Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It was ironic.

Oh, it was? What was the irony there?

Yeah, I know the point was Sullivan is controversial.

That wasn't quite the point. It was the juxtaposition of how Sullivan and Coates each saw their relationship. Sullivan was deluding himself in thinking it was great.

But where that fails is your proof of that being Coates, who is an unreliable source. You don't ask the man who has a hammer-and-nail view of the world, where the problem with everything is racism which must be assailed, if someone is a racist. Of course Sullivan is a racist. So is every living thing with which Coates comes into contact.

Whether or not you think Sullivan is racist, and whether or not you think that Coates is a good writer, you have to be struck that Sullivan bragged about the great intellectual relationship he shared with Coates, but Coates had a very different view.

Several years ago, Coates read a history of the Thirty Years War by C.V. Wedgwood and blogged about it, for example in this post and this one. When I think about his stuff, that's the stuff that stands out to me. I read Wedgwood's book on his recommendation, and it was great. I defy you to read those posts and tell me that Coates has a hammer-and-nail view of the world. Now, maybe you've read his books (I haven't) and can tell me he's changed. But more likely, I think Coates often writes about race, and that's not a subject you're interested in, so you have dismissed him. Your caricature of him and his work is ignorant, but that's your problem, not mine.

But here's some really fun stuff: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...le-cornel-west

That's Colonel West blasting Coates, calling him a neoliberal anti-racist who ignores the intersectional interplay of class and race and instead assesses race in a vacuum, alone, because he doesn't want to get into the concurrent class issues. Why? Because to assess those issues along with race might put Coates at odds with the well-heeled members of academe and the woke capitalists who pay for his home in Paris.

Yes, that was a pretty big dust-up. If you are interested only in West because you found someone dumping on Coates, you will not care to read this piece about their back-and-forth or Coates saying he doesn't understand what West is on about.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That wasn't quite the point. It was the juxtaposition of how Sullivan and Coates each saw their relationship. Sullivan was deluding himself in thinking it was great.

don't you think this is pretty common in supposed mentor/junior relationships? I liked the senior partner I worked with mostly. But he was a selfish prick in a lotta ways, and he doesn't know that. He'd write the same way about our relationship.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Coates is not a star. He’s a darling of a niche of readers who think his stuff is quality. He’s a decent enough writer, but generally a one trick pony. All roads lead to grievance. He also engages in a bit of clickbait writing by arguing for reparations. It’s not that he doesn’t have some decent points, but he’s on permanent repeat. You criticize Taibbi for endlessly milking the same media criticisms. That’s fair. Taibbi does mine the vein a bit too frequently. In the same manner, Coates see everything through a lens of race theory and grievance.

Taibbi, unlike Coates (and Sullivan) remains interesting because he has a bit more range, and most importantly - this is huge - he has a sense of humor. Coates takes himself brutally seriously. So does Sullivan. That makes their stuff tedious.

I’m not interested in the point you were making because I think it’s an example of Coates being a bore and a windbag. He and Sullivan deserve each other.

I've been reading Coates at the Atlantic and other places for well over a decade and that's not a characterization of him and his writing that I would say sticks. He's very good at painting pictures of his upbringing in Baltimore, of his studies of French, of his family. None of that is grievance. It's his reality, which is different from my reality. I find it really interesting and informative. I didn't pick up his run on Black Panther, but it got mixed reviews.

Yes, he talks about reparations and what is and has been done to black bodies. But he talks about a lot of other things too.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

don't you think this is pretty common in supposed mentor/junior relationships? I liked the senior partner I worked with most. But he was a selfish prick in a lotta ways, and he doesn't know that. He'd write the same way about our relationship.

Yes, I think that's often true. The person with more status can persuade himself that the relationship is unaffected by the mismatch in status.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Yes, I think that's often true. The person with more status can persuade himself that the relationship is unaffected by the mismatch in status.

Kinda like when you were deleting my posts here, and sending me explanations. Not okay!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Oh, it was? What was the irony there?

The suggestion they bury the hatchet was ironic. Clearly this is never going to happen.

That wasn't quite the point. It was the juxtaposition of how Sullivan and Coates each saw their relationship. Sullivan was deluding himself in thinking it was great.

And Coates taking himself as serious as cancer, as usual, and offering a bitter take on it. Sullivan may have been a bit deluded, but Coates was, as always sour and dour. In a moment where he could have made fun of Sullivan quite effectively, he's again flatfooted, ever earnest.

Whether or not you think Sullivan is racist, and whether or not you think that Coates is a good writer, you have to be struck that Sullivan bragged about the great intellectual relationship he shared with Coates, but Coates had a very different view.

Sullivan was clearly deluded.

Several years ago, Coates read a history of the Thirty Years War by C.V. Wedgwood and blogged about it, for example in this post and this one. When I think about his stuff, that's the stuff that stands out to me. I read Wedgwood's book on his recommendation, and it was great. I defy you to read those posts and tell me that Coates has a hammer-and-nail view of the world. Now, maybe you've read his books (I haven't) and can tell me he's changed. But more likely, I think Coates often writes about race, and that's not a subject you're interested in, so you have dismissed him. Your caricature of him and his work is ignorant, but that's your problem, not mine.

