I always tell young writers that the price of success is that suddenly, without you changing anything at all, some people just violently hate you.
They'll try to find a reason, whether it's that you're white and thus cringe, you're black and thus a DEI hire, you're a woman and thus either unserious or trading on your looks, you're a nepo baby because your parents work in the same industry (like plenty of people's parents do), you're a grifter because you write popular, buzzy things rather than rarefied criticism or deep investigations, you're a phobe of some sort and just riding the Trump train . . . blah blah.
But really it's because you just got attention and they didn't.
There's a huge taboo on saying out loud that some people are jealous and they cast around for ways to rationalise it rather than just embracing the human truth that it hurts to see other people get stuff you want and are working hard for.
"There's a huge taboo on saying out loud that some people are jealous and they cast around for ways to rationalise it rather than just embracing the human truth that it hurts to see other people get stuff you want and are working hard for."
Ancillary Substack drama character Freddie de Boer had a good piece on this recently about people at the top of the meritocratic ladder performing mock humility to show just how much this doesn't matter to them, etc. I think that this taboo is a part of that - you're not supposed to value your success, so you can't just say that someone's jealous, because that would validate your success.
I do understand why people do that. Maslow had an interesting riff about why people fear success as much as failure (he called it the Jonah complex).
One explanation of why this might exist is those people who are deliberately rude to celebrities -- eg if there's a crowd of people wanting selfies with someone, and someone else goes "who are you anyway? never heard of you". It's just a graceless kneejerk response to the idea that someone might get "above themselves". Given responses like that, you can see why people don't find success as enjoyable as it's supposed to be.
I had a customer who is a musician. He said he was so excited to release his bands album, and he said you wouldn’t believe the vitriolic responses to someone simply not enjoying it. He was kind of joking about it, but still. I feel for you all!
Different but related: Meghan Daum says "no one will love you unless someone hates you." In her case she means you need to be willing to say what you actually think instead of providing a replacement level average opinion.
Not to brag but I've been following you since before your Substack days. It's pretty clear to me why you're popular: you're hysterical, you pump out well-thought-out pieces on timely discourse at an impressive rate, and you write in a way that's often more focused on your own experiences rather than broad-strokes ideological arguments or dunking on the other side of the political aisle, which prevents alienating audience segments that aren't as politically aligned (like me -- I'm conservative). If someone says "I really don't know how she got famous," you should take it as a compliment. It means you make it look easy.
CHH also writes a lot of "clean" prose. (Clean as in mostly/entirely free of grammatical errors and prose that flows nicely). That's a harder skill than most people realize, especially at the volume that CHH publishes.
New sub here, angry white Boom-Xer (right on the border, see Dexter-inspired photo). I'm not interested in about half of your articles, and I do like the other half. Who gives a crap. I started reading after Jeff Maurer rec'd you, and subbed after being convinced you're a genuinely good writer. I'm married, you're smart, and I like what you write about relationships. I'll probably learn things.
Another white male Generation Joneser here. I just sort of blundered into CHH. Can't even remember who restacked/tweeted her, but she's hilarious and interesting, so I subscribe. Had no idea there was such drama going on. I'm going to continue to ignore it.
CHH, most of your articles have at least one thing in them that makes me laugh. This was today's.
"...so it’s like if you’re walking into a Trader Joe’s, some guy randomly paddles you on the ass while giving you a shit-eating trollface grin, and you have to pretend it’s fine or else he wins."
"Stiff sweatpants energy" I am dying. That's why I am here reading.
I had that writer blocked for being boring, so I didn't read the piece. I read a response to the piece, and responded to the response. A perfect Substack circle jerk.
You're funny, you're original, and you write about things I am interested in. I'm not interested in these grifters surfing on the success of others.
I don’t know man. The entire ecosystem is kinda built on this stuff.
Back before blogging was a profession, and certainly before it was a respected profession, people did this for free on forums. Writing long posts back and forth. There was a lot of good stuff in those posts, but becoming a lighting rod, or attacking one, was how you got attention.
