HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Warren DeMontague » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 26 Next »

Warren DeMontague

Profile Information

Name: Fernando Poo
Gender: Male
Hometown: Fernando Poo
Member since: Thu May 20, 2004, 05:02 AM
Number of posts: 71,771

About Me


Journal Archives

I think there's a subset that is overly emotionally identified w/what they perceive as her narrative

And if you pay attention the whole victimization-vindication cycle is central to the deal.

Look, objectively there is no question that Hillary Clinton has a compelling life story with aspects which are frustrating as fuck to ANYONE concerned with fairness, gender equity, and true meritocracy. The early, obvious brilliance and natural leadership skills. The commencement speech, the watergate gig. Then the apparent sublimation of the ambition and considerable talents, to further the career of the husband.

The bullshit around maiden names, cookie baking, all of it. To top it all off, the very public humiliation of a husband screwing around with a younger woman.

I understand why her story resonates, strongly, with a segment of the population that came of age in the 60s-70s, even as they cant quite figure out - to the point of perpetual peeved irritation- why it doesnt have anything like the same emotional resonance with, say, millennial women.

And i wouldnt even ding someone for using all that as a rationale to vote for her- particularly given that she is, like i said, undoubtedly super-intelligent, she has a comprehensive even encyclopedic understanding of some policy issues, like foreign affairs.. And, she understands how DC works.

My problem with her is that somewhere along the line, she -and her husband- internalized some of the worst instincts around political pandering. Replacing leadership with poll-driven equivocation.

Trading heroes for ghosts, hot ashes for trees, hot air for a cool breeze... cold comfort for change.

Thats what i have trouble voting for, in this primary cycle.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:52 PM (1 replies)

Coming soon: Hillary-themed ads for cat toys and hearing aids

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Fri Apr 1, 2016, 05:21 PM (1 replies)

There sure seems to be something about him that some people dont like!

Gee, I wonder what it could be.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sun Mar 20, 2016, 05:39 PM (1 replies)

Warren Demontabro, Bro-porting for Duty!

It's a fucking bullshit meme, and it's very deliberately designed to convey a certain image or message.

Please, allow me to run down the stupid fucking arguments, which I'm sure every Hillary supporter in GDP would greatly prefer to have from now until the end of time, rather than talk about, say, Honduras.

  • "They are SO Real!" - No, "they" are a label. As I said before, unless there is a baseball team- like, the "Baltimore Berniebros", with uniforms and shit, they are a subjective categorization of people and alleged behavior. Now, does that mean there are NO Sanders supporters who ever said something sexist on twitter, for example? Of course not. I think it is debateable- highly- as to whether there ACTUALLY has been a statistically higher incidence of that sort of stuff coming from Sanders supporters as opposed to everyone else in the political conversation. I actually pretty much fucking doubt it. But again, it's a label. A subjective categorization. A slur, really.

  • "Sanders said they're real" - Sanders was asked, again, about anecdotal reports of "sexist behavior from supporters" -- which must be real because someone promoting the meme asked him about it, right? - and of course he condemned this behavior which he was hearing about, without actual evidence or examples of it going on. As he should. But that does not mean "Berniebros are real"

  • "They attacked Senator Warren" - O RLY? Actually, the "attack" was a lot of people criticising her on the internet, for a decision she made as a politician. Which is kind of an occupational hazard for someone who makes political decisions for a living. I think this drills down to part of the alleged "berniebro" phenomenon, in that Sanders supporters are probably more likely to be a) active on the internet and b) dissatisfied with the status quo. So people "hear from" them a lot. But merely expressing opinions- even strong negative ones- is not "attacking". When presented with this list of "horrible things Sanders supporters said to Liz Warren", most of them were comments like "I'm disappointed in you for not supporting the true progressive in this race" - OH MY FUCKING GOD HOW CAN ANYONE ABIDE SUCH MALICIOUS AND VILE INVECTIVE HOLY FUCK AEEEEEEE. There was ONE comment I saw which called her a "wussy", and that was certainly lame. But other than that, "attacks"? No. Criticism? Yes.

    And then, we can get into "your denying that it is real proves it is!" and that sort of shit, again, which provides a nice fluffy bounce house of semantic bullshit for Clinton people to play in for literally months at a time.

  • Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sun Mar 20, 2016, 04:25 PM (0 replies)

    Because Breakfast Needs A Champion!

    Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sat Mar 19, 2016, 07:47 PM (48 replies)

    I'm supporting the nominee, and I realize that nominee is likely to be Hillary Clinton.

    That said, some of her supporters really need to come down off the damn cross already.

    Posted by Warren DeMontague | Fri Mar 18, 2016, 10:25 PM (0 replies)

    Maybe, or maybe we as a species have outgrown certain concepts

    which were better suited to our brains when we thought the sun was a magic ball in the sky.

