, but the article says she asked for a more "diversified curriculum"; however, in her email, the dean says the student asked for "diversified reading." I know it's a little nit-picky, but the terms mean very different things. In one, it's a request for entire curriculum reform for the college, in the other, it reads like the student was asking for more to read outside of the class.
Why did the student approach the dean instead of her professor? Did the author ask her this?
Did the author ask for an example of their curriculum? Can we see a reading list? I'm interested in how diverse (or not) the Humanities curriculum actually is. It would go a long way towards showing where this student is coming from and why she approached the dean in the first place.
If "everyone has stories," did Herz ask who they were and attempt to talk with them?
commented on The Cupcake Caucus Is On!
@24, he's not sexist; he's saying that Bernie Bros are sexist. If you read the word in the context of the entire paragraph, you'll see that he's mimicking Bernie supporters, who have definitely used sexist language when referencing Clinton (as well as her female supporters).
Yes, this entire post is to troll Sanders supporters and appease Terry. But that doesn't discount the fact that Sanders' young, male supporters aren't acting like mansplaining douche bags.
commented on The Urban Archipelago
This article helped keep me from utter despair after the 2004 election. Dan Savage slightly backed away from it in a recent blog post, demeaning it as "we were angry." I don't know why he still isn't. I hope all the writers who contributed don't feel that way. This article is as relevant today as it was twelve years ago.
Certainly, we have had some victories. I worry that they won't last, however, as today's youngest urban left hasn't continued with, or progressed, the momentum, but instead, focuses all of its energy on "micro-aggressions," "cultural appropriation," "safe spaces," and (ignoring all evidence to the contrary) refusing to admit that, yep, some cultures simply suck. Eschewing reason, science, and rationality is no longer just a rural moron past-time. Only the topics are different.
Far too many on the left don't read anymore than conservatives do, don't know (or care about) history, have zero critical thinking or reading skills, and don't have the attention span or discipline or ability to analyze complex subject matter. They don't slow down and simply contemplate ... anything.
This article was written before social media had taken over our lives. Long, thoughtful, nuanced articles like this are rarely written, and when they are they're rarely read with any critical thinking anymore. If it was published today, the vast majority of its readers wouldn't finish it before rushing to comment. Most wouldn't finish it at all. Too long. Too much scrolling. Too distracted.
The authors' idealized description of a learned, thoughtful, rational urban left no longer exists, thanks to a broken educational system (which no one on the left cares to discuss in any depth because that would be uncomfortable to their sensibilities), the proliferation of video games and smart phones, and the glorification of S.T.E.M. over the Humanities.
All of that being said, I still love this article. I still live by its principles. I just include a lot more lefty urbanites with the rural morons among those whom I'm no longer concerned with helping.