This week on Blocked and Reported, Katie is joined by Ben Kawaller to discuss the latest antics of America’s favorite reality TV stars.
https://www.thefp.com/t/ben-kawaller
Blocked and Reported
Journalists Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal scour the internet for its craziest, silliest, most sociopathic content, part of an obsessive and ill-conceived attempt to extract kernels of meaning and humanity from a landscape of endless raging dumpster fires.
Journalists Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal scour the internet for its craziest, silliest, most sociopathic content, part of an obsessive and ill-conceived attempt to extract kernels of meaning and humanity from a landscape of endless raging dumpster fires.
Recent Episodes
Strong disagree Harris ran to the center. She hemmed, hawed, and delayed any attempt to pin her on policy. I still have no substantial evidence of her foreign policy.
Concur. Not saying anything isn't quite a centrist movement.
I feel like this is one of the biggest things that’s going to get beaten to death about this election. Harris supporters will point to things she said or promised during the campaign or that Biden took some actions on the border and say, of course she ran to the center, or at least moderated. And relative to her past run and the progressive wing, they’re right! She did run a more moderate campaign.
But clearly anyone remotely engaged with the last few years of politics is gonna see or know about the 2019 primary videos for her and the broader progressive/woke stances of democrats. She didn’t have as much time as a regular candidate would to convince anyone about being more moderate, but if you’re going to avoid media and weasel away from even fairly straightforward policy questions then it makes a lot of sense when voters who are plugged in or who even have a general sense of democrats bad aren’t going to believe that she’s moderated, even if they do hear about those efforts! It’s not just the words, people have decent BS meters when someone isn’t being straight with them.
Long story short, I can see both sides of whether or not she moderated (and who knows how she would have governed) but fundamentally voters didn’t see her as moderate despite her efforts.
Everyone's going to start blaming Kamala and her campaign for losing a winnable election by not taking their stance on their pet issues, but the reality is that when inflation hits levels unseen for 40 years the incumbent is probably cooked no matter what. She was a much better candidate than anyone expected and her team managed to effectively halve Trump's gains in swing states and cancel out the standard electoral college disadvantage. They still lost, but they went the distance. A lot of people on both sides are getting hard to work learning the wrong lessons from this result, although I think Dems will have to learn a couple of right ones: they can't count on winning the popular vote and blame everything on the EC, and woke identity politics is completely useless for holding onto black and latino voters.
The problem our not-very-bright electorate voted for the candidate who is more likely to make inflation worse.
"her team managed to effectively halve Trump's gains in swing states and cancel out the standard electoral college disadvantage"
Can you provide some stats on this as I thought (and like, Jeff, I might be wrong) that Trump did better than expected in swing states.
He did do better than expected, but just not as well as he did in blue states. Now, no one can *prove* that Harris moved that needle, but we know she campaigned hard in swing states, so it's not a crazy hypothesis.
My frustration is that the Republicans were not moderate. Their platform was extreme and, from what I understand, supports a lot of things that most americans do not support. So on one hand you have someone losing because they are too far left because...they are on record supporting trans rights, and on the other hand you have someone openly saying they want to do fascism and most voters were like, sure.
Within six months, the talking heads will have moved right on from "Democrats in disarray!" to the latest of ten Trump goof-ups. Guaranteed.
Fact is, Trump is an unpopular guy who does unpopular things, and who seeks out conflict and drama. Americans will remember that, soon enough.
"Extreme?" I'm frustrated by that framing. When more than 50% of the electorate agrees with who they voted for (at least on some factors, we have to assume this), it no longer can be defined as "extreme." Sure, around the fringes everyone has some "extreme" view, I guess--but is that really the right focus?
"Extreme" is the thing the normies want (me, and your neighbors)-that's "normal." Tough to come around to that perspective, but I think it's true and important to reconcile that.
Yeah, that’s why I would immediately hit the button labeled “European style, multi-party democracy” if presented. Would help moderate things, but also generally prevents people feeling like they have to vote between the lesser of two evils. I disagree with those who voted for trump, but I have sympathy for those that did so out of a legitimate desire to be civically engaged and make the best choice they can.
When Trump says no national abortion ban or I won’t touch social security or I won’t involve us in foreign wars, I think that goes a long way in moderating his imagine specifically because of how it contrasts with the positions on those issues republicans have had for decades. The GOP has moved so far right that Trump was seen as an actual moderate by voters in 2016! https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/11/15941846/trump-moderate-republican. Curious to see if that will be the case again for 2024🫠🥲.
Her strategy was joy. She was going to joy on America for four years.
If only she'd gone for Palmolive instead of Joy. She could have soaked in it.
Joy cometh in the morning
This line kills me. It’s peak Selena Meyer.
Also, a bit of empathy for Harris, not only due to her tough last minute campaign, but for having to do it as veep (as explained by Selena):
“Being Vice President is like being declawed, defanged, neutered, ball-gagged, and sealed in an abandoned coal mine under two miles of human shit”
"Joy, all over the podcast."
"Can someone fetch a cloth? Kamala's got joy everywhere again."
I haven't listened yet but if they made this argument I am already going to downvote it. And report them to ICE
Who would've guessed that radical ambiguity wasn't a winning proposition?
I think the "radical ambiguity" is what happens when you stand for something but really can't tell anyone you stand for it. You certainly can't promote the other side's perspective (of course)--so what are you left with? Can't promote your true views, can't promote theirs... so "ambiguous" it is. And I think we saw through that.
She clearly ran to the center, if only because of omission of the expected left nonsense that all of us here agree is nonsense. I get that "centrist due to omission of identitarian & defund the police-type wokery" is not a rousing cry for centrism. But it is strikingly different from the Kamala of 4 years ago. I'd also say that larding her campaign with the Cheneys and bragging about gun ownership were also moves to the center - or at least that's what her campaign thought. The center was her natural place, pre-Senate career. Many progressives here in California still loathe her due to her centrist stances in SF and later in the state itself.
I should probably make clear that I'm not a Kamala apologist. Didn't vote for her. (I'm one of those class-first progressives that still loathe her.)
Clearly you looked really hard and this is totally not just based on vibes and sentiments.
I am glad Katie gave Jesse the day off to deal with election stress. Katie is truly a kind manager.
Swing voters' top reason for not choosing Harris was that she "is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class." https://x.com/milansingh03/status/1854941926207651857 As the NYT noted, the trans stuff was really damaging - https://archive.ph/CjxVg . In the last month of the campaign, Trump put $100 million+ into ads on this and the NYT notes that these ads were insanely effective, the Dems leading Superpac found that they "shifted the race 2.7 percentage points in Mr. Trump’s favor after viewers watched it." As Jon Chait noted this showed Harris had a "position so unimaginable to most Americans it suggested she could not possibly have sensible views on anything else." https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/americans-didnt-embrace-trump-they-rejected-biden-harris.html
So that was #1 for swing voters. #2 was inflation and #3/4 was illegal immigration. Contra to what was alluded to, issues like crime or Israel or COVID lockdowns or "Democrats are too liberal" did not get any traction as a reason for swing voters not to vote for Harris.
Plagiarizing from myself on the open thread because I feel these are two very different groups of commenters, thus, we can lay the blame of the election on (1) The landmines laid in the Great Awokening half a decade ago such as causing the 'government-funded sex-change operations for illegal aliens in prison' position Harris took and also the fact we even had Harris as a nominee and (2) decisions the Biden administration made on the stimulus fueling inflation and illegal immigration.
Back on February 14 of this year, I commented on Ezra Klein's argument as to why Biden should drop out, saying that his "solution [of a thunderdome convention] is completely incoherent. If Biden steps down then Harris is the nominee. Period. And Harris would be a terrible candidate."
While this was all correct Harris actually ran a surprisingly good campaign... on a tactical level. She was disciplined, didn't campaign on wokeness, ran good ads and had a great debate against Trump. She did better in the swing states than nationally... which means that mechanically her campaign's ads and her ground game etc. worked well. But while the tactical decisions were generally pretty good she did not make the right strategic choices to overcome the two main problems.
The reason I thought she would be a terrible candidate (and, again, she did a lot better than I thought) was that she had run a disastrous campaign in 2019/2020 where, due to the Great Awokening, she had taken on all sorts of incredibly insanely unpopular woke positions and didn't have the communication skills to wriggle out of them. And she couldn't! She was disciplined enough not to campaign on wokeness and to pivot away, but as Chait said noted: "She treated questions about her change of mind as an accusation rather than an opportunity to offer a convincing narrative of her evolution."
The second problem caused by the Great Awokening was that the only viable candidate (two former mayors who have B-names don't count) who didn't go incredibly insanely to the left was Biden... who was way too old.
