Oh.

However, sustaining a murder charge against Chauvin is going to be tough, unless the other two videos show something significantly different. A manslaughter charge would have made more sense, but that would have made it very difficult if not impossible to charge the other three officers.

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2020/08/04/floyd-bodycam-footage-leaked-next/

Community policing by the community.

Protestors on their way to harass the Seattle police chief ⁦ @carmenbest ⁩ at her home, encountered locals who were not in the mood to host protests in their neighborhood.

Protestor: “We are peaceful! You pointed a gun at my face!”

Resident: “That’s why you are peaceful.”

https://twitter.com/Doranimated/status/1290473037729587202

A manslaughter charge would have made more sense... ~ IRA Darth Aggie at August 5, 2020 5:57 AM

Same mistake Clarke and Darden made with OJ. They went for the highest, flashiest charge - first degree murder - which they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Second-degree would have been provable and would have garnered a conviction. They seem to have been counting on the emotions of the crowd to carry the day; that's why trials are held later, to avoid that emotional wave.

Ellison was smart not to charge first degree murder, although second may be a pretty high hurdle, too, but manslaughter won't sate the howling mob.

If Chauvin is not convicted, all hell is going to break loose, even worse than the Rodney King verdict riot because this one will go international.

I still suspect all hell breaking lose is the goal. Keith Ellison does not look like a good faith actor to me.

"Dad storms out of reveal party after learning gender of his unborn baby"

And he had the nerve to call his FIVE-year-old daughter "neurotic"?

Or be clueless enough to post the whole story at AITA (at Reddit)?

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/dad-storms-reveal-party-learning-135045467.html

Comments:

"Some boys hate playing catch, Little League, Boy Scouts, and camping trips. I know a lot of guys who aren’t interested in those types of things when they were young,”
______________________________________

"No one is stopping you from tossing a ball with your daughter, or from camping with them, or encouraging them to participate in sports,” one user wrote. “You are the one stopping them from this.”

“My dad had four girls and I asked him one time if he wished he had any sons,” added a third. “He said absolutely not, he could play sports and share his interests with his daughters the same way he could with sons and that he wouldn’t change a thing. And it was true, and I’m so grateful my father raised us with that attitude.”

“It was a 50/50 chance,” leveled another. “Your reaction is now public and your child will hear about it at some point and she will feel like crap. You wanted a boy, fine.. but if you couldn’t deal with having a girl, you should not have had a public gender announcement. Or another kid, probably.”

More in a sec...

"You were extremely unsupportive and if you’re that upset that you’re having another daughter, then you shouldn’t have had another child in the first place. Disgusting.”

“The horrifying sexism aside, reacting bitterly and walking out of your own gender reveal party because you’re having a girl???? So rude and deeply humiliating for your wife.”
___________________________________

“I’m almost glad he didn’t have a boy so he wouldn’t blatantly favor him over his ‘neurotic’ FIVE YEAR OLD DAUGHTER and cause her a lifetime of emotional trauma. But then again, now he has a baby on the way that he also already resents!”

“Your wife is hugely pregnant right now, hormones running rampant through her system, and this was a party celebrating new life that she is carrying. She has spent the better part of a year carrying a life you helped create. Swollen ankles, painful breasts, nausea, vomiting, bone brittlement, hair changing, the list goes on and on. She needed you there, and you left her.”

“You ‘didn’t ask to be flabbergasted.’ You are an adult. Suck it up, buttercup. This is your child and your wife, and you left them at one of the most vulnerable moments.”

“You didn’t think it was fair to be asked to smile and nod. Your wife didn’t ask for stretched out skin, pain, discomfort, or for the serious agony of birthing a child. She could die from childbirth, so it is frankly a little insane to me that you are calling her ‘grumpy’ while she’s about ready to pop.”

“We are resilient, strong, and capable individuals who will not wilt at throwing a baseball. I got hit in the face with a softball being thrown at forty miles an hour, and after wiping the blood off my face, I finished practice and went to urgent care for an X-ray.”

"Dad storms out of reveal party after learning gender of his unborn baby"

They assigned gender to a fetus before it had a chance to pick its preferred pronouns?!

Cancel these people!

Worth reading in situ.

Very clever, Gog.

Just to clarify - the dividing lines I inserted were meant to separate comments from different articles. Each paragraph apparently came from a different poster, though.

