Weekend Open Thread: Your Google History, and a Lesson in What Not to NOT Say to a Bigot


 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

.

.

.
Google Search History Offer & Orwell

Hey, this looks great!  And terrifying.  Great and terrifying!  I’m not sure that I should do this, because then the government might have easier access to my search information.  But … wouldn’t the government already have easy access to it, even if they’re not supposed to?  Maybe so?  So why not do it?  Living in East Germany is so confusing!

Here’s what we’re talking about: you can now download your entire search history on Google, starting from as close as you can come to the days of dinosaurs as possible.  (Note: not all that close, really.)  And that’s … wow.  They can do that?

Of course they can do that.  They’re Google.  They are nothing if not hoarders.

From the linked article:

Google is tracking all of your searches and storing them. Forever. And you can access that whole log if you want to.

Google Operating System and the Washington Post surfaced a feature on Monday that’s been around for a while, but that hasn’t gotten a lot of attention. Within Google’s Web & App Activity page is an option to download your entire search history. (It’s in the gear on the upper-right-hand corner.) Google writes, “You can download all of your saved search history to see a list of the terms you’ve searched for. This gives you access to your data when and where you want.”

Wha — wha — how?  I thought that my searches on Google were anonymous!  Well, they sort of are — unless you use Gmail….

The history only includes searches you’ve done while logged in to Google, but if you keep Gmail open on your computer, that’s probably most of the time. The data downloads as a JSON file, which isn’t really meant for human consumption. But even if you have no idea how to manipulate the file, you can still open it in a plain text reader like TextEdit or Notepad and search for “query_text” to get to the part of the data that shows what you’ve searched on Google.

We are still processing this information.  But we are no longer keeping our Gmail tab open.

cunningham-chmielewski

In other news, we are informed that an exchange took place this week on the Cunningblog between Cunningman and his pal Chumley.  It seems to also have involved our frequently censored man on the spot — YES ALRIGHT ALREADY I WILL PUT UP A NEW CENSORTOPIA THREAD THIS WEEKEND, YEESH! — Ryan Cantor.

It started at the end of a post about Sharon Quirk-Silva’s impending rematch with Young “the Bigoted Buttkicker” Kim.  Sayeth Matt:

Jon Fleischman writes in BreitbartCA that an initiative to repeal the transgendered bathroom law may very well be on the November 2016 ballot. Quirk-Silva voted for that bill (AB 1266), and Young Kim made opposition to that extreme, exotic position a major plank in her campaign. Letting boys use the girls bathroom may resonate in San Francisco, but it’s out-of-touch with the more common sense attitudes of AD65 residents. It’s one of those issues that tells voters a lot about a candidate’s world view even beyond the issue itself, and having it on the November 2016 ballot would be a reminder to AD65 voters of why they made a change in who represents them in the Assembly.  [Emphasis added for reasons that will become clear.]

That led to a series of comments: I’ve added the numbers and the boldfacing, as well as “[sic]” where it looks like speech recognition of autocorrect did some mangling.  Comments 14 and 15 appear at the bottom of the page, due to some glitch that seems common to many blogs, ours included.  “Comment deletion notices” in brackets are Matt’s.

[1] Dan Chmielewski
May 2, 2015 at 8:56 am

If you talk with high school kids who have a transgender friend, you’d find them very supportive. The Transgender bathroom bill is akin to “coloreds only” drinking fountains..its bigoted and out of step with the times. If Republicans push this initiative forward, my party will thank you for sending more young voters our way

[2] Ryan Cantor
May 5, 2015 at 11:41 am

For once, Dan, I agree with you.

“Letting boys use the girls bathroom may resonate in San Francisco, but it’s out-of-touch with the more common sense attitudes of AD65 residents.”

This sad little sentence summarizes everything wrong with the Republican Party in Orange County. It’s ignorant and spiteful.

[3] Matthew Cunningham
May 5, 2015 at 5:14 pm

Ryan thinks it is “ignorant and spiteful” to want to reserve the girls bathroom for girls, and the boys bathroom for boys.

Let’s put Ryan in charge of the OC GOP, and he can them apply his political genius to launching a registration drive based on having only unisex bathrooms in public schools. That should send Republican registration through to roof.

[4] Ryan Cantor
May 5, 2015 at 10:43 pm

One day you might get it, Matt. I’m sure today isn’t that day. People who hold opinions like yours are going to kill our party in this county.

A little food for thought: AB1266 reserves boys restrooms for boys and girls restrooms for girls.

I know you’re going to have a really hard time with that, but that’s how the cookie crumbles.

Maybe Dan can explain it to you. Ask him real nice like.