Then, the third problem caused by the Great Awokening was that Biden promised that he would name a black woman as his veep... and Harris was literally the only person who fit this description as she was the only black female Senator or Governor (Biden was literally looking at mayors and a diplomat who had never held any kind of elected office). So Harris was locked in as the veep.
The fourth problem caused by the Great Awokening was that Biden cut a deal with Bernie and Warren to staff key parts of his administration with their acolytes.
That transitions nicely into the Biden Administration. I actually think that the Biden administration did a good job overall. However, they made some bad calls and some good calls that they thought would be popular but were insanely unpopular. I'm not fatalistic enough to say that inflation doomed Harris from the start. But inflation is insanely bad for incumbent parties! In Canada, the (federal) Trudeau Liberals are very unpopular. But in our three provincial elections this year we saw it too, across the political spectrum. In Saskatchewan the Conservative Party lost ground to the (leftist) NDP who went up 8 points, in New Brunswick the Conservatives lost ground (and the election) to Liberals who went up 14 points and in BC the NDP lost ground to the Conservatives who went up 40 [!] points. The incumbents held on in Sask and NB - but the point is that if you are an governing party where inflation hit (even if the rate of inflation slows) you are going to have an uphill battle.
The Biden Administration did not realize this. Their entire political economy was wrong. Biden looked at Obama and thought his stimulus was too small as it led to unemployment (but did not have inflation). Unemployment is really bad for the people effected not just at the time but long term. Instead of that concentrated pain on a few people, Biden rolled out a big stimulus that led to great employment and led to inflation. Unlike unemployment's concentrated pain, inflation spread out less pain to everyone. Plus, thought the Biden administration, it's not even really rolling out pain because inflation's increase in prices will be matched by an increase in wages. It's win/win/win!
Well, as a matter of economics it actually worked out. The Biden economy not only had very low unemployment but led to an increase in real wages (i.e. wages adjusted for inflation) compared to 2019 with those at the bottom getting the most and steadily decreasing the richer you get (per quintile). As a matter of politics it was a fucking disaster. As it turns out, spread out the pain to a lot of people is a really bad idea politically-wise. Everyone, every day, is confronted by the increase in prices. And no one sees their increase in wages as due to inflation (or the fact that they didn't get unemployed), it's because of their hard work.
So going into the election, the Biden economy - rather than a source of strength - was a big source of weakness. It didn't mean that Trump was destined to win, but it did mean that the Democrats were losing, i.e. going in via weakness. And they thought they were winning. That means that while the tactical choices were good, the strategic choices were bad. Skipping Rogan and the opportunity to address 45 million voters directly for 3 hours? Well if you're winning and your candidate isn't a great communicator, good tactical choice not to take the risk. If you're losing, you have to gamble. Her choice to completely embrace the Biden administration and say she wouldn't have done anything differently was also a blunder, although again, to a certain extent she was boxed in because it was the Biden/Harris administration.
Immigration similarly was a problem. Just like with inflation, the Biden administration had ultimately been able to reduce the rate of increase (and with immigration actually start decreasing). But politically the increase was still there even if the rate changed.
I don't know if Harris could have made better choices in her campaign to have won it starting where she did (she at least could have saved Bob Casey's senate seat). It might have been possible for, say, Mark Kelly to have run a campaign embracing some parts of the Biden legacy but as I noted back in February there was never a viable path to get a non-Harris person installed if she wanted the gig. Just really unfortunate that the Great Awokening is still causing problems all these years later and I think it will come back under Trump. Although, early signs are hopeful with Dems reflecting rather than doubling down.
TL;DR : Dems need to politically detransition.
If only "self-identifying" as Moderate was as slam-dunk-iron-clad as one's 'gender.'
I don't see how they can do that. Either the Left clearly has principles they believe it, will fight for, and won't change... or they have to give up (??) on those principles? Maybe it's a question of focus and emphasis, then?
I'll always think of the Left as the Party Of Woke--donning Kente cloth and kneeling, painting BLM on the streets, over-valuing "identity," accusing everyone of some -ism, climate-scare-mongering, EV's by force/mandate.... it goes on.
Political-replacement drugs truly cause irreversible damage.
Clicking through to the article: “The lowest-ranked concerns were that Harris wasn’t similar enough to Biden (-24), was too conservative (-23), and was too pro-Israel (-22).”
I’m embarrassed that I know people who really and truly believe that Harris lost because she tacked toward the center rather than the left, as if the average American’s top gripe is, “The Democrats aren’t telling our ally in the Middle East to effectively surrender to Iranian proxies who are hell-bent on their destruction as well as America’s!”
(Sigh) McCarthy was right
Cormac? Or Joe?
Melissa.
Sadly in this case it’s probably Jenny
They’ve been citing things like the fact that 6% of registered Republicans didn’t vote for Trump in 2020 and only 5% in 2024 and that’s proof positive her “run to the right” is the issue.
Without considering the move was never to capture republicans, and a non-trivial amount of republicans have deregistered since Jan. 6th.
The remaining registered republicans are dyed in the wool. She wasn’t wooing them. She was wooing the genuine independents, who voted for Obama x2 and Trump x2 who are pro-choice and pro-recreational cannabis.
This is all really well said. I'd only argue that Bernie and Warren are not part from the Great Awokening. The most interesting voices to listen to on the left right now are the left but not woke crowd (Jay Kang, Tyler Austin Harper, John Ganz, Know Your Enemy). Even James Carville was on the Bulwark talking about the preachy females problem and that some one needs to approach the DNC like a private equity firm: tear it apart, sell off the bad parts and install people who actually know how to communicate.
Warren, and to a lesser extent Bernie, were hit hard by the Great Awokening (just as Harris was). Before the 2019 primary, Warren had a very tailored message really emphasizing class solidarity. She went full Great Awokening way beyond parody (like saying that some random 4 year trans kid could pick the Secretary of Education). Even Bernie shifted during this time. More importantly, their acolytes and team were fully woke.
Warren is perhaps the best example of a candidate going from “promising, has a real chance to win” to “utterly cooked” because they leaned hard into the mistaken belief that Twitter is real life.
Yep. A couple years ago, she and Markey were writing letters to the bigots at FDA demanding to know why they were making it so hard for teen girls to get testosterone
I liked her a lot in the beginning (pre-wokism) but by the end she turned my stomach.
Same, alas.
Like the actual quote I alluded to above is bonkers. "I’m going to have an education secretary that this young trans person interviews on my behalf, and only if this person believes that our secretary of education nominee is committed to creating a welcoming environment, a safe environment, and a full education curriculum that works for everyone, [only then will] that person advance to be secretary of education.”
The “trans child” is all knowing.
Thanks, I didn't know that. I've been living outside of the country for the last 20+ years, so often I just get the top line. I had a toddler during the pandemic and only got bits and bobs of the whole thing when we'd visit home. Still I do think they were playing the game as it needed to be played at the time. Not a defense, just acknowledging they are politicians.
"Black trans and cis women, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy." - Elizabeth Warren
She really said that? Not that I'm surprised . . .
Yeah - it was a systemic problem. It didn't just hit Warren, Bernie and Harris... but people like Cory Booker and Beto O'Rourke who could've been centrist contenders.
Well done, Jacob! I think this is the first comment that I've shared. (Not that that matters, I have no audience.) Really appreciate the thought and the detail that you put into this. It's better than many takes I've read from established pundits.
Thanks!
I think you’ve nailed something: Harris ran like a front runner who just needed not to lose. When I reality she was playing from behind, and needed to take some risks to win. Risks like going on Rogan, or openly disavowing her past positions. Throwing Biden under the bus. Or hell, leaning into the positions to at least get the left more fired up. Anything other than just lamely running down the clock and hoping not to get blown out.
Enjoyed this, but I was disappointed Jesse didn't make it. I don't mind the occasional guest, but the episode following a huge election feels like one where we should get the hosts we subscribed to.
Please don't do this again four years from now.
I think this was a wise choice, actually.
I do too. I feel like I already know Jesse's position so it was refreshing to have a new voice.
I also get the impression from the last few months that Jesse is thoroughly burnt out juggling the pod, his book and his Twitter addiction, to the point where I wondered if he'll eventually move to full-time writing.
Yeah I think Jesse would’ve been a bummer in this episode. Ben actually was able to add some useful context.
Did you have any expectations of NM going red? For a moment I had really wondered. But in the end I wasn’t surprised. My vote was useless but GODDAMNIT I VOTED! AMERICA!!!
I don’t understand why it’s not closer than it is, honestly.
The areas that are culturally left are Taos, Los Alamos (hilariously,) and the part of Santa Fe that people bother visiting. Those areas will remain holdouts no matter what. But they’re relatively small.
I think that a little more publicity for Michelle Lujan Grisham’s awfulness, and people will at least vote a Republican governor in.
I suspect Jesse's Twitter addiction seriously hampers his professional life. Every single time I check my feed he is near the top in the midst of some paragraphs-long argument against no one of consequence. He is never not there. The man cannot log off.
