3 ms·

If you’re a left leaning voter the Speccie is almost _never_ going to have an article for you. And the “almost” is simply because often the articles are very w

by gumby 3mo ago

If you’re a left leaning voter the Speccie is almost _never_ going to have an article for you. And the “almost” is simply because often the articles are very well written and a pleasure to read even when the actual topic and argument are deeply deranged. Amazingly this was especially true when Boris was the editor!

skrebbel 3mo ago
Why is that amazing? For all his faults, Boris Johnson is an excellent writer.
- ggm 3mo ago
  There is an amazing write up[0] of somebody who was present when Boris gave some apparently "impromptu" speeches who absolutely pins him to the ground on his technique for appearing haphazard, off-the-cuff when it's patently clear its a rehearsed schtick. The man is literate. The problem is he is also almost amoral, and should never have been allowed to occupy a position of authority. He has some charming qualities, and he has some deeply unpleasant ones. (at least, from what I know of him from reading online, having never met him in the flesh) [0]: "My Boris Johnson Story" by Jeremy Vine: https://spectator.com/article/my-boris-johnson-story/ https://spectator.com/article/my-boris-johnson-story/
  - mdp2021 3mo ago
    > literate There is form and there is content. Poor content is more dangerous with alluring form. Some declared having witnessed a bewildering scientific ignorance ("He can't understand data representations").
  - gherkinnn 3mo ago
    What a thrilling read!
  - dotancohen 3mo ago
    > and should never have been allowed to occupy a position of authority. He has some charming qualities This is quite the contradiction in a democracy. Democracies, at least in modern indirect democracy form, are popularity contests. I personally prefer this form of government over other popular choices. But ignoring this aspect is exactly what leads to unqualified people being elected to office.
    - Arkhaine_kupo 3mo ago
      > This is quite the contradiction in a democracy. Is it? I get that being charming and literally convincing voters it a prerequisite for the job. However the idea that even despite having those qualities there are parts of his character that should disqualify him as a candidate seem equally plausible. Charles Manson was very charming, but he should still not hold office. Similarly, Obama or Mamdani being charming is not what gained them interest in progressive circles.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3mo ago
        To add to this, I've read accounts that US Presidents suddenly needed to be charismatic to compete meaningfully after the debates started being televised. So even being charming had not always helped one win public office. I recall a story about Calvin Coolidge, who had earned the nicname "Cool Cal" for his standoffish attitude, about a dinner party he attended. Another guest bet him they could get him to say three words to them by the time the party was over. He didn't say anything in response, then found them at the end of the party and said, "You lose."
    - specialist 3mo ago
      Campaigns, for sure, are more marketing than discourse. Their infinitesimal silver lining is they serve as a veneer of social proof, their outcomes represent (to some) a form of legitimacy. From monarchs to pure direct democracy, decisions have to be made. But how? I see "government" as a kind of consensus algorithm. Policy work, adjudicating, record keeping, legislating, appropriations, etc. It's all just one big data processing machine, trying to discern signal from noise (information), hopefully learning stuff (knowledge), and occasionally acting. For all our history, we've experimented with strategies for reducing transaction costs. Building trust, predictability, and stability. How do you think we've done so far? IMHO: Government, and especially bureaucracy, ain't great. But the alternative of no government isn't acceptable.
  - aswegs8 3mo ago
    https://archive.is/WGJJO https://archive.is/WGJJO
    - gumby 3mo ago
      Every time I encounter this story I read it again because it’s so great
  - ndsipa_pomu 3mo ago
    I agree that he should never have been given any power or responsibility, but he was bizarrely one of the best PMs we've had for promoting active infrastructure (i.e. cycle lanes). He was probably more progressive than Kid Starver.
- onetokeoverthe 3mo ago
  [dead]
- gumby 3mo ago
  His ability to focus and execute has been haphazard. But as you say he is a good writer and was apparently able to force his will upon most of the writers in the stable

by gumby 3mo ago

skrebbel 3mo ago

Why is that amazing? For all his faults, Boris Johnson is an excellent writer.

ggm 3mo ago
There is an amazing write up[0] of somebody who was present when Boris gave some apparently "impromptu" speeches who absolutely pins him to the ground on his technique for appearing haphazard, off-the-cuff when it's patently clear its a rehearsed schtick. The man is literate. The problem is he is also almost amoral, and should never have been allowed to occupy a position of authority. He has some charming qualities, and he has some deeply unpleasant ones. (at least, from what I know of him from reading online, having never met him in the flesh) [0]: "My Boris Johnson Story" by Jeremy Vine: https://spectator.com/article/my-boris-johnson-story/ https://spectator.com/article/my-boris-johnson-story/
- mdp2021 3mo ago
  > literate There is form and there is content. Poor content is more dangerous with alluring form. Some declared having witnessed a bewildering scientific ignorance ("He can't understand data representations").
- gherkinnn 3mo ago
  What a thrilling read!
- dotancohen 3mo ago
  > and should never have been allowed to occupy a position of authority. He has some charming qualities This is quite the contradiction in a democracy. Democracies, at least in modern indirect democracy form, are popularity contests. I personally prefer this form of government over other popular choices. But ignoring this aspect is exactly what leads to unqualified people being elected to office.
  - Arkhaine_kupo 3mo ago
    > This is quite the contradiction in a democracy. Is it? I get that being charming and literally convincing voters it a prerequisite for the job. However the idea that even despite having those qualities there are parts of his character that should disqualify him as a candidate seem equally plausible. Charles Manson was very charming, but he should still not hold office. Similarly, Obama or Mamdani being charming is not what gained them interest in progressive circles.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3mo ago
      To add to this, I've read accounts that US Presidents suddenly needed to be charismatic to compete meaningfully after the debates started being televised. So even being charming had not always helped one win public office. I recall a story about Calvin Coolidge, who had earned the nicname "Cool Cal" for his standoffish attitude, about a dinner party he attended. Another guest bet him they could get him to say three words to them by the time the party was over. He didn't say anything in response, then found them at the end of the party and said, "You lose."
  - specialist 3mo ago
    Campaigns, for sure, are more marketing than discourse. Their infinitesimal silver lining is they serve as a veneer of social proof, their outcomes represent (to some) a form of legitimacy. From monarchs to pure direct democracy, decisions have to be made. But how? I see "government" as a kind of consensus algorithm. Policy work, adjudicating, record keeping, legislating, appropriations, etc. It's all just one big data processing machine, trying to discern signal from noise (information), hopefully learning stuff (knowledge), and occasionally acting. For all our history, we've experimented with strategies for reducing transaction costs. Building trust, predictability, and stability. How do you think we've done so far? IMHO: Government, and especially bureaucracy, ain't great. But the alternative of no government isn't acceptable.
- aswegs8 3mo ago
  https://archive.is/WGJJO https://archive.is/WGJJO
  - gumby 3mo ago
    Every time I encounter this story I read it again because it’s so great
- ndsipa_pomu 3mo ago
  I agree that he should never have been given any power or responsibility, but he was bizarrely one of the best PMs we've had for promoting active infrastructure (i.e. cycle lanes). He was probably more progressive than Kid Starver.
onetokeoverthe 3mo ago
[dead]
gumby 3mo ago
His ability to focus and execute has been haphazard. But as you say he is a good writer and was apparently able to force his will upon most of the writers in the stable