Isn’t punditing nothing more than what used to be called an editorial in a 20th century product, the newspaper?
What social change has regular punditing made?
Was Dr Martin Luther King’s “letter from Birmingham jail”, punditing?
Time is neutral. Typing words without action is simply typing.
Without the civil rights movement, where people protested against other people, Black people would not have civil rights.
Without protests in the LGBTQ community, people who identify as LGBTQ would not have civil rights.
Unfortunately, here in Minneapolis, the civil rights protests of 2020 didn’t result in any improvements. People were killed and beaten and blinded- for nothing.
Would Derek Chauvin have been convicted without the protests? Maybe, maybe not. But his conviction did not change anything in Minneapolis, or in the surrounding suburbs. Police still kill unarmed or the “wrong” Black person. Black people are still pulled over more than white people.
I gave the protesters masks and money. I am too old to be marching in the heat down Hennepin ave. Sitting on the freeway and being pepper sprayed and arrested using zip ties on my wrists, for protesting the murder in the dirty street with bits of gravel pushed into his face, the murder of the father and the man, George Floyd.
punditing (or op ed writing!) like protesting can sometimes have an effect. (uncle tom's cabin is I guess the big example). change (through writing or protesting) is always hard though, and yes, it's hard to know when it will have an effect.
Nice sorting out of tangled ideas into Convincing threads of sound logic.
As usual.
This gets us thinking about why we read and respond. To me it is one of the best antidotes to the systemic isolation of economic hierarchies of worthlessness.
Thank you for talking about the gatekeeping in punditry. People who've already been given a platform are legitimate while the people they criticize who are denied a voice aren't. I don't know anything about this specific pundit but the lack of any transgender voice has defined punditry for, well, ever. We've been speaking out, making a good case for our existence. Because none of our best speakers have been deemed "pundit", action seems to be the only way we can be heard.
I guess I am a low level pundit wannabe. If you want expert advice on surety law, I can pundit away. Sadly, no one really does. Otherwise I just react to more full time pundits, more interested in thinking through questions about what I read.
So this is a reaction to the fracking controversy. I don't like fracking. But I also realize that we aren't going to get to fossil fuel independence overnight, or actually possibly in what's left of my lifetime. So which is better in the interim? Fracking or having to rely on foreign oil--or drilling in fragile areas like the arctic, or in national parks, etc.? My gut says fracking right now in an increasingly warring world is the best option for the time being.
Does Climate Defiance take this into account? I know zippo about Matt Yglesias's views on fracking. Is he a "keep it up" or a "best for the meantime?" If Climate Defiance is a group that has thought this interim problem through and has rationales, then be active away. But if it doesn't--or if their whole shtick is "supporting fracking is pure political theatre"-- their action on THIS point seems to be like the old commercial. "I want my Maypo, I want it NOW." It does seem there are other climate related protests that are more important and more likely to be accomplished at the moment.
I don't think it's a bad argument. It doesn't necessarily engage with the way fracking can cause major pollution problems for nearby communities. Also...I mean, to me I think there's virtue in people pushing back against increased fossil fuel usage and reminding us of the major costs, even if policy is going to have to make compromises.
Thanks for the cite. I have to agree with him at this time. I could go with higher taxes on gas, but then I only fill up my Honda Fit tank once a month. A cause I could get behind is a movement to improve transit in the cities, particularly mine. For those of us who live on the top of Seattle's higher hills, the choices of transit are abysmal. The busses are increasingly electric--but not reachable (or more to the point, impossible to get HOME from up the damn hill.)
More and more I rely on deliveries, particularly Amazon. They, as well as UPS, FedEx, and even the PO are moving more and more to electric delivery vehicles. (I have no place to charge one of my own.) Way better than me driving around town trying to find a particular widget.
I refuse to unite with people who want to strip me of my Human Rights including marriage, privacy, medical care, nondiscrimination, and freedom of religion, just to name a few. Now if my fellow “Christians” want to unite under the idea of loving God, truly loving our neighbors, and living in service to others, then we could talk. But no, let’s instead rob others of their basic dignity because hating our neighbors, tribalism, vengeance, being selfish, worshipping idols, and listening to false prophets are more attuned to what God wants than what Jesus actually taught.
Isn’t punditing nothing more than what used to be called an editorial in a 20th century product, the newspaper?
What social change has regular punditing made?