I hope we still get an episode from them about post-election meltdowns online.
I agree. It would really put a damper on Trump's magnanimous 3rd term after he gets the 22nd Amendment repealed.
You're in a tremendous minority here. This is the comment section of the embarrassed Trump supporter, otherwise known as centrists.
I would hope it was overwhelmingly obvious that I am being sarcastic. I mean...ugh...of course I don't want the 22nd Amendment repealed or multi years of Donald Jefferson Trump. Fuck do I have to put /s after everything I post that is meant to be sarcastic?
It IS possible to criticize the left and not be a Trump supporter.
This seems to be a really difficult concept for a lot of people. I'm not sure why, but anything other than Blue Team Good Red Team Bad is unacceptable.
The good thing is that plenty of people here can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I’m sure they schedule these things far in advance. Jesse has other professional obligations. It was a joke that he’s just too distraught. I’m sure he was just not available to record.
Ben Kawaller, yay! I anticipate that he & Katie will have splendid chemistry.
Agree! I love and watch anything Ben publishes. His pre Covid interviews at the gay club in Los Angeles were delightful.
Hadn’t heard of him before, but now I’m a fan. He and Katie have great vibe sync.
If you’ve never heard of him, PLEASE look up videos of him interviewing Gaza protesters.
Ben was great. Loved the vox pop clips he played.
Ben Kawaller and Katie (typically) were great. However, what was that remark Katie made about the comments section getting its claws into Ben??? We're the best comments section, we don't have claws, just gentle suggestions tenderly proffered after pondering at length!!!
All kidding aside a fun show. I enjoyed both the political and the non-political (although the celebrity contestant courting clout was a little meh but I enjoyed the lightness of it).
All the best BarPod folks. I'm as always so happy for this podcast and community (with or without claws).
I was glad she said something!
The episode thread posters usually unload on whoever the guest is. it sucks.
This episode was how I learned who this person is, and I am so interested in his Ben Visits America series!
There were a lot of things that worked against Harris, but her inability to answer basic questions was damning.
-How she would differ from Biden?
-The whole country saw Biden’s cognitive decline. You work with him almost daily. When did you see it, and why did you do nothing about it? Or did you try to do something? As Vice President of the United States, you had a duty to do something if the President was incapable of functioning.
-why did you change your opinion on everything? (Other than the obvious- I want to win Pennsylvania, so fracking is awesome. Border walls are awesome because shockingly people don’t like open borders, and I want to win).
It should have been so easy for her to answer that one TV interview question about what mistake she regretted. A chance to show she wasn’t simply Biden in a different guise. An acknowledgment that not everything had gone well for the middle class and working class and that she was committed to changing that. But instead she tossed up a word salad. Would it have made a difference? Maybe not, but it probably wouldn’t have made things worse.
James Carville just made this exact point on The Bulwark podcast.
“It’s the economy, stupid” has proven remarkably elegant in its simplicity and longevity.
yep, and 'voters vote with their pocketbooks' is even older. The funny thing is Biden admin had the numbers to brag about, but inflation hurt paycheck to paycheck Americans. We're no longer in the era of, “a rising tide lifts all boats,” it lifts the 'haves' boats, the 'have nots' sink deeper. The general economy no longer works for middle America. Corporations and the wealthy have designed the economy to suit them, and them alone.
I've concluded the Bidens must have some serious blackmail material on Harris, which they threatened to use if she said anything negative. What else could explain her inepititude?
I guess. I think an easier answer is that she is not a particularly good politician, and was put into a terrible position, in which even the most gifted politician would have had trouble. What Biden and/or his closest advisors did - either hiding his clear mental decline, or being blind to it - was unconscionable. I think the lack of any real pushback from within the Democratic Party against her coronation may have been a sign that a lot of very ambitious and more capable politicians thought that this cycle was a loss. There also may have been a lot of wish casting that she was a more capable choice than she clearly was. I can imagine any number of people who could have done better, but I don’t know if they could have won. The fact that virtual every jurisdiction (except Colorado) saw a huge shift to the GOP, including New Jersey and New York, does not suggest that a Democrat has a chance. I think the more interesting question is how the Democrat’s theory of the electorate - what gets all the groups on which they base their coalition, and for whom supposedly speak for to vote - was so utterly wrong.
Her presidential campaign in 2019 was a disaster. Up to that point, she had only one competitive election, against a Republican opponent, for attorney general in 2010, which was very close…in California. California has not had a Republican AG since 1999. Otherwise, her career was intra-party politics, based in the Bay Area. What she actually believes or thinks is pretty unclear, and she has a reputation of not reading briefing materials. Most successful politicians with staying power have long term advisors who can tell them what they don’t want to hear. She has had terrible turnover with her staff, which isn’t a good sign.
Yes. Political junkies (sigh, I'm trying not to be one) remember how abysmal her primary campaign was in 2019. I remember hearing her do a very friendly interview with the NPR Politics Podcast. She was asked what her campaign was about and said, "For the people," which was her campaign slogan at the time but was certainly not a meaningful answer. (Sound familiar?!)
There was a devastating NYT piece about her disastrous 2019 campaign after she dropped out. It discussed the problems you mention--terrible staff management, not being able to decide what to campaign on--and won't surprise anyone who reads it following her 2024 effort.
I've wondered if the WaPo and LAT knew something.
Maybe. Will it leak now that she's done?
Inshallah.
Agreed, but they’re being held to completely different standards. Trump “weaved” around every direct question he was asked.
Trump wasn’t a failure at reality tv. It was actually his biggest success - no bankruptcies, good ratings.
The Apprentice is probably the only show of its popularity in its era that isn't available on any streaming platform.
For hopefully the last time, Trump is an economic elite, not a cultural elite. He likes pro wrestling and eats his steak with ketchup.
Love you, Ben. Keep looking baffled as you interview incoherent protesters.
Not a cultural elite? Have you ever actually seen and felt a Trump necktie up close?
I think I actually owned one at one point.
Ever been to Trump Tower? Now that's culturally elite. Classy!
My older kid went on a marching band trip to New York City in spring 2016 and they played in the atrium of Trump Tower. I got hilarious reports from him about the gold plated toilets. Back then, everything about Trump was still a joke.
You can’t spell “gold toilet” without… I forget where I was going with this.
He’s a famous billionaire who went to an Ivy League school for undergrad. He’s every kind of “elite”.
Of course there are ways in which he is an elite, but surely you don’t think he’s culturally high brow.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/americas-first-post-text-president/549794/
https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-mcdonalds-order-review-2017-12
https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2669447-donald-trump-a-history-of-the-presidential-candidates-involvement-with-wwe.amp.html
I think he is pretending to not have expensive tastes. I also think people are talking about economics when they criticize people for being “elite”. Trump’s taste in TV doesn’t really matter. His economic policy does. To the average voter, “elite” just means “rich”. It’s far simpler than you’re suggesting.
So, you think people just don't realize that he doesn't have money? His garishness was on full display as a TV personality. There are guys making really good money owning a plumbing business that will look at a Harvard professor a an "elite" even though the plumber is making more money.
People make fun of Trump for speaking in one and two syllable words, but it makes him sound like he's not a snob, and that he would fit in better with the people who don't speak the language of the "faculty lounge."
I think you (and Katie) are oversimplifying it.
“The least racist country to ever exist” has to be the most America-centric thing I
have ever heard. America is not a racist country, but of developed countries it lags behind others in things like interracial marriage, and “tolerance”. The Conservative Party had just elected its fourth woman and second non white leader, and the uk has a higher rate of interracial marriage despite being less diverse. Most other developed countries do not have a history of de jure race bars; George Orwell wrote of his shock at the American army trying to get British hotels and entertainment venues to enforce segregation during WW2. And, a race-based slavery is not a thing on the European continent-minus the Nazis.
I’ll relay what a friend of mine told me.
They’d lived in multiple countries in Europe. As well as the US. They’d considered permanent citizenship in a couple. Several of the other countries had various things they thought were done better.
But they eventually moved to the us and got citizenship here. I asked why. Why not Switzerland or Norway or the UK.
His answer was that of all the countries they lived, no matter how long they were there, they were always foreign. Even after generations their non-native friends were considered Indian or African or Asian, but not Swiss or British or Norwegian.
But in the US, once you’re a citizen you’re American. And that made the difference for him.
I’ll buy that. I lived in Berlin, Germany, for a decade and despite being completely fluent in the language I was always an outsider.
My BIL is Ecuadorian, and now a USA citizen living in Michigan.
A lot of his friends call him Mo, he goes hunting just about every weekend, and competes in shooting competitions.
He's a red blooded American now, and very happy to be one.
Is Mo anywhere close to his name?
