I was skeptical, so I had a look at your examples. Oh boy.
"In one recent post, she argues that the majority of LGBTQ people had adverse childhood experiences, ominously warning that “this isn’t a coincidence. The media will never talk about this important topic though.” Forget criticizing the edges of wokeness and the cultural left, Raichik seems more content simply bringing back decades-old myths about homosexuality being the consequence of child abuse or mental illness."
That is a distortion of her point at best. She was specifically talking about Nex Benedict, who the trans activist world held up as someone who was killed for being trans, and it turns out had a lot of other problems.
"That’s also evident in her recent suggestion that a transgender Colorado state lawmaker is mentally ill because she’s 'literally a man who thinks he’s a woman.'”
You do realize that gender dysphoria is in the DSM as a mental illness. That is why insurance pays to treat it.
"Recently, she posted a story about a man murdering his girlfriend, noting that he was a Somali Muslim immigrant in Sweden. While this was a shocking act of domestic violence, what did it have to do with wokeness?"
She says so right in her post! It was not just a routine act of domestic violence, it was an honor killing. You might not agree that it is a bad idea to let in millions of people to Sweden who hold incompatible values, but she is still making a clear argument.
You've distorted every example I checked, so I won't bother looking at the rest of them.
For better or worse (certainly worse) Sweden, Germany, etc. have imported American racial problems via Open Borders. Sweden was once one of the safest countries in the world. Now it has 'no go' areas that the police will not enter (except in force).
Both extremes offer nothing but rage bait. However, the left annoys me more than the right since I used to be a good progressive and actually believed the lies in my media bubble. Now, I'm just a disgusted centrist who doesn't believe either side. If you know of any centrist news media other than Ground News, I'd love to hear about it.
The progressive online left is very annoying, but the reality is that most of the annoying very online progressives are pretty young people. I was annoying too when I was younger, I'm in my mid-thirties now and have a better understanding of the world than I did when I was 20, so I have hope that most of them will temper with age (I could be wrong! But this has been my experience being in that milieu) . Most of the online far right is full of people older and sometimes much older than myself so with all their years they should know better. But they don't because they are actually small-minded and emotionally stunted people. The Democratic leadership is disliked by the progressive left because they don't take them seriously (understandably), but unfortunately the Republicans seem too eager still to take their worst faction into consideration and run with it.
I’m in the same boat. I’m developing a PAC to rebuild the political center. “The Bipartisan Wing “. I’m also working on an online magazine called The Seattle Journal. https://theseattlejournal.com “news and views from the political center”. I had to jump in and do something. Seattle hurts my head.
I regard FB, IG, X, Tik Tok as rivers of toxic sludge... much like the one we had to work in the cafeteria at boarding school...LOL. So I don't take much of that seriously and I don't look at social media other than the comedy reels sent by friends. However, believe it or not there is nuance in some of the stuff you mentioned. Especially the LGBT bit.
Conflating LGB and T is unhelpful and it drives me insane when people write pieces making blanket statements about homophobia. You point out, "In one recent post, [Raichik] argues that the majority of LGBTQ people had adverse childhood experiences"... this is actually TRUE (a point touted by LGBTQ activists as well), but its not the whole story. The nuance we dont parse out is whether some of those experiences are gay youth who have adverse experiences like bullying because they are gay OR if some of these are youth who have adverse experiences unrelated to sexual orientation or gender and subsequently latch on to trans ideology as a coping mechanism, OR if perhaps some are gay youth with internalized homophobia who try to trans their own gay away. We just dont know! And the lefts narrative of "its homophobic to ask" is whats making everything a nightmare to suss out.
You go on to say "Raichik seems more content simply bringing back decades-old myths about homosexuality being the consequence of child abuse or mental illness." ...and then...
"That’s also evident in her recent suggestion that a transgender Colorado state lawmaker is mentally ill because she’s “literally a man who thinks he’s a woman.”
Those are two COMPLETELY different scenarios. Its disingenuous to say that Raichik makes claims about causality, when she is very right to highlight correlation. That distinction is important because there is a LOT to unpack with all of this. A man who thinks he's a woman IS literally mentally ill! Do we take jobs away from people with bipolar disorder or depression or autism (assuming the conditions dont interfere with work)? NO we dont. And likewise we shouldnt discriminate against trans people who mind their business. BUT its still a mental illness.
Trans people DO bring up VERY serious questions about women and girls and their safety. Transgenderism also brings up questions about fairness and discrimination against women.
