Jordan tries to turn lemons into lemonade the only way he knows how.Read More
Jordan definitely does not advocate for armed revolution, but only because it probably wouldn't work. He advocates for disarmed revolution (and maybe a little, tiny bit of violence towards the rich).Read More
Jordan examines the results of the GOP tax bill and comes to the conclusion that the oligarchy is untethered and unchecked. He argues that if nothing is done within the next month, there's no stopping its ill effects.Read More
I’m a fan of Drew Magary. I like reading the mailbag he does on Deadspin, I like his columns and such, The Hike was a pretty good book, etc. What Drew does very, very well, though, is point out when takes are bad and excoriates the taker both accurately and sardonically. He’s fun.
Recently, in response to the news that Louis was a serial sexual abuser, he published this. This is an exceedingly bad take, so in his honor I’ll be going over why it’s bad. Even though I know it is ultimately a meaningless and fruitless endeavor for the internet to bounce a ping pong ball of take evaluation back and forth across every possible interpretative angle, why not? Life is meaningless.
Still worse, I’m already in check, as he’s called the comedy community “very insular and VERY protective”. I’m part of that community and you could interpret this as fulfilling his assessment. Or you could see it as someone compromised and with too much personally invested. Or you could view it as a defensive response to an aggressive action. More likely you’ll never see it, never have an opinion, never know my name, and be utterly confused as to why I would do something like this in the first place. But hey, fuck it.
The central thrust of the piece is that powerful men in comedy are bad and that there’s a generally toxic atmosphere in the comedy scene, one that enables and protects its abusers. To which I respond, Yes! That’s an accurate assessment. Even in the local Chicago comedy scene we’ve had multiple multiple instances of abusers unpunished due to their standing within the scene. The only response to that is that the only reason you’re writing about this issue in comedy is because a comedian was in the news. The only reason people are writing about abuse in Hollywood is because a producer was in the news. Everybody writes about the toxic culture of whatever community surrounds and protects whichever monster du jour, when the reality is that this toxic culture is unique to no clique or community. It is a pervasive toxicity that exists wherever men are given even the slightest modicum of power. It’s dudes all the way down.
If your hero is a man rich or famous or powerful (especially if he’s religious), lowballing, there’s a 40% chance he’s abused his power and a 90% chance that the victim was/is a woman/women. Take down Richard Pryor, Louis CK, Bill Cosby, and all the rest of them who’ve abused women all day, all fucking day. I’m in.
But weirdly, he then deviates from this theme and goes after comedy, and comedians especially, as a whole. I’m not being defensive about my insular and VERY protective community when I say no one in any community likes being told why they think things, especially by people outside that community.
To write that the toxicity within the scene is “borne of the strange and deathly seriousness with which many comedians, including C.K., venerate their craft. No one takes himself more seriously than a comedian,” is wrong, for the reasons I’ve outlined above, but also really, really wrong for reasons I’ll outline below.
First, some of us do, most of us don’t, and most of the comics who do take it that seriously are delusional, irrelevant old dudes being asked the same boring questions they’ve answered a million times. When you hear about a younger comic taking it seriously and reacting to every little thing like an asshole, think about why you’re hearing about it. We don’t hear about every mass shooting anymore, there are too many, but we hear about every fuckface accidentally nearby who uses a gun, maybe, to help. The latter is rare enough to become news. There’s an annoying amount of comics now (to the point where we need to unionize since our pay has stayed the same since the collapse of the comedy boom twenty years ago, probably Reagan’s fault), and when you have that many people, a percentage are going to be completely delusional assholes. The larger scene spends most of its time talking shit and mocking these idiots because they’re bringing us down.
Beyond that, taking comedy seriously is not why Norton leapt to Tosh’s defense, nor Cross being a bitch, nor why Stanhope does whatever Stanhope does (frankly, no one really knows why Stanhope does anything). They did what they did because they’re being left behind and they don’t really understand that. If you’re not a comic, you don’t understand The Road and you’ll never understand it twenty years ago. These guys came up on the road in the 90s when you really could say whatever the fuck you wanted because no one was watching. After the boom, if an audience came out to a comedy show, they were not on your side. Audiences were hostile (they still can be, of course, just not to the same extent). Every comic that’s worked the road has horror stories, and the ones from that era are the most terrifying. These guys leapt to each others defense because they’re used to comedy being US v THEM. The scene is insular for sure, because many of us, ironically, view ourselves as survivors. The closest corollary to a comic is not a musician or a writer, it’s indie wrestlers; it's all silly and stupid and we love it and maybe we make some money, maybe we don't. The road does affect you and the way you view audiences, then people entire, and moreso back then, but, to be clear, we all find it hilarious.
