I'm not even one minute in and: "roving bands of sharia cops who are somehow both radical muslims and cosmopolitan democratic socialists, idek how it works"
Iran, 1979. Radical Muslim cosmopolitan communists took over a country with immense natural resources and human potential. 46 years later it's a literal shit hole. That's how it works.
Yeah, far be it from me to defend Mamdani in general, but I've seen zero evidence that he's a theocratic type, so joking around does seem to me more appropriate than a serious comparison to Iran in 1979.
True, I still highly doubt i will draw similar conclusion the commentor. I don't feel like I need much information to know this is probably an absurd comparison. But i could be wrong. Maybe there's a lot of highly knowledgeable people drawing this same comparison. I really doubt it, but maybe
I leave some room for an open mind by acknowledging my own ignorance to the subject. But I am not going to treat the claim with credulity because just on its face it comes across absurd. I get disagreeing with mamdani's policies or public statements, but people attempting to take the most maximalist position against are coming across clownish. This attempt to draw comparison to the downfall of Iran sounds absurd. The comments in support or this claim only make it sound more absurd.
I have nothing against doing a deep dive into Iranian history, but i don't think this comment thread will inspire me to do so. Maybe that also makes me arrogant
Because a lot of BARPod listeners are brainrot fake centrists who like BARPod when it criticizes left-wing nonsense and hate it when it criticizes right-wing nonsense. They are insufferable.
Did you even finish reading the wiki article about the Iranian revolution? Communists worked with islamists to overthrow the shah and then were IMMEDIATELY betrayed, persecuted and destroyed. Do they deserve judgement for not seeing that coming? Sure. But the reason Iran is a hellhole now is due to theocratic rule and also the extermination of its own intelligentsia.
It’s depressing. I just wanted somewhere that treats trans stuff and other woke issues with openminded scepticism, what I got was the same hysterical echo chamber shit revolving around Israel and Muslims. I guess partly the woke stuff is irrelevant enough now that there’s less push for sane people to places like this, so the crazies start to dominate.
Every online social environment ends up being an echo chamber fairly quickly. People like social spaces that reflect their beliefs or tendencies. The trick is to subscribe to multiple echo chambers with different views or vibes. It's really the only way to somewhat obtain balance on Internet social spaces.
Same brand of Islam, same subterfuge of leftism. The parallels are scary, but Iran was a pretty Islamic society, and New York is not the seat of power of the United States. Mamdani doesn't have the authority or power to orchestrate a coup. He seems most concerned with Israel, and New York is the seat of the UN. He has already sworn to arrest Netanyahu if he shows up.
His transition team are all Zionist-friendly executives from the Ford Foundation, the FTC, & the Bloomberg & De Blasio administrations. The situation is in no way comparable to revolutionary Iran. These comparisons strike me as the kind of hyperbole BARpodians usually condemn if coming from the mouth of oh, say, a blue haired, trans flag wearing, masked, be-caned they/them.
Mamdani and the DSA are not "friendly to Zionism". It is actually pretty clear from both of their actions that anti-zionism is their *top* priority. I don't confuse Mamdani's discipline on the campaign trail with honesty. In an interview with Medhi Hasan, early on in the pre-campaign phase, he was unequivocal about *his intent to use his position as mayor to arrest the Israeli head of state*. He has even doubled down on this position https://katv.com/news/nation-world/mamdani-doubles-down-on-vow-to-arrest-netanyahu-if-he-visits-new-york-city-israel-hamas-genocide. Mamdani is the mayor in the city that hosts the UN. Can you come up with any explanation for this that isn't extremism? This is already a coup. The mayor of New York does not decide what treaties we are party to.
As an assemblyman, he (and the DSA) sponsored a bill to make it illegal for charities to give money to organizations (1 million dollar fine and revocation of your tax status) that have been found to have violated the rome statute, but only if those organizations are Israeli. This is a grave violation of the principle of equality under the law. It is us vs them extremism, and the most plausible explanation fo that extremism is his religious views.
Convincing gullible leftists that you "are on their side" by promising them free shit is basically the oldest play in the book. The problem is not the amount of power that Mamdani has amassed as mayor of New York, but that this pattern repeats itelf.
Look at his transition team, and tell me who they are. Go ahead. Go ahead and tell me all about it. They aren't the DSA, who only serve as a Dem onramp anyway. Obama called him, Alex Soros is hanging with him, he's not arresting Bibi, he's as authentically radical as AOC. It's patently absurd to suggest that the people who he has named are radical Islamists.
I don't consider a transition team to be particularly strong evidence of anything.
The hypothesis that his radicalism is inauthentic is a pretty far fucking cry from "there's nothing to worry about", which was where you started. He's been a radical since he was a teenager, with a solitary focus on Israel. All of the political capital that he has accumulated seems to get spent on extreme positions on Israel. This is a pattern that it is *stupid* to brush off as inauthentic just because he hired Lina Khan while everyone is watching.
Sorry, but his past is just much stronger evidence of his intent than the present.
I rarely venture into the BARpod comment sections, be it here or on reddit. However, whenever I do, I'm struck by the contrast between the very level headed, rational podcast hosts and the bottom tier hysterical ideologues in the comments.
This is always my story for my friends who are too romantic about revolution. The Islamist would have not won without the leftist, and they were the ones they slaughterer first
Well to be fair the communists in Iran were planning to do away with/marginalize the Islamist element. They happened to underestimate them and lost the power struggle. A little too Stalinist in their thinking.
I glad so many people want to live in cities. Somebody has to do it. You could offer to pay my rent in nicest apartment in the middle of Seattle, New york or wherever and I wouldn't take you up on that offer. I am happy with visiting the big city maybe 5 times a year.
That being said, I get viscerally annoyed with this sentiment that people should just move out of these expensive places. Granted, I am not really thinking about the downtowns of the big cities when this is being said. I am thinking of the surrounding small towns that also explode in price.
I am 4th generation washingtonian and grew up and live in small town washington. I grew up in the 90s and early 200s, when logging was on the decline and tech was on the rise and the california techies were infiltrating every nook and crannie. Small towns were losing there local economy and becoming bedroom communities for people commuting to Seattle for work.
I grew up fucking hating this tech boom and the people who moved here for it. I have moderated on this a bit, recognizing it is complicated, but some of that sentiment of "well why don't you just move if you can't afford it", or "why don't you learn to code" bullshit still makes my blood boil. All i can think fuck you why don't move and stop pretending like doing us a favor you smug piece of shit. Sorry, but it touches a nerve.
I often like ezra klein and the kind of abundance bro narrative. However, I start to turn on them when take this out of touch cosmopolitan view points. Like all of you toothless Hicks would be so much happier when us outsiders move into your community and teach you how to be civilized. I know they don't say that exactly, but man sometimes it comes across like that.
I am probably overly sensitive, but i get touch listening to jesse and katie talk sometimes.
Exactly. It’s fine to not like the city yourself, but implying that people who really want to live there are just weirdos that you’re superior to is obnoxious.
Hey I grew up in the SF Bay Area where a lot of these California techies come from and I feel exactly the same way! Like it warps the economy in such a significant way it becomes difficult for non techies to live in the same area.
The other issue is that a city populated solely by upper class professionals can’t function properly! Someone has to take the bins out, someone has to teach the kids, someone has to man the fire engines. Cities are economic hubs that consume huge amounts of labour from all classes; they need to provide housing for people who aren’t managers.
Meanwhile the students were annoyed that the townies were all looking down their noses at us, despite the University being the only reason their town was solvent, while simultaneously raping us on rent in shithole housing because building new stock would “ruin the aesthetic”.
Yeah, Katie, someone in their 40s who owns two houses and who can afford to take time off to drive across the country twice a year for a dog, saying just move based on her lifestyle in her 20s and early 30s before establishing a career is a bit much.
