Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Anatomy of an Article: That Wake Up Call was a Wrong Number (Al’s Curiousity Corner #4)

SUBJECT: "Commentary: A Wake Up Call"  (Wednesday's Blavis Blansplard)

Only DG could get a robo-call about solar panels from a call center in India and think it was a a wake-up call.  I was rummaging through the trash behind Vanguard Headquarters on Thursday evening at 8:17 p.m. and found the recipe for the article.  As a public service I am posting it here:

  • Place the following ingredients in a a bowl: a popped bubble, elements of the extreme, bullying, harassment, intimidation, hate groups, doxing, teachers (holy), public servants (holy), nonprofit leaders (holy), The Davis Phoenix Coalition, trans students, Moms for Liberty, the LGBTQ+ community, Davis and Woodland schools, the Yolo County library, the Davis City Council, national right-wing groups, conservative national media, Tucker Carlson, social media, threats to the library, liberal Democrats, Fox News, Outkick, the Washington Examiner, free speech rights, bomb threats, acts of intimidation, book bannings, swastikas, anti-Semitic graffiti, antisemitic gestures, Nazi salutes, social media, likes, Proud Boys, anti-bias training, deeply held religious beliefs, gender, scary trends, school board meetings, culture-war battlegrounds, escalating tensions, shouting matches, arrests, criminal charges, warning bells, a rise in extremist forces, Donald Trump (the un-named "recent occupant of the White House"), January 6, 2021, the LGBTQ and trans communities, the Jewish community, all of us, hate, bigotry, Niemoller's poem, Nazis, danger, socialists, trade unionists, Jews, fascism, totalitarianism and hyperbole.
  • Add a quart of old milk
  • Stir until lumpy
  • Add 5 drops of "Davis thinks of itself as a safe and good place"
  • Add 100 drops of "Davis is actually a bad place"
  • Add 1 pound of dark underbelly, chopped.
  • Add 50 drops of "and it's not just happening in Davis"
  • Place all ingredients in a blender until individual ingredients are no longer connected to each other in a way that any logical human being can figure out
  • Drink the entire concoction right before bed.
  • Knock that down with a bottle of red Tobasco
  • Wake up at 3:00am
  • Stick your finger down your throat and vomit all over your keyboard.
  • Viola!:  "Commentary: A Wake Up Call"

Thoughts, Davis ?

Posted by

Alan C. Miller

on

in

, , , ,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

39 responses to “Anatomy of an Article: That Wake Up Call was a Wrong Number (Al’s Curiousity Corner #4)”

  1. Tuvia Kft.

    The solar power robocall thing was pretty funny…
    Clearly the answer is that anyone in town with any kind of it power whether it’s being an elected official, commission appointee, senior staff person or media boss, etc. In proportion to the amount of exposure they have in public, speaking of meetings etc. they need to be blindfolded and placed in the public square with a free hugs sign hanging on them and then see what happens

    Reply
  2. Alan C. Miller

    Kendra Smith September 15, 2023 at 8:46 am [Today’s Vansplard]
    KS say: I’m not on any social media anymore, other than Nextdoor (which is increasingly becoming a pit). Thank you for that info.
    I did check in on the “other site” that Walter refers to. I had previously only checked in there 2-3 times a year, and it seemed pretty banal.
    Now, there are what I can only refer to as malevolent actors (some who either comment here or apparently used to comment here) engaging in stone throwing directed at this site, as well as cutting and pasting comments from here with their lame comedic stylings and attempts to poke fun at decent people here (and elsewhere; they’re having a go at the Davis Phoenix Coalition over there, too) who are rightfully concerned about the authoritarian trends happening not only nationwide, but here in Davis increasingly.
    I find it hilarious that they have a go at people who aren’t there to defend themselves. And I’m apparently “a problem” (one of them described me as such) when I think I comment here less than once a month. Whatever, guy.
    Much of the content there that I saw over the past few posts (the “Al’s Whatever” thing) is concerned with what is happening on this blog, and the comments, and how many comments people make, etc. It’s petty and hilarious.
    I stand by my comments that they are crapping all over. We are experiencing creeping neo-fascism, and if they don’t recognize it, they either have their heads buried in the sand (It can’t happen here!!!!!) or they are OK with it.
    And judging from the right-wing nature of their comments and perspectives, I’m going with the latter.
    KS, you are welcome to comment here anytime. I have never deleted a comment, only taken out names when a direct personal insult is made with no actual content attachment. You and I do have something in common: not being on social media (for me that includes Nextdoor). It is also possible that it is time to quit all blogs.
    As to “there are what I can only refer to as malevolent actors (some who either comment here or apparently used to comment here) engaging in stone throwing directed at this site”
    Exactly, nice of you to notice.
    KS say: “as well as cutting and pasting comments from here”
    As I am doing right now, with your comment. I used to just comment in the Vanguard right below the comment I was commenting on with my take, and in my “lame comedic stylings”. So now I comment here on comments from there (thus the need to cut and paste to do so), since I can’t comment there anymore since I committed commenticide in protest of their biased, baseless, hypocritical and crappy moderating. I believe RO did something similar.
    KS say: “attempts to poke fun at decent people here”
    I never said anyone wasn’t decent. But yes when someone says something I consider ludicrous, I “poke fun”. I believe you were “poking fun” when you called people “here” ‘malevolent actors’, ‘right wing’, ‘cowards’ and ‘cowardly’.
    Kendra Smith September 15, 2023 at 8:48 am
    “Cowards” and “cowardly” is also apt for what is going on over there with a core cluster of particular commenters who seem disgruntled at this site and at decent liberal human beings just because we don’t march in lockstep to their narrow views. (I guess there’s no “edit” function anymore?)
    Well, I don’t march in lockstep with the ‘narrow views’ of the Davis Vanguard. So we’re even, I guess. Also, anyone who knows me beyond the caricature slice that I expose on blogs and at Council Meetings would laugh at the notion of my being labeled as ‘conservative’, ‘right wing’, or liberal or anything, really. Again, I never said anyone wasn’t ‘decent’. I do highly disagree with the approach to solving many of society’s ills espoused ‘over there’.
    I am fine with people discussing issues. I am not fine with people trying to shut down discussion, even when some of the actors have views that are disagreeable or even repugnant. If you feel the people who speak here are repugnant (or cowardly or right-wing), you really need to get out more, for perspective . Try some of the protests that have gone on in Davis over any of several ‘Vanguard friendly’ issues anywhere north of Woodland, east of Ashland, south of Boise, south of Madison, north of Austin, and west of Richmond (VA). Most of the people ‘here’ on this bloggy that you call ‘right wing’ would be run out on a rail in much of this region, as left wing loonies.
    KS say: “I find it hilarious that they have a go at people who aren’t there to defend themselves.”
    Anyone is welcome to post here and ‘defend themselves’.
    KS say: “And I’m apparently “a problem” (one of them described me as such) when I think I comment here less than once a month. Whatever, guy.”
    I don’t see that comment right off, but again, you are welcome to come here and ‘defend yourself’. And so is anyone else.
    Anyway, welcome, if you ever care to post here rather than fly by at 30,000 feet as if we were Flyover Country or something. While it’s true that some of those who are ‘involved’ with the Davisite are here because we despise the Vanguard, we hardly agree with each other on many (or most) issues, and articles and comments from all viewpoints are welcome.
    KS say: “(the “Al’s Whatever” thing) is concerned with what is happening on this blog, and the comments, and how many comments people make, etc. It’s petty and hilarious.”
    Thank you, I aim to be petty, and hilarious. And thank you for the suggestion. I think I may change the name of my blog space to “Al’s Whatever Thing”.

