Trolling As Serious Social Commentary
March 28, 2018 12:01 PM Subscribe
Recently, The Atlantic announced that they had hired Kevin Williamson, a conservative pundit with some rather extreme positions. The response was quick, with people questioning why The Atlantic would hire a writer with such bigoted views. In response to this, editor Jeffrey Goldberg issued a memo to staff pointing out that this was done to expand the voices heard and challenge people, an argument that has also come under further criticism.
Compounding this are right wing commentators trying to argue that Williamson's opposition to the current administration should be cause enough for people on the left to make common cause and ignore his own positions.
Previously.
Compounding this are right wing commentators trying to argue that Williamson's opposition to the current administration should be cause enough for people on the left to make common cause and ignore his own positions.
Previously.
The signature advantage of all this horseshit is that I never feel tempted to waste my money on magazines or newspapers.
posted by selfnoise at 12:10 PM on March 28, 2018 [14 favorites]
posted by selfnoise at 12:10 PM on March 28, 2018 [14 favorites]
You know, these "we need listen to all sides" explanations might actually work if they weren't excusing adding voices from the right 100% of the time.
posted by sideshow at 12:10 PM on March 28, 2018 [129 favorites]
posted by sideshow at 12:10 PM on March 28, 2018 [129 favorites]
Huh. Jeffrey is a white dude. Quelle surprise.
this was done to expand the voices heard and challenge people,
You know what else would do that? Hiring literally anybody else that isn’t a white-wing troll.
posted by Celsius1414 at 12:10 PM on March 28, 2018 [75 favorites]
this was done to expand the voices heard and challenge people,
You know what else would do that? Hiring literally anybody else that isn’t a white-wing troll.
posted by Celsius1414 at 12:10 PM on March 28, 2018 [75 favorites]
The spirit of the First Amendment enshrines the ability of Americans to enjoy a free and open exchange of views about whether a third of all women should be hanged. Such intellectual bravery! God bless our precious diversity of opinion!
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:15 PM on March 28, 2018 [36 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:15 PM on March 28, 2018 [36 favorites]
What publication can I give my money to
ProPublica has been doing good work.
posted by Celsius1414 at 12:17 PM on March 28, 2018 [25 favorites]
ProPublica has been doing good work.
posted by Celsius1414 at 12:17 PM on March 28, 2018 [25 favorites]
Twitchy: Slate: Internal memo explains why The Atlantic hired ‘conservative troll’ Kevin Williamson
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:18 PM on March 28, 2018 [18 favorites]
Slate published bits of an internal memo to staff written by Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg: "As our staff knows, because I go on about this ad nauseam, I take very seriously the idea that The Atlantic should be a big tent for ideas and argument. It is my mission to make sure that we outdo our industry in achieving gender equality and racial diversity. It is also my job is to make sure that we are ideologically diverse. Diversity in all its forms makes us better journalists; it also opens us up to new audiences. I would love to have an Ideas section filled with libertarians, socialists, anarcho-pacifists and theocons, in addition to mainstream liberals and conservatives, all arguing with each other."I have some diverse ideas that would certainly challenge and provoke, call me!
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:18 PM on March 28, 2018 [18 favorites]
apparently Ta-Nahisi Coates respects Kevin Williamson even after the latter wrote a takedown against Coates' The Case for Reparations
MediaMatters also wrote a long indictment of his views. here's Muck Rack's catalog of his pieces
I am happy that Ibram X. Kendi found a place that'll fund his anti-racist work that is a margin or two more radical than Coates' views which some of my more radical black activists friends have very strong criticisms for particularly his stances in We Were Eight Years in Power
semi-tangentially, keep in mind that Jeffery Goldberg is the shithead who fabricated a moral argument for invading Iraq. that he would make a decision of hiring Williamson is just more evidence to his naked privilege and complete immunity from criticism
posted by runt at 12:19 PM on March 28, 2018 [18 favorites]
MediaMatters also wrote a long indictment of his views. here's Muck Rack's catalog of his pieces
I am happy that Ibram X. Kendi found a place that'll fund his anti-racist work that is a margin or two more radical than Coates' views which some of my more radical black activists friends have very strong criticisms for particularly his stances in We Were Eight Years in Power
semi-tangentially, keep in mind that Jeffery Goldberg is the shithead who fabricated a moral argument for invading Iraq. that he would make a decision of hiring Williamson is just more evidence to his naked privilege and complete immunity from criticism
posted by runt at 12:19 PM on March 28, 2018 [18 favorites]
I would also prefer, all things being equal, to give people second chances and the opportunity to change. I’ve done this before in reference to extreme tweeting (third chances, too, on occasion), and I hope to continue this practice.
You could offer first chances to some of the people Williamson has stamped on; I bet that would add to the variety of voices, too.
Trolls won’t stop being trolls until there are serious and lasting consequences.
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:20 PM on March 28, 2018 [41 favorites]
You could offer first chances to some of the people Williamson has stamped on; I bet that would add to the variety of voices, too.
Trolls won’t stop being trolls until there are serious and lasting consequences.
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:20 PM on March 28, 2018 [41 favorites]
You know, these "we need listen to all sides" explanations might actually work if they weren't excusing adding voices from the right 100% of the time.
"The state should murder many women": valuable discussion.
"Bash the fash": whoa, whoa, this is divisive, violent language.
posted by uncleozzy at 12:20 PM on March 28, 2018 [127 favorites]
"The state should murder many women": valuable discussion.
"Bash the fash": whoa, whoa, this is divisive, violent language.
posted by uncleozzy at 12:20 PM on March 28, 2018 [127 favorites]
As juxtaposition from Jeffrey’s troll, an article from yesterday: What ProPublica Is Doing About Diversity in 2018
Here is a breakdown of our staff. And here is how we’re working to create a more diverse newsroom and inclusive journalism community.
posted by Celsius1414 at 12:21 PM on March 28, 2018 [9 favorites]
Here is a breakdown of our staff. And here is how we’re working to create a more diverse newsroom and inclusive journalism community.
posted by Celsius1414 at 12:21 PM on March 28, 2018 [9 favorites]
Only a white man on the Internet could say “This person would be a great ally to you, if you’d just look past the fact he wants to kill 1/3rd of you.”
White men on the Internet are very fond of suggesting that other demographic groups will just have to make certain sacrifices if we are to survive whatever the current crisis is. “Oh, well if you’re going to be serious about fighting fascists, you have to look at the situation realistically,” they say. Certain people must be thrown under the bus for the greater good!
It never occurs to these white men that someone could make the same argument about them - probably because no one ever does. (I can guess why).
But you could make that argument.
You could sincerely say to white men: “We’re going to have to cull the rich white men if our species is going to survive. It’s just logical - after all, rich white men are massively overepresented amongst our warmongers and nuclear-weapons-havers. Sometimes you have to sacrifice.”
I am sure these white man would call this barbaric and horrifying. Which it is! But it is also barbaric and horrifying to suggest that women should just smile and befriend murderous scum like Kevin WIlliamson, becuase he only wants to kill some women.
I mean, it is also dumb as hell to suggest that the left can be reduced entirely to “against Trump,” or that we are so hard-up for people who don’t like Trump that we need to embrace murderous scum like Kevin Williamson.
posted by faineg at 12:21 PM on March 28, 2018 [120 favorites]
White men on the Internet are very fond of suggesting that other demographic groups will just have to make certain sacrifices if we are to survive whatever the current crisis is. “Oh, well if you’re going to be serious about fighting fascists, you have to look at the situation realistically,” they say. Certain people must be thrown under the bus for the greater good!
It never occurs to these white men that someone could make the same argument about them - probably because no one ever does. (I can guess why).
But you could make that argument.
You could sincerely say to white men: “We’re going to have to cull the rich white men if our species is going to survive. It’s just logical - after all, rich white men are massively overepresented amongst our warmongers and nuclear-weapons-havers. Sometimes you have to sacrifice.”
I am sure these white man would call this barbaric and horrifying. Which it is! But it is also barbaric and horrifying to suggest that women should just smile and befriend murderous scum like Kevin WIlliamson, becuase he only wants to kill some women.
I mean, it is also dumb as hell to suggest that the left can be reduced entirely to “against Trump,” or that we are so hard-up for people who don’t like Trump that we need to embrace murderous scum like Kevin Williamson.
posted by faineg at 12:21 PM on March 28, 2018 [120 favorites]
Diversity in all its forms makes us better journalists; it also opens us up to new audiences. I would love to have an Ideas section filled with libertarians, socialists, anarcho-pacifists and theocons, in addition to mainstream liberals and conservatives, all arguing with each other.
this is like saying the best way to become a better entomologist is to put all the different bugs you can find in a jar and shake it real hard
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:23 PM on March 28, 2018 [91 favorites]
this is like saying the best way to become a better entomologist is to put all the different bugs you can find in a jar and shake it real hard
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:23 PM on March 28, 2018 [91 favorites]
It's always interesting to note that whenever corporate news opens itself up to "new viewpoints" it is never, ever, fucking ever in a million years a viewpoint from a serious, anti-capitalist leftist. Gee, I wonder why that is?