Homosexuality does NOT bring up the same issues. Women can keep their own spaces while still fully respecting and celebrating homosexuals and homosexuality. We CAN NOT do the same with transgenderism without boundaries, which the left refuses to even discuss. In large part due to the obfuscation of the LGB and the TQ.
That said, Raichik herself does not make the distinction in her claims. She paints a broad brush regarding LBGTQ ideology. But I have to say, the ideology coopted the "LGB" ON PURPOSE to confuse, obfuscate, and give cover to transgenderism which DOES amount to mental illness and/or cult belief whereas homosexuality does not. Its a piggybacking. A marrying of a truth to a lie for credibility. If Raichik were less of an opportunist herself she would make the distinction but she has an agenda. That agenda doesn't make her point wrong though. It just makes it a bit disingenuous...
And so you BOTH play this game back and forth. Only, her side isnt as out to lunch, and her side cares about my interests as a mother of three girls. There are FAR more women in the world than there are transexuals and we are being erased...by the left. That matters! Im 48 years old, always a go with the flow liberal, never gave a rats ass about politics. Now my family has shunned me for speaking out about teen girls getting mastectomies because they think they are boys (i personally know 2 teens who have done this which puts me squarely in a twilight zone episode). My 9 year old is terrified of playing soccer against the trans boys. And I have been called a bigot for championing a new gay rights where boys are not encouraged to try to become girls before they are old enough to explore their sexuality. NONE of this is bigoted! Or particularly "conservative". Its just humane and rational and normal to champion allowing kids to grow up naturally, in all of its pain and glory.
Im sorry but I found this piece off putting, and maybe a little immature, even though I agree social media is a river of toxic sludge. Toxic people can still be preaching the truth at times. We HAVE to be willing to say "on those things she is wrong but on these things she is correct". We have to be willing to hold two things at once, cut through the bullshit, and seek the truth whereever it leads or we are done for.
I agree with you entirely - about separating the T (and all the million other special letters) from the LGB, about the article, and especially about its dismissiveness about the legitimate critique of the insanity of the dominant narrative about transgenderism.
Trans is the new homophobia, the latest version of the long discredited practice of "conversion therapy". The spiritually elevated among medical professionals have realized they can't change a kid's "inappropriate" attraction to the same sex; but hey! Now with brutal, disfiguring surgeries and a a lifelong dependence on dangerous drugs and hormones with unknown long-term side effects, we can change troubled kids' bodies and their inappropriate attractions to a pitifully poor imitation of a body whose sexual attractions would be "appropriate". And never mind that they will be sterile or that there won't be much sexual interest left after castration or that the imitation genitals the surgeries give them won't function at all well or that they will likely find it extremely difficult to attract a long-term partner. Most alarming, the proponents of "gender affirming care" know full well that teens much less prepubescent children cannot understand any of these drawbacks but persist in claiming the obvious fiction that informed consent can be given.
I hadn't heard of those, except for Libs of TikTok, which had some funny videos, a couple of which I saw. I'm sad to hear that it has gone around the bend (I'm taking you at your word, for the sake of this comment).
Do you have a suggestion? I can recommend that people read Persuasion and The Dispatch. I'd be happy to hear of a news/analysis site with the same sensibility as TD but a progressive orientation. In general, though, people should just cut their intake down, given that almost nothing that they'll read will have any information that's actionable for them, and certainly cut down on anger.
I subscribe to Josh Barro and appreciate his perspective, but he doesn't have nearly the amount of output that publications like The Dispatch and Persuasion do. He's also hardly representative of the progressive wing, but that's probably why I so often agree with his opinions.
I'm also a long-time Atlantic subscriber and really enjoy the work they publish. I don't always agree with the opinions, but that's kind of the point. They usually get me thinking.
Beyond that, I also subscribe to the free NYT morning newsletter, which I find better than I had expected. I would consider a paid subscription, but am pretty much at content saturation after including my local newspaper (a shell of its former self, but still with good local government coverage from one or two tireless old reporters).
Thank you for the recommendations. My impression of the 'Times -- based on the Tom Cotton debacle, 𝘭'𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘦 Bari Weiss, 𝘭'𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘦 Donald McNeil and my firsthand knowledge of how bad their Israel reporting is -- is that it will suborn all reporting to the service of its social goals. I therefore rarely read it.
Some of the best essays I've read have been in The Atlantic, but they were rarely those that support its progressive bent -- possibly because the progressive ones don't have to work as hard to get accepted.
