So tired of the culture war infecting every corner of public discourse. This article: One culture war guy criticizes another culture war guy. Nothing to do with tech.
Honestly, if I see a Substack URL on HN more often than not it’s going to be some biased outrage in reaction to someone else’s biased outrage.
Substack seems to be a pretty efficient echo chamber, having people subscribe to read individual journalists. In a newspaper or magazine, there are still editorial themes, but at least some minimal level of diversity in reporting and viewpoints.
But now you can just get 100% Andrew Sullivan content and read comments by fellow Andrew Sullivan readers.
Sadly, I’d imagine getting enough siloed reinforcement makes one think the article is valid enough to be valuable to HN.
His show is really predictable. He always has voice of reason in-person and absurdity remotely.
I thought this specific episode was bad and poorly represents the problems. Stewart is all over the place with his views. I honestly didn't really understand what was trying to be said through the episode although many of his other episodes follow a single narrative.
Yeah, he and a bunch of other talk show hosts and comedians. It's so cringy to watch. Other examples include Trevor Noah, Seth Meyers, Stephen Colbert, Fallon. Can't we get Carson, Letterman and Conan back?
Conan can be pretty bad as well. Anytime he’s pressed he falls precisely in line with far left views and goes to great lengths to avoid the slightest controversy.
Conan isn't even in the same playing field. Conan is mostly silly skits that have little or nothing to do with politics. Colbert used to do news infotainment, which means the primary bulk of his content was responding to the news of the day.
One can look up Conan skits on YouTube by just typing in his name.
Everyone has a very narrow range of specialized knowledge, opinions and beliefs, and people overvalue their own approach as nuanced and balanced and see-all-sides. Even on HN, there are several times when conversations on economics, pubic policy, science, vaccines border on cringey for someone who is an expert in those fields.
I think the single most hardest thing to do is to escape ones own perspective.
Right. He talks about 'white anxiety' as a reason form limiting immigration, about being tactical about gender identity protections. All the arguments conservatives used against gay rights in the past.
He's the kind of gay conservative who promotes conservatism for everything, except where it would be a detriment to gays. He rides the progressive train until it's his stop, and then tries to derail it. It's ugly, cynical and selfish.
But agree the show could have taken and responded better to his viewpoints.
> He's the kind of gay conservative who promotes conservatism for everything, except where it would be a detriment to gays. He rides the progressive train until it's his stop, and then tries to derail it. It's ugly, cynical and selfish.
So…because he colors outside of the “established” lines it’s selfish? Honestly, this expectation for partisan political orthodoxy from people representing specific groups is so scary.
What isn't orthodox about promoting the standard prescribed positions of a political group while trying to carve out exceptions for your own case? Seeking the benefits of group acceptance while avoiding its cost on individuality is what people have always done.
Brave is taking a principled position, regardless of the crowd. Unselfish is doing so despite the personal cost. This guy is neither. He just wants to have it both ways.
You can't eradicate evil with more evil. Jon Stewart didn't get the memo and he's embracing "more evil" (racism against whites) to combat evils committed historically (racism against blacks).
We are all homo sapiens and should be offered the same opportunities as everyone else. Do not discriminate against race, against gender, against religion, against political affiliation, or any other category that may be used to make people in an "other" category.
"Racism against whites" does not exist on a systemic level in America and is not what John Stewart or any serious person is advocating for. Also, acting as though "racism against blacks" is an evil solely committed historically is very disingenuous when there remains a) widespread modern discrimination and b) unaddressed lasting impacts of earlier oppression.
? 'Racism against Whites' not only exists at a systematic level, it's literally institutionalized.
NY State provides COVID antiviral therapies for 'people of colour' way ahead of 'white people'.
I fully accept that there's a strong component of social justice, in that some people of colour have less access to healthcare - the problem is it's very crude and unfair policy, and there are many (perhaps just as many in aggregate) 'white people' who have had limited access to healthcare. Notably they have been poor since the dawn of time, their ancestors 'serfs' for thousands of years, and now they are directly and actively discriminated against by their governments.
