Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6803)

Bloggingheads 06-08-2011 09:04 AM

Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 

eric 06-08-2011 10:37 AM

It's all about the team
 
These women argue that the big tragedy here is how Weiner hurt their beloved liberal Democratic agenda. To have such a limited, narcissistic filter for analyzing current events suggests they are simply partisan shills--rationalized appropriately as doing good--but simple apologists just the same.

AemJeff 06-08-2011 10:51 AM

Re: It's all about the team
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eric (Post 212200)
These women argue that the big tragedy here is how Weiner hurt their beloved liberal Democratic agenda. To have such a limited, narcissistic filter for analyzing current events suggests they are simply partisan shills--rationalized appropriately as doing good--but simple apologists just the same.

So caring about broad political ideals and whether some clumsy onanist has damaged those ideals is "narcissism?" I think you might want to check your dictionary.

Olavus 06-08-2011 11:17 AM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
Politics is a shameless product promotion.

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."

-- Ronald Reagan


And a freak show.

Stephen Milligan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Milligan

badhatharry 06-08-2011 12:18 PM

Re: It's all about the team
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eric (Post 212200)
These women argue that the big tragedy here is how Weiner hurt their beloved liberal Democratic agenda. To have such a limited, narcissistic filter for analyzing current events suggests they are simply partisan shills--rationalized appropriately as doing good--but simple apologists just the same.

Interesting. I, on the other hand, love that Weiner has hurt their beloved liberal Democrat agenda if that is true.

Meanwhile, attacks on the republicans will have to be ramped up. Debbie Wasserman Shultz has recently accused the GOP of wanting to revert back to the good ol' Jim Crow days. Hey, whatever it takes!

And the bureaucracy chuggs on, eating up resources, and the Congress can't pass a budget. What a circus.

beren 06-08-2011 01:43 PM

Re: It's all about the team
 
I agree this incident is much ado about nothing and Weiner shouldn't have to resign or suffer political damage going forward. But it was funny to see these divbloggers disappointed. Rebecca, especially, seemed to feel especially betrayed because Weiner is someone who fights for positions she favors. As if that makes it all the worse.

And what's with Michelle claiming a former mayor of New York was gay? Even if that is true, the voters didn't know about it when he was running.

BornAgainDemocrat 06-08-2011 02:11 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
To me Weiner comes off as an obnoxious jerk, not for what he did in this case, but for the over-bearing way in which he behaves. I can't believe Rebeccda Traister thinks he is an effective "voice" for the causes she passionately believes in because, I can assure her, he does more damage than good for these causes across the country as a whole. Like so many native New Yorkers she is "provincial" in a way that most Americans are not.

eric 06-08-2011 02:13 PM

Re: It's all about the team
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 212201)
So caring about broad political ideals and whether some clumsy onanist has damaged hose ideals is "narcisissism?" I think you might want to check your dictionary.

It's narcissistic because real intellectuals discuss ideas, as opposed to simply assuming their politics are right and then discuss how events help or hurt your cause.

BornAgainDemocrat 06-08-2011 02:45 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
Barney Frank is Ok with Michelle and Rebecca? What about this?

And Edward Kennedy's sex scandal cost somebody's life -- to say nothing of the time he used his influence to get his nephew off of a rape charge.

These women have no shame when it comes to their team.

DWAnderson 06-08-2011 02:51 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
What is different about this case is the pictures and the transcripts. This probably would not be nearly as big a deal without those. Perhaps that shouldn't make a difference but it does.

They exist in this case and they make all the difference-- enough that it is highly likely that he will be forced to resign but his Democratic colleagues.

AemJeff 06-08-2011 03:58 PM

Re: It's all about the team
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eric (Post 212225)
It's narcissistic because real intellectuals discuss ideas, as opposed to simply assuming their politics are right and then discuss how events help or hurt your cause.

I see. You let us know if you see any of those "real intellectuals," all right?

miceelf 06-08-2011 04:11 PM

Re: It's all about the team
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eric (Post 212225)
It's narcissistic because real intellectuals discuss ideas, as opposed to simply assuming their politics are right and then discuss how events help or hurt your cause.

