Musings on the media, post the bomb that just blew up in the United States.
The recent events around Trump already seemed to have played out at movie theatres around Tamil Nadu, around the time the film Remo was released. The word around the rom-com, starring the young (and young-skewing) actor Sivakarthikeyan, was toxic. The film depicts stalking as a legitimate means to capture acquire the woman of your dreams. It’s as misogynistic as anything Trump has said. There were opinion pieces written on it. Television channels – both English and Tamil – hosted panel discussions about its treatment of women. But in the final analysis, nothing mattered. Audiences around the state voted with their ticket money. They made the film a blockbuster. Another similarity with Trump: a very rich actor playing middle-class, speaking their language, positioning himself as their representative. That illusion, too, seemed to present no contradiction. People don’t view Sivakarthikeyan as someone who earns crores per film. They see him as the boy next door.
This is not surprising, for cinema, as much as politics, is about the manipulation of one’s image in line with the “voter base.” But the post-election think pieces about the liberal media are making me wonder about the gap between the people who write about films like Remo and the people who watch them in droves. On the one hand, we have those espousing a strong belief in what cinema should do, which is to entertain us with a sense of dignity and a modicum of social responsibility. On the other hand lies the majority, those who seem to expect nothing but a few hours in the company of their favourite star, even if his behaviour on screen is something you’d seriously object to in real life, if someone said and did the same things with your mother or sister or daughter. To the liberal media, this disconnect is unfathomable. To the majority, there is no disconnect. With his racism, xenophobia and misogyny, Trump might have had a flourishing career in Tamil cinema.
I don’t want to stretch this comparison, as there is a huge difference between elections that speak to people’s hopes and fears and films that talk to people in very different ways. Also, we do not “poll” films the way we poll elections – the results are less devastating when a film comes out of nowhere and becomes a blockbuster. Like Jai Santoshi Maa. The reviews laughed at it. The masses loved it. And now the question becomes: If something we dismiss ends up connecting with vast numbers of people, do we owe this phenomenon more… respect? Even if we don’t like it, even if we don’t change our mind about its values and virtues, do we owe it a serious second look, given that we have now been proved to be in the minority? It’s a slippery slope, I know. I’m basically asking if book critics should take Chetan Bhagat seriously (as a phenomenon) even if they tear him to shreds (as a writer).
The most interesting aspect is the media angle. As with the US elections, mainstream cinema makes the liberal media seem utterly irrelevant. The language of mainstream cinema is the language of the masses, and many writers just do not speak this language. They are simply not tuned in, and they come off like ballet critics opining on a barn dance. This is not to say that their words aren’t important. Far from it. A point of view is a point of view, even if it is held by just one person. And it is absolutely necessary to hear everyone out. But when the level of engagement is cursory, and when it’s one’s own filters being applied with no attempt to “understand” the Other, you have to wonder how useful the writing is. How worthwhile is a piece of writing – a review, or a think piece – when it reaches only people like us?
And what is the media’s responsibility to “connect” with the public at large, not just those who subscribe to your paper but those that don’t? In putting forth a point of view, is it enough that we reinforce the belief systems of those who read us (and are mostly like us)? Or do we need to wade in deeper and try to talk to those who are nothing like us? Is such a thing even possible? And, therefore, is the liberal media doomed to exist in its own echo chamber, just like the right-wing media stays in its own bubble and speaks to its own? Is the only value we writers bring the ability to put thoughts into words, thoughts you may not have been able to express by yourself? In that sense, are we merely a transcribing service for our own kind? Thanks to the US elections, I am going to be thinking about these things for a long time.
An edited version of this piece can be found here. Copyright ©2016 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Madan
November 12, 2016
Liberal media in the Western world especially has become an echo chamber because it is no longer ‘liberal’ in the classical sense of the word and it has formed an alliance with progressivism, a progressivism in turn that has shifted to word policing. I am not saying language is not important but if the first impulse upon an inappropriate turn of phrase is to label the person a racist or a homophobe or censure him/her sharply in some other way, it may shut out a lot of people from the conversation. For instance, if we just look at the wiki page on gender, it documents a whole set of gender identities apart from male and female as well. One has to give time to the mainstream to catch up with this pace of change. You cannot add new gender names like they were metal genres and expect all people to be up to speed (with the assumption that they are not up to speed only because they are homophobes) and indeed many of these terms are not in wide usage outside the liberal echo chamber again. FWIW the vast metal loving universe has unfortunately among its legions many intolerant pricks who insist that THEIR music be understood in all the detail in which they parse it but have zero curiosity about other genres of music.
Further, I have not seen Remo but we must resist the temptation to draw strong conclusions about the audience and their values. It is entirely possible that some in the audience simply suspended disbelief and watched a film without pondering about the attitudes espoused by the film or taking them at face value. I know a Marathi acquaintance who watched Remo and liked it. And I don’t think she’s very conservative; my wife, who knows her better, tells me she drinks, for instance. I am adding a further disclaimer that I am not trying to defend bigoted attitudes. I am just saying we need to get back to treating individuals as individuals rather than lumping them in groups. This is right now the fundamental problem with how liberalism views the world and to a liberal like me does not sound very liberal at all.
I liked the values Pink espoused but the film, not so much. I was indifferent to the nationalism aspect of Neerja (which I did not find particularly in your face) and more interested in the way the entire hijacking episode was depicted by the filmmaker. I know a certain kind of left liberal is desperate to deconstruct from my choice of films my worldview but I step into a cinema hall to lose myself from the worries of the world and immerse myself in entertainment instead. So you are likely to come to wrong conclusions about me using that approach. As I am not a US citizen, I shall refrain from giving opinions on what Trump voters voted for but there are indications that, again, not everyone voted for the same reasons. This does not make the voters who don’t think Trump is a racist correct in their conclusions but does create reasonable doubt as to whether all of them necessarily have the same attitudes about all issues. I mean, just on the face of it, that sounds impossible. We humans are way more complicated in our choices than that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
ThouShaltNot
November 12, 2016
I sincerely hope that the President Elect, before he repeals and replaces ObamaCare, repeals and replaces his own vulgar (& unhinged) rhetoric !
LikeLike
KadaKumar
November 12, 2016
“Is the only value we writers bring the ability to put thoughts into words, thoughts you may not have been able to express by yourself? ”
That line nails it! You perfectly captured my thought into words, a thought that I wouldn’t have articulated as well.
You’re right. The explosion of forums for expression of opinion have ensured that we are all attracted to our own little echo chambers. But isn’t that inevitable? Its just so much more comfortable to read opinions that agree with what we already think. When our worldview is reinforced by the approval of other voices we might deem more intellectual, its a nice ego boost.
And if you can do just that in beautiful language, there is nothing more to ask.
LikeLike
venkatesh
November 12, 2016
I have been thinking about this for a while (not just post-elections) and as a liberal leaning voting foreigner who doesn’t just fly over but has to be in “Red” States , this election hit me hard.
The results of the election have a cultural component to it and the question below requires attention.
do we owe this phenomenon more… respect? Even if we don’t like it, even if we don’t change our mind about its values and virtues, do we owe it a serious second look, given that we have now been proved to be in the minority?
Do we owe it respect? No, absolutely not.
Do we owe it a serious look? Yes.
Academic studies have shown that culture is an intrinsic part of your identity Movies like Remo show the clear divide between the educated, city-bred audience and the ill-educated morons who patronise this. And yes, that’s what they are – morons.
Its the moronic idiots with a deep-seated white hot resentment against anything that does not permeate their thick skulls who celebrate these movies as a mark of identity, as a way to thumb their noses against the English speaking snobbish elites and SivaKarthikeyan (as discussed in another thread) has played to that audience skillfully and with careful planning.
One movie that laid out this resentment clearly was Tamil M.A (Kattradhu Thamizh). I loved the movie for the way it represented reality. The Tamil speaking interior-dwelling protagonist who blames all his failures on the English speaking, forward looking “other” who has a tight t-shirt wearing female colleague with “Touch me Here” written on it. The tight t-shirt wearing female is important , “how dare this guy sit next to and socialise with that sort of female that i can’t even see in my day to day life”, that’s the thought process. The protagonist doesn’t strive harder to succeed or decide to join an English speaking course or decide to learn a new trade. No, its the fault of the other that he has failed. Its not his fault. That resonates with a vast majority of its target audience.
We can’t respect that thought process.
So why does it deserve a serious look ? It deserves a serious look to be able to fight against, to be able to guard against, to not turn into them and more importantly how its done. There are tricks of the trade to be learnt here. We might be feeding BitterGourd to people but perhaps there is a way to mix that with Chocolate milk.
How worthwhile is a piece of writing – a review, or a think piece – when it reaches only people like us?
In this day and age, keenly important. It might play to an echo-chamber to start with, however by definition an amplified echo chamber makes a loud noise. At some point, that loud noise will permeate the main-stream bubble.
Soldier on BR.
LikeLiked by 3 people
arjun_shivaram
November 12, 2016
Thanks for introducing this topic… it seems relevant and widespread. Going to be reading about the media bias in US…
LikeLike
An Jo
November 12, 2016
Trump remade the political map with a huge surge of support from working-class whites, particularly in rural communities. Let me be honest, this is a world I don’t know — and many people probably don’t know very well — and that’s part of the problem. We have all managed to ignore the pain of rural America.
An essay on the satirical website Cracked, by David Wong (who grew up in a small town in Illinois), gives voice to the rage of rural Americans. “The whole goddamned world revolves around [America’s cities],” he wrote. The vast majority of the country’s pop culture is all about city dwellers. Most new movies, shows, songs and games are about New York or Los Angeles or Chicago or some fantasy version of them. Nearly every trend comes from a metropolis. All the hot new industries are in hip cities. “If you live in [rural America], that f—ing sucks,” he wrote.
Cities get disproportionate attention from media and other elites, who also all live in and around a handful of cities. Wong writes that Hurricane Katrina, in the popular imagination, is all about New Orleans. “To watch the news (or the multiple movies and TV shows about it), you’d barely hear about how the storm utterly steamrolled rural Mississippi. . . . What’s newsworthy about a bunch of . . . hillbillies crying over a flattened trailer? New Orleans is culturally important. It matters.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-two-sins-that-defined-this-election/2016/11/10/97fdfcf2-a78b-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
November 12, 2016
“Its just so much more comfortable to read opinions that agree with what we already think.” – This is indeed an increasingly pervasive trend. But it is also worrisome. I have always regarded the internet as such (and not just wiki) as the most amazing free encyclopedia there can be. I did believe many others thought likewise too and then I encountered the idea (for the first time) that the internet is actually bad and shuts down communication. The situation in US suggests that this may be the case. Both sides have their like minded friends, their own media, their own everything and just don’t want to listen to each other. Recipe for disaster. And it can happen here too. Conditions are increasingly ripening for such a sharp disconnect to take place. I hope we do not end up sacrificing liberty in this battle of ‘our’ ideas v/s ‘theirs’ but perhaps we are already headed that way…
LikeLiked by 1 person
An Jo
November 12, 2016
https://twitter.com/otero1/status/796413685526888449
LikeLike
pato
November 12, 2016
Venkatesh: i disagree with you on one point. Movies like remo are not just celebrated by uneducated youth, it is enjoyed and supported by so called urban educated people. Its premature to conclude that all educated people have liberal thoughts and have a wider view. Having a undergraduate or postgraduate degree doesnt have to do anything with your thought process. If you check out remo box office statistics, you will see that it is a huge hit in A-centres also. According to me, since our society is deep-rooted with misogyny, people view it as just a normal thing as they are used to that kind of behaviour.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ThouShaltNot
November 13, 2016
The Sivakarthikeyan analogy is off. It is important to learn lessons, but it behooves us to not make wrong inferences from political cheerleading that masqueraded as reporting (or journalism) in the run-up to the U.S. elections. For starters, Sivakarthikeyan is not a charlatan, a sexual lout or a thin-skinned political ignoramus running for the highest political office in the land. Au contraire, he is easygoing, affable and grounded (although good at improv, scripted, he is lousy). In his ambitions, he is no different from your average Kollywood mass hero. That SK holds regressive views about women does not make him an aberration in Tamil society. He instead represents the locus of Tamil society. So, before we rake him over the coals or indict him, it is essential to understand that Tamil society in the main is (and has been) deeply sexist (the sexist sections of of ThOl Kaappiyam and Thirukural that are still unexpurgated ought to tell us something). Dispiriting as that thought is, it is not meant to stave off brave souls (be it in the media or regular citizenry) who wish to question hidebound opinions or ossified cultural thinking.
As for America, it is a divided society (cue: red states v blue states). Elections here are won or lost in a handful of states that swing in either direction each election cycle. Occasionally, you have a wave election. 2008 was a wave election. It was a repudiation of war-mongering and Wall Street bubble-building. 2016 had all the indications of a wave election too. A repudiation of Obamaism (Obama the man is still widely popular, but most of his policies, domestic and foreign are unpopular). Time was when Bernie Sanders was generating his own wave, but his efforts were snuffed out by a corrupt political machine. Trump, despite being a billionaire, spoke to some of the same blue-collar anxieties, except he was the imperfect messenger (a narcissist and a demagogue) who used inflammatory rhetoric to ride roughshod over his competition. In this context, the media took it upon itself to expose the man and his shortcomings. Only his. The media, a supposed neutral watchdog in a democracy, has been tendentious in the past. This time, it shed all inhibitions and started carrying water for Hillary.
Salena Zito, who writes for the Atlantic, had the best quote summarizing the attitude of the press towards Trump:
“The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally”
The people from the Rust belt who effectively voted Trump to power are blue-collar, non-college-educated whites (their livelihoods have been gutted by unfair trade deals and offshoring of jobs) – also called “Reagan Democrats”. While they stuck with the Democratic party in the last few cycles, they went for comeuppance this time. Sadly, Obama will now have his political legacy reduced to rubble by the man who questioned his legitimacy as President.
LikeLiked by 2 people
rkjk
November 13, 2016
Nice post by Madan. The Election result must be a real slap on the face for the American media.
And yeah, the PC culture that has pervaded the internet is really disgusting. Case in point, Nobel Laureate Tim Hunt who was hung out to dry because he made some inane comment on women falling in love in his lab or something. That an eminent scientist was sacked because of a comment made in jest should tell you all you need to know about the climate today. You should have paid a visit to Reddit’s Politics Sub during the Primaries. The entire place was rooting for Sanders and slinging mud on Clinton. After Clinton became the presumptive nominee, the #BernieorBust mob went ballistic with their anti-Clinton agenda . I like to think it was this crowd that actually lost the elections for Clinton. And now, instead of their socialist liberal messiah Sanders, they have a conservative racist homophobe in the White House.
From my experience, I don’t think most people take the movies very seriously. Especially women, who I think have resigned themselves to being represented as objects and caricatures in the movies. The stalking in Remo probably does not even register on their radar. And honestly, if I were to hate on every movie for not being politically correct, I probably won’t be able to watch a single movie. Even Minnale and Alaipayuthe had their heroes stalking their heroines and no one batted an eyelid. I remember that there was a huge argument in another thread about this, about why people like Mani and GVM were getting a free pass. I think that is a very valid point, iirc some people defended it saying it was borderline/benign variety of stalking and can be ignored or something like that, but I was not convinced. Maddy beguiles a woman into thinking he is her fiance, and after the girl finds, she hurts for a while and then falls in his arms? LOLWUT. If this movie were to star Sivakarthikeyan, I’m sure our PC cognoscenti would have pounced on him. This Double Standard is irksome and is the reason for the disconnect between the mainstream and the echo chambers.