That’s just not the case in the UK-the groups consider themselves Afro Caribbean, or British Asian. Britain is not a settler colony, so the notion of Britishness having an ethnic component is obvious, the same with every other European ethnicity. You’re compare apples to oranges. And, de jure racism is not a thing; no chattel slavery and no Jim Crow. There is obviously racism but it is not of organised systematic type. The first black person voted in Britain in 1774.
One thing to note is that the plurality of inter ethnic marriages in the official UK statistics are “white British / other white”. They consider other white people as inter ethnic marriages.
I think if, in the US, we included mixed German/irish/British/etc in our statistics it would dwarf the UKs 10%.
I said interracial not inter-ethnic. I was basing it on the statistics for interracial marriage. Which is higher than the US. The inability of Americans to not do American exceptionalism is baffling.
LOL. This is such a perfectly British response. "Why aren't you admitting that British culture is superior to American culture? I specifically to you that it was."
If everyone in the world were given a now or never choice of if or where to emigrate to with their family, so many people would come to the US the axis of the earth would nearly tilt from the weight. But of course it’s incredibly important to dote on how terribly racist “we” are.
I mean, migration is just proof of that, isn’t it? People are willing to hike through the Darién Gap, one of the most awful places on earth, to get here. They make it through the jungle from hell and they don’t think, OK, I’m going to stay in Mexico, I’m safe enough, I speak the same language. They’re willing to be overcrowded on mattresses in tiny apartments and do jobs Americans don’t want, just to live here. The US is still a land of opportunity no matter how many kids paying six figures for education pretend it’s a hellhole. The world votes with its feet.
Like swimming across the Mediterranean? Are you just ignorant of the European migration crisis?
Who's swimming across the Mediterranean? I think you meant to say "floating on a dingy and waiting to be picked up by the Italians when it 'accidentally' springs a leak. That's how many Cuban's escaped to Florida, with the exception that if they were caught by the coast guard they'd be turned sent home. If you're crossing the Med (in a boat. Nobody is swimming it) you're praying to see the Italian Navy because that's just a cashed ticket. Getting to the U.S. from Central or South America is an arduous, dangerous trek. These people are are risking a lot more that someone leaving - on a boat - from the coast of Libya and landing - on a boat - in Europe.
I said the USA wasn’t racist. I love the fact your response was “USA! USA! USA!”. I said it was ludicrous to say the US was the least racist country in history.
Come off it. Your entire comment was a paragraph of "the US isn't racist, but Europe is a lot less racist". That's simply not true. Europeans do multiculturalism. Americans do multiethnicity. There's a lot of racial tensions is Europe that just doesn't exist in the US because Europeans don't see people who move to their country from a different country as being German, or British, or Belgian.
I guess I can see why you interpreted my comment as you have. I was meaning more to respond to the sense of Ben Kawaller’s statement you quote than to your points about other developed countries. Unlike you I believe the US is definitely a racist country. But in scale it is the most dynamically diverse society in history and tens of millions of people want to come here- and will come here-to prosper and set down roots. In light of this the endless perseveration on “our” racism from so many quarters just seems tiresome and kind of irrelevant. I think that is what’s being expressed by statements like Ben’s. I wasn’t intending to react to or deny your point about UK etc.
The recent riot in Amsterdam suggests all is not well in Europe racism-wise. But yes, the USA is obsessed with race to the extent that many of the 'anti-racists' among them come off as racist too.
But I'm not sure how meaningful an apparent lack of racism is in extremely homogenous, wealthy countries like Norway or Sweden. Japan outperforms the USA on some racism indices, which is more indicative of how flawed the indices are are I think, rather than how racist the US is.
I chose the UK because it’s one of the most diverse countries in Europe. My point is was it was a stupid bit of American exceptionalism to say it was the least racist country in history, and it comes across incredibly ignorant of the outside world.
What country is the least racist? I hope you don't say one of those in the U.K. That would come across as incredibly ignorant of the outside world.
Agreed
If not the least racist, certainly one of them. I’m generally of
The opinion that people who don’t agree with this have never visited a country that isn’t first world.
Countries with homogeneous populations across the world are pretty racist-even if it’s relatively benign. We don’t see that much here because of the melting pot mythos. We are so sensitive to race here politically it’s pretty absurd a lot of the time.
Americans also export their own specific definition and concept of racism and see it as the one true type. Elsewhere in the world, like in India with how the caste-based system has made people generationally impoverished based simply on their birth, the American definition of racism doesn’t apply but it’s essentially disadvantage being built into the social structure with the same consequences even if on paper it’s been outlawed.
Also in India there is absolutely a lot of dark skin bad light skin good racism.
Or making out US white supremacy and Nazism are ideological parallels.
Yeah before that it was just tribal based slavery, much better!
Nope and not my point.
There absolutely was A LOT of slavery int eh Americas pre Columbus. in Mesoamerica, in Canada, in the PNW, in the Caribbean.
What’s your point? Europeans create America. And European countries did not for the most part have race based slavery or segregation. So why, therefore, is America the least racist country in history?
Yeah, I mean they did butcher the native inhabitants of many continents the world over, but at least they didn't enslave them. Okay so they did, but they stopped before the US did. Ipso facto, some country in Europe is the least racist.
I can't be the only one who thinks the jokes about Jesse aren't jokes 😂 sincerely though I hope he's ok
"He's looking for his pussy hat" is unambiguously funny.
Yeah absolutely, I'm sure he'll be back to phone in another episode in a few weeks.
I sometimes get the vibe that Katie and Jesse actually do dislike each other.
Regarding Ben voting for Sanders twice because Bernie cares about the poor and middle class. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Ask a Venezuelan.
I like Bernie in the way I like Libertarians. It's fine to have them around communicating their ideas but things would go to Hell if they were ever given the reigns of power.
I agree. Any of them in power would lead to an awful place, but they have thought provoking ideas. It's also a way to know where some of the boundaries of the Overton window are.
Exactly.
Reins
How much transing is just attention seeking? Some? All? None?
The anger at this guy is predicated in part on the concept of “true trans”: that some people are truly trans but others are LARPing.
I know many will disagree but What if it’s all LARPing? If so, then what did he do wrong?
I doubt its all LARPing. But lets say 25-75% is? To just pull some numbers out of my ass. Some significant and important portion.
Or as I would say a nose piercing or visible tattoo from 1995. It is a trendy way to be different and stick it to the "squares"/"man"/"your parents"/etc. .
I don’t think you can dismiss “true trans”. To do that, you would have to say that brains are not subject to any influence from the physiology of sexual dimorphism, so there is simply no such thing as a female brain or a male brain. Or you would have to say that there is such a thing, but the process works perfectly 100% of the time and there are never any errors. Otherwise, you’re left with the conclusion that, as much as the gender unicorn is stupid, it must be possible to have something like a male brain in a female body, and vice versa.
However, if you take basic signal detection theory and apply it to rare events, bearing in mind that most intersex conditions are extremely rare, it is easy to see how the false positives could overwhelm the true cases.
Weird how (true) trans is still just a western culture thing then.
Not really. I mean, something strange is going on here, but intersex conditions are quite rare. In general, there probably isn’t enough bandwidth for most people to know anything about them. Even in the U.S., prior to 2010 or so there were only a handful of clinics that treated these people in the entire country. And we have a large population, liberal norms, and lots of high-end expensive medicine.
Do you know anything about how the Inuit deal with osteogenesis imperfecta? Seems like those people would be constantly falling on ice and breaking bones. I have no idea how they deal with it, or even if a community that small experiences this condition. Similarly, I would not expect the issue of how people with intersex conditions are handled in Malaysia to be something that an average person would have any knowledge of whatsoever.
Oh, sorry, you’re talking about DSDs. I thought you meant trans-identifying people.
My understanding is that what you’re calling true trans would be a DSD.
DSDs are either male or female, they are not “intersex” or “true trans.” Unfortunately TRAs have mobilized DSDs for their cause.
See Colin Wright or Emma Hilton for in depth discussion of this.
I don’t think we’re quite using the words the same way. If you’re talking about having brain that is truly a different sex from the body, I would agree that this does not exist.
I’m talking about a brain that has developed in a way that could be described as a DSD. The person, like all humans, is still unambiguously a member of one sex category regardless of what DSD they have. I don’t think there’s any disagreement between me and Colin Wright on these issues.
I’m not talking about brains at all. I’m confused and don’t understand your point, sorry.
My point is simply that what I think people mean when they say “true trans” is an intersex condition that causes some difference in neurological development, to where a person has one unambiguous biological sex, but has some brain development that is more typical of the other sex.
I’m not saying that most people who “identify” as trans actually have such a condition, which I doubt. I’m not saying that having a DSD actually changes your sex, because it does not.
This is still putative and what “trans” actually is has not been well established. I’m thinking about what Dana Beyer has to say on the subject, which I largely agree with.
