Slog AM: Durkan Fights Recall Petition, Free Wills for Florida Teachers, Ivanka's New Gig



When a millionaire resigns from a 6 figure job that's "cancel culture". When your boss fires you and doesn't give a reason that's "Right to work".


You've seen one comet, you've seen them all.


Close your bold tag, lady.

Also, you misspelled justice in a headline about Brazilian dictator. Thanks!


Ah, Ivanka. Yesterday, she was pitching her "let them eat cake" approach to the massive job losses brought on by the pandemic. Today she's hawking Goya. Why?, you ask. Why?

My guess is she was getting nervous that Bari Weiss was going to take her title of "most hated Jewish woman in America."


Back in the day when slog comments were HTML enabled this one random goofball named John Bailo (AKA: TDMFOTP) used to forget to close his bold tags all the time and then everything everyone posted thereafter would be in bold text and everybody would flip out and call him an idiot. Was good times.


What's with the weird gradient on the TRUMP/PENCE logo? It's barely legible.


Defy the order, send data to the CDC anyway.


Canceling modern culture crap is the Hardcöre mission since the 80s. The revolution has never stopped. Welcome everyone! Cancel those pharts!

CANCEL CLINT EASTWOOD, btw. Sniff sniff you posers. He's the living Charlton Heston.
CANCEL ELLEN, obviously..


5 The good old data-injection days... such an appropriate metaphor.


Nick cannon was cannon-celled but i’m guessing none of cancel panic crowd will be rushing to his defense


So she's arguing she's literally a do-nothing mayor. Huh.


Did hell just freeze over? SB and I actually agree on something!


"...when she created her first film"

I know I'm being pedantic but I think the word "feature" should be inserted before the word film. Otherwise shorts films of hers like The Clouds That Touch Us Out of Clear Skies get overlooked.


Re Airbnb- the stranger was awfully quick to beg for handouts. And still doing it.


So let me get this straight, the NW Film Forum and Duplass Brothers have created a grant, ostensibly for women (per the name of the grant, "Of a Certain Age" used most frequently in conjunction with the word "women") but have opened it to...non binaries as well? How does this benefit women in film, when men who claim they're non-binary can benefit from it instead?

“In an industry where women, non-binary, and trans individuals have historically had less success and visibility, hearing Lynn Shelton’s story of coming into film at an older age has been extremely inspiring,”
Sure. Women, non-binary, and trans people, we're all lumped together and considered Non-Men now.


TERFs suck ass.


blip @11, what do you think would have been the correct response on the part of ViacomCBS to Nick Cannon's blatantly anti-Semitic remarks? At first glance, I would have preferred to suspend him and have him take some appropriate sensitivity training. Would you want to be in a workplace alongside someone who's publicly espousing some creepy anti-Semitic or racist or homophobic beliefs? (And no, I don't put J.K. Rowling with her comments on gender in the same category.)

I feel like cancelling someone's show just makes them a martyr, although it takes some wherewithal not to cancel someone's show if the advertisers are running for the hills. I think Fox News is running into that conundrum with Tucker Carlson.


At least the stranger produces something & doesn’t require billions of dollars to stay afloat. Airbnb is just a glorified listing service that people use to invite strangers into their homes. It’s wild that it took a pandemic for people to realize their asset-free business model is an elaborate house of cards.


To qualify my comment @20. As someone working in corporate America, I would not be going on Twitter making comments about gender that I know are controversial. But then, I've always been skeptical of the whole "career harakiri via tweet" thing.


20, i think they should shit can him but re rowling and the rest of the cancel crowd, this piece captures the argument against the letter. It’s clear the cancel culture moral panic is not based on any overarching principle re: free speech but who gets to decide what is considered polite discourse regarding certain marginalized groups.

‘ “We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters,” claims the Harper’s letter. But for Williams, that evidently doesn’t include when the counter-speech is counter-Bari Weiss. For Weiss, it doesn’t include counter-Israel. For others, it doesn’t include counter-George Washington or America’s Founders. But the letter signatories broadly agree that it does include counter-speech that social justice activists consider counter-Black, counter-trans, or counter-another historically marginalized group. And the letter reads quite differently if you know that in advance.’


The cops didn’t allegedly kill Taylor. They killed Taylor. It’s a fact that’s not disputed by either side. The cops are alleged to be murders.

The Trumps lifting a 50+ year old jam advertising slogan. Those of us of a certain age remember “with a name like Smucker’s it has to be good”. The Goya market isn’t listening to what Ivanka Trump has to say about the product. That’s something that’s directed toward the goyim.


Who will be the Mayor if Durkan is recalled? I can never remember.

In any event, that will be what decides that matter for me. Most of the council is worse than she is.


If they can just print and loan money into existence, the US government doesn't need me to pay taxes.


