4 ms·

city-journal is a far-right rag

xtracto 4y ago
So what? It is raising some interesting points in a decent way and developing discussion. There are points that make more sense to me than others, and I dont share their conclusions. But I appreciate the discussion it raises. Americans shouldn't be so fast to discount the idea of each other just because they are from the other end of their political spectrum. US politics would improve if both sides avoided that.
- mmartinson 4y ago
  The problem is that it frequently detours from interesting discussions points to do things like dump on Greenpeace. Not interesting. Being elsewhere on the political spectrum doesn’t discount the interesting points, it just injects too many wacky ideas to make it possible to engage with. Ratio of density between interesting points and fever swamp ranting too low. Trash rag.
- enragedcacti 4y ago
  On the flip side, it publishes and prominently features people like Chris Rufo [1], who openly acknowledges propagandizing and intentionally muddying the waters around topics like CRT [2]. Obviously you can still have a conversation or discuss the points made, but at a certain point it just becomes a waste of time to use people who revel in acting in bad faith as a starting point for a dialogue. Especially when they are far from the only ones discussing the issue: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=false&query=plastic%20recycling&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal... [1] https://www.city-journal.org/christopher-rufo-on-woke-education https://www.city-journal.org/christopher-rufo-on-woke-educat... [2] https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1371540368714428416 https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1371540368714428416
- ramesh31 4y ago
  >Americans shouldn't be so fast to discount the idea of each other just because they are from the other end of their political spectrum. US politics would improve if both sides avoided that. Nah, it just devolves into bad faith ad hominem towards the end. This is no National Review. It's not much more than a rant really.

So what? It is raising some interesting points in a decent way and developing discussion. There are points that make more sense to me than others, and I dont share their conclusions. But I appreciate the discussion it raises. Americans shouldn't be so fast to discount the idea of each other just because they are from the other end of their political spectrum. US politics would improve if both sides avoided that.

mmartinson 4y ago
The problem is that it frequently detours from interesting discussions points to do things like dump on Greenpeace. Not interesting. Being elsewhere on the political spectrum doesn’t discount the interesting points, it just injects too many wacky ideas to make it possible to engage with. Ratio of density between interesting points and fever swamp ranting too low. Trash rag.
enragedcacti 4y ago
On the flip side, it publishes and prominently features people like Chris Rufo [1], who openly acknowledges propagandizing and intentionally muddying the waters around topics like CRT [2]. Obviously you can still have a conversation or discuss the points made, but at a certain point it just becomes a waste of time to use people who revel in acting in bad faith as a starting point for a dialogue. Especially when they are far from the only ones discussing the issue: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=false&query=plastic%20recycling&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal... [1] https://www.city-journal.org/christopher-rufo-on-woke-education https://www.city-journal.org/christopher-rufo-on-woke-educat... [2] https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1371540368714428416 https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1371540368714428416
ramesh31 4y ago
>Americans shouldn't be so fast to discount the idea of each other just because they are from the other end of their political spectrum. US politics would improve if both sides avoided that. Nah, it just devolves into bad faith ad hominem towards the end. This is no National Review. It's not much more than a rant really.