    Reply
  3. Ron O

    “I find it hilarious that they have a go at people who aren’t there to defend themselves.”
    This is actually the problem with political blogs, comment sections underneath articles, social media, etc.
    It inevitably becomes about “defending oneself”, rather than (honestly) presenting views or debating issues.
    Some people are able to poke fun, however, in a manner that’s not mean-spirited or attempting to humiliate others. Alan M. is usually pretty good at doing so. Getting along with others is ultimately not related to political views – it’s about how you treat people.
    This is related to the complaints about the Vanguard, as well.
    But perhaps the biggest reason I’ve stopped commenting on there is because it’s become repetitive (both the points in the articles, and responses). There is rarely any actual debate, in which points are addressed.
    Overall, David seems to subscribe to the “view” that if you repeat something enough times, it becomes “true”. (This is how advertising works, and is also the reason that some people believe that Trump “won” the last election.)

    Reply
  4. Tuvia Kft.

    This is kind of stupid but/and belongs here https://www.startrek.com/videos/very-short-treks-skin-a-cat

    Reply
  5. Roberta L. Millstein

    I find it funny that Kendra admits some of the same people who are commenting on the Vanguard also comment here on the Davisite, yet somehow the commenters are seen as representative of the site in the case of the Davisite but not in the case of the Vanguard.
    For anyone reading: Each of us speaks for ourselves, authors or commenters. I often don’t agree with the comments here. But also, I often don’t find it productive to engage with every comment I disagree with. Sometimes that makes things worse, not better, or at least, it makes it worse for me.

    Reply
  6. Ron O

    “Sometimes that makes things worse, not better, or at least, it makes it worse for me.”
    The bolded text is something I’ve increasingly-realized for myself, as well.
    Most of the people who might read (but don’t comment on) blogs or social media probably figured that out a long time ago.
    It doesn’t have to be that way, but it inevitably is (depending upon moderation as well).
    As a side note, I’ve been somewhat surprised by Tim Keller’s comments on the Vanguard recently, as he seems to “get it” regarding single-family sprawl at least:
    “There mare SO MANY reasons why we shouldn’t be building more single family houses (SFH):
    If you are for conserving farmland… SFH is the worst option.
    If you are focused on economic sustainability of our city, again SFH is the worst option.
    If you care about GHG emissions, also… SFH is the worst option.
    If you are worried about traffic or availability of parking downtown… again, SFH is the worst option.”
    https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/09/commentary-are-the-yimbys-really-winning-housing-and-climate-change-are-a-duel-threat/#comment-476296
    But what Tim fails to acknowledge is that all continued growth is eventually “unsustainable”. Plus, California isn’t growing in the first place. What we’re witnessing is the Sacramento region accommodating those who move from more environmentally-sustainable areas (e.g., the Bay Area) to the sprawl of the valley and foothills. (But credit to Tim where it’s due, since this isn’t something that most YIMBYs want to acknowledge.)

