***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[osh kosh bosh]

-Yeah, but they didn't do that in this instance, did they?

Again, you kinda make people avatars for all the people that piss you off.

-I think you take a small subgroup of people, and act like their views are representative of everyone that identifies as a progressive. Ignoring that different progressive groups and individuals have disagreements. Like there are millions of progressives, thousands of activists, and I feel you and many others make really sloppy arguments at times to describe the degree to which different things are manifesting themselves in the progressive left.

It is weird to me. Like people will be made about a progressive on Twitter, criticize them for being out of touch with the real world, then use mainly Twitter to make judgments about a massive group of people.

imo They did.

Learning and growth guy,
the obvious implication is learning and growth inevitably leads you to embrace cultural progressivism.
so therefore people who don't are by definition morally stunted.

to me that's just another version of this person is bad and therefore must be wrong.

Mehdi insistence that the only people that complain about woke ect are white centrists and right wingers.
normal people don't care.

again, the bad people have this complaint so therefore it's wrong
and also it's made up and imaginary because normal people don't has these complaints.

-I think you take a small subgroup of people, and act like their views are representative of everyone that identifies as a progressive. Ignoring that different progressive groups and individuals have disagreements. Like there are millions of progressives, thousands of activists, and I feel you and many others make really sloppy arguments at times to describe the degree to which different things are manifesting themselves in the progressive left.

It is weird to me. Like people will be made about a progressive on Twitter, criticize them for being out of touch with the real world, then use mainly Twitter to make judgments about a massive group of people.

it's actually the opposite; imo this stuff for the most part isn't that popular even with people who describe themselves as progressives.
but a smaller, louder group of cultural elites, can enforce adherence to unpopular, contradictory ideas or flat out bad ideas

through shunning tactics, peer influence and self censorship.

totally disproportionate to their actual size and popularity.

I don't think most democrats want defund the police or ban dave chappelle from netflix ect,
or any other of the various lighting rod issues that bubble up.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I legit don't know how someone on the left can follow politics for decades and proudly say he hasn't changed.

Like in the 1990s, mainstream ideas in liberal circles were...

-Black people and Latinos youth were superpredators prone to violence and we must use the carceral state to lock up as many of the offenders as possible
-Illegal immigration posed a unique danger to the country so we need to fear monger and make it harder to people to legally move across the border
-Undermining unions will be a net positive
-Cutting the welfare state for poor people is good for them. We have to get people dependent on such programs off them
-Poor people are mainly responsible for their material conditions being bad, so let us make the administrative state as complex as possible, so only the deserving that is willing to jump through complex needless hoops can get it
-All the stuff surrounding gay marriage

 

[dacomeup]

this could be a description of osh kosh bosh low key

Literally thought the same thing when I read Rusty’s post

 

[RustyShackleford]

imo They did.

Learning and growth guy,
the obvious implication is learning and growth inevitably leads you to embrace cultural progressivism.
so therefore people who don't are by definition morally stunted.

to me that's just another version of this person is bad and therefore must be wrong.

Nah, I honestly don't

I think you are just reading that way and being uncharitable because helps your argument

It is one sentence, I don't think it gave away that much info to jump to that conclusion

Mehdi insistence that the only people that complain about woke ect are white centrists and right wingers.
normal people don't care.

again, the bad people have this complaint so therefore it's wrong
and also it's made up and imaginary because normal people don't has these complaints.

This is what he actually said....

Btw, isn’t it funny how almost the only people who use the word ‘woke’ these days are white centrists & rightwingers who are busy slamming its use (mainly by them)? Just like ‘defund the police’ is mainly used by prominent people attacking it, & very few normal folks saying it.

He said most people that use the word "woke" are white centrist and rightwingers. And I don't think he is off base on that. Most people I hear using "woke" often are those groups. Even wavycrocket months ago made the same observation. Many people agreed with him. I did too. It seems like a reasonable observation

Then he gave the example of "defund the police". Besides the few on the left actually supporting it, most mentions of it were from the right's propaganda machine and centrists that want to place blame on someone for their losses. Most regular people don't use that specific language. Most police reform advocates don't demand "defund the police". So I don't see what the issue is with Hasan's comment.

I can't respect or agree with this because you are taking issue with something I can clearly see he didn't really say.

As I said, you seem to just be using these two dudes' tweets as stand-ins for other people that piss you off.