Yes, ultimately things change and it is not worth holding onto bitterness. Everybody is just trying to better their lot in life and we have to make space for others. And there's an ugly side to nativist thinking that I try to avoid. I think there are a lot of pros and cons to balance in this debate.
My father in law moved here from a small town in Arkansas that has had declining or stagnant population for the last 50 years. When I complain about the gentrification, he always says he would rather live in booming town than a dying town. He's probably right.
But I do think the tech boom brought a lot negatives. I hated seeing the sprawling growth that transformed woods to housing developments and changed rural ares into something their not. People with wealth bring a lot entitlement. It was annoying to have somebody move to a rural area and complain barking dogs, chainsaws and roosters. The old square bodied trucks turn into audis, the flannels turn into sweaters and the local shops turn into chain stores. It felt like a takeover.
And of course it priced out a lot of people. I know it's complicated, because it also brought a lot jobs. It has supported booming construction and service industry for years that has kept a lot rural communities a float. But it is annoying that so many have to commute to the city for employment.
I now live far enough away from the city that commuting is not even an option. My closest town has not quite felt the same impacts from the tech boom. It has felt the impacts of declining timber industry and a reluctant shift towards tourism economy. It bears more of the marks of economic hardship, but has kept a lot culture.
It is mix bag overall and everything changes. I try not to hold onto bitterness, even though some of it feels justified.
"I start to turn on them when take this out of touch cosmopolitan view points. Like all of you toothless Hicks would be so much happier when us outsiders move into your community and teach you how to be civilized. I know they don't say that exactly, but man sometimes it comes across like that." -- I read you to be attributing this to Klein and the other Abundance promoters, and this isn't at all what they are saying or the kind of tone they use. (I also certainly don't here that from J&K.)
No I don't think they endorse that view. It is entirely reading into it based on my own vibes and I admit.
Why i feel this why conversation comes from their stance pro growth democrats. I largely agree with much what they in the stance of growth being a good thing, but I think they don't really understand what it feels like be on the negative side of that growth. I don't understand why people don't like this from on a visceral level.
I think they understand yes people don't like change, but in there discussions they don't get it. It comes across as out of touch.
I think when J&K joked about needing to uproot when things become unaffordable, that triggers a similar reaction in myself. Sure not everyone can just live in nicest place, but it really suck when you have been somewhere for awhile and feel like you're getting forced out and people blind to it.
I don't think J&K, or ezra for that matter would disagree exactly with my sentiment expressed in my statement exactly. I just think they sometimes can come across tone deaf in their discussion of it. I am not claiming this to be rational reaction, but I do personally get triggered (for lack of a better word) sometimes in these discussions.
I do believe there are real trade offs to the pro growth, abundance agenda. I don't have well thought through ways of addressing those trade offs. But I do feel the effects of it
I think their focus is somewhat different from yours. Like yes, sure, they think housing should be easier to build in places with a shortage of housing (and I think they are more focused on urban and--in various places--suburban), but because the people are already there, and to make it more affordable so ideally people don't have to leave. But a lot of Abundance goes beyond housing and is about the inability to build things in a timely or cost effective manner. Stuff like expanding public transit in places that have it, for example. (Or Ezra's pet frustration, that CA is supposedly wanting to build but unable to build high-speed rail.)
J&K were saying that not everyone (every artsy recent graduate) who wants to live in NYC necessarily can afford to move there, and that's okay. I don't see that as necessarily analogous to someone whose rural town becomes a 'burb (or a vacation hub or some such) and gets "gentrified." Also, in that I am in Chicago, I think gentrification is really good in many cases -- Chicago has a shortage of housing because lots of the city are places you wouldn't want to live. It would be better overall if that were not the case, but the fear of new unwanted people moving in is an issue (and inconsistent with the claim that it's evil those places suffer from under-investment).
Also I take your point with Chicago. I have not lived in an area that is experiencing degrowth. I wouldn't advocate for it and I could see how gentrification could help those areas. There are tradeoffs to be had
I don't disagree the abundance agenda broadly. I would like a more effective government that can do and build things. I agree with them that too much red tape has handicapped the government. I don't even really disagree with them on the housing issue. I think we need more affordable housing with denser developments in more urban areas and mixed developments. I am familiar with all there arguments, but what I hear of it I generally do agree.
What i am expressing against abundance is more reactionary than substantive. And it doesn't apply to all of the abundance narrative, but it does apply to very pro growth optimism and this idea that we failed to build enough in the past decades and that's why things are unaffordable.
Even if that is true, I have had hard time stomaching it as someone who grew up in an area impacted by urban growth. It was often fed as "progress", but i hated it on a visceral level. My frustration with the abundance narrative is less about the substance of what they say and more that I feel that they connect with the viewpoint that is resistant to such growth. At least feel real to me. I think part of that is because they come from the more cosmopolitan areas and it doesn't feel like they connect with rural culture and roots.
When j&k express the sentiment that people don't have the right to live places they can't afford, it gives also gives me mixed feelings. Yes i get desirable places will cost more and you shouldn't complain when you choose to live in the ritzy spot. But I also feel compelled to push back against this phenomenon where just becuase a place becomes desirable, they get to drive up the cost and in turn drive people out of those areas. This is very different from the abundance argument I should acknowledge.
There's a part of that feels wrong on a moral level. Also, you create this homogeneous areas full of uptight rich people that just suck and ruin the character of an area. We want communities that can support people from all walks of life. This is a part of the abundance argument I can really get behind.
I don't even know if j&k would disagree with this. To be fair, I don't feel like they come across as stuffy rich people. Sometimes they come across a little yuppie for my taste, but still down to earth.
I recognize this might come across as a little incoherent, but again I will own this as bit of a conflicted, vibes based reactionary take
Paused to say, Lauren Duca seems really annoying and perhaps even disingenuous, but Carlson was being condescending in that clip. He knew, because his producers would indeed have told him, prior to the segment, that she writes for Teen Vogue. There was no other reason to add "I guess" to that except to to be a preening ass. I can't stand him.
Thank you. He was obviously baiting her. Though it made me think of that Zoolander scene where Derek goes, “luckily not too many people I know have heard of your little Time magazine or whatever.”
I agree, but Lauren would have been better off to make a quick comment about how obvious that should be since he had her article right in front of him, and moved on. Live and learn (and apparently convert to Christianity?) though
i mean, good for her? i also heard she married a woman. lesbian christian sounds actually like a very healthy arc for her. personalities like that need something bigger to ground themselves in.
the thing about Lauren Duca that struck me is just how young she was when all of that went down. I'm two years younger than her, so broadly a contemporary, and remember feeling a bit jealous when she got famous like that at 25. but in the fullness of time, i am unbelievably grateful for how anonymous i have remained. she epitomized a really dated and particular type of #resistance feminism and crashed out SO publicly. in my mid-twenties i was also a hot mess express, so i'm incredibly glad no one put me on fox news or gave me a college class or a book deal...i'd rather memory hole the entire era!
Yeah there is 0 reason to add the 'I guess' except to be a prick. His claim he said 'I guess' because he doesn't read Teen Vogue is a dodge. He doesn't read the Sunday Times but wouldn't do that to one of their writers.
Obviously I would say to someone "don't take the bait" but she's young and probably in a position to benefit from sparring with Tucker, so I suspect they both got what they wanted out of the exchange.
The 2020 era hostage statement apology needs to be the inspiration for a collected volume of such apologia. What a bizarre genre in a bizarre moment in time.
As always, Jesse is not only incapable of understanding the Jewish anti-Mamdani perspective, but not even aware of the existence and size of his blind spot. Jesse, you understand Jewish matters about as deeply as Zaid Jilani.