    Reply
  7. Alan C. Miller

    Yeah, RM, imagine a world in which people just expressed their views (sans hate, hopefully), and were heard.
    But, John Lennon tried to imagine stuff (no heaven, no countries, no possessions), and it never happened. Actually, the ‘no heaven’ part may have happened — we’ll have to wait to find out. And with property crime on the rise, the ‘no possessions’ part is closer to reality than it once was.

    Reply
  8. South of Davis

    Roberta writes:

    I find it funny that Kendra admits some of the same people who are
    commenting on the Vanguard also comment here on the Davisite,
    yet somehow the commenters are seen as representative of the site
    in the case of the Davisite but not in the case of the Vanguard.
    If you step back you will see this is a common tactic of both the partisan left and partisan right to tar an entire group of people because someone they don’t like had something to do with the group.
    E.G. The Dodgers are a horrible team they picked a senile old many with a crackhead son to throw out the first pitch or The Yankees are a horrible team they let a inartistic sociopath with orange hair throw out the first pitch. Closer to home there are probably people looking to find one of the Mom’s for Liberty with an overdue library book and/or a member of the Phoenix Coalition with an unpaid parking ticket so they can say look how bad that group is they have members that don’t return county property and/or starve the county for much needed revenue.

    Reply
  9. Keith

    “Stick your finger down your throat and vomit all over your keyboard.
    Viola!: “Commentary: A Wake Up Call”
    That’s exactly my reaction after I read that article.
    I vomited all over my keyboard.
    You talk about throwing everything but the kitchen sink into that recipe.

    Reply
  10. K Smith

    People really need to engage in more careful, critical reading.
    “I find it funny that Kendra admits some of the same people who are commenting on the Vanguard also comment here on the Davisite, yet somehow the commenters are seen as representative of the site in the case of the Davisite but not in the case of the Vanguard.”
    I never did any such thing. In fact, I qualified my statements several times by carving out who, specifically, I was talking about.
    I mentioned “malevolent actors” (being the commenters here who seem to have a grudge against the Vanguard) and “cowards” who cut and paste comments, with people’s real names, onto other blogs that that specific person doesn’t engage in.
    There was zero blanket suggestion of representation like you are making out, thanks.
    As for the rest of the snide remarks and borderline personal attacks by the commenters above, they deserve no response.

    Reply
  11. Ron O

    “I mentioned “malevolent actors” (being the commenters here who seem to have a grudge against the Vanguard) and “cowards” who cut and paste comments, with people’s real names, onto other blogs that that specific person doesn’t engage in.”
    K Smith: No one on here is “afraid” of the Vanguard or its commenters. Everyone on here has commented on there, at one time or another.
    How about if you stick to issues, rather than attack people yourself?
    You actually question the reason that NextDoor has (apparently) become a “pit”?
    There is a level of hostility emanating from you that’s not evident in most commenters – even on the Vanguard.

    Reply
  12. Roberta L. Millstein

    Kendra, if that is what you meant, then I misunderstood, and I apologize. I suspect you and I are about as equally unhappy with these actors, although in my case, it is not because of criticism of the Vanguard per se, but rather because of their expression of other views that I personally find problematic.

    Reply
  13. Alan C. Miller

    Welcome, KS!
    KS say: I mentioned “malevolent actors” (being the commenters here who seem to have a grudge against the Vanguard)
    Google says Malevolent means: “having or showing a wish to do evil to others.” I wish no evil on the people of the Vanguard. I only ask that their moderation practice fit their moderation policy. And as long as it doesn’t, I shall ‘poke fun’ at them, mercilessly.
    KS say: and “cowards” who cut and paste comments, with people’s real names, onto other blogs that that specific person doesn’t engage in.
    As I explained previously, I would comment on Vanguard comments in the Vanguard, but I committed commenticide in protest of their biased, baseless, hypocritical and crappy moderating. In order to have a voice, I comment here. You can comment here, and I cannot comment there; and, as happened as evidenced by your presence, someone is almost certainly going to tell someone if their name came up on ‘that other blog’.
    But as I’ve told DG, I spoke to the Devil, and if DG ever allows my name on the Vanguard and I am unable to comment, the Devil will open up the Gates of Hell and swallow the Vanguard offices down, down, down into the fires of Hell. If that sounds malevolent, I made that comment as a joke due to be accused of being malevolent. Also, it’s absurd. My favorite form of lame comedic stylings is the absurd.
    Also, it’s much more accurate to cut and paste what someone actually said and comment on that, rather than label what someone said with judgemental labels and not actually quote what they said for the reader to judge for themselves how they wish to classify such a quote for themselves — which is what you did regarding comments made here when you described them on the Vanguard. Therefore, if we’re going to be throwing about the term ‘cowardly’, does it apply to the person who quoted accurately, or the person who gave nothing but a label based on their own judgement ? Not that I actually think ‘cowardly’ is a correct word in either case.
    KS say: “There was zero blanket suggestion of representation like you are making out, thanks.”
    That ‘you’ ain’t me, so I’ll let that other ‘you’ respond, if that ‘you’ wishes to.
    KS say: “As for the rest of the snide remarks and borderline personal attacks by the commenters above, they deserve no response.
    Well that’s the easy way out. Judge harshly and label the comments as ‘snide’ and ‘attacks’ and don’t actually engage. Not that there’s any requirement to engage.
    Again, welcome KS ! I look forward to your continued shaping of the stylings of this blog’s comment section.
    !!! OR !!! Each blog’s philosophical home commenters can complain about each other by taking potshots over digital blog walls.

    Reply
  14. Ron O

    ” . . . it is not because of criticism of the Vanguard per se, but rather because of their expression of other views that I personally find problematic.”
    Perhaps you don’t want to get into this, but curious as to what views you find to be “problematic”.
    I ultimately don’t think that any particular political opinion (that I’ve seen expressed on local blogs, at least) is “problematic” in-and-of itself. And that includes the opinions of the Vanguard, itself.
    What I find “problematic” is the way that some people attack others, rather than present views.

    Reply
  15. Alan C. Miller

    RM say: “I suspect you and I are about as equally unhappy with these actors, although in my case, it is not because of criticism of the Vanguard per se, but rather because of their expression of other views that I personally find problematic.”
    I find the word ‘problematic’ to be problematic.

    Reply
  16. Keith

    I mean that’s fine Roberta, I find some of your views problematic also, if by problematic you mean that we don’t agree. But that’s your free speech right as an “actor” (as you put it), just as it is mine. Not everyone has to agree about everything. But I would never deny you your right to speak.

    Reply
  17. K Smith

    “Kendra, if that is what you meant, then I misunderstood, and I apologize. I suspect you and I are about as equally unhappy with these actors, although in my case, it is not because of criticism of the Vanguard per se, but rather because of their expression of other views that I personally find problematic.”
    Thanks, Roberta. No harm, no foul. I’m sure you can appreciate my initial reaction because in many cases some people of a particular political leaning purposefully misread and misrepresent what people say. My apologies for misreading your comment. 🙂
    And I’m with you. I’m not unhappy with the criticism of the Vanguard per se (though I do regard the way they are going about it as petty and childish), but with their views, which–despite how they howl to the contrary–are authoritarian leaning and much of the things happening wrt conservatives right now (especially the Moms for Liberty types) is very troubling and getting into neo-fascist territory.
    They refuse to acknowledge that. And I’m sure they have their reasons.

    Reply
  18. Alan C. Miller

    KO: “Not everyone has to agree about everything. But I would never deny you your right to speak.”
    Well, exactly, KO. That’s my issue. I am not particularly a fan of the either M4L or BB, but when someone tells me that words are going to presented in a discussion, words so vile that the words can’t be said, I GO in order to judge for myself.
    Because personally no words have ever been said that melted my body like the Wicked Witch of the West (or was it the Wicked Witch of the Old East? . . . or Old North?). And that includes when a Jew Hater (I don’t use the word antisemite) was yelling every anti-Jewish troupe known at a espresso place in Long Beach for several minutes until I attacked him [verbally, and thankfully the spouserfucker (gender neutral cuss) didn’t attack me physically]. He got to yell his shit, and I got to yell my shit at him, shit that shut him the fuck up. Because once I stood up to him I had every person in that place on my side, and we both knew it.
    If you wonder, KS (if you are out there at 30,000 feet) why I support everyone’s right to express their views, it’s because back in the 60’s, it was the conservatives who were trying to shut the hippies up (that was part of the ‘left’ back then), occasionally with firearms. The way to have a free country is to back the principals that allow us that freedom – above all else.
    And that’s why I support M4L’s right to hold a discussion at the library. Note I didn’t say I support M4L. And I also hope that FIRE (the group that necessarily took the place of the ACLU when the ACLU went ‘woke’) sues the living fuck out of the library. Not so, as some have claimed, that Yolo County suffers monetarily or that anyone gets fired, but so that there is no question that any group that wants to hold a meeting there, can.
    Yes, there will be challenges. Such as in order for Charlie Kirk to speak, about 100 cops in riot gear were assigned. And although Chancellor May tried to frame to violence-to-come as clearly coming from the expected Proud Boys (who didn’t show) or other right-wing peeps, the actual violence (to be specific: graffiti-ing buildings, throwing things at people coming to and leaving the show, insulting attendees, insulting cops (chants such as “From Davis to Greece, Fuck the Police”, “All Cops are Bastards” and other pleasantries), throwing eggs at the cops, smashing multiple glass doors) was committed by the left-leaning (actually more like left-tipped-over) protesters. I know because I was there for five hours and saw the whole thing from multiple perspectives, including being inside the protestor ‘bubble’ for awhile, unintentionally.
    Hopefully this insanity will pass, and we can all speak, and all be heard. And “diversity” will also come to mean diversity of ideas. Even the ones we really really really really don’t like.

    Reply
  19. Roberta L. Millstein

    Ron writes, “Perhaps you don’t want to get into this, but curious as to what views you find to be “problematic”.”
    Yeah, I don’t really want to get into it. I’ve pretty much said what I wanted to say when I wanted to say it, and in other cases chose not to say anything (as I mentioned before) because not every conversation is productive.
    Keith writes, “if by problematic you mean that we don’t agree.” And Alan writes, “I find the word ‘problematic’ to be problematic.”
    “Problematic” was a deliberately chosen vague word on my part. I’ll just leave it at that for now.
    Kendra writes, “Thanks, Roberta. No harm, no foul.”
    Thanks — I appreciate that. I am likewise concerned by many of the things I see happening in Davis right now. I was also concerned about the incident you mentioned a few days ago on the Vanguard — an attack on a Jewish person? — which I missed. If you feel comfortable providing more information about that, I’d be interested to hear it. Please feel free to email me — my address is in the “About the Davisite” link.

