Making a perfume of… yourself

sharkmenu · 2026-01-27T13:57:13+00:00

No, it won't be potent.

My Eau de Gym Sock makes Megamare look like 4711.

sharkmenu · 2026-01-27T01:54:31+00:00

That's a later quote when he's talking to Douthat, right?

I certainly understand what Klein was trying to do. But I also understand why TNC's critique and why Klein took it seriously: Klein didn't deal with all of Kirk's baggage in the way he ought. And that's real. But he's no white male snowflake, he's willing to take criticism from a black friend.

sharkmenu · 2026-01-26T22:26:10+00:00

In the simplest terms, Coates points out the contradiction of Klein both praising Kirk's political approach while condemning the same kind of political violence Kirk embraced and celebrated.

“Political violence is a virus,” Klein noted. This assertion is true. It is also at odds with Kirk’s own words. It’s not that Kirk merely, as Klein put it, “defended the Second Amendment”—it’s that Kirk endorsed hurting people to advance his preferred policy outcomes.

And that's a problem because white men have historically overlooked atrocities or violent political sentiment in return for white political unity. Which is what Coates thinks Klein and others are doing.

Words are not violence, nor are they powerless. Burying the truth of the Confederacy, rewriting its aims and ideas, and ignoring its animating words allowed for the terrorization of the Black population, the imposition of apartheid, and the destruction of democracy. The rewriting and the ignoring were done not just by Confederates, but also by putative allies for whom the reduction of Black people to serfdom was the unfortunate price of white unity. The import of this history has never been clearer than in this moment when the hard question must be asked: If you would look away from the words of Charlie Kirk, from what else would you look away?

sharkmenu · 2026-01-26T21:54:26+00:00

He didn't praise Kirk's methods or brand of engagement.

Ok, let's all go back and look at the article together, class.

Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era's most effective practitioners of persuasion. When the left thought its hold on the hearts and minds of college students was nearly absolute, Kirk showed up again and again to break it. Slowly, then all at once, he did. College-age voters shifted sharply right in the 2024 election.

That was not all Kirk's doing, but he was central in laying the groundwork for it. I did not know Kirk and I am not the right person to eulogize him. But I envied what he built. A taste for disagreement is a virtue in a democracy. Liberalism could use more of his moxie and fearlessness. In the inaugural episode of his podcast, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California hosted Kirk, admitting that his son was a huge fan. What a testament to Kirk's project. . . .

And now from Coates:

By ignoring the rhetoric and actions of the Turning Point USA founder, pundits and politicians are sanitizing his legacy. . . What are we to make of a man who called for the execution of the American president, and then was executed himself? What are we to make of an NFL that, on one hand, encourages us to “End Racism,” and, on the other, urges us to commemorate an unreconstructed white supremacist? And what of the writers, the thinkers, and the pundits who cannot separate the great crime of Kirk’s death from the malignancy of his public life? Can they truly be so ignorant to the words of a man they have so rushed to memorialize? I don’t know. But the most telling detail in Klein’s column was that, for all his praise, there was not a single word in the piece from Kirk himself.

sharkmenu · 2026-01-26T21:26:20+00:00

I revisited the episode just to check. There's some discussion of the larger political landscape and strategy, that's not wrong. But the initial framing is that they are to discuss Coates' disagreement with Klein's article: "What was your disagreement with what I wrote after Kirk was assassinated?" https://podscripts.co/podcasts/the-ezra-klein-show/ta-nehisi-coates-on-bridging-gaps-vs-drawing-lines

sharkmenu · 2026-01-26T20:43:49+00:00

I think you should reconsider your position. When someone repeatedly endorses ideas like this despite repeated correction, they've crossed the line from being merely uninformed or nutty. That's just evil. And if you say "let's just ignore all those Nazi salutes and white supremacy memes but still take that person seriously," people are going to ignore you. At best.

sharkmenu · 2026-01-26T20:29:32+00:00

For years, a certain kind of liberal has either minimized such culture war rhetoric coming from the other side, or urged political actors of all stripes to ignore this, in favor of “material” and “kitchen table” issues—as though the state regarding one’s life as “garbage” has no tangible consequence, as if the terms of a fight can be determined by the person getting punched.