In the pandemic all mainstream channels (with the exception of Fox which was sufficiently stigmatized by the liberals and left as to have very little influence beyond its own subscribers) adopted a compliant approach to state intervention in the media. Social media became the preferred route to avoid this. Problem was very few social media channels of import were reflecting the concerns of centre/right wing voters. We now know that the White House has since not departed from that left wing bias and has been pushing through worrying edicts about children, education, equity, hatred and anti-racism without proper debate in Congress.
So, in the face of this onslaught from the left wing, moderate and conservative commentators have coalesced to provide channels of expression for parents who do not want their children to become chattel of leftwing social and biological experimentation and people who think that white business people awaiting approval of visas deserve better attention from the immigration authorities than they are getting. Musk, for reasons of his own, has chosen to facilitate this.
So, this is "hell'. Rather melodramatic, do you not think? But that melodrama is now the standard tactic employed by the spoiled university radicals of the intifada to plead oppression when they are in fact the people dictating the social agenda and milking the state of funds for unproven forms of education, therapy and care.
Scales of justice tip both ways, not just in favor of the left. Stop moaning and live with it.
Oh, good gravy. Zaid Jilani: Take the Oracle's advice and Gnothi Seauton. "Musk and his favored anti-woke accounts have no interest in balance, maybe because the site rewards conflict and extremism, not comity and self-control . . . " Riiiight, because social media has always put a premium on thoughtfulness, balance, and respect for opposing viewpoints. Especially anything mildly askew from the progressive viewpoint. The record isn't at all littered with progressives attacking people, often with ACTUAL physical violence, and seeking to drum them out of polite society, get them fired, prevent them from speaking/debating, earning a living, stripping them of professional licensure, etc. No siree - none of us have seen anything like that happen; not to college students, professors, economists, psychologists, scientists, writers, comics, editors of major lefty periodicals . . . especially not to those who really have it coming, like Christian high school students in red hats, world-renowned epidemiologists, or even backup musicians in popular folk/rock bands. And now you lament a lack of decency. Woe, indeed. Lefties earnestly wringing their hands about even the limited pushback from folk like Chaya at LOTT or Ian Miles Cheong would be adorable if they weren't so transparent, like the rioter throwing incendiaries at police who indignantly screams "You're hurting me" as she gets arrested and cuffed, then pens an indignant letter to the Hague from the coffee shop the next morning after our esteemed Vice President bails her sorry ass out.
NO, it's the "big name bigots" who are the problem, because they have the temerity to point out some of the absurdities that leftism and wokeness so graciously bring us, like, for instance, observing that trans is an actual thing where an individual can literally alter their biology through drugs and surgical intervention to become the opposite sex, not an elaborate game of pretend (feel and act however you want - none of my business - but don't insist on my endorsement of your delusion). Doubt me? Show me a MTF with ovaries and a womb, or FTM with functioning gonads. I'll wait. (Incidentally, you'll be glad that you're dead and gone by the time that worm really turns and history's judgment eviscerates that folly. You're grandchildren may have to disavow you, however.) And no offense to the trans beauties on the adult interwebs - some of them are smoking hot.
And while we're on the topic of the nonsensical, let's visit the sin of observing the imbalance of coverage of interracial crime compared actual occurrence of interracial crime, both in terms of who is doing what to whom, how often, and for what reason. You may think Amerikkka is chock-a-block with racist white folk champing at the bit to whoop-up on some hapless minorities, and that pointing out that no, that's not reality in the slightest, but an absurd characterization by arrogant know-nothings, is an affront to measured discussion and debate, but that's going to draw legitimate objection. What you're really objecting to is that these facts and opinions are being aired in territory you once considered exclusively yours. So entitled are you, in fact, that you see nothing wrong with instruments of government power and coercion (the ones you used to profess to hate) dictating to social media platforms what constitutes "fact" and which perspectives and opinions should be formally suppressed. Because you know "the truth" (despite denying there is such a thing in the very next breath). How far the left has come. So far, in fact, that you now occupy territory that you previously, and erroneously, accused the right of inhabiting. Why, it's as though the left was NEVER actually sincere about "free speech" and "live and let live" and all that hooey - it applied to what YOU WANTED, THEN. It wasn't about sacrosanct principles, it was convenient and self-serving - a way for you to force unpopular ideas upon everyone else by light of the US Constitution. And now, that same Constitution, it's the creation of monsters.
