Of “nothing to see here”— it’s gonna be studied eventually. The point is to see that even if people are wrong in the particulars of their paranoia, the paranoia does point to something.

I think it’s a mistake that a lot of people made to determine that because the paranoia was in the wrong place that therefore there was nothing to be concerned with. It’s like Kurt Cobain says: “just cause you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you.” this pervasive rhetoric….

Framing things as moral panics has basically lost all meaning because it was so overused. Don’t like something that people are thinking? Just call it a moral panic. well, now we see where that gets us.

I agree that the Epstein stuff is fucked up—you can hardly overstate the horror. But it’s also true that you helped to popularize the idea of the “moral panic.” This “nothing to see here” discourse is and always has gotten in the way of serious analysis.

They don’t seem brilliant to me necessarily, but you know it’s like Milton says “I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue.” I think on the left, especially on this particular platform, it would be useful to be a little less fugitive and cloistered.

It’s interesting to see how many people are still in such absolute denial about it. And I think it’s a fundamental point that you shouldn’t blame people who were running around shaming, it was more like an effect of a new mode of discourse. But y’all don’t even acknowledge that.

Mamdani began his campaign reaching out to Trump voters in Queens, asking them why they voted for him and they said, affordability. He then based his campaign on affordability. This is a different kind of political tack, is it not?

That these class firsters are making. It is a political turn, after all and as such is at least worth considering.

Maybe another way to put it would be to try to figure out why Mamdani is meeting with Trump. I do think he has good, political wisdom, and I think it might’ve been a sly move actually. But if we’re going to regard his wisdom as valuable, we kinda have to concede at least part of the point….

But I feel like there is some truth in the argument, even if it is being slightly delivered heavy handedly. And I wonder why especially amongst the blue sky cohort people just seem to disavow it entirely. It’s just weird.

I wouldn’t disagree with any of this. I guess I’m just trying to figure out why there isn’t more of a concern about the fact that Democrats are losing working class support. If Bouie is just having some fun mocking a simplistic class first argument, perhaps that’s all it is…

He didn’t take the meeting though, he asked for it. I think it’s still defensible and I agree with him, but I don’t think you can frame it as like oh he took the meeting or didn’t take the meeting.

Well, I’m skeptical of Trump having anything to do with it but the answer is pretty simple isn’t it? Let’s say as of now people making less than 80,000 a year? That’s a pretty simple way to do it like you take it to the actual how much money and resources do you have question —seems pretty simple.

There is a lot that I don’t like about her, but at least she bears witness in these strange maneuvers to the fact that politics is more complicated than we usually give it credit for.

When I was reading this, I felt like it was Zupancic clarifying what Zizek has been talking about. I think when you use a concept that much it deserves some attention and she was giving it that attention here. Really a fantastic book.

Out of curiosity, what would you do with this?

I don't really blame anyone for it but the algorithms of the tech overlords, but obviously there were problems. I would say metoo didn't go far enough in the right direction and at times it was simply out of control.