On the one hand, you have Mexico, a country culturally defined by Catholicism and machismo, electing a Jewish woman president.
On the other hand, you have the United States, where a white man can fail at every aspect of his personal and professional life become president twice because he gives voters, to use the words of his niece Mary, permission to be their worst selves.
The liberal blog Lawyers Guns & Money has a resident reply guy named Murc who has a law named after him that says "the widespread assumption that only Democrats have any agency or causal influence over American politics."
It even has a Wikipedia entry now.
Warner Bros. has to be the monkey's paw of media.
For more than 25 years, Warner has tanked the fortunes of anyone who dared acquire it. It's an old name as has showbiz pedigree, so it looks prestigious as an acquisition in financial statements and the synergy potential is seductive.
Every acquisition of Warner granted the firm its wish, but then fate twisted. AOL was overvalued and ruined, and became a faded relic of '90s tech. AT&T went in way over its head by becoming a media player (also acquiring DirecTV when people have been shedding pay-TV subscriptions). WBD enshittified every cable channel under its umbrella.
When you have a White House staff of literal Nazis, as Trump does, they look at the Third Reich as a playbook to re-run.
The Final Solution came about by taking small marginalized groups and killing them and going to larger, more assimilated groups before exterminating Jews. Killing as skill-building.
By going after small boats of alleged drug smugglers, magas will be numb to the moral horrors when the abbatoir state comes for their neighbors.
I suggest a fewer-syllabic word masculinism, but using the same characteristics of male-centered fascism.
If you analyze it, masculinism is frame-flipped feminism. Women are the usurpers and oppressors, men are the victims in their minds.
I best remember Bari Weiss for an exchange she had with Jane Coaston on Twitter. It's known for coining the phrase "amoral pudding."
I can't log on to X so I can no longer post the full exchange but I had it hear on Techdirt two years ago:
Weiss: When conservatives, classical liberals or libertarians are told by the progressive chattering class that they–or those they read–are alt-right, the very common response is to say: Screw it. They think everyone is alt-right. And then those people move further right.
Coaston: Again, if you move further right because someone on Twitter said something you don’t like, you were always going to move further right.
Also, again, if you join the alt-right BECAUSE OF A VANITY FAIR ARTICLE, you were already on your way there.
…
Weiss: I’m talking here about an emotional response. What happens to you when you are called deplorable? Is the response to say to the accuser: Actually, hey, you’re right! I hadn’t realized that about myself. Or is it to maybe consider voting for Trump?
Coaston: Bari, perhaps the issue here is that this hypothetical person is made out of amoral pudding.
Weiss: I’m not sure what amoral pudding is. I’m talking about every Trump voter I know.
Coaston: Amoral pudding is who you are when your reasonings behind not great decisions are all based on your feelings being hurt.
The corporate media got to look good in 2015-2021 because Trump was an effective foil to play off of. Also, the Trump Bump was real and journalists recalibrated their expectations around politics being spectacle and intrigue.
I'd argue the contrary. Post-truth implies a rejection of an objective existence of truth. For post-truth to be a thing, it would mean the denial of object permanence.
One way to test this is to ask if gravity is true. For a person who says no, invite them to the edge of the roof of a tall building. If you have to "believe" in gravity in order for it to be true, you can walk off the ledge and not go splat. Right? RIGHT?!
Trump's supporters are cauldrons of resentment and don't want anything per se other than someone else suffering more than they do.
There's a Slavic parable called Vladimir's choice, in which Vladimir the peasant is given any wish he desires granted, but on the condition that his neighbor gets double what he asked for. Vladimir then says "Very well then. Gouge out one of my eyes."
Unfortunately, psychologists and game theorists found that Vladimir's choice is the most desired among groups in competition with each other.
That's what John Ganz wrote in his "Enigma of Peter Thiel" Substack piece reminding readers that fascism is hyphenated.
That is, various groups have radical or reactionary political programs that are unattainable because the groups are too small and/or undesirable to broader society as a whole. Today, you have the Tech Right (largely Silicon Valley executives internalizing Peter Thiel's worldview), the classical fascism of the maga electorate, the militarian populism of Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon, the masculinism of the Joe Rogan/Andrew Tate/Jordan Peterson milieu, the evangelical and radical-traditionalist Catholics who desire theocracy and thearchy, and the vanguardism of the Qanons and diagonalists.
There are adjacencies among each group, so a person finds sympathies among each of those subgroups.
However, all groups rely on a single, charismatic leader as the avatar for realizing their own goals. That is what binds together disparate groups, even though their political aims are incompatible and at odds.
The Silicon Valley cult is too libertine for the theocrats, the theocrats are too moral for the militarians, the militarians see Silicon Valley as too undisciplined. These groups in turn admire the masculinists and diagonalists for their energy but also see them as unstable entitites.
Only when there's a common enemy to coalesce around do they have common aims, so the fascist leader designates them. Otherwise, they have designs on power and their idealized version of the world and begin to attack themselves.
How about this: All judges are activist judges.
Under the American common law tradition, court rulings do have the force of law. It's how American racial minorities and LGBTQ persons secured rights when they could not due to democratic majorities being hostile to them.
Because there are two sides to a case, engaged in zero-sum competition to secure a favorable ruling, and because the ruling sets precedent going forward, judges are inherently political actors. Courts are nodes of power.
Therefore, all judges are activist judges because they affect political consequences.
