I think KT is trying to say that if you were to sling some horrible threats or insults at him, he would find it more welcome than polite disagreement, which he considers pretentious and insincere, that's my best guess.
I don't read the comments here all that much, but in general, it seems to me that some commenters are trying to be professional pundits, but their takes never surprise me. It's like there are 29 allowed responses, but none of the takes are new, and they are egged on by fellow cool people who know the lingo, immediately understand obscure references or takes, or are so eager to pounce on someone who doesn't understand what's being said at the big people table. I get weary of the discourse where everyone needs to be right and there's little genuine curiosity. Comment sections on blogs are sort of an alternate reality that you can only take so much of. I understand your departure, and I appreciate you explaining it.
As a former "lib commenter," I can say that the thrill you get from writing a comment that looks similar to the type of comment a pundit would write... it's depressing and vapid and empty when I put it that way, but it felt good at the time. It's a powerful dumb thing to do.
I imagine how I'd have reacted to Russia's invasion back at my peak. Holy shit, it would have been the dumbest shit. "If you poke a bear for 30 years it's going to poke back" is a wiser take than the epic paragraphs I would have written back then, but of course the epic paragraphs make you feel like you're in the same shared reality as an elite pundit.
This is all true. But it's also unfair to label anyone who shares at least some opinion overlap with "elite lib pundits" or whatever as disingenuous or dumb. I would point specifically to the 7,000+ Russian scientists who signed a letter with the statement "The responsibility for unleashing a new war in Europe lies entirely with Russia" in prominent position.
I think they're vastly overestimating Russia's agency in all this. The proximal cause was certainly Putin and his government, but the ultimate cause involves a whole lot more than them.
The thousands of Russian scientists who live in Russia are vastly overestimating Russia's agency? How is this any different than saying lefties are vastly overestimating the U.S.'s agency?
“Traditional theories of World War II vastly overestimate Hitler’s agency. It was more about the treaty of Versailles, hyperinflation, and the crisis of liberalism.”
Seriously, I spent like two hours yesterday writing what was basically an essay, defending a theory that I don't even really believe in. Why did I do that? For the rush of seeing five people click "Like" on it?
I think half of it is that I just enjoy writing (I feel like I think much more clearly when I write things out), but half of it is an unhealthy self-indulgent desire to feel smart. Not just for other people to think I'm smart, but for me to pat myself on the back and say, "Good job self, you're smart."
Oh yeah, for me as well, big time. The feeling of writing is a feeling of clarity... but the reason I do it a lot in comment sections and not just in my diary is certainly the satisfaction I get of seeing a smart comment on the webpage and going "that's me! I did the smart comment!" I can't deny that's part of it for me, and I just try to be aware that that's what I'm doing...
Yesterday I was supposed to be sorting out some travel arrangements, but instead I went back through my Reddit comment history just to feel proud of my past self. This is not a healthy way of dealing with stress.
"For the rush of seeing five people click 'Like' on it?"
For the rush of capturing some corner of the world, however trivial, where it is actually possible to approximate the agency our prosperity-gospel culture likes to pretend we're all blessed with.
(I'm not denying the existence or importance of agency — it's the only thing we have that's truly ours, after all. But it's contingent, sometimes on truly absurd circumstances a prosperity gospel would rather pretend just didn't exist.)
If you want to write well you need to write a lot. Message boards such as this employed as a place to practice your writing and test your thinking are actually a great tool. There's nothing wrong with aspiring to produce content that could qualify as something that came from a "professional pundit". They're professionals for a reason.
And everybody should be forced to take debate in high school. The experience of being forced to defend something that you don't personally agree with is invaluable in getting people to step outside of their own biases and extend some understanding and compassion to people with different view points.
I say keep it up with the long posts. Maybe it isn't going to get your widespread public acclaim but was it valuable for you in terms of practicing your writing and sharpening your thinking?
At the end of my four-year high school debate career, I wasn't sick of defending things I didn't believe in, but I was totally sick of trying to win. The competitive wankery just burned me out. I would have loved to continue doing formal debate if there hadn't been any competitive pressure.
I think it was specifically the tension between the competitive aspects and the discursive aspects that I really came to hate. Basically, to have the best shot at winning usually meant having a less interesting argument, focusing on optimal techniques instead of creativity. It eventually felt like there was very little connection between being successful at competition and being actually good at communicating and persuading.
Conversely, I never lost my enjoyment of academic quiz bowl competition, because for me that was just pure competitive sport with no feeling of higher purpose. So I just enjoyed it strictly as a game, never wishing that it was something more than it was.
I came up with a word for the type of thing that we're referring to... the thing that's fun to write and often impressive to read... I call it Nuance Porn
I think that’s a fair description. And of course a point FDB is frequently making. Then just multiply that by about 50,000 people, and you’ve got the chattering classes to a T.
I tend to stay out of comments myself - and on those occasions where I do comment I always and immediately regret it. Like I'm sure I will once I finish writing this. And it is thus why I have to agree with at least some of the Very Serious People who advised you to stay out of the comments section. Nothing good can come of engaging in the comments section. No debate has ever been settled in the comments section. No mind-changing perspective has ever been developed in the comments section. Anything in a comments section that even seems to be insightful is almost assuredly concern trolling.
Ditto on the regret-after-commenting, eerily similar to how I feel the morning after I’ve caved and ordered something crappy/tasty on UberEats. Best wishes, Todd, Freddie, and all.
I long ago ceased giving a fuck what critics of my commentary thought of me. So in a sense I share your disappointment with the platform.......but participate when I grow tired of my rather solitary existence in the pestilent world right now. There is only so much cuddling with my Queensland Heeler and movies I can take and no one responds to letter writing any more. So here we are (sigh)
I respect what you're doing here. I disagreed with the last post, and decided the most respectful thing I could do would be to lay out my counter-case as straightforwardly as I could in the comments. I have no idea if you read it or not (probably not if we're being realistic), but I do sincerely hope you wouldn't take it as an attempt to discipline you or anything like that. I'm still a paying subscriber and intend to stay that way for the time being.
Seems like the rigid American Christian conservatism of the 50s/60s that blew apart mostly in the 90s and certainly in the 00s has been replaced with rigid center left "right think." There are so many sacred cows now. People get points for building them up. It sucks, but the tastemakers are on the conformist side rather than the counter cultural side this time.
True take, that. And something that remains hard to swallow and process. So thank gawd for this particular in-group, it’s rapid fire contentiousness and all, a place where a sliver of the old counterculture is still alive.
Yeah, I rarely (can’t be more than 3x over this period of time) wade into the comments but I’ve held out Freddie as the worthwhile read of our time since 2013, and paying for his work is the easiest subscription decision in my life
I think the best option is to just mark a controversial stance as “unpersuadable.”
Your position on how much is education can move the needle is backed by a ton of research. But I’m sure you run into people all the time who are so attached to the value of education that they will never change their minds no matter the evidence.
I’m sure we all have issues like that. And that’s fine, I guess. I think it would make more sense for people to be up front about it. “On this point I’m unpersuadable.” That would tend to cut down on the toxicity.
I’ve debated issues here in the comments and at the end said, “What burden of proof would you require from me to convince you?” And in many instances the gist of the response is that there is no amount of evidence that would convince them. And that’s fine. It just means it’s not worth debating anymore.
Freddie has said this for both Marxism and campism.
I believe for the former he said something like "I was born a Marxist and I'll die a Marxist" and for the latter he recently said something to the effect of America being a force for evil in the world was his fundamental worldview.