Jesse considers the use of “globalize the intifada” and blaming NYPD violence on the IDF as criticisms of Israel. It’s embarrassingly idiotic and I’m baffled by him on this
Charitably: he has a high bar for doing or appearing to basically reasonable observers to be doing Jewish identity politics. He's the kind of proverbial frog who would jump out of the proverbial about-to-be-boiling water closer to the last minute than I think is prudent for Jews right now. But he actually would jump out.
It's not his main beat and so he's really just one more Jew making his way through it, and I think it's fair to treat him as such, even if I disagree with him.
He's one guy. He's really good on his main beats, most of what he does on this podcast and his blog. Better than 99% of journalists out there. He's not Norman Finklestein or Peter Beinert on Zionism and antisemitism. Like many "soyboy Jews" he can come across to more strident folks like you and I as "don't hit me I'm one of the good ones" and I can see how that rankles. But I don't know his motivations and I don't want to guess at them, he does correctly understand its complicated (yes, Palestinianism is cause #1, but it's still complicated), and I think it's worth not getting any more upset about it than necessary because it's not that important as such.
A lot of the people that use that phrase literally do believe that they are just saying “free oppressed people everywhere!” The same with “from the river to the sea”
Remember they are idealistic sheltered students primarily. Peaceniks.
So, should we take them based on what they mean when they say it, or based one what other people perceive which is much more violent?
Well we’re talking specifically about Mamdani. He should understand the origin and meaning of the saying, we’re not talking about ignorant freshmen at university. Also can’t use that reasoning regarding NYPD violence
He didn’t say it himself - We are talking about whether he did something wrong by not condemning other people for saying it.
Mamdani is not condemning the college kids because he knows they meant peacenik-y stuff by it.
In an ideal world would I like him and others to take a nuanced public position like “while you may mean ‘free all oppressed people’ some Jewish people hear ‘exterminate all Jews everywhere’ so it would be better to use other slogans” that’s not really realistic politically.
He did take active steps to condemn antisemitism. I don’t but that he is anti semetic even if he is not as pro-Israel as I might prefer.
I’m honestly more concerned about the economic policies. Rent control for example always ends up benefitting the rich in the end.
I’m essentially in full agreement with you. A good man would have condemned it, but a shrewd/cynical politician can’t in his position. Based on his other statements, there’s also a reasonable chance he agrees with the slogan. And yes, his economic policies will be a major disaster
Correct, but he should have condemned it. But he didn’t, either for cynical political reasons or he agrees with the slogan. Either way, using the phrase is not “criticism of Israel.”
This (reform!) Rabbi met with Mamdani, and believes or claims to believe that opposition to Jewish self-determination anywhere in Israel/Palestine is the fundamental to his politics.
Relevant excerpt (I copy-pasted a part of the transcript)
"At our August meeting,
we discussed security for Jewish
institutions.
We reminded Mr. Mandani that Jews are
disproportionately targeted for hate
crimes far more than any other minority.
We expressed the anxieties,
even fears of New York Jews that his
mayoralty would increase the risks to
the Jewish community.
Mr. Mandani responded that he would not
reduce policing around Jewish
institutions.
If anything, he said he would increase
police presence if necessary.
I took that answer at face value.
I believed him.
First, because he does not strike me as a
person who enjoys seeing Jews suffer.
But beyond that,
it's not in his political interest to
reduce security.
If, heaven forbid,
there was a catastrophic attack against
a Jewish institution with significant
casualties and it would be traced back
to the reduction of police presence
around that Jewish institution for
ideological reasons.
it would severely compromise his mealty
and harm the brand that Mandani and his
allies are seeking to build.
So I took what he said at face value.
But remember,
our safety
is not dependent on how many security
personnel safeguard Jewish buildings.
It's first and foremost
connected to the general environment in
this city.
An atmosphere of tolerance, coexistence,
and camaraderie.
You could put 50 police officers outside
this building.
If the overall atmosphere in New York is
hostile to Jews,
it will severely threaten Jewish safety
everywhere in the city every day.
"
In other words: don't be surprised if the phrase Jesse encountered at that party - "Are you a Zionist?" - becomes a lot more common, and hope it doesn't go beyond that.
"If the overall atmosphere in New York is hostile to Jews, it will severely threaten Jewish safety everywhere in the city every day."
This is basically true of course, if slightly overstated, but certainly a general attitude of hostility towards a minority group can increase or be reflected in an increase of hostile acts against members or perceived members of that group. I've seen it with Hispanics, trans and GNC people, and Black people, and women as-a-class, and Muslims, and even White people, and even Jews. We can all probably think of an example of this that happened to people outside of any group that we inhabit.
And also there are real issues that some bigotries sometimes get masked by, but which are still very real. Mass migration from the south, wild-ass gender theories reified in policy, crime in cities, NEETs, radical Islam, racism, our best friend nations doing crimes (on our dimes!), these are all social problems that we have to grapple with, as a society. And we have words for people/ideologies that support these social ills (or are at least seem opposed to dealing with them), like "Open Borders", "gender radicals", "abolish the police", etc etc. Some of those terms are contested to be sure. Promoters may have more subtle (or sanguine) perspectives than their opponents accuse them of having, right or wrong. And we have have the perennial problem where whole broad demographic groups do sometimes get smeared as promoters of these social ills.
But for me at least, I can't blind my eyes to the ills of the world because sometimes assholes think their bigotries are the solution. I can't take seriously the proposal that being against, idk, urban crime, means I must/should be racist, but neither can I deny that bigots will mask their biases in language that feigns concern about issues. Not sure much what you can do but call it out when you see it, stick up for people, and carry on. I've been in groups where instead we indulged racial anxieties and paranoia, and while I'm empathetic to it, it gets counter-productive quick, as whole episodes on this very podcast can attest.
Jesse has fallen for, "But he has Jewish friends!" without understanding that antisemitism is, at its core, a conspiracy theory that Jews stand between the world and redemption, a theory that Mamdani has embraced wholeheartedly as the center of his political ideology.
Jesse seems to have a bit of a weird relationship to Judaism and Jewish people in general. It’s almost like there’s a little bit of contempt towards the Jewish community and Jewish issues. He’s Jewish when he can make jokes about it, but it doesn’t seem like he has much appreciation for Jewish culture, religion, or history. Let us not forget that the only regular host of this podcast who has appeared on Ask a Jew is Katie!
Thank you - I swear for such a smart guy it is baffling to me how bad of a blind spot he has towards anything Jewish. Every time he mentions anything related to a Jewish matter I have to shut it off
I edited Lauren Duca when she was still at HuffPo - she was freelancing for The Frisky, where Nico Lang put her in touch with me. She was genuinely a dream to work with as a freelancer and took edits so incredibly well but I have to point out how hilarious it is that part of the story about her involves her blowing up over someone unfollowing her on Twitter because SHE DID THE SAME THING WITH ME. I got so incredibly self-conscious about and envious of her success and just quietly unfollowed her on social to protect myself from FOMO, and she somehow was paying enough attention to her followers to notice, and she sort of unleashed on me for it and refused to talk to me ever again. It was honestly so jarring that I've been wondering if I actually did something that bad for like 10 years, I'm so glad to know that this was a her problem LOL. Anyway I found Jesus too but I don't think I'll reach out 😆
I know, when I unfollowed her it never would have occurred to me that anyone would get angry enough about an unfollow to verbally ream them in a DM. Sounds like getting more offline was probably a good move for her
I wanted to see what Calla Walsh was up to recently, and I found an interview with her on the podcast Millennials Are Killing Capitalism. They were discussing the role of militant tactics and she shared this self-aware nugget of wisdom: "Obviously our movement isn't prepared for that [referring to guerilla warfare]. I don't even know how to drive a car. We clearly have a lot of tactical skills to build up." So I think there is some work to do before the revolution.
Jesse, VOTE. Even if you hate every candidate, write in somebody, anybody. That lowers the winner’s margin of victory, which shows they have less of a mandate and reflect the beliefs of less of the city. It matters if somebody wins with a landslide vs a plurality.
