Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ben Goldberg-Morse's avatar

I think my biggest problem with Gawkerism writ large (as a longtime Deadspin fanboy, frequent commenter, and much less frequent contributor) is that after the dismissiveness and wanking, they and the media ecosystem they created rarely get around to actual substance. OK, you've sufficiently ripped Yglesias and disproven his worldview and philosophy. Now tell me what you believe, and defend it as better than what you've mocked.

If a writer/outlet can't do that - either because they have no real thought or convictions beyond making fun of specific people, or because they're afraid to put their own thoughts up for the kind of public scrutiny they're dishing out - it's not worth any reader's time, money, or energy.

Expand full comment
Secret Squirrel's avatar

I think that the critique of Gawkerspeak in this article is largely correct, but the essay in question is too mediocre to really serve as an example. Gawkerspeak is often better as prose, and there are plenty of good lefty critiques of Yglesias and what he stands for.

Here the prose is terrible partly because the argument is half-baked: he's not an economist but he's completely sure that there'd be no political problem with minting the platinum coin because money is just made up, or something like that. He makes the rhetorical move of assuming his audience doesn't need to be persuaded of far-left position and that it also agrees that the far-left position is a political winner and that the only thing between us and utopia is spineless corrupt liberals. This is a bad way to talk about gender or policing, but it is especially annoying when applied to a technical economic matter the author doesn't know much about. One reason the article is so bad is that it was clearly written much too quickly - a funny problem in a critique of Matt Yglesias.

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts