TracingWoodgrains
hooser
3mo ago
I find the whole tree of threads after OP's post somewhat disorienting, like being in a room full of people talking at once past each other. When a poster says "the issue", is it the FAA scandal? Or, per SteveAgain's original top-level post, the reception on Reddit and Hacker News of Trace's post of FAA scandal? Or, per OliveTapanade's first response, is "the issue" the arguments-as-soldiers tactic:
He's just right! There's no way to justify a norm like "never criticise bad things if my side is responsible".
Or is the issue the pervasive and corrosive effects of DEI and the philosophy that spawned it, which appears to be your point, since you differentiate the FAA story specifically from "the issue itself":
How did he do a better job identifying and advocating for the issue? He did a better job reporting on that particular story, but when it comes to the issue itself, how has he done a better job identifying it than anyone from James Lindsay through Lomez to the seven zillion witches posting here? How has he done a better job advocating for it, than Chris Rufo? Last I checked he was advocating that people vote for the candidate that would ensure more of this would keep happening.
And that's just the confusion in our branch of the conversation. OliveTapanade's reply happened in the context of the previous replies. Crushedoranges advocated for Trace to pick a side (and, presumably, do the arguments-as-soldiers):
The fact that TracingWoodgrains doesn't fully come over to the right because of this and doggedly is determined to stay in the principled center makes me completely unsympathetic.
TequilaMockingbird recalls that Trace was indeed more partisan before:
Back in the twenty-teens he was a vocal advocate of the sort of "full spectrum information manipulation" that has become the standard. Where he once bragged about fabricacating evidence to pwn LibsOfTikTok he now wonders why nobody trusts him.
In this context, OliveTapanade's main point therefore:
Set aside what you think about him as a person. On the specific issue here, he is just unambiguously correct.
Where "the issue" is, specifically, the hiring practices of the FAA that began in 2013.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
3mo ago
I'm calling him a gay furry because
-
It's evidence of his leftism, and
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
3mo ago
· Edited 3mo ago
Someone's probably got a link. But it was about the Rittenhouse case; he also objected to other calls for violence which were not self defense.
ETA: This is the post announcing The Schism:
This is the FCfromSSC post he objected to so much:
This is TWs first post in that thread
Yes, it was about Rittenhouse.
Taken in isolation, I think it’s likely the shootings themselves were self-defense, but I don’t believe his life was in danger and personally can’t get over people having that low of a threshold for deadly force.
ETA2:
Here's the reference to the spicier FCfromSSC post. It is not from TracingWoodgrains, it is from 895158:
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
I can't speak for OliveTapanade, but for myself: it's important because it means that Trace remains a trusted source
Don't you think it's tad dramatic then to say that anything outside of "TracingWoodgrains was right" is a distraction from the issue? I thought the issue was the FAA.
I also don't understand why it's so important. Personally I do distrust TW, but it's not the kind of distrust that would imply he'd make shit up for a story, or not do due diligence on a source.
Jiro
3mo ago
Ironic, given that just a few days ago we had people accusing TracingWoodgrains of being too leftist.
Leftists will accuse many people of being fascist, including people in inter-left struggles. And of course they aren't. This is just standard inter-left infighting, it doesn't mean they are not leftist.
hooser
3mo ago
If it's not about praising him, can you explain to me why the sentence "TracingWoodgrains was right" is so important to you?
I can't speak for OliveTapanade, but for myself: it's important because it means that Trace remains a trusted source. I have read his stuff and interacted with him online for years now, and he remains a nuanced thinker and a careful reporter who holds himself to a higher standard of journalism than many professionals. I therefore continue to place high trust in Trace's reports, and I continue to value his analyses for their thoughtfulness even when I reach a different conclusion.
it's sad that tracingwoodgrains made all the right noises in his article and they still accuse of him siding with the fascists.
also, its hilarious to create a 'test' where the 'correct' multiple choice answer is almost always the same. surely there is some web app or application where you can feed in your questions/answers and it will randomize the responses. or you can just do this in excel or roll a fucking a dice (rerolling on 5/6) or flip a coin twice for each question. or was this done deliberately because cheating would be too difficult because no-one would be able to memorize the answer key?