So in total, you have presented one uncharitable reading of a sentence one dude wrote, and then kinda misrepresented what another said.

Or I'm I missing something?

it's actually the opposite; imo this stuff for the most part isn't that popular even with people who describe themselves as progressives.
but a smaller, louder group of cultural elites, can enforce adherence to unpopular, contradictory ideas or flat out bad ideas

through shunning tactics, peer influence and self censorship.

totally disproportionate to their actual size and popularity.

I don't think most democrats want defund the police or ban dave chappelle from netflix ect,
or any other of the various lighting rod issues that bubble up.

That is my point

You take issue with a small group of people (I have issues with those arguments too, especially with the clumsy cultural elite framework you use, but that is beside the point right now).

But the way critics and you talk, someone would think most of the progressive left was unified or popular opinion.

It all just seems part of this weird angle y'all take that most problems traces back to someone's progressivism.

 

[IATT]

I legit don't know how someone on the left can follow politics for decades and proudly say he hasn't changed.

Like in the 1990s, mainstream ideas in liberal circles were...

-Black people and Latinos youth were superpredators prone to violence and we must use the carceral state to lock up as many of the offenders as possible
-Illegal immigration posed a unique danger to the country so we need to fear monger and make it harder to people to legally move across the border
-Undermining unions will be a net positive
-Cutting the welfare state for poor people is good for them. We have to get people dependent on such programs off them
-Poor people are mainly responsible for their material conditions harder, so let us make the administration as complex as possible to only the deserving get it
-All the stuff surrounding gay marriage

i mean all one has to do is look at the words/slurs that were openly allowed on regular ole tv or the clearly offensive jokes that were just allowed to slide not to long ago

gay people being a good example.. we all knew damn well when certain words were being used it was fully intended as an insult.. but they were a marginalized group and sh was just allowed to slide.. the sexuality of another human being was viewed as an insult or an outright joke, think of how f’d that is

as I said above, I’m glad they got some power now given how recently openly cruel the world was to them

it’s the same thing with Asians and the disrespectful shh that was just openly allowed

one would think those from marginalized groups would emphasize with other groups, but as we’re still seeing today that ain’t the case

 

[RustyShackleford]

this could be a description of osh kosh bosh low key

Literally thought the same thing when I read Rusty’s post

I wasn't thinking about dude when I wrote that, wasn't meant for him. But is the hockey skate fits, I can't help it...

 

[p0tat0 5alad]

Ive said this countless time, but the short-ish version;

An initially positive push for greater sensitivity around speech, identity and harm
has mutated into an absurd self reinforcing panopticon of self censorship, elite status signaling,
and disingenuous pile ons.

This regime has been weaponized by the worst people in our socitey,

as a way to signal a class status, and avoid the responsibility of making material changes.
it makes it really difficult to create good art, to think critically or make rational political calculations

I feel like I'll regret asking but beyond comedy, what other fields are affected and struggled to make good art due to a more aware society? Cause we've had bangers in music, tv, film, and art spaces highlighting previously overlooked and/or created by underrepresented groups. I must be missing something

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Nah, I honestly don't

I think you are just reading that way and being uncharitable because helps your argument

It is one sentence, I don't think it gave away that much info to jump to that conclusion

yah i disagree, he's obviously using that to take a dig at maher. if maher said he has learned and grown and
now thinks progressives are evil and he's becoming a republican I don't think the respond with "ah great to see you learn and grow."

learning and growth lead to progressives, being on the right side of history means being progressive.

He said most people that use the word "woke" are white centrist and right wingers. And I don't think he is off base on that. Most people I hear using "woke" often are those groups. Even wavycrocket months ago made the same observation. Many people agreed with him. I did too. It seems like a reasonable observation

Then he gave the example of "defund the police". Besides the few on the left actually supporting it, most mentions of it were from the right's propaganda machine and centrists that want to place blame on someone for their losses. Most regular people don't use that specific language. Most police reform advocates don't demand "defund the police". So I don't see what the issue is with Hasan's comment.

I can't respect or agree with this because you are taking issue with something I can clearly see he didn't really say.

As I said, you seem to just be using these two dudes' tweets as stand-ins for other people that piss you off.

So in total, you have presented one uncharitable reading of a sentence one dude wrote, and then kinda misrepresented what another said.

