4 ms·

Malcolm Harris doesn’t say what commitments DeBoer is breaking. He would be more credible if he did.

by zepto 5y ago

chipotle_coyote 5y ago
The linked Twitter thread includes Harris saying, > I would def settle for never having to think about it again, but clearly Freddie isn't going to "go away" like he first promised he would, so I'm sorta stuck here with that while he cashes in on self-pity. And, if you click on the 2018 link, Harris quotes DeBoer writing > I have abandoned all social media permanently. I have stopped freelance writing. I have in general tried to permanently remove myself from online life and from the world of political writing in which Malcolm resides and I once resided. [...] I have fully committed to constant treatment, and I have fully committed to going away. So, I mean, yes, Harris absolutely says what commitments deBoer is breaking. That you had to take the extra 60 seconds to follow the links is not a failure on Harris's part. :) Now, there are all sorts of questions this raises about "how long of 'going away' is enough" and "is expecting permanent exile from public life reasonable." As near as I can tell, though, deBoer decided that the correct answer to "how long is enough" is "about 12 months." It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for Harris to be looking at that a bit askance.
- weeblewobble 5y ago
  It's worth emphasizing the specific commitment to "permanently remove myself from online life." Rather than live up to that commitment and allow Harris to move on, Freddie has decided not only to remain Extremely Online but to keep re-hashing the situation over and over again. It certainly undermines the original apology, and make Harris look like a chump for being so graceful about it.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > Rather than live up to that commitment This is an unreasonable commitment for deboer to have made. Yes, he made it. No, that doesn’t make it realistic. > make Harris look like a chump for being so graceful about it There is nothing graceful about Harris expecting DeBoer to do this unreasonable thing. It was a bad agreement. DeBoer should never have made it, and Harris should never have accepted it.
- zepto 5y ago
  It’s absolutely a failure on Harris part. It’s fairly obvious that expecting someone to exile themselves from public view for the rest of their life is absurd and unreasonable. Even if DeBoer said he would do that, it doesn’t mean it’s reasonable for Harris to expect it. If Harris thinks 12 months is not enough, he can say that.
  - watwut 5y ago
    That is what DeBoer promised back when he felt guilty and did not wanted Harris to sue him. Which he in fact could do. And maybe should do. Now DeBoer is actively repeatedly bringing Harris thing up, doing opposite of getting away from Harris life.
    - zepto 5y ago
      DeBoer says he’s bringing the Harris thing up because other people keep using it to attack him. He can’t control what other people do, and if they keep bringing it up, it’s not unreasonable for him to respond.
  - chipotle_coyote 5y ago
    >> That you had to take the extra 60 seconds to follow the links is not a failure on Harris's part. > It's absolutely a failure on Harris's part. Let me be clearer: Harris stated exactly what you said he didn't state. You either failed to click the link or dismissed it. That you do not agree with what Harris said does not mean he didn't say it. > If Harris thinks 12 months is not enough, he can say that. It's obvious he thinks that, and I'm pretty sure you know that, even if he didn't use those literal words. You're implicitly criticizing Harris for an ungenerous reading of deBoer's commitment ("obviously it's absurd and unreasonable to expect he really meant 'permanently' when he wrote 'permanently'"), which I don't object to -- but I do object to you not in turn extending the same generosity to Harris. For whatever it's worth, I doubt "permanent exile" is reasonable, either. But barely a year later deBoer was writing for the Washington Post and the New York Times, publishing a best-selling book, and starting a newsletter that now brings in a six-figure income. Barely two years on and deBoer is writing, in so many words, "I've already apologized, why won't all you cancel-culture jerks leave me alone". So, yeah, sorry: if I was Harris, I would probably be tempted to make a few tweets questioning just how sincere deBoer was about the whole apology thing.
hitekker 5y ago
Deboer deleted his apology from the internet and then wrote this mealy mouthed drek of an article indicates that he hasn’t lived up to his commitment to move on. He means to fool small minds with meandering language, confusing the herd so they let him regain the status he desperately craves.
- zepto 5y ago
  > He means to fool small minds with meandering language, confusing the herd so they let him regain the status he desperately craves. Believing you can read someone else’s mind is a diagnostic criterion for psychosis.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

Malcolm Harris doesn’t say what commitments DeBoer is breaking. He would be more credible if he did.

by zepto 5y ago

Malcolm Harris doesn’t say what commitments DeBoer is breaking. He would be more credible if he did.