The funny thing is that if he's self-aware he's unpersuadable on those issues why would he expect others to be persuadable on them?
Commenters were also immovable on this front, and in fact refused to engage him in his argument. Almost the entirety of the "US is not evil" kinda broke down to "I feel good being American". Which, fair enough I guess? It's dumb, but no law against that.
There was a book written about Toyota when it became the world’s largest automaker. The author asked a retired Toyota executive, “what was the key to Toyota’s success?” And the executive said, “Toyota is a giant dysfunctional bureaucracy. It’s just slightly less of one than its main rivals.”
I think that's a coping mechanism; when the US does evil it's because it's misguided/clumsy, not because it did something evil. It doesn't mean they're irredeemable, but that same "benefit of the doubt" should be applied to other groups.
No one sets out to do evil. Even Hitler had (insane) reasons for doing what he did. Putin's not a good guy but he gave his reasons for doing what he's doing. He doesn't think he's doing evil, he thinks he's acting in the interest of his people. Ultimately that doesn't matter because what he did IS evil.
More to the point there's no way to prove Putin is out to do evil, just like there's no way to prove Bush was out to do evil. It's ultimately irrelevant, this isn't judgement day. What matters is the amount of suffering caused. Freddie and I are very confident that the United States has caused the most suffering. The hacks behind Victims of Communim are confident it hasn't. It's not something that can be sorted out in a blog comment.
What can be sorted out is that making excuses for Bush like "he really thought there were WMDs" is pure jingoism that would absolutely never be applied to an Official Enemy.
It's war Freddie, people become hyper-emotional (understandably) and feel a moral need to take a righteous, certain, stance on issues they really have no familiarity with, which can be dangerous. I mean people do this anyway, but the existence of a war makes them feel a moral imperative to do so. And of course this is cynically exploited by the people in power-often with devastating consequences.
People feel helpless right now and screaming "we have to do something!" starts to feel like doing something. The intensity of their emotions never lets them consider that sometimes doing nothing may actually be the least harmful course. Any attempt at explanation that doesn't fit a simple good vs evil binary is blindly interpreted as justification.
We've seen it time and time again. Its war hysteria.
I don't feel hysterical. What I'm interested in, though, is anyone else's ideas on a coherent set of foreign policy principles that could be applied to the US and Russia, because unlike our host, I don't think we're on equal footing. Because Russia is not a proper democracy and Putin is an autocrat. When I pointed that out--how do we use coherent principles with a guy who does what he wants when he wants--I was accused of saying "he bad we good case closed."
Putin was elected, and he enjoys far greater support at home than most US governments do. You can question the validity of his election, but people do that in the US all the time, nowadays from both sides of the aisle, and it doesn't change the characterization of the US as a democracy.
As for proper democratic values, the USian people voted a few times for their presidents to leave Afghanistan and yet they didn't. When the current president finally did it, the unelected blob made it very very painful for him. But even if the US is a true democracy and Russia isn't, it doesn't matter; being elected or not doesn't make your decisions legitimate. The US as a democracy voted to attack Iraq.
Well Putin and his popularity are hard to judge accurately considering the level of propaganda (acknowledging the US has propaganda, but I can't agree that we're anywhere near at the level of Russia in that regard), but I take your point. And I've said also, I didn't support the war in Iraq, ever. So how are we meant to interact with Russia? We do nothing now--no sanctions, no military support, just leave them to it. I do consider that a valid response. But--and here's "whataboutism," which some people call forethought--what if it doesn't stop there? Is there any level of imperial aggression from Russia in Europe that we can't accept and thus respond to?
True on propaganda, but I suspect that it's still higher than Biden's, if only because Biden is pretty unpopular.
As a note, I remember articles in the economist in the early oughts about how Russia was crumbling, men were in despair, unemployment was sky-high, as was alcoholism. And suddenly I blinked and Russia's fine, and strong? And apparently Putin had a big hand in it? Was it all on investing oil and gas proceeds? I have no idea, but given Russia's current (pre-war) situation I could see him having a lot of support. ("It's the economy, stupid.")
Apropos of something, maybe: Do we really know how much support Putin has? Seems as if he’s got his thumb on that scale in a way that a POTUS wouldn’t be able to pull off, at least not to the same extent. Remember Mr Hope-&-Change? Now, in the unforgettable words of Matt Taibi, he’s “the fat Elvis of NeoLiberalism”. Then again, if Putin wants a great legacy, at least among his kind of people (in Russia or elsewhere) he’s probably screwed the pooch. The Guy who killed Hitler took down most of Europe.Vlad seems to be struggling to match that. And a safe prediction at this point is that he ends up down the road looking more like Phil Spector than Fat Elvis (for what little that’s worth).
You're mixing definitions of "pure" and "representative" democracy and ignoring the bear in the room that Russians don't have freedom of speech (among others) and Putin has killed political opponents, activists, journalists, etc.
This is to say that Russia is some kind of illiberal democracy where Putin has basically established rule for life as an authoritarian.
I think I was doing this but Freddie wasn't having it, but although I think obviously Russia is in the wrong here, them being an autocracy has little to do with it. I think democracies basically behave just as ruthlessly as autocracies do on the international stage, and while I'm not completely a foreign policy realist, I lean strongly in that direction.
The consistent set of principles is that there are forms of pressure on foreign states that are acceptable and forms that aren't, and both Russia and the US have crossed that line multiple times. Iraq was invaded for very similar reasons to Ukraine – wanting a country to change geopolitical alignment to one's own sphere of influence. It wasn't morally acceptable.
Then there are the things that are in-between. I'd say the Mossadegh coup is way over the line. But simply supporting an opposition? Arming the countries you want in your sphere of influence? Making trade policy dependent on foreign policy? Broadly accepted as just what statecraft is. Some acceptable some not. Russia rigging the next Ukrainian election would have been bad, but not the moral monstrosity that this invasion is.
So while I get Freddie's assertion here – and hope Americans see the images out of Ukraine and reflect on how Iraqi or Vietnamese civilians might feel about them – I think to an extent he was so used to fighting against people who thought America was a shining beacon on a hill that he didn't engage with anything else. He asked me a direct question – would the US tolerate a Russia-aligned Mexico – and well they wouldn't. But America isn't the entire West, and there are plenty of missiles on the Polish border. I think there are general principles that you can articulate, and it's maybe even true that America through sheer power has violated more than most. I don't, however, necessarily think democracies are less likely to violate them (internationally) than autocracies.
Erin with all due respect I cannot see the relevance of Russia being an autocracy and the USA being democratic to foreign affairs.
Do you think that the the people of India cared at all that their country was horrifically exploited by Britain, then the most democratic country of the time?
You say Putin does what he wants when he wants. But so does the U.S. The U.S. being a democracy didn't help the people of Latin America, Syria Lybia, Iraq, Vietnam, Haiti ect...
The point is that the only principle that has ever operated in international relations is the old adage "the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must."
Freddie and people like myself think that's an appalling situation and one that must change.
But we realise that change is not going to come from the U.S. Until the citizens realise that their government does give one single shit about humanitarian principles they will be easily and cynically manipulated by their government to support its power plays.
In this instance it is true that Russia is a horrendous aggressor, but it is also true that this fact has no bearing on the U.S governments opposition to Russia.
Consider this, if the U.S. government cared about horrendous wars of aggression then the first thing they would do to uphold this principle would be... to stop participating in them. For one they could stop supporting the atrocities in Yemen which they directly contribute military infrastructure to. That's what a principled actor would do.
