This has been one of the most thought provoking pieces for me that Hamilton has shared. I’ve been guilty of only expressing how I feel within friendly confines. And like he noted, these days those that speak their minds regarding the Palestinian dilemma get carted away. And yet, it is those persecuted for their beliefs that I most admire, those with the true courage of their convictions. I now feel compelled to at least aspire to that level.
In general in this country, there is far too much focus on freedom and not enough on the responsibilities inherent in living in a free society. The unvarnished goal of people like that is maintaining their state of privilege.
I might go more granular and call the hyperfocus on "taking liberties" rather than as chunky a philosophical topic as "freedom" (though of course it's the boiled-down rhetoric of choice for the worst actors). Full agreement on social responsibilities.
I read a lot of opinion pieces in the Atlantic, NYT and a handful of substacks. I count on these writers to state their thesis, support it with reporting and analysis that they believe to be true. All those writers claim to be in the group that are not advocating for a POV other than their own. So when I smell a duplicitous rat, I do move on.
Unfortunately, my sense of smell is not always that good. I generally don't have access to (or don't know where to look to get the access to) the information that would help me see through to the fakes (I am not talking about paid spokesman and 90% of the tv commentators. They are not reporters seeking truth.)
You wrote today's piece with some passion - name some names.
The discourse is an absolute nightmare. It’s almost impossible to avoid being excoriated in the discourse.
But it you’re going to get in there, don’t be a baby about it. You cannot be going around saying controversial (read: vile) shit and then get cheers. And basically, nobody gets cheers. This is how life is. If you take almost any viewpoint, you can get your head torn off by somebody. Waffles or pancakes. Serving chili to your neighbors.
Yeah, the problem is that they believe they are special and expect deference and they even believe they are especially persecuted. They are self-pitying and narcissistic and entitled—and then vindictive. They hold grudges, they want revenge (they almost never have a sense of humor about themselves or are able to accept honest criticism or change). That’s what makes the discourse super damaging to their psyche.
Most of us —if we get humiliated by a gang of critics on social media—we just go off, lick our wounds and forget (eventually). Or laugh even at the time and forget. We know we aren’t special even if we may feel unfairly treated. We don’t spend our life fashioning a political weapon to bring people down or remain obsessed with whomever (Taylor Lorenz in Andreesens’s case).
Taylor Lorenz gets eviscerated constantly and she keeps going! She gets it from all sides. She has Andreesen hate her, most men hate her, tons of leftists hate her, and people on the right too. She lives in the battered crevice on the North Sea, social media wise.
How does she do it? I have wondered this. It’s a kind of skill.
I don’t think most people could handle it day in and day out. And some of these people LIVE to troll. They have turned it into an art form! Some of your haters —it will be their hobby. They can call you an absolutely worthless human being over and over and over for years. They will form a club about what garbage you are. I have seen this happen to people who are mostly just stubborn and tactless.
But it IS how you get smarter. So I don’t always run away! While I fear the mob (they’re generally pointless) I don’t mind one or two or a small gang giving me shit. And I have learned a shit ton!
(This doesn’t happen to me, really. I just find it fascinating. It’s made me more scared of humans to be honest!)
Oh wow thank you for these kind words! <3 Online hate doesn't bother me that much, I do a lot of volunteering and organizing stuff offline and I've found that no one ever treats me like that IRL. Overall, I feel like life is short so you might as well stand up for what you believe in. I do hate how these coordinated campaigns affect my ability to make money. But I'd rather stand up for what I care about and lose money than the alternative. Stay safe out there and sending solidarity! 🤝
Hah! I didn’t think you would see that comment…but as this post is about the very people who are obsessed with you, and how afraid they are to be criticized, it amused me to realize that if they had ever been in your shoes, they would likely DIE.
They simply are not very brave are they? As Hamilton points out.
I’m very glad to know you can manage the onslaught, and that people don’t treat you badly IRL.
I agree with this post that swimming in the open waters *can* improve one’s thinking, and teach a person about themselves —even indirectly, and about the feelings, ideas, and struggles of others, even when ugly.
But there’s a point where it becomes an irrational ferment—as more of a shrinking violet, I keep running across your name thinking ‘What the hell did she DO? Drop chlorine gas upon a preschool?’ I’m not sure I could relish such a mob going after the most harmful people on the planet.
I also don’t get too upset when criticized online—but when I think of people mentioning me in their vindictive oligarch chats, I feel great joy and relief that I am obscure and shall be so forever.
My memory of some of these spats is hazy so when I wrote this, I wasn’t sure if you were such a good example but—now I am googling you and —oh, yes. You are!
This is insightful but I suppose it really only applies to the public intellectuals in those chats. Perhaps they seem like traitors to your faith. Your model of discourse is inherently democratic; ideas must survive contact with the public to be valuable.
