#the reactionary mind

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Scientific American endorses Harris

TONIGHT (October 23) at 7PM, I'll be in DECATUR, GEORGIA, presenting my novel THE BEZZLE at EAGLE EYE BOOKS.

If Trump's norm-breaking is a threat to democracy (and it is), what should Democrats do? Will breaking norms to defeat norms only accelerate the collapse of norms, or do we fight fire with fire, breaking norms to resist the slide into tyranny?

Writing for The American Prospect, Rick Perlstein writes how "every time the forces of democracy broke a reactionary deadlock, they did it by breaking some norm that stood in the way":

https://prospect.org/politics/2024-10-23-science-is-political/

Take the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, and the Reconstruction period that followed it. As Jefferson Cowie discusses, the 13th only passed because the slave states were excluded from its ratification, and even then, it barely squeaked over the line. The Congress that passed reconstruction laws that "radically reconstructed [slave states] via military subjugation" first ejected all the representatives of those states:

https://newrepublic.com/article/182383/defend-liberalism-lets-fight-democracy-first

The New Deal only exists because FDR was on the verge of packing the Supreme Court, and, under this threat, SCOTUS stopped ruling against FDR's plans:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/20/judicial-equilibria/#pack-the-court

The passage of progressive laws – "the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, and Medicaid" – are all thanks to JFK's gambit of packing the House Rules Committee, ending the obstructionist GOP members' use of the committee to kill anything that would protect or expand America's already fragile social safety net.

As Perlstein writes, "A willingness to judiciously break norms in a civic emergency can be a sign of a healthy and valorous democratic resistance."

And yet…the Democratic establishment remains violently allergic to norm-breaking. Perlstein recalls the 2018 book How Democracies Die, much beloved of party elites and Obama himself, which argued that norms are the bedrock of democracy, and so the pro-democratic forces undermine their own causes when they fight reactionary norm-breaking with their own.

The tactic of bringing a norm to a gun-fight has been a disaster for democracy. Trump wasn't the first norm-shattering Republican – think of GWB and his pals stealing the 2000 election, or Mitch McConnell stealing a Supreme Court seat for Gorsuch – but Trump's assault on norms is constant, brazen and unapologetic. Progressives need to do more than weep on the sidelines and demand that Republicans play fair.

The Democratic establishment's response is to toe every line, seeking to attract "moderate conservatives" who love institutions more than they love tax giveaways to billionaires. This is a very small constituency, nowhere near big enough to deliver the legislative majorities, let alone the White House. As Perlstein says, Obama very publicly rejected calls to be "too liberal" and tiptoed around anti-racist policy, in a bid to prevent a "racist backlash" (Obama discussed race in public less than any other president since the 1950s). This was a hopeless, ridiculous own-goal: Perlstein points out that even before Obama was inaugurated, there were more than 100 Facebook groups calling for his impeachment. The racist backlash was inevitable had nothing to do with Obama's policies. The racist backlash was driven by Obama's race.

Luckily, some institutions are getting over their discomfort with norm-breaking and standing up for democracy. Scientific American the 179 year-old bedrock of American scientific publication, has endorsed Harris for President, only the second such endorsement in its long history:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vote-for-kamala-harris-to-support-science-health-and-the-environment/

Predictably, this has provoked howls of outrage from Republicans and a debate within the scientific community. Science is supposed to be apolitical, right?

Wrong. The conservative viewpoint, grounded in discomfort with ambiguity ("there are only two genders," etc) is antithetical to the scientific viewpoint. Remember the early stages of the covid pandemic, when science's understanding of the virus changed from moment to moment? Major, urgent recommendations (not masking, disinfecting groceries) were swiftly overturned. This is how science is supposed to work: a hypothesis can only be grounded in the evidence you have in hand, and as new evidence comes in that changes the picture, you should also change your mind.

