,
17 tweets,
10 min read
Read on Twitter
A substantive critique of my piece on Carlos Maza (@gaywonk)'s Reign of Terror!
I feel like returning to my debate days. Let's go LINE BY LINE
I feel like returning to my debate days. Let's go LINE BY LINE
First, @casersatz describes my framing of Crowder's t-shirt as a "ploy" because the conversation "cannot be about homophobia."
I wrote about CARLOS MAZA'S POWER, not Steven Crowder's remarks. Complaining about my topic choice is not a rebuttal.
I wrote about CARLOS MAZA'S POWER, not Steven Crowder's remarks. Complaining about my topic choice is not a rebuttal.
Second, @casersatz accuses me of ad hominem.
Wrong. I am not using Carlos Maza's enthusiasm for tortious conduct to discredit his arguments.
I'm *identifying a double standard* and *using it as a jumping off point to examine Maza's privilege.*
Wrong. I am not using Carlos Maza's enthusiasm for tortious conduct to discredit his arguments.
I'm *identifying a double standard* and *using it as a jumping off point to examine Maza's privilege.*
Third, @casersatz suggests "the only argument" I can make about Maza's love of milkshaking is that he should be banned from Twitter
That's very myopic! I can think of quite a few other arguments
Like the ones in the piece @casersatz never addressed
That's very myopic! I can think of quite a few other arguments
Like the ones in the piece @casersatz never addressed
Fourth, @casersatz points out that some conservative sites have pointed out the milkshake comment.
Weirdly, almost none of them have made serious calls for Maza to be banned from Twitter.
While Maza goes for @scrowder's head.
See the difference yet?
Weirdly, almost none of them have made serious calls for Maza to be banned from Twitter.
While Maza goes for @scrowder's head.
See the difference yet?
Here, @casersatz points out how good I am at framing
If you would like to support this outstanding framing work, you should subscribe to @HumanEvents asap
If you would like to support this outstanding framing work, you should subscribe to @HumanEvents asap
Next, @casersatz suggests that removing homophobia from the conversation is *necessary* to effectively argue that Maza is an "aristocrat."
Not so.
Not so.
Even under @casersatz' proposed frame, where Crowder's homophobia and Maza's violence advocacy are equivalent
Maza very nearly got Crowder banned from YouTube
While Crowder had ZERO shot of getting Maza banned from Twitter
That power differential reveals Maza's privilege
Maza very nearly got Crowder banned from YouTube
While Crowder had ZERO shot of getting Maza banned from Twitter
That power differential reveals Maza's privilege
Next, @casersatz actually does get something right: I am not using "aristocrat" in the literal sense.
But then in the very next tweet @casersatz forgets himself
Trying to suggest that I'm arguing Maza was "born into privilege"
LOLOL dude clearly not
Trying to suggest that I'm arguing Maza was "born into privilege"
LOLOL dude clearly not
And then @casersatz suggests that I think Maza's privilege comes SOLELY from being a gay man of color
Notice he stopped excerpting my piece here
Because here he's being straight-up lazy, if not dishonest
Notice he stopped excerpting my piece here
Because here he's being straight-up lazy, if not dishonest
Here's the piece where I discuss how Maza is privileged
It's a nuanced analysis, taking into account Maza's gay and latino identities AND his profession as a journalist
We take intersectionality seriously at @HumanEvents!
It's a nuanced analysis, taking into account Maza's gay and latino identities AND his profession as a journalist
We take intersectionality seriously at @HumanEvents!
And on @casersatz's point that twenty years ago Maza wouldn't have stood a chance
That's true, and precisely my point! Power and privilege are not static, they change over time!
It's the left that's gotten myopic, and viewing power through a static, decades-old lens
That's true, and precisely my point! Power and privilege are not static, they change over time!
It's the left that's gotten myopic, and viewing power through a static, decades-old lens
Here, @casersatz concedes the game.
He concedes that Maza has real power, but tries to argue that it's "democratic, not inherited."
1) Who cares, it's still power
2) By this standard, the Clintons and Obamas aren't aristocrats
Cramped and arbitrary
He concedes that Maza has real power, but tries to argue that it's "democratic, not inherited."
1) Who cares, it's still power
2) By this standard, the Clintons and Obamas aren't aristocrats
Cramped and arbitrary
Finally, @casersatz makes a novel argument
He argues that while @scrowder has epithets he can throw at @gaywonk, the inverse isn't true
Maza calling everyone to the right of Jeb! a far-right white-nationalist misogynist seems to refute that
He argues that while @scrowder has epithets he can throw at @gaywonk, the inverse isn't true
Maza calling everyone to the right of Jeb! a far-right white-nationalist misogynist seems to refute that
After all the hand-waving, @casersatz believes he's undermined the crux of my piece
He hasn't
EVEN IF Maza is not an aristocrat @casersatz has conceded the existence of a power differential
Which is what making platform access a civil right would solve
He hasn't
EVEN IF Maza is not an aristocrat @casersatz has conceded the existence of a power differential
Which is what making platform access a civil right would solve
But Maza is aristocrat in 2019
Because @casersatz's "democratic/inherited" distinction is silly
Also, next time tag me bro
FIN
Because @casersatz's "democratic/inherited" distinction is silly
Also, next time tag me bro
FIN
