A lot of people are going to compare this publication to "bog Conservative" -- or worse, 'alt-right' -- online publications. A friend sent me an article for the first time today and it took the words out of my head - and it's not at all what I would consider right-wing.
Does the word 'white' in the headline of this piece make you nervous: https://quillette.com/2018/08/17/a-closer-look-at-anti-white... ? Will you skim the headline, downvote this and fail to read the part that talks heavily about the new NYT editor and hundreds of her tweets, combines other examples and advances a thesis that there's a new type of religious ideology that's taken hold in the U.S., while traditional religion waned? If so, then you're precisely what the conversation is about: people who sit idly by as a new dogmatism takes hold under the guise of righteousness.
As a traditionally Left person myself, I'm deeply troubled by the discourse in the U.S., where the Left and the extreme Right use the same phraseology and attitude, while the former feels vindicated and justified (because they are on the correct side). And throwing away due process in the interest of the Greater Good? If you're not reminded of the Salem Witch Trials, you should be reminded of Stalin's purges just the same.
Stepping out of right-versus-left politics, the idea is to remain skeptical of all group-think, regardless of where it comes from.
> And throwing away due process in the interest of the Greater Good? If you're not reminded of the Salem Witch Trials, you should be reminded of Stalin's purges just the same.
Indeed. Most of the rhetoric seems to have a tit-for-tat feel to it. I don't know how the rest of the right wing feel, but things like the Russia conspiracy theories are a lot more palatable in light of older, even more insane conspiracy theories like Obama instituting Sharia law or being born in Kenya.
The concerning parts of the dialog are the innocuous elements where due process starts to break down. Slogans like "Resist" and "Not My President" are more scary than most of the rest to me - the health of the system are more important than political ideology. Hopefully they don't mean what they are literally saying, but it'll be scary if that language breaks out of America and starts to spread across the rest of the Anglosphere.
Most of the rhetoric seems to have a tit-for-tat feel to it.
Forget about tit for tat. Let's talk about principles. Innocent until proven guilty. Rule of law. The right of free speech. As per usual, the side holding power wishes to dispense with those principles, so they can proceed to get their way, "for the greater good." The other side, knocked onto its back foot, is the one talking about principles. In the 60's, it was the other way around, at least at first.
(Then, as now, there are opportunists on the far extremes, hoping to gain power by fanning the flames of outrage.)
Now, power is not only embodied in television and print media, it's also mediated by the viral potential of social media. There is one side which seeks to reserve the power of virality to itself, all the while holding onto the declining power of traditional media. It's precisely for situations like this, that the principles were created. It's precisely this kind of imbalance that the principles are supposed to help bring back towards the center.
the health of the system are more important than political ideology
> Slogans like "Resist" and "Not My President" ... Hopefully they don't mean what they are literally saying,
It's not that bad. The people who say these things are neither so dangerous that they really mean something terrible, nor so silly that they don't mean what they say.
They mean what they say, but they mean it according to a pretty benign interpretation. They wish "resist" the government using the tools of democratic action. Trump is "not my president" for all those who find his stances repugnant to their ideals -- i.e. those whom he does not represent.
That's all fine; in a free country it is good and proper for people to stoutly oppose the supreme executive. But you are right to be concerned there is a fashion for stating that opposition in language that has darker meanings too. And the danger is that when this language becomes standard, people will slide into really meaning those darker things.
> the health of the system are more important than political ideology
this is basically the rallying cry of the radical left. it's ok if not all of their reaction is good as long as it's possible: good ideas should rise to the top.
> I'm deeply troubled by the discourse in the U.S., where the Left and the extreme Right use the same phraseology and attitude
It's pretty simple: there is a burgeoning Reactionary Left in the US. For the last few generations 'left' essentially meant 'progressive' so there's some lag in updating people's mental schema and naming it what it is. As a foreigner, I am less worried by its existence (it's not unique with regards to other countries, and it's relatively small) than by the willingness of the more mainstream left to either downplay or appease it... But the US also have a very opportunistic political culture, so they're probably used to foster some narrative (it reminds me of the Republicans in 2009 wondering how they can take advantage of this Tea Party thing. Same thing here, with the Dems trying to find a way to use these identitarians to their benefit -- what could possibly go wrong?).
I think you have to separate phraseology from intent.
Better yet, do an analysis of subjects, verbs, and objects. If you diagram the sentences and analyze the rhetoric, what you'll see is that certain groupings of people based on hard to change outward characteristics are characterized as harmful, while certain others are characterized as inherently good. The further towards the extremes of both ends of the political spectrum you go, the more of this you find.