So, the crocodile tears about the abandonment of comity, reason and balance, and all those good things the left professes to love but never actually practices - well, as the dominant cultural voice of the last, oh, seven or eight decades, the left has nowhere to look to blame but in the mirror. I know it's tough to overcome your implicit bias and embrace your responsibility, but maybe some ridiculous ditzy huckster or race-baiting charlatan will come along and package it all nicely in a book of circular, meaningless jargon to empower you to be a better, more judgmental and suspicious citizen. Or, by that time, maybe you'll just be able to inform the Ministry of Truth of someone uttering non-permissible thought, or, heaven forbid, using a single-serving plastic spork. Nirvana, Changri-la, Pyongyang.
Mr. Hodosh, I have all of the above products and I’ve never had any social media accounts at all. I saw early on, in a forum, that online “conversations” were nothing of the kind, and how quickly everything devolved to resentment, misreading, grandstanding, backbiting, and fruitless contests for who got the last word. I count myself as fortunate.
“Discussion” has never been the right metaphor. Nor has it “democratized” anything. Social media is a tool, period. The horrors associated with it are ours and ours alone.
Another writer on here I follow, Freddie DeBoer, argues that the invention of the internet was probably a mistake. Unfortunately, he is probably right. For all the access it has given us to information, it too easily allows for the distortion of information. Sadly, we can't close Pandora's Box, but we can try to fight it by engaging with people in the real world that we disagree with. With kindness and humility.
Am I the only human being with an iPhone and laptop who has never been on X or TikTok? Am I to be pitied or congratulated? Also, Musk's Tesla automobiles are no longer cutting edge.
Zaid, one gets a distinct feeling that you were okay with Twitter when is was Leftist propaganda that was in the main on that platform. Now it is more on the so called, Right, and you seem to be complaining? You use the excuse that you hope it doesn't become so focused on the opinions of those on the Right, as it was on the Left before Musk bought it, with which most people would agree. You ask "What does all this mean? Am I just complaining about something that’s completely irrelevant to life? I’m always wary of writing too much about social media." I agree with you it is best for you and us all to stay away from writing too much about what we read on social media. 😐
Just a question before going to sleep. Should the right to speak freely be granted infinitely to an individual despite repeated infringements of that right through hatred, abuse etc? Or should those infringements result in a period of disbarment? I mean. If i commit repeated dui’s I expect to get disbarred from driving.
There’s no point having a license if the license is not retractable.
I know, right? The prequel to the Constitooshun clearly states that the Right to Party shall not be infringed (the prohibition on bogarting is not textual, but is found slinking around in the penumbras). It's a relief, however, that we have people around who can determine though divine insight what constitutes truth, or abuse, or hatred. Especially as the understanding and usage of those terms is increasingly rendered meaningless through overuse and misapplication, like calling someone racist simply for disagreeing with a POC, on anything.
But those are just problems for the practitioner, e.g. how do you "disbar" someone from speaking? (Judge Merchan's laughably unconstitutional gag order notwithstanding.) The difference is between a right and a license. A right is inherent, a license is a privilege.
Zaid, one gets a distinct feeling that you were okay with Twitter when is was Leftist propaganda that was in the main on that platform. Now it is more on the so called, Right, and you seem to be complaining? You use the excuse that you hope it doesn't become so focused on the opinions of those on the Right, as it was on the Left before Musk bought it, with which most people would agree. You ask "What does all this mean? Am I just complaining about something that’s completely irrelevant to life? I’m always wary of writing too much about social media." I agree with you it is best for you and us all to stay away from writing too much about what we read on social media. 😐
Zaid, one gets a distinct feeling that you were okay with Twitter when is was Leftist propaganda that was in the main on that platform. Now it is more on the so called, Right, and you seem to be complaining? You use the excuse that you hope it doesn't become so focused on the opinions of those on the Right, as it was on the Left before Musk bought it, with which most people would agree. You ask "What does all this mean? Am I just complaining about something that’s completely irrelevant to life? I’m always wary of writing too much about social media." I agree with you it is best for you and us all to stay away from writing too much about what we read on social media. 😐
Zaid, one gets a distinct feeling that you were okay with Twitter when is was Leftist propaganda that was in the main on that platform. Now it is more on the so called, Right, and you seem to be complaining? You use the excuse that you hope it doesn't become so focused on the opinions of those on the Right, as it was on the Left before Musk bought it, with which most people would agree. You ask "What does all this mean? Am I just complaining about something that’s completely irrelevant to life? I’m always wary of writing too much about social media." I agree with you it is best for you and us all to stay away from writing too much about what we read on social media. 😐
I was skeptical, so I had a look at your examples. Oh boy.
