The Only Thing More Bizarre Than Criticizing A Guy With No Job For Poor Job Performance...

[BlooInBloo]

Is that the critics really and genuinely don't understand why they are getting so much pushback from the rest of us.

There truly aren't words to describe how whacked those critics' thought processes must be, in order to genuinely believe that it even so much as *makes sense* (let alone actually being correct) to criticize the job performance of a guy with no job.

In fact, it's SO bizarre to suppose that people actually *believe* in the validity of such criticism as to be prima facie wildly implausible on its face. I mean seriously people. I know and appreciate that not everyone has access to all of the best schools and what-not. Nor am I, shall we say, the biggest advocate of the intelligence level of the average American. But to attribute THAT HIGH of a stupidity level to THAT MANY people en masse just doesn't pass the laugh-test. Not even someone who is as down on Americans' intellectual horsepower as I am can go along with that hypothesis.

Hence I feel constrained by rationality to conclude that those who are criticizing a jobless guy for poor job performance know the fundamental stupidity of what they're saying, but are freely choosing to do it *anyway*.

I can only speak for myself, of course - but if any of the critics of the jobless guy *sincerely* don't know why they're getting new assholes reamed, then perhaps this post has provided one possible reason.

Lastly, for any of the critics who just REALLY don't like my conclusion that they're *deliberately* saying approximately the craziest thing that can be said, consider well before trying to flip someone who agrees with the thoughtline sketched above: the alternative conclusion, viz. being a complete and utter imbecile, is IMO even *worse* than being a deliberate spouter of crazytalk. (I do acknowledge that people can reasonably differ on which is worse, of course.)

Lastly for reals: the irony of the Obama critics trying to get us critics-critics to cease criticizing them by using freedom of speech rhetoric, allusions to nazis, and the like is really just too priceless permit to escape without at least a cursory look-see. It should be noted that the situations of the Obama critics and the critic-critics are not entirely symmetric. In particular, the jobless guy's critics have a vested interest in being exempt from (counter-)criticism - since they're the ones on the receiving end. The same is not the case for us, the critic-critics (assuming Obama isn't among us incognito, of course). Because the critic-critis don't have a direct interest in the outcome of the "is this criticism fair?" case, they aren't susceptible to the conflict-of-interest influences are are endemic in the Obama critics' situation.


Signing off with something everybody can surely get behind: And now back to my 1-5 line posts!

[Undercurrent]

1. Happy to be the first to

recommend this common sense thread.

[crispini]

2. WTF?

Obama is already on the job; he's on the job of president-elect, picking his cabinet. And, yes, I reserve the right to criticize Obama's cabinet picks if I so choose. The highest priority of a citizen should be to keep their government in line.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Ah. Thank you for your wisdom. Just out of curiousity, what's the salary of the President-elect?

Thanks again!

[crispini]

14. Just because he's not getting paid

doesn't mean it's not a job.

[BlooInBloo]

20. (snarfle)

I dare you to compare it to motherhood. C'mon! You know you want to!

:rofl:

[bvar22]

45. Your premise is faulty.

I agree with Crispini.
Obama has had a job since he volunteered and asked for our help (and money).
(You DO remember him asking for our help?)

This is just another transparent attempt from the conservatives to place the government above accountability, and Obama above criticism.

If you think its bad now, wait until Obama tries to escalate the War in Afghanistan.

[Orsino]

50. It's always been a job.

More importantly, it's always been work--perhaps now more than ever. Obama ain't sitting at home eating bon-bons. He's putting together the best team he can, because he knows that once his own paychecks start, he and his team will have to hit the ground running.

It's the toughest job of all, maybe--and not because doesn't get paid for a couple of months yet.

