I'm reminded of something Tom Scocca wrote around a year ago:
"The trap waits for even the wary: start as a dissenter, develop into a crank, end up a dupe. One day you're Christopher Hitchens castigating the folly of the Vietnam War, the next, you're Christopher Hitchens praising the muscular daring of the Iraq invasion."
Some dissenters do live long but don't turn into cranks or dupes. I'd guess being a dissenter per se isn't central to their self-images; they don't take positions just to be disagreeable or attract attention. Other people, perhaps including Matt Taibbi, get confused by and addicted to being prominent and end as mere contrarians.
Both Hitchens and Taibbi were/are notorious misogynists. Coincidence? I doubt it. Being consistently honest and decent about some things but consistently dishonest and indecent about other things is difficult for an intelligent person to maintain.
Yeah, I used to know him as a critical thinker who added political interest to Rolling Stone magazine (and I was blissfully ignorant of his abuse issues). So I got the free subscription to his newsletter in 2021 for a while and kept getting partway through his articles and going "um, wait a minute, what are you defending/attacking here? and why?" The defense of Putin leading up to the invasion of Ukraine was sad - he made it out that all the folks who were raising alarms were wrong and had some devious agenda, akin to Russiagate, but he was the one who was wrong. And what was his agenda? I decided I didn't care anymore, and stopped even reading the free feed. I sincerely hope you get free readership/exposure from people looking for him that come to you instead, Jonathan. The ends justify the means! (Wait...)
Have your fun, but what's the endpoint of this flame war you've launched. What do you expect such invective to produce that you or your readers want? I doubt Tiabbi will change the name of his just because you are denigrating him. It just burns oxygen.
You know, it is possible to sympathize with Russia for being increasingly hemmed in by states obligated to article five. There's no sympathy for Russia whatsoever on the part of the "liberal media," who have hewed to US foreign policy like forever. Just because one criticizes US policy doesn't mage one a MAGgot.
1. Matt Taibbi was a sexist, misogynist asshole as a young man.
2. Matt Taibbi might still be that way.
3. Twitter was in bed with the American security apparatus.
4. Twitter did suppress or outright ban some some speech. I’ll be strict with my language and not use the term “censor” here.
5. Neither the previous Twitter owners nor the current ones are faultless saints. In fact, they are ALL liars and propagandists for their particular obsessions.
All of these can be true at once. Whining about the messenger is whining about tone.
The substance is what matters.
The substantive point is if Twitter is the medium of mass speech in our world, then what the previous Twitter regime did to suppress it DOES matter, IS an important story, and IS relevant.
Well, Matt can show us all by putting Musk on blast, calling him "a corrupt, hypocritical Apartheid-coddled man-child" or whatever Taibbism he chooses.
The substance is definitely what matters. And if you think pre-Musk Twitter was worse than or even comparable to Musk Twitter, you’re practicing *extremely* selective vision.
The notions of pre-Must Twitter and Musk Twitter are vague and precious. So let's be specific and concrete. Let's get to substance.
Twitter's deputy general counsel, James Baker, was a former FBI general counsel and former counsel for the DoJ Office of Intelligence Policy and Review. A cynic, some might say a realist, would conclude that makes Baker a professional liar. Watching one of the hearings I saw Boebert question some former Twitter liars. Boebert is an idiot, and you could see her straining to sound like a shrewd interrogator. She was at the limit of her cognitive capacity for complex thinking and sounded like a high-school debater—a poor one—trying to sound clever. But one thing I learned is nine former FBI special agents worked at Twitter pre-Musk.
So, what do I know about the FBI? Well, I know when it comes to anything political I don't believe a god damned thing the FBI says. There are bad people in the world but the FBI is so full of corrupt, lying right-wingers that I have no way of knowing if anything they say is true when they accuse people. I'm old enough to be aware of too many FBI failures and lies to think pre-Musk Twitter with nine former agents and one former FBI general counsel is any better than Musk Twitter.