The fact that they continue to commit their own crimes of aggression while condeming Russia shows they do not care about aggression, they are using it as a pretext to pursue ulterior motives.
What does this all mean. It means that we need to keep this in mind when evaluating the situation, especially since this situation carries a risk of nuclear war which would be the end of all civilisation.
As citizens we can and should condemn Russia but we do need to take into the realities of how great power politics works and make sure that in condemning Russia's aggression against Ukraine we do not inadvertently further the U.S.As continued aggression against the globe. A principled approach requires this.
I agree with everything you’ve said. The reason I bring up the autocracy is that it seems to me nations whose leaders are regularly voted out are going to respond differently than nations whose leaders aren’t. What chance is there of Putin being voted out by Russians who oppose the war? Considering thousands have been jailed for protesting, I’d say not great. I’m not arguing that the US is “better;” I’m arguing that world leaders are not going to be able to use the same pressures to deal with an autocrat as they can use with a democratically elected leader.
I’ve said many times I’m not supporting war. I don’t. I’m saying if the US is going to change it’s geopolitical stance—and we SHOULD—then HOW will we respond as a world power when other nations are aggressive?
Anyone who thinks that contrasting governmental systems don’t make a difference should’ve walked up to the average citizen in say Prague in 1995 and asked them how they felt about NATO expansion. Threatened? The idea that it’s all just realpolitik loses its luster when you’ve lived under totalitarianism.
Yes. I haven’t lived under totalitarianism but I’ve lived in a country at war on its own soil, when I was a child no less. Until you’ve lived somewhere where you walk past a solider in tactical gear and a rifle outside the grocery store, perhaps it’s harder to understand where I’m coming from.
Understood. And in order to fend off (what I fear are almost inevitable) misunderstandings, *of course* democracies do terrible things, particularly outside their own borders. But if you were a Pole who grew up under Jaruzelski, your biggest concern is not Pinochet, but that things should be different going forward. Sadly the memories of this are fading.
To invert FdB’s‘s formulation: “you want me to denounce America’s crimes? OK, I denounce them!”
After the past week or so, I've wondered whether you're temperamentally suited to presiding over a scrum like this, which isn't a reflection on you, it's a reflection on the scrum. I think very few people, whatever their other gifts, would be suited for it; I know I wouldn't be. Can a space be "moderated" when the very nature of the medium that embodies it is anti-moderate? I doubt it, and the daily, unsuccessful effort can only be damaging to you. I think the decision to think what you think and write what you write, then toss it into the cage, close the door and walk away while the animals fight over it is probably a wise one.
What am I missing here? The comments on those last few posts were a bit adversarial but it's not like they were out of control or anything. People were still pretty polite and thoughtful. This place hasn't turned into 4chan overnight.
I had the same reaction. I am genuinely bewildered by this post. Yes, there's been some debate on the last few posts but 99% of it was polite and well-intended. Compared to literally every other message board on the internet where I've ever posted this place is a beacon of high-minded respectability and good-faith debate.
imo it's pretty simple, Freddie still doesn't understand that his simplistic hatred of America above all other regimes is a religious belief, so he's projecting delusion and bad faith on his commenters
I appreciate the courage of people like you with a platform who remain anti-war during the time when that position is hardest to maintain i.e. when facing down an actual war
What most surprised me about the tone of the comments from the last few post was how quickly the conversation seemed to swing from arguing about facts or values, to what seemed to me like ad hominem attacks, against Freddie, against other commenters, but also from Freddie against commenters. I get that sometimes it makes sense to respond to trolling behavior or assholes with a similar approach, but there were a bunch of commentors making what honestly seemed to be like good-faith attempts to lay out a cogent argument, and the responses from Freddie were...just mean. It's one thing if people are being deliberately obtuse, but is it really so beyond the pale for someone to say "America has done a lot of terrible things, but I disagree that it is the _worst_ offender in the world, and can sometimes do something beneficial" and then be met with a response along the lines of "you idiot, you clearly know nothing and your argument is unworthy of engagement"?
I've only been a subscriber for a few months, and I love so much of what is in the newsletter and comments too. I'm not sure what the difference is between (ugh) tone policing and the sensibility is that Freddie is referring to here, but at a certain level it's just better for a community (and its great leader) to be generous in discussions and to trust that we are operating in good faith. We've seen what the alternative is in the rest of the media, and I hope that there is a place for being sharp, insightful, and willing to consider alternative viewpoints without succumbing to snark, meanness, and trying to own people.
Arguing with Freddie about Marxism and campism hits me in the same place as arguing with a person of faith because for Freddie--as he has made clear--has sacred beliefs here for both Marxism as an economic/social system and America as the greatest source of evil in the world since Hitler killed Hitler.
He literally said "that's not how morality works" and implied there's no way to compare the US internment of Japanese in WWI to that of the Germans internment of Jews to conclude that the former is less bad than the latter. Not being able to say "Yes the US has done bad things but relatively speaking it's done less bad things than its competitors" does sort of ruin any argument in favor of the US as the "least bad available option."
It's a form of moral perfectionism and inflexibility that befits a Marxist I suppose.
Yes, there is such a thing as nuances in arguments about ethics, believe it or not. From my experience in philosophy, I picked up the expression "X is identical with Y, in all relevant aspects." If you are arguing a point carefully, you can't ignore that relevance. Stating that the U.S. and Russia are equivalent morally does ignore some relevant differences, I think.
yeah, his reaction was precisely someone defending a deeply and irrationally held religious belief, when that person also (troublingly) doesn't realize that it's a religious belief, and hence accuses his commenters of being deluded children for not denouncing AmeriKKKa in the most simplistic way possible (they're YOUR commenters, dude, are you sure you want to say that?). his childhood commitment to Marxism -- maybe stemming from his father in Indonesia, or something? though he has also mentioned that his grandparents were Marxists -- is really something else.
Oh I know Freddie was referring to me, at a minimum.
He can dish but he can't take and this post is one more example. All he can do is compare us mean commenters who provide counterarguments he can't handle with some snark to the mean people in the media industry who try to silence people through peer pressure.
This is a galling comparison because we're literally paying to hear his voice. We want his career to succeed.
I have a lot of respect for Freddie.
He did not consistently make arguments worth respecting in the comments of the posts in question and exhibited the exact behaviors he is decrying from his position of relative power here.
Consider the possibility that maybe the problem isn’t the brilliance of your arguments or the sharpness of your wit but that engaging with a self-satisfied dick is distinctly unpleasant.
How can this be true? And I’m not trolling here. Our internment of the Japanese was a terrible thing and a blot on our history. But we didn’t intern them in order to kill them and integrate their gold fillings into the economy.
Lots of your subscribers strongly disagree with your Marxism and your campism*.
*ETA: not sure if "campism" is the right term here so much as "extremely strong anti-America views"
I think the two major criticisms are:
1. Your use of reason and logic seems to be lacking here relative to your other positions, probably related to the fact you've basically stated you have sacred beliefs that cannot be overturned. You cannot pass an intellectual Turing test for say a moderate neoliberal interventionist and you simply write off anyone holding that kind of position as obviously deluded.
2. You have, at times, used that lack of reason to call into question people's morality/sincerity/etc. (For example, at one point you accused me of obviously not caring about the suffering of the disadvantaged, even though I had literally made such a point in the comment you were responding to and others saw that and called you out for it. You did not reconsider your remarks or apologize.)
So yeah, you look super bad the way you've engaged in the comments on those kinds of pieces the last few months because you're doubling down on how bad your takes are and getting pissy with your subscribers. The smart advice sure is "if you're going to write bad takes, don't also get pissy in the comments because you're making it worse on yourself."