An examination of his works, which can be aggregated on The Atlantic website, shows a roughly 80% focus on matters of race. The very article you cite shows him shoehorning his own quest to understand racism into a review of another person's book. If not for his his giving the author a lengthy quote in the middle of the piece, one could and should flag him for making a book a review into a self-examination.

Yes, that was a pretty big dust-up. If you are interested only in West because you found someone dumping on Coates, you will not care to read this piece about their back-and-forth or Coates saying he doesn't understand what West is on about.

In one of those pieces, Coates admits he cannot hold forth on economics or foreign policy. Well, if one desires to make strident policy prescriptions, one should address that ignorance. Because if you don't understand economics, which West very much does, you don't understand one of the largest forces causing systemic racism and classism. I find it utterly astounding for a person who makes a case for reparations to admit he doesn't consider himself qualified to speak on economics.

What, Mr. Coates, is reparations if not an economic program?

This preciousness in which he asserts he can offer policy prescriptions in a vacuum and needn't engage the economic arguments offered by West and Sanders is why his stuff fails to satisfy. Agree with him or not, West Gets It. He connects the economics and the property rights-obsessed legal system to racism and classism. He explains how our hierarchies are designed to deliver for certain people while excluding others. His is a more expansive and satisfying view that sees racism in context rather than as a stand alone item.

Coates would do well to learn economics, and perhaps math more generally (no one can argue for reparations and claim to grasp math).* He may find a lot of his Marvel royalties fail to materialize if he does not learn the numbers, and how to spot an agent's syphoning of them.
_____
*ETA: I believe West makes the case to highlight how much has been robbed from generations of African Americans, not out of a sincere belief the money could ever be paid.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I've been reading Coates at the Atlantic and other places for well over a decade and that's not a characterization of him and his writing that I would say sticks. He's very good at painting pictures of his upbringing in Baltimore, of his studies of French, of his family. None of that is grievance. It's his reality, which is different from my reality. I find it really interesting and informative. I didn't pick up his run on Black Panther, but it got mixed reviews.

Yes, he talks about reparations and what is and has been done to black bodies. But he talks about a lot of other things too.

I scanned his canon at The Atlantic. It's roughly 80% focused on race and social justice matters. I understand that's his brand, so I don't hold it against him. Everybody's got to pay the mortgage.

But if Tabbi can pull off writing about so many disparate subjects (police brutality [I Can't Breathe], banking crisis [Griftopia], civil justice system unfairness [The Divide], numerous political campaigns [Insane Clown President, Smells Like Dead Elephants, Spanking the Donkey], media bias [Hate, Inc.], general societal delusions [The Great Derangement]), and Coates is ostensibly just as gifted a writer, why is Coates self-limiting?

And more importantly, why is Coates adored here, while Taibbi is scorned? I'd say West puts his finger on it - Coates offers banal but intellectual-sounding analysis that upper middle class people find palatable. He's a significantly gelded form of radical chic. One can deal with him, where someone like West, who understands the issues in greater detail, is uncompromising.

I'd love the meet Colonel West (I have friend who did and said the experience was highly enlightening and entertaining). I've heard West and Taibbi go back and forth in several interviews and podcasts and even when I don't agree, I'm challenged and I have my mind changed. West has his shit down, and the two of them are formidable as all fuck when they agree. I could be wrong, but Coates strikes me as someone who'd be a supreme bore, unable to crack comedic, most interested in appearing erudite rather than actually saying anything truly revelatory.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I scanned his canon at The Atlantic. It's roughly 80% focused on race and social justice matters. I understand that's his brand, so I don't hold it against him. Everybody's got to pay the mortgage.

But if Tabbi can pull off writing about so many disparate subjects (police brutality [I Can't Breathe], banking crisis [Griftopia], civil justice system unfairness [The Divide], numerous political campaigns [Insane Clown President, Smells Like Dead Elephants, Spanking the Donkey], media bias [Hate, Inc.], general societal delusions [The Great Derangement]), and Coates is ostensibly just as gifted a writer, why is Coates self-limiting?

And more importantly, why is Coates adored here, while Taibbi is scorned? I'd say West puts his finger on it - Coates offers banal but intellectual-sounding analysis that upper middle class people find palatable. He's a significantly gelded form of radical chic. One can deal with him, where someone like West, who understands the issues in greater detail, is uncompromising.

I'd love the meet Colonel West (I have friend who did and said the experience was highly enlightening and entertaining). I've heard West and Taibbi go back and forth in several interviews and podcasts and even when I don't agree, I'm challenged and I have my mind changed. West has his shit down, and the two of them are formidable as all fuck when they agree. I could be wrong, but Coates strikes me as someone who'd be a supreme bore, unable to crack comedic, most interested in appearing erudite rather than actually saying anything truly revelatory.

Tiabbi can "pull off" writing about all of that stuff because he's mostly style - no one is better at grandiose insults - but analysis rarely ventures beyond caricature.

Naturally, that appeals to you.

