Mar 312016
 

Cant Believe its NotWhy did Apple push back so hard against the FBI?
“When you’re making $50-100Bn a year in profit, you can’t put the money in a bank: you have to *become* a bank. And that’s what Apple Pay is about

The FBI thought they were asking for a way to unlock a mobile phone, because the FBI is myopically focussed on past criminal investigations, not the future of the technology industry, and the FBI did not understand that they were actually asking for a way to tracelessly unlock and mess with every ATM and credit card on the planet circa 2030”

Aaron Burr wasn’t that bad, and Hamilton wasn’t that great.
Serious question that I’m having trouble with: Is Burr hurt by this? He’s been dead for two centuries, it’s hard to claim harm. And the “Hamilton” story is so good, that I feel it’s worth sacrificing historical accuracy for a great mythological narrative.
But I would hate to have my own legacy distorted in such a way.
“It was the Federalists who pressed for a constitutional amendment barring naturalized foreigners from elected offices, and it was that supposed villain Burr, in the New York Assembly at the time, who gave an eloquent speech defending the liberal promise of the young republic. “America stood with open arms and presented an asylum to the oppressed of every nation,” he said. “Shall we deprive these persons of an important right derived from so sacred a source as our Constitution?”

Burr and his wife Theodosia educated their daughter as they might have a son: She could read and write by the age of 3, then mastered French, Italian, Latin, Greek, mathematics, history and geography. The idea that women were the intellectual equals of men was a radical one, and Hamilton attacked Burr for supporting it.”

A rare positive Dawn of Justice Review.
This is exactly what I was hoping SvB *would* be. This is the story I want to see!! It’s unfortunate that, based on everything I’ve heard, it does an awful job of conveying it — basically becoming a muddled mess. But I’ll see for myself and make my own opinions.
“it is no coincidence that the official release date of the film coincides with Good Friday… Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is nothing short of the greatest telling of the Greatest Story Ever Told. It’s the best superhero movie since The Dark Knight and a better Easter movie than Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. It is Miltonic in its message and scope, seeking “to justify the ways of God to men,” doing so with drama on a truly epic scale.”

This is depressing. :( About Female Genital Mutilation, but never graphic or triggering. On “I can’t condemn FGM because of my colonialist past”–A critical discussion of what drives the Regressive Left, and how progressive allies can help.
“a representative of the Goldsmiths LGBT society responded that as a white person, she “cannot condemn FGM because of my colonial past.”

there are indeed ways to critique a harmful cultural practice without simultaneously enabling bigotry against those who practice it or are subject to it. The ability, the social and linguistic tools to undertake this type of critique are present. So why is that critique not happening?

The truth is that there are not in fact unified narratives for people from a particular Other culture, and narrative hegemony does occur virtually everywhere, whereby some narratives are elevated at the expense of others, and it is often the case that it is the proponents of a misunderstood cultural practice whose voices are heard.”

A *fantastic* piece about subverting a game to shake up an unconsciously-biased system. If you’ve only heard about the debate-team story from the other side, getting to hear about it from the instigator’s POV is fascinating.
And it’s RadioLab, so of course it’s entertaining as all hell. I still have mixed feelings, but it’s emotionally compelling.

Basically everything about cryo laid out in an easy-to-understand format. It’s long though, cuz there’s a lot. But if you’re interested, well, it changed the author’s mind as he was writing it…

Huh. “a Chinese person working for Foxxcon is more than nine times less likely to commit suicide than a Chinese person that doesn’t work for Foxconn.
“Although the number of workplace suicides at the company in 2010 was large in absolute terms, the rate is low when compared to the rest of China.[6] (The country has a high suicide rate with over 20 deaths per 100,000 persons.[7]) In 2010, the worst year for workplace suicides at Foxconn with a total of 14 deaths, its employee count was a reported 930,000 people.[8]”
Also lower than each of the 50 US states.
The availability heuristic strikes again

Hooooooooly shit. In response to questions about the growing AIDS epidemic, Reagan press secretary said “I don’t have it. Do you?” to laughter. (so a majority of the room found this hilarious) More reminders that the past was a horrible place, and it’s closer than we remember.