Rufo has probably been more effective as an anti-woke activist in general, but on the FAA hirings scandal specifically
Oh, ok. I thought when you said "the issue", you meant anti-wokeness (or anti-DEI-in-particular), not just the FAA thing. Yeah good for him, he noticed it when others didn't. Why is that supposed to be such a big deal?
EDIT: according to @ahobata, he wasn't even the first to report on this, and one the Internet's infamous noticers beat him to it by a month. So can you explain to me, why is this case supposed to be so embarrassing to the anti-woke?
And yes, he voted for Harris. He voted for Harris while publicly and passionately expressing his dissatisfaction with her, and after the election, he went on to continue to explain his problems with her, and what he thinks the Democrats ought to do,
That's nice, but tell, if more people listened to him during the elections, would there be anything being done against the DEI issue?
which means that I think this portrayal of him as some kind of bootlicking Democrat partisan is absurd.
I disagree, he very clearly is a partisan in the sense that he'll argue to vote for the Democrats over a Republican that's actually active on the culture war front, regardless of how much he will chastise the Democrats for not doing what he wants. I'm pretty sure I remember an old post of his where he was chastising Biden in much the same way he did with Harris, threatening that if things don't improve he just might defect to the Republicans. Would you say things improved over the course of the Biden administration? Would you say Harris was a better candidate than Biden? What exactly would have to happen for me to be able to conclude that he is, in fact, a Dem partisan?
because whatever you think of TW's choice in the 2024 election, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the FAA hiring scandal or his activism thereabouts.
Again, I disagree. You can't beat me over the head with "TW was right" if he effectively wanted to convince people to have the issue continue.
On the issue - he is right. You don't have to praise him. You don't have to like him. But he is right about the FAA.
If it's not about praising him, can you explain to me why the sentence "TracingWoodgrains was right" is so important to you? To me, the FAA is just one of infinity cases where an institution engages in blatant racism, it's the least surprising thing in the world, and Trace did indeed come out on the side of the issue that is correct. I don't recall anyone here doubting his claims on the FAA.
OliveTapenade
3mo ago
As I said, it doesn't matter whether you like him or not. Nor do I care whether or not you praise him. The merits of TW as an individual are beside the point. The point is the issue itself.
I submit that TW is right about the issue, and that he has done a better job of bringing this particular issue to the public attention than anybody on the Motte, much less James Lindsay or Chris Rufo. Rufo has probably been more effective as an anti-woke activist in general, but on the FAA hirings scandal specifically - movement there is because of TW. He notes this himself.
And yes, he voted for Harris. He voted for Harris while publicly and passionately expressing his dissatisfaction with her, and after the election, he went on to continue to explain his problems with her, and what he thinks the Democrats ought to do, which means that I think this portrayal of him as some kind of bootlicking Democrat partisan is absurd. He made a judgement that, as much as he disliked Harris, he found her on balance the less-bad candidate that Donald Trump. If you want to blame him for literally everying that Harris or her political faction ever advocated for, then by the same logic we must blame every Trump voter for literally everything that Trump or his political faction ever advocated for. That is a lunatic standard to hold any voter to.
And even so, it is irrelevant, because whatever you think of TW's choice in the 2024 election, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the FAA hiring scandal or his activism thereabouts.
On the issue - he is right. You don't have to praise him. You don't have to like him. But he is right about the FAA.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
3mo ago
The choice you’ve made, is to cast your lot with the fascists currently ransacking our government. To pretend as though the Trump EO on DEI is in any way a reasonable response to a genuine policy concern, rather than the pure expression of bigotry that it actually is, is inexcusable.
Ironic, given that just a few days ago we had people accusing TracingWoodgrains of being too leftist.
As someone whose positions are also sufficiently idiosyncratic that I don't fit in perfectly with either "side", I'm not unsympathetic to him. But this is simply the fate of all "centrists" - that's the reality of it. It would be like someone during WW2 saying "I don't support the British, or the Germans - I'm just neutral!" He wouldn't be looked upon with kindness in either country.
Ultimately if you want to avoid getting crushed by the tidal forces of politics, you have to decide which issues are most important to you, join the side that is most aligned with you on those key issues, and table your disagreements for a later date.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
or whether it be righties who cannot possibly grant that a hated outsider did a better job of identifying and advocating for an issue that should have been an easy win for them, is really their own problem.
TracingWoodgrains is right.
I don't know who had their brain eaten by culture war if you think that people who don't want to sing praises of your friend must be distracting from the issue.
How did he do a better job identifying and advocating for the issue? He did a better job reporting on that particular story, but when it comes to the issue itself, how has he done a better job identifying it than anyone from James Lindsay through Lomez to the seven zillion witches posting here? How has he done a better job advocating for it, than Chris Rufo? Last I checked he was advocating that people vote for the candidate that would ensure more of this would keep happening.
OliveTapenade
3mo ago
I'm not sure I have a whole lot to say here beyond, "TracingWoodgrains is just right."
He's just right! There's no way to justify a norm like "never criticise bad things if my side is responsible". That's unironically the sort of logic that gets you the Great Leap Forward, where lower-ranking officials are afraid to report anything that goes against the narrative preferred by the higher-ups, and the result is always disastrous.
Set aside what you think about him as a person. On the specific issue here, he is just unambiguously correct.
The fact that people whose brains have been eaten by partisanship and culture war are unable to see that, whether that be lefties who have to deny and distract and minimise the scandal because it's going to be a win for the right, or whether it be righties who cannot possibly grant that a hated outsider did a better job of identifying and advocating for an issue that should have been an easy win for them, is really their own problem.
TracingWoodgrains is right.
Everything else is distraction.
crushedoranges
3mo ago
The fact that TracingWoodgrains doesn't fully come over to the right because of this and doggedly is determined to stay in the principled center makes me completely unsympathetic. So as far as I'm concerned, they're stuck between the icky chuds like me who know it's a problem but have aesthetically unpleasant views and the other kind of people who stick their heads in the sand in the face of overwhelming evidence. People who will bald-facedly lie even when you bring the smoldering gun, the receipt, and a signed confession are bad people.
And despite all of this... they are more aligned with the latter kind of people then the former.
I will make a prediction now: TW will still be hacking at this ten years from now, doing their enlightened centrist gig, making no progress. Because the liberals they are trying to convince don't really exist: they are trying to persuade a species of extinct men who could be swayed by reason and good faith.
The location of a center does not care if you think it's unreasonable or ridiculous. A center is a relative state, and it is relative to elements adjacent to it as a whole, not what someone wishes those elements would be. Trying to claim an 'authentic' center is just a No True Centrist fallacy in the making.
TracingWoodgrains is not a centrist because they disagree with both elements the Left and the Right. They are a fake centrist because they are not in the center. That they quibble with the left on matters of tactics is irrelevant.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
You will notice that none of that has anything whatsoever to do with TracingWoodgrains
TW was opposing the candidate that gave WhiningCoil the win you're telling him to take, and endorsing his opponent.
Also I feel your reply would be more fitting to a is sentiment lime "fuck TW", not "I don't give a fuck what happens to TW, until I sort these other problems out".
OliveTapenade
3mo ago
Okay, so you're a single issue voter on trans education for kids?
Um, well, then I guess I'd suggest that firstly you take the win you've just had, secondly avail yourself of the many options there are available in America to avoid any risk of trans education for kids (there are private schools, religious schools, home-schooling, etc.), and thirdly get involved civically to advocate for your views, like going to PTA meetings, running for school boards, and so on.
You will notice that none of that has anything whatsoever to do with TracingWoodgrains, and also that nothing TW has said or done prevents you from doing it. He's not collateral damage here. There's no need to single him out. The last I checked he was endorsing the Enlightened Centrist Manifesto on trans issues, and that manifesto is deliberately a fair distance away from the woke dogmatists you're criticising. But TW's work isn't even about trans. As he himself admits, he rarely talks about them. His big project for a while has been the FAA hiring scandal, and that sounds like an issue where you'd probably be on the same side. So why bother hating somebody who is more likely to be your ally?