The tech right guys in those chats do not share that ideology. They are habituated to concealing their best insights, the better to profit from them. For this, they have been richly rewarded. Figures like Paul Graham and Peter Thiel have written well-regarded collections of essays, but their popularity is not due to what they reveal (generalities about people, culture, and frameworks for thought) but what they obscure (their actual paths to wealth).
The tech right flat out does not believe in democracy. According to them, they tried to use their considerable powers to improve the world, and were thwarted by lesser people who have undeserved authority. Like the people in the Ideas racket.
If your fellows are guilty of something, it’s that they too gave into that worldview.
I’m with Socrates; “the unexamined life is not worth living”.
There are only questions - much of the rest of human “discourse” is the social grooming equivalent of Chimps picking nits off their neighbours - fun maybe, but vacuous and unimportant.
Hiding in group chats merely demonstrates a person's insecurity. If you wouldn’t dare to say it out loud in public and be able to hear a contradictory response - it’s not worth saying.
Social media are the modern-day equivalent of Pandora’s Box. By enabling anyone to post anonymously (no matter how stupid or hateful) they can always find a “like, friend, or follow”.
At a time in our history, when we need more cooperation rather than conflict, social media has (metaphorically) enabled parts of our society to tap resentfully on the world’s baseboards - and we have watched nasty things crawl out. For the profit of a few and general society's loss.
The flip side of this requirement for writers in the 'Ideas industry' is the responsibility of readers (and voters) to know when they are either being lied to or propagandized. Find writers you can trust and then stick with them; follow them for years. I trust both Nolan Hamilton and Paul Krugman, but I've read Krugman for over 20 years and Hamilton less than a year. Guess who I trust more?
“Nick Denton often told the legend of Gawker by saying that when he was a reporter, all the reporters would go to the bar after work and talk about the real stories, the ones that had not made it into the official stories that went in the paper.”
That has absolutely been my experience (though not all the reporters).
Ah the idea of truth, the bare truth! Many years ago, I was determined to shed deception, lies and dishonesty after witnessing the lives of my parents who had embodied those traits and enraged my idealistic outlook. My parents had lived through WWll and the preamble which I believe cultivated this ethic for survival purposes. I liked to call them the Hitler/Stalin generation where one was doomed if one was honest. So growing up in Canada, I could not accept the acceptance of lies as a way of life, while understanding why my parents adopted such a disposition. It has not been easy. I am not a writer but the search for truth and it's insistence is very close to my heart and I appreciate the way you have set bar for yourself and others. We do not have to live with Stalin or Hitler so we should thrive and pursue truth.
"The founding premise of Gawker can be described as, “All the stuff these group chat people said is fucking poisonous.”
No Hamilton, the founding premise of Gawker was "It's fun to do cocaine and make fun of other people." The idea that the people getting made fun of were solely or even primarily conservative is an absurd bit of retconning that you all have applied after the fact for self aggrandizement purposes. Go back and read the early archives. There's no sense that it's coming from a left wing perspective at all. Go look. What would possibly be progressive about, say, endlessly mocking Natasha Leone for her drug problem? There isn't anything. Because Gawker has nothing to do with liberal politics. It was about making fun of the media overclass until it became about whatever Neetzan Zimmerman wanted it to be about.
Hamilton, YOU YOURSELF wrote a piece where you ranked Black, trans, gay people etc on a literal hierarchy of oppression. Do you want me to dig out all the homophobic shit Drew Magary said? Deadspin's relentless misogyny? Come on man.
Gawker did some good stuff and some bad stuff. The way it died was scandalous and a warning to us all. But the self mythologizing has got to go. It was a site for bitchy gossip, nothing else.
Jack Mirkinson had a great piece about this at Discourse Blog, with a couple quotes highlighted:
"In February, he described the group chats to the podcaster Lex Fridman as “the equivalent of samizdat” — the self-published Soviet underground press"
"One participant in the groups described them as a “Republic of Letters,” a reference to the long-distance intellectual correspondence of the 17th century. Others often invoked European salon culture."
With apologies for the blue language, I've never before seen a group of people this thirsty to give themselves blowjobs.
A perfect articulation…I have no clue why so many people have been allowed to claim victimhood simply for having ice cold takes. I’m so glad you’ve taken them down.
Well I was a child and detested unfairness and to be honest, could not help speaking out.
I am 76yrs old soon and very rarely back off. I don't have many friends!
Every person should read this. Thank you.
This has been one of the most thought provoking pieces for me that Hamilton has shared. I’ve been guilty of only expressing how I feel within friendly confines. And like he noted, these days those that speak their minds regarding the Palestinian dilemma get carted away. And yet, it is those persecuted for their beliefs that I most admire, those with the true courage of their convictions. I now feel compelled to at least aspire to that level.
