And please don't call me unhinged. I spent 4 years covering this--even IDed when the prosecutor who indicted Trump was pulled off crime scene cases in real time. You, on the other hand WHINED AND WHINED AND WHINE instead of doing the political work necessary. Just as you're now doing.
Here is affirmative damage you conspiracy theorists do. THE REASON why Trump was elected even after being charged was bc whiners outsourced political work to Garland. They wanted to sit on their asses & have someone else do their job. You HAVE to do the political work. The whiners whined instead.
Garland was a useless wuss!!
Yep. Even McConnell. He punted to the Biden justice dept after acquitting in the 2nd impeachment (pre SCOTUS immunity ruling, of course). "We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one."
You're right. Most Americans are lazy at all levels including involvement in community, politics, communication,and voting. Either we've had it too good for too long or we've been absorbed into a media culture that sedates us--or both.
I remember reading about Prez Johnson telling MLKjr (I'm paraphrasing), I want to pass Civil and Voting Rights Acts but you have to do the politics of it to give me the space to make me successful. Those Acts don't pass without ALL the hard work the movement did to create the political space
Keep yelling, you’re really beating the “unhinged” accusation.
If you’re trying to understand emptywheel’s online persona, one partial clue might be: her PhD in comparative literature. Every comp lit PhD I’ve ever worked with tended to act as though their field of expertise is superior to others, and to react viciously if not allowed to control the argument.
You're projecting.
You just explained how every white man is triggered. This is you bro.
Your reply here is more than a partial clue as to your ‘persona’.
Pffft. As if you measure up
Whut
😂
An associate professor of writing studies making sweeping, pejorative generalizations against his comp lit counterparts … so petty; so passive-aggressive.
I spent more than a decade and a half being ridiculed by people who thought my field of expertise (and the expertise of my colleagues in English Education) was bogus and worthless. Resort to cheap pop psychology all you want. It doesn’t change what I learned from those experiences.
I’m not ridiculing your field of study. Only your words.
"I'm mad at Marcy's academic background because others with that background were mean to me and will hold this grudge until I die, regardless of what she says, which doesn't at all vindicate what those other people might have said about me."
You’ve completely missed my point. Institutions shape people. I’ve long wondered if graduate programs in comparative literature instill certain patterns of argumentation in their graduates. That’s all.
Oh, dear me. Have some humanities.
These experiences which had nothing to do with the person you're currently railing against? Have you considered that the ridicule may have been earned?
I’ve certainly considered that. But then I realized that some of my colleagues who were ridiculed in the same way were virtual saints. The ridicule wasn’t about them as people, and it wasn’t about me as a person. It was about our fields of expertise.
Academics can be both pompous and vicious. I’m sorry you’ve encountered such graceless buffoons. Pls try to not emulate them.
That’s a fine example of group judging astrology
As a Physics PhD I'm here to say that it's Physics PhDs who are widely recognized as believing their degree is superior to all others...
And I’ve had other physicists tell me it’s the math people who have the biggest superiority complex.😜
It's neck and neck down the stretch.
I've known her for nearly 20 years. She's usually been quite good on the issues and in personal interactions, both online and offline. But for some reason she snaps at people who rightly criticize Garland for his role in the catastrophic failures that allowed Trump to get away with insurrection.
Thank you for that background and context. I’ve done extensive study in rhetoric (tactics, strategies, and patterns of argumentation). Much of what I’ve seen in this thread is over the top.
And yet you seem blind to the rhetoric about Garland. Curious. Or that the rest of the thread was a very productive conversation about what we could be doing. Even curiouser.
I’m not swayed by either the pro- or anti-Garland arguments so much because I think the real underlying “mistake” was made by the Democratic primary voters who chose Biden to take on Trump. He won the election and had some solid achievements, but was utterly inept at preventing a second Trump term.
How was Biden supposed to prevent a second Trump term exactly? That’s the responsibility of the VOTERS.
I agree in part. But the task of any Democrat who might have won in 2020 was not only to govern, but also to punish the fascists and neoconfederates who did so much damage to the country from 2016 onwards. Biden was incapable of that. Was anyone else capable? Maybe Warren, maybe not.
What??? You should really look into what happened during the PROSECUTION of Trump. Maybe read up on SCOTUS opinions.
So... given that Marcy's work is invariably detailed and in-depth and accurate, perhaps the people insisting that she's wrong about this might be the ones who are wrong? And maybe she's tired of having to explain that to people who consistently don't listen and then complain about her tone?
There are ways to defend Merrick Garland without calling people propagandists for John Roberts.
Every guy named Tim I've ever met never had anything interesting to say.
But if you pool all their takes, you get a Cess.
Ooooooof... Have you considered crying harder?
think he's more accurately an Associate Professor of Whining Studies - so he has to whine all the time to maintain his superior experience, you see
Have you considered not using—and therefore validating—fascist online troll language like “cry harder”?