"In one recent post, she argues that the majority of LGBTQ people had adverse childhood experiences, ominously warning that “this isn’t a coincidence. The media will never talk about this important topic though.” Forget criticizing the edges of wokeness and the cultural left, Raichik seems more content simply bringing back decades-old myths about homosexuality being the consequence of child abuse or mental illness."
That is a distortion of her point at best. She was specifically talking about Nex Benedict, who the trans activist world held up as someone who was killed for being trans, and it turns out had a lot of other problems.
"That’s also evident in her recent suggestion that a transgender Colorado state lawmaker is mentally ill because she’s 'literally a man who thinks he’s a woman.'”
You do realize that gender dysphoria is in the DSM as a mental illness. That is why insurance pays to treat it.
"Recently, she posted a story about a man murdering his girlfriend, noting that he was a Somali Muslim immigrant in Sweden. While this was a shocking act of domestic violence, what did it have to do with wokeness?"
She says so right in her post! It was not just a routine act of domestic violence, it was an honor killing. You might not agree that it is a bad idea to let in millions of people to Sweden who hold incompatible values, but she is still making a clear argument.
You've distorted every example I checked, so I won't bother looking at the rest of them.
For better or worse (certainly worse) Sweden, Germany, etc. have imported American racial problems via Open Borders. Sweden was once one of the safest countries in the world. Now it has 'no go' areas that the police will not enter (except in force).
Both extremes offer nothing but rage bait. However, the left annoys me more than the right since I used to be a good progressive and actually believed the lies in my media bubble. Now, I'm just a disgusted centrist who doesn't believe either side. If you know of any centrist news media other than Ground News, I'd love to hear about it.
The progressive online left is very annoying, but the reality is that most of the annoying very online progressives are pretty young people. I was annoying too when I was younger, I'm in my mid-thirties now and have a better understanding of the world than I did when I was 20, so I have hope that most of them will temper with age (I could be wrong! But this has been my experience being in that milieu) . Most of the online far right is full of people older and sometimes much older than myself so with all their years they should know better. But they don't because they are actually small-minded and emotionally stunted people. The Democratic leadership is disliked by the progressive left because they don't take them seriously (understandably), but unfortunately the Republicans seem too eager still to take their worst faction into consideration and run with it.
I’m in the same boat. I’m developing a PAC to rebuild the political center. “The Bipartisan Wing “. I’m also working on an online magazine called The Seattle Journal. https://theseattlejournal.com “news and views from the political center”. I had to jump in and do something. Seattle hurts my head.
Good for you!
I regard FB, IG, X, Tik Tok as rivers of toxic sludge... much like the one we had to work in the cafeteria at boarding school...LOL. So I don't take much of that seriously and I don't look at social media other than the comedy reels sent by friends. However, believe it or not there is nuance in some of the stuff you mentioned. Especially the LGBT bit.
Conflating LGB and T is unhelpful and it drives me insane when people write pieces making blanket statements about homophobia. You point out, "In one recent post, [Raichik] argues that the majority of LGBTQ people had adverse childhood experiences"... this is actually TRUE (a point touted by LGBTQ activists as well), but its not the whole story. The nuance we dont parse out is whether some of those experiences are gay youth who have adverse experiences like bullying because they are gay OR if some of these are youth who have adverse experiences unrelated to sexual orientation or gender and subsequently latch on to trans ideology as a coping mechanism, OR if perhaps some are gay youth with internalized homophobia who try to trans their own gay away. We just dont know! And the lefts narrative of "its homophobic to ask" is whats making everything a nightmare to suss out.
You go on to say "Raichik seems more content simply bringing back decades-old myths about homosexuality being the consequence of child abuse or mental illness." ...and then...
"That’s also evident in her recent suggestion that a transgender Colorado state lawmaker is mentally ill because she’s “literally a man who thinks he’s a woman.”
Those are two COMPLETELY different scenarios. Its disingenuous to say that Raichik makes claims about causality, when she is very right to highlight correlation. That distinction is important because there is a LOT to unpack with all of this. A man who thinks he's a woman IS literally mentally ill! Do we take jobs away from people with bipolar disorder or depression or autism (assuming the conditions dont interfere with work)? NO we dont. And likewise we shouldnt discriminate against trans people who mind their business. BUT its still a mental illness.
Trans people DO bring up VERY serious questions about women and girls and their safety. Transgenderism also brings up questions about fairness and discrimination against women.