Conservatives hated this. They claimed that scientists were "flip-flopping" and therefore "didn't know anything." Many concluded that the whole covid thing was a stitch-up, a bid to control us by keeping us off-balance with ever-changing advice and therefore afraid and vulnerable. This never ended: just look at all the weirdos in the comments of this video of my talk at last summer's Def Con who are absolutely freaking out about the fact that I wore a mask in an enclosed space with 5,000 people from all over the world in it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EmstuO0Em8

This intolerance for following the evidence is a fixture in conservative science denialism. How many times have you heard your racist Facebook uncle grouse about how "scientists used to say the world was getting colder, now they say it's getting hotter, what the hell do they know?"

Perlstein points to other examples of this. For example, in the 1980s, conservatives insisted that the answer to the AIDS crisis was to "just stop having 'illicit sex,'" a prescription that was grounded in a denial of AIDS science, because scientists used to say that it was a gay disease, then they said you could get it from IV drug use, or tainted blood, or from straight sex. How could you trust scientists when they can't even make up their minds?

https://www.newspapers.com/image/379364219/?terms=babies&match=1

There certainly are conservative scientists. But the right has a "fundamentally therapeutic discourse…conservatism never fails, it is only failed." That puts science and conservativism in a very awkward dance with one another.

Sometimes, science wins. Continuing in his history of the AIDS crisis, Perlstein talks about the transformation of Reagan's Surgeon General, C Everett Koop. Koop was an arch-conservative's arch-conservative. He was a hard-right evangelical who had "once suggested homosexuals were sedulously recruiting boys into their cult to help them take over America once they came of voting age." He'd also called abortion "the slide to Auschwitz" – which was weird, because he'd also opined that the "Jews had it coming for refusing to accept Jesus Christ."

You'd expect Koop to have continued the Reagan administration's de facto AIDS policy ("queers deserve to die"), but that's not what happened. After considering the evidence, Koop mailed a leaflet to every home in the USA advocating for condom use.

Koop was already getting started. His harm-reduction advocacy made him a national hero, so Reagan couldn't fire him. A Reagan advisor named Gary Bauer teamed up with Dinesh D'Souza on a mission to get Koop back on track. They got him a new assignment: investigate the supposed psychological harms of abortion, which should be a slam-dunk for old Doc Auschwitz. Instead, Koop published official findings – from the Reagan White House – that there was no evidence for these harms, and which advised women with an AIDS diagnosis to consider abortion.

So sometimes, science can triumph over conservativism. But it's far more common for conservativism to trump science. The most common form of this is "eisegesis," where someone looks at a "pile of data in order to find confirmation in it of what they already 'know' to be true." Think of those anti-mask weirdos who cling to three studies that "prove" masks don't work. Or the climate deniers who have 350 studies "proving" climate change isn't real. Eisegesis proves ivermectin works, that vaccinations are linked to autism, and that water fluoridation is a Communist plot. So long as you confine yourself to considering evidence that confirms your beliefs, you can prove anything.

Respecting norms is a good rule of thumb, but it's a lousy rule. The politicization of science starts with the right's intolerance for ambiguity – not Scientific American's Harris endorsement.

Tor Books as just published two new, free LITTLE BROTHER stories: VIGILANT, about creepy surveillance in distance education; and SPILL, about oil pipelines and indigenous landback.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/22/eisegesis/#norm-breaking

[flock-of-cassowaries]

I’m having a deep think right now about the overlaps and the differences between the appeal of fascism, and that of libertarianism.

On one level, this is because I am writing a Sucession fanfic, and trying to get into Roman’s head.

But on another level only reason I’m even writing Succession fanfiction is that I identify with Roman, and that is in large part because he is a queer person who is philosophically in the thrall of his terrifying conservative father, whose love he desperately craves.

And once upon a time, that used to be me. And I feel deep and abiding shame about that.

(Not the sexy kind of shame. The devastating kind.)

But as I delve into philosophical discussions of fascism and conservatism (and honestly, I have not yet delved the deeply), I’m starting to realize that maybe I have less in common with Roman, and more with Connor (if we leave out his weird S3 white-nationalism dog whistles about the evils of onanism).

