Popular-vote-loser Donald Trump got his official briefing on Russia’s hacking of the election. In what we can only assume was an attempt to counteract Trump’s brilliant plan to flat-out lie about what was in this briefing, the US intelligence agencies released the declassified version of the report yesterday as well.
You should download it (direct link) from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and read it, if for no other reason than to see how blatantly Trump has already lied about its contents. (If you’d like to avoid going to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence site you can download the PDF from The Minneapolis Star-Tribune here.)
The report is actually quite short; especially if you ignore the appendix about Russia’s propaganda outlet RT, which is definitely worth reading on its own though not quite as essential.
If you don’t feel like dealing with a PDF at the moment, the Washington Post has a handy guide to the important bits in the report.
Tomorrow we start in on Trump’s cabinet nominees and their ethical failings, in preparation for a week of CALLING SENATORS.
If you’d like to get started early, take a look at this CNN/Money article: “Trump national security pick Monica Crowley plagiarized multiple sources in 2012 book.” The title is fairly self-explanatory. She plagiarized A LOT.
See more Resist Trump Today posts here.
Let me interject a little OT fun here–scientists have been working on a spreadsheet of animal farts. TIL that seal farts smell like lutefisk.
Are my heels working?
Flow my tears! (apologies to Dowland)
Loverly, Trump’s Son-in-law battles unprofitable tenants:
@eli, Axe, WWTH, LindsayIrene, IP, PeeVee, everyone reading; you are all regulars of my heart, no matter how often or rarely you post <3 No minimum posting requirement for entry.
@proudfootz, I ended up digging into one little slice of your reply tonight. I've decided to post it separately, and will reply to more tomorrow. It's late and writing these sorts of things is a tad anxiety-inducing; it's not a good thing to do before bed. So, just this one thing.
"Mansplaining" and "brogressive" aren't dog whistles. They're jargon.
A dogwhistle term is a socially acceptable term used to allude to something much nastier; it veils its revulsion. A dogwhistle statement talks about “urban crime” to avoid sounding racist to people who aren’t paying attention, but it is really about reinforcing a racist belief about black people and people of colour. It’s another Motte-and-Bailey defense, if you like. Someone using a dogwhistle will claim that it’s a neutral statement, and how dare you imply racism/sexism/whatever!
“Mansplaining” wears its definition in its sleeve – it doesn’t hide what it’s saying. Notice that we aren’t saying it’s a neutral term, because it’s not. It’s a negative evaluation, describing a particular characteristic of stereotypical masculinity.
(At this point I actually wrote a few paragraphs about the phenomenon, because it’s really interesting and digs into some very fundamental motivations, but it got over-wroght. So I’ll boil it down and be brief.)
When a man’s confidence drives him to believe that he’s very well educated on some topic despite being an amateur (physics and cosmology are huge culprits here), it can mix with an unconscious social “leadership” drive when around a woman to make him very explicative and condescending. It’s usually mixed with an assumption that the woman he’s talking to doesn’t know about the topic.
That’s “mansplaining”, and it’s an insulting, condescending thing to do. It’s specifically “mansplaining” and not just condescension because it involves the social power imbalance between men and women, baked into the assumption that the woman doesn’t know, and the positive drive to “educate” her.
For your benefit: A huge difference between talking about something and mansplaining about something is how quickly and easily the speaker shifts from “teacher” to “student”. When an adult explains something to another and the other says “Yeah, I know that stuff”, the explainer stops explaining. When they disagree on a point, they listen to one another, shifting between role of teacher and student. This is called coregulated learning.
When a “mansplainer” (or just a “splainer”) explains something they refuse to make that shift, instead demanding evidence and using emotional appeals to assert social dominance. The explanation is a means of attaining that dominance, in the guise of having a “debate.” Thunderfoot, The Amazing Atheist, and Carl of Swinden all do this, if you’re familiar with them from the Atheosphere.
That’s not a dog whistle. By calling it a “dog whistle” you gut the term of its actual meaning, calling it an empty shell for a biased call-to-arms. It’s neither empty nor a call-to-arms – it’s a negative evaluation of a behaviour.
