"The more I talk about all this, the more I want to make something clear: I have zero interest in lodging a defense against internet call-outs." I gotta be honest: this newsletter definitely read like a defense against internet call-outs, or at least a pretty clear signal that you're verrrry uncomfortable with them. You're sort of framing it as "just asking questions" but I'm not sure the questions are particularly helpful or compassionate right now, at least not for the people who need help and compassion in this moment (Black people). I also think it's good to consider that processing things in public can sometimes be more harmful than you might intend, especially if/when you find yourself saying, "I wonder if I'm just feeling this way because I can identity more with the people doing harm than those being hurt."
That said, if you're going to publicly wring your hands about "call-out culture" and whether or not it's "productive," I think it's incredibly important to at least be really, really clear about who specifically you are talking about (and who you aren't talking about). When you say "when the pile-on starts to feel purely punitive, co-opted by people who appear to be more concerned with inflicting social exile than progress"....who is that about? Are you talking about Tammie Teclemariam, who is going after racists at Bon Appetit? Are you talking about the Man Repeller commentariat? Someone else entirely? And who are the people doing call-outs "in good faith" who you feel these unnamed others are being unfair to? What are some examples of "online finger pointing" that you'd say are setting a good example for others to follow — that you approve of, basically? And how are you, personally, deciding what feels performative vs. good faith? (That's not a loaded question, btw — I think it's good for all of us to try to unpack our strong feelings and opinions about other people's behavior and understand why, exactly, it rubs us the wrong way.)
Basically: without specific examples for readers to go look at and read more about on our own, it's not possible for the reader to consider what you're saying and make up their own mind, to engage in a real discussion about it, or to substantively disagree with you.
As a Black queer woman who seriously side eyes Chapo Trap House, I get the distinct sensation that this newsletter isn't really *for* me (especially after reading the comments) which, of course, is fine. But since you said you're committed to showing up for and listening to the people who are harmed, I thought I'd offer my two cents.
That Jen Pan article, and the Chapo Trap House episode she was on, were both really good, and I'm not usually a huge Chapo fan.
Over the years, I've been disconcerted by how politically significant moments, reckonings with respect to racism or other struggles, turn into this kind of identitarian punitive thing. I've been in the position before of rightfully calling out bigotry, only to find myself going round calling everything and everyone "white". If we're talking about the reckoning in women's media and - not to name a specific publication - MR, I feel uncomfortable calling that team "white": Leandra is not white, several members of the leadership team are not white, some of them I have no clue whether they are or not. It doesn't make it any less true or abhorrent that they had unpaid interns, that a bunch of former employees had a terrible time there, that they fired a bunch of POC at the start of the covid pandemic, that all the Black queer writers seem to have left strikingly quickly. But does that mean you have to call a South Asian and a Middle-Eastern woman not only white but "incredibly white"? Does it mean you have to get scarily personal about a specific member of the team ? Does that mean she's beyond redemption and if she tries to do better or apologise she's just doing "white fragility"? Is she caught in an endless loop of wincing, crying and self-flagellating? Does that really help anyone? The discussion around MR is, of course, just an example of the broader trend. Plus, the problem is with fashion media as a whole, and with fashion in general. It's good that people are finally admitting that it's all a bit gross: fashion, consumerism, being filthy rich, celebrity culture, and so on. Not so good if it's providing cover for people to let loose their personal bigotries or paranoias.
There's an interesting tension at work, also, between a diversity and representation issue, and a material one, as if the former is being deployed to derail the latter one that also involves racism, and also disproportionately affects people of color. In fact the former is weird - people pledging to support and consume music, literature, etc. by people of color, trans people, etc. as if that's a chore you do once a year or, like, once a historic anti-racist reckoning. If you're not reading James Baldwin or Frantz Fanon, what the hell are you even reading, you know?
Haley, I’m back because I can’t stop thinking about this part: “I agree that impact is always more important than intention, especially when it comes to laws and policies, but I don’t think it’s completely irrelevant where interpersonal dynamics are concerned. So when the pile-on starts to feel purely punitive, co-opted by people who appear to be more concerned with inflicting social exile than progress, the effort feels at odds with the broader movement, which actually seeks to move away from punitive measures to change behavior....Online finger-pointing seems most politically useful when it’s part of a broader effort to contextualize and dismantle systemic injustice. Otherwise it feels reminiscent of a neoliberal paradigm whereby individual choices are given more attention than the structural constraints that lead to them."