Btw, I know a man in his late 40s with two accomplished teen daughters. While I am sure he would have happily welcomed a son, he and his wife presumably didn't WANT more than two children, and I know for a fact that he said, early on, that the good thing about the second child being a girl was that the two sisters would get along better than a sister and brother would.

I still suspect all hell breaking lose is the goal.

That is my suspicion but I didn't want to be so cynical on a Humpday.

Lenona, Reddit has things like that all the time.

It's probably not real.

Every day there's a trite little tale like that, a story of tawdry misconduct summoning a small list of heartfelt moral condemnations.

It's professional-caliber gossip, almost certainly a piece of fiction composed to generate page clicks. The author probably used to write soap operas… But now uses those same skills to arouse gratifying indignation in lonely little people through a newer kind of electronic media. It was built to set the hens a-cluckin'. And it works.

Take a look at the Yahoo page you linked: Try to count all the advertisements, trackers, pop-ups and come-ons which appear as you load it. Even with full ad-blockers and an intrusion-resistant configuration, my browser essentially choked on it. And let's quote one (complete) line from the 'comments' above:

"Disgusting."

Let's take a look at the front page in the morning to see what the gossipy atrocity will be for Friday…

Sister-in-law who won't visit the house because the newborn daughter is trisomy? An old friend from college who borrowed a car for the weekend and left a box of pr0n in the trunk? An alcoholic who sobered up and made a killing in spinner-toys but still won't pay for his love-child's education?

They all come around eventually: reddit com

Same mistake Clarke and Darden made with OJ.

Didn't LAPD have a less than stellar reputation at that point? Furman, the assigned officers and the ME's office didn't exactly cover themselves in glory, at least on the witness stand. Also, my impression is that the prosecutors trying the case were not the A Team. And they were opposed by the Dream Team.

That's a tough hill to climb, even if you overcharged and made the hill even more challenging.

“that the good thing about the second child being a girl was that the two sisters would get along better than a sister and brother would.”

Lenona at August 5, 2020 9:50 AM

Why would anyone make that stupid assumption? Proximity is age is a much greater predicted of sibling bonding than being the same sex.
My father was closest to his older sister than anyone else in the family. They were 13 months apart in age.
Temperament also has a lot to do with it.

Most of the other girls on the high school tennis team were extremely jealous of how close my daughter and her younger brother were. They still play mixed doubles together.

Keith Ellison does not look like a good faith actor to me. ~ Ben at August 5, 2020 8:04 AM

I hadn't considered the possibility that he's gunning for an acquittal. To what end, though? I think it makes more sense that he's out to get a conviction and ride it to the governor's mansion. For all their talk about equality and justice, the main goal is still political power.

Our hosts retweeted this. More video from Beirut.

https://twitter.com/MikeLeslieWFAA/status/1291014077322534912

Hosts, hostess, whatevah.

I think it makes more sense that he's out to get a conviction and ride it to the governor's mansion.

Got to get the people to turn out to vote. Much easier if they're all riled up. But, it's Minnesota and reliably blue, so who can tell?

Nelson Muntz, please call your office.

SUNK WAR GAMES TOY BLOCKS NAVY
But it seems Iran has ended up being its own worst enemy after its replica carrier sunk by its own accord — and now risks bottling up the Iranian navy.

Writing in Forbes, naval expert HI Sutton said: "It is meant to be reusable and has been symbolically ‘destroyed’ twice already.

"But now it really has sunk. And in very much the wrong place.

"It is just outside the harbour entrance to Bandar Abbas, near to the main approach channel.

"It is so shallow that other ships face a very real risk of catastrophic damage if they sail over it.

"In fact, at least as of a couple of days ago, it was partly above water. This is a serious shipping hazard."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12308432/iran-humiliated-sinking-fake-us-warship-blocking-entry-port/

Jeez, Isab, how about asking whether or not he was right to predict that? Why the hostility? (To my knowledge, they practically never fought when younger. Or now.)

Oh, and as it happens, the sisters are 3 years apart.

And plenty of parents will advise AGAINST having children who are only a year or so apart, since that can make their fights all the more intense - and common. IIIRC, a three-year gap is practically recommended by pediatricians.

And plenty of parents will advise AGAINST having children who are only a year or so apart, since that can make their fights all the more intense - and common. IIIRC, a three-year gap is practically recommended by pediatricians.

Lenona at August 5, 2020 1:51 PM

They are wrong. So are you.

This is another anti male screed disguised as expertise.

