Talk:Very Serious People

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>


I was surprised to see Zakaria in the list. I remember him choosing people for interviews who brought original, non-mainstream ides witht hem. That's not what a VSP would do. He was also willing to passionately defend Muslims against IIRC Maher, for example.

VSP pundits[edit]

I am not sure how Ezra Klein is not a VSP since he is a textbook example of a technocrat. I can relent on Filipovic since her opinions might not actually be VSP material. I don't know why Eugene Robinson was added. I added Amanda Marcotte because she was called a VSP on the A Rape on Campus page but I don't know a whole lot about her. Lastly, I added Aaron van Dorn and David Roberts because I saw posts by them on social media that I believed fit the criteria but they may be too irrelevant to add.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 04:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Being a technocrat is not the same as being a VSP. Klein is serious about policy, often disagrees with concensus politics, is willing to take seriously that which VSP's won't (he said he started to suspect Trump could win fairly early on, and didn't dismiss Bernie Sanders out of hand), and has often done serious reporting. VSP's are lazy and reflexively centrist but Klein is not either of those things, his conclusions may be often centrist but it's in a thoughtful way. ClothCoat (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
That was a very good defense for his centrist positions so I will remove his name. Do you have a defense for Chait, though?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 04:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd largely say the same for Jonathan Chait, though he's closer to VSP material than Klein he still thinks out his positions and outright denounces the GOP as a whole after analyzing how non-sensical their policies are and saying it's not worth taking seriously and hasn't been for well over ten years, and that pundits who take their ideas seriously are silly. Most VSP's wouldn't be that explicit or in-depth. ClothCoat (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hm. Idk, Chait has been a liberal hawk but he isn't as neutral as Blitzer is. I think I might be conflating centrist stupidity and VSP here so I won't add either of them back, for now at least.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 05:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Amanda Marcott[edit]

Inclusion has confused 3 Redditors. Whatever shall we do? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 13:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I do think the accusation is being overused recently. Someone has to be consistantly, obviously wrong and "respectable" to be a VSP. Support for the Iraq War (espescially if they never acknowledge the mistake), support for austerity during recessions, and saying the GOP and Democrats were equally "extreme" (the instability and breakdown of the GOP this year shows just how wrong this was) while also being a "respectable" pundit the whole time would probably mark someone as a VSP for instance, since they're consistantly very clearly wrong. Being a Centrist, disagreeing with radical tactics, etc. does not in and of itself make a VSP. Also I'm privately a little suspiscious we may have a slight tankie problem (as in them being a disproportionatly active political minority), they seem to have become more active lately on the internet in general, possibly a reaction to the rise of the Alt Right. Most of their changes seem to get reversed but when they occasionally slip through the cracks it can be pretty embarrasing (for a bit our Fidel Castra page portrayed him as benevolent democratic leader cause some tankie kept changing it). Marcott, however, was pretty horribly wrong, but I'm not sure she's "centrist" enough to be considered a VSP. In fact she's pretty controversial. ClothCoat (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Well I had added several people like Klein to this list previously and my reasoning is that get their talking points from the president but still pretend to have very important opinions through their "analysis". I think that someone being controversial can still make you a VSP depending just how controversial you are; for an example, Chris Hayes said that honor shouldn't solely be associated with war but the right-wing and MSNBC freaked out and had him recanted this non-radical statement by suggesting that civilians can't question the military. Also, I wouldn't go so far as to call someone a tankie for writing favorable about Castro but the user who did hasn't editted for quite awhile now.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Well if I had to pick between Klein and Marcott Klein would better fit the model of a VSP though I thought he had been willing to criticize Obama before? Anways yeah the problem is that this word had a very specific meaning, to refer to pro-austerity Beltway Establishment types who've never had an original thought in their lives and since then the word's meaning had expanded. Maybe we should split the VSP pundits between those who are "VSP pundits" and "YOur Milage may Vary" for those who have some of their traits but don't totally fit the bill? Then put Klein, Marcott, Chait, etc. under the YMMV category and give a very short summary of their work. ClothCoat (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Klein has likely criticized Obama but he still seeks that most important press visit which has always reeked of careerism; journos who have criticized Obama tend to cover for it by saying that he faced a massive amount of obstructionism, which is true, but has very little to do with his policy on drones and expansion of surveillance. Your reform is a great idea since BoNs and other users have readded people like Chait.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

'To a man'[edit]

Is this a deliberate usage - irony, VSPs being exclusively 'the right sort of chaps', or otherwise - in which case this should be made clear: otherwise 'to a person' or more inclusive term (reptilians, sentient jellyfish, algae, etc - the latter two in their unevolved forms having higher IQs than some woo-followers). (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

On the Characteristics of Very Serious People[edit]

It seems a fair lot of the "characteristics of very serious people" are US-specific. As a Franco-Belgian this annoys me a little. For instance, there is written that you shouldn't talk with them about French politics, but that would hardly apply for any French VSP. I'd suggest a rewrite of this part. Anyone on board? Hex4 (talk) 10:26 (UTC)

This article should be deleted, or it should be funnier[edit]

Because, "Very Serious People is a mocking title..."
1. being dishonest and self-serving...includes almost everyone when regarding people of different ideologies
2. presenting facile "common sense" analyses as Great Wisdom,...includes many decent people, e.g., your mother and father
3. consistently getting political predictions or policy recommendations wrong....includes almost everyone who makes political predictions.
Ariel31459 (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)