Hmmm, my understanding of “true trans” is that some people have an immutable, unchangeable inner essence of the opposite sex. However this essence has yet to be identified.
"but has some brain development that is more typical of the other sex."
There's never been a shred of evidence for this.
There is no such thing as a "brain that is a different sex from the body." The brain is part of the body. If it's in a male body, it's a male brain.
For starters, he kept his face and body hair. You don't keep male levels of either if you're trying to blend in and be accepted as a woman.
Jeffrey Marsh? What is s/he doing w/ facial hair? I thought it had become a thing among some in the trans community to mix up the signifiers of sex?
Whatever they identify as, this trans woman is not referring to them as any sort of woman.
`I thought it...'
Yes, there is a disagreement about what it means to be trans within the LGBTQ community. Being trans is a medical issue and, to my mind, demands and accommodations should only be made on society, for this issue, based on that fact.
Yes, Brianna Wu has made a similar point. Yes, these disagreements (over whether or not trans is a medical condition) are making a mess of what used to be a consensus.
But that goes back to my point: this guy Josh wasn't doing things so differently from certain members of the LGBTQ community: mixing up the signifiers, declaring it doesn't have to be a medical condition, etc. And so it's difficult to assess: is he LARPing? is he sincere? is he mentally unstable? Does it matter? Maybe not.
`wasn't doing things so differently from certain members of the LGBTQ community: mixing up the signifiers, declaring it doesn't have to be a medical condition, etc.'
A significant portion of the trans community has little, and increasingly less, tolerance for this type of stuff. Things have gotten to the point, politically, where it's no longer just irritating* but will cause harm to actual trans people---like having our medical care taken away---and I imagine we will be much more definitive on what and who needs to be protected.
*I'm an Xennial professor and don't have time or interest in gender fuckery, etc. There are more important and rewarding things in my life than playing with gender.
I think there are genuinely people who experience gender dysphoria. I know many in these comment sections don’t agree but, whatever. I know many such people and even if you and I don’t believe they’re truly the “opposite” sex they really do.
This guy was just lying. He didn’t even believe that he was trans. I think that’s a pretty clear difference.
Yes, but I think “gender dysphoria” is probably a severe form of anxiety, analogous to anorexia, for example, in which a person’s body becomes a focus of distress.
We can take that distress seriously without enabling it, just as we wouldn’t send an anorexic for liposuction.
This guy Josh may in in fact have an anxiety disorder of some kind (his behavior seems unhinged), in which case, if his expression of it was to LARP as trans, I’m not sure if he deserves censure necessarily.
Fortunately this area has been researched and HRT and other medical treatments do, in fact, mitigate gender dysphoria.
Transitioning is the least bad outcome for a lot of people.
I suppose it depends on how one defines the success of a treatment. Anorexics might feel better after getting liposuction. The placebo effect is well documented.
Rather than asking if someone feels better, an entirely subjective and difficult-to-measure question, perhaps a better question would be “How is that patient’s overall physical health?" Exogenous hormones are known to have detrimental impact on a number of body systems. Is the trade worthwhile? Some, of course, will say yes.
An excellent source for the history of how exogenous hormones have been used (for just about everything and by just about everybody, so not limited to the trans discourse) is Bob Ostertag’s Sex, Science, Self: A Social History of Estrogen, Testosterone, and Identity.
Success for me has meant being able to leave the house without a sense of dread and function in society instead of being largely confined to bed.
`Exogenous hormones are known to have detrimental impact...'
A fact that I am very much unhappy about and consistently reminded of but, again, it's the least bad outcome. Transitioning also cuts you off from society in many ways---it's not what most of us wanted but therapy isn't always able to resolve gender dysphoria.
I appreciate that--and am glad for you.
As to your future health, I hope you can pursue real answers and not take the gender profession's claims at face value. Detransitioners have been publicizing some of the effects.
Bob Ostertag's book isn't about specific medical effects but it certainly is informative as to how and why we got to this place. He has been a gay/trans activist and writes from a place of concern for his community.
Thank you for the recommendation---it's certainly something that I'm interested in and appreciate.
As for the gender profession's claims: I recognize the reality of biological sex but also appreciate the social component of both gender and sex. J&K's discussion at the end of episode 234(?) describes two extremes on these views and they position themselves somewhere in between---and that's where I am too.
This image might be one of the most horrifying yet, and this includes the current Open Thread graphic. WHY ARE WE BEING PUNISHED?
My theory of the disturbing AI pics is that it's Katie's revenge on those of us who retain images in our heads. She can't be haunted by them.
THIS is genuine insight. (Did I make a pun??)
At this point, I'm just going to sit back, wait, and then watch the dumb motherfuckers that voted for Trump see what tariffs actually do. If they think that things are too expensive now... yeah, enjoy even crazier inflation and a global trade war courtesy of the billionaire con-man that "speaks to you". Or if you voted for him because you don't like wokeness, it's called "Cutting off your nose to spite your face."
If that doesn’t happen, will you come back here and admit you were wrong?
Don’t misunderstand me- I think it’s going to be a shit show. But I’m really hoping for the best
The tarries thing will be a total shit show because the USA is firmly embedded as the core beneficiary (ignoring income inequality issues ) of a negotiated system that’s lasted decades. Tariffs automatically allow counter sanctions and so US exporters (including in services) will get fucked at the same time as import fees rise. Consumers get fucked one way, companies another and the only people who profit are those making money off the tariffs (inefficient domestic producers and government)
A much more interesting and nuanced debate would be to discuss wage price adjustment on a global scale. After all Free Trade was meant to be producing things in country X not country Y because the non-labour costs were lower (technology, proximity to inputs, transport costs) but largely it’s just become a tool to dismantle labour.
I’ve been so focused on the domestic impact on consumers re higher prices that I hadn’t considered the retaliation you describe. Uff da!
Appointing a Fox News host as Secretary of Defense and Matt Gaetz as Attorney General signals that the shit show is forming, even though the curtain has yet to lift.
Like you, my friend, I’m hoping for the best. But today, Orange Man Bad claimed a tiny bit of real estate in my brain, despite my best intentions. I will try to evict him tomorrow.
I'm at the same point. I don't want the Democrats to fight, I want the Republicans to do everything they campaigned on. Maybe once the enact all of their crazy stuff (across the board tariffs, mass deportation, more tax cuts for the rich, firing of civil servants, RFK jr in charge of HHS, tax-payer funded religious education, etc...) we can finally move away from the MAGA movement.
Tariffs plus mass deportations of our agricultural and meat processing workers will drive inflation down - like nothing anyone has ever seen before.
If Kamala was such a moderate, why pick one of the most progressive governors as her running mate?
She wanted someone who was a bigger doofus than she was.
I read it as she was throwing a bone to the progressive wing with her VP pick.
A Grade A Midwestern Goober.
The Goobernator?
Now that’s a rank he earned!
How hot do I need to get in the next four years to have a seat at Reason’s election night party?
Not much. Libertarian events have a total open borders policy when it comes to ladies.
In fact you might want to tone it down a bit so you dont frighten anyone.
once again Katie having incredible chemistry with a guest host. She really does raise up anyone she is hosting with.
I'm here to rate Ben. I give him a 9. Very likable.
This Ben gentleman is a fine and entertaining homosexual. Positive and thoughtful and fun. Good episode.
Also happy for the lack of doom and gloom due to the election. As I told some of my black coworkers who were concerned about a potential uptick in racism now, “Don’t worry guys. Everything is gonna be all white. I MEAN RIGHT!”
For some Jesse Singal action
This is from Election Night from Rommelman
It's Kmele Foster, Matt Welch, Jesse, Nancy Rommelman and Kat Rosenfield.
https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1yoKMypZrkYKQ?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Jesse already suspects Harris is going to lose. It's very entertaining. Everybody says something insightful but I think Foster is the star.
"Mr Smug steps up"
https://x.com/benryanwriter/status/1855125188452528143
https://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2024/mister-smug-steps-up/
Mr. Smug smelling his own farts in that video is really demonstrating two of the major flaws with Liberal/Progressive thinking:
1. "We are on the right side of history. We don't have to convince people of anything, they must come to us for we are always right"
2. "We must shrink our coalition to grow our coalition. Once we've purged all wrongthink, we will achieve total ideological purity and then unlock the true majority who are waiting for us.
Of course these are totally unworkable in electoral politics which is why they will continue to lose and never understand why.
Keep losing elections dummies!
Seriously, though, does the AMA supply enough electoral votes for a national victory?
That was annoying to watch. In 2020, the host would have said "Check your privilege CIS white man!"
What happened to good old-fashioned intersectionality
I'm not American, but from what I hear, it sounds like Fetterman is a Democrat who would be able to stand despite the party's past issues. He has shown an ability to break from his party that demonstrates integrity, and would make people think he's not totally beholden to the DNC "taste makers".