Or I'm I missing something?

is he's making this non sequitur criticism of language or responding to Maher?
bringing this up in the context of the maher,
imo the purpose is to delegitimizing dissent.

people who use this language are the bad people (centrists, right wingers)
normal people don't use this language, and these right wingers are just in a circular argument with themselves.
aka the arguments surrounding this language and conflict isn't real.

That is my point

You through take issue with a small group of people (I have issues with those arguments too but that is beside the point right now).

But the way critics and you talk, someone would think most of the progressive left was unified on some opinion.

but that's the point, progressives aren't unified
but relatively small groups of people can enforce ideas or chill dissent on ideas that even progressives are split on imo is a pernicious dynamic.

it's not that, "all progressives believe this or that"

 

[RustyShackleford]

yah i disagree, he's obviously using that to take a dig at maher. if maher said he has learned and grown and
now thinks progressives are evil and he's becoming a republican I don't think the respond with "ah great to see you learn and grow."

learning and growth lead to progressives, being on the right side of history means being progressive.

Of course, you disagree

I think you are just reading so much into it because you think it lines up with a grievance you already have.

Like I already spelled out why I think what Maher said was BS. Including the "I haven't changed".

The dude could know as much about Maher as me, know about mainstream liberal positions being really bad and Maher doing the same schtick as before.

Or he could not.

All he said was one sentence. I don't think it is reasonable to make the same judgments you have

is he's making this non sequitur criticism of language or responding to Maher?
bringing this up in the context of the maher,
imo the purpose is to delegitimizing dissent.

people who use this language are the bad people (centrists, right wingers)
normal people don't use this language, and these right wingers are just in a circular argument with themselves.
aka the arguments surrounding this language and conflict isn't real.

Dude, like WTF

He made two tweets. One directed right at Maher (he is responding to the video), and one more general take. That is how I read it.

Sorry, but again, I think you just jumping to unreasonable conclusions here. You will disagree, go ahead, but I just don't it is reasonable.

You have no evidence of what you are arguing except assuming the worse of Hasan.

Basically, doing kinda the same thing you are taking issue with.

He said what he said, you see something. I simply don't

but that's the point, progressives aren't unified
but relatively small groups of people can enforce ideas or chill dissent on ideas that even progressives are split on imo is a pernicious dynamic.

it's not that, "all progressives believe this or that"

You, Maher, and other critics don't focus your criticism very well though. I have been saying this from the jump

Maher sure doesn't. He is very clumsy and very reactionary. I think you are reactionary but much less so.

You want to complain about how people not acknowledging someone happening, you say you are only taking issue with a small group. (Maher doesn't though, he spread his criticism unreasonably wide)

But once another person even comes close to sympathizing with the group you don't like, instantly all the grievances you have with the group get transferred onto that person too.

Go back and read some of your posts on these topics. You have used "progressive" and "left"as a stand-in for the people you have issues with. That's why I said it.
You said in this conservation that you disagree with "cultural left" the more you learn....

Like I said you are more aware of Maher than I am.
I admit im inclined to be empathetic to maher because im closer to his position on some of this stuff.

maybe Maher is a bad actor,
I guess the larger point im making is that it feels to me when this subject comes up,

it seems to me there is a tendency for some like Mehdi and the "learn and grow" guyto dismiss it as not real or totally imagined.
or to delegitimize disagreement by implying ther person saying it is bad, and therefore the argument must wrong.

ive learned more about the cultural left in the last few years,
and my disagreement has only grown. and I don't think it's because im and old rich white guy jerk comedian.

People that have left-wing cultural views are far greater than the elite you swear are the ones you have the real issue with.

So my issue with that you will make an argument and say "progressive" and "left" and when someone points out the issue with that you ran back to the "I'm talking about a small group of cultural elites". And when someone shows sympathy for a certain position, they instantly become a member of subgroup of cultural elite bad actors

Something is this, then it is that. Then it is this again. And all the shifts change the dynamics of the discussion

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I feel like I'll regret asking but beyond comedy, what other fields are affected and struggled to make good art due to a more aware society? Cause we've had bangers in music, tv, film, and art spaces highlighting previously overlooked and/or created by underrepresented groups. I must be missing something

I don't have a problem with a more "aware socitey"
I have a problem with people using the appearance of awareness as an end in itself.

i work in media, i've seen the development process warp and shrink ideas
to basically adhere to the most disingenuous persons possible interpretation of any story, character or line of dialogue.

