16 Comments

  1. So how long until you frantically search on Google and Twitter for any links to this video? Five minutes? I look forward to your long whiny think-piece responding to a Gawker staff writer’s passing commentary

    1. And yet here you are, obsessing over me. That’s odd, isn’t it? Meanwhile, the second I close this tab, you will cease to exist.

  2. Haven’t had a chance to listen to this one yet, but I really enjoyed your last BHTV appearance. Are you and MBD going to start doing them on a regular basis? Here’s hoping.

  3. Your discussion of polygamy was interesting, but I have heard rational arguments against its adoption. I don’t necessarily think the weight of the argument is a compelling enough reason for state intervention, but I remain skeptical that it is healthy for a society.

    The argument against polygamy asserts that it creates social instability by changing the Adult Sex Ratio tilted unfavorably toward men with less social and economic capital. The disparity creates a class of idle male adults that preoccupy themselves with less socially advantageous behavior. There is a tinge of sexism with this line of thinking, and it is plausible that in a more equal or matriarchal society the results would be different. Gender unbalances do create externalities in social behavior that may not be as straightforward as social upheaval, but I don’t necessarily think someone would be wrong to worry about the consequences of mass patriarchal polygamy.

    1. I think a simpler critique might be to just say that implementation matters. The number two does allow for straightforward adaptation of the current laws. How do you split assets if one person divorces out of a larger arrangement. Is there a single model there or will there be some models where responsibilities for childcare are fully shared or are they ascribed to biological or a subset of adoptive parents.

      I’m sure poly communities have debated this stuff to no end and may even have some models as to what works and what doesn’t. Ultimately we do have solid data that same-sex committed relationships isn’t harmful to children or to the partners. I think it’s reasonable to allow for contracts for a range of arrangements, if only to better protect those in the relationships, but to reserve the stamp of benefits to those that are shown to be positive effects.

      I think we do all have the obligation to listen to those arguing for various poly relationships and seeing what evidence they can bring to bear and for where the law unfairly penalizes them rather than failing to provide benefits. However, the legal cases for same-sex marriage weren’t just a matter of saying this thing is like that other thing. They turned on studies showing that there was no evidence that it was bad for children.

  4. I also like how the thing that is holding back black advancement in this country is not right-wing efforts to disenfranchise blacks or the drug war or southern states rejecting the medicaid expansion, it’s the inability of bourgeois white progressives to see blacks as fully human. Great times.

    1. Not only don’t I think that, you don’t think I think that, and yet you post it all the same. Almost as if you’re a dishonest person!

  5. Uhhh… is that not what you said? Or is it that white bourgeois progressives are unable to muster the political energy to mount a massive campaign with sufficient political energy to bring about the massive redistribution of wealth to black people when they were able to mount a campaign that led to a small percentage of the population getting to visit each other in the hospital and leave their furniture to each other because they can’t see black people as fully human? Is that accurate enough for you?

    Please feel free to correct me if I was too stupid to understand what you were actually saying, or just attribute the misunderstanding it to my own mendacity, then wait a few weeks and write another post about anti-racism as social posturing.

    1. Again: not only is that not what I said, you know it isn’t what I said. Yes, I’m accusing you of mendacity, and not a particularly funny, clever, or revealing form of mendacity. I’m sure you think you’re being very cute and cutting, but this is not my first rodeo and you are not the first to trot out the shopworn style of the commenter who wants to shift endlessly from serious mode to troll mode. If you were actually so stupid that you didn’t know the difference between the sociocultural assumptions that underlie and influence partisan politics and the narrow domain of those partisan politics themselves, I would explain it to you. But you aren’t that stupid, are you? Instead, you’re just another person with a pseudonym and too much time on your hands, showing up to my place to pick a fight you aren’t actually equipped to have.

      1. 49:38

        “A big part of the reason the gay marriage movement has been so effective is because the average bourgeois white person, through culture, was able to see gay people as being one of them… and to a very real degree, even though they might say everything right about race, the average bourgeois progressive white person doesn’t actually see black people as being one of them… and so it’s so much harder to generate meaningful political reform for that reason.”

        Did I hallucinate that? Or am I concealing something with my ellipses? Nothing about the above quote is remotely objectionable, and if anyone is to object without the utmost respect and decorum, they are a troll? Jesus Christ.

        What are the material advancements the gay rights movement has made over the last 20 years? The right to serve in the military and the right to marry, right? And Ellen and Doogie Howser host awards shows and there are a few gay congresspeople, I guess. Can black people serve in the military? Can they marry white people? Can they marry each other? Are they not allowed to hold prominent positions in the media or the government? So basically everything that’s been achieved for gays has been achieved for black people, in fact decades before it was achieved for gays.

        So you’re talking about the problems of large gaps in incarceration and access to resources, namely money. Are those problems perhaps a little more difficult to solve than gay marines and gay marriage? Does the explanation for the failure of bourgeois progressives to solve them have to be their own inability to see black people as one of them? Are black people part of your “care space?” How do the bourgeois progressives get to be like you?

        Favor a simple change to marriage laws but have more conflicted feelings about the legalization of heroin and cocaine and massive confiscation of and redistribution of wealth along racial lines, or worry that political advocacy around such complicated issues is more difficult? Must be because you don’t see blacks as fully human!

        1. Somebody must be hallucinating because I don’t see anything in your quote about seeing black people as not fully human. I didn’t watch the vid though so maybe it was concealed in your ellipses or something. I see “the average bourgeois progressive white person doesn’t actually see black people as being one of them” which a slightly more charitable interpretation might be that he’s saying the average bourgeois, progressive white person doesn’t see black people as being part of their in-group, whether this is conscious or not, and therefore the urgency of political reform to address racial disparities is lost on them. Seems pretty uncontroversial to me.

          Also, his calling out white progressives for not doing more to promote racial justice doesn’t preclude there being other more important reasons for the political standstill we’re in. He didn’t actually lay all the blame at the feet of white progressives, did he? It’s just another thing worth addressing. Or not. I don’t really have an opinion on this one way or another. Just found your comment all kinds of bizzare.

          You’re right, of course, that the cause of marriage equality is easier to achieve than rectifying various racial disparities, and I’d think Freddie would cop to that, but your hysterical misreading of his comments probably got dude’s hackles up. He’s a sensitive soul, that one.

          1. “not one of them”

            “not part of their in-group”

            “not part of their community of caring”

            No implications behind any of that. None at all. It’s not that the BOURGEOIS WHITE PROGRESSIVES think black people are somehow lesser beings in any way, they just haven’t been able to integrate black people into their COMMUNITY OF CARING, for some reason. Unlike Saint Fredrik of Middletown.

          2. This is all a very weird way to read my point, Dr. Weird and, as I said, seemingly intentional.

  6. Listen, Freddie, I love you. You are a Great Man. I read too much into your comment. I still think it’s unfair to white progressives, but you weren’t saying the things I thought you were. It wasn’t intentional, just dumb. I’m sorry. For everything.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *