so, fuck political correctness.

all hail hate!

if you hate something, let everybody know.

yell it out.

scrawl it down.

bash it out.

however you want to express it - do it. 

that's healthy. suppressing or censoring yourself isn't.

hate is a valid human emotion and it has it's proper contexts. it should be nurtured and explored, not suppressed and denounced.

'cause you know what they say about people that bottle up their hate and push it down - it eventually explodes.

so, i am an advocate and purveyor of hate. join me.

certainly, i don't have any patience for stupid lovey-dovey hippies that want to hold hands and sing kumbaya. ugh. gross.

it's an error i've seen conservative fake-leftist progressives make over and over again, this misperception of misanthropy as misogyny or racism. it's essentially a category error. rather than realize that the individual hates everybody and is consumed with a more burning hate towards the state of society, something often driven by hate towards the political or social system they inhabit, they focus in on a specific aspect of their hate and misrepresent it as exclusionary.

it's just bad thinking, as performed by stupid people.

but, i won't deny being hateful, i'd just ask you to realize my hate isn't exclusionary - it's broad-based and directed at almost everybody.

and, yes - that video is badly ripped off from ministry's in case you didn't feel like showing up.

but, al's misanthropy was always a little less vulgar and a little less in your face.

and, i've given you the right word to describe me - i'm a brutal misanthrope, and proud of it, too.

so, i mean, if you think pointing out that i hate people is some kind of argument, you're arguing with the wrong person. it's true. but, what's your point?

you know me - i hate everyone.

but, yeah....

so long as we agree that women are people, i have to concede i'm going to hate the lot of them, by definition.

the basis of the hate isn't anything to do with gender, though, and i'm not any more likely to hate you based on your gender than i am to like you or love you based on it.

i'm really sort of post-gender in a lot of ways - i don't really think it's an important concept in understanding the world, anymore, but a social construction erected by capitalism to divide and conquer.

and, that's what i really hate - capitalists, of all races and genders and backgrounds.

if i had to choose, i'd have to say i hate men more than women, for sure.

but, i won't deny hating them both.

well, i hate everybody, so denying i hate women would reduce to denying that women are people.

i'd rather point out that i hate men (and everybody in between), too.

parler is a french verb that means to speak.

it's pronounced parl-eh?.

it's not pronounced parl-errrrrrrrrrr(p).

fucking ignorant americans....

this is really the wrong argument.

the right argument is to accept that the new deal was constructed during an era of segregation and reflected the realities of that era and then to argue that future new-deal-like legislation should reflect the existing era.

frankly, it would have been remarkable if the new deal wasn't racist, as every other piece of legislation at the time was.

when i criticized frank's narrative on populism, i was just trying to set the record straight - he was being revisionist. they were racists - and not much different on race, specifically, than the contemporary populists, at all. the movement was also broadly driven by small business owners, not salaried workers - another point that was badly misrepresented. the bottom line is that you still need to make the argument that the solution is to expand the policies, even as you accept they were racist (and sexist) in the era they were proposed and legislated in.

i mean, we don't argue against voting because it was restricted to landowning whites. and, we don't pretend that didn't happen. we just argue to expand the franchise.

--

but, i just want to interject on this idea that the new deal is the reason blacks switched to the democrats in the south, because that's kind of baffling to hear.

it is widely written about that the reason the civil rights movement targeted democrats in the south via the primary process was to unseat them. this wasn't about policy, in any sense - this was about building a mass movement to primary southern democrats. that's what the voter registration drives were all about!

i'm baffled.

and, i think what i'm seeing here is a couple of upper class kids that are so divorced from the country's legacy in slavery that they can't even begin to understand how to understand it, and should probably just shut up about it. in a sense, that's progress. i guess...

the reason southern blacks took over the democrats is that the republicans weren't competitive.

they had to primary them to get rid of them, because they'd never beat them in a general.

"but i cited a scholarly source! therefore i win! you lose!"

ugh.

you believe everything you read i guess, huh?

just look this up - the "solid south" was a series of one-party democratic states, kind of like california is today. voting for republicans would get you nowhere - the winner of the democratic primary won almost every office at almost every level all the way to 1964.

so, if you wanted any influence at all, you had to get into the democratic party.

and, like - that's the entire narrative of the civil rights movement: taking over the democrats from the inside, and dismantling jim crow.

these erudite scholars do not appear to have learned a thing at all about the period besides what they learned in school about it. and, we see how useful that is.

where did you think this tactic the squad is using came from, anyways?

it seems nowadays that the greater number of letters you amass besides your name is evidence of how long it took you to figure out you were wasting your time - the more letters, the dumber you are. eh?

they didn't teach you the plot.

they taught you identity.

do you think that's an accident?

dec 29, 2019

they're actually talking about putting obama on the supreme court.

if he declares a conflict of interest, does he get to go golfing?

or, do judges play tennis?

19:47

or, is that his latest plan as a secret republican operative?

if he can get on the court, and declare a conflict of interest on everything, he'll effectively give the republicans an extra vote.

sneaky. as always....

it's daft. forget about it.

19:50

they should bring back merrick garland, instead.

 19:53 

i'm leaning towards tennis.

'cause, you know, the court system is really just a racket.

19:56  

language you'd be careful with if you overhead a judge say it:

i'm hitting the courts with a new set of rackets. wanna come? we'll meet in the ford lobby downstairs.

probably harmless.

and, yet.

20:00  

i'd half him expect him to show up to work on his first day with a basketball, though.

"i didn't show up to sit on the bench. you said you were putting me on the court."

20:06