Instead, the hostility from the left is more directed towards those that hold these prejudicial views.
Are you saying that no one on the left calls out particular racial groups and demonizes them? The truth is the opposite. The further left you go, the more identitarian the rhetoric becomes, until certain skin colors are called out as being inherently bad.
> Are you saying that no one on the left calls out particular racial groups and demonizes them?
Again, that is why I mentioned phraseology versus intent.
> Are you saying that no one on the left calls out particular racial groups and demonizes them?
And this is my point. I don't entirely agree with this statement. I believe the situation is more subtle as the Jeong case illustrates.
Instead, it would be fairer to say that the further left you go (in the US), there is animosity towards conservatism and racism and some on the left believe that this conservatism is mainly supported by a certain segment of whites.
I agree that sometimes an unfortunate phraseology is used by those that muddies the meaning.
Instead, it would be fairer to say that the further left you go (in the US), there is animosity towards conservatism and racism
Go far enough left, and what you'll see is there's animosity towards one kind of racism, combined with energetic forwarding of another kind of racism, plus other identitarian tribalist ideas. The above is then combined with nonsensical linguistic games denying the bigotry, claiming that there's some directional arrow based on inherent characteristics.
I agree that sometimes an unfortunate phraseology is used by those that muddies the meaning.
Political extremists on both the far left and far right are demonizing entire groups of people based on ethnic subcultural markers, skin color, and other hard to change characteristics. We know what that is, historically. We already have words and definitions for that sort of thing. Those definitions are universal and orthogonal from any particular identity. It's only in recent years that people have tried to sell the public nonsensical "unfortunate phraseology."
"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength." It's the evil that disguises itself as good in the eyes of many that does the most damage.
That is why the IDW (which includes Jordan Peterson) is seeing so much growth in spite of (or maybe because) of America's hyper-partisan media and political landscape. People are tired of the mudslinging and BS. They want the truth and o be able to engage in civil dialogue.
RebelTV is not alt-right; it's founder has explicitly disavowed any association with the group/term. (Not to mention all the non-whites and women they employ.)
>> "As a tradinally Left person myself, I'm deeply troubled by the disourse in the U.S., where the Left and the extreme Right use the same phraseology and attitude, while the former feeling vindicated and justified. And throwing away due process in the interest of the Greater Good?"
I mean, yeah, but Quillette is still a rag. It exists to exhaust people with the time, energy, and knowledge to debunk it so people without that will be duped by its arguments that only seem reasonable on the surface and one or two layers below, right above the trash.
Quillette is like a knowledge slot machine to people who want to be well-informed but don't have the resources to do it without leaning on others who do. It lures you in with surface plausibility.
We read rags all day: Politico, Vox, even the Guardian and the NYT do plenty of ragging. It's not all flak-jacket reporting with helicopters buzzing overhead and sandstorms; there's plenty of polemics to go around.
The article I linked above is very rational and supported with references.
I'm sure it is, but I don't see why Quillete needs to be given attention. It's bad media. It feeds on people without enough patience to resist skilled manipulation. It leans on confirmation bias and hammers it in.
Someone elsewhere likened it to Galileo. Quillette is more like the Church. It says "the Earth is flat!" How many times do you walk someone through the math of proving the Earth is roundish before you realize it's futile? Unchecked confirmation bias always wins. The best treatment is to starve it of air.
It doesn't need profiles in mostly credible outlets. It needs a faulty backup and restoration plan and a power surge.
> Someone elsewhere likened it to Galileo. Quillette is more like the Church. It says "the Earth is flat!" How many times do you walk someone through the math of proving the Earth is roundish before you realize it's futile? Unchecked confirmation bias always wins. The best treatment is to starve it of air.
I don't think this is a healthy view for the long term success of a culture built around social justice (the combination of how-often-do-I-have-to-repeat-this with it's-not-my-job-to-educate-you). It's been less than two decades since swinging popular opinion over onto the side of broader rights and already the people who should be the stanchest advocates seem tired of trying to persuade people.
This is a fundamental part of human culture, you have to keep explaining the so-called basics again and again, rather than being exasperated whenever people want it explained for the umpteenth time. Learn from religions, and see how even when Christianity was the absolute dominant Western culture, that they were happy to explain it again and again to anyone that wanted to listen. That is what you need to do if you want to keep your gains and keep everyone on the same page.
Inoreader's stats say it posts 14 articles a week to 306 subscribers, just on Inoreader. Their Twitter has close to 100k followers.
I might persuade one person in the time they convince or reinforce 10 beliefs in 1000 people. What hope does good information have against that kind of persuasion engine? There's a reason religion's decline started with the rise of mass media. It had competition.