People do not like being told that they are wrong about something, that their views on a particular subject are incorrect. The SJW culture takes this to the extreme, hounding conservatives and moderate liberals alike. They were lumping people into categories and shaming the ones in the wrong category.
I would not be surprised if Remo’s negative reviews actually helped it at the Box Office. It is quite possible that the audience got fed up with the reviews and reviewers and just said “F**k it, we’re watching this. It looks like good fun . After all, these critics trashed Vedalam and that movie was the shit”. Sounds like hyperbole, but how else do you account for the fact that SKs movies do gangbusters business. Can’t be just the hype and marketing alone, no, the answer is probably that the people actually like his movies. They find out that the reviews almost never cohere with their own judgement. So why bother?
LikeLike
KadaKumar
November 13, 2016
Hey whats with the usual bogey of sexism-misogyny-etc. labels being tossed at Remo? Did I miss something here?
I did watch the film, and while it wasn’t particularly memorable, I am not sure what the SJWs are whining about.
Okay, so the hero falls in love at first sight for the loosu-ponnu. But thats just a beaten-to-death cliche rather than migogyny.
The hero disguises himself as a nurse, befriends the girl and influences her to make her more receptive to him. Ludicrous, yes, campy, yes, but not sexism.
In fact, as I remember it, the hero behaves quite respectably with the girl- some over-the-top romantic gestures maybe, but not really stalking. No “love-me-or-i’ll-die/kill” type bullshit.
Of course, with Sivakarthikeyan around, there is always an atmosphere of levity that could distract from objectively evaluating the morality/legality of his actions. But even with this in mind, I didn’t spot anything that could be branded sexist or racist or whatever. At worse, stupid.
LikeLike
venkatesh
November 13, 2016
@pato: I sort of , kind of agree with you , i used a short-cut when speaking about Remo. The divide is more City V Rural then educated V non-educated.
LikeLike
Madan
November 13, 2016
“And now, instead of their socialist liberal messiah Sanders, they have a conservative racist homophobe in the White House.” – Yeah and I want to use this opening to clarify once and for all that I am not for Trump. Rather, as a liberal, I deeply fear the rise of the far right and it’s not just in USA, let’s not kid ourselves. I fear that hard fought freedoms will be lost. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the progressive left too had come to a place where they decided freedom is not important (oh yeah, you are welcome to make your films in India and get them past Nihalaniji; maybe then you will love your freedom more). With the two most vocal factions valuing things other than freedom, it is very much in danger of being compromised if not outright sacrificed. This is also not the first time I have called for moderation and doubt it will be the last.
LikeLike
brangan
November 13, 2016
ThouShaltNot: The Sivakarthikeyan analogy is off.
Analogies, by their very nature, are never going to be a 100% mapping if you start getting into details. It’s more about the flavour.
The point is that I wanted to stress that this was more a film- and media-related piece than a “political” piece — and I did find certain superficial similiarities between Trump and Sivakarthikeyan, all of which are in the first para.
LikeLike
ThouShaltNot
November 13, 2016
BR, I fully understand that analogies are rarely ever perfect. Even so, with SK and Trump, we are talking apples and oranges or grapefruits and sapotas (there, i have my own analogy).
My second point is that the shameful media behavior in the U.S. political context has very little relevance (IMO) to what happened with Remo and its reviews by critics. That a withering criticism of a movie by a critic (or critics) has little bearing on the commercial success of a movie is not a phenom that is new to Kollywood, Bollywood or Hollywood. Meaning, they don’t necessarily converge and the criticism itself maybe for myriad reasons.
LikeLike
brangan
November 13, 2016
ThousShaltNot: Which is why I stop with the analogy with this para…
I don’t want to stretch this comparison, as there is a huge difference between elections…
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
November 13, 2016
Wow BR! What an analogy Sirji! I thought Madan made some really good points as well. It is not nice to obsessively and self – righteously lump people into categories and arbitrarily condemn them as ‘moronic’ (Venkatesh I understand where you are coming from but let’s calm down shall we?), ‘homophobic’, ‘sexist’, ‘racist’ ‘stalker glorifier’ etc. just because their views don’t coincide with ours.
The Unites States of America had to choose between two of the worst Presidential candidates in their history but you wouldn’t believe that was the scenario if you went with the majority of the so called progressive liberal media. They would have everyone believe that Trump was the orange demon to Clinton’s white saint. And if that doesn’t reek of BS I don’t know what does.
Clinton was always a horrid alternative to Trump his ugly warts included. I am sick of the gender or race card being played during elections when it should come down simply to qualifications and who is best for the job (though in this case neither of them made the cut by a long shot). It is laughable that Clinton was hailed as the champion of women especially since she has repeatedly proved that she is more misogynistic than most misogynists by dismissing victims who came forward to accuse Bubba Bill of rape and sexual assault as ‘tramps’ and ‘bimbos’. Those who voted against her claimed they did not trust her. And her gender had nothing to do with it though the fact that she is a war – mongering liar and corrupt to the core (according to Wikileaks she rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders) certainly did. And if I remember correctly she was not above insinuating that Obama was a Muslim terrorist when they ran against each other eight years ago and the media claimed the moral high ground for her!
My point is in the case of the US elections, the media took political correctness to new lows and played the bully in a manner worthy of Trump himself. As Madan pointed out people need time to accept change especially when it goes against their religious beliefs or long held views on morality. That does not necessarily mean they won’t do the humanitarian thing by those they have trouble accepting if given the chance. And the liberals don’t help by labelling them as white trash of supremacists or whatever have you. Contrary to what the liberal media think they don’t have the right to tell people what to think or feel and condemn them for not holding the same ‘enlightened’ views. In persistently doing so they are no different from the Puritans( or their present day equivalents back home) who condemned sex and deviant sexuality with equal fervor and rigorously punished those who went against their views. Donald Trump is a lot of things but politically correct he ain’t and it makes sense that it made him seem the more attractive choice.
As for the Indian media, it is pretty much the same thing. Remo was used to make a statement against stalking. And that is fine. But it is not okay to criticise or excoriate those who bought tickets because they chose to enjoy the brand of silliness and goofiness Sivakarthikeyan has come to represent even more than reprehensible stalker. (For the record, I have not seen the movie because I have sworn off SK after the atrocity that was Maan Karate). It is about time we all got over ourselves and just quit it with the judgement and intolerance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
November 13, 2016
@ ThouShaltNot: While art panned by critics has done well in the showbiz market for eons, the difference here is some critics, among them BRangan himself, criticised the misogynistic nature of the film, i.e, the ‘ideology’ of the film and not just the filmmaking itself. At a macro level, it would appear that the audience rejected both the criticism of the filmmaking as well as of the ideology. The pertinent issue though is many of those who watched Remo may simply have not read the review(s) and may have therefore never thought of it in those terms. Likewise, I doubt all of Trump’s voters read the voluminous reams written about him in NYT or Washington Post or followed what was said in the TV channels. Hartmann predicted ominously that in fact the majority of working class as well as military/police types watch Fox News. While even Fox News couldn’t get on board with Trump partly because he upended the GOP’s agenda, they were bound to be more sympathetic to his cause than CNN/MSNBC/ABC.
There was some very interesting discussion going on in Don Lemon’s show yesterday, quite honest or at least making the appearance of being honest. The theme many returned to was the disconnect between the coastal metropolitan areas and the MidWest. And somebody observed there that there was a time when everybody watched a show like Lost in Space or listened to Walter Cronkite for the news whereas today the programming is very diverse so that the coast doesn’t have to know what the MidWest is interested in (on the other hand, some programming relevant only to the coast is foisted on the MidWest because of the power of LA and NY). We are passing through a similar era now. We say that the era of pan Indian blockbuster films is largely over. Bhai films are mentioned as the exception but even they don’t cater to such a large audience as the blockbusters of up to the early noughties could. This diversity is nice at the individual level but it also means there is a disconnect at the macro level and one we should be mindful rather than contemptuous of. No, I am not saying the cities now need to turn into Khaap panchayats but the jumping-to-conclusions disease in the Left needs to be addressed.
LikeLike
Sharan
November 13, 2016
one assuring thing is that these guys really don’t mean what they say. They are not like Hitler whose words and actions were out of conviction and strong belief in racist ideologies. General people, apart from creamy layer of liberals are partly misogynist, partly racist. This is a fact. I don’t think this is going to change. These leaders and actors are echo chambers for majority of the people. Their (trump) words of hate are not out of beliefs; they are just like words that we throw around in colleges, offices, streets when we are with our friends. Particularly in poilitcs, political correctness has become a thing of past. Philippine elected a president recently who goes on to call Obama a son of a bitch. I don’t know what was the reaction of Philippines people to this remark, but I am sure there would be a large section on people back here in India who would have called it as brave, courage, master stroke etc. etc. had our Prime minster used same words for Paksitan’s prime minister.
I think growth of media is to be blamed for making liberals in media irrelevant. Now you have people watching so called funny meme videos that ridicule someone in morning when they wake up, video of gory accident, ghost in the room type, when travelling in bus to office, a conspiracy video which says Mahatma Gandhi was a womanizer type, during lunch time, Reality TV shows which have people getting emotional, crying, fighting, abusing in the evening and News debates in which the louder guy wins at night. Where is space for sensible voice? Even if sane voice finds some space to voice their views they appear boring, lame, elite to people who are so much connected to conspiracy theories and racy reality type videos.
I am more disgusted with Siva Karthikeyan than Trump. Politics is one field where manipulation of people is the norm. Only its form has changed now. In cinema you can become big by acting in somewhat decent movies with somewhat good stories, no need to milk insecurities of guys who call him anna.
PS: When I was about to post this message saw speech of modi in TV. People are complaining about lack of money in atms and long queues in banks, PM modi says burn me alive but won’t stop fight against black money. This is a line right out of reality TV.
LikeLike
venkatesh
November 13, 2016
@Anuja Chandramouli : “It is not nice to obsessively and self – righteously lump people into categories and arbitrarily condemn them as ‘moronic’ (Venkatesh I understand where you are coming from but let’s calm down shall we?), ‘homophobic’, ‘sexist’, ‘racist’ ‘stalker glorifier’ etc. just because their views don’t coincide with ours.”
I am not talking politics here.
I am talking about the ill-educated, lumpen elements who look at these movies and identify with the Hero. This has been discussed in these parts before.
This is not arbitrary. I am as against PC talk as anyone else, however that includes calling moronic behaviour as exactly that – moronic. All viewpoints are not equally valid and this false equivalence be it in culture or in politics is wrong.
Talk of lets try and be sensitive to their cultural baggage, their lack of education, their societal surrounding etc. is akin to saying to the Flat Earthers – “we understand there is a dispute in the shape of the Earth”. One is a fact, the other is hogwash.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Madan
November 13, 2016
“Talk of lets try and be sensitive to their cultural baggage, their lack of education, their societal surrounding etc. is akin to saying to the Flat Earthers – “we understand there is a dispute in the shape of the Earth”. One is a fact, the other is hogwash.” – Sure, except that there are no real facts when it comes to human behaviour. There are at best tendencies and indications; this is why the one social science that aspires to be ‘scientific’ and ‘mathematical’, economics, has stumbled repeatedly. So applying the same certainty involved in citing a basic scientific fact to human behaviour is really not very productive.
Yes, there are people who watch a misogynist film and identify with the hero and emulate his behaviour. Is that moronic? Yes, but to make a sweeping conclusion that everybody who watched it and liked it did so would be basically as bad as saying that the earth is flat just because it appears that way to the naked eye. I am reproducing a sentence of yours from your first comment:
“Movies like Remo show the clear divide between the educated, city-bred audience and the ill-educated morons who patronise this. ” – So, as I already mentioned, I know of one woman who is not even Tamil, who is fairly liberal at least in lifestyle, lives in Mumbai, is well educated and a teacher by profession and she liked the film. I am familiar with this notion that the art you like or the art you make (in case of an artist) tells everything about the person you are but there is no substantive evidence that this notion is actually true. It is just a view held and strenuously argued for by academics but doing so over and over still doesn’t necessarily make it a true statement in the sense say I as an accountant would understand it (since we have to write the words ‘true and fair view’ next to any financial statement and own up to these words). As in, you have not proved to me that the source of X liability is Y borrowings, it is not evident in these black and white terms and anything that isn’t that evident is not a fact, it’s just an opinion however deeply you personally may be convinced that it is true.
Likewise, there certainly are racists among the legions that voted for Trump but every Trump voter is not a Breitbart-er either. Your country could actually easily get rid of this problem by having a parliamentary system. It would be more representative and it would also make it much harder for a Trump to win the election. Now if you want a president who directly represents the people rather than a party-appointed leader, fine, but then you get what the nation votes for. It is not a few idiots here that you hope to reform but 25% of USA’s electorate (since turnout was only around 50% or so I heard?).
LikeLike
Vanya
November 13, 2016
Let me preface this by mentioning that initially I wanted to avoid this post as my grief is still very raw, but I’m seeing conclusions being drawn here that may be giving the wrong impression to those outside the country.
First off, as far as the bias in the media goes, the situation was more complicated than Hillary being the media’s darling. The liberal media was more favorable towards her, but unlike what would normally have been the case, the conservative media did not rally behind the Republican candidate: http://thedataface.com/trump-media-analysis/. People have talked here about two Americas. There are many Americas, at least two reside within the Republican Party, and conservative media outlets weren’t feeling the love for a nominee so out of alignment with the GOP of yore.
Second, Trump voters tend to share some traits — lower education, higher density of non-Hispanic whites, and less exposure to minorities and immigrants: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-trump-got-his-edge/. Importantly, they are not worse off economically than other groups in America: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/. Put another way, you have a group of people dissatisfied with the pace of economic recovery (much like everyone else on the planet), and looking for change and someone to blame. For the latter, they fixated on immigrants and people of color probably because they were the great unknown. This American Life did a spectacular piece on St. Cloud, Minnesota which highlights all of these factors beautifully: https://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/600/will-i-know-anyone-at-this-party?act=1. Throw into this mix that you have a female candidate on the Democratic side, and you have enough to tip over into Trump’s favor. Considering that older white women went decidedly for Trump, my guess (with no evidence to support this) is that there are many who’ve still not forgiven Hillary for being Hillary Rodham.
Finally, @rkjk: As a woman scientist, I agree that the reaction was slightly overblown but I would characterize Hunt’s remarks (which he doubled down on later) as being much more dangerous than “some inane comment”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ThouShaltNot
November 13, 2016
@Madan: I will not get into the dissemination/reach aspects of a review/criticism (as in, how many readers read a review and what they do with it etc.) since that is not the essence of my argument. I am not surprised that a large number of people in T.N. might have watched that movie “Remo” and may have made it a roaring success thereby “rejecting” critical opinions (even assuming they all read critical reviews). Why? My axiom 1 is that Tamil society is deeply sexist. If I start there, the world of T.N is a whole lot easier to interpret.
Let me give you a couple of examples to further illustrate my point: Take the quote “Pen buddhi, Pin buddhi” (If you want to spice it up, you can imagine a famous star mouthing those lines in a movie repeatedly). I, as an opinion writer, denounce that line as sexist drivel. Let us now put that quote to vote in T.N. It might surprise you, but a significant chunk of people would “reject” my opinion. Does that mean I should now “repeal and replace” my opinion?
