u/adifferentGOAT

Looking for pros/cons about working for this group, and appreciate any insights.

Wild story of illiberalism in academia.

Before anyone starts crying in the comments: yes, Chait wrote it, and yes, it is in The Atlantic. Neither is the boogeyman, so set aside the purity test and actually read it. If your entire contribution to the discussion is going to be "AIPAC bad," save everyone the time and move on because you are adding zero value.

Burn-it-down populism flattens complex foreign and domestic policy into cheap, conspiratorial us-versus-them soundbites. More importantly, it shows the massive risk of ideological purists willingly blowing up the broader anti-MAGA coalition and throwing a must-win swing state to Mike Rogers just to score online points in a primary.

This piece captures how tribal ideological purity is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of open debate and free expression.

PEN America (the literal freedom to write watchdog) published a measured, data and testimonial backed article about the blacklisting and harassment that Israeli and Jewish writers have faced since Oct. 7. This was just a defense of writers being chilled out of the literary market.

Hours later, PEN’s president, Dinaw Mengestu, resigned in protest. His reasoning? He feared that acknowledging the stifling of Jewish/Israeli writers might hurt the "free speech" rights of pro-Palestinian activists who want to boycott them.

As former PEN president Andrew Solomon put it in the piece: "Is the lie that some people’s suffering matters more than that of others the role of an organization dedicated to free speech and truth?"

When an organization dedicated to defending all writers decides that merely reporting on the censorship of one group is an act of aggression against another, does universal free speech stand?

Wanted to see if anyone has recommendations for screenless or non-watch fitness trackers that track your training/recovery while syncing and incorporating your peloton workouts.

I used to use a Garmin forerunner watch and really enjoyed it, but lately on the daily have been wearing mechanical watches. I’d like a daily fitness/recovery tracker that doesn’t clash with a regular watch. I also want whatever it is to incorporate my peloton workouts in its tracking.

Garmin is supposed to be coming out of a screenless on (Cirqa), but who knows when it’ll ever release. There’s the new Fitbit, Whoop with its subscription, Polar Loop, Oura rings also with a subscription, and probably others.

Curious if anyone has a setup they like?

Wanted to see if anyone has recommendations for screenless or non-watch fitness trackers that track your training/recovery while syncing and incorporating your peloton workouts.

I used to use a Garmin forerunner watch and really enjoyed it, but lately on the daily have been wearing mechanical watches. I’d like a daily fitness/recovery tracker that doesn’t clash with a regular watch. I also want whatever it is to incorporate my peloton workouts in its tracking.

Garmin is supposed to be coming out of a screenless on (Cirqa), but who knows when it’ll ever release. There’s the new Fitbit, Whoop with its subscription, Polar Loop, Oura rings also with a subscription, and probably others.

Curious if anyone has a setup they like?

In light of the increase in trolling and deliberately off topic comments in various posts, saw this rule about not allowing “Unconstructive engagement.”

It was listed as the following:

Unconstructive engagement
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.

I want to emphasize the last sentence. Hot takes, bad opinions, etc are not in the scope of this. The deliberate trolling and derailing of certain posts is obvious and warrants being addressed.

For the folks that yell censorship, get over yourself. It’s a moderated subreddit.

Who takes over now when Judy retires?

Right now this subreddit doesn’t have a mission statement. Instead it has rule 2, which says posts should be "…related to the Bulwark or subjects that are tangentially related (ie US politics)” - this is an incredibly low bar and allows for a loophole opening the door to becoming just another lower quality political subreddits. Sure it gets volume and views, and I guess that’s the point.

Compare that to the Bulwark’s actual stated mission: “"The Bulwark was founded to provide analysis and reporting in defense of America’s liberal democracy. That’s it. That’s the mission."

There are multiple comments from users straight up admitting they don't care about that mission. They just see this space as a generic forum about The Bulwark. This invites obvious trolls and single issue posters who use mental gymnastics to hijack completely unrelated threads to champion their own litmus test.

Sure, hit me with the I’m asking for censorship when moderation already exists. Censorship is about banning opposing viewpoints. What I’m arguing for is relevance and quality. There is a massive difference between suppressing a political stance and simply asking that a community stay true to its core purpose. If people are just here to crap on liberal democracy or post low-effort ragebait, what’s the point? The rest of Reddit already exists for that.

We can easily fix some without silencing anyone. A great place to start would be instituting basic quality standards like requiring substantive starter comments instead of lazy screenshot dumps and using mega threads so the front page doesn't get flooded with 10 redundant posts every time a new news story drops.

To the hyper-vocal minority who spend all day furiously hijacking every single thread to scream about your one preferred grievance: I assume bringing down the quality of a niche political subreddit is currently the only area of your life where you feel a sense of control, and I respect the commitment. The rest of us shouldn't have to subsidize your therapy (subsidizing your therapy in what is effectively the attention economy).

“The Bulwark was founded to provide analysis and reporting in defense of America’s liberal democracy.” This comes direct from the Bulwark’s about section. True liberalism is about fixing the rules of the game, yet this community is increasingly making excuses for the anti-system populists who want to flip the table.

The DSA platform has some structural and rhetorical similarities with the current far right republican movement. Both view the political establishment as a unified force that protects its own interests at the expense of Americans. DSA calls the elite the capitalist ruling class, corp billionaires, and donor-controlled politicians. Far right calls it the deep state, globalist technocrats, throw in some cultural/academic elites. Both of these sides focus on an us vs. them framework. Both with active hostility towards its respective centers.

The biggest overlap may be the skepticism of globalism and interventionist foreign policy. What is retrenchment for the right is anti-imperialism on the left and manifests in the same votes.

Capitalism is fundamentally productive but requires strong, democratic guardrails to prevent it from consuming itself and destroying personal freedom.

Unlike populism, which seeks to burn down institutions out of anger, reformism seeks to repair the rules of the game so the market works for everyone, while fiercely protecting individual autonomy and the rule of law. Populism blames a vague elite or political establishment, but reformism targets the specific, legal mechanisms that distort democracy.

What does that mean?

Restore our system: end gerrymandering, overturn Citizens United. This can be modern fixes like the Wyoming Rule to expand the house (and thereby fixing the electoral college) and statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C, ranked choice voting, and a regularized system of 18-year non-renewable terms for the Supreme Court so every president would get to appoint exactly two justices per four-year term.

Protect rule of law: ban elected officials from trading individual stocks, enforce anti-trust laws.

Safeguard individual freedoms through stability (a safety net).

Re: foreign policy, retreating into isolationism or abandoning our allies would fundamentally destabilize the global order, weaken the U.S. dollar, and threaten the greatest humanitarian achievement in human history: lifting billions of people out of extreme poverty. Deterrence is cheaper than war. The U.S. is seen as the stable anchor of the international system, the U.S. dollar serves as the world’s primary reserve currency. Defense spending is far from a zero sum game.

When its primary online community begins prioritizing the emotional gratification of populist rhetoric and making excuses for anti-system candidates, it proves just how infectious populist anger can be. It is a disappointing reminder that when the commitment to procedural fairness, institutional health, and pragmatic reform is replaced by ideological tribalism, we take a collective step away from the stable foundation of America’s liberal democracy and slide further toward political fracture.