Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Zach Goldberg Profile picture
@ZachG932
Sep 17, 2020 • 4 tweets • 1 min read • Read on X
1/n Was reading Caldwell's 'Age of Entitlement' and thought I'd do a quick content analysis to quantify this Image
2/n In the end, ProQuest's archive of presidential documents shows that Obama used the phrases 'who we are' and 'not who we are' more than Trump, GWB, and Clinton combined Image
3/n There were certain things I liked about Obama, but such rhetoric wasn't one of them. It essentially divides the country into morally 'good' ingroups and and 'bad' outgroups
4/n Same with 'we're better than that', though the usage of this phrase was much less frequent. Image

• • •

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

Keep Current with Zach Goldberg

Zach Goldberg 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 @ZachG932

Zach Goldberg Profile picture
Nov 19, 2025
1/Thrilled to share @fsuigc’s latest report, based on a national survey of 1,447 U.S. adults we conducted in late September—one week after the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

We examine how Americans think about harmful speech and whether physical violence can ever be justified to stop its public expression.

Link to report: igc.fsu.edu/research-data/…

What follows is a summary of key findings.
2/ First: nearly 60% Americans at least somewhat agree that “certain forms of speech can be as damaging as physical violence” Image
3/ But contrary to popular narratives, it’s older Americans—not Gen Z—who are most likely to agree.

-73% of seniors agree, 17% disagree

-51% of adults under 30 agree, 30% disagree

Note: Young adults are the most likely to choose a neutral position.Image
Read 15 tweets
Zach Goldberg Profile picture
Sep 25, 2025
1/ I'm delighted to finally share some of the work I've done since joining @fsuigc.

Last month, we published a report about political tolerance based on national survey data (N=1,004) we collected during the summer. In this study, we measure political tolerance as the willingness to interact with or accept people with opposing political views across different relational contexts. For comparison, we also measured tolerance towards ex-felons and flat earthers.
2/ As shown in the table below, across all contexts, people are much more willing to engage with people with opposing political views than the other two target groups. Regardless of the target group, though, openness tends to decline as the intimacy of an engagement increases. For instance, whereas 73% would engage in a social/recreational activity with political opponents (ex-Felon: 54%, flat-earther: 49%) without reservation, just 41% would be willing to date them (ex-Felon: 22%, flat-earther: 19%)Image
3/Consistent with this intimacy 'gradient', our analysis finds that our 7 tolerance items best fit a 3-factor structure, which is depicted in the table below. Image
Read 12 tweets
Zach Goldberg Profile picture
May 30, 2025
1/ Updated racial ingroup vs. outgroup feeling thermometer differentials from the ANES. In sum, while the 'curve has flattened', the attitudinal effects of the Great Awokening persist (at least wrt race). If you thought or hoped otherwise, sorry to disappoint. Image
2/ Average of all 3 differentials by race/ideological self-placement Image
3/ Averages for whites across the complete 7-point ideology scale Image
Read 9 tweets
Zach Goldberg Profile picture
May 22, 2025
1/ Needless to say, the recent surge in New York Times articles pairing the word "genocide" with "Israel" is driven by the war in Gaza.

But it would be wrong to single out the Times.

The same pattern shows up across every other outlet I looked at.

Image
2/ In fact, coverage linking Israel to “genocide” now exceeds that of every actual or widely recognized genocide of the last 40 years, including:

Rwanda (1994)

Darfur (2003–2008)

Bosnia (Srebrenica, 1995)

Myanmar (Rohingya, 2017–Present)

Yazidis (ISIS, 2014–2017)
3/ In The New York Times, for example, the spike in 2023–2024 mentions of “genocide” alongside “Israel” is more than 9x larger than the peak for Rwanda in the mid-1990s and nearly 6x the peak for the more recent Darfur genocide.
Read 9 tweets
Zach Goldberg Profile picture
May 2, 2025
1/ One of the more counterintuitive findings in my latest article:

Historically, when Democrats only control the House, an average of just over 10 race-conscious provisions are added to the NDAA per year.

When they control both the House and Senate? That number drops to about 4.
But why?Image
2/ First, what makes the House so powerful here?

Simple: the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) writes the first draft of the NDAA.

If you control the House, you control the blueprint—and the early language that often survives reconciliation. That’s where ideological riders get embedded.
3/But why are more race-conscious provisions added under divided government?

While I can’t say for sure, my reasoning is this: when Democrats only control the House, the NDAA becomes one of the few legislative vehicles guaranteed to pass.

Standalone race-conscious or DEI bills are less likely to survive the Senate.

But must-pass defense bills? They will.

So they load them up.
Read 8 tweets
Zach Goldberg Profile picture
Apr 15, 2025
🚨1/ Just released what may be my most significant project to date:
The first in-depth, data-driven account of how racial preferences actually operated at a U.S. service academy (the U.S. Naval Academy)—and the recent federal court case that challenged them (and lost).

zachgoldberg.substack.com/p/after-harvar…

Published on my Substack, the report draws on thousands of pages of filings, depositions, internal admissions data, and expert reports from Students for Fair Admissions v. USNA—a case that flew under the radar, despite its profound constitutional and institutional stakes.
2/ The full report runs ~115 pages—so there’s a lot to unpack. Too much for a single thread.

Thus, over the coming days, I’ll be posting a series of threads, each walking through key sections.

Note that these threads are high-level summaries—many important details are left out. I strongly encourage reading the full report for the complete picture.

Here’s the outline for this series of threads:

Thread 1 (this one): What the internal data reveal about USNA’s use of race—and how the Academy tried (and failed) to discredit the revelations.

Thread 2: The government’s sweeping (and evidence-free) justification for race-based admissions—and why it collapses under scrutiny.

Thread 3: How a federal judge upheld the policy—and why his ruling still matters, even after Trump’s executive order rescinded the policy.

Thread 4: What can be done to permanently outlaw race-based admissions at the service academies—or at least make it far harder for future administrations to reinstate them.
3/ Thread #1: What the Data Reveal

Like Harvard, USNA didn’t deny using race in admissions. It simply described it as “limited” and non-determinative.

At the same time, USNA admitted it never even attempted to measure race’s impact on outcomes—begging the question: how can it call race a “limited” factor if it never quantified its effect?
Read 28 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!

Send Email!

:(