5 ms·

One shouldn't expect courage from The Economist, but it's always wise to bet on their prudence. I don't read The Economist for facts or details so much as to g

One shouldn't expect courage from The Economist, but it's always wise to bet on their prudence. I don't read The Economist for facts or details so much as to get a sense of what topics a current establishment can no longer afford to ignore. The details are secondary to the neccessity that a writer, a sub-editor, and a senior editor with tremendous personal stake in maintaining access to the circles that define establishment media, have collectively recognized that to remain relevant as a publication, the risk/reward on any ensuing controversy still means the magazine has to acknowledge which way the wind is blowing. When The Economist says something is just starting, it means it's been brewing for at least several years and they need to comment on it. I don't think direct discourse on the topic improves the discussion on gender because the participants use a critical theory in which the promise of discourse is just bait to corner political targets for their mobs. However, we (and even The Economist) can recognize that popular tolerance for these tactics has finally reached an inflection point, and this change in attitude is what will finally allow real analysis and insight by thoughtful people into topics about gender.

yuy910616 5y ago
Can't agree more - on both of your points. It is interesting to look at the Economist like their BigMac index - an encapsulation of something complex that is weirdly reliable
worik 5y ago
The Economist has been talking about this for many years.
- pas 5y ago
  Could you link something worth reading from them on this?
  - worik 5y ago
    No. I am no longer a subscriber and their archives are locked down. The Economist: Best writing with business practices from the nineteenth century....
karaterobot 5y ago
As an Economist reader who sometimes scratches his head at how late they are to the party, I love your framing here. I appreciate their sobriety though.
- omegaworks 5y ago
  From the very first paragraph: >(trans-exclusionary radical feminist, a slur) Bigots offended at being called out on their bigotry. The Economist reveals their bias and their stake in the debate by asserting that "terf is a slur" and later by representing "gender critical" ideologies as "mainstream." It's plainly irresponsible journalism and not at all sober.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - primax 5y ago
    The Economist always publishes their articles as from 'The Economist'. This is standard practice, not something new and 'allowed'.
  - fefe23 5y ago
    That sounds like you are not contesting that it's a slur. You just think the slurred party deserves it.
    - lukebitts 5y ago
      It doesn't sound like that at all to me. Also, they ARE trans-exclusionary and they ARE radical feminists. I don't buy that a simple description is a slur.
      - baryphonic 5y ago
        Okay, let's accept this framing for the sake of argument. Does the n-word then merely refer to dark color? I think not. It's obviously used as a slur and a way to shut people up. Reductionism to etymology or literal interpretation do not change that fact.
9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
> I don't think direct discourse on the topic improves the discussion on gender because the participants use a critical theory in which the promise of discourse is just bait to corner political targets for their mobs. Are you suggesting that we should leave gender to the scientists and when The Economist has spoken, it should be recognized as the moment that “the science is in”? I could understand your first paragraph, the second seems like a non-sequitor.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > Are you suggesting that we should leave gender to the scientists and when The Economist has spoken, it should be recognized as the moment that “the science is in”? I read it more as “The Economist has started speaking about the subject, so it's an established science -- now we can start to expect actual results from it”.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jari_mustonen 5y ago
Thank you for your description of The Economist. I subscribed to The Economist in 1996 and at time it really was a different than the rest of the news papers. For example, Philip Tetlock identified reading The Economist as a predictor for ability to forecast future. Then something changed. One important change was that they basically started publishing their authors names by allowing authors have blogs with their names. I also understand (would like to know more about this) that they started hiring journalists. Previously only subject experts were welcome but at some point there was a huge influx of Guardian-type journalists. To me, first hint about the change in the articles was their coverage of feminism in work place where they really started to spout fashionable ideological points such as writing that women make better leaders, etc.

yuy910616 5y ago

Can't agree more - on both of your points. It is interesting to look at the Economist like their BigMac index - an encapsulation of something complex that is weirdly reliable

worik 5y ago

The Economist has been talking about this for many years.

pas 5y ago
Could you link something worth reading from them on this?
- worik 5y ago
  No. I am no longer a subscriber and their archives are locked down. The Economist: Best writing with business practices from the nineteenth century....

karaterobot 5y ago

As an Economist reader who sometimes scratches his head at how late they are to the party, I love your framing here. I appreciate their sobriety though.

omegaworks 5y ago
From the very first paragraph: >(trans-exclusionary radical feminist, a slur) Bigots offended at being called out on their bigotry. The Economist reveals their bias and their stake in the debate by asserting that "terf is a slur" and later by representing "gender critical" ideologies as "mainstream." It's plainly irresponsible journalism and not at all sober.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- primax 5y ago
  The Economist always publishes their articles as from 'The Economist'. This is standard practice, not something new and 'allowed'.
- fefe23 5y ago
  That sounds like you are not contesting that it's a slur. You just think the slurred party deserves it.
  - lukebitts 5y ago
    It doesn't sound like that at all to me. Also, they ARE trans-exclusionary and they ARE radical feminists. I don't buy that a simple description is a slur.
    - baryphonic 5y ago
      Okay, let's accept this framing for the sake of argument. Does the n-word then merely refer to dark color? I think not. It's obviously used as a slur and a way to shut people up. Reductionism to etymology or literal interpretation do not change that fact.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago

> I don't think direct discourse on the topic improves the discussion on gender because the participants use a critical theory in which the promise of discourse is just bait to corner political targets for their mobs. Are you suggesting that we should leave gender to the scientists and when The Economist has spoken, it should be recognized as the moment that “the science is in”? I could understand your first paragraph, the second seems like a non-sequitor.

CRConrad 5y ago
> Are you suggesting that we should leave gender to the scientists and when The Economist has spoken, it should be recognized as the moment that “the science is in”? I read it more as “The Economist has started speaking about the subject, so it's an established science -- now we can start to expect actual results from it”.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jari_mustonen 5y ago

Thank you for your description of The Economist. I subscribed to The Economist in 1996 and at time it really was a different than the rest of the news papers. For example, Philip Tetlock identified reading The Economist as a predictor for ability to forecast future. Then something changed. One important change was that they basically started publishing their authors names by allowing authors have blogs with their names. I also understand (would like to know more about this) that they started hiring journalists. Previously only subject experts were welcome but at some point there was a huge influx of Guardian-type journalists. To me, first hint about the change in the articles was their coverage of feminism in work place where they really started to spout fashionable ideological points such as writing that women make better leaders, etc.