Comedy is moving away from that. People are watching. People are even watching open mics, policing them. That’s awesome! At the lowest level of open mic, we’re starting to see fewer and fewer of the “I should be allowed to say whatever I want, fuck the PC police” assholes. We’re seeing more people do weird, interesting, creative things. There’s so many of us now, it’s the only way to stand out. We’re not close to where we should be, yet, but neither is literally everyone else.
Like so many people from the previous generation, these comics are discovering the world changed much faster than they’re able to. That is not an excuse for their behavior, do not misunderstand, I hate it, and a lot of them, as much or more than everyone else. But don’t tell me you know why comics do what they do, what they did.
The next part made me black out with its staggering wrongness, strawmanniness, self-righteousness, and silly, silly dick-waving.
“Artie Lange once framed comedy as an addiction, one of many he admits he’s had to juggle throughout his adult life. “Ask any comedian, when an audience erupts at something you say, nothing else matters,” he wrote in his second (!) autobiography. “It’s like tossing a bucket of blood into the water when a hungry shark is around: once a comedian gets a taste for laughter, they’ll hunt it down by whatever means necessary.” And that’s telling, because it’s a reminder that laughs are the ONLY goal in comedy, and that everything used in service of getting them is mostly illusory, including the truth. You, the comedy enjoyer, are a mark. Lange, like other comedians, wants you to think that this addiction is some kind of plight, when really it’s just a way of selling their own personal misery to justify whatever jokes they need to make to get their fix.”.
For real, he uses ARTIE FUCKING LANGE’S SECOND(!) AUTOBIOGRAPHY TO GENERALIZE ALL OF FUCKING COMEDY.
Laughs are not the only goal in comedy. Ask most comics and they will tell you that laughs are not even in the top 3 goals of comedy. Ask any comic and they’ll tell you that there are many different types of laugh and the goal isn’t just to get them, it’s to control them. There are a lot of shitty comics that just want laughs and they are shitty because of it. I’ve thrown away a lot of jokes because they elicited the wrong type of laughter, or worse, they were laughed it in the wrong way. That’s the more common point of view on getting laughs. Not to wax poetic, but You, the comedy enjoyer, are not a mark, you are the instrument. Or, to really not wax poetic, any shitty comic can masturbate and cum, but a good comic looks for the best orgasm. We lotion up, do some edging, and then, after an hour, the orgasm is ecstatic and lasts long after you’re done (only difference is that, unlike masturbating, if a comic adds toys, it really doesn’t make things better). In this metaphor, tortured as it is, is that You, the comedy enjoyer, are cumming too. The best shows a comic will ever do are the ones that neither the comic, nor the audience, can forget.
He closes with this bananas paragraph:
“But it’s still way past time for the comedy community to address the pervading mentality that let C.K. thrive for so long. It’s time for comedians to get over themselves, because this job is not some glorious exercise in free speech. It’s just a laugh hunt, and I never wanna hear another goddamn hint about how it’s anything more than that. Because that’s when it becomes a bunch of weak men finding ways to excuse their weakness, failing to realize that it’s 2017 and a lot of their bullshit isn’t funny anymore, and that they aren’t the only people who get to be angry.”
Now, the obvious response to this is an eyeroll and a hearty, damn dude, how bout you get over yourself, too. The aggressive response is who died and made your dick twice as big as mine? But the reasonable response is no comic seriously thinks comedy is a glorious exercise in free speech except for failed comics (who almost always wind up turning into right-wing idiots); comedy isn’t just a laugh hunt, except when it is, except when it’s not; comics don’t actually think they’re martyrs, we think we’re monsters thank you very much; and what Drew wrote was an aggressively bad take.
When we’re talking about the conservative/progressive spectrum we’re not talking about political positions or policy ideas or tax cuts or whatever. What we’re actually discussing is the percentage of people who feel relatively safe versus the people who don’t.
When this type of psychological study is performed (oh those studies, aren’t they fun to blow out of proportion and consider fact?) the conclusion is consistent. If people are subjected to fearful situations, they act more conservatively (*voice of the gun lover* “gotta protect me and my own!”), when they feel safe, liberal (*voice of the oppressed underclass* “hey, how about we treat everyone like fucking people you fucking assholes”). Intuitively, we all knew this. Conservative media is just a smorgasbord of terrorism and government coming for your guns and blah blah blah. Imparting that amount of fear, injecting it directly into the shriveled genitalia of people staring down the scythe blade of death, inspires conservative behavior. Not just that, but when people are afraid, they run to a trusted source. Ironically, of course, that source is the one that inflames their fear, creating a feedback loop of stupid. This is, to a relative extent, regardless of the conservative/progressive spectrum. Recall W.’s approval rating after 9/11. What a group of fucking morons humans are.