How Paul Ryan Will Pick the Next President. A bit out-there scenario, but damned if this wouldn’t be fascinating! And would make a perfect jumping-off point for sooooo many alt-history SF books written in the future.
(tldr: if Trump gets the R nomination, Republicans could run a solidly center-right 3rd party candidate. Unlikely to win, but if he pulls enough votes to prevent Trump or Hillary/Sanders from getting the 50.1% majority in general election, the House of Reps chooses the next president (as per 12th amendment))

Hugh Howey on the birth of AI (after AlphaGo’s victory) “Each headline you read is us — as collective parents — gasping to our spouse at what our baby girl just did for the first time.
Google has already taught our daughter to drive a car. Amazon is doing amazing things with their Alexa device, creating the beginnings of the virtual assistant seen in Her. IBM is building the best medical mind the field has ever known. In the last five years, AI has taken strides that even the optimistic find startling. The next five years will see similar advances.”

If the 2008 Financial Crisis really does usher out Neoliberal Economics, then it will have had a bigger effect on American history than 9/11.
Not sure Left Egalitarianism is the best replacement, but it looks to be the only alternative to Nationalism that we have right now…
“when an economic ideology catches on in America, it tends to capture both major parties at once. During the 50’s, 60’s, and early 70’s, even republicans like Eisenhower and Nixon reduced economic inequality. Post-1976, even democrats like Carter, Clinton, and Obama raised inequality. Economic ideologies change when there is an economic disaster that is seen to discredit the prevailing ideology. The Great Depression discredited the classical economics practiced by right wingers like Calvin Coolidge, allowing for left wing policies that in the 1920’s would have sounded insane to ordinary people. The stagflation in the 70’s discredited the Keynesian egalitarianism of FDR and LBJ, allowing Ronald Reagan to implement right wing policies that would have been totally unthinkable to people living in the 1960’s. I submit to you that the 2008 economic crisis and the stagnation that has followed have discredited the neoliberal economic ideology of Reagan and Clinton not just among democrats, but for supporters of both parties, and that new policies and candidates are possible now that would have been totally unthinkable to people as recently as 10 years ago.

What this means is that if this is the year when the voting public decides that it’s done with neoliberalism, the party that nominates a neoliberal candidate will likely lose. If democrats don’t nominate and support the left egalitarian political movement, if they instead continue to nominate neoliberals who continue to allow incomes to stagnate, they are ensuring that sooner or later (and probably sooner) disaffected poor and working Americans will choose right nationalism as the next dominant economic ideology for potentially decades to come.

if we keep nominating neoliberals, allowing incomes to stagnate, and letting people lose hope in the system, we will lose to a right nationalist and that right nationalist will take our country to a place you don’t want to see.”

 


Economics + Tongue Twisters = Comedy! (a lot of his other ones are good too)

This is great. :) Teens React to Windows95. Faith in humanity’s ability to comprehend each other despite vast initial gulfs in experience: restored.

10 Female Revolutionaries That You Probably Didn’t Learn About In History class

The Revenge of the Lower Classes and the Rise of American Fascism
“the fascist and communist movements in Europe in the 1930s “… recruited their members from this mass of apparently indifferent people whom all other parties had given up as too apathetic or too stupid for their attention. The result was that the majority of their membership consisted of people who had never before appeared on the political scene. This permitted the introduction of entirely new methods into political propaganda, and indifference to the arguments of political opponents […] This would have been a shortcoming only if they had sincerely entered into competition with either parties; it was not if they were sure of dealing with people who had reason to be equally hostile to all parties.”
“Donald Trump, [has] been pulling in voters, especially new voters, while the Democrats are well below the voter turnouts for 2008. In the voting Tuesday, 5.6 million votes were cast for the Democrats while 8.3 million went to the Republicans. Those numbers were virtually reversed in 2008—8.2 million for the Democrats and about 5 million for the Republicans.”

