Matthew Yglesias learn the difference between a pandemic and an endemic situation challenge.
But hey, he’s “a little skeptical,” and whatever doesn’t immediately and intuitively make sense to the Arbiter of Reason, whatever makes him uncomfortable, must be derided as nonsense.
But hey, he’s “a little skeptical,” and whatever doesn’t immediately and intuitively make sense to the Arbiter of Reason, whatever makes him uncomfortable, must be derided as nonsense.
This type of pundit never starts from a position of trying to understand what strikes him (they’re almost always men, almost always white) as odd or surprising. He considers himself the arbiter of what is and what is not reasonable - often without much substantive knowledge.
This is indicative of a striking lack of humility and unwillingness to listen - which is par for the the course for a certain type of pundit. Yglesias, Silver, Mounk, Barro, many more like them: They don’t examine, they judge; they don’t reflect, they determine.
Let’s be skeptical of this industry of ostensibly liberal/centrist pundits who act like oracles of reason and feel entitled to offer a firm judgment on a variety of topics on which they lack any real expertise beyond what *seems* right or wrong to them.
A longer reflection here:
A longer reflection here:
https://twitter.com/tzimmer_history/status/1420376891450613768
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