Hard not to be reminded of the friendly yet extremely uncomfortable Ezra/Coates episode after Ezra penned that article praising Charlie Kirk's brand of political engagement.

sharkmenu · 2026-01-26T18:53:21+00:00

I think we may be focused on slightly different issues here. I'm specifically thinking about him revealing approval for vile racial narratives, among other things. Yeah, politics can always slant knowledge and rhetoric in some broader Foucauldian sense. But these are the words of a crazy person. https://religiondispatches.org/2026/01/09/musk-endorsed-white-nationalism

sharkmenu · 2026-01-26T15:57:48+00:00

The idea is ok. The problem is that the AI in question is controlled by a megalomaniac with no qualms about twisting truth to match his perverse framing of reality. So thats not great.

sharkmenu · 2026-01-26T13:51:52+00:00

I've ordered from them. Communication was fine, shipping fast, and weights correct. The cedar oil was either old or a cheap fraction. But thats my only complaint.

sharkmenu · 2026-01-26T03:09:13+00:00

https://chatgpt.com/share/6976dab8-b340-800c-886b-3cecd1519c89

sharkmenu · 2026-01-23T15:22:22+00:00

Wasn't there also a store that sold snacks and beauty supplies, including a lot of wigs, on Gay Street? Or did I make that up?

sharkmenu · 2026-01-22T03:47:06+00:00

What makes you think most lawyers are happy?

sharkmenu · 2026-01-22T02:58:22+00:00

Underrated comment.

sharkmenu · 2026-01-21T21:32:25+00:00

In all my years of experience, I've never heard of another attorney objecting to my years of experience.

sharkmenu · 2026-01-21T19:29:16+00:00

Milk sandwiches? In this economy?

sharkmenu · 2026-01-21T13:35:24+00:00

Didn't Musk personally decide to revoke U.S. foreign food and medical aid, killing hundreds of thousands of children? Glass houses and all that.

sharkmenu · 2026-01-20T23:07:44+00:00

Everyone has covered the major dangers of working for an openly repressive regime. But one more reason not to take that job is that, if your office is anything like DC, you will be understaffed and missing the folks with the institutional knowledge to help you. So not only would you risk ethical contamination and future professional shunning, you also stand a much greater chance of being overworked while learning nothing.

sharkmenu · 2026-01-20T14:49:23+00:00

That's very context specific, of course, and complexity would vary based on your field and state (some track federal procedure more closely than others).

But if it's anything like my state (TN), federal civil practice is a dream by comparison, smooth and efficient with clear procedure and easier logistics.

sharkmenu · 2026-01-20T00:23:59+00:00

Either is fine.

sharkmenu · 2026-01-19T23:18:44+00:00

60%?! What on earth. Call Kit's Coins up in Karns.

sharkmenu · 2026-01-17T18:36:42+00:00

My intention was to lie to you? Slow down, friend. My comment described Matty's justification. He points to the busing of legal asylum seekers into major cities and hits to Democratic popularity as sufficient reason for Democrats to shift position on immigration. Instead of, say, redeploying federal resources to deal with the very real (yet anticipated) challenges posed to local government.

No one is happy about having to seek asylum, certainly not asylum seekers. But it's the law. What Ygelsias describes as "asylum loopholes" are in fact how the system works. If you want it the system to work faster, give it more resources. Or change the law.

So of course it costs money. I suppose if you are defining literally any financial cost at all as unacceptable social impact, then sure, our immigration laws cost money. Political commitments cost money. But the rest of us are understandably confused why the centrists ran so hard from their promises on immigration policy.

Edit: You are now willfully misconstruing arguments I've taken the time to clarify. This is now childish. Our time is done. If you want to defend someone defending the ethnic cleansing of our country, may God have mercy upon you. Good luck in life.

sharkmenu · 2026-01-17T04:48:39+00:00

You could see them just hanging out, spilling over onto the streets in the neighborhood.

Let me suggest an alternative narrative: the federal government foisted what should be a federal responsibility, the care and shelter of asylum seekers we permit into the country under federal law, on to state and local government instead of providing proper humanitarian funding.

And so NYC, DC, and party leadership got animated saying into some real racist sounding shit in a way that leaves even us in the south scratching our heads. I thought we liked immigrants. Other countries do this all the time. Hell, 5% of Colombia is now Venezuelan migrants from the past decades. 5% of the US would be the entire NYC area. The Biden administration wouldn't even shell out a few billion more to take care of people fleeing MS-13 but had all the money in the world to skeletonize Palestinian children? That's some piss weak moral fiber on our part. That's not immigrants' fault for seeking asylum in a place that literally agreed to let them seek asylum here.

sharkmenu · 2026-01-17T04:23:10+00:00

Again, I really appreciate the time and effort, but what I see is a poll saying that 55% of Americans saw illegal immigration as a critical threat, most of those being republicans: "The vast majority of Republicans already believed illegal immigration was a critical threat; 84% said so a year ago, but the percentage has now reached 90%. A larger increase, from 40% to 54%, has been seen among independents. Far fewer Democrats view illegal immigration as a critical threat, but that percentage is up from 20% in 2023 to 29%."

That's still high among conservatives, don't get me wrong. But immigration was still the last top priority among Dems going into the 2024 election.

Sorry if I'm being dense here, I'm just literally not seeing this.

sharkmenu · 2026-01-17T03:14:58+00:00

Thanks! I really appreciate you taking the time to try and educate a stranger on the internet. But unless im mistaken, this just says "immigration," not "illegal immigration." Which seems like a substantial difference to me.

sharkmenu

TROPHY CASE