No, because they aren't and have never been fucking serious about having a "diversity of opinion" because a real diversity of opinion would include critiques of the status quo that currently just don't happen. All the real roots of problems that these neoliberal and neoconservative talking heads discuss are the stuff that gets glossed over and ignored.
They can't look at the root of the problem because the root of the problem is capitalism.
posted by deadaluspark at 12:27 PM on March 28, 2018 [85 favorites]
No, because they aren't and have never been fucking serious about having a "diversity of opinion" because a real diversity of opinion would include critiques of the status quo that currently just don't happen. All the real roots of problems that these neoliberal and neoconservative talking heads discuss are the stuff that gets glossed over and ignored.
They can't look at the root of the problem because the root of the problem is capitalism.
posted by deadaluspark at 12:27 PM on March 28, 2018 [85 favorites]
It's because they're following the money. Here's hoping that they'll fire him after subscriptions suddenly drop into the basement.
Seriously, how hard is it to hire a conservative who isn't a wacko? I actually know three moderate Republicans, and though we disagree on many things, they are quite articulate at explaining their points of view.
posted by Melismata at 12:30 PM on March 28, 2018 [5 favorites]
Seriously, how hard is it to hire a conservative who isn't a wacko? I actually know three moderate Republicans, and though we disagree on many things, they are quite articulate at explaining their points of view.
posted by Melismata at 12:30 PM on March 28, 2018 [5 favorites]
I might think Jeffrey Goldberg is sincere in his commitment to representing “the entire conversation” if he had also hired someone who wants to guillotine the rich.
That is also a horrifying viewpoint, but hey, at least it is as extreme as Williamson’s is.
Somehow I doubt this will happen.
posted by faineg at 12:31 PM on March 28, 2018 [12 favorites]
That is also a horrifying viewpoint, but hey, at least it is as extreme as Williamson’s is.
Somehow I doubt this will happen.
posted by faineg at 12:31 PM on March 28, 2018 [12 favorites]
Hey guys what if all men aren’t even people at all? (Perhaps a series of ever more intricate squirrels?) Anyways should we take away their constitutional rights? I have written 2000 words dehumanizing all men-squirrels in the most offensive and reductive possible way please read. Hear me out I’m just challenging and provoking you! Now where is my spot in The Atlantic? Oh wait sorry you only get a high profile prestigious gig if you’re a white dude slagging or threatening women or POC. My bad.
posted by supercrayon at 12:33 PM on March 28, 2018 [58 favorites]
posted by supercrayon at 12:33 PM on March 28, 2018 [58 favorites]
The Conservative Columnist Conundrum, Sarah Jones - "On Kevin D. Williamson and the mainstreaming of the reactionary right"
Put another way, Williamson excels at the sort of reactionary meanness that has long dominated conservative punditry. Donald Trump successfully channeled that spirit in 2016—just without the usual scaffolding of conservative principles and paeans to Ronald Reagan. Trump openly ran on a platform of white resentment and triggering the libs, appalling writers like Williamson who saw their shtick performed in a way that was more vulgar, but also more forthright. Trump, more than anyone before him, exposed the intellectual barrenness of conservatism’s appeal in America.posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:36 PM on March 28, 2018 [19 favorites]
You know, when I was a teenager, the phrase "feminism is the radical notion that women are people" is one that I remember hearing, but it was a little bit snarky, like most people totally knew that women are people and therefore should be less afraid to call themselves feminists. But here we are: that is now the sort of position that is considered so edgy that they need to hire someone to argue against it.
posted by Sequence at 12:39 PM on March 28, 2018 [38 favorites]
posted by Sequence at 12:39 PM on March 28, 2018 [38 favorites]
Until all this nonsense happened, I remembered Kevin Williamson chiefly as the only conservative I knew of who expressed full-blown elitist loathing of white communities, specifically the dying Rust Belt towns that are generally blamed for Trump. Perhaps if you have been working for a major media property for so long, this passes for evidence of an excitingly broad worldview.
I do know decent people who voted for Trump, but for pitiful reasons that would not bear the light of critical inquiry (e.g. saving babies). I am not in the business of figuring out how to explain to these people that liberals do not want to set them on fire, whereas they have conservative friends that do in fact want to set liberals on fire. I don't know what kind of middle ground we have left to do that with.
posted by Countess Elena at 12:39 PM on March 28, 2018 [14 favorites]
I do know decent people who voted for Trump, but for pitiful reasons that would not bear the light of critical inquiry (e.g. saving babies). I am not in the business of figuring out how to explain to these people that liberals do not want to set them on fire, whereas they have conservative friends that do in fact want to set liberals on fire. I don't know what kind of middle ground we have left to do that with.
posted by Countess Elena at 12:39 PM on March 28, 2018 [14 favorites]
It is my mission to make sure that we outdo our industry in achieving gender equality and racial diversity. It is also my job is to make sure that we are ideologically diverse.
THESE TWO THINGS CAN BE INCOMPATIBLE, YOU DINGBAT
YOU CANNOT CONVINCE WOMEN THEY ARE EQUAL IN YOUR ORGANIZATION WHEN YOU ARE PAYING SOMEONE WHO ARGUES THAT ONE-THIRD OF THEM SHOULD BE MURDERED FOR EXERCISING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Dear Atlantic, I will be happy to take a dump all over the page for $$$. I will be a voice for incoherent Americans! Call me! It's an ethical obligation!
posted by praemunire at 12:41 PM on March 28, 2018 [43 favorites]
THESE TWO THINGS CAN BE INCOMPATIBLE, YOU DINGBAT
YOU CANNOT CONVINCE WOMEN THEY ARE EQUAL IN YOUR ORGANIZATION WHEN YOU ARE PAYING SOMEONE WHO ARGUES THAT ONE-THIRD OF THEM SHOULD BE MURDERED FOR EXERCISING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Dear Atlantic, I will be happy to take a dump all over the page for $$$. I will be a voice for incoherent Americans! Call me! It's an ethical obligation!
posted by praemunire at 12:41 PM on March 28, 2018 [43 favorites]
(also, this should be the duty of absolutely nobody on earth, but it would kick ass if some other Atlantic staffer who had had an abortion made him look her in the eyes and tell her that she should be put to death. He would either look like a worm or a madman.)
posted by Countess Elena at 12:41 PM on March 28, 2018 [8 favorites]
posted by Countess Elena at 12:41 PM on March 28, 2018 [8 favorites]
hired someone who wants to guillotine the rich...that is also a horrifying viewpoint
how is guillotining the rich equivalent to a dude who wants women to who have abortions to be hanged? you guillotine the rich to spread power, you hang women because you're just a totally ignorant piece of shit with a value system not dissimilar from those carried by the Catholic Church in the pre-Renaissance
posted by runt at 12:42 PM on March 28, 2018 [22 favorites]
how is guillotining the rich equivalent to a dude who wants women to who have abortions to be hanged? you guillotine the rich to spread power, you hang women because you're just a totally ignorant piece of shit with a value system not dissimilar from those carried by the Catholic Church in the pre-Renaissance
posted by runt at 12:42 PM on March 28, 2018 [22 favorites]
Hey guys what if all men aren’t even people at all? (Perhaps a series of ever more intricate squirrels?)
#notallsquirrels
posted by Greg_Ace at 12:43 PM on March 28, 2018 [6 favorites]
#notallsquirrels
posted by Greg_Ace at 12:43 PM on March 28, 2018 [6 favorites]
Until all this nonsense happened, I remembered Kevin Williamson chiefly as the only conservative I knew of who expressed full-blown elitist loathing of white communities
Oh, my God, he was the guy who wrote that article! That was nasty even by National Review standards. I remember reading it and thinking, no one actually voted for Trump because they read this, but if someone actually did, I might almost see where they were coming from.
posted by praemunire at 12:44 PM on March 28, 2018 [8 favorites]
Oh, my God, he was the guy who wrote that article! That was nasty even by National Review standards. I remember reading it and thinking, no one actually voted for Trump because they read this, but if someone actually did, I might almost see where they were coming from.
posted by praemunire at 12:44 PM on March 28, 2018 [8 favorites]
I’d rather the state didn’t execute anybody. Though yes, I 100% agree that executing women who get abortions is a lot worse.
posted by faineg at 12:45 PM on March 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by faineg at 12:45 PM on March 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
oh it wouldn't be the state executing the rich if we were talking about a counter-Williamson point-of-view but I hear ya
*pats whetstone*
posted by runt at 12:47 PM on March 28, 2018 [16 favorites]
*pats whetstone*
posted by runt at 12:47 PM on March 28, 2018 [16 favorites]
"Ideological diversity" is one of the right wing's most impressive abuses of the language of equality and progress.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:51 PM on March 28, 2018 [44 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:51 PM on March 28, 2018 [44 favorites]
That's one more site to add to my uBlock rules I guess. Not that they were getting any ad revenue from me anyway.