Similarly: “Brogressive” isn’t a dog whistle. It wears its definition on its sleeve. It’s another negative term, this time for a progressive man who either a) only adheres to progressive causes which directly affect his social category (single white male is the standard) or b) pays lip service to progressive causes in order to try to seduce women. Again – a meaningful term that isn’t concealing anything. It says what it means.
Now, a bit more personal.
We all have biases; anyone who thinks they’ve defeated theirs doesn’t understand what a bias is. They’re immovable consequences of our brain structure. The fact that I had to explain these terms to you should tell you something about your biases.
You have a measure of directed thinking going on with regards to this topic – I don’t and can’t know why. But it’s much like why creationists can’t really define what evolution is, not really. Directed thinking prevents them from grasping a concrete and real definition of the term (for very interesting semantic reasons, that).
Face it, look it in the eye. If you’re interested in the pursuit of truth – and if you’re an atheist I’m betting you are – that inability is indicative of something much deeper that only you can discover. Find it, root it out. It’s a barrier that you need to overcome.
Good night; may you find your epiphany.
Scildfreja Unnýðnes, you (in my eyes) are the Kindness Ambassador of WHTM. <3
‘A huge difference between talking about something and mansplaining about something is how quickly and easily the speaker shifts from “teacher” to “student”. ‘
Thank you–that is a really helpful and simple formulation. I once tried to explain this in a much less clear and more wordy way, using various kinds of interactions I’ve had with people as an example. ‘Let me tell you about this subject I’m interested in.’ ‘Cool, I hadn’t heard about that! Have you read x? It takes an interesting and unusual view of the subject.’
If you’re talking about something, the expected response would be ‘no, I haven’t–how interesting! Tell me more!’ That, to me, is a sign that the person is genuinely interested in the topic (and one reason I always carry a notebook around, to write down stuff people tell me about things I’m interested in). If you’re mansplaining, you immediately change the topic back to what you know–you’re not really interested in learning anything more about the subject.
Also, dinosaurs, movies, philosophy, poker, climate science, journalism, hip hop, coffee, temperature of steaks…
Fuck it, it’s everything.
‘Carl of Swindon’ cracks me up. I AM IN SWINDON RIGHT NOW.
Back in the good ol days, when straight white men had virtually no power or influence, I used to be able to publicly state my hatred of of them. At some point, that became unacceptable in polite company, and so I was forced to switch to the coded language of “mansplainer” and “brocialist.” I trust that the uninitiated will believe I’m simply complaining about specific behaviours. Those who share my bigotry, though, will hear the message I’m really intending to send.
Oh wait, sorry, none of that is true. My bad.
Okay then, time to deal with this one I guess. Bit of a warning – I’m a bit sharp tongued today, apparently.
May as well start where you’ve started.
Others have addressed this – you’re amongst rationalists, scientists, atheists and free-thinkers here. There are religious people here too, but we’re all very much in the “reality-based” world here (Hearts for my religious peeps – being religious doesn’t make you bad or wrong! I’m sorry I wrote that so poorly). Being an Atheist here doesn’t make you suspect. Don’t be so defensive. But that’s not what’s important about your reply.
You didn’t actually reply to my statement about the Motte-and-Bailey structure of the “grain of salt” appeal. You deflected it into “I’m an Atheist, and religious people do this, thanks for explaining it.” I mentioned this because you were doing it. This suggests that no, you aren’t actually as aware of the “certain techniques employed among the purveyors of religion in public discourse” as you claim to be. If you value truth, it is vital for you to be self-critical right now.
Next. I want to juxtapose these two statements:
The latter statement: you claim to be aware that other people have lifetimes of experiences. The former statement: You claim to be unaware of the fact that we have critically examined the world around us in coming to our decisions. This suggests that you recognize that people have life experiences, but you think they have weaker faculties of reason and examination compared to yours.
Entering an unknown group with the assumption that they haven’t examined the evidence as thoroughly as you have is… well. I’ve already written about ‘splainin’. I don’t think I need to again.
Now let’s take that former statement and contrast it with this:
Axe’s reduction was an attempt to discredit, apparently. What’s the reductive hyperbole you’re using in the former line for, then?
