Chapo Trap House and the rise of the dirtbag left

I want to agree, but:

a) the left has to be extra sensitive to these issues for a wide variety of reasons, and

b) the DSA-LA meltdown points to what must be major flaws in DSA's design; they need to be thoroughly mended ASAP or there's going to be a whole lot more like it. I'm hoping that pieces like this one prompt ernest internal debate and change instead of just "lol centrists" abdication

xp

DSA of course must address it. OTOH, the article buries toward the end the fact that the DSA national steering committee is 50% female. Is that true of DNC leadership?

lumping in cum town with chapo is so disingenuous. there’s no political angle to cum town, it’s howard stern. i also don’t get why chapo attacks always highlight how much money they make.

because money should come with accountability?

it's the classic disingenuous 'how can you be socialist if you're rich' argument innit

Accountable for what? Delivering good content, getting good guests? Their fans pay them. There’s no network or station to complain to. There’s no way for them to get fired or taken ‘off the air’ so the money thing comes up every few weeks when a new controversy pops up.

w/o the money angle most people reading would be thinking "Who gives a fuck about some podcast?"

They're being paid 5 bucks a month to produce 2 podcasts a week, which they do. That's all the accountability they really need until or unless the listeners demand more of them.

Otm x2

It's a gauge of how many people are engaged in support and have a stake? It's *exactly* the point that they should have good content and guests, where "good" carries a level of social responsibility that balances with those listener/dollar numbers

If some guy with no family and no job is saying sexist shit on the sidewalk, individuals in the immediate area might have problems but as a society we're relatively safe. Ideally he has a responsibility to his peers not to be a dick, but the stakes are relatively low.

Having a well-supported, popular media platform has a different set of expectations.

I mean, they're halfway between a guy yelling in an alleyway and NBC Nightly News on the responsibility index here. Probably still closer to the alleyway guy, unless you're in the DSA and a quarter of the people in the room are there because of a podcast

it's just to establish their importance/popularity to the lay reader yeah

The thing about this is that almost none of the offensive shit people are actually mad about is on the podcast itself.

the pitfalls of incredibly minor celebrity right there

But, again, I'm not sure what issue with Chapo you are raising (or concern trolling about) -- in the article I just see a lot of ridiculous blurring of CumTown and Chapo, which are nothing alike, and a lot of unattributed stuff ("some suspect" "some women say") and complaints about "Chapo fans." It's ridiculous. The only concrete thing about Chapo mentioned is a tweet in which two Chapo hosts posed in a photograph that was then included in an offensive tweet by SOMEONE ELSE, and that person apologized for the tweet.

the cosby tweet was really stupid, i found it interesting not as some representation of sexism on the left but just in the way in which people who have gotten rich off of pointing out others' smacking tone deafness could fall so flat on their own faces

The fact that people are mad about the Cosby tweet but not about all the Jared jokes means that you should keep your offensive stuff on audio so its not as easy to retweet.

I don't feel like the Jared Fogle jokes specifically make light of rape or rape survivors, they seem more targeted to the absurdity of him as a corporate spokesman and what that says about corporate marketing, but I'd be open to being convinced otherwise. And without getting into specifics I am close enough to the subject of child sexual abuse that I take it very seriously.

Well the Cosby tweet was making fun of Hollywood and fame rather than victims, but it was still dumb

Sure, agree, and also it was a failed attempt at sending up a certain style of conservative rhetoric. But, again, they didn't tweet it, Josh Androsky did.

To me the Jared stuff is in the exact same vein, and it is on their show, often. I think the joke goes over better because defending a child molestor is so obviously over the top, whereas Cosby and his ilk have many defenders.

Hey, Subway isn't to blame, they just gave him money to be a pitch man

But for some reason you never see articles about "misogyny in the center" or "misogyny in the democratic party" even though it exists at least equally there. "The socialist left" has to be constantly put on the defensive about sexism that exists at least equally everywhere else. Weinstein was a major democratic party fundraiser and Clinton supporter.

You live in a very constricted media world indeed if you're not seeing people using Weinstein (and Bill Clinton) as a cudgel to bash centrist Democrats.

But I agree that there's no particular reason to adopt a "misogyny in the socialist left" lens. Movements that have men in them have misogyny in them. There's zero reason to think a person who's a sincere and fervent opponent of corporate capitalism is less apt than anyone else to be a sexual assaulter. The cudgel should be used to hit the assaulters and their enablers, not the political philosophies they fight for when they're not busy assaulting and enabling.

right, that's the only point I'm really driving at. We don't need any more thinkpieces from center outlets about whether "the left has a misogyny problem." Men have a misogyny problem. So when it's used specifically toward the left, it tends to seem more like a cudgel, just as you point out it is when the right use Clinton and Weinstein against the democrats (I wasn't saying it doesn't happen, just that Vox would never publish an in-depth examination of misogyny in mailine democratic party organs).

