David Roberts Profile picture
Sep 6, 2020 3 tweets 1 min read Read on X
#Dumbkirk is trending and I am here for it. cbsaustin.com/news/local/mul…
🤣 Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with David Roberts

David Roberts Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @drvolts

May 15
Friends, let me tell you a story about the @seattlePD. 🧵

Our story begins in Tuscon, AZ, in the early 2010s. A young man named Kevin Dave is recruited into the Tuscon police. He does not do well. Several complaints are filed, including one involving a "preventable collision."
Dave was the subject of six separate investigations during his short stint with the Tuscon police -- firearm violations, avoidable collisions, and just general conduct unbecoming an officer.
This failure to meet basic standards led the Tuscon police to fire Dave. Eight months later, Dave was driving drunk, fled the police, & abandoned his pickup in an alley. When officers took him in he was belligerent & shouting that it was the police's fault for firing him.
Read 17 tweets
May 14
Said it before, will say it again: in the current political/media climate, *any* Dem presidential candidate would face a fusillade of shit & quickly come to be seen among VSPs as "flawed." It is structural.
People want to think Her Emails was some unique Clinton flaw and His Age is some unique Biden flaw, but I promise you the combination of the RW shit machine & an artificially "balanced" MSM would find *something* to pin on anyone in that position.
I'll add (might as well make a wreck of my mentions): one of the dumbest pretenses re: 2016 is that the same thing wouldn't also have happened to Sanders. I promise you it would have. He would have been "uniquely flawed" before you could finish your first M4A tweet.
Read 5 tweets
May 13
A short 🧵that captures so much about US politics.

Over a week ago, the FTC found that a scumbag oil guy (& huge Trump donor) colluded with OPEC to keep oil prices high.

cnbc.com/2024/05/02/ftc…
Think about everything this snapshot captures: Big Oil shilling for Trump, Big Oil being corrupt AF, high oil prices being about *greed* rather than any Biden policy, the need for a clean energy future, etc.

In short, an episode that seems tailor-made to advance D narratives.
The right, of course, immediately leapt to the scumbag's defense, working to establish its own narrative -- to overwrite the natural, instinctive response that any decent human being would have to this. Image
Read 5 tweets
May 9
When elites like the publisher of the NYT call something "partisan," they mean something very specific by it. To them, to be partisan, to choose a side & fight for it, is by definition unsophisticated. Brutish. To be on a side is to surrender your rational judgment.
The smart, sophisticated thing to do is to see both sides, to grasp all the contrasting points & nuances, to understand the big picture in a way that mere partisans, down in the ditches, never can.
Now obviously, there's an element of truth there. Partisans often *can* be irrational & they often *do* use motivated reasoning to support their positions. But if you take this nugget of insight & amplify it into a full life philosophy, you end up in an odd place ...
Read 6 tweets
May 6
I've vowed not to rant about Kahn & the NYT all day, but one thing I'll say: Kahn sets up a false dichotomy b/t what he says NYT is doing (fair coverage) vs. what libs want (cheerleading for Biden). But even if you accept that dichotomy, *NYT isn't doing what it says it's doing.*
It's *not* fairly covering all issues based on what voters care about. That is simply not an accurate discussion of its current practice.
Put it this way: just because partisanship *isn't* your motivation doesn't mean that laudable journalistic values *are* your motivation. There are plenty of motivations more venal, petty, & misleading than partisanship!
Read 9 tweets
Apr 15
Polls & surveys found that most Americans were amenable to civil rights back in the early 60s, but thought that *other* Americans *weren't*. Sociologists call this "pluralistic ignorance" -- ignorance about other people's views. Now pluralistic ignorance is back ...
... around climate change. A new study found that most people are willing to act to address climate change, but believe that *other* people *aren't* willing. "Respondents vastly underestimate the prevalence of climate-friendly behaviors and norms." papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Now here's the good news: "Correcting these misperceptions in an experiment causally raises individual willingness to act against climate change as well as individual support for climate policies."

When people find out other people are on board, it strengthens their resolve!
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(