I'm noticing that a lot of commentators who currently have the political upper hand (Ben Shapiro in particular comes to mind) are shoveling out a lot of "Don't criticize us, because you did A, B, and C when Biden was president, and that's same thing," thus conveniently leaving the criticism itself unaddressed.
I submit for your approval the term "playground logic" to describe this approach.
I agree. I’ve drifted further and further from listening to or trusting Ben over the years (basically ever since I discovered TFC). But I do occasionally dip into his material to get a pulse on the mainstream conservative take, and he has been frustratingly sycophantic and hypocritical. The only exception I’ve seen so far was a fairly good critique of Trump’s Zelensky tweet.
It's not leaving the criticism unaddressed, it's "tit for tat" - the only way A will stop doing the thing is if they have it done to them in return and realize how dumb and unhappy it makes everyone.
Matt is correct about the naming of the Gulf of Mexico. I have a couple maps from the 1600s (well copies of them) in my office. The one from 1626 is a world map and has the Gulf of Mexico labeled, and the one from 1688 is the Caribbean islands which is titled "Archipelague du Mexique."
Here is an example from the same period Scott describes, credited in part to the famous (and somewhat infamous) Dutch cartographer, Gerhard Mercator. The "Sinus Mexicanus" is clearly labeled. And "America" refers to the whole damn hemisphere, not just a subsection of the North. https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~293845~90064653:America
The name change is stupid, as are most efforts to force people to use different words in order to presumably make them think differently. That said, I think its interesting that everyone takes this change to be all about the US. Taken at face value, it can be viewed as honoring the entire American hemisphere (you know, north, central and south AMERICA). Mexico doesn't own it, right? (yes yes i know that's not Trump's intent)
Moynihan keeps trashing people who make sure to pronounce "pho" correctly, but then makes an effort on his end to properly pronounce "Łódź"? What gives?
There used to be a pho restaurant in my city called Pho King. Not joking. It was my second-favorite business name after Kenny's Kar Klinic in Vista, CA (who wisely changed their physical sign to Kenny's Car Klinic a year or two ago, but you can still totally google them, it's bananas)
If you don’t pronounce pho correctly you can’t fully appreciate the punny names that some Vietnamese restaurants choose. A personal favorite of mine is “Pho Kingdom.”
Yeah but it’s not like she’s making bad music or something, she’s celebrating October 7 and writing an op-ed the next week comparing Israel to Nazi Germany . . . but sure, maybe she’s fun at parties or whatever
Trump does have some kind of magic populist powers. I had the most insane conversation this week. My sister describes herself as far left, and I lean right, so we don't normally discuss politics. She's the definition of a low-information voter. She literally makes a point to never read the news. She did know enough to hate Trump on instinct. She was telling me that lately she'd been really stressed out about the way people in her Facebook groups were talking about the disasters that were happening under Trump. Rather than keep panicking, she decided to actually investigate Trump's policies. "I felt like I'd been misled," she said. She realized she agreed with most of his ideas.
She would love to get rid of income tax. She's in favor of getting rid of most of the government bureaucracy. She was very happy about defining women's sports as only for biologic women. She is *super stoked* about raw milk becoming legal ("I'll finally be able to eat American soft cheeses").
He somehow has managed to put his finger on what the broader population wants. I think we forget that most people aren't reading think pieces about the long-term effects of tariffs or the limits of executive orders.
God I would love to see what her investigation online looked like and what path she took to arrive at her saying she agrees with most of his ideas. Would be a case study in how a “low information voter does their own research” and the current online info funnel.
I always liked Jon Stewart, even when he had his stupid (horrible take on topics) Apply TV show. I used to sneak into the basement when I was a teenager and watch three shows: Thirtysomething, Tracy Ullmann Show (Go Home!), and The Jon Stewart Show.