In general in this country, there is far too much focus on freedom and not enough on the responsibilities inherent in living in a free society. The unvarnished goal of people like that is maintaining their state of privilege.
I might go more granular and call the hyperfocus on "taking liberties" rather than as chunky a philosophical topic as "freedom" (though of course it's the boiled-down rhetoric of choice for the worst actors). Full agreement on social responsibilities.
Crushing it, as you do Hamilton! 🤘
I read a lot of opinion pieces in the Atlantic, NYT and a handful of substacks. I count on these writers to state their thesis, support it with reporting and analysis that they believe to be true. All those writers claim to be in the group that are not advocating for a POV other than their own. So when I smell a duplicitous rat, I do move on.
Unfortunately, my sense of smell is not always that good. I generally don't have access to (or don't know where to look to get the access to) the information that would help me see through to the fakes (I am not talking about paid spokesman and 90% of the tv commentators. They are not reporters seeking truth.)
You wrote today's piece with some passion - name some names.
I assumed the Semafor link was where to start for name-naming.
The discourse is an absolute nightmare. It’s almost impossible to avoid being excoriated in the discourse.
But it you’re going to get in there, don’t be a baby about it. You cannot be going around saying controversial (read: vile) shit and then get cheers. And basically, nobody gets cheers. This is how life is. If you take almost any viewpoint, you can get your head torn off by somebody. Waffles or pancakes. Serving chili to your neighbors.
Yeah, the problem is that they believe they are special and expect deference and they even believe they are especially persecuted. They are self-pitying and narcissistic and entitled—and then vindictive. They hold grudges, they want revenge (they almost never have a sense of humor about themselves or are able to accept honest criticism or change). That’s what makes the discourse super damaging to their psyche.
Most of us —if we get humiliated by a gang of critics on social media—we just go off, lick our wounds and forget (eventually). Or laugh even at the time and forget. We know we aren’t special even if we may feel unfairly treated. We don’t spend our life fashioning a political weapon to bring people down or remain obsessed with whomever (Taylor Lorenz in Andreesens’s case).
Taylor Lorenz gets eviscerated constantly and she keeps going! She gets it from all sides. She has Andreesen hate her, most men hate her, tons of leftists hate her, and people on the right too. She lives in the battered crevice on the North Sea, social media wise.
How does she do it? I have wondered this. It’s a kind of skill.
I don’t think most people could handle it day in and day out. And some of these people LIVE to troll. They have turned it into an art form! Some of your haters —it will be their hobby. They can call you an absolutely worthless human being over and over and over for years. They will form a club about what garbage you are. I have seen this happen to people who are mostly just stubborn and tactless.
But it IS how you get smarter. So I don’t always run away! While I fear the mob (they’re generally pointless) I don’t mind one or two or a small gang giving me shit. And I have learned a shit ton!
(This doesn’t happen to me, really. I just find it fascinating. It’s made me more scared of humans to be honest!)
Oh wow thank you for these kind words! <3 Online hate doesn't bother me that much, I do a lot of volunteering and organizing stuff offline and I've found that no one ever treats me like that IRL. Overall, I feel like life is short so you might as well stand up for what you believe in. I do hate how these coordinated campaigns affect my ability to make money. But I'd rather stand up for what I care about and lose money than the alternative. Stay safe out there and sending solidarity! 🤝
Hah! I didn’t think you would see that comment…but as this post is about the very people who are obsessed with you, and how afraid they are to be criticized, it amused me to realize that if they had ever been in your shoes, they would likely DIE.
They simply are not very brave are they? As Hamilton points out.
I’m very glad to know you can manage the onslaught, and that people don’t treat you badly IRL.
I agree with this post that swimming in the open waters *can* improve one’s thinking, and teach a person about themselves —even indirectly, and about the feelings, ideas, and struggles of others, even when ugly.
But there’s a point where it becomes an irrational ferment—as more of a shrinking violet, I keep running across your name thinking ‘What the hell did she DO? Drop chlorine gas upon a preschool?’ I’m not sure I could relish such a mob going after the most harmful people on the planet.
I also don’t get too upset when criticized online—but when I think of people mentioning me in their vindictive oligarch chats, I feel great joy and relief that I am obscure and shall be so forever.
My memory of some of these spats is hazy so when I wrote this, I wasn’t sure if you were such a good example but—now I am googling you and —oh, yes. You are!
This is insightful but I suppose it really only applies to the public intellectuals in those chats. Perhaps they seem like traitors to your faith. Your model of discourse is inherently democratic; ideas must survive contact with the public to be valuable.
The tech right guys in those chats do not share that ideology. They are habituated to concealing their best insights, the better to profit from them. For this, they have been richly rewarded. Figures like Paul Graham and Peter Thiel have written well-regarded collections of essays, but their popularity is not due to what they reveal (generalities about people, culture, and frameworks for thought) but what they obscure (their actual paths to wealth).