Another example. A certain famous person, in her debut movie, sang the song, “amma endraal anbu, appaa enrdaal arivu..”. She didn’t write it. The credit for that goes to Mr. Vaali. In an opinion piece, I denounce it as sexist garbage. Put that quote to vote in T.N, and I will be “rejected” overwhelmingly. Should my harboring such an opinion in the first place be considered my personal failing? Do I have to second guess myself ? I think not. Between tailoring my opinions to societal reactions and the courage of my convictions, I as an opinion writer prefer to choose the latter. I don’t feel the need to be distressed over what happened in an entirely unrelated context. The world of reporting and the world of opinions are different.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
November 13, 2016
Anuja, no, thank you, I’m perfectly categorising people who hate someone for their gender, their gender identity, their sexual orientation, their race, their religion, etc. I have absolutely no problem in calling those people misogynistic, sexist, homophibic, bigots. If that makes me ‘politically correct’ or a flaming liberal, it is a label I will wear with pride.
In persistently doing so they are no different from the Puritans( or their present day equivalents back home) who condemned sex and deviant sexuality with equal fervor and rigorously punished those who went against their views.
I. Can’t. Even. So the puritans who condemned sex and sexuality and the liberal media who condemn homophobia and racism and bigotry and sexism and any other -ism you can think of, are no different from each other? I thought I had heard it all this election year!
Madan, I will not slam anyone for taking time to change those views – I get that when something goes against your worldview, a day, a week, a year, is not going to change anything. BUT. (And this is a HUGE but.) When those same conservative, religious worldviews attack the hardwon freedoms of a large swathe of population, then it needs to be called out. When those worldviews attack who and what I am, and decide for my body what it is allowed to do (or don’t), when they get to decide public policy – that’s where the buck needs to stop.
You want to believe homosexuality is a sin? Go ahead. Don’t be a homosexual, or if you are, stay in the closet. (OR get thee to a therapist. Fast.) But when your ‘homosexuality is a sin’ attacks gays all over the country for being what they are, then I have a problem. Your religious views do not give you the right to attack others constitutional, civic and human rihgts.
Also, Hilary Clinton won the popular vote by more than half a million votes. What does that say about who the majority WANT to be president? If it weren’t for that bastion of privilege – the electoral college – we wouldn’t have this clown in the White House.
LikeLiked by 4 people
venkatesh
November 13, 2016
@Madan et all.
I am not talking politics or human behaviour or anything so exalted.
This article to me talks about one issue only : “Is BR relevant in an age where everyone with a phone is a critic? And especially when he doesn’t seem to have any effect at the box-office.”
Here BR is a stand-in for a certain type of a cultural commentator and “man with a phone” is a stand-in for the Prashanth types. My point is that what BR (and all that he stands for) are objectively better than the likes of the Prashanth, KRK etc. How is one better than the other ?
Well, in a BR commentary you get the historicity, context and most importantly reasoning of where a particular piece of music, film, stands in the pantheon. This requires conscious effort and involvement from the reader with the payoff being increase in the sum-total knowledge on both sides. There is an incremental change on both sides with each side gaining something from the interaction.
The other type of commentary is a quick-fix verbal diarrhoea engineered to gain eyeballs and ad-sales that has no long-lasting effect. And this works fine for them , cause after all the next controversy, next film, next kisu-kisu is just round the corner. The reader/viewer has not gained anything out of this interaction except perhaps a quick shot of dopamine into their brain that will wear off quickly.
The problem comes when the second type of commentary is regarded as equal or superior to the first. Its the equivalence between the two that is the problem.
BR asks this question here:
is it enough that we reinforce the belief systems of those who read us (and are mostly like us)? Or do we need to wade in deeper and try to talk to those who are nothing like us? Is such a thing even possible?
My take on this hand-wringing “outreach program” is that it is doomed to failure. Why ?
Academic studies have shown that people choose their tribe and stick to it. All evidence pointing , fact checking that goes against their belief system only serves to push them further into their bubble. They don’t want to know and will not change even if they know they are wrong.
This was not always the case. At one time, ignorance was considered as something to be ashamed of, being an “elite” was something to aspire to.
Not any more, for every ignorant moron holding a factually incorrect position, there is a subreddit or a club or a meeting place of some kind that validates their belief and provides them safety.
An ignorant position and a factual knowledgeable one are now simply 2 sides of the same coin. This has to stop.
The liberal media has to double down not dilute its position.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SSW
November 13, 2016
Anuja Chandramouli I don’t know if you live in the US and if you did whether you voted or not if you were eligible but your post reeks a little bit of I told you so, I knew it all along and something from the Philadelphia Enquirer’s pages.
1)Can you explain why Hillary Clinton was one of the worst people to stand for the US presidency? You can think of no other candidate at all, even the much revered Andrew Jackson whose face adorns our 20 dollar bill whose speculation in real estate caused the death of thousands of Native Americans. Hillary Clinton was as qualified to stand for president as anybody currently holding a government office in the United States.
2) There is no record of Clinton calling Broaddick, Flowers, Lewinsky “tramps” or “bimbos”. Yes the closest she came to it was when she described Ms.Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon” and Ms. Flowers as a failed “cabaret singer without much of a resume”. Definitely classier language than how Nixon and Kissinger described a certain woman called Indira Gandhi, or the term “Bubba” Bill you used. He’s at least a Rhodes Scholar and plays a mean saxophone and she is a graduate of Wellesley and Yale.
3) Why is she a war mongering liar? Which war has she started? In fact isn’t the whole problem with Benghazi based on that idea she did not go to war quickly enough? Yes she is more hawkish than Obama but people like Cruz and Kasic etc are paragons of “ahimsa” I suppose.
4) The national media did not champion Clinton as a white saint. They reported on her foibles as they reported on Trump’s unless you get your news exclusively from Breitbart or the Huffington Post and even for the Post Sanders was the darling not Clinton . Trump just makes more news because he makes more outrageous claims and dislikes the press. He wasn’t bullied , on the other hand reporters who attended his rallies were often bullied by him and his supporters.
5) Clinton did not insinuate that Obama was a Muslim terrorist. You must be reading from the book of Trump if you believe that or is this something you have come up with. Laughably they tried to pin the “birther” movement on her supporters but even that’s been discredited.
6) Let us be clear here. In any other democracy and even in the US with the exception of the executive branch Hillary Clinton would be the president. At the time of writing she is still leading Donald Trump by close to half a million votes and there are 7 million votes left to count and most of them are on the coasts , in New York, California and the state of Washington. So she could easily defeat Trump by the same margin that Obama defeated Romney. I suppose you know what the electoral college is, if not, I suggest you read the Federalist papers, it will be educative.
Any media has always tried to tell people what they should do. Do you think newspapers like Kesari etc were written to tell people not to get the British out of India? Comparing the current liberal media in the US to the Puritans is hilarious. The liberal media has no power to punish, and I have not seen one liberal newspaper or television channel calling for tarring and feathering Trump supporters.
I don’t know whether Trump is a racist , homophobe etc. He plays to his audience and I am sure few people know who the real Trump is but I do not think his Presidency will be great. Funnily a lot of his support comes from people who depend on Social Security and pensions and Obamacare all of which the Republicans promise to gut in the coming years. Thank goodness they did not get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
Hillary Clinton with all her flaws was still a good candidate and was brought down by people who did not vote for change. She was brought down by people wanted to live in a world where America was great again a utopia that existed for a period after the second world war because it was relatively untouched by the destruction and bloodshed. The reality is that manufacturing jobs just make up 15% of the American economy, and they are never going to come back to non-college educated folks. If manufacturing comes back it will be highly automated and run by people who are educated.
As for Hillary no other woman has yet been the target of so much vilification in the US as she has been for over 25 years and all because she said , that she wasn’t just going to sit at home and bake cookies.
It is a pity her political career has ended this way, there was much in her to admire, and she did not deserve to go out like this.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Madan
November 13, 2016
“You want to believe homosexuality is a sin? ” – No and I am sorry but this is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about, viz the (intentional?) misconstruing of what is said to rant about a much more clear cut issue which was not even discussed. Let’s look again at what I said.
“You cannot add new gender names like they were metal genres and expect all people to be up to speed (with the assumption that they are not up to speed only because they are homophobes) ” – I am talking about plain and simple ignorance here…of the myriad names given to genders other than male and female. I get that said ignorance may be insulting to a person who self identifies as one of these genders but it also can’t be helped when there are so many sub categories. If then somebody decides to unleash on the person who simply did not know about these genders, it is only going to make the latter even less interested to find out. On the other hand, I understand where you’re coming from w.r.t the religious right and their whole “Our religion forbids us to serve gay customers” shtick and that I do not and will not ever support. But it is not only about that and we know it. I am all for freedoms and rights of every hue. And word policing militates against this very freedom. It is necessary to find a balance here. We cannot be pitting the two in a toxic battle that will now consume the Left as the Right goes laughing all the way to the bank…as it just has. I don’t think people should be insulted but I’d rather the line was drawn way up there. And in case of an insult, it would suffice in most cases to simply say that that was inappropriate and demand retraction. It is a more adult way of dealing with the problem. In case of lack of remorse and/or a repeat offender, yes, please call him out on his bigotry and hand him to the police if necessary.
“If it weren’t for that bastion of privilege – the electoral college – we wouldn’t have this clown in the White House.” – I hate to be that guy but I heard it so many times, pre Nov 9, from DNC voters that the founding fathers had shown great foresight in having an electoral college system to protect ahem the elites from the ignorance of the unwashed. And now those same guys are saying the founding fathers always wanted to eventually do away with the EC. Sorry, but people could see this result coming a mile off.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
November 13, 2016
Ah, the problem when I allow my reactions to overcloud my typing – my earlier post is riddled with typos. I do know to spell. My fingers, apparently, have a mind of their own.
LikeLike
Madan
November 13, 2016
“Not any more, for every ignorant moron holding a factually incorrect position, there is a subreddit or a club or a meeting place of some kind that validates their belief and provides them safety.” – Right, I agree with this but this is not what you talked about at first. It’s ok, I’ll let it go. I do also want to point out though that it was the Left, again, which chose to glorify anti-intellectualism in the 70s (cue the rise of punk rock). See, the roles have been reversed now. At a certain point of time, the conservatives held control over the establishment and therefore the elites too were conservative. The Left started out celebrating the proletariat and sought to shield the art he consumed from criticism by the ‘snobs’. They then went through a major crisis in the 80s as the traditional Left collapsed everywhere, be it UK, US or even India. Via Blair/Clinton, they introduced a blend of capitalism combined with progressive values that they knew conservatives could never get on board with and this brought white collars types over to their side. The conservatives in turn doubled down on religion and now via Farage/Trump seem to have tapped into populist appeal which is very dangerous territory.
Yes, this is all politics again but what I am trying to tell you is that what you mention is not a new phenomenon. There were times earlier too when anti-intellectualism was not only validated but even valued. Politicians need to pick either of two sides – the elites or the average joes – as their constituency and they further influence media outlets to shape opinions that help their (political party) cause. That is why we can distinguish say a CNN as pandering more to the DNC’s agenda while Fox serves the GOP. In India, the appropriate Cong/BJP parallel would be NDTV/Zee News. This works its way into art as well though it is less obvious since art is much more diverse. Doubtless the internet and the social media (especially the latter) aid this phenomenon even more and to perilous extremes.
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
November 13, 2016
Anuja, no, thank you, I’m perfectly categorising people who hate someone for their gender, their gender identity, their sexual orientation, their race, their religion, etc. I have absolutely no problem in calling those people misogynistic, sexist, homophibic, bigots. If that makes me ‘politically correct’ or a flaming liberal, it is a label I will wear with pride.”
Anu Warrior: Given the vehemance of those lines, it is obvious you misunderstood the point I was making since I certainly do not condone homophobia, bigotry, sexism. I am pro – choice unto death and anti – hate. The way I see it in a democracy you are entitled to personal freedom provided you are not infringing on the basic rights of others. In my book, we all have foibles and while we may not be able to control unworthy feelings we can and ought to control how we behave towards others. So I am reserving my judgement only for those who have actually committed hate crimes and not those who don’t always share the politically correct views of the ‘flaming liberals’ but don’t feel the need to leave the comfort of their homes to chuck bombs at gay clubs. And by the way a few short years ago it was politically correct to penalize homosexuals and a few centuries ago it was the done thing to burn women for being ‘witches’.
IMO it is only the extremists (a minority in any part of the world I should point out to those who are dumb enough to assume all Muslims are terrorists and similarly inane shit) who feel the need to hate and hurt others on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation etc. When liberals get carried away and tar all and sundry irrespective of whether it is truly deserved with vicious tags accusing them needlessly (for eg. denigrating every single person who dared not vote for Clinton as a white supremacist redneck) an unnecessarily hostile environment is created which only fosters a vicious cycle of intolerance and violence. Such folks irrespective of their lofty ideology remind me of Magneto who was passionate about his cause too and wound up being apocalyptically destructive which is why Madan and I feel the need to stress the need for moderation in thought and deed like Professor Charles Xavier. We need to show the haters a better way and that means refusing to hate even if that hate is intended to be directed solely against the haters. Otherwise a hater is a hater is a hater.
LikeLike
ThouShaltNot
November 13, 2016
Nate Silver and fivethirtyeight lost all credibility this election cycle. This number crunching savant had Hillary as the overwhelming favorite all the way through election day. To understand the plight of the blue-collar worker and what was going on with them, one merely had to tune to Michael Moore and his many prescient warnings. Michael Moore, a filmmaker from Michigan and a Democrat, lives among the blue-collar workers, speaks their language and has their pulse. Here is one of his scribes. Be forewarned that it is laced with foul language.
“Whether Trump means it or not (his threat to corporate America for outsourcing jobs and promises to bring it back) is kind of irrelevant because he’s saying the things to people who are hurting. And it’s why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump. He is the human Molotov cocktail that they’ve been waiting for. The human hand grenade that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them. And on November 8th, Election Day – although they’ve lost their jobs, although they’ve been foreclosed on by the bank, next came the divorce and now the wife and kids are gone, the car has been repo’d, they haven’t had a real vacation in years, they’re stuck with the s***** Obamacare Bronze plan where you can’t even get a f****** Percocet – they’ve essentially lost everything they had. Except one thing. The one thing that doesn’t cost them a cent and is guaranteed to them by the American Constitution: the right to vote. They might be penniless. They might be homeless. They might be f*****
over and f***** up. It doesn’t matter. Because it’s equalized on that day. A millionaire has the same number of votes as the person without a job – one. And there’s more of a former middle class than there are in the millionaire class.
So on November 8th, the dispossessed will walk into the voting booth, be handed a ballot, close the curtain and take that lever, or felt pen, or touch screen and put a big f****** X in the box by the name of the man who has threatened to upend and overturn the very system
that has ruined their lives. Donald J Trump. They see that the elites, who ruined their lives, hate Trump. Corporate America hates Trump.Wall Street hates Trump. The career politicians hate Trump. The media hate Trump – after they loved him and created him and now hate him. Thank you, media. The enemy of my enemy is who I’m voting for on November 8th. Yes, on November 8th, you, Joe Blow, Steve Blow, Bob Blow, Bill Blow, Billy Bob Blow, all the Blows – get to go and blow up the whole God damn system because it’s your right. Trump’s election is going to be the biggest f*** you ever recorded in human history. And it will feel good (for them).”