I could've listened to Nick and him talk for another hour. Stewart is a great interviewer, whether you agree with what he says or not. I think one of the main reasons is that he is respectful to the people he talks to but doesn't kowtow to their points of view. And Nick does two things really well: he doesn't diatribe and lose the plot, and the way he explains his points is comprehensible to people who don't know all the things about a topic. I feel smart when I listen to what he has to say.
The interview was decent but Stewart's framing was overly biased (to put it mildly). You are right that Nick was right to not argue about every detail but the waters were sufficiently muddied and the terrain was set by unfair framings. YOU saw through it but will the normie, casual listener know how to correct for those biases? I am less hopeful about Nick's effectiveness, in this setting. The fault lies mostly with Stewart, but......
I don't think Nick didn't argue in this situation (I would say debated). I was speaking more about his general ability to make his points understandable to a broad audience. Stewart absolutely brings his bias to the table, but he is not a true journalist in any real sense. He does, however, stick to his opinions, and I appreciate that. I look at his podcasts as having a conversation rather than interviewing someone.
Nick chose to go on his podcast and I'm sure he knew what he was signing up for. I would argue that correcting for biases can be a problem for any listener of anything. I would hope that we all work on it - I'm a normie casual listener to a lot of shit - but I'm not going to assume that someone who doesn't is automatically being led down the primrose path.
Gotta call out the inconsistency of our dear Moynihan. Jake Tapper can change his mind and it's totally valid but Rubio cannot? How come? Why is one changing of mind more valid than the other?
Jake Tapper didn't "change his mind". He knew it wasn't a stutter and knew exactly what he was doing, or he is blind and deaf. I give him enough credit to know better. Those nice DMs do pay dividends though it appears.
Jake Tapper is a hack. Let’s play the game of “stupid or liar”. I don’t think he’s stupid. I’m also perfectly fine putting him around the same orbit as Charlie Kirk. I don’t have to take either of them as serious actors, but everyone likes to pretend with Tapper.
"He plays it straight" Yeah the Parkland town hall show trial of Dana Leosch and Marco Rubio, with no pushback on the scumbag sheriff who was allowed to juice the crowd beforehand was just Straight News Journalism™️
What the actual f*** are you talking about, Michael Moynihan... People want to see the "Epstein files" because we are all convinced that there is information that hasn't been released to protect the rich/famous/powerful. You yourself stated that he was let off with a slap on the wrist the first time he was caught, but what you fail to mention all the weird s*** that surrounded the entire thing. Even the daily beast reported that Acosta told the Trump transition team that he was essentially told to let Epstein off the hook because "he belonged to intelligence". When later asked about that claim, Acosta said:
“So, there has been reporting to that effect," Acosta said Wednesday. "And let me say, there’s been report to a lot of effects in this case. Not just now but over the years. And again, I would, I would hesitate to take this reporting as fact."
Not exactly the strongest rebuttal. A "No, I never said that." would have put the matter to rest for good, don't you think?
Your idea that there's nothing to the "Epstein list" because if there was they would already be prosecuting people is dumb and out of touch. Also I pay you money so you shouldn't disagree or anything. I think.
He's just a knee-jerk anti-populist reactionary at this point. Was solidified when Michael class raged against *checks notes* Middle American manufacturing managers who couldn't afford to shop anywhere other than Wal Mart. Not for a second considering, despite his vast knowledge of second and third order economic effects, that people with less money engage in bulk purchasing to save marginal money on household staples out of necessity, not abundance.
I’m still salty about the way Stewart treated Andrew Sullivan.
Same!
Me three. I think of it every time Stewart’s name is mentioned.
I can’t forgive real nasty craziness like that. Stewart with Andrew. BJG with Lukianoff…
Ooh gotta look that one up.
I'm noticing that a lot of commentators who currently have the political upper hand (Ben Shapiro in particular comes to mind) are shoveling out a lot of "Don't criticize us, because you did A, B, and C when Biden was president, and that's same thing," thus conveniently leaving the criticism itself unaddressed.
I submit for your approval the term "playground logic" to describe this approach.