For glib elitist types who openly believe in their own superiority, it is a straightforward endorsement of paternalistic, Burkean, “your interests, not your will” representation. To Fox News Stepdads who have spent decades venerating the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, it is an appeal to authority ... with the condescending tone natural to the mediocre white guy who doesn’t know what he’s talking about but is certain of its accuracy. And in the most common scenario, it is simply a way to create the appearance of having said something profound while saying nothing at all.
Maybe that generation was just unattractive and no fun.
I think the rest of the world is going to heed the guy in "Game of Thrones" who said "Chaos is a ladder" and the moment presents itself to ascend it.
On the one hand, you have Mexico, a country culturally defined by Catholicism and machismo, electing a Jewish woman president. On the other hand, you have the United States, where a white man can fail at every aspect of his personal and professional life become president twice because he gives voters, to use the words of his niece Mary, permission to be their worst selves.
Murc's Law
The liberal blog Lawyers Guns & Money has a resident reply guy named Murc who has a law named after him that says "the widespread assumption that only Democrats have any agency or causal influence over American politics." It even has a Wikipedia entry now.
Monkey's Paw
Warner Bros. has to be the monkey's paw of media. For more than 25 years, Warner has tanked the fortunes of anyone who dared acquire it. It's an old name as has showbiz pedigree, so it looks prestigious as an acquisition in financial statements and the synergy potential is seductive. Every acquisition of Warner granted the firm its wish, but then fate twisted. AOL was overvalued and ruined, and became a faded relic of '90s tech. AT&T went in way over its head by becoming a media player (also acquiring DirecTV when people have been shedding pay-TV subscriptions). WBD enshittified every cable channel under its umbrella.
When you have a White House staff of literal Nazis, as Trump does, they look at the Third Reich as a playbook to re-run. The Final Solution came about by taking small marginalized groups and killing them and going to larger, more assimilated groups before exterminating Jews. Killing as skill-building. By going after small boats of alleged drug smugglers, magas will be numb to the moral horrors when the abbatoir state comes for their neighbors.
Rodeo cowboys ride the bull knowing they'll get thrown off.
Alternative word
I suggest a fewer-syllabic word masculinism, but using the same characteristics of male-centered fascism. If you analyze it, masculinism is frame-flipped feminism. Women are the usurpers and oppressors, men are the victims in their minds.
It would require intelligence and/or courage, but you'd be demonstrating character while simultaneously transforming into a ghoul.
Mmm ... pudding
I best remember Bari Weiss for an exchange she had with Jane Coaston on Twitter. It's known for coining the phrase "amoral pudding." I can't log on to X so I can no longer post the full exchange but I had it hear on Techdirt two years ago:
The corporate media got to look good in 2015-2021 because Trump was an effective foil to play off of. Also, the Trump Bump was real and journalists recalibrated their expectations around politics being spectacle and intrigue.
A lot of Silicon Valley tech executives avoid exposing their own children to the screen surfaces they peddle on the hoi polloi.
I'd argue the contrary. Post-truth implies a rejection of an objective existence of truth. For post-truth to be a thing, it would mean the denial of object permanence. One way to test this is to ask if gravity is true. For a person who says no, invite them to the edge of the roof of a tall building. If you have to "believe" in gravity in order for it to be true, you can walk off the ledge and not go splat. Right? RIGHT?!
The suffix -less implies an absence or deficiency of feck. The remedy would be for them to feck themselves.
Vladimir's choice is a choice
Trump's supporters are cauldrons of resentment and don't want anything per se other than someone else suffering more than they do. There's a Slavic parable called Vladimir's choice, in which Vladimir the peasant is given any wish he desires granted, but on the condition that his neighbor gets double what he asked for. Vladimir then says "Very well then. Gouge out one of my eyes." Unfortunately, psychologists and game theorists found that Vladimir's choice is the most desired among groups in competition with each other.
Probably a repeat of Myanmar for Nepal's ethnic minorities.
Hyphenated fascism
That's what John Ganz wrote in his "Enigma of Peter Thiel" Substack piece reminding readers that fascism is hyphenated. That is, various groups have radical or reactionary political programs that are unattainable because the groups are too small and/or undesirable to broader society as a whole. Today, you have the Tech Right (largely Silicon Valley executives internalizing Peter Thiel's worldview), the classical fascism of the maga electorate, the militarian populism of Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon, the masculinism of the Joe Rogan/Andrew Tate/Jordan Peterson milieu, the evangelical and radical-traditionalist Catholics who desire theocracy and thearchy, and the vanguardism of the Qanons and diagonalists. There are adjacencies among each group, so a person finds sympathies among each of those subgroups. However, all groups rely on a single, charismatic leader as the avatar for realizing their own goals. That is what binds together disparate groups, even though their political aims are incompatible and at odds. The Silicon Valley cult is too libertine for the theocrats, the theocrats are too moral for the militarians, the militarians see Silicon Valley as too undisciplined. These groups in turn admire the masculinists and diagonalists for their energy but also see them as unstable entitites. Only when there's a common enemy to coalesce around do they have common aims, so the fascist leader designates them. Otherwise, they have designs on power and their idealized version of the world and begin to attack themselves.
How about this: All judges are activist judges. Under the American common law tradition, court rulings do have the force of law. It's how American racial minorities and LGBTQ persons secured rights when they could not due to democratic majorities being hostile to them. Because there are two sides to a case, engaged in zero-sum competition to secure a favorable ruling, and because the ruling sets precedent going forward, judges are inherently political actors. Courts are nodes of power. Therefore, all judges are activist judges because they affect political consequences.
Ed Burmila wrote the definitive takedown to the "republic not democracy" canard in The Baffler.
Trump did that in L.A. They had nothing to do but shit in their Humvees.