I voted for Peter Moskos who I follow on Twitter, and was a write in candidate. Sad that Jesse did not participate in his civic duty, really poor form.
Really not getting the people calling Mamdani charismatic, etc. The guy grins a lot, that's all I see. Actually reminds me of a character from the Warren Ellis comic Transmetropolitan, politician nicknamed the Smiler.
I saw a trailer once for a horror movie called "Smile." It's the only thing I can think of when I see a clip of Mamdani. (Well, that and being glad I don't live in NYC.)
IDK it's quite clear he has a way of talking to people and explaining his positions. He certainly does have a youthful exuberance which isn't much compared to the dinosaurs we usually get foisted on us.
Just listening to the episode, but coincidentally have just finished to the BBCs ‘Anatomy of a Cancellation’.
It was enjoyable, but like so many of these kinds of reflections there’s a gaping hole that is really unhelpful in terms of people getting a handle on it.
On the one hand it’s a pretty typical cancellation story/purity spiral, but you can’t really understand it if you don’t realise the degree to which her ‘critics’ are coming from a highly academic, highly ideological version of ‘anti racism’, one that would just seem weird to 99% of people of any background if they’re not immersed in that highly elite activist mindset. There was a period when they were able to use their identity to gaslight normies who obviously didn’t what to appear like bigots. The BBC did hint at the ideological perspective, but broadly just left it appearing like people of a particular background responding to something with their own personal take. The reality is the criticism of the book is just nuts if you don’t filter it through a very narrow ideological perspective.
Nah he got his start in politics through Students for Justice in Palestine. He didn’t come to this issue in the last couple of years. He knows what he’s saying and why it’s offensive. He just didn’t care before he was running so there’s a lot of tape of him saying crazy shit. When he had to win, he moderated. I’m fairly optimistic he will stay on that track as mayor even if it’s not genuine.
He’s not some jihadist. He’s a dirtbag leftist. That’s his milieu. The Islamophobic saber rattling is offensive and embarassing. His politics are kind of rancid because he’s DSA, not Muslim Brotherhood.
I tend to think Jews would be wise to be on alert. I though this sermon was sane. He met with Zohran and seems convinced Anti-Zionism is fundamental to his politics. Casual "Are you a Zionist" type social pressure is likely to go up even if no greater number of synagogues get attacked. https://youtu.be/kFkmR7AW-HU
Getting his start in an Pro-Palestinian activist group doesn't speak to him having any additional knowledge compared to the avg person.
I find that 99% of people who identify themselves this way, or even who are very active in these groups, know precious little about the actual conflict or it's history.
Subterfuge, and specifically subterfuge about one's religion, is not only allowed in Twelver Islam, but encouraged. The Jihadism that Americans are familiar with is Sunni, where concealing one's faith is forbidden. A better model for Shi'a extremism is Iran, where, lets see... Ah yes, fanatical Twelvers pretending to be cosmopolitan communists took over the country in a coup and turned it into, well, modern day Iran. You have no evidence one way or the other of Mamdani's religiosity, because Twelvism has no compulsion to produce it.
Taqqiya allows someone to hide their faith to avoid danger, over broadening its meaning to paint every Muslim as conspiring to destroy your civilization is fucking crazy.
Do almost all autocrats not tell their population that they’re going to be repressive before they seize power? Yes, and there are plenty of examples of non Muslims doing the exact same thing.
Allying with communists, whatever that entails, is most certainly religiously justified as taqqiya, Iran isn't a communist country, and yet the Mullahs allied with the communists to overthrow the Shah, then persecuted the communists.
I don't think that this is what is likely to happen in New York. I'm saying that there's plenty of precedent for Twelver extremists concealing their faith to various ends, and that you have *no evidence* that Mamdani is not one.
The secret jihadist narrative does seem very unlikely to me. The dedicated third-worldist one though? more legs. He might just be as radically third-worldist and even communist as he can practically get away with. In his victory speech, he said "we believe there's no problem too big for government to solve" which, what, we're supposed to take him seriously not literally I guess? Cause that's at least bizarro-world-trump-level batshit.
Cuomo also really messed up NY's Covid response. He forced nursing homes to take in patients that were infected with SARS-Cov2 and infectious which caused a bunch of outbreaks in nursing homes. That resulted in preventable covid deaths because nursing home residents are most likely to die of Covid. Then they underrepresented the death toll. And I'm not even going into how he was threatening to have people arrested for refusing to cooperate with the health department's contact tracing. I know plenty of heavy MSNBC watchers who insist that he was great on Covid, and it's all unfair to him but there are also plenty of people who lost family members because Cuomo forced nursing homes to take infectious patients.
>Cuomo also really messed up NY's Covid response. He forced nursing homes to take in patients that were infected with SARS-Cov2 and infectious which caused a bunch of outbreaks in nursing homes.
Forced to take them from where? I ask because the UK also did this, specifically in the context of discharging people from hospital into care homes. But I am not sure if this was just a horrifyingly pragmatic trade off rather than outright malice or incompetence. Of course nobody can honestly discuss it so I guess we will never know.
He required the nursing homes to accept patients discharged from a hospital who were SARS-Cov2 and medically stable even if the nursing homes could not safely isolate them. The nursing homes were refusing to take these patients because they couldn't be certain that this wouldn't trigger an outbreak. At the time, the fight was really public and the nursing homes lost and there were a number of outbreaks in nursing homes. What made it worse was that the Cuomo administration underreported Covid deaths in nursing homes, in part because they thought it would give the Trump administration a reason to criticize it.
That sounds awful but realistically to keep an older person in a hospital bed they didn't need in the middle of a pandemic isn't great either. It isn't like the hospital would be able to effectively isolate and they have all the same risks if not greater.
To me the problem here is the inability to have an honest conversation about the trade offs involved in these decisions. Falsifying data is terrible but somebody had to choose the lesser evil and there was probably no real way to know which was the better option, the public want a right or wrong answer though. It's tough.
I'm not even one minute in and: "roving bands of sharia cops who are somehow both radical muslims and cosmopolitan democratic socialists, idek how it works"
Iran, 1979. Radical Muslim cosmopolitan communists took over a country with immense natural resources and human potential. 46 years later it's a literal shit hole. That's how it works.
I don't know much about Mamdani or Iran, but this comparison sounds absurd to me
Yeah, far be it from me to defend Mamdani in general, but I've seen zero evidence that he's a theocratic type, so joking around does seem to me more appropriate than a serious comparison to Iran in 1979.
you're free to read and learn more about it :)
True, I still highly doubt i will draw similar conclusion the commentor. I don't feel like I need much information to know this is probably an absurd comparison. But i could be wrong. Maybe there's a lot of highly knowledgeable people drawing this same comparison. I really doubt it, but maybe
Better to begin exploring a topic with an open mind, than predetermining your opinion based on vibes.
I leave some room for an open mind by acknowledging my own ignorance to the subject. But I am not going to treat the claim with credulity because just on its face it comes across absurd. I get disagreeing with mamdani's policies or public statements, but people attempting to take the most maximalist position against are coming across clownish. This attempt to draw comparison to the downfall of Iran sounds absurd. The comments in support or this claim only make it sound more absurd.
I have nothing against doing a deep dive into Iranian history, but i don't think this comment thread will inspire me to do so. Maybe that also makes me arrogant
You don't need to deep dive to find out that OP is chatting utter bollocks.
Why are the episode comments section always full of dumb shit like this?
Sorry for being Iranian and knowing history I guess 🤷
Because a lot of BARPod listeners are brainrot fake centrists who like BARPod when it criticizes left-wing nonsense and hate it when it criticizes right-wing nonsense. They are insufferable.
