,
24 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
Go through this article.
Notice how reasonable it sounds.
Notice how it frames things around the importance of ideas.
Notice how it makes zero investigation into what ideas the "two sides" actually have, who'd be harmed and helped, and how.
nytimes.com/2019/03/02/opi…
Notice how reasonable it sounds.
Notice how it frames things around the importance of ideas.
Notice how it makes zero investigation into what ideas the "two sides" actually have, who'd be harmed and helped, and how.
nytimes.com/2019/03/02/opi…
The incuriosity is deliberate.
If you started talking particulars, suddenly we aren't into value-free distinctions like what your preferred season is.
This is something that someone writes when they have no values or principles beyond their own comfort.
If you started talking particulars, suddenly we aren't into value-free distinctions like what your preferred season is.
This is something that someone writes when they have no values or principles beyond their own comfort.
The Civil War was a great evil for the death that resulted—but the root of that evil was not that we were divided
It was that we were enslaving millions of human beings
We were divided
It was GOOD that we were divided
The evil was that we would ever unite to enslave people
It was that we were enslaving millions of human beings
We were divided
It was GOOD that we were divided
The evil was that we would ever unite to enslave people
To ask 'what's our problem?' not as a serious critique of opposing ideas, but rather as a rhetorical flourish, presuming the simple fact of the divide as the problem, reveals moral vacancy, favors the worse ideas
Like visiting a concentration camp and bemoaning all the screaming
Like visiting a concentration camp and bemoaning all the screaming
And yes, of course we should not answer contempt with contempt, if we are privileged enough and powerful enough to have options when it comes to reply.
Let me suggest that it's only for certain previously-comfortable people in our culture that contempt is a new experience.
Let me suggest that it's only for certain previously-comfortable people in our culture that contempt is a new experience.
Perhaps for Matthew Shepard, contempt would not have been a stranger.
Perhaps Harvey Milk would have recognized it.
Maybe Brandon Teena experienced it.
Perhaps contempt would have been familiar to Emmett Till.
Treating contempt as some new development is a telling choice.
Perhaps Harvey Milk would have recognized it.
Maybe Brandon Teena experienced it.
Perhaps contempt would have been familiar to Emmett Till.
Treating contempt as some new development is a telling choice.
What such articles say is "whoa whoa whoa whoa, we have just reached the BOUNDARIES of safe contempt. I've become uncomfortable with the people who are experiencing it NOW!"
People who aren't being killed or harmed
They're just being criticized
For what?
For their bad ideas
People who aren't being killed or harmed
They're just being criticized
For what?
For their bad ideas
Nice you made a VEGANS FOR ROMNEY bumper sticker just to see the reaction, fella.
Glad it was amusing to you.
Other people haven't had the latitude, ever, to play little games.
Emmett Till only whistled, you know.
And some want to Make America Great Again.
"Again."
Glad it was amusing to you.
Other people haven't had the latitude, ever, to play little games.
Emmett Till only whistled, you know.
And some want to Make America Great Again.
"Again."
Oh and the author of this undifferentiated piece of shit is also the chair of the AEI, responsible for this terrible genocide-denying tweet.
Whenever you see tone-policing and smarmy “both-sides,” count on it, you’re seeing someone who’s subtlety advocating for the worse side.
OK, I want to return to this, because I want to illustrate just how vapid the argument is, that our problem is contempt, and we should focus on disagreeing well over ideas.
Two main points.
First point: Let's look at the 'ideas.'
Two main points.
First point: Let's look at the 'ideas.'
Let's look at the 'ideas' being discussed at the highest level of conservatism, by the most empowered conservatives with the broadest platform.
Look no further than their annual 'thought leadership' convention CPAC.
Here's their 'idea' on abortion.
Look no further than their annual 'thought leadership' convention CPAC.
Here's their 'idea' on abortion.
Here's their 'idea' when it comes to a response to climate change.
Here's their 'idea' when it comes to foreign policy with an adversarial nuclear power.
Their 'idea' on access to health care for women.
In case you thought their 'idea' on abortion rights was isolated, no, a total lie about post-birth infanticide really is the central premise at the highest level of government.
No, they really are just repeating this lie.
It's their 'idea.'
It's their 'idea.'
This is their 'idea' on the real threat of cyber-terrorism and foreign election meddling.
Their 'idea' on government corruption.
This is their 'idea' on how to handle civility in public discourse.
Their "idea" on immigration.
Now, notice that none of these ideas are remotely defensible.
Note how they drip with contempt for other human beings—their very existence.
Such ideas deserve contempt.
Which is why the OP article doesn't investigate particulars of ideas.
That's the first point.
Note how they drip with contempt for other human beings—their very existence.
Such ideas deserve contempt.
Which is why the OP article doesn't investigate particulars of ideas.
That's the first point.
The second point is this:
One 'side' is promoting ideas that have fathomless contempt for other human beings.
The other "side" exhibits contempt for those contemptible *ideas.*
The two contempts are not of equal moral value.
See the difference?
One 'side' is promoting ideas that have fathomless contempt for other human beings.
The other "side" exhibits contempt for those contemptible *ideas.*
The two contempts are not of equal moral value.
See the difference?
Contempt of human beings is toxic and harmful, and leads to hate and fear and lies and death.
Contempt of contemptible ideas is a moral necessity.
And a person who writes an article that makes the two things equivalent to one another knows what it is they're doing.
Contempt of contemptible ideas is a moral necessity.
And a person who writes an article that makes the two things equivalent to one another knows what it is they're doing.