So you haven't?
I have never used that phrase online or anywhere else, no.
"I cant engage with the substance, so I'll attack something else." And you think she's the unhinged person here?
Interesting take. Counterpoint: her online persona is basically: I read and am good at critical thinking so I understand how shit works in reality and break it down in an easy-to-understand format for others. Also, life's almost never as easy as "[Insert person/group] should do [X]" - here's why.
This is the definition of an ad hominem attack.
Hm . . . you mean like calling people whiners and conspiracy theorists and asking them why they’re propagandizing for John Roberts?
When you can't counter the argument, you repeat the wrong rhetoric over and over until you are called an idiot. Then you declare that the ad hominem proves your conspiracy theories are logical & sane. While also making an unsubstantiated illogical & insane attacks on education & expertise.
No. The whining isn't the flaw in their argument, but it's illustrative of why their whiny arguments suck.
Shouldn't a professor of writing studies lnow what the term "ad hominem" means?
I know exactly what it means. And as a longtime student of rhetoric, I know that under certain circumstances, it can be effective. It’s long been labeled a “logical fallacy,” but most arguments are not purely logical.
I think it's funny how every single time someone says they've suffered ridicule in or adjacent to their field of alleged expertise, they immediately prove the ridicule was earned. So thank you for in no way bucking that pattern.
But to add and be clear: what you're claiming is an ad hominem still isn't, because Marcy did in fact engage with your argument. She didn't dismiss it because you're whining (though she could have); she dismissed it on evidentiary grounds AND ALSO correctly noted your whining.
You need to read more carefully. emptywheel didn’t accuse me of whining. She leveled that charge at someone else.
I've only ever seen her do that in response to attacks accusing her of carrying water for Garland/Trump/etc. But I haven't seen all her exchanges. This, on the other hand, is arguing that she is not an expert because of a degree somewhere else. An attempt at an argument, which is an ad hominem.
Not limited to comp litters. In my experience, many PhDs so act. They grow out of it pretty quick once they start working in the real world. NB: this is what we called, when I was a grad student, an ad hominem argument, i.e., avoids substance in favour of slur.
🙄 Stfu George
🙄
You provide nothing here. Zero.
You'd be yelling too if you had to keep explaining things to adults like they were dim toddlers.
Meanwhile you’re not beating the whiny a-hole accusation. Don’t like her posts? … don’t follow.
Yelling? I'm asking this whiner to substantiate his false claims.
It's considered yelling because you're a woman, of course. Dude is actually histrionic. You're just grounding everything in reality and he prefers emoting without substance
I just hope that someone out there is compiling an enormous "DO NOT HIRE" blacklist of everyone who worked for ICE, or pretty much any part of the Trump regime.
💯💯💯 Take Benghazi as a test case. Rs incessantly went after HRC online, on air, and with congressional hearings. McCarthy even said on Fix its purpose was to dig up dirt. And then they found the emails, which reinforced their narrative. Devious and effective.
Prosecuting criminals is literally not my job.
Let me help you out. The word P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L does not read "prosecute," and yes, politics is the job of citizens. Any else I can help you with?
You seem to be arguing that prosecuting criminals is political work, then. I think you're wrong.
Let me try this again. The word P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L does not read "prosecute," and yes, politics is the job of citizens. They are different, but related things. It is the job of DOJ to prosecute. It is the job of citizens to make sure that matters politically. Lefties failed miserably on that front.
Centrists failed miserably on that front. They hold way more political power.
Above you offer a critique of TV lawyers doing a poor job of representing the actions of Garland’s DOJ. Isn’t that more of a media problem and a “lefty” problem? I mean, I don’t disagree that whining while waiting on someone else to act is weak sauce and gets us nowhere. But isn’t it also the case …
… that lefties messaging vis-a-vis prosecution is only as powerful as the circulation it receives?
I don’t mean to replace Garland with “the media” in the oversimplification blame game. But if circulation of information is the or part of the problem, how do lefties (not really a monolith, but okay) pursue the political action you’re calling for?
I quite honestly do believe that then, as now, whiners fill lefty discursive space with "Dems are bad" and drown out any efforts to say, "Would you look at the crimes Trump committed?"
The lesson I’m taking away from this exchange is: Criticizing the 🍊🤡 > criticizing dems (even annoying ones) Writing/posting/talking about this government’s bad policies > just saying the 🍊🤡 should go to jail
I don’t even know what a lefty is anymore. I thought I was a lefty, but I happen to think criticizing the current “government” is more productive than criticizing dems (even the ones who annoy me deeply). 🤦🏼
Totally fair question. There are a couple of moments that are instructive. For example, Smith released a LONG summary of the evidence against Trump right in the middle of the election period (October). Lefties ... maybe didn't even notice it. Why not? Where was that breakdown?
💯🙏