I agree. I’ve drifted further and further from listening to or trusting Ben over the years (basically ever since I discovered TFC). But I do occasionally dip into his material to get a pulse on the mainstream conservative take, and he has been frustratingly sycophantic and hypocritical. The only exception I’ve seen so far was a fairly good critique of Trump’s Zelensky tweet.
Always insist that people defend something on its own merits when they resort to whataboutisms. More than one thing can be bad!
It's not leaving the criticism unaddressed, it's "tit for tat" - the only way A will stop doing the thing is if they have it done to them in return and realize how dumb and unhappy it makes everyone.
Matt is correct about the naming of the Gulf of Mexico. I have a couple maps from the 1600s (well copies of them) in my office. The one from 1626 is a world map and has the Gulf of Mexico labeled, and the one from 1688 is the Caribbean islands which is titled "Archipelague du Mexique."
NO STEP ON GULF.
Here is an example from the same period Scott describes, credited in part to the famous (and somewhat infamous) Dutch cartographer, Gerhard Mercator. The "Sinus Mexicanus" is clearly labeled. And "America" refers to the whole damn hemisphere, not just a subsection of the North. https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~293845~90064653:America
The name change is stupid, as are most efforts to force people to use different words in order to presumably make them think differently. That said, I think its interesting that everyone takes this change to be all about the US. Taken at face value, it can be viewed as honoring the entire American hemisphere (you know, north, central and south AMERICA). Mexico doesn't own it, right? (yes yes i know that's not Trump's intent)
The beginnings of these episodes become increasingly shambolic. Which is good.
Moynihan keeps trashing people who make sure to pronounce "pho" correctly, but then makes an effort on his end to properly pronounce "Łódź"? What gives?
There used to be a pho restaurant in my city called Pho King. Not joking. It was my second-favorite business name after Kenny's Kar Klinic in Vista, CA (who wisely changed their physical sign to Kenny's Car Klinic a year or two ago, but you can still totally google them, it's bananas)
If you don’t pronounce pho correctly you can’t fully appreciate the punny names that some Vietnamese restaurants choose. A personal favorite of mine is “Pho Kingdom.”
We have a Pho King and a What the Pho? in the metro Atlanta area. (Or did pre-Covid…)
Moynihan with a van full of coeds: “It’s not trafficking! It’s for personal consumption!”
Karen Attiah is a monster. She does not deserve for you to like her.
You can like a person but hate what they make.
Yeah but it’s not like she’s making bad music or something, she’s celebrating October 7 and writing an op-ed the next week comparing Israel to Nazi Germany . . . but sure, maybe she’s fun at parties or whatever
Syncretism doesn't occur on its own. You can't save everyone, but to save anyone you have to first try.
Kmele has the right of it.
Trump does have some kind of magic populist powers. I had the most insane conversation this week. My sister describes herself as far left, and I lean right, so we don't normally discuss politics. She's the definition of a low-information voter. She literally makes a point to never read the news. She did know enough to hate Trump on instinct. She was telling me that lately she'd been really stressed out about the way people in her Facebook groups were talking about the disasters that were happening under Trump. Rather than keep panicking, she decided to actually investigate Trump's policies. "I felt like I'd been misled," she said. She realized she agreed with most of his ideas.
She would love to get rid of income tax. She's in favor of getting rid of most of the government bureaucracy. She was very happy about defining women's sports as only for biologic women. She is *super stoked* about raw milk becoming legal ("I'll finally be able to eat American soft cheeses").
He somehow has managed to put his finger on what the broader population wants. I think we forget that most people aren't reading think pieces about the long-term effects of tariffs or the limits of executive orders.
God I would love to see what her investigation online looked like and what path she took to arrive at her saying she agrees with most of his ideas. Would be a case study in how a “low information voter does their own research” and the current online info funnel.