Homosexuality does NOT bring up the same issues. Women can keep their own spaces while still fully respecting and celebrating homosexuals and homosexuality. We CAN NOT do the same with transgenderism without boundaries, which the left refuses to even discuss. In large part due to the obfuscation of the LGB and the TQ.
That said, Raichik herself does not make the distinction in her claims. She paints a broad brush regarding LBGTQ ideology. But I have to say, the ideology coopted the "LGB" ON PURPOSE to confuse, obfuscate, and give cover to transgenderism which DOES amount to mental illness and/or cult belief whereas homosexuality does not. Its a piggybacking. A marrying of a truth to a lie for credibility. If Raichik were less of an opportunist herself she would make the distinction but she has an agenda. That agenda doesn't make her point wrong though. It just makes it a bit disingenuous...
And so you BOTH play this game back and forth. Only, her side isnt as out to lunch, and her side cares about my interests as a mother of three girls. There are FAR more women in the world than there are transexuals and we are being erased...by the left. That matters! Im 48 years old, always a go with the flow liberal, never gave a rats ass about politics. Now my family has shunned me for speaking out about teen girls getting mastectomies because they think they are boys (i personally know 2 teens who have done this which puts me squarely in a twilight zone episode). My 9 year old is terrified of playing soccer against the trans boys. And I have been called a bigot for championing a new gay rights where boys are not encouraged to try to become girls before they are old enough to explore their sexuality. NONE of this is bigoted! Or particularly "conservative". Its just humane and rational and normal to champion allowing kids to grow up naturally, in all of its pain and glory.
Im sorry but I found this piece off putting, and maybe a little immature, even though I agree social media is a river of toxic sludge. Toxic people can still be preaching the truth at times. We HAVE to be willing to say "on those things she is wrong but on these things she is correct". We have to be willing to hold two things at once, cut through the bullshit, and seek the truth whereever it leads or we are done for.
I agree with you entirely - about separating the T (and all the million other special letters) from the LGB, about the article, and especially about its dismissiveness about the legitimate critique of the insanity of the dominant narrative about transgenderism.
Trans is the new homophobia, the latest version of the long discredited practice of "conversion therapy". The spiritually elevated among medical professionals have realized they can't change a kid's "inappropriate" attraction to the same sex; but hey! Now with brutal, disfiguring surgeries and a a lifelong dependence on dangerous drugs and hormones with unknown long-term side effects, we can change troubled kids' bodies and their inappropriate attractions to a pitifully poor imitation of a body whose sexual attractions would be "appropriate". And never mind that they will be sterile or that there won't be much sexual interest left after castration or that the imitation genitals the surgeries give them won't function at all well or that they will likely find it extremely difficult to attract a long-term partner. Most alarming, the proponents of "gender affirming care" know full well that teens much less prepubescent children cannot understand any of these drawbacks but persist in claiming the obvious fiction that informed consent can be given.
I hadn't heard of those, except for Libs of TikTok, which had some funny videos, a couple of which I saw. I'm sad to hear that it has gone around the bend (I'm taking you at your word, for the sake of this comment).
Do you have a suggestion? I can recommend that people read Persuasion and The Dispatch. I'd be happy to hear of a news/analysis site with the same sensibility as TD but a progressive orientation. In general, though, people should just cut their intake down, given that almost nothing that they'll read will have any information that's actionable for them, and certainly cut down on anger.
I subscribe to Josh Barro and appreciate his perspective, but he doesn't have nearly the amount of output that publications like The Dispatch and Persuasion do. He's also hardly representative of the progressive wing, but that's probably why I so often agree with his opinions.
I'm also a long-time Atlantic subscriber and really enjoy the work they publish. I don't always agree with the opinions, but that's kind of the point. They usually get me thinking.
Beyond that, I also subscribe to the free NYT morning newsletter, which I find better than I had expected. I would consider a paid subscription, but am pretty much at content saturation after including my local newspaper (a shell of its former self, but still with good local government coverage from one or two tireless old reporters).
Thank you for the recommendations. My impression of the 'Times -- based on the Tom Cotton debacle, 𝘭'𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘦 Bari Weiss, 𝘭'𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘦 Donald McNeil and my firsthand knowledge of how bad their Israel reporting is -- is that it will suborn all reporting to the service of its social goals. I therefore rarely read it.
Some of the best essays I've read have been in The Atlantic, but they were rarely those that support its progressive bent -- possibly because the progressive ones don't have to work as hard to get accepted.