A 8-question form about 'health history and health coverage' would probably provide a really good - and fair - basis for access to antivirals, that would get those with 'historical limited access' they help they need. No doubt, people of colour would be more likely as a result of those questions to get treatment, but others would as well. That would be 'actual social justice'.
Cynically, a 'more fair policy' would not allow government officials to tout their specific reforms and programs targeting minorities to placate loud voices, and to tout their 'social justice credibility'.
This is one small example, there are many.
Not only that, casual crude bigotry against whites has become fundamentally acceptable.
There were 4 major publications including Forbes (unexpected) and the Guardian (expected) that lamented 'Will Smith's Slap' was really a problem of 'White Supremacy' - effectively indicting 'Whiteness' as the cause of all of this malaise.
This is ridiculous, anti-intellectual post-modern rubbish. Total bigotry - published in 'respectable' outlets, being passed of ass legitimate - and it's almost a daily occurrence.
'Classical' systematic (and even institutional racism) against people of colour obviously exists, but there is also obviously a war going on with cheating and 'Magical Bigoted Thinking' around every corner.
It's very obvious that some 'talking heads' seeking validation, fame, clicks and relevance make poor arguments in the name of something.
Since at least parts of the Left have gone 'post modern bullshit race war', by blaming literally everything including 'Oscar Slaps' on 'White Supremacy' - it's hard for anyone to keep up and stay on top of the clicks. Jon Stewart has to up his own 'magical thinking' in order to stir the pot.
The same thing can be seen on the 'other side' as Tucker Carlson has entered a bizarre 'Twilight Zone Reality' with his recent conspiratorial and insane rants about Putin's justification for war in Ukraine.
If you were to have shown 2022 Pro-Putin Tucker Carlson, and he Guardian rant faulting 'White Supremacy' for 'Will Smiths Oscar Slap', or any of Trump's Tweets to anyone from 2010 - nobody would have believed it'd be real.
Commercialized press, need for substack subs, huge pressure for ratings, etc pushes the system 'outward' in terms of opinions and makes the system toxic.
So try to contextualize almost everything in that whirlwind.
Take Europe: they have even more extreme political dialogue (they have actual Nazis there, not fake American ones, and they have actual Communist parties in almost every country, that get votes!) - but their population is not caught up in pop-culture wars, particularly about race. Admittedly, without a history of slavery in the same way that America has, it's going to be less sensitive. But they are far less nuts about most of these issues, at least on the Continent.
It's absurd not to be at least fairly cynical about the words of talking heads of any kind in the US these days, and any institution with a public facing element.
They are all subject to it. Take your 'favourite person' - and watch them fall into the cracks as they have to put up content incessantly, have a guest or opinion on a daily basis, that gets them the attention. That is a systematic problem inflaming all others.
> There were 4 major publications including Forbes (unexpected) and the Guardian (expected) that lamented 'Will Smith's Slap' was really a problem of 'White Supremacy' - effectively indicting 'Whiteness' as the cause of all of this malaise.
I thought this was hyperbole, but you were not kidding!
Ideas are not 'asinine' but broad, unchallenged acceptance of them is.
Those are academic, rhetorical arguments that belong on campus, not in the commons as acceptable viewpoints.
What's sinister about such writing is that it appeals directly to the inner bigotry of those reading it, for the same reasons that Trump's 'ugly Tweets' do, though the writers have the intelligence to grasp that, they refuse to have the self awareness to concede that reality.
It's just mostly unfounded bigotry, that appeals to the 'Inner Orc' in everyone.
They (meaning everyone) usually get away with it because of the 'kernel of truth' i.e 'white people' do disproportionately have power, or, 'illegal aliens are technically more likely to be involved in certain kinds of crime', which becomes more apparent if it was on the 'evening news' etc..