I’m basing a lot of this on the first chapter – which is all I have read so far - of “The Reactionary Mind” by Corey Robin; which I came upon via the source list for the linked YouTube video.

[link to “Endnote 2: White Fascism” by Innuendo Studios, on YouTube.]

Robin (if I’m understanding him correctly) posits that the end goal of conservatism is fundamentally Fishstick fascistic, and that the real animus driving political conservative movements is always the desire of the privileged to remain above those the existing social order oppresses.

I have certainly voted for, and carried water for, conservatives (a fact of which I am, again, deeply ashamed), but I don’t think that was ever the real appeal for me.

I’m not saying I didn’t internalize beliefs that were (I now realize) racist, classist, ableist, and elitist; but I don’t think that was ever the main draw, so much as a side effect of reading the goddamn National Post every fucking day

But for me, I think the main appeal of conservatism was the illusory promise of total self-sufficiency, and of being impossible to further hurt. It was the libertarian lie, bound up in the same nihilistic appeal as the Nine Inch Nails song whose hook is “Nothing can stop me now, cause I don’t care anymore.” (‘Piggy’ is the song.)

In this respect, I think I had more in common with Connor; I was also the discarded child who grew up to think of themself as “a flower that grows on rocks and feeds on the insect that land inside of it.”

Honestly, that soliloquy (from S4E2) could’ve been me at thirteen.

I felt rejected and shunned by the world, but I was also rapidly becoming aware that I could use my looks and intelligence as currency (just a Connor uses his literal currency as currency).

It was only when I was 21, and ended a long relationship, and found myself with no one to turn to, and no idea who I was, that my father swooped in to be my new best friend; and that’s when I became more Roman-like in my fawning attempts to appeal to him.

But I think Roman truly believes that his father is better than him, whereas a much more significant part of me always knew my own dad was a false prophet.

I think the world reaffirmed this belief in Roman, because his father has been so successful, and I think his father, concerned with legacy, has been much more active in fostering this mythology than my own father was.

(My dad would tend to just willfully ignore that l existed for several years at a stretch, if I was acting too cringe [i.e. not stereotypically conservative-lady feminine enough] for his conservative sensibilities; something I am assuming that Shiv could probably relate to.

The scene where Logan tells her he wants her back in the fold was very similar to what my father did with me when I was 21, and I glowed just the same way she did.)

But yeah, I think an internalized belief on Roman’s part that his father truly is better than him, and a desire to “be as good” as his father in order to redeem himself and overcome this inadequacy in his person, really feeds into Roman’s affinity for fascism / conservatism.

And I think that belief structure is with him in that bathroom with Mencken, unacknowledged and subconscious, and even more insidious than his conscious priorities of wanting to win points with Logan, and maaaaaybe wanting to be pushed to his knees and have a fascist phallus (a fascllus? I’m going to hell) thrust upon him.

Anyway, if anyone ever reads this, feel free to suggest some books / essays / videos to my reading list.

So far, in addition to the above-mentioned Cory Robbins tome, I am planning to actually finish “The Ur-Fascist” by Umberto Ecco, and to at least dip into “The Dialectic of Enlightenment” by Horkheimer and Adorno, and “The Authoritarian Personality” by Adorno.

[thehumanarkle]

I cut it a bit closer than I hoped, but I did manage to finish 10 books in 2022. And here they are, in one of my patented Ten Things posts.

The Reactionary Mind - Second Edition by Corey Robin

If I Was Your Girl by Meredith Russo

The Trouble with White Women: A Counterhistory of Feminism by Kyla Schuller

Iron Widow by Xiran Jay Zhao

The Last Sun by K.D. Edwards

DC Pride 2022 by Various

Vampirella vs. Reanimator by Cullen Bunn

Station Eternity by Mur Lafferty

Uzumaki by Junji Ito

Ramses the Damned: The Reign of Osiris by Anne Rice & Christopher Rice

[mesetacadre]

baby girl you can't even rip a poster off a pole properly, you're not going to defend the spanish nation, the king and god from immigrants

[adelphenium]

roope but in the cadence of a hearty "youpi !" as exclaimed by a little québécois boy

