Is Hillary Clinton Committing Benghazi on Bernie Sanders?

I don’t look at Twitter much, but I saw this last Friday:

hrc shouting

I immediately recognized and appreciated the sentiment. Damn few of us women-folk haven’t been told to lower our voices, calm down and stop being so emotional if we color outside the acceptable lines of female assertiveness.

But now William Saletan, Slate’s leading concern troll,* informs us that Hillary is smearing Bernie Sanders with that quote:

Clinton doesn’t use Sanders’ name when she tells this story. She doesn’t have to: Everyone who saw the debate or heard about it knows she’s talking about him. She’s using the story to bond with women, to paint Sanders as a patronizing old fart, and to portray herself as a victim….

Clinton is trying to connect with women who have felt bullied by men, and to turn them against Sanders, by smearing him.

I’m sure Clinton is trying to connect with women who have felt bullied by men, which is probably 99% of us. But I saw the debate, and it didn’t occur to me that HRC was smearing Sanders with that quote. If she’s counting on oblique references that require the hearer to remember precise language from earlier events to smear Sanders, it seems like a remarkably inefficient approach.

What do you think: Is Hillary trying to Benghazi Bernie? Or is Saletan full of crap?

*Read anything he’s ever written on abortion if you think that’s harsh.






145 replies
  1. 1
    kc says:

    I wouldn’t call that a “smear.”

  2. 2

    Saletan is a creep and he is full of crap.

  3. 3
    Unabogie says:

    Weird. I was masochistically listening to Sean Hannity on the radio today, and he had some guy on who made the same assertion as if it were fact, and lamenting how Hillary was going after Bernie with that quote. Something tells me this is just the Fox Talking point and Saletan is carrying water like a good monkey.

  4. 4
    karlb says:

    Saletan is often full of crap.

  5. 5
    Gin & Tonic says:

    I have no idea who William Saletan is.

  6. 6
    Josie says:

    It might have been a shot, but it was not a smear. I agreed with her statement 100%, and I would imagine many women of a certain age will agree, also.

  7. 7
    Cervantes says:

    Damn few of us women-folk haven’t been told to lower our voices, calm down and stop being so emotional if we color outside the acceptable lines of female assertiveness.

    Surely so, but you’d still agree that “shouting” is shouting?

    Or is it defined according to whose voice is at issue?

  8. 8
    Mike J says:

    sxsw just cancelled the panel, “Level Up: Overcoming Harassment in Games” due to the number of threats of violence.

  9. 9
    gogol's wife says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    All I can remember is that he wrote something monumentally stupid in the New York Times, and I told DougJ about it, and he did a post on it. I no longer remember what it was, just the name Saletan. I hadn’t heard of him before and haven’t heard of him since, until this.

  10. 10
    Wiesman says:

    Saletan is 100% full of crap here at least, maybe everywhere. His take explores new frontiers in stretching.

  11. 11
    dogwood says:

    Good grief! I’m not even a big fan of the Clintons in general, but this strikes me as “Hillary had a good week so we need to get back business as usual and write an anti-Hillary piece.”

  12. 12
    John Cole says:

    I had no idea that quote was directed at Sanders when I saw it. I still don’t. He yells about everything, so no one would think he was yelling at Hillary.

  13. 13
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @gogol’s wife: I understand he is someone I should be outraged about, but I can’t work up the energy. Maybe somebody else can be outraged for me.

  14. 14

    What do you think: Is Hillary trying to Benghazi Bernie? Or is Saletan full of crap?

    I assumed she was talking about the general situation rather than any specific instance. This kind of thing is so common, it’s hard to remember any specific instance because of all the other ones to keep track of. If anything, I would say that Saletan is trying to shut Hillary up, helping to prove her point to anyone willing to listen.

  15. 15
    lamh36 says:

    OT, but what da fuq is going on with police officers today.

    Trigger Warning for this video…for real!

    WATCH: S. Carolina cop brutally throws high school girl to the ground for ‘not leaving class’

  16. 16
    Percysowner says:

    Whenever I hear Saletan has written something I default to the idea that its crap. As you said, read him on abortion and it’s hard to NOT default to he’s full of crap.

  17. 17

    @Mike J:

    sxsw just cancelled the panel, “Level Up: Overcoming Harassment in Games” due to the number of threats of violence.

    So their response to terrorists is to capitulate? Nice to see them standing on principle that way.

  18. 18
    Josie says:

    @John Cole: The reason it might be applied to Bernie is that he made a statement during the debate that “shouting” about gun violence was not productive, and he was following up on a statement by Hillary. She had every right to answer that and did it very cleverly.

  19. 19
    Schlemazel says:

    @Gin & Tonic:
    I wish I could say that!

    Meanwhile, my feelings have been deeply hurt by this vicious attack by the hillz, one of you girls should go make me a sandwich to make up for it. Come on, chop chop!