Did you even finish reading the wiki article about the Iranian revolution? Communists worked with islamists to overthrow the shah and then were IMMEDIATELY betrayed, persecuted and destroyed. Do they deserve judgement for not seeing that coming? Sure. But the reason Iran is a hellhole now is due to theocratic rule and also the extermination of its own intelligentsia.
Shouldn't be a surprise, but once again barpods top comment is asinine
It’s depressing. I just wanted somewhere that treats trans stuff and other woke issues with openminded scepticism, what I got was the same hysterical echo chamber shit revolving around Israel and Muslims. I guess partly the woke stuff is irrelevant enough now that there’s less push for sane people to places like this, so the crazies start to dominate.
Every online social environment ends up being an echo chamber fairly quickly. People like social spaces that reflect their beliefs or tendencies. The trick is to subscribe to multiple echo chambers with different views or vibes. It's really the only way to somewhat obtain balance on Internet social spaces.
Same brand of Islam, same subterfuge of leftism. The parallels are scary, but Iran was a pretty Islamic society, and New York is not the seat of power of the United States. Mamdani doesn't have the authority or power to orchestrate a coup. He seems most concerned with Israel, and New York is the seat of the UN. He has already sworn to arrest Netanyahu if he shows up.
His transition team are all Zionist-friendly executives from the Ford Foundation, the FTC, & the Bloomberg & De Blasio administrations. The situation is in no way comparable to revolutionary Iran. These comparisons strike me as the kind of hyperbole BARpodians usually condemn if coming from the mouth of oh, say, a blue haired, trans flag wearing, masked, be-caned they/them.
Mamdani and the DSA are not "friendly to Zionism". It is actually pretty clear from both of their actions that anti-zionism is their *top* priority. I don't confuse Mamdani's discipline on the campaign trail with honesty. In an interview with Medhi Hasan, early on in the pre-campaign phase, he was unequivocal about *his intent to use his position as mayor to arrest the Israeli head of state*. He has even doubled down on this position https://katv.com/news/nation-world/mamdani-doubles-down-on-vow-to-arrest-netanyahu-if-he-visits-new-york-city-israel-hamas-genocide. Mamdani is the mayor in the city that hosts the UN. Can you come up with any explanation for this that isn't extremism? This is already a coup. The mayor of New York does not decide what treaties we are party to.
As an assemblyman, he (and the DSA) sponsored a bill to make it illegal for charities to give money to organizations (1 million dollar fine and revocation of your tax status) that have been found to have violated the rome statute, but only if those organizations are Israeli. This is a grave violation of the principle of equality under the law. It is us vs them extremism, and the most plausible explanation fo that extremism is his religious views.
The DSA leadership is, likewise, openly in support of Hamas. Here is their co-chair tweeting it, https://cmcdn.canarymission.org/api/media/file/Megan_Romer_May_24_2024_X-747x430.webp
Convincing gullible leftists that you "are on their side" by promising them free shit is basically the oldest play in the book. The problem is not the amount of power that Mamdani has amassed as mayor of New York, but that this pattern repeats itelf.
Look at his transition team, and tell me who they are. Go ahead. Go ahead and tell me all about it. They aren't the DSA, who only serve as a Dem onramp anyway. Obama called him, Alex Soros is hanging with him, he's not arresting Bibi, he's as authentically radical as AOC. It's patently absurd to suggest that the people who he has named are radical Islamists.
I don't consider a transition team to be particularly strong evidence of anything.
The hypothesis that his radicalism is inauthentic is a pretty far fucking cry from "there's nothing to worry about", which was where you started. He's been a radical since he was a teenager, with a solitary focus on Israel. All of the political capital that he has accumulated seems to get spent on extreme positions on Israel. This is a pattern that it is *stupid* to brush off as inauthentic just because he hired Lina Khan while everyone is watching.
Sorry, but his past is just much stronger evidence of his intent than the present.
Hamas operative Grace Bonilla. Hezbollah commander Melanie Hertzog. Noted Houthi Maria Torres-Springer. I could go on...
I rarely venture into the BARpod comment sections, be it here or on reddit. However, whenever I do, I'm struck by the contrast between the very level headed, rational podcast hosts and the bottom tier hysterical ideologues in the comments.
This is always my story for my friends who are too romantic about revolution. The Islamist would have not won without the leftist, and they were the ones they slaughterer first
Well to be fair the communists in Iran were planning to do away with/marginalize the Islamist element. They happened to underestimate them and lost the power struggle. A little too Stalinist in their thinking.
Mamdani is about as much of an "Islamist" as I am a Catholic.
He is in the queer part of the queers for Palestine alliance. Not an Islamist, but more in line with Islamists that capitalists.
Can you explain what made the 1979 revolutionaries “cosmopolitan”?
They were one of the groups against the government
https://www.queermajority.com/essays-all/by-any-means-necessary
But other than that it was leftists!
God forbid an author
"centers themselves" in a memoir LOL.....
I glad so many people want to live in cities. Somebody has to do it. You could offer to pay my rent in nicest apartment in the middle of Seattle, New york or wherever and I wouldn't take you up on that offer. I am happy with visiting the big city maybe 5 times a year.
That being said, I get viscerally annoyed with this sentiment that people should just move out of these expensive places. Granted, I am not really thinking about the downtowns of the big cities when this is being said. I am thinking of the surrounding small towns that also explode in price.
I am 4th generation washingtonian and grew up and live in small town washington. I grew up in the 90s and early 200s, when logging was on the decline and tech was on the rise and the california techies were infiltrating every nook and crannie. Small towns were losing there local economy and becoming bedroom communities for people commuting to Seattle for work.
I grew up fucking hating this tech boom and the people who moved here for it. I have moderated on this a bit, recognizing it is complicated, but some of that sentiment of "well why don't you just move if you can't afford it", or "why don't you learn to code" bullshit still makes my blood boil. All i can think fuck you why don't move and stop pretending like doing us a favor you smug piece of shit. Sorry, but it touches a nerve.
I often like ezra klein and the kind of abundance bro narrative. However, I start to turn on them when take this out of touch cosmopolitan view points. Like all of you toothless Hicks would be so much happier when us outsiders move into your community and teach you how to be civilized. I know they don't say that exactly, but man sometimes it comes across like that.
I am probably overly sensitive, but i get touch listening to jesse and katie talk sometimes.
Exactly. It’s fine to not like the city yourself, but implying that people who really want to live there are just weirdos that you’re superior to is obnoxious.
Yeah, something like that
Hey I grew up in the SF Bay Area where a lot of these California techies come from and I feel exactly the same way! Like it warps the economy in such a significant way it becomes difficult for non techies to live in the same area.
The other issue is that a city populated solely by upper class professionals can’t function properly! Someone has to take the bins out, someone has to teach the kids, someone has to man the fire engines. Cities are economic hubs that consume huge amounts of labour from all classes; they need to provide housing for people who aren’t managers.
As a native of a college town, that׳s how l felt about the students.
Meanwhile the students were annoyed that the townies were all looking down their noses at us, despite the University being the only reason their town was solvent, while simultaneously raping us on rent in shithole housing because building new stock would “ruin the aesthetic”.
Yeah, Katie, someone in their 40s who owns two houses and who can afford to take time off to drive across the country twice a year for a dog, saying just move based on her lifestyle in her 20s and early 30s before establishing a career is a bit much.
Having money has made Katie completely out of touch with the avg person.
Similar story, similar internal struggle with nuanced, bitter acceptance. Life is change and whatnot.
Yes, ultimately things change and it is not worth holding onto bitterness. Everybody is just trying to better their lot in life and we have to make space for others. And there's an ugly side to nativist thinking that I try to avoid. I think there are a lot of pros and cons to balance in this debate.
My father in law moved here from a small town in Arkansas that has had declining or stagnant population for the last 50 years. When I complain about the gentrification, he always says he would rather live in booming town than a dying town. He's probably right.