Plenty of bright and well-educated people, myself included, like Quillete. One possibility is that we are all suffering from the same intellectual malady, which results in our general success across a wide range of fields, but a critical failure where we cannot distinguish good from bad media.
Another alternative is there is some more value in Quillete than you have evaluated.
I mean, yeah, but Quillette is still a rag. It exists to exhaust people with the time, energy, and knowledge to debunk it so people without that will be duped by its arguments that only seem reasonable on the surface and one or two layers below, right above the trash.
Quillette is like a knowledge slot machine to people who want to be well-informed but don't have the resources to do it without leaning on others who do. It lures you in with surface plausibility.
I think you edited after my response below, so:
If your words are true, the entire thing is discredited. It feels hand-wavy, so do you have any examples or references? The article I linked above has supported references and links, and it's quite long. You're saying it's a complete fraud?
You've provided no evidence for your claims at all, only one post-comment-edit and a repetition of your ad-hominems against the publication. It's bad because it's bad, it's a fraud because it's a fraud, and when asked to clarify what's fraudulent about it, we're told there are "gradients."
It's the same tired old conservative talking points with the edges filed down. It's futile. People believe what they want to believe. When they're ready to question it, they can see all that's been written over the last couple decades about conservative media. I am not re-treading it for the nth time just because someone repackaged the same stuff for a new generation.
> An earlier version mistakenly identified the public context of a sign that declared “Alcohol-restricted zone.” Such signs refer to a prohibition on public drinking and appear in many English neighborhoods, irrespective of Muslim population.
That's what you get when islamophobic idiots write articles about a country they don't understand. These signs really are common across England. There's one outside my house. (Muslim population in my street = 0, and in this part of town = < 2%). But the article is full of this kind of horseshit: "no one makes eye contact" - yep, this happens, but it happens between everyone regardless of religion: we don't talk to each other in the south. About the only thing that's true is that some mosques distribute unpleasant material. I'd ban it, but then I'd also ban this shitty article. Mr Ngo is a hypocrite for calling out these pamphlets while writing material as objectionable himself.
people who want to be well-informed but don't have the resources to do it without leaning on others who do
Uh, isn't that absolutely everyone?
All your comments on this page are very ugly, and remind me of the SJWs in the movie The Red Pill - so certain they're right that they have no need to think about, engage with, consider the matter/group/publication in question. They are good, the other is bad, by definition.
I hadn't heard of Lehmann or Quillette. Reading most of the comments on this page, I expected some ranting far-right lunatic website. But a couple of comments made me think it might be worth checking out.. And what a surprise. It seems full of interesting articles. Has supportive blurbs from quite a lot of writers I like. I was expecting at best an intelligent site from the right[0]. It's actually nothing like that, just seems full of good articles from good writers. Why the hate and fear on this page, I have no idea. So I bookmarked quillette.com and will be reading their stuff. Thanks HN.
[0] I like to sometimes read "conservative" stuff, to counterbalance my natural far-left inclinations. e.g. I love the books of Roger Kimball and David Stove, and have learnt a lot from them. Plus they're excellent writers, and can be very funny. (Although I read one of Kimball's purely political pieces online once, OMG it was embarrassingly bad. But in matters of general art/culture/philosophy I don't often disagree with him.)
There's a greentext somewhere in here cruising for a shadowban. I know where the lines are. That's why I stepped back and re-evaluated. I was mean and harsh, like I said. I wouldn't say any of it is ugly.
Maybe I'm just comparing to when I was what I'd call ugly in the past...
Maybe you're right! I'll keep this in mind for the future.
Does the word 'white' in the headline of this piece make you nervous: https://quillette.com/2018/08/17/a-closer-look-at-anti-white... ? Will you skim the headline, downvote this and fail to read the part that talks heavily about the new NYT editor and hundreds of her tweets, combines other examples and advances a thesis that there's a new type of religious ideology that's taken hold in the U.S., while traditional religion waned? If so, then you're precisely what the conversation is about: people who sit idly by as a new dogmatism takes hold under the guise of righteousness.
As a traditionally Left person myself, I'm deeply troubled by the discourse in the U.S., where the Left and the extreme Right use the same phraseology and attitude, while the former feels vindicated and justified (because they are on the correct side). And throwing away due process in the interest of the Greater Good? If you're not reminded of the Salem Witch Trials, you should be reminded of Stalin's purges just the same.
Stepping out of right-versus-left politics, the idea is to remain skeptical of all group-think, regardless of where it comes from.
edit: grammar