Was Dr Martin Luther King’s “letter from Birmingham jail”, punditing?
Time is neutral. Typing words without action is simply typing.
Without the civil rights movement, where people protested against other people, Black people would not have civil rights.
Without protests in the LGBTQ community, people who identify as LGBTQ would not have civil rights.
Unfortunately, here in Minneapolis, the civil rights protests of 2020 didn’t result in any improvements. People were killed and beaten and blinded- for nothing.
Would Derek Chauvin have been convicted without the protests? Maybe, maybe not. But his conviction did not change anything in Minneapolis, or in the surrounding suburbs. Police still kill unarmed or the “wrong” Black person. Black people are still pulled over more than white people.
I gave the protesters masks and money. I am too old to be marching in the heat down Hennepin ave. Sitting on the freeway and being pepper sprayed and arrested using zip ties on my wrists, for protesting the murder in the dirty street with bits of gravel pushed into his face, the murder of the father and the man, George Floyd.
punditing (or op ed writing!) like protesting can sometimes have an effect. (uncle tom's cabin is I guess the big example). change (through writing or protesting) is always hard though, and yes, it's hard to know when it will have an effect.
Nice sorting out of tangled ideas into Convincing threads of sound logic.
As usual.
This gets us thinking about why we read and respond. To me it is one of the best antidotes to the systemic isolation of economic hierarchies of worthlessness.
Thanks again.
Thank you for this. I find your punditry thought provoking.
Thank you for talking about the gatekeeping in punditry. People who've already been given a platform are legitimate while the people they criticize who are denied a voice aren't. I don't know anything about this specific pundit but the lack of any transgender voice has defined punditry for, well, ever. We've been speaking out, making a good case for our existence. Because none of our best speakers have been deemed "pundit", action seems to be the only way we can be heard.
I guess I am a low level pundit wannabe. If you want expert advice on surety law, I can pundit away. Sadly, no one really does. Otherwise I just react to more full time pundits, more interested in thinking through questions about what I read.
So this is a reaction to the fracking controversy. I don't like fracking. But I also realize that we aren't going to get to fossil fuel independence overnight, or actually possibly in what's left of my lifetime. So which is better in the interim? Fracking or having to rely on foreign oil--or drilling in fragile areas like the arctic, or in national parks, etc.? My gut says fracking right now in an increasingly warring world is the best option for the time being.
Does Climate Defiance take this into account? I know zippo about Matt Yglesias's views on fracking. Is he a "keep it up" or a "best for the meantime?" If Climate Defiance is a group that has thought this interim problem through and has rationales, then be active away. But if it doesn't--or if their whole shtick is "supporting fracking is pure political theatre"-- their action on THIS point seems to be like the old commercial. "I want my Maypo, I want it NOW." It does seem there are other climate related protests that are more important and more likely to be accomplished at the moment.
So, pundits: what do you think?
This is Yglesias's article, if you're interested.
https://www.slowboring.com/p/harris-is-right-on-the-merits-about
I don't think it's a bad argument. It doesn't necessarily engage with the way fracking can cause major pollution problems for nearby communities. Also...I mean, to me I think there's virtue in people pushing back against increased fossil fuel usage and reminding us of the major costs, even if policy is going to have to make compromises.
Thanks for the cite. I have to agree with him at this time. I could go with higher taxes on gas, but then I only fill up my Honda Fit tank once a month. A cause I could get behind is a movement to improve transit in the cities, particularly mine. For those of us who live on the top of Seattle's higher hills, the choices of transit are abysmal. The busses are increasingly electric--but not reachable (or more to the point, impossible to get HOME from up the damn hill.)
More and more I rely on deliveries, particularly Amazon. They, as well as UPS, FedEx, and even the PO are moving more and more to electric delivery vehicles. (I have no place to charge one of my own.) Way better than me driving around town trying to find a particular widget.
I refuse to unite with people who want to strip me of my Human Rights including marriage, privacy, medical care, nondiscrimination, and freedom of religion, just to name a few. Now if my fellow “Christians” want to unite under the idea of loving God, truly loving our neighbors, and living in service to others, then we could talk. But no, let’s instead rob others of their basic dignity because hating our neighbors, tribalism, vengeance, being selfish, worshipping idols, and listening to false prophets are more attuned to what God wants than what Jesus actually taught.
Fucking shepards. Thank you for helping me think through this crazy world.