Ha! Google Cars are learning that humans subscribe to Newtonian Ethics. In this case, that things with more physical mass also have more moral weight.
The Google Car was merging back into a lane and expected the bus to yield to it. The bus did not, resulting in a collision.
“From now on, our cars will more deeply understand that buses (and other large vehicles) are less likely to yield to us than other types of vehicles”
(Collision was minor – “at around 2 mph [it] made contact with the side of a passing bus traveling at 15 mph”)
(Although a less-fun interpretation could be that large vehicles have more trouble stopping/slowing than smaller ones)

I’m still undecided as to whether Clinton or Sanders would be worse. I can’t even believe the alternatives on the R side.
From Article: “My worry about Sanders, watching him in this campaign, is that he isn’t very interested in learning the weak points in his ideas, that he hasn’t surrounded himself with people who police the limits between what they wish were true and what the best evidence says is true, that he doesn’t seek out counterarguments to his instincts, that he’s attracted to strategies that align with his hopes for American politics rather than what we know about American politics. And these tendencies, if they persist, can turn good values into bad policies and an inspiring candidate into a bad president.
… The reason Sanders’s persistently superficial answers on foreign policy matter to me is that they’re a test of his ability to learn on the fly about topics he’s not terribly interested in. … A President Sanders could surround himself with experts who know the shortcomings of his ideas, but would he listen to them?
… I think the baseline competence of [the Obama] administration has begun to dim memories of how important presidential management really is.
The Bush administration was, from this perspective, a genuine disaster — a festival of tax cuts that didn’t make sense and wars that were ill-planned, and all of it run by a man who clearly couldn’t separate experts from hacks (“Heckuva job, Brownie!”) and good advice from ideological fantasies.”
From Fyfe: “I simply cannot see anything in Sanders’ history where he expressed curiosity about something and a desire to learn.
Just like Tea Party members, his views on scientific matters are driven by political considerations, not an understanding of the science. He agrees with the scientific consensus on climate change and evolution, but disagrees with it on nuclear power and genetically modified organisms. This strongly indicates that he does not trust or respect the science, but he uses his political biases as a filter for distinguishing good science from bad science.”

Pennies: so worthless that it isn’t even worth talking about how worthless they are. :)

Minimum Viable Superorganism. A bit long-winded, but some interesting concepts I’m glad I have now.
In short – human superorganisms function in large part due to a Prestige Economy, and “Nature, has endowed us with the instinct to celebrate heroes because it ultimately benefits us to do so.”

Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation. A perspective I hadn’t heard before, and now I really think I should have. I’m glad I saw this.
Personal note – it pointed out that loan defaults cause the supply of money to contract. I had all the information I needed to deduce this by myself, but it NEVER occurred to me. I had to have it pointed out. I feel like I have failed

Mar 182016
 

Xena-and-GabrielleI was a HUGE Xenite back in the day. One might say I was a hard-core nutball. And I was super-excited to hear that the new Xena series is going to let Xena and Gabby out of the closet! But here’s a strange conundrum… is the new Xena less progressive than the old?

The original show put on a charade of “two single, straight women.” But anyone who watched the show could see Xena and Gabby were lovers. So in practice they were shown to be two bisexual poly women in a committed, long-term, and open relationship. They had occasional flings, and even serious secondary relationships. That’s actually still pretty uncommon on TV today.

If the new show goes with an overt lesbian relationship, that’s certainly more progressive than the original Xena’s mask of “two straight women.” But I suspect that they would no longer be in an open relationship, because I don’t think NBC would be OK with that. Which is actually a step back, right? The monogamy myth gets reinforced again. To say nothing of bi-erasure.