donald glover made this point basically people only experiment with aesthetic, because of fear of taking creative risks.

you can read authors accounts of the use of sensitivity readers in book publishing,
and how difficult it is to produce complicated characters that aren't a recitation of a certain set of politics


This story is probably the example of how this culture infects creative spaces.
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/22543858/isabel-fall-attack-helicopter

tldr

Isabel Fall (a transwoman) wrote a short story called "I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter"
the title is a transphobic meme but the story, as described by trans film tv critic,

"“Attack Helicopter” was a slippery, knotty piece of fiction that captured a particular trans feminine uncertainty better than almost anything I have ever read. "

So a trans author takes a transphobic joke and subverts into an interesting story
exploring trans feminine experience and a trenchant criticism of the military industrial complex.

it's critically adored, wins awards, but because she didn't disclose the fact that she was transgender.

a small vocal group of people, convinced the story was transphobic screed written by a right winger.
led a campaign of harassment in the name of social justice.,

"I believe the story’s detractors were hurt by the title or some of the content or the very idea of the story.
I believe they truly feel that trans stories should only be written by trans people and that Fall should have had to out herself before publishing.
I believe they believe — still — that they did the right thing.
They still destroyed a woman’s life."

I think this attitude obviously has a chilling effect on creative output.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

People that have left-wing cultural views are far greater than the elite you swear are the ones you have the real issue with.

So my issue with that you will make an argument and say "progressive" and "left" and when someone points out the issue with that you ran back to the "I'm talking about a small group of cultural elites". And when someone shows sympathy for a certain position, they instantly become a member of subgroup of cultural elite bad actors

Something is this, then it is that. Then it is this again. And all the shift change the dynamics of the discussion

im taking issue with a small group that has outsized influence within progressivism, and in progressives spaces
so while many progressives don't agree with it, people self censor or mouth agreement

to the point it becomes indistinguishable from what it means to be progressive or left.

not that many people think it's a big deal that x stand up comedians saying x offensive things
but the media does, cultural critics do, cultural elites do and eventually everyone just internalizes the correct thing to say.

while they privately boot up netflix at home.

 

[RustyShackleford]

im taking issue with a small group that has outsized influence within progressivism, and in progressives spaces
so while many progressives don't agree with it, people self censor or mouth agreement

to the point it becomes indistinguishable from what it means to be progressive or left.

not that many people think it's a big deal that x stand up comedians saying x offensive things
but the media does, cultural critics do, cultural elites do and eventually everyone just internalizes the correct thing to say.

while they privately boot up netflix at home.

So progressives are seemingly just sheep that can't think for themselves and form opinions from peer pressure. Um, ok

Like every time these "I got canceled in a progressive space" stories come out there are always people in those spaces that call BS. And this just seems like a catch-all to dismiss such opinions.

Elite signaling is a real thing, I understand that. Elite signaling is an imperfect tool, I understand that. People mostly like it when it is helping their side. However, a lot of the improvements that people like Maher, you boy Matt, and others love to point to as a society making progress to be more tolerant to beat back progressives, was made possible by partly because of that. But now is a destructive force because why exactly? Because you don't like it on principle, or you just don't like what some people try to use it for?

There are tons of people making a damn living over whining about this topic too. Centrist, liberals, progressives cultural elites. NYT just ran another high profile "I'm being silenced" Op-Ed penned by a college student just last week that cultural elites that you agree with this topic signal boosted over and over. There are tons of cultural elite pushing in the other direction and their lack of progress is just being chalked up to "welp, people just think that is the right thing to say and self-censor". yeah, that is a tough buy for me.

 

[dacomeup]

you learn and grow."

learning and growth lead to progressives, being on the right side of history m

Doesn’t that say more about the other side than about progressives?

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[RustyShackleford]

Manchin's schtick is basically one of a conservative. Use something with a bit of truth, then he stretches the argument so thin and puts so much extra sauce on it that at the end he sounds stupid.

All in a quest to help his donors.

Like saying that electric cars depend on raw materials from from overseas, namely China, and lack of control the supply chain might cause issues for US consumers one day is reasonable.

Comparing it to gas lines makes no ****ing sense. The equivalent to pumping gas is charging an electric car. Electric cars don't get range by replacing their battery.

That is a Trump level stupid thing to say.

