welcome to every day in UK politics journalism
― ||||||||, Wednesday, 20 February 2019 20:16 (five years ago) link
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
― ||||||||, Wednesday, 20 February 2019 20:18 (five years ago) link
"I've never eaten cereal.""I've never petted a dog.""I've never kissed another human being on the mouth."
― Evans on Hammond (evol j), Wednesday, 20 February 2019 20:30 (five years ago) link
that’s the least benign ‘benign opinion’ i’ve ever heard
― “Emotional Interest Underwear” (bizarro gazzara), Wednesday, 20 February 2019 20:33 (five years ago) link
feeling mild embarrassment for not having done something most people have done
versus
proudly having never done anything normal
― mh, Wednesday, 20 February 2019 20:34 (five years ago) link
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
― global tetrahedron, Thursday, 28 February 2019 17:23 (five years ago) link
Matt was on fire in the Larry Charles ep
― ebro the letter (Whiney G. Weingarten), Thursday, 28 February 2019 17:27 (five years ago) link
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.
― affects breves telnet (Gummy Gummy), Thursday, 28 February 2019 17:32 (five years ago) link
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
― Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Thursday, 28 February 2019 17:43 (five years ago) link
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
― bhad bundy (Simon H.), Thursday, 28 February 2019 17:48 (five years ago) link
lol @ Large Sons Productions
― JoeStork, Thursday, 28 February 2019 18:03 (five years ago) link
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
― bhad bundy (Simon H.), Thursday, 28 February 2019 20:47 (five years ago) link
podcasts on the history of the subcontinent.
Recs?
― Frederik B, Thursday, 28 February 2019 21:56 (five years ago) link
Amber on the NYT for Columbia Journalism Review
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/why-the-left-cant-stand-the-new-york-times.php/
― bhad bundy (Simon H.), Friday, 1 March 2019 20:23 (five years ago) link
that lede 👎
― ebro the letter (Whiney G. Weingarten), Friday, 1 March 2019 20:30 (five years ago) link
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..." ?
― Dan I., Friday, 1 March 2019 20:39 (five years ago) link
bernie doing fairly well in the campaign and having a lot of support?
― ( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 1 March 2019 20:41 (five years ago) link
"upset" is pulling double duty there
― maffew12, Friday, 1 March 2019 20:43 (five years ago) link
all the Chapos are banned from ever referencing Network again
― bhad bundy (Simon H.), Friday, 1 March 2019 20:44 (five years ago) link
amber otm re the FT
― PaulDananVEVO (||||||||), Friday, 1 March 2019 20:47 (five years ago) link
the amber piece is excellent NYT has been bad for so long
― Mordy, Friday, 1 March 2019 20:51 (five years ago) link
FT is what i draw for when I'm somewhere with a selection of papers - that or the globe and mail - hate the NYT
― ( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 1 March 2019 20:55 (five years ago) link
that Nation travel side hustle thing is sad
― bhad bundy (Simon H.), Friday, 1 March 2019 20:58 (five years ago) link
substitute every reference to the NYT in that article with the guardian and repost it in the LRB
― PaulDananVEVO (||||||||), Friday, 1 March 2019 21:00 (five years ago) link
the guardian at least posts op-eds by actual leftists once in a blue moon
― bhad bundy (Simon H.), Friday, 1 March 2019 21:09 (five years ago) link
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)
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Friday, 1 March 2019 21:42 (five years ago) link
― ebro the letter (Whiney G. Weingarten), Friday, March 1, 2019 1:30 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
otm
― jolene club remix (BradNelson), Friday, 1 March 2019 21:53 (five years ago) link
the Times editorials are noticeably less horrifying (mostly) than they were under W and Clinton, imho
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 1 March 2019 22:07 (five years ago) link
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
― flopson, Friday, 1 March 2019 22:20 (five years ago) link
no
― PaulDananVEVO (||||||||), Friday, 1 March 2019 22:24 (five years ago) link
polite no
I also like the economist
― ( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 1 March 2019 22:27 (five years ago) link
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
― ( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 1 March 2019 22:29 (five years ago) link
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.
― Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Friday, 1 March 2019 22:36 (five years ago) link
that’s the Chomsky quote yea
― flopson, Friday, 1 March 2019 22:52 (five years ago) link
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
― flopson, Friday, 1 March 2019 22:56 (five years ago) link
you can really tell the target audiencethis 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 itthey have an ethos, man
― mh, Saturday, 2 March 2019 15:41 (five years ago) link
economist is a lot more readable than FT imo
― flopson, Saturday, 2 March 2019 20:20 (five years ago) link
Weird, I hate the economist. It’s like an airplane mag for capitalism.
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Saturday, 2 March 2019 20:22 (five years ago) link
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.
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Saturday, 2 March 2019 20:24 (five years ago) link
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.
― Van Horn Street, Saturday, 2 March 2019 21:35 (five years ago) link
nfw online ny media leftists read less nyt than ft. just judging by stuff they rt/quote it’s a blowout
― flopson, Saturday, 2 March 2019 21:36 (five years ago) link
It seems to me she implies she is only the only one to prefer FT but that all the left detests NYT.
― Van Horn Street, Saturday, 2 March 2019 21:39 (five years ago) link
god these descriptions are so corny:
I feel like this is my fault, since they described me thusly: “a writer for the intercept who occupies the class first wing of the online left, arguing that liberal identity politics and call-out culture are distractions from true populist politics.” pic.twitter.com/P8XZpZ2cbS— Briahna Joy Gray (@briebriejoy) March 8, 2019
makes me never want to go on the internet ever again. "socialist kingmaker"?? "socialist power couple"?? barf.
(I'm sure all of these people would object to these characterizations too of course).
― Evans on Hammond (evol j), Friday, 8 March 2019 15:03 (five years ago) link
reminded by that, the bruenigs' podcast is pleasant, listen in on a married couple, and you can learn about the nordic model of state ownership
― XxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxx (dylannn), Friday, 8 March 2019 15:08 (five years ago) link
I don't think I can ever get past Mrs. Bruenig being anti-choice, that was real disappointing to learn (I'm assuming I'm not mischaracterizing her position, that she's not merely personally opposed. maybe i'm wrong).
― Evans on Hammond (evol j), Friday, 8 March 2019 15:14 (five years ago) link
she has a deeply weird position on it that isn't restricted to her personal views, and she's remarkably evasive about it
― Simon H., Friday, 8 March 2019 15:17 (five years ago) link
That issue has been muddied enough that I'm not sure what her current stated position is? I got the impression her stance is a rhetorical one, with the idea that an actual pro-life platform requires economic and social support structures that don't exist in the US that would, if implemented, naturally drive the abortion rate toward zero.
So while in theory she could support a candidate or platform that banned or highly restricted abortion, she wouldn't do so unless said platform also included said social support. The terminology she uses strikes me as another attempt to reframe the debate and honestly, the rest of her stances and writing are decent enough that I have to sigh and shrug and agree to mildly disagree
― mh, Friday, 8 March 2019 15:24 (five years ago) link