Moreover, this whole discussion was about liberalism as a social order, and actually nothing you've said touches on that. You are wholly free to advocate against kids being exposed to anything trans, and to send your kids to wholly trans-free educational institutions. You have those rights under liberalism. You might not have them under an illiberal system. So it seems as if you've attacked the wrong target here.
You can be opposed to trans stuff around kids. I agree with that, actually! I wouldn't want my kids to see any of that! But I don't see how that gets you to either singling out TW, or attacking liberalism.
OliveTapenade
3mo ago
It looks to me like you suggested that liberalism was just a "stalking horse" used to destroy society. Oats asked the question - if liberalism goes away, what happens to people like me, or TracingWoodgrains?
At that point you then replied with "I don't care what happens to a gay furry".
But the question was about what happens to people like Oats, or people like you. You can be apathetic towards TW, but he was never the central point. The point was your future. You want to work on a project of supporting your family's future? That's the point.
I mean, obviously TW's project or Oats' project isn't to destroy your family. I very much doubt they care. But the question about whether destroying liberalism will be better or worse for you and your family is a valid one, and no amount of yelling boo furries addresses that. Here's what Oats said:
This problem extends a lot farther than Trace, obviously. Do you think China fosters the type of environment that makes this type of forum possible? For how niche it is, for how many types of people post here, for how many ideas can be represented here, this website itself and everyone in it is a product of liberalism. Do you care what happens to it? Do you care what happens to everyone who uses it? Do you care what happens to yourself?
It's all very well and good to rant about liberalism, but it seems like many of the things you value, including your ability to express yourself right now, are products of liberalism. Remove liberalism, and maybe all that goes away. What's your alternative?
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
3mo ago
But the idea that Jesse Singal's former assistant has ever been carrying water for trans activists is absurd on its face.
No, TW is not a trans activist as generally understood, but I think its quite fair to say that the author of this objects on speed and methods rather than principle.
Notice that KulakRevolt didn't go full mask-off while he was still on the Motte
I think he was extremely obvious the whole time. If hes gotten into holocaust denial now, it certainly doesnt really change much for him.
OliveTapenade
3mo ago
Is this just 'gay furry' as thought-terminating cliché? Heck, why do you keep bringing him at all? Why does TracingWoodgrains live rent-free in your head? He was brought up by someone else a few posts up as an example of someone who, whether you like his hobbies or not, has a place in the body politic, and oats then clarified that his point is to do with oddballs and dissenters of all kinds.
The point is not about TracingWoodgrains specifically, or about homosexuality, or about people who like to wear silly fox costumes, and cannot be addressed by going "lol I hate that guy". Oats' point terminated in the question, "Do you care what happens to yourself?"
Maybe you hope for a world in which the hammer of state power comes down on TracingWoodgrains and not on yourself, but that sure sounds like an awfully precise hammer - the type that squishes one specific type of online oddball but not any other type. How sure are you that a world that crushes one guy who posts spicy takes on obscure online discussion forums isn't going to crush another guy who posts spicy takes on obscure online discussion forums?
This conversation started out being about liberalism, not empathy. Whether you like so-and-so isn't really the point. But you're using "screw the gay furry" as an evasion. The point is - okay, sure, you can reject liberalism. You can reject the social compact that allows everyone from you to furries to coexist and even have their own discussion spaces like this. But if you reject it you open the door to a lot of boots stomping on a lot of faces, and maybe you shouldn't be so confident that the boots aren't going to be stomping on you.
If nothing else, your views seem significantly more repulsive to random normies than those of gays or furries or, heaven forbid, gay furries. Maybe a little caution is called for.
phailyoor
3mo ago
center left moderates like TracingWoodgrains
Trace may be moderate for a democrat but he is a naked partisan for his side, waging the culture war and openly promoting total democrat conquest over the other side. He just believes that the most extreme fringe of his party needs to be reformed in order to achieve this victory.
This sort of contrasts with most of the grey tribe motteposters who might happen to align with one party or the other, but argue with the kayfabe of neutral facts and logic. This may be part of a broader schism in the rat-adjacent-sphere, where Scott and similar types are more explicitly aligning with the left wing, and steering away from topics that may be politically inconvenient. This place only exists because Scott kicked us (and our obsession with inconvenient facts) out of his place.