LikeLike
venkatesh
November 13, 2016
@Madan: Re : The Leftist agenda , i think there is a lot more to it. However, I am trying to stay away from politics on this blog. Too much of it elsewhere. This is my “safe space” re-elections 🙂
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
November 14, 2016
Anuja, we can stress ‘moderation’ and I’m on board with that. The problem here with stressing by stressing moderation in terms of Trump is that we normalise the fact that a lying, thieving, sexist, racist, bigoted, homophobic xenophobe is elected to the White House on the basis – NOT of the Vox Populi – of the last bastion of White Privilege – the Electoral College. I don’t care that the reason a lot of them give is that they were ‘against the establishment’, that establishment, of course, being Clinton. When you choose ‘vote against the establishment’ and ignore the racism, bigotry, xenophobia of the candidate you have chosen to lead your country out of the morass, you are, in effect, endorsing that racism, bigotry and xenophobia. (General ‘you’, not ‘you’ personally.)
Besides, no one here, not the liberal media, not the Clinton supporters, generalised everyone who supported Trump as the white supremacist redneck. I live here. I read both Breitbart and Fox and alt-right as well as the mainstream liberal media. I can assure you that the only people who were being called out for being white supremacist racist and bigots were those who were spouting white supremacist racist bigotry.
I am all for civil discourse in society – but if we don’t learn from History, we are forever doomed to repeat it. And if we don’t stop the validation, nay the ‘normalisation’ of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, sexism and misogyny, we, and generations to come, will pay a heavy price for it.
This election – stolen, I say, because we are not seeing the will of the people here – is just the beginning. The conservative right has been chipping away at our freedoms these past 8 years. Now they have the electoral college mandate to do it within law. The House, the Senate, and the White House are all Republican. The Supreme Court will soon be after January. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.
Because if you don’t and if you decide to be conciliatory, and ‘moderate’ in the face of this evil, and not fight for the freedoms that those before you have shed blood to gain, there will be no one to save your freedoms that will be taken away.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
November 14, 2016
Also:
The hatred for Hilary is partly the hatred for Hilary Rodham – who happens to be a woman and ambitious, which is probably the 8th deadly sin for a lot of the people who voted against her. Partly it is the dislike for Clinton himself. But. I disagree that Hilary is a miisogynist or that she treated the women who accused Clinton of assault badly. Juanita Broaderick is on record as saying that Hilary understood and that no one from the Clinto administration threatened her or harmed her. Whatever Broaderick may say today, at the time it happened, she had absolved Hilary of blame. Secondly, in 1997, nearly 20 years after she says the rape happened, she signed an affidavit – under oath – that the rape never happened. Kenneth Starr even offered her immunity from perjury charges if she would testify that Cinton did, in fact, rape her, but even he found her claims inconclusive. It is also telling that later, Clinton admitted to his other sexual shenanigans in the White House, but has consistently refuted this one charge.
Monica Lewinsky was moved – on Hilary’s say-so to a place she would have been ‘safe’ from Bill’s advances; Lewinksy returned, and to her credit, even today, she says their relationship was consensual. About her comments on the other women- they were made in private to a friend when she actualy believed her husband’s claims of innocence. Am I going to fault a wronged wife for believing the husband she loves? What is marriage if not a trust in your spouse?
Secondly, it is not Bill Clinton who is standing for President. (And if you want my honest opinion, what I want in a President is the ability to govern – and he did. He inherited a country left in debt after the Gulf war, and left it US with a surplus. He boosted the economy and he gave us a stability that stood us in good stead. Until Bush Jr wiped it all out with his revenge fantasy. ) Hilary was hoisted with Bill’s petard and all these allegations of ‘enabling Bill’ only came along when they realised she was pulling way ahead of Trump in the presidential election.
Thirdly, if it were not for FBI director Comey practically torpedoeing her chances at the polls, the victory would have been hers on November 8th. Basically, America is not ready for a woman president. And if you tell me gender didn’t play a huge role in the results, well, I do have a bridge in San Francisco that I’m looking to sell. (Cash – just not in 500 or 1000 rupee notes. Thanks.) 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hrishi
November 14, 2016
Well done. Great theme for the article. Very thought provoking and great points. I’ll only give the critic this little more… I don’t think you have a bias… You don’t want the movie to fail at the box office, unlike the comparison with the US elections. Whatever you think and say… You’re more honest
LikeLike
Vanya
November 14, 2016
“Nate Silver and fivethirtyeight lost all credibility this election cycle. This number crunching savant had Hillary as the overwhelming favorite all the way through election day.”
I have to assume you don’t actually read Silver’s writings at all or you and I have very different definitions of “overwhelming favorite”. He was criticized prior to the election for warning that the election was still close while other modelers were much more optimistic about Hillary’s chances, and many accused him of selling out and presenting this as a horse race for page views. Fivethirtyeight’s final model had Trump at almost 30% chance of winning, twice as high as other sites’ modeling predictions. And take this from what he wrote on Nov 6th:
“How about polls of swing states in particular? Right now, the tipping-point state in our forecast — the state that would provide the decisive 270th electoral vote if the polls got things exactly right — is New Hampshire. There, Clinton leads by only 1.7 percentage points in our adjusted polling average, as several recent polls show Trump tied or slightly ahead, along with others that still give Clinton the lead. Thus, Clinton’s doing a little bit worse in the tipping-point state than she is overall — a sign that she might win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College.”
Btw, when did the term “political correctness” go the way of “feminism” in that the extremes are now held as the prototypes?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
November 14, 2016
Madan, sorry, I ddn’t mean ‘you’ as in ‘you, Madan’. The ‘you’ was to a general ‘you’ = the people who think homosexuality is a sin.
@Anuja: So I am reserving my judgement only for those who have actually committed hate crimes
So am I. And that was the many hundreds of thousands of people at the Trump rallies who chanted bigoted, racist, sexist, hateful things.
Were you giving me a history lesson about women being burnt as witches? I know US history. I live in Massachussetts. Not very far from infamous Salem. What has that got to do with political correctness?
The way I see it in a democracy you are entitled to personal freedom provided you are not infringing on the basic rights of others.
How do you state this and be okay with what is going to happen next – where basic rights of others are going to be infringed? Liberal newspapers were calling out what was happening in parts of the country – where people’s (minorities/women/LGBT) basic rights were being curtailed – the infamous bathroom bill in North Carolina, the shutting down of abortion clinics in Texas, the attacks on Planned Parenthood, the attacks on black people… all this was happening all over the country and these past 18 months have just exacerbated it. Trump was loudly and publicly calling for Muslims to be banned from the country, Mexicans as rapists and smugglers and drug dealers, said women who had abortion should be punished, said he would repeal gay marriage, exhorting his supporters to physical violence and promising to pay their lawyer fees… and the ‘liberal media’ reporting all this is the monster demonising the ‘other’?
I’m not a Gandhian. Turn the other cheek has never appealed to me. Attack me, and you will hurt. I might die, but you will hurt. Being conciliatory in face of such extremism will only enable the bullies to bully some more. And now they have a bully pulpit. Bullies see ‘moderate’ as ‘cowardice’.
You have such hatred for Hilary. Enabler, you called her? So now we have a President who not only sexually assaulted women, but bragged about it. We have indeed made progress. Congratulations!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anu Warrier
November 14, 2016
Also, Madan, re: electoral college, I am not saying the Democrats are the sainted party, either. I don’t vote for party. I vote for the platform. (I am not registered as Democrat or Republican.)
LikeLike
Rahul
November 14, 2016
SSW – ” If manufacturing comes back it will be highly automated and run by people who are educated.”
I think this is the core of the discussion. The manufacturing jobs that a section of working class is clamoring for are running an existential race against time as automation is becoming cheaper by the day as compared to labor costs. A country like US of A should use its position as a leader of the free world to make manufacturing innovative and create jobs not based on protectionism but based on leadership and creating a niche, as Germany has been doing.
Not to be condescending towards the undereducated class, but they should be incentivized to create a place for themselves instead of waiting for jobs that would never come back. It is like farming that was once a major activity in US but now its only 2 %. Would be absurd to make farming great again.
The irony is that if it was the African Americans that were complaining of underemployment because of racism then some of these WWC (white working class) champions would ask them to stop complaining and work hard(er).
LikeLike
Madan
November 14, 2016
@ ThouShaltNot That Michael Moore rant has to be heard, not read. Very passionately rendered. As much as he wanted to warn them against voting for Trump, he also felt sorrow for their plight:
Re your other comment, no, by all means act on your conviction that the film is sexist drivel. All I said is it does not follow that everyone who watched the film and liked it is a sexist. And that is what imo makes it all the more important for writers to highlight sexism so that somebody who casually watched it and liked it may do a double take after reading your opinion piece.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
November 14, 2016
@ SSW: Apart from Michael Moore, there were some online outlets predicting a Trump victory months and months before. Here’s an article saying that if Sanders is not made the Democratic nominee, Trump will win. Now we can argue that anybody can make such predictions but the thing is it is almost exactly what happened and Trump picked up the Rust Belt which had warmed up to Sanders.
http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency
Of course, it does not surprise me that the mainstream media either ignored or dismissed such predictions in the same way they dismissed everyone who warned them of the impending financial crisis in 2006.
Personally, in talking to DNC voters, they would say “Trump will win only non college educated White votes and not college educated” and I would think, “Uh huh, there’s a path right there for a Trump win”. It would depend on his constituency coming out in big numbers to vote while Clinton voters comforted by complacency stayed home. Perhaps that is what happened.
LikeLike
SSW
November 14, 2016
Madan, I am not really interested in what Michael Moore predicted or what you thought of after talking to DNC voters (What is a DNC voter anyway?) or which online outlets predicted a Trump victory and how the rust belt behaved the way you were sure it would etc, as they say hindsight is always 20-20.
I was merely responding to Ms.Chandramouli’s unsubstantiated words about Hillary Clinton.
Do you live in the US and are you eligible to vote? From your statement in a previous email it seems you know a lot of the Democratic National Committee members (or did you mean people who are registered Democrats or people who would vote for a democrat). I am surprised that a lot of DNC members (if in fact you mean that) were in favour of the founding fathers vision with respect to the electoral votes. Ever since Gore lost the electoral votes to Bush and even before that neither party has been happy with this concept and in the early years of the republic the rules for the vote allocation were changed a number of times . In fact as late as 2012 after Obama’s second win the Republican party wanted to change the way the votes were allotted since if the votes had been allotted proportionally according to districts Romney could very well have won. The Democrats have since 2000 always been in favour of the popular vote idea where each state has to pass laws pledging that all electoral votes be cast in favour of the winner of the popular vote. So I’m not sure how many people you have spoken to but the electoral college has never been favoured by any party right from the early days of the republic. Before the Emancipation Proclamation I would assume it also leaned in favour of the slave states as slaves were not allowed to vote but representatives were allotted based on human population.
LikeLike
ThouShaltNot
November 14, 2016
@Madan: I was merely making a point there assuming I was the critic or an opinion writer. BR is the critic in question and I don’t recall him making any such accusations in that thread about people who watch the movie despite his criticisms over its misogynistic leanings. And I’ve implied nothing of that sort in that thread either.
Correction in earlier Michael Moore comment : screeds, not scribes
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
November 14, 2016
Anu Warrior: “And if you tell me gender didn’t play a huge role in the results, well, I do have a bridge in San Francisco that I’m looking to sell. (Cash – just not in 500 or 1000 rupee notes. Thanks.)🙂”
Come on Anu! Gender was not the only factor is all I am saying and it did not have a ‘huge role’ either. Some analysts feel that it was an indictment against the Obama administration though the dude is a class act. Obamacare as you know is hugely unpopular, the national debt has tripled, the country is still reeling from the after effects of the recession and Guantanamo is very much around. And when Donald Duck quacked about jobs being outsourced from China and India of course, he was going to appeal to every blue collar worker out there (Clinton ignored them and has paid the price). Where does gender come into all this? It was merely the rhetoric of a reality TV star which ought to be ignored because thankfully the human race has come a long way from the days when we believed a woman’s job began and ended with the home, hearth and birthing bed.
And you said the US is not ready for a woman President but if Michelle Obama or Tina Fey or even Rosie O Donnell had run against Trump instead of the Golden Gal of the establishment with her Clinton foundation (please don’t tell me you think it’s purpose is purely philanthropic) , they would have won by a landslide.
In India too, we have put our faith in female leaders and learned the hard way that in politics or any other field irrespective of whether you have breasts or balls, the lure of filthy lucre is too great and most in power care less about the common man and woman and more about enriching themselves.
You remember the admittedly laboured point I made about the Puritans which galled you so? Well allow me to take it further and I apologize if it’s going to piss you off even more. While your principles are truly noble, it is your thought process fuelled by righteous indignation and passion that reminds me very disturbingly of the misogynists themselves. Because they can’t see past gender either and clearly neither can you if you insist on hailing Hilary Clinton as a Messiah of the masses and champion of downtrodden women. If that is what you genuinely believe then you too are in danger of buying the Taj Mahal in good faith from your friendly neighborhood shyster. 🙂
“Were you giving me a history lesson about women being burnt as witches? I know US history. I live in Massachussetts. Not very far from infamous Salem. What has that got to do with political correctness?”
I was referring to the climate of fear, mistrust and intolerance that led to too many feeling the need to prove that they were good Catholics ( which made political as well as practical sense at the time) and turn on their neighbors. So when you say that we have to be afraid, very afraid I am worried that a similarly toxic climate will prevail. Just asking that you have a little more faith in human beings and the checks and balances present in a democracy to stop the likes of Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sifter
November 14, 2016
BR- Your article echoed what thoughts ran in my mind for a couple of days after the Trump win. The mocking parallel between the success of Remo and the Trump win played constantly in my waking and sleeping mind. Surprised…I could even say I expected Trump to win and Remo to be a raging success; still it was shocking. Haven’t been able to come out of it till now.
I do not want to take specific names here, but to even think that Hilary being a woman has nothing to do with this defeat…. I have no words. Trump and his supporters targeted her for being a woman, targeted her on an extremely personal front, hurled constant abuses against her and much more. This is one courageous woman that faced it all, tried to fight tooth and nail against all shite thrown at her, stand tall, and not turn tail. Yes, she probably is or was never a Saint, yes, she is trounced and trussed by Trump (I am in shattered million pieces right now). Most people who wanted to see her fail can take vicarious pleasure in having seen her beaten thusly. Countless people in USA and in India and around the world that are crowing that ‘The Nasty Woman’ has been taught a lesson that she (and other Feminists) won’t forget. I may come out with a positive outlook as days go by, by utter hopelessness is what I feel now and it is not even my country.
Being moderate with Trump? I won’t start with all that misogyny, etc., etc… How is trying a moderate approach with him even a suggestion?
Being accused of a Feminist, having somewhat of politically correct views & opinions, a bleeding liberal, and also trying to be a SJW—-Wow, how the list of accusations gets expanded all the time! Well, the problem only occurs if one gets politically incorrect with people like Trump and movies like Remo. Then the same people will come out in droves and preach the same polital correctness that they scorn otherwise.
Anu- And if you tell me gender didn’t play a huge role in the results, well, I do have a bridge in San Francisco that I’m looking to sell. (Cash – just not in 500 or 1000 rupee notes. Thanks.)