It's like Tucker Carlson's rehashing of Putin's cries about 'NATO expansion' - that's a 'kernel of truth' that covers the other, clear and obvious motivations for war which are purely Imperialist. Though 'NATO expansion' is not an appeal to bigotry at least, paradoxically, Putin's more broad indications are: Ukranians are not really a people, and they are 'little Russians' to be subject to rule by Russians.
> We are all homo sapiens and should be offered the same opportunities as everyone else. Do not discriminate against race, against gender, against religion, against political affiliation, or any other category that may be used to make people in an "other" category.
Right. But the problem is:
1) when that rule wasn’t followed initially, it creates an unequal playing field that can take generations to undo.
2) not everyone thinks that way.
It would be nice to just say: starting today no more bigotry against anyone for any reason, but that only works on paper.
But the problem is that actions to 'rehabilitate society using racial/gender lense' is just an excuse to bring out and institutionalize the casual bigotry of the ostensibly offended.
Examples abound.
Probably the only way to allow for such an approach to be taken is if there were constant oversight, and required 'sunset' in the clauses such that the rules had to be automatically rescinded after a period of time.
Aka: "UCLA has a diversity problem in the Business Program, so they're going to focus on bringing XYZ groups into the fold. This program is subject to oversight by outside 3rd party governance body, to which we must provide the data on the program that they request. After 3 years, the program must be sunset, and an after action report will be written by the independent oversight board"
If I were King, I would probably support those kinds of programs, even the slightly more radical ones knowing that at least there is oversight, data, that it can get shut down, and no matter what it will 'time out' eventually.
> But the problem is that actions to 'rehabilitate society using racial/gender lense' is just an excuse to bring out and institutionalize the casual bigotry of the ostensibly offended.
There are plenty of well intentioned people and programs too though that aren't driven by bigotry.
> Probably the only way to allow for such an approach to be taken is if there were constant oversight, and required 'sunset' in the clauses such that the rules had to be automatically rescinded after a period of time.
That sounds like an interesting proposal.
2 questions:
1) What happens if you're 1 year into a 3 year program and see that it's veering off course? Maybe folks are gaming the system, or there's a flaw in the program that's limiting its effectiveness. Do you still have the ability to change the program dynamics? Would version 2 only get a 2 year run then?
2) What does the 3rd party have the authority to do? Can they shut down the program or mandate changes? What's to stop activists at an organization from re-running a program even if it got a negative report from a 3rd party?
If you get enough organizations onboard and people screaming on social media, you can convince people otherwise, as evidenced by the last two years. You've got large swaths of the supposed left now supporting things they used to fight against, those being racism, war, and censorship, and you are called a fascist or a bigot or a *phobe if you challenge them. (Or just downvoted to oblivion)
It just goes to show that most people don't base their beliefs on first principles and ideals but rather subconscious social cues and pressure. The US right wing has been taking advantage of this for decades with Rupert Murdoch and FOX leading the way, and it was only a matter of time for the left wing to join in.
To be accurate, the parent talked about 'support' for war - which is true. The elected representatives of the left have doubled-down on wars, expanded them and presided over mass civilian casualties.
>But it does mean opposing fascism and racism, and sometimes fighting against them.
Indeed, the US should oppose those things inside their own boundaries where they have the right to. There is no reason to assume the US is virtuous and right on any given moral issue. In fact there are lots of reasons pointing towards the opposite case. We (I) don't want the US to invade other countries with its "concern" and cause mass civilian casualties.
"Indeed, the US should oppose those things inside their own boundaries where they have the right to."
So the US has a right to sell weapons to anyone abroad, but when it comes to the humanitarian consequences suddenly borders matter? If you want to be isolationist then be consistent. Having the benefits of international trade requires equivalent moral responsibility.
"There is no reason to assume the US is virtuous and right on any given moral issue."
