TYT - ANA KASPARIAN

[dantana]

There's a bunch of inside baseball that comes into play here. In oversimplified terms, the left is composed of three groups. I'll call them the institutional left, the economic left, and the social justice left. The institutional left are the DNC democrats (think Hillary Clinton), the economic justice left (think Bernie Sanders) and the social justice left (think ... I'm not sure they have a major candidate). Each group has its own "purity" faction that tries to police the boundaries between the good guys and the bad guys.

These factions do not play nicely with each other. The different candidates supported by these factions in 2008 (Obama v. Clinton) and 2016 (Sanders v. Clinton) created angry, ugly, bitter rifts within the left. The economic justice group really, really, really, really hates Clinton because she represents the capture of the democratic party by big corporations. The institutional and social justice left went at each other hammer and tongs in 2008 because Obama jumped the queue and cut in line in front of Clinton. But the war in 2016 was uber nasty. While Clinton wasn't a social justice warrior by any stretch of the imagination, the social justice faction tended to back Clinton because of the historic ties between the institutional democratic party and racial minorities. So, not only were the "Bernie Bros" extremely hostile and antagonistic toward the institutional Democrats, they directed some of their venom at the social justice wing.

The Young Turks, and Kasparian in particular came out of economic justice wing. They were brash, they were loud, they were aggressive, and to that extent, they were the smashmouth left voices that were appealing to lots of folks -- at least when they trained their guns on the right. I read a bunch of Kasparian's posts over time, and she is absolute death on Clinton.

I've never been a fan of the Young Turks. I tend to hang out at the Daily Kos, which is site established to elect (1) more; and (2) better Democrats. In 2008, the Hillary backers got so angry about the Obama backer, they packed up and left the site. Most eventually came back after the general election. 2016 was even nastier, with the Sanders backers leaving the site. I don't think the return rate was as high. Cenk used to be active at Daily Kos. He left there when the Young Turks were formed.

Among the economic justice faction, social justice issues are pretty sus. Which brings us to Ms. Kasparian. The left can ignore these internal divisions as long as the big guns are trained on the right. The incident with the attack by the homeless person seems to have been something that played out internally at TYT. But the tweet referred in the OP isn't about that at all. What happened was Ms. Kasparian started to take shots at transgender activists and people. There wasn't just one tweet -- there were several. One was in response to some transgender activists who occupied or blocked someone's office. She posted a Xit chiding them and claiming that black people never acted that rude during the civil rights era. She was lambasted on X because she was flat wrong. Next, she Xeeted that "they" had lied about puberty blockers being reversible. That is also flat out wrong. Anti-trans groups had misrepresented "reversible" as meaning "without side effects." That wasn't what medical professionals meant, but it was grounds for still more anti-trans hysteria over the decisions other parents made for their children. (Funny that the same people become apoplectic over the notion that someone else gets to decide whether their child gets a measles shot.) Finally, she put a belligerent statement in her profile to the effect of "Don't ever call me a person with a uterus. I am a woman." I couldn't find any reference to anyone actually calling her a person with a uterus, but sticking it in one's profile like a declaration of war is pretty over the top. I live in a liberal area of the country and spend lots of time in a community that is trans friendly, and I've never heard a trans woman insist on being called "person with a uterus." Woman works just fine, thank you very much.

The U,S. is pretty scary right now for trans folks. It's not quite as bad for them as is for immigrants (at least the non-white ones), but they are being both scapegoated and made the targets of a moral panic. They are explicitly made targets in Project 2025 of the right's culture war. Not surprisingly, people react strongly when someone with a microphone that they thought was on their side starts taking shots at them. I imagine the responses on X were pretty brutal. By the same token, given the cesspool that X has become, "people were mean to me on X" sounds like something a Young Turk should be able to handle.

Part of my reaction is live by the sword, die by the sword. Or at least expect a few cuts. Part of this is my typical frustration is purity movements that eat their own. Part of me is the usual skepticism over a story in which the protagonist was savaged for doing nothing wrong. It's always more complicated. Part of me thinks that relabeling oneself as an independent is probably a positive thing. Part of me despairs that we've lost some of civility glue that binds societies together forever.

Most of me thinks I have bigger fish to fry. People were horrible to me on social media = dog bites man.

A few other things besides a bat that I can never know what it's like to be like:

- Stupid, as in some Trump lovers.
- A sociopath, as in Trump.
- A transgender person, as in my wife's ex husband.
- A person as knowledgeable, as Res Ipsa.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks, Ceeb. There's no reason you would know of the inside baseball stuff on the left. I know there is similar stuff on the right, but without much detail.

