Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
By new voices you mean the people criticizing the well-established Harpers' writers? Folks like DeLong?
You can see the irrelevance of much of the Harpers crowed by their inability to engage with what's going on in places like Portland. The American cultural elite represented there are too busy figuring out which network to contract with for their commentary to actually play a leading role in a movement for change, something even a stick-in-the-mud like John Adams (a very good writer) managed in his time.
|
No. I dislike DeLong, but it’s based on views and conclusions. DeLong is an able writer and a smart analyst. I say he sucks because I think he reaches a conclusion and then assembles support for it. That’s just my personal view. He’s got good company, residing in that category with kiwi fruit, Bon Iver, eggplant, David Brooks, white wine, and ranch dressing.
I was referring to the journalists and pundits and bloggers of the moment who have contributed to, enable, or engage in practices of cancel culture.
I’m referring to the overheated voices who think because their passion is so intense, their cause so urgent and compelling, no critique of it, and certainly no opposition to it may be engaged, but rather anything that “does not aid the movement” should be shunned, and anyone speaking such things be made a pariah.
ETA: I think the establishment voices who signed the Harper’s Letter will be quite vocal in disdain for what’s happening in Portland, if they’ve not been so already. But they’ll criticize it as illegal, unconstitutional. Their less circumspect colleagues who absorb “the new truth” will bleat incoherently about it, call Trump a new Hitler, and do something futile, like starting a petition to demand Fox fire Tucker Carlson for defending the use of minivans and anonymous federal agents.