Of course the key aspect of Xena & Gabby’s relationship was that it was between Xena and Gabrielle. That is the most important part to keep. It’s the part I’m super-excited for! :)

But there are far fewer poly relationships shown in the media than lesbian ones. A lesbian couple isn’t that big a deal nowadays. So for NBC to neuter the poly aspects of their relationship, to make the couple more palatable to mass audiences, is actually counter-progressive. I find it ironic that this erasure is being done in the name of progressivism.

But then again, the only reason the original series got away with it in the first place was because the whole thing was (nominally) closeted. It’s a strange world we live in.

Mar 152016
 

300x300xhugo-awards.jpg.pagespeed.ic.AsqaLzncTzThere’s just over two weeks until the deadline to get in your Hugo nominations! By long tradition, here are the things I’m nominating for Hugos this year. Kinda like a “short story recommendations” thing. Due to the Puppies fiasco of last year, it has become fashionable to give a recommendations list of 10-or-so works, rather than just 5, to avoid allegations of pushing a slate. This is an admirable thing for people who have opinion-setting influence. My readership is miniscule compared to those sites who have to worry about this sort of thing, and my readers aren’t the type to vote a slate anyway. I would be shocked if I had any measurable impact on the Hugo process, so I’ll just stick to what I’ve been doing.

Caveat that I am not widely read in the short-fic department. The people who really do have influence in this sort of thing read 500+ works a year(!!). My reading is in the mid-double-digits. Most of what I’ve read is either recommended to me by friends, or authors I follow, or collected from one of the recommended-reading lists of those other people, or just stumbled upon by pure dumb luck. As such, I’m sure there will be amazing things I just haven’t found. But this is what I got.

 

Short Story:

Three Bodies At Mitanni, by Seth Dickinson (text not available online). Easily my favorite pick. So good I podcasted it (w permission of course). Rationalist Fiction, contains a Molochian society, and by one of my favorite short-form authors in the world. I’m somewhat worried it won’t get recognition due inferential distance.

…And I Show You How Deep The Rabbit Hole Goes, by Scott Alexander. Again, Rationalist Fiction, but this time of the comedic variety. Displays Alexander’s trademark wit and humor with a fantastic twist. Despite being self-published, this story has gotten lots of attention from the traditional SF-sphere, so I have hopes it can break in!

To Fall, and Pause, and Fall, by Lisa Nohealani Morton. Art in the near future when humanity is juuuuuuust at the edge of becoming Transhumanity. It’s not Rationalist, but I feel it’s adjacent. The tension is amazing, my pulse kept rising throughout. I’m going to look up other works by this author and possible start following her.

Tea Time, by Rachel Swirsky. Rachel again puts out a masterpiece. This is surrealist story, appropriate for the Alice In Wonderland setting. It’s about relationships, and change, and moving on, and hurt. It is poetry.

Tomorrow, When We See the Sun, by A. Merc Rustad. A science-fantasy story, WarHammer 40K-esque, and again a bit surrealist. I like this sort of thing when it’s done well, and to my taste this was well. I felt like I was high while reading it, and any story that can have that sort of mind-altering effect on me just via words is worth my vote.

 

Novelette:

I didn’t read many, partly because they’re a bit longer than stories, and partly because it’s hard to find very many online. Most novelettes are published in the print magazines, which makes them hard to come across, hard to recommend, and hard to link to. Of the handful I read, only two stuck out enough for me to nominate:

And Never Mind the Watching Ones, by Keffy R. M. Kehrli.  This is a song of teenage isolation and modern day existential angst. This is the story of my teen years. This is the sort of thing I wish I could write. It was kinda hard to get into at first, but the mystery kept pulling me from section to section like a snared fish, and by the time I got to the end I realized it wasn’t the point anymore, and I was happy to be in the story. It was fulfilling.