More hostility.

*I* thought it was merely a gracious and philosophical thing for him to say - unlike what the father said in the article. What's more, had the children both been boys, who's to say his wife (or he) wouldn't have said something similar?

And how do you know that pediatricians are MOSTLY wrong to give that age-related advice, anyway? (Again, IIRC.)

Btw, Crid, yes, you could easily be right. It did look fishy, after all, for the man to go public that way. Especially at AITA, where there's a certain respect for everyday empathy, kindness, and decorum (despite the forum's name), which the man apparently didn't practice. Even so, it's also possible that since Reddit is known for tolerating all sorts of awful people, as a rule, he may have mistakenly assumed he'd get sympathy there.

“More hostility.”

I’m not the one referring to parents as *breeders* and children as *crotch fruit*

But generally you are right. I am hostile to misogynists.

And people without kids trying to tell everyone else, if you just have enough *rules* that the whole thing is easy peasy.

To what end Conan? Orange man bad. I personally think encouraging rioting and arson are bad ideas. I doubt they will turn out the votes for the Democrat Party. But quite a few Democrats disagree with me. Ellison being yet another wouldn't be odd.

I don't use those terms, and I don't aim them at you or anyone's kids. I quote.

I also quote Carlin and other brilliant people, some of whom happen to be potty-mouths - on stage, that is. Do you accuse me of "using" their nasty vocabularies? Not that I remember.

And where rules are concerned...as many comedians have pointed out by now, you don't have to be an insider to have common sense. As in: "when I see a helicopter in a tree, I don't have to be a pilot to know something went wrong."

Even if it was the mechanic's fault, it was still preventable, after all. If it was the weather, well, that's why aircraft typically gets grounded by the authorities - or by a common-sense pilot - until the forecast changes, right?

And if the right people had taken a certain Carlin sketch a lot more seriously, nearly 3,000 lives could have been saved. I'll find it in a sec...

According to one comment, this is from 1999.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uQdC-e82gmk
(under 8 minutes long)

As I said, you don't need to be an insider...

Oh, and I'm sure you've heard by now that no, it's NOT just the childless or super-sensitive who insist that expensive, quiet restaurants be, well...quiet. It's also all the parents who paid for a sitter and who get angry when parents of screaming toddlers think they're somehow entitled to bring them in just because THEY couldn't get a sitter that night.

In other words, plenty of parents will say that parenting isn't necessarily hard - and they have good reasons to say so. More in a sec...

Correction - I should have said "plenty of parents, not just people without kids, will say that parenting isn't necessarily hard."

John Rosemond raised two kids in the 1970s and 1980s.

And if some of Rosemond's mail is any indication, many parents LIKE to complicate things and exhaust themselves to the point of misery - or they've been brainwashed into thinking they must be neglecting their kids if they don't.

From 1998:

https://qconline.com/life/parenting-should-be-a-no-brainer/article_8da01f7c-9a36-5a75-8126-29cd1011d423.html

'Parenting isn't exactly a no-brainer," I said to an audience, "but it's close to it."

Some laughed, and some just looked at me like I was from another planet. They needed convincing.

"How many of you think your parents did a fine job at child rearing?" I asked, to which about nine out of every 10 people raised their hands.

"Keep your hand up if you're fairly certain child rearing was not something into which your parents put a great deal of thought, or even effort." The three out of four hands that stayed airborne were testament to the fact that just two generations ago, what we today call "parenting" was in the words of a septuagenarian with whom I recently spoke "just something you did."

It was regarded as a big responsibility, yes, but not something that required a lot of effort. The typical pre-1960s parent believed successful child rearing was not a matter of how much effort one made, but where one put the effort.

Unfortunately, today's parent believes the busiest, most "involved" parent is the best parent. Part of being "involved" is spending "quality time" with a child, a lot of which is spent talking. The more you talk to your child, the better a parent you are, don't you know?

Yesterday's parents, we are told, were "remote" and "distant," especially fathers. Today's parents want to do a better job, which is all well and good. Yet no one who was around back then disagrees that yesterday's children were, on average, considerably more well behaved, respectful, responsible and independent than today's kids, many of whom qualify, by 1950s standards, as certifiable brats.

How can we explain how such good intentions have resulted in so many heartaches and hassles when it comes to discipline?

Easy. Before the 1960s, child-rearing was conducted according to an implicit leadership model. Then along came hordes of ``helping'' professionals, intent upon demonizing traditional parenting in all of its aspects. Because the media gave them the only working microphones, they carried the day.

