Did Singal put the Atlantic on blast for misrepresenting his work with a dangerous and illegitimate packaging strategy? Or is this concern about never blurring the difference between adults and minors a retcon now that things are turning out exactly the way his critics predicted?
Whether Singal personally art-directed the Atlantic cover—let alone whether in the abstract a hypothetical generic writer might have zero control over the packaging of their work—is not the point. His own editors, his original readers, didn't draw this supposedly essential line.
Singal is claiming now that there's a real and visible boundary between his legitimate question-asking about trans care for children and Trump's illegitimate bashing of trans care for everyone, but the Atlantic ignored any boundary between kids and adults from the very beginning
The progression from “don’t” to “might not” here is basically the rhetorical strategy around the trans care coverage itself—including the part where it sidesteps the whole central issue in the first place
you know that writers don't get to pick the cover model. they don't pick the headline. they might not have any say in the editorial process depending on the publication, the topic, where they are in their career. as far i know, glenn greenwald is the only writer i've seen have
“Dishonest” is such a go-to for these dorks, as if the conflation of kids and adults in the packaging of his own work couldn’t possibly be germane to the same conflation he denounces when it’s coming from Trump
this is an impressively dishonest representation of that cover - as if the cover secretly was advocating/being conserned about/for 22 year olds by using a model that looked like they were 13, and that that lead to this trump decision or whatever. twitter.com/tomscocca/stat…
It’s important in analyzing the new terrible Pamela Paul column not to lose sight of the fact that her most defining feature is not “trapped in a reactionary discourse bubble” or “hopelessly self-important” but just “stale”
Dude, the proper way to say it was "fanbase is comprised of complete idiots", but apparently you're too enthralled trying to nerf dunk on randos than admit you're wrong lol.
“Fanbase” takes a singular verb here; you wouldn’t say “The source of the smell were several turds that had missed the bowl” or “The wave of stupidity in my mentions were Jesse Singal fans.”
Not gonna RT them into the orc pit but someone recently proposed that Singal isn't fanatically transphobic by transphobe standards, he's just latched onto the subject as his source of authority and he's broken-brained about being disrespected
You don't know anything about this issue, and you wrote a scathing piece indicting other journalists' work on it without familiarizing yourself with even the basics. All you've got in your bag is juvenile bullshit and NO I DIDN'T WANT *THIS* KIND OF ATTENTION.
What's your actual response to the substance of my argument? If it'll make you feel better imagine it was delivered to you by a servant on Harvard Law School letterhead.
Usually these people shit their pants with rage if you put quotation marks around a disparaging paraphrase but go ahead, keep getting the entire point wrong
2/ There's hackery, and there's hackery so severe that you refuse to do even basic googling
https://twitter.com/EntertainUrDad/status/1621174613219872768…
A brief, single-GIF response to @tomscocca's screed against journalists covering the youth gender debate, which was headlined "Why Is the New York Times So Obsessed With Trans Kids?"
In his defense, it is VERY hard to find publicly posted government reports and BBC articles
Ilya Shapiro got so canceled by those law students that he is now apparently the New York Times go-to source for the “conservative” viewpoint on Black History Month
What would these Good Liberals have said if you told them 30 years ago that there was going to be an honest-to-God book-banning anti-liberal ideological crusade sweeping the country and that this is what they would be doing in response