DirtyWaterHotDog
3mo ago
(I'm taking liberalism to mean to mean pragmatic pro-institution free market globalists. Macron would be the closest example of ones still in power)
quitting of center left moderates like TracingWoodgrains and Yassine Meskhout
More like their substacks took off, and it doesn't make sense for them to do it for free anymore. If anything, it is a clear sign that they're ascendent. Once politically homeless, they now have an audience of anti-woke centrists listening to them.
failure of liberalism
For decades, Liberals were dominant on both the left and the right. With the fall of the Soviet union, the extreme left was left nursing it wounds. On the right, 9/11 response & economic recovery required large institutional efforts, so anti-institutional groups had no uptake.
AOC and Trump use symbiotic antagonism to shore up support within their ranks. Both would rather see the other win than an centrist. They have embraced horseshoe theory. Liberals are yet to get there. Left liberals still treat right liberals with greater disdain than extreme progressives, and vice versa. Liberals need to work across the aisle to get centrists bill through, while collectively keeping extremists at bay. At the national level, it seems impossible. They have terrible optics too. The centrist left has geriatric Biden/Clinton or DEI hires like Kamala. The centrist right is geriatrics and nepo babies. That's a losing proposition if I've ever seen one.
But there are signs of change among the youth and local govts. Major blue cities have swung to the center. The clearest example is Ann Davidson switching from Dem -> Rep and winning Seattle's district attorney seat. Eric Adams ran on a centrist platform for NYC mayor, and has managed to stay in power despite many legitimate scandals. At the national level, Pete Buttigieg seems to have more friends at Fox News that within the Democratic big tent.
Political trends are cyclic. I think populism is peaking in North America. But I expect Western Europe to get worse before it gets better (for liberals).
Germany, France, South Korea and Canada
It's immigration. Liberalism assumes a certain non-zero-sum-ness to the world. Once low-skill immigrants worsen the QOL of your liberal utopia, liberalism's loses its core appeal. Problematic immigrants come illegally or as opportunistic refugees. If liberalism shows a capacity for strong border enforcement & minimal refugees, then it has a chance. South Korea is it's own mess and has been for a while. Won't equate its turmoil with western ideological trends.
Japan, China
Guess how many illegal immigrants and refugees come to these countries.
On immigration
I don't think employment based immigration is an issue. (Note, I am on H1b, so take my opinion with that caveat). Australia for instance, maintains steady immigration, but has a higher ratio of skilled immigrants vs the others. It hasn't swung populist just yet. For decades before, Canada & the UK sustained a high rate of skills based immigration and it did not doom liberal-centrists. Even after the total shitshow at Canada/UK, their retaliatory leaders of choice still feel like Liberals (Starmer, Pierre).
Is liberalism dying?
Yes
Will liberalism die ?
No.
oats_son
3mo ago
As a fundamentalist Christian that slowly deteriorated into an agnostic, son of a right wing libertarian that later turned into a radical fascist, who still tends to think with conservative values, I am a product of liberalism. I do not share values with many people, given that I am agnostic and yet still right wing, and yet still holding disdain for a lot of the rhetoric thrown around by the current administration. If liberalism goes away, what will happen to me? If liberalism goes away, what will happen to gay furry skeptic centrists like TracingWoodgrains?
oats_son
3mo ago
Is liberalism dying?
I see frequently brought up on this forum that Mitt Romney was a perfectly respectable Mormon conservative that was unjustly torn apart by the Left. In response to this, the Right elected a political outsider that is frequently brazenly offensive and antagonistic to the Left, as well as many (most?) establishment institutions. I am seeing the idea "this is a good thing, because if the Left are our enemies and won't budge from their positions that are explicitly against us, we need to treat them as such", probably expressed in other words.