In the process of persuading baby boomers that we all needed to go to therapy to reawaken our ``inner children,'' they managed to persuade us that the key to good parenting was not leadership, but relationship.

So today's parents try to have good relationships with their children. That sounds well and good, but the problem is you can't try to have a good relationship with your child and effectively lead at the same time. And if you're not leading, discipline is a perennial hassle.

Good leaders may be friendly and courteous and polite and respectful and the like, but they can't afford to try and have wonderful relationships with the people they lead because that interferes with good decision-making. Quite simply, you can't make good decisions if you're worried about what people think of you. Which is, by the way, why so few politicians make really good leaders.

Good leaders don't get highly involved with the people they lead because micromanagement is what results, and micromanagers don't lead. They either alienate or create co-dependence. Good leaders don't explain themselves a lot, because the more you explain yourself, the less sure of yourself you appear to be.

In short, because today's well-intentioned parents aren't leading, their children aren't following, which is why child-rearing is no longer a no-brainer. Relationships, after all, are complicated. You have to work at them.

(end)

Lenona, when you quote something and don't express objection to it in part or in whole (and especially when you don't fully attribute the quote) then yes those are your words as well. You chose to use them. You are responsible for using them.

So, again, why doesn't anyone accuse me of being as foul-mouthed as Carlin?

I don't recall anyone's accusing other posters here of being as foul-mouthed as the people THEY quote, either.

Btw, whether or not the gender-reveal party story is true, here's what Cambion, a leading poster at Bratfree, said:

"I'm sure he'll be hounding his wife to try for #3 immediately after the second 'wrong' child comes out. Gotta get that goldenpenis so he can quit pretending to care about the girl mistakes. I really hope his wife leaves his ass after that performance at the party because if he's willing to show his ass to an entire crowd over his kid's gender, he's going to be a really shitty father behind closed doors. Those kids don't deserve that - they did nothing wrong."

My point is, the site is popular in part because the real target is parents who shouldn't be parents - and yes, they have plenty of sympathy for child victims of abuse. Kids can't spoil or neglect themselves, after all, and I can't think of anyone who doesn't know that. (Yes, of course it's very hard to be the parent of a genuine psychopath who can never be left unsupervised, but the neighbors still deserve not to have their windows broken.)

Yes Lenona I consider you somewhat foul mouthed. You may not like saying things yourself but you regularly express approval of others who do.

Why do you expect anyone to condemn you for that?

Foul language is normative in the US. George Carlin is a large part of making that true. But either way what used to be considered cursing or foul language is perfectly acceptable at all levels now. So why would someone condemn you for being normal?

George Carlin is actually a good example of this cultural shift. I understand he did quite well for his time. Genius and pioneer are the kinds of words that were bandied about. But for the under 40 crowd he mostly sounds boring and uneducated.

Why the vastly different views? After all due to the miracle of video younger people can watch Carlin in all his comedic 'genius'. Well a huge part of his show (and honestly I'm guessing here) was being transgressive. A large part of that appears to be the use of traditional curse words. But for millenials and younger there is nothing significantly offensive about fuck, shit, piss, etc. Hence there is nothing transgressive in Carlin's show. Instead such words are filler words. Like going ummm or hmmm to indicate you are pausing to think. So Carlin comes across as someone who hadn't practiced his bit and is struggling to make it up on the spot. Just like a struggling kid in high school debate going 'And then we ummm get the people to ummm make it better.' So Carlin doesn't come across as brave, aggressive, or shocking but instead as incompetent.

Patrick saying wokies should 'fuck off' isn't low brow. It is normal. No one condemned him for it. You may as well condemn him for having legs. It isn't odd to hear a CEO of an international corporation to say similar things in casual conversation. You won't see that in a stock prospectus or in a speech. But you also won't see ummm, like, or ok in them either. It isn't an issue of 'potty mouth' but one of concise and clear communication.

That doesn't mean cursing isn't a think anymore. Just that the words have changed. You Lenona appear to enjoy breeder and crotch fruit expressing your general disdain for parents. My generation does consider that offensive, though it was Isab who called you out on it. Cuckservative or Canuck are similarly offensive. They are words intentionally insulting specific groups. Other examples would be oreo or banana.

I feel like I should also cover the social mechanism of 'calling out' someone. As I've said before, Lenona, you and I don't really share a culture. So as we have differing views on curse words we also have differing views on accusations.

