The Atlantic explains why it hired a columnist who wants a quarter of American women put to death


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/03/27/the-atlantic-explains-why-it-h.html


#2

You’ve got an open italics tag on the article, Beschizza.

F^ck that guy with a phthalate-laden jelly dong, f^ck that magazine, f^ck this, f^ck that and most especially this thing. Otherwise, got nothin’ but rage.

Edited to clean up my own italics mess…


#3

Yeah, Goldberg doesn’t take Williamson seriously, and he really doesn’t care what anyone else says. It’s good for clicks, it’s good for trolling non-wingnuts, and that’s about all he cares about. The only thing that’d make him happier is if Williamson actually hanged a few Slutty Abortion-Havers, because OMG the clicks would come in SO HARD.

Has Ta-Nehisi Coates fled the Atlantic yet?


#4

Goldberg might want to consider these wise words:


#5

I’m tired of this concept of balance between centrist liberals and far right conservatives. That’s not balance. That’s appointing a crazy person to the board of the asylum.

I want to see a balance between the wide-eyed impractical dreamers of the left and the Clintonian moderates who have been willing to give everything away in “negotiations” with suicide-pact conservatives. In Europe, American Democrats are a party of the right. We need to adjust our Overton window further left.


#6

The polemicist, the misogynist, The transphobe, the columnist,
The slavery apologists and the other so-called Gods of Greenberg’s legends.


#7

So the formula for being hired at the Atlantic (and the NYT) is to write atrocities and then have the deluded editors who think they know better claim that that was just a rhetorical position the writer took, back then. And the solution to these human roaches coming out from under their rocks these days is to reward them with a wider audience. It seems like cultural appeasement, but that would be assuming that someone in this writer’s audience would read the Atlantic.


#8

I read The Atlantic online, a lot. It’s hard to turn down content that’s completely free. (I don’t even have to keep closing and reopening my incognito window!)

I can think for myself, and so I’ve always believed in having at least a little bit of exposure to conservative media, for the sake of not becoming too siloed. A good example is the Conor Friedersdorf articles. I usually read them, and almost always disagree, but they express a point of view in a way that’s understandable, and I get something out of it.

However, I draw the line at bigots and trolls. No second chances, fuck that. I’m worried about The Atlantic, because they’re becoming noticeably more conservative, and I’m probably going to have to stop reading it entirely. I sure hope they fire Williamson.


#9

It’s the nihilism of cultural relativism.


#10

You know, I don’t care. I’m fucking sick of having to hear this shit from anywhere. Any place that gives it a platform can go to hell.


#11

He is evil. There is no reason to give evil a platform.


#12

i used the contact form for the atlantic to inform them that i my response to this genocidal nutcase i that i wish i actually subscribed so i could demand my subscriptions’ cancellation. i went on to say that after i had finished typing this message i would no longer be providing eyeballs, clicks, or pageviews for their advertising and would indeed be pestering my circle of friends and acquaintances to whom i often send links to stories found in the atlantic to never visit that site again so long as kevin williamson is a staff writer there.


#13

I suspect the Atlantic’s management thinks hiring a conservative voice will boost subscriptions. They are sorely mistaken.

I just canceled my subscription to the Atlantic.

Plain and simple: I won’t fund this man’s words.

I’m not interested in propping up a false dichotomy.


#14

They already had Frum. With a senior editor who was part of Bush II (the shrubbening), they didn’t need to add this guy to burnish whatever conservative credentials they claim this weasel is burnishing.


#15

Hmmmmm…makes me think of the newspaper room party in CITIZEN KANE, where Jed Leland is discussing with Mr. Bernstein about Kane’s hiring the best men from a competing conservative newspaper, and he’s wondering about who will change whom - whether the new men will be changed by a confident Kane to his satisfaction, or they will change Charles Foster Kane without his realizing it…


#16

Put in another way, I would accuse Liberals of not actually believing in any morality, but thinking that process and procedure and rules (be it legal or cultural) will save “civilization.”


#17

How about “tone”?


#18

Liberals believe in morality. A lot of them just believe morality comes from dealing with people and their environment in ways that try to minimize harm, rather than blindly adhering to a book written by bronze-age primitives before they’d really figured out the whole “civilization” thing.


#19

Keep giving them (and the NYT) your subscription money, liberal suckers.


#20

Liberals, he wrote, tend to think conservatives and Christians don’t really believe what they say. They assume it’s all posture and imposture in pursuit of politics. They constantly call conservatives “trolls”. As I recall, the author proposed that this is a projection, a tell, revealing the feckless, floating indifference to morality at the left-end of America’s political mainstream.

Or maybe they see the naked hypocrisy of those who claim to be godly, as they call a president who is the antithesis of their beliefs, “a return to values”.

I won’t pretend the left is faultless in their rhetoric. They’re two sides of the “other hating” coin.