posted by Foosnark at 12:53 PM on March 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by Foosnark at 12:53 PM on March 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
would call this barbaric and horrifying. Which it is!
let’s not be too hasty
posted by schadenfrau at 12:57 PM on March 28, 2018 [9 favorites]
let’s not be too hasty
posted by schadenfrau at 12:57 PM on March 28, 2018 [9 favorites]
@transscribe
If @TheAtlantic is so concerned with diversity of opinion, hire a black trans woman as a columnist, because I guarantee those opinions have never been represented in The Atlantic before.
posted by Artw at 12:58 PM on March 28, 2018 [69 favorites]
If @TheAtlantic is so concerned with diversity of opinion, hire a black trans woman as a columnist, because I guarantee those opinions have never been represented in The Atlantic before.
posted by Artw at 12:58 PM on March 28, 2018 [69 favorites]
let’s not be too hasty
do you want Bourbon Restorations? because that's how you get Bourbon Restorations
posted by Countess Elena at 1:00 PM on March 28, 2018 [16 favorites]
do you want Bourbon Restorations? because that's how you get Bourbon Restorations
posted by Countess Elena at 1:00 PM on March 28, 2018 [16 favorites]
I mean, I didn't meet someone who called themselves a full-blown communist till I was in my 20s, but I know those folks are out there, and it might be interesting to hear their viewpoints even if there is very little chance of me becoming a communist.
Conversely, I've met lots of men like this douchebag and I already know what they're like.
posted by emjaybee at 1:02 PM on March 28, 2018 [61 favorites]
Conversely, I've met lots of men like this douchebag and I already know what they're like.
posted by emjaybee at 1:02 PM on March 28, 2018 [61 favorites]
I'm pro guillotining the rich, anti murdering women & blacks, and I'm a white guy! Jeffrey, BABY! Call me.
posted by evilDoug at 1:17 PM on March 28, 2018 [12 favorites]
posted by evilDoug at 1:17 PM on March 28, 2018 [12 favorites]
People like Kevin Williamson and Bad Matt Walsh should have to change their names because I always have to remind myself "oh right, the asshat one, not the pop culture creator".
(I don't actually know if TV/film maker Kevin Williamson is a good dude, but he can't be worse than this one.)
posted by kmz at 1:22 PM on March 28, 2018 [6 favorites]
(I don't actually know if TV/film maker Kevin Williamson is a good dude, but he can't be worse than this one.)
posted by kmz at 1:22 PM on March 28, 2018 [6 favorites]
oh, another news alternative is Truth-Out which is non-profit and covers a lot more on-the-ground activisty things than, well, just about anything that's not Democracy Now (which is just so good and such a good portal for a lot of newer activisty people)
and if you live in the South, Scalawag Mag was started as an intentionally queer, non-white-centered space to elevate voices. it can get very inside-baseball with some things but it plays a big part in establishing historical memory for organizing down here
posted by runt at 1:34 PM on March 28, 2018 [5 favorites]
and if you live in the South, Scalawag Mag was started as an intentionally queer, non-white-centered space to elevate voices. it can get very inside-baseball with some things but it plays a big part in establishing historical memory for organizing down here
posted by runt at 1:34 PM on March 28, 2018 [5 favorites]
I said as much in the other thread, but: I’m disgusted with the hire, twice as disgusted with Goldberg’s weak-ass justification, and I’ll be double-fucked if I ever write for them again. At least so long as the two of them remain.
posted by adamgreenfield at 1:49 PM on March 28, 2018 [23 favorites]
posted by adamgreenfield at 1:49 PM on March 28, 2018 [23 favorites]
What publication can I give my money to because even if I don't read it all the time, I need to support some kind of non idiotic journalism before it's all NPRized with its both sides conservative thug bullshit.
Jacobin
posted by entropicamericana at 1:57 PM on March 28, 2018 [5 favorites]
Jacobin
posted by entropicamericana at 1:57 PM on March 28, 2018 [5 favorites]
I haven't gone on Reddit in years but when I use to peruse r/ShitRedditSays and they'd mention "killing all men" (I could never tell if it was a joke or part of their shtick), people in the regular subreddits were totally disgusted and freaked out about it, while simultaneously sitting there and dehumanizing everyone else, just as anecdata for how people would react to talking about white male genocide.
posted by gucci mane at 1:59 PM on March 28, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by gucci mane at 1:59 PM on March 28, 2018 [5 favorites]
This interview with fellow racist National Review contributor Jonah Goldberg (who wrote an entire book characterizing liberals, including most Jewish voters, as Nazis) from a couple months ago almost seems like it was paving the way for this decision. In it, he agrees with Jonah that "[Romney's] clumsiness was mistaken for some kind of misogyny" and lets comments softening the role of racism as a driving factor in Trump's election and a description of immigration as "corrosive to civil society" go by unchallenged.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:05 PM on March 28, 2018 [8 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 2:05 PM on March 28, 2018 [8 favorites]
@DEdwardBeck: The Atlantic's pivot to video looks intense
posted by Uncle Ira at 2:05 PM on March 28, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by Uncle Ira at 2:05 PM on March 28, 2018 [4 favorites]
Who should they have hired? I am interested in opposing political views, but like many commentators here, have little patience for anti-woman, transphobic, xenophobic (etc) viewpoint that seems to come along with it. Basically I'm looking for the "I probably disagree with you, but at least it's a reasonable argument" of conservatives.
posted by yeahwhatever at 2:17 PM on March 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by yeahwhatever at 2:17 PM on March 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
We really don't need to listen to all sides. Some sides are demonstrably shittier than others. You can have any perspective on any issue, doesn't mean it's automatically worth the consideration and respective of others.
posted by GoblinHoney at 2:18 PM on March 28, 2018 [33 favorites]
posted by GoblinHoney at 2:18 PM on March 28, 2018 [33 favorites]
Who should they have hired? [...] Basically I'm looking for the "I probably disagree with you, but at least it's a reasonable argument" of conservatives.
I'm guessing it's someone we haven't heard of, if that is what you're looking for. There is no room for that kind of conservative in the Republican party these days, so a "reasonable" conservative isn't on Fox News, isn't in Congress with an (R) by their name, isn't in the White House and probably voted for Hillary. Maybe Colin Powell would have fit the bill?
posted by Emmy Rae at 2:27 PM on March 28, 2018 [7 favorites]
I'm guessing it's someone we haven't heard of, if that is what you're looking for. There is no room for that kind of conservative in the Republican party these days, so a "reasonable" conservative isn't on Fox News, isn't in Congress with an (R) by their name, isn't in the White House and probably voted for Hillary. Maybe Colin Powell would have fit the bill?
posted by Emmy Rae at 2:27 PM on March 28, 2018 [7 favorites]
The Atlantic should be embarrassed to openly prioritize diversity of viewpoints over accuracy of viewpoints. They’re a current events magazine, not fashion or home decor.
For example, “cutting taxes on the wealthy helps the economy” is an empirically worse, less accurate viewpoint than the converse, because it’s empirically not true. Decades of data contradict it.
But in the “diversity of viewpoints” philosophy, that doesn’t matter because because the stated aim is to publish “varied” perspectives rather than correct perspectives.
And the actual aim is to publish views that reflect the biases of the publishers/subscribers they want to reach, hoping that the virtue signaling of “diversity” masks the disregarding of accuracy or legitimacy.
posted by mrmurbles at 2:27 PM on March 28, 2018 [32 favorites]
For example, “cutting taxes on the wealthy helps the economy” is an empirically worse, less accurate viewpoint than the converse, because it’s empirically not true. Decades of data contradict it.
But in the “diversity of viewpoints” philosophy, that doesn’t matter because because the stated aim is to publish “varied” perspectives rather than correct perspectives.
And the actual aim is to publish views that reflect the biases of the publishers/subscribers they want to reach, hoping that the virtue signaling of “diversity” masks the disregarding of accuracy or legitimacy.
posted by mrmurbles at 2:27 PM on March 28, 2018 [32 favorites]
The Atlantic still has a number of worthy writers, but they've long softballed the so-called moderate conservatives, the Caitlin Flanagans and Conor Friedersdorfs of the world, the people who can reliably call upon activists to tone it down for the sake for goodness sake. They share the same pro-status quo, anti-activism worldview found in the NY Times, Harper's, other bougie thought rags.
I finally cancelled my Atlantic subscription, because I am 100% done with media that pull this both-sides/last-noble-conservative nonsense. They have failed to learn from their own errors in coverage - from Whitewater to the crime omnibus to Iraq to Trump, major center-left outlets have systematically encouraged the bad faith arguments of hawks and hate-mongers to occupy prominent places in our national discourse.
