Chapo Trap House and the rise of the dirtbag left

I forget who found this, but it sums up every single person in British politics/media pic.twitter.com/yvq5RGT7JJ

— Will🦕Menaker (@willmenaker) February 20, 2019

don't make me explain who all the ppl in that thread are

is who they are important? because it's plenty funny enough knowing they're just a bunch of journalists with no life experience

oh god I'm choking laughing from that

had to look to see if it was real, but I'd forgotten that these people are insane caricatures so of course it is

are those people not taking the piss?

nope

welcome to every day in UK politics journalism

that’s not even tom peck’s best tweet

"how many layers of STEMlord are you on, bro?"
"like five or six"
"you are like a little baby. watch this" pic.twitter.com/ao3Ye1kdFk

— eturtle witness (@wehpudicabok) August 6, 2017

"I've never eaten cereal."
"I've never petted a dog."
"I've never kissed another human being on the mouth."

that’s the least benign ‘benign opinion’ i’ve ever heard

feeling mild embarrassment for not having done something most people have done

versus

proudly having never done anything normal

lolling at the fact theyre at CPAC

it’s funny to see you talking shit when I’m at CPAC meeting Chuck Baldwin. pathetic pic.twitter.com/8Xe37d1IUm

— incredibly weak, demure irl but uses bear jew avi (@ByYourLogic) February 28, 2019

Matt was on fire in the Larry Charles ep

i listened to an episode of the red scare podcast on someone's rec yesterday, and those women are insufferable, aren't they?

a dangerous drinking game would be to take a shot every time they use the term "neoliberal" in a pejorative way (which is the only way they, or probably anyone else, uses it). i don't think there's a definition of that term that could be plausibly stretched to cover every of the ways they invoke it. it basically serves the same function that terms like "bourgeois" once served in marxist-leninist discourse, as a kind of secular substitute for xian demonology or something.

i don't doubt their commitment to bernie or whatever but the main impression i get is of a narcissism of small differences where distinguishing themselves from liberal normies is the driving force.

anyway. back to my podcasts on the history of the subcontinent. "personality" podcasts are, in my experience, uniformly awful.

Got called a “judeo-communist.” #stillgotit

— Matt Christman (@cushbomb) February 28, 2019

FetLife Expo ‘19 is lit! pic.twitter.com/fylAtom4dh

— Matt Christman (@cushbomb) February 28, 2019

Larry Charles ep better than expected, with the side benefit that they went through so much of the series' subjects that I don't feel the slightest temptation to actually watch any of it

lol @ Large Sons Productions

I admire and relate to the lengths to which they will poison their own brains in service of content

Love to have a normal, regular conversation with the guy who personally protected Jeffrey Epstein’s child rape ring. pic.twitter.com/8Y4cpte0T3

— Matt Christman (@cushbomb) February 28, 2019

podcasts on the history of the subcontinent.

Recs?

Amber on the NYT for Columbia Journalism Review

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/why-the-left-cant-stand-the-new-york-times.php/

that lede 👎

What is the Bernie upset described in the phrase "The past presidential election was a shock to nearly everyone whose job it was to predict its outcome, and both the Bernie and Trump upsets prove..." ?

bernie doing fairly well in the campaign and having a lot of support?

"upset" is pulling double duty there

all the Chapos are banned from ever referencing Network again

amber otm re the FT

the amber piece is excellent NYT has been bad for so long

FT is what i draw for when I'm somewhere with a selection of papers - that or the globe and mail - hate the NYT

that Nation travel side hustle thing is sad

substitute every reference to the NYT in that article with the guardian and repost it in the LRB

the guardian at least posts op-eds by actual leftists once in a blue moon

I had a similar realization about the Times many years ago when I started accidentally getting the WSJ (pre-Murdoch) and realized how dramatically better the reporting was and how relatively free of fluff and filler the paper was compared to the Times (notwithstanding the horror-show of an op-ed page, and the Times isn't much better on that front)

that lede 👎

― ebro the letter (Whiney G. Weingarten), Friday, March 1, 2019 1:30 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm

the Times editorials are noticeably less horrifying (mostly) than they were under W and Clinton, imho

man Financial Times is boring af, writing is so dry and you can really tell the target audience are investors. i don’t really believe leftists who say they read it. i imagine most say it bc of that classic Chomsky quote

no

polite no

I also like the economist

And the times (of London)

Also a family friend who is a prominent marxist economic historian subscribes to the ft and reads it cover to cover

Derick Varn and other leftist writers I know have pointed out that it’s worth paying attention to the reporting in the Ft and WSJ from time to time because they’re writing for people who actually run things so they need to know what’s going on.

that’s the Chomsky quote yea

idk i just don’t buy that non-investors get much out of it. but im more broadly skeptical of how much wisdom abt economics can be extracted from raw dogging the news

you can really tell the target audience

this really counts, though! i’m less familiar with the financial times but used to subscribe to the economist because there was a consistent, knowable point of view. if you know where you stand, you can triangulate against the house pov in your reading and get something out of it

they have an ethos, man

economist is a lot more readable than FT imo

Weird, I hate the economist. It’s like an airplane mag for capitalism.

Lol @ “rawdogging the news.”

I guess tbf this stuff is relevant to my work so I’m not really just trying to jam info into my head at random.

Bloomberg Businessweek is v good btw.

I like the Bennet writings on gender and the Me Too movement in the NYT, to say that they only focuses on actresses and media personality is not really good research.

nfw online ny media leftists read less nyt than ft. just judging by stuff they rt/quote it’s a blowout