 

[Methodical Management]

Comparing it to gas lines makes no ****ing sense. The equivalent to pumping gas is charging an electric car. Electric cars don't get range by replacing their battery.

“I used to have an electric car and I hated standing in line waiting for a battery for my vehicle!”

The vehicle:

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Sorry but I find this argument a bit flimsy

First progressives are seemingly just sheep that can't think for themselves and form opinions from peer pressure. Um, ok

nah i think progressives are normal humans
social animals who evolved to live small hunter gatherer bands

and thus social influence is extremely powerful.

This happens with conservatives,
how many are really putin apologists?
but the Trumpified media enforced a line on russian and putin and everyone at some point goes a long. because that's the correct in group opinion to have.

and the spell was only broken by a massive immoral invasion.

Elite signaling is a real thing, I understand that. Elite signaling is an imperfect tool, I understand that. People mostly like it when it is helping their side. However, a lot of the improvements that people like Maher, you boy Matt, and others love to point to as a society making progress to be more tolerant to beat back progressives, was made possible by partly because of that. But now is a destructive force because why exactly? Because you don't like it on principle, or you just don't like what some people try to use it for?

if a powerful tool is being used to do bad things,

I think the fact that it can be used for good
means it's MORE important to call out it's misuse.

elite consensus was used to stifle civil rights legislation, that's bad.
elite consensus helped advance rights for gay people. that's good.

I think you can say both things.

There are tons of people making a damn living over whining about this topic too. Centrist, liberals, progressives cultural elites. NYT just ran another high profile "I'm being silenced" Op-Ed penned by a college student just last week that cultural elites that you agree with this topic signal boosted over and over. There are tons of cultural elite pushing in the other direction and their lack of progress is just being chalked up to "welp, people just think that is the right thing to say and self-censor". yeah, that is a tough buy for me.

the reaction to that op-ed was totally unhinged imo. and proves my point.
I saw tons of adult professional journalist, totally ****ting on some college girl

accusing her of being some conservative plant. because she went against the
"cancel culture isn't real" orthodoxy
I heard an entire segment making fun her relentlessly on pod save america.

it's very clear that unless you are a weirdo who likes social ostracization
your best bet is to just mouth the correct words.


and most of the elite people who get branded as heretics on this issue
get banished from progressive spaces eventually

and serve as powerful reminders to everyone else.
Yglesias left vox and was fired from his podcast despite being more progressive than like 80% of americans?

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Doesn’t that say more about the other side than about progressives?

I don't think it's true that progressives are always going to on the right side of history.

and I think that assumption is dangerous

it allows people to cosplay social justice,
when they are really just cynically serving their own ends.

using elite consensus to the help the homeless get support is good.
using elite consens to make sure everyone says "unhoused"

while doing nothing to materially help the homeless, is bad.

maybe im too cynical but I see way too much of the latter is going on.

 

[dacomeup]

I don't think it's true that progressives are always going to on the right side of history.

and I think that assumption is dangerous

it allows people to cosplay social justice,
when they are really just cynically serving their own ends.

using elite consensus to the help the homeless get support is good.
using elite consens to make sure everyone says "unhoused"

while doing nothing to materially help the homeless, is bad.

maybe im too cynical but I see way too much of the latter is going on.

I was speaking more to the “learning and growing” being aligned with progressives, but are the true progressive politicians cosplaying social Justice and doing materially nothing to help the homeless? I think that we can both agree that this isn’t true? We both know that these folks are in the vast minority of the party and have litttle power as a collective.

But if again this is just a proxy on your umbrage for white progressive UWS Manhattan moms on Twitter then we’re having an entirely different conversation.

And even so, what have conservatives been on the right side of post-9/11? Most of their stance is anti-poor, anti-Black, pro-xenophobia, pro-wealthy, anti-labor, etc. And anti-whatever the popular sentiment is among the majority of the country in more recent years. So obviously something could flip and they miraculously abandon all these bad positions but it seems unlikely right now.

 

[AEA18]

@dwalk31

Can't stand these hypocritical assshats.

They b* and moan about mask mandates/vaccines but want to control what women do with their own bodies.

It's amazingly sad how proud these people are about being dumb as a pile of bricks. He obviously didn't know what an Ectopic Pregnancy was.

 

[RustyShackleford]

nah i think progressives are normal humans
social animals who evolved to live small hunter gatherer bands

and thus social influence is extremely powerful.