Have you read these message boards?

bkjazfan 06-08-2011 04:33 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DWAnderson (Post 212228)
What is different about this case is the pictures and the transcripts. This probably would not be nearly as big a deal without those. Perhaps that shouldn't make a difference but it does.

They exist in this case and they make all the difference-- enough that it is highly likely that he will be forced to resign but his Democratic colleagues.

Agree, I said essentially the same thing on the Althouse/Pinkerton diavlog yesterday. With all this incriminating material out there for public viewing one has to question his judgement. He's all alone now in Congress having his leader, Nancy Pelosi, by asking for an ethics investigation, effectively "throwing him under the bus". He's become a distasteful, national joke. Resign or not, relected or not, he's ability to legislate will be nil.

ohreally 06-08-2011 05:13 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
Meta comment. Why is it women are always called upon to cover the "sex beat"? (Not just here but pretty much everywhere.) Or more generally why so many women's voices are so predictably defined by their perspective on men. For example, one would be hard pressed to quote any statement by Amanda Marcotte that would make sense if men didn't exist. Conversely, it's hard to think of any statement by virtually any of the guys here that would lose any meaning whatsoever if women didn't exist.

My question is only partly rhetorical. I know part of the answer, which is the same answer that explains why The Times would feature Gail Collins and Maureen Dowd and not say Helena Cobban or Yves Smith, two women whose intellectual voices can hardly be said to supervene the chromosomal world.

Sulla the Dictator 06-08-2011 05:16 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
LOL Hypocrisy is only a higher offense if there is some BENEFIT from adhering to principle. Neither of these women seem to show any sort of deference or respect to Conservative politicians who are not accused of any sexual scandal.

Also, I fail to see what one has to do with the other. Larry Craig may be a homosexual; but there is no edict from God (Or if the left prefers, "Gaia Earth Mother) that a homosexual needs to support gay marriage. The Greeks never had that problem. David Vitter is a bad husband; why does that obligate him to support homosexual marriage?

miceelf 06-08-2011 05:19 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 212243)
Meta comment. Why is it women are always called upon to cover the "sex beat"?

Cause it's creepy when guys do it?

Go back and watch the recent Kaus exchange with Bob again. ;-)

ohreally 06-08-2011 05:22 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 212247)
Cause it's creepy when guys do it?
Go back and watch the recent Kaus exchange with Bob again. ;-)

Best answer I am likely to get. I, too, was creeped out.

miceelf 06-08-2011 05:22 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 212244)
LOL Hypocrisy is only a higher offense if there is some BENEFIT from adhering to principle.

You may be the only person who believes this. It makes no sense to me. One doesn't have to agree with whatever silly law a politician wants to enact to point out the hypocrisy in said politician breaking his own law.

David Vitter should be free to oppose gay marriage. If, however, he frames his opposition as "defense of traditional marriage" or of "God's law" or somesuch, then, yeah, he's a hypocrite. Sorry.

stephanie 06-08-2011 05:52 PM

Re: It's all about the team
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eric (Post 212200)
These women argue that the big tragedy here is how Weiner hurt their beloved liberal Democratic agenda.

I don't believe they suggested that it was a tragedy. (It's not. There is no big tragedy here, so to suggest they failed to identify the correct one is pretty hilarious.)

Instead, they discussed their reactions to the Weiner scandal, presumably because they were asked to (a waste of Rebecca and Michelle, IMO). Their reaction was, among other things, gee, it's a shame, as it reduces the effectiveness of this guy who had been effective at making arguments for positions I agreed with him on.

Seems pretty typical of the reactions of everyone, from those Dems who think he should resign (he's no longer a good spokesman and has hurt that he stands for, so let someone else less embarassing in instead) to those on the right who are enjoying this mainly because they don't like Weiner for unrelated reasons. (Some on the left fall in this camp too.)

Quote:

To have such a limited, narcissistic filter for analyzing current events suggests they are simply partisan shills--rationalized appropriately as doing good--but simple apologists just the same.
You seem to have mixed up narcissistic and partisan (based on your following post too). But in any case, given that the topic of the diavlog was "what do you think of the Weiner scandal," your complaint is odd.

stephanie 06-08-2011 06:00 PM

Re: It's all about the team
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 212234)
Have you read these message boards?