I don't tend to say much in the 'cancel culture' or 'twitter call out' threads. Mostly because that is normative to me. Things have been that way for my entire life. That people are using twitter or the internet to do them is no more significant than that people use the internet to buy pants or books. My generation does the exact same thing in person as you see on the internet. So what are the details?

This blog is a public place. If I accuse you of any socially unacceptable behavior (words, thoughts, etc) in a public place I am nominating you for censure.

What are the acceptable forms of censure. Well, anything from shunning to killing you. The most popular choice appears to be job loss due to shunning but assault is a reasonable second.

Who gets to decide what censure is appropriate. I don't. This is a crowd driven process. If enough other people agree and echo the condemnation someone will choose and enforce an acceptable punishment.

What is the feedback mechanism? Well, if I have nominated you inappropriately I may be nominated for censure as well. If the person who punishes you chose an unacceptable punishment they may also be censured.

How do you handle socially inappropriate behavior without running the risk of setting all of this off? You do so in private. No recording devices. No letters or emails. No paper trail of any kind. You talk to the person face to face. If they chose to continue their behavior afterwards any consequences are on them. You have done your part.

So now you should see why I didn't accuse you of being foul mouthed like Isab did. While it is unlikely someone would chose to kill you over that accusation I would still be morally responsible if someone did. There is no way for me to talk to you in private. At this point you asked and I answered. I am not morally responsible for any consequences anymore.

Another good example is my tiff with Crid. You can go back to the beginning and it is clear I don't consider being a troll a socially unacceptable thing. Crid clearly does. So when I called him a troll I put Crid's job, his property, and possibly his life at risk. Declaring me an enemy for life is a reasonable response to such a threat. At the time I made overtures to see if there was a way to undo the damage I had accidentally done. Crid made it clear that was not an option. Which is Crid's choice to make. That I put him at risk unintentionally is irrelevant. I still put him at risk. If you walk down the street shooting a gun in the air you are responsible if you kill someone. That you weren't aiming at them doesn't matter. So Crid and I are enemies for life. Or at least as long as he chooses that.

How is recommending a 3-year age gape an anti-male screed?

I went for 3-year, but ended up with 4-year. I wasn't ready to start trying until my first was about 2.

How is recommending a 3-year age gape an anti-male screed?

I went for 3-year, but ended up with 4-year. I wasn't ready to start trying until my first was about 2.

NicoleK at August 6, 2020 11:27 AM

Because there is no science behind any of these psychologist recommendations. Mostly just political feminist manipulation designed to label you a deplorable if your kids are less than three years apart, or God forbid, you might have more than two.
The other thing I don’t like is the implied message that if you somehow should find your self pregnant with a six month old baby or a 12 month old baby, that you should intervene to do something about it, The unstated message is that abortion is a legitimate tool for family planning.

Most of what Leona posts is both anti male and anti child. If you haven’t seen it, I’m surprised.

> he may have mistakenly assumed
> he'd get sympathy

Listen to this podcast for a discussion of how social media platforms tend to converge with respect to censorship. Basically, the new 'Twitter alternative' called Parler is likely to become as censorious as Twitter.

Declaring that your new social media website won't censor anyone makes it like a new neighborhood in Seattle which doesn't allow policemen: It becomes irresistibly attractive the most sinister predators imaginable.

Reddit has always had to deal with nutjobs, and they've done no better than any other social website.

How is recommending a 3-year age gape an anti-male screed?

NicoleK at August 6, 2020 11:27 AM
__________________________________

THANK you.

If only Ppen and Pirate Jo were still around, they'd likely say the same.
__________________________________

Because there is no science behind any of these psychologist recommendations. Mostly just political feminist manipulation designed to label you a deplorable if your kids are less than three years apart, or God forbid, you might have more than two.
__________________________________

Talk about paranoia. What makes you think psychologists - or pediatricians - can't possibly be scientific? After all, feminists certainly didn't like it when psychologists said that heterosexual divorce is more likely when the couple's children are all female, but that didn't shut up the psychologists. Or when they say that even men over 40 aren't eager to marry women that age. Or...