Hint: People use hyperbole for emphasis. It’s called exaggeration. It can discredit, sure, but it can also clarify differences between positions and demonstrate problematic outcomes. It can also ridicule, which is what Axe was doing. Apparently what you were doing with me, too.
You don’t have to read every single comment ever in order to realize that people have reasonable thoughts in their head, and it’t patently ridiculous to suggest it. Dismissive is probably the better word for that. Perhaps if you came into the conversation without the assumption that we’re beneath your level of critical analysis, you might have avoided a lot of this, and we could have had a nice discussion.
Go ahead and take that with a grain of salt, though.
I can take a straight insult, but this sort of backhanded “I wasn’t agile enough to handle your gross incompetence, I’m sorry” is deeply, deeply irritating. Want to complain about deflection via hyperbole? Don’t do this.
There was a very clear path of discussion, no bait-and-switch – none on Axe’s part at least. You asked what Axe would prefer over the 99%-1% dialog, he said he preferred the 60%-40% split, which was roughly the actual division of votes, and was best predicted by race. You, yourself, weren’t even talking about the “Putin/Assange conspiracy claims” at that point – you were talking about Occupy Wall Street and the Sanders’ campaign.
The comment is back on page 2 if you want to look at it yourself.
Again. You entered this space. Perhaps instead of blaming Axe for not taking the initiative to educate you, you might have asked for some direction. Axe could have saved us some drama by choosing a different action, but you could’ve saved us a lot more drama in the same way.
There are a few comments from you along this line here. I’ll just use this one as the exemplar.
The reason I was okay with OogyBoggles and Axe being angry and hyperbolic is because you came in here with the assumption that we didn’t know what we were talking about (sorry, hadn’t “taken it with a grain of salt”) and refused to engage when we spoke otherwise. You showed no curiousity or desire for the conversation to be an exchange, and seemed happy to continue to believe the cause was purely economic despite being told that racial issues were also a significant factor – more significant in fact.
In short, you were being a dick from the start.
Look, @proudfootz, you’ve alluded in another comment here that you get this a lot, that you’re used to being treated “like shit by trolls.” Please consider that this may be happening to you a lot because of your behaviour, and not because other humans are garbage. I’m not saying that you’re garbage, either! You’re just human like anyone else. But if it’s happening to you a lot, well, you’re the common element of those interactions.
As I said before, now is the time to be self critical. Find what’s causing this and tear it down. It’s a painful process I’ve gone through a few times. Very self-damaging, but it will improve your ability to see the world clearly. It’ll also help you be a kinder, more compassionate person, which is always a good thing.
First: Being a man or an atheist docks you exactly zero points here. Two of the people who you have been confronting here are atheist men, actually (to the best of my knowledge!). Men and atheists both are cherished commentors here.
And yes, it was mentioned to discredit you. It wasn’t so much well-poisoning, though, because the evidence against 9/11 being an “inside job” is very large and convincing. I don’t think we want to drag that into the conversation, though, there’s enough going on as it is.
Short form: well-poisoning is a personal attack made before the argument. Hillary Clinton suffered from it terribly during the primaries and election, in the form of 30 years worth of slander and political attack from the Republicans against the Clintons. It’s called “poisoning the well” as an analogy – you go to the well to drink, but the water’s already poisoned when you got there. You already have a negative assessment before the discussion starts.
So, it wasn’t well-poisoning; it was mockery. Tagline of the website, actually. We tease and mock here. If you want a debate you’ve gotta bring your A game and give us something to debate.
Evidence is Bayesian.
As noted above, their hostility was warranted and due to the way you chose to make your entry, and how you reacted to initial disbelief. Had you replied with “here is my evidence showing problems with the report” or “can you explain your position so that I can understand where you’re coming from?” or something, you would’ve gotten a lot more traction. You decided to go with the “You’re all gullible” gambit. Doesn’t seem to have paid off.
Yeah, okay, guess I’m gonna do this, too.
You recall when I said “don’t thank me for being nice, because I’ll suffer for it”? And how after I clarified that I wasn’t worried about them pursuing me, ostracising me, or rejecting me?
