5 ms·

The Washington Post Fired Me – But My Voice Will Not Be Silenced

38 points by frob 1y ago

techpineapple 1y ago
One question I have about politics and history, is does politics tend to follow short term events or long term trends. If politics tends to follow short term events then one might tend to assume that a swap of attitude from cancel culture on then left to cancel culture on the right would face immediate backlash, since a sense of cultural overreach and extremism was given as an explanation for Trump, that Trump was a moderating force in society. I tend to think that long-term trends tends to be a better explanatory factor. There was this interview with this divorce lawyer that really helped shape my view on where we were as a society which basically said we’re in a place with too much post-modernism. The idea of how we imagine the world is just too flexible, there’s too much “freedom” and we’re on a trend back towards a more concrete view of the world. I tend to think this is correct, and that if there is backlash to Trump, or the public and popular notion of conservatism, we’re still, broadly speaking influenced by a group of folks who are ready for a more concrete or “conservative” popular culture. Gender roles, Right and wrong. But I also think the trend sort of definitionally is already moving back in the other direction, it will just take ~ 10 years to play out as those in their formative years grow into a more liberal mindset(it’s probably just sort of barely impacting a few months of the psyche of the youngest pre-teens now and as that cohort ages they’ll influence the culture back in the other direction)
- techpineapple 1y ago
  I do wonder though how much freedom plays into this dynamic. Are young North Koreans “liberal” as much as they’re allowed to be, or does a stranglehold on cultural influences somehow squash organic contrarianism.
righthand 1y ago
I am hoping ex-WaPo writers can start a new publication and push WaPo down in value. This happened to the local Nyc blog during Trump’s first term. Wnyc was not supporting the writers if Gothamist so the staff up and left and started Hellgate.nyc with a different take on modern journalism. It has been a big win for those writers and local coverage. We really need to replace these corrupted institutions and at least boost our freedom of choice back up. Nothing needs to be a complete mega-hit 1:1 replacement in the world of news IMO.
alpha_squared 1y ago
From what I'm gathering, the quote she attributes to Kirk appears to not be a statement he made. I'm not able to find a source for that quote anywhere, but I'm also not about to go watch/listen to everything Kirk ever said in case it was never transcribed anywhere. If it is true that Kirk never said that, I would say that definitely compromises the trust in her as a journalist. And I'm saying this as someone who is on the "political left" by US standards, though more centrist by broader western standards.
- muddi900 1y ago
  There is nothing uncharacteristic about statement. This is something similar he said about black people. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1ZPr6KwnzA/ https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1ZPr6KwnzA/ The benefit of the doubt should go to the author. Why are we pretending that he was not this?
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    Why should any side get the benefit of the doubt?
    - lucyjojo 1y ago
      logical consistency?
    - muddi900 1y ago
      In any given conflict, there would be doubt. And one side will have the advantage due to it. Like in sports tv umpiring. Whenever the image is not clear as to what the decision should be, the rules have a carve out on which side whould get the benefit of benefit of that doubt. Otherwise the game will be stuck. In life, where certainty is much more rare, it is a good rule of thumb to handle doubts this way. By OP's own admission, they can't watch every hour and minute of Charlie Kirk's speeches, interviews, and TV appearances. But he has a clear pattern of making remarks such as this. Why would you believe that he did not make that statement? Objectivity does not require anyone be neutral for no reason. It is reasonable to assume that the author is correct.
Jiro 1y ago
[flagged]
- muddi900 1y ago
  "By the left..."
- righthand 1y ago
  This murder was not something done by “the left” to “the right”. These are two people who disagreed and one killed the other. This action doesn’t represent the views of the majority of the population of the Usa. Stop trying to start a fight and sowing division.

38 points by frob 1y ago

One question I have about politics and history, is does politics tend to follow short term events or long term trends. If politics tends to follow short term events then one might tend to assume that a swap of attitude from cancel culture on then left to cancel culture on the right would face immediate backlash, since a sense of cultural overreach and extremism was given as an explanation for Trump, that Trump was a moderating force in society. I tend to think that long-term trends tends to be a better explanatory factor. There was this interview with this divorce lawyer that really helped shape my view on where we were as a society which basically said we’re in a place with too much post-modernism. The idea of how we imagine the world is just too flexible, there’s too much “freedom” and we’re on a trend back towards a more concrete view of the world. I tend to think this is correct, and that if there is backlash to Trump, or the public and popular notion of conservatism, we’re still, broadly speaking influenced by a group of folks who are ready for a more concrete or “conservative” popular culture. Gender roles, Right and wrong. But I also think the trend sort of definitionally is already moving back in the other direction, it will just take ~ 10 years to play out as those in their formative years grow into a more liberal mindset(it’s probably just sort of barely impacting a few months of the psyche of the youngest pre-teens now and as that cohort ages they’ll influence the culture back in the other direction)

techpineapple 1y ago
I do wonder though how much freedom plays into this dynamic. Are young North Koreans “liberal” as much as they’re allowed to be, or does a stranglehold on cultural influences somehow squash organic contrarianism.

righthand 1y ago

I am hoping ex-WaPo writers can start a new publication and push WaPo down in value. This happened to the local Nyc blog during Trump’s first term. Wnyc was not supporting the writers if Gothamist so the staff up and left and started Hellgate.nyc with a different take on modern journalism. It has been a big win for those writers and local coverage. We really need to replace these corrupted institutions and at least boost our freedom of choice back up. Nothing needs to be a complete mega-hit 1:1 replacement in the world of news IMO.

alpha_squared 1y ago

From what I'm gathering, the quote she attributes to Kirk appears to not be a statement he made. I'm not able to find a source for that quote anywhere, but I'm also not about to go watch/listen to everything Kirk ever said in case it was never transcribed anywhere. If it is true that Kirk never said that, I would say that definitely compromises the trust in her as a journalist. And I'm saying this as someone who is on the "political left" by US standards, though more centrist by broader western standards.

muddi900 1y ago
There is nothing uncharacteristic about statement. This is something similar he said about black people. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1ZPr6KwnzA/ https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1ZPr6KwnzA/ The benefit of the doubt should go to the author. Why are we pretending that he was not this?
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  Why should any side get the benefit of the doubt?
  - lucyjojo 1y ago
    logical consistency?
  - muddi900 1y ago
    In any given conflict, there would be doubt. And one side will have the advantage due to it. Like in sports tv umpiring. Whenever the image is not clear as to what the decision should be, the rules have a carve out on which side whould get the benefit of benefit of that doubt. Otherwise the game will be stuck. In life, where certainty is much more rare, it is a good rule of thumb to handle doubts this way. By OP's own admission, they can't watch every hour and minute of Charlie Kirk's speeches, interviews, and TV appearances. But he has a clear pattern of making remarks such as this. Why would you believe that he did not make that statement? Objectivity does not require anyone be neutral for no reason. It is reasonable to assume that the author is correct.

Jiro 1y ago

[flagged]

muddi900 1y ago
"By the left..."
righthand 1y ago
This murder was not something done by “the left” to “the right”. These are two people who disagreed and one killed the other. This action doesn’t represent the views of the majority of the population of the Usa. Stop trying to start a fight and sowing division.