I write online. I'm pretty much on the right, though I've been known to lean out into libertarianism and even more often, conclude that pretty much everyone is nuts. So when Kat Rosenfeld over at the Free Press claims that the Online Right has taken up the cause of Harvey Weinstein's retrial I clicked through, surprised. Have I missed something?
I like the Free Press. Even the people I disagree with put things well and keep it calm. Kat's whole article was actually pretty good, pointing out that excesses in a somewhat reasonable #MeToo cause have fairly begged for backlash by getting way out of control. Plus, I know that the Online Anything can become intolerable pretty quickly, and have been increasingly queasy about the prominence of some outhouse-rat-crazy conservatives lately myself.
But the only example she gives of someone supporting Weinstein is Candace Owens saying there was scalp-chasing in his sloppy original investigation and Joe Rogan saying her argument was persuasive. Candace Owens was on the right until she became a paranoid antisemite, which is now her dominant interpretation of events, and Joe Rogan was a sort of liberal until about last Tuesday. So that's it? That's the Online Right? I think I'm offended by that one. That's the sort of rumor that is going to be taken up by "Occupy Democrats" and "The Other 98%" and believed by far too many people overnight.
Maybe Kat is correct and has other examples in. her back pocket. What have people been seeing?
7 comments:
Nothing remotely like that. I recall Lewis' Pilgrim's Regress:
[Reason]: '... In Eschropolis, indeed, it is impossible, for the people who live there have to give an opinion once a week or once a day, or else Mr. Mammon would soon cut off their food. But out here in the country you can walk all day and all the next day with an unanswered question in your head: you need never speak until you have made up your mind.
And here is The Federalist's John Daniel Davidson going against Bari Weiss-ism.
https://thefederalist.com/2025/05/06/against-bari-weiss-ism/
I feel like somewhere in the background of all this is Tucker Carlson. Maybe that name is too polarizing and people are going at it sideways instead of head on. I dunno.
Good article, TD. It reminds me of Dominic Cummings argument that the arguing among our elected representatives is not against the other party, really. It is an effort to position themselves within their own party as one who can appeal to the middle or one who is reliable on all major issues or one is an "independent thinker" who has some ideas of his own. Each is seeking a niche. Writers/podcasters do the same thing.
I keep forgetting this.
Yes, indeed. I like Bari Weiss and The Free Press. I don't know what to think about it all, whether Davidson has a good point or not, but it does have the feel as you say of working for position.
I had hopes for The Free Press at the start but it is basically the New York Times with Weiss's editorial choices.
You think so? I typically read FP articles that have been linked by someone, so I don't have a sense of the whole. However, the articles I've read have been interesting.
I also think it's interesting to see some splitting in the Democrats. Weiss, Maher, and Fetterman as well I think, have opened up some space on that side to have real conversations instead of a tribalist approach.
That opinion piece could have used an editor to cut it down by 2/3rds, and keep it on topic. "Online right" is a strange description for Candace Owens and Joe Rogan.
Just because there is a Left--and you'll hear people declare themselves to be "of the Left," doesn't mean that those who are not "of the Left" are automatically "of the Right."
The Left is the Cathedral. Those who are not of the Left are a bunch of schizmatics.
Post a Comment