Upvote on the Don't Be a Dick comment. Community is rare, powerful, and part of what makes life worth living. If you want to absolutely unload on a stranger you've never met, good chance you're taking out unresolved issues in your life through a screen because you know you can safely inflict damage without fear of IRL consequences. It is understandable, but it is not the grownup reaction. Log off and go for a walk.
I agree with you. However, they took the documentary as fact, and then rightfully took back their full throated approval.
Now they are being full-throated about their endorsement of Balko's view and give Coleman short shrift in the linked Vid.
I don't know who's right, but seems like we are getting whiplash from all the agreement. In contrast, I remember MM saying the doc was good, but had an axe to grind to take.it for what it is.
Frankly, that's every documentary and I kind of lost some respect for them for the high praise without caveat and now just taking Balko at his word.
I agree. Isn't it probably the case that the truth lies somewhere between Balko and the documentary? I think the interesting question is whether it is closer to Coleman's take or Balko's. I'm rooting for Coleman only insofar as I think he is an honest broker in general, and I don't want him to be wrong because lots of people are just waiting for him to screw something up.
A time or two I've even forgotten some of those awesome diacritical marks, as unlikely as that would be. So I'm willing to believe that Matt wasn't really trying to be a dick by conflating their names., and offer forgiveness... This. One. Time.
Don't tell my wife, but after KMW and that picture of Nancy above I am starting to think I have a type. Libertarian women, with wonderfully multi-colored hair! Whenever I hear people my age(54) rag on "the purple hairs" I think they must be losing their eyesight too soon. These women look gorgeous! (Actually my wife already knows about the hair thing and suspects about the libertarian thing, she just won't indulge me in either one).
Well she did get into a little trouble awhile back for giving Brett Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt..
Strangely Camille isn't usually my type either. I was never big on busty blondes. I always went for what my wife derisively refers to as "fox faced brunettes" ala Jennifer Love Hewitt or Anna Kendrick.
Coleman's new book is fantastic, and I've liked most everything he has written in the past. But I think his positive take on RFK Jr. (first expressed a few months ago) and his defense of the Floyd documentary are not his brightest moments.
I haven’t yet finished Balko’s screed, but one does get a sense that his goal might not be only to critique and correct Coleman, but to discredit him — and possibly, by extension, stifle any counter-narrative discussion of the Floyd case.
The Lorenz-esque “Colman’s fans are picking on me” bit is a little too much part of the pushback for me to take Balko seriously. CH isn’t above criticism, even pointed criticism, but once it starts devolving into whiny personality conflicts, it loses me. That’s where it is, and Balko took it there IMO.
I used to love Balko but he lost his mind - I'm 100% sure that that documentary is cherry picking as all hell, but I am also unable to take anything Balko says after the Convington thing seriously. He is the king of motivated reasoning.
Balko has turned into a bit of a reactionary but I do like his stuff on police reform.
I was very skeptical about the doc when Jon and Glenn were first talking about it - I just couldn’t get over what I watched in the original 12 minute body cam video. So when Balko’s piece came out I made it a point to get through the major of the 8k words - glad I did. Very well written based in fact and reason.
I was very happy to see Jon and Glenn retract their previous endorsement of the doc. Hoping Coleman takes balko’s critique seriously
I think what is more interesting is the remark that Glenn prefaced his new tack with- essentially, that sometimes the dominant narrative is more correct than the contrary or minority opinion, and that contrarianism doesn’t cut to the quick or bring us closer to the truth as a preset, however, general non conformism and a well regulated skepticism might. It’s my opinion that the same mistake has been made by the right and the Free Press styled middle in their nearly unwavering support of Israel’s actions post 10/7.
Well, hopefully my series of back and forth weren't part of the target of that "don't be a dick" sentiment; which I try (imperfectly) to follow, although I'll freely admit I got a bit annoyed towards the end of it. I probably should have stopped one reply sooner than I did. I've been getting better at learning when online conversations are just not going to be fruitful anymore, but man is it hard sometimes, when Someone Is Wrong On The Internet[1]
In regards to the Don't Be A Dick comment and the Radley/Coleman dust up. I haven't seen the documentary or read Radley's piece so I have no skin in the game, but I know Radley to be a longtime strong ally of civil rights and holding government to accountability. At the very least he is a colleague of Matt's and an associate of many of our favorite commentators, and deserves that respect.
