Talk:Very Serious People/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 17 May 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

How

How exactly does Jonah Goldberg qualify as a VSP? Wehpudicabok (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Because neocons and other wingnuts take him seriously (note how quick the meme that Hitler was a Leftie took off). The term is kind of sarcastic you see... EVDebs (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I get the sarcasm. What I don't get is how someone who writes a book called "Liberal Fascism" can be graced with a term known for taking centrist stances. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 19:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Goldberg is definitely not what I think of when I think of VSP. Sure, VSPs can use wingnutty talking points, but they dress it up in more respectable and genteel language. The (pseudo-) centrist image is also important to maintain. For example, Bobo, as the archetypical VSP, is considered a RINO or liberal by wingnuts. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think VSPism is really bound to a political position as such; William Buckley comes to mind as one of the archetypes of the VSP, and he was frighteningly racist. I can't think of too many liberal VSPs, but they are most certainly out there -- depending on your POV Noam Chomsky might be one, although I think his real problem is more a failure to grasp Hanlon's Razor than anything else. It's more a question of being pretentiously, authoritatively wrong. That's largely a conceit of authoritarianism and FYIGMism more than it is a real left-right thing, and as we are all painfully aware, authoritarians especially exist all over the political spectrum. EVDebs (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky, seriously? The term is meaningless if it can be applied to him. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Chompsky is too far from the center and too willing to create controversy to be a VSP. He also doesn't fall for the balance fallacy. You guys are will me on Tony Blair though right? He's the only slightly left leaning VSP I can think of.ClothCoat (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're a Post-Keynesian Paul Krugman is a VSP. I'm a fan and all, but some of his articles on Abenomics are embarrassing. Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to add David Cameron to the list of VSP politicians unless anyone has any objections.ClothCoat (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

on second thought Tony Blair is more of a VSP than Cameron is.ClothCoat (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of "No true Scotsman"...

What about news sources that provide sober commentary? Are they part of the "Very Serious People"? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Depends on how good their information is. EVDebs (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Generally, I personally exclude people from the moniker of 'Very Serious People' based on one of two criteria.

Are they consistently center-right/left among domestic and economic policies? If you're a (non-vulgar) libertarian, communist, religious fundamentalist, democratic socialist, Austrian schooler, etc.. you're automatically disqualified from being a VSP. You can still be totally fucking wrong, you're just not VSP-wrong.

Most importantly do they consistently get policy recommendations and analyses wrong because their views were mainstream and refuse to repudiate their old views? Being wrong doesn't make you a Very Serious Person. Being wrong for the same reasons -- that is, all of your buddies are WASP upper-middle class centrist urbanites -- and not updating your old views will make you so. Nate Silver is a centrist, but doesn't get things wrong like VSP tend to do. Josh Barro is a right-leaning centrist (almost conservative) but has admitted error in the past and when he's wrong about things it's not because he was following conventional wisdom. Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Obama actually does qualify for most of these traits, though he's not as wrong on issues as most VSP's tend to be. Is it just "doctrinaire liberals" and libertarians who think that he's a VSP because he seems to be something of a VSP. On a side note I think the South Park guys qualify for a lot of this as well (global warming denialism until it was no longer acceptable, Pro consumerism until Walmart threatened local tradition, an appeal to moderation at most times, a preference for "quiet solutions" and tolerance of some intolerance such as in the Boy Scout episode, don't like identifying with anyone but the center, hysterical over generalizations over Christianity and other such things). Don't get me wrong I do enjoy South Park but they seem to qualify. ClothCoat (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

When you say Obmaa (or anyone else) is or isn't a VSP, are you taking this term seriously? by our own definition, **I** could be a VSP in the right moments. It's just a snarl word, listing who is or is not a VSP is not overly "rational" of us. it's just saying "these are people we find to be fake". but that's not really RW's place. is it?Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 19:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I would think that is RW's place since this is a wiki devoted to rational thought, calling out people who are fake is kind of what we do. I also like to think I am taking the term seriously, which is why I'm asking on the talk page instead of just adding anyone I don't like. ClothCoat (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree somewhat, although I think the VSP label should be reserved for pundits, not politicians. Politicians must commit to a side at least enough to join a party (unless of course they're independent, but independents typically don't get too far); pundits have no such constraint and so the behavior of avoiding committing to anything outside the center is much more prominent and worth discussing. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 06:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Chris Matthews

Does Chris Matthews qualify? He is consistently wrong about election results, while often saying that he knows better because it's his "job", and he's a centrist/center-right as well. On the other hand he can generate a lot of controversy, which is unusual for a VSP. ClothCoat (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Author query

Can there be VSPs on the left? Not actually on the left, of course, but at least identified (and self-identified) as liberals? I see Obama on the list in a hedging sort of way, but by and large VSPhood as exampled -- though not as described, per se -- seems to be a conservative thing.<3 C^{Sapphire bullets of pure love} 03:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course No True Leftist can be a VSP, right?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Robert. F. Kennedy, maybe? But it's not like they give him space in the Times. VSPs are opinion-makers. They are statist by definition. Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, when I say "not actually on the left" I mean VSPs are described in the article as centrist. Since leftists are on the left (the clue is in the name), and thus not centrists, actual leftists, like actual rightists (who are on the right, and thus not centrists) are not fully under the VSP umbrella. <3 C^{Sapphire bullets of pure love} 15:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

So it's nothing more than a term of abuse from the left against the center, huh, like "librul" from the right against the left (and the center). Everyone loves his snarl words.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a liberal can be a VSP (as noted Paul Krugman has been accused of being one). The reason so many "serious" conservative pundits in the US end up being "VSP's" is that they often have to defend an increasingly extreme and unstable GOP that is clearly incapable of governing. Thus they have three choices, denounce and distance themselves from the party so they can stay serious pundits (i.e. Bruce Bartlett), go full wingnut and no longer be taken as seriously by the mainstream but instead stay on more hard-right publications for money (see: Wingnut welfare), or waffle in a dishonest way so that you can stick with the party while still being "mainstream". In practice the last of those end up using VSP tactics so they can avoid being denounced by either the hard-right or the center. The reason so few ACTUAL leftists are not VSP's is because in the US when you go to the left of liberalism you generally end up being considered fringe or no longer serious by mainstream pundits (the far-left does not have a GOP like entity to legitimize itself in the eyes of the Beltway media and thus is often ignored by them), so while they may be moonbats they are, by definition, too outside the mainsteam to be considered VSP's. Are you done complaining now? Edit: Also it does not describe ALL centrists, hence why Bruce Bartlett and Ezra Klein are not considered VSP's. Your anger about this is just weird. ClothCoat (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Say,

what's with this Putin-apologia and somehow trying to justify Putin conquering pieces of his neighbors with sovereign and democratic countries joining a defense alliance out of their own free will??--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 23:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 23:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know this article got alot weirder since the last time I checked it, which wasn't that long ago. Also how is it a "myth" that Vietnam veterans were mistreated and blamed for the war, even if they weren't spat on in airports per se? Let me try to clean it up a bit. ClothCoat (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Well Vietnam veterans being blamed for the war is mostly a myth but I wouldn't make that a VSP position. NATO might be but more for their duoble standard that NATO isn't an agressor while Russia always is. I don't really see how national liberation and annexation has anything to do with being a VSP either.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 04:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

VSP pundits

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

Inclusion has confused 3 Redditors. Whatever shall we do? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (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'

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). 86.145.120.234 (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This article should be deleted, or it should be funnier

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)