  20. 20
    Renie says:

    He’s full of crap. Every women in her life has at some point by told, usually by a man, to stop shouting. But he’s got to get his clickbait.

  21. 21

    Anyone seen Suffragette, yet?

  22. 22
    Luthe says:

    Even if she is referencing Bernie, it’s a dog whistle so shrill only pundits can hear. The rest of us female-bodied (or identified) people just hear a complaint reflecting every day of our lives.

  23. 23
    Josie says:

    @Schlemazel: That made me laugh and I do enjoy a good laugh.

  24. 24
    Satby says:

    @karlb: Saletan is always full of crap.
    And typical that he’d try to smear Hillary by claiming she’s smearing Bernie.He’d be damned if he’d vote for Bernie, but he’ll stick up for Bernie against the she-devil.

  25. 25
    mclaren says:

    Nonsense.
    Hills is a tough savvy pol.
    If Bernie can’t take that kind of mild heat, he should get out of the kitchen.
    Fortunately, Sanders has the advantage of the moral and policy high ground. If Bernie is sharp, he’ll respond that Mrs. Clinton doesn’t seem to think shouting is appropriate in the current economy — but in an economy where 94% of the gains from the recovery have gone to the top 1%, that’s something we should be shouting about. Mrs. Clinton’s daughter is married to a superrich hedge manager manager from Goldman Sachs, the investment bank that helped blow up the world economy in 2009, and obviously Mrs. Clinton doesn’t think that’s something to shout about. But the rest of us think we need to shout a lot about the way billionaires and Wall Street crime lords have co-opted the government, the same way Goldman Sachs has wormed its way into Mrs. Clinton’s family.
    Bernie can hammer her hard on Hillary’s policy positions. Let Hillary place the femnist card. Sanders can play the full deck of 52 anti-corruption and social justice and middle-class-destruction cards.

  26. 26
    Satby says:

    @Gin & Tonic: How’s the cleanup coming? Sorry you’re going through that!

  27. 27
    Woodrow/asim says:

    @Mike J: I daresay that’s of a piece with Saletan’s writing.

    In both cases, it’s about (mostly) men dismissing women’s voices. Saletan shows he knows crap-all about the history of women being shouted down…just as we get another example of exactly that.

  28. 28
    Cacti says:

    Apart from the sexist/not sexist angle, I found it very strange that Bernie Sanders would chide anyone about shouting.

    Shouting is his M.O.

  29. 29
    Woodrow/asim says:

    @Roger Moore: We don’t know who asked for it to be cancelled, or the details of why.

    There may be details we aren’t aware of that prompted SXSW to make this decision — and having seen why other such panels have been canceled, I’m trying not to be quck to judge.

  30. 30
    Satby says:

    @Cervantes: That’s the point of the quote up top, and Betty’s statement

    t. Damn few of us women-folk haven’t been told to lower our voices, calm down and stop being so emotional if we color outside the acceptable lines of female assertiveness.

    So yes, it’s defined by whose voice is being used.

  31. 31
    Cervantes says:

    But I saw the debate, and it didn’t occur to me that HRC was smearing Sanders with that quote.

    Saletan:

    Two days after the debate, Clinton brought up the exchange during a speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in San Antonio. She promised to stand up to the gun lobby and, dropping her G’s, added: “I’ve been told by some to quit talkin’ about this, to quit shoutin’ about this. Well, I’ll tell you right now, I will not be silenced, and we will not be silenced.” The crowd loved it. The next day in New Hampshire, Clinton tried the same line in a Yankee-friendly accent: “Some people say that we shouldn’t talk about it. Some say we shouldn’t shout about it, that I shouldn’t shout about it. Well, I think we have to keep talking. But more importantly, we have to act.”

    With that choice of words, was Clinton alluding to Sanders and his choice of words? We might infer a “no” if Clinton also spoke this way before that debate. Did Saletan look into it?

    If she’s counting on oblique references that require the hearer to remember precise language from earlier events to smear Sanders, it seems like a remarkably inefficient approach.

    Yes, but our “inefficient” might be someone else’s “subtle.”

  32. 32
    trollhattan says:

    How the hell would this be aimed squarely at Bernie when the same net gathers every fvcking Republican not named Carson?

    Feh.

  33. 33
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Cervantes: Let’s say it was aimed a Sanders, how is it a smear?

  34. 34
    Schlemazel says:

    @Josie:
    Did your husband and/or father approve your laughing? I’d feel bad if I got you in trouble for unauthorized gaiety.

  35. 35
    Josie says:

    @Schlemazel: They both approved completely of my unauthorized self. I was a very lucky woman.

  36. 36
    Baud says:

    Seems like a weak attempt by a right-winger to foment an intra-party circular firing squad.

    He should know we don’t need his help.

  37. 37
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Schlemazel: I bet you are still waiting for that sandwich.