    Or, to put it another way; you wouldn't buy a brand new computer and load it up with Windows 95. It would be ridiculous to try and run 20 year old software on a modern machine and expect good results. But people walk around trying to comprehend the reality of 2016 using semantic maps that were put together 1400, 2000 years ago, or longer. And the results are frequently obvious.

    Hell, even our legal and governmental structures are proving woefully inadequate to address modern realities; the FBI is currently attempting to rely on laws from the 70s all the way back to the late 1800s, to address their fight with apple over encryption. We often see people- even some self-identified "progressives"- in a perpetual state of temper tantrum because HBO shows full frontal nudity, that sort of thing.

    I am of the opinion that particularly as technology advances at an exponential rate, what is needed more than ever are open source, open-ended, belief systems or meta belief systems, to address the, for lack of a better word, non-euclidian levels of complexity that comprise the data streams we are encountering in the 21st century. Catmas, as the Discordians call them, as opposed to Dogmas.

    (It is interesting, as a digression from this digression, that Bill Wilson- again, for all his many flaws- did manage to create in the structure of alcoholics anonymous a very durable, perfect in many ways, model for a decentralized, anarchist bottom-up anti-organization, which contributes mightily IMHO to the durability of the idea and the program. While one can take issue with the steps, the traditions are pretty objectively impressive from that perspective)

    But I disagree, I think actual education and information is somewhat incompatible with these sorts of oversimplified bumpersticker aphorisms. Like "abstinence only" versus teaching about STDs and contraception, the approaches are not easily munged together.

    I do believe that young minds should develop organically, and that would include avoiding mind-alterants (many of which our young people are inundated with by big pharma, like ritalin) until the brain has sort of figured out where it sits as a baseline and the personality has gelled to a certain extent. "Just say no" as one piece of advice isn't inherently bad in this regard, but again, I do think that an intellectual approach to the issue of "drugs" and education thereof would include as I said upthread, acknowledgement that all drugs and all users and all relationships between the two are not the same.

    Hell, we can acknowledge that a glass of wine is occasionally healthy for some people, while also realizing that alcoholism is a deadly nightmare for others. Similarly, it is inane to pretend that something like cannabis isn't only "not bad" but can be downright beneficial for some people, in terms of creativity and other enrichment.

    Posted by Warren DeMontague | Mon Mar 14, 2016, 07:36 PM (0 replies)

    I think it's a gross oversimplification to make statements like that.

    All drugs are not created equal nor are all the people who take them, the reasons they take them, and situations in which they take or use them, nor is every individual's relationship to them.

    I fully admit I am a strung out addict, addicted to a drug that I pretty fucking much have to have, every morning, to function normally. If I don't get it I get a monster headache, at best.

    I've also dealt with addictions around me far more serious than espresso, of course.

    One of the worst in terms of damage and wreckage, by far, being alcohol. There is simply no contest. And then, of course, nicotine. That one killed my Father, with the help of Joe Camel.

    But funny enough, neither alcohol, nicotine OR caffeine were the focus of the inane "just say no" campaign, which--- like our nation's misguided drug war; which it enabled and dovetailed with, along with a metric shit-ton of authoritarian, fourth amdendment destroying bullshit fucking up the lives of otherwise law-abiding Americans--- was inordinately focused on marijuana, a drug which by any rational yardstick is far less dangerous than alcohol or nicotine, if not less conducive to tolerating daily menial drudgery than caffeine.

    "Just Say No" was designed to, among other things make baby boomers coming off a cocaine binge in the early 80s, feel less guilty and hypocritcal about spewing preachy bullshit at younger people. I can tell you that as one of the younger people of that era, we didn't give a flying fuck about it, any more than the noises about AIDS made us stop having sex the way the media and the boomers kept fantasizing that it did. It was, in a very real way, the equivalent of "abstinence only" education.

    "just say no" is an oversimplification and an inane bumper sticker aphorism, which (like drugs) are fine for some people- 12 steppers, etc- but like many bumpersticker aphorisms, it's not even technically true, or correct. It seems to me that some people should say no, some people should say no under certain circumstances, and some people function just fine- in fact, arguably better- occasionally saying yes to certain things that work for them.

    And prime among and above all that is that people should be able to make up their own fucking minds about their own lives and their own bodies, insofar as they're not directly harming or endangering anyone else.

    Wow, nuance and an actually intelligent approach to a complex situation, imagine that.

    That's not what we got from the Reagans or their era. Ever.

    Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sat Mar 12, 2016, 06:48 AM (1 replies)


    Posted by Warren DeMontague | Tue Mar 8, 2016, 07:59 PM (3 replies)

    If Bernie Sanders made an exactly identical statement you guys would completely LOSE YOUR SHIT

    admit it.

    Posted by Warren DeMontague | Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:20 PM (2 replies)
    Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 26 Next »