I’m obsessed with the concept of choice and personal agency (specifically, how little of
it we actually have). I think, ultimately, whenever you are looking to hold people accountable, you’re attempting a very delicate task that deserves to be given more thought than it generally is. The way I see it, this way of thinking isn’t confined to the current era, or as you put it, “the neoliberal paradigm” (although neoliberalism has exacerbated its consequences by narrowing our margin of agency over our lives). I think, in order to function as a society, we had to “create” the flawed construct of personal responsibility, whereby anyone over a certain age is considered fully responsible for their actions and the consequences of those actions. The problem with this idea is, while it’s very useful to establish a judicial system, it doesn’t hold much water philosophically. At the very least, it’s not perfect, precisely because it doesn’t take into consideration the millions of factors that influence our every move. Some of these factors are fairly easy to identify (though the manner and extent to which they influence every person’s life isn’t): race, class, gender, sexual orientation...But it’s a mistake to forget that a) there’s no way to know how these factors influence every specific individual b) there are millions of other factors that influence our circumstances and by extension our actions. Intelligence is genetics + opportunity. I’d argue even kindness (which is always perceived as something we “choose”) is more likely to be the result of having often been on the other end of kind acts. Chance has so much to do with the trajectory of our lives it will make you dizzy if you really think about it (or if you’re like me it will give you an anxiety attack). If you keep this in mind when judging someone, it’s hard to believe very strongly in the idea of personal responsibility. The problem is, of course, we still need to hold people accountable, because their actions can (and do) harm others. But that’s also, I believe, why any justice system (be it run by a government or a Twitter mob) should be, as you argued, less about punitive measures than it is about pushing for change. Punishment can be a necessary means, but it should never be the end. At the end of the day, individuals have a lot less “choice” than we want to believe, our actions are determined by systems much broader than ourselves. I think realizing this generally helps people (it’s certainly helped me) be kinder to themselves and to others
Man.... you just kind’ve nailed every thought I’ve had over the last few weeks. But articulated it so it was...coherent? Damn. Thank you for the newsletter. It has been the highlight of my Sundays. I hope that doesn’t sound sad.
Also, I’ve checked out (as a test to my waning attention span) some of the articles you have suggested and I have yet to be disappointed. Your taste!
I am awestruck at how hard this hits home and how well crafted it is. I started adoring your writing a few years ago when you articulated all of my banal thoughts and anxieties about being a twenty something. I am so pleased to see that years later as my thoughts and anxieties shift to more complex and larger topics, you are with me, still putting my confused gut-impulses and jumbled feelings into words. It’s a gift, Haley, that you have given me!
Similarly to fellow commenter Serene Eighteen, I am also obsessed with personal agency and how to shift social structures to encourage more of it for every individual. I am in the design field, and did my graduate thesis on how workplace design could encourage choice, which leads to feelings of control over the environment, and therefore encourages self-efficacy.
Re: your question about what I’m excited about right now... I’m excited about groups that are actively visioning and building agency and ways those agents can live in “right relationship with our ecosystems,“ as stated by Black Visions Collective. I’m also excited by the Reparations Summer called for by Black Land & Liberation.
I would love to funnel resources to groups such as these as well as continue to explore how architecture & design can provide a foundation for “living in right relationship”
Thank you for continuing to write for us, I always click on the links.
A funny ladies podcast I listen to also recently threatened to stop production because they are white (they got over the urge to be quiet as quickly as you did). Was it a true threat? I don’t know but I understand the feeling and I am relieved to not lose any intelligent women from my virtual life. I value your opinion and if you continue to promote the voices of minorities I will keep reading.
your writing articulates what I have sat on for some time. thank you for laying out your exploration and critiques. I wish I had more crucial dialogue to share, but I wanted to offer a comment re: #8. it depends on the dictionary company, but definitions are listed by their chronological usage rather than how commonly they're used (see Merriam-Webster vs. New Oxford American). also interesting that most dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive, so definitions are only published after they've been in use and recorded in language for some time already (though I admittedly have never used or seen the elf usage before??). I read about this in Kory Stamper's book "Word by Word," which I would absolutely recommend for a sarcastically entertaining non-fiction experience.
This is great, Haley. I’ve been feeling frozen and sad and frustrated, and I haven’t been able to put any of my thoughts into words, so this was helpful. I’ve found myself rolling my eyes at people who I consider to be allies and communities that I’m a part of on more than one occasion in the past few weeks, then immediately feeling guilty about not having my priorities straight. I’ve had to remind myself that this is a difficult time and feeling complicated emotions as a result is to be expected. For what it’s worth, I’m a woman of color, so I doubt it’s just because you’re white.