I’m an abundance lib and so I’m primed to like Matt. But if someone has an issue with his ideas and how seriously they’re taken, what other recourse is there? Attack the ideas would be taking the high road I suppose, but then you’re just subtweeting Matt.
Helen Lewis currently has the top comment on this post, commiserating with the issue. I like Helen. She does some good journalism. But are we just going to pretend that she’s also not a favorite guest of an internet drama farming podcast? Nothing wrong with that. But pots and kettles, you know?
Does it matter if you’re beefing with Matt, or with a blue haired feminist construct, or an anonymized amalgamation of Reddit posts? Everyone is doing it.
it is so odd. I mean if someone has a different take or thinks you are wrong, I am willing to listen and maybe even follow. (dirty secret, I am one of Matty's very conservative subscribers just to get the alternate take) But I don't like her seems very middle school
In a sensible country with a parliamentary system, Yglesias would not be in a left-leaning party. He'd be in a center or center-right party. It just happens that he's not a fascist (just comfortable agreeing with fascists on many of the most important issues of the day), so he's coded as "the left," which he is not in any sense a part of.
That sounds like a very Yglesias-pilled take. While I'd say that Yglesias is quite out of touch with the voters, it's not because he's to the left of them.
I agree, one of the reasons I find Yglesias a useful writer and other people with my political commitments don't is that I recognize that he's to the left of the median voter on basically every issue and they don't.
This is an interesting assertion, but it depends on the assumption that the median voter has a coherent ideology and is not simply brain poisoned by right-wing media and social media nonsense.
I agree that people don't usually have a coherent ideology but being brain-poisened by right wing media is a major way that people _become_ conservative; it's not a reason to say they aren't conservative.
You progressives narrow your tent so much that it is surprising you fit in it. Matty is a textbook left center writer. You are just mad that he won't cater to the lunatic fringe
He's just not. I genuinely don't care about trying to convince you of anything, but you are reading a centrist writer who is not offensive to your beliefs. If you're really fashy and love Trump, maybe it's an alternate take because Yglesias's centrism might be quite different from your beliefs. But it's not left of center in any serious way.
He is not in line with my beliefs. He is was too redistributive. Again, you want some green party world and that ain't us. And calling me a fascist is super funny. You can't even begin to understand what I have lost for opposing Trump.
These kind of obnoxious comments really tempt part of me to start barging in on discussions of European politics to remind them that they actually only have left wing parties (by my own ethnocentric "sensible" and objectively correct Overton window).
I don't think they would find those comments any more helpful than we find yours.
I really don't understand at what point in the culture we decided that getting mad is an automatic admission of failure. But PLEASE let's push that idea back into the septic tank.
You stated it so well, and, bizarrely, I don't see many commentators (daring?) to say the same.
I stumbled onto to you from a twitter retweet last September I think, after reading various articles for a month or so I decided to subscribe to your Substack. I’m Gen X, the last of my 4 kids is going to be a HS senior this year and I definitely lean more right politically than you, though I don’t define myself by my political positions at all. Though I think most of your articles are funny, interesting or insightful, I don’t always agree with you or are interested in what you’re writing about, but so what? I will never understand why people feel that only the stuff they like should be written about or discussed, how incredibly boring and, frankly, close minded would that be?
Very much agree about online discourse being about showing how utterly unbothered and above it all you are, or else the other person wins. It's the artifice and affectation of sprezzatura, but without any of the actual achievement or mastery. It sucks that you have to deal with that.
However, at least 40% Yglesias' Twitter schtick is pissing people off in that very specific "I'm not touching you, you mad bro?" way. This is, by his own admission, both for love the of the game and to farm engagement.
I appreciate your piece here, however I’d argue that people like Jeff Maurer use their being more successful, as cover for lazy and intellectually dishonest points (as I’ve experienced in my conversations with him).