[Hank Chinaski]

So, Biden's main TV commercial theme is that once in office he’ll issue a mandatory mask executive order? It seems like these ads (anyone besides Seb and me even seeing ads? Most of you are in non contested states?) are going to drive voters away. For one, in August he is promising a mask order for January? Nationwide? Too pessimistic. Plus his big first step is to order me to do something I'm already being ordered to do?

And young people are pretty much done. These ads have got to hurt younger turnout.

There is so much you could run on against Trump. Seems ill-advised?

[Hank Chinaski]

Hi!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So, Biden main theme is that once in office he’ll issue a mandatory mask executive order? It seems like these ads (anyone besides Seb and me even seeing ads? Most of you are in non contested states?) are going to drive. Iteration away. For one, in August he is promising a mask order for January? Nationwide?

Plus, young people are pretty much done. These ads have got to hurt younger turnout.

There is so much you could run on against Trump. Seems ill-advised?

I don’t watch any political ads and I don’t answer polls.

Biden is losing this state now. Two reasons. First is Pittsburgh is the fracking capital. They hate the VP selection of Harris. The local economy is increasingly dependent on oil and gas. Second is the Philly burbs are embracing the law and order pitch. Those people are supporters of moderates, R or D. They don’t like Trump, but the riots scare them more, and that fear provides a nice excuse to vote their economic interest.

The rest of the state is covered in Trump signs. I drive the Eastern side from the NY state border to Philly. It looks like 2016 all over again as far as coverage.

The riots are killing Biden. He has to come out against them, yesterday.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I scanned his canon at The Atlantic. It's roughly 80% focused on race and social justice matters. I understand that's his brand, so I don't hold it against him. Everybody's got to pay the mortgage.

But if Tabbi can pull off writing about so many disparate subjects (police brutality [I Can't Breathe], banking crisis [Griftopia], civil justice system unfairness [The Divide], numerous political campaigns [Insane Clown President, Smells Like Dead Elephants, Spanking the Donkey], media bias [Hate, Inc.], general societal delusions [The Great Derangement]), and Coates is ostensibly just as gifted a writer, why is Coates self-limiting?

And more importantly, why is Coates adored here, while Taibbi is scorned? I'd say West puts his finger on it - Coates offers banal but intellectual-sounding analysis that upper middle class people find palatable. He's a significantly gelded form of radical chic. One can deal with him, where someone like West, who understands the issues in greater detail, is uncompromising.

I'd love the meet Colonel West (I have friend who did and said the experience was highly enlightening and entertaining). I've heard West and Taibbi go back and forth in several interviews and podcasts and even when I don't agree, I'm challenged and I have my mind changed. West has his shit down, and the two of them are formidable as all fuck when they agree. I could be wrong, but Coates strikes me as someone who'd be a supreme bore, unable to crack comedic, most interested in appearing erudite rather than actually saying anything truly revelatory.

I've met Cornell West many times, beginning with back when we were both in DSA in the late 70s and early 80s. Once he was both interesting and inspiring, I'd even say brilliant, and really struggled with things like facts and history, but the last time I met him, probably ten years ago, before my cancer, he was a shell of his former self. It's like all the detailed history and political analysis he had stuffed in his head in the 80s and 90s just evaporated, leaving him with nothing but memories of rants gone by. You raise something like Black September or his discussions with Michael Harrington back when DSA was a fledgling, and it was like he just couldn't place them and he just sailed off on tangents. I've only seen a few people who have lost it as thoroughly as him. Very very sad. Still entertaining, but untethered, and he used to be.

I have a similar history with Bernie, knew him back when he was elected mayor (have I told you I was there the night he was elected?). But with him it was just raging narcissism that took over, it's not any loss of mental focus.

As to Taibbi, it's because he's just an asshole. You can only take an asshole for so long.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So, Biden's main TV commercial theme is that once in office he’ll issue a mandatory mask executive order? It seems like these ads (anyone besides Seb and me even seeing ads? Most of you are in non contested states?) are going to drive voters away. For one, in August he is promising a mask order for January? Nationwide? Too pessimistic. Plus his big first step is to order me to do something I'm already being ordered to do?

And young people are pretty much done. These ads have got to hurt younger turnout.

There is so much you could run on against Trump. Seems ill-advised?

I think he's running a "let Trump hang himself and don't make any major errors" campaign. I would much rather see him more heavily engaged. Still, you don't see the real strategy until after labor day, now really is a time when you only get engagement from the hard core so a lot of campaigns just lay groundwork and raise money at this point in the cycle.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think he's running a "let Trump hang himself and don't make any major errors" campaign. I would much rather see him more heavily engaged. Still, you don't see the real strategy until after labor day, now really is a time when you only get engagement from the hard core so a lot of campaigns just lay groundwork and raise money at this point in the cycle.

There was always going to be a Democratic freak-out, and just after the RNC and just before Labor Day is the perfect time for it.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think he's running a "let Trump hang himself and don't make any major errors" campaign. I would much rather see him more heavily engaged. Still, you don't see the real strategy until after labor day, now really is a time when you only get engagement from the hard core so a lot of campaigns just lay groundwork and raise money at this point in the cycle.

I like this speech.

also, the fracking issue was addressed head on.