Q & Answers

I put out a call for Q&A questions from subscribers recently, and here are all of them, save for the person who asked for nudes.

What would your dream commentariat look like? You’ve mentioned before (my interpretation) that it leans more rightward than you would like and that people tend to drag topics-that-shall-not-be-named into discussions where they don’t belong. Compared with the internet as a whole, it feels like an astute and pretty well-behaved group. What voices would you like to hear more from? What behavior would you like to see less of?  Or do you even care—maybe the writing is all you need and the feedback just washed over you? - Kelly, Settling Down

I don’t think I have one, other than to say (as anyone would) that, yes, I would love it if people would stay on topic and stop trying to make every conversation into a treatise on why I should drop my support for trans people and their rights. This is a small minority of commenters, but a very motivated one. I also wish there were fewer aggravating misinterpretations (some seemingly deliberate) of any given post - not points of disagreement on substance but rather dogged attempts to assert that I’m saying something I’m not. It compels me to want to respond, which is draining and takes up time I shouldn’t be wasting in that way.

In purely self-interested terms, my ideal would be no comments. As you’re aware, the Internet Was A Mistake, and the old blog comment sections functioned as a kind of proof of concept of every bad social network we’ve built. But I do feel compelled to have at least some kind of community accountability, and also I’m running a business here and some people subscribe because of the comments.

What’s the deal with your Matt Yglesias hate? I don’t think you’re that far apart on some questions of policy or temperament and there are people you disagree on about substance more but seem to dislike less - The Latch

I don’t hate Matt Yglesias. I can’t hate him because I don’t know him; I only know of his public persona, and I don’t even hate that. In fact I have always had a certain kind of idiosyncratic affection for him, though I’m sure he wouldn’t perceive it that way. I don’t even feel like I’m particularly mean to him in writing, although since it’s his business model to make people mad at him, I am frequently mad at him. But there’s no enmity there.

It’s just that a) he’s a neoliberal and I’m a Marxist so we have fundamentally antagonistic politics, b) he’s become more motivated by antagonism towards the left over time, and c) he’s someone who could have benefitted from struggling a little more in his life. The first is self-explanatory; he thinks deregulation and finding “market solutions” for social problems are usually good, and I think they’re usually bad, and so we’re on opposite sides very often. I also think that he’s been steering into a really glaring hypocrisy lately - he a) thinks messaging and optics matter a great deal in politics, but b) denies that YIMBYs have any reason to care about messaging or optics. (Because that’s his thing.) As for the second, well, he’s developed this mutually-parasitic relationship with leftists on Twitter, who he constantly pokes at with meaningless provocations. He trolls, they yell at him, he puts his hands up like “what, me?,” repeat. And the process seems to genuinely be pushing him to the right. The question is… why do this? For what purpose? Who benefits? It’s like he’s angling for the Nobel committee to give him a certificate that declares him “😈The Ultimate Troll😈” or something.

The last point gets to what some will call a personal attack, but which I think is actually entirely impersonal: he reminds me very much of other rich kids I’ve known who have never really learned how to act in a way that demonstrates self-awareness about their privileged upbringings. Were I the fortunate son of a millionaire screenwriter and novelist, growing up in the tony environs of the West Village, taking vacations at the family compound in Maine, attending the elite and ludicrously pricey Dalton School before stumbling along to Harvard, moving to an immediate position of influence and accomplishment as a blogger, breezing into stodgy elite media with The Atlantic, putting my feet up at the desk at the Center for American Progress, and now letting the wind blow me into outlandish success in crowdfunding - were I that person, I would be exquisitely sensitive to the fact that almost no one else alive has enjoyed my level of good fortune, and I would be very careful about the tenor and content of what I put out into the world in light of that reality. I would be the absolute opposite of glib, while Yglesias seems to delight in being glib.