On immigrants. Trump, Vance and other R leaders are targeting "migrants" as the source of a apocalyptic murder spree that has entire American towns and cities held hostage. That's a moral panic because it is a completely false representation of both crime in the U.S. and crime by migrants. The rate of crimes committed by citizens and by non citizens has been studied, and the immigrants commit crimes at an overall lower rate than citizens. That's true of migrants here without permission as well. So, there is no migrant crime wave. Overall, crime rates are still near record lows in the U.S. Even the spike during the pandemic was nowhere near the peak rates in the 1980s. Yet Trump, without even distinguishing between migrants that are here here with permission and those who are not, claims that migrants are chopping up children in front of their parents, cutting women's throats in their kitchens, and on and on and on. Immigrants are being scapegoated as the cause of an imaginary crime apocalypse.

The threats against immigrants have escalated to include denaturalization. Think about that for a minute. Naturalized U.S. citizens are legal, resident aliens that have satisfied the requirements to become full U.S. Citizens. The threat is to strip citizenship from actual U.S. Citizens. Hell, my mom is a naturalized citizen. Pack up, mom. I guess.

Take the Haitians in Springfield, Ohio. They are in the U.S. legally under a program called TPS. Springfield has been one of those dying rust belt towns, losing population year after year. But within the last few years, a couple of manufacturing companies set up operations. That's good news for Springfield. But, the companies ran into a problem -- in a tight labor market with people migrating out of Springfield, they had trouble finding workers. Some of the Haitians admitted under the TPS learned that there were jobs in Springfield and moved there. Through word of mouth and a Haitian newspaper, other Hatians moved to Springfield and became the workers that the companies needed. It's not clear, but apparently companies were so happy with the Haitian workers that they actively recruited them to come to Springfield.

This is a good thing for a dying rust-belt town. The population of the United States, not including immigrants, is declining and is expected to continue doing so. Without immigrants to fill the work force, businesses will go where the work force is. Even though the Haitians are here temporarily, a growing town, with new residents also opening businesses and putting money into the local economy makes Springfield a more attractive place to live.

But, there were growing pains. It doesn't sound like the companies talked with the city and county governments about the influx of new workers and their families. So there were some growing pains that were well within the capacity of the locals to take care of.

Except for a local Neo-Nazi group that really didn't like all those black people invading their territory. Their leader spoke at a City Council meeting about how the group was there to keep an eye on the intruders. He also said that the Haitians were kidnapping cats and dogs and eating them. So another moral panic kicked off, with fuel thrown on the fire by first, Vance, and then Trump. Then, not only were they eating cats and dogs, the Haitians were killing and eating geese from the city park. The right wing media went into a frenzy to prove that Haitians were eating cats and dogs. Christopher Rufo, who never met a moral panic he could resist jumped into the fray with a smoking gun... of what was actually chicken cooking on a BBQ.

No cats or dogs were eaten. No geese were eaten. One woman posted a third-hand story about pet being eaten, which wasn't true. She took the post down and apologized. One woman filed a police report saying that her cat was missing and she suspected her neighbors had eaten it. She found the cat in her basement the next day. She also went over to her neighbors and personally apologized. There was a picture of a black guy holding a goose by the neck (that's how you pick them up and move them -- trust me). But he wasn't Haitian and he was in a completely different town.

Two geese were shot and killed. By a white guy on a golf course riding a lawn mower. Geese are pests in Springfield, and is legal to just kill them during a certain period each year. It wasn't legal when he did it.

Before Vance started making claims about the Haitians in Springfield, one his staffers contacted the city and was told there was no evidence that Haitians were kidnapping and eating pets. Vance made the claim that day anyway. He said that the Haitians were there illegally, which was totally false. He implied that the Biden administration dumped the Haitians in Springfield, which they didn't. And even after confronted with the evidence, both continued to insist their claims were true. Vance ended up waffling a little, but he pivoted to "I'm not going to say they're legal," which is kinda counterfactual.

In the meantime, the MAGA telephone warriors flooded Springfield with threats, including bomb threats, that resulted in closure of government buildings, and, if I recall correctly, at least one school. Haitians received death threats. And Trump eventually said that he would kick the Haitians out on day one, apparently for not doing what Trump claimed they had done.

So, yeah, Trump, Vance and other Republican leaders are scapegoating migrants for problems that either don't exist or are widely exaggerated that migrants aren't, in any event, causing. Moral panic and scapegoating.

Thanks so much for taking the time to post such a lengthy response to my request. As usual, you are quite generous!