    Reply
  20. Ron O

    From my perspective (without personally knowing those involved with the “transgender” issue), the only ones spewing hatred online are those opposed to Moms for Liberty, or toward others that they view as “conservative”.
    There’s only two people doing so consistently on the Vanguard, at the moment. And at least one of them puts forth conservative views, himself (e.g., regarding climate change issues, Affirmative Action).
    I have not seen even one statement or incident which shows that anyone has said anything even remotely negative about trans people, themselves. The reason being that no such statements have been made on local blogs.
    As far as the “attack on a Jewish person”, no evidence has been presented that this occurred, either – other than from a person engaging in hateful comments (while simultaneously complaining about social media becoming a “pit”.) Really? How can anyone lack this degree of self-reflection?
    No one on here is “cowering” from the Vanguard or its commenters.
    Now, if anyone wants to engage regarding actual issues, that would be a refreshing change. Or for that matter, just “present” your opinion, and the reason for it. No one should attack you for that.

    Reply
  21. Alan C. Miller

    RM say: “I was also concerned about the incident you mentioned a few days ago on the Vanguard — an attack on a Jewish person? — which I missed. If you feel comfortable providing more information about that, I’d be interested to hear it. Please feel free to email me — my address is in the “About the Davisite” link.”
    Yeah, I was wondering about that one myself, being Jewish and all. I’d much prefer that be posted here in the comments rather than sent directly to one person – since such incidents are of interest to anyone of Jewish heritage (and probably many others in the community). I’m also unclear if this is a physical or a verbal ‘attack’. Not that either is great – but personally I’d rather be insulted by an asshole Jew Hater than have my skull caved in by a violent Jew Hater.

    Reply
  22. K Smith

    Hi Roberta,
    I tried to send you an email but it bounced back and said the email address noted in your “About” doesn’t exist.
    And I refuse to engage with people like Ron O who is mischaracterizing my comments as “hateful.” Neo-fascists are neo-fascists. It’s not “hateful” to call a thing what it is. There was no hatred in any of my comments anywhere. And I refuse to legitimize and engage with someone like that.

    Reply
  23. Alan C. Miller

    RO say: “I have not seen even one statement or incident which shows that anyone has said anything even remotely negative about trans people, themselves. The reason being that no such statements have been made on local blogs.”
    RO, I agree with that, at least regarding the two local blogs that I occasionally read. But I am mostly convinced that some hateful things have been posted on Facebook and/or Nextdoor from 2nd hand accounts, but I have no way to confirm this not being on social media.
    I’ve also read some of the M4L/BB stuff and I find it rather disrespectful and needlessly so, and I do agree that those two blue signs by the trash in the Vanguard photo that deny gender identity are … I would use the term disrespectful again. Only when the ‘far-left’ acknowledges that bio-sex is real, and ‘far-right’ acknowledges gender-identity is real can the conversation even begin – and I think that begins by the saner peeps on each ‘side’ to condemning those on their own side who will not make these acknowledgements.
    I realize I’ve insulted both side’s extreme arms so I expect a horse head, maybe two, in my bed when I wake up, so I’ll sleep on the couch tonight; but I speak my beliefs. If any far-left peeps think I’m being ‘hate’-ful, let me relate that it is a transgender friend of mine who said to me, ‘for me to deny biological sex, as an M.D., would constitute malpractice and be dangerous for my patients, as there are many aspects of the male and female bodies that you would not treat using the same methods as for the other sex’.
    Furthermore, the actual hate displayed by large numbers of anonymous people in the Yahoo comments on the original Sac Bee article on the library incident is beyond disgusting. There are numerous comments that say that trans people don’t really exist, that trans people are mentally ill, that gender identity isn’t real, etc. That is why I draw a distinction being ‘disrespectful’ and ‘hateful’, because if everything is a 9 on the hate scale, then nothing is a 6 or a 7 or an 8, and there are indeed shades of grey.
    But yeah, there is certainly real hate out there and I don’t have issue with trans people being highly concerned about that. Conversely, I do have tolerance for those concerned about surgery/hormones on minors and parental rights (as David Greenwald has stated twice as a legitimate concern), and I have major tolerance for those concerned about ideas/speech being stifled (as I resemble that remark).
    RO say: “As far as the “attack on a Jewish person”, no evidence has been presented that this occurred, either.”
    I’m sure this will all be cleared up when KS gives us the source for the date and circumstances of this incident.
    I’ll distance myself from the rest of RO’s paragraph and not even copy it here. Not helping!
    RO say: No one on here is “cowering” from the Vanguard or its commenters.
    True dat. Well, except all this talk today of cow-ards, and cow-ardice, and cow-ering is actually triggering to me. Being a vegetarian 😐
    RO say: “Now, if anyone wants to engage regarding actual issues, that would be a refreshing change. Or for that matter, just “present” your opinion, and the reason for it. No one should attack you for that.”
    Amen sibling! Amen!

    Reply
  24. K Smith

    “I’m sure this will all be cleared up when KS gives us the source for the date and circumstances of this incident.”
    I already did so on the Vanguard post in question. I see no reason to re-create those comments here.

