In the years between the American & French revolution, Ben Franklin, Antoine Lavoisier (“father of modern chemistry”) and a certain Dr. Joseph Guillotin are appointed by the French crown to investigate the theories of Austrian guru/pseudoscientist Franz Mesmer.
Mesmer is a crank with a cult of personality, but the pamphlets his disciples circulate on his theories of “animal magnetism” popularize a sort of radical Rousseauian politics embedded in all the woo.
Franklin, Lavoisier and Guillotin employ a series of ingenious tests that expose Mesmer’s theory as bogus, even though its effects on his patients are, in one sense, quite real.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It’s… not a “novel legal theory,” it’s a 155-year-old constitutional provision that explicitly disqualifies people from federal office, and which a bunch of prominent conservative legal theorists believe applies squarely to Trump.
The “novel legal theory” would be that an express Constitutional clause doesn’t apply when it’s politically inconvenient.
I’ll note the courts have already applied this to Jan 6 insurrectionists: A county commissioner in NM was removed from office under this clause, and his appeal was rejected by the state’s supreme court. So apparently not entirely unserious. krqe.com/news/politics-…
As someone who was a pretty successful formal debater in college, I can say very confidently that live public debate is a terrible way of discovering truth, and being good at debate has almost nothing to do with being correct.
It appeals to the sort of shallow lazy thinkers who get suckered by conspiracy theories because it flatters the soi-disant “critical thinker” that a lay audience can listen to a couple experts talk at each other for an hour and apprehend truth with their unschooled native savvy.
In reality it is virtually always, assuming a basic level of rhetorical competence by the debaters, just a permission structure for believing the thing you wanted to believe at the outset.
TIL that in France, Batman baddie Two-Face is called “Pile ou Face” (Heads or Tails), and now I can’t stop imagining Mike Lindell as a supervillain called PillowFace.
You can just hear that perpetually vaguely drunk sounding bellow: “IT’S NO USE DARK KNIGHT! I’VE CAPTURED THE PACKETS! ALL OF THEM!” Then he pokes a big red button on some remote detonator contraption… and nothing happens.
AW FER THE LOVE OF PETE. MY CYBER GUYS TOLD ME THIS ONE WOULD WORK FER SURE.
Dear Built to Spill: Your fans are at this point getting a little long in the tooth for a Thursday night show that starts at 9:30
Turns out I still remember all the words to “Center of the Universe” tho
Also, I have come to grips with the fact that while Perfect From Now On is their objectively best & most cohesive work, my favorite is Keep it Like a Secret because I am a basic bitch and it has the bops.
I love FIRE, but this is a disappointingly mechanical recitation of the generic case for welcoming controversial speakers on campus, which doesn’t really account for either the special nature of commencement addresses or the particular objections to Youngkin.
Above all, it’s a reflexive effort to squeeze the student objectives into the Procrustean bed of “censorship,” which is almost completely irrelevant here.
The objections the students raised are to POLICIES Youngkin has implemented, which they believe to be harmful to LGBTQ folks. Their problem is not with the content of his speech, which will doubtless be banal, but with the SCHOOL’S expressive act in deeming him worthy of honor.
A lot of responses to this seem to be deeply confused about the function of a commencement speech. It’s not like some guest speaker who’s there to provoke discussion and debate. It’s meant to honor the students, but also incidentally it’s an honor for the speaker.
It is fundamentally unlike other kinds of college talks, and students are absolutely in the right to say “this guy is garbage and not a person we wish to honor on an occasion dedicared to celebrating our achievement”
Getting a lot of non-sequitur “but he’s the governor!” So what? If it’s someone most students disapprove of—governor, president, or pope—it’s a bad choice to foist on them during a celebration of their graduation. You want some elected you hate giving your wedding toast?