I don't know who needs to hear this, but the current state of the vote counting process unequivocally validates MY personal ideological preferences and pet projects and I secretly knew that this somewhat unexpected outcome would happen all along.
2/ I'm not picking on Fang's tweet, this is just one example I'm seeing across the ideological spectrum. But I want to point out that even in cases where people have actual data to work with, there's little actual interest in it. There's a total incuriosity about the world.
3/ We are being bombarded with so much data with so many possible mechanisms for explanation and so many pundits immediately seem to know why. There's no information-gathering process. People aren't even waiting for the final results, and are happy to use unreliable exit polls!
4/ The only beneficiaries of premature proclamations of what just happened are bullshitting Thought Leaders & their ambition to affirm the priors of their most loyal followers. The public is not enriched by this. And ultimately the Thought Leaders are corroding their own brains.
5/ On a more trivial note, isn't it fucking boring to constantly be certain about the nature of the world and what direction it will take? To not be perplexed by new information or probe at its possible origins? To experience self-doubt or ambivalence?
I've always got my finger on the pulse. My pulse, that is.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The big news here: Trump concedes there won't be a vaccine out by Election Day & is pivoting 100% to selling a therapeutic treatment he received as a "cure" for Covid. He's also pledging that this treatment will soon be free & accessible to all, which is a galling lie.
One of the most disturbing aspects of Trump's presidency is knowing that millions have failed to understand that we're dealing with a used care salesman who wants to sell us a car that has no brakes or air bags. Just a modicum of emotional intelligence is needed to spot this.
HIS FACE IS VISIBLY CAKED IN MAKE UP. ALL OF TRUMP'S VICES MANIFEST IN LITERAL TERMS.
Every time there's a wave of riots, there's a corresponding wave of liberal hand-wringing over whether they'll empower the opposition.
I spoke to experts about the possible electoral effects of riots in Kenosha and the answer was ...
...it's complicated. Riots can alienate voters and strengthen the opposition, but they can also mobilize sympathizers & inspire nonviolent amplifying actions that shift focus away from the potentially polarizing effects of riots.
A *lot* of this is shaped by media narratives.
.@owasow's much-discussed new study found that in 1968 “violent protests likely caused a 1.5–7.9% shift among whites toward Republicans and tipped the election” in favor of racist "law-and-order" champion Richard Nixon.
A lot of people are deeply concerned about how Trump could use his assault on the Postal Service to steal the election.
But what may be under-appreciated is that Trump does NOT have to succeed at giving GOP ballots a numerical advantage to do irreversible damage or win. /Thread
When I spoke with Lawrence Douglas, a legal scholar at Amherst College, he made a convincing case that there are scenarios in which Trump only has to succeed at creating *delays* to create politically advantageous chaos or trigger a "system meltdown."
On the day in July that Trump floated the idea of delaying the election, the reaction was a mixture of horror at his brazenly autocratic suggestion and mockery of his ignorance that any changes to Election Day can only come through Congress. But another tweet that day was darker.
Today I'm on the @nytimes' "The Daily" podcast talking with @Jonesieman about my personal brush with "cancel culture."
Here's a thread on the surreal story of the attempted "triple cancellation" I witnessed — and why I don't use the term "cancel culture" anymore.
So this whole episode went down in July, when I saw someone rallying a pack of online vigilantes to identify and pressure the employer of the infamous Florida Costco customer who went viral for yelling at a customer asking him to wear a mask.
From what I could tell, the Costco guy's behavior was terribly inappropriate, aggressive, and at least a bit unhinged. But I was skeptical of the idea that it was was judicious to immediately target this person for a job-firing campaign based on a 15-second clip.
This successful campaign by @khoaphan to swiftly get someone fired for being an asshole in a grocery store is a good example of concerns that some of us — across the political spectrum — have about mob justice and so-called cancel culture.
I think targeting jobs is a bad idea.
There is no doubt that this guy was unhinged and behaved in a socially unacceptable manner. By all means, criticize the person, shame them on social media. But targeting someone's job when we live in an anarcho-capitalist dystopia with no social safety net is wild. /2
Our society has extremely weak protections for the unemployed, and most people get health insurance for themselves, and often their family, through their employer. Moreover, if this is how you lose