This frightens me, as it seems to be a failure of liberalism, in this country and potentially other Western liberal democratic countries. Similar to the fate of this forum, where civil discussion was tried and then found to be mostly useless, leading to the expulsion of the forum to an offsite and the quitting of center left moderates like TracingWoodgrains and Yassine Meskhout, the political discourse has devolved into radicals that bitterly resist the other side. Moderates like Trace seem to be rare among the politically engaged, leaving types like Trump and AOC. They fight over a huge pool of people who don't really care much about politics and vote based on the vibe at the moment, who are fed rhetoric that is created by increasingly frustrated think-tanks and other political thinkers. Compromise seems to not be something talked about anymore, and instead, liberalism has been relegated to simply voting for your side and against the other side. To me, this is pretty clearly unsustainable, since the two sides seem to have a coin flip of winning each election and then upon winning, proceed to dismantle everything the previous side did.
We see this in a number of other Western liberal democratic countries. Germany and France both had a collapse of their governments recently due to an unwillingness between the parties to work together and make compromises. Similar states that seem to be on the brink of exhaustion include South Korea and Canada, though I'm told things are not nearly as divisive in Japan. China, though having its own set of problems, seems to not have issues with political division stemming from liberalism, since it's not liberal at all.
I am seeing these happenings and becoming increasingly convinced that liberalism is on its way out. Progressivism and the dissident right both seem to be totally opposed to the principles. This is a bad thing to me and a cause of some hopelessness, since America produced a great deal of good things during its heyday, and even still is doing awesome things. It is predominantly America's technology companies settling the frontier, and recently they've struck gold with AI, proper chatbots, unlike the Cleverbots of old.
Is liberalism dying? If it is, is that a good thing or a bad thing to you? If it's a bad thing, what do you propose should be done to stop the bleeding?
yunyun333
3mo ago
A plane crashed into an army helicopter over Reagan airport and everyone died. Of course, before the black boxes can be dug up come the recriminations. Trump blamed DEI; posters here may be familiar with the case of the FAA hiring lawsuit over a 'biographical questionnaire' designed to increase diversity in air traffic controllers. This leads to the always fun "please let it be a _____" game played by ideologues on both sides. Why not just let a sober investigation determine the causal factors first? And of course you can't draw conclusions about a 'competency crisis' simply from headline grabbing anecdotes. The point of moving away from DEI and such systems was to tamper down racial tensions instead of focusing even more attention on it.
I don't believe I said anything about the anti-woke as a general category? Honestly, I think that if you're Chris Rufo or James Lindsay, the best response to TW's FAA story is to just applaud. Just say, "Yes, this is what we're talking about."
I am sure that if Kamala Harris were president right now, there would still be lots of people doing anti-DEI advocacy, and TW would no doubt be among them. I do not believe that he would have changed his mind about or refused to engage in the FAA reporting if Harris were president.
That just sounds to me like you think it's partisan to cast a vote at all. Yes, he voted for a candidate that he hated but considered on balance less bad than the other one. But that's what most people do. I would say that a 'partisan' for a particular party or candidate is someone who spends significant time or effort boosting that party or candidate - and since TW has spent much more criticising the Democrats or Harris than boosting them, I don't consider him a partisan for them. I think he just made the decision that, in a presidential election, which is ultimately a binary choice, he found them less bad than the alternative.
I think the fact that he was actively and effectively working to expose and address the issue undermines your point here. You don't need to vote for Donald Trump to oppose DEI. It is possible to take the position, "DEI is bad, Harris' support for DEI is bad, but on balance Harris is less bad than Trump, so I will vote for Harris while continuing to advocate against DEI".
Trump voters can make the exact same move - such-and-such policy is bad, Trump supports the bad policy, but I think that on balance Trump is less bad than Harris, so I will vote for Trump and continue to advocate against the bad policy. You do not have to agree with a candidate on every single issue to judge that candidate preferable at the ballot box.
This was actually an example in Scott's 'Varieties of Argumentative Experience', under the 'Single Facts' heading.
As here:
The top-level post that I was responding to was about liberals who try to minimise the story or attack TW for giving cover to the (ex hypothesi bad and fascist) Trump administration; and I was reading lots of comments here criticising TW for being a centrist Democrat who continues to believe that Trump is bad. I was saying that in the context of all these "who? whom?" arguments, it is worth allowing all of ourselves the sober reminder that what he said was both true and normatively right. That's the ball that we should keep our eyes on.
More options
Context Copy link