  38. 38
  39. 39
    jl says:

    ” What do you think: Is Hillary trying to Benghazi Bernie? ”
    Who knows, who cares? When Sanders was asked about it, he just said that he was saying voters are shouting and he wasn’t referring to HRC and left it that. Which I think was a good response.

    ” Or is Saletan full of crap? ”
    Rhetorical question, I assume.

  40. 40
    Baud says:

    You know who didn’t shout? Chafee.

    Miss that guy.

  41. 41
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Satby: Thanks for asking. It’s kind of good news/bad news. Cleanup guys came back and pressure-washed the affected floor area, so the odor is greatly reduced. Clothing that was in the basement that I hung outside today (beautiful New England fall day) seems to have no residual odor. The odor in the house is getting a lot better. However, it seems that the standard homeowner’s insurance policy, not just here, but everywhere, has a “pollution exclusion.” Which means that any release/discharge of any pollutant is your problem, not theirs. That’s going to suck.

    The only bright side to this thing is I came home and found the problem as it was happening, and got it abated that night. If I hadn’t been home, the 250+ gallons of oil in the tank would have leaked out, probably into the environment. I’d be bankrupt.

    So: if you own your home, and heat it with fuel oil, find out how old your tank and its associated components are. If the answer is “I don’t know” then devote serious energy to finding out. If any part of that system is over 35 years old, *seriously* think about replacing it. If the tank is underground, or if the line between the tank and the furnace runs under concrete, get on this soon. Yes, that’s expensive. A significant release of fuel oil into the ground is way more expensive.

  42. 42
    J R in WV says:

    ETA: As so many of the others have said, so accurately:

    Saletan is full of crap, amazingly. He vents crap continuously and is still full of it… it seems like a clear violation of the law of conservation of mass, which would be nearly a miracle, but he still manages it.

    He pretends to be an objective journalist, but somehow all of his commentary turns out to be critical of Democratic positions and people, and never of Republicans, So IOKIYAR!

  43. 43
    MomSense says:

    @lamh36:

    That is one of the most outrageous things I have seen. Violence like that is unacceptable.

  44. 44
    Schlemazel says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:
    If I tried that on the woman foolish enough to marry me I’d get a sandwich but it probably would not be inserted orally.

  45. 45
    feebog says:

    I’ll take “full of crap” for $200 Betty. Seriously, is this all the mook has to write about? Bernie took a couple of obvious shots HRC during the J/J Dinner Saturday night, I don’t see him writing about that.

  46. 46
    pete says:

    That piece by Saletan is remarkably stupid, I remark. I wonder how often Will has been told to pipe down because he’s shrill; not enough, I suspect.

  47. 47
    Chyron HR says:

    Of course Hitlery is using her WORDS to try and turn VOTERS against her OPPONENT! That’s just the kind of dirty tricks we’ve come to expect from America’s Worst Family.

  48. 48
    Lee Hartmann says:

    he’s full of crap. SATSQ.

  49. 49
    BalloonJuiceLurker says:

    @mclaren: I think you’re missing the point. This is about women’s tone of voice, and unfairly being told that they should chill out. How did this become about Bernie’s tone of voice?

  50. 50
    Cervantes says:

    @Satby:

    Thanks.

    My question was a bit different. Let me re-phrase: if someone were to say that shouting is wrong regardless of who is doing it, would that be an innocuous statement or would it be “loaded” somehow? E.g., because our definition of “shouting” disadvantages women in particular?

  51. 51
    Schlemazel says:

    @Gin & Tonic: .

    However, it seems that the standard homeowner’s insurance policy, not just here, but everywhere, has a “pollution exclusion.” Which means that any release/discharge of any pollutant is your problem, not theirs. That’s going to suck.

    Not suck a little, suck a lot! It makes me go and check my policy, that is bullshit. I don’t have oil heat but that just sucks.

    sorry to hear that even more than the spill, it seems this is the sort of thing we want insurance for.

  52. 52
    Turgidson says:

    Clinton is trying to connect with women who have felt bullied by men, and to turn them against Sandersthe GOP, by smearing him telling the truth about them.

    I think this is what Saletan meant to write.

  53. 53
    Cervantes says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Let’s say it was aimed a Sanders, how is it a smear?

    Well, Clinton goes on to say that “I will not be silenced, and we will not be silenced.” What do you think that implies?

  54. 54
    Gimlet says:

    Wiki

    A self described “liberal Republican”, Saletan came out strongly against the re-election of George W. Bush. He described his disenchantment with today’s Republican Party in a series of dispatches from the 2004 Republican Convention.[1]

    While Saletan initially argued in favor of George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, later, as part of a Slate.com series[2] marking the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War, Saletan described the lessons he had come to learn, stating, “I wish I’d absorbed these lessons before the war. The best I can do now is remember them before the next one.”[3]

    In a series initially posted on November 18, 2007 on Slate.com, Saletan assessed the relationship between Race and intelligence, specifically the question of whether race is a genetically determining factor in intelligence.