A little tear gas really isn't sufficient cause to boot out our first openly gay lesbian mayor.


blip @23, I appreciate your answering me. No question that Bari Weiss is thin-skinned and hypocritical. It's why we have to be standing up to "cancel culture" and the suppression of debate coming from all quarters--while at the same time not tolerating slurs. It's a fundamentally hard thing to do in forums like this; it should be a lot easier than it's proving to be in the NY Times and NY Mag.

Also, I'd like us to judge that Harper's Magazine letter on face value and not resort to discounting it because some of its signers are hypocrites or otherwise impure. Doing so is a bit "ad hominem" and seems to just be proving the point of that letter.

Now, if you can point out how that letter is trying to hold one cultural "side" to account and letting the other "side" get off scot-free, then absolutely, I'm 100% with you. But again, if that's the case, then that's a case for dialing up their basic message, not dismissing it.


@21- I guess producing an echo chamber for like-minded simpletons is "something".


30 that "something" is still more than a glorified craigslist housing section

29, Not sure what you mean by "side" because any dispute by definition has more than one of them. The letter is trying to hold the debate re: gender and certain forms of racism to a different standard than others and while this disproportionately allows people from the center to the far-right to get off "scot-free" this is not necessarily a right-v-left issue, as the existence of gender-critical liberals illustrates, but that is entirely beside the point.

The language and topics of discussion we consider open to debate are constantly shifting. If twitter & the concept of cancel culture existed 20 years ago the debate would have been about gay rights and which gay slurs & stereotypes are socially acceptable, but because the culture moved past these debates years ago it seems silly to even consider it now. We're headed in the same direction re: gender and racism and it's making a lot of people deeply uncomfortable so they are trying to re-cast the disagreement as one about free speech, even though the signatories all clearly have their own personal boundaries re: speech they are unwilling to surrender. They are indeed hypocrites and that is not beside the point at all, it's at the vey center of it.


@31: I see your parallel about the early gay rights movements, but I don't see how that can be extrapolated to discount the validity of the Harpers letter and what others are saying.


The signatories discount their own validity by showing their commitment to "free speech" has its limits. If it were based on principle they would be leaping to the defense of people like Nick Cannon but instead it's crickets from all of them because this isn't about "free speech" at all -- at least not in the context they would like us to believe -- but "polite" speech and who gets to decide where those boundaries lie.


if you don’t belong to a union your boss can fire you for no reason today but this “Berry Wise” shit should be a top priority.


blip @31: "They are indeed hypocrites and that is not beside the point at all, it's at the vey center of it."

I guess by that standard we should throw out the entire literature of the Enlightenment, not to mention all the founding documents upon which our freedoms and global liberal democracy itself are based.

If we think they're hypocrites, let's hold them to their own standards. But I think the problem people generally have with the Harper's Magazine letter--the thing that truly makes people uncomfortable enough that they feel compelled to descend into the endless rabbit hole of who has the right to say what--is that complying with those standards is just too old-fashioned and high-minded for these divided times, and those standards amount to nothing more than unilateral disarmament in the culture wars.

I sense that by today's standards of wokeness, MLK Jr. would come across as a naive accommodationist.

Anyway, this discussion reminds me of a terrific Nicholas Kristof column from Sunday's NY Times:



OMG, that slope is soooo slippery.


“ I sense that by today's standards of wokeness, MLK Jr. would come across as a naive accommodationist.”

Oh. Get the fuck out of here with these weak ass time traveling straw man analogies.

Can I do one about how Hitler should be an editor for Harpers now?

A secret Grand Dragon in the Klan working as an editor, by your standards, should be totally legally protected from being fired for espousing his views on miscegenation on the front page of NYT.

Jesus. Your arguments are pearl clutching weakness. Nobody likes a mob. Any mob. But come the fuck on.

There is no Cancel Culture “tearing down” good journalism or anything else. It’s the old guard and old gatekeepers facing their irrelevance.

The market is what is killing news papers. Not social justice. Worry about that shit.

Anyway. It’s called free speech, remember? Or don’t you understand how that works?

It goes both ways.


If they can telecommute to work from Barbados for 12 months, they can telecommute to work from their living rooms, in whatever city they live in already. Transit won't suffer from people driving cars to work post-pandemic, but from people not commuting at all. All it took was a pandemic to get employers and employees to realize that technology has made cubical farms in office buildings superfluous.

Transit is so screwed!


MLK was called a naive accommodationist back when he was alive.


@39 and a radical communist.

What people are called is irrelevant. It’s what they do that matters.


@40 just so. He was called a dangerous radical. The point of all this is that nothing has changed - "cancel culture" doesn't mark any new phenomenon. Its marks a shift in the way in which ideas get marked as inside or outside acceptability.

So take a guy like Andrew Sullivan - people have been calling him an asshole and dipshit since back in his skull-measuring heyday in the 1990s. But the world was set up in such a way that their complaints couldn't penetrate all the layers of firmament placed between him and the rabble. Now things have changed and he's throwing a tantrum.


Not a fan of Durkan, didn't vote for her, won't vote for her next year either but I can think of 100 other things more pressing right now than a recall campaign. Hard pass.