Interesting thoughts -- thanks for sharing. I don't believe 'call out' culture is helpful unless the call out is done in a way that offers genuine room for education, reflection and growth. I see some of that, but also some shaming which does seem divisive, as you said, among people who have the same goals. The consequence is that social media has become fraught: any well-meaning post, or even a post about a big life milestone, can be taken the wrong way or seen as inappropriate. Thoughts about this vary so there's no sense of 'right'/'wrong.' And I struggle with this piece particularly: anything posted online is by definition, performative, part of building one's public identity (I think we can all agree, no matter how casual we are about SM, that this is part of what we do there, whether intentionally or not). So perhaps, by definition, unhelpful? And the other piece is that what will never be visible online is the real work, whether you're investigating personal biases, talking to family, advocating for change in your work place, making donations... so why are we basing so much-- even rewriting our perceptions of friends-- off of what IS visible? (Huge disclaimer that of course this applies only to genuine allies and progressives who are working/thinking seriously to become anti-racist, not to the apathetic or conservatives).
Oh boy. I think it comes down to something super simple for me: tone policing. Insinuating to people that the way they've held their oppressor accountable is too messy, chaotic, uncomfortable, harsh, or punitive is just tone policing. Over the weekend, I listened to a podcast that brought up tone policing as something white people should *never* do to Black and Brown people, but *must* do to themselves in conversation with other white people to bring them into these discussions and this movement. When you worry about turning people away from this conversation, you need to understand that this conversation is centuries old, and in the face of trauma and brutalization, we cannot tone police the most impacted people. Instead, we must collect our own people and bring them to this conversation, through the door that is (graciously, miraculously) still open for them to pass through and into collective liberation. We are living through an extraordinary moment, but there is no time for white fragility here.
I've also arrived to a very similar vocabulary, while thinking about social media. I've come to see it as shades of panopticon, surveillance, behaviorally affecting and incentivizing people to heights of delusion (particularly re: influence and action). Your little note on autological words though is very intriguing, particularly re: tone policing. I wonder how much of my disdain falls under a kind of self-assuaging performance...It's difficult to parse how deep the infiltration goes.
I also find it disappointing to see how popular "critical" discourse (esp. on social media) is satisfied and sedated by reductive urban legends in the guise of rigorous theory. For example, the (punitive) behaviors and (oversimplified) ethics that people enact still allow for unobserved racecraft to thrive: the racism has metastasized.
I've been disturbed by, say, those who will claim they are for restorative justice, but are heavily didactic in their personal ethics. There's a heavy-handed fixation with the individual (and weirdly, it often becomes a metaphysical obsession with a person's interiority and soul). Or the ways the culture demands for purity tests in regressive, reactive (puritanical, calvinian) ways. Policing.
One little glimmer of hope I see in all this though, is my understanding that people are trying to develop a “new” social ethics, a new vocabulary, by which we can reach, hopefully, equity and thriving. Of course, I see a lot of pretense that in fact re-entrenches tired and familiar oppressions, or a fixation on gaining the upper hand on what is essentially mutable: norms (See: Overton window).
By the way, I thoroughly enjoy the hyperlinks and bullet points of what you have been reading. Perhaps I am the few who do click through them. Please continue to do so! It has diversified my media consumption for the better!
Haley! Have you read Trick Mirror? I just started it and Jia touches upon some of the “examined life” and social media, among other topics. I’ve found it to be the additional conversation I need, as I read it. Thank you as always for these newsletters and your honesty and writing is always appreciated. THANK YOU!
I was a linguistics major so I'm loving the shout out to autological words and the Kafka trap! I'm also into my sudden realization/spin off mental meme that your name could be the call and response of a stoner avoiding someone looking for them at a party.
Person A: "I think that's them..Haley! Hey, over here, Haley! *squeezes awkwardly across the crowded room and taps Person B on shoulder* Haley?" Person B: *turns slowly, looks Person A up and down* Nah man. *immediately turns back around and continues conversation with others*.