My great-grandfather from my dad's side came here from Lebanon. In addition, I am 100% confident that I can ask you something without being concerned that you would not give me the benefit of the doubt.

Why don't you use the term illegal immigrant? (I have noticed this from others as well and don't quite get it)

Thanks again for taking the time that you did.

I don’t use it because the people aren’t illegal — they performed an illegal act. We don’t call someone who steals a car an illegal thief. So, in part, it’s because I get persnickety about this kind of thing. In part, it’s because labeling a person as illegal seems dehumanizing to me.

But I haven’t landed on an alternative term that is more accurate and not klutzy. Lots of folks use “undocumented immigrant,” but that doesn’t work because it implies some kind of paperwork problem. “Here without permission” works in terms of accuracy, but it’s too klutzy. So, I’ll probably fumble around until I land on something that works for me.

[Res Ipsa]

There's a bunch of inside baseball that comes into play here. In oversimplified terms, the left is composed of three groups. I'll call them the institutional left, the economic left, and the social justice left. The institutional left are the DNC democrats (think Hillary Clinton), the economic justice left (think Bernie Sanders) and the social justice left (think ... I'm not sure they have a major candidate). Each group has its own "purity" faction that tries to police the boundaries between the good guys and the bad guys.

These factions do not play nicely with each other. The different candidates supported by these factions in 2008 (Obama v. Clinton) and 2016 (Sanders v. Clinton) created angry, ugly, bitter rifts within the left. The economic justice group really, really, really, really hates Clinton because she represents the capture of the democratic party by big corporations. The institutional and social justice left went at each other hammer and tongs in 2008 because Obama jumped the queue and cut in line in front of Clinton. But the war in 2016 was uber nasty. While Clinton wasn't a social justice warrior by any stretch of the imagination, the social justice faction tended to back Clinton because of the historic ties between the institutional democratic party and racial minorities. So, not only were the "Bernie Bros" extremely hostile and antagonistic toward the institutional Democrats, they directed some of their venom at the social justice wing.

The Young Turks, and Kasparian in particular came out of economic justice wing. They were brash, they were loud, they were aggressive, and to that extent, they were the smashmouth left voices that were appealing to lots of folks -- at least when they trained their guns on the right. I read a bunch of Kasparian's posts over time, and she is absolute death on Clinton.

I've never been a fan of the Young Turks. I tend to hang out at the Daily Kos, which is site established to elect (1) more; and (2) better Democrats. In 2008, the Hillary backers got so angry about the Obama backer, they packed up and left the site. Most eventually came back after the general election. 2016 was even nastier, with the Sanders backers leaving the site. I don't think the return rate was as high. Cenk used to be active at Daily Kos. He left there when the Young Turks were formed.

Among the economic justice faction, social justice issues are pretty sus. Which brings us to Ms. Kasparian. The left can ignore these internal divisions as long as the big guns are trained on the right. The incident with the attack by the homeless person seems to have been something that played out internally at TYT. But the tweet referred in the OP isn't about that at all. What happened was Ms. Kasparian started to take shots at transgender activists and people. There wasn't just one tweet -- there were several. One was in response to some transgender activists who occupied or blocked someone's office. She posted a Xit chiding them and claiming that black people never acted that rude during the civil rights era. She was lambasted on X because she was flat wrong. Next, she Xeeted that "they" had lied about puberty blockers being reversible. That is also flat out wrong. Anti-trans groups had misrepresented "reversible" as meaning "without side effects." That wasn't what medical professionals meant, but it was grounds for still more anti-trans hysteria over the decisions other parents made for their children. (Funny that the same people become apoplectic over the notion that someone else gets to decide whether their child gets a measles shot.) Finally, she put a belligerent statement in her profile to the effect of "Don't ever call me a person with a uterus. I am a woman." I couldn't find any reference to anyone actually calling her a person with a uterus, but sticking it in one's profile like a declaration of war is pretty over the top. I live in a liberal area of the country and spend lots of time in a community that is trans friendly, and I've never heard a trans woman insist on being called "person with a uterus." Woman works just fine, thank you very much.

The U,S. is pretty scary right now for trans folks. It's not quite as bad for them as is for immigrants (at least the non-white ones), but they are being both scapegoated and made the targets of a moral panic. They are explicitly made targets in Project 2025 of the right's culture war. Not surprisingly, people react strongly when someone with a microphone that they thought was on their side starts taking shots at them. I imagine the responses on X were pretty brutal. By the same token, given the cesspool that X has become, "people were mean to me on X" sounds like something a Young Turk should be able to handle.