Keep in mind, the people with ‘more success’ (respectfully my resume is more impressive than writer for C-tier comedy show), will never challenge the merits of the argument because it doesn’t serve them to do so. Therefore, someone like Robinson can make fair criticisms of Ygilesias and it’s immediately framed as sour grapes because Robinson didn’t create Vox.
Which is all to say, if you want to have strong opinions that’s good! But if they’re dumb as fuck (which they by and large are my bigger platform Substackers), don’t play the victim. You can’t have it both ways.
I liked Jeff’s rebuttal (partially just bc it was funny) but he wasn’t dishonest. There were a few moments where he admitted Robinson was correct about things! I don’t have any opinion on Robinson myself because this is actually the first time I’m hearing about him, but I thought Jeff did a good job.
Thank you for the response! In fairness to Jeff, I don’t pay for his Substack so I couldn’t read his full perspective. I’m a progressive, so I’m biased towards Robinson’s view, just from what I read he was making fun of how Robinson looks; which made me angrier, but in relation to your piece…Substack beefs are the lowest form of communication 😂
Yeah, that's the one thing I don't approve of (although I think it was more wardrobe-based as opposed to anything immutable, and those jokes personally don't offend me because people do them to me all the time lol.)
Jeff published a long piece about when it is ok to pick on things like looks and is consistent. I have noticed this trend of "x" wrote something bad but I didn't really read it because paywall. That's grossly unfair to proof text.
He’s a gossip writer, I’m not paying for it lmao (I’ll just buy a vanity fair). If he said something that smart, someone would have pointed it out already. But from my experience, if someone can’t say something smart in the first 500 words of all their pieces, there isn’t some gems hidden behind a paywall (sorry jeffy).
Thanks for the college sophomore level of debate skills. This is a pay site. If you can't afford it go hang on Reddit or ask your mommy for money you worthless POS
Sorry to trigger you big dog, he didn’t write anything meaningful in his free section(s), I’m not paying for gossip columns, I’d just buy Vanity Fair at the grocery store.
If 30 Emmys are the best defense you’ve got, you’ve already proved my point. Status isn’t substance, say dumb/lazy stuff you get called out, Emmy’s don’t shield you lmao
I commented on the "grifter" piece defending you and then almost immediately wondered if it was a mistake. This last one was really gratuitously nasty (though to be fair, being an asshole is a big part of that particular guy's schtick.) Glad I didn't engage with it.
I wonder if it's possible to have social media that disincentivizes this kind of behavior without going full It's A Good Life.
We must disincetivise it. I named his grouse clearly -- he's jealous she has all the liberal (esp. liberal male) audience who he believes should be reading HIS edgy takes :) It's okay. He liked my post actually. So he might come around yet. I think letting these edgy boyz stew silently is worse. Good on CHH for giving it back without calling for the police. Big L Liberal.
Being right or wrong is of so little importance as to be beneath consideration; in the end, the audience is thoroughly entertained, and that is the only real effect any of this has on people.
This seems like as good a time as any to remind folks about the time that Nathan J. Robinson, committed socialist, fired all his staff rather than let them unionize lol.
I always tell young writers that the price of success is that suddenly, without you changing anything at all, some people just violently hate you.
They'll try to find a reason, whether it's that you're white and thus cringe, you're black and thus a DEI hire, you're a woman and thus either unserious or trading on your looks, you're a nepo baby because your parents work in the same industry (like plenty of people's parents do), you're a grifter because you write popular, buzzy things rather than rarefied criticism or deep investigations, you're a phobe of some sort and just riding the Trump train . . . blah blah.
But really it's because you just got attention and they didn't.
There's a huge taboo on saying out loud that some people are jealous and they cast around for ways to rationalise it rather than just embracing the human truth that it hurts to see other people get stuff you want and are working hard for.
