4 ms·

“[…] tweets links to The American Conservative” Cant blame him though. It is a great magazine.

ethbr0 5y ago
What do you find great about it? (Honestly asked as a non-reader unfamiliar with its content, aside from the implication of the name)
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  If you are a liberal interested in what conservatives think about things, without going full Q crazy, you could do worse. If you are interested in anti-trump conservative thought, The Bulwark is another good source.
- tagoregrtst 5y ago
  What I like most is that, whilr unapologetically conservative, they are fair and will acknowledge faults in the right and good in the left. Take their editor Dreher. Dreher is a very social conservative, and economically populist. So is he a Trumpist? He despises Trump specifically for his character shortcomings and has no patience for someone who cant see Trump do any bad. Dreher also has complete intolerance for incivility towards his opponents. Also, I havent found any other publication explain the damage that cars have caused America than their segment “The new Urbs”. Only Ivan Illich’s quip that cars average 5mph come close to the poignancy. For TAC the car’s sins aren't CO2 emissions. The sin of the car is that it ripped our cities apart. For TAC, the electric car isn't the solution but a mere bandaid. They are unabashedly anti-war and anti-interventionist in a manner that Mark Twain, or Smedley Butler would be were they alive (ie many of them, like Twain and Butler, made the mistake of believing the establishment narrative on foreign intervention and are furiously making amends). Finally, TAC is a gateway to sober conservative intelligentsia, which exists, is very broad and very rich. How many have heard of Roger Scruton compare to Hannity? EDIT: Some criticism is in order. They appear to be a talent incubator, a lot of their columnists are recent grads. They’re great, but they don't last long and I miss some of the old guys (especially their urbanism guy) They are increasingly a christian focused magazine, which is fine by me, but does limit their palpability for HN readers. That being said, i suspect believers of any faith would be more comfortable reading TAC than NYT (in my experience religious people are more comfortable with people of other faith than with secularism - but its a long and off topic point) Finally, about the ME coverage. Its simple, its not in the US interest or our problem. Agreed. However their stance on Israel is softer than it was but harsher than mainstream media. Everyone has a problem with men in the middle.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Thanks for taking the time to make such a thorough reply. I might give it a read. As someone who leads liberal, but feels conservatives also have many good points, in addition to serving as the necessary counter-argument that strengthens everyone in a discourse, it's been hard to find sources in the Trump era that advance traditional conservative values in good faith.
    - tagoregrtst 5y ago
      Np, you asked in good faith you deserved an honest opinion. To drive my first point home, a pean to Dennis Kucinich in on their front page right now. That’s not to say you’ll like it. But they’re fair and honest about what they believe (no “dog whistles” or whatever)
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        The dog whistle stuff bothers me in the abstract (that it happens at all), but less so in the specific (where it feels like playing hidden words on a speech). What irks me more is when people can't / won't enunciate their core beliefs as part of an argument. If you think lower taxes create greater economic growth and freedom, then mention that! If you think higher taxes create greater economic growth and freedom, then mention that! But don't dance around the issue with five pages of rhetorical devices and examples, and never mention why you're advocating a position... as your core belief. Read a couple articles last night, and enjoyed them. (Well balanced) food for thought.
        tagoregrtst 5y ago
        To drive their honesty, anti-dog whistle nature and the inexperience of many of their colunist’s, you’ll often get a needlessly shocking but otherwise well argued column. Like a teen having fun shocking staid middle aged people; this is un-conservative, of course so I disagree. (Declan, Im looking at you. You’re too intelligent to act like a shock jock)

What do you find great about it? (Honestly asked as a non-reader unfamiliar with its content, aside from the implication of the name)

amanaplanacanal 5y ago
If you are a liberal interested in what conservatives think about things, without going full Q crazy, you could do worse. If you are interested in anti-trump conservative thought, The Bulwark is another good source.
tagoregrtst 5y ago
What I like most is that, whilr unapologetically conservative, they are fair and will acknowledge faults in the right and good in the left. Take their editor Dreher. Dreher is a very social conservative, and economically populist. So is he a Trumpist? He despises Trump specifically for his character shortcomings and has no patience for someone who cant see Trump do any bad. Dreher also has complete intolerance for incivility towards his opponents. Also, I havent found any other publication explain the damage that cars have caused America than their segment “The new Urbs”. Only Ivan Illich’s quip that cars average 5mph come close to the poignancy. For TAC the car’s sins aren't CO2 emissions. The sin of the car is that it ripped our cities apart. For TAC, the electric car isn't the solution but a mere bandaid. They are unabashedly anti-war and anti-interventionist in a manner that Mark Twain, or Smedley Butler would be were they alive (ie many of them, like Twain and Butler, made the mistake of believing the establishment narrative on foreign intervention and are furiously making amends). Finally, TAC is a gateway to sober conservative intelligentsia, which exists, is very broad and very rich. How many have heard of Roger Scruton compare to Hannity? EDIT: Some criticism is in order. They appear to be a talent incubator, a lot of their columnists are recent grads. They’re great, but they don't last long and I miss some of the old guys (especially their urbanism guy) They are increasingly a christian focused magazine, which is fine by me, but does limit their palpability for HN readers. That being said, i suspect believers of any faith would be more comfortable reading TAC than NYT (in my experience religious people are more comfortable with people of other faith than with secularism - but its a long and off topic point) Finally, about the ME coverage. Its simple, its not in the US interest or our problem. Agreed. However their stance on Israel is softer than it was but harsher than mainstream media. Everyone has a problem with men in the middle.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Thanks for taking the time to make such a thorough reply. I might give it a read. As someone who leads liberal, but feels conservatives also have many good points, in addition to serving as the necessary counter-argument that strengthens everyone in a discourse, it's been hard to find sources in the Trump era that advance traditional conservative values in good faith.
  - tagoregrtst 5y ago
    Np, you asked in good faith you deserved an honest opinion. To drive my first point home, a pean to Dennis Kucinich in on their front page right now. That’s not to say you’ll like it. But they’re fair and honest about what they believe (no “dog whistles” or whatever)
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      The dog whistle stuff bothers me in the abstract (that it happens at all), but less so in the specific (where it feels like playing hidden words on a speech). What irks me more is when people can't / won't enunciate their core beliefs as part of an argument. If you think lower taxes create greater economic growth and freedom, then mention that! If you think higher taxes create greater economic growth and freedom, then mention that! But don't dance around the issue with five pages of rhetorical devices and examples, and never mention why you're advocating a position... as your core belief. Read a couple articles last night, and enjoyed them. (Well balanced) food for thought.
      - tagoregrtst 5y ago
        To drive their honesty, anti-dog whistle nature and the inexperience of many of their colunist’s, you’ll often get a needlessly shocking but otherwise well argued column. Like a teen having fun shocking staid middle aged people; this is un-conservative, of course so I disagree. (Declan, Im looking at you. You’re too intelligent to act like a shock jock)