I actually respect that you have gone at it in the comments though. Scott Alexander regularly interacts and makes counterpoints in his blog comments and subreddit and such without it ever being a problem. (Yes, I know that "be more like Scott Alexander" is somewhat like saying "be more like Jesus.")
[Edited to combine my comments]
As a counterexample: Lots of people hold sacred beliefs about education. You probably used to (it's the baseline position), but over time you came to realize the evidence pointed away from the ability of education to overcome variations in human intellectual ability. You didn't change your fundamental values about the importance of learning or making society better, but you did realize education as a tool had significant limits that are not sufficiently recognized by the powers that be or society at large.
Similarly, on the Marxism vs. Neoliberalism front, you've come to realize maybe ~Denmark is as good as it gets and that's the endpoint--no revolution required for post-scarcity Utopia.
So that makes it all the more jarring when you deviate from being able to seriously consider the position of those you might disagree with when they are arguing in good faith.
There are multiple ways of looking super bad and I'm not sure Freddie is properly distinguishing between them.
I don't think he should really care very much what his peers think. (Unless they're people he trusts.)
I don't think he should care very much about annoying his readership by going against the grain. That's good, bold writing.
I think he should care very much about failing to adhere to standards of reason and discourse (particularly in the comments) when he is complaining some of the commenters are failing to do so.
I was adopting the kind of lingo one uses to condemn someone on the internet that Freddie was describing in the OP?
See also: "getting pissy"
Perhaps it's jarring in the same way that some would say it is between reading Freddie's (bad) OP and then seeing the (super bad) comments he makes responding to his readers.
Yeah, he's got a "hog on ice"* affect about Ukraine.
My mom used to say that. We all get there sometimes.
*"A person who exhibits an air of haughty confidence and independence but is, in reality, utterly inept, powerless, or insecure. Thought to be a reference to a pig stranded on a body of ice, freed from its pen but unable to walk or stand upright properly."
That's precisely what makes writing online so unbearable. Exactly that tone. And always, without fail, this "uh that's a bad take my man" shtick comes in response to someone maintaining precisely the principles they're known for, that define their work, that made people follow them in the first place.
But why? Why shouldn't commenters be able to tell a writer, "That was a bad take" or "I don't like how you responded to the that comment"? (As long as they do it matter-of-factly and reasonably, without insults, slurs, threats, of course.)
"hey I know you've always been a Marxist and that's literally the foundation of everything you've ever written including the stuff we like but all the cool kids agree that's not fashionble anymore"
*Are* there regular commenters of Freddie's who'd bust out "I can't even" for reasons other than poking fun at themselves?
While I did cringe a bit at Lance's saying "you look super bad the way you've...", the phrase "you look super bad" was surrounded by other, more substantive words expressing suspicion that Freddie might have recently done to his commenters what Freddie understandably rejected having been done to him: *disciplining* the littler fish and relegating them to the kids' table.
This is how I feel. Be smaller. Don’t talk so much. If he wanted yesterday’s post to stand alone as a reflection piece, he could’ve disabled comments from the start, as he has done at other times.
I don't think so. I see FDB as writing the best piece he can, and hoping he can learn from the comments. Like we're his editors on a book. Of his life.
Given that FdB was explicit about denouncing Putin, accusing him of campism shows you can't pass an intellectual Turing test. Hell, you can't even repeat back explicit positions properly. Stones in glass houses, dude.
Perhaps I don't understand the nuances of what "campism" entails. Perhaps the label I should have used is "extreme anti-Americanism." I don't think Freddie considers Putin to be in his camp, but he does consider America to be in his "outcamp" in terms of foreign policy.
What I do understand is that Freddie explicitly stated that the US is the most evil force since Hitler killed Hitler.
Freddie denounced Putin but could not do so without effectively saying "but the US made him do it." I don't think I'm exaggerating that either, because it didn't say it was but one cause, I took him as saying it was the main/major cause.
An "intellectual Turing test" approach to his writings would take his request seriously at face value: a set of moral principles to apply *equally* to the U.S. and Russia. Real, serious engagement with such a request might *then* be followed up with suggesting that some of his rhetoric doesn't match that request. I don't see anyone doing that (though I did stop reading; could only take so much).
Oh, and much better to live the values behind the "rationalist" buzz terms than to regurgitate them at every opportunity
"a set of moral principles to apply *equally* to the U.S. and Russia."
People provided such arguments. Freddie didn't accept them. He, in fact, seems to disagree that it's even possible to give relative morality grades.
Freddie, in fact, has apparently not provided a set of consistent moral principles by which to judge the arguments provided by the people providing moral principles. I'm a rules utilitarian kind of man myself, but I don't know what Freddie self-identifies as.
I think this is slightly off base. Seven words to denounce Putin and 200 words about America’s crimes (admittedly only a partial list). That has a perfunctory feel. Tone and emphasis matter.
How should one respond so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities?
You’ve lost me.
I think KT is trying to say that if you were to sling some horrible threats or insults at him, he would find it more welcome than polite disagreement, which he considers pretentious and insincere, that's my best guess.
Come back soon, Freddie! We need you and love you.
Keep up the insightful work, Freddie, and thank you for your relentless trueness to your self.
I don't read the comments here all that much, but in general, it seems to me that some commenters are trying to be professional pundits, but their takes never surprise me. It's like there are 29 allowed responses, but none of the takes are new, and they are egged on by fellow cool people who know the lingo, immediately understand obscure references or takes, or are so eager to pounce on someone who doesn't understand what's being said at the big people table. I get weary of the discourse where everyone needs to be right and there's little genuine curiosity. Comment sections on blogs are sort of an alternate reality that you can only take so much of. I understand your departure, and I appreciate you explaining it.
As a former "lib commenter," I can say that the thrill you get from writing a comment that looks similar to the type of comment a pundit would write... it's depressing and vapid and empty when I put it that way, but it felt good at the time. It's a powerful dumb thing to do.
I imagine how I'd have reacted to Russia's invasion back at my peak. Holy shit, it would have been the dumbest shit. "If you poke a bear for 30 years it's going to poke back" is a wiser take than the epic paragraphs I would have written back then, but of course the epic paragraphs make you feel like you're in the same shared reality as an elite pundit.
This is all true. But it's also unfair to label anyone who shares at least some opinion overlap with "elite lib pundits" or whatever as disingenuous or dumb. I would point specifically to the 7,000+ Russian scientists who signed a letter with the statement "The responsibility for unleashing a new war in Europe lies entirely with Russia" in prominent position.
https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-brave-russians-speaking-out-against?s=r
I think they're vastly overestimating Russia's agency in all this. The proximal cause was certainly Putin and his government, but the ultimate cause involves a whole lot more than them.
The thousands of Russian scientists who live in Russia are vastly overestimating Russia's agency? How is this any different than saying lefties are vastly overestimating the U.S.'s agency?
They only live there. What do they know?
“Traditional theories of World War II vastly overestimate Hitler’s agency. It was more about the treaty of Versailles, hyperinflation, and the crisis of liberalism.”
Man, thanks for calling me out. :)
Seriously, I spent like two hours yesterday writing what was basically an essay, defending a theory that I don't even really believe in. Why did I do that? For the rush of seeing five people click "Like" on it?
I think half of it is that I just enjoy writing (I feel like I think much more clearly when I write things out), but half of it is an unhealthy self-indulgent desire to feel smart. Not just for other people to think I'm smart, but for me to pat myself on the back and say, "Good job self, you're smart."