"The more I talk about all this, the more I want to make something clear: I have zero interest in lodging a defense against internet call-outs." I gotta be honest: this newsletter definitely read like a defense against internet call-outs, or at least a pretty clear signal that you're verrrry uncomfortable with them. You're sort of framing it as "just asking questions" but I'm not sure the questions are particularly helpful or compassionate right now, at least not for the people who need help and compassion in this moment (Black people). I also think it's good to consider that processing things in public can sometimes be more harmful than you might intend, especially if/when you find yourself saying, "I wonder if I'm just feeling this way because I can identity more with the people doing harm than those being hurt."
That said, if you're going to publicly wring your hands about "call-out culture" and whether or not it's "productive," I think it's incredibly important to at least be really, really clear about who specifically you are talking about (and who you aren't talking about). When you say "when the pile-on starts to feel purely punitive, co-opted by people who appear to be more concerned with inflicting social exile than progress"....who is that about? Are you talking about Tammie Teclemariam, who is going after racists at Bon Appetit? Are you talking about the Man Repeller commentariat? Someone else entirely? And who are the people doing call-outs "in good faith" who you feel these unnamed others are being unfair to? What are some examples of "online finger pointing" that you'd say are setting a good example for others to follow — that you approve of, basically? And how are you, personally, deciding what feels performative vs. good faith? (That's not a loaded question, btw — I think it's good for all of us to try to unpack our strong feelings and opinions about other people's behavior and understand why, exactly, it rubs us the wrong way.)
Basically: without specific examples for readers to go look at and read more about on our own, it's not possible for the reader to consider what you're saying and make up their own mind, to engage in a real discussion about it, or to substantively disagree with you.
As a Black queer woman who seriously side eyes Chapo Trap House, I get the distinct sensation that this newsletter isn't really *for* me (especially after reading the comments) which, of course, is fine. But since you said you're committed to showing up for and listening to the people who are harmed, I thought I'd offer my two cents.
That Jen Pan article, and the Chapo Trap House episode she was on, were both really good, and I'm not usually a huge Chapo fan.
Over the years, I've been disconcerted by how politically significant moments, reckonings with respect to racism or other struggles, turn into this kind of identitarian punitive thing. I've been in the position before of rightfully calling out bigotry, only to find myself going round calling everything and everyone "white". If we're talking about the reckoning in women's media and - not to name a specific publication - MR, I feel uncomfortable calling that team "white": Leandra is not white, several members of the leadership team are not white, some of them I have no clue whether they are or not. It doesn't make it any less true or abhorrent that they had unpaid interns, that a bunch of former employees had a terrible time there, that they fired a bunch of POC at the start of the covid pandemic, that all the Black queer writers seem to have left strikingly quickly. But does that mean you have to call a South Asian and a Middle-Eastern woman not only white but "incredibly white"? Does it mean you have to get scarily personal about a specific member of the team ? Does that mean she's beyond redemption and if she tries to do better or apologise she's just doing "white fragility"? Is she caught in an endless loop of wincing, crying and self-flagellating? Does that really help anyone? The discussion around MR is, of course, just an example of the broader trend. Plus, the problem is with fashion media as a whole, and with fashion in general. It's good that people are finally admitting that it's all a bit gross: fashion, consumerism, being filthy rich, celebrity culture, and so on. Not so good if it's providing cover for people to let loose their personal bigotries or paranoias.
There's an interesting tension at work, also, between a diversity and representation issue, and a material one, as if the former is being deployed to derail the latter one that also involves racism, and also disproportionately affects people of color. In fact the former is weird - people pledging to support and consume music, literature, etc. by people of color, trans people, etc. as if that's a chore you do once a year or, like, once a historic anti-racist reckoning. If you're not reading James Baldwin or Frantz Fanon, what the hell are you even reading, you know?
Question for Dear Baby: How do you square your own consumerism (especially around clothing) with your critiques of late capitalism?
Haley, I’m back because I can’t stop thinking about this part: “I agree that impact is always more important than intention, especially when it comes to laws and policies, but I don’t think it’s completely irrelevant where interpersonal dynamics are concerned. So when the pile-on starts to feel purely punitive, co-opted by people who appear to be more concerned with inflicting social exile than progress, the effort feels at odds with the broader movement, which actually seeks to move away from punitive measures to change behavior....Online finger-pointing seems most politically useful when it’s part of a broader effort to contextualize and dismantle systemic injustice. Otherwise it feels reminiscent of a neoliberal paradigm whereby individual choices are given more attention than the structural constraints that lead to them."