[nyaaamato]

i feel so so crazy every time i think about the expressions obito pulls during the kamui fight... everyone always focuses on his "crazy smile" and it's become so prevalent in fanart and fanfiction that you'd almost think his character was defined by that emotion...

instead i want to talk about the way the animators used the (very sparse) light in his eyes during that fight to convey something different about him that i think is so much more important to understanding his motives and feelings during this part of the series: determination (to, in his mind, "save the world") and grief (knowing, at least somewhere deep, deep down that things will be the same. after all- he wants to create a perfect dream world, not a perfect world because when reality refuses to change... then you settle for second best).

during the start of the fight between obito and kakashi in kamui, both of their eyes are lightless and faraway, they've closed themselves off emotionally to stay resolute in their convictions. this is the first time they've fought face to face in twenty years, and we can tell this takes a toll on both of them because the shots switch back and forth between them fighting as kids to them as adults and back again, with their expressions and reactions mimicking those of when they were younger. it stands out less on kakashi, because while he did change as he grew up he still has a fairly reserved attitude and sticks to the shinobi rules of not showing vulnerability in front of his students and teammates.

it's more obvious with obito, because the distinction between him as a kid and an adult are just so different. whether it's quiet sadness (when he talks with minato about kakashi and sakumo before the kannabi bridge mission) or frustation (not graduating fast enough) or worry (they've lose a teammate in enemy territory), his emotions are drawn exaggerated from the get-go. obito is emotional outwardly and that's a staple of his childhood self as well as another reason he's a "black sheep" shinobi.

then, we have several chapters and episodes after his face reveal where his expressions hardly expand past a frown and a deeper frown. it's easier for him to close himself off, dissociate into someone who can take on an entire army, because that army represents the bulk of what he sees wrong with the shinobi world. alone with kakashi, though... feelings slip in. he doesn't have a character to play, a mask to wear.

kid obito's determination not to lose slips through, and you can see the bitter sadness, the desperation behind his feelings. this expression drags out significantly longer than kakashi, and in many ways gives the impression that his will is stronger than kakashi's. kakashi can't bring himself to kill obito, no matter how close he gets. his resolution is weaker than obito's conviction to free himself, destroy his last shred of humanity (his heart) by throwing himself on kakashi's blade.

kakashi's "determined gleam":

versus obito's:

i don't have much else to say really HAHA... i've just been thinking about this like ten second long snippet of their fight since i rewatched it a few months ago because it's something i totally missed when i watched it air years ago. this isn't a kakashi snub either! he just doesn't get his character quite so brutalised by fandom the way obito does, and i'd looove to see more content that doesn't diminish him to "angry guy that swears a lot" LMAO

[communistkenobi]

the amount of complaints I see people make on here about other people just living their lives in public space is ridiculous. can’t do pda can’t play music can’t talk too loud can’t take up too much space. terminal white suburbia brain

[priafey]

things the US needs to address:

the collective psychosis that leads people to make posts like these

[tiercel]

Learning against my will about ozempic and actually got a little pissed off when the lady describing it said once you take it youre basically on it forever to maintain results. Like i wonder where all the "concerned" people that have been fearmongering about hormones for years are now. Why are we not concerned about the potential side effects of lifelong use of these specific drugs, or is it fine because theres an outcome society considers favorable

[maxbytes]

i have to thank whoever came up with the phrase "making up a guy to get mad at" bc whenever i catch myself ranting and raving in my head i stop and ask myself "am i making up a guy to get mad at right now?" and 9 times outta 10 i am.

i also have thank whoever said (something along the lines of) "it isn't fair when the other person you're having a pretend argument with in your head isn't there to defend themself." it's so easy to start strawmanning and that isn't productive to showing how my position is supposedly the right one.

[breitzbachbea]

The coffee was just alright, but that was fine. He had brought his caffettiera for the Irish office.

What really bugged him, aside from trading a morning cornetto for a croissant, which wasn't the same, was how Harry did not leave his mind.

