Even though he’s well known for being a touchy asshole, I honestly think Stephens may be having a breakdown – like how is it possible he didn’t stop himself after writing the first sentence of that email and think “this is a HUGE mistake,” but instead finished composing it, sent it, and researched the guy’s bosses to cc them? That’s not just a dick move, it’s a suicidal one in the age of social media. Now he’s Bretbug for the rest of his public life. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
I suspect it’s because he thought this prof was a nobody and he deliberately set out to get him reprimanded or fired for daring to raise his eyes to The Great and Powerful Bret. As one of the FPers on LGM noted yesterday, there’s no shortage of blogs or lefty twitter celebs who have dragged Stephens many, many times over the years, but he didn’t come after them. They’ve got an audience and would fight back. This was some peasant Bret thought he could stomp on. There was no way he could fight back, right? Oops.
Yeah, I don’t doubt for a moment Stephens believed himself to be punching down, but considering what set him off was the Prof’s remarks on Twitter a reasonable anticipation of the fallout, even if he got the Prof censured/fired, would be that the whole fracas would land back on Twitter. Since Stephens is a guy who apparently would rather have a root canal without novocaine than be publicly dragged, his behavior just seems wildly self-destructive. Hubris, thy name is a NYT sinecure.
And this just days after the NYT reprimanded TWO editors for saying stupid shit on Twitter (one of which was an email to Roxanne Gay's publisher asking her to apologize for something silly and insignificant, which she dutifully shared with her followers).
Bret Stephens seems to think that his social status should render him immune from criticism from people like me. . . . He reached out believing my university would chastise me for provoking the ire of a writer at The New York Times.
Yeah, talk about yer Streisand Effect. Can't believe people are this willfully stupid, so I suspect alcohol was involved. But then sometimes it's not just idiotically saying or writing something for public consumption, but more fully revealing the inner bigot/asshole/jerk who was usually kept out of sight.
This kind of gets me. I mean, we've all seen the dude. Does he think any of us *wouldn't* say it to his face? What does he think would stop us? I've let myself go in some pretty amazing ways, and just today I had the revelation that all that worry about my health issues getting worse as I get old are kind of stupid because I AM old, but I'd still be happy to spend fifty minutes over coffee with the man thinking of more shit I'd be delighted to say to his face.
As the resident MSNBC addict (in recovery from all news right now) I will note that he's on A LOT. Usually Morning Joe and Deadline White House (Nicolle Wallace's deal) but elsewhere as well, notably Chis Matthews. Sometimes he's sitting next to Noah Rothman! There's a treat for us all, though it in no way compares to Lawrence O'Donnell's frequent fawning visits with Tom Friedman, who he maintains is one of the smartest people out there, and who, he says, he always learns a good deal from.
I can’t watch MSDNC anymore aside from Chris Hayes. Even Rachel Maddow makes me vaguely sad and disappointed after the cringeworthy “we got Trump’s taxes” nothingburger and years of wall-to-wall Russia & Mueller. It makes me sad because I listened to her from the first day of Unfiltered on AirAmerica Radio and used to value her.
The rest—O’Donnell, Tweety, Morning Joseph, and the stable of rehabbed Republicans—is a bunch of clowns and grifters, and I’ve got no time or patience.
It was less of a nothingburger and more just overhyped. Which, yeah, a little cringey, but I'm over it. And I still think she's right about Russia, even if there have been few consequences. I keep watching because she gives a shit about kids getting shot and drinking lead, because she gives a shit about abortion rights, because she gives a shit about the corruption, and because she spends very little time reading Trump tweets or playing Trump video. Instead of going for the outrage, she goes for the policy, and explains why that's an outrage. Also, inevitable lesbian crush, what do you want? Hayes is good, AM Joy is pretty good. A lot of the others can be counted on to have a couple NeverTrumpers a week saying horrible shit about Trump, which, though funny, does not mean I'd let them plantsit for me because they're still terrible people.
But I'm at a point where Trump's voice literally makes me nauseated, and I can't watch any news right now. Even John Oliver is getting a miss for a bit. This shit has stopped being funny.
Also, my partner is a little pissed off that I unplugged the amazon voice activated things because I'm now worried about them *using* the information they gain from passively recording me talking to myself. I'm probably headed for a mental health flareup, to be honest, and the news is so not helping.
I’d still be watching Rachel if she covered other issues. The whole MSDNC enterprise has morphed from diverse news stories into blasting one story nonstop (important though it may be) and then having pundits yammer about it for an hour. That’s not news or particularly informative, and I don’t need it in my life. I’ve got plenty books to read instead (if I ever get around to it!).
Agreed on Chris, Rachel, and Joy although I don't watch them all the time. Lawrence has some good stuff to say, but then again I've never seen him with Friedman.
And yeah. My flare ups are profoundly different from yours (they don't include the migraine background noise for one thing) but I'm feeling the vibration on the tracks. It's coming. Darn.
Lawrence can be okay, in terms of some of the wonky shit he gets indignant about, hopefully he helps people see the connections between what is easily dismissable as petty politics as usual and the harm it does actual people. He also tends to avoid both-sides crap. He's just exceptionally self-righteous in a way that can be off-putting, he has a huge blind spot for people he likes, and he appears to actually kind of be a dick, personality-wise.
<blockquote>Lawrence O'Donnell's frequent fawning visits with Tom Friedman, who he maintains is one of the smartest people out there, and who, he says, he always learns a good deal from. </blockquote>Note that there is no actual contradiction between "Tom Friedman is actually one of the <i>dumbest</i> people out there" and "Lawrence O'Donnell always learns a good deal from Tom Friedman."
Well, actually, there is, insofar as the second proposition presupposes that Lawrence O'Donnell is capable of learning anything from anybody. Now, maybe he could learn it from some <i>body</i>: he might be a planarian. But I wouldn't want to suggest that he is; I'm really just as happy that I no longer get fraught messages from any of my old provosts, and I don't want to tempt the fates.
Excellent essay. Putting Butthurt Stephens and his endless I-am-so-persecuted attitude in place was well done. David Brooks is a predictable boring conservative but I’m thinking the NYT brought old Butthurt on board to bring a little more pointless nastiness to the right wing POV on the Op/Ed page
The backlash has begun and the usual suspects are rallying around poor ol Bret in the usual, “I’m not saying he was right, but I’m saying you are wrong” ways. Fuck them. They hate it when the bubble is pierced, even a little. They know that when a clean, clear punch lands they ALL look ridiculous and people like them can’t afford to look ridiculous! I hope they all wake up with metaphorical horse heads in their fucking beds.
Here's the difference that matters most to me: we aren't nearly as heavily armed, or valorise the righteous man (and I do mean 'man') settling his scores with a gun at all as much, as our opposition.
Brett Stephens should be beaten with red tipped staves and stuffed in a leather sack that's then filled to the brim with bedbugs, tied off, and forgotten completely.
Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter, especially the special Christmas edition with your prescription for dealing with Mitch McConnell.
Even though he’s well known for being a touchy asshole, I honestly think Stephens may be having a breakdown – like how is it possible he didn’t stop himself after writing the first sentence of that email and think “this is a HUGE mistake,” but instead finished composing it, sent it, and researched the guy’s bosses to cc them? That’s not just a dick move, it’s a suicidal one in the age of social media. Now he’s Bretbug for the rest of his public life. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
I suspect it’s because he thought this prof was a nobody and he deliberately set out to get him reprimanded or fired for daring to raise his eyes to The Great and Powerful Bret. As one of the FPers on LGM noted yesterday, there’s no shortage of blogs or lefty twitter celebs who have dragged Stephens many, many times over the years, but he didn’t come after them. They’ve got an audience and would fight back. This was some peasant Bret thought he could stomp on. There was no way he could fight back, right? Oops.
Yeah, I don’t doubt for a moment Stephens believed himself to be punching down, but considering what set him off was the Prof’s remarks on Twitter a reasonable anticipation of the fallout, even if he got the Prof censured/fired, would be that the whole fracas would land back on Twitter. Since Stephens is a guy who apparently would rather have a root canal without novocaine than be publicly dragged, his behavior just seems wildly self-destructive. Hubris, thy name is a NYT sinecure.
And this just days after the NYT reprimanded TWO editors for saying stupid shit on Twitter (one of which was an email to Roxanne Gay's publisher asking her to apologize for something silly and insignificant, which she dutifully shared with her followers).
Via Atrios, the professor says:
Bret Stephens seems to think that his social status should render him immune from criticism from people like me. . . . He reached out believing my university would chastise me for provoking the ire of a writer at The New York Times.
Yeah, talk about yer Streisand Effect. Can't believe people are this willfully stupid, so I suspect alcohol was involved. But then sometimes it's not just idiotically saying or writing something for public consumption, but more fully revealing the inner bigot/asshole/jerk who was usually kept out of sight.
Because, frankly, he went "I want to speak to your manager" on another white guy, and it didn't go well.
To be precise, Stephens is not a bedbug but a c^nt. (Likewise his cohort, the GOP, far too many running the Times and sooo many more.)
And if someone sets it up, I have no problem telling him to his face so we’re clear.
This kind of gets me. I mean, we've all seen the dude. Does he think any of us *wouldn't* say it to his face? What does he think would stop us? I've let myself go in some pretty amazing ways, and just today I had the revelation that all that worry about my health issues getting worse as I get old are kind of stupid because I AM old, but I'd still be happy to spend fifty minutes over coffee with the man thinking of more shit I'd be delighted to say to his face.
As the resident MSNBC addict (in recovery from all news right now) I will note that he's on A LOT. Usually Morning Joe and Deadline White House (Nicolle Wallace's deal) but elsewhere as well, notably Chis Matthews. Sometimes he's sitting next to Noah Rothman! There's a treat for us all, though it in no way compares to Lawrence O'Donnell's frequent fawning visits with Tom Friedman, who he maintains is one of the smartest people out there, and who, he says, he always learns a good deal from.
I got yer liberal media bias right here!
I can’t watch MSDNC anymore aside from Chris Hayes. Even Rachel Maddow makes me vaguely sad and disappointed after the cringeworthy “we got Trump’s taxes” nothingburger and years of wall-to-wall Russia & Mueller. It makes me sad because I listened to her from the first day of Unfiltered on AirAmerica Radio and used to value her.
The rest—O’Donnell, Tweety, Morning Joseph, and the stable of rehabbed Republicans—is a bunch of clowns and grifters, and I’ve got no time or patience.
It was less of a nothingburger and more just overhyped. Which, yeah, a little cringey, but I'm over it. And I still think she's right about Russia, even if there have been few consequences. I keep watching because she gives a shit about kids getting shot and drinking lead, because she gives a shit about abortion rights, because she gives a shit about the corruption, and because she spends very little time reading Trump tweets or playing Trump video. Instead of going for the outrage, she goes for the policy, and explains why that's an outrage. Also, inevitable lesbian crush, what do you want? Hayes is good, AM Joy is pretty good. A lot of the others can be counted on to have a couple NeverTrumpers a week saying horrible shit about Trump, which, though funny, does not mean I'd let them plantsit for me because they're still terrible people.
But I'm at a point where Trump's voice literally makes me nauseated, and I can't watch any news right now. Even John Oliver is getting a miss for a bit. This shit has stopped being funny.
Also, my partner is a little pissed off that I unplugged the amazon voice activated things because I'm now worried about them *using* the information they gain from passively recording me talking to myself. I'm probably headed for a mental health flareup, to be honest, and the news is so not helping.
I’d still be watching Rachel if she covered other issues. The whole MSDNC enterprise has morphed from diverse news stories into blasting one story nonstop (important though it may be) and then having pundits yammer about it for an hour. That’s not news or particularly informative, and I don’t need it in my life. I’ve got plenty books to read instead (if I ever get around to it!).
Agreed on Chris, Rachel, and Joy although I don't watch them all the time. Lawrence has some good stuff to say, but then again I've never seen him with Friedman.
And yeah. My flare ups are profoundly different from yours (they don't include the migraine background noise for one thing) but I'm feeling the vibration on the tracks. It's coming. Darn.
Lawrence can be okay, in terms of some of the wonky shit he gets indignant about, hopefully he helps people see the connections between what is easily dismissable as petty politics as usual and the harm it does actual people. He also tends to avoid both-sides crap. He's just exceptionally self-righteous in a way that can be off-putting, he has a huge blind spot for people he likes, and he appears to actually kind of be a dick, personality-wise.
<blockquote>Lawrence O'Donnell's frequent fawning visits with Tom Friedman, who he maintains is one of the smartest people out there, and who, he says, he always learns a good deal from. </blockquote>Note that there is no actual contradiction between "Tom Friedman is actually one of the <i>dumbest</i> people out there" and "Lawrence O'Donnell always learns a good deal from Tom Friedman."
Well, actually, there is, insofar as the second proposition presupposes that Lawrence O'Donnell is capable of learning anything from anybody. Now, maybe he could learn it from some <i>body</i>: he might be a planarian. But I wouldn't want to suggest that he is; I'm really just as happy that I no longer get fraught messages from any of my old provosts, and I don't want to tempt the fates.
Excellent essay. Putting Butthurt Stephens and his endless I-am-so-persecuted attitude in place was well done. David Brooks is a predictable boring conservative but I’m thinking the NYT brought old Butthurt on board to bring a little more pointless nastiness to the right wing POV on the Op/Ed page
"..we must thank American democracy for supplying buffoons of its own." It's not Democracy, it's Republicans!
We do have a few buffoons of our own, though nothing to compare to, say, Steve King.
Quick question, if Stephens has quit Twitter, does this mean we can find him on Gab now?
Conservatives may not have a monopoly on pompous assholery, but their market share is huge.
Brett's "safe space" was the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
Butthurt Stephens wrote for ruthless Rupert and now Slippery Sulzberger, and is sensitive? Bull shit.
"....and since we have no Aristophanes."
Time for you to step-up, Roy.
The backlash has begun and the usual suspects are rallying around poor ol Bret in the usual, “I’m not saying he was right, but I’m saying you are wrong” ways. Fuck them. They hate it when the bubble is pierced, even a little. They know that when a clean, clear punch lands they ALL look ridiculous and people like them can’t afford to look ridiculous! I hope they all wake up with metaphorical horse heads in their fucking beds.
Brilliant, Roy. I am thoroughly enjoying everything about the Bretbug debacle, up to and including this recent development: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-bedbugs-brett-stephens-new-york-times
I'm biased against all mobs, but:
Here's the difference that matters most to me: we aren't nearly as heavily armed, or valorise the righteous man (and I do mean 'man') settling his scores with a gun at all as much, as our opposition.
Brett Stephens should be beaten with red tipped staves and stuffed in a leather sack that's then filled to the brim with bedbugs, tied off, and forgotten completely.
Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter, especially the special Christmas edition with your prescription for dealing with Mitch McConnell.