I know that there are things he does not know, things about material deprivation and the shame that accompanies it, that many of us find out when we’re young. And it’s not like I was a child soldier or refugee myself, you know? I’d like for him to at least make his understanding of his own good fortune clear in how he comports himself - to act like someone who knows what he doesn’t know and to then just be less of a glib cunt. His perception of the world is influenced by his circumstances, like all of us, and we must be patient with each other. I don’t think he’s a bad person. I would like for him to be less of a troll at 42 than he was at 22, though, and the opposite seems to be the case. Anyway, Yglesias is successful and influential and my opinion makes no difference for him in any way. I’m sure this will be called terribly personal and mean by people who used to sing along to the Mountain Goats with him at the Raven or whatever. I myself think this is neither personal nor mean, but I’m not to be trusted.

Undergirding many social/economic/political positions is a moral stance; for example, one might think that nobody should eat meat or wear fur because killing animals unnecessarily is wrong. How we get to those stances varies; some people adhere to utilitarianism, others to deontology, etc. How do you determine what's right and wrong? - Neil M.

I have no idea. I feel equipped to criticize moral systems that I think are obviously flawed, like utilitarianism, but I don’t feel equipped to articulate a positive vision of one. My morals are indeed informed by my politics and vice versa. But I actually kind of prefer to not put too fine a point on any particular principle of morality and instead look at specific scenarios; it makes it less likely that you’ll force yourself into a repugnant position. It’s kind of like Gödel’s incompleteness theorem - no moral philosophy that can address every situation can address them with actual justice. Morality is always an applied science.

I'd love to hear your take on interspecies relations, specifically on some of the bad things humans to do to non-humans.  What's your take on, for example, factory farming? - Paul

I think that, were I a person of greater integrity, I’d be a vegan and work very hard to never use animal products to whatever extent I can, even though I know I exist in a network of human behaviors that inevitably brutalize animals. I also think that in the long run (probably a hundred years or more) people who justify eating meat will be looked on as similar to people who justify slavery now. I think that if humanity has a long-term moral future, it includes a species-wide grappling with our incalculable crimes against animals. And yet I do eat meat today. Why? Mostly just because it’s too hard not to and I don’t have the integrity to fully live those beliefs. Also because it’s a collective action problem; my individual behavior does so little to change the plight of animals that it feels futile. But I’m aware that that’s not how morality really works.

What are your thoughts on the historical relationship between avant-garde art/literature and left politics? Do you see any possible future for this collaboration or was it only a 20th century phenomenon forever tainted as elitist and obscure? Do you see art playing a role in a future left? If so, what? - Angela

1. The time you describe was cool and will never come again

2. The demise of the very concept of the avant garde and the long decline of experimentation and difficult can be directly chalked up to the relentless, socially-mandated insistence on pure artistic populism - you will eat up your Marvel movies, Young Adult novels, and bubblegum pop music and you’ll like it, or we will cast you as a monster

3. Political art must function as art first and submit to art’s standards; if it’s not good art first it can’t be good political art no matter how good the politics

4. Art itself does nothing in material terms, but in the long run it can influence the attitudes that slowly build toward real political meaning, and it can inspire believers on a human level, which has human benefits

5. Principle number 4 is OK because of principle number 3

6. Any overly didactic or heavy-handed expression of politics can kill a piece of art no matter how righteous the politics because it will inevitably violate principle number 3

Let good artists become politically inspired and the result will be good political art. Decide that a spinoff of the Toy Story franchise should be about Buzz Lightyear’s toxic masculinity and you’re guaranteeing a shitty movie.

I could be wrong, but I recall you initially dismissing claims of sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas on October 7th as Hasbara. Now that quite a few publications, namely The Guardians and NYT seem to have independently corroborated claims of sexual violence, has your position changed? And if it hasn't changed, what kind of evidence would cause it to change? - Joseph

I don’t think I said that, but yes, it’s mostly hasbara. Here’s Jeffrey Gettleman, lead reporter on the NYT’s series on Hamas’s supposed campaign of sexual violence, admitting that he would not say that he produced evidence of such a campaign, as he relied entirely on hearsay. Quote: “I don't want to even use the word evidence because evidence is almost like the legal term that suggests you're trying to prove an allegation or prove a case in court.” That is the stance of the man whose reporting has been the single most-cited “source” on these allegations. Here’s a piece on the NYT’s decision not to run an episode of its podcast The Daily about Gettleman’s reporting because of growing doubts within the paper about its accuracy.