And no one, left or right, is in favor of a poor single woman having even ONE child, no matter how much she wants to get pregnant - and no matter how limited the number of law-abiding men in her community might be. (No one is seriously suggesting, I hope, that poor women should marry violent criminals just so their children can live with their fathers.) I just wish conservatives would make up their minds and either give more support to poor single mothers OR stop criticizing struggling middle-class couples who refuse to have more than one child - if that. Funny how the pronatalists never criticize the really rich childfree people like Rush Limbaugh. Or anyone who says "I'm infertile and I don't want to adopt." (If that describes Limbaugh, I never heard.)
_____________________________________

The other thing I don’t like is the implied message that if you somehow should find your self pregnant with a six month old baby or a 12 month old baby, that you should intervene to do something about it.
_____________________________________

Who implied that and how?

Dafukizis?

> when you quote something and don't
> express objection to it in part or
> in whole (and especially when you
> don't fully attribute the quote)
> then yes those are your words
> as well.

But did she "publicly state" it??!!?

We've got to get to the bottom of this! Hold people accountable!

George Carlin is actually a good example of this cultural shift. I understand he did quite well for his time. Genius and pioneer are the kinds of words that were bandied about. But for the under 40 crowd he mostly sounds boring and uneducated.
____________________________________

Got proof of that?

Garry Trudeau, for one, in a 2008 Doonesbury tribute to Carlin and his fascination with etymology, in particular, strongly implied that IF some millennials didn't appreciate Carlin, it was because they weren't smart enough (or just too lazy) to understand his more intellectual material. I mean, seriously - "uneducated"?

From the last panel, with the two young men watching Carlin on TV:

"I won't lie to you, dude - I'm not following this."

"No wonder he didn't work in print."

What's the joke, you might ask?

Carlin DID write books, which sold very well for at least his last 12 years - but the second man is too ignorant and arrogant to keep his mouth shut about what he doesn't know.

And if you don't know, Carlin often analyzed the dangers of misleading language in ways that would have delighted Orwell. Not to mention that pretty much every major institution he satirized, he satirized successfully. With or without a lot of profanity. He wasn't afraid to criticize political correctness, either - and he managed to do it all without being overly juvenile and shallow - unlike Bill Maher.

The bottom line is, I have never heard of any REAL millennials - or anyone slightly older - who thought Carlin's comedy was dated or boring once they realized that his profanity was just the icing on the cake. You don't have to watch even half an hour of ANY of his stand-up shows to realize that. But then, I don't know just what the average millennial's attention span is. If they can't read for fun above the eighth-grade level, that's their problem.

And thank you, Crid.

I find that those who are kind to you (or who entertain you, intentionally) get kindness back.

Btw, I first heard of Louis C.K. a few years before his scandal broke, and I thought his comedy was pleasantly low-key, likeable and intelligent to begin with. It probably wasn't more than a year later that I saw some of his raunchy humor; I was creeped out, and I just knew he wasn't likely to be gentlemanly offstage - unlike Carlin. (Same goes for Bill Maher, pretty much - even if he's never harassed anyone, I'd find it hard to believe he really LISTENS to anyone, including any woman he's dated, being the know-it-all that he is.)

Let me get this straight Lenona. I explained why many millennials find Carlin's comedy ignorant and poorly performed. You respond by calling me ignorant and lazy. You also reiterate my point that many millennial find Carlin poorly performed. And then you go 'no true Scotsman' and claim REAL millennial like Carlin? Followed by more insults.

Well, it is good to know I'm not a REAL millennial. And that a master of science in electrical engineering doesn't mark me as educated. Nor does owning my own business and retiring by 40 mark me as hard working. The fact that I find your preferred comedian boring is the true mark of indolence and ignorance. Maybe throw something in there about immigrants and people with dark skin while you are at it.

Boy are you paranoid.

I didn't even remember your age. I might even have assumed, a while back, that you were pushing 60. I certainly didn't think you were under 40. (Last I heard, you're not a millennial if you were born in the 1970s.)

You said "honestly I'm guessing here." That implied you didn't watch very much of his material, let alone read it. Especially since you didn't say a word about the SUBJECT matter of any of his sketches (or say what OTHER millennials think about his individual sketches). Take The Two Commandments. Or:

-his rant on the hypocrisy of environmentalists
-A Place for My Stuff
-The Primitive Sergeant
-doublespeak in general
-cliches and why we should avoid them
-The Grief//Tragedy/Sympathy Industry
-They Came From Out of the Sky (about media hypocrisy regarding religion vs. UFOs)
-Legal Murder Once a Month
-the misuse and mispronunciation of words, such as the noun "forte" (as in a skill, not a fort) and the adjective "forte"
-the American denial of death in general
-sports - he had many takes on that
-what's wrong with golf
-what's wrong with the House of Blues

Etc.