Yes, pre-Musk Twitter was worse because it was lousy with former employees of a state agency who's most socially consequential work has been the suppressing of free speech, the harassing of American dissidents, possibly some involvement in the murder of American political and community leaders, and dubious anti-terrorism prosecutions during George W. Bush's presidency. The history of the FBI is a history of state repression and persecution, mostly of persons who self-identified as leftist.
My vision is not *selective*. It's comprehensive.
If you could see past your nose and back further than Election Day 2016, you'd be wary of a social media company so in bed with a state police agency. But you can't because Orange Man Bad.
I LOVE the hearings from this week. I love seeing those smug, know-it-all, fucking liars get questioned, exposing themselves with the professional liars favorite refrain: "I don't recall." Yes, the Republicans are grandstanding. Yes, most of them are acting in bad faith. But you don't actually think the Democrats would ever question the censoring power of Twitter, do you?
This is great. In spite of the grandstanding and bad faith we all get to see just how much the U.S.'s domestic intelligence agency, the FBI, thinks it should have a direct line of communication to a dominant media platform to make censorship demands.
Who do you think they have used that power against the most? Who do you think they would use it against again if allowed to?
Yes, yes, god damn yes. Pre-Musk Twitter was much worse than Musk Twitter.
And by the way, the argument that Twitter is a private company and so it's not censorship when they suppress speech is wrong. If a non-government entity bans, suppresses, or otherwise stops speech at the behest and direction of the government, then you cannot reasonably say it is not censorship. And that is what the Twitter Files and these hearings are showing us.
Fuck Matt Taibbi but maybe you should change your newsletter name to just be your name to distinguish (as well as to give yourself more visibility as a commentator). Keep using the domain name but emphasize your own name as the title. My two cents.
If you’d like ideas and/or a soundboard for a new name, let me know, I’m actually pretty good at naming, something I do professionally. No charge.
I'm not gonna abandon the name I've been using for two years just because some schmuck belatedly decided he wanted it too. Suggestions welcome, though!
I'm reminded of something Tom Scocca wrote around a year ago:
"The trap waits for even the wary: start as a dissenter, develop into a crank, end up a dupe. One day you're Christopher Hitchens castigating the folly of the Vietnam War, the next, you're Christopher Hitchens praising the muscular daring of the Iraq invasion."
(https://indignity.substack.com/p/indignity-vol-1-no-21-contrarians)
Some dissenters do live long but don't turn into cranks or dupes. I'd guess being a dissenter per se isn't central to their self-images; they don't take positions just to be disagreeable or attract attention. Other people, perhaps including Matt Taibbi, get confused by and addicted to being prominent and end as mere contrarians.
Both Hitchens and Taibbi were/are notorious misogynists. Coincidence? I doubt it. Being consistently honest and decent about some things but consistently dishonest and indecent about other things is difficult for an intelligent person to maintain.
Yeah, I used to know him as a critical thinker who added political interest to Rolling Stone magazine (and I was blissfully ignorant of his abuse issues). So I got the free subscription to his newsletter in 2021 for a while and kept getting partway through his articles and going "um, wait a minute, what are you defending/attacking here? and why?" The defense of Putin leading up to the invasion of Ukraine was sad - he made it out that all the folks who were raising alarms were wrong and had some devious agenda, akin to Russiagate, but he was the one who was wrong. And what was his agenda? I decided I didn't care anymore, and stopped even reading the free feed. I sincerely hope you get free readership/exposure from people looking for him that come to you instead, Jonathan. The ends justify the means! (Wait...)
Matt Taibbi isn’t the first person whose misogyny eventually leads to defending authoritarianism / racism / fascism
Very true.
Have your fun, but what's the endpoint of this flame war you've launched. What do you expect such invective to produce that you or your readers want? I doubt Tiabbi will change the name of his just because you are denigrating him. It just burns oxygen.
You know, it is possible to sympathize with Russia for being increasingly hemmed in by states obligated to article five. There's no sympathy for Russia whatsoever on the part of the "liberal media," who have hewed to US foreign policy like forever. Just because one criticizes US policy doesn't mage one a MAGgot.
Thanks I will.
