8 ms·

> What explains the gulf between most Americans’ hopeful outlook on areas and institutions they know directly and their despair about the country they know only

> What explains the gulf between most Americans’ hopeful outlook on areas and institutions they know directly and their despair about the country they know only through the news? In their anthropological foray, they notice that people generally get along with local people in local contexts. That's certainly true. A lot of the acrimony, tribalism, and fear comes from the growing divisiveness of American culture at large. The fact that The Atlantic needs to don some pith helmets and mix with the locals is itself indicative of the problem. Kudos to the authors for actually doing so, but these aren't migrants trying to learn how to be American. These are people born and raised in America who are somehow on the outside of what The Atlantic considers to be America. > There is of course evidence that this has happened, in the form of the bigotry that has been unleashed since 2017. And, ironically, The Atlantic ignores the bigotry [1] it contributes to the situation. The Kevin Williamson incident [2] is very recent and is literally a failed attempt to actually include different kinds of perspectives in The Atlantic. And it seems the institutes of journalism aren't exactly interested, in general, in doing the journalism to accurately represent Williamson's views on the matter [3]. By the way, Kevin Williamson is from these places and writes with a unique take on how these places are and how they could be better. So when you live in these places and you see hatred for people like you, how are you supposed to be optimistic and excited about the prospects for your children and grandchildren? [1] "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own" http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigotry http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigotry [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-twitter-mob-came-for-me-1524234850 https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-twitter-mob-came-for-m... [3] https://www.weeklystandard.com/kevin-williamson/what-new-york-magazine-told-kevin-williamson-about-abortion https://www.weeklystandard.com/kevin-williamson/what-new-yor...

