A lot going on in the world these day, as always. We had a good old-fashioned bank run a few weeks ago causing a bunch of chaos and market instability (hopefully the damage has been contained). It was a good opportunity for people to promulgate one of my "favorite" social media tropes: "The reason this bad thing occurred is because of the thing I hate." On the right, this meant, of course, that the problem was wokeness because, you know, nothing says DEI like overly investing in government bonds. Don't you just hate those annoying SJWs who never shut up about having to sell at a loss because of abnormally high interest rates?
This goes to show one of my truisms of our current political dynamic: Everything I hate about the left is actually worse on the right. To see what I mean, just look at Ron DeSantis. His whole deal -- his entire shtick -- is that he's anti-woke, and yet his manifestation of being anti-woke amounts to a recreation of all the bad parts of wokeness (e.g., the intolerance and censorship of dissent) but on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum. I would still take him in a heartbeat as the Republican presidential candidate in 2024 (anybody, and I mean this 100% literally, would be better than Trump), but it's worthwhile to recognize that he would be a truly terrible president. It would be every culture war, everywhere, all at once.
I hate the culture wars so much. It's not the issues themselves, which I often find important and interesting and think should be debated in good faith; it's that the people who actually want to debate this way get drowned out by the extremists on both sides. I'm tired of it. Not being on Twitter much does help, though. Every so often, I'll hop back on to see what's going on, and whenever I do, I'm immediately regretful.
A somewhat recent example of this is a letter to The New York Times signed by a bunch of contributors who have "serious concerns about editorial bias in the newspaper’s reporting on transgender, non-binary, and gender nonconforming people." I don't agree with the letter, and had I not gone on Twitter, I probably would not have noticed that a bunch of the signatories are crossword puzzle constructors whom I know and like and respect. I would have been blissfully unaware of this when I see them at the next puzzle tournament. Oh well, people should be able to knowingly have different views from others and still be able to enjoy their company. That's my whole thing, so I should practice what I preach.
As to why I don't agree with the letter, I think it misunderstands the role of journalism (it's not supposed to be activism), and I think one of its main premises -- that articles in The New York Times contribute to the spate of awful anti-trans legislation, pushed by far-right politicians -- is unfounded and unfair. A) No person or publication is responsible for others citing their work, and savvy politicians frequently use the "other side" to bolster their claims and stoke division. B) Just because somebody pushes for terrible, oppressive policies, it doesn't automatically make everything they say wrong and everybody they favorably reference invalid or problematic. I've heard Tucker Carlson use speeches of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to propagate his xenophobic brand of nationalism. Is that their fault? Should they be accountable for this? Would anybody take it seriously if a bunch of liberal billionaires signed a letter questioning the policies of Warren and Sanders because Carlson sometimes cites them positively?
Also, I've read some of the pieces cited in the letter, and I don't think they are anti-trans. I mentioned the Emily Bazelon article before (I like her work in general), and this is what I said about it:
It's just such an unhealthy discourse when somebody as diligent and sensitive as Emily Bazelon gets called out as anti-trans by somewhat prominent social commenters for writing a very good piece for NYT magazine on gender therapy. I really think this works against the cause of trans rights because it demonizes reasonable, well-intentioned could-be allies. If you define as an enemy everybody who is not 100% in lockstep with you, you will inevitably have a lot of enemies.
I stand by this.
That last thing I'll say about this is that it's important to note that not all trans and nonbinary people see things the same way as the signatories of the letter. Although activists on the left often give the impression that they are the voice of a marginalized group, they aren't. Nobody is, because any group of more than, like, three people will have a wide array of opinions and view points. For a different (and in my opinion more convincing) take on "the battle over trans rights," I suggest this The New Yorker Radio Hour interview with Masha Gessen. I don't agree with everything they say (of course), but I found myself nodding along with a lot of it (they praise Bazelon's piece), and I found it a very interesting interview besides.
Alright, enough about that. Enough about everything. It's late and time to sign off. I didn't intend to write an entire post on politics and culture, but I guess I did. Don't worry, I'll be back again soon with personal bullshit and everyday tedium. I've been getting ghosted by the commissioner of Lil' S2's soccer league, and it's really annoying me.
Until next time...
No comments:
Post a Comment