Unfortunately, it’s also a proven way to raise your profile
Yeah I think this is it and this unfortunately get you attention they crave for as well esp in the era of the social media…
Like attention is such a drug which can cause both ppl with it and without it go insane
And that’s one of the area I admire about CHH - she’s handling her fame very well
"There's a huge taboo on saying out loud that some people are jealous and they cast around for ways to rationalise it rather than just embracing the human truth that it hurts to see other people get stuff you want and are working hard for."
Ancillary Substack drama character Freddie de Boer had a good piece on this recently about people at the top of the meritocratic ladder performing mock humility to show just how much this doesn't matter to them, etc. I think that this taboo is a part of that - you're not supposed to value your success, so you can't just say that someone's jealous, because that would validate your success.
I do understand why people do that. Maslow had an interesting riff about why people fear success as much as failure (he called it the Jonah complex).
One explanation of why this might exist is those people who are deliberately rude to celebrities -- eg if there's a crowd of people wanting selfies with someone, and someone else goes "who are you anyway? never heard of you". It's just a graceless kneejerk response to the idea that someone might get "above themselves". Given responses like that, you can see why people don't find success as enjoyable as it's supposed to be.
in the immortal words of Taylor Swift "Haters going to hate, hate, hate"
I had a customer who is a musician. He said he was so excited to release his bands album, and he said you wouldn’t believe the vitriolic responses to someone simply not enjoying it. He was kind of joking about it, but still. I feel for you all!
Different but related: Meghan Daum says "no one will love you unless someone hates you." In her case she means you need to be willing to say what you actually think instead of providing a replacement level average opinion.
Not to brag but I've been following you since before your Substack days. It's pretty clear to me why you're popular: you're hysterical, you pump out well-thought-out pieces on timely discourse at an impressive rate, and you write in a way that's often more focused on your own experiences rather than broad-strokes ideological arguments or dunking on the other side of the political aisle, which prevents alienating audience segments that aren't as politically aligned (like me -- I'm conservative). If someone says "I really don't know how she got famous," you should take it as a compliment. It means you make it look easy.
Same! I’ve followed CHH since her Twitter days and was delighted when she started the substack and turned out to be even more funny!
CHH also writes a lot of "clean" prose. (Clean as in mostly/entirely free of grammatical errors and prose that flows nicely). That's a harder skill than most people realize, especially at the volume that CHH publishes.
True! CHH, what's your secret? Those of us with poor attention to detail would like to know.
Honestly it’s just that I’ve been writing nonstop since I was 6 and only now does anyone want to read it
New sub here, angry white Boom-Xer (right on the border, see Dexter-inspired photo). I'm not interested in about half of your articles, and I do like the other half. Who gives a crap. I started reading after Jeff Maurer rec'd you, and subbed after being convinced you're a genuinely good writer. I'm married, you're smart, and I like what you write about relationships. I'll probably learn things.
The good thing is there’s enough of them that you’ll (probably) like at least one a week 😂
It’s been at least two a week.
Another white male Generation Joneser here. I just sort of blundered into CHH. Can't even remember who restacked/tweeted her, but she's hilarious and interesting, so I subscribe. Had no idea there was such drama going on. I'm going to continue to ignore it.
you have all the support from the Full House family
CHH, most of your articles have at least one thing in them that makes me laugh. This was today's.
"...so it’s like if you’re walking into a Trader Joe’s, some guy randomly paddles you on the ass while giving you a shit-eating trollface grin, and you have to pretend it’s fine or else he wins."
"Stiff sweatpants energy" I am dying. That's why I am here reading.
I had that writer blocked for being boring, so I didn't read the piece. I read a response to the piece, and responded to the response. A perfect Substack circle jerk.
You're funny, you're original, and you write about things I am interested in. I'm not interested in these grifters surfing on the success of others.
The dumbest thing I’ve ever heard if you’re a “grifter” if you make money on the internet.
If you’re not making money, why would you choose to be on the internet? what is the point of that!
Your work is fun to read. Not everything has to be intellectual masturbation.
I don’t know man. The entire ecosystem is kinda built on this stuff.