Marco hadn't shown up for breakfast yet, little surprise when he had been out on the town last night. Perhaps hungover or talking to his brother on the phone. Perhaps both.

All the better. More time for him to stare out the window and see nothing. For him to linger of the feeling of Harry's hands on his hips when he was manhandled, when the other wanted to keep him steady while they grinded against each other.

The pale skin, the countless freckles, the way the moonlight through the window made him shine ... it all felt a little too good to be true. Like a forbidden fruit. The warmth of his arms and legs, his entire body, too real to be illusion though.

He picked up the croissaint and took a bite, tried to ground himself, but no luck. Everything had gone so well, he had fallen asleep, sated. With a smile on his face, knowing from Harry's last look that the other would think of him all night. But then he'd awoken to no one else in the bed and it seemed like the tables had turned. Exiled from the dreamworld, where he surely had been in Harry's arms. Left all alone in the real one.

The silhouette haunted him and the way the thick, scraggly hair felt underneath his fingers, the way he tasted and how soft the thin lips were - God, how he loved the man's soft kisses! How he longed for more than just frotting, bodies too far apart despite the ghost of kisses everpresent on his skin.

He was worth the wait, he was so entirely worth the wait and the not-quite-there freshly squeezed orange juice of the bar and the way how Dublin summer did not feel like summer, everything was worth the high he was chasing. He carved out a special place in his heart already for once it was over, as it always would be, but he hoped the butterflies would at least survive the winter.

He wanted plenty of opportunities to dig his fingers in his ass, to run his hands over his strong back, to straddle him and feel him gasp into his mouth during a kiss. That cheeky grin, the missing tooth, the whispered words of poetry and curses -

He choked on his bite, just when Marco came into the room. He was at the table within the blink of an eye.

"Michè, you're alright?!"

"Yes." Michele coughed again. The last remnants of pastry seemed to have exited his lungs. "Just ..." A deep breath. "Just infatuated."

He smiled at Marco, who had a confused frown between his brows while his mouth hung up open.

[froody]

my mom is really insecure about me not being as close to her family as I am to my dad’s side of the family so I’m like walking on egg shells in the middle of drama. listening to her vent. wanting to say stuff like “I never liked my (maternal) uncle so fuck ‘em” but not wanting to upset her.

[funkle420]

UC Santa Cruz has a free PDF of Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire!

[allthecanadianpolitics]

When people protested loudly outside a drag queen story hour in front of children in the South Shore community of Ste-Catherine earlier this month, politicians and activists rallied behind the performers, who are part of the LGBTQ2S+ community.

Even the Quebec national assembly reacted by unanimously adopting a resolution denouncing intolerance towards the LGBTQ2S+ community.

But the Quebec Conservative Party leader claims many Quebecers aren’t comfortable with drag performers reading books to young audiences.

"There's a strong percentage of the population in Quebec that does not agree with the drag queens in our kindergarten, our schools or our public libraries," Duhaime told CTV News outside the national assembly, where his party failed to win any seats during the last provincial election. [...]

Continue Reading.

Tagging: @politicsofcanada

[biracy]

Sometimes I remember that a lot of rockers during the 70s and 80s were pedophiles, and it kinda makes me wonder if those who were attracted to rock during that era were more likely to be pedophiles or something. A really doomer part of me thinks that a lot of men, even today, are opportunist pedos

[glavilio]

oh me oh my what a thought heavy say but it's funny how some people's response to "don't dehumanize fascists because it's a reactionary and unproductive way to approach politics seeing your enemies as inhuman and alien" is "i disagree because we should attack them". yes we should attack them and resist facism with violence when necessary, AND yes fascists are still people. you cannot be meaningfully antifacist if you refuse to understand that a great deal of antifacist action is about preventing the ideology from spreading, which requires understanding (not the same as supporting or agreeing!) the psychology and social context that leads to its development. yes, often violent resistance must be used, and the targets of that violent resistance are people, not symbols, and not inhuman. it may be hard to recon with that reality but it is unavoidable if you want to make any progress politically.