But I do think the tech boom brought a lot negatives. I hated seeing the sprawling growth that transformed woods to housing developments and changed rural ares into something their not. People with wealth bring a lot entitlement. It was annoying to have somebody move to a rural area and complain barking dogs, chainsaws and roosters. The old square bodied trucks turn into audis, the flannels turn into sweaters and the local shops turn into chain stores. It felt like a takeover.
And of course it priced out a lot of people. I know it's complicated, because it also brought a lot jobs. It has supported booming construction and service industry for years that has kept a lot rural communities a float. But it is annoying that so many have to commute to the city for employment.
I now live far enough away from the city that commuting is not even an option. My closest town has not quite felt the same impacts from the tech boom. It has felt the impacts of declining timber industry and a reluctant shift towards tourism economy. It bears more of the marks of economic hardship, but has kept a lot culture.
It is mix bag overall and everything changes. I try not to hold onto bitterness, even though some of it feels justified.
They don't say that at all.
Who doesn't say what?
"I start to turn on them when take this out of touch cosmopolitan view points. Like all of you toothless Hicks would be so much happier when us outsiders move into your community and teach you how to be civilized. I know they don't say that exactly, but man sometimes it comes across like that." -- I read you to be attributing this to Klein and the other Abundance promoters, and this isn't at all what they are saying or the kind of tone they use. (I also certainly don't here that from J&K.)
No I don't think they endorse that view. It is entirely reading into it based on my own vibes and I admit.
Why i feel this why conversation comes from their stance pro growth democrats. I largely agree with much what they in the stance of growth being a good thing, but I think they don't really understand what it feels like be on the negative side of that growth. I don't understand why people don't like this from on a visceral level.
I think they understand yes people don't like change, but in there discussions they don't get it. It comes across as out of touch.
I think when J&K joked about needing to uproot when things become unaffordable, that triggers a similar reaction in myself. Sure not everyone can just live in nicest place, but it really suck when you have been somewhere for awhile and feel like you're getting forced out and people blind to it.
I don't think J&K, or ezra for that matter would disagree exactly with my sentiment expressed in my statement exactly. I just think they sometimes can come across tone deaf in their discussion of it. I am not claiming this to be rational reaction, but I do personally get triggered (for lack of a better word) sometimes in these discussions.
I do believe there are real trade offs to the pro growth, abundance agenda. I don't have well thought through ways of addressing those trade offs. But I do feel the effects of it
I think their focus is somewhat different from yours. Like yes, sure, they think housing should be easier to build in places with a shortage of housing (and I think they are more focused on urban and--in various places--suburban), but because the people are already there, and to make it more affordable so ideally people don't have to leave. But a lot of Abundance goes beyond housing and is about the inability to build things in a timely or cost effective manner. Stuff like expanding public transit in places that have it, for example. (Or Ezra's pet frustration, that CA is supposedly wanting to build but unable to build high-speed rail.)
J&K were saying that not everyone (every artsy recent graduate) who wants to live in NYC necessarily can afford to move there, and that's okay. I don't see that as necessarily analogous to someone whose rural town becomes a 'burb (or a vacation hub or some such) and gets "gentrified." Also, in that I am in Chicago, I think gentrification is really good in many cases -- Chicago has a shortage of housing because lots of the city are places you wouldn't want to live. It would be better overall if that were not the case, but the fear of new unwanted people moving in is an issue (and inconsistent with the claim that it's evil those places suffer from under-investment).
Also I take your point with Chicago. I have not lived in an area that is experiencing degrowth. I wouldn't advocate for it and I could see how gentrification could help those areas. There are tradeoffs to be had
I don't disagree the abundance agenda broadly. I would like a more effective government that can do and build things. I agree with them that too much red tape has handicapped the government. I don't even really disagree with them on the housing issue. I think we need more affordable housing with denser developments in more urban areas and mixed developments. I am familiar with all there arguments, but what I hear of it I generally do agree.
What i am expressing against abundance is more reactionary than substantive. And it doesn't apply to all of the abundance narrative, but it does apply to very pro growth optimism and this idea that we failed to build enough in the past decades and that's why things are unaffordable.
Even if that is true, I have had hard time stomaching it as someone who grew up in an area impacted by urban growth. It was often fed as "progress", but i hated it on a visceral level. My frustration with the abundance narrative is less about the substance of what they say and more that I feel that they connect with the viewpoint that is resistant to such growth. At least feel real to me. I think part of that is because they come from the more cosmopolitan areas and it doesn't feel like they connect with rural culture and roots.
When j&k express the sentiment that people don't have the right to live places they can't afford, it gives also gives me mixed feelings. Yes i get desirable places will cost more and you shouldn't complain when you choose to live in the ritzy spot. But I also feel compelled to push back against this phenomenon where just becuase a place becomes desirable, they get to drive up the cost and in turn drive people out of those areas. This is very different from the abundance argument I should acknowledge.
There's a part of that feels wrong on a moral level. Also, you create this homogeneous areas full of uptight rich people that just suck and ruin the character of an area. We want communities that can support people from all walks of life. This is a part of the abundance argument I can really get behind.
I don't even know if j&k would disagree with this. To be fair, I don't feel like they come across as stuffy rich people. Sometimes they come across a little yuppie for my taste, but still down to earth.
I recognize this might come across as a little incoherent, but again I will own this as bit of a conflicted, vibes based reactionary take
Paused to say, Lauren Duca seems really annoying and perhaps even disingenuous, but Carlson was being condescending in that clip. He knew, because his producers would indeed have told him, prior to the segment, that she writes for Teen Vogue. There was no other reason to add "I guess" to that except to to be a preening ass. I can't stand him.
Thank you. He was obviously baiting her. Though it made me think of that Zoolander scene where Derek goes, “luckily not too many people I know have heard of your little Time magazine or whatever.”
I agree, but Lauren would have been better off to make a quick comment about how obvious that should be since he had her article right in front of him, and moved on. Live and learn (and apparently convert to Christianity?) though
i mean, good for her? i also heard she married a woman. lesbian christian sounds actually like a very healthy arc for her. personalities like that need something bigger to ground themselves in.
the thing about Lauren Duca that struck me is just how young she was when all of that went down. I'm two years younger than her, so broadly a contemporary, and remember feeling a bit jealous when she got famous like that at 25. but in the fullness of time, i am unbelievably grateful for how anonymous i have remained. she epitomized a really dated and particular type of #resistance feminism and crashed out SO publicly. in my mid-twenties i was also a hot mess express, so i'm incredibly glad no one put me on fox news or gave me a college class or a book deal...i'd rather memory hole the entire era!
Yeah there is 0 reason to add the 'I guess' except to be a prick. His claim he said 'I guess' because he doesn't read Teen Vogue is a dodge. He doesn't read the Sunday Times but wouldn't do that to one of their writers.
Obviously I would say to someone "don't take the bait" but she's young and probably in a position to benefit from sparring with Tucker, so I suspect they both got what they wanted out of the exchange.
Thank you. I was puzzled as to what Jesse found so objectionable.
I agree. She’s a retard, but I actually cheered for her at that point.
The 2020 era hostage statement apology needs to be the inspiration for a collected volume of such apologia. What a bizarre genre in a bizarre moment in time.
I'd rather have a book of "cancellers" with receipts. Or a searchable database.
That would be in the index.
Amazing book proposal, would request for my library!
Editing this would drive any sane person to madness.
As always, Jesse is not only incapable of understanding the Jewish anti-Mamdani perspective, but not even aware of the existence and size of his blind spot. Jesse, you understand Jewish matters about as deeply as Zaid Jilani.
Jesse considers the use of “globalize the intifada” and blaming NYPD violence on the IDF as criticisms of Israel. It’s embarrassingly idiotic and I’m baffled by him on this
Charitably: he has a high bar for doing or appearing to basically reasonable observers to be doing Jewish identity politics. He's the kind of proverbial frog who would jump out of the proverbial about-to-be-boiling water closer to the last minute than I think is prudent for Jews right now. But he actually would jump out.