The tech right flat out does not believe in democracy. According to them, they tried to use their considerable powers to improve the world, and were thwarted by lesser people who have undeserved authority. Like the people in the Ideas racket.
If your fellows are guilty of something, it’s that they too gave into that worldview.
Great thoughts Hamilton, a few of my own:
I’m with Socrates; “the unexamined life is not worth living”.
There are only questions - much of the rest of human “discourse” is the social grooming equivalent of Chimps picking nits off their neighbours - fun maybe, but vacuous and unimportant.
Hiding in group chats merely demonstrates a person's insecurity. If you wouldn’t dare to say it out loud in public and be able to hear a contradictory response - it’s not worth saying.
Social media are the modern-day equivalent of Pandora’s Box. By enabling anyone to post anonymously (no matter how stupid or hateful) they can always find a “like, friend, or follow”.
At a time in our history, when we need more cooperation rather than conflict, social media has (metaphorically) enabled parts of our society to tap resentfully on the world’s baseboards - and we have watched nasty things crawl out. For the profit of a few and general society's loss.
Oh, yeah Socrates was a master of the takedown. The reactions of his interlocutors is extremely reminiscent of twitter.
“Here is my best argument for something true.”
The flip side of this requirement for writers in the 'Ideas industry' is the responsibility of readers (and voters) to know when they are either being lied to or propagandized. Find writers you can trust and then stick with them; follow them for years. I trust both Nolan Hamilton and Paul Krugman, but I've read Krugman for over 20 years and Hamilton less than a year. Guess who I trust more?
“Nick Denton often told the legend of Gawker by saying that when he was a reporter, all the reporters would go to the bar after work and talk about the real stories, the ones that had not made it into the official stories that went in the paper.”
That has absolutely been my experience (though not all the reporters).
That’s one of the things I mentioned here (self-promotion alert): https://open.substack.com/pub/forgetisaidanything/p/what-our-media-need-to-do-and-stop
Ah the idea of truth, the bare truth! Many years ago, I was determined to shed deception, lies and dishonesty after witnessing the lives of my parents who had embodied those traits and enraged my idealistic outlook. My parents had lived through WWll and the preamble which I believe cultivated this ethic for survival purposes. I liked to call them the Hitler/Stalin generation where one was doomed if one was honest. So growing up in Canada, I could not accept the acceptance of lies as a way of life, while understanding why my parents adopted such a disposition. It has not been easy. I am not a writer but the search for truth and it's insistence is very close to my heart and I appreciate the way you have set bar for yourself and others. We do not have to live with Stalin or Hitler so we should thrive and pursue truth.
"The founding premise of Gawker can be described as, “All the stuff these group chat people said is fucking poisonous.”
No Hamilton, the founding premise of Gawker was "It's fun to do cocaine and make fun of other people." The idea that the people getting made fun of were solely or even primarily conservative is an absurd bit of retconning that you all have applied after the fact for self aggrandizement purposes. Go back and read the early archives. There's no sense that it's coming from a left wing perspective at all. Go look. What would possibly be progressive about, say, endlessly mocking Natasha Leone for her drug problem? There isn't anything. Because Gawker has nothing to do with liberal politics. It was about making fun of the media overclass until it became about whatever Neetzan Zimmerman wanted it to be about.
Hamilton, YOU YOURSELF wrote a piece where you ranked Black, trans, gay people etc on a literal hierarchy of oppression. Do you want me to dig out all the homophobic shit Drew Magary said? Deadspin's relentless misogyny? Come on man.
Gawker did some good stuff and some bad stuff. The way it died was scandalous and a warning to us all. But the self mythologizing has got to go. It was a site for bitchy gossip, nothing else.
I actually did not do cocaine.
https://www.gawkerarchives.com/what-was-gawker-1785565897
Well the POINT is that they said what they meant and believed...
I was surprised about the watches til I read it…Who doesn’t like watches?…But I was thinking more $5 watches.
Thoughtful piece. And I enjoyed reading your past article, “Why Do Assholes Wear Watches”. Brilliant. Thanks for providing the link.
Jack Mirkinson had a great piece about this at Discourse Blog, with a couple quotes highlighted:
"In February, he described the group chats to the podcaster Lex Fridman as “the equivalent of samizdat” — the self-published Soviet underground press"
"One participant in the groups described them as a “Republic of Letters,” a reference to the long-distance intellectual correspondence of the 17th century. Others often invoked European salon culture."
With apologies for the blue language, I've never before seen a group of people this thirsty to give themselves blowjobs.
A perfect articulation…I have no clue why so many people have been allowed to claim victimhood simply for having ice cold takes. I’m so glad you’ve taken them down.