It's not as though having conservative voices to prop up some slight variation on their last 50 years of arguing the same points is some corrective to an echo chamber. I would bet that there is more ideological variation among 10 random American lefties than 10 random American conservatives. Another white dude popping up with his race and sex arguments that weirdly happen to show that white men fully merit their superior place in society has not been new, interesting, or worthy of discussion since the early 20th century at the latest, and I refuse to support any publication that pretends otherwise.
posted by palindromic at 2:32 PM on March 28, 2018 [35 favorites]
I finally cancelled my Atlantic subscription, because I am 100% done with media that pull this both-sides/last-noble-conservative nonsense. They have failed to learn from their own errors in coverage - from Whitewater to the crime omnibus to Iraq to Trump, major center-left outlets have systematically encouraged the bad faith arguments of hawks and hate-mongers to occupy prominent places in our national discourse.
It's not as though having conservative voices to prop up some slight variation on their last 50 years of arguing the same points is some corrective to an echo chamber. I would bet that there is more ideological variation among 10 random American lefties than 10 random American conservatives. Another white dude popping up with his race and sex arguments that weirdly happen to show that white men fully merit their superior place in society has not been new, interesting, or worthy of discussion since the early 20th century at the latest, and I refuse to support any publication that pretends otherwise.
posted by palindromic at 2:32 PM on March 28, 2018 [35 favorites]
I probably disagree with you, but at least it's a reasonable argument" of conservatives.
the only non-racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc conservative viewpoint I've ever run into that seemed fine to me was from my socially progressive libertarian friend
he's white and semi-well off so it's more obliviousness than anything and he sure has made some very strong criticisms about the Federal Reserve that have been thoughtful
posted by runt at 2:34 PM on March 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
the only non-racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc conservative viewpoint I've ever run into that seemed fine to me was from my socially progressive libertarian friend
he's white and semi-well off so it's more obliviousness than anything and he sure has made some very strong criticisms about the Federal Reserve that have been thoughtful
posted by runt at 2:34 PM on March 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
how is guillotining the rich equivalent to a dude who wants women to who have abortions to be hanged? you guillotine the rich to spread power, you hang women because you're just a totally ignorant piece of shit
Well, either way, you’ve got to do something with all those stinking bodies.
This whole thing is incredibly stupid, but given that some people are all “why did everyone criticize Quinn Norton when no one is criticizing Kevin Williamson,” I feel like I should go on the record and say that I think Kevin Williamson should be fired.
Out of a cannon.
posted by octobersurprise at 2:42 PM on March 28, 2018 [9 favorites]
Well, either way, you’ve got to do something with all those stinking bodies.
This whole thing is incredibly stupid, but given that some people are all “why did everyone criticize Quinn Norton when no one is criticizing Kevin Williamson,” I feel like I should go on the record and say that I think Kevin Williamson should be fired.
Out of a cannon.
posted by octobersurprise at 2:42 PM on March 28, 2018 [9 favorites]
When your sides are ALL CAPS and comic sans you've lost me.
Include dingbats and I might consider your tent big.
posted by srboisvert at 3:02 PM on March 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
Include dingbats and I might consider your tent big.
posted by srboisvert at 3:02 PM on March 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
The business decision seems bad to me; I doubt they will replace all the realists they lose with fox viewers as subscribers. But like the man said, print is dead.
posted by valkane at 3:07 PM on March 28, 2018
posted by valkane at 3:07 PM on March 28, 2018
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
- from "The Open Society and Its Enemies" by Karl Popper.
posted by jv776 at 3:08 PM on March 28, 2018 [44 favorites]
- from "The Open Society and Its Enemies" by Karl Popper.
posted by jv776 at 3:08 PM on March 28, 2018 [44 favorites]
If Jeffrey Goldberg is serious about "intellectual diversity" he could always hire Norman Finkelstein.
posted by bookman117 at 3:15 PM on March 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by bookman117 at 3:15 PM on March 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
Who should they have hired? I am interested in opposing political views, but like many commentators here, have little patience for anti-woman, transphobic, xenophobic (etc) viewpoint that seems to come along with it. Basically I'm looking for the "I probably disagree with you, but at least it's a reasonable argument" of conservatives.
Ana Navarro? Mefi's Adopted Own Egg McMuffin? There are a lot of conservatives with serious opposition to Trump who also aren't flaming assholes.
posted by corb at 3:35 PM on March 28, 2018 [5 favorites]
Ana Navarro? Mefi's Adopted Own Egg McMuffin? There are a lot of conservatives with serious opposition to Trump who also aren't flaming assholes.
posted by corb at 3:35 PM on March 28, 2018 [5 favorites]
Williamson is in a peculiar place of being more dangerous than the usual pro-lifer without being more extreme. everybody is right who says this is a mainstream pro-life position; you can't believe abortion is murder without agreeing with Williamson, except by opposing the death penalty in all cases. you're still stuck applying whatever penalty for homicide you favor.
KW didn't hit on the concept of logical consistency all by himself, this was always one of the standard pro-choice rhetorical attacks, just from the other side. you'd say Oh, if it's murder, how long should women go to prison for it, then? because the flustered answer used to be: oh, but we wouldn't prosecute PATIENTS, only doctors. (or "women," they'd say, because getting people used to the rhetorical opposition of women and doctors erases women doctors and female authority generally).
which gave the game away, because why not hold the responsible party responsible? well, because it plays badly, it's unpopular. or it used to be! but there's no logical way out of it unless you define a pregnant woman as an incompetent who cannot be held responsible for crimes. which has always been the more popular and palatable option for the movement.
so Randall Terry and the other pre-Kevin Williamson Kevin Williamsons very deliberately chose to call doctors murderers, to incite focused violence against them. they didn't refrain from condemning and terrorizing women, but they used the justifiable homicide argument against doctors the most. because doctors providing abortion care are a smaller group than pregnant people. easier to terrorize directly, in order to terrorize the larger group indirectly. you harm pregnant women most effectively as a group by choking off their medical care and making others afraid to help them.
so Kevin Williamson is the very worst of the recent worst not because he was making a real policy proposal or serious legal theory, and not because he was "trolling." He is the worst of the worst because calling for the death penalty for anyone connected with abortion has one goal: to incite and to justify extralegal violence against them: to expand the range of acceptable targets: to redefine murder as defense of innocents. there is a thoroughly documented history of this. it has been pretty successful so far.
the people who killed barnett slepian and george tiller and the rest of those great men and women, they were asked to do it. they were invited. and now kevin williamson is inviting those same people to come after the rest of us.
posted by queenofbithynia at 3:35 PM on March 28, 2018 [64 favorites]
KW didn't hit on the concept of logical consistency all by himself, this was always one of the standard pro-choice rhetorical attacks, just from the other side. you'd say Oh, if it's murder, how long should women go to prison for it, then? because the flustered answer used to be: oh, but we wouldn't prosecute PATIENTS, only doctors. (or "women," they'd say, because getting people used to the rhetorical opposition of women and doctors erases women doctors and female authority generally).
which gave the game away, because why not hold the responsible party responsible? well, because it plays badly, it's unpopular. or it used to be! but there's no logical way out of it unless you define a pregnant woman as an incompetent who cannot be held responsible for crimes. which has always been the more popular and palatable option for the movement.
so Randall Terry and the other pre-Kevin Williamson Kevin Williamsons very deliberately chose to call doctors murderers, to incite focused violence against them. they didn't refrain from condemning and terrorizing women, but they used the justifiable homicide argument against doctors the most. because doctors providing abortion care are a smaller group than pregnant people. easier to terrorize directly, in order to terrorize the larger group indirectly. you harm pregnant women most effectively as a group by choking off their medical care and making others afraid to help them.
so Kevin Williamson is the very worst of the recent worst not because he was making a real policy proposal or serious legal theory, and not because he was "trolling." He is the worst of the worst because calling for the death penalty for anyone connected with abortion has one goal: to incite and to justify extralegal violence against them: to expand the range of acceptable targets: to redefine murder as defense of innocents. there is a thoroughly documented history of this. it has been pretty successful so far.
the people who killed barnett slepian and george tiller and the rest of those great men and women, they were asked to do it. they were invited. and now kevin williamson is inviting those same people to come after the rest of us.
posted by queenofbithynia at 3:35 PM on March 28, 2018 [64 favorites]
Ana Navarro, for those who aren't familiar with her, is a Nicaraguan-American pundit who actually voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 because she lives in Florida.
posted by corb at 3:37 PM on March 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 3:37 PM on March 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
Thanks queenofbithynia: you articulated what has unsettled me so much about this.
posted by faineg at 4:07 PM on March 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by faineg at 4:07 PM on March 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
After clicking around for about 7 minutes, I've come to the conclusions that
A) The guy's repulsive, and a misogynist, and yeah, a troll
B) He can kind of write I guess? But I can only tell in the way that I would judge the skill of a surgeon by how well they can slaughter a pig
C) It seems like those tweets were deleted? Which is what people do when they don't want to be judged by the very worst thing they've ever said... which, who would, but still, go to hell
D) The one-way ratchet metaphor is apt, and scary. But I'd consider the Atlantic one of the few places where they might have a defensible concept of quote-unquote balance... (discuss, I guess)
posted by kleinsteradikaleminderheit at 4:10 PM on March 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
A) The guy's repulsive, and a misogynist, and yeah, a troll
B) He can kind of write I guess? But I can only tell in the way that I would judge the skill of a surgeon by how well they can slaughter a pig
C) It seems like those tweets were deleted? Which is what people do when they don't want to be judged by the very worst thing they've ever said... which, who would, but still, go to hell
D) The one-way ratchet metaphor is apt, and scary. But I'd consider the Atlantic one of the few places where they might have a defensible concept of quote-unquote balance... (discuss, I guess)
posted by kleinsteradikaleminderheit at 4:10 PM on March 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
The thinking behind this, and behind the recent Sam Harris / Ezra Klein dustup, are the same.