In the pandemic all mainstream channels (with the exception of Fox which was sufficiently stigmatized by the liberals and left as to have very little influence beyond its own subscribers) adopted a compliant approach to state intervention in the media. Social media became the preferred route to avoid this. Problem was very few social media channels of import were reflecting the concerns of centre/right wing voters. We now know that the White House has since not departed from that left wing bias and has been pushing through worrying edicts about children, education, equity, hatred and anti-racism without proper debate in Congress.
So, in the face of this onslaught from the left wing, moderate and conservative commentators have coalesced to provide channels of expression for parents who do not want their children to become chattel of leftwing social and biological experimentation and people who think that white business people awaiting approval of visas deserve better attention from the immigration authorities than they are getting. Musk, for reasons of his own, has chosen to facilitate this.
So, this is "hell'. Rather melodramatic, do you not think? But that melodrama is now the standard tactic employed by the spoiled university radicals of the intifada to plead oppression when they are in fact the people dictating the social agenda and milking the state of funds for unproven forms of education, therapy and care.
Scales of justice tip both ways, not just in favor of the left. Stop moaning and live with it.
Oh, good gravy. Zaid Jilani: Take the Oracle's advice and Gnothi Seauton. "Musk and his favored anti-woke accounts have no interest in balance, maybe because the site rewards conflict and extremism, not comity and self-control . . . " Riiiight, because social media has always put a premium on thoughtfulness, balance, and respect for opposing viewpoints. Especially anything mildly askew from the progressive viewpoint. The record isn't at all littered with progressives attacking people, often with ACTUAL physical violence, and seeking to drum them out of polite society, get them fired, prevent them from speaking/debating, earning a living, stripping them of professional licensure, etc. No siree - none of us have seen anything like that happen; not to college students, professors, economists, psychologists, scientists, writers, comics, editors of major lefty periodicals . . . especially not to those who really have it coming, like Christian high school students in red hats, world-renowned epidemiologists, or even backup musicians in popular folk/rock bands. And now you lament a lack of decency. Woe, indeed. Lefties earnestly wringing their hands about even the limited pushback from folk like Chaya at LOTT or Ian Miles Cheong would be adorable if they weren't so transparent, like the rioter throwing incendiaries at police who indignantly screams "You're hurting me" as she gets arrested and cuffed, then pens an indignant letter to the Hague from the coffee shop the next morning after our esteemed Vice President bails her sorry ass out.
NO, it's the "big name bigots" who are the problem, because they have the temerity to point out some of the absurdities that leftism and wokeness so graciously bring us, like, for instance, observing that trans is an actual thing where an individual can literally alter their biology through drugs and surgical intervention to become the opposite sex, not an elaborate game of pretend (feel and act however you want - none of my business - but don't insist on my endorsement of your delusion). Doubt me? Show me a MTF with ovaries and a womb, or FTM with functioning gonads. I'll wait. (Incidentally, you'll be glad that you're dead and gone by the time that worm really turns and history's judgment eviscerates that folly. You're grandchildren may have to disavow you, however.) And no offense to the trans beauties on the adult interwebs - some of them are smoking hot.
And while we're on the topic of the nonsensical, let's visit the sin of observing the imbalance of coverage of interracial crime compared actual occurrence of interracial crime, both in terms of who is doing what to whom, how often, and for what reason. You may think Amerikkka is chock-a-block with racist white folk champing at the bit to whoop-up on some hapless minorities, and that pointing out that no, that's not reality in the slightest, but an absurd characterization by arrogant know-nothings, is an affront to measured discussion and debate, but that's going to draw legitimate objection. What you're really objecting to is that these facts and opinions are being aired in territory you once considered exclusively yours. So entitled are you, in fact, that you see nothing wrong with instruments of government power and coercion (the ones you used to profess to hate) dictating to social media platforms what constitutes "fact" and which perspectives and opinions should be formally suppressed. Because you know "the truth" (despite denying there is such a thing in the very next breath). How far the left has come. So far, in fact, that you now occupy territory that you previously, and erroneously, accused the right of inhabiting. Why, it's as though the left was NEVER actually sincere about "free speech" and "live and let live" and all that hooey - it applied to what YOU WANTED, THEN. It wasn't about sacrosanct principles, it was convenient and self-serving - a way for you to force unpopular ideas upon everyone else by light of the US Constitution. And now, that same Constitution, it's the creation of monsters.