Back before blogging was a profession, and certainly before it was a respected profession, people did this for free on forums. Writing long posts back and forth. There was a lot of good stuff in those posts, but becoming a lighting rod, or attacking one, was how you got attention.
I’m an abundance lib and so I’m primed to like Matt. But if someone has an issue with his ideas and how seriously they’re taken, what other recourse is there? Attack the ideas would be taking the high road I suppose, but then you’re just subtweeting Matt.
Helen Lewis currently has the top comment on this post, commiserating with the issue. I like Helen. She does some good journalism. But are we just going to pretend that she’s also not a favorite guest of an internet drama farming podcast? Nothing wrong with that. But pots and kettles, you know?
Does it matter if you’re beefing with Matt, or with a blue haired feminist construct, or an anonymized amalgamation of Reddit posts? Everyone is doing it.
it is so odd. I mean if someone has a different take or thinks you are wrong, I am willing to listen and maybe even follow. (dirty secret, I am one of Matty's very conservative subscribers just to get the alternate take) But I don't like her seems very middle school
"I'm envious of her success" is even more middle school.
Pretty bold to follow someone who is only pretty conservative
The left's take on Matty will never cease to amuse me.
In a sensible country with a parliamentary system, Yglesias would not be in a left-leaning party. He'd be in a center or center-right party. It just happens that he's not a fascist (just comfortable agreeing with fascists on many of the most important issues of the day), so he's coded as "the left," which he is not in any sense a part of.
I'm well to the left of Yglesias (I also subscribe because he's an interesting writer) but he is well to the left of the median voter.
That sounds like a very Yglesias-pilled take. While I'd say that Yglesias is quite out of touch with the voters, it's not because he's to the left of them.
I agree, one of the reasons I find Yglesias a useful writer and other people with my political commitments don't is that I recognize that he's to the left of the median voter on basically every issue and they don't.
This is an interesting assertion, but it depends on the assumption that the median voter has a coherent ideology and is not simply brain poisoned by right-wing media and social media nonsense.
I agree that people don't usually have a coherent ideology but being brain-poisened by right wing media is a major way that people _become_ conservative; it's not a reason to say they aren't conservative.
You progressives narrow your tent so much that it is surprising you fit in it. Matty is a textbook left center writer. You are just mad that he won't cater to the lunatic fringe
He's just not. I genuinely don't care about trying to convince you of anything, but you are reading a centrist writer who is not offensive to your beliefs. If you're really fashy and love Trump, maybe it's an alternate take because Yglesias's centrism might be quite different from your beliefs. But it's not left of center in any serious way.
He is not in line with my beliefs. He is was too redistributive. Again, you want some green party world and that ain't us. And calling me a fascist is super funny. You can't even begin to understand what I have lost for opposing Trump.
These kind of obnoxious comments really tempt part of me to start barging in on discussions of European politics to remind them that they actually only have left wing parties (by my own ethnocentric "sensible" and objectively correct Overton window).
I don't think they would find those comments any more helpful than we find yours.
It annoys me because it is not even accurate. Plenty of right wing/centrists in Europe
I really don't understand at what point in the culture we decided that getting mad is an automatic admission of failure. But PLEASE let's push that idea back into the septic tank.
You stated it so well, and, bizarrely, I don't see many commentators (daring?) to say the same.
I stumbled onto to you from a twitter retweet last September I think, after reading various articles for a month or so I decided to subscribe to your Substack. I’m Gen X, the last of my 4 kids is going to be a HS senior this year and I definitely lean more right politically than you, though I don’t define myself by my political positions at all. Though I think most of your articles are funny, interesting or insightful, I don’t always agree with you or are interested in what you’re writing about, but so what? I will never understand why people feel that only the stuff they like should be written about or discussed, how incredibly boring and, frankly, close minded would that be?
Very much agree about online discourse being about showing how utterly unbothered and above it all you are, or else the other person wins. It's the artifice and affectation of sprezzatura, but without any of the actual achievement or mastery. It sucks that you have to deal with that.
