Comments on: Final Debate (Laphamized Whining)

By: Lean Left » Blog Archive » The PSH Begins In Earnest

Lean Left » Blog Archive » The PSH Begins In Earnest — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:16:14 +0000

[...] Oddly-Spelled Jeff: I know the debate hasn’t started yet but no matter, Obama won. Of course McCain won among FoxNews viewers, Drudge and Instapundit readers, uh-counters, Freepers and anyone who actually paid attention to what was said. None of that matters because Obama won big among the coveted can’t-see past their noses middle without whom no one, least of all a Republican candidate in a rabidly anti-Republican election cycle, can ever win. Time to welcome the new overlords, and say hello to the 21st Century’s answer to the Great Depression and the new Warren Court. [...]

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 01:42:58 +0000

Griswold was a truly stupid decision; the best it did was give us the phrase "uncommonly silly," and that was from the dissent. Brown v. Board of Education was nice in that it abolished the odious separate but equal rule, but seeing as it was unanimous I don't think we needed Earl Warren to accomplish that. It was also much too long, and much too laden with goofy social "science." A much shorter "OK, we fucked up with Plessy v. Ferguson, so let's go back to reading the Fourteenth Amendment rather than explaining it away" would have been a lot better. The rest will be addressed in a new post.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:15:16 +0000

I’m more inclined to say the terms are hyponymous, i.e., all things Lapham are insufferable, but not all things insufferable have anything to do with Lapham. In this case, my whining probably was more insufferable than it would have been if the post had not been Laphamized, as I am cautiously pessimistic now, vs. unmitigatedly pessimistic at the time I Laphamized the debate.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:28:45 +0000

Point taken on the expression “sour grapes.” Seems your title was indeed more accurate, though I would have said “insufferable” whining. (Of course, I’m sure you consider “Lapham” and “insufferable” to be synonymous…)

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:52:46 +0000

Methinks you’ve confused sour grapes with two other popular fruits, i.e., apples and oranges. Even if the reference to voters who can’t see past their noses really were directed toward all Obama supporters, and not to dunderheads like the ones interviewed on Howard Stern (or, for that matter, any voters who haven’t made up their minds by now), it would still have nothing to do with sour grapes. I want them to vote for McCain. They’d still be idiots, but at least they’d be useful idiots.

We can talk about the merits of the Obama depression and the forthcoming Warren Court later. First I’d rather put the sour grapes canard to rest.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:42:41 +0000

I prefer to confine the use of the phrase "sour grapes" to its original meaning, i.e., a false denial of the desirability of that which one cannot attain. This is different from generalized bitching about being unable to attain it. I consider this post to be an example of the latter, not the former. Yes, I bitched up a storm about McCain having no chance of winning (FWIW I'm a little more cautious in my pessimism now) but I don't think anything I said can be reasonably construed as saying that the proverbial grapes were sour anyway. As you know (this being one of those issues where we frequently agree), more than a few conservatives have gone to great lengths to convince themselves that an Obama would be better for movement conservatives in the long run. I am not one of those conservatives myself.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:37:16 +0000

Sorry, but when you accuse people of liking the other guy because they "can't see past their noses," as if they can't possibly have legitimate reasons for liking him, and gripe about how this is all going to lead to a new Great Depression (despite the fact that most of the likely-to-lead-to-depression moves are being made by your team right now), that's sour grapes in my book. And as for the Warren Court, which conservative justice is likely to retire in the next four or even eight years? Seems to me that the worst case is you replace a liberal with another liberal, and preserve the court's current makeup. The two oldest currently-sitting justices are liberals Stephens (88) and Ginsburg (75). After that you've got Scalia (also 72), who's going to have to die or be forcibly removed from the bench, and Kennedy (72), who leans conservative. (Of course, with the Warren Court responsible for such godawful rulings as Brown v. Board of Education and Griswold v. Connecticut, I can see why conservatives would have irrational fear of a repeat...)

By: Anwyn

Anwyn — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 05:13:23 +0000

Dude, unless anybody did that here, specifically Xrlq or me, I’d say it’s irrelevant.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:57:51 +0000

So was it equally ridiculous to accuse liberals of sour grapes after 2004?

By: Anwyn

Anwyn — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:34:38 +0000

Yes, I could see you were talking about the post. I think it’s ridiculous to write off any negative vibe about McCain losing as “sour grapes” for the reason I outlined above.