If my memory is correct, Matt said something dumb about libraries last year and we all jumped on him, so he's still salty about that, and definitely the type to allow a personal grievance against a professional class outweigh his stated morals. Anyway, speaking as a librarian, Matt Yglesias can get fucked.
Co-signed! What infuriates me about the pundit class is this is all just a game to them they’re so insulated from any effects (except that of people saying mean things about them on Twitter!) - actual legislation in this supposed “land of the free” is threatening jail time for stocking books from a list so broad as to effectively mean whatever a fascist thinks is insulting THEM PERSONALLY at a given moment. State power stifling of free speech that’s the real cancel culture 🤬
I don't understand why someone who admits to trolling to create engagement can get so angry when the reaction to this style actually brings disdain for the ideas it requires. I could speculate why a person trying to rile people up is upset when they respond like he wanted them to but what's the point?
It's amusing in an absurd way that a person addicted to trolling who is intentionally snarky almost all the time policing our speech, telling us what we can and cannot say.
But it's downright unbelievable that pundits are soft peddling something so grotesque, fascist, semi-fascist, extreme--whatever word fits. It's not even clear half the stuff DeSantis does is legal.
Even a few years ago, I NEVER would have supposed that they'd be caving to authoritarian tactics in response to the GOP floundering...I thought 'maybe the country will become repressive under a fascist-lite strongman...' but I supposed the strongman would have some carrot or stick. Yes, I expected centrists to accept aspects of authoritarianism first before others who were opposed because that's how they roll up but NOT under these conditions.
Nothing is even happening now except the GOP juggernaut is somewhat more tepid at the legislative level & there's more infighting now. But these seem to be the circumstances that softens them up!
There was a time I considered myself an actual fan of Matt Y, because he really seemed genuinely invested in evaluating the impact of public policy and demystifying the impenetrable parts of politics. Turns out he's just not interested in any facet of public life where he can't be the Smartest Boy
Matt Yglesias strikes me as one of those pundits who is constantly looking for a weak or unpopular minority group to throw under the bus. Whether it’s sex workers, trans people, librarians or others, he breezily advocates policies that would make their lives miserable with no thought to whether they’re real people.
And when you think about it, he’s much like a long list of other centrist Democrats we know.
“... stop using ‘open debate’ as a shield against criticism and simply defend ideas on their merits.” Nice fantasy. These people don’t do anything in good faith and they’re certainly not gonna do that. Alas.
Like many bad ideas in politics, I trace this one back to James Carville, who gave us "It's the economy, stupid." The idea that successful "strategy" always means picking the ONE issue that Democratic candidates will be allowed to talk about, to the exclusion of everything else. Then the focus-fetishists waste our time with pointless arguments about which issue should be the ONE, when reasonable people could probably all agree on a top five. Funny how Republicans can campaign on a whole grab-bag of issues, from hating trans people to electric stoves, but Democrats only get one issue, sorry, I don't make the rules.
And we're not even talking about candidates messaging, because we just had an election, right? So even in the in-between-times we're not allowed more than one issue. Every damn day we must "focus" like it's October of an even-numbered year.
My favorite was the guy who was intensely interested in the bone density of teen girls, maybe as a hobby? Real "Excitable Boy" vibe coming off that one.
Today there's an article about how maternal death rates are much higher for Black women, even when you adjust for income (the highest-income Black women have a higher maternal death rate than low-income White women).
Suddenly every jackass in the comments is an expert on statistical analysis and confounding variables. "But... but... did you correct for obesity? What about hypertension!" I guess we just can't draw ANY conclusions until somebody does the PERECT study that accounts for EVERY variable, and if that takes us another two decades and a hundred thousand Black women die in the meantime, well too bad, STATISTICAL RIGOR MATTERS.
Honestly, highly-educated bigots are about ten times as infuriating as the uneducated ones.
Except they can’t be that highly educated because this data has been out there for decades. There are so many studies of this going back over 20 years and many news stories.
"You don’t get to pretend to be a champion for free speech, pointing to it as an issue that must be fought for, as an issue that can’t wait… while also referring to book bans as 'identity politics for librarians'."