There isn't a lot of mudslinging in this forum, very often because there is a general consensus of opinion, but also because I think we like to consider ourselves as not belonging to one side and being free from the overt bias that takes over a lot of public discussion these days. That is all Radley and Coleman are doing right now so we can give them that space for disagreement.
I said before this seems to be a case where libertarian oriented thinkers are caught between two opposing sentiments neither of which they like very much.
On the one hand the need to acknowledge that if government is by definition a coercion based entity then police are one of the primary instruments of that coercion and need to be held accountable for often wrongdoings, when historically they have not been.
On the other hand the recognition that police are a primary target of a group of people, the anti-racism crowd, who have very little use for accurate facts, and are only interest pushing a narrative.
This is an example of where we can rise above partisan division, not simply by saying a pox on both of their houses, but going further and saying one side just may be right and the other may be wrong no matter which side that may end up being.
Upvote on the Don't Be a Dick comment. Community is rare, powerful, and part of what makes life worth living. If you want to absolutely unload on a stranger you've never met, good chance you're taking out unresolved issues in your life through a screen because you know you can safely inflict damage without fear of IRL consequences. It is understandable, but it is not the grownup reaction. Log off and go for a walk.
Don’t tell me what to do!
(wink)
I have to profess my admiration for Glenn and John. They are both brilliant, and their intellectual honesty is far too rare
I agree with you. However, they took the documentary as fact, and then rightfully took back their full throated approval.
Now they are being full-throated about their endorsement of Balko's view and give Coleman short shrift in the linked Vid.
I don't know who's right, but seems like we are getting whiplash from all the agreement. In contrast, I remember MM saying the doc was good, but had an axe to grind to take.it for what it is.
Frankly, that's every documentary and I kind of lost some respect for them for the high praise without caveat and now just taking Balko at his word.
I agree. Isn't it probably the case that the truth lies somewhere between Balko and the documentary? I think the interesting question is whether it is closer to Coleman's take or Balko's. I'm rooting for Coleman only insofar as I think he is an honest broker in general, and I don't want him to be wrong because lots of people are just waiting for him to screw something up.
Re: “I confused Helena Vondráčková with the great Marta Kubišová.”
Hey, who hasn’t?
A time or two I've even forgotten some of those awesome diacritical marks, as unlikely as that would be. So I'm willing to believe that Matt wasn't really trying to be a dick by conflating their names., and offer forgiveness... This. One. Time.
I would forgive him, except that the whole thing is an elaborate ruse by Mr. Welch to mention his time in Czech Rep. without actually saying it.
He's sneaky that way.
Behave, ya filthy animals.
Would that be Fifthly animals? (Sorry.)
moynihan working for bari’s company is a massive W
I’m probably not alone in that when Moynihan was released from Vice’s grip, I immediately thought he should join The Free Press.
It may be time to turn on the “for paid subscribers only” option in the chat.
Or mute liberally
It doesn’t work
...many, many, many drinks in, on this very rainy Sunday night, and saw that photo of Kmele
with his new Apple glasses on... i laughed so damn hard. i don't know if i've ever laughed that
hard upon opening an email. thanks for that one.
also dug the George Michael Sports Machine reference. shout out to old people...
I'm not suggesting Moynihan has a type, but it appears that if you're a blonde Republican called Meghan/Megyn, he'll appear on your show in a second.
He’s looking for Ms. Right.
But Ms. Right Now will do in a pinch
Don't forget Ann Coulter ;-)
In that Vice interview with her, you could cut the sexual tension with a knife.
Don't tell my wife, but after KMW and that picture of Nancy above I am starting to think I have a type. Libertarian women, with wonderfully multi-colored hair! Whenever I hear people my age(54) rag on "the purple hairs" I think they must be losing their eyesight too soon. These women look gorgeous! (Actually my wife already knows about the hair thing and suspects about the libertarian thing, she just won't indulge me in either one).
That doesn’t jibe with your Camille Donatacci Grammer Meyer crush. I suppose she could be libertarian...
