CA has turned off replies and literally every post they make that relates in any way is getting ratioed now.
The schadenfreude is real.
There is a homophobia (and racism) problem in the super-online “dirtbag” left, and they hate being called out on it.
*the use of the term “dirtbag” is not mine. It’s what the online slightly less left has dubbed them.
It’s unbelievable how people that say this stuff in private think it’s ok to say in public to the people they are talking about. And it seems like every editorial board in the country lets them get away with it.
Not sure in what context you’re presenting this, but I think this is a good media outlet review of a poor media outlet author’s book:
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a man in possession of a zealous ideological conviction will find confirmation of his worldview somewhere online. The most wrongheaded stance you can think of was tweeted with soppy sincerity by someone with 45 followers in 2011; the most embarrassing phrase you can imagine was deployed on a now-defunct blog in the early aughts. The internet is a veritable museum of fringe opinions, all of them ripe for misrepresentation. If a teenager on Tumblr dares to joke that she identifies as a planet, an assistant producer at Fox is sure to spend the next decade sniffing out her confession with the single-minded fervor of a truffle pig, all in the hopes of presenting a one-time oddity as a culture-defining tic.
Controversial blogger, bracing commentator and heretical leftist Fredrik DeBoer is fond of scouring both the internet and the annals of personal experience for similarly dubious delicacies. “How Elites Ate the Social Justice Movement,” his new critique of contemporary leftist strategy, eschews the rigors of social science, relying instead on the approachable yet deceptive consolations of anecdote.
It may seem that the foibles of American coeds, a group not famed for maturity or even sobriety, have little to do with the finer points of national policy. Yet DeBoer follows a long line of pundits in suggesting, without much justification, that elite campuses are reliable microcosms of wider societal trends.
I can picture Michael Hobbes doing 
to this. The quote posted in that tweet is presented somewhat misleadingly (not sure if intended or not); the word “seem” is italicized in the original, and the followup makes it clear that the author is noting an argument DeBoer makes that the author thinks is bad:
It seems to me that if someone wanted to randomly write a takedown piece on the Buttigieg family in 2023, they could do so without hiding it in a “book review.” It also seems to me that if someone wanted to randomly write a takedown piece on the Buttigieg family in 2023, well, they should probably see a therapist about their obsession.
There’s definitely a healthy dose of homophobia in there, but the whole premise doesn’t make sense to me from the little I read of it. Like, the fact that Pete’s wanted to be president since he was kid is automatically a bad thing? I mean, maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. I’m gonna need more than the names of his pets to conclude it’s a bad thing.
And bringing their kids into it is repulsive, but also makes no sense. Like, if he was perfectly curating his personal life to become president, right down to shopping for his kids in a catalog, would he really have come out openly? Surely it’s still easier to be president as a straight white man than any other combination, so I’m pretty sure he’s living his personal life true to himself.
I’m not the biggest Pete fan, primarily over his attacks on single payer healthcare, but this is obviously a bad look by the outlet and the writer and anyone who is using it to try to attack Buttigieg. By the way, they’re probably only doing him a favor electorally. Like, he’s pretty far down the list of likely nominees even if Biden keels over tomorrow. Putting his name out there to be discussed more is only making him more prominent at the moment.
I missed this when it was published, but the NYT published yet another both-sidesing story about trans kids (specifically the care center at Wash U in St. Louis that has been written about a lot) a couple weeks ago that does not, in fact, have two equal and opposite sides. Parents who talked with the NYT reporter who wrote it feel completely burned by what she ended up writing:
Basically all you need to know about it is that its headline is a big photo of Jesse Singal’s favorite “whistleblower” in the patented NYT “brave person under siege” pose. (for anyone like “what the fuck are you talking about goofy”, more background on that story in this post/thread)
It’s obvious dogwhistles. They can’t say “I hate Pete because he’s a preppy homo,” but they can talk about how he’s a “striver” and how silly his hospital photo looks.
I incidentally googled this Nate J Robinson guy and he looks exactly like I expected.
That’s the other thing, like, if they hated Pete for the reasons they pretended to hate Pete for, there are dozens of eDems they’d hate way more and rant about way more… But nowhere near the same level of animosity towards the others.
There is no way you expected that. No one expects a socialist who dresses like a 60 year old contemporary friend of William F. Buckley.
Some real Twilight of the Elites shit here:
These dipshit Stanford professors vastly overestimate their own importance:
We believe that this intolerance of ideas is not just a consequence of an increasingly polarized society. We think it also results from the failure of higher education to provide students with the kind of shared intellectual framework that we call “civic education.” It is our responsibility as educators to equip students to live in a democratic society whose members will inevitably disagree on many things. To strengthen free speech on campuses, we need to return civic education to the heart of our curriculum.
How rotted does your brain have to be to, in the middle of an anti-elite populist uprising, write this drivel like “if only we educated the elites more about how to disagree, this would never have happened”? Absolutely fucking worthless. There are some good arguments later on about the free-market-ization of education and how it’s led to declining standards, but it’s total moron shit to assign that as a cause to modern culture wars.
Elite libs just can’t bring themselves to admit reality (that a full third of the country is completely irredeemable pieces of absolute shit) because their core identity is being a “good” person who nominally sees value in everyone (but, of course, are aghast with disgust when they have to interact with poors IRL). Incomprehensibly to them, the best thing to do for future generations of the underclass is to crush these MAGA motherfuckers mercilessly.
I still was mad at Pete because he disappointed me. I’ve adjusted my expectations quite a bit lower now.
Maybe this is just so dumb as to be deliberate clickbait, but sheesh. If you find yourself hating on Martin Short, that’s a you problem.
WTF I’ve never once found Martin Short funny but who cares, who is forcing you to watch Martin Short?
I want to say I don’t find Martin Short funny but for some reason I enjoy pretty much everything he’s ever done
Sometimes he can be really over the top so the one playing it straight can land the joke, and also, even when he’s not being funny, I usually find him heartwarming. Unless there are some #metoo allegations against him or something, I can hardly think of a target less deserving of hate.
Seriously. He’s extremely entertaining in Only Murders and is playing the role to the exact amount of over-the-top flair it requires. And he’s a good actor too, like his dramatic role in Damages was great.
I’ve always found him annoying but I can’t think of that many things I’ve seen him in.
Three Amigos is a masterpiece of comedic cinema and I will fight anyone who disagrees.