It's rather naive to think that journalist did not know the response from the various crowds her letter would have. So, explicitly stating she did not want him fired, was nothing more than lip service. Again, she knew the response her letter was going to get, and no it's not "the problem", her letter is just sideshow to generate attention for herself.

Pointing out that you said "they" want to "cancel" Matt Yglacias, when in fact she does not, is most definitely attacking your argument.

Hahahahahhahahahahahaha

Oh wow, this dude gets super upset when we read implications into the words he says, but now he knows for sure that she wants Matty Y blackballed for the rest of his life even though she says the opposite?

Gaslighting. Again, I give you chance, you prove what ****stain you are. I'm not upset. It's just amazing you demonstrate your narcissism on que.

This is gaslighting. Wookie is not saying you're upset right now. He's saying you get upset when people read implications into words you say. Is...that...not true???

He made it about me. That fact number one. He questioned my emotional state. That's fact number two. He distorted what I said. That's fact number three. Fact number four is, I get "upset" when someone (especially a narcissist) tries manipulate me, not straw man me, but it's more agitation, which has been explained to him explicitly, multiple times. You guys straw man me all the time, it somewhat annoying, but it has no bearing on mood. His post was gaslighting, not very extreme, but it was nonetheless. I'm hardly ever mad, sad, upset, angry when you think I am.

Finally, and once again, you guys make it about me.

The funny part about all this is that it proves his general point entirely correct. It's very clear, and I hope uncontroversial, that you don't like it when people read implications into what you say. Wookie phrasing it as "you get upset" has sent you into a spree of very animated posting in opposition! (I made this as careful as possible to not make assumptions about your current emotional state, since you very clearly do not like that)

So like, you can quibble about "upset" vs. however you want to describe it, but you very obviously don't like people taking even the smallest hyperbole with your posts. There's no gaslighting at all here, just really dumb and incredibly unimportant nitpicking over the specific words Wookie used (see also: you're whining that Wookie used the word "blackballing" to describe your claim of people trying to "cancel" Yglesias. What's the ****ing difference? Who do you think cares?).

The point is not that she wanted him fired....the point is, she knew people would call for it. It's like plausible deniability.

Do you really need a meta analysis? MrWookie is a very dishonest poster (that's not really an uncommon complaint he gets), you are not as dishonest, but it's questionable. He's extremely manipulative in how he frames things. Then when I respond, he manipulates things again. So, am I going to more critical of his word choices than I would be WN's, or even yours, for instance? Absolutely.

You guys did your best. Ya still fooled absolutely no one.

Maybe you could save the criticism for when it actually makes any difference at all. idk what word you want him to use instead of "upset" - "animated"? "Unhappy" (though that's also an emotional state)? "Bristled" (kinda weird, but you're not leaving us a lot of choices here)? Take your word of choice and pretend he said that instead of "upset". Get over the fact that "blackballed" and "cancel" don't mean literally the same thing but are close e-****ing-nough that it makes no sense to quibble about.

Neither of those changes would change the meaning of Wookie's post in the slightest. So why are we sitting here talking about this **** instead of his actual point? Because you're so incredibly sensitive about the fact he used the word "upset"? Jesus, be a grown-up and have slightly thicker skin.

Ah, another example this reminded me of that I need to add to my "lol cancel culture" compendium: Bret Stephens And The Bedbug Episode

Don't you see his post was a manipulation:

My post had nothing to do with the content of the letter, but about what the anticipated response would be:

She knew what the response was going to be, though, and still made the letter public anyways. There is just no way a journalist who works for Vox, has 62K followers does know what the impact of her letter was going to have. If you don't want him fired, why make the letter public? Or, he was just going to be collateral damage in her quest for attention.

His post was a manipulation/distortion, and ultimately wrong.

Focusing on "the words" is missing the forest for the trees. You would be just as not-liking-it-and-writing-strongly-worded-posts (I dare not use a word that implies emotional state here, clearly) if someone assumed the same claims about you that you assumed about Emily VanDerWerff.

Am I wrong? Tell me you wouldn't be very-not-liking-it if someone took a post you wrote and claimed to know the exact bad-faith reasons you did so.

There's zero "manipulation" here.

So, you want to keep talking about that aspect, that's your desire, right?


The reason she did it was for attention, that's my claim/read. The impact would result in matt yglesias getting heat, and his job would be at risk, and she knew that was going to occur. I also never said she wanted him fired, or blackballed, or that was the reason she did it. It was consequence, that she apparently did not care about.

Uh you definitely wanted to talk about Wookie's "manipulation" "gaslighting" etc because he said "upset" and "blackballing" instead of <still waiting for a word you'd prefer> and "cancel". You've ground "manipulation" and "gaslighting" into meaninglessness.

I'd definitely prefer to have avoided this entire derail and just had you respond to Wookie's point from the start, but you made that impossible.

...and you'd be very-not-liking-it if someone made the same claims and performed the same psychoanalysis about your posting here, correct?

LOL. It's a wonder to watch how much your posts change between when I click "quote" and when I post a reply. How's that for "manipulation"? And now you've "manipulated" it into something so contradictory with your original claim as to render this entire discussion pointless.

It's not psychoanalysis. It's analysing behavior, and I don't know why she wants attention, and if I were to attempt to determine that, that would be psychoanalysis.


Her behavior clearly indicated she wanted this to be about her. From her letter, to her making the letter public, then responding to the response to her letter with stuff that would bring her more attention. She instigated everything that brought her the attention. It's not an unreasonable conclusion to to think that her behavior was due to a desire for attention.

That's fair criticism that I edit a lot and I can see where that would be annoying. Also, you do know that when I say they, I'm not talking about she, right?

itshotinvegas, abort, bro

for some reason, they don't like to engage me. I'm just that damned good

lol this is like the 7th time (note: not intended to be a factual specific count, not manipulation, not gaslighting) that you've completely whiffed on the important part of the question: how you would react if someone did the same thing to you that you did to VanDerWerff.

She was the most likely candidate when you first wrote your post since it was literally the only instance I could find of anyone trying to "cancel" Matt Yglesias. If she wasn't trying to cancel him, but they were, it would have helped for you to post any evidence at all of who "they" might have been. (I still can't find any evidence of there being a "they" here; the only search result for today's kerfuffle on the front page of Yglesias' Google results is this Fox News article that cites no canceling behavior outside of VanDerWerff's letter)

I did not whiff, I ignored it. This is not about me, or what I would do.

As far as your second part, I'm not inclined to sort through all those tweets. I will say the reaction to her behavior ended up stronger than the attempts to cancel him. I also did not really find any cancelling behavior directed toward her, other than lots of criticisms, which is why she had to go to the death threats defense, IMO.

Your behavior shows that you are not answering this question because you think you are above the golden rule; it does not apply to you. Your behavior shows you don't think you need to treat others the way you expect to be treated.

This is just what you did to VanDerWerff, after all.

You do it to me all the time, though....and I ignore it, for the most part. To think you don't characterize my reaction every day is kinda silly.