[5] Matthew Cunningham
May 6, 2015 at 4:50 pm

You’re adopting the chimps-throwing-excrement approach to debate, Ryan.

AB1266 reserves boys restrooms for boys and girls restrooms for girls.

No, it doesn’t. AB 1266 says “A pupil shall be permitted to…use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.” So, the determining factor in which restroom a student wants to use will be whichever gender the student “identifies” as. Regardless of the student’s actual sex, AB 1266 permits a boy who “identifies” as a girl to use the girls bathroom – regardless of how that makes anyone else in the bathroom feel

[6] Ryan Cantor
May 6, 2015 at 7:51 pm

[Comment deleted due to false and gratuitous character attack.]

[7] Ryan Cantor
May 6, 2015 at 7:53 pm

Free tip.

Sex and gender are not the same thing.

[8] Ryan Cantor
May 7, 2015 at 9:04 am

[Comment deleted due to inability to adhere to civilized conduct.]

[9] Matthew Cunningham
May 7, 2015 at 9:04 am

I know that – I’m impressed you do as well. If you read the bill, you’ll note it refers to “sex” throughout – only referring to “gender” in the line I quoted in my previous comment, which strengthens my point and weakens yours. I have to say, it is disturbing to see your adoption of the smash mouth, just-shout-‘em-down techniques of left-wing culture warriors.

[10] Ryan Cantor
May 7, 2015 at 9:12 am

[Comment deleted due to false and gratuitous character attack.]

[11] Ryan Cantor
May 6, 2015 at 8:23 pm

[Comment deleted due to false and gratuitous character attack.]

[12] Dan Chmielewski
May 7, 2015 at 9:03 am

I don’t think anyone is arguing that point Ryan. Matt is correct on two things. 1) He’s not a bigot. 2), The language of AB 1266 is correct.

AB 1266, Ammiano. Pupil rights: sex-segregated school programs and activities.

Existing law prohibits public schools from discriminating on the basis of specified characteristics, including gender, gender identity, and gender expression, and specifies various statements of legislative intent and the policies of the state in that regard. Existing law requires that participation in a particular physical education activity or sport, if required of pupils of one sex, be available to pupils of each sex.

This bill would require that a pupil be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.

[13] Ryan Cantor
May 7, 2015 at 9:10 am

“use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”

is not consistent with

“Letting boys use the girls bathroom may resonate in San Francisco” (this bill doesn’t do that and what does San Francisco have to do with anything?)

or

“Ryan thinks it is ‘ignorant and spiteful’ to want to reserve the girls bathroom for girls, and the boys bathroom for boys” (Matt doesn’t want to reserve girls bathrooms for girls and boys bathrooms for boys. He wants to define gender based on 6000 year old definitions.)

AB1266 does not let boys use girls restrooms or vice versa. Your buddy Matt is openly denying facts about gender and sex. He’s doing so to support outdated norms and to support a backhanded slander at residents who happen to live in a specific geographic area of the state.

Glad to hear you’re on the record that denying a core tenant of gender science isn’t a bigoted opinion. Make sure you share that with your liberal buddies.

You have a nice wide open path here to do the right thing and advocate for a position that’s right in your wheel house.

[14] Matthew Cunningham
May 7, 2015 at 9:11 am

Thank you, Dan, for being a civilized human being. While you and I hold opposite views on this bill, we are able to do so respectfully like grown ups, without sinking to gratuitous personal attacks.

[15] Ryan Cantor
May 7, 2015 at 9:13 am

[Comment deleted due to false and gratuitous character attack.]

[16] Matthew Cunningham
May 7, 2015 at 9:48 am

I wasn’t aware human nature had an expiration date, Ryan. That would have been news to the Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln. The Ten Commandments are approximately 3,500 years old. Does that make them “outdated norms”?

[17] Ryan Cantor
May 7, 2015 at 1:51 pm

Human nature?

Explain that for our viewers, Matt.

[18] Dan Chmielewski
May 7, 2015 at 8:25 pm

Denying a core tenet of gender science? You’re trying to put words in my mouth. Not going to work. If a person indent infuse [sic] themselves as male, they use the men’s room. If they indentify [sic] as female, they use the ladies room. The only problem I have ever had with the transgendered people I know is pronouns, especially if they identified as a different gender when I first met them. That’s it.

That language I posted on AB 1266 is from the bill. Try Google. It works.

[19] Dan Chmielewski
May 8, 2015 at 11:06 am

Actually, if you talk to many kids in most high schools, they are largely supportive and understanding of their transgendered peers. Most really don’t care who uses what bathroom and locker room accommodations can be easily made for transgender athletes.