brandonmenc 9y ago
Thank you for using the correct definition of "bigotry." The general population seems to confuse "bigot" only with "racist" or "sexist," for some reason.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  They didn't though. Williamson wasn't fired because the Atlantic readers hate white conservative opinion writers, he was fired because Atlantic readers aren't very interested in his particular views.
  - mieseratte 9y ago
    Which is a textbook definition of bigotry. They're intolerant of, thus do not want to read, his views.
    - NLips 9y ago
      Uninterested != intolerant You can scream your opinion on topic X all day long, but no one has to listen. That doesn't make them intolerant.
      - mieseratte 9y ago
        They're not interested because they want an echo-chamber. This is just intolerance, aka bigotry, with extra steps. It wasn't as if the man's writings were just panned. It was a typical social justice morality crusade.
        sgift 9y ago
        > This is just intolerance, aka bigotry, with extra steps. Here we have the classic case of interpreting a definition so loose that it gets useless. Everyone is intolerant of something. I'm intolerant of murderers, so by that textbook definition I'm a bigot, but then everyone would be a bigot and we end up with a synonym for "human" - Is that helpful in a discussion?
        humanrebar 9y ago
        You are equating being pro-life and unconventionally anti-execution with being a murderer.
bilbo0s 9y ago
"...So when you live in these places and you see hatred for people like you, how are you supposed to be optimistic and excited about the prospects for your children and grandchildren?..." Yeah... but that's been going on forever. You see that with Muslims recently. We've seen that with hispanics. Further back, of course, we've been seeing it with blacks and native americans for a long time. That will ALWAYS happen. The trick is to work out a way to keep moving forward even in the face of tribalism. Because I'm not entirely certain that we can eliminate tribalism. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm not sure that I will be.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > Because I'm not entirely certain that we can eliminate tribalism. It's fair to say tribalism has always been around. And from that perspective, the current tribalism, including left-wing identity politics, is extremely reactionary. A few things are, if not new, at least notable in this case: * These people aren't historically outsiders, they're "heartland" Americans. * The cultural narrative hasn't caught up to the cultural reality yet. For example, if child of meth heads grows up to be president, he's yet another privileged white president, not an outsider who overcame adversity. "Multicultural" attitudes group him in with Warren Buffett. * There's no language, even to describe white people short on privilege. There are certainly slurs, but nothing you'd put on a questionnaire. * The general direction of American culture has been to include more and more, however slowly. This is certainly a regression in that respect. And it seems to be accompanied by an abandonment of the ideal of inclusion qua inclusion. Instead, we seem to have a list of historically disadvantaged groups, telling newly disadvantaged groups that they already had their chance. Again, this is nonsense to an unemployed daughter of opiate addicts.
  - montyf 9y ago
    You're absolutely right, but HN users don't realize that most of America exists outside of their ideological bubble. > For example, if child of meth heads grows up to be president, he's yet another privileged white president, not an outsider who overcame adversity. It's racism and nothing else. Thing is, it's OK to be racist nowadays, as long as you're a liberal. Edit: to the guy quoting the dictionary below me, this is racism in a really obvious way. It is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race" and it's not okay just because you don't explicitly declare your race superior.
akhilcacharya 9y ago
I also remember a time when human decency wasn't shrouded in the pejorative "political correctness". Both myself and the leadership of The Atlantic listened to what Kevin Williamson said. I think it speaks for itself.
- montyf 9y ago
  > I also remember a time when human decency wasn't shrouded in the pejorative "political correctness". Not sure what you're getting at with this rhetoric (no wonder you're a fan of vague, politically-correct statements -- I have no idea what the second part of your comment means). People don't like political correctness because it's a manipulation tool of policy makers, used to misdirect and to prevent unwanted discussion -- like with e.g. the illegal immigration problem, which no one dared bring up before You-Know-Who. Political correctness is also a cowardly and intellectually dishonest mode of discourse.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - kadenshep 9y ago
    >Not sure what you're getting at with this rhetoric Yes you do. > People don't like political correctness because it's a manipulation tool of policy makers No, some people don't like it because it lays bare their complete lack of human decency, or standards of any sort. >used to misdirect and to prevent unwanted discussion "I don't want to discuss topics that might shed light on the injustices of our society or make me feel uncomfortable."
    - throwaway1894 9y ago
      Definition of injustice are pretty broad and situational, wouldn't you agree? And besides, breaking down the actual phrase, it means to act within the "correctness" of the political climate du jour. Depending on the power brokers you subscribe to, that could mean a variety of things. Not aimed at you, but the overblown sense of agency and importance that people give their own definitions seems to be part of the problem.