True, but the real problem with the argument is not "everyone does it," but that the topic of the conversation was not "intellectual arguments for Rebecca's and Michelle's political views." It was "what is your reaction to Weiner." And I strongly suspect that was a topic that bloggingheads decided it would be interesting to have a couple of female liberals comment on.

So unless eric wants to bitch in all the diavlogs that talk about political strategy type things or any number of other things other than "intellectual defenses of the diavloggers' positions," his comment here is pretty strange.

basman 06-08-2011 06:20 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
One more thing besides his sociopathic lying: if it's true, as the reporting today says, that Weiner sent around a picture of himself with his schmuck erect to women he didn't know, that puts into play the additional ground of his sexual conduct for his resignation or congressional chatisement/expulsion.

Itzik Basman

look 06-08-2011 06:52 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by basman (Post 212256)
One more thing besides his sociopathic lying: if it's true, as the reporting today says, that Weiner sent around a picture of himself with his schmuck erect to women he didn't know, that puts into play the additional ground of his sexual conduct for his resignation or congressional chatisement/expulsion.

Itzik Basman

Add to that:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/366...6:55&out=07:18

piscivorous 06-08-2011 06:59 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
One can argue that Congresswoman Pelosis' request for an investigation is no more than an attempt to limit the damage to the Congressman; but this stalling tactic is probably moot at this point.

DWAnderson 06-08-2011 07:09 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 212244)
Also, I fail to see what one has to do with the other. Larry Craig may be a homosexual; but there is no edict from God (Or if the left prefers, "Gaia Earth Mother) that a homosexual needs to support gay marriage. The Greeks never had that problem.

This reminds me of an Ann Coulter's comment on Larry Craig that I thought was pretty funny at the time:

Quote:

Assuming the worst about Craig, the Senate has not held a vote on outlawing hom*osexual impulses. It voted on gay marriage. Craig not only opposes gay marriage, he’s in a heterosexual marriage with kids. Talk about walking the walk! Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I’m not seeing the “hypocrisy.”

sapeye 06-08-2011 07:31 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
No, no Rebecca, don't hold back, tell us what you really think.

bramble 06-08-2011 07:37 PM

Hand-wringing, perplexity and dog poop
 
As a liberal, I initially responded to the Weiner news with the same hand-wringing and perplexity as Traister does in this diavlog, because I was experiencing cognitive dissonance. At the end of the day, I really wanted to condemn Weiner for what he did, even though I might find his behavior quite amusing if he were, say, a fictional character in a movie. In other words, I tend to be more or less forgiving of sexual foibles. It's like a dog doing his business on the living room rug. You don't want the dog to do this, but it is in no way as big a deal as the dog biting someone.

Here's how I squared the circle.

I gave myself the permission to hold politicians to a different moral standard when it comes to sex. We all hold different people to different standards when it comes to sex. Goldberg and Traister both make clear that sexting is verboten in their households, yet in general they find the practice to be as harmless as late night porn viewing.

I'm not asking horny male politicians to become nuns, but I am asking them to chose outlets for their libido that won't become public. I'm asking them to be prudent and discreet. If they are not, I'm going to be outraged at their behavior like everyone else. The people who defend or, at least, "think deeply" about the tawdriness of these scandals don't appear more sophisticated. They look like dupes and fools.

Wonderment 06-08-2011 08:03 PM

Re: Hand-wringing, perplexity and dog poop
 
Quote:

I'm not asking horny male politicians to become nuns, but I am asking them to chose outlets for their libido that won't become public. I'm asking them to be prudent and discreet. If they are not, I'm going to be outraged at their behavior like everyone else.
Maybe. But I think you're missing something here that was not really underscored in the diavlog either.

The problem for voters is not that Wiener engaged in sexting, but rather that he toxically lied about it in the cover-up phase.

The underlying issues are minor, personal, forgivable, legal and arguably normal and legitimately recreational. The problem is the spectacle of paranoid duplicity and crazed self-righteousness that came after the facts went public.

I have no opinion about whether he should resign or not. Don't really think it's a big deal either way.

basman 06-08-2011 08:11 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by look (Post 212259)

Thanks for the link, ding a link, whatever it's called: it's beyond stupid; it's a disorder verging on the sociopathic.

