Incredible ability to ship!

At least not in the way that would transfer to having nothing to contribute to political discourse

Not to be tongue-in-cheek, but I really don’t think having a well researched but fringe (even totally wrong) outlook on the identity of Shakespeare is intellectually damning

Couldn’t this just be a left critique of anything that’s not on the left

You also hear this about neoliberalism, or fusionism, or libertarianism, or

You’re well read and enjoy a back-and-forth

Why not email him challenging questions and post the results?

I keep asking this and not getting a good answer

If he’s a pseudointellectual, why do his critics and interviewers fail? Lack of resources?

For a critique to be cocky it really has to do what it says it does first

If he’s so simple why does the interviewer fumble

I keep seeing this claim, but the more coverage we see that falls short, the more it just looks like laziness

It would be great if someone with some background in history could actually do the interview

This interviewer said it literally “made his head hurt”

I literally said it right here

I just said I don’t like his writing and don’t agree with him

The coverage is still garbage

You’re a pretty in-depth researcher, grok the online world, and don’t mind taking swings

Maybe this is a Liz spiers piece

And it seems like everyone is saying the coverage is bad

Where do I endorse any of his ideas

I’m just saying the coverage is bad

lol I promise

I’m not really a fan, the tone is pompous and I disagree with the conclusions

It’s just grating to see piece after piece claim to take him to task and “shine a light” and skip the step of challenging anything

That would be great! I’m not surprised that editors were too skeptical to devote resources at first, but you’d think that by now someone with the demeanor you mention would take up the task

It’d be great to see a well researched challenging interview!

This seems like it’s dancing around a bit. If he’s gormless then why does the interviewer struggle? If he’s ineffectual why are there a dozen glossy exposés about him “giving Vance his ideas” as Americas “most controversial political theorist?”

I’m willing to accept its sensationalism

That’s fair! But it seems like a different argument than him being a waste of time, and might rely on a lack of confidence in readers

So he’s not a shadowy figure influencing elected officials and the donor class?

You’d think with all of these accusations of being a shallow thinker, someone would be able to demonstrate that in a challenging interview

Because the interviewer embarrassed himself or because nyt readers are incapable of evaluating what’s being said?

The interviewer totally lost his composure

To whatever extent Yarvin is a pseudointellectual, his interviewer fails at demonstrating that

He’s probably the most accessible billionaire

You can tweet at him and there’s a better chance he’ll reply than your odds with the average nyt journalist

Also it’s really funny to see dozens of “why aren’t we talking more about Yarvin???” takes citing dozens of pieces in major publications and still rarely actually delving into his writing firsthand, which is freely available online

It’s more that he writes a lot, his writing style is entertaining, he has novel presentation if not ideas, and he’s well-read and rarely sloppy. It’s not necessarily that every reader is endorsing his ideas

Video: Opinion | Attention Is Power The MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes on why attention is the most valuable resource.

Interesting relevant listen

www.nytimes.com/video/opinio...

I’d definitely pay for a week-end evening reader from a curator with good taste

Yeah

Another way to look at it is good writers/writing is solvably overlooked

writers being underrated also means that they have possible upside to look forward to

Many many 300 word news stories could be two to three sentences

Many podcasts could be shortened to highlights

Many commentators could be flagged as adding nothing