Right on- That just made me laugh!
LikeLiked by 1 person
ThouShaltNot
November 14, 2016
Unsure if I posted my earlier response (if so, consider this an attempt at rigging the commet section :-))
Yes and Yes. I have an aversion for nerds who eat numbers for breakfast 🙂 For most of October, Nate had Hillary’s chance of winning between 75 – 80 %. On the day of election he gave Clinton a 71.4% chance and Trump a 28.6%. Feel free to use your preferred adjective
that characterizes this situation though. As for me, that he was marginally better than the rest of the pundit-pack (nytimes had her at 86%) doesn’t say much about him as a prognosticator. A man that good failed to predict Trump’s victory in the primary
Did I say something about political correctness in my comment ?
Unrelated to this comment: Finally, some soul-searching at The New York Times (the flagship for unbiased reporting; meanwhile, CNN is still searching). The NYT publisher has issued this note to the readers
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
November 14, 2016
and it did not have a ‘huge role’ either.
What are you smoking? I would like to have some of it, if only to deaden the almost-physical pain I feel. For the past 18 months, we have seen the attacks on Hilary Clinton – almost always based on her gender.
the national debt has tripled,
Where are you getting your figures from? The alt-right media? Even the Drumpf only said Obama doubled the national debt.
For some real figures and a decent analysis:
http://crfb.org/blogs/has-president-obama-doubled-national-debt
And you said the US is not ready for a woman President but if Michelle Obama or Tina Fey or even Rosie O Donnell had run against Trump …they would have won by a landslide.
Do you have any evidence to back this up? Or are you just spouting off? Rosie O Donnell is hated by the Republicans. So is Tina Fey. They are seen as liberal shills. And they are very, very left of liberal. Michelle Obama has a huge popularity rating but that is because she is a very private person and they don’t know much about her. Much as I admire Michelle, I wouldn’t want her as my President either.
None of these people have the qualifications necessary to be in a cabinet position, much less the President of the US. Or do you think we voted for Hilary because she is a woman? You insult us.
…instead of the Golden Gal of the establishment with her Clinton foundation (please don’t tell me you think it’s purpose is purely philanthropic) ,..
Because they can’t see past gender either and clearly neither can you if you insist on hailing Hilary Clinton as a Messiah of the masses and champion of downtrodden women.
I have never said Hilary is a saint. Please don’t attribute to me something I have never said or implied. But Hilary is extremely intelligent, extremely qualified, and extremely capable. And she has cut her eye teeth in the political atmosphere.
because thankfully the human race has come a long way from the days when we believed a woman’s job began and ended with the home, hearth and birthing bed.
I am sure. But I don’t know who this ‘we’ is that you talk about, because while things may have changed, they haven’t changed so much that it is not still believed that a woman may work outside, but the home and hearth are still her responsibility. (By both men and women, I might add.)
I live and work in the US. I have lived and worked here for 18 years. Have you? No? Then I’m more qualified than you are to say that gender discrimination is a Very. Real. Thing. We fight it all the time. Double standards exist. A man’s ambition is leadership. A woman’s ambition is ‘pushiness’. A man’s emotions are ‘sensitivity’. A woman’s emotions are ‘that time of the month’. A man is decisive. A woman is bitchy. A man sleeping around is a player, macho, manly. A woman sleeps around, she is a slut, a whore. Men are ‘assertive’, women are ‘bossy’.
Where Hilary was concerned, she was alternately ’emotional’ or a ‘nasty woman’ or a ‘bitch’ – ‘Trump that bitch’ was not just Donald’s rant. She was asked to ‘smile more’, she was criticised for her pant suits, her age (and the Donald is older)… you name it. Even for sticking by Bill even though he is a philanderer. And for being the reason Bill ‘strayed’.
They have drawn and quartered a good woman candidate and served her up for tea in the Old Boys’ Club and they are having the last laugh because after all, it is Hilary and she is a ‘nasty woman’.
the need to prove that they were good Catholics ( which made political as well as practical sense at the time)
You know, I am pissed off enough to say that if you want to teach me my adopted country’s history, you need to at least get your facts right. The Puritans were English Reformed Protestants who wanted nothing to do with the Catholic church or the Papacy.
…faith in …the checks and balances present in a democracy to stop the likes of Trump.
You see, that is the problem. Trump is attacking the very foundation of democracy. And honestly what checks and balances do you see when the President, the White House, the Senate and the House, and most probably the highest court in the land is in Republican control?
Do you understand that we here in the US have been sitting and watching in dismay as the Republican governors and leaders have steadily challenged our very freedoms – what part of Texas shut down all but 19 abortion clinics; Planned Parenthood, which offers a wide array of women’s health services has already had its funding cut. It will be totally cut, or so DD has promised his republican base. LGBT rights has taken an enormous beating in these past two years. Attacks against minorities has increased. Trump has threatened to throw open libel laws, thus muffling a free press. He has already shown a propensity to sue; our First Lady to be has just filed suit against a blogger.
No. ‘Moderation’ against Trump and his ilk who want to chip away at our freedoms, who want to stake their right to women’s bodies, who want people ‘not like them’ to be thrown out of the country – a country, mind you, that was raised by immigrants, who want people who believe that sexual orientation is a sin – no, I do not get how ‘moderate’ is going to help them. I am lucky; I am privileged. I earn a good living. I live in one of the most liberal of US states, the place where the immigrants first landed, the place where the constitution was written, the place where brave men and women fought for the land ‘of the free and the brave’. If Trump decides I am too brown to live in his all-white country, I have a home to return to in the country of my birth.
But others are not so fortunate. Some of them have no other country to go to; this is their home. Massachussetts has one of the most enlightened health care system; women in Texas and Arizona and Dakota don’t. LGBT people are not a rare sight here, and it doesn’t matter to us if they are lesbian or gay or transgender or transsexual. The same cannot be said for other parts of the country which voted for Trump.
They have the power; to undo – by law – the equality granted to all people.
We know the ground reality. We need to be angry, because it is this anger that will drive change. And by anger, I don’t mean attacking people who voted for Trump.
The anger to stand up and say, no, this is NOT acceptable. The anger to get out there and help the people who stand to lose the most because of this cretin in the White House. (Who is still busy tweeting about how the ‘liberal media’ are unfair to him. Just what I want my President to do.) The anger to stand up when it counts, not choose to conciliate a petty dictator. The anger to regroup and stand together against a racist, xenophobic, sexist, misogynistic leadership.
Or. We can all lie down and let them wipe their feet on our backs. I call that cowardice. And I may be a blatant feminist, a bleeding-heart liberal, a nasty woman, and politically correct… but I. Am. Not. A. Coward.
p.s. I do have some 500rs and 1000rs notes which I left with my sister – do you think that will be enough to buy the Taj Mahal?
LikeLike
Uncouth Village Youth
November 14, 2016
A somewhat ok analogy, I would say. Winning an election is a very complex process, with multiple factors that affect them in myriad ways, just like a movie’s success .Yes there was a white – christian-lash – them taking their country back from the multi cultural, multi ethnic, atheist Obama’s America. But to sweepingly blame that for Hillary’s defeat would be ‘malarkey’ in Joe Biden’s words.The number of missteps that the Clinton campaign made are well known. Tightly embracing Obama to satisfy his ego, putting Obama and Michelle on the campaign trail front and center in what was a change election, bluster about redrawing the map by going to AZ,NC when they could have hunkered down on PA,WI,MI, holding back the Big Dog who wonderfully closed the argument 4 years back and could have effectively delivered the white votes to Hillary, just because he said uncomfortable things once in a while , the email controversy, hiding behind procedures and throwing the rule book at every scandal – the list goes on and on .
The candidate in herself was flawed – many people are fine with ambitious, hard working women – but not THIS woman. She was para dropped into NY as a Senator, then was almost crowned as nominee in 2008 before a uber-cool guy played by the rules, and stopped her.Why do the Democrats blindly think that their President’s wife has a divine right to the Presidency – for God’s sake don’t ask Michelle to run in 2020. Why not encourage some very wonderful female Democratic senators/governors/secretaries at their disposal – Warren,Klobuchar,McCaskil,Fienstein,Napalitano from outside the establishment. At least let the US remain relatively free of dynasties – the Clintons,Bushes,Kennedys,Bayhs,(Obamas)… are all but finished.
Yes the other candidate was ‘I-have-no-words-for-him-in-my-dictionary’, but then the voters saw through the hoodwinkery the Clinton campaign tried to pull on them. Grabbing the p*<strong>y was perfect locker-room talk that a lot of people do indulge in – check out the recent Harvard football controversy. Calling out inner cities, illegal immigrants is perfectly fine too – India too faces the same problem in it’s east. While there needs to be a path to citizenship, you cannot allow people to tunnel under it. I am also very sure that the Obama admin mishandled the BLM unrest and the subsequent police shootings. Clinton could not play the elitist card too effectively because of the wealth she and her husband amassed after they left the WH. So essentially, the Clinton campaign tried to scare(how times have changed)/PC police America into voting for them by playing the tapes of Trump saying awful things – the public saw through the charade, weighed his words against her ‘actions’ and voted with their foot down. Yes a few women have alleged about Trump’s sexual assault, but they are just like the numerous Clinton scandals. Let us wait for them to be proven in a court of law, just like Clintonians are demanding for her scandals.
It is sometimes difficult to accept that your old uncle who cracks a homophobic joke, will be perfectly fine with an actual homosexual couple next door than the person who changed their FB DP to a LGBT rainbow theme. People who talk about grabbing breasts and p</strong>sy might think twice before doing that actually, than some smooth talking ‘liberal’ operator. And yes people who talk uncouthly can behave sophisticated when it actually matters. You cannot simply win an election by shaming people, on what they say during their unguarded moments. Don’t make anti-xxxx isms the focus of your political messaging – it always back fires, talk about issues that affect everyone, then leaven it with your SJT. Trump did talk a load of BS, but at least it came out as natural, where as Hillary’s speeches were anodyne and scrubbed for PC that everyone had difficulty believing that this is what she actually stood for. Also,taking an extreme stand on hate speech and PC will lead you to a situation where homophobe is now hate speech as per a court ruling in Paris.
Now,people who are claiming a popular vote victory can go take a hike. The rules were well known at the start – once you start playing by the rules, just shut up and go home. A tennis match can be lost while winning more points/games, a World cup/championship can be won by barely qualifying for the knockouts – yes life is unfair, but you learn to play by the system and plan for it. Hell, the Congress got whupped by ~250 seats while losing the popular vote by 11.5% and check this out, the third placed AIADMK got almost the same number of seats as Congress while getting one-sixth of the latter’s popular vote. Had the election been decided by the popular vote, the campaigns too would have played out differently.
All of this now brings us to Remo :). I think this point has been already mentioned – the public saw and enjoyed the movie for what it’s worth, and moved on with their lives – they didn’t masturbate on it like we do here. Though both Remo and Rajini Murugan, had stalkerish behavior, an average movie goer is more likely to remember the absurdity of the ‘stalking strategy’ employed in both the movies and go have a good laugh, than actually implement it in real life. Contrast this with some of the ‘real, frightening ,A-center-Coffee-Day stalking’ which is passed on as ‘showing it in context of the story’,’charming romantic intelligent pursuit’ and the public will see through the hypocrisy. Of course BR writes for a different target audience, so it is fine for him to cater to that and tailor his re(views) accordingly. There is ample space for all segments in our civilized society to lead a peaceful co-existence.
I could almost sense an interview with KJo after the review – glad you got that. Now on to a book deal with GVM – really waiting for it,so that we can have a peek into his film maker mind, and how his films are upscale and posh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anuja Chandramouli
November 14, 2016
“I live and work in the US. I have lived and worked here for 18 years. Have you? No? Then I’m more qualified than you are to say that gender discrimination is a Very. Real. Thing. We fight it all the time.”
I never said that gender discrimination is not a real thing. So I have no idea why you felt the need to bring it up in such strident terms. And are you suggesting that it is something women living in the US, your ‘adopted country’ alone face making women who live in the rest of the world unqualified to comment or have an opinion on the subject? Do you and only those who feel exactly the same way as you hold the franchise on the hardships being born a woman entails? I. Should. Hope. Not.
Again, I only said that the result of the US election is tied to many factors each more complicated than the one before and sexism isn’t the beginning and end of it. I daresay there will be tons of books written on the subject so I’ll leave it at that. And do check out Kathleen Parker’s level – headed article in the Washington Post for some perspective (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-clinton-didnt-understand/2016/11/09/97ff0476-a6be-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html?tid=hybrid_collaborative_2_na-amp) You are right, the national debt has doubled not tripled under Obama and I never claimed to be an expert but it was gracious of you to rub my dumbness and lack of erudition in my face. But I forget. It is perfectly okay to be a bully when you are a proud, bleeding heart liberal feminist employed in the cause of fighting male chauvinist bullies who coincidentally also happen to dismiss women who don’t meet their expectations with rank callousness.
“the need to prove that they were good Catholics ( which made political as well as practical sense at the time)” You know, I am pissed off enough to say that if you want to teach me my adopted country’s history, you need to at least get your facts right. The Puritans were English Reformed Protestants who wanted nothing to do with the Catholic church or the Papacy.
This is what I was responding to: “Were you giving me a history lesson about women being burnt as witches? I know US history. I live in Massachussetts. Not very far from infamous Salem. What has that got to do with political correctness?”
I was referring to the climate of fear, mistrust and intolerance that led to too many feeling the need to prove that they were good Catholics ( which made political as well as practical sense at the time)
The Witch burning began in the time of Ferdinand and Isabel of Spain and spread from there to wherever Spanish rule prevailed. Both were Catholic monarchs. So do calm the heck down and read what I wrote before suggesting that I check my facts.
For the record, I don’t smoke and it was nice of you to undermine my credibility for daring to have an opinion that is not the exact same as yours and for having the temerity to stick to my stand. Who else does that, I wonder? Trump? The worst of his followers? But I am not as smart as you so it is probable that I am way off base here.
“p.s. I do have some 500rs and 1000rs notes which I left with my sister – do you think that will be enough to buy the Taj Mahal?”
Are you referring to the demonetisation? You know, if I were to think as you do, I would have asked if you have the necessary qualification to comment on the subject since you don’t live here and couldn’t possibly know the ground reality.
Alright that was a cheap shot and I apologise. I am sorry I made you so mad not that I am feeling particularly Zen at this particular moment. The way I see it we are pretty much on the same side, but our approach to the gender problem varies drastically and irrevocably it seems. So I’ll quit it. Besides being a moderate makes me a coward right? Cluck! Cluck!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anuja Chandramouli
November 14, 2016
“I live and work in the US. I have lived and worked here for 18 years. Have you? No? Then I’m more qualified than you are to say that gender discrimination is a Very. Real. Thing. We fight it all the time.”
I never said that gender discrimination is not a real thing. So I have no idea why you felt the need to bring it up in such strident terms. And are you suggesting that it is something women living in the US, your ‘adopted country’ alone face making women who live in the rest of the world unqualified to comment or have an opinion on the subject? Do you and only those who feel exactly the same way as you hold the franchise on the hardships being born a woman entails? I. Should. Hope. Not.