[happychatter]

3. Scahill versus Corn

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/20/agents_of_change_or_hawks_clintonites

Scahill

"I mean, Bill Clinton’s policies, his foreign policies in the 1990s, really laid the groundwork for much of what President Bush did when he was in office. You had the Iraq Liberation Act, which was passed in 1998, which was the result of a collusion between neoliberal Democrats, neoconservative Republicans. That made regime change in Iraq mandatory. Clinton mercilessly punished the people of Iraq through economic sanctions, the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam. They dismantled Yugoslavia, bombed it. They implemented policies such as the Rambouillet Accord against Milosevic, that was essentially a setup to take away Yugoslavia’s sovereignty, very similar to what Bush did in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. Clinton hit Sudan. He hit Afghanistan. His free trade globalization policies devastated economies around the world and working people.

And what I point out in my piece is that many of the architects of those policies in the 1990s were not only people who supported the Iraq war in the lead-up and promoted the myth that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, but they are now at the center of the Obama foreign policy team."

Corn

"Now, we don’t know what’s going to happen, because we haven’t seen him make yet a single decision. And foreign policy is often decided in terms of a reaction to what’s happening out in the world in the first place, when crisis comes along and you see how people respond...

And I think we’ll all be looking very closely at some of these first, you know, acts that Barack Obama makes. You know, he has said the priority is to close Gitmo. Regardless of who he’s put on the transition team to talk about intelligence issues, he can be judged according to what he has said—what’s on his to-do list. And if in the first month, two or three, there’s no progress there or he does it in a way that’s problematic, then you can say, look, you know, he’s obviously not sticking to what he said, and he’s probably being influenced by these other folks. But at the same time, if he makes good on some of that stuff..."

Please note that they did not call each other "dummy heads," even in the most pretentious, euphemistic, academic terms.

[glitch]

41. Excellent post, belated welcome to DU. nt

[happychatter]

5. are you Norm Rice?

just wonderin'

[BlooInBloo]

6. Uh.... no. And moreover, I predict that if we play the Are You (Random Name)? game...

You'll lose horribly.

[happychatter]

7. nice to be so smart

how does it feel to have a raisin for a heart though?

[Teaser]

10. it feels better than having one for a brain.

fuck the heart. I'll take a 150 IQ any day.

[BlooInBloo]

22. Bah. Set myself to ferment, waiting for the inspired zinger to come to me, and you just mosey on in!

Sigh.

:P

[Hissyspit]

8. The proof is in the pudding.

But the pudding has ingredients.

People are criticizing the choice of ingredients. Nothing bizarre about it and no fundamental stupidity.

[pecwae]

9. He isn't living in the WH

or using the presidential pen yet, but he's affecting policy regardless exactly in the manner of those presidents-elect who preceded him. He has set his goals and standards high, so why shouldn't people expect him to live up to campaign promises starting now, ie. cabinet appointments, etc?

Why does it bother you so much to hear criticism or even 'concern'? Any why do you think those who post criticism care if you flame them?

[Teaser]

11. The stupid is strong here lately.

rec'd.

[last1standing]

12. Wrong on both of your main points, Bloo (at least somewhat).

There are definitely some disgruntled posters who have returned from other sites trying to disrupt just as they did before, but there are others who for various reasons are honestly disappointed with the direction Barack Obama is taking with his appointments so far. For those who thought that Obama was some wild progressive (they obviously didn't listen to his campaign speeches) choosing Summers or Clinton is like a slap in the face. For those who remember the bumbling, ineffective leadership of Tom Daschle (I'm in this category), choosing him strikes of cronyism over competence. Those are valid reasons to criticize Obama's decisions.

On the other hand, there are valid reasons to criticize our criticisms, no one ever said otherwise. But posting "Two and a half weeks" or :eyes: isn't a criticism, its just disrespectful of other people's opinions. And running around posting in every thread with some belligerent tirade about how your right to be heard trumps my right to be heard is just stupid. If you think Obama's doing a great job with every single one of his appointments or a specific one named in a thread then say so and say why, don't just try to turn it into a flamewar. Obama is tough enough that he can handle having his decisions questioned on a semi-anonymous message board. If his most ardent supporters aren't, then maybe its time they stepped away from the keyboard and focused on some heavy breathing exercises.

