Way back when, in 2006 or 2007, I started commenting on blogs. I was bored in my second year of living in Chicago, where the initial rush of being young and free had given way to the tedium of bullshit jobs and loneliness, especially when the big old house I had been sharing with roommates was sold and we were forced to move away. I was full of inchoate political feelings; I had not long before spent three dispiriting years deeply ensconced in the anti-Iraq war movement, and had received an education in both the resilience of the American war machine and the toxicity so often found in left spaces. It’s hard to believe now, but politics online seemed refreshing, compared to the drudgery of daily activism and a war we couldn’t stop. Commenting was fun, blogs felt approachable, and in that era of the internet identity was a squishy thing. Mostly I just commented as “Freddie,” but sometimes I’d use “Fred deBaser,” “Freddie diAblo,” “MisfitOfScience.” Sometimes I would pretend to be a 90-year-old professor of classics or a professional lacrosse player. I know that sounds like dishonesty but you have to understand that things genuinely
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m sure there’s a contingent of lurkers like me who rarely comment but still love your work!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.