There are lots of reasons pointing to the opposite, but that doesn't mean it can't be either. You could just as easily define 'right' as everyone intervening anywhere, regardless of borders, to prevent mass civilian casualties. One obvious case comes to mind.
>You could just as easily define 'right' as everyone intervening anywhere, regardless of borders, to prevent mass civilian casualties. One obvious case comes to mind.
The US hasn't intervened when it comes to mass civilian casualties in Pakistan, Kashmir, North Korea, etc, etc, etc. The US is hypocritical (like many countries) and intervenes when it is convenient.
On a related note - do you support Putin's invasion out of "concern" for the people of Donetsk?
I don't have a hot-line to any executive branch of government, so I am going off of historical actions presided over by elected representatives of both left/right.
Dems are 20% more likely to support US intervention and 'support' for Ukraine - sorry I wish I had the data point, but it's there.
Dems are hugely in favour of overtly, institutionally discriminatory practices for hiring, medical practices etc.. For example NY state's rationing policy for COVID antivirals favours 'people of colour' by quite a lot. Obviously it's ostensibly in 'good faith' an attempt to create better outcomes, but it probably doens't really and it's arguably racist.
I don't generally think the Left is more nationalist and war-like - that's just a peculiarity of the moment, but the Left is 100% more concerned about issue of race and policies that effectively discriminate. Again, for what they deem to be legitimate reasons, but that doesn't make them right.
This is what happens when you view left and right through the lens of the US two-party system. The left does not see Democrats as representative of it position.
But to say the left should always oppose war is incorrect. If the world grew closer to fascism, the left would be calling out more to fight it. That doesn't make it any more warlike than, for example, small countries facing imperialism, or tribes facing colonialism. Distributing power improves the chances for peace, or so the principle goes.
I'm not saying if they Left should or should not support war.
Also by 'Dem' I should have said 'Left'.
I'm not even technically against polices that are overtly discriminatory, except that they would have to be 'very, very exceptional'.
But the Left supports those, which are arguably racist.
It's not my political posture one way or the other, I'm just responding to the point that the Left is 'not for war or racism' - when they can definitely support war, and polices that are unfortunately racist, even for 'bad reasons'.
The Left can be trusted to have a 'Kernel of Good Faith' on issues of Social Justice. When someone form the Left says they are concerned about it - I believe it. But one step beyond that and I'm cynical. In much the same way I am fully fine with 'flag waiving' and 'acts of patriotism'. But it makes me jittery quickly because that stuff can get mean pretty quickly as well.
I guess you can make an argument that it's racial discrimination in the same sense that affirmative action is racist. But it rings hollow when the same people who have been discriminating against black people for years suddenly have a problem with 'racism'.
I don't know you, or whether you fit into that category. But so much of the pearl clutching we see the days from the right is clearly disingenuous. Maybe that's why the left doesn't take it seriously and will vote accordingly.
You see all kinds of statements about white people that would be considered absolutely reprehensible if said about other races. The excuse is always that "you can't be racist against whites".
And just look at all the supposed (note the word "supposed" here, as there is a true left still) left wing pundits calling for weapons and even involvement in the Ukraine.
Fully agreed, I support you. Now how do we convince the other 95% of the populace that falsely believes they are part of the left? It's part of the neo-liberal establishment to co-opt the left for their selfish purposes and won't let go so easily.
I guess by being consistent ourselves and by being clear about what the left is and isn't/does and doesn't support. And not letting liberals steal that valour.
Bernie Sanders is a good, consistent example of a left wing advocate - by clearly opposing the Iraq war and clearly opposing the Russian invasion, people can conclude that he has a principled opposition to imperialism, in all its forms, no matter who is doing it.
Also being ready with points to counter red baiting; the USSR wasn't left wing - Stalin and Lenin killed more peasants and socialists than anyone etc.
The consistent advocacy that comes from thought-out, principled positions isn't emphasised enough. The left needs to make that more of an election issue. Just some thoughts.
Why is it on Hacker News?