OMG yes. I've said many many times that the moral panic liberals are going through today reminds me very strongly of how conservatives freaked out after 9/11. There's such a strong fear of social ostracization, that you'll be lumped into the same category as Tucker Carlson, that you stay quiet instead of speaking up.
I'd also like to point out that I haven't watched Last Week Tonight very much since George Floyd's murder. That show sadly got captured by the same woke, snide smugness as everything else nowadays.
1. The first Strokes album being shelved and then rereleased minus the song "New York City Cops" (with the lyric "New York City cops/ain't too smart").
2. The Coup's album Party Music being shelved so they could come up with new cover art that didn't feature Boots Riley blowing up the WTC with a remote detonator.
3. The twee pop band I Am The World Trade Center changing their name to I Am The World (before changing it back when they realized this was a dumb thing to do and no one cared).
This summer I was waiting for an elevator in an American airport when I realized the muzak playing quietly over the speakers was "You Dropped a Bomb on Me" by the Gap Band. I turned to my wife and said "I think we are collectively over 9/11."
People keep distorting the Dixie Chicks controversy. People were less upset with what they said than they where they said it. The idea some Americans were embarrassed George W Bush was president was not a controversial or surprising comment. (How many skits did SNL churn based on that idea alone?) It was the fact that the Chicks lacked the fortitude to say this before an American audience and only uttered it to an European audience is what set people off. It was the perception they were presenting themselves, to their presumably pro-Bush domestic audience, as just a bunch of good ol' gals while at the same time going overseas and assuring that audience they were sophisticates and not like those rural hicks who like the guy who was President.
Man, even to this day, the word “terrorist” is a brain-killer. It precludes all reasoned analysis by introducing a bifurcated decision point- are they Evil, or are they Good? If Evil, then all debate ends, and if Good, all debate still ends.
But of course, terrorism is not a faction or an ideology in and of itself, but rather a tactic that some groups resort to if they think it’ll help them. A “War on Terrorism” makes about as much sense as a “War on People Shooting Rifles” or a “War on Using Junker Cars in Improvised Barricades”.
The major damage done to the mind is that it swaps out the questions that matter and gets tunnel vision on the one that doesn’t- where one should be asking of an armed group operating in a rough neighborhood “Who are these people? What are they trying to achieve? What demographics do they appeal to/represent? What material strength do they present to the host government? What are their immediate demands? Do they have the capacity to administer whatever territory they operate on, and if so, how well? What legitimacy do they claim? Will it damage or aid my side’s interests to see them in power, and if so, to what extent?”
And all that complexity gets reduced down to “Have they ever scared people while fighting the government?”
You could argue that terrorism is a unique evil, that all fighting should be clean and keep the civvies out of it, and that ostracizing the groups who resort to it disincentives the acts; this is the logic between trying to create a taboo against chemical warfare. But this falls apart when you take into account that we stopped using chemicals because they suck as weapons, not because they are so terrible to behold (https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/). Also, when we back terrorist group galore but cover them up in euphemism. Hence the recent meme war in Syria on whether the rebels are to be tagged as democracy loving freedom fighters or Islamist terrorists. Or, come to that, the 2002 meme war about whether Saddam was an Al Qaeda, Nuke Owning, Islamic Fascist WMD Tyrant Threat to America SCUDs Bin Laden Hiding Warlord Chemical War Bastard.
Because that there is the end game for this collective “shutting off of the brain”. Either we go to war, or we don’t. If we can meme the word “terrorist” (or similar brain-killing word) into people’s heads, we go to war; if we cannot, we do not. Obviously this is a pants-on-head stupid way to decide things, so obviously anybody trying to meme a Casus Belli into people’s heads already wants a war for some material reasons that go wholly unscrutinized in the raging debate over whether some armed group somewhere set off a bomb in a shopping mall.
I liked Studio 60 at the time but that clip you included was extremely hilarious. The profound looks of slow realization that everyone shared when D.L. Hughley made “we hope you don’t mind our producer was caught doing blow” rhyme with “modern network TV show”. I mean. Lol I’m still laughing.
How the hell did I miss Studio 60?!? Wow!
Great piece. Doing back-track through your posts, this is one of your best.
My favorite post so far. An important point + hilarious (Studio 60 omg)
OMG yes. I've said many many times that the moral panic liberals are going through today reminds me very strongly of how conservatives freaked out after 9/11. There's such a strong fear of social ostracization, that you'll be lumped into the same category as Tucker Carlson, that you stay quiet instead of speaking up.
I'd also like to point out that I haven't watched Last Week Tonight very much since George Floyd's murder. That show sadly got captured by the same woke, snide smugness as everything else nowadays.