    Reply
  25. Ron O

    I’ll distance myself from the rest of RO’s paragraph and not even copy it here. Not helping!
    I stand by everything I said.
    Folks like Kendra are not “helping”. The comments she puts forth are indeed hateful. This is one such example:
    “I mentioned “malevolent actors” (being the commenters here who seem to have a grudge against the Vanguard) and “cowards” who cut and paste comments, with people’s real names, onto other blogs that that specific person doesn’t engage in.”
    Now, that may not be the most “hateful” comment she’s said (and I don’t care enough about what she thinks to look up the rest), but I’m not seeing how such comments “help” – or even address any issue.
    Like I said, Kendra does not seem to have any ability to engage in self-reflection regarding the role that she plays in creating a “pit” (as she put it).
    There’s two folks on the Vanguard who don’t seem much different from each other, from my perspective.
    And in fact, I’ve seen nothing from Kendra but “attacks” against Moms for Liberty. No debate or opinion whatsoever regarding the “positions” that Moms for Liberty has.
    I have zero interest in heresay, or any comments which don’t actually address issues.

    Reply
  26. Ron O

    “Furthermore, the actual hate displayed by large numbers of anonymous people in the Yahoo comments on the original Sac Bee article on the library incident is beyond disgusting. There are numerous comments that say that trans people don’t really exist, that trans people are mentally ill, that gender identity isn’t real, etc.”
    No one says that trans people don’t “exist”. They clearly exist, just like anyone else. What they’re actually stating is that they don’t believe that “transgenderism” itself exists.
    Also, stating that someone suffers from mental illness does not necessarily demonstrate hatred. Lots of people suffer from mental illness to varying degrees.
    Stating that gender identity isn’t “real” also does not demonstrate hatred. Though one would have to define “real”, to discuss that. In other words, one could acknowledge that it’s “real” to the person who experiences such feelings, while still believing that transgenderism itself is not “objectively” real.
    I, for one, do not actually believe in gender identity. I think any one of us could have been born male or female (or not at all). Nor do I believe that we take our “gender” (or sex) with us, wherever we’re going after we die. Which (I presume) is the same place that existed before we were born. How ’bout that?

    Reply
  27. Alan C. Miller

    RO, you can call KS’s comments ‘hateful’ if you want. I reserve the word ‘hateful’ for particularly vile comments, and, yes, in my opinion. I don’t know if I’d say that for every KS comment but certainly for those you listed. And personally I’d steer clear of arguing that some of those Yahoo comments weren’t as I characterized, because the real issue is how vile so many of them were, even if you don’t agree that all of them were hateful.
    And those vile comments weren’t saying some people are both trans and mentally ill — they were flat out arguing that being trans was, in and of itself, mental illness. And I find that vile. But you do you.
    And I do ‘believe in’ gender identity, not even a question for me. I also ‘believe’ that XX/XY is real, and that other combos exist but are very small in number. The sex & gender aspects are two parallel and very different paradigms, and both are quite real, and I’m not defining real so don’t ask. Certainly some religions/cultures have clear male/female spiritual aspects.
    I’m not sure whether a sexual identity goes with you into the spiritual realm, but every day I am one day closer to finding out 😐 That is an interesting theological topic, one I wonder if any theologian has tackled — i.e., when you pass on to the spiritual world, do you take your biological sex or your gender identity with you into the spiritual world ? Or both ?

    Reply
  28. Alan C. Miller

    KS quoted:
    ACM: “I’m sure this will all be cleared up when KS gives us the source for the date and circumstances of this incident.”
    KS themself say: “I already did so on the Vanguard post in question. I see no reason to re-create those comments here.
    KS, so I believe these two paragraphs are what you are referring to, yes?
    And it’s not just at school boards or Moms for Liberty meetings that this hatred and potential violence is rearing its ugly head. Just look at discussions on Nextdoor and you will see racism, homophobia, transphobia and veiled and not-so-veiled threats of violence to decent human beings who stand against those abhorrent perspectives.
    Just this week a Jewish commenter was threatened by a long-time commenter on this site (who I think was either kicked off of here or for whatever reason doesn’t visit this site anymore). This Jewish man was invited to tell the other commenter where he lived so they could “take care of the matter” (clearly an invitation to violence which was on some level based on racial discrimination, since the original poster was spouting typical antisemitic dog whistles).
    As for “racism, homophobia, transphobia and veiled and not-so-veiled threats of violence” I’m not on next door so I don’t know if I would agree with how you characterized those comments. I’m not saying either way as I simply haven’t seen the comments.
    As for ” . . . a long-time commenter on this site (who I think was either kicked off of here or for whatever reason doesn’t visit this site anymore).”
    I have no idea who that is.
    As for “This Jewish man was invited to tell the other commenter where he lived so they could “take care of the matter” (clearly an invitation to violence which was on some level based on racial discrimination, since the original poster was spouting typical antisemitic dog whistles).”
    I don’t know if I’d agree the comments are “antisemitic”, a word I refuse to use, because I haven’t seen the words. As for the online ‘call for a dual’, some idiot calling on someone to expose their address and ask for a fight as a solution to an online disagreement doesn’t worry me as a Jewish person in Davis.
    My thoughts on internet threats is summarized by a person who was threatened with death on social media for a disagreement between fans regarding Wolfgang Van Halen’s music. Wolfie actually stepped into the chat to condemn the threatener. The person who was threatened then commented (paraphrasing), ‘thanks Wolfie. I’ll let you know if that guy kills me’.
    What does concern me as a Jewish person in Davis is an Imam who givers a sermon calling for the death of all Jews, every single one, in a language not English. Is that guy still there? Why can no one answer this simple question whenever I ask?

