What inspires this?
Apparently, it’s this thorough fisking of this post at Eschaton by the cleverly-named Philosoraptor, a self-proclaimed ex-Atriot, “Winston Smith.” Eschaton, the popular link-driven community blog written by Duncan “Atrios” Black has succumbed to
the RushLimbaughification of political discourse. Limbaugh is not–contrary to what some people think–stupid. He’s a man of about average intelligence. It’s not that he believes the moronic and vitriolic things he says–rather, he just lets loose with a stream-of- consciousness invective. You can hear in his voice that even he doesn’t believe much of what he’s saying. He isn’t stupid, he’s dishonest. He’s simply saying “liberals are bad” over and over again in as many different ways as he can think of, without regard for whether the sentences with which he expresses this sentiment are true or false.
And, he argues, the comment section only compounds the problem:
The most disheartening part of the entire Eschaton post in question is, as usual, the comments. Though Atrios himself begins his post by saying “well, this thought isn’t much,” his dittoheads shower the post with praise. You are so wise Atrios…you are so fantabulous Atrios…you are so keen Atrios… Such adulation would be a tad weird even if the post had been vaguely good. Given how awful it was, it’s downright spooky.
To his credit, Atrios actually seems more amused with the post than anything. On the other hand, his readers show up in the Philosoraptor comments, as they have done elsewhere recently, to say things like
wow. this blog DOES suck. now I’m pissed at atrios for sending me over here; I’ll never get the stink off.
and generally assist in proving his original point. Indeed, Mark Kleiman’s “In defense of Atrios” post actually concedes
Much of what Winston says about the decline of Eschaton seems to me (regrettably) sound. And the post Winston attacks could have been better written.
before mounting arguments in favor of John Wayne and Wesley Clark (serious).
Philosoraptor isn’t the first blogger to comment on Atrios’ wan blogging style, nor is he the first to make the Atrios-Instapundit comparison, though he does offer a key insight:
I’d say that Atrios used to be less partisan and foolish than Glenn Reynolds, but now I’d say he’s worse. What made the difference, if there is, in fact, a difference? Could it be because Atrios included comments and Reynolds didn’t? They both play to the crowd, but only Atrios has an adoring chorus hanging on his every word.
Philosoraptor encourages Atrios to become more intellectually honest, although if one really wanted, the post could be construed as a suggestion that Atrios stick to what he’s good at: linking. It has been said many a time over the years that in the blogosphere the blogosphere is made up of “linkers” and “thinkers.”
One day soon I’ll construct a survey demonstrating the continuum between the bloggers who are mostly editors (Atrios and Instapundit being among them) and those who are mostly writers (Digby, Captain Ed). Though they each serve a purpose, linkers are frequently looked down upon by the thinkers, even as they sometimes depend upon them for traffic. Anyone could do what they do, except if you tried, nobody would read you, because they’re already reading them. So the Philosoraptor quote could also be construed as a bit of sour grapes (and Atrios’ fans have certainly been willing to suggest that).
Nevertheless, if you’re going to be a linker, you need to have an edge. What Atrios has instead is snark, and if one limits oneself to visiting Atrios no more than once a day, snark will do. Visit any more often than that, and chances are you just can’t get enough of Atrios, or you just can’t get enough of how full of it he is.
P.S. Can I quote a relevant piece of 1990s literary fiction for three posts in a row? Yes, I believe I can. Atrios explains that the name “Eschaton” comes from a chapter in David Foster Wallace’s 1996 heartbreaking work of staggering genius, “Infinite Jest,”
in which students at a private tennis academy play a complicated game called Eschaton. It’s a strange half-explained simulation of WWIII, sort of a Risk-like wargame played on tennis courts, with tennis ball bombardment representing nuclear bombardment. The game has arcane rules requiring a computer to compute the value of each “hit” based on position, trajectory, etc… In the passage the game eventually gets completely out of hand and the rules break down.
It’s a comic passage, all right:
Timmy Peterson takes a ball in the groin and goes down like a sack of refined flour. Everybody’s scooping up spent warheads and totally unrealistically refiring them. The fences shudder and sing as balls rain against them. Ingersoll now resembles some sort of animal that’s been run over in the road. … Nobody’s using tennis balls now anymore. Josh Gopnik punches LaMont Chu in the stomach, and Lamont Chu yells that he’s been punched in the stomach. Ann Kittenplan has Kieran McKenna in a headlock and is punching him repeatedly on top of the skull. … LaMont Chu is throwing up into the Indian Ocean. Todd Possalthwaite has his hands to his face and is shrieking something about his ‘doze.’
Hmm… sound like any blogs you know of?
As of this morning, the coalition of mostly right-leaning bloggers have narrowed down the suspects to just a handful of candidates: at least as of now it
Blog Traffic As A Reverse Bell Curve (Kind Of)
The comments to the Hotline On Call post that started the McCain/Mele Melee (feel free to borrow this phrase!) calls to mind, though doesn’t perfectly illustrate, a truism not just of politics but of the blogosphere in particular: Centrists are loved by no one, not even fellow centrists.
Originally, the post mistakenly identified Reynolds as “center-left.” Verbatim down to the formatting, reader Kathleen complained:
And so it was corrected — but a few hours later Not Marc (possibly referring to post co-author Marc Ambinder, perhaps even a handle of the Not Larry Sabato variety) disagreed with the updated descriptor:
Here at Blog P.I., we have cast aspersions on the oft-proctored renounce-your-allies tests employed by the left and right, and this is a typical case; Reynolds points readers to Little Green Footballs, but that shouldn’t constitute an endorsement of LGF’s commenters. This kind of guilt-by-association has unfairly dinged the man behind Big Orange, and Reynolds has said before this is one reason why he doesn’t have a comment section of his own — and singled out the Lizardoids as a specific example. For what it’s worth, he doesn’t even self-identify as conservative, but in much of the blogosphere, it really doesn’t matter what you call yourself. (Many of Reynolds’ own fans even dispute his non-conservatism.) And if you do describe yourself as “center” anything, you’re more likely to get burned at both ends.
I’d also wager that even moderates are more likely to criticize fellow moderates, because their independence in part defines them, and their particular issues are also different. Centrist is not a definite category like Left or Right; it’s a None of the Above or Other. And overall, there are fewer moderates driving big traffic compared to their more ideological (or more easily-pegged) peers.
If you lined up a sample of blogs according to ideology along a left-right axis, I predict you’d find something resembling an inverse bell curve — though traffic would drop off again as one approaches either fringe. On the other hand: While the high traffic sites are found closer to the edges, if the center of this curve describes an amalgam of different philosophies, a long-tail effect would flatten the curve, maybe a little, maybe a lot. So it could be a fat upside-down bell, if that makes any sense.
All of which presumes, of course, that one could even agree on how to classify individual blogs as lefterer and righterer (these should be real words) compared to their peers. Which raises too many questions for this post, and cries out for the sort of levity provided by Fred, also in the Hotline’s comments: