I'll never forget my first taste of trollbite when I tried to talk with John Hindraker about Iraq. Ouch. He and his support mob chewed, ate and regurgitated me several times but then email virus bombarded my shitty old computer for months. (Foolishly, I was persistent.) So rep. Omar and AOC really are brave heroes. Joyeuses Pâques to all.
"When did Stephens last — hell, when did he ever — give them an insight, or a counterintuitive idea, or even just something that would help them make sense of the insane world we’ve all been marooned in, and better adjust to it?"
Yeah, just the opposite. You know you're being propagandized when a piece of writing actually makes you more ignorant after reading it, and that was Stephens dishonest MO at the WSJ, even if he's gone about it more daintily at the Times. It takes some pair to pull misleading Goldbergian stunts like the simple-minded hypotheticals that open this present column and then scold anybody about "rhetorical responsibility."
What makes this whole thing even stupider is that "just because [somebody] did [something] all of us are losing access to [something]" is the standard template for gun nuts after every mass shooting.
"When did Stephens last — hell, when did he ever — give them an insight, or a counterintuitive idea, or even just something that would help them make sense of the insane world we’ve all been marooned in, and better adjust to it?"
And not just him. When, in living memory, has any conservative, "conservative," or Republican columnist, propagandist, or pundit ever offered anything useful to anyone not rich? But how CAN they? After decades of failed ideas, Laffer curves, "budget hawks," "deficit hawks," an unending tsunami of hypocrisy, and the death of Communism, rightwing commentary has literally nothing to offer except mockery of the inch-deep stereotypes of "liberals" they themselves promulgate, self-serving sociology a la McArdle and Brooks, Peggy Noonan loony mysticism, and bonehead readings/deplorings of pop culture. God forbid one of them should write, "I was against Obamacare and I think it's socialism, but my constituents like it, so I guess I'm wrong."
The past couple years I've often read rightwing pundits and thought, "Wow, this is so transparently, deliberately a misreading of the facts, dude MUST know that... so why'd he put his name on it? In these dark times, is it that he truly wants to help people who are definitely wrong feel right, even if the price is his own integrity and the structural integrity of society?" It's especially hard to understand when it's not some outsider clawing for audience, but a dude with prime real estate in the NYT or WaPo -- like, Bret Stephens doesn't *need* to throw bones to violent nitwits to get attention. So why not use the platform to be smart and honest? Why not have original thoughts? I can't imagine brand loyalty to GOP talking points feels so amazing that it supersedes your interest in feeling like not a total asshole. And evidently the editors are going to pay you no matter what you type, so it's not like your job is on the line if you decide to be decent. It's weird what a bunch of eels we have.
So much fucking amen. Thanks, and you have a good weekend, too,
Yeah, this. Disingenuousness In An Oxford Shirt.
I'll never forget my first taste of trollbite when I tried to talk with John Hindraker about Iraq. Ouch. He and his support mob chewed, ate and regurgitated me several times but then email virus bombarded my shitty old computer for months. (Foolishly, I was persistent.) So rep. Omar and AOC really are brave heroes. Joyeuses Pâques to all.
In the Hall of Bad Bret(t)s, Stephens ranks below Kavanaugh, who has real power, and above Favre, who wasn't afraid to prove he was a dick.
"When did Stephens last — hell, when did he ever — give them an insight, or a counterintuitive idea, or even just something that would help them make sense of the insane world we’ve all been marooned in, and better adjust to it?"
Yeah, just the opposite. You know you're being propagandized when a piece of writing actually makes you more ignorant after reading it, and that was Stephens dishonest MO at the WSJ, even if he's gone about it more daintily at the Times. It takes some pair to pull misleading Goldbergian stunts like the simple-minded hypotheticals that open this present column and then scold anybody about "rhetorical responsibility."
What makes this whole thing even stupider is that "just because [somebody] did [something] all of us are losing access to [something]" is the standard template for gun nuts after every mass shooting.
"When did Stephens last — hell, when did he ever — give them an insight, or a counterintuitive idea, or even just something that would help them make sense of the insane world we’ve all been marooned in, and better adjust to it?"
And not just him. When, in living memory, has any conservative, "conservative," or Republican columnist, propagandist, or pundit ever offered anything useful to anyone not rich? But how CAN they? After decades of failed ideas, Laffer curves, "budget hawks," "deficit hawks," an unending tsunami of hypocrisy, and the death of Communism, rightwing commentary has literally nothing to offer except mockery of the inch-deep stereotypes of "liberals" they themselves promulgate, self-serving sociology a la McArdle and Brooks, Peggy Noonan loony mysticism, and bonehead readings/deplorings of pop culture. God forbid one of them should write, "I was against Obamacare and I think it's socialism, but my constituents like it, so I guess I'm wrong."
Stop laffing.
The past couple years I've often read rightwing pundits and thought, "Wow, this is so transparently, deliberately a misreading of the facts, dude MUST know that... so why'd he put his name on it? In these dark times, is it that he truly wants to help people who are definitely wrong feel right, even if the price is his own integrity and the structural integrity of society?" It's especially hard to understand when it's not some outsider clawing for audience, but a dude with prime real estate in the NYT or WaPo -- like, Bret Stephens doesn't *need* to throw bones to violent nitwits to get attention. So why not use the platform to be smart and honest? Why not have original thoughts? I can't imagine brand loyalty to GOP talking points feels so amazing that it supersedes your interest in feeling like not a total asshole. And evidently the editors are going to pay you no matter what you type, so it's not like your job is on the line if you decide to be decent. It's weird what a bunch of eels we have.