I always liked Jon Stewart, even when he had his stupid (horrible take on topics) Apply TV show. I used to sneak into the basement when I was a teenager and watch three shows: Thirtysomething, Tracy Ullmann Show (Go Home!), and The Jon Stewart Show.
I could've listened to Nick and him talk for another hour. Stewart is a great interviewer, whether you agree with what he says or not. I think one of the main reasons is that he is respectful to the people he talks to but doesn't kowtow to their points of view. And Nick does two things really well: he doesn't diatribe and lose the plot, and the way he explains his points is comprehensible to people who don't know all the things about a topic. I feel smart when I listen to what he has to say.
The interview was decent but Stewart's framing was overly biased (to put it mildly). You are right that Nick was right to not argue about every detail but the waters were sufficiently muddied and the terrain was set by unfair framings. YOU saw through it but will the normie, casual listener know how to correct for those biases? I am less hopeful about Nick's effectiveness, in this setting. The fault lies mostly with Stewart, but......
I don't think Nick didn't argue in this situation (I would say debated). I was speaking more about his general ability to make his points understandable to a broad audience. Stewart absolutely brings his bias to the table, but he is not a true journalist in any real sense. He does, however, stick to his opinions, and I appreciate that. I look at his podcasts as having a conversation rather than interviewing someone.
Nick chose to go on his podcast and I'm sure he knew what he was signing up for. I would argue that correcting for biases can be a problem for any listener of anything. I would hope that we all work on it - I'm a normie casual listener to a lot of shit - but I'm not going to assume that someone who doesn't is automatically being led down the primrose path.
Fair enough. I think you are mostly right. Mr. Gillespie did as well as could be expected in this situation.
I needed this!
You are not a real scientist til you're invited to Epstein's island
Gotta call out the inconsistency of our dear Moynihan. Jake Tapper can change his mind and it's totally valid but Rubio cannot? How come? Why is one changing of mind more valid than the other?
Jake Tapper didn't "change his mind". He knew it wasn't a stutter and knew exactly what he was doing, or he is blind and deaf. I give him enough credit to know better. Those nice DMs do pay dividends though it appears.
Jake Tapper is a hack. Let’s play the game of “stupid or liar”. I don’t think he’s stupid. I’m also perfectly fine putting him around the same orbit as Charlie Kirk. I don’t have to take either of them as serious actors, but everyone likes to pretend with Tapper.
"He plays it straight" Yeah the Parkland town hall show trial of Dana Leosch and Marco Rubio, with no pushback on the scumbag sheriff who was allowed to juice the crowd beforehand was just Straight News Journalism™️
Guys I don't think your average MAGA does actually care if DOGE or whoever accomplishes anything real.
What the actual f*** are you talking about, Michael Moynihan... People want to see the "Epstein files" because we are all convinced that there is information that hasn't been released to protect the rich/famous/powerful. You yourself stated that he was let off with a slap on the wrist the first time he was caught, but what you fail to mention all the weird s*** that surrounded the entire thing. Even the daily beast reported that Acosta told the Trump transition team that he was essentially told to let Epstein off the hook because "he belonged to intelligence". When later asked about that claim, Acosta said:
“So, there has been reporting to that effect," Acosta said Wednesday. "And let me say, there’s been report to a lot of effects in this case. Not just now but over the years. And again, I would, I would hesitate to take this reporting as fact."
Not exactly the strongest rebuttal. A "No, I never said that." would have put the matter to rest for good, don't you think?
Your idea that there's nothing to the "Epstein list" because if there was they would already be prosecuting people is dumb and out of touch. Also I pay you money so you shouldn't disagree or anything. I think.
He's just a knee-jerk anti-populist reactionary at this point. Was solidified when Michael class raged against *checks notes* Middle American manufacturing managers who couldn't afford to shop anywhere other than Wal Mart. Not for a second considering, despite his vast knowledge of second and third order economic effects, that people with less money engage in bulk purchasing to save marginal money on household staples out of necessity, not abundance.
I immediately heard that title.