it's more "the left still has a misogyny problem when they're trying to bill themselves as the political wing that's for women's rights"

now I'm thinking of the Achewood strips from the time when Todd the squirrel was running for elected office and his policy ideas were ok but the way he phrased everything was horrible and sexist

ok, his stances were questionable
http://achewood.com/index.php?date=02062004

it's more "the left still has a misogyny problem when they're trying to bill themselves as the political wing that's for women's rights"

― mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:10 (one minute ago) Permalink

The mainstream democratic party isn't trying to bill itself as the wing that's for women's rights?

the democrats are the mainstream party on the left, guess I need to be clear since this is the left of center-left thread

I mean I don't think they're very much on the left, buuuuuut

Current DNC leadership is only about 1/3 female.

https://www.democrats.org/about/our-leaders

Do you think mansplaining never goes on in their meetings? Where is the thinkpiece?

it's more "the left still has a misogyny problem when they're trying to bill themselves as the political wing that's for women's rights"

― mh, Tuesday, October 24, 2017 1:10 PM (twelve minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

LOL didn't Sanders say that abortion/reproductive rights don't need to be a make-or-break issue for left candidates?

That was quite a while ago I think? He's been a pretty damned staunch defender of abortion rights for the last while.

Like 5 months ago?

Fuck, time is not moving fast enough.

I think there was a lot of tooth-gnashing about the fact he said Planned Parenthood is part of the establishment

Which I don't think is wrong -- because of the inequities in healthcare and especially in reproductive and women's health, there's a strong need for an institution like PP as part of the landscape, and in a country with universal healthcare we'd need _more_ clinics offering those services, because of the specialization. However, saying that to people who are constantly battling against republicans trying to eliminate funding any way possible who are hell-bent on the elimination of abortion rights, it sounds horrible.

Someone hit the button.

https://dejareviewer.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ludicrous-speed.jpg

it's more "the left still has a misogyny problem when they're trying to bill themselves as the political wing that's for women's rights"

― mh, Tuesday, October 24, 2017 1:10 PM (twelve minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

LOL didn't Sanders say that abortion/reproductive rights don't need to be a make-or-break issue for left candidates?

― Monster fatberg (Phil D.), Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:26 PM (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm pretty sure it was in the context of backing a candidate for Omaha mayor, i.e. an office that has absolutely zero impact on abortion.

However, I think it's worth asking: if you have a race where the only viable democratic candidate is quietly pro-life but progressive on a lot of other issues, and the alternative is some kind of GOP monster, shouldn't you back the democrat? That was the case in the Louisiana senate special election for example -- should progressives not have supported that guy? I don't understand why this seems to be conventional wisdom on pretty much every other issue but not abortion.

Also, there is a difference between pro-life and supportive of legislation that restricts abortion access, the two are not always the same. Doesn't Tim Kaine lean pro-life?

Yeah, and it diluted the national platform on reproductive health to have him on the ticket

It's not nearly as bad as Gore picking Lieberman. Somehow that's gotten lost over time, but it's still one of the things that makes me insanely irritated

it's too bad American civilization won't survive to that glorious day when unwanted pregnancies are goddamn technologically impossible

cuz fucking fucking fuckin abortion

However, I think it's worth asking: if you have a race where the only viable democratic candidate is quietly pro-life but progressive on a lot of other issues, and the alternative is some kind of GOP monster, shouldn't you back the democrat?

Well, for me, the answer is yes. That answer will differ for every voter, obviously, but I'd venture to guess that Democratic and leftist women would generally feel differently about it. And the goal should be to ensure that the viable candidates are progressive on all the issues, not just a few.

it's too bad American civilization won't survive to that glorious day when unwanted pregnancies are goddamn technologically impossible

We could make unwanted pregnancies a thing of the past tomorrow with comprehensive reproductive healthcare as part of a universal healthcare program. But we won't.

... how the fuck are you going to make unwanted pregnancies technologically impossible

cuz fucking fucking fuckin abortion

what

O yeah lol forgot hilary had a running mate

I forget Kaine's existence on a regular basis.

fb: baby factories

Well, for me, the answer is yes. That answer will differ for every voter, obviously, but I'd venture to guess that Democratic and leftist women would generally feel differently about it.

I wouldn't venture to guess anything about what they'd generally feel. I'd imagine there are different opinions on it though.

The point is that Tim Kaine's pro-life leanings were never made out to be a reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton, but Sanders endorsing a candidate for mayor of Omaha is supposed to be some kind of albatross.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/bernie-sanders-tim-kaine-veep-convention-226313

If you're going to relitigate this every fucking chance you have, at least get your facts straight.

Tim Kaine's anti-choice trash was in fact something many of us involved in reproductive justice work were very pissed about and talked about a lot.

Yeah, I was going to say, it was a thing

Every super policy wonk person I know caucused for O'Malley in Iowa!