The Long Goodnight of Violet Wild, by Catherynne M. Valente. It’s almost impossible to be an SF writer and not have a writer-crush on Catherynne Valente. Her work is always gorgeous, deeply emotional, and often transcends the medium. She doesn’t write stories. She bleeds out poetry that tells a life, with a plot and characters, that slyly hides behind a mask of prose. Often surrealistic (I’m seeing a trend in my taste this year), and this story is no exception.

Of course I’ll be nominating my own novelette as well, Red Legacy (by Eneasz Brodski, first published in Asimov’s Science Fiction Magazine). Because that’s the kind of person I am. It did get a few good reviews, including Tomaino of SFrevu.com saying “A very good debut. I will think about Eneasz Brodski for a future Campbell Award nomination.” and Watson of BestSF.net saying “To be honest if I’d read this, and Michael Bishop’s “Rattlesnakes and Men” without knowing which was written by which writer, I’d have guessed this was the Bishop story, and the other was the novice writer’s story”

Novella – didn’t read any this year.

Novel:

Crystal Society, by Max Harms. Rationalist Fiction. The book applies Society of Mind theory to AI development. The story uses social manipulation/interaction as the primary plot drivers and conflict-resolution mechanisms! I love the protagonist, Face, who is everything I could ever hope to aspire to, and more. The main character is part of a hive-mind that lives in an android Body, and must somehow convince the humans around it that it is a person or risk being mutilated or killed. The ending is a little disappointing, but the strength of everything up to that point makes it more than worth it!

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, by Eliezer Yudkowsky.  (also available in audio) Also Rationalist Fiction. If you haven’t heard of it yet (unlikely if you read my blog) it’s an alternate universe story, where Petunia married a scientist. Harry enters the wizarding world armed with Enlightenment ideals and the experimental spirit. It’s delightful and fantastic and heart-wrenching. It’s also not to everyone’s taste, but many people who do like it, REALLY like it. Like, a lot. I’m among them. Here’s a FAQ to explain that yes, it’s eligible for the Best Novel category.

I didn’t read enough traditionally-published books in 2015 to find more than one that I really liked. I expect I’ll enjoy Ancillary Mercy, Fifth Season, and Radiance, when I get to them. I will likely nominate The Traitor Baru Cormorant, even though I didn’t enjoy it as much as the story,  because I feel it deserves the recognition that the short story should have received, but didn’t since it wasn’t well known enough. The novel got much more publicity, and it’s possible Dickinson will finally get the kudos he deserves.

 

Best Fan Writer – Normally I don’t nominate or vote in this category. Some people have said they aren’t convinced Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality fits in Best Novel (for a variety of reasons), and are nominating Eliezer Yudkowsky as Best Fan Writer instead. I am definitely nominated HPMoR for Best Novel. But I’ll also nominated Yudkowsky for Best Fan Writer as well, to cover my bases. It’d be tragic if he got neither because the vote was split. L And fortunately there’s no reason you can’t nominate in both.

 

FanCast:

Welcome to Night Vale: Surrealist audio fiction twice a month. Lovecraft-meets-A-Prairie-Home-Companion. X-files-meets-community-radio. Seriously, this is a HUGE phenomenon, how has it NOT gotten Hugo recognition yet? It’s downright embarrassing at this point.

Writing Excuses. Because I listen to it constantly, and always find it inspiring.

The Skiffy and Fanty Show: I’ll be honest – because a friend of mine works there (not for pay, of course. The whole thing is a work of passion), and I have empty slots in my Best FanCast nominations. It’s also a pretty good show, but I don’t have the time to listen to it regularly. If I have a spare slot to support a friend in a good production, I’m going to use it.

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, The Podcast – This is the audiobook of the HPMoR novel, which was released as a podcast across nearly 5 years. I hope everyone enjoyed it!

 

Best Dramatic Presentation, Short-Form:

Jessica Jones, “AKA WWJD”  (cuz Jessica Jones is amazing)

Rick and Morty, “Total Rickall” (cuz “Close Rick-counters of the Rick Kind” was in 2014 :( )

Welcome to Night Vale, “Review” (Like I said above – let’s get on this already! This is the one with the attack on Dana in the Opera House, were the owner of Lot 37 is revealed. So good!)