  55. 55
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Cervantes: I asked my question first.

  56. 56

    The default is always that W. Saletan is full of crap.

  57. 57
    Cervantes says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    And I addressed it.

  58. 58
    low-tech cyclist says:

    Saletan is generally full of crap. I hadn’t realized he was still among the commentariat – his big issue, back in the day, was that if only pro-choicers were willing to compromise, they and pro-lifers could find a compromise that worked for both sides.

    It’s hard to be further wrong than that.

    Anyhow, he’s full of crap here and now on this latest bit. Big surprise.

  59. 59
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Lord Saletan is an ass.

    This is a guy who for YEARS was saying that the pro choice and anti-abortion crowds should find some common ground…you know, like free distribution of contraceptives to lessen the demand for abortions. But of course, that ignores the real reason for anti-abortion bullshit…they WANT forced birth. They hate fucking. They are bluenosed broomstick up the ass anti-sex puritans. Fuck them all, fuck them hard and then they should be told to fuck off.

  60. 60
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Cervantes: So then, how was it a smear? Socratic dialog is fun and all that, but occasionally a direct answer to a direct question can be fun too.

  61. 61
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Schlemazel: I’m starting to think that most insurance is designed to not pay for the thing you specifically need it for.

  62. 62
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Gin & Tonic: Much of it is designed to separate you from green stuff in your wallet, period.

  63. 63
    Baud says:

    The Baud administration will prominently feature shouty women in leadership positions.

  64. 64
    Nutella says:

    Saletan full of crap?

    Saletan is always full of crap. It’s especially noticeable when he talks about women’s issues which he thinks he is more expert on than any women ever could be.

  65. 65
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Baud: Do you need some binders?

  66. 66
    Scott Alloway says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Concur with you.
    The crap is dripping off his tongue.

  67. 67
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Scott Alloway:

    The crap is dripping off his tongue.

    What an unpleasant visual.

  68. 68
    Cervantes says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    No. Tedium is not fun. I’ll make an exception.

    If Sanders said in the debate that shouting about guns is useless, and if after the debate Clinton said people accuse her of shouting, and that she will not be silenced, and that women should not be silenced — and if (by your assertion) Clinton was referring to Sanders — then the implication of Clinton’s remarks is that Sanders was trying to silence her, and by implication all women. If you think trying to deny women their voice is dishonorable, and if you think Sanders was doing that, then you may not think of Clinton’s remark as a “smear.”

    And now I’m tuckered out.

    (Or rather: Socrates was nearly as lazy as I am.)

  69. 69
    Redshift says:

    He is particularly full of crap when he says this:

    Everyone who saw the debate or heard about it knows she’s talking about him.

    I was there on Friday when she said it, and I’m pretty confident that no one in the crowd made any particular connection to Sanders. The response to the generally acknowledged truth that women don’t get the same response when they’re forceful in exactly the same way that men are.

    It’s particularly idiotic because in the same part of the speech, she talked about the gun industry immunity from liability in a way that was a much more direct shot at Sanders (without naming him.) But since since wingnuts can’t pretend that’s an offensive smear of an old person, and they’re not interested in actual policy differences between the two, they’re ignoring that.

  70. 70
    Alex says:

    Yes, Hillary is referencing Sanders with the line added to her stump speech. Also, yes, Hillary is referencing how women have to monitor their speech and tone to be acceptable to audiences and the double standard that they are treated with.

    It’s a reference to the debate, a moment where Hillary caught Sanders being flatfooted (which is why Sanders was whining about people using loud voices), and also a reference to how women are perceived. It can be two things and cover two separate issues.

    It requires a special leap in logic to decry it as a sexist attack on Bernie. Probably from the same mind that, in the very article, criticizes Hillary for what accent she is using when she tries to connect with an audience.

  71. 71
    Baud says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    No. In my administration, the women will be kept in accordion files.

  72. 72
    Cervantes says:

    @Baud:

    That’s … kinky.

  73. 73
    Gimlet says:

    @Baud:

    Kinky!

  74. 74
    jl says:

    @Cacti: I thought the same thing, “he better not make a habit of accusing anyone of shouting too much’, even if Sanders was talking about the vitriol of the gun control debate not HRC.

  75. 75
    trollhattan says:

    @Baud:
    Sadly, Joan Rivers no longer available for Secretary of Shouting at Celebrities. Roseanne Barr, however….

  76. 76
    trollhattan says:

    @Baud:
    Best Baud Administration day of the week: Polka Thursdays!

  77. 77
    Alex says:

    Also, Sanders’ camp is pushing this framing – http://www.politico.com/story/.....016-215167

  78. 78
    Mike J says:

    @Woodrow/asim:

    We don’t know who asked for it to be cancelled, or the details of why.