Right. Although... Presumably Matt didn't take part in writing the Harpers Letter. Maybe he just yada-yada'ed all the portentous language about how this was an issue that must be fought for, an issue that can't wait, an issue on which our very survival, yada yada, and what it came down to for him was, "yeah, I think campuses are too censorious, the rest is boilerplate, I'll sign it."
It's a little strange to take the time to defend a public figure if you aren't familiar with their work. MY's obsession with these "free speech" / cancel culture sideshows didn't start or end with the Harper's letter. It's been at least 5-6 years since this became the biggest element of his brand, and half of his top newsletters are still about language / debate / discourse / pick your obfuscating semantics of the day. https://www.slowboring.com/archive?sort=top If I hadn't muted him on Twitter after several rounds of his free speech tweets took over my timeline, there would be countless inane tweets to link. Molloy isn't picking on a random signatory. Most people have forgotten nearly everyone who signed that letter because most of the signatories moved on.
We've reached the point where liberals can't simply say "I don't care that much about trans people" or "I don't care that much about Black people", so indifference or outright bigotry always has to come disguised as "strategery."
"Oh, sure, LGBTQ books being banned, not good, but I'm just offering my objective strategic advice to the Democrats to de-emphasize this issue because I don't see it as a big vote-getter, nothing personal!"
Jamelle Bouie has a good column today on Trans rights, the comments [shudder} were full of armchair "strategists" saying "Sorry, trans folk, but your issues don't focus-group well, so please go away and stop hurting the Democrats, thanks."
If my memory is correct, Matt said something dumb about libraries last year and we all jumped on him, so he's still salty about that, and definitely the type to allow a personal grievance against a professional class outweigh his stated morals. Anyway, speaking as a librarian, Matt Yglesias can get fucked.
Co-signed! What infuriates me about the pundit class is this is all just a game to them they’re so insulated from any effects (except that of people saying mean things about them on Twitter!) - actual legislation in this supposed “land of the free” is threatening jail time for stocking books from a list so broad as to effectively mean whatever a fascist thinks is insulting THEM PERSONALLY at a given moment. State power stifling of free speech that’s the real cancel culture 🤬
I don't understand why someone who admits to trolling to create engagement can get so angry when the reaction to this style actually brings disdain for the ideas it requires. I could speculate why a person trying to rile people up is upset when they respond like he wanted them to but what's the point?
It's amusing in an absurd way that a person addicted to trolling who is intentionally snarky almost all the time policing our speech, telling us what we can and cannot say.
But it's downright unbelievable that pundits are soft peddling something so grotesque, fascist, semi-fascist, extreme--whatever word fits. It's not even clear half the stuff DeSantis does is legal.
Even a few years ago, I NEVER would have supposed that they'd be caving to authoritarian tactics in response to the GOP floundering...I thought 'maybe the country will become repressive under a fascist-lite strongman...' but I supposed the strongman would have some carrot or stick. Yes, I expected centrists to accept aspects of authoritarianism first before others who were opposed because that's how they roll up but NOT under these conditions.
Nothing is even happening now except the GOP juggernaut is somewhat more tepid at the legislative level & there's more infighting now. But these seem to be the circumstances that softens them up!
There was a time I considered myself an actual fan of Matt Y, because he really seemed genuinely invested in evaluating the impact of public policy and demystifying the impenetrable parts of politics. Turns out he's just not interested in any facet of public life where he can't be the Smartest Boy
Glenn and Matt both ranting about how "Democrats are trying to silence you" while ignoring Republicans actually doing it will never cease to amaze me.
I don’t know how, but Matt manages to be a bigger hypocrite than Conor Friedersdorf.
Matt Yglesias strikes me as one of those pundits who is constantly looking for a weak or unpopular minority group to throw under the bus. Whether it’s sex workers, trans people, librarians or others, he breezily advocates policies that would make their lives miserable with no thought to whether they’re real people.
And when you think about it, he’s much like a long list of other centrist Democrats we know.
It's hard to speak freely when your state is actively working to erase your existence, Matt.