Let’s say you’re a privileged, intellectually lazy white dude who is smart enough to go to college, so you get to college, and everyone around you is also smart enough to go to college. A large proportion got in on their merits and therefore are probably smarter than you. Another, overlapping, large proportion have the emotional maturity to imagine how it might be to come from a different set of life circumstances, which you lack. So you get the wildly mistaken impression that your “controversial” views about women and black people are not hugely popular outside of that context of compassionate, intelligent people. In fact, they are! You’re just (somewhat unjustly) living in a bubble with a much lower proportion of ignorant, hateful dipshits.
This is where all of this, plus the campus free speech nonsense, comes from. Mediocre white dudes who were lucky enough to spend time with intelligent, intellectually honest people, and don’t appreciate that luck.
Of course, their luck manifests itself in other ways - remember they went to college in the first place! - and there’s a huge demand in the media for their very mediocrity and lack of self-awareness. Whether they edit a magazine or host a podcast, their idea of balance will always involve, on one “side”, that huge group of people who are smarter and better than them. And so “balance” will involve the person who can arouse their deeper, stupider, more embarrassing beliefs - “race scientists”, men who don’t believe in rape, and all the other “controversial” “thought-provoking” figures.
posted by chappell, ambrose at 4:23 PM on March 28, 2018 [16 favorites]
Let’s say you’re a privileged, intellectually lazy white dude who is smart enough to go to college, so you get to college, and everyone around you is also smart enough to go to college. A large proportion got in on their merits and therefore are probably smarter than you. Another, overlapping, large proportion have the emotional maturity to imagine how it might be to come from a different set of life circumstances, which you lack. So you get the wildly mistaken impression that your “controversial” views about women and black people are not hugely popular outside of that context of compassionate, intelligent people. In fact, they are! You’re just (somewhat unjustly) living in a bubble with a much lower proportion of ignorant, hateful dipshits.
This is where all of this, plus the campus free speech nonsense, comes from. Mediocre white dudes who were lucky enough to spend time with intelligent, intellectually honest people, and don’t appreciate that luck.
Of course, their luck manifests itself in other ways - remember they went to college in the first place! - and there’s a huge demand in the media for their very mediocrity and lack of self-awareness. Whether they edit a magazine or host a podcast, their idea of balance will always involve, on one “side”, that huge group of people who are smarter and better than them. And so “balance” will involve the person who can arouse their deeper, stupider, more embarrassing beliefs - “race scientists”, men who don’t believe in rape, and all the other “controversial” “thought-provoking” figures.
posted by chappell, ambrose at 4:23 PM on March 28, 2018 [16 favorites]
But I'd consider the Atlantic one of the few places where they might have a defensible concept of quote-unquote balance...
which of their writers are you thinking of as a balance to Williamson? I can't offhand remember which writer called for the public execution of a third or more of American men to satisfy her self-confessed "animus" against the "cruelty" of their own outpatient procedures, and I also can't recall which writer has a piece about a novelty trip to a white neighborhood where the white children remind him of animals and are described as subhuman figures of fun. but you can remind me.
to begin to balance Williamson you'd need six Valerie Solanases, one Madalyn Murray O'Hair and three Ethel Rosenbergs. and that's just for style.
posted by queenofbithynia at 4:53 PM on March 28, 2018 [21 favorites]
which of their writers are you thinking of as a balance to Williamson? I can't offhand remember which writer called for the public execution of a third or more of American men to satisfy her self-confessed "animus" against the "cruelty" of their own outpatient procedures, and I also can't recall which writer has a piece about a novelty trip to a white neighborhood where the white children remind him of animals and are described as subhuman figures of fun. but you can remind me.
to begin to balance Williamson you'd need six Valerie Solanases, one Madalyn Murray O'Hair and three Ethel Rosenbergs. and that's just for style.
posted by queenofbithynia at 4:53 PM on March 28, 2018 [21 favorites]
the best way to become a better entomologist is to put all the different bugs you can find in a jar and shake it real hard
brb, revising next semester's syllabus
posted by pemberkins at 5:02 PM on March 28, 2018 [13 favorites]
brb, revising next semester's syllabus
posted by pemberkins at 5:02 PM on March 28, 2018 [13 favorites]
White dudes tend to think that diversity of ideology is the most important thing ever, more so than anything else.
I mean. they really don't. they don't think it's important at all. They say that about themselves, but everyone says a lot of self-flattering things that we don't just pretend is true out of politeness.
the select group of white men who attain a position of mainstream respectability and public journalistic prominence, from whom big-name publications draw their writers, do not display a whole lot of diversity of ideology. For example: if you want a substantive and original feminist viewpoint, or if you want five or six substantive and original feminist viewpoints that aren't close copies of each other but have real diversity of opinion and interchange among them, you will not be able to find that in the white male talent pool. and this is about ideology, not identity; if you just require female representation without specifying feminist, you get Katie Roiphe and Caitlin Flanagan. because white men have no trouble spotting visible identity signifiers, but a lot more trouble judging ideologies. it's not a critical arena where they dominate.
feminism's just an example. if you want a thoughtful and individual aesthetic or political viewpoint of any other kind, you will also have to look beyond white men if you want more than one or two of them. White men are no better than any other group, and noticeably worse than most, at avoiding the fear-cluster of peer group reflection/imitation. they read each other, so they write like each other and think like each other. sure, there is some diversity of opinion and even some rigor here and there. just not as much as you find among most other groups. they position themselves as the ones who care most about intellectual diversity and freedom of thought because that's how justified insecurity manifests itself.
the myth that white men in the media classes are diverse in every way but race and gender is not one I expect to find believed by anyone but a certain type of white men themselves. nobody should concede the point as if it were true but unimportant. diversity of ideology is not always desirable as I prefer right opinions to wrong ones. but desirable or not, white men don't reliably provide or care about it.
posted by queenofbithynia at 6:02 PM on March 28, 2018 [17 favorites]
The reason diverse perspectives are theoretically desirable -- particularly in business -- is because POC and white women have different experiences than white men, which means they are aware of things white men are unaware of. They know things white men don't know, and they can spot errors white men cannot.
(This doesn't really work the same way in reverse because of double consciousness. POC and white women have to understand how things are for white men, how white men think, in order to survive. Plus they're indoctrinated since birth. For example, every black man has probably seen 100 movies written directed acted and produced by white men exclusively. Most white men have maybe seen 1 or 2 movies written, acted, directed and produced exclusively by black men. Black men understand white men's realities better than the converse).
This doesn't make POC and white women unerring. It doesn't mean that if a perspective is held by a POC or white woman it's automatically valuable. But it means that smart, thoughtful POC and white women have more to offer a business or magazine than smart, thoughtful white men, because the specific business, magazine and culture at large is already flooded with the thoughts, feelings and experiences of white men.
But the majority culture doesn't believe that POC and white women have different experiences than white men. Racism and sexism are over. The majority culture also doesn't really believe that POC and white women can be as smart as white men.
Which is how you end up with lip service to "diversity of perspective" that completely misses what's interesting or valuable about it.
posted by mrmurbles at 6:25 PM on March 28, 2018 [30 favorites]
(This doesn't really work the same way in reverse because of double consciousness. POC and white women have to understand how things are for white men, how white men think, in order to survive. Plus they're indoctrinated since birth. For example, every black man has probably seen 100 movies written directed acted and produced by white men exclusively. Most white men have maybe seen 1 or 2 movies written, acted, directed and produced exclusively by black men. Black men understand white men's realities better than the converse).
This doesn't make POC and white women unerring. It doesn't mean that if a perspective is held by a POC or white woman it's automatically valuable. But it means that smart, thoughtful POC and white women have more to offer a business or magazine than smart, thoughtful white men, because the specific business, magazine and culture at large is already flooded with the thoughts, feelings and experiences of white men.
But the majority culture doesn't believe that POC and white women have different experiences than white men. Racism and sexism are over. The majority culture also doesn't really believe that POC and white women can be as smart as white men.
Which is how you end up with lip service to "diversity of perspective" that completely misses what's interesting or valuable about it.
posted by mrmurbles at 6:25 PM on March 28, 2018 [30 favorites]
I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument
I know what Popper means here, but this line seems highly problematic. Who decides who is being rational?
