Yes, some Dems are too reluctant to oppose left-wing political violence and call out Antifa.
And yes, some on the left are too willing to support censorship in social media, advocate for employees to be fired for conservative views, and to cheer on attacks on free speech.
But..
1)
Trump presents a serious danger to constitutional values.
His bark is much, much louder than his bite. But his actual actions in office have also been utterly unacceptable.
Any voter genuinely concerned about the rise of illiberal forces must wish to remove him from office.
2)
Parts of the left focus so tightly on America's flaws that they're blind to its strengths. And they believe the right poses such grave danger that even violent resistance is justifiable.
Trump does more than anyone else to lend apparent credibility to both these fallacies.
If Trump wins reelection, even more people will conclude that deep injustice not only shaped the America's past but still defines its essence.
If a clear majority of Americans turn on Trump, those of us who believe in America’s perfectibility can more easily win the argument.
Trump instils real fear in many Americans.
This does *not* justify Antifa's violence. But it does help explain why so many hesitate to criticize extremists pretending to fight for a noble cause.
A Biden victory would make it easier, not harder, to push back against extremists.
➜ There really are illiberal tendencies on the left. We all should do more to fight them.
But voting for Trump to stem the rising tide of illiberalism is about as pure an example of cutting off your nose to spite your face as political life can afford.
Vote Joe Biden.
[End]
Please share the article!
Please vote!
And please stand up for philosophically liberal values—not just once every four years, but every day.
The boss of the NYT op-ed page was fired because he ran a controversial op-ed by a sitting U.S. Senator.
But a few months later, a propagandist for an authoritarian regime gets to argue that a violent putdown of peaceful protests was needed in the same pages.
This is just nuts.
I did not like Cotton's op-ed.
And there is a case for turning the NYT op-ed page into a venue that fights for liberal democratic values rather than printing all the opinion that's newsworthy.
But the hypocrisy here is just staggering.
It is also one of the best examples of, um, systemic racism in American journalism:
Want to advocate for brutal measures that might affect American lives? No way.
Want to advocate for brutal measures that destroy lives in Asia or Africa? Welcome to our pages!
1) A serious movie that condemns the patriarchal values imposed on many immigrant girls *and* the hyper-sexualized mainstream culture into which some of them flee.
2) The depictions of child sexuality, though meant to condemn, end up glorifying it in troubling ways.
If you forgive the slightly strange comparison, the moral ambiguity of the movie is a little similar to that of La Dolce Vita:
1) There's no doubt that the filmmaker seeks to condemn what they depict.
2) But they depict it so lingeringly that their moral stance is compromised.
Final point:
The people who OKed the marketing campaign have a lot to answer for.
90% of this movie is a serious and at times excellent art house movie without any sensationalism.
While I was troubled by the other 10%, foregrounding it for clicks did the movie needless harm.
It's rare that a short piece changes how I think about an important issue.
But this, by @MetaHumean for @JoinPersuasion, really helped me understand something that's been bugging me about the standard critique of colorblindness.
It's fascinating how the pessimistic narrative of the past years has been influencing popular representations of academic research.
Even where research on race relations has mixed implications, the media focuses mostly on the negative facet.
Here's a small example.
[Thread]
In an ingenious paper, @RyanDEnos suggested that demographic shifts can have a very negative impact on people's attitudes towards immigrants.
By placing Spanish-speakers on suburban train platforms in Boston, he showed how a perceived increase in diversity can lead to backlash.
The paper was widely covered in the media. And it was a good, important paper!
But virtually all of the press coverage left out one an most important points that Enos himself made: The negative effect of increased diversity actually faded very quickly.