This is starting to become a more regular thing, and I think I like it because it pushes me to read beyond my usual picks, and it’s a way of pointing to some stuff I didn’t get to comment on during the rest of the week. 
So, here&…

engage in the reflex

The reflex is an only child, he’s waiting in the park–oh I hate you for that, piny.

And it’s so typical of a progressive to want to “engage in” an only child waiting in the park. Why do you hate America’s children so?

engage in the reflex

Somebody definitely needs some more coffee.

Not splitting a hair – distinguishing between two concepts. OYH said Jeff had started this discussion by saying one thing. I note that he didn’t – he said something quite distinct. OYH then notes, and Piny chimes in to agree, that Jeff went on to do the second thing, which is arguably true. However, that’s not what was alleged. Temporality matters.

This is what I understand you to be saying. I don’t understand this temporality point, given that the temporality you’re referring to involves the space of a few paragraphs. OYH’s admittedly caustic gloss of what he said–“’there go them libruls again, always blaming America first’”–is not an inaccurate reading of his post on the subject, in which he specifically, repeatedly mentions liberals and the left.

This interpretation, OTOH:

Jeff didn’t say “there go the liberals, blaming America first”. He said that the reflex of criticizing America in order to gain the moral standing to criticize someone else was tiresome, counterproductive, and predicated on a moral luxury which we no longer possess.

is true, but incomplete. He was talking about liberals, leftists, and progressives, and how liberals, leftists and progressives engage in the reflex of criticizing America.

Not splitting a hair – distinguishing between two concepts. OYH said Jeff had started this discussion by saying one thing. I note that he didn’t – he said something quite distinct. OYH then notes, and Piny chimes in to agree, that Jeff went on to do the second thing, which is arguably true. However, that’s not what was alleged. Temporality matters.

This was his first note on the subject of alienation the electorate, via the comments thread at Rox Populi:

But now, after 5 years of listening to Dems, there is absolutely nothing they can do to win me back short of purging their entire leadership and nuking their base from orbit.

And these are his original comments at Protein Wisdom in response to Jill. Unless by “went on to,” you mean, “went on in the same post to,” the temporality you’re talking about isn’t worth much.

From Sexing the Sharia:

I

n response to this argument, which relies on the “yes, but” formulation so popular in progressive circles, Karol of Alarming News points out the rhetorical flaw that diminishes an otherwise strong post, while in the process making an important political point:

See? Agrees wholeheartedly with Karol’s argument, calls it “popular in progressive circles.”

Later on, a reference to the RP comment:

Rox Populi asked the other day what it might take for moderate Republicans and independents to return to the Democratic Party.

To which I said, quite seriously, that the first thing the Dems would have to do is nuke their base.

Still later:

In fact, such mannered, rote, forced introspection is the reason CNN and the networks lost so many viewers after 911. It’s the reason people have cancelled their subscriptions to major newspapers.

Still, still later:

But after 911, the majority of us surrendered the liberal guilt we had the luxury to wallow in

…Finally:

It is typical of the kind of discourse those on the left are treating us to these days.

Later on, he glosses his original post thusly:

My post, you’ll recall, highlighted the problems certains readers have with a particular type of rhetorical presentation that “feels the need to establish its bona fides with knee jerk self-criticism before it can dare criticize others / Others.” Specifically, I noted that “comparing—even obliquely—the situation of women in Saudi Arabia to that of women here, causes many people in the center and on the right (and probably a few pragmatic Dems, too) to tune out.”

…and fails to mention the references to liberals and the left that were in his original post.

Still later, he complains that the last reference–”typical”–had nothing to do with kneejerk self-criticism, but…that’s one out of four clear indications that he was in fact talking about leftists and liberals when he complained about kneejerk self-criticism.

Not splitting a hair – distinguishing between two concepts. OYH said Jeff had started this discussion by saying one thing. I note that he didn’t – he said something quite distinct. OYH then notes, and Piny chimes in to agree, that Jeff went on to do the second thing, which is arguably true. However, that’s not what was alleged. Temporality matters.

Robert, the post is right there for you to refer to. Roll tape:

In response to [Jill's] argument, which relies on the “yes, but” formulation so popular in progressive circles, Karol of Alarming News points out the rhetorical flaw that diminishes an otherwise strong post, while in the process making an important political point:

“They sure are backward over there in Saudi Arabia.

Is America perfect? Yes, compared to the land of Saud, we are. You do a disservice to the battle against violence of women by even noting our problems in the same post as Saudi Arabia. America bashing is always fun, I’m sure, but it makes us take the problems of Saudi Arabia much less seriously when you draw a moral equivalence between what happens here and what happens there. It’s actually a classic liberal problem, to be unable to criticize anything without first criticizing America. It makes people tune you out and not to take you seriously and whatever point you were trying to make becomes muddled or irrelevant under that equivalence.”

You are right: Jeff did not say “there go those liberals again, always blaming America first.” He only noted that the “yes, but” formulation that “exposes a problem many people have with the progressive worldview that feels the need to establish its bona fides with knee jerk self-criticism before it can dare criticize others / Others” is “so popular in progressive circles.”

Attempting to differentiate between my one-sentence paraphrase, which I used only to save me the bother of quoting the same old shit you’ve ostensibly read already all over again, and what Jeff actually wrote, which I have helpfully provided for you above because clearly I cannot rely on you to recall it accurately, is splitting hairs. “So popular” and “typical” do not constitute distinct concepts from “always.” They differ by degree (and it’s a small one). Kind of like domestic violence is a problem that differs by degree.

You see how that works?

OK, you wanna dance? Let’s dance.

Oh yeah, her:
Split that hair, Bubba!

Not splitting a hair – distinguishing between two concepts. OYH said Jeff had started this discussion by saying one thing. I note that he didn’t – he said something quite distinct. OYH then notes, and Piny chimes in to agree, that Jeff went on to do the second thing, which is arguably true. However, that’s not what was alleged. Temporality matters.

More OYH:
ncidentally, it’s news to me that the right and the right alone has been put in charge of determining which “moral luxuries” we do and do not possess any longer.

News to you, not news to the country. You guys got your shot, and we got Bin Laden, sanctions against Iraq’s poor, and a nuclear North Korea. No mas, por favor.

And it’s telling that an attempt to discuss violence against women in our own country has been assigned that classification.

No it wasn’t. Read. The moral luxury we no longer have is that of wallowing in our own wickedness before we can criticize another. No specific connection to violence against women.

Lauren:
I fail to see how you can take Jill’s post to “all the world’s problems derive from America,”

Yeah, I’d fail to see that too. Luckily, that isn’t what I’m doing. I’m distinguishing what Jeff said from the wrong label that was assigned to his statement.

They’re such himbos sometimes

Ah, we wouldn’t know we were arguing against feminists if the awesome rhetorical firepower of the 2nd grade playground insult hadn’t been called into action.

You’re all a bunch of poopy pants!