dandersh 9y ago
This post engages in the myth that there exists an America homogenous enough that all of it can suitably be represented by a single media outlet...and when it isn't something nefarious (in this case leftist elitism) is at work. The problem isn't The Atlantic or the National Review providing specific, sometimes narrow views. The problem is the lack of intellectual curiosity, confirmation bias, and tribalism engaged in by many political consumers.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  I don't need The Atlantic to be all things to all people. I'm just pointing out that it's rich to fire Williamson the way they did and then send out a fact-finding mission to discover what people like Williamson think.
justin66 9y ago
No idea what he has to say for himself in the wsj since it's behind a paywall, but I did google him. I wasn't familiar with any of this but if this is accurate: It was Mr. Williamson’s hard-line stance on abortion — namely, that it should be treated as premeditated homicide and punished accordingly, perhaps by hanging — that generated the initial controversy over his hiring. Well, you know, his time at The Atlantic wasn't destined to end well. Their readers aren't going to allow them to turn into Newsmax. It's mostly distressing that a lunatic like that can get the time of day, let alone a paying job as an opinion writer. Speaking of "tribalism," I don't think his views are likely representative of his own "tribe." It's just that the discourse has degraded to the point where plenty of people get off on hearing something they think will offend the right people.
- astine 9y ago
  If someone links you to article, you can generally get through the paywall, so here is Williamson's own take on his situation: https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-twitter-mob-came-for-me-1524234850 https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-twitter-mob-came-for-m... The short summary is that he actually does not believe that abortion should be punished by hanging as you suggest. An excerpt: "The purported reason for our “parting ways,” as Mr. Goldberg put it in his announcement, had nothing to do with what I’d written in my inaugural piece. The problem was a six-word, four-year-old tweet on abortion and capital punishment and a discussion of that tweet in a subsequent podcast. I had responded to a familiar pro-abortion argument: that pro-lifers should not be taken seriously in our claim that abortion is the willful taking of an innocent human life unless we are ready to punish women who get abortions with long prison sentences. It’s a silly argument, so I responded with these words: “I have hanging more in mind.” Trollish and hostile? I’ll cop to that, though as the subsequent conversation online and on the podcast indicated—to say nothing of the few million words of my published writing available to the reading public—I am generally opposed to capital punishment. I was making a point about the sloppy rhetoric of the abortion debate, not a public-policy recommendation. Such provocations can sometimes clarify the terms of a debate, but in this case, I obscured the more meaningful questions about abortion and sparked the sort of hysteria I’d meant to point out and mock."
  - 9y ago
specialist 9y ago
Bigotry? Because every magazine needs an anti-abortion zealot on staff? For balance? Dear me, where will I get my daily trog talking points if The Atlantic doesn't spoon feed them to me?
- SlapHappy 9y ago
  This isn't about whether you agree or disagree with KDW. It's about the cowardly smearing he endured and the fact that Jeff Goldberg, the so called "editor-in-chief" of The Atlantic, is not really the editor-in-chief at all, his staffers and the Twitter mob are. People are forgetting that KDW did NOT apply to work at The Atlantic, he did NOT actively set about getting a job there, he was contacted and recruited by The Atlantic, by the so called "editor-in-chief", they WANTED him there and extended him an offer. His comments and views about abortion were public; he didn't mince words or attempt to conceal or walk back his comments. Knowing all this, the Atlantic extended him an offer, and then dumped him when the twitter mob went berserk. They smeared KDW, they gave into the mob, they acted like cowards, and they should be shamed for publicly ridiculed by by sides of the political aisle for their behavior.
  - specialist 9y ago
    Then stop reading The Atlantic. Voila, problem solved. Unless you’re running low and need a new source to feed your outrage addiction. Update: What was your response to MSNBC booting Sam Seder over his Polanski tweet (tasteless joke)? Sorry, I don’t do corporate media, took me a while to remember enough details to google this example. I’m sure there’s acres of examples. From my time, it was Fox News shutting down the Ayre (dairy cow) whistle blowers. Just curious if your outrage is equal opportunity or selective. For my part, I still haven’t forgiven The Atlantic for getting Cheney elected and pimping the 2nd Iraq War. Cracks me up that the alt-right hates them now. No good deed goes unpunished.
    - SlapHappy 9y ago
      Again, you missed the point. It isn't about outrage or my stance on abortion (I'm pro-choice). It's that The Atlantic caved into the Twitter mob, and cowardly backtracked even though KDW's views were public. The firing of Sam Seder was absurd and wrong, but I don't see any parallels with the KDW fiasco. I'm not interested in firing people over this or that Tweet or "edgy" political view. It's the same reason why I'm not calling for the firing of the Fresno State professor whose been in the news lately.