Oh yeah, for me as well, big time. The feeling of writing is a feeling of clarity... but the reason I do it a lot in comment sections and not just in my diary is certainly the satisfaction I get of seeing a smart comment on the webpage and going "that's me! I did the smart comment!" I can't deny that's part of it for me, and I just try to be aware that that's what I'm doing...
Yesterday I was supposed to be sorting out some travel arrangements, but instead I went back through my Reddit comment history just to feel proud of my past self. This is not a healthy way of dealing with stress.
Oh man I relate big time
"For the rush of seeing five people click 'Like' on it?"
For the rush of capturing some corner of the world, however trivial, where it is actually possible to approximate the agency our prosperity-gospel culture likes to pretend we're all blessed with.
(I'm not denying the existence or importance of agency — it's the only thing we have that's truly ours, after all. But it's contingent, sometimes on truly absurd circumstances a prosperity gospel would rather pretend just didn't exist.)
If you want to write well you need to write a lot. Message boards such as this employed as a place to practice your writing and test your thinking are actually a great tool. There's nothing wrong with aspiring to produce content that could qualify as something that came from a "professional pundit". They're professionals for a reason.
And everybody should be forced to take debate in high school. The experience of being forced to defend something that you don't personally agree with is invaluable in getting people to step outside of their own biases and extend some understanding and compassion to people with different view points.
I say keep it up with the long posts. Maybe it isn't going to get your widespread public acclaim but was it valuable for you in terms of practicing your writing and sharpening your thinking?
Well, thanks for the appreciation. :)
At the end of my four-year high school debate career, I wasn't sick of defending things I didn't believe in, but I was totally sick of trying to win. The competitive wankery just burned me out. I would have loved to continue doing formal debate if there hadn't been any competitive pressure.
I think it was specifically the tension between the competitive aspects and the discursive aspects that I really came to hate. Basically, to have the best shot at winning usually meant having a less interesting argument, focusing on optimal techniques instead of creativity. It eventually felt like there was very little connection between being successful at competition and being actually good at communicating and persuading.
Conversely, I never lost my enjoyment of academic quiz bowl competition, because for me that was just pure competitive sport with no feeling of higher purpose. So I just enjoyed it strictly as a game, never wishing that it was something more than it was.
I came up with a word for the type of thing that we're referring to... the thing that's fun to write and often impressive to read... I call it Nuance Porn
WHERE CAN I GET THIS???
Any time a paragraph begins with “I’m anti war but,” you better believe there’s a nuance money shot coming
It's surreal (and appreciated) to see someone come out and say this haha.
I think that’s a fair description. And of course a point FDB is frequently making. Then just multiply that by about 50,000 people, and you’ve got the chattering classes to a T.
https://www.lewissociety.org/innerring/
I tend to stay out of comments myself - and on those occasions where I do comment I always and immediately regret it. Like I'm sure I will once I finish writing this. And it is thus why I have to agree with at least some of the Very Serious People who advised you to stay out of the comments section. Nothing good can come of engaging in the comments section. No debate has ever been settled in the comments section. No mind-changing perspective has ever been developed in the comments section. Anything in a comments section that even seems to be insightful is almost assuredly concern trolling.
Ditto on the regret-after-commenting, eerily similar to how I feel the morning after I’ve caved and ordered something crappy/tasty on UberEats. Best wishes, Todd, Freddie, and all.
I long ago ceased giving a fuck what critics of my commentary thought of me. So in a sense I share your disappointment with the platform.......but participate when I grow tired of my rather solitary existence in the pestilent world right now. There is only so much cuddling with my Queensland Heeler and movies I can take and no one responds to letter writing any more. So here we are (sigh)
Thanks Freddy, Todd and Tom......
I respect what you're doing here. I disagreed with the last post, and decided the most respectful thing I could do would be to lay out my counter-case as straightforwardly as I could in the comments. I have no idea if you read it or not (probably not if we're being realistic), but I do sincerely hope you wouldn't take it as an attempt to discipline you or anything like that. I'm still a paying subscriber and intend to stay that way for the time being.
Seems like the rigid American Christian conservatism of the 50s/60s that blew apart mostly in the 90s and certainly in the 00s has been replaced with rigid center left "right think." There are so many sacred cows now. People get points for building them up. It sucks, but the tastemakers are on the conformist side rather than the counter cultural side this time.
One of the better responses I've read. There is no Authoritarianism quite as rigid and brutal as that of the Neoliberal so-called "liberal left".
I'd bet the Ukrainians would sure prefer some neoliberalism right now
And that, in a nutshell, is the whole argument
International donations of MANPADS and MANPATS and shutting down Russian ability to build things with chips may, in fact, play a role yes.
The neoliberal world order has been offended and this aggression will not stand.
Lance- Is there no-one you can write to who even gives a fuck who you are? (asking for me)
The great thing about this is that no one knows you're a dog on the internet.
And it's their choice to make if they have the will to do so.
True take, that. And something that remains hard to swallow and process. So thank gawd for this particular in-group, it’s rapid fire contentiousness and all, a place where a sliver of the old counterculture is still alive.
Your Ukraine articles, and defense of them in the comments, are what convinced me to start paying for your work. I'm grateful for you.
Same here.
I’m sure there’s a contingent of lurkers like me who rarely comment but still love your work!!!
Yeah, I rarely (can’t be more than 3x over this period of time) wade into the comments but I’ve held out Freddie as the worthwhile read of our time since 2013, and paying for his work is the easiest subscription decision in my life
I think the best option is to just mark a controversial stance as “unpersuadable.”
Your position on how much is education can move the needle is backed by a ton of research. But I’m sure you run into people all the time who are so attached to the value of education that they will never change their minds no matter the evidence.
I’m sure we all have issues like that. And that’s fine, I guess. I think it would make more sense for people to be up front about it. “On this point I’m unpersuadable.” That would tend to cut down on the toxicity.
I’ve debated issues here in the comments and at the end said, “What burden of proof would you require from me to convince you?” And in many instances the gist of the response is that there is no amount of evidence that would convince them. And that’s fine. It just means it’s not worth debating anymore.
Freddie has said this for both Marxism and campism.
I believe for the former he said something like "I was born a Marxist and I'll die a Marxist" and for the latter he recently said something to the effect of America being a force for evil in the world was his fundamental worldview.
The funny thing is that if he's self-aware he's unpersuadable on those issues why would he expect others to be persuadable on them?
Strangely he seemed pretty persuadable on Marxism (Luxury Space Communism and all that). But on America being a force for evil absolutely no movement.
Commenters were also immovable on this front, and in fact refused to engage him in his argument. Almost the entirety of the "US is not evil" kinda broke down to "I feel good being American". Which, fair enough I guess? It's dumb, but no law against that.
You must have been reading very different comments than I was.
There was a book written about Toyota when it became the world’s largest automaker. The author asked a retired Toyota executive, “what was the key to Toyota’s success?” And the executive said, “Toyota is a giant dysfunctional bureaucracy. It’s just slightly less of one than its main rivals.”
That’s like the US’s evil.
I think that's a coping mechanism; when the US does evil it's because it's misguided/clumsy, not because it did something evil. It doesn't mean they're irredeemable, but that same "benefit of the doubt" should be applied to other groups.
No one sets out to do evil. Even Hitler had (insane) reasons for doing what he did. Putin's not a good guy but he gave his reasons for doing what he's doing. He doesn't think he's doing evil, he thinks he's acting in the interest of his people. Ultimately that doesn't matter because what he did IS evil.
