jacobin magazine

I can't figure out what happened

well incredibly someone made this explanatory and admittedly jacobin-friendly-leaning series of images

http://i.imgur.com/ZQRrxnM.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/C9XjqfY.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/2eDzzfY.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/JCkQmFP.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/4bcbxRW.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/3OArP2J.jpg

Jesus that did not help

I can't even stand to read all that, but good job making sure the Left continues to resemble high school guys.

wtf

i saw that some twitterstorm was happening but didn't bother trying to piece it together, seemingly one of the better decisions i've ever made.

simplified version:

i mean from my perspective jacobin made a big editorial mistake by linking to a tweet about such a sensitive topic without seeking permission first--they fixed that mistake in less than 30 minutes and were contrite. another jacobin staffer who had nothing to do with the article stepped up to bat to defend the decision to link to the tweet, and bat back at kendzior's claim that the article mocked her. then it was 4 solid days of internet warfare between kendzior's crew & jacobin people, with ongoing exaggerations and misrepresentations and bad faith arguments on all sides. so fucking nasty.

yuck

I'm glad to be on ILX where nothing like that ever happens

hahahaha

i mean i think the throughline here is kendzior misreading things other people are saying about her--like her incredible misreading of stoker's piece, which was about people (like K) attacking the author of the article & the odious tactic of enforcing 'left discipline' via character assassination, which Kendzior somehow reads and passes on as 'stoker says i should be disciplined through character assassination.'

idk like stoker has been one of my favorite writers for years since a minister friend directed me to her, even when i think she's wrong i've been impressed by her empathy and thoughtfulness, so to see her sucked into this and smeared as a rape apologist based on something she didn't even say is such a disheartening microcosm of this whole weird blowup.

i should start writing for jacobin and people can accuse me of being Eugene Debs

jacobin clusterfuck summary corner

so to see her sucked into this and smeared as a rape apologist based on something she didn't even say is such a disheartening microcosm of this whole weird blowup.

Yeah man, the Internet. What can you do. It sucks

The bro bash piece is a good read though

Firing off bro-mots at the brodeo is not only great fun, it’s therapeutic — a helpful coping mechanism for professional or social environments in which the boyish and brutish dominate. When it’s not stifling or annoying, intellectual machismo feels, at the very least, comically anachronistic in our modern, enlightened circles. Like men who still wear wristwatches or take overly rustic vacations, these affectations hardly warrant female attention, let alone the respect they’re designed to command.

Men who still wear wristwatches? What horseshit

I loled

I also liked the image of the aw shucks blogger snapping their suspenders to avoid charges of elitism

Lawyers wear wristwatches partly because you can't bring phones into some courthouses.

Also because they need to have a bigger watchface than the guy next to them

true

the big takeaway from this whole mess isn't "the left is like high school" it's "sarah kendzior is a liar"

one of my friends posts a lot on fb about how terrible she is, but honestly who the fuck is she anyway and why should I even care?

No one needs to ask permission to cite or quote a public statement. And unless your Twitter feed is private, a tweet is a public statement. Should the writer have included that link? No; it added nothing to the piece (as evidenced by the fact that the piece stands up perfectly well without it). But did she need Kendzior's (or anyone's) permission to link to something Kendzior had, all on her own, entered into the public record? Absolutely not.

i haven't read the orig jacobin piece, but jesus i feel like i get its argument for the amount of time i've wasted figuring out who said what here, and i think it's pretty dumb. i mean, bro-ness and rape culture probably need to be associated, right?

and yeah, pulling up a tweet on something really touchy w/o asking seems a little unethical to me, whatever the journalistic rules about twitter being nakedly public etc etc

but come on, kendzior lied over and over again about what other people were saying about the article and about her

but all of THAT said, the truly odd paranoid speculation from some quarters (looking at u doug henwood) that kendzior is some kind of red-baiting plant to discredit the left

lol didn't even finish

...is really nutty

can someone explain the wristwatch thing please

I don't think I follow

She's critiquing the bourgeois conception of time as something static and measurable like a commodity.

normal people have phones to tell time.

watches are jewelry worn by rich men

Yeah, where that fails is that time is static but not measurable

I think it's supposed to be "the kind of guys who still wear big phallic symbols on their wrists even though they no longer have the cover of functionality"

Also the idea that men wear watches to impress women seems a lil fucked

is the shanley thing a different thing?

"the whole left explodes" is like a dozen people punching in a circle, right?

but honestly who the fuck is she anyway and why should I even care?

― Hier Komme Die Warum Jetzt (Hurting 2), Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:16 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

wrote the 'perils of hipster economics' piece that's been making the rounds lately

academic, al jazeera columnist, 20k buddies on twitter

when she's upset, a lot of people pay attention

is the shanley thing a different thing?

― caek, Thursday, June 12, 2014 5:19 PM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

is shanley also mad at jacobin now

also megalol @ doug henwood in general

Oh yeah, just saw this:

Doug Henwood

58 mins · Brooklyn, NY ·
.

My last word on the Jacobin scandal. Reading some of the commentary over the last few days, I don't think it's fully appreciated that three of the major shit-stirrers have been employed by pillars of the military-industrial complex, yet for some reason, the thing is being read in some quarters as an intra-left sectarian squabble.

• Sarah Kendzior, who started it all, has consulted for Freedom House.

• Her friend and occasional collaborator at Registan.net, Joshua Foust, has done PR for Northrop Grumman. He wrote an article for CJR on the use of contracting in post-9/11 intelligence without disclosing he was working for NG at the time.

• Kendzior's Twitter towel boy, Joshua Shahryar, has been a national security fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a neocon think tank.

It was very weird to see David Graeber take the side of this gang, but it's a funny old world.

LikeLike · · Share

Seems a little thin

But did she need Kendzior's (or anyone's) permission to link to something Kendzior had, all on her own, entered into the public record? Absolutely not.

― Humorist (horse) (誤訳侮辱), Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:19 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i don't think she needed it from a ~journalistic~ standpoint--but editorially jacobin is a magazine committed to the values of the left, and if uetricht had been doing his ideological diligence in editing that article he should have run such a potentially triggering inclusion by K imo

surely you mean "should not have"?

what value of the left is refraining from re-publishing a person's own public statement due to it being "potentially triggering"? what is "ideological" diligence? the protection of one's allies?

finding good left commentary on the internet is surprisingly hard, so i like jacobin ok even if they do make me roll my eyes sometimes (well, a lot). tried following some of their writers on twitter and had to stop because it was like 80 percent shit like this.

uetricht has said that he hadn't considered that the broadcast of that 1:1 tweet could result in an uptick of threats to K, and that had he considered it, he wouldn't have run it. i think he's right in that regard, and i think that decision, had it been made--to make an editorial choice based on putting the control of the narrative in a survivor's hands--is one that would have been driven by anti-sexist values.

writer unfollowed me bcz i made fun of her review in a tweet

:(

#classwar

nobody said there wouldn't be vanity in our revolution

I read this earlier and shared it without even realizing it'd been written by a guy whose show I produce.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/in-defense-of-the-ferguson-riots/

idk if we have a better generic thread for me to post this to? http://www.rhizzone.net/article/2012/09/29/fuck-new-inquiry-and-other-tales/

So far, so banal - this seems to be nothing more than a luminary of the left’s old guard hurling vile attacks at one of its young bloods. But what if this is a symptom of something bigger and more problematic, both at the journal Harris and Rosenfelt run, and within the left itself?

First though, let us examine what happened in more detail.

rolling let's not thread?