Again, I only said that the result of the US election is tied to many factors each more complicated than the one before and sexism isn’t the beginning and end of it. I daresay there will be tons of books written on the subject so I’ll leave it at that. And do check out Kathleen Parker’s level – headed article in the Washington Post for some perspective (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-clinton-didnt-understand/2016/11/09/97ff0476-a6be-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html?tid=hybrid_collaborative_2_na-amp) You are right, the national debt has doubled not tripled under Obama and I never claimed to be an expert but it was gracious of you to rub my dumbness and lack of erudition in my face. But I forget. It is perfectly okay to be a bully when you are a proud, bleeding heart liberal feminist employed in the cause of fighting male chauvinist bullies who coincidentally also happen to dismiss women who don’t meet their expectations with rank callousness.
“the need to prove that they were good Catholics ( which made political as well as practical sense at the time)” You know, I am pissed off enough to say that if you want to teach me my adopted country’s history, you need to at least get your facts right. The Puritans were English Reformed Protestants who wanted nothing to do with the Catholic church or the Papacy.
This is what I was responding to: “Were you giving me a history lesson about women being burnt as witches? I know US history. I live in Massachussetts. Not very far from infamous Salem. What has that got to do with political correctness?”
I was referring to the climate of fear, mistrust and intolerance that led to too many feeling the need to prove that they were good Catholics ( which made political as well as practical sense at the time)
The Witch burning began in the time of Ferdinand and Isabel of Spain and spread from there to wherever Spanish rule prevailed. Both were Catholic monarchs. So do calm the heck down and read what I wrote before suggesting that I check my facts.
For the record, I don’t smoke and it was nice of you to undermine my credibility for daring to have an opinion that is not the exact same as yours and for having the temerity to stick to my stand. Who else does that, I wonder? Trump? The worst of his followers? But I am not as smart as you so it is probable that I am way off base here.
“p.s. I do have some 500rs and 1000rs notes which I left with my sister – do you think that will be enough to buy the Taj Mahal?”
Are you referring to the demonetisation? You know, if I were to think as you do, I would have asked if you have the necessary qualification to comment on the subject since you don’t live here and couldn’t possibly know the ground reality.
Alright that was a cheap shot and I apologise. I am sorry I made you so mad not that I am feeling particularly Zen at this particular moment. The way I see it we are pretty much on the same side, but our approach to the gender problem varies drastically and irrevocably it seems. So I’ll quit it. Besides being a moderate makes me a coward right? Cluck! Cluck!
LikeLiked by 1 person
sakratalkie
November 14, 2016
How about Trump’s celebrity status? He is a reality tv star and all those years in front of the screen has given him a sense of what people want from a tv show. For him the election is the biggest reality tv with the largest audience possible ever. The election would have turned out differently if Donald lost the primaries. Seems to me Donald simply played everyone to get what he wants, plain and simple. Put any label on him, he will be what appeases the public.
Also to all the commenters alluding to division along party lines, LOLWUT. This is a normal thing in the planet, it happens everywhere. A large conservative base based in rural areas who vote for what affects them directly. This is not a US specific phenomenon.
LikeLike
venkatesh
November 14, 2016
In the noise of the now. Lets not forget how we got to this place.
8 years ago a black man with a Muslim middle name came to power in America and the Republican Party was in shock. They got together and I believe it was Karl Rove who said “we will make him a 1 term president” and then they fought every single day, over things which they had always agreed on before.
That entrenched intransigence led to the Tea Party in 2010 and a comfortable Senate majority.
The liberal left tried cooperation and self examination. It was the pragmatic thing to do. However, this lead to a moral quagmire.
When someone says evolution didn’t happen or that creationism is the same as science, or that climate change isn’t happening or that a fetus has rights – then you are putting fact and fiction on the same plate.
This is not communication its poisoning of the well.
What does that mean ? And how does this work ?
One side puts out pseudo science and then finds “experts” to make it look real.Then taking advantage of neural blind spots and logical fallacies they make their position sound reasonable.
This pollutes the discourse with pseudo facts, creates a controversy, manufactures a public debate and then takes over the public debate.
For a long time (and a long time ago) I remember scientists refused to engage with the climate deniers because just engaging with them gave them credibility. When they finally did engage, they lost because the battle isn’t about facts it’s about tribalism and emotions.
This has happened in front of me on global warming, evolution, vaccines, women’s rights, voting rights.,,,,,
And this is exactly what has happened on the controversies surrounding Hillary from Benghazi, Email gate, Clinton Foundation, Uranium selling ad-infinitum.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
November 14, 2016
Anuja, I’ve been called many things before, but ‘bully’ has not been one of them. Yet. Thanks, I guess. Let me see if I can break this down now that I’m not ‘strident’ any more. (That’s one that many feminists have heard before – their anger and their voice is often dismissed as ‘strident’.)
And are you suggesting that it is something women living in the US, your ‘adopted country’ alone face making women who live in the rest of the world unqualified to comment or have an opinion on the subject?
I’m pointing out that yeah, you get to have an opinion, but if you don’t know the ground reality – as you can’t, unless you are actually living here – that opinion is shaped by someone else’s opinions. You said earlier that her gender had nothing to do with it though the fact that she is a war – mongering liar and corrupt to the core (according to Wikileaks she rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders) certainly did
I think SSW pointed out that she was excoriated for not being hawkish enough.
Do you and only those who feel exactly the same way as you hold the franchise on the hardships being born a woman entails? I. Should. Hope. Not.
Did I say that? Please.
Again, I only said that the result of the US election is tied to many factors each more complicated than the one before and sexism isn’t the beginning and end of it.
No, what you said was that ‘gender had nothing to do with it’. I’m pointing out that it certainly did. [See above]
And do check out Kathleen Parker’s level – headed article in the Washington Post for some perspective (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-clinton-didnt-understand/2016/11/09/97ff0476-a6be-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html?tid=hybrid_collaborative_2_na-amp)
HIndsight is perfect. And yes, I have read Kathleen Parker; she’s a conservative columnist, and that colours her view. (As does my being liberal colours mine.) If you want to find opinon pieces that bolster your view that gender had nothing to do with Hilary’s loss, be my guest – you will find plenty in the Conservative media. I can point out to equally valid opinion pieces on the other side that will tell you how gender played a very big role. Or is it ‘level-headed’ only if it aligns to your worldview?
I used to be a journalist at a time when I was fortunate enough to have good mentors – as a result, I read across the board to get a sense of the same news from different viewpoints. I can dismiss the extreme views on both sides and find things to agree with on both sides of the spectrum.
You are right, the national debt has doubled not tripled under Obama and I never claimed to be an expert but it was gracious of you to rub my dumbness and lack of erudition in my face. But I forget. It is perfectly okay to be a bully when you are a proud, bleeding heart liberal feminist
Sigh. Was pointing out the actual facts rubbing your ‘dumbness and lack of erudition’ in your face? When you throw facts and figures out there, you risk being called out if they are wrong. You can’t just pull out figures to bolster your point if they are completely wrong in the first place. Now that makes me a bully?
The Witch burning began in the time of Ferdinand and Isabel of Spain and spread from there to wherever Spanish rule prevailed. Both were Catholic monarchs. So do calm the heck down and read what I wrote before suggesting that I check my facts.
I do know my history. And my reading comprehension has not vanished. Yet. You first mentioned the Puritans. In persistently doing so they are no different from the Puritans( or their present day equivalents back home) who condemned sex and deviant sexuality with equal fervor and rigorously punished those who went against their views.
Then, when I responded saying comparing the liberal media to the Puritans made no sense to me, you wrote:
I was referring to the climate of fear, mistrust and intolerance that led to too many feeling the need to prove that they were good Catholics ( which made political as well as practical sense at the time) and turn on their neighbors.
We were talking about the Puritans. Where, here, was Spanish rule or the Witch burning in the time of Ferdinand and Isabella (Not Isabel) even mentioned?
I cannot comprehend something that was not even referred to, in the first place.
For the record, I don’t smoke and it was nice of you to undermine my credibility for daring to have an opinion that is not the exact same as yours and for having the temerity to stick to my stand. Who else does that, I wonder? Trump? The worst of his followers? But I am not as smart as you so it is probable that I am way off base here.
So dripping with condescension. At the risk of being accused of ‘rubbing your face’ in it and ‘being a bully’, ‘What are you smoking?’ does not literally mean that you smoke! It just expresses incredulity.
“p.s. I do have some 500rs and 1000rs notes which I left with my sister – do you think that will be enough to buy the Taj Mahal?”
Are you referring to the demonetisation? You know, if I were to think as you do, I would have asked if you have the necessary qualification to comment on the subject since you don’t live here and couldn’t possibly know the ground reality.
And buying the Taj Mahal is ground reality? That was a joke about the demonetisation, because you said I could buy the Taj Mahal (in response to my saying I had a bridge to sell you).
I do have an opinion about the demonetisation. Any informed citizen would, as would any informed citizen have an opinion about the US elections. But that does not mean I have any idea of the experience of actually living through the demonetisation process and I would listen very carefully to what people there are actually going through. If I were to spout off about how it is this, that and the other, I should hope that someone would tell me to go take a long walk off a short pier.
Besides being a moderate makes me a coward right? Cluck! Cluck!
Can you point out where I said that being a moderate makes you a coward? Or that generally, moderate = coward? I thought I explained – in quite some detail – that we can’t be moderate in the face of Trump, the Republicans and their regressive policies.
From my post:The problem here with stressing by stressing moderation in terms of Trump is that we normalise the fact that a lying, thieving, sexist, racist, bigoted, homophobic xenophobe is elected to the White House
and
No. ‘Moderation’ against Trump and his ilk who want to chip away at our freedoms, who want to stake their right to women’s bodies, who want people ‘not like them’ to be thrown out of the country – a country, mind you, that was raised by immigrants, who want people who believe that sexual orientation is a sin – no, I do not get how ‘moderate’ is going to help them.
Can I quote you back at you? So do calm the heck down and read what I wrote before suggesting that I check my facts.
LikeLike
hari ohm
November 14, 2016
“Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.”
Voting public have seen through this fear mongering from both the parties and have voted for the party who they thought is the best for them.
Live with it.
Understand what went wrong – which is obviously not getting the pulse of voting population in “rust” states – and working on improving it should be the next step of the liberals instead of bad mouthing the people who voted Trump to power.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
November 14, 2016
And since we are quoting The Washington Post, here’s an article that articulates what I mean by ‘staying angry’.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/11/stay-angry-thats-the-only-way-to-uphold-principles-in-trumps-america/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
LikeLike
Madan
November 14, 2016
@ SSW: By DNC I mean Democratic National Convention and yes I really only mean Democrat voters. Now I found these American voters I interacted with using the two terms interchangeably and so I did likewise. I will stop doing so if it is confusing. However, my point isn’t about what the Democratic Party’s stance itself is but the voters. It does not matter what these voters may have felt in 2000 (they probably felt robbed by the EC back then). But this year, I saw them frequently saying that because HRC would sweep the big states, she would win the EC even if Trump won the popular vote. I pointed out that this seemed to suggest that the will of the people was not important to which they said, yeah, you can’t entrust govt only to the idiots and that is why the founding fathers had had the foresight to install the EC. Understand that I am simply repeating an opinion formulated by them. It is not my opinion and I am not arguing for its merits. However, I do want to understand why most all states have winner takes all system in the EC. Had it been proportional, the EC may not have diverged so much from the popular vote. HRC may not have won but Trump too may have fallen short in such a scenario.
LikeLike
Madan
November 14, 2016
I want to say here that I part ways with Anuja in urging people not to be afraid and to accept the mandate. I fully understand why people would find the mandate unacceptable and I share Anu’s concerns, which we discussed in another thread too. Already, like Modi, Trump is pulling the stunt of telling hatemongers to stop it but such orders will lack teeth unless backed by appropriate action. And as Anu pointed out, with the Senate and House in his pocket, he has a lot of leverage. Since he has put the party that feared decimation in this election in such a strong position, they are likely to feel beholden to him and many of his ‘signature’ policies may go unopposed.
When I urge for moderation, I am simply arguing against the urge to paint all Trump voters with the same brush. I fully understand why people would do that in an election filled with so much fear and hate but it will not help matters. Be fearless in calling out bigotry wherever you encounter it and fight it tooth and nail, but don’t presume bigotry as much as you may be tempted to only because of which way somebody cast his or her vote (it would be equally as easy for them to call all HRC voters war mongers since she did appear bent on escalating the situation in Syria). That will only raise the temperature even more. In short, I am not saying anything substantially different from what Bernie Sanders did in his Op-Ed soon after Trump’s election.
LikeLike
Madan
November 14, 2016
“A country like US of A should use its position as a leader of the free world to make manufacturing innovative and create jobs not based on protectionism but based on leadership and creating a niche, as Germany has been doing.” – This is a good opening to raise a larger question. Why is free trade unequivocally accepted as the only way to go forward? It is not, not unless we subsume nation states and allow absolute free movement of labour as well. The momentum (which has been stalled for now) was in such a direction and TTIP/TPP were stepping stones in this direction. I would ordinarily celebrate this since Imagine is one of my all time favourite songs, lol. But I don’t want a superstate run by corporates where governments lose the right to protect citizens from harm caused by the activities of corporates. In the absence of such a superstate, then, the nation with the much lower cost of production will always enjoy a massive advantage. Had USA imposed high taxes on the rich and capped compensation for CXOs, the benefits indirectly accruing to USA from cheaper imports could have been enjoyed by those who were displaced by de-industrialisation. It at least doesn’t appear that this happened. So I am not sure the interests of affected workers were looked after in shifting production to Mexico or China. That being said, this train has left the station long since and even if production did come back to USA, it would be so automated that far fewer jobs would be created. I would rather regard such workers as unfortunate than dumb, though. Were the mill workers who lost their jobs in the 1984 Bombay strike dumb? No. And they were condemned to lifelong penury in its aftermath. The system is always loaded heavily in favour of the capitalists and if they are too big to fail, they even get bailed out. It is a cruel irony that an ultimate capitalist like Trump who, sorry, doesn’t even build something truly valuable (opulent properties aren’t that imo) understood this well enough to get their votes when this was in fact a staple Democrat plank for a long, long time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sifter
November 14, 2016
Madan- Your Michael Moore video was ‘adhura.’ Posted below is the like of an interview where he explains what he thought of how Trump and the Trump campaign took one part of the clip and doctored it to look like he supported him with his “Five Point Speech” 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
Madan
November 14, 2016
I am aware of that. I know he asked them to see the good in Hilary (words that apparently fell on deaf ears). I just posted the portion that directly corresponds to what you quoted.
LikeLike
Madan
November 14, 2016
Sorry, meant the portion that ThouShaltNot quoted.
LikeLike
SSW
November 14, 2016
If I might make a point witch burning did not begin in Spain during Ferdinand and Isabella’s time. It was there long before in France, Netherlands and Southern Germany, documented records start from around 1250 AD or so, and the maximum executions were carried out in the latter two lands and in the lands of the old Austro-Hungarian empire. Spain Portugal and Italy were less zealous in burning people actually compared to their northern brethren.
LikeLike
Vanya
November 14, 2016
@ThouShaltNot:
Apologies; the “political correctness” comment was directed at the thread at large and not at you. Sorry for not making that clear.
“I have an aversion for nerds who eat numbers for breakfast🙂 For most of October, Nate had Hillary’s chance of winning between 75 – 80 %. On the day of election he gave Clinton a 71.4% chance and Trump a 28.6%. Feel free to use your preferred adjective
that characterizes this situation though.”