However, at least 40% Yglesias' Twitter schtick is pissing people off in that very specific "I'm not touching you, you mad bro?" way. This is, by his own admission, both for love the of the game and to farm engagement.
I appreciate your piece here, however I’d argue that people like Jeff Maurer use their being more successful, as cover for lazy and intellectually dishonest points (as I’ve experienced in my conversations with him).
Keep in mind, the people with ‘more success’ (respectfully my resume is more impressive than writer for C-tier comedy show), will never challenge the merits of the argument because it doesn’t serve them to do so. Therefore, someone like Robinson can make fair criticisms of Ygilesias and it’s immediately framed as sour grapes because Robinson didn’t create Vox.
Which is all to say, if you want to have strong opinions that’s good! But if they’re dumb as fuck (which they by and large are my bigger platform Substackers), don’t play the victim. You can’t have it both ways.
I liked Jeff’s rebuttal (partially just bc it was funny) but he wasn’t dishonest. There were a few moments where he admitted Robinson was correct about things! I don’t have any opinion on Robinson myself because this is actually the first time I’m hearing about him, but I thought Jeff did a good job.
Thank you for the response! In fairness to Jeff, I don’t pay for his Substack so I couldn’t read his full perspective. I’m a progressive, so I’m biased towards Robinson’s view, just from what I read he was making fun of how Robinson looks; which made me angrier, but in relation to your piece…Substack beefs are the lowest form of communication 😂
Yeah, that's the one thing I don't approve of (although I think it was more wardrobe-based as opposed to anything immutable, and those jokes personally don't offend me because people do them to me all the time lol.)
Jeff published a long piece about when it is ok to pick on things like looks and is consistent. I have noticed this trend of "x" wrote something bad but I didn't really read it because paywall. That's grossly unfair to proof text.
He’s a gossip writer, I’m not paying for it lmao (I’ll just buy a vanity fair). If he said something that smart, someone would have pointed it out already. But from my experience, if someone can’t say something smart in the first 500 words of all their pieces, there isn’t some gems hidden behind a paywall (sorry jeffy).
Thanks for the college sophomore level of debate skills. This is a pay site. If you can't afford it go hang on Reddit or ask your mommy for money you worthless POS
Ah the classic “I didn’t read it but I’m really mad about what I imagine it says”
Sorry to trigger you big dog, he didn’t write anything meaningful in his free section(s), I’m not paying for gossip columns, I’d just buy Vanity Fair at the grocery store.
To be fair, Robinson looks ridiculous, and it’s not like some tragic congenital condition- he actively chose to look dress like that!
A show that has been on for 12 years and has won 30 Emmys is “c-tier”? Yes you seem very honest.
If 30 Emmys are the best defense you’ve got, you’ve already proved my point. Status isn’t substance, say dumb/lazy stuff you get called out, Emmy’s don’t shield you lmao
Yeah I’m pretty confident in what I said. You are pretty dim.
Head back to Reddit boss
I commented on the "grifter" piece defending you and then almost immediately wondered if it was a mistake. This last one was really gratuitously nasty (though to be fair, being an asshole is a big part of that particular guy's schtick.) Glad I didn't engage with it.
I wonder if it's possible to have social media that disincentivizes this kind of behavior without going full It's A Good Life.
We must disincetivise it. I named his grouse clearly -- he's jealous she has all the liberal (esp. liberal male) audience who he believes should be reading HIS edgy takes :) It's okay. He liked my post actually. So he might come around yet. I think letting these edgy boyz stew silently is worse. Good on CHH for giving it back without calling for the police. Big L Liberal.
Being right or wrong is of so little importance as to be beneath consideration; in the end, the audience is thoroughly entertained, and that is the only real effect any of this has on people.
This seems like as good a time as any to remind folks about the time that Nathan J. Robinson, committed socialist, fired all his staff rather than let them unionize lol.