    Reply
  29. South of Davis

    Alan says:

    I find the word ‘problematic’ to be problematic. (I hope I don’t offend KS by cutting and pasting this)
    I have noticed that people tent to use the word “problematic” when I point out something that “does not fit with their narrative”.
    People have a “problem” when they hear that an “environmentalist” that they idolize” has multiple massive homes (heated and cooled 24/7 even when empty) and flies around in a private jet producing more carbon on a month than the rest of us produce in years (and rather than talk about this “problem” they will usually just call you a “Climate Denier” (or “Racist”).
    Others have a “problem” when you point out that the “family value Republican” they idolize has been married multiple times, brags about grabbing women and has a divorced crazy kid sleeping with the governor of California’s even crazier ex-wife (and rather than talk about this they will call you an “America Hater” or “Communist”).
    I tell my kids to try and solve problems rather than avoid them, but as Mark Twain said “It’s Easier to Fool People Than It Is to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled.” most people don’t want to solve problems or take the time to even think that someone on “their side” might be a narcissistic sociopath telling lies to make money and/or fuel their ego.

    Reply
  30. Roberta L. Millstein

    Kendra, sorry you had problems with my email address. Not sure what the issue is. I took a look and that’s my address, and I get email there regularly, but website weirdness does happen. I sent you a message via Facebook in case that is more successful. To be clear, I’m interested in knowing who both parties were (the commenter and the person who threatened them). I wouldn’t want someone who is making threats to be commenting on the Davisite either.

    Reply
  31. Alan C. Miller

    SOD say: ” . . . most people don’t want to solve problems or take the time to even think that someone on “their side” might be a narcissistic sociopath telling lies to make money and/or fuel their ego.”
    #cough# #cough# Biden!
    #cough# #cough# Trump!
    #cough# #cough# Ramaswamy!
    . . . . . . . Note: 24,738 entries not shown to avoid carpal tunnel . . . . .
    #cough# #cough# Gavin!!!!!!!

    Reply
  32. Alan C. Miller

    POSTING NOTICE – SOME POSTS WERE DELAYED
    Apologies, we had the largest volume ever yesterday for an article posted by me, and some posts were inadvertently delayed but are posted now.
    The software the Davisite uses isn’t the most friendly/functional, and if a post isn’t published and other posts, even posts for other articles, get in the cue the other posts, even the unpublished, drop in the cue off the visible page. They are then posted in the order they were sent, not posted, so if you want to see all responses you may want to go back for anything posted mid-day into evening yesterday. I’ll do my best, but there are blocks of hours that I do not tend to posting each day. Next time I’ll write down which posts were not posted timely, should this occur again. Thanks for understanding, or thanks for not understanding, whichever applies.

    Reply
  33. Ron O

    “And those vile comments weren’t saying some people are both trans and mentally ill — they were flat out arguing that being trans was, in and of itself, mental illness. And I find that vile. But you do you.”
    Vile? Maybe. What if it’s largely accurate? Is an observation or belief (in-and-of itself) “hateful”?
    A lot of folks suddenly can’t even define what a “woman” or “man” is in the first place. Does everyone now have their own “personal” definition at this point?
    I recently saw a commentator ask “why” folks born as one sex need to seek medical treatment to align themselves with the opposite sex, if they’re already the opposite sex. (Something to that effect.)
    “And I do ‘believe in’ gender identity, not even a question for me.”
    As noted, a lot of people suddenly can’t even define what a “man” or “woman” is. As such, how are they defining “gender identity”? What do they believe that they “are”, if they can’t even define what that is in the first place?
    “I also ‘believe’ that XX/XY is real, and that other combos exist but are very small in number. The sex & gender aspects are two parallel and very different paradigms, and both are quite real, and I’m not defining real so don’t ask.”
    “Real” is probably the most important thing to define. But again, there suddenly seems to be a general lack of definitions regarding this issue.
    “I’m not sure whether a sexual identity goes with you into the spiritual realm, but every day I am one day closer to finding out 😐 That is an interesting theological topic, one I wonder if any theologian has tackled — i.e., when you pass on to the spiritual world, do you take your biological sex or your gender identity with you into the spiritual world ? Or both ?”
    And, is there a spiritual world? Is that “real”?
    Regarding “hatred”, I have seen a lot of that on both sides of the issue. Some folks are incredibly angry.
    But the only hatred I’ve seen on local blogs is coming from those who want to shut down others (and/or ban others from using words such as “man” or “woman”), blame them for bomb threats, and generally attack them without even presenting any point of view at all regarding the issue. (Other than “hatred” for those that they apparently view as opposing them.)

    Reply
  34. Ron O

    “To be clear, I’m interested in knowing who both parties were (the commenter and the person who threatened them). I wouldn’t want someone who is making threats to be commenting on the Davisite either.”
    I’d be interested to know exactly what was said – even more so than “who” said it.
    The reason being that we can’t even verify if it’s as described, without actually seeing what was said. Why jump to conclusions, especially when there’s so much anger that exists, already?