    Literally Boo @randileeharper
    SXSW just canceled our panel due to the number of threats of violence they have received.

    SXSW have released a statement

    I posted about this incident in this thread because it is exactly on topic.

  79. 79
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Cervantes: You’ve explained why one might not find it a smear. I was quite able to figure that out; I had, however, asked how it was a smear. I could see it as a jab a Sanders, but smear implies something different – at least to my way of thinking.

  80. 80
    ruemara says:

    Dear dudes, sometimes, it ain’t about you. Jesus.

  81. 81
    tybee says:

    @Mike J:

    quite the brave stance

  82. 82
    jl says:

    @Alex: A lot of it is the media trying to create drama and create gotcha moments. Any ‘attacks’ and tiffs going going on between the two so far will have to get a lot bigger to match the dramas that went on in the 2008 primary, and those were completely forgotten during the general.

    So far, I don’t see anything from either candidate to get upset about.

    Edit: Saletan is also stale and late, since Sanders was already asked about this micro-flap on national TV Friday or over weekend, and he blandly refused to take the bait. (though looks like he ordered his campaign to do some push back)

  83. 83

    @ruemara: Of course it is, they are the most persecuted group in this country, right after Christians.

  84. 84
    Eric U. says:

    I wish I could make my living as a concern troll. It really is the best description of Saleton

  85. 85
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Mike J: Surrendering to the terrorists. How thoughtful of them.

  86. 86

    @Cervantes:

    Since you seem not to have experienced this in your own life, many women here (myself included) have been admonished for “shouting” if their voice is raised above a murmur.

    Perhaps we need an actual decibel level to be defined since many men seem to think any level at which a woman’s voice is audible to more than one person counts as “shouting.”

    ETA: And to take it in a slightly different direction, this maxim of course goes double for black women, as that book group that was thrown off the wine train for being “too loud” found out.

  87. 87
    trollhattan says:

    @Mike J:
    Boy, a few(?) pudgy white boys check in with their umbrage and they fold their “big tent”? Weaksauce.

    One wonders how “Tattoos: menace or merely bad decisionmaking?” would be embraced?

    Ah well, my record of nonattendance shall remain unblemished.

  88. 88
    Mike J says:

    @tybee: I thought the official statement tried to make it sound like it was all the fault of those icky girls who won’t be civil:

    On occasions such as this one, this community necessitates strong management to survive. Maintaining civil and respectful dialogue within the big tent is more important than any particular session.

  89. 89
    bemused says:

    @Satby:

    Of course. I don’t know a woman who hasn’t experienced this and recognizes it immediately. If a mild criticism or alternate view is said by a woman in a normal tone of voice, far too many frail flower males think she is shouting at them.

  90. 90
  91. 91

    @Cervantes:

    Also, to me that quote points out that his stance on guns is a genuine weakness for Sanders. He’s going to need to work on a better response, especially since there will almost certainly be at least one more mass murder between now and the next debate.

  92. 92
    ruemara says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: true. Why are they forced to listen to our shrieking?!! Oops sorry.

  93. 93
    jl says:

    Problem I see in saying that Sanders intentionally implied it was HRC who was shouting is that Sanders has been using this ‘two sides shouting at each other on gun control’ language for a long time (you can check the tapes). It is part of his standard defense of his stance on gun control policy. It wasn’t special language that suddenly appeared just for HRC. But it came off badly immediately following HRC statement.

    Seems to me this is micro stuff, and there will be more to come on both sides. They are running against each other, after all.

  94. 94
    tybee says:

    @Mike J:
    “Maintaining civil and respectful dialogue within the big tent is more important than any particular session.”

    and with that, they refuse to have any dialogue about the assholes threatening violence.

    brave folks, them tessicans.

  95. 95
    ruemara says:

    @Mike J: last I heard, this was a panel of gamergaters offering the reasons why the sjws were history’s greatest monsters.

  96. 96
  97. 97
    Peale says:

    @Mike J: it must be those Muslim ISIS types. Cause good ole boys would never treat the ladies like this.

  98. 98
    Cervantes says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    Since you seem not to have experienced this in your own life

    You haven’t the faintest idea.

    many women here (myself included) have been admonished for “shouting” if their voice is raised above a murmur.

    As I said in my first comment above: sure, and that’s awful.

    Thanks for your remarks.

  99. 99
    Mike J says:

    @ruemara:

    (A series of tweets concatenated)

    Literally Boo ‏@randileeharper 54m54 minutes ago
    It was worth our silence to get out the larger message about how harassment can be affected by design decisions. A topic not well covered.

    To see SXSW equate our cautious silence about the GamerGate panel and the abuse we have received is unfortunate.

    On the other hand, the GamerGate panelists have a history of tweeting at and about us. We let it slide and said nothing.

