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
Who is forcing you to read the comments of knuckleheads?
Like me?
Arguably, Ricochet is by shoving them in my face when I open a thread or the member feed. Or if I’m trying to read through an interesting discussion but have to keep scrolling by lengthy pieces of repeated nonsense that have derailed an otherwise good conversation. (See my post on an ignore feature for further discussion on this.)
I don’t get why an ignore feature upsets people. If we had one, you wouldn’t be forced to use it. Let those who wish to use it, use it. How would it harm you? It would improve the Ricochet experience for so many.
I think that it is a lot of work for a questionable benefit. I can flag comments, but the only ones I have ever flagged are my own. (I flag them just to say hi to the moderators. They probably get lonely. As a matter of fact, I think I’ll flag this one.)
Ah, no. Better not flag it. There is a warning now. They’re on to me.
Did someone say Oscar Wilde?
An ignore feature doesn’t “shut up” anyone.
I see that as the fault of the people whose buttons are easily pushed. Any one person can choose to ignore , offensive, ignorant, or disagreeable comments, but it requires control over one’s emotions. I personally don’t see the need for an automatic button to block specific people, though I don’t begrudge Drew’s effort to get one. I find the computer mouse to be sufficient for choosing comments I wish to read, or people I wish to engage.
Yep. But if Drew can convince the powers that be to install a button, good for him. I won’t use it, but it won’t bother me to have it either.
An ignore feature slows the site down for everyone.
How, when it could reduce 500-comment threads to 100 comments instantly?
I think “speed up” is more likely.
(Of course, it depends on how it’s programmed.)
We all live in such tightly controlled media/information bubbles these days, that even the slightest contrary information to our preferred narrative can seem painful. It seems to me that an ignore button would only make the bubble more durable. Ricochet has a great CoC, so rude ad hominem or abusive postings are very rare, its not like Facebook which does have, and needs an ignore button.
If we start to ignore each other, we miss out on hearing and learning from each other.
I think you vastly overestimate how often it would be used.
So far, this is the only argument against with which I find myself in agreement! Well done!
(Nevertheless, I still think the benefits outweigh the risks.)
(Also, if men were angels, we wouldn’t need an ignore button. I submit that men are not angels.)
I am not sure I understand what would make it slower.
But only if you accept the apparent assumption that the ignore function would be used a lot more often than is evident.
Not at all, if its just used once, the argument holds. The user would be missing out on a view point.
Where some people are concerned, it’s a risk I’m willing to take.
It’s the same risk I take when I refuse to read Vox, the Washington Post, or The Bulwank.
Sure, but even if you dont read Vox, Washington Post or The Bullwank you’re not missing out on their views because they’re so reliably reflected in the media. Another Ricochet member would likely be as shadow banned as you are.
If the last 20 times I read the same stuff over and over, all of which refused to engage in the ongoing conversation, I’ll take the risk that I might miss a gem when I skip the 21st chapter.
An ignore feature is not a shadow-ban. The former is employed by an individual as a matter of individual choice. The latter is enacted by an organization against an individual and nobody gets a choice about it.
Come over to the “Why we need an ignore feature” thread for further discussion.
The reason people would use the ignore feature, especially in certain well-known cases, is because there ISN’T any useful discussion in those cases, there ARE NO useful viewpoints being expressed, over and over, and repeatedly refuted/debunked only to arise again…
It can’t just display the “good bits.” It is a computer. It has to be told which bits are “good bits.”
Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
But the amount finally displayed would be less, although in modern technology the speed difference could be a matter of microseconds.
I dunno, Drew. I’ve read this entire thread and your ignore-button thread, and, well, it kinda seems like it’s (mostly) about Gary, for nearly everyone in favor of such a feature.
So, how about an ignore button for the men and not for the ladies?
:-)
So you are going to filter this client-side? Because that means that the data still has to be sent, but now something has to interpret it on your side. The CSS? Going to recompute and retransmit that with every page?
I didn’t hear you!
It really bothers me that people are reducing the issue in such a manner. But I suppose it makes it easier for them to dismiss the idea.