Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Bulwark: Jon Gabriel Is the ‘Worst of the Worst’
In a big change for The Bulwark, Editor-at-Large Charlie Sykes is complaining about conservatives. This time, he’s upset at conservatives criticizing Rep. Liz Cheney for criticizing conservatives because Cheney is more conservative than the conservatives she’s criticizing. It’s all a bit recursive and my brain’s a bit logy from the second Pfizer dose. But if I read correctly, Never Trump wants Cheney to remain in leadership because her voting record is more pro-Trump than Elise Stefanik’s. I think.
After slamming Dan McLaughlin, Eliana Johnson, Byron York, Henry Olsen, Mark Hemingway, and Kurt Schlichter, he finally made the big announcement:
But, this, from Jon Gabriel, may be the worst of the worst. (And it is not a parody.)
“On substance,” he writes, “I agree with Cheney. The election was not stolen and Trump’s Jan. 6 incitement merited impeachment. But all that is history. The GOP’s job today is to stop Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer. In that fight — the only fight that matters six months after the election — Cheney is AWOL.”
He then critiques my admittedly brilliant analogy of why it’s better for the party to focus on future goals instead of past grievances.
Of course, we know the real reason Mr. Sykes is upset. It’s not my fault that I’m smarter, funnier, a better writer, more handsome — nay, sexier — than him, not to mention humbler. But I assure him that such a cross is uneasy to bear.
My first job out of high school was splitting the atom. When I entered the Navy, the Cold War was raging; when I left, we had won it. I then graduated summa cum laude, and not just at any university, but Playboy‘s “#1 Party School” Arizona State (i.e., the Stanford of the West).
My life continues to proceed from victory to victory. I host the best podcast ever. I edit the finest website in existence. Even a tossed-off article on a Wyoming congresswoman goes viral. Men fear me and women want to be with me.
But of all my successes, perhaps my favorite is being named “Worst of the Worst” by Charlie Sykes and The Bulwark Dot Com. Risking immodesty, I have added the title to my Twitter bio. Since he follows me, I hope it brightens his day.
Published in General
Zing!
So for our resident TDS mental case, it’s a win. I think that’s his goal. To muck-up, derail, post long boring screeds, and make wild assertions coming from his Reagan Cowboy Avatar and kill any thread he disagrees with. I left this site for 4 months because of this type of thing and other aspects – Jon Gabriel’s gullibility and weak analysis included – and I see the Member Feed is still haunted by this nonsense.
I forgot all about this, until this thread reminded me of the insanity here.
There’s lots of good stuff here, but the best is the commentary in comment threads. The main subject of my interest, however -the direction of Republican Party (which interested me pre-Trump) – is vandalized and graffit-oed by this individual.
One thing being back has given me – I’m now even more radicalized.
Cheers!
To flesh-out my thoughts on the direction of the GOP at this point… I can’t take the argument that “the voters are wrong” as a valid political argument. I can’t accept the “you guys are cultists and populists” as a reasonable approach regardless of the content or context.
The people who believe this are in the distinct minority. Sure, they have platforms and some political power, but they don’t have votes, and they are not going to get votes. (Sadly we may be in an era where voters don’t count – but then there’s not much need for persuasion is there?)
The point of democratic politics is to represent to will of the people. A political party is nothing more than a collectivized alliance of people holding similar interests. There is nothing static about any political party. Political parties change over time – and they should – or else they die.
These people are saying, in effect: Vote for our priorities. We know best and you don’t. Don’t listen to politicians who promise to do things in your interest. You are stupid to want those things. You are wrong to want those things.
Even if this were 100% true, it’s a losing message. And make no mistake, even though this faction rarely says this openly, that’s the meta-message they are ending.
2010 Tea Party? Wacko birds.
2012 Romney corporatism, status quo Republican pablum, no acknowledgment of underlying discontent.
2016 Trump blindsides everyone.
Oh, now it’s a “cult” and populism
These people make me puke.
Who says there can only be two parties? The Republican party has ignored its voters for decades. These voters make up a greater party than the gOp. Third try for a third party time, without the gOp?
They need to call it a “cult of personality” because otherwise they would have to address the issues, which they really don’t want to do because it’s not aligned with their issues. Trump was essentially acting on behalf of the Tea Party movement that started in 2010 – six years before his election! The GOP did nothing in those six years, even though those voters gave them the majority in the House.
Now that Trump is gone, factions of the GOP need Trump as their boogeyman as proxy for all the policies they want to preserve. They are trying to use the collective animosity, mostly coming from the left, as a cudgel to advance and preserve their power and their policy desires.
How despicable are these people?
Some of the most despicable in America, as are anyone supporting them.
But the CoC does not apply to those calling Trump supporters a “cult”. That can be said with impunity. Try doing it the other way around.
Yes. I had a thread on precisely that topic that was put on the main feed, but which was hijacked and destroyed in the first page by two people who will be the first two on my ignore list.
I ended up returning it to the member feed and then just returning it to draft version (essentially deleting it) because those two [redacteds] wrecked what was starting to become a good conversation. As I still have a draft version, I may release it again into the wild, but it was a bit timely and the time has passed.
It’s all well and good for some to say “Well, just scroll past the trolls!” but when they damage and derail conversations, “scrolling past” just isn’t enough.