    We also made no statement about the SXSW GamerGate panel at any time.

    These panels were in no way related to each other. Our panel was not about GamerGate, but instead making design decisions in abuse systems.

  100. 100

    @Roger Moore: It’s a music conference. I doubt the planners were properly prepared to deal with the maximum levels of shit the gamerists can launch.

    …though I do agree, it would have been better to hold the panel, up the visibility and security, and make the maximum levels of shit the first page of the proof.

  101. 101
    Cervantes says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    You’ve explained why one might not find it a smear. I was quite able to figure that out; I had, however, asked how it was a smear.

    Good heavens.

    Here’s what I wrote:

    If Sanders said in the debate that shouting about guns is useless, and if after the debate Clinton said people accuse her of shouting, and that she will not be silenced, and that women should not be silenced — and if (by your assertion) Clinton was referring to Sanders — then the implication of Clinton’s remarks is that Sanders was trying to silence her, and by implication all women. If you think trying to deny women their voice is dishonorable, and if you think Sanders was [not] doing that, then you may not think of Clinton’s remark as a “smear.”

    I made one tiny modification et voilà!

    More seriously: If falsely accusing someone of acting dishonorably is not a “smear,” then you’re not the gentleman I took you for!

  102. 102
    Woodrow/asim says:

    @Mike J: I don’t read “icky girls” — when someone comes with “numerous threats of on-site violence related to this programming,” that’s only one side.

    Folks — I know want to fight for what we believe. There’s massive and brutal campaigns of harassment against many of the people who’ve called out GamerGate. There’s multiple instances of bomb threats — including against these GameGate assholes — that have disrupted even well-planned meetings.

    Reading this, thinking of that history — I think this goes a good deal past our usual “fight the bad guys”. And I think we need to be a bit more thoughtful about insisting that people have these panels, under these circumstances.

    My preference would be 100% to have them, and to start having orgs work together to plan out how to avoid these issues. But that’s not going to happen if we reflexively call them “cowards” in the fact of what are likely real, and law enforcement engaged, bomb threats.

  103. 103

    @ruemara: THANK YOU, was thinking that practically word for word.

  104. 104
    bemused senior says:

    This

  105. 105
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Cervantes: No, I was just engaging in Socratic pedantry. No one else around this blog ever does that, do they?

  106. 106
    Cervantes says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Read Socrates before accusing him of pedantry!

    PS: And are you now saying you knew all along how those remarks could be a “smear”? — or is this still opaque?

  107. 107
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Cervantes: I’d happily read anything written by Socrates as soon as you forward me a link.

  108. 108

    @Woodrow/asim: From the SXSW statement, “If people can not agree, disagree and embrace new ways of thinking in a safe and secure place that is free of online and offline harassment, then this marketplace of ideas is inevitably compromised.”

    Guess what? Under these conditions, there will *never* be a panel about such topics. The poo-flingers got it shut down by flinging poo, intelligent discussion be Gaia-damned to some filthy hell. You just emboldened the whole stinking fucking lot to double-down, now and forever.

    “Hey we shut down SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST, GRUNT GRUNT GRUNT”

  109. 109
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Cervantes: Yes, I know how it can be a smear, but I also know how it could simply be a jab.

  110. 110

    @Cervantes:

    I did not realize you had been a woman at some point in your life. When did you change genders, may I ask?

  111. 111
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): Isn’t that rather personal?

  112. 112
    RaflW says:

    Gee, Saletan, whadaya think also happened on Oct. 23rd? Maybe a bunch of men shouting about Benghazi?

    What a fucking twerp/merchant of derp to claim this was about Sanders. Mystery mansplaining butthurt, thy name is Saletan today.

  113. 113
    Woodrow/asim says:

    @BruceFromOhio: To go ahead under what I assume to be serious risk of literally having the panel blow up is not, in my opinion, a solution to the problem you pose. This isn’t a schoolyard punch-up, after all.

    As someone who’s run events, and who’s moderated a harassment panel? I’d shut it down to if law enforcement said there were credible threats — indeed, I was involved in shutting down one such multi-day event overnight due to a weather event, so I think I’d perform similarly in this situation. No panel is worth risking people’s lives, and you’re damn straight I’d back down as someone running the event/panel.

    Now, as some who, before moderating, was a panelist at some harassment panels, I’d seriously consider sticking my neck out, because I’m wacky like that. But I’m also aware that doing so plays with more lives than just mine, and I’d consider that, as well.

    Either way — I’d lobby to find a venue and way to have a discussion about this new form of terrorism, in places and spaces safe (as safe as possible) from harm for the panelists and attendees. There’s a reason I support SPLC, after all, and we do need to be having a discussion about how to deal with this situation in ways that don’t utterly disempower the people being threatened.

    So I will, based on my experiences and judgment, say that SXSW made the right call.