    Reply
  35. Alan C. Miller

    RO say: Vile? Maybe. What if it’s largely accurate? Is an observation or belief (in-and-of itself) “hateful”?
    “Largely accurate” really isn’t helpful. That takes all sorts of definitions that different people aren’t going to agree on. The stress of non-acceptance to much of society will itself cause great stress. I do not believe it is by definition mental illness (though it once was, officially). Is that what you are implying?
    RO say: But the only hatred I’ve seen on local blogs is coming from those who want to shut down others (and/or ban others from using words such as “man” or “woman”), blame them for bomb threats, and generally attack them without even presenting any point of view at all regarding the issue. (Other than “hatred” for those that they apparently view as opposing them.)
    As you know I am 100% against shutting anyone down. The event I attended at the library sponsored by M4L wasn’t anything like what occurred recently. And by the way, I’d never heard of M4L when I went, I was just alerted via protesting groups that words were going to be said that shouldn’t be heard, so I had to go hear those words for myself. At that event, the entire presentation was given, those inside invited those from outside protesting to come in for Q&A, but very few did. [Charlie Kirk did this too, and was respectful to those who disagreed with him, you can see it all on video.] The protestors (at the library event I attended, not the recent one) were outside with signs nonviolently protesting and did not try to shut down the event. The recent meeting was very different.
    Oddly, I happened to be there well after the meeting and the now-infamous librarian came out at the end and told some of the protestors a meeting was coming up in the fall and he’d do what he could to see if there was a way to keep M4L from meeting at the library.
    But I’m no fan of Charlie Kirk nor Moms for Liberty. Charlie Kirk had the values of a 1970’s far-right Christian, and Moms for Liberty is in my opinion disrespectful of how people wish to be addressed and unnecessarily combative in how they are trying to achieve their goals. I do appreciate they are trying to open up a discussion on nationally-controversial issues, but I wish they weren’t the ones doing it. I’ll defend their right to speak and hold meetings, but that doesn’t mean I like them or their tactics.

    Reply
  36. Roberta L. Millstein

    Update: someone reached out to me privately to let me know about the anti-semitic comments in question, which were on NextDoor, not on the Vanguard, and now mostly taken down. I find the report credible. However, I won’t be discussing it further, revealing who reached out to me, or what was said, because this is not my story to share (and certainly not third hand).

    Reply
  37. Ron O

    “Largely accurate” really isn’t helpful.
    “Helpful” to what? And what if it’s “completely” accurate?
    “That takes all sorts of definitions that different people aren’t going to agree on.”
    Sounds like dictionaries aren’t going to be of much use in the new world order.
    “The stress of non-acceptance to much of society will itself cause great stress.”
    Forced acceptance of delusions will also cause “great stress”. Especially if/when others are forced to accept what they view as delusions.
    I’m not sure that avoidance of “stress” should always be the goal in the first place.
    “I do not believe it is by definition mental illness (though it once was, officially). Is that what you are implying?”
    We were talking about the comments you’ve seen in the Sacramento newspaper and whether or not it consists of “hatred”.
    As far as what I believe, I do believe that most of this issue is based upon a delusion, and one that is increasingly “forced” via institutions. (This would not apply regarding intersex people, but they are a distinct minority.)
    I believe that “men” and “women” exist (and can be objectively defined), and that medical technology cannot change this, even if it’s able to artificially create some of the characteristics of the opposite sex. I realize that there is biological/sex variation even within those two categories, but that this doesn’t change the basic definitions.
    Regarding “gender” that is different than biological sex, this appears to be a “belief”. I suppose that one might conclude that all religious beliefs are a mass delusion, as well – supported by institutions.
    “you know I am 100% against shutting anyone down.”
    I’m part of that “me too” movement.
    I also view anyone attempting to eliminate the First Amendment (because they don’t like what is being said) as engaging in “hatred”. And that goes for anyone who attacks others as if that’s an “argument” in-and-of itself. (So yeah, there’s a LOT of hatred on blogs, social media, etc.)
    I’m hopeful that the Davisite can retain a somewhat different path than that. We’re all ultimately responsible for this, but it’s sometimes difficult to do when a blog allows repeated attacks, itself. (That’s my main complaint with the Vanguard, even more so than the comments that were deleted/not posted.) Well, that plus the repetitiveness.

    Reply
  38. Alan C. Miller

    Appreciate that RM, as now all we’d have is characterizations of what was said, without actual posts, now taken down.
    That’s what happened with Charlie Kirk and — I’m forgetting which local TV station. The station (and Chancellor May) reported on a characterization of something said by Kirk, something I went back to the original wording and I wouldn’t have characterized it as was reported. I described this in detail long ago — not looking it up – Google is your friend, kids. The TV station retracted the statement and apologized. I don’t think May ever apologized or retracted, not sure if Kirk sued May as threatened. Any updates appreciated.

    Reply
  39. Keith

    Ron stated:
    “I’d be interested to know exactly what was said – even more so than “who” said it.
    The reason being that we can’t even verify if it’s as described, without actually seeing what was said. Why jump to conclusions, especially when there’s so much anger that exists, already?”
    I fully agree Ron, I never like to take someone’s second or third hand take on what was said. Two people can read the same thing and come out with totally different interpretations depending on their political or personal biases. I have to see and verify for myself.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Alan C. Miller Cancel reply