In this memetic landscape I feel like there are equally big risks that (1) the 'rational highground' can easily be sought by any party and (2) even if well-intentioned, any given person may not know with any accuracy their degree of rationality.
'and what would it look like if instead the earth orbited the sun' (etc)
[I am not a relativist, btw. I just think empathy rather than rationality should be the bar]
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 7:18 PM on March 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
I know what Popper means here, but this line seems highly problematic. Who decides who is being rational?
In this memetic landscape I feel like there are equally big risks that (1) the 'rational highground' can easily be sought by any party and (2) even if well-intentioned, any given person may not know with any accuracy their degree of rationality.
'and what would it look like if instead the earth orbited the sun' (etc)
[I am not a relativist, btw. I just think empathy rather than rationality should be the bar]
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 7:18 PM on March 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
I'm sorry, but this shit started the day the New York Times hired Ross fucking Douthat so that David "Bobo" Brooks would be able to look like conservatism had a respectable AAA league.
posted by mostly vowels at 7:38 PM on March 28, 2018 [9 favorites]
posted by mostly vowels at 7:38 PM on March 28, 2018 [9 favorites]
What publication can I give my money to because even if I don't read it all the time
Please give your money to Belt Magazine, for actual good coverage of the Rust Belt that doesn't involve parachuting-in New York journalists who go to a diner 30 miles outside of Akron, find the first guy with a John Deere hat to give them a choice quote about Trump/the closed factory/the way life used to be, and then consider it case closed and file their story.
posted by mostly vowels at 7:43 PM on March 28, 2018 [6 favorites]
Please give your money to Belt Magazine, for actual good coverage of the Rust Belt that doesn't involve parachuting-in New York journalists who go to a diner 30 miles outside of Akron, find the first guy with a John Deere hat to give them a choice quote about Trump/the closed factory/the way life used to be, and then consider it case closed and file their story.
posted by mostly vowels at 7:43 PM on March 28, 2018 [6 favorites]
I hate to say that I was right about Williamson previously, but I was right. And no matter who else happens to be on the Atlantic's masthead at the moment, it really only takes one person to stink up the room.
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:54 PM on March 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:54 PM on March 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
mostly vowels: It could be a great publication, and I largely enjoyed the article I just read on the crisis at MSU. At the end of the article was the following line: "This article was co-published by Belt Magazine and The Atlantic." And I literally let out a verbal Homer Simpson "DOH!".
posted by el io at 10:04 PM on March 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by el io at 10:04 PM on March 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
As per their argument, just imagine how pro-diversity it would be to hire Richard Spencer!
posted by jaduncan at 11:04 PM on March 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by jaduncan at 11:04 PM on March 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
This is disappointing and I am regretting recently renewing my subscription.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:14 AM on March 29, 2018
posted by Dip Flash at 6:14 AM on March 29, 2018
That article got me too, El Io. Just when I think I've pulled out, they suck me back in. *shakes fist at The Atlantic*
(also MSU trustees are complicit monsters who should never live down "the little Nassar thing."
posted by Yowser at 6:36 AM on March 29, 2018 [1 favorite]
(also MSU trustees are complicit monsters who should never live down "the little Nassar thing."
posted by Yowser at 6:36 AM on March 29, 2018 [1 favorite]
Which is the magazine with the pro-guillotines editorial board? I’d like to subscribe.
If hanging nearly 20% of the population is a normal, acceptable position now, then guillotining a mere 1% is so un-radical that it is practically banal in comparison.
posted by rodlymight at 7:12 AM on March 29, 2018 [20 favorites]
If hanging nearly 20% of the population is a normal, acceptable position now, then guillotining a mere 1% is so un-radical that it is practically banal in comparison.
posted by rodlymight at 7:12 AM on March 29, 2018 [20 favorites]
Where do I sign up for the pro-guillotine editorial board? Actually, can I operate one of the guillotines?
posted by Don.Kinsayder at 9:01 AM on March 29, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by Don.Kinsayder at 9:01 AM on March 29, 2018 [1 favorite]
So, if he does loathe abortion, let's see him advocate for the creation of a social safety net that's the envy of the world, one that includes 24/7 free high-quality day care, free single-payer health care, a basic stipend for everyone, free birth control, and a superb educational system, rather than saying stupid and inflammatory comments on Twitter.
Oh, wait. That would involve government programs and, higher taxes, and empowering women and people of color. Never mind.
posted by dancing_angel at 12:35 PM on March 29, 2018 [4 favorites]
Oh, wait. That would involve government programs and, higher taxes, and empowering women and people of color. Never mind.
posted by dancing_angel at 12:35 PM on March 29, 2018 [4 favorites]
Mod note: A few comments removed; busting into the thread late with mannered outrage at all the outrage and a side-helping of condescension is never going to go well, cut it out.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:40 PM on March 29, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:40 PM on March 29, 2018 [4 favorites]
@drvox: Mainstream outlets can't seem to find a conservative opinion writer who hasn't lied about climate change or suggested executing women or indulged in overt racism or expressed some other repugnant view. Conservatives witness this and blame ... mainstream outlets.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:20 PM on March 29, 2018 [20 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 2:20 PM on March 29, 2018 [20 favorites]
Michelle Goldberg: Affirmative Action for Reactionaries
In some ways I appreciate Williamson’s honesty in admitting where his anti-abortion agenda leads. More abortion opponents should be willing to acknowledge that treating abortion as murder necessarily means treating women as murderers. All the same, I understand why many people are furious that the storied Atlantic magazine would give a perch to a man who traffics in crude stereotypes, and who thinks that the nearly one-quarter of American women who have had abortions deserve to die. “Too many men in power don’t care,” feminist Jessica Valenti wrote in despair. “To them, our lives and freedom are just abstract concepts — things to be debated rather than understood as a given.”posted by zombieflanders at 7:12 AM on March 30, 2018 [6 favorites]
The backlash against Williamson, in turn, has occasioned self-pity among some members of the conservative intelligentsia, who feel victimized by a concerted campaign to write them out of mainstream public life. In National Review, Williamson’s friend and former colleague David French demanded, “Decide now, progressives, do you want any serious intellectual media space where conservative and progressive ideas clash?”
Personally, I do. But which conservative ideas?
[...]
Williamson was hired at The Atlantic not just for being an energetic writer, but in the name of ideological diversity. “If we are going to host debates, we have to host people who actually disagree with, and sometimes offend, the other side,” wrote Atlantic editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg — no relation — in a memo to his staff. “Kevin will help this cause.”
But Williamson, perhaps to his credit, doesn’t really represent a “side.” His ideas — with their combination of laissez-faire capitalism and harsh moralism — are fairly marginal. If they’re going to be defended, they should be defended on their own terms, not as representing an important tendency in our civic life. But on their own terms, they are very hard to defend.
Editors can’t escape the fact that, even when they want to broaden the conversation, their choices make a statement about where the parameters of acceptable argument lie. I’d have thought that supporting the execution or mass incarceration of women by the millions would put a writer, even one capable of enjoyably caustic prose, well outside those boundaries. I’d like to hear a serious argument about why it doesn’t. Somehow, Williamson’s champions don’t seem to want to have that debate.
Would American intellectual life really lose out because we aren’t debating whether women who have abortions should be hanged? What does Williamson’s cruel, bigoted refusal to use Laverne Cox’s proper pronouns add to “American intellectual life”? Our public discourse ― or for that matter life on earth ― is not enriched but imperiled by ignorant, ideological efforts to cast doubt on the consensus around climate change.Noah Berlatsky, Bad Ideas Aren't Worth Debating
The issue is not left intolerance. The issue is that conservative intellectuals make bad, often nonsensical arguments, and spout opinions that are hateful and harmful on their face.
(Also, I had been trying to figure out why this piece had infuriated me so much, but reading all the commentary on Williamson et al. clarified things - it's tiresome hearing calls for comity where both sides are cast as the same from people who use their privilege to disengage from politics.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:50 AM on March 30, 2018 [10 favorites]
I saw a CNN clip (CNN video 8min) that sums up well the both sides inanity (probably not really worth watching because it was just aggravating and I will summarize).
The host wanted to have a gun debate. Presented himself as impartial, wanting to hear different points of view.
The first guest, German Lopez, works on gun data for Vox, with their charts and graphs, and explained what the data showed. He also acknowledged that there was some research that disagreed in part. They were aware of it all but the preponderance of evidence was fairly straight forward.
The host then turned to a guy named John Lott, who runs a website called CrimeResearch, who proceeded to cherry pick data (public mass shootings are defined as having at least 15 dead, everything else is excluded) to prove his point (more guns less crime). And according to his data reading found France has a greater mass shooting problem (more people killed in a single year) than the USA (during the entire Obama administration). It was rather insane.
The host went back to the first guy who looked a bit taken aback by the total bullshit onslaught. Indicated that the other guest was not telling the whole story or truth and to go to the Vox website and see for themselves.
The wingnut then got his turn, stated that his facts were all proven by numbers and people could see this on his website.
