It’s Not About Corbyn

Already people are starting to play the “it’s all about Corbyn” game that we already saw in 2016 when it was “all about Hillary.” Yes, Corbyn is a total loser of a candidate with an impotent campaign, and so was Hillary. But this isn’t about any particular individual. It’s about “ordinary people rebelling against the neo-aristocracy of the woke identitarian middle classes who have hijacked their party.

Even late yesterday afternoon there was a huge hashtagging effort on Twitter to promote the idea that Boris Johnson was going to lose his seat to some woke anti-semitic kid from Tehran. There’s this complete cluelessness as to what voters find appealing. Here in the US, one presidential candidate after another collapses under the weight of extreme wokesterism. And still nobody learns anything.

It’s not about any specific person. It’s simply that running around accusing everybody in sight of being a fascist and a -phobe of some kind repels everybody except for the tiny minority doing the running. And putting a stain on a heretofore unblemished long career in politics to support some woke drama queen who is into bestiality and thinks that women are genetically flawed is an insane thing to do.

It should be a simple thing to do. Stop constantly saying how much you despise the gigantic majority of the non-woke, and you’ll be fine. There’s still time before 2020 but it’s running out fast.

19 thoughts on “It’s Not About Corbyn”

  1. It is impossible to be perfectly woke; it requires completely dispensing with common sense and even so it’s not guaranteed you won’t piss off someone somewhere even though you’re contorting not to.

    The other day I read a thread on how people who write science fiction and fantasy need to include realistic depictions of indigenous people in their work. But there are all these contradictory requirements in the same thread: don’t include stereotypes but ask members of the culture and pay them well for their consult as sensitivity readers; but presumably not just one person but representatives of all subcultures, because there are so many varied nonoverlapping subcultures; but at the same time don’t culturally appropriate; but at the same time indigenous people are never represented in fiction so why aren’t they ever represented in fiction. So what exactly is a writer who would like to include some elements of indigenous culture into their next space Odyssey supposed to do? It sounds like send thousands of dollars on sensitivity readers for what might be a small portion of the book only to still be damned for culturally appropriating or stereotyping, or be dismissed by publishers for not stereotyping enough for the lowest-common-denominator reader? Damned if you do, no matter how you do, and damned if you don’t.

    Trying to be a decent person shouldn’t be crazy making.


    1. Exactly. It’s like a weird S&M game where you are trying to please and forever failing and just get punished no matter what to do. It’s maddening. Why can’t we just accept that most people are well-meaning and that if somebody said something that rubs us a little wrong it’s not the end of the world.

      Besides, would anybody really enjoy a book written according to all these rules? It would be completely stilted and lifeless. And boring.


      1. “It’s like a weird S&M game where you are trying to please and forever failing ”

        Not to beat a dead horse, but it sounds very Soviet, bog people down in games they can’t win so you’ll always have something to beat them over the head with.


    2. “what exactly is a writer … supposed to do”

      For those who have the cojones to be an individual, first they need to get in touch with the authentic sensibility of the time. That means getting in touch with reality, whatever that happens to be at the moment, including those aspects of reality that sit badly with the prevailing ideologies.

      Maybe someone could write a dystopia in which Young Adult fiction, complete with the social practices that accompany its production, has become the dominant cultural form. That should be enough to bring its contradictions into undeniably stark relief.


  2. Very true Clarissa, this goes well beyond just bad candidates; it’s bad ideology.

    It was also very interesting to see yesterday many people on Reddit have a crash with reality and realize that Reddit/Twitter is just a bubble and not at all representative of the population. Many of them were commenting on this fact, and it was interesting to observe the soul searching and self reflection taking place. I hope more people realize this and hopefully just stop taking Twitter/Reddit so seriously.


    1. The next step will be for the clueless to start saying that Corbyn lost because he wasn’t woke enough and he’s too white and male to be a good candidate. Anything to avoid recognizing the real problem.


    2. My impression was the Tories were clearly for something (Brexit) and Labor… wasn’t clearly for or against it.

      It’s hard to vote for or care about voting for a muddle. The less muddled party won -what a surprise.