No one sets out to do evil? Sure they do.
Guys kill their wives for the insurance money so they can run off with their mistress all the time. As one common example.
More to the point there's no way to prove Putin is out to do evil, just like there's no way to prove Bush was out to do evil. It's ultimately irrelevant, this isn't judgement day. What matters is the amount of suffering caused. Freddie and I are very confident that the United States has caused the most suffering. The hacks behind Victims of Communim are confident it hasn't. It's not something that can be sorted out in a blog comment.
What can be sorted out is that making excuses for Bush like "he really thought there were WMDs" is pure jingoism that would absolutely never be applied to an Official Enemy.
I think Arendt's banality of evil helps explain a lot of it too
It's war Freddie, people become hyper-emotional (understandably) and feel a moral need to take a righteous, certain, stance on issues they really have no familiarity with, which can be dangerous. I mean people do this anyway, but the existence of a war makes them feel a moral imperative to do so. And of course this is cynically exploited by the people in power-often with devastating consequences.
People feel helpless right now and screaming "we have to do something!" starts to feel like doing something. The intensity of their emotions never lets them consider that sometimes doing nothing may actually be the least harmful course. Any attempt at explanation that doesn't fit a simple good vs evil binary is blindly interpreted as justification.
We've seen it time and time again. Its war hysteria.
Thing is, it's not war for most of these people (myself included). It's a war happening half a world away.
I don't feel hysterical. What I'm interested in, though, is anyone else's ideas on a coherent set of foreign policy principles that could be applied to the US and Russia, because unlike our host, I don't think we're on equal footing. Because Russia is not a proper democracy and Putin is an autocrat. When I pointed that out--how do we use coherent principles with a guy who does what he wants when he wants--I was accused of saying "he bad we good case closed."
> Because Russia is not a proper democracy
Putin was elected, and he enjoys far greater support at home than most US governments do. You can question the validity of his election, but people do that in the US all the time, nowadays from both sides of the aisle, and it doesn't change the characterization of the US as a democracy.
As for proper democratic values, the USian people voted a few times for their presidents to leave Afghanistan and yet they didn't. When the current president finally did it, the unelected blob made it very very painful for him. But even if the US is a true democracy and Russia isn't, it doesn't matter; being elected or not doesn't make your decisions legitimate. The US as a democracy voted to attack Iraq.
Well Putin and his popularity are hard to judge accurately considering the level of propaganda (acknowledging the US has propaganda, but I can't agree that we're anywhere near at the level of Russia in that regard), but I take your point. And I've said also, I didn't support the war in Iraq, ever. So how are we meant to interact with Russia? We do nothing now--no sanctions, no military support, just leave them to it. I do consider that a valid response. But--and here's "whataboutism," which some people call forethought--what if it doesn't stop there? Is there any level of imperial aggression from Russia in Europe that we can't accept and thus respond to?
BTW thank you for your thoughtful response
True on propaganda, but I suspect that it's still higher than Biden's, if only because Biden is pretty unpopular.
As a note, I remember articles in the economist in the early oughts about how Russia was crumbling, men were in despair, unemployment was sky-high, as was alcoholism. And suddenly I blinked and Russia's fine, and strong? And apparently Putin had a big hand in it? Was it all on investing oil and gas proceeds? I have no idea, but given Russia's current (pre-war) situation I could see him having a lot of support. ("It's the economy, stupid.")
As a note, if he did that, then he did it also while enriching a bunch of oligarchs (and probably himself).
Apropos of something, maybe: Do we really know how much support Putin has? Seems as if he’s got his thumb on that scale in a way that a POTUS wouldn’t be able to pull off, at least not to the same extent. Remember Mr Hope-&-Change? Now, in the unforgettable words of Matt Taibi, he’s “the fat Elvis of NeoLiberalism”. Then again, if Putin wants a great legacy, at least among his kind of people (in Russia or elsewhere) he’s probably screwed the pooch. The Guy who killed Hitler took down most of Europe.Vlad seems to be struggling to match that. And a safe prediction at this point is that he ends up down the road looking more like Phil Spector than Fat Elvis (for what little that’s worth).
You're mixing definitions of "pure" and "representative" democracy and ignoring the bear in the room that Russians don't have freedom of speech (among others) and Putin has killed political opponents, activists, journalists, etc.
This is to say that Russia is some kind of illiberal democracy where Putin has basically established rule for life as an authoritarian.
Agreeing with you here. The phrase 'proper democracy' does too much heavy lifting in defences of America's actions.
I think I was doing this but Freddie wasn't having it, but although I think obviously Russia is in the wrong here, them being an autocracy has little to do with it. I think democracies basically behave just as ruthlessly as autocracies do on the international stage, and while I'm not completely a foreign policy realist, I lean strongly in that direction.
The consistent set of principles is that there are forms of pressure on foreign states that are acceptable and forms that aren't, and both Russia and the US have crossed that line multiple times. Iraq was invaded for very similar reasons to Ukraine – wanting a country to change geopolitical alignment to one's own sphere of influence. It wasn't morally acceptable.
Then there are the things that are in-between. I'd say the Mossadegh coup is way over the line. But simply supporting an opposition? Arming the countries you want in your sphere of influence? Making trade policy dependent on foreign policy? Broadly accepted as just what statecraft is. Some acceptable some not. Russia rigging the next Ukrainian election would have been bad, but not the moral monstrosity that this invasion is.
So while I get Freddie's assertion here – and hope Americans see the images out of Ukraine and reflect on how Iraqi or Vietnamese civilians might feel about them – I think to an extent he was so used to fighting against people who thought America was a shining beacon on a hill that he didn't engage with anything else. He asked me a direct question – would the US tolerate a Russia-aligned Mexico – and well they wouldn't. But America isn't the entire West, and there are plenty of missiles on the Polish border. I think there are general principles that you can articulate, and it's maybe even true that America through sheer power has violated more than most. I don't, however, necessarily think democracies are less likely to violate them (internationally) than autocracies.
There are shades of badness. It’s unpalatable but true. Thank you for this response.
We need a worldwide moral system, based on survival.
All the nations should Unite.
Erin with all due respect I cannot see the relevance of Russia being an autocracy and the USA being democratic to foreign affairs.
Do you think that the the people of India cared at all that their country was horrifically exploited by Britain, then the most democratic country of the time?
You say Putin does what he wants when he wants. But so does the U.S. The U.S. being a democracy didn't help the people of Latin America, Syria Lybia, Iraq, Vietnam, Haiti ect...
The point is that the only principle that has ever operated in international relations is the old adage "the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must."
Freddie and people like myself think that's an appalling situation and one that must change.
But we realise that change is not going to come from the U.S. Until the citizens realise that their government does give one single shit about humanitarian principles they will be easily and cynically manipulated by their government to support its power plays.
In this instance it is true that Russia is a horrendous aggressor, but it is also true that this fact has no bearing on the U.S governments opposition to Russia.
Consider this, if the U.S. government cared about horrendous wars of aggression then the first thing they would do to uphold this principle would be... to stop participating in them. For one they could stop supporting the atrocities in Yemen which they directly contribute military infrastructure to. That's what a principled actor would do.
The fact that they continue to commit their own crimes of aggression while condeming Russia shows they do not care about aggression, they are using it as a pretext to pursue ulterior motives.
What does this all mean. It means that we need to keep this in mind when evaluating the situation, especially since this situation carries a risk of nuclear war which would be the end of all civilisation.
As citizens we can and should condemn Russia but we do need to take into the realities of how great power politics works and make sure that in condemning Russia's aggression against Ukraine we do not inadvertently further the U.S.As continued aggression against the globe. A principled approach requires this.
I agree with everything you’ve said. The reason I bring up the autocracy is that it seems to me nations whose leaders are regularly voted out are going to respond differently than nations whose leaders aren’t. What chance is there of Putin being voted out by Russians who oppose the war? Considering thousands have been jailed for protesting, I’d say not great. I’m not arguing that the US is “better;” I’m arguing that world leaders are not going to be able to use the same pressures to deal with an autocrat as they can use with a democratically elected leader.
I’ve said many times I’m not supporting war. I don’t. I’m saying if the US is going to change it’s geopolitical stance—and we SHOULD—then HOW will we respond as a world power when other nations are aggressive?
Anyone who thinks that contrasting governmental systems don’t make a difference should’ve walked up to the average citizen in say Prague in 1995 and asked them how they felt about NATO expansion. Threatened? The idea that it’s all just realpolitik loses its luster when you’ve lived under totalitarianism.
Yes. I haven’t lived under totalitarianism but I’ve lived in a country at war on its own soil, when I was a child no less. Until you’ve lived somewhere where you walk past a solider in tactical gear and a rifle outside the grocery store, perhaps it’s harder to understand where I’m coming from.
Understood. And in order to fend off (what I fear are almost inevitable) misunderstandings, *of course* democracies do terrible things, particularly outside their own borders. But if you were a Pole who grew up under Jaruzelski, your biggest concern is not Pinochet, but that things should be different going forward. Sadly the memories of this are fading.
To invert FdB’s‘s formulation: “you want me to denounce America’s crimes? OK, I denounce them!”
After the past week or so, I've wondered whether you're temperamentally suited to presiding over a scrum like this, which isn't a reflection on you, it's a reflection on the scrum. I think very few people, whatever their other gifts, would be suited for it; I know I wouldn't be. Can a space be "moderated" when the very nature of the medium that embodies it is anti-moderate? I doubt it, and the daily, unsuccessful effort can only be damaging to you. I think the decision to think what you think and write what you write, then toss it into the cage, close the door and walk away while the animals fight over it is probably a wise one.
What am I missing here? The comments on those last few posts were a bit adversarial but it's not like they were out of control or anything. People were still pretty polite and thoughtful. This place hasn't turned into 4chan overnight.
That's what I thought too. Freddie doesn't think so
A substantial number of commenters disagreeing with FdB is apparently an act of social coercion.
I had the same reaction. I am genuinely bewildered by this post. Yes, there's been some debate on the last few posts but 99% of it was polite and well-intended. Compared to literally every other message board on the internet where I've ever posted this place is a beacon of high-minded respectability and good-faith debate.
imo it's pretty simple, Freddie still doesn't understand that his simplistic hatred of America above all other regimes is a religious belief, so he's projecting delusion and bad faith on his commenters
I appreciate the courage of people like you with a platform who remain anti-war during the time when that position is hardest to maintain i.e. when facing down an actual war
Curtis Yarvin is experimenting with turning the comments on for his posts a few days after the post originally gets sent out. Maybe worth trying?
What most surprised me about the tone of the comments from the last few post was how quickly the conversation seemed to swing from arguing about facts or values, to what seemed to me like ad hominem attacks, against Freddie, against other commenters, but also from Freddie against commenters. I get that sometimes it makes sense to respond to trolling behavior or assholes with a similar approach, but there were a bunch of commentors making what honestly seemed to be like good-faith attempts to lay out a cogent argument, and the responses from Freddie were...just mean. It's one thing if people are being deliberately obtuse, but is it really so beyond the pale for someone to say "America has done a lot of terrible things, but I disagree that it is the _worst_ offender in the world, and can sometimes do something beneficial" and then be met with a response along the lines of "you idiot, you clearly know nothing and your argument is unworthy of engagement"?
I've only been a subscriber for a few months, and I love so much of what is in the newsletter and comments too. I'm not sure what the difference is between (ugh) tone policing and the sensibility is that Freddie is referring to here, but at a certain level it's just better for a community (and its great leader) to be generous in discussions and to trust that we are operating in good faith. We've seen what the alternative is in the rest of the media, and I hope that there is a place for being sharp, insightful, and willing to consider alternative viewpoints without succumbing to snark, meanness, and trying to own people.
Arguing with Freddie about Marxism and campism hits me in the same place as arguing with a person of faith because for Freddie--as he has made clear--has sacred beliefs here for both Marxism as an economic/social system and America as the greatest source of evil in the world since Hitler killed Hitler.
He literally said "that's not how morality works" and implied there's no way to compare the US internment of Japanese in WWI to that of the Germans internment of Jews to conclude that the former is less bad than the latter. Not being able to say "Yes the US has done bad things but relatively speaking it's done less bad things than its competitors" does sort of ruin any argument in favor of the US as the "least bad available option."
It's a form of moral perfectionism and inflexibility that befits a Marxist I suppose.
“the greatest source of evil in the world since Hitler killed Hitler.”
Hahah did you make that one up or?
Freddie literally said "since the Third Reich"
The joke I'm riffing off of is: "Say what you want about Hitler, but he killed Hitler"
Lol I’ve never heard that line.
Neither have I but now I am going to use it forever.
+ 1
You have all missed a nuance here. A nuance which, well I don’t wish to be immodest but, only I have seen: literally Hitler killed literally Hitler.
Yes, as I would put it: "Several attempts were made to assassinate him, but they all failed, so he finally had to do it himself."
Only Hitler could kill Hitler, proving once again that if you want something done you gotta do it yourself
Yes, there is such a thing as nuances in arguments about ethics, believe it or not. From my experience in philosophy, I picked up the expression "X is identical with Y, in all relevant aspects." If you are arguing a point carefully, you can't ignore that relevance. Stating that the U.S. and Russia are equivalent morally does ignore some relevant differences, I think.
yeah, his reaction was precisely someone defending a deeply and irrationally held religious belief, when that person also (troublingly) doesn't realize that it's a religious belief, and hence accuses his commenters of being deluded children for not denouncing AmeriKKKa in the most simplistic way possible (they're YOUR commenters, dude, are you sure you want to say that?). his childhood commitment to Marxism -- maybe stemming from his father in Indonesia, or something? though he has also mentioned that his grandparents were Marxists -- is really something else.
Relevant concept:
https://www.clearerthinking.org/post/human-behavior-makes-more-sense-when-you-understand-anchor-beliefs
"It's a form of moral perfectionism and inflexibility that befits a Marxist I suppose."
This. This is what Freddie was talking about. This affected affectlessness. You are the problem. Look within.
Oh I know Freddie was referring to me, at a minimum.
He can dish but he can't take and this post is one more example. All he can do is compare us mean commenters who provide counterarguments he can't handle with some snark to the mean people in the media industry who try to silence people through peer pressure.
This is a galling comparison because we're literally paying to hear his voice. We want his career to succeed.
I have a lot of respect for Freddie.
He did not consistently make arguments worth respecting in the comments of the posts in question and exhibited the exact behaviors he is decrying from his position of relative power here.
Consider the possibility that maybe the problem isn’t the brilliance of your arguments or the sharpness of your wit but that engaging with a self-satisfied dick is distinctly unpleasant.
Yes, I agree Freddie should consider that.
He could also have better arguments while he is at it.
