it just so happens that they resolve it mostly with bullshit, but that's incidental rather than essential. the effect could be achieved by other means
-
-
for obvious reasons (the entire ecosystem is unwinding lol) I can't say I would recommend founding a media institution in the current year but
Show this thread -
New conversation -
-
-
I thought that's what the National Review was supposed to be (though I don't read it enough to know for sure).
-
yep, not only was it supposed to be that, it was that for ~50 years or so. but not anymore
-
When do you think it started to notably take a turn for the worse?
-
oh I think it still does mostly what it has always done, it's just that its ethos has become unappealing and its strategy unworkable (and arguably it never actually did much anyway)
-
NR modus was basically to operate as a center-right schelling point and blackball anyone who didn't keep within the bounds they set on "conservatism"
-
this let them and their wives get invited to the nice liberal cocktail parties but wasn't especially effective for accomplishing policy goals
-
a lot of the discourse from people further right in leadup to trump primary victory was about breaking NR acceptability firewall, and in that basically succeeded
-
but a free for all is not desirable and ostracizing crazies is generally good, the task imo would be to define a new schelling point and gatekeep it, but pick something that actually works
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.