Itzik Basman

basman 06-08-2011 08:17 PM

Re: Hand-wringing, perplexity and dog poop
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 212266)
Maybe. But I think you're missing something here that was not really underscored in the diavlog either.

The problem for voters is not that Wiener engaged in sexting, but rather that he toxically lied about it in the cover-up phase.

The underlying issues are minor, personal, forgivable, legal and arguably normal and legitimately recreational. The problem is the spectacle of paranoid duplicity and crazed self-righteousness that came after the facts went public.

I have no opinion about whether he should resign or not. Don't really think it's a big deal either way.

Heaven's to mercy, Wonderment I agree with you save that of course he should resign. (Btw "whether he should resign or not"--"or not" redundant, implicit in "whether.")

Itzik Basman

brucds 06-08-2011 08:27 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
Is whore-mongering (not to put too fine a point on it) David Vitter still sitting in the Senate?

He is? Well then, never-f**kiing-mind!

The hypocrisy of rancid little GOPers like the insufferably stupid Marc Cantor or that creep who replaced the other creep at RNC reeks...

brucds 06-08-2011 08:33 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
Exclusive - Wiener exposes a dick on Twitter:

http://tinyurl.com/3wjem9r

THAT'S the Weiner Twitter at the center of a major scandal - the integrity of our most cherished institutions has been compromised.

Ocean 06-08-2011 09:23 PM

Re: It's all about the team
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 212252)
... they discussed their reactions to the Weiner scandal, presumably because they were asked to (a waste of Rebecca and Michelle, IMO).

Yes, I also think it was a waste, especially Michelle who usually has lots of interesting things to say, at least for those of us who agree with her politically.

This is a topic that has been blown out of proportion. Yes, Weiner was stupid. I'm sure he knows it. The consequences will be whatever others decide that they will be.

The reality is that a brain on sex is not the same as a rational or intelligent brain. The higher the sex load, the lower the ability to use good judgement, prudence or discretion. Some people have a somewhat lower sex drive, or a higher ability to suppress, or they're lucky and haven't been caught. It is all within the boundaries of normal human behavior. "Normal" doesn't make it good or desirable or judicious, it just tells us that no one is above the laws of nature which include our sexual drives.

We should expect adults and mostly public figures to keep their impulses within legal and moral bounds. But moral bounds change. What could have been scandalous in the past may no longer be.

The easy access to people's private information and private lives through a new media that allows intrusions will reveal aspects of everybody's lives that were kept behind closed doors before. Our bedroom and bathroom lives, so to speak, can be made public anytime. It will be interesting to see whether we become a repressed society, fearful of engaging in any possibly embarrassing or objectionable behavior, or whether repeated exposures of multiple people will make us face the fact of who we are and what we do.

I understand why Rebecca said that she doesn't think that Weiner's behavior should be seriously penalized while at the same time, she wouldn't accept this kind of behavior from her husband. Lots of people would immediately understand what she means and agree. However, I would encourage her to reflect about why that is and to look more deeply into all the reasons, emotional and cognitive that lead her to think that the dichotomy is reasonable. I'm not implying that she would come out of the reflection with the opposite idea, but she may be able to find interesting inconsistencies along the way.

Michelle said that there are aspects of men's psyche that are surprising to her. I have to wonder whether both diavloggers have lived in somewhat isolated or truly conservative environment. I don't think that any of the mentioned behaviors are surprising. Many people suppress their desires and curiosity, but others don't. Opportunity and circumstances can lead to the most obscure corners of the mind. All we can hope for is that there is some restraint and filtering out of respect and consideration for those who could be hurt by unbound release of sexual impulses.

Interesting topic if one really digs into it, but the prompt for it, the Weiner case, has no particular substance. No pun intended. Seriously.

Globalcop 06-08-2011 09:30 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
Am I right to assume that this is the hypothetical conversation that would have occurred had Wiener admitted his guilt upon the first accusation?