Also,
1. The first Strokes album being shelved and then rereleased minus the song "New York City Cops" (with the lyric "New York City cops/ain't too smart").
2. The Coup's album Party Music being shelved so they could come up with new cover art that didn't feature Boots Riley blowing up the WTC with a remote detonator.
3. The twee pop band I Am The World Trade Center changing their name to I Am The World (before changing it back when they realized this was a dumb thing to do and no one cared).
This summer I was waiting for an elevator in an American airport when I realized the muzak playing quietly over the speakers was "You Dropped a Bomb on Me" by the Gap Band. I turned to my wife and said "I think we are collectively over 9/11."
People keep distorting the Dixie Chicks controversy. People were less upset with what they said than they where they said it. The idea some Americans were embarrassed George W Bush was president was not a controversial or surprising comment. (How many skits did SNL churn based on that idea alone?) It was the fact that the Chicks lacked the fortitude to say this before an American audience and only uttered it to an European audience is what set people off. It was the perception they were presenting themselves, to their presumably pro-Bush domestic audience, as just a bunch of good ol' gals while at the same time going overseas and assuring that audience they were sophisticates and not like those rural hicks who like the guy who was President.
It wasn't the message but how it was delivered.
1. Even if that were true, it wouldn't change the fact that the Dixie Chicks experienced censorship.
2. Is it true? Frankly, "It wasn't the message but how it was delivered" smells like a post hoc rationalization to me, hiding the now-embarrassing-with-18-years-of-hindsight real objection (to the message) by retroactively re-defining it as a process objection (to "how it was delivered"), especially considering the hysterical magnitude of the anti-Chicks backlash (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lCQZeG9OWI gives a quick illustration). I don't recall any actually-it-was-just-how-they-delivered-the-message explanation in contemporary reporting from, say, CNN (https://edition.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/14/dixie.chicks.reut/) or Billboard (https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/71953/protesters-destroy-dixie-chicks-cds).
Man, even to this day, the word “terrorist” is a brain-killer. It precludes all reasoned analysis by introducing a bifurcated decision point- are they Evil, or are they Good? If Evil, then all debate ends, and if Good, all debate still ends.
But of course, terrorism is not a faction or an ideology in and of itself, but rather a tactic that some groups resort to if they think it’ll help them. A “War on Terrorism” makes about as much sense as a “War on People Shooting Rifles” or a “War on Using Junker Cars in Improvised Barricades”.
The major damage done to the mind is that it swaps out the questions that matter and gets tunnel vision on the one that doesn’t- where one should be asking of an armed group operating in a rough neighborhood “Who are these people? What are they trying to achieve? What demographics do they appeal to/represent? What material strength do they present to the host government? What are their immediate demands? Do they have the capacity to administer whatever territory they operate on, and if so, how well? What legitimacy do they claim? Will it damage or aid my side’s interests to see them in power, and if so, to what extent?”
And all that complexity gets reduced down to “Have they ever scared people while fighting the government?”
You could argue that terrorism is a unique evil, that all fighting should be clean and keep the civvies out of it, and that ostracizing the groups who resort to it disincentives the acts; this is the logic between trying to create a taboo against chemical warfare. But this falls apart when you take into account that we stopped using chemicals because they suck as weapons, not because they are so terrible to behold (https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/). Also, when we back terrorist group galore but cover them up in euphemism. Hence the recent meme war in Syria on whether the rebels are to be tagged as democracy loving freedom fighters or Islamist terrorists. Or, come to that, the 2002 meme war about whether Saddam was an Al Qaeda, Nuke Owning, Islamic Fascist WMD Tyrant Threat to America SCUDs Bin Laden Hiding Warlord Chemical War Bastard.
Because that there is the end game for this collective “shutting off of the brain”. Either we go to war, or we don’t. If we can meme the word “terrorist” (or similar brain-killing word) into people’s heads, we go to war; if we cannot, we do not. Obviously this is a pants-on-head stupid way to decide things, so obviously anybody trying to meme a Casus Belli into people’s heads already wants a war for some material reasons that go wholly unscrutinized in the raging debate over whether some armed group somewhere set off a bomb in a shopping mall.
One of your best, Jeff. Thanks.
Interesting that you’d mentioned Johnny Rotten in this context:
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/oct/11/john-lydon-interview-i-could-be-wrong-book-nora-wife-carer-trump-brexit
I want that photo for a shirt, that I’d wear in public about as often as I wear my 3/4 sleeve length that says “Shalom Motherfucker”
I liked Studio 60 at the time but that clip you included was extremely hilarious. The profound looks of slow realization that everyone shared when D.L. Hughley made “we hope you don’t mind our producer was caught doing blow” rhyme with “modern network TV show”. I mean. Lol I’m still laughing.