This is supposed to be a civil forum but the STFU police have gone insane thinking that every little critique of Obama is some grand plot to bring down the government. The truth is there are a few returned disruptors who can't get over the election and then there are people who thought the purpose of this board was to discuss politics. If we can't do that then turn the damned thing into a cooking forum and I'll post my apple pie recipe.

[crispini]

13. Honestly, I don't have a lot of opinion on the cabinet picks

but I'm getting pretty tired of the STFU police myself.

[BlooInBloo]

21. There are indeed a number of flaws with my post, of varying degrees of importance...

ranging from merely terminological/loose ends to substantive enough to actually somewhat lessen the overall probative value of the line of thought.

But (a) I was getting bored, (b) a "near miss" was good enough in this case, and (c) No matter how many i's were crossed and t's dotted, a certain amount of ripping on me was bound to happen *anyway* - so I let 'er rip, warts and all.

Really, it was only my realization of the conflict-of-interest asymmetry that resulted in the post being even as good (so to speak) as it was - that realization quashed my boredom for a good 10 or so minutes.


Just note on the content of your post:

"On the other hand, there are valid reasons to criticize our criticisms, no one ever said otherwise."

Let the record reflect that comparing critic-critics to nazis per se constitutes a blanket rejection of criticism - even if those exact words in that precise order are not used.

[last1standing]

23. I don't think terms like 'Groupthink' and 'lockstep' are really meant to imply nazism.

At least it wasn't in my case. I was speaking of groupthink and only groupthink. We need to get away from this idea that everything is either all good or all bad. We can support our President-Elect and still disagree with certain decisions he makes. We've had too many years of hearing that we shouldn't question the president for me to jump on any politician's bandwagon.

On the other hand, if some are explicitly calling those who criticize them, nazis, or are obvious disruptors, they wouldn't all within the confines of my posts. Fuck them.

[BlooInBloo]

27. People get to choose what words they use, not what those words mean.

[last1standing]

30. In that case it would be best to look at the words, themselves.

'Groupthink' antidates the Reich by about seven years according to Merriam-Webster. 1952 to be exact.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/groupthink

Whereas 'Lockstep' actually predates Nazism by over 100 years. Circa 1802.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lockstep

Because of this, one can (and certainly in my case, did) use these words without calling others Nazis. Hell, the term I used didn't even exist at the time so it would be hard to associate them.

Sometimes a word is just a word, Bloo.

[BlooInBloo]

33. 15 yard penalty - unnecessarily high bar!

:P

The phrase doesn't have to have ORIGINATED with the nazis, in order for typical current usage of it to so refer.

[last1standing]

35. LOL! In that case I'm calling 'fumble'.

You know as well as I do that while the term 'lockstep' can refer to Nazism, it doesn't have to refer to it. And you also know that 'groupthink' is a term developed in the 50's and so definitely doesn't refer to Nazism. The worst you can try to nail me for is the possible suggestion that I was implying Communism based on the date. :)

So going back to the 'lockstep' term, you can't just assume a poster's intent in the confines of a vacuum. Did you read the poster's other comments in the thread? Did you check to see whether the poster is normally restrained or logical in their threads in general? If not, then a rational person would give the poster the benefit of the doubt and at least ask the poster in question if he/she is trying to connect one's beliefs with Nazism before slamming them.

That's not a high bar, Bloo, it's just common sense.

[BlooInBloo]

37. I didnt say, either by implication or otherwise, that it HAD to. Only that it DOES.

[last1standing]

40. Hah! "I'm not saying it's blue, it's just blue".

You're attempting to read people's minds, Bloo, and that's a fools quest at the best of times. I can only speak for myself when I say that I had no intention of referring to Nazism when I posted my thread. If I had wanted to call people Nazis, I would have called them Nazis. It wasn't exactly a subtle OP.