Fair enough. We agree that we read probabilities differently. I will say that if an oncologist gave me a 28.6% chance of cancer recurring in the next 6 months, and repeatedly warned me not to overestimate my odds, I would be cautiously optimistic and nothing more.
LikeLike
Vanya
November 14, 2016
@Venkatesh: Loved your comments, and re: this part:
“And this is exactly what has happened on the controversies surrounding Hillary from Benghazi, Email gate, Clinton Foundation, Uranium selling ad-infinitum.”
While discussing with a colleague a study showing that Trump voters were more likely to vote against Hillary rather than for him (unlike Hillary voters who showed the opposite trend), I voiced my disbelief at how voters felt comfortable endorsing Trump considering each nominee’s flaws (real and perceived). My colleague pointed out that Trump’s transgressions were ones that many of his voters could relate to — not wanting to pay taxes, racism, sexism, inability to understand policy. Hillary’s transgressions, on the other hand, were too obscure — email server, Clinton foundation, Benghazi, not taking Clinton’s last name.
Btw, for those not familiar with Hillary’s backstory, Samantha Bee did an excellent segment on her just before the elections:
LikeLike
Apu
November 14, 2016
I am not sure why this election result hit me the way it did. I hope this week I will be able to discuss it without letting it be “personal”. When I started following the election, I was not on the side of Hillary – I too bought in to the witch-hunt on the Republican side i.e. Benghazi, slut-shaming her husband’s sexual misdemeanors, Clinton foundation etc. And the “un- likability”.
I am sure she is not an angel, but anyone who has held public office for so long is found to gather some dirt, but nothing compared to what she is “accused” of – some way the accusations have stuck, even if nothing, really nothing (after decades of Republicans spending public money for investigations) has ever been proved.
AND there is no doubt that she was the more qualified candidate, by a long shot. The better prepared, the one who researched, the one who listened and replied, and behaved herself (yes, “behaved”) in the presence of a bully.
That does not mean that the DNC did not have other issues, esp ignoring the plight of the rural working class and their inability to get their buy in. But blaming Hillary for that is…unfair.
Anu W: “.. gender discrimination is a Very. Real. Thing. We fight it all the time.
Where Hilary was concerned, she was alternately ’emotional’ or a ‘nasty woman’ or a ‘bitch’ – …She was asked to ‘smile more’, she was criticised for her pant suits, her age (and the Donald is older)… you name it. Even for sticking by Bill even though he is a philanderer. And for being the reason Bill ‘strayed’.”
Not to mention that if she had divorced Bill, she probably would not have got a presidential nomination, in spite of her opponent being thrice married.
Sorry, still hurting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
November 14, 2016
@ Vanya: In fact Nate Silver took pains to explain that a 76% or so probability did not in any way rule out a pathway for Trump to win and went on to explain clearly why. He was off in the end too but I will say that he tried to do his job. I take issue with Ryan Grim of Huffington Post for almost demanding that Silver should assign a 98% probability and he was refusing to for arbitrary reasons. Whatever were his intentions in blasting Silver in this way, he probably only helped Clinton voters feel complacent about the result and thus damaged their cause much more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
November 14, 2016
@Apu Clinton was unlucky both times to encounter somebody who played up the outsider narrative. Yes, it seems forgotten now (because he has had a solid 8 year run in the White House) that Obama too arrived with a promise of change and breaking USA from the shackles of its establishment. He too used to assault Clinton for her links to industry albeit in a more polished manner than Trump. He turned out to be a very statesman-like figure in office but the electorate’s craving for an outsider rather than an establishment figure was yet to be quenched.
LikeLike
InterestedCanadian
November 14, 2016
Just an aside to all these comments. It’s clear that HRC and her team did everything they could to legitimize Trump so that they could run against ‘the weaker candidate’ in the general election.
Perhaps some of this anger needs to be redirected at her campaign strategists, as well as liberal mouthpieces like Krugman, who in 2012 called Mitt Romney (who was governor of liberal-leaning Massachusetts) the second coming of the devil.
If your position is that anyone who is not 110% progressive is not worthy to be President, eventually, it will come back and bite you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anuja Chandramouli
November 14, 2016
“I want to say here that I part ways with Anuja in urging people not to be afraid and to accept the mandate.”
Madan: I did urge people not to be afraid and foster a climate of violence and intolerance, but I certainly did not recommend that Trump’s ridiculous mandate be accepted. Where on Earth did you get that?
Anu Warrior: What you said was ““I live and work in the US. I have lived and worked here for 18 years. Have you? No? Then I’m more qualified than you are to say that gender discrimination is a Very. Real. Thing. We fight it all the time.” which you amended to “I’m pointing out that yeah, you get to have an opinion, but if you don’t know the ground reality – as you can’t, unless you are actually living here – that opinion is shaped by someone else’s opinions.” Since it is gender discrimination we are discussing I think we can safely say that every single woman in any part of the world is all too familiar with the ground reality of it and perfectly entitled to an opinion which believe me is going to be perfectly legit. It seemed to me that you had the typical superior attitude of NRIs towards the great unwashed masses back home, hence the rancour you detected when I failed to appreciate the sparkling wit you displayed with regard to demonetisation. And interestingly enough, your opinion is ‘informed’ though you don’t live here whereas mine is shaped by someone else’s opinions since I don’t live there? Isn’t that a tad hypocritical?
” When you throw facts and figures out there, you risk being called out if they are wrong. You can’t just pull out figures to bolster your point if they are completely wrong in the first place.”
As I said it was never my claim that I am an expert on the subject and please feel free to rap me on the knuckles for the mistaken figure of the National debt and referring to Isabella as Isabel (my history teacher will be happy to join you). The gist of the point I was making though was that National debt, Obamacare etc. were some of the reasons voters went with Trump. So I don’t think I was completely wrong in any event. And I resent the fact that you feel the need to insinuate that I am singularly ill – informed again simply because we don’t see eye to eye on this issue. In your words even Drumpf said the National debt had ‘doubled’ not ‘tripled’ ergo I am to infer that I am dumber?
And I am condescending? Please! Every word you addressed to me here reeks to the high heavens of condescension not to mention smug superiority. Classic case of the pot calling the kettle black!
And for the umpteenth time! THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID… ““Were you giving me a history lesson about women being burnt as witches? I know US history. I live in Massachussetts. Not very far from infamous Salem. What has that got to do with political correctness?”
And I responded with: “I was referring to the climate of fear, mistrust and intolerance that led to too many feeling the need to prove that they were good Catholics ( which made political as well as practical sense at the time) and turn on their neighbors. So when you say that we have to be afraid, very afraid I am worried that a similarly toxic climate will prevail.” And I admitted that my point on the Puritans was laboured at best and I was merely using them as an example of the extremist, self – righteous, my – shit – don’t stink attitude that gets on my nerves.
“Can you point out where I said that being a moderate makes you a coward?”
You did say “Bullies see ‘moderate’ as ‘cowardice’.” And since I haven’t felt this bullied since that awful moment in school when a senior tugged my ear till it bled (for mouthing off at her) I assumed you had me figured for a coward. It was deja vu all over again. My bad.
We can do the ‘You said’ ‘But I said’ till Kingdom come with our exchanges becoming even more venomous than they are at present so I am ending it right now. I respect where you are coming from but am less than thrilled with where this is going. I am sure you will compose a massive response to point out the many factual mistakes made here as well as the grievously erroneous nature of my thinking but I feel it is only fair to say that I won’t be perusing it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
November 14, 2016
I am sure you will compose a massive response to point out the many factual mistakes made here as well as the grievously erroneous nature of my thinking but I feel it is only fair to say that I won’t be perusing it.
Yes, I will, even if I’m tired of this, and even if you won’t peruse it, because I want to set the reocrd straight about some of your accusations against me.
And interestingly enough, your opinion is ‘informed’ though you don’t live here whereas mine is shaped by someone else’s opinions since I don’t live there? Isn’t that a tad hypocritical?
I also said – which you seem to have skimmed over, or ignored because you seem hell bent on giving my voice a narrative:Any informed citizen would, as would any informed citizen have an opinion about the US elections. But that does not mean I have any idea of the experience of actually living through the demonetisation process and I would listen very carefully to what people there are actually going through. If I were to spout off about how it is this, that and the other, I should hope that someone would tell me to go take a long walk off a short pier.
you had the typical superior attitude of NRIs towards the great unwashed masses back home, hence the rancour you detected when I failed to appreciate the sparkling wit you displayed with regard to demonetisation.
‘Typical superior attitude of the NRIs’. ‘Unwashed masses back home.’ ‘Sparkling wit’. ‘Smug superiority’. ‘Dripping with condescension’. Plus the implication that I’m a bully because I disagreed with you about being ‘moderate’, even though I was talking specifically in context.
All this from your posts. All I said that can be termed as condescending, though I did not mean it that way but I can see how it can be read that way – is ‘Are you teaching me history?’ And ‘I’m more qualified than you to say that gender discrimination is a real thing.’ Both of which had to do with the context of what I thought we were discussing – that is US-specific. But the statements can be taken to mean ‘in general’, and for that, I apologise.
I do not call people names when I argue with them. (Yes, Trump got called a lot of names by me, but I am not arguing with him, and I will not apologise for that.) I do not use profanity. I do not make personal attacks. I defend my point of view, I disagree – yes, strongly, vehemently and yes, ‘in massive response’ – with facts to bolster up that disagreement.
But apparently, doing so makes me a bully, while attributing attitudes like ‘smug superiority’ and ‘typical NRI’ is perfectly okay.
Over and out.
LikeLike
rkjk
November 14, 2016
Why is everyone criticizing Nate Silver? The polls were way off this election. Silver is a statistician. He does not go around collecting the data, he merely interprets it. If the data captures the vote distribution incorrectly, there is only so much that the interpreter can do. Silver, like any other statistician would have assumed that that number was accurate, added some uncertainty due to marginal errors and then ran his models to get the results. Pretty much every poll had Clinton winning comfortably. Therein lies the anomaly. In Wisconsin, Florida and Michigan, the polls had Clinton winning by as much as 4%. When that is the case, you cannot possibly expect him to give good odds for a Trump win. If anything, the polls and pollsters are now under the spotlight. Hopefully, this will lead to more robust and foolproof polling. We’ve already had two bombs this year-Brexit and Trump. Let us hope there isn’t a repeat in the near future. I’d rather the one predicted to win actually wins in the end, even if the candidate is not to my liking.
LikeLike
Ramchander Krishna (@ramctheatheist)
November 14, 2016
Thanks Rangan for bringing out this analogy. It’s an interesting one and I think it makes sense (unlike most of the discussion happening here).
Gopinath mentioned in a particular Neeya Naana episode, specifically to Namitha (yes that awesome girl who spoke the infamous line, “Naanga kudicha ungalukku enna thanni pattraakuraiya?” which ought to be inscribed on the backs of autos) He said that while male chauvinists ought to be condemned, ppl like Namitha must engage in active conversation with the chauvinists instead of outrightly dismissing them as stupid / primitive / moronic. Bcos unless an active and empathetic conversation takes place, nothing’s going to change. The two sides will keep calling each other names and laugh among themselves and give high fives to each other.
Whenever we meet someone of “the other kind”, with views exactly the opposite as ours, the question we must ask ourselves is if we had the same upbringing as them would we have turned out any different? If we went through the same life experiences as the other person would we be any different? Approaching this problem with empathy is what will lead us to solutions. I think your last para makes the same point and so I say, “May the questions be with you!”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Vanya
November 14, 2016
@ Madan:
“Whatever were his intentions in blasting Silver in this way, he probably only helped Clinton voters feel complacent about the result and thus damaged their cause much more.”
Agree. I remember fretting with colleagues over 538’s estimates in the week leading up to the election. The day before the 8th, I listened to their podcast where two 538 contributors (Enten and Malone) put their money on Hillary winning. Silver, on the other hand, refused to put money on either candidate. I’ve followed Nate Silver for 8 years, and I still took comfort in knowing that the other two expected Hillary to win because I didn’t want to believe that the alternative was possible. Heartened, I even went out and bought a bottle of champagne (which still sits in our fridge, natch). Sigh. It’s interesting that so many want to shoot this particular messenger, but fact remains that Silver was the only empirical analyst urging caution.
LikeLike
SSW
November 15, 2016
@Madan, okay I’ve not heard that term being used, even a registered Democrat can vote Republican so there is no such thing as a DNC voter but only somebody who votes for the Democrats or Republicans or Trump. 🙂
I’m surprised your acquaintances thought Hillary would sweep the big states. She was never going to win in Texas.California yes but being the most populous state does not give it a proportional number of electoral votes as it has only 55 representative for more than 39 million people. So she did need to win the swing states and if she had done that she would certainly have won both the electoral votes and the popular votes. So I think they weren’t calculating properly.
On your other question, all states do not have the winner take all law. Maine and Nebraska allot electoral votes proportionally or sort of. Maine has 4 votes, so the winner of each congressional district gets one vote and the statewide winner gets the other two. So this year Hillary won 3 electoral votes and Trump got one.
But the winner take all became popular when some states adopted it to maximize support for their preferred candidate which caused other states to move the same way to maximize their position. Neither Hamilton nor Madison envisaged this or that a two party system would be the norm nor could they have foreseen 13 colonies growing to 50 states. The rise of the Republican Party was tied to this too in a funny way as the slave free Northern States resented having fewer electoral votes in proportion to their population.
The electoral vote system is a putrid thing anyway because there is nothing to say today that the electors are men of foresight and wisdom so that they in the words of Hamilton would guarantee that ” that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.”
LikeLike
Jordan
November 15, 2016
“Trump might have had a flourishing career in Tamil cinema.” Sundar C and Perarasu would be his locker room pals.
LikeLike
Sara
November 15, 2016
I think this Article manages to explain, in a long-winded manner, the points raised by Madan and Anuja about labeling of Trump voters as racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.That a liberal writer on a very liberal platform has to be so defensive of wanting to listen and understand the thought process of the white rural voters speaks volumes about progressive intolerance to disagreements.
http://www.vox.com/culture/2016/11/14/13526406/progressive-fundamentalism-make-america-great-again
LikeLike
Madan
November 15, 2016
@ Anuja: Ok, sorry about that. When I said accept Trump’s mandate, I really meant accepting Trump as President, not his policy platform per se. It is still early days for that and after people have had some time to assess what kind of a President Trump will be, they may either back down or escalate.
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
November 15, 2016
I supported Hillary Clinton and hoped that she would win. She is the most accomplished person to run for presidency and has lots of experience. Trump is not qualified and he talks gibberish – I mean anybody who reads the transcripts of his speeches would definitely not vote for him. Of course, he delivers his nonsense confidently – so people hearing him think that he is has complete command over the subject that is being discussed.
Having said that, I think this result is a slap on the faces of the loud mouthed, arrogant pseudo liberals and sundry leftards who claim to be democratic and liberal but in reality are fascists. They mock the middle classes, do not allow anyone who they think are rightists to exercise their freedom of expression and do no respect the will of the people (example, the pseudo liberal protests currently on in the various cities).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
November 15, 2016
@ SSW: You better believe it, one of them actually had Hilary winning Texas. It was their over confidence that convinced me that Trump would win, as much as I didn’t want to see him win.
