Well, here it is. Claire Berlinski, an editor-at-large over at Ricochet.com, has written a post describing her dissatisfaction with Trump, and detailing the reasons why she won’t discuss her book. But she won’t discuss the reasons for her dissatisfaction with Trump, arguing that it takes a book. That’s right, no way to summarize the argument in a way that preserves its essence. You’ll just have to read the book to find out what’s in it. Fair enough — this is book sales, not legislation. At the same time, I think that discussing a book too much can discharge the creative tension, essential in non-fiction just as much as in fiction. So there are good reasons to shut up about one’s book, even to financial backers.
Yet she takes a kicking in the comments for her unsubstantiated facts and her quite well substantiated opinion that she is alienated from the readers and posters over at Ricochet. She can’t describe the book or summarize the arguments because her readers, donors, and detractors are all too dense to grasp the point unless didactically led to it. No credit to the reader, no assumption of competence among the book’s audience. I would say that this is the existential problem she faces — writing a book to convince the unconvinced means addressing a room full of morons. She has been writing from overseas for many years, and alienation is probably as good a way as any to describe the complaint that many ‘Muricans have about her detached grad student assistant lecturer’s tone.
Another complaint that people have in the comments over there is that their real argument would be shut down by the powers that be, with a wonderful allusion to Snowball and Napoleon, and another to Radio Free Europe. I opened my site up to Ricochet folks of a particular bent — the sort of folks who would probably get suspended or banned if they made the argument they wished.
Here at BDB, we do not assume that all comers operate in good faith. Not all questions or argument need be treated seriously, or even with respect. Sometimes, people are just trolling and driving opposition points of view from the public stage. Here at BDB, I know that some people go online with a purpose and that this includes taking over various fora, infiltrating organizations, swiping key leadership posts and driving the wedge in further. It might sound like kookerism, but it is such an obviously good idea for a committed faction to implement, that the kooker position must be that this sort of thing never happens. If it happens anywhere, it happens at Ricochet.
And so I offer this space to continue the debate truncated at Ricochet.com. Don’t get me wrong — this is not fair or open to everybody. Those who agree with Claire will always be welcome at Ricochet — the rest are welcome here. And a caveat — you don’t have to like or support Trump to post here. There are some folks here who cannot support him due to serious apparently insurmountable differences, deeply held beliefs incompatible with Trumps platform, positions, or actions. Fair enough. But this will not be a Trump-bashing zone, and I will not welcome those whom I know, in my educated opinion, to be trolling for effect. There are folks here of more or less libertarian stripe as well, but that label is used to cover a great deal of nonsense along with the commonsense libertarian conservatism espoused by the Founding Fathers. It’s not about definitions — it’s about people, and some people are just no damned good.
So say here what you cannot say there, as you make your reasonable point / blow off some steam.
Don’t want to hear about your Mister Right
Cause he’s out of town tonightBaby come and spend some time with Mister Wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OVk3dIQs-U
You may start seeing some folks from your old group over there. I try to ignore Claire. I actually feel sorry for her.
Claire Berlinski is not the main reason I left the site, but she was a contributing factor. I simply could not stand some of the people running the place… Fred especially… and the management tone of the site was becoming decidedly anti-Trump, along with this sense of “what the hell is WRONG with you people that voted for him?”. The podcasts used to be my favorite part of membership, but after Trump won the nomination, nothing with Long, Lileks, or Goldberg was worth listening to. I stopped reading Jonah’s columns and books too. All of the big contributors save Peter had that attitude towards us. I just didn’t feel like paying for that kind of condescension.
*
* too
*
However, note that the tide has been turning on Ricochet. It’s getting to the point that the rabid Nevers are outliers, albeit noisy ones. Word ’round the campfire is that management is getting tired of some of the more vocal ones.
It’s been a slow process and I certainly understand not having the patience to wait it out.
I think it can be a bit problematic when people gather together because of something they are opposed to. Ultimately, that is not how I see BDB although there are strains of it.