But that's the problem with the self-appointed STFU police, they tend to work in absolute terms. Because I didn't explicitly state the differences between valid criticism, insults, spam and snark, it was assumed that I must mean that all criticism should be silenced. That wasn't the case, as I stated further along in the thread. Of course, by then I had received dozens of personal insults, which I gave back in return. That happens when you post drunk.

DU is supposed to be a political forum for Democrats of all stripes. That's a big tent and there's plenty of room for honest discussion and debate over philosophy and actions. But :eyes: isn't a rebuttal and "Who ordered pizza" isn't political discourse.

[BlooInBloo]

47. "You're attempting to read people's minds, Bloo"....

Only insofar as I am a competent user of English. :P

I actually didn't have any specific poster in mind. I remember events FAR better than I remember the players in those event - with very few exceptions. Which is not to say that there might not *be* a post of yours that contributed to my overall motivation to post this - I just don't *know* of one.

[last1standing]

49. I feel so vague and shadowy all of a sudden.

I have been relegated to a generic. I am little more than background noise.

Alas and alack. I am the unwashed masses in the mind of BlooInBloo. I am humbled.

Or it could just be that I'm not one of the most prolific posters at DU so there would be little reason to remember me. :)

But now that my personal pity party is over, I'll get back to the subject:

The point is that you've taken words and ascribed meanings that aren't necessarily there. I am referring to my own post where you thought I was calling people Nazis when I speak of this. I used the term 'groupthink' and you said I was using Nazi symbolism, which wasn't correct - as I've just pointed out in a variety of ways. Since you directly accused me of the crime it was my singular right to defend myself, which I have hopefully done, since I wasn't thinking in terms of Nazism at all. I was thinking of the STFU police, which I find much more appropriate. :P

Fair enough?

[BlooInBloo]

52. (grin) You may wish to condsider a career in melodrama - you've got the knack....

I'm happy to let it go with: What one *intends* to communicate and what one *actually* communicates need not be the same thing. I would only ever be referring to the latter with any confidence, and would at most guess at the former.


EDIT: And I'm a bit surprised that I would have commented at all on "groupthink", as I thought that was either a Soviet term or Orwellian (or both). But whatever - it's not the first error I've made, and gawd willing it won't be the last.

[last1standing]

54. That may be the closest thing to a complement you've ever paid me.

I'm honored. :P

Anyway, I was thinking Orwellian when I posted it and I think that still stands. This rage going on at DU to make sure that everyone is on the same page is kind of sad. It should be obvious that everyone here, other than the disruptors and the mentally unstable, are happy as can be that Obama is going to be the new President. We just have different ideas of where he should lead us and how to convey that. Perhaps erring on the side of free thought would be preferable to slamming anyone who just may be some subtle infiltrator.

[Seen the light]

15. Bullshit

To pretend that he doesn't have an important job to do right now is burying your head in the sand.

[H2O Man]

16. You forgot Poland.

Obama hasn't solved Poland.

(Nominated)

[jonnyblitz]

17. there will ALWAYS be a reason why you cult of personality

types claim we can't criticize him. "he's only been on the job for 6 months, he's only been on the job for two years"(i can hear it now.) also, if he has had no job performance yet isn't it equally "bizarre" to be praising him to the heavens, too, like so many of you worshipful fans of his are doing? :shrug:

[Peacetrain]

26. cult of personality??

aiii yii yii

edit to add.. ishkabittle

[BlooInBloo]

28. Thanks for providing an illustration of what I'm saying.

[EstimatedProphet]

18. Uh...out of curiousity, what's this about?

[BlooInBloo]

25. There's been a bit of scarequote-"buyer's remorse" expressed by alleged Obama supporters....

The remorse expressed has been met with substantial blowback from many, including myself.

The "buyer's remorse" crowd then acted as though they couldn't understand why they were catching so much crap from us, and comparing people who criticized them to nazis.