What’s a more important of a feedback loop, and a far more destructive one, is how easily we are manipulated when we are afraid. The theme of conservative policy runs pretty simply: increase fearfulness. Conservatives are warmongers. Conservatives cut taxes on the rich, paying for the tax cuts with cuts to programs that benefit the poor (seriously, fuck Reagan). Conservatives dismantle regulations that protect the environment. Conservatives LOVE guns, and the businesses they love most profit more when they’re used on innocents. Conservatives privatise prisons, creating demand for more prisoners, demand the militarized police happily supply. Conservatives inspire fear of immigrants, fear of the other, fear of a lost white majority, and perhaps the greatest fear of all, irrelevance.
Conservatism is now (Dan and I disagree on whether or not it has always been) a morally desiccated husk of imaginary principles driven by the engine of an exploitative fear machine that purposely creates the conditions necessary to propagate itself endlessly, paid for and built by the corrupt oligarchs who benefit. It’s a magnificent con. When the oligarchs successfully combined racism, tribalism, and religion with economic policy immediately following the Civil War, they created generation upon generation of people willing to vote against their own interests, not just that, their own suffering. Best example? Roughly 25% of Latinos voted for Trump. For realsies.
All of this is, of course, the most ironic. Who complains most about liberals wanting safe spaces? The people who are most afraid. Who bitches most about PC culture? The people afraid of being called names. When these people vomit their implicit racial bias into the explicit and see liberals getting angry at it, they misinterpret it as fear because that is all they know. They think when someone is triggered it’s a sign of weakness, when it’s the signal of a survivor. Conservatives project their insecurity on the rest of us, and so imagine what I can only describe as the upside down world, where they are the strong, the controlling, the powerful, the smart. Trump is not an aberration, nor a mistake, he is the avatar of the modern conservative. Paranoid, illogical, distrustful of empathy, worshipping of wealth, and truly incapable of understanding the pullies and levers of complex systems, instead imagining that “common sense” will solve things.
What I’m saying is I’ve figured it out; all we have to do is convince conservatives that there’s nothing to be afraid of.
I’m an infrequent follower of the Tao. I have the opening line to Chapter 56 of the Tao Te Ching tattooed on my back. It was my very first tattoo. In moments of self-awareness at the age of 18, I understood that I was (am) a blowhard with a superiority complex and an inveterate asshole. I decided to tattoo that fact and its solution on my body forever, to remind myself that I can go fuck myself. The Tao is a sacred collection of musings from an apocryphal cat named Lao Tse almost entirely about telling yourself to go fuck yourself. It’s brilliant.
It can also be wrong in a spectacular, confident fashion, but also it could be right at the same time. It’s a weird book; the other topic that it’s concerned with is good governance. Self-help meets Zbigniew Brzezinski.
If any one should wish to get the kingdom for himself, and to
effect this by what he does, I see that he will not succeed. The
kingdom is a spirit-like thing, and cannot be got by active doing. He
who would so win it destroys it; he who would hold it in his grasp
Chapter 29 is right/wrong in this exact manner. Obviously, the first part is wrong, because all of history, and the second part is clearly right because duh, but also, because the second part is right if you look at the first part in that context the first part is probably right, too, because what the fuck?
In the context of the present, every president (the office that is becoming ever more reminiscent of kingship) has wished to get the kingdom, and has succeeded by doing. That’s kinda how it works. Unless you consider the kingdom a spirit-like thing, in which case he fucking nailed it. His point is, essentially, anyone who wants to president should be automatically disqualified on account of they’re going to fuck everything up. So, yea, he fucking nailed it.
The softest thing in the world dashes against and overcomes the
hardest; that which has no (substantial) existence enters where there
is no crevice. I know hereby what advantage belongs to doing nothing
(with a purpose).
Chapter 43 is right/wrong too. All of this is right in the long run, unlike Jesus’ “meek shall inherit the Earth” line, which by now we all know isn’t true. The meek is getting fucked, bro. Water erodes rock over time and you should totally be like water, as Bruce Lee told us two thousand years later (and then Spike from Cowboy Bebop only slightly more recently). To be deliberately flowing, rather than actively struggling, is to embody the principles of the Tao. Awesome. But we don’t have the luxury of becoming one with the universe and therefore ourselves, because we don’t have time.
In order to survive this time, we’re gonna have to be hard.