1. Matt Taibbi was a sexist, misogynist asshole as a young man.
2. Matt Taibbi might still be that way.
3. Twitter was in bed with the American security apparatus.
4. Twitter did suppress or outright ban some some speech. I’ll be strict with my language and not use the term “censor” here.
5. Neither the previous Twitter owners nor the current ones are faultless saints. In fact, they are ALL liars and propagandists for their particular obsessions.
All of these can be true at once. Whining about the messenger is whining about tone.
The substance is what matters.
The substantive point is if Twitter is the medium of mass speech in our world, then what the previous Twitter regime did to suppress it DOES matter, IS an important story, and IS relevant.
Being precious about Musk gets you nowhere.
Well, Matt can show us all by putting Musk on blast, calling him "a corrupt, hypocritical Apartheid-coddled man-child" or whatever Taibbism he chooses.
You should read this too: https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Doctorow's analysis is brilliant. I read it twice to really get at what he's saying. Thanks for the recommendation.
The substance is definitely what matters. And if you think pre-Musk Twitter was worse than or even comparable to Musk Twitter, you’re practicing *extremely* selective vision.
The notions of pre-Must Twitter and Musk Twitter are vague and precious. So let's be specific and concrete. Let's get to substance.
Twitter's deputy general counsel, James Baker, was a former FBI general counsel and former counsel for the DoJ Office of Intelligence Policy and Review. A cynic, some might say a realist, would conclude that makes Baker a professional liar. Watching one of the hearings I saw Boebert question some former Twitter liars. Boebert is an idiot, and you could see her straining to sound like a shrewd interrogator. She was at the limit of her cognitive capacity for complex thinking and sounded like a high-school debater—a poor one—trying to sound clever. But one thing I learned is nine former FBI special agents worked at Twitter pre-Musk.
So, what do I know about the FBI? Well, I know when it comes to anything political I don't believe a god damned thing the FBI says. There are bad people in the world but the FBI is so full of corrupt, lying right-wingers that I have no way of knowing if anything they say is true when they accuse people. I'm old enough to be aware of too many FBI failures and lies to think pre-Musk Twitter with nine former agents and one former FBI general counsel is any better than Musk Twitter.
Yes, pre-Musk Twitter was worse because it was lousy with former employees of a state agency who's most socially consequential work has been the suppressing of free speech, the harassing of American dissidents, possibly some involvement in the murder of American political and community leaders, and dubious anti-terrorism prosecutions during George W. Bush's presidency. The history of the FBI is a history of state repression and persecution, mostly of persons who self-identified as leftist.
My vision is not *selective*. It's comprehensive.
If you could see past your nose and back further than Election Day 2016, you'd be wary of a social media company so in bed with a state police agency. But you can't because Orange Man Bad.
I LOVE the hearings from this week. I love seeing those smug, know-it-all, fucking liars get questioned, exposing themselves with the professional liars favorite refrain: "I don't recall." Yes, the Republicans are grandstanding. Yes, most of them are acting in bad faith. But you don't actually think the Democrats would ever question the censoring power of Twitter, do you?
This is great. In spite of the grandstanding and bad faith we all get to see just how much the U.S.'s domestic intelligence agency, the FBI, thinks it should have a direct line of communication to a dominant media platform to make censorship demands.
Who do you think they have used that power against the most? Who do you think they would use it against again if allowed to?
Yes, yes, god damn yes. Pre-Musk Twitter was much worse than Musk Twitter.
And by the way, the argument that Twitter is a private company and so it's not censorship when they suppress speech is wrong. If a non-government entity bans, suppresses, or otherwise stops speech at the behest and direction of the government, then you cannot reasonably say it is not censorship. And that is what the Twitter Files and these hearings are showing us.
Fuck Matt Taibbi but maybe you should change your newsletter name to just be your name to distinguish (as well as to give yourself more visibility as a commentator). Keep using the domain name but emphasize your own name as the title. My two cents.
If you’d like ideas and/or a soundboard for a new name, let me know, I’m actually pretty good at naming, something I do professionally. No charge.
I'm not gonna abandon the name I've been using for two years just because some schmuck belatedly decided he wanted it too. Suggestions welcome, though!