The linked Twitter thread includes Harris saying, > I would def settle for never having to think about it again, but clearly Freddie isn't going to "go away" like he first promised he would, so I'm sorta stuck here with that while he cashes in on self-pity. And, if you click on the 2018 link, Harris quotes DeBoer writing > I have abandoned all social media permanently. I have stopped freelance writing. I have in general tried to permanently remove myself from online life and from the world of political writing in which Malcolm resides and I once resided. [...] I have fully committed to constant treatment, and I have fully committed to going away. So, I mean, yes, Harris absolutely says what commitments deBoer is breaking. That you had to take the extra 60 seconds to follow the links is not a failure on Harris's part. :) Now, there are all sorts of questions this raises about "how long of 'going away' is enough" and "is expecting permanent exile from public life reasonable." As near as I can tell, though, deBoer decided that the correct answer to "how long is enough" is "about 12 months." It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for Harris to be looking at that a bit askance.

weeblewobble 5y ago
It's worth emphasizing the specific commitment to "permanently remove myself from online life." Rather than live up to that commitment and allow Harris to move on, Freddie has decided not only to remain Extremely Online but to keep re-hashing the situation over and over again. It certainly undermines the original apology, and make Harris look like a chump for being so graceful about it.
- zepto 5y ago
  > Rather than live up to that commitment This is an unreasonable commitment for deboer to have made. Yes, he made it. No, that doesn’t make it realistic. > make Harris look like a chump for being so graceful about it There is nothing graceful about Harris expecting DeBoer to do this unreasonable thing. It was a bad agreement. DeBoer should never have made it, and Harris should never have accepted it.
zepto 5y ago
It’s absolutely a failure on Harris part. It’s fairly obvious that expecting someone to exile themselves from public view for the rest of their life is absurd and unreasonable. Even if DeBoer said he would do that, it doesn’t mean it’s reasonable for Harris to expect it. If Harris thinks 12 months is not enough, he can say that.
- watwut 5y ago
  That is what DeBoer promised back when he felt guilty and did not wanted Harris to sue him. Which he in fact could do. And maybe should do. Now DeBoer is actively repeatedly bringing Harris thing up, doing opposite of getting away from Harris life.
  - zepto 5y ago
    DeBoer says he’s bringing the Harris thing up because other people keep using it to attack him. He can’t control what other people do, and if they keep bringing it up, it’s not unreasonable for him to respond.
- chipotle_coyote 5y ago
  >> That you had to take the extra 60 seconds to follow the links is not a failure on Harris's part. > It's absolutely a failure on Harris's part. Let me be clearer: Harris stated exactly what you said he didn't state. You either failed to click the link or dismissed it. That you do not agree with what Harris said does not mean he didn't say it. > If Harris thinks 12 months is not enough, he can say that. It's obvious he thinks that, and I'm pretty sure you know that, even if he didn't use those literal words. You're implicitly criticizing Harris for an ungenerous reading of deBoer's commitment ("obviously it's absurd and unreasonable to expect he really meant 'permanently' when he wrote 'permanently'"), which I don't object to -- but I do object to you not in turn extending the same generosity to Harris. For whatever it's worth, I doubt "permanent exile" is reasonable, either. But barely a year later deBoer was writing for the Washington Post and the New York Times, publishing a best-selling book, and starting a newsletter that now brings in a six-figure income. Barely two years on and deBoer is writing, in so many words, "I've already apologized, why won't all you cancel-culture jerks leave me alone". So, yeah, sorry: if I was Harris, I would probably be tempted to make a few tweets questioning just how sincere deBoer was about the whole apology thing.

hitekker 5y ago

Deboer deleted his apology from the internet and then wrote this mealy mouthed drek of an article indicates that he hasn’t lived up to his commitment to move on. He means to fool small minds with meandering language, confusing the herd so they let him regain the status he desperately craves.

zepto 5y ago
> He means to fool small minds with meandering language, confusing the herd so they let him regain the status he desperately craves. Believing you can read someone else’s mind is a diagnostic criterion for psychosis.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]