Steven Universe, “We Need To Talk” (the one were Greg meets Rose, and Pearl is spurned. The narrative trick of giving me a Heart-strings-pluck feeling + Heart-broken feeling from the exact same event at the same time. Wonderfully done.)

Game of Thrones, “Mother’s Mercy” (In large part to round out the list so I give maximum anti-Dr-Who noms)

 

Best Semiprozine:

Lightspeed

Beneath Ceaseless Skies

Strange Horizons

Uncanny Magazine

Fireside Fiction

These are the semipro’s that I get most of my non-Clarkesworld online fiction from, so there we go. (Honestly I hadn’t heard of Fireside until very recently, but since it was the venue that published To Fall, and Pause, and Fall, I figure it deserves the shout-out)

 

I have no strong opinions in the remaining categories

Mar 112016
 

Killing MoonThe Killing Moon, by N.K. Jemisin

Synopsis: Warrior-monks discover that their king is fomenting a war with a neighboring kingdom, and take action to stop him.

Book Review: This book is amazing, and everyone should read it.

First, the world is beautifully detailed, and presented to us piece by piece exactly as we need to know it. The two cultures within it are rich and complex and feel very different from each other. Best of all – when we’re in the PoV of the warrior-monks, their culture feels natural and morally good, and the other kingdom’s culture is alien and corrupt. When we’re in the PoV of the spy working for the other kingdom, it is THEIR culture that feels natural and morally good, and the monk’s culture is insidious and savage. Every time the PoV changes Jemisin pulls us emotionally into that character’s home culture, and it creates a delicious dissonance.

Which is not to say nothing of her prose, which is uniformly excellent. In many places it is basically poetry. Take this sentence, which is published as plain prose, but which I’ve broken into lines because that’s how I read it, and I can never hear it any other way now. (I’ve obscured the name to avoid possible spoilers)

[Name] hated them, and so fierce was his hatred

that some of it broke free

and leaped forth.

When he pulled it back, their souls came with it,

plump wriggling fish

snared in the net of his mind.

Furthermore the work has volumes to say on the nature of love, and its relationship to death. And it doesn’t say it by preaching, it says it by showing you the effects that different ways of expressing love have on the characters in the story.

The plot is solid and progresses at the perfect clip. The villain, once he is revealed, is a villain of the best variety. I love stories with complex, sympathetic villains (such as Rational!Quirrell). This novel has that type of villain. You are honestly torn as to whether you should be rooting for him to win or not. His goal is just! His motives are noble! And his justification is well-thought out and entirely rational. The only problem is that his methods are abhorrent, and you can’t quite justify them. The ends are so good! But the means are so bad, that you can’t bring yourself to accept that trade. At least, I couldn’t.

And the ending! Oh my god, the ending! I thought this was one of the better books I’ve read in over a year, but then I read that last chapter and the punch it delivers is gut-wrenching, and I knew this was one of those rare books I will remember for a long, LONG time.

Highly Recommended.

Book Club Review: Yes. This is a good book. It has several big things to say, and will likely keep people talking for quite a bit. One potential downside – several of our readers felt that the first few chapters were very slow, and had to push through them before the story picked up. I didn’t think that, obviously, but it may be a rough start for some. It is worth it. Recommended.

Mar 102016
 

This is a bit personal, but I needed to write it.

Recently I ran afoul of the type of leftist activist that, until that moment, I had always assumed was a ridiculous strawman constructed by racists. The kind you hear about in outrage-peddling articles about how awful “Social Justice Warriors” are. I understand that there really is a lunatic fringe on both sides, but I’d never been confronted with it before.