brandonmenc 9y ago

Thank you for using the correct definition of "bigotry." The general population seems to confuse "bigot" only with "racist" or "sexist," for some reason.

maxerickson 9y ago
They didn't though. Williamson wasn't fired because the Atlantic readers hate white conservative opinion writers, he was fired because Atlantic readers aren't very interested in his particular views.
- mieseratte 9y ago
  Which is a textbook definition of bigotry. They're intolerant of, thus do not want to read, his views.
  - NLips 9y ago
    Uninterested != intolerant You can scream your opinion on topic X all day long, but no one has to listen. That doesn't make them intolerant.
    - mieseratte 9y ago
      They're not interested because they want an echo-chamber. This is just intolerance, aka bigotry, with extra steps. It wasn't as if the man's writings were just panned. It was a typical social justice morality crusade.
      - sgift 9y ago
        > This is just intolerance, aka bigotry, with extra steps. Here we have the classic case of interpreting a definition so loose that it gets useless. Everyone is intolerant of something. I'm intolerant of murderers, so by that textbook definition I'm a bigot, but then everyone would be a bigot and we end up with a synonym for "human" - Is that helpful in a discussion?
        humanrebar 9y ago
        You are equating being pro-life and unconventionally anti-execution with being a murderer.

bilbo0s 9y ago

"...So when you live in these places and you see hatred for people like you, how are you supposed to be optimistic and excited about the prospects for your children and grandchildren?..." Yeah... but that's been going on forever. You see that with Muslims recently. We've seen that with hispanics. Further back, of course, we've been seeing it with blacks and native americans for a long time. That will ALWAYS happen. The trick is to work out a way to keep moving forward even in the face of tribalism. Because I'm not entirely certain that we can eliminate tribalism. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm not sure that I will be.

humanrebar 9y ago
> Because I'm not entirely certain that we can eliminate tribalism. It's fair to say tribalism has always been around. And from that perspective, the current tribalism, including left-wing identity politics, is extremely reactionary. A few things are, if not new, at least notable in this case: * These people aren't historically outsiders, they're "heartland" Americans. * The cultural narrative hasn't caught up to the cultural reality yet. For example, if child of meth heads grows up to be president, he's yet another privileged white president, not an outsider who overcame adversity. "Multicultural" attitudes group him in with Warren Buffett. * There's no language, even to describe white people short on privilege. There are certainly slurs, but nothing you'd put on a questionnaire. * The general direction of American culture has been to include more and more, however slowly. This is certainly a regression in that respect. And it seems to be accompanied by an abandonment of the ideal of inclusion qua inclusion. Instead, we seem to have a list of historically disadvantaged groups, telling newly disadvantaged groups that they already had their chance. Again, this is nonsense to an unemployed daughter of opiate addicts.
- montyf 9y ago
  You're absolutely right, but HN users don't realize that most of America exists outside of their ideological bubble. > For example, if child of meth heads grows up to be president, he's yet another privileged white president, not an outsider who overcame adversity. It's racism and nothing else. Thing is, it's OK to be racist nowadays, as long as you're a liberal. Edit: to the guy quoting the dictionary below me, this is racism in a really obvious way. It is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race" and it's not okay just because you don't explicitly declare your race superior.

akhilcacharya 9y ago

I also remember a time when human decency wasn't shrouded in the pejorative "political correctness". Both myself and the leadership of The Atlantic listened to what Kevin Williamson said. I think it speaks for itself.

montyf 9y ago
> I also remember a time when human decency wasn't shrouded in the pejorative "political correctness". Not sure what you're getting at with this rhetoric (no wonder you're a fan of vague, politically-correct statements -- I have no idea what the second part of your comment means). People don't like political correctness because it's a manipulation tool of policy makers, used to misdirect and to prevent unwanted discussion -- like with e.g. the illegal immigration problem, which no one dared bring up before You-Know-Who. Political correctness is also a cowardly and intellectually dishonest mode of discourse.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- kadenshep 9y ago
  >Not sure what you're getting at with this rhetoric Yes you do. > People don't like political correctness because it's a manipulation tool of policy makers No, some people don't like it because it lays bare their complete lack of human decency, or standards of any sort. >used to misdirect and to prevent unwanted discussion "I don't want to discuss topics that might shed light on the injustices of our society or make me feel uncomfortable."
  - throwaway1894 9y ago
    Definition of injustice are pretty broad and situational, wouldn't you agree? And besides, breaking down the actual phrase, it means to act within the "correctness" of the political climate du jour. Depending on the power brokers you subscribe to, that could mean a variety of things. Not aimed at you, but the overblown sense of agency and importance that people give their own definitions seems to be part of the problem.

dandersh 9y ago

This post engages in the myth that there exists an America homogenous enough that all of it can suitably be represented by a single media outlet...and when it isn't something nefarious (in this case leftist elitism) is at work. The problem isn't The Atlantic or the National Review providing specific, sometimes narrow views. The problem is the lack of intellectual curiosity, confirmation bias, and tribalism engaged in by many political consumers.

humanrebar 9y ago
I don't need The Atlantic to be all things to all people. I'm just pointing out that it's rich to fire Williamson the way they did and then send out a fact-finding mission to discover what people like Williamson think.