The host then turned to the camera ended the segment saying, "It's a shame we can't even agree on the same data".
When one person presented all sides, the other presented garbage. The host giving equal platform in the name of impartiality really is complicity.
posted by phoque at 6:23 AM on March 31, 2018 [16 favorites]
The host wanted to have a gun debate. Presented himself as impartial, wanting to hear different points of view.
The first guest, German Lopez, works on gun data for Vox, with their charts and graphs, and explained what the data showed. He also acknowledged that there was some research that disagreed in part. They were aware of it all but the preponderance of evidence was fairly straight forward.
The host then turned to a guy named John Lott, who runs a website called CrimeResearch, who proceeded to cherry pick data (public mass shootings are defined as having at least 15 dead, everything else is excluded) to prove his point (more guns less crime). And according to his data reading found France has a greater mass shooting problem (more people killed in a single year) than the USA (during the entire Obama administration). It was rather insane.
The host went back to the first guy who looked a bit taken aback by the total bullshit onslaught. Indicated that the other guest was not telling the whole story or truth and to go to the Vox website and see for themselves.
The wingnut then got his turn, stated that his facts were all proven by numbers and people could see this on his website.
The host then turned to the camera ended the segment saying, "It's a shame we can't even agree on the same data".
When one person presented all sides, the other presented garbage. The host giving equal platform in the name of impartiality really is complicity.
posted by phoque at 6:23 AM on March 31, 2018 [16 favorites]
Wait...they invited John Fucking Lott to the debate? This is a man who was caught out actually falsifying data, and then engaging in Internet sockpuppetry to defend himself. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised, as AEI has been rehabilitationg his reputation for near on two decades now.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:18 PM on March 31, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:18 PM on March 31, 2018 [3 favorites]
A sad search for conservative content at The Atlantic
There is an alternative. If you have to give the right a forum, do it honestly. Pick figures like Ben Shapiro, Kurt Schlichter or Chuck Johnson, honest trolls with a significant following who dare to own the Republican agenda in all its white nationalist paranoia. They’ll stink up your magazine with falsehoods, slander and bigotry, but at least your audience will be seeing authentic conservative narratives, and understanding their enemy.posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:28 PM on April 2, 2018
@JamilSmith: Kevin Williamson didn’t just tweet it. On a 2014 episode of his podcast, he that abortion patients should be treated like murderers and hanged. Folks like [Bret Stephens] should stop trying to excuse or minimize his remarks. You all look foolish, at best.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:38 AM on April 5, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by zombieflanders at 8:38 AM on April 5, 2018 [1 favorite]
Would American intellectual life really lose out because we aren’t debating whether women who have abortions should be hanged?
The thing I think is really important to emphasize is that even within the hardline pro-life set, that’s an extreme and insane position. Like, even on the CruzCrew, nobody believed in that. Even the people who wanted abortion doctors to be jailed didn’t believe in hanging women who have had an abortion.
I would respect the Atlantic a lot if they had a thoughtful pro-life columnist who can speak to the nuances of that position. But that was never this position.
posted by corb at 11:19 AM on April 5, 2018
The thing I think is really important to emphasize is that even within the hardline pro-life set, that’s an extreme and insane position. Like, even on the CruzCrew, nobody believed in that. Even the people who wanted abortion doctors to be jailed didn’t believe in hanging women who have had an abortion.
I would respect the Atlantic a lot if they had a thoughtful pro-life columnist who can speak to the nuances of that position. But that was never this position.
posted by corb at 11:19 AM on April 5, 2018
Laura Ingraham isn't doing much these days, they'll probably give her a call next.
posted by Artw at 11:26 AM on April 5, 2018
posted by Artw at 11:26 AM on April 5, 2018
UPDATE: Turns out she does nazi salutes and bullies victims of gun violence on the regs and is a bad suggestion, so I withdraw it based on this new, previously undiscovered, utterly surprising information.
posted by Artw at 11:33 AM on April 5, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:33 AM on April 5, 2018 [5 favorites]
Well, that was fun. Barely had time to put his framed pictures on the desk.
This was all so richly, deeply avoidable, if only folks believed that the man believed what he said. And how many times, on how many scales, has that been true?
posted by Countess Elena at 12:21 PM on April 5, 2018 [1 favorite]
This was all so richly, deeply avoidable, if only folks believed that the man believed what he said. And how many times, on how many scales, has that been true?
posted by Countess Elena at 12:21 PM on April 5, 2018 [1 favorite]
This was all so richly, deeply avoidable
I'm not sure it was. There's clearly a motive at the Atlantic (and the NYT, for that matter) to enable conservative trolling as long as it makes for page views. Editors like Goldberg are relying on "he's just trolling" or "he's gotten better" for as long as they can, but it's clear they're not going to learn the lesson until it actually hurts. There's also a myth of a noble, intellectual conservative with whom one can have an argument on the merits, but I think what we're learning more and more is that there's no longer any such thing, if there ever was. Williamson certainly wasn't it. Bret Stephens isn't it. Editors like Goldberg are still going to keep looking for them, though, because LOL page views.
posted by fedward at 12:40 PM on April 5, 2018 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure it was. There's clearly a motive at the Atlantic (and the NYT, for that matter) to enable conservative trolling as long as it makes for page views. Editors like Goldberg are relying on "he's just trolling" or "he's gotten better" for as long as they can, but it's clear they're not going to learn the lesson until it actually hurts. There's also a myth of a noble, intellectual conservative with whom one can have an argument on the merits, but I think what we're learning more and more is that there's no longer any such thing, if there ever was. Williamson certainly wasn't it. Bret Stephens isn't it. Editors like Goldberg are still going to keep looking for them, though, because LOL page views.
posted by fedward at 12:40 PM on April 5, 2018 [3 favorites]
fedward: I know those guys exist, but I also know they're not columnists. They're earnest, well-meaning, white, and generally in entirely different lines of work. Their arguments take place at the bar or on Facebook. They are dads. Their voices are represented everywhere they see fit to open their mouths, which, again, is everywhere, and so I agree that they don't need special "representation." I'm sorry that they can't get anybody better than Tim Allen on side, but, you know, not very.
posted by Countess Elena at 1:19 PM on April 5, 2018
posted by Countess Elena at 1:19 PM on April 5, 2018
Even the people who wanted abortion doctors to be jailed didn’t believe in hanging women who have had an abortion.
I would respect the Atlantic a lot if they had a thoughtful pro-life columnist who can speak to the nuances of that position. But that was never this position.'
naked hypocrisy's not "nuance." being female is not considered mentally incapacitating under the law; if the procedure is to be declared a crime that gets its perpetrator locked up, it must and will get women locked up, since women are the ones performing it (via medication) or paying to have it performed (via medical professional) 99 percent of the time. declaring women to be children or insane for the duration of pregnancy for legal purposes is not a nuance, it is differently terrifying but just as misogynist as the Williamsonian alternative.
Williamson is the only kind of pro-life conservative I could have (and in the past, have had) a rational discussion with, because he plays by the rules of logic. I still wouldn't bother, because he's repugnant, dangerous, not half as bright or stylish as his worshipful male peers think he is, and not worth my time. but at least I could.
posted by queenofbithynia at 2:14 PM on April 5, 2018 [5 favorites]
I would respect the Atlantic a lot if they had a thoughtful pro-life columnist who can speak to the nuances of that position. But that was never this position.'
naked hypocrisy's not "nuance." being female is not considered mentally incapacitating under the law; if the procedure is to be declared a crime that gets its perpetrator locked up, it must and will get women locked up, since women are the ones performing it (via medication) or paying to have it performed (via medical professional) 99 percent of the time. declaring women to be children or insane for the duration of pregnancy for legal purposes is not a nuance, it is differently terrifying but just as misogynist as the Williamsonian alternative.
Williamson is the only kind of pro-life conservative I could have (and in the past, have had) a rational discussion with, because he plays by the rules of logic. I still wouldn't bother, because he's repugnant, dangerous, not half as bright or stylish as his worshipful male peers think he is, and not worth my time. but at least I could.
posted by queenofbithynia at 2:14 PM on April 5, 2018 [5 favorites]
Can we all now stop pretending like tweeting is somehow inherently less serious/real than simply, you know, talking or writing in any other forum? It's not clear to me why "it was a tweet" is some kind of defense while "it was a forum post" or "it was an article" or "I said that on the radio" is not. It's your words/thoughts put out in a public way for the world to see.
