I think a libertarian world would be enormously comfortable with parents pimping out their children insofar as they can find a way to stay within the letter of the law.
Which, as we’ve seen, Cuties does.
The reason we’ve gotten to a Republican Party so neutered of moral courage that ‘Cuties’ can exist is because of the influence of libertarians and their compunction that government can be amoral. Full stop.
Think lots of people - largely in bad faith - didn’t understand what I was saying so let me try again.
I don’t think the libertarians would ignore the laws on the books. My point is that both current law & the predisposition of many to interpret the law in an amoral way are bad.
My problem with libertarianism is - has been, will continue to be - that assuming the state has no power to affirm morality is intellectually lazy and morally suspect.
The grey area between law and morality is where Cuties comes in.
Perhaps it proves to be wrong but, from all indications, Netflix was within bounds to air Cuties. That may be legally true. But it’s morally reprehensible.
Libertarianism, as a theory, cannot address things within that category. The framework doesn’t fit.
Law and policy are complicated and provide lots and lots of this type of gray area. From my humble perspective, that’s a deliberate feature of a liberal democracy.
But it means that, all other things being equal, the system favors immorality and those who would defend it.
That’s why having a moral framework beyond the permissive structure of case law is important and worth fighting for.
Adopting a worldview that, instead, amplifies that permissive structure is precisely the sort of thing that will allow something like Cuties.
And, yes, it isn’t lost on me that cultural liberals are at the forefront of Cuties and it’s defense. Sure. Of course they are. But I’m taking that as a given.
I’m not waiting on the party that embraced Harvey Weinstein and Bill Clinton to find its moral footing any time soon.
What I’m concerned about are the elements of the party that is meant to hold the line that are hamstringing our ability to do so.
That element is the libertarians.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I launched a newsletter, called Holden Court, about the media, what they get wrong & why it matters. The goal is to reach beyond what my 🧵s have on Twitter & to build a better recent history of media & media criticism.
You can sign up at the link in my bio. More ⤵️
At that link you can read my launch piece and get a better idea of what it is that I’m trying to do.
The piece also walks through a recent example of bad media coverage that I worry we’re already forgetting about: the start of Covid.
My general premise for the newsletter is that media criticism could be a lot better; more driven by what the media actually does and says and more set in recent context, rather than an impressionistic sense that the media is hopelessly off-track.
I’m launching something new, so naturally I figured the best explainer was a 🧵thread🧵.
Introducing Holden Court, my Substack about the media, what it gets wrong, and why it matters.
You probably know the drill, but more details & links to sign up in the tweets below. ⤵️
Holden Court aims to unpack media failures, particularly when the media misses in unison on important political topics. But I’ll also have one-off content, Q&A opportunities, a mailbag and maybe virtual (or even in person) happy hours, too.
That doesn’t mean the threads are going away. But the amount of context and nuance I can capture in a thread is limited. So the Substack will (hopefully) provide that more robust analysis, aiming ultimately at *why* the media misses the way that it does.
“15 days to slow the spread” kicked off four years ago Saturday, sending the media into perhaps its most deranged cycle of my lifetime.
I dove back into some of the worst lockdown media coverage from those early days.
Buckle in, this one’s long. ⤵️
The real worst of the coverage was when states started reopening. The media outrage was palpable. Republicans wanted people to die, we were told.
Remember @TheAtlantic’s “Georgia’s Experiment in Human Sacrifice”? You may’ve forgotten how wild the text of it was. I did.
But that wasn’t a one off sentiment. The belief four years ago among the media was that allowing people to leave their homes was tantamount to killing people.
@washingtonpost called it a “deadly error” — not in an opinion piece, mind you, but in a “health” news headline.
Another media conspiracy, this time that Trump attacked a Secret Service agent on Jan 6, imploded yesterday.
Remember when the media—in unison—reported the “bombshell” allegations as fact?
I do. And I’ve got screenshots.⤵️
You’re familiar with the story I suspect but just in case: when former aid Cassidy Hutchinson testified Trump had “lunged” for a secret service steering wheel on Jan. 6, the media rushed to print the salacious (& false) claims as true.
Here’s @NBCNews @CNN @ABC @washingtonpost
Trump was allegedly going to drive himself to the Capitol to take part in the riot.
That’s what @CBSNews @Independent @NPR @NewsHour said.
The new change is stark. I went thru @nytimes digital archive.
Since Biden said the border wasn’t secure in late Jan, “border crisis” appeared in 26 NYT stories, even as crossings declined.
When crossings peaked in Nov & Dec, but there was no one but Biden to blame?
5 mentions
So what changed? Well, Biden empowered the press by saying the border wasn’t secure in late Jan. Then Republicans voted against a “bipartisan” border deal.
After that, the media were off to the races: yes, there was a border crisis, and it was the GOP’s fault. Here’s @CNN.
What happened to the media’s legal “experts” who said Colorado was right to kick Trump off the ballot? Remember them? I do. @FreeBeacon.
Quick trip down memory lane after even the liberal SCOTUS justices rejected Colorado’s claims. ⤵️ freebeacon.com/media/watch-su…
Here’s a link to the video which is incredible. Lot of media hosts and talking heads were convinced Trump was toast. (H/t @thaleigha_ for making this gem).
The “experts” said so!
Print reporting read the same way.
@nytimes cited an “expert” who said Colorado’s case was “legally sound” and that the only thing that could stop it was politics.
Why, then, did the 3 liberal justices also side against Colorado?