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
I was kinda hoping Chapo would do a reading series on the NYMag piece. People I know were interviewed for it and either grossly distorted or just cut out for saying actual substantive stuff.
One of my favorite points I've seen a few people make is that they spent apparently little or no time going to actual DSA meetings to watch the surprisingly grinding and boring hard work of actual politics these people are doing. Instead they went to a book party with the pretty people. But of course that's the lens NYMag views everything through.
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Friday, 8 March 2019 15:27 (five years ago) link
i took it to be about that mh, abortion is immoral but creating a society where abortion doesn't exist would require state funding for healthcare childcare education rather than a law against abortion, abortion under the current situation (in the west and the rest of hte world) often isn't a choice (but they never talk about abortion on the bruenigs if that helps)
― XxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxx (dylannn), Friday, 8 March 2019 15:41 (five years ago) link
She talks about it as little as possible. But she has publicly spoken about being a "pro-life socialist" and what a special unicorn that makes her in one or two places in the past.
I'm hoping Chapo doesn't cover the NYMag piece tbh (though Matt did make fun of McElwee's quotes on twitter). There's already way, way too much content on the Brooklyn left. There are other places!
― Simon H., Friday, 8 March 2019 15:47 (five years ago) link
those nymag blurbs make me want to gouge my eyes out
― Neus Anneus (voodoo chili), Friday, 8 March 2019 16:16 (five years ago) link
nymag would've called stalin, "rough around the edges with a manly mustache, you don't wanna get on this fashionable brute's bad side!"
― Neus Anneus (voodoo chili), Friday, 8 March 2019 16:17 (five years ago) link
Liz Breunig is a devout catholic and that basically all the info I need to know re what informs her abortion stance.
― officer sonny bonds, lytton pd (mayor jingleberries), Friday, 8 March 2019 16:20 (five years ago) link
im more of a Matt stan but since ive followed liz she’s never brought up abortion or emphasised those views in any way, yet there are always 1000 people in replies to unrelated tweets on any topic screaming at her abt it
― flopson, Friday, 8 March 2019 17:02 (five years ago) link
it looks like they're in it for the purity politics, but really it's because most of them think they finally found a valid reason to yell at a woman imo
― mh, Friday, 8 March 2019 17:10 (five years ago) link
there's plenty of women who give her shit for it tbh
― ( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 8 March 2019 17:12 (five years ago) link
holding my tongue here
― mh, Friday, 8 March 2019 17:14 (five years ago) link
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
― ( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 8 March 2019 17:15 (five years ago) link
Yelling directly at someone on twitter is pretty dud but 'abortion on demand without apology' is a criterion for my solidarity and that's classic
― moose; squirrel (silby), Friday, 8 March 2019 17:21 (five years ago) link
not to be an annoying stinker, but if it's ok to be like "abortion is wrong" and still be part of "the left" because you don't specifically advocate for the criminalization of abortion; would it be ok if she was like "homosexuality is wrong" if she didn't oppose equal rights? where is the line?
to be clear: i don't think anyone should be yelling at her on twitter
― ( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 8 March 2019 17:25 (five years ago) link
If it was her personal belief and she kept it to herself 100% of the time I doubt anyone would care. Alas she has written/spoken about it a few times, publicly, and that's never coming off. (on my phone and don't have links handy)
― Simon H., Friday, 8 March 2019 17:27 (five years ago) link
yeah i mean she has definitely spoken about it publicly. people aren't just assuming it from her catholicism (plenty of catholics are pro-choice)
― ( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 8 March 2019 17:28 (five years ago) link
i do think framing this particular scenario as a bunch of dudes being super-eager to yell at a woman online is dumb and honestly belittling to Bruenig. yes, dogpiling on people on Twitter is generally lame but I don't think this situation is extra-bad because of her gender.
― Evans on Hammond (evol j), Friday, 8 March 2019 17:31 (five years ago) link
while we’re having a liz breunig struggle session, i’m pretty sure her position on homosexuality is that it’s cool to be gay as long as you don’t act on your desires which uh
― invited to an unexpected ninja presentation (bizarro gazzara), Friday, 8 March 2019 17:31 (five years ago) link
those two things seem diff to me, ymmv
― flopson, Friday, 8 March 2019 17:33 (five years ago) link
xp jim
― flopson, Friday, 8 March 2019 17:34 (five years ago) link
re: bg's post
oh noooo
― mh, Friday, 8 March 2019 17:35 (five years ago) link
fwiw it was Mike not me who implied (even he didn’t actually specify) it was men in her replies. all forms of idiots with nothing better to do with their lives have united in this cause
― flopson, Friday, 8 March 2019 17:35 (five years ago) link
hate to be the bearer of bad news 🤷♂️ xp
― invited to an unexpected ninja presentation (bizarro gazzara), Friday, 8 March 2019 17:35 (five years ago) link
― flopson, Friday, March 8, 2019 9:33 AM (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
they're not the same thing but they're fairly binary moral issues which pretty much anyone from centre-right leftward is generally expected to have the "right" opinion regarding
― ( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 8 March 2019 17:37 (five years ago) link
as i said, ymmv
― flopson, Friday, 8 March 2019 17:52 (five years ago) link
i was looking around for the evidence of BG’s claim and couldn’t find it but stumbled upon this book review by liz of a memoir by a celibate lesbian christian. kinda skimmed it but didn’t see the smoking gun. i have an aunt who is a minister of a united church in rural Ontario and im 99.9% sure is lesbian, and is on the political left. my father (her brother) and i have speculated about whether or not she’ll come out after her mother dies, guess this out-celibate thing is a third way option i hadn’t considered. Christianity is so weird lol
― flopson, Friday, 8 March 2019 17:58 (five years ago) link
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-there-a-christian-way-to-be-gay/
― flopson, Friday, 8 March 2019 18:02 (five years ago) link
Eli Valley vs Meghan McCain FITE
This is one of the most anti-semitic things I’ve ever seen. Also, this reveals so much more about you than it does me... https://t.co/IdfGuWcJZu— Meghan McCain (@MeghanMcCain) March 8, 2019
― Simon H., Friday, 8 March 2019 18:13 (five years ago) link
didn't realize there were non-gay UCC ministers
― moose; squirrel (silby), Friday, 8 March 2019 18:14 (five years ago) link
wau
"This is one of the most anti-semitic things I've ever seen" [retweets it to 631k followers]
― ebro the letter (Whiney G. Weingarten), Friday, 8 March 2019 18:31 (five years ago) link
I will clarify that it was overly broad of me to imply there's a class of people who feel emboldened to yell at Elizabeth Bruenig over other targets because of misogyny and they're the primary noisemakers
on the other hand, there are definite reasons why women would yell at a woman over a man who has said the same stance, including misogyny
― mh, Friday, 8 March 2019 19:05 (five years ago) link
new ep of the Antifada w/ Matt that seems to be sickeningly timely
In this episode, we discuss the 'controversial' French 'novel' that is 'just asking questions' about the Migrant Invasion, the Great Replacement, and Yt Genocide. How did a 1970s book by some grenouille asshole named Jean Raspail become a prophetic lodestar for an ascendant white nationalist movement? How does a historical materialist analysis help us understand why dickheads like Steve Bannon and Marine Le Pen are lauding this novel 50 years later?
http://podbay.fm/show/1372879721/e/1552633440?autostart=1
― Simon H., Friday, 15 March 2019 14:47 (five years ago) link