I mean, I’ve often been engaged by irrational, highly-emotive people. But in the past, they were always on the “other side.” The racists, the creationists, the sexists. It is easy to verbally joust with them, because I don’t care about their opinions of me. I don’t care about their friends’ opinions of me. I know they hate me, and I’m cool with that, I’m just here for the boxing match.

It was radically different when it was someone on “my” side of the issue. Because all of a sudden it felt like my place in the tribe was in jeopardy. I know that it wasn’t really in jeopardy. No one who knows me would care about some random troll’s yelling. But you can’t help feeling like… “this is how rumors get started”, ya know? And I don’t care about whatever rumors the racists may have… but when it’s my tribe, that’s actually a scary thing. It’s been two days, and I’m still processing my anxiety over this.

I’ve always been of the opinion that HOW one comes to their opinions is as important as WHAT their opinions are. But this incident really drove that home for me in an emotional way. It’s nice if someone has liberal democratic views, but I would rather someone be wrong for good reasons than be right for bad reasons, because one is self-correcting and the other is dumb luck (and can change). Epistemology is important.

I guess what it all comes down to, is that I now feel a distance between my “home” tribe of liberalism; and I feel a much greater appreciation of the growing tribe of rationalism. I still have a lot of processing to do, but this was eye-opening.

Mar 042016
 

gopdebate handsYes, this is the level we’ve reached in American politics. I swear that in 4 months Trump and the French people (yes, ALL of them) are going to come out and be like “Guys! Guys! You should have seen the looks on your faces! OMG it was so good! We really got you!”

But to get to the meat of the issue (heh), I’m confused as to why Trump is getting all the flack for saying “I assure you I have a perfectly fine penis” in response to Rubio saying “Trump has a small penis.” I get that the high-road would have been to point out what a childish idiot Rubio was being without directly addressing the question, but that’s not Trump’s style. Given what we saw, why is Rubio getting a pass? Is it that we expect Trump to act more presidential now that he’s the presumptive nominee? Or is it just that everyone is used to bashing Trump now and going with the flow?

From CNN:

Rubio in recent days revived a decades-old old insult, mocking Trump for having relatively slight hands.

“He’s always calling me Little Marco. And I’ll admit he’s taller than me. He’s like 6’2, which is why I don’t understand why his hands are the size of someone who is 5’2,” Rubio said in Virginia on Sunday. “And you know what they say about men with small hands? You can’t trust them.”

[Trump responded] “Look at those hands, are they small hands?” the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination said, raising them for viewers to see. “And, he referred to my hands — ‘if they’re small, something else must be small.’ I guarantee you there’s no problem. I guarantee.”

I did see a couple comments about how “his dick must be tiny, only a man with a tiny penis insists there’s nothing wrong with it.”

I don’t think that follows. Penis size is actually a surprisingly sensitive issue for men, and is another example of how social patriarchy is terrible for men as well as women. I think how a man reacts to penis-insults is a direct result of how his surrounding culture has taught him a Real Man reacts to them, and has nothing to do with actual penis size.

This is my best guess for why Trump is getting the flack that he is. He’s revealing that he comes from a culture where the taught response is to hit back, rather than from the “correct” culture where the taught response is to rise above taking the bait.

 

I saw a lament that Rubio has been pulled down to Trump’s level. “At least it’s arguably a mildy clever dick joke to say, “You know what they say about guys with small hands. You can’t trust ’em!” Trump’s response insisting that he’s plenty big down there was just crude”

I basically agree. But I do admire that Trump took the stance of “I’m not just gonna let people get away with a wink and a euphemism. I will blatantly point out that you said I have small penis, and will make you own up to the fact, rather than let you pretend you’re being civil due to a mask of cleverness.”

Of course, there are MUCH classier ways of doing that.

Which is to say that once again, the whole issue comes down to class/culture. Trumps actions scream “I AM FROM THE WRONG CLASS TO BE UP ON THIS STAGE!” The media is having a ball pointing out that Trump is from the wrong class. And it’s just going to help him, because that’s his whole appeal.