LikeLike
Madan
November 15, 2016
@ InterestedCanad: That email seems to be wikileaks but if true, it speaks volumes about HRC’s utter cynicism. I feel sorry for the minorities who feel unsafe under the new regime but if HRC did this, her defeat is well deserved. Nay, it is inadequate comeuppance considering that it suggests she didn’t even mind dividing USA to win the election.
LikeLike
Madan
November 15, 2016
@ Sara: Interesting read, though indeed very long winded. However..”It makes room for everyone at the table, and it believes the stories of all people have inherent value and interest. ” – As far as the white man is concerned, I can believe this to be true in the case of a committed progressive politician like Sanders or of academics. But the ‘popular’ face of the progressive movement reveals a minority-bias. I am aware that Marxism blames Christian White patriarchy for all societal ills so I can see why this would be the case. However, as the article sort of covers without quite saying so in as many words, when the plight of a laid-off white working class man struggling to get by also does not interest those op-ed writers who claim to be of a progressive persuasion, it gives the movement an anti-white colour in the eyes of such working class people…MAYBE. One can argue of course that this is simply not the case but the way several working class neighbourhoods not just in the Midwest but even in states Clinton won flipped from Obama in 2008 to Trump in 2016 suggests that this was at least part of the equation (which is probably why it also expressed itself in part as an anti-minority backlash).
LikeLike
An Jo
November 15, 2016
https://twitter.com/bridgetphetasy/status/798525380160126977
LikeLike
venkatesh
November 16, 2016
@Madan: Nay, it is inadequate comeuppance considering that it suggests she didn’t even mind dividing USA to win the election.
You got that from the WIkileak Email ?
Amy i missing something here ?
LikeLike
Sara
November 16, 2016
I don’t see a minority bias as such. It’s more of progressives recognizing the very real ways in which minorities trail the white population in terms of income or education. But facts and statistics don’t mean much when the majority population is also bearing the brunt of a slow economy and outsourced jobs. To an unemployed white male with a family and few prospects of retraining, it’s cold comfort to hear how he is better off than someone from the minority community. It sounds patronizing and in no way helps him feel heard about the serious problems he is faced with. Not to oversimplify, but I guess that’s what is behind the white lash. Even if it manifests as seemingly racially biased, it’s more of a cornered stand to have their voices acknowledged. Ignoring this voting block may still win the democrats the White House but only years down the line.
LikeLike
rothrocks
November 16, 2016
@ Venkatesh: Madan here. As I have said my comments are subject to the authenticity of that email. But if that email is authentic then I stand by my words. Do you really think it is ok for the Democratic party to push the most far right and divisive candidates of the GOP ahead in the primaries so that HRC gets an easier path to victory? If so may I ask exactly what principles you hope to uphold? You don’t understand that HRC was fine with a bitter campaign that would pit the white majority against minorities just so she could win? This is how fascism takes root and if she did push for Trump to become the GOP nominee, she is equally as culpable as those who votes for trump in the hope of unleashing a racist agenda. Worse still, it makes her claims to be a unifier ring extremely hollow.
LikeLike
venkatesh
November 16, 2016
@Madan , @RothRocks: Do you really think it is ok for the Democratic party to push the most far right and divisive candidates of the GOP ahead in the primaries so that HRC gets an easier path to victory?
You are to put it bluntly conflating two different things. I am going to assume the email is truthful and not tampered with. (which is a big assumption on itself).
What is the HRC campaign doing in this email ? The HRC campaign like every other political campaign before them is evaluating their chances against the opposition. They are (incorrectly as it turns out) thinking that the extreme right candidates will be easier to beat. The GOP primaries are filled with candidates who spew non-sensical bat-shit insane theories to cater to their base and once they get elected run to the centre. This is not new. This happens to a lesser degree on the left since even Sanders who is a centrist in the European tradition is considered extreme left in the U.S.
Now , the HRC campaign is not responsible for :
Selecting the candidates who stand in the GOP
Defining the ideologies of the candidates who stand
Campaigning for the candidates
Or for that matter, doing anything of any influence in the GOP
What you are arguing for is that a standard political manoeuvre as practised by both the parties is equivalent to actually saying and implementing racist, xenophobic, anti-semitic, homophobic policies.
The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anu Warrier
November 16, 2016
Venkatesh, thank you, my friend. Julian Assange and Russia and the Grand Old Party and Trump have all managed to set up several strawmen and sell them to the public.
I fear you are fighting a losing battle.
LikeLike
Madan
November 16, 2016
@ Venkatesh: “The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.” – You mean in your comment, surely?
“The HRC campaign like every other political campaign before them is evaluating their chances against the opposition.” – They did much more than that and that’s without reading between the lines. Here:
“In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more “Pied Piper” candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party.” – So this is a tacit admission that they want to influence the Republican Primary in a way that legitimizes either of the three and also popularises them, which also is borne out in the last sentence:
“We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously”.
Now if you actually expect a campaign team with wily shrews like Podesta to state it in black and white, can’t help you there, why don’t you put a call through to Hilary?
Your argument that they merely wanted to fight the election against the most conservative candidates of the GOP does not hold in the case of Trump because he was no garden variety conservative, not even from the beginning and his various ‘pronouncements’ had the GOP appalled (which should presumably take a lot of doing) even during the Primaries.
Having pushed Trump to the fore so that HE would be the candidate Clinton faces, to turn around and say, “Oh, Americans, he is so dangerous, so don’t you ever vote for him!” is both disingenuous and a cruel trick on the American electorate. If he was so frigging dangerous, why make an extra effort to ensure she faces him rather than a ‘moderate’ like Rubio or Kasich? Why not just leave the GOP Primary well alone and face whoever they field? I know cynical games are a part and parcel of politics but if you spend so much time telling people that this time was different and they ought to have considered it, it behooves the Democratic Party as well to behave differently rather than business as usual. If Clinton really cared so much about America as she claimed to so many times on the campaign trail, she wouldn’t have risked even the 1% chance that the most optimistic predictions still attached to a Trump victory.
So, no, going by this email, she was a cynical and corrupt politician who didn’t mind unleashing such a monstrous phenomenon on the electorate just so she could become President. Why, did you think it would have been smooth sailing had she won? No way, Trump had threatened protests and would have likely followed up on his threats and the far right beasts he had awakened wouldn’t have been slain easily anyway. Why should anyone who cares so much for minorities subject them to this? She doesn’t, she just wanted their votes.
LikeLike
SSW
November 16, 2016
@Madan : You certainly seem to believe in the even-ness of extremes.
You can think to yourself that Trump will win the electoral votes and become President elect because somebody you know tells you that Hillary will win Texas.
Next from a selected email sample which does not even indicate that Clinton sent it you can passionately argue that it it is correct, she is a cynical corrupt politician and you can actually say this without living in the US (I assume that if you look for information from your democratic leaning acquaintances you don’t) or following what Hillary Cilnton did in the US from the days she worked on Watergate as a young lawyer to being the first lady of Arkansas and then the United States and then a Senator and then the Secretary of State.
You obviously don’t know how political parties operate in the US and have operated for a long time . Vilification of the other has been common here since Jackson and Adams feuded with each other and if you want a sample here is something from a newspaper from that era. “General Jackson’s mother was a common prostitute, brought to this country by the British soldiers! She afterward married a mulatto man, with whom she had several children, of which number General Jackson is one!”
I think you should rationalize a little more and be a little less vehement, though you could be having fun at everybody’s expense.
LikeLike
SSW
November 16, 2016
And that should read “if it is correct” instead of “it it is correct”.
LikeLike
Madan
November 16, 2016
“You can think to yourself that Trump will win the electoral votes and become President elect because somebody you know tells you that Hillary will win Texas.” – It is not a question of one person, it is about an overall air of hubris (which came out in the Huffington post article chiding Silver for not assigning a 98% chance or whatever to Hillary too). Hubris leads to defeat, that’s how politics operates. I had already seen once before the mainstream media and stock market gurus et al assure all concerned that a Bremain vote was going to happen and there was nothing to worry. Just to be safe, I sold my stockholdings the day before the results of the referendum and didn’t have to regret it as it turned out. So when I saw a similar pattern developing during the run up to the US Pres election, I guessed right.
Yes, I don’t live in the US so maybe that insulates me from this echo chamber that liberals seem to be trapped in. And it is precisely because I followed what Clinton did as Secretary of State that I don’t have a great opinion of her work in that position. But I am not going to open a debate about Libya here, it’s all water under the bridge now. And I am not talking about vilification here but manipulation to sell a dangerous candidate to the public. I mean, if you really feel comfortable with the presence of Steve Bannon in Trump’s team even now that he’s President, there’s nothing to discuss and we do not need to be berating him. But at least I do not find that to be a ringing endorsement of Trump’s qualities, that Prez Trump will be a cuddly bear. Rather, it is the strongest indication that Prez Trump will be more of candidate Trump and that is not a good thing at all.
I am angry with the Democratic Party for having been so cynical at this critical juncture. And I don’t find the whole “It has happened before” argument very persuasive, sorry. Chamberlain thought so too, it would appear, and with disastrous consequences. It hasn’t happened before, a candidate like Trump has never become President of USA. This has serious implications for the entire liberal order and for democracy. I worry about that and about my relatives who live in USA. So I shall rant and I really don’t care if you feel compelled to defend Hillary Clinton. Pl go full speed ahead. I have repeatedly said that my opinions about the content of the email are subject to the email being true. Now if you want to ignore that clarification, that’s your problem. But Venkatesh made an argument defending HRC on the basis that the email was authentic and I responded to it stating exactly why I thought the email smacked of a mission to get Trump to become the GOP nominee.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
November 16, 2016
Madan, how on earth can Hilary Clinton OR the Democratic Party decide which Republican candidate will even stand in the primaries, let alone win to stand against her?
LikeLike
venkatesh
November 16, 2016
@Anu Warrier: Thank you. I fear you are right.
@Madan: With all due regards, you are not making sense and as i mentioned in an earlier post:
One side …….taking advantage of neural blind spots and logical fallacies they make their position sound reasonable.
This pollutes the discourse with pseudo facts, creates a controversy, manufactures a public debate and then takes over the public debate.
I refuse to engage with you on this anymore. You are at best a troll and at worst a deluded fool. I have nothing to gain out of this interaction, i lose either way.
LikeLike
SSW
November 17, 2016
@Madan: Thank you, I think we need go no further here, I can’t obviously indulge in a debate with somebody who is 100% correct every time. May your prescience always protect you and keep you from harm.
LikeLike
rothrocks
November 17, 2016
@ Anu I didn’t say she decided the result of the GOP Primaries on their behalf. All she would have to do is get the media to keep the spotlight on Trump and get prominent journalists to weigh in on the Trump phenomenon. She may have mobilised some voters too but that is a bit of a long shot (nevertheless there was a spike in voting for the Republican primaries). I am not transferring the responsibility of voting for Trump from his voters to Clinton but it is bad enough that she tried to influence the primaries, that is if she did.
@ Venkatesh Uh huh you don’t get to talk about pseudo facts after first accepting the email as true and brazenly defending its contents. I wanted to see what is the comfort level of people with such tactics and apparently it is pretty high which is indicative of a moral compass that is flexible when it pertains to ‘your’ side and not so when it comes to the other.
LikeLike
rothrocks
November 17, 2016
And just FYI the Pied Piper story was carried by Salon too. Guess they went all Breitbart after Trump won?
LikeLike
Midnight Ramblings
November 18, 2016
Reblogged this on Midnight Ramblings.
LikeLike
Aram Pesu
November 19, 2016
“Liberal” media – It is funny how the Left has hijacked words like “progressives” and “liberal” etc to mean themselves. I need to check out history of how this happened.
A open minded neutral person will always pick the Left given the words they used to describe themselves. Even though that is a big lie.
(Btw this post I predict will have most # of comments rather than a post about fine Film making. That shows mainstream interest in things mainstream or populist things – that have no ultimate bearing on their immediates 🙂 )
Liberal media talks about what we want the world to be. They want the world to be split between Classes and Masses. Racists and Bigot conservatives vs free minded thinkers. Blacks vs Whites. Brahmins vs Others.
They love bucketing this world. But real world is always much more nuanced. It always gives a shock the more and more they abstract and the more and more they live in their bubble world
Both far left and far right end up in this “abstraction” of world (based on victimhood or fear). They are just both opposite sides of the same coin. And one enables the other.
Real world and real films talk about individual. The Chetan Bhagats and Sujathas or this world give out simple abstractions and hence cardboard characters. The reader or viewer (of films) likes the cardboard characters and abstractions.
The more and more it focuses on the invididual (the specifics, the concretes) it becomes like “literature”. That world will suffer from lack of abstractions possibly. Or invite the audience or the reader to invest themselves into it and pick the abstraction they want to take.
That is why Sitrilakkiyam (not all here. Some can mask as Ilakkiyam when it isnt) delves into individuals. Like Kutram Kadithal (even though I hate the overt communism and the climax where the Uncle signs the book Thaai ) or movies like that, stories of individuals always buck the mainstream.
I see it as a fight between Abstractions and Specifics.
Giving audience an abstraction (be it “liberal” leftist idiocy or “right wing” fears) both aim to sit in their echo chambers and ivory towers and seem to hand out a abstraction.
Individuals are much more smart and sensitive than eating out of that abstraction. Data from real world trumps these abstractions. So statistics from real world and real world individual behavior makes them go against both the left and right.
(I see NO difference between “so-called-liberals” and “conservatives” )
Individuals behave differently and also each individual behaves differently in arrow-of-time.
But they also learn to view world from these abstractions. it is quite common for people to “start loving a girl” by looking at stalkers and thinking this is how it is supposed to be.
So I do worry simple abstractions cause them to change their world view.
(Random Rant ends here for now 🙂 )
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
November 19, 2016
As of now, Hilary has won two million votes (and still counting) more than Trump. Only in America – and only in the Presidential election will she NOT be elected. If we really wanted ‘vox populi’ or the ‘voice of the people’ – well, they’ve spoken, and Trump is NOT their choice. Unforunately for us who live here, a handful of people who comprise the Electoral College will determine who will govern this country.
LikeLike
Madan
November 19, 2016
@ Aram Pesu: It is not merely a question of liberals but an intrinsic craving within humans to associate with tribes. It is not merely liberals or right wing or politicians who want to divide us; WE want to be divided. WE want to feel superior to somebody else; we want to feel we are special. As long as this tendency remains, there will always be ahem pied pipers who exploit this and they come in various forms, be they religious leaders or demagogues. Even in corporate, when a new CEO takes office, pretty soon he will issue communications saying he wants to change this and that and welcomes those who want to step on board the exciting change mission (while those who don’t want to are given a dire warning saying they may have to ship out). So even in an ostensibly noble cause (take the word noble with tablespoons of salt, if you will), there is the need to divide people. The impulse to divide people into categories with positive or negative qualities is deeply ingrained in us. Perhaps social media/internet amplifies and accelerates this tendency so that things happen in double quick time and we find ourselves divided into camps before we even realise it. But if we don’t want to take sides, we will be nevertheless slotted in one or the other side depending on who’s slotting. So if I say something favourable about one policy measure of the current BJP government, I am a bhakt and if I criticise them, I am an anti national. This makes no sense, of course, but this is exactly what is happening here and elsewhere for that matter. Great writers like Huxley or Orwell have warned us not to fall prey to this impulse but still we do else how can we make history? History is usually only made through repeating past blunders by pretending this time is different, after all.
LikeLike