To know and yet (think) we do not know is the highest
(attainment); not to know (and yet think) we do know is a disease.
It is simply by being pained at (the thought of) having this
disease that we are preserved from it. The sage has not the disease.
He knows the pain that would be inseparable from it, and therefore he
does not have it.
Lao Tse got to the Dunning-Kruger effect a lot sooner than they did, which is pretty cool, and not only that, but he also solved it, which is super cool, but also no one ever paid attention and no one ever will, very less cool. Like he says, “My words are very easy to know, and very easy to practise; but there is no one in the world who is able to know and able to practise them” (which is just such a fucking cop out, if you ask me).
That is the reason we don’t have enough time to be Taoists. The diseased people Lao Tse describes are legion and they are in power. They’ve spread that disease to, if not a majority, a plurality and if that disease isn’t stopped we will all be destroyed by it.
Dan and I make sure to point out that we have no love for either party, we don’t give a fuck about Republicans or Democrats, we’re done with politics as a team sport. The problems we face are not the result, really, of the right or the left, they are the result of people who think they know what the fuck they are doing and stick to it regardless of the reality of the situation. The Iraq war is still going. We’re still putting shit tons of carbon in the atmosphere. We can’t fucking stop electing idiots.
We can no longer be patient. It’s time for the people who know what the fuck they’re talking about, but question everything, to publicly abandon that position - but privately prize it like precious metal - and start insisting loudly and forcefully we have simple, easy-to-understand solutions. Bernie Sanders knew well that taxing the rich isn’t a tax code, but it was a simple concept that penetrated the know-what-the-fuck-they’re-talking-about assholes. In America no longer can you discuss policy, reality, or much else. In order to defeat the Dunnings-Kruger, you have to appeal to them directly using their own language.
We need to take our good ideas and boil them down again and again until they’re at their simplest expression and repeat it loudly and confidently. They do it and that’s why they’re winning.
I check Google News every morning because it’s an exceptional news aggregator and because I am a sheep incapable of escaping from the foul grip of our shadowy technocratic overlords. I’m absolutely contributing to the death of investigative journalism (even though it’s been bleeding out from countless wounds for 40 years) and the ever greater consolidation of power within corporate media sources, but hey, fuck it.
At least 70% of the headlines feature the word “Trump”. This is a massive problem. The trend inescapable is maddening because every article is redundant. We already fucking know. Everyone who’s going to get it, gets it. Everyone who doesn’t get it, will never. There’s no story of his psychopathy that can surprise, there’s no bottom to his madness, there’s nothing more to say about him. He’s not news. He’s not even fucking fake news at this point. He’s the presidential equivalent of Dog Bites Man.
When he called the widow of a dead soldier and was a dick, were you at all surprised? When he tweets out some threat to North Korea or some defense of some racist or some racist shit himself, are you surprised? More pressing, does it change your thinking regarding him? Of fucking course not. Because we already know enough about him to judge accurately what needs to happen to him and that’s some sort of ironic, Twilight-Zone-y type of punishment. Like maybe he’s put in a small, padded room with a permanent gag in his mouth and his hands tied behind his back while civil rights leaders tweet W.E.B. DuBois quotes from his account. Maybe not that, but something along those lines.
I’m not giving some kind of “If you ignore him he’ll go away” take, quite the opposite, I think every story should be about him. He is the largest immediate threat to the entire world. The entire GOP is butt and should be removed with the use of a time machine set to 1979, but none of them are so obsessed with a combined paranoia and pathetic need for instant and total approval. Those two qualities are the perfect Nixonian mix of getting us all killed. The damage Pence and the rest of the GOP fucks will do once he’s gone will be catastrophic, but it will be reversible so long as we can come together and defeat them, but the reality of Trump is not necessarily nuclear war, but definitely the destruction of any kind of global cooperation with the US.
It’s time to let go of the shit that Trump does being the story, “Trump makes false claim” is not news, he’s a liar. “Trump lies and needs to be impeached” is the news. “Trump tweets…” should be changed to “Fuck Trump, he needs to be impeached, and also why the fuck is tweeting a news thing? Like, for real, what world do we live in where the President is even allowed to tweet?” “Trump says…” needs to be changed to “The oligarchs are murdering us all because all they fucking care about, and are using the stupidity of their easily lied to racists to gain, are Tax Cuts”.
Most importantly, every front page, blog, and tweet should be about the cowardice, worthlessness, idiocy, and actual, real-life evil of the GOP house members who refuse to do the only fucking job they have. If enough of them can be successfully bullied into doing something valuable for once in their lives, move on to the Senate.