The reason why I knew I’d suffer for being nice to you is because I knew you would use my niceness as a way to insult my friends for their (deserved) passion. I would be a pathway for you to stick the knife into them, to make them feel like they were being the unreasonable one. And it’s my fault for giving you that.
This is the tax I pay for kindness, and it’s likely part of why you don’t get much of it on your travels through the internet. I always feel bad doing it, too, because it’s taking from my friends, too – it’s exposing them to more hostility, more insults that wouldn’t have been available had I just shut up. I make that decision for them without asking, and that’s a terrible thing to do to friends. I’m very fortunate that they’re willing to go along with me, at the least.
You continue to meet my expectations.
I’ll end as I began the previous statement. Stop defending yourself. Let the cold in.
Coregulated learning is a very new topic without a lot of paper under it, but it’s super interesting. It discusses how peers work together to learn something, typically in an unsupervised environment. I don’t recall seeing anything about bad coregulation in the literature, either – no discussions on how misplaced social dynamics can usurp clear coreg.
Regulation in Learning, in general, is about self-awareness of the dynamics of learning – understanding ones weaknesses and strengths, attempting strategies for improving learning, etc, etc. Coregulation extends that to the social dynamics of learning as well – awareness of the social landscape, methods and strategies for overcoming difficulties in learning as a group.
Oh jees. I gotta call the Dean. There’s publishable stuff in there!
🙂 the thing that makes me happiest in the world is someone saying, as a result of something I’ve said, ‘oh, wait, I’ve got an idea!’ So you’ve just made my day.
And it usually happens IRL when two people put together all the stuff they individually know, or imagine, about a topic or concept and as a result collectively develop something completely new. Can’t happen if only one wants to do all the talking/teaching….
This is exactly why I don’t sheathe my claws with trolls ever anymore. A few too many “well thank you, Viscaria, for having the decorum your friends seem to lack.” Uh, no, fuck you actually.
Proudfootz, if you think you’re going to turn us against each other, you’ve got another think coming.
And another bravo for Scildfreja. She makes me feel dumb, and that’s a good thing. When I feel smart, I get lazy.
So I was catching up on this thread, then the scary clown gif that wwth posted on page 3 scared me away. I’m, like, serious.
Huh? Just noticed this. So does @footz have no idea how scare apostrophes work (add to to the list of rhetorical concepts with splaining, dogwhistle, and grain of salt), or…
The 60-40 refers to all white people and all people of color respectively regardless of votes. The popular vote came out 48-46 Clinton. Just clearing that up
@guest, thank you! it really is nice, I agree. Good bit of coregulation there 😉
@Vis, Falconer, that sorta “gosh, you’re so nice, it’s a shame you hang out with such jerks” just makes me so angry, too. I don’t think he’s doing it intentionally, though. Not that it makes a difference – makes it worse if you ask me. It’s just unconscious, unexamined, inattentive behaviour.
Poor guy can’t catch a break!
Thanks! I figured it was something like that, or perhaps something to do with the popular vote while including non-voters, or something like that. Either way it was pretty clearly “Not economic anxiety”
Man, this thread kind of exploded since the last time I checked it.
Looks like proudfootz’ argument has turned into “I assert that this group is following group dynamics, therefore I don’t need to support anything I’ve been saying.” Definitely a rational position to take.
I didn’t participate much in this discussion, but you can make me look like an unreasonable dick any time. It’s fine. 😀
@PoM, you’re far too reasonable for me to do that to you, but I’ll do my best! \o/
Way back in the thread there was (I think?) some discussion of how opposition to Putin’s regime need not be the same thing as overall Russophobia. I thought that was interesting and important, actually, and regretted seeing that sub-theme get overwhelmed.
By the way, hello again everyone. Was busy with class until the end of December, with Ms. Pavlov’s House working mucho hours too. I see the many excellent folks here are still excellent. Thank you for being a nice group.
I’ll leave this up to you folks.
Should I respond to all these questions people are asking?
Or would it be more appreciated if I simply let you all have the last word?
Proudfootz, don’t answer. Let it be. Take a break from commenting here, or I’ll moderate or ban you for being such a draining person to deal with.