General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPunch-Drunk Jonathan Chait Takes On the Entire Internet
http://gawker.com/punch-drunk-jonathan-chait-takes-on-the-entire-internet-1682078451<snip>
A year ago, Jonathan Chait had an extended debate with The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates, an incredibly talented writer whose ongoing research and thinking on race and American politics and history have led him to become one of our foremost critics of American liberalism as a credo and philosophy. Chait, a strong believer in the righteousness of American liberalism, could not let it go, and he went on to embarrass himself. A broken Chait is now taking on the entire goddamn Internet, to prove that he's still the important political thinker and good liberal he knows he is.
Chait was further incensed when His People lost control of The New Republic, the political magazine where Chait was a columnist and editor for many years. Chait, along with a number of other current and former New Republic contributors, protested the loss of their version of the magazine, but they seemed to be unprepared for the response: It was not universal outrage and grief. Instead quite a lot of peopleincluding, again, Coatesseemed to think that Chait's New Republic had been a hotbed of the most poisonous form of American "liberalism," a place where a cadre of white people with degrees from the best schools debated amongst themselves whether or not black Americans were worthy of equal treatment under the law, and even whether black Americans were genetically equal to whites.
Chait, like many liberal commentators with his background, is used to writing off left-wing critics and reserving his real writerly firepower for (frequently deserving) right-wingers. That was, for years, how things worked at the center-left opinion journalism shops, because it was simply assumed that no one importantno one who really matterstook the opinions of people to the left of the center-left opinion shop seriously. That was a safe and largely correct assumption. But the destruction of the magazine industry and the growth of the open-forum internet have amplified formerly marginal voices. Now, in other words, writers of color can be just as condescending and dismissive of Chait as he always was toward the left. And he hates it.
<snip>
So, to once again answer New York's question, straight white men could (and did) viciously attack "the culture of political correctness" as much as they pleased back in the day, and no one who mattered ever seemed particularly bothered by it. Now, not only is it harder to avoid reading negative feedback from people with different perspectives than you, especially if you engage online at all, but there are actually important peoplepeople with status, who've won awards and hold positions of authoritywho listen to those people with different perspectives. Ta-Nehisi Coates is at The Atlantic, for godssake, not In These Times.
<snip>
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)It's flawed, I think, and not as good as his stuff usually is, but it makes some excellent points and is definitely worth reading and taking seriously.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Jonathan Chait seems to be terribly offended that feminists, people of colour, LGBT and disabled people have strong opinions on issues that affect them personally, and would very much like it if they'd just shut up and stop complaining, because it makes middle-class, straight, white, cisgendered people uncomfortable. (Which sadly is not such a surprising attitude for a self-proclaimed "liberal" to have.)
It's interesting and somewhat instructive to observe that 95% of the comments I've seen in support of and agreeement with Chait's piece have been from a) white men and/or b) conservatives (most of whom are a subset of a).
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)He seems to think that freedom of speech only pertains to himself and others just like him. Everyone else should just stop being so whiny.
Pacifist Patriot
(24,653 posts)He is correct that fear of offense is stifling intellectual exploration in some academic settings. I've experienced that personally.
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I am in agreement with the Gawker article.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If anything, it was overly fair to Chait.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)I hope he doubles down and keeps exposing their tactics:
If a person who is accused of bias attempts to defend his intentions, he merely compounds his own guilt. (Here one might find oneself accused of man/white/straightsplaining.) It is likewise taboo to request that the accusation be rendered in a less hostile manner. This is called tone policing. If you are accused of bias, or called out, reflection and apology are the only acceptable response to dispute a call-out only makes it worse. There is no allowance in p.c. culture for the possibility that the accusation may be erroneous. A white person or a man can achieve the status of ally, however, if he follows the rules of p.c. dialogue. A community, virtual or real, that adheres to the rules is deemed safe. The extensive terminology plays a crucial role, locking in shared ideological assumptions that make meaningful disagreement impossible.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Keep it up, someone might actually buy it.
Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)just how trivial some issues really are.
Political correctness is one of them.
Economic and environmental policies are why I even bother with politics. I don't give two shits about racial diversity at the Oscars or video game culture. There, I said it.
If you want to cut up my liberal card for not caring about that stupid bullshit, go right ahead. I'm sure I won't lose any sleep over it.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)You don't have to care--the waters from that wreck will never reach your level aboard the ship.
Being honest about being indifferent isn't brave, just common.
