Thread by @drvolts

All right, I really should be doing literally anything else with my time, but I have certain compulsions, so here's a short thread on the Harvard thing.

Or actually, not about Harvard per se, because I, like most Americans, don't really give a shit what goes on at Harvard.

I just want to describe a certain pattern/dynamic that has replicated itself over & over & over again, as long as I have followed US media and politics. I have given up hope that describing such patterns will do anything to diminish their frequency, but like I said: compulsions.

The center-left pundit approach to these things is simply to accept the frame that the right has established and dutifully make judgments within it. In this case, they focus tightly on the question of whether particular instances qualify as plagiarism as described in the rules.

Inevitably, this is done with a certain air of self-congratulation. "Look at me, I'm making a tough call that goes against my side! I'm so judicious nonpartisan and independent!" And all the other center-left pundits nod soberly, noting -- more in sorrow than anger! -- how ...

... lamentable it is that all the left partisans out there lack this protean ability rise above it all and see clearly and apply standards equally to all sides. And -- the part that really chaps my ass -- they refuse, almost as though it's a matter of principle ...

... to ask the larger questions: Why are we talking about this? Is there any reasonable political or journalistic justification for *this* being the center of US discourse for weeks on end? Who has pushed this to the fore, and why, and what are they trying to achieve?

It is as though these questions are evasions or cheats or something, as though intellectual integrity demands only heeding those questions that the right has put into the frame. It is a kind of bizarre, proud naivete -- gormlessness posing as wisdom.

"We must only discuss whether plagiarism is ok or not; those are the rules." But why are those the rules? Why should the media and pundits ignore context here? It's not like that context is secret --Rufo goes out bragging about it on social media frequently!

You could cite hundreds of examples of this kind of thing, but one I frequently think about is "Climategate." Right wing shitheads stole a bunch of emails from a climate research org, sifted through them, plucked sentences, phrases, and even individual words out of context ...

... and then demanded that the climate community defend these contextless bits. Of course the media chased the shiny ball and of course center-left pundits dutifully scratched their chins and said, "well maybe they have a point about this one, or this one."

Then, as now, it was treated as some sort of partisan cheat to draw attention to the fact these were emails stolen by explicitly malicious actors who explicitly were trying to destroy climate science. "Sir, please focus on the contextless bits."

Of course, after multiple extensive investigations, it all turned out to be bullshit. But the damage was done. Climate science was smeared and suffered reputational damage that dogged it for years.

In other words, the malicious actors got exactly, precisely what they wanted.

No journalist or pundit ever apologized for, or even acknowledged, the fact that they were used as instruments by bad people to achieve bad things. To my knowledge there was absolutely zero reflection from any journalistic outlet about it. They just went on to the next thing.

To return to the Harvard thing: why are we talking about this? Corruption is endemic in virtually every conservative Institution --the NRA, CPAC, the Supreme Court, you name it. Why aren't we talking about them?

Antisemitism is endemic in RW spaces and has been for decades. Why aren't we talking about that? House Republicans are trying to cut off aid and leave Ukraine stranded. Why aren't we talking about that? The economy is booming. Why aren't we talking about that?

There are a lot of important things going on right now. Why are we talking about this and not any of those?

We know why: the right is expert at ginning up these artificial controversies and manipulating media. Again, they brag about it publicly!

What I don't understand is why media and center-left pundits are so *passive* in the face of this obvious, explicit manipulation. They just dutifully follow the right around, shrugging their shoulders: "I guess we have to talk about this now."

I guess we have to talk about the "border crisis" now. I guess we have to talk about trans people in girls' high school sports now. I guess we have to talk about Bud Light and Target now. I guess we have to talk about whatever the fuck they want to talk about. [shrug]

Equally maddening is the fact that the left, broadly speaking, and the D Party in particular, are also just as passive! They've watched this go on for decades, one fake scandal after another, one BS distraction after another, & they seem utterly helpless to do anything about it.

For as long as I've been alive, left pundits like @brianbeutler have been begging & pleading with Dems to do what the right is doing: take control of the discourse. Create controversies that focus attention where they want it. Create moments, create memes. Do politics FFS!

@brianbeutler But no, they just drone on about policy and kitchen tables. They sniff with disdain at the idea of engaging in purposeful acts of symbolism. "There's no point holding hearings about Clarence Thomas's corruption because there's no obvious policy recourse" kind of shit.

@brianbeutler And so here we are, all of us, talking about what the right wants us to talk about, actively doing its bidding, actively helping it destroy higher education & smear black scholarship & distract from its institutional antisemitism. We are all Rufo's bitches.

@brianbeutler This exact same kind of cycle has now happened so many times that I frankly can't believe anyone is unaware of how it works. It really looks like everyone -- right, journalists, pundits -- is happy with their role in these things. They feather everyone's nest quite nicely.

@brianbeutler Anyway, this went on longer than I intended and I should shut up now. My one, futile plea to everyone is simply: before you jump in with an opinion on the discourse of the day, ask yourself *why* it is the discourse of the day and whose interests the discourse is serving.

@brianbeutler And maybe, just on occasion, have the courage to *talk about something else*, something *you* deem important, not just whatever the puke funnel has served up for you. </fin>