I don’t think he can be competitive nationally because since his stroke, he’s pretty hobbled in his ability to communicate.
But my longtime senator, Sherrod Brown, will be jobless as of January. He kept his office in Ohio for many years after the state went red. He’s a thoroughly decent guy who can communicate with ordinary Americans of all classes. He’s class-first in his orientation, quite undogmatic, and exactly the kind of candidate who might bring working-class and lower-middle-class voters back into the Democratic fold, as long as the party’s platform doesn’t foreground land acknowledgments and pronoun declarations.
Maybe you’re right re: the stroke, but I heard him on The Daily recently and he was clearer and made more sense than most politicians.
I have nothing against Fetterman, but I do think his health history is something the Republicans will use against him in a pretty brutal way.
The running joke in right wing media is that the more brain function he regains post-stroke, the less left wing he gets.
I am still pretty left, by any measure, and you made me do a laugh-snort. Luckily, only my cats witnessed this.
You’re welcome. It’s a good joke! He’s got a better excuse than most for leaving some of the crazier parts of the 2020 Democratic zeitgeist behind.
Weird theory - Fetterman winning his election despite being clearly mentally impaired during his campaign emboldened the Biden team to think they could pull off the same with Joe.
Fetterman gave a heartfelt post stroke recovery speech at a DC rally for Israel.
You’re not American, but you’ve heard of John Fetterman? 😂😂😂
I don't know how to put this, but we're kind of a big deal ;)
Israeli. He is probably the most popular Democrat out here.
People from other countries pay a lot of attention to the U.S. We’re kind of famous.
He was very very popular with The Guardian until he had his stroke and became too pro-Israel
Kind of a side-point, but we could actually “hear” that the New Orleans interviewees were black ;) (More power to each one of them.)
You can't run to the center when your on camera saying you'll give sex changes to illegal, jailed, immigrants and have tax payers pay for it. Game over.
Well you could by saying you don't think that is good policy anymore or in other ways explicitly distancing yourselves from the fringes of your party. Instead they mostly tried to implicitly distance themselves, which isn't the same thing.
I think them simply disavowing the 3-5% most extreme part of their platform explicitly would have bought them a lot more traction with normies then it cost them with activists. But fuck she couldn't even give a straight answer to simple questions about Biden and his fitness to serve or when she knew. Stuff she KNEW she would be asked.
I miss Hilldawg. She might have been sloppy but at least she was smart.
Kamala combines Hillary Clinton’s likability, Elizabeth Warren’s political savvy, and Sarah Palin’s policy chops.
I guess we have to agree that it's at least POSSIBLE that the idea that hurricane relief was allocated in part based on politics wasn't a conspiracy theory after all...?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-fema-official-ordered-relief-workers-to-skip-houses-with-trump-signs
One part time worker from CA. It does make you wonder about the quality of FEMA part-timers.
You're not allowed to call them Fema part-timers any more. They're women like you or me.
There had been a wave of threats from Trump supporters, aimed at FEMA workers. I wish I’d saved the link. But the evidence I saw was persuasive. Takes that for what it’s worth!
Shoot. I would have liked to have seen that.
Not all Trump supporters are bigoted. Some are dumb.
For example, the white female left-wing anarchist I met who — despite all prior plausibility — thought a life-long grifter would be better for the economy (actual economists disagree, of course: https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/economists-say-inflation-deficits-will-be-higher-under-trump-than-harris-0365588e).
Or this unemployed black felon who thinks it will be easier for black felons to get hired if he hires fellow felon Donald Trump for the job of president!: https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=wlzGC8RfuKBSDLFA&t=1648&v=0EhYpM_WfXs&feature=youtu.be
I can’t stress this enough: most people are fucking idiots. If this is a revelation to you, you are lucky to live in an Ivy League smart-person bubble. I envy you.
If it’s true that , as you say, most people are fucking idiots, then shouldn’t I assume that you are most likely a fucking idiot??
I can see why someone would say this if they don’t understand the concept of “prior plausibility.”
The Trump victory in a nutshell.
I enjoyed this show! Please have Ben back often.
He seems mentally ill to me with an obsessive need to be noticed.
Finally, someone understands me
I predict that Katie will vote for the Republican candidate in 2028.
Now I just need to find a place to save a screenshot of this where I’ll be able to find it again in four years. . .
I have my own outlandish prediction. Katie will be the Democratic nominee for President in 2028. But since a woman can't win, it will be as a man. She will be Kaden Herzog.
*Himzog
Heck, I might too.
It depends on if the Dems get their shit together.
They won't, so plan on it. (I will too!)
Ditto.
Oli London didn’t transition into a Korean woman… he was trying to transition into BTS singer Park Jimin, then he did the trans thing (no clue if he was trying to skinwalk a Korean woman specifically), and then I think he did his tradcath turn. Not that it matters, I just think the fact that he was doing a celebrity otherkin transracial thing first was very funny
Just wanted to slightly correct myself and say that there is another famous Korean singer named Park Jimin who is a female… but it is (male) Park Jimin from BTS that Oli London was obsessed with
OMG, I missed the otherkin (otherskin?) terminology. I have to brush up on my Berkeley-ese.
I disagree with almost everything Ben kawaller said but I’m glad I stick around because… worlds collide and two of my faves, BARPOD and the Bachelor unexpectedly meet.
Quit judging me
He got to 'Trump is comfortable in his own skin and clearly believes in what he's saying,' and I realised this man has nothing of value to say. That's a fanboy take disproved by two minutes of watching Trump speak.
Leave it to BARpod to update me on a guy I went to school with, Josh Seiter.
And? Embarrassing schoolyard reminiscences?
Nice episode. I had heard of the thing with the bachelor guy pretending to be trans but the prior stuff was new to me! What a wackadoodle.
I’d really have liked to hear Ben’s interviews of the conservatives being asked the question about what’s wrong with their side?
I can’t figure out if it’s that they are actually blind/unaware of the massive problems among their wingnuts or just unwilling to articulate them because it’s so gross?
I found an episode where he asked some rodeo fans to say nice things about democrats or what their side gets wrong and they literally could not lol.
I guess the idea that conservatives are the more thoughtful and accepting group now might be a bit off…
I dont think there's anything dems could have done to win this election. Biden is a historically unpopular president and voters are upset over immigration and inflation
Someone is too young to remember the second W administration 😂
I remember Nixon‘s reelection in 1972. Sadly I also remember how the Watergate hearings wrecked my summer daytime TV viewing. John Dean kept edging out Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy. Shame!
Ah, I was referring to the kid Ben interviewed who linked low gas prices with Republican presidents. That is not how I remember it, young grasshopper.
"How does that make anyones life better?"
Bingo. The crushing defeat really does need to be a huge wake up call for "the left" and the dems in particular. I don't think it will be, unfortunately. Trumps first term had long term GOP around him to put the guard rails in place and he went bumping from one thing to another and it was chaos every day but it didn't lead to the end of the world. This time, he's been handed a terrifying amount of power for a man hell bent on revenge and dominance. The left knew this could be the case, everyday voters knew this would be the case, but it wasn't enough to get them out. He could do any number of crazy things and it will drip down to the rest of the world. THIS time the smart dudes around him know what they're doing. It'll make for great podcasts though because your country is not getting any saner bruh.
- stoned, as always, and not eloquent, and h'wut.
-edited to add: i fucking love the housewives. i fell down the terf rabbithole and one of them found out and chastisised me....and it was then i knew it wasnt for me.
I think Katie is wrong about the only Democratic gains being bisexuals in Congress. Thanks to a good ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Democrats were able to flip 10 seats in the WI Assembly, ending the Republican supermajority. Given another cycle or two, they might flip the entire chamber. In addition, Montana, Missouri and Arizona--red or swing states all--protected abortion access, as did Colorado and Nevada. These are real gains, not DEI accomplishments.
Missouri also voted in favor of a hike in the minimum wage and paid sick days.
My sense is that policies like these, combined with a compassionate centrism on social issues, could make the Democrats competitive again, apart from states like mine where gerrymandering is horrible. (Ohio, I’m sorry to say.) But I also think that at this point, working-class and non-college educated voters are so alienated from the Democrats that they would need a charismatic candidate who could project empathy like Bill Clinton did. I have no idea whether Bill was sincere, but people believed he was, and that was enough.
Really? So voters in Missouri wanted a higher minimum wage, paid sick leave, legal abortion, and Donald Trump, who opposes all of these things.
Voters are a strange bunch. (I mean voters everywhere, not just in Missouri.)
Fact free theater criticism in which the election outcome conveniently confirms all of one’s opinions. Wouldn’t expect anything less from the free press.