RobinA
(9,893 posts)are constantly shouted down on an issue, indifference is virtually assured. The shouting WILL eventually stop, because it is counterproductive. Until then, many people will elect to sit it out.
Since I am a card-carrying female and therefore "allowed" to talk about gender, I will say that I understand the original "mansplaining" and I find its current usage as a bludgeon to silence people a step in the wrong direction and a setback. This type of discourse will have to work itself out, though, since telling people that it's devisive just earns one another smackdown. Carry on.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)tritsofme
(17,379 posts)Fuck this guy, I didn't read a word further.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Like the people responsible for TNR's race-baiting over welfare reform, and their endorsement of Herrnstein and Murray's "Bell Curve", and cheerleading for going to war in Iraq. (All of those things being the track record of "even the liberal New Republic" . Funny how Chait had no problem with TNR's race-baiting and assorted illiberalisms when he was writing for it (or, well, not really that funny at all), but the firing of an editor with the magazine under new ownership was enough for him to sever his associations.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)That's the dumbest interpretation I've heard yet. Congrats.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)That is just the front page, I can't find the archives. He was truly ugly in that diary.
I did find a post from Daily Kos in 2003 about Chait.
Why Democrats Lose: Jonathan Chait
Bush is like the next-door neighbor who lets his dog poop on your lawn and his kid shoot bb's at your house and who says something irritating to you every day on his way to work. Dean, on the other hand, is like the ne'er-do-well who's dating your daughter. You realize the neighbor is a worse person than the boyfriend, but the boyfriend (and the frightening prospect that he'll become your son-in-law) consumes more of your attention.
It should be obvious to Chait that he is writing RNC talking points, but satisfying his own desire to work out his hatred of Dean in public is, of course, more important than winning the next election. I guess he can afford grand games like this because he does not have terribly much riding on the next election. Judging from his malleability to the institutional biases of the New Republic, he won't be losing his job anytime soon.
And, for Chait, it is of course necessary to begin this grand project of Dean bashing at the moment it becomes clear that Dean's nomination is inevitable. The only purpose of Chait's project to damage Dean is therefore to help Bush. Let's talk about the end of modern liberalism, shall we, Jonathan?
Chait wrote an article this summer entitled "Wesley Clark: Democratic Messiah." The sheer bombasity of that headline is so ridiculous now that Clark's campaign has nosedived and the obviousness of his inadequacy as a leader of the Democratic Party is clear, it must be difficult for Chait to realize that his own value in the world of the partisan press is at about the level of Clark's campaign right now.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)He's also an incessant teacher union hater and drum-major for charter schools, I'm sure you'll recall. We've hated him before it was cool.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I would get livid over his articles. Just as well I can't find the archives now. I have some posts I made if I can find them. There had to be something else behind his hatred of Dean...it was over the top.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)He was awful. Really rude.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/01/30/13316/-The-Deanophobe-Breathes-Easy
The "Deanophobe" being, of course, My Hero Jonathan Chait:
Not only is Dean's nomination dead, Deanism is dead as well. By "Deanism" I don't mean Dean's mix of issue positions, or his novel strategy of Internet organizing (which, I hope, will become a model for Democrats in the future). What I mean by Deanism is the belief that some combination of technology and Dean's charisma can somehow suspend all the known laws of politics, that liberals can wish away unpleasant facts about the American electorate, and that the failure to do so represents cowardice, betrayal, and the absence of principle.
.....Finally, John Kerry takes all the fun out of Dean-o-phobia. Indeed, if there's anybody who could make Dean attractive, it's Kerry. Kerry is a miserable candidate, bereft of political skills, and possessing of a record and a persona tailor-made for Karl Rove. The Republicans will merely have to say about Kerry what they said about Gore--that he wants to be on every side of every issue, that he's culturally out of touch with mainstream America, that he's a pompous bore--and this time the sale will be easier, because all these things are far more true of Kerry than of Gore. I'd love to see the Democrats nominate Wes Clark, who still has great potential as a general election candidate, or John Edwards, who has great potential not only as a candidate but as a president also. (For months I've been saying Edwards would make the best president and Clark, due to his unbeatable resumé, the best nominee. I'm now thinking Edwards's skills may nearly make up for his less-formidable resumé.) Failing that, I'd take Kerry over Dean, but it's a choice of defeat over disaster, akin to--as my colleague Frank Foer puts it--the Republicans selecting Bob Dole over Pat Buchanan in 1996.
Just rude.