Writ Small 06-08-2011 09:34 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
"
Quote:

If you are kind of making the point of your public life to, you know, demagogue about the sanctity of marriage in the service of denying it to other people or to, you know, kind of police the sex life of other people or to present yourself as the paragon of family values then it kind of stuff does matter. Then you open yourself up to it (it = moral disapprobation by those on the left)."
If you want to extend marriage to include same-sex couples, you're allowed to cheat on your spouse without fear of condemnation by the left. Cool story.

If only demagogues buy into the whole "sanctity of marriage" thing and adultery is no big deal so long as you are pro-choice, what makes marriage so worth fighting to participate in? If it's just for the tax breaks, insurance savings and such, why wouldn't civil unions suffice?

What is that you say? Keeping gays from marrying is makes them second class citizens? Marriage is an important, significant part of our society that no one should be excluded from, especially gays, you say?

Well OK, then. I guess cheating Democrats are hypocrites, too.

jansob 06-08-2011 09:55 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
It's completely about tactical political damage. They don't seem upset that their guy is a really creepy liar (the pointing of fingers and accusations during the first denials), only that he will be less effective at politics. So let's not hear anything from these two about personal morals or treatment of women or trustworthiness the next time a Repub ends up in a scandal (this guy gets zapped with the same "hypocrisy" charge liberals love so much, as he 's been championing women's causes, yet sends unsolicited pics to young women that would be considered harassment if a normal person did it ). And I will be pulling up this diavlog when it does happen and throwing their rationalizations right back at them.

That said, Wiener should not resign unless he chooses too. If the people of his district feel that he represents them well, they will make that choice at the polls. If he does resign, it will not be because puritanical Repubs forced him out, it will be because Dems wanted him out. Vitter is still in, after all.

miceelf 06-08-2011 10:10 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Writ Small (Post 212274)
If only demagogues buy into the whole "sanctity of marriage" thing and adultery is no big deal so long as you are pro-choice, what makes marriage so worth fighting to participate in?

No one is claiming that adultery is no big deal. The question is whether one can "defend marriage" as a politician, given that the threats to marriage are individual, private behavior that have no purview in the political arena.

Setting onesself up as a "defender of marriage" suggests that one should defend one's own marriage, or shut up about others'.

It's not really so complicated. And, indeed, many would be satisfied with civil unions, if in fact such carried all the legal rights.

In all honesty? The straights have done far more to denigrate the institution than the gays ever will, just as a matter of demographics.

My state has recently decided to allow gay marriage. This threatens my straight marriage not a whit (the whining of the people who claim to defend my marriage aside). The only thing it has done has been to remove the irony that the priest who performed our ceremony could not, himself, marry.

This hypocrisy isn't limited to the GOP, FWIW. Spitzer with his "tough on prostitution" stance is in the same boat as Vitter, he's just had more in the way of consequences.

miceelf 06-08-2011 10:13 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jansob (Post 212275)
It's completely about tactical political damage. They don't seem upset that their guy is a really creepy liar (the pointing of fingers and accusations during the first denials), only that he will be less effective at politics. So let's not hear anything from these two about personal morals or treatment of women or trustworthiness the next time a Repub ends up in a scandal.

It would help your credibility if you didn't say things about a diavlog that are demonstrated to be false if people actually listen to the diavlog in question. The above is false. They both expressed their moral disapproval of his behavior.

jansob 06-08-2011 10:21 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
Um, not so fast there, sport.
They don't seem the slightest bit upset about anything but the damage to their cause. They minimize the moral turpitude and rationalize it to the point that it's obvious their moral disapproval is quite minimal. They cut him a vast amount of slack that a non-up-and-coming-liberal-rock-star would never get.

miceelf 06-08-2011 11:37 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jansob (Post 212278)
Um, not so fast there, sport.
They don't seem the slightest bit upset about anything but the damage to their cause. They minimize the moral turpitude and rationalize it to the point that it's obvious their moral disapproval is quite minimal. They cut him a vast amount of slack that a non-up-and-coming-liberal-rock-star would never get.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/366...3:15&out=33:27

badhatharry 06-08-2011 11:43 PM

Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 212282)

That was ten seconds in a 45 minute diavlog. Not exactly impressive. Besides, it really didn't say much about her view of the morality of Weiner's actions. She was talking about what she would accept from a husband. But she couldn't or wouldn't make any more generalized moral judgement. I hope she's not a mom.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.