I’m obsessed with the concept of choice and personal agency (specifically, how little of
it we actually have). I think, ultimately, whenever you are looking to hold people accountable, you’re attempting a very delicate task that deserves to be given more thought than it generally is. The way I see it, this way of thinking isn’t confined to the current era, or as you put it, “the neoliberal paradigm” (although neoliberalism has exacerbated its consequences by narrowing our margin of agency over our lives). I think, in order to function as a society, we had to “create” the flawed construct of personal responsibility, whereby anyone over a certain age is considered fully responsible for their actions and the consequences of those actions. The problem with this idea is, while it’s very useful to establish a judicial system, it doesn’t hold much water philosophically. At the very least, it’s not perfect, precisely because it doesn’t take into consideration the millions of factors that influence our every move. Some of these factors are fairly easy to identify (though the manner and extent to which they influence every person’s life isn’t): race, class, gender, sexual orientation...But it’s a mistake to forget that a) there’s no way to know how these factors influence every specific individual b) there are millions of other factors that influence our circumstances and by extension our actions. Intelligence is genetics + opportunity. I’d argue even kindness (which is always perceived as something we “choose”) is more likely to be the result of having often been on the other end of kind acts. Chance has so much to do with the trajectory of our lives it will make you dizzy if you really think about it (or if you’re like me it will give you an anxiety attack). If you keep this in mind when judging someone, it’s hard to believe very strongly in the idea of personal responsibility. The problem is, of course, we still need to hold people accountable, because their actions can (and do) harm others. But that’s also, I believe, why any justice system (be it run by a government or a Twitter mob) should be, as you argued, less about punitive measures than it is about pushing for change. Punishment can be a necessary means, but it should never be the end. At the end of the day, individuals have a lot less “choice” than we want to believe, our actions are determined by systems much broader than ourselves. I think realizing this generally helps people (it’s certainly helped me) be kinder to themselves and to others
Man.... you just kind’ve nailed every thought I’ve had over the last few weeks. But articulated it so it was...coherent? Damn. Thank you for the newsletter. It has been the highlight of my Sundays. I hope that doesn’t sound sad.
Also, I’ve checked out (as a test to my waning attention span) some of the articles you have suggested and I have yet to be disappointed. Your taste!
I am awestruck at how hard this hits home and how well crafted it is. I started adoring your writing a few years ago when you articulated all of my banal thoughts and anxieties about being a twenty something. I am so pleased to see that years later as my thoughts and anxieties shift to more complex and larger topics, you are with me, still putting my confused gut-impulses and jumbled feelings into words. It’s a gift, Haley, that you have given me!
Similarly to fellow commenter Serene Eighteen, I am also obsessed with personal agency and how to shift social structures to encourage more of it for every individual. I am in the design field, and did my graduate thesis on how workplace design could encourage choice, which leads to feelings of control over the environment, and therefore encourages self-efficacy.
Re: your question about what I’m excited about right now... I’m excited about groups that are actively visioning and building agency and ways those agents can live in “right relationship with our ecosystems,“ as stated by Black Visions Collective. I’m also excited by the Reparations Summer called for by Black Land & Liberation.
I would love to funnel resources to groups such as these as well as continue to explore how architecture & design can provide a foundation for “living in right relationship”
Thank you for continuing to write for us, I always click on the links.
A funny ladies podcast I listen to also recently threatened to stop production because they are white (they got over the urge to be quiet as quickly as you did). Was it a true threat? I don’t know but I understand the feeling and I am relieved to not lose any intelligent women from my virtual life. I value your opinion and if you continue to promote the voices of minorities I will keep reading.
Re: Ghibli - highly recommend Pom Poko, a movie in which raccoons are magical shape shifters, and listening to all of the Ghibli soundtracks in this playlist: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/37i9dQZF1DX7GTqMQDhOum?si=FQ3dzmHlRA-xaX37qSNpYA
Also, love the links you share, and love the transparency you bring to each newsletter ❤️
your writing articulates what I have sat on for some time. thank you for laying out your exploration and critiques. I wish I had more crucial dialogue to share, but I wanted to offer a comment re: #8. it depends on the dictionary company, but definitions are listed by their chronological usage rather than how commonly they're used (see Merriam-Webster vs. New Oxford American). also interesting that most dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive, so definitions are only published after they've been in use and recorded in language for some time already (though I admittedly have never used or seen the elf usage before??). I read about this in Kory Stamper's book "Word by Word," which I would absolutely recommend for a sarcastically entertaining non-fiction experience.