So, the crocodile tears about the abandonment of comity, reason and balance, and all those good things the left professes to love but never actually practices - well, as the dominant cultural voice of the last, oh, seven or eight decades, the left has nowhere to look to blame but in the mirror. I know it's tough to overcome your implicit bias and embrace your responsibility, but maybe some ridiculous ditzy huckster or race-baiting charlatan will come along and package it all nicely in a book of circular, meaningless jargon to empower you to be a better, more judgmental and suspicious citizen. Or, by that time, maybe you'll just be able to inform the Ministry of Truth of someone uttering non-permissible thought, or, heaven forbid, using a single-serving plastic spork. Nirvana, Changri-la, Pyongyang.
But you didn't hear that from me.
Mr. Hodosh, I have all of the above products and I’ve never had any social media accounts at all. I saw early on, in a forum, that online “conversations” were nothing of the kind, and how quickly everything devolved to resentment, misreading, grandstanding, backbiting, and fruitless contests for who got the last word. I count myself as fortunate.
“Discussion” has never been the right metaphor. Nor has it “democratized” anything. Social media is a tool, period. The horrors associated with it are ours and ours alone.
Another writer on here I follow, Freddie DeBoer, argues that the invention of the internet was probably a mistake. Unfortunately, he is probably right. For all the access it has given us to information, it too easily allows for the distortion of information. Sadly, we can't close Pandora's Box, but we can try to fight it by engaging with people in the real world that we disagree with. With kindness and humility.
Am I the only human being with an iPhone and laptop who has never been on X or TikTok? Am I to be pitied or congratulated? Also, Musk's Tesla automobiles are no longer cutting edge.
p.s. Is X to intelligent discussion what Twizzlers are to real licorice?
Zaid, one gets a distinct feeling that you were okay with Twitter when is was Leftist propaganda that was in the main on that platform. Now it is more on the so called, Right, and you seem to be complaining? You use the excuse that you hope it doesn't become so focused on the opinions of those on the Right, as it was on the Left before Musk bought it, with which most people would agree. You ask "What does all this mean? Am I just complaining about something that’s completely irrelevant to life? I’m always wary of writing too much about social media." I agree with you it is best for you and us all to stay away from writing too much about what we read on social media. 😐
Just a question before going to sleep. Should the right to speak freely be granted infinitely to an individual despite repeated infringements of that right through hatred, abuse etc? Or should those infringements result in a period of disbarment? I mean. If i commit repeated dui’s I expect to get disbarred from driving.
There’s no point having a license if the license is not retractable.
I know, right? The prequel to the Constitooshun clearly states that the Right to Party shall not be infringed (the prohibition on bogarting is not textual, but is found slinking around in the penumbras). It's a relief, however, that we have people around who can determine though divine insight what constitutes truth, or abuse, or hatred. Especially as the understanding and usage of those terms is increasingly rendered meaningless through overuse and misapplication, like calling someone racist simply for disagreeing with a POC, on anything.
But those are just problems for the practitioner, e.g. how do you "disbar" someone from speaking? (Judge Merchan's laughably unconstitutional gag order notwithstanding.) The difference is between a right and a license. A right is inherent, a license is a privilege.
Zaid, one gets a distinct feeling that you were okay with Twitter when is was Leftist propaganda that was in the main on that platform. Now it is more on the so called, Right, and you seem to be complaining? You use the excuse that you hope it doesn't become so focused on the opinions of those on the Right, as it was on the Left before Musk bought it, with which most people would agree. You ask "What does all this mean? Am I just complaining about something that’s completely irrelevant to life? I’m always wary of writing too much about social media." I agree with you it is best for you and us all to stay away from writing too much about what we read on social media. 😐
Zaid, one gets a distinct feeling that you were okay with Twitter when is was Leftist propaganda that was in the main on that platform. Now it is more on the so called, Right, and you seem to be complaining? You use the excuse that you hope it doesn't become so focused on the opinions of those on the Right, as it was on the Left before Musk bought it, with which most people would agree. You ask "What does all this mean? Am I just complaining about something that’s completely irrelevant to life? I’m always wary of writing too much about social media." I agree with you it is best for you and us all to stay away from writing too much about what we read on social media. 😐
Zaid, one gets a distinct feeling that you were okay with Twitter when is was Leftist propaganda that was in the main on that platform. Now it is more on the so called, Right, and you seem to be complaining? You use the excuse that you hope it doesn't become so focused on the opinions of those on the Right, as it was on the Left before Musk bought it, with which most people would agree. You ask "What does all this mean? Am I just complaining about something that’s completely irrelevant to life? I’m always wary of writing too much about social media." I agree with you it is best for you and us all to stay away from writing too much about what we read on social media. 😐
👏👏👏