Again and again, Israeli propaganda has proven to have no basis in fact. There were no 40 beheaded babies, there were no babies in ovens, there were no babies cut out of the wombs of their mothers. And you should be far less credulous about similar reports of mass sexual violence. I’m sure there’s been some sexual assault involved in Hamas’s attack, which is horrific and awful, and I’m sure of it because that’s war and war is horrific and awful and we should always be endeavoring to stop it, including the war that Israel insists on carrying on, to no clear strategic effect whatsoever, despite the fact that there is no ongoing threat. We could return to the basic scenario here - Hamas clearly intended to inspire Israel into a vastly disproportionate response, and Israel has obliged, and there is no chance for peace for Israelis until the Palestinians have a formal, legally-recognized homeland, which only Israel can make possible.

(Are there many credible accusations of rapes committed by Israeli soldiers and settlers in the history of the conflict? Yes.)

You've said in prior newsletters that you plan on having a child. I know this is a deeply personal question, but considering you actively want to have a child, what do you make of the natalism vs. anti-natalism debates? The natalists seem to be bizarre Christian nationalists who attack the problem from that angle. The anti-natalists, though cringe, have more sound, non-religious arguments (you are created without consent, and modern life for most people is condemned to exploitation, immiseration, and climate catastrophe). Thoughts? - Anonymous

I have written a little on natalism, but honestly, I have no coherent thoughts on this because my desire to have a kid does not exist on this level of abstraction. We’re in love and we want to bring a cute little kid into the world. It’s all visceral and inchoate and that’s fine by me.

If engaging with someone who we profoundly disagree with is a way to sharpen our ideas, then which public figure serves that purpose for you? (Your conversation with Leah Libresco Sargeant and Susannah Black Roberts comes to mind.)

I do this with a lot of people, but bear in mind that with a few exceptions “engaging” is fractious and aggressive for me, not friendly, because I think that’s what real politics is. I don’t know, I used to go back and forth with conservatives like Ross Douthat and Conor Friedersdorf but both appear to have lost my email recently. Which is cool, it’s happened my whole career and I’m used to it.

What do you think is the identitarian endgame? Like, if we extrapolate the trend that people are increasingly finding more niches to occupy in order to differentiate themselves and (arguably) extract some sympathy/concessions from society at-large, what happens when the map meets the territory, so too speak? Do we coalesce back into some new category? Do we alienate ourselves for good in our individualized bubbles? - Crimson Hex

I mean, I hope the endgame is that the fever breaks. I think the past couple of years have definitely seen a bit of a “vibe shift” and some of the hysteria has drained out of the culture already. This too shall pass, after all, and culture always turns. In 25 years our current culture war is going to be completely inscrutable to everyone and no one will care about a lot of the things we care about now.

That said - yeah, there’s going to go on being an endless multiplication of available identities for people to claim. People used to laugh at the whole “otherkin” thing, they’ve denied that being a furry is a sexual orientation, they say that the birdself business doesn’t matter…. But they’re whistling past the graveyard. This is what always happens. Left-leaning people want to defend a certain set of identity claims, but they don’t want to defend the ones that they think are stupid, but they also don’t want to be in the position of criticizing what’s ostensibly an appeal to social justice. So they just insist, over and over again, that these embarrassing extensions of identity politics don’t matter and won’t last. But we’ve seen this over and over again, and when the young people pushing this shit don’t stop, eventually the liberals who said “that doesn’t matter” start to pretend that they supported it all along. I think all the mental illness stuff I’ve been talking about for years is irresistible to an adolescent who desperately wants some identity market to make them special. My expectation is that pretending to have schizophrenia is the next big thing, which is truly fucked.

How old were you when you started eating and enjoying salads? 

Do you have a favorite Brendan Fraiser movie?

What's your favorite curse word? 

Did you have a nickname as an adolescent? 