Well she did get into a little trouble awhile back for giving Brett Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt..
Strangely Camille isn't usually my type either. I was never big on busty blondes. I always went for what my wife derisively refers to as "fox faced brunettes" ala Jennifer Love Hewitt or Anna Kendrick.
Ohh, JLH was one of my favorites for years.
Coleman's new book is fantastic, and I've liked most everything he has written in the past. But I think his positive take on RFK Jr. (first expressed a few months ago) and his defense of the Floyd documentary are not his brightest moments.
what is Balko’s purpose for going so strongly at coleman? there are tons of other conservatives making the same argument he did.
I haven’t yet finished Balko’s screed, but one does get a sense that his goal might not be only to critique and correct Coleman, but to discredit him — and possibly, by extension, stifle any counter-narrative discussion of the Floyd case.
The Lorenz-esque “Colman’s fans are picking on me” bit is a little too much part of the pushback for me to take Balko seriously. CH isn’t above criticism, even pointed criticism, but once it starts devolving into whiny personality conflicts, it loses me. That’s where it is, and Balko took it there IMO.
*finished reading Balko’s screed, that is. I’m not his ghost writer.
Because Balko is a crazy person.
Still wish Kmele would release the lost episode.
I used to love Balko but he lost his mind - I'm 100% sure that that documentary is cherry picking as all hell, but I am also unable to take anything Balko says after the Convington thing seriously. He is the king of motivated reasoning.
Balko has turned into a bit of a reactionary but I do like his stuff on police reform.
I was very skeptical about the doc when Jon and Glenn were first talking about it - I just couldn’t get over what I watched in the original 12 minute body cam video. So when Balko’s piece came out I made it a point to get through the major of the 8k words - glad I did. Very well written based in fact and reason.
I was very happy to see Jon and Glenn retract their previous endorsement of the doc. Hoping Coleman takes balko’s critique seriously
How long until Kmele's shenanigans make poor Matt write a sequel to the Unabomber manifesto?
I think what is more interesting is the remark that Glenn prefaced his new tack with- essentially, that sometimes the dominant narrative is more correct than the contrary or minority opinion, and that contrarianism doesn’t cut to the quick or bring us closer to the truth as a preset, however, general non conformism and a well regulated skepticism might. It’s my opinion that the same mistake has been made by the right and the Free Press styled middle in their nearly unwavering support of Israel’s actions post 10/7.
Well, hopefully my series of back and forth weren't part of the target of that "don't be a dick" sentiment; which I try (imperfectly) to follow, although I'll freely admit I got a bit annoyed towards the end of it. I probably should have stopped one reply sooner than I did. I've been getting better at learning when online conversations are just not going to be fruitful anymore, but man is it hard sometimes, when Someone Is Wrong On The Internet[1]
[1] https://xkcd.com/386
Kmele “Bootsie” Foster
The Parliament-Fifthadelic
Nice. Make my funk da Fif Funk, I wants to get Fif’d up
In regards to the Don't Be A Dick comment and the Radley/Coleman dust up. I haven't seen the documentary or read Radley's piece so I have no skin in the game, but I know Radley to be a longtime strong ally of civil rights and holding government to accountability. At the very least he is a colleague of Matt's and an associate of many of our favorite commentators, and deserves that respect.
There isn't a lot of mudslinging in this forum, very often because there is a general consensus of opinion, but also because I think we like to consider ourselves as not belonging to one side and being free from the overt bias that takes over a lot of public discussion these days. That is all Radley and Coleman are doing right now so we can give them that space for disagreement.
I said before this seems to be a case where libertarian oriented thinkers are caught between two opposing sentiments neither of which they like very much.
On the one hand the need to acknowledge that if government is by definition a coercion based entity then police are one of the primary instruments of that coercion and need to be held accountable for often wrongdoings, when historically they have not been.
On the other hand the recognition that police are a primary target of a group of people, the anti-racism crowd, who have very little use for accurate facts, and are only interest pushing a narrative.
This is an example of where we can rise above partisan division, not simply by saying a pox on both of their houses, but going further and saying one side just may be right and the other may be wrong no matter which side that may end up being.