This is great, Haley. I’ve been feeling frozen and sad and frustrated, and I haven’t been able to put any of my thoughts into words, so this was helpful. I’ve found myself rolling my eyes at people who I consider to be allies and communities that I’m a part of on more than one occasion in the past few weeks, then immediately feeling guilty about not having my priorities straight. I’ve had to remind myself that this is a difficult time and feeling complicated emotions as a result is to be expected. For what it’s worth, I’m a woman of color, so I doubt it’s just because you’re white.
Interesting thoughts -- thanks for sharing. I don't believe 'call out' culture is helpful unless the call out is done in a way that offers genuine room for education, reflection and growth. I see some of that, but also some shaming which does seem divisive, as you said, among people who have the same goals. The consequence is that social media has become fraught: any well-meaning post, or even a post about a big life milestone, can be taken the wrong way or seen as inappropriate. Thoughts about this vary so there's no sense of 'right'/'wrong.' And I struggle with this piece particularly: anything posted online is by definition, performative, part of building one's public identity (I think we can all agree, no matter how casual we are about SM, that this is part of what we do there, whether intentionally or not). So perhaps, by definition, unhelpful? And the other piece is that what will never be visible online is the real work, whether you're investigating personal biases, talking to family, advocating for change in your work place, making donations... so why are we basing so much-- even rewriting our perceptions of friends-- off of what IS visible? (Huge disclaimer that of course this applies only to genuine allies and progressives who are working/thinking seriously to become anti-racist, not to the apathetic or conservatives).
Oh boy. I think it comes down to something super simple for me: tone policing. Insinuating to people that the way they've held their oppressor accountable is too messy, chaotic, uncomfortable, harsh, or punitive is just tone policing. Over the weekend, I listened to a podcast that brought up tone policing as something white people should *never* do to Black and Brown people, but *must* do to themselves in conversation with other white people to bring them into these discussions and this movement. When you worry about turning people away from this conversation, you need to understand that this conversation is centuries old, and in the face of trauma and brutalization, we cannot tone police the most impacted people. Instead, we must collect our own people and bring them to this conversation, through the door that is (graciously, miraculously) still open for them to pass through and into collective liberation. We are living through an extraordinary moment, but there is no time for white fragility here.
I've also arrived to a very similar vocabulary, while thinking about social media. I've come to see it as shades of panopticon, surveillance, behaviorally affecting and incentivizing people to heights of delusion (particularly re: influence and action). Your little note on autological words though is very intriguing, particularly re: tone policing. I wonder how much of my disdain falls under a kind of self-assuaging performance...It's difficult to parse how deep the infiltration goes.
I also find it disappointing to see how popular "critical" discourse (esp. on social media) is satisfied and sedated by reductive urban legends in the guise of rigorous theory. For example, the (punitive) behaviors and (oversimplified) ethics that people enact still allow for unobserved racecraft to thrive: the racism has metastasized.
I've been disturbed by, say, those who will claim they are for restorative justice, but are heavily didactic in their personal ethics. There's a heavy-handed fixation with the individual (and weirdly, it often becomes a metaphysical obsession with a person's interiority and soul). Or the ways the culture demands for purity tests in regressive, reactive (puritanical, calvinian) ways. Policing.
One little glimmer of hope I see in all this though, is my understanding that people are trying to develop a “new” social ethics, a new vocabulary, by which we can reach, hopefully, equity and thriving. Of course, I see a lot of pretense that in fact re-entrenches tired and familiar oppressions, or a fixation on gaining the upper hand on what is essentially mutable: norms (See: Overton window).
By the way, I thoroughly enjoy the hyperlinks and bullet points of what you have been reading. Perhaps I am the few who do click through them. Please continue to do so! It has diversified my media consumption for the better!
Haley! Have you read Trick Mirror? I just started it and Jia touches upon some of the “examined life” and social media, among other topics. I’ve found it to be the additional conversation I need, as I read it. Thank you as always for these newsletters and your honesty and writing is always appreciated. THANK YOU!
I was a linguistics major so I'm loving the shout out to autological words and the Kafka trap! I'm also into my sudden realization/spin off mental meme that your name could be the call and response of a stoner avoiding someone looking for them at a party.
Person A: "I think that's them..Haley! Hey, over here, Haley! *squeezes awkwardly across the crowded room and taps Person B on shoulder* Haley?" Person B: *turns slowly, looks Person A up and down* Nah man. *immediately turns back around and continues conversation with others*.
Sorry, I've uhh..I've been inside a while...