So I suppose the great question of the internet generation is simply, “Can we focus if our lives depend on it?” Cause they goddam do.
For a third party to have any success it must be divorced from any presidential candidate or “independent” label in congress. In fact, it must be free of any cult of personality or charismatic leader. It must emerge wholecloth from a collective and candidates from it must run for election across the entire spectrum of elected offices.
Money has utterly corrupted our political system (WHO COULD’VE GUESSED EXCEPT EVERY FUCKING SMART PERSON SINCE ALWAYS! FOR REAL, WE ALL KNEW THAT!) and all of the solutions put forward are somewhat workable, but there is an exceptionally effective one that we never talk about. A District Attorney can prosecute financial crimes on the state level, whereas the DOJ attorneys are appointed, state DA’s are elected. Because of the money poured into election campaigns and the apathy with which most people view these elections (and also Law and Order has convinced us they only deal with murder and bullshit like that), most of these attorneys are corrupt in the same way as every other elected official; they’re beholden to the oligarchs. Why would you prosecute a rich person when you rely on their money? Multiple times this has been reported on and forgotten. The Trump University case was settled by, relatively speaking, stingy donations. Pam Bondi took $25k in donations in order to nix a case that would’ve been worth millions. Now, of course, those millions would’ve gone to the people hurt by Trump University, rather than her personally, but still, our government is so cheap to buy. Imagine if we had a DA there who would’ve actually taken the case to court? Would we have the president we have now if he’d lost a shit ton of money?
You absolutely do not become as rich as these fuckers without committing crimes. How many crimes were committed during the housing collapse? So many. How many of those responsible went to jail? None.
Run for DA, prosecute those crimes, the rich will tremble.
The Freedom Caucus in the House (jesus christ they could not be more misleading with the name. In Australia the Liberal Party is a hard right political party and even they scoff at that bullshit) has demonstrated how much power a small amount of assholes can wield. When it’s those assholes, we’re the ones getting fucked, we need it to be us assholes. Unfortunately, right now we’re relying on individuals to break in. Randy Bryce, i.e. Ironstache, is running against Paul Ryan, he’s an unapologetically pro-union, anti-everysinglefuckingassholeGOPmotherfucker and hopefully, he’ll be able to leverage the anti-Trump sentiment into an effective campaign and unseat one of the worst human beings on the planet. But he’s one guy. Across the country, countless GOP lunatics are running unopposed in their districts. The Democrats have essentially conceded all of these races because the districts have been so gerrymandered it’s nearly impossible for a Democrat to win there. Their theory is that they can’t win because of their policies and they think that because they are very, very stupid. Progressive policies are insanely popular, Democrats are not. Nationally, it’s hard to convince people that a third party is effective because they believe that it will siphon votes away from one party and thus hand the election to the other. But in a local election, one where there’s only one national political party running, and there’s no possible way to siphon votes away from the other; Fuck it, run. Avoid the national unpopularity of the Democrats, run against the national unpopularity of the GOP.
These smaller elections can have an outsized impact. Our system is set up in favor of the rich, but it’s also set up in favor of the people who are paying attention. In American history we’ve had multiple small parties emerge and fuck shit up. The Know-Nothing party fucked shit up in the 1850s not because it had a centralized leadership, exactly the opposite. It was effective because it was an ever expanding network of affiliated groups of assholes. They were anti-immigrant monsters, of course, because nothing motivates people more than anger and helplessness, but they put together a blueprint. They never won a national election, but goddam it if they didn’t win the small ones. The secret is to emerge collectively across the board. The third parties we’ve seen in the states in the past 40 years have been universally about one candidate running for one office. They’ll get national attention and then they’ll be blown off as disruptive at best, but more likely worthless and awful.
All of this is to outline the basis for my plan: I believe the most effective strategy to change our current political system as quickly as possible is to organize as many candidates as possible for as many elections as possible. Doesn’t matter for what, doesn’t matter where, but we all need to run underneath the same banner. One candidate won’t receive the attention necessary, nor will they receive the money necessary, to actually win an election, no matter how small. But if a third party emerges nationally, hundreds of candidates running simultaneously, it will demand attention. With small elections, attention is the most valuable currency.
In elections decided by 1000 votes or less, a third party can absolutely win. And as talked about above, some of these small elections can wield outsize power when coupled with determination and the will necessary to remain uncorrupted by the wealthy. That power can then be parlayed into more and more popular politics and so on and so on. There’s a reason the most popular politician in the country right now isn’t a Democrat or a Republican and we need to capitalize on that as soon as we can. The two parties we have now have spent the last 40 years killing us all. They need to be stopped. Short of riots, this is the way we gotta go.