Part of my reaction is live by the sword, die by the sword. Or at least expect a few cuts. Part of this is my typical frustration is purity movements that eat their own. Part of me is the usual skepticism over a story in which the protagonist was savaged for doing nothing wrong. It's always more complicated. Part of me thinks that relabeling oneself as an independent is probably a positive thing. Part of me despairs that we've lost some of civility glue that binds societies together forever.

Most of me thinks I have bigger fish to fry. People were horrible to me on social media = dog bites man.

A few other things besides a bat that I can never know what it's like to be like:

- Stupid, as in some Trump lovers.
- A sociopath, as in Trump.
- A transgender person, as in my wife's ex husband.
- A person as knowledgeable, as Res Ipsa.

Thanks. You are far too kind.

[Moksha]

She posted a Xit...

Omg I am so far behind the times! I appreciated all of your post but in practical terms, this was absolutely the most helpful right now.

Now I know what to call the 'formerly-known-as-tweets' thingies. Prior to this, I only had Seth Meyers' input,

"“F” it, it's still Twitter..."

which, while funny, is less diplomatic than one would want to be in most cases.

Thank you again!

Could someone give a simple explanation of xit? Does it mean a post on X?

[Moksha]

Is there a right-wing need to disparage Ana Kasparian?

[ceeboo]

Thanks so much for taking the time to post such a lengthy response to my request. As usual, you are quite generous!

My great-grandfather from my dad's side came here from Lebanon. In addition, I am 100% confident that I can ask you something without being concerned that you would not give me the benefit of the doubt.

Why don't you use the term illegal immigrant? (I have noticed this from others as well and don't quite get it)

Thanks again for taking the time that you did.

I don’t use it because the people aren’t illegal — they performed an illegal act. We don’t call someone who steals a car an illegal thief.

This doesn't work in my view. You can't be someone who steals a car illegally or legally. Due to our laws in this country, there is only one option to describe someone who steals a car. If you steel a car, you are illegally do so - the action is illegal. Immigration is not the same - it can be done either legally or illegally - When the action is illegal - Entering a country without the permission of said country is breaking the country's law and such an action ought to be called illegal - illegal immigration. An immigrant can be either legal or illegal and that is entirely dependent on how they arrived.

So, in part, it’s because I get persnickety about this kind of thing. In part, it’s because labeling a person as illegal seems dehumanizing to me.


But I haven’t landed on an alternative term that is more accurate and not klutzy. Lots of folks use “undocumented immigrant,” but that doesn’t work because it implies some kind of paperwork problem. “Here without permission” works in terms of accuracy, but it’s too klutzy. So, I’ll probably fumble around until I land on something that works for me.

Thanks for sharing your view.

In my mind, descriptors/adjectives are important concerning communication. If someone enters a country to take up permanent residence and they do so illegally, the most accurate description of said person is an illegal immigrant. It really seems rather simple to me.

In addition, I don't see how accurately describing the actions of someone is dehumanizing. If Ceeboo parks his car in a fire lane, that would be illegal parking. It provides an accurate description of the illegal action. (Ceeboo is an illegal parker and Ceeboo would remain an illegal parker as long as he remains parked where it is illegal for him to park) - If Ceeboo enters a country illegally, the accurate way to describe that would be an illegal immigrant and as long as Ceeboo remains in said country illegally, Ceeboo would remain an illegal immigrant.

To describe the illegal action of a human being as dehumanizing is something that I do not understand. To describe actions with accurate words seems to be the most basic and rational way to communicate.

anyway, that's just how I see it.

[Marcus]

Omg I am so far behind the times! I appreciated all of your post but in practical terms, this was absolutely the most helpful right now.

Now I know what to call the 'formerly-known-as-tweets' thingies. Prior to this, I only had Seth Meyers' input,

"“F” it, it's still Twitter..."

which, while funny, is less diplomatic than one would want to be in most cases.

Thank you again!

Could someone give a simple explanation of xit? Does it mean a post on X?

Here you go:

viewtopic.php?p=2876441#p2876441

[Gadianton]

I don’t use it because the people aren’t illegal — they performed an illegal act. We don’t call someone who steals a car an illegal thief. So, in part, it’s because I get persnickety about this kind of thing. In part, it’s because labeling a person as illegal seems dehumanizing to me.

The only problem I see with this, while I understand the concern, is that you give people an 'in' where they shouldn't have one. I'd say throw the right a bone and not wince publicly too much at the words "illegal immigration." Some of the most important points you've made and others have made is the threats to legal immigration not just illegal immigration, and how Trump did more to hurt and cause chaos with legal immigration than he did to realistically prevent illegal immigration. The wall itself was a huge failure, I've seen that admitted to by even strong Trump supporters who worked for Homeland Security. The threats to green card holders and naturalized citizens are next. It's obvious that legal immigration will become increasingly his target because it's much easier to issue executive orders that instantly screw over millions of people and cause chaos for the cheers of his base. Tracking down people who came over in the back of a van for the third time and sending them back for a third time is hard.