Just curious, but how many transgendered people do you personally know? People are people.

More importantly, Ryan seems to have trouble researching the actual language of AB1266; he says it doesn’t say what it does. And worse, he wants to put words in your mouth you’ve never said or don’t believe.

Ryan will, I expect, be able to characterize the supposed personal attacks in what he posted in AnaheimBlog, and readers may then compare them to other fully acceptable posts — anonymous ones, in fact — that routinely make it onto AnaheimBlog.  Chumley reads the Cunningblog; he would be aware of this.

What I find fascinating is this: Chumley starts out in comment 1 by characterizing the bathroom bill as bigoted.  Matt has taken what I think can be fairly described as an anti-LGBT swipe with his “may resonate in San Francisco … vs. common sense” swipe in his story.  But Chumley doesn’t call him on that.  And after Ryan — Matt’s fellow Republican — does call him on that bullshit, Chumley — my fellow Democrat — comes along to assure Ryan in Comment 12 to assure him that “(1) Matt’s not a bigot and (2) the language is correct.”

With the first comment, Chumley apparently excuses Cunningham of bigotry on grounds of, one imagines, professional courtesy — Chumley knows that, as “a fellow PR professional.” Matt cannot properly have anything he says attributed to his own beliefs.  On the second point: well, I’m wondering if Chumley read only half of his position paper.

There are two views of what makes a child a “boy” or a “girl”: one is objective physical characteristics such as genitalia or hormones (referred to as “sex”) and one is subjective self-perception of one’s “true sex” (referred to as “gender.”) In saying that AB1266 reserves boys restrooms for boys and girls restrooms for girls,” Ryan is using the definition that applies the pronouns based on gender.  Matt scoffs at this: to him, it’s all chromosomes and genitals (and where those don’t match, as sometimes happens, who knows what he thinks.)

So the Democrat rushes onto the scene and — agrees with Matt.  (Welcome to topsy-turvy Orange County.)  And then he apparently, without self-consciousness, denies that he has done so.  (Welcome to topsy-turvy “public relations.”)

When Chumley says “More importantly, Ryan seems to have trouble researching the actual language of AB1266; he says it doesn’t say what it does. And worse, he wants to put words in your mouth you’ve never said or don’t believe,” I can’t even figure out what he means.  Yes, the bill says that where a child has made a considered determination of gender identity, he or she gets to be assigned to teams and facilities based on that subjective determination rather than based on chromosomes or genitals.  And Matt says that that’s ridiculous absurd, and letting “boys used the girls restroom,” etc.

How is that putting words in Matt’s mouth that Matt “doesn’t believe”?

This Democrat will say of the Republican commenter in the debate: you’re right, Matt’s a bigot.  (As Young Kim found out last year, it can be good politics.)  And of the Democrat in the debate, this Democrat will say: wading into this argument and defending the bigot while attacking the person defending AB 1266 makes Chumley a bigot too — if we don’t agree that PR professionals get to lie with impunity.  He should have spoken up on the other side.

And when the bigot thanks you because “[w]hile you and I hold opposite views on this bill, we are able to do so respectfully like grown ups, without sinking to gratuitous personal attacks,” the proper response is not silence, but something along the lines of “I’m sorry that you got the impression that I think that your bigotry is anything but that.”  It’s not silence — or, as in this case, defense of him.

This is your Weekend Open Thread.  Talk about that, or whatever else you’d like, within  reasonable bounds of decency and discretion.


About Greg Diamond

Somewhat verbose worker's rights and government accountability attorney, residing in northwest Brea. General Counsel of CATER, the Coalition of Anaheim Taxpayers for Economic Responsibility, a non-partisan group of people sick of local corruption. Deposed as Northern Vice Chair of DPOC in April 2014 when his anti-corruption and pro-consumer work in Anaheim infuriated the Building Trades and Teamsters in spring 2014, who then worked with the lawless and power-mad DPOC Chair to eliminate his internal oversight. Occasionally runs for office to challenge some nasty incumbent who would otherwise run unopposed. (Someday he might pick a fight with the intent to win rather than just dent someone. You'll know it when you see it.) He got 45% of the vote against Bob Huff for State Senate in 2012 and in 2014 became the first attorney to challenge OCDA Tony Rackauckas since 2002. None of his pre-putsch writings ever spoke for the Democratic Party at the local, county, state, national, or galactic level, nor do they now. A family member co-owns a business offering campaign treasurer services to Democratic candidates and the odd independent. He is very proud of her. He doesn't directly profit from her work and it doesn't affect his coverage. (He does not always favor her clients, though she might hesitate to take one that he truly hated.) He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.)