"Ricki Lake is like the original reality show"
*laughs in Phil Donahue*
Ben!
katie's warmer on republicans cause she's rich now lol
Apropos of nothing, I just learned from Katie’s dad that in part of Switzerland, people eat cats for Christmas.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/animals-and-us/201508/haitians-do-not-eat-pet-cats-but-some-cultures-do?amp
Don't F**k With Cats. Watch out Switzerland. You've been warned.
The BARPod catlady army, with our catdude allies flanking us, will mobilize at dawn.
I hate learning new things sometimes.
I learned today that the US only banned the slaughter of dogs and cats for consumption as food in…2018! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_and_Cat_Meat_Trade_Prohibition_Act_of_2018
I don’t know if Ben embarrassed himself, but I want to marry him.
Trump picks the puppy shooter for Homeland Security Sec. That's about his speed.
I know Katie was just reading a review verbatim but who the hell says "seeked" instead of "sought"?
Antifa ARE democrats. Until yall fully rebuke and fully expel them, how is that NOT the fact?
This comment reads like you’ve never met the type of person who calls themselves “antifa”.
Weird, I live 15 min from CHAZ/CHOP and am friends with founding members. You're right, I don't interface with this shit at all.
I don't care if they don't call themselves democrats, like the KKK before it, Antifa is the action arm of the democratic party. Why else were they entirely unable to EVER condemn them in 2020? I saw Portland burn with my own eyes while they refused to rebuke them.
HK, good attempt at gaslighting. Antifa is not some random group. They are extreme democrats.
Girl, no the fuck they aren’t. They’re way farther to the left than democrats. The world of politics is a lot messier and diverse than red vs blue. Not everyone fits nicely into one of two camps.
This is like saying that Hamas is a wing of the Republican Party since both groups are to the right politically. But that also isn’t true.
Lol, unproclaimed allies that get their way in the party I consider to be part of the party. How convenient to be able to just say "they are too extreme to be in the party" while MASSIVELY influencing it for years.
How in the living fuck is Jesse not on the post election episode. Put your fucking tampon in and sack the fuck up Jesse. FFS
I was shocked when Vice President Harris refused to address her supporters on election night. It's tough, but just one of those things you have to do.
Hey Dems, Liberals, Progressives: 2 questions you BETTER be working on the answers to NOW: 1: Why the F did this happen? (Yes, the answers are pretty damn obvi, especially to all us brainiacs here). 2: How will "We" (we "brilliant" Liberals) work with "Them" (the "idiots" who voted for DJT.) (And no, I no longer actually think they are all idiots, racists, sexists, anti-trans, etc., etc., fyi.) (But some are. Just like plenty of "us" who voted for KH are pretty f'ing stupid. D'uh.) How will "we" work with "them" to curb / reverse DJT's clearly expressed authoritarian, vicious, cruel, economically and ecologically disastrous, and plainly idiotic promises. Get started. Beotches.
You write like you consider yourself to be much more clever and funny than you are
(Also, do you any thoughts yourself about the topic at hand? ("Postmortem" - no, not literally an autopsy, but more an examination of root causes, OK?) Anything? It doesn't even have to be funny or clever. Please share, thx.)
Funnily enough, I’m actually cleverer and funnier than I even consider myself. And by the way, who exactly are you? I’m sure I must have heard of you or read something you’ve published, but I can’t quite place you???
Episode thread mean person
Oh, this is the r-word people were referring to?
No, that's retard.
I rest my case, your honor.
Oy vey, dude.
I somehow found the guest host unpleasantly haughty. Don’t know if it’s his mentality, the way he talks (I’m a gay guy myself), or both. It’s strange because I listened to his podcast on the Matthew Shepard case and found it very interesting. I don’t remember feeling that way about him either. He probably just dropped the professional interviewer/journalist persona while being with Katie and let all of his mean girl energy out (again, saying that as a gay dude myself, we do be like that sometimes).
Replying to my own comment to add some thoughts cause I cba to edit it on the desktop version of Substack. I think what got to me, as an economically precarious and clinically depressed person living in an Americanized version of a once more social and egalitarian France, were the several occurrences of him strongly suggesting that America is not an unfair country. Like are you fucking kidding me? Your social security being bound to your job when your employer can fire you for basically anything? The exorbitant cost of healthcare in a country ravaged by diabetes, obesity and drug abuse? The extreme wealth disparity and the nigh omnipotent plutocratic class? And again this guy saying he voted several times for Bernie when this politician is just a US version of our Martine Aubry, which is to say nothing more than diet socialism fully compatible with a capitalistic structure, doesn’t even make me more sympathetic toward him (I’m definitely not saying you shouldn’t vote for someone like Bernie, though, because beggars can’t be choosers). Still, the fact that this is considered radical says how far to the right of any Western European country the US is. And you guys even dare to have libertarians. 😂 So yeah, this on top of the snide and sassy tone profoundly disturbed me and I’ll probably skip future episodes that’ll feature him.
You have a lot of misconceptions about what America is actually like.
You would say that. And without any explanation as to why, on top of that. You just missed an opportunity to tell me to educate myself, though, shame.
Your social security being bound to your job when your employer can fire you for basically anything?
1) Your social security isn't "bound to your "job". Generally you get an allotment based on your average earnings over the past several quarters. So you have plenty of time to get a new job if needed, and unlike France the economy is actually good with plenty of jobs for those who want them because the labor market isn't all bound up by bullshit strikes. Wages are also much higher than France. You have 35+ working years to build up some credit with SS and it is highly balanced in favor of lower income workers.
2) it is absolutely good and moral that your employer should be able to fire you for any reason. Jsut as you should be able to quit for any reason. it is a mutually voluntary arrangement. And Europe's clinging to bullshit guildish "oh people shouldn't be able to be fired" norms is why their economy has been getting wrecked by the US economy for the past 100+ years.
>The exorbitant cost of healthcare in a country ravaged by diabetes, obesity and drug abuse?
Helathcare is super expensive here, that is a big issue in the US, though honestly when polled like 70%+ of people are happy with their individual healthcare and its costs. It isn't good and it is a big problem, but it also isn't the hellscape you are implying. Generally for similar levels of health Americans generally get higher quality care with more choices quicker than Frenchmen. But they and they employers (and the government) pay a lot for it.
3) The extreme wealth disparity and the nigh omnipotent plutocratic class?
Its not that extreme honestly, and is mostly driven by how good the well off are doing rather than how immiserated the poor are. US poor are actually doing fairly well. It is not clear to me that Musk or Zuckerberg having $50billion instead of $5billion like they would in France somehow makes the country worse. Also they definitely are not omnipotent.
There probably is a vocabulary mistranslation on my part, as “social security” means a lot of things related to health here. The rest we call unemployment benefits, social help etc. But again, I’m wasting my time being lectured and virtually screamed at here. Plus I despise your opinions about my country, so that makes us even, I guess.
I love France! I have been hiking the Camino in legs every summer for years now.
My sister and I love the French people we meet on the path, and sometimes we hike it with an old friend of hers who is French.
The French and Americans have pretty different ideas about work, which is fine! Different strokes for different folks.
I wasn’t replying to your comment, which was totally fine. People can express skepticism and/or disagreement in a calm and respectful manner, which is what you did.
Doing the chemin de St-Jacques is a great way to discover the country at a slow, nowadays almost forgotten pace. I never did it but was taught by my ex, who is a tour guide, how to recognize the shells on the walls and the pavement. I might do something similar one day, once my depression has gone and I no longer have the energy of an eighty-year-old man!
There are a lot of things I love about the US, including its landscapes and literature, and the English I speak is heavily influenced by Standard American. When I criticize a country, I usually have the culture and institutions in mind, which are different from individuals but influence them and are a construct of their motivations and actions. And I believe in nuance for every opinion, as in being a socialist/communist like myself but valuing private initiatives without legitimizing monopolies and not wanting an omnipotent state in the fashion of 20th century dictatorships either. It’s a shame Bernard Friot’s work isn’t better known abroad, he’s my kind of communist, tough on plutocrats but all for a decentralized state, with lots of joint management committees and worker owned funds. A lot of imo nice things we have in France we owe to the communists of the National Council of the Resistance, who pushed for free healthcare and education, among other things. And again, it’s not really free but the product of a collective effort to guarantee equal access to quality services all over the country. But it’s not everyday you have a world war and the energy of a traumatized society to bring about real change! Still, I think there are more distant societies than France and the US, and your New Deal is a source of inspiration for my political side, so there’s always something one can learn from the other.
I don’t know which country you live in. But I know that my country – the United States – has a grossly inadequate net for people who are infirm, old, or otherwise a basket case. I lived in Germany for a decade and I understood what you meant by “Social Security.“ In the US, it’s the scheme that provides a pension in old age.
(I’m leaving the capitalization in that last sentence because it shows how much that term defaults to a specific government program in my country. I’m using voice dictation for this comment.)