By focusing on the language, it just reinforces the idea that the left is overly sensitive, and it gives them a nonsense thing that they can talk about semi-intelligently that doesn't require any actual knowledge about anything. "I think words are important and calling a person who commits a crime a criminal is okay." Well, they aren't wrong about that. I'd say prevent opportunities that allow them to think that they are intelligent and have an actual point.

[ceeboo]

By focusing on the language, it just reinforces the idea that the left is overly sensitive, and it gives them a nonsense thing that they can talk about semi-intelligently that doesn't require any actual knowledge about anything. "I think words are important and calling a person who commits a crime a criminal is okay." Well, they aren't wrong about that. I'd say prevent opportunities that allow them to think that they are intelligent and have an actual point.

Bold mine.

Love reading your posts.

[canpakes]

This doesn't work in my view. You can't be someone who steals a car illegally or legally. Due to our laws in this country, there is only one option to describe someone who steals a car. If you steel a car, you are illegally do so - the action is illegal. Immigration is not the same - it can be done either legally or illegally - When the action is illegal - Entering a country without the permission of said country is breaking the country's law and such an action ought to be called illegal - illegal immigration. An immigrant can be either legal or illegal and that is entirely dependent on how they arrived.
…

In addition, I don't see how accurately describing the actions of someone is dehumanizing. If Ceeboo parks his car in a fire lane, that would be illegal parking. It provides an accurate description of the illegal action. (Ceeboo is an illegal parker and Ceeboo would remain an illegal parker as long as he remains parked where it is illegal for him to park) - If Ceeboo enters a country illegally, the accurate way to describe that would be an illegal immigrant and as long as Ceeboo remains in said country illegally, Ceeboo would remain an illegal immigrant.

If what we are talking about is the thing perceived as a problem or crisis happening at the southern border, then typing out ‘illegal’ in front of the word immigration seems unnecessarily redundant. There is no ‘instant citizenship’ status granted at the border. It was easier in the day of your Lebanese ancestors, or some of my own immigrant ancestors, who simply arrived in a boat, and were more or less processed on the spot after arriving and setting foot in the US, with few requirements.

I’m also not sure if the term ‘illegal immigration’ is technically correct for all southern border crossers. If someone enters at a crossing point, is ‘processed’ to the extent that they’re assigned a court date - even if three years out - and then allowed to proceed, how illegal is that individual? They have the permission of the US government at that point to remain in the country until further processing. Do you (Ceeboo) interpret those folks legally allowed to remain as ‘illegal’, or are you reserving the term for individuals crossing elsewhere and not being processed & assigned a court date? More details are required as to whom you’re referring before the conversation can proceed with honesty and accuracy.

The other part of the conversation is that it can easily be perceived that the real issue is immigration itself, as opposed to an undefined number of immigrants being whatever illegal is supposed to mean. As you stated earlier:

Rather, Illegal immigration - Millions and millions of people - unvetted - no idea who they are - literally pouring into this country is completely out of control and it is absolutely unmanageable. It is so utterly insane on many levels. It is crushing an already overtaxed system. It is completely draining resources, and these tremendous amounts of resources should not be going to people who have broken into to this country uninvited and are not even American citizens.

Who is paying for all of this need? Medical? Food? Housing?

The concern here is more focused on numbers and resources. In other words, simply being an immigrant and the effect that has on things and stuff. If someone waves a magic amnesty wand over every immigrant’s head tomorrow and they instantly become fully legal citizens, do their numbers or their needs suddenly become less, easier or more palatable to the people complaining about ‘illegal immigration’? Maybe the resources needed to help our new batch of citizens actually increases, as they can now legally and more easily apply for TANF or other aid. Does that make the arguably tax-focused MAGA crowd feel better? Or not?

The idea that talk of ‘illegal immigration’ is less about legal status than simply being an immigrant isn’t necessarily an unfair construct created by the political left. It’s a reality imposed by the political right’s narrative and language. When the presidential candidate enthusiastically pushed by MAGA placates that voter base with talk about how immigrants are ‘poisoning the blood of the nation’, this does not convey the idea that somehow the poison ceases to exist if all ‘illegal’ immigrants become legal tomorrow. The actual message is a bit darker and dehumanizing, in my opinion.