It seems like a lot of folks in Washington just straight up ignore Trump's ranting on twitter, and I can't tell if that's because they need to ignore Trump or they just disregard Twitter as inherently unserious. If it's the latter that shit needs to stop, though I can 100% get behind a national trend of simply ignoring Trump.
posted by axiom at 2:18 PM on April 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
It seems like a lot of folks in Washington just straight up ignore Trump's ranting on twitter, and I can't tell if that's because they need to ignore Trump or they just disregard Twitter as inherently unserious. If it's the latter that shit needs to stop, though I can 100% get behind a national trend of simply ignoring Trump.
posted by axiom at 2:18 PM on April 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
"The language she used to describe eating children made it clear to us that her original tweets about eating children did, in fact, represent her carefully considered diet of children."
posted by Countess Elena at 2:53 PM on April 5, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by Countess Elena at 2:53 PM on April 5, 2018 [3 favorites]
And, unsurprisingly, Reason is claiming that Williamson's firing shows that The Atlantic can't handle "real" ideological diversity. I don't know about you, but I'm okay with ideological diversity that says that calling for the execution of women who get abortions is morally abhorrent and disgusting, and shoves advocates for such out the door.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:29 AM on April 6, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:29 AM on April 6, 2018 [2 favorites]
That makes a lot of sense, seeing as how Reason publishes a lot of articles about how great taxes and regulations and social safety nets are.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:56 AM on April 6, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:56 AM on April 6, 2018 [4 favorites]
They publish both openly racist and racist-on the-sly conservatives, what are you talking about?
posted by Artw at 8:32 AM on April 6, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:32 AM on April 6, 2018 [2 favorites]
I know those guys exist, but I also know they're not columnists.
White guys with unexamined privilege and no small amount of ignorance (be it willful or merely a coincidence of their surroundings) aren't really intellectual conservatives, though. Maybe I'm creating an impossible definition of the term, but I think if you continue to hold a belief in the face of evidence disproving it (and your counter to that evidence is to try to discount it), you can't really call yourself an intellectual.
posted by fedward at 10:03 AM on April 6, 2018
White guys with unexamined privilege and no small amount of ignorance (be it willful or merely a coincidence of their surroundings) aren't really intellectual conservatives, though. Maybe I'm creating an impossible definition of the term, but I think if you continue to hold a belief in the face of evidence disproving it (and your counter to that evidence is to try to discount it), you can't really call yourself an intellectual.
posted by fedward at 10:03 AM on April 6, 2018
Unsurprisingly, Young Conor of The Atlantic has jumped to Williamson's defense. Of course, he fails to admit the clearly self-evident truth - that this is motivated not by any principle, but by simple self interest, most notably the interest of self-preservation.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:11 AM on April 9, 2018
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:11 AM on April 9, 2018
I tried to read that and got as far as what finally seemed like his thesis, realized I had barely moved the progress indicator in my browser window, and closed the tab. As far as I could tell from what I read before giving up, his thesis was that The Atlantic, his own employer, shouldn't have fired Williamson for [indistinct reasons] and they only did it because liberals were mean to him. Am I wrong, or did the 80% of it that I didn't read actually make a better point?
posted by fedward at 9:51 AM on April 9, 2018
posted by fedward at 9:51 AM on April 9, 2018
"attempts at moral suasion rooted in love?"
Clearly he doesn't have an editor.
posted by fedward at 10:18 AM on April 9, 2018
Clearly he doesn't have an editor.
posted by fedward at 10:18 AM on April 9, 2018
Nope, as the folks at LGM pointed out. Again, it's pretty clear what the actual reason for this is - self-preservation.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:29 AM on April 9, 2018
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:29 AM on April 9, 2018
Do we need to dig around in Twitter for some dumb pretext for firing this idiot? Sounds like something out there is making him sweat.
posted by Artw at 10:42 AM on April 9, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 10:42 AM on April 9, 2018 [2 favorites]
Nona Willis Aronowitz: The Only Honest Right Wing Pundit Is a Violent One
It’s a symbiotic relationship between “reasonable” conservatives and Trumpians, best summed up by former presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty, who recently admitted at a Minnesota diner that, though he supports nearly all of Trump’s policies, “I just didn’t approve of some of his comments and language and behavior.”posted by zombieflanders at 9:45 AM on April 10, 2018 [3 favorites]
But this is by no means a new dynamic. Way before Bret Stephens and the post-Trump call for “ideological diversity,” there were a handful of mostly white, male conservative writers floating around the same few “non-partisan” publications, getting a pass from liberals simply because they’ve been careful not to sound like monsters. They earned their spots in these publications’ pages by talking at arm’s length about policy, refusing to engage with the human consequences of their ideas.
[...]
In Goldberg’s memo explaining Williamson’s firing, he lamented that “the language used in the podcast was callous and violent,” contrary to “respectful, well-reasoned debate, and to the values of our workplace.” But what it really boils down to is that Goldberg was skeeved out. He thought he was getting someone living in a pre-Trump world who was terrified of “gaffes” and practiced in softening the blow of conservatism. Williamson’s execution imagery was indeed gruesome, but the truth is that the end results of most standard conservative ideas are pretty fucking misanthropic, heartless, and violent.
If you oppose universal healthcare, like “respectful” conservative Olympia Snowe, that means you’re okay with more people dying. If you want to make deep cuts to entitlement programs, like “well-reasoned” Republican Paul Ryan, you’re okay with poor people’s lives getting worse. If you’re supportive of militarizing our borders, you’re supportive of the stray immigrant getting shot while trying to cross. If you’re cool with 18-year-olds being able to buy AR-15s, you’re cool with more gun deaths. If you don’t want to teach kids that LGBTQ people deserve equal rights, that means more of them will suffer abuse and harassment.
And if you want the law to classify abortion as premeditated murder, you have to be comfortable with more women dying—both at the hands of unsafe abortion methods, and at the hands of the state.
And in follow-up to an old thread, Harper's Magazine has fired the editor responsible for greenlighting the Katie Roiphe story that led to the outing of the creator of the Shitty Media Men list.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:30 AM on April 18, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:30 AM on April 18, 2018 [2 favorites]
Correction - I misread that previous tweet. The editor was fired for opposing the publication of the piece.
How can Harper's continue to keep fucking this up?
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:37 AM on April 18, 2018 [5 favorites]
How can Harper's continue to keep fucking this up?
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:37 AM on April 18, 2018 [5 favorites]
I wonder who Rick MacArthur has been sexually harassing or assaulting that he wanted that hit piece put out.
posted by tavella at 1:37 PM on April 18, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by tavella at 1:37 PM on April 18, 2018 [5 favorites]
And the usual suspects are outing their hypocrisy with their response to Randa Jarrar's tweets regarding Barbara Bush.
It's both sad and predictable.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:55 AM on April 20, 2018 [2 favorites]
It's both sad and predictable.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:55 AM on April 20, 2018 [2 favorites]
Kevin Williamson has apparently landed a well paid opinion piece in the WSJ complaining about how silenced he is.
posted by Artw at 10:12 AM on April 20, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 10:12 AM on April 20, 2018 [1 favorite]
Is any single viewpoint so heinous as to warrant firing someone from a job?
The thing is - this is honestly a very complicated question, particularly when it comes to the precariat. Like - should I be able to get a Nazi fired from his minimum wage job at Walmart, possibly making his family homeless if he can't find another job? I have honestly a lot of really difficult soul searching over that one.
However this is not a super complicated question for a nationally known pundit that can always find another job, whether or not it will be as prestigious is not an issue of "am I taking bread out of the mouths of his children."
posted by corb at 10:14 AM on April 20, 2018
The thing is - this is honestly a very complicated question, particularly when it comes to the precariat. Like - should I be able to get a Nazi fired from his minimum wage job at Walmart, possibly making his family homeless if he can't find another job? I have honestly a lot of really difficult soul searching over that one.
However this is not a super complicated question for a nationally known pundit that can always find another job, whether or not it will be as prestigious is not an issue of "am I taking bread out of the mouths of his children."
posted by corb at 10:14 AM on April 20, 2018
@mickey_mccauley
Hey guys check out my latest piece "I Am Being Silenced For My Conservative Virtues" running simultaneously in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Bloomberg News, and Atlantic. And check out my talkback of the piece on CNN, MSNBC,
posted by Artw at 11:43 AM on April 20, 2018 [3 favorites]
Hey guys check out my latest piece "I Am Being Silenced For My Conservative Virtues" running simultaneously in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Bloomberg News, and Atlantic. And check out my talkback of the piece on CNN, MSNBC,
posted by Artw at 11:43 AM on April 20, 2018 [3 favorites]
The thing is - this is honestly a very complicated question, particularly when it comes to the precariat. Like - should I be able to get a Nazi fired from his minimum wage job at Walmart, possibly making his family homeless if he can't find another job? I have honestly a lot of really difficult soul searching over that one.
Hmm...
Pretty okay with it, TBH.
posted by Artw at 9:41 AM on April 22, 2018 [1 favorite]
Hmm...
Pretty okay with it, TBH.
posted by Artw at 9:41 AM on April 22, 2018 [1 favorite]
« Older a flattering malady | A Celestial Palace Falls to Earth Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Trump is no worse than any of them, he's just more bald-faced and guileless. Make no mistake, Williamson is a horrible human being who would support Trump in a heartbeat if he said and did the same things, but in the correct manner.
posted by explosion at 12:09 PM on March 28, 2018 [91 favorites]