JJ, you have misunderstood our purpose and intent here, at least as I understand it. I am here because I miss some good and interesting people who are no longer at Ricochet, either voluntarily or otherwise. I also prefer the different approach to discussion, as explained in the OP, including handling trolls and other annoying (to me) behavior such as sealioning.
I remain active and in good standing at Ricochet. I’ve never been suspended nor do I expect to be. [amateur] However, some of the policies in force there have led to unfortunate consequences including the recent purging or disciplining of some individuals, the stifling of dissent, and the inhibition of frank discussion of certain topics. It is telling that last of these has been decried by members on both sides of the argument.
Without going into detail, let’s just say Ricochet is poorer for it. Nevertheless, I value it and will continue to participate in both forums, as others here also do.
Regarding Ms. Berlinski, I made but one comment on her thread that I will repost here because it gets to the heart of the issue and because it’s so clever, insightful, and pithy that everyone here needs to see it:
Perhaps the bitterness, if bitterness there be in this case, is not caused by criticism of Trump in the OP but rather the steadfast clinging to a conspiracy theory with no supporting data or arguments. Surely, in 1500 or 2000 words some space could have been found to summarize the case. Instead, we are patronized with, “But my arguments aren’t suitable for a post on Ricochet.”
As it is, the words could have been condensed to “I hate Trump and I’m writing a book about it. Just you wait!” In future, I advise following Strunk & White’s Rule 17: Omit needless words.
Telling Berlinski to “omit needless words” is like telling Dime to not make puns.
IMHO, she is a terrible writer for violating that rule (although in her case it could be “omit needless paragraphs”) and violating “know your audience”. Often her pieces reflect the assumption that the reader knows some very specific information that most readers would not know.
I do realize that we are all current or ex R members. So I am not sure that I misunderstand. Let me see if I can explain better, to make proper distinctions.
As the OP states, “I offer this space to continue the debate truncated at Ricochet.com.” That would be something positive that we are all for–open and honest debate. Contrast this with something negative that comes up here from time to time, for example, how R is managed. So, for example, if we are gathering here because we are against how R is managed, that, to me, is problematic. For the record, that is not why I am here. I don’t care too much how R is managed. I used to care more, when I was a member. But I am no longer a member, and I don’t foresee myself rejoining. So how it is managed just doesn’t land on my radar any longer.
I am here to hang out with some like minded people that I recognize from R. I enjoy the posts and the commentary about current events. Not so much interested in the criticisms of R.
Yep. **
***
Agreed.
***
***
Well said, and reflective of my own opinion. I left R>. Don’t much care what all happens there, one way or another. Many of the people I liked there have shown up here, making this a proper replacement place to talk.
DrLorenz, I appreciate your clever, insightful and pithy comments wherever I find them. :-)
As do I, referencing both of you.
This is a bad week for me at ricochet. Things just seem to be spiraling out of control over there. I think they need to revamp the moderator pool.
But, according to your ‘wall,’ you haven’t commented in 5 days.
And they did just revamp the moderator pool. They added Julie Snapp and and and (is it Vicryl contessa? I recall that is is another female).
Ha! I’d love to see VC as a mod. It was Amy. I think Julie will be ok. Maybe having the moderators wasn’t as great an idea as they thought. You know the whole thing about having power…….
Not everybody can be “in charge”.
I have power . . .
And you use it sparingly. ;)
*
I was just suspended at Ricochet for three days.
That is, I was suspended back on Friday. My suspension ended last night.
Proud of you, Mike. Next time go for a week. ;-))
Well, they gave me a final warning, so the next one might be for good!
Weren’t you a moderator? Or am I thinking of somebody else?
You’re thinking of Mike Rapkoch.
Three days without pictures of cheerleaders. Sad really.
Please do not encourage him. I will use my powers. . .
If only I could post cheerleader pics in comments…
-* [JK ;-)]
:)