Is there a helpful life lesson you learned early on and have since forgotten? 

Recommend a podcast please? - Dave Z

My mother loved to make salads so as early as I was eating solid foods.

I’m a big Encino Man fan.

Cunt.

Sunshine, on the crew team, but mostly just Freddie.

Yes.

Cumtown reruns.

Changing environment or chemical imbalance, which do you think plays a bigger role in treating mental disorders? Are you still suffering from delusions/ hallucinations/ intrusive thoughts/ ruminations? If so, how do you live with them?

How do you deal with the horrible side effects of your meds? Have you ever considered tapering off/ stopping them? - Study Steady

I think that psychotic disorders likely have a (massively polygenic) genetic predisposition that must then be activated with a psychological or environmental trigger. No, because I’m still heavily medicated. I am aware of cycles working under the surface and I maintain a constant and unconquerable sense that I am being hunted, as well as a modest version of bipolar grandiosity that has the happy effect of making my life always feel like a great story, but it’s all sufficiently controlled and mild enough to live with.

I relentlessly tweaked my meds to find the best possible combination with the help of a committed doctor who really believes in the value of medication, and I remember that if I am unmedicated I will certainly ruin my life again and eventually kill myself. And no, I have no plans to stop.

…man, you apologize again and again and again for your misdeeds. I believe in heartfelt apologies, but why more than once? To what end? …. - Colin C.

I mean, it’s a fair question. I apologize a lot because I have had an unhealthy relationship towards guilt since I was a child, is the overarching answer. I have survivor’s guilt and a reflexive sense of my own lack of value, the result being that I don’t like myself much on a personal level and don't possess a lot of emotional resources for feeling good about who I am. I suspect though that this question is specifically about my ongoing regrets over the Malcolm Harris incident in August of 2017, when I falsely accused him of rape on Twitter during a manic episode.

I wrote a few pieces where I tried to grapple with that incident in the first several years of this newsletter, but that effort didn’t seem to help anyone. It’s important to apologize when you’ve done something wrong, as I did. But as you say, I’ve done so many times before. I was guilty of doing something very bad, and I paid a very high price for it, personally and professionally and emotionally. I completely changed my life in response to what I did. I embraced treatment at last, I stayed medicated and stable, and I tried to make amends. And at this point I’m willing to say that it’s enough. I did my time and I’m through with begging for forgiveness. I don’t need it anymore. I’m also finally entirely out of patience with people acting like it’s offensive for me to point out the fact that, yes, the psychotic disorder that dominated my life for 20 years played a major role in that incident, of pretending like my psychosis is something I should feel embarrassed to discuss or take seriously. I’ve always said, and still do, that my disorder and state of mind can’t simplistically excuse me from blame over what happened. But it’s just factually true that I would not have acted that way were I not sick, and if you insist on pretending otherwise at this point, you’re the asshole, not me.

At some point, you have to leave the people who try to police anyone who says a good word about me in their holes. Besides, they universally didn’t like me already, usually because I had made them feel foolish somehow, sometime. Twitter is dying. The people who still try to hang on to its function as a hate machine - well, ultimately that behavior stems from their own unhappiness, and anyway doing it only makes them more unhappy. (Save yourself from the irony cult.) Internet shitposting culture and preening moral pomposity are a bad mix. And it isn’t working. My life has never been better.

Get off your angry little rock, guys. And give up Doing Irony on Twitter. It’s 2024, it’s fucking embarrassing. That moment ended a long time ago. You really want to be shitposting when your hair’s grey? To take time away from playing with your grandchildren to corncob someone? Move on. You know better than I do how unhappy you are.

I will always have regret over what happened, and all the apologies I’ve given have been sincere. I’m sorry for what happened, and now I’ve come to understand that the only way to really do what’s right is to move on and live a healthy and happy life. I doubt Malcolm Harris could do anything about the dead enders even if he wanted to, and I doubt he wants to. He obviously doesn’t owe me anything. But at this point, six and a half years later, I don’t owe him anything either. It’s time for everybody to let go.