In polls taken back in January, where respondents were given a choice between Democrat, Republican, and a third, prospective “Patriot Party” based on Trumpian policy, Republicans came in a distant third.
Several years ago, the troll in the cult of (imagined) Reagan personality plastered 7 comments on my first page (when there were only 20 comments per page) As I recall #1, #3, #5 and # 7 before anyone responded to him. I objected to the management and nothing happened.
I proposed a limit to how many comments should be allowed by one person per page as a possible remedy. I know all these rules have unintended consequences and are difficult.
However this particular person is really the only culprit, so there could be easier solutions instead of blanket rules. But noooo.
But it’s uncanny how he is so often first to comment on such threads. It’s demoralizing when you write a post and this person is early to arrive at the party. Usually it’s the insufferable people who come early to a party… just saying.
Yes. This. When you’re hoping for a good discussion on a topic and someone derails, hijacks, and otherwise [craps] all over a conversation right out of the gate . . . well, there’s got to be a remedy for that.
I have suggested a remedy, but it seems people are really resistant to it. I don’t understand why. Maybe they fear they’d get ignored. It’s the Oscar Wilde thing: There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.
Interesting.
I just had and idea. Everyone can block one person from commenting on their post -either blanket or individual posts. If you are a Reagan member, you can block five people. I’ll take that deal. He can block me from his posts all he wants.
lol for real
We need some form of social ostracism that is independent from the higher ups. It does need to be limited. I can only think of two people on Ricochet I would ignore.
I wonder if you and your opponent might be willing to make a gentlemen’s agreement? Call it a mutual non-aggression pact where you each agree to not comment on each other’s posts. It doesn’t mean you wouldn’t be arguing with each other in other people’s posts, but you agree to not comment in his and he agrees not to comment in yours. The moderators would not be called in to enforce this, it would just be between the two of you. It doesn’t do what an Ignore button would do, but it seems like it would eliminate some of your aggravation. You could reach out and see if he would agree to it. Maybe he wouldn’t but you could ask.
Gary throws out a zillion points and arguments. Then he gets a zillion counter points and counter arguments. Then he doesn’t respond to enough of those. I can’t stand that.
This isn’t just about me, and it isn’t just about one specific monomaniacal troll.
I know. Max and Blue Yeti have heard the requests for an Ignore button and say they aren’t going to do it. While Gary may some day be banned for violating the Code of Conduct, he will not be banned because he drives some people crazy. I offered a suggestion that possibly could make this site more tolerable for you, even though I know it is not your preferred solution.
Scott invited me to write a post about why it would be a good idea.
I have done it. But if he’s already decided that he’s not going to, then what was the freakin’ point of having me go through the motions?
I keep saying this but it’s not getting through: it’s not about Gary, and I’m not the only one who wants an ignore feature.
The only reason we are talking about an ignore feature is because Gary doesn’t respond to argumentation enough. He’s acting in bad faith. He also doesn’t study policy enough. He has no business starting so many arguments.
I have long wanted to take part in a forum where the quantity of words from a single participant was throttled. In part it was because of people with jobs paid by the government who could respond all day long on the taxpayer’s dime, and I couldn’t keep up. But it would also cause me to measure my words more carefully. Then I joined Ricochet where I was limited in the length of my comments, and upgraded my membership to get away from that limitation. I still would not oppose a limitation on the number of comments on a single post.
I have skimmed over a few of the reactions to Gary Robbon’s(Robbin’s) comments and his habit of hijacking a post. I see zero need for any mechanical or digital method for dealing with this kind of thing. If one wishes to respond to him, do it….ONCE. Or don’t respond at all. From then on just stop reading his comments. On this particular post by Gabriel, I haven’t read one of Gary’s comments and barely skimmed a few reactions to his comments. He has every right to make his comments and I have every right to ignore them, but, as is often said, feeding the trolls just increases their appetites. Every time I have seen a comment by Gary or his name in a reaction to one of his comments, I utilize the scroll wheel. It’s wonderful.
Good for you. But in many years of reading and contributing to online discussions, I have never seen the general ability of a group to ignore trolls. They are skilled at pushing people’s buttons, and somebody will always respond, keeping the ball rolling and degrading the quality of the discussion.
Makes you understand all those historians on the ancient and pre-ancient world who spoke so movingly of the wheel.
So what? Move to a different discussion, then. Don’t let us become Facebook or YouTube.
If people were confident in their own minds that they are right and Gary is wrong, they wouldn’t respond as much as they do. The fact that they do respond is the main evidence I have that some of Gary’s opponents aren’t quite confident in their own positions.
Of course, I think some people are against the ignore feature because they fear they’ll be the ones being ignored and they want to force people to read their yammerings.
As someone confident of my position, I don’t fear an ignore feature at all. And to those who wish to put me on ignore, I say “please do. It will make both of our lives more pleasant.”
The only thing worse than Gary is arguing about Gary.
We have responded. He repeats himself in a long and tiring way.
It isn’t free speech if you can shut up people that you don’t like.
But you do have an option.
I cried because Saturday Night Live wasn’t funny anymore. Then I stopped watching it and cheered right up.
Is the right to speak freely also a right to force everyone to listen?