This OP was aimed at explaining one thing that I (and possibly others) find objectionable.

[Zodiak]

31. I think the fundamental flaw with your approach...

Is that you see this discussion as being between two crowds....us vs. them. X crowd vs. Y crawd. This is personalizing a debate that should be issue-driven, and is a poor frame by which a constructive conversation takes place. This is compounded by your insistence to frame the debate in such a way to make your opponents seem stupid.

This is DU...we share a community. Stink bombs may cure your boredom temporarily, but they accomplish nothing else but bad blood. Is this your goal? One would hope not.

You seem proud to be spear-heading a "blowback" against your fellow DUers, which I object to on its face. It does not help the community nor does it advance the dialogue.

[BlooInBloo]

32. Apparently we disagree on a variety of things, then....

Not the least of which, given your status, is: what I was bored about was NOT what you CLAIM I was bored about.

[Zodiak]

34. Pay no attention to my status

I speak for myself.

Think about the tone of your posts...ochestrating a "blowback" against your fellow DUers accomplishes nothing.

[BlooInBloo]

36. "Pay no attention to my status" - Um, riiiiight....

And I "orchestrated" nothing. Though I suppose I should be flattered by the powers you ascribe to me, it's just not true. Each and every critic-of-the-critics has said whatever they said without any prompting from me of any kind whatsoever.

[Zodiak]

38. You said it yourself....you and a few others are giving other DUers blowback

It is not ascribing power to you, it is only repeating your own words to you. Whether it is conspiracy or not has no bearing on your intent....and your intent is not to promote discussion but to promote "blowback"....your words.

[BlooInBloo]

44. The word "and" carries abolutely NO connotation of relationship between the conjuncts...

It just doesn't. One may as well accuse cake and pie of "orchestrating" my like of them because I say "I like cake and pie."

But lesson learned - I promise I'll never joke about being Spartacus ever again.

[glitch]

42. Elegant. nt

[Jennicut]

19. Damn that Obama. I thought he was prez already. He is already a failure.

NOT

[Peacetrain]

24. ....word!

:fistbump:

[BlooInBloo]

29. :)

[grantcart]

39. k and r

[FlaGranny]

43. Bloo don't you realize

that Obama is nothing but a windsock blowing in the wind and has and will have absolutely no power to make his own decisions? You see, his cabinet choices will draw and quarter poor, weak Obama, pulling him simultaneously in all directions. Poor Obama will have no say in his administration and will have to take orders from each individual cabinet member, not to mention Biden. You see, his platform was just all made up because he has no idea of how to run anything, organize, or give orders. You just don't understand!!!

:sarcasm: Unfortunately thought I'd better add the sarcasm thingy.

[BlooInBloo]

48. :) To drive it home more sharply, "Obambi" might have worked well in your mix.

[FlaGranny]

53. :-) Right back

:)

[cliffordu]

46. Yo - K&R!!!!

You ought to open your yap more often, Bloo, ya got mad skeelz.

:headbang:

[Two Americas]

51. that would be stupid

Were people criticizing the job performance of someone who does not have a job, that would be stupid. Can you cite any examples of someone criticizing the "job performance" of the PE?

Even if there are some examples of that, how does that justify attacking this group of people you are imagining to exist and do not define - "the critics?"

"The critics" - is that anyone who ever expressed any criticism? Are they all criticizing "job performance" of someone who does not have a "job?" Are we therefore to conclude that "they" are all stupid?

You are claiming that the critics are criticizing the job performance of someone who does not have a job. Therefore, all critics should be dismissed and discredited. That is a call for dismissing and discrediting any and all people who express any criticism whatsoever.

Candidates running in the primaries did not have a job, if we define "job" as having taken office. Would any criticism of any of the candidates therefore have been stupid and not worth considering?

You say that this post is to explain to "the critics" why they are getting "reamed."

So you not only call for suppression of criticism, you then justify abuse of critics.