“... stop using ‘open debate’ as a shield against criticism and simply defend ideas on their merits.” Nice fantasy. These people don’t do anything in good faith and they’re certainly not gonna do that. Alas.
And of course Matt never means people should debate *his* ideas because he’s Correct 🫠
Like many bad ideas in politics, I trace this one back to James Carville, who gave us "It's the economy, stupid." The idea that successful "strategy" always means picking the ONE issue that Democratic candidates will be allowed to talk about, to the exclusion of everything else. Then the focus-fetishists waste our time with pointless arguments about which issue should be the ONE, when reasonable people could probably all agree on a top five. Funny how Republicans can campaign on a whole grab-bag of issues, from hating trans people to electric stoves, but Democrats only get one issue, sorry, I don't make the rules.
And we're not even talking about candidates messaging, because we just had an election, right? So even in the in-between-times we're not allowed more than one issue. Every damn day we must "focus" like it's October of an even-numbered year.
It's mostly a bunch of right wing creeps pretending to be democrats.
I mean how many leftist/extremely liberal gay men can there BE that are repulsed by drag and/or consider men in drag a threat to children?
Surely there are some but this is one of the motifs they *always* roll out.
I realize gay men and lesbians, etc. can be fusty and uptight and prone to conspiracy theory just like anybody else.
But the 'I always voted Democrat '...I am a liberal/leftist etc. is pretty much a chestnut at this point.
New York Times commenters are not generally this reactionary and dumb en masse or Ross D. would get very different comments on his columns, etc.
My favorite was the guy who was intensely interested in the bone density of teen girls, maybe as a hobby? Real "Excitable Boy" vibe coming off that one.
And he probably got 700 upvotes. NYT comment threads on transgender issues are SO absurd.
Today there's an article about how maternal death rates are much higher for Black women, even when you adjust for income (the highest-income Black women have a higher maternal death rate than low-income White women).
Suddenly every jackass in the comments is an expert on statistical analysis and confounding variables. "But... but... did you correct for obesity? What about hypertension!" I guess we just can't draw ANY conclusions until somebody does the PERECT study that accounts for EVERY variable, and if that takes us another two decades and a hundred thousand Black women die in the meantime, well too bad, STATISTICAL RIGOR MATTERS.
Honestly, highly-educated bigots are about ten times as infuriating as the uneducated ones.
Except they can’t be that highly educated because this data has been out there for decades. There are so many studies of this going back over 20 years and many news stories.
"You don’t get to pretend to be a champion for free speech, pointing to it as an issue that must be fought for, as an issue that can’t wait… while also referring to book bans as 'identity politics for librarians'."
Right. Although... Presumably Matt didn't take part in writing the Harpers Letter. Maybe he just yada-yada'ed all the portentous language about how this was an issue that must be fought for, an issue that can't wait, an issue on which our very survival, yada yada, and what it came down to for him was, "yeah, I think campuses are too censorious, the rest is boilerplate, I'll sign it."
Which maybe isn't much of a defense.
It's a little strange to take the time to defend a public figure if you aren't familiar with their work. MY's obsession with these "free speech" / cancel culture sideshows didn't start or end with the Harper's letter. It's been at least 5-6 years since this became the biggest element of his brand, and half of his top newsletters are still about language / debate / discourse / pick your obfuscating semantics of the day. https://www.slowboring.com/archive?sort=top If I hadn't muted him on Twitter after several rounds of his free speech tweets took over my timeline, there would be countless inane tweets to link. Molloy isn't picking on a random signatory. Most people have forgotten nearly everyone who signed that letter because most of the signatories moved on.
We've reached the point where liberals can't simply say "I don't care that much about trans people" or "I don't care that much about Black people", so indifference or outright bigotry always has to come disguised as "strategery."
"Oh, sure, LGBTQ books being banned, not good, but I'm just offering my objective strategic advice to the Democrats to de-emphasize this issue because I don't see it as a big vote-getter, nothing personal!"
Jamelle Bouie has a good column today on Trans rights, the comments [shudder} were full of armchair "strategists" saying "Sorry, trans folk, but your issues don't focus-group well, so please go away and stop hurting the Democrats, thanks."