This was an interesting essay, and the author raises good points. However, I thought that her style detracted from her message. Sure enough, when I went through the comments, I found this from someone named Brian Orner directed to the author.
He writes, "You’re a good writer, and to some extent, I applaud your take-no-prisoners approach. But you’d do far better to tone down the arrogance and stop casting aspersions on everyone who doesn’t think exactly like you do. You’ve managed to take a massively complex enterprise — The Presidency of the United States — and reduce it down to what you presume is a cause-and-effect email from the financial community. This is absurd. I don’t have the time or the energy for a full rebuttal, but I will point out that you’re actually advocating for systemic hatred. No real progressive would do that. That’s Ann Coulter talking."
Caitlin Johnstone's response really wasn't much of a response. She responds, "You haven’t written anything in more than a month. Quit bitching about how you think other people should be writing and start creating your own content."
Orner replies (accurately, I'd argue, especially his third point), "1. Bitching? I don’t think that word means what you think it means. 2. Quantity is a poor substitute for quality—especially in journalism. 3. The ad hominem attack proves my point perfectly.
Johnstone's second response is "Yeah we’re just giving one another feedback. You think I should be nicer, I think you should stop telling people how they should use their gifts and start using your own. It’s been nice exchanging feedback with you."
That is followed by responses from two other readers who called her out on her lack of respect for those who wished to address some issues with her.
If I had been the author of this piece, in particular, and Orner lazily concern trolled me, handwaving me away as might-as-well-be Ann Coulter, I don’t think I’d feel obliged to thank him for it. Sounds very much to me as though Orner has an axe to grind more so than any points to make at all. I see nothing wrong in Johnstone’s piece, nor in her handling of a random troll. My two cents.
"You feel attacked because someone gave you their viewpoint? Man, that is delicate. One shudders to think what you’d feel like as a victim of genocide callously justified as saving “countless lives.” Get a thicker hide."
That was some good advice that you have to sashinator. It's even better advice for Johnstone.
This was an interesting essay, and the author raises good points. However, I thought that her style detracted from her message. Sure enough, when I went through the comments, I found this from someone named Brian Orner directed to the author.
He writes, "You’re a good writer, and to some extent, I applaud your take-no-prisoners approach. But you’d do far better to tone down the arrogance and stop casting aspersions on everyone who doesn’t think exactly like you do. You’ve managed to take a massively complex enterprise — The Presidency of the United States — and reduce it down to what you presume is a cause-and-effect email from the financial community. This is absurd. I don’t have the time or the energy for a full rebuttal, but I will point out that you’re actually advocating for systemic hatred. No real progressive would do that. That’s Ann Coulter talking."
Caitlin Johnstone's response really wasn't much of a response. She responds, "You haven’t written anything in more than a month. Quit bitching about how you think other people should be writing and start creating your own content."
Orner replies (accurately, I'd argue, especially his third point), "1. Bitching? I don’t think that word means what you think it means. 2. Quantity is a poor substitute for quality—especially in journalism. 3. The ad hominem attack proves my point perfectly.
Johnstone's second response is "Yeah we’re just giving one another feedback. You think I should be nicer, I think you should stop telling people how they should use their gifts and start using your own. It’s been nice exchanging feedback with you."
That is followed by responses from two other readers who called her out on her lack of respect for those who wished to address some issues with her.
If I had been the author of this piece, in particular, and Orner lazily concern trolled me, handwaving me away as might-as-well-be Ann Coulter, I don’t think I’d feel obliged to thank him for it. Sounds very much to me as though Orner has an axe to grind more so than any points to make at all. I see nothing wrong in Johnstone’s piece, nor in her handling of a random troll. My two cents.
"You feel attacked because someone gave you their viewpoint? Man, that is delicate. One shudders to think what you’d feel like as a victim of genocide callously justified as saving “countless lives.” Get a thicker hide." That was some good advice that you have to sashinator. It's even better advice for Johnstone.
Or what? Whatever the problem you’re pointing out is, it must not be her facts. Is it what those facts necessarily imply that’s dangerous?