To pick up on another thing you wrote, the fact that infirm, old and mentally ill people are so disadvantaged tends to show how much social Darwinism is still a thing, as demonstrated by a series of petulant comments I’ve been honored with here.
I live in France. Germany has a similar safety net. Not related to the discussion but iirc, Germany was the first country to implement it. It was a strategic move by Bismarck to pull the rug out from under the socialists, whose idea it had been all along.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by one’s social security being tied to one’s job? Do you mean a person should be able to receive food, shelter, health care and other services without the ability to pay for it? Or do you mean actual social security monthly contributions?
“without the ability to pay for it”
Yes, because everyone paying taxes according to their respective resources makes it possible to access these basic services even when you are out of a job. It’s convenient, especially when everything is done to deprive you of a stable one, like nowadays.
You are supposed to provide yourself a stable job by developing some fucking skills someone wants to pay you for. The world doesn't owe you shit. Such a loser attitude. No wonder France hasn't accomplished anything in 80+ years.
Impressive example of right-wing American entitlement. You should actually be proud of us for having been your bitches since the end of WW2, but I won’t waste my precious time and energy answering that flood of bile. Hopefully life is good having the temper, social skills and socioeconomic reflections of a five-year-old. Not everyone deserves their leaders, but you certainly do yours.
I was hoping for a new episode :).
I really liked having Ben here and I hope he comes back- his reading is impeccable and hilarious. I wish you could get him to read every comment or unhinged tweet
I thought the hairy men with makeup were all non-binary.
And that’s how you know they’re perfectly safe to speak with kids all over the Internet.
OK--the Right won. Across the board, apparently. Can we all agree that they should focus on Using Taxpayer Money More Efficiently? Go ahead and keep the federal budgets where they are--just show me that you're squeezing every efficiency out of it.
I don't love taxes--but what I actually HATE is any money used inefficiently. Go ahead and keep the Dept of Education--just make sure it's focused on actual education and making actual learning happening. No distractions.
HHS? Ugh. Target your money on streamlining processes and expanding coverages--there are boatloads of money that can be saved and reallocated if we're serious about this.
The Military? Tough job--but put a spotlight on the pages of manuals, regulations, and whatever is getting in the way of making bullets and using them.
All of this will be hard, beyond comprehension, but let's start with a 1% efficiency goal, and stretch for 2%. That's HUGE if we can get it. Let's join forces, shall we?
could you please explain your Military comment? thanks!
Probably not well. The military's portion of the budget is huge, and I have the impression that it's beholden to a massive bureaucracy behind the front lines. The entire purpose of the military is to use bullets (or have them ready for use). Does that help?
I get it now. It's not too much bureaucracy actually, some of course. The military has some of the least of it in government cause it's not a democracy once you're in. The budget is for operations and maintenance and payroll/retirement, then bullets and equipment.
They are well ready to use the bullets, but luckily don't get to decide when they do. That's when the real bureaucracy starts, but not on their dime.
Katie's A.I. art is always amazing.
"It's a social experiment" is the slimmest and lamest alibi for failing at a social media gimmick.
Josh Seiter story starts at around 30:22 (or -25:32 if you're on your phone like this potato)
I’m not sure. I really understand the point of the second story so some nobody did something stupid nobody believed him and he got found out and that’s it in terms of Internet bullshit. There’s really not even a whole lot to go on with here then even pretty much predicted how the entire story was gonna go
This ranks with Jesse’s “ here a story about a zoomer who went to Afghanistan and made videos about it but bc he says 4chan memes sometimes he’s like just so totally cringe can’t you see how cringe he is? Like omg I’m so embarrassed. It depends I’m staying out of it let’s move on ”
Don't know who Josh Seiter is. Both sad and glad I saw the show notes and his transformation before listening to the episode. I guess I'll find out!
The guest attributes some of the Dems electoral woes to stuff from 2020... This is a pretty week take considering they won in 2020 and did better than one would expect given the circumstances in 2022.
I think you are misreading the situation. A lot of 2020 stuff hurt them. But other things helped them.
The election is a big rats nest of issues spread across a diverse population.
For even one single person when considering voting Democrat, it might look like:
Inflation -5 pts
Border control -20 pts
Trump is gross and unfit +10 pts
JAN 6 + 50 pts
trans issues -10 pts
Handling of 2020 -15 pts
Law and Order generally -20 pts
I like the ACA +5 pts
Worried about SS +20pts
And that is just some informal representation of one hypothetical voter's thoughts. In elections as close as ours are any one of those things if impacting enough people can be pointed to as "the tipping point". And even in the above example where the total is still a vote for Democrats, that doesn't mean their handling of COVID and the riots didn't hurt them.
Now obviously you might disagree, but to say that the fact they won in 2020 or 2022 means it wasn't something that hurt them is just missing how complex and multivariate elections like this are.
I would assign a much bigger negative score to inflation. Other than that, I think you’re on the mark.
In 2020, the Democrats were dealing with fresh memories of Trump’s incompetence, malevolence, grift, and general fuckery. Now, the only memory is of Biden‘s inflation at the pump and in the grocery store.
It was just meant to be a random example not a representative one.
I don’t think the truly average voter is thinking about so many things. Maybe your average terminally online voter. But most so called normies just know they’re vaguely a Democrat or Republican and vote that way every time they vote.
Maybe maybe not. I think a lot of people who don’t have very specific political beliefs still have thoughts on say crime and riots and prices and even if they don’t think about it much or even explicitly conceptualize it.
Why is everyone assuming this dude transitioning was a hoax? Why is everyone writing off the possibility he’s just fucking nuts and figuring it out as he goes?
We are in post-dignity America.
Ben’s commentary during this man’s sequence of videos was a delight. Though Jesus, the internet is a great tool for lunatics to play with.
I think this a good summation of the stupidity of claiming harris lost because woke identity politics. This is not to say that the reason many didn't for her isn't because these ascribed values and the broad perception dems being a bunch. out if touch, woke elites. It is just to say that this reasoning is really dumb... If that makes me elitist for not going along with popular opinions then have at me and call me a elitist. It won't move my opinion that this incredibly stupid and destructive politics. I hope this podcast doesn't just turn toowards more of the lefty outrage bait for the red pilled. Can we move away from the indulging the elitist vs non elitists rhetoric and think a little deeper? The way this comment section is trending continues to leave me with little optimism.
https://open.substack.com/pub/donmoynihan/p/who-is-allowed-to-practice-identity?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1dvvyx
I think this loses a lot of steam when it claims “but she never campaigned on this”. That just isn’t relevant to voters who’ve went:
Obama x2
Trump x3
Pro-Choice
Pro-Recreational Cannabis
There’s a non-trivial amount of these folks. Whether or not in the past 100 days, Harris specifically addressed the identity stuff doesn’t change that this is in the left zeitgeist and that’s how those voters perceive it. The idea that this even needs explained is baffling.
At one point the comment of “it’s very different than not throwing these people under the bus”. What exactly would that imply? You sub here so I assume you’re general understand Jesse’s fundamental concerns with the more zealot like beliefs with certain gender medicine. Why would Harris be throwing a population under the bus to cite Jesse when this is brought up?
“I want to say that I watch reality TV because that would make me sound more like a man.” Hahaha I knew you were a little trans!
Jesse's comment hearken back to the New Yorker cover which showed NYC, SF and LA on a map with a big void between them. New Yorkers especially believe that the area west of the Hudson and east of the coastal CA is full of rubes, dummies and inbred fascists.
To be fair, dismissing New Jersey is what everyone in the Northeast does for fun.
You don't need to take anything New Yorkers say seriously, especially the transplants. Most of them live there to say they live there and because they imagine their mere presence in the city makes them more worldly, cultured, and generally superior to anyone else. They're terrified of anything outside their hysterical bubble, and they think anyone between NYC, Chicago, and LA is flyover racist Mars with nothing to offer. They've never been anywhere due to that terror, and their lack of perspective is cripplingly obvious to everyone else. They're barely people. I hate them so much.
I don’t know what a $12 dollar loaf of bread looks like but I hope it involves gold leaf. I agree about the general vibe , this kinda goes to Katie’s point about dems talking to people that have been to Walmart.
It's probably got seed funding.
Jesse’s boss Katie needs to tell him that the price of a #VanLife van will be deducted from his next paycheck in order to purchase a van, from which he’s expected to report from a different flyover location each week for the next year.
In a more serious vein, I think Jesse would find lots of appreciation from legions of people in the Midwest who are basically sensible, in politics and in everything else.
SLC is only recently not a third world airport. =)
I miss Natural Grocers...produce on the east coast is just not nearly as good.
Feeld is a pretty odd reference 😂
(Actually not a bad plan. But maybe just 50%? 75%? Here, yes, but in a lot of other countries, too. Hopefully they'll see the wisdom.)