Own goal
"I know you are, but what am I" is something most of us gave up in 2nd grade, but go off I guess
How can this be true? And I’m not trolling here. Our internment of the Japanese was a terrible thing and a blot on our history. But we didn’t intern them in order to kill them and integrate their gold fillings into the economy.
Only person to ask is Freddie. (I did and he didn't respond.)
He has never really established what his fundamental moral positions are.
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/i-am-asking-for-a-coherent-set-of/comments?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo5MjMzMzE4LCJwb3N0X2lkIjo0OTYzMjUxNywiXyI6ImRyWFIvIiwiaWF0IjoxNjQ2NDM2OTE5LCJleHAiOjE2NDY0NDA1MTksImlzcyI6InB1Yi0yOTU5MzciLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.O30QjbntCbnk80d5-fGXQcJBVdjesqQmRGb1EH3B0rk&s=r#comment-5359309
Not sure if that link will let you see the relevant comments but I promise I'm not making up Freddie's positions here.
That’s the essay I was reacting to. I was going to comment on it but now I don’t know if I shall.
Lots of your subscribers strongly disagree with your Marxism and your campism*.
*ETA: not sure if "campism" is the right term here so much as "extremely strong anti-America views"
I think the two major criticisms are:
1. Your use of reason and logic seems to be lacking here relative to your other positions, probably related to the fact you've basically stated you have sacred beliefs that cannot be overturned. You cannot pass an intellectual Turing test for say a moderate neoliberal interventionist and you simply write off anyone holding that kind of position as obviously deluded.
2. You have, at times, used that lack of reason to call into question people's morality/sincerity/etc. (For example, at one point you accused me of obviously not caring about the suffering of the disadvantaged, even though I had literally made such a point in the comment you were responding to and others saw that and called you out for it. You did not reconsider your remarks or apologize.)
So yeah, you look super bad the way you've engaged in the comments on those kinds of pieces the last few months because you're doubling down on how bad your takes are and getting pissy with your subscribers. The smart advice sure is "if you're going to write bad takes, don't also get pissy in the comments because you're making it worse on yourself."
I actually respect that you have gone at it in the comments though. Scott Alexander regularly interacts and makes counterpoints in his blog comments and subreddit and such without it ever being a problem. (Yes, I know that "be more like Scott Alexander" is somewhat like saying "be more like Jesus.")
[Edited to combine my comments]
As a counterexample: Lots of people hold sacred beliefs about education. You probably used to (it's the baseline position), but over time you came to realize the evidence pointed away from the ability of education to overcome variations in human intellectual ability. You didn't change your fundamental values about the importance of learning or making society better, but you did realize education as a tool had significant limits that are not sufficiently recognized by the powers that be or society at large.
Similarly, on the Marxism vs. Neoliberalism front, you've come to realize maybe ~Denmark is as good as it gets and that's the endpoint--no revolution required for post-scarcity Utopia.
So that makes it all the more jarring when you deviate from being able to seriously consider the position of those you might disagree with when they are arguing in good faith.
There are multiple ways of looking super bad and I'm not sure Freddie is properly distinguishing between them.
I don't think he should really care very much what his peers think. (Unless they're people he trusts.)
I don't think he should care very much about annoying his readership by going against the grain. That's good, bold writing.
I think he should care very much about failing to adhere to standards of reason and discourse (particularly in the comments) when he is complaining some of the commenters are failing to do so.
I was adopting the kind of lingo one uses to condemn someone on the internet that Freddie was describing in the OP?
See also: "getting pissy"
Perhaps it's jarring in the same way that some would say it is between reading Freddie's (bad) OP and then seeing the (super bad) comments he makes responding to his readers.
"that lingo sucks, stop using it"
Are you tone policing me right now?
ON THIS VERY WEBSITE
See how that works?
Yeah, he's got a "hog on ice"* affect about Ukraine.
My mom used to say that. We all get there sometimes.
*"A person who exhibits an air of haughty confidence and independence but is, in reality, utterly inept, powerless, or insecure. Thought to be a reference to a pig stranded on a body of ice, freed from its pen but unable to walk or stand upright properly."
"you look super bad"
That's precisely what makes writing online so unbearable. Exactly that tone. And always, without fail, this "uh that's a bad take my man" shtick comes in response to someone maintaining precisely the principles they're known for, that define their work, that made people follow them in the first place.
I proudly pay Freddie money to look bad on the internet and tell him when I think he looks not just bad, but super bad.
It's a privilege of capitalism that I can make that choice.
Capitalism doesn’t give you the privilege to pay for Freddie’s writing. Capitalism gives substack the privilege to extract surplus value from Freddie.
I'm calling a Poe's Law violation on this one folks
"How does compensating for risk work?"
"Boy isn't hindsight 20/20!"
"Aren't voluntary contractual arrangements for labor great!"
Etc. etc.
But why? Why shouldn't commenters be able to tell a writer, "That was a bad take" or "I don't like how you responded to the that comment"? (As long as they do it matter-of-factly and reasonably, without insults, slurs, threats, of course.)
Exactly.
"hey I know you've always been a Marxist and that's literally the foundation of everything you've ever written including the stuff we like but all the cool kids agree that's not fashionble anymore"
The problem with Marxism and campism is that they are wrong and bad.
That they were ever fashionable among any kids is atrocious, but besides the point.
*Are* there regular commenters of Freddie's who'd bust out "I can't even" for reasons other than poking fun at themselves?
While I did cringe a bit at Lance's saying "you look super bad the way you've...", the phrase "you look super bad" was surrounded by other, more substantive words expressing suspicion that Freddie might have recently done to his commenters what Freddie understandably rejected having been done to him: *disciplining* the littler fish and relegating them to the kids' table.
This is how I feel. Be smaller. Don’t talk so much. If he wanted yesterday’s post to stand alone as a reflection piece, he could’ve disabled comments from the start, as he has done at other times.
I don't think so. I see FDB as writing the best piece he can, and hoping he can learn from the comments. Like we're his editors on a book. Of his life.
Given that FdB was explicit about denouncing Putin, accusing him of campism shows you can't pass an intellectual Turing test. Hell, you can't even repeat back explicit positions properly. Stones in glass houses, dude.
Perhaps I don't understand the nuances of what "campism" entails. Perhaps the label I should have used is "extreme anti-Americanism." I don't think Freddie considers Putin to be in his camp, but he does consider America to be in his "outcamp" in terms of foreign policy.
What I do understand is that Freddie explicitly stated that the US is the most evil force since Hitler killed Hitler.
Freddie denounced Putin but could not do so without effectively saying "but the US made him do it." I don't think I'm exaggerating that either, because it didn't say it was but one cause, I took him as saying it was the main/major cause.
An "intellectual Turing test" approach to his writings would take his request seriously at face value: a set of moral principles to apply *equally* to the U.S. and Russia. Real, serious engagement with such a request might *then* be followed up with suggesting that some of his rhetoric doesn't match that request. I don't see anyone doing that (though I did stop reading; could only take so much).
Oh, and much better to live the values behind the "rationalist" buzz terms than to regurgitate them at every opportunity
"a set of moral principles to apply *equally* to the U.S. and Russia."
People provided such arguments. Freddie didn't accept them. He, in fact, seems to disagree that it's even possible to give relative morality grades.
Freddie, in fact, has apparently not provided a set of consistent moral principles by which to judge the arguments provided by the people providing moral principles. I'm a rules utilitarian kind of man myself, but I don't know what Freddie self-identifies as.
I think this is slightly off base. Seven words to denounce Putin and 200 words about America’s crimes (admittedly only a partial list). That has a perfunctory feel. Tone and emphasis matter.