  114. 114
    A guy says:

    Has Carson ever committed a crime? Hillary has? Who you gonna vote for?

  115. 115
    Baud says:

    @A guy:

    Hillary (assuming she gets the nom and not me).

  116. 116
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @A guy: What crime? Please cite the relevant code section.

  117. 117
    Baud says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    What crime could she possibly commit that would cause you to vote for Carson instead of her?

  118. 118

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I admit, I’m not really sure of the etiquette, but I was a little confused since I had always assumed that poster was male, but they are now claiming to have first-hand experience as a woman. It could be like the mclaren thing where we all assumed one gender and he eventually clarified it for us.

  119. 119
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Baud: I wondered about that comment pre-paranthetical.

  120. 120
    chopper says:

    @A guy:

    Has Carson ever committed a crime?

    ask that dude he tried to stab to death when he was younger.

  121. 121

    @Woodrow/asim: So I will, based on my experiences and judgment, say that SXSW made the right call.

    Oh, agreed, and please accept my apology if my comments made it seem otherwise, mine was not intended to impugn anyone’s judgment, and noted upthread, this is not something I expect SXSW has to had to deal with frequently.

    To take the terrorists line to logical conclusion, how does a civilized discourse break out when talking about ISIS? Or the damned fools from ELF? Unless you keep it secret or invite-only, any such discussions about a group/tribe/movement that is inherently unbalanced and willing to blatantly flout the law with threats of violence is going to challenge any appetite for risk.

    I’m just some schmuck from Ohio, but this I know: when you drag the poo flingers into the light, call them by name and focus on them, they are diminished. That happy warm anonymity of the keyboard in the dark is emboldening; not so much so when all eyes are on you in the room, and your picture and name get splashed across the tubes. It is absolutely the only way this changes.

    See also, tire rims and anthrax.

  122. 122
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Baud: I’m thinking….

  123. 123
    dogwood says:

    Carson admits to committing g crimes. He’s lucky when he stabbed a friend, the knife broke.

  124. 124
    Woodrow/asim says:

    @Woodrow/asim: Having had a chance to read some of the reporting around this SXSW bullshit:

    It’s possible SXSW is reacting in really bad ways to this. It’s possible they simply dropped the ball in terms of the needed security, and are now in a blind panic over the threats — esp. as they’ve not released any specific info, nor ref. anw law enforcement engagement around these decisions.

    In short, I might be wrong. My line is that if you have good security, and law enforcement says there’s still a serious threat with the security you have in place, you need to seriously reconsider hosting the activity. Even moreso when there’s a history of such threats being taken very seriously (and even threats, when directed to people, not being taken seriously)

    I hope SXSW has done something basically good here, but hell, the rest of you might be right.

    I suspect more will come out soon, and we’ll see.

  125. 125
    Woodrow/asim says:

    @BruceFromOhio:

    any such discussions about a group/tribe/movement that is inherently unbalanced and willing to blatantly flout the law with threats of violence is going to challenge any appetite for risk.

    That’s where the reporting I was just talking about makes a huge space for such discussions to happen, indirectly.

    Adding the famous SXSW to the list of GamerGate-related threats raises the discussion in ways prior events — no less real and dangerous — did not. It means that groups with the ability to have good security — or too small to be a real target — are slightly more likely to step in and set up discussions around these topics.

    But that still will likely take people talking about it online, promoting it, ensuring that these voices of violence and hate are marginalised and called out such that others are encouraged to support these activities. And it’s going to take time, and being scared, and a lot of ugly crap to get this demon out of our culture.

    I mean, I come from a cultural and family background that dealt, very directly, with the question of “how much violence will we endure to get America to change it’s moral stance?” And although my Father is better-equipped to talk about that calculus in “I might get actually killed” terms than I, I dare say it’s one you have to be very thoughtful about — but it can, and will be made. Because this topic, and what it represents, is too important to just let sleeping dogs lie.

    This is how you get the sunlight on the “poo” — by ensuring those as-risk are, at a minimum, utterly aware of, and choose to confront that risk.

  126. 126
    Keith G says:

    What do you think: Is Hillary trying to Benghazi Bernie? Or is Saletan full of crap?

    Uh boy….I think that reading analysis columns about the campaigns at this point in time is just silly. With a paucity of real action, essayists need to get creative for topics and the cited article in an example of the result.

    You might as well invest your time on horoscopes.

    I should copy this as I bet there will many more occasions when it is relevant….unfortunately.

  127. 127
    seaboogie says:

    @Tom Levenson:

    Yeah, whenever I am scrolling and spelunking and click on an article from Saletan – expecting some informed commentary because I confuse his name for someone intelligent – the first paragraph usually reminds me that I need not spend one additional moment from my life on his nonsense.