Well, OK - here's one more. It's titled "If Only We Were Human," and it's on page 181 of "Brain Droppings," and, like plenty of his pieces, it has no profanity. Hope I can find it in a sec.

Found it:

"This species is a dear, hateful, sweet, barbaric, tender, vile, intelligent, confused, virtuous, evil, thoughtful, perverted, generous, greedy species. In short, great entertainment.

"As I said before, humans are the only species that systematically tortures and murders its own for pleasure and personal gain. In fact, we are the only species that systematically tortures and murders its own, period.

"We are serial killers. All our poems and symphonies and oils on canvas will never change that. Man's noble aspect is the abberation.

"Those who argue that art and philosophy are proof of human worth neglect to mention that, in the scheme we have devised, artists and philosophers are completely powerless and largely without prestige. Art, music and philosophy are merely poignant examples of what we might have been had not the high priests and traders gotten hold of us.

"Most animals, when fighting one of their own, will show aggressive behavior, but very little hostility or intention to harm. And when the outcome of the struggle is inevitable, the losing animal will signal its defeat by exposing its most vunerable part to the victor, affording it the opportunity to finish the kill. The victor then walks away without inflicting further harm. These are the creatures we feel superior to."

Btw, to clarify, when I said "I have never heard of any REAL millennials - or anyone slightly older - who thought Carlin's comedy was dated or boring" -

- I meant as opposed to the fictional men in the strip. I didn't mean you, since I didn't know your age, and you didn't make it clear that YOU felt the same way as other hypothetical youngish people.

Here's the strip, if you like:

https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/07/27

As I said, this one's about etymology.

And if you don't know, Carlin had no trouble making audiences laugh even when he COULDN'T use profanity - such as when he was working with Ed Sullivan or Johnny Carson. In other words, even before he became nationally famous.

And regarding this post -

Isab at August 6, 2020 1:42 PM

- it reminds me of what conservative columnist John Leo wrote years ago in U.S. News and World Report, though these aren't the exact words:

"Abuse: what used to be called objective criticism."

E.g., criticizing the excesses of any group doesn't mean you're opposed to that group's basic human rights. Or that anyone has a "human right" to commit bad behavior when it could have been prevented, by either the adult's conscience or the parent's supervision.

I wasn't born in the 70s Lenona. 1970 was 50 years ago. Math and such.

I said "honestly I'm guessing here." because I don't find any of Carlin's verbiage shocking. It isn't offensive in any way. As I made clear he sounds like a teenage valley girl to me, going like like like every other word. I have to guess from the context I am supposed to be shocked or appalled.

I gotta say you don't help your argument with references to Carson or Sullivan. Maybe throw in a few comments about rotary phones?

Maybe reread things when you are less emotional. I don't know. All I get from this is maybe you have some sex thing with Carlin and are deeply offended that people don't like stuff you like. None of it appears to apply to what I wrote about. Though maybe that is the point. After all one of my key topics was that not only do we not share a culture we don't share a language either. You may as well be going wanker this and blood that for all the sense you are making.

And, from the WaPo:

"We interviewed Bill Maher and, in the course of that talk, he reserved his highest praise for Carlin. Maher said Carlin was the one guy he considered both inspiration and competition as a satirist -- because Carlin's material would go out where other comics feared to tread."

That was certainly true when it came to, say, abortion.

(Btw, I also found a PJ Media takedown of Carlin - but one odd thing about it was the implication that even practicing Catholics don't REALLY believe that prayer works or that a supernatural God exists, among other things, and that therefore, his religious satire wasn't funny. I mean, in the 20th century, at least, why would the public have donated millions of dollars - often donated by the poor - to houses of worship if they didn't really believe in them?)

"Emotional"? Pot, kettle, black.

You love to dodge, I see. You implied you had retired at 40. So unless you were born in 1980, you would have been born earlier.

My point is that while hardly anyone here objects to political or religious criticism - whether it comes from Carlin or not - at least one or two people here go ballistic at the idea that it's OK to be an old-fashioned conservative when it comes to criticizing neglectful or spoiling parents. Or criticizing the bad manners of people in face-to-face situations, as if demanding common courtesy equals censorship. (I find it interesting that when it comes to news stories about the disruptive, anti-mask customers in stores, the silence here is pretty loud.)