  3. Bernie shouldn’t have endorsed that guy. However, I’m surprised to see you jumping on the trend of cancelling people for stuff they said or wrote 15-20 years ago. In the case of the comments about women, it looks like an out of context joke to me. Of course, the reality of politics is that people will care about that stuff, so Bernie should’ve avoided getting himself entangled with this moron from a strategic point of view (and also because he sucks; I’ve been familiar with Cenk and his crappy show for a while.) But it’s hardly some stain on his honor that he dare associate with somebody who said some bad things decades ago, more a strategic blunder (one that everyone will have forgotten about in less than a month, if they ever knew about it at all.)


    1. \ In the case of the comments about women, it looks like an out of context joke to me.

      Considering his Turkish childhood and relatives, the comments re women and animals bring to mind the context of attitudes towards women in certain cultures and the stories of what sometimes happens in rural societies when sexual relations with women are unachievable for young men.

      It is known that sexual abuse of young boys is widespread in some Muslim countries. Why not animals?

      I am sure that guy knew about all contexts while making those statements to other Turks.


    2. “for stuff they said or wrote 15-20 years ago”

      I don’t think you have to go back that for for him…. doesn’t he still deny the Turkish genocide against Armenians (and Pontic Greeks who most people forget about)?


      1. Why did Bernie need to associate himself to this whole mess at all? What’s the upside? To strengthen the image of being kind of Berniebros? What’s the electoral strategy? This is supposed to appeal to soccer moms? Workers in Pennsylvania? African Americans? What’s the coveted electorate he’s pursuing here?


        1. Right now he’s under attack from the woke crowd that can’t get over the word “tits.” When Trump gets ahold of this, we will never stop hearing about “Bestiality Bernie.”

          What I don’t get is what’s the upside. Who else are this guy’s fans going to vote for? Mayor Pete? Bloomberg? Why was this a smart play even without these comments?


          1. In a presidential campaign, it’s shouldn’t be about endorsing people you generally like. It should be always based on calculation: how many votes do I stand to gain and how many to lose with this endorsement? Which groups am I polling low with? How do I reach them? I don’t think Bernie gets that.


  4. Poor old Cenk Uygur. I just watched a video of the ‘bestiality’ snippet. He looks at least ten years younger. His Youtube show, normally focused on politics, branches out into tabloid material sometimes, and evidently they were covering some news-of-the-weird item involving bestiality, and he decided to have an ultraliberal moment and say, if I was benevolent dictator, bestiality wouldn’t be illegal if the animal enjoyed it. His studio staff can be heard laughing in disbelief, and one of them says that’s the dumbest thing he’s ever said, and cohost Ana Kasparian immediately agrees. After an awkward discussion about the pros and cons, they agree to move on. And then a zillion years later, his enemies within the Democrat party dig it up and use it to scuttle Bernie’s endorsement (which has now been retracted). Meanwhile Hillary hangs out with Howard Stern, who must have said comparably outrageous stuff a hundred times as often, and will never be asked to dissociate herself from him. Of course Stern isn’t running for office, but it does show that the outrage is contextual, it’s hypocrisy deployed with almost technical precision.


    1. We are not concentrating on what matters here. Bernie is making kindergarten-level mistakes in his campaign. He’s giving his opponent the kind of ammunition anybody dreams about in an election.

      This is the only Democratic candidate who can win throwing his campaign away because he’s incapable of hiring normal staffers. Who cares about this no-name doggie diddler when we are losing the election?


      1. You may dislike or loathe Cenk, but he’s far from being a no-name. His show, “The Young Turks” (TYT), has been massively successful over the years. And it was one of the key supporters of the Sanders campaign in 2016. Also, he was one of those few Democrats who openly said look out, Trump has a chance of winning. His channel was also the first one to interview and promote AOC, even before her unexpected victory, because she was part of a slate of candidates (Justice Democrats) that TYT backed. The zeitgeist may be running against him, with right-wing populists winning out over left-wing populists within the Anglo countries and beyond, but he’s been extremely influential among millennial progressives.


        1. I have absolutely no idea who he is but, again, what important constituency does he bring? The millennial progressives are already not voting for Trump or Biden. Bernie keeps courting the same group of voters over and over again. But that group is already his. Why is it necessary to dance around the same group of people who didn’t manage to win him even a primary the last time around?

          I’m very sincerely not seeing the logic here. Even Trump is trying to reach out to new constituencies. Why isn’t Bernie? Why is his such a one-note campaign the second time over?

          He’s my candidate so this self-sabotage is painful to watch.


Leave a Reply to Clarissa Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.