    Then I remember that we are all jonesing for new stuff to feed our informational cravings, Slate needs clicks and Will needs a job and is needs to spout off on something today.

    Wonder what would happen if ‘ol Rush got up one day, the weather was perfect, took his dog for a walk, and went into work to tell everyone “I’m just totally chilling today. Lovely day, I had a nice breakfast, went for a walk with my dog, and life is pretty, pretty, pretty good. Apart from that, I got nothin’. So I’m just going to lean back in my chair, close my eyes, put on some Enya, followed by a live performance from these Pan flute players I met at the farmer’s market.”

  128. 128
    sherparick says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Yep. During the Clinton years he was always taking seriously the anti-clinton derp. Also always open to racialist IQ theories and anti-abortion memes.

  129. 129
    Kay (not the front-pager) says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): In fact for women, shouting is defined as expressing opinions firmly, using declarative sentences.

    The above sentence could be defined as shouting (for me, as a woman). The ‘feminine,’ non-shouty way of expressing the sentiment might be, “Does it seem like women might be accused of raising their voices when a firm voice is used, or when declarative sentences are spoken? Do you think it’s OK for women to talk like that?”

    I was thoroughly sick of that when I was 15, 50 years ago. I get accused of shouting a lot.

  130. 130
    Bobby Thomson says:

    Lord Saletan is full of shit, comme d’habitude. If anyone sees a reference to anyone but the Benghazi committee, well, they’re either lying or justifiably defensive. He wrote a column the other day praising Clinton’s performance and this is his way of showing “balance.”

  131. 131
    JimV says:

    I first read this accusation at Angry Bear ( http://angrybearblog.com/2015/.....ously.html ) in a post by Beverly Mann. She writes so sarcastically that often there are commenters who don’t understand what her points are, but I think she has “Progressive” tattooed on her body, and carries no water for Fox News. Of course she is taking her NY Times source as gospel, which may be premature.

  132. 132
    Cervantes says:

    @ruemara:

    Dear dudes, sometimes, it ain’t about you. Jesus.

    I love it!

    (Let’s not ask what it is about.)

  133. 133
    Cervantes says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Yes, I know how it can be a smear

    Great — so on this question, which you raised, it seems we understand each other.

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I’d happily read anything written by Socrates as soon as you forward me a link.

    Again, we understand each other!

  134. 134
    Cervantes says:

    @Kay (not the front-pager):

    I like people of any persuasion who express opinions firmly, using declarative sentences. When people do that, it usually makes my life easier. I like it.

    I don’t like shouting.

  135. 135
    cokane says:

    it’s bogus, but pretty lightweight smear in politics… still no one should condone it. her campaign is clearly making a false insinuation

  136. 136
    Cervantes says:

    @cokane:

    her campaign is clearly making a false insinuation

    Caveat (expressed above): if Clinton was using the same language before that debate, then I’d definitely give her a pass for using it after.

  137. 137
    Kay (not the front-pager) says:

    @Cervantes: You asked about the definition of shouting. I told you (actually I was replying to Mnemosyne, but you are welcome to listen in): for women, the definition of shouting is stating an opinion firmly, using declarative sentences. For men, the definition of shouting is dependent on decibel level. Women know this, as is reflected in this thread. YMMV.

  138. 138
    Cervantes says:

    @Kay (not the front-pager):

    You’re not shouting.

  139. 139
    cokane says:

    honestly tho, this isn’t radically different from the backlash Sanders got about the Black Lives Matter incidents and his response. Sanders is dismissive of the concerns of black people. Sanders is dismissive of women. The purity ponies will never be appeased.

    Meanwhile at least 40 percent of the country is actually willing to elect Carson or Trump ahead of any Democrat.

  140. 140

    What do you think: Is Hillary trying to Benghazi Bernie? Or is Saletan full of crap?

    I’ll take “full of crap” for $400, Alex.

  141. 141
    Kerry Reid says:

    I actually thought the best moment in the otherwise “eh” SNL parody of the Dem debate was when Kate MacKinnon’s Hillary responded to Larry David’s Sanders a la “the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails” with “Gosh, it must be great to be able to yell and swear in public.”

  142. 142
    Elie says:

    This is just a nothingburger.

    A much more interesting and troubling topic is what our FBI Director has been saying about the reason that crime is shooting up again in big cities — like, ya know, those cops just have their fee fees hurt by all this questioning and being under scrutiny and all because of being videotaped. They are just not feeling like they want to do their jobs anymore …

  143. 143
    Cervantes says:

    @Kerry Reid:

    A great line!

  144. 144
    Radio One says:

    I still don’t understand why Saletan is punching the clock at Slate. He should have moved on to be a Fox News “liberal” pundit like ten years ago…

  145. 145
    Chris T. says:

    Saletan is viewing comments as if Saletan had made those comments.

    He would use oblique references to smear, so she must be doing so too!

Comments are closed.