Sorry to objectify you so hard, Jesse.
You can avoid playing identity politics without having your brain fall out of your head.
It's not his main beat and so he's really just one more Jew making his way through it, and I think it's fair to treat him as such, even if I disagree with him.
Yes, the guy who can’t pronounce Chaya clearly isn’t steeped in Jewish issues
He's one guy. He's really good on his main beats, most of what he does on this podcast and his blog. Better than 99% of journalists out there. He's not Norman Finklestein or Peter Beinert on Zionism and antisemitism. Like many "soyboy Jews" he can come across to more strident folks like you and I as "don't hit me I'm one of the good ones" and I can see how that rankles. But I don't know his motivations and I don't want to guess at them, he does correctly understand its complicated (yes, Palestinianism is cause #1, but it's still complicated), and I think it's worth not getting any more upset about it than necessary because it's not that important as such.
A lot of the people that use that phrase literally do believe that they are just saying “free oppressed people everywhere!” The same with “from the river to the sea”
Remember they are idealistic sheltered students primarily. Peaceniks.
So, should we take them based on what they mean when they say it, or based one what other people perceive which is much more violent?
Well we’re talking specifically about Mamdani. He should understand the origin and meaning of the saying, we’re not talking about ignorant freshmen at university. Also can’t use that reasoning regarding NYPD violence
He didn’t say it himself - We are talking about whether he did something wrong by not condemning other people for saying it.
Mamdani is not condemning the college kids because he knows they meant peacenik-y stuff by it.
In an ideal world would I like him and others to take a nuanced public position like “while you may mean ‘free all oppressed people’ some Jewish people hear ‘exterminate all Jews everywhere’ so it would be better to use other slogans” that’s not really realistic politically.
He did take active steps to condemn antisemitism. I don’t but that he is anti semetic even if he is not as pro-Israel as I might prefer.
I’m honestly more concerned about the economic policies. Rent control for example always ends up benefitting the rich in the end.
I’m essentially in full agreement with you. A good man would have condemned it, but a shrewd/cynical politician can’t in his position. Based on his other statements, there’s also a reasonable chance he agrees with the slogan. And yes, his economic policies will be a major disaster
Also in this case, unlike what Jesse and Ryan here are saying, Mamdani didn't even use the phrase, he just didn't blanket condemn its use.
Correct, but he should have condemned it. But he didn’t, either for cynical political reasons or he agrees with the slogan. Either way, using the phrase is not “criticism of Israel.”
I thought this sermon was balanced and basically sane. https://youtu.be/kFkmR7AW-HU
This (reform!) Rabbi met with Mamdani, and believes or claims to believe that opposition to Jewish self-determination anywhere in Israel/Palestine is the fundamental to his politics.
Relevant excerpt (I copy-pasted a part of the transcript)
"At our August meeting,
we discussed security for Jewish
institutions.
We reminded Mr. Mandani that Jews are
disproportionately targeted for hate
crimes far more than any other minority.
We expressed the anxieties,
even fears of New York Jews that his
mayoralty would increase the risks to
the Jewish community.
Mr. Mandani responded that he would not
reduce policing around Jewish
institutions.
If anything, he said he would increase
police presence if necessary.
I took that answer at face value.
I believed him.
First, because he does not strike me as a
person who enjoys seeing Jews suffer.
But beyond that,
it's not in his political interest to
reduce security.
If, heaven forbid,
there was a catastrophic attack against
a Jewish institution with significant
casualties and it would be traced back
to the reduction of police presence
around that Jewish institution for
ideological reasons.
it would severely compromise his mealty
and harm the brand that Mandani and his
allies are seeking to build.
So I took what he said at face value.
But remember,
our safety
is not dependent on how many security
personnel safeguard Jewish buildings.
It's first and foremost
connected to the general environment in
this city.
An atmosphere of tolerance, coexistence,
and camaraderie.
You could put 50 police officers outside
this building.
If the overall atmosphere in New York is
hostile to Jews,
it will severely threaten Jewish safety
everywhere in the city every day.
"
In other words: don't be surprised if the phrase Jesse encountered at that party - "Are you a Zionist?" - becomes a lot more common, and hope it doesn't go beyond that.
"If the overall atmosphere in New York is hostile to Jews, it will severely threaten Jewish safety everywhere in the city every day."
This is basically true of course, if slightly overstated, but certainly a general attitude of hostility towards a minority group can increase or be reflected in an increase of hostile acts against members or perceived members of that group. I've seen it with Hispanics, trans and GNC people, and Black people, and women as-a-class, and Muslims, and even White people, and even Jews. We can all probably think of an example of this that happened to people outside of any group that we inhabit.
And also there are real issues that some bigotries sometimes get masked by, but which are still very real. Mass migration from the south, wild-ass gender theories reified in policy, crime in cities, NEETs, radical Islam, racism, our best friend nations doing crimes (on our dimes!), these are all social problems that we have to grapple with, as a society. And we have words for people/ideologies that support these social ills (or are at least seem opposed to dealing with them), like "Open Borders", "gender radicals", "abolish the police", etc etc. Some of those terms are contested to be sure. Promoters may have more subtle (or sanguine) perspectives than their opponents accuse them of having, right or wrong. And we have have the perennial problem where whole broad demographic groups do sometimes get smeared as promoters of these social ills.
But for me at least, I can't blind my eyes to the ills of the world because sometimes assholes think their bigotries are the solution. I can't take seriously the proposal that being against, idk, urban crime, means I must/should be racist, but neither can I deny that bigots will mask their biases in language that feigns concern about issues. Not sure much what you can do but call it out when you see it, stick up for people, and carry on. I've been in groups where instead we indulged racial anxieties and paranoia, and while I'm empathetic to it, it gets counter-productive quick, as whole episodes on this very podcast can attest.
I appreciate you trying to be general and consistent. No nuremberg trials for you, lol ;-)
Jesse has fallen for, "But he has Jewish friends!" without understanding that antisemitism is, at its core, a conspiracy theory that Jews stand between the world and redemption, a theory that Mamdani has embraced wholeheartedly as the center of his political ideology.
Jesse seems to have a bit of a weird relationship to Judaism and Jewish people in general. It’s almost like there’s a little bit of contempt towards the Jewish community and Jewish issues. He’s Jewish when he can make jokes about it, but it doesn’t seem like he has much appreciation for Jewish culture, religion, or history. Let us not forget that the only regular host of this podcast who has appeared on Ask a Jew is Katie!
⬆️
Thank you - I swear for such a smart guy it is baffling to me how bad of a blind spot he has towards anything Jewish. Every time he mentions anything related to a Jewish matter I have to shut it off
I edited Lauren Duca when she was still at HuffPo - she was freelancing for The Frisky, where Nico Lang put her in touch with me. She was genuinely a dream to work with as a freelancer and took edits so incredibly well but I have to point out how hilarious it is that part of the story about her involves her blowing up over someone unfollowing her on Twitter because SHE DID THE SAME THING WITH ME. I got so incredibly self-conscious about and envious of her success and just quietly unfollowed her on social to protect myself from FOMO, and she somehow was paying enough attention to her followers to notice, and she sort of unleashed on me for it and refused to talk to me ever again. It was honestly so jarring that I've been wondering if I actually did something that bad for like 10 years, I'm so glad to know that this was a her problem LOL. Anyway I found Jesus too but I don't think I'll reach out 😆
Getting mad at someone for unfollowing you on social media is insane behavior for an adult.
I know, when I unfollowed her it never would have occurred to me that anyone would get angry enough about an unfollow to verbally ream them in a DM. Sounds like getting more offline was probably a good move for her
It's revealing the guy in Jesse's anecdote lumped Jesse, Bari Weiss, and Matt Yglesias together. They're very different!