justin66 9y ago

No idea what he has to say for himself in the wsj since it's behind a paywall, but I did google him. I wasn't familiar with any of this but if this is accurate: It was Mr. Williamson’s hard-line stance on abortion — namely, that it should be treated as premeditated homicide and punished accordingly, perhaps by hanging — that generated the initial controversy over his hiring. Well, you know, his time at The Atlantic wasn't destined to end well. Their readers aren't going to allow them to turn into Newsmax. It's mostly distressing that a lunatic like that can get the time of day, let alone a paying job as an opinion writer. Speaking of "tribalism," I don't think his views are likely representative of his own "tribe." It's just that the discourse has degraded to the point where plenty of people get off on hearing something they think will offend the right people.

astine 9y ago
If someone links you to article, you can generally get through the paywall, so here is Williamson's own take on his situation: https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-twitter-mob-came-for-me-1524234850 https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-twitter-mob-came-for-m... The short summary is that he actually does not believe that abortion should be punished by hanging as you suggest. An excerpt: "The purported reason for our “parting ways,” as Mr. Goldberg put it in his announcement, had nothing to do with what I’d written in my inaugural piece. The problem was a six-word, four-year-old tweet on abortion and capital punishment and a discussion of that tweet in a subsequent podcast. I had responded to a familiar pro-abortion argument: that pro-lifers should not be taken seriously in our claim that abortion is the willful taking of an innocent human life unless we are ready to punish women who get abortions with long prison sentences. It’s a silly argument, so I responded with these words: “I have hanging more in mind.” Trollish and hostile? I’ll cop to that, though as the subsequent conversation online and on the podcast indicated—to say nothing of the few million words of my published writing available to the reading public—I am generally opposed to capital punishment. I was making a point about the sloppy rhetoric of the abortion debate, not a public-policy recommendation. Such provocations can sometimes clarify the terms of a debate, but in this case, I obscured the more meaningful questions about abortion and sparked the sort of hysteria I’d meant to point out and mock."
- 9y ago

specialist 9y ago

Bigotry? Because every magazine needs an anti-abortion zealot on staff? For balance? Dear me, where will I get my daily trog talking points if The Atlantic doesn't spoon feed them to me?

SlapHappy 9y ago
This isn't about whether you agree or disagree with KDW. It's about the cowardly smearing he endured and the fact that Jeff Goldberg, the so called "editor-in-chief" of The Atlantic, is not really the editor-in-chief at all, his staffers and the Twitter mob are. People are forgetting that KDW did NOT apply to work at The Atlantic, he did NOT actively set about getting a job there, he was contacted and recruited by The Atlantic, by the so called "editor-in-chief", they WANTED him there and extended him an offer. His comments and views about abortion were public; he didn't mince words or attempt to conceal or walk back his comments. Knowing all this, the Atlantic extended him an offer, and then dumped him when the twitter mob went berserk. They smeared KDW, they gave into the mob, they acted like cowards, and they should be shamed for publicly ridiculed by by sides of the political aisle for their behavior.
- specialist 9y ago
  Then stop reading The Atlantic. Voila, problem solved. Unless you’re running low and need a new source to feed your outrage addiction. Update: What was your response to MSNBC booting Sam Seder over his Polanski tweet (tasteless joke)? Sorry, I don’t do corporate media, took me a while to remember enough details to google this example. I’m sure there’s acres of examples. From my time, it was Fox News shutting down the Ayre (dairy cow) whistle blowers. Just curious if your outrage is equal opportunity or selective. For my part, I still haven’t forgiven The Atlantic for getting Cheney elected and pimping the 2nd Iraq War. Cracks me up that the alt-right hates them now. No good deed goes unpunished.
  - SlapHappy 9y ago
    Again, you missed the point. It isn't about outrage or my stance on abortion (I'm pro-choice). It's that The Atlantic caved into the Twitter mob, and cowardly backtracked even though KDW's views were public. The firing of Sam Seder was absurd and wrong, but I don't see any parallels with the KDW fiasco. I'm not interested in firing people over this or that Tweet or "edgy" political view. It's the same reason why I'm not calling for the firing of the Fresno State professor whose been in the news lately.