Why the hell is it so important to some conservative white men to insist that Kamala Harris is NOT African-American, and what gives them the right to reach such a judgment in the first place? It's both bizarre and revealing. 1/6
Listen to Mark Levin, a supposed "intellectual of the right," pretend that it's beneath him to be interested in Harris' proper ethnic identity while insisting, at length and in detail, that she cannot be called "African-American." Again, why is that so damn important to them? 2/6
Does it soothe some angry, scared little part of their soul to deny that a "real" African-American could rise to such prominence? By defining Harris out of black America, do they reassure themselves that "our blacks" still remain on the bottom, with themselves still on top? 3/6
Harris' father is Jamaican, and Levin seems to believe that black Jamaicans arrived on the island on a cruise ship not a slave ship. In reality, slavery in the Jamaican sugar-cane industry was probably more brutal than its American counterpart. 4/6
White people arguing that Harris, like Colin Powell, Al Roker, Patrick Ewing and others of Caribbean descent, can't be REAL African American is like arguing that you can't be Jewish American if your ancestors came from Poland or Germany, not Israel. 5/6
It's just a nutty obsession, true, but nutty obsessions are often the way that soul-deep malignancies and insecurities are manifested. We're seeing a lot of that these days, in case you hadn't noticed. 6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Trump’s lies are legion and legendary, but it’s important to note that even he has trouble lying about certain things that are important to him. When he was asked to condemn the Nazis at Charlottesville, the easy thing was to do so. Instead, we got “good people on both sides.”
When asked whether he would accept a peaceful transfer of power should he lose the election, the smart thing was to say sure. He could not do that. When asked about the Proud Boys, he could not condemn them; instead, we got “stand back and stand by.”
When pressed by his family and staff to condemn those who attacked the Capitol, he instead said "we love you" and called them "very special." He later said rioters "were there with love in their heart" and called January 6 "a beautiful day."
The notion that Americans do not have a right to privacy because the Constitution does not guarantee us such a right is basically an argument that the only rights we enjoy are those granted to us by gov't.
And what gov't grants, gov't can take away.
Well, screw that. 1/9
The Declaration of Independence, written 13 years before the Constitution, says it is "self-evident" that we enjoy "certain unalienable rights," rights that King George did not give us and could not take away, including the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 2/9
The Ninth Amendment further tells us that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Founders knew that the rights of a free people are too many to be contained in any list. 3/9
The idea that unpopular speech should have no consequence is naive.
Almost 20 years ago, a relative few of us vocally opposed the war in Iraq, and for that we were shamed and shunned. Ask the Dixie Chicks. Then ask them whether they would do it again. Of course they would. 1/7
The editorial says people should be able to "take unpopular but good-faith positions on issues society is still working through — all without fearing cancellation."
OK sure. But the phrase "good-faith positions" is doing Atlas-upholding-the-Earth-type duty in that sentence. 2/7
The truth is, every single human interaction is calculated in some part, consciously or unconsciously, to the response it is likely to draw. "Freedom of speech" can never mean "freedom from social consequence." It means freedom from gov't consequence. 3/7
The idea that unpopular speech should have no consequence is naive.
Almost 20 years ago, a relative few of us vocally opposed the war in Iraq, and for that we were shamed and shunned. Ask the Dixie Chicks. Then ask them whether they would do it again. Of course they would.
The editorial says people should be able to "take unpopular but good-faith positions on issues that society is still working through — all without fearing cancellation."
OK sure. But the phrase "good-faith positions" is doing Atlas-upholding-the-Earth-type duty in that sentence.
The truth is, every single human interaction is calculated in some part, consciously or unconsciously, to the response it is likely to draw. "Freedom of speech" can never mean "freedom from social consequence." It means freedom from gov't consequence.
The claim the FBI organized and provoked the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol is ridiculous and utterly without factual basis, but it's astonishing how quickly it is becoming accepted truth among conservatives. It's testament to the efficiency of their bullshit factory. 1/4
It's like they have a 3D printer to fabricate a new "truth" whenever they need it. In this case, they needed some way to absolve their movement of guilt for Jan. 6 -- the "antifa" thing didn't quite work out -- so they just invented one. Necessity is the mother of invention. 2/4
And it doesn't really matter if this invented truth is fact-based or convincing. There are no tethers to reality here. All that matters is that they all agree to be convinced by it. It is the believing that makes it real, that gives it heft and makes it impervious to logic. 3/4
It's telling to see "conservatives" demand the power to say outrageous, even violence-provoking things without suffering any social or economic consequence, when historically they have been most insistent upon the need to enforce such social and moral codes. 1/5
That's because the goal of the "conservative" project has changed dramatically. They recognize they're unlikely to achieve their goals by working within the existing order, so rather than sustain it they are attempting to discredit and destroy it, to render it unworkable. 2/5
Once it's widely seen as unworkable, once the system stops functioning, the argument for maintaining it vanishes. They're now eager to abandon democracy and the notion of "small gov't," believing that only a powerful gov't can reverse the cultural trends that so alarm them. 3/5