Amy's it's not letting us make comments

I admire & enjoy Louis CK and feel no shame therefore…

But I think his spirit is irreparably broken. The bootleg show recorded at a club one year after the scandal, in December 2018, is nearly the tightest half-hour of standup you'll ever hear.

He was said to be enraged by the bootleg, and to be fair, it's easy to imagine why.

But in April 2020, when he released the (video) special which included that same material, he seemed much less animated… As if the scandal and then the betrayal of the bootlegging made the work less satisfying for him. Either or both could have drained the enthusiasm of a brilliant talent who only switched into high gear in this thirties… And it's possible that he's simply too old to fight as fiercely in a field of childlike (and now childishly snotty) younger contenders.

A lot of these guys had misconduct which was none of my business. I wish Pryor hadn't done drugs; I wish Carlin hadn't done drugs and I wish he HAD paid his taxes. I wish Cosby hadn't poisoned and raped women for decades, and I wish Jeni hadn't killed himself. I wish Williams hadn't made Patch Adams… Though I didn't buy a ticket.

Except for Cosby's atrocities, do any of these men's sins require my thoughtful appraisal on a social or even commercial level?

The 2018 bootleg

https //www bilibili com/video/av39688519

The 2020 special

https //en.wikipedia org wiki Sincerely_Louis_C.K.

Not emotional Lenona. Bewildered. You called people who don't like your preferred comedian lazy and ignorant solely because they don't like that comedian. Then you wandered off with something about Johnny Carson that seemed to imply millennials like Carson. Not much sense there. Quite frankly nothing you responded with showed you understood anything I wrote other than I didn't care much for Carlin. But as I wrote maybe we aren't speaking the same language.

As for the age stuff, no dodging. I am not yet 40 and I am more or less retired. As for what qualified as 'more or less retired' I put in under 10 hrs of billable work a month. To me that counts as retirement. Maybe others see things differently. Either way I haven't had a 'boss' for over 10 years.

Crid, I will have to bow to your superior judgement on Louis CK. By the time he came around I think I had kids so he never really entered my life.

I am curious, was anyone here looking at those various sins? I know they've come up elsewhere. I just don't see the connection.

I only mentioned Carlin because Lenona is familiar with him and he typifies a linguistic drift that has happened here in the US. I still doubt you will hear a president say fuck or shit in a state of the union address. But about 30 years from now I wouldn't be surprised if the rebuttal speech had those words. And that applies to both political parties. The words just aren't vulgar anymore.

Piss I would be surprised by. It has a distinctly British feel. Like wanker or bloody. As for the other four of Carlin's seven words, yeah they probably won't show up either. If you spout off cocksucker you are going to piss of the LGBT crowd. Tits and cunt piss off the feminists. Motherfucker just doesn't have the width of usage fuck and shit have. But I don't know of any group that objects to the word. It just isn't popular.

And now you can see I'm inconsistent. I said piss has a British feel but I used pissed off twice. For whatever reason you add that off on the end and you bring the word back home to the US.

I said piss has a British feel but I used pissed off twice. For whatever reason you add that off on the end and you bring the word back home to the US. ~ Ben at August 7, 2020 7:52 PM

The Brit-slang usage of "pissed" refers to being drunk, not angry.

A friend told a story about a trip to Australia and his use of the term "fanny pack." The woman to whom he was talking was highly offended. Turns out "fanny" in Brit-slang is a vulgar reference to the vagina. The Brits call it a "bum bag."

Except for Cosby's atrocities, do any of these men's sins require my thoughtful appraisal on a social or even commercial level?
___________________________________

Well, unfortunately, one could easily argue that anyone who buys illegal drugs on a regular basis doesn't really care about how, when you do that, you're funding organized crime and the violence that comes with it - and just because mobsters typically only kill their own doesn't mean they won't do serious injuries to outsiders. (Btw, in the 1970s at least, money spent by customers on porn movies also went straight to the Mob. I don't know how much that's changed.)

Robin Williams was obviously one of the heavy drug users.

(Even if I had ever wanted to use recreational pot when it was illegal, I would have been too disgusted - and terrified - to do business with professional criminals of any kind.)

Pissed is british for drunk, but taking the piss means you are unreasonable (typically in a humorous way). And then in the US being pissed off is being angry while telling someone to piss off means for them to leave.

Language is wonderfully inconsistent.