This happens with conservatives,
how many are really putin apologists?
but the Trumpified media enforced a line on russian and putin and everyone at some point goes a long. because that's the correct in group opinion to have.

and the spell was only broken by a massive immoral invasion.

-This isn't strictly true though. Even on Fox News, there are people ****ting on Putin. Even Hannity tried to get Trump to call out Putin.

Actually, there are competing talking points. Being a Putin apologist, and saying that Putin is evil and if Trump was in power he would be a better check on said evil.

If this is your example, then it doesn't really help your argument. It shows that dissent and disagreement exist in spaces dominated by one ideology.

-Furthermore, It is one thing to hold an opinion, it is another thing to openly voice it and make arguments in favor of it. If someone crosses the lines into advocating for something then it is completely fair if they get challenged. You said other progressives are self-censoring and going along with it. That is different than adopting another person's talking point then going out in public and advocating for it themselves.

I am not denying social influence is powerful, but just claiming that really doesn't add anything to your take about self-censoring among progressives

if a powerful tool is being used to do bad things,

I think the fact that it can be used for good
means it's MORE important to call out it's misuse.

elite consensus was used to stifle civil rights legislation, that's bad.
elite consensus helped advance rights for gay people. that's good.

I think you can say both things.

Elite signaling helped get the Civil Rights legislation passed eventually.
Elite signaling helped hinder rights for gay people at one point.

I get it. I think it a normal occurrence in society and people have to grapple with it.

It is like complaining about a politician using endorsements to get people to vote for them. Ok, and? That by itself is not an issue. But in this discussion, you present them using elite signaling by itself as some unique bad.

The whole they are causing large-scale self-censoring and that is causing all these bad outcomes arguments relies on a bunch of assumptions lining up. And people don't buy into them here comes the complaints of the elites conspiring. With the definition of what qualifies as an elite is unclear.

the reaction to that op-ed was totally unhinged imo. and proves my point.
I saw tons of adult professional journalist, totally ****ting on some college girl

accusing her of being some conservative plant. because she went against the
"cancel culture isn't real" orthodoxy
I heard an entire segment making fun her relentlessly on pod save america.

it's very clear that unless you are a weirdo who likes social ostracization
your best bet is to just mouth the correct words.


and most of the elite people who get branded as heretics on this issue
get banished from progressive spaces eventually

Tons of progressive journalists took issue and criticized the article. It was not universal just being the most were unfairly dismissive of her.

She literally wrote an article about people not tolerating dissenting opinions, in one of the biggest media outlets in the country. Some of the arguments and assertions she made I feel were flimsy, came off as entitled, and lacked self-awareness. I saw people making similar takes. These are fair objections to have to an NYT Op-Ed.

She got celebrated by tons of people on the right and left, but some progressive her mean to her, not all, they dissented against her opinion and that proves your point? What point exactly? She was not censored, in fact, the opposite is happening. Her opinions have been signaling boosted. It is just not everyone is in agreement.

But now you say that she will surely get banished from progressive space, because of cultural media elites. It has happened yet, but surely it will. So let us take issue with the censorship-free dissent as a stand-in until that happens.

and serve as powerful reminders to everyone else.
Yglesias left vox and was fired from his podcast despite being more progressive than like 80% of americans?

Matt left Vox partly because Substack gave him a sweetheart deal. In press tour around the time he was launching Slow Boring he was talking about Vox becoming too progressive, he conveniently left that out. Even his coworkers that are around his age and openly voiced displeasure with how some people on the left police speech, called bull**** on his description of Vox.

He then gets allowed to make probably tens of thousands more as a contractor which kept this profile high, while he builds another million-dollar media outfit. And used his show to take issue with any progressive he had issues with. Often time in a mocking tone.

Didn't Matt say he was leaving for other opportunities? Didn't he have a farewell episode? I don't see how this is being banished from a progressive space for being not progressive enough. It seems to me that Vox wanted their two main podcasts to feature Vox employees. They reformed Ezra's old show too. So this ultra-progressive media helps him build another million-dollar venture, and Matt gets to make money in other places that have been accused of being taken over by progressive speech police, and this is the example you are using that proves your point, really?

Matt still makes money from other outlets people claim are captured by the cultural left. Famb, with all due respect, this is kinda laughable to use Matt as an example of this trend.

 

[dinyc3st]