I wanted to see what Calla Walsh was up to recently, and I found an interview with her on the podcast Millennials Are Killing Capitalism. They were discussing the role of militant tactics and she shared this self-aware nugget of wisdom: "Obviously our movement isn't prepared for that [referring to guerilla warfare]. I don't even know how to drive a car. We clearly have a lot of tactical skills to build up." So I think there is some work to do before the revolution.
Jesse, VOTE. Even if you hate every candidate, write in somebody, anybody. That lowers the winner’s margin of victory, which shows they have less of a mandate and reflect the beliefs of less of the city. It matters if somebody wins with a landslide vs a plurality.
I voted for Peter Moskos who I follow on Twitter, and was a write in candidate. Sad that Jesse did not participate in his civic duty, really poor form.
People fought and died for my right to write in Bobson Dugnutt for Public Advocate, and dammit, I am using it.
Really not getting the people calling Mamdani charismatic, etc. The guy grins a lot, that's all I see. Actually reminds me of a character from the Warren Ellis comic Transmetropolitan, politician nicknamed the Smiler.
I saw a trailer once for a horror movie called "Smile." It's the only thing I can think of when I see a clip of Mamdani. (Well, that and being glad I don't live in NYC.)
I’ve said the exact same thing. The constant smiling gives me salesman vibes, it doesn’t feel authentic. If anything, it puts me off him.
IDK it's quite clear he has a way of talking to people and explaining his positions. He certainly does have a youthful exuberance which isn't much compared to the dinosaurs we usually get foisted on us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWSM8pDKYkU
Just listening to the episode, but coincidentally have just finished to the BBCs ‘Anatomy of a Cancellation’.
It was enjoyable, but like so many of these kinds of reflections there’s a gaping hole that is really unhelpful in terms of people getting a handle on it.
On the one hand it’s a pretty typical cancellation story/purity spiral, but you can’t really understand it if you don’t realise the degree to which her ‘critics’ are coming from a highly academic, highly ideological version of ‘anti racism’, one that would just seem weird to 99% of people of any background if they’re not immersed in that highly elite activist mindset. There was a period when they were able to use their identity to gaslight normies who obviously didn’t what to appear like bigots. The BBC did hint at the ideological perspective, but broadly just left it appearing like people of a particular background responding to something with their own personal take. The reality is the criticism of the book is just nuts if you don’t filter it through a very narrow ideological perspective.
The BBC just had two of its heads resign for the ideological capture of the organisation, so this surprises me not a jot.
To me the dumber things Mamdani said about Israel seem to me just to be ignorant or insensitive, not malicious or evil like his haters want him to be.
Jihadists don’t make campaign stops at gay clubs lmao.
Nah he got his start in politics through Students for Justice in Palestine. He didn’t come to this issue in the last couple of years. He knows what he’s saying and why it’s offensive. He just didn’t care before he was running so there’s a lot of tape of him saying crazy shit. When he had to win, he moderated. I’m fairly optimistic he will stay on that track as mayor even if it’s not genuine.
He’s not some jihadist. He’s a dirtbag leftist. That’s his milieu. The Islamophobic saber rattling is offensive and embarassing. His politics are kind of rancid because he’s DSA, not Muslim Brotherhood.
I tend to think Jews would be wise to be on alert. I though this sermon was sane. He met with Zohran and seems convinced Anti-Zionism is fundamental to his politics. Casual "Are you a Zionist" type social pressure is likely to go up even if no greater number of synagogues get attacked. https://youtu.be/kFkmR7AW-HU
Yep, this is the best read of him, I think.
Getting his start in an Pro-Palestinian activist group doesn't speak to him having any additional knowledge compared to the avg person.
I find that 99% of people who identify themselves this way, or even who are very active in these groups, know precious little about the actual conflict or it's history.
Subterfuge, and specifically subterfuge about one's religion, is not only allowed in Twelver Islam, but encouraged. The Jihadism that Americans are familiar with is Sunni, where concealing one's faith is forbidden. A better model for Shi'a extremism is Iran, where, lets see... Ah yes, fanatical Twelvers pretending to be cosmopolitan communists took over the country in a coup and turned it into, well, modern day Iran. You have no evidence one way or the other of Mamdani's religiosity, because Twelvism has no compulsion to produce it.
Taqqiya allows someone to hide their faith to avoid danger, over broadening its meaning to paint every Muslim as conspiring to destroy your civilization is fucking crazy.
Do almost all autocrats not tell their population that they’re going to be repressive before they seize power? Yes, and there are plenty of examples of non Muslims doing the exact same thing.
Allying with communists, whatever that entails, is most certainly religiously justified as taqqiya, Iran isn't a communist country, and yet the Mullahs allied with the communists to overthrow the Shah, then persecuted the communists.
I don't think that this is what is likely to happen in New York. I'm saying that there's plenty of precedent for Twelver extremists concealing their faith to various ends, and that you have *no evidence* that Mamdani is not one.
The secret jihadist narrative does seem very unlikely to me. The dedicated third-worldist one though? more legs. He might just be as radically third-worldist and even communist as he can practically get away with. In his victory speech, he said "we believe there's no problem too big for government to solve" which, what, we're supposed to take him seriously not literally I guess? Cause that's at least bizarro-world-trump-level batshit.
Kind of crazy how many notorious/infamous Annas there are in BARpod lore. Ana Mardoll, Ana Valens, Anna Merlan, (H)annah Nikole Jones
Also Khachiyan and Kasparian
speaking of people who’ve kind of disappeared since 2020 like Duca, what happened to NHJ?
Cuomo also really messed up NY's Covid response. He forced nursing homes to take in patients that were infected with SARS-Cov2 and infectious which caused a bunch of outbreaks in nursing homes. That resulted in preventable covid deaths because nursing home residents are most likely to die of Covid. Then they underrepresented the death toll. And I'm not even going into how he was threatening to have people arrested for refusing to cooperate with the health department's contact tracing. I know plenty of heavy MSNBC watchers who insist that he was great on Covid, and it's all unfair to him but there are also plenty of people who lost family members because Cuomo forced nursing homes to take infectious patients.
>Cuomo also really messed up NY's Covid response. He forced nursing homes to take in patients that were infected with SARS-Cov2 and infectious which caused a bunch of outbreaks in nursing homes.
Forced to take them from where? I ask because the UK also did this, specifically in the context of discharging people from hospital into care homes. But I am not sure if this was just a horrifyingly pragmatic trade off rather than outright malice or incompetence. Of course nobody can honestly discuss it so I guess we will never know.
He required the nursing homes to accept patients discharged from a hospital who were SARS-Cov2 and medically stable even if the nursing homes could not safely isolate them. The nursing homes were refusing to take these patients because they couldn't be certain that this wouldn't trigger an outbreak. At the time, the fight was really public and the nursing homes lost and there were a number of outbreaks in nursing homes. What made it worse was that the Cuomo administration underreported Covid deaths in nursing homes, in part because they thought it would give the Trump administration a reason to criticize it.
That sounds awful but realistically to keep an older person in a hospital bed they didn't need in the middle of a pandemic isn't great either. It isn't like the hospital would be able to effectively isolate and they have all the same risks if not greater.
To me the problem here is the inability to have an honest conversation about the trade offs involved in these decisions. Falsifying data is terrible but somebody had to choose the lesser evil and there was probably no real way to know which was the better option, the public want a right or wrong answer though. It's tough.
Jesse, the weekly comment thread routinely runs into the 3-5k range. Worker owned open thread!!!
Makes me think: why aren't we being compensated for our free open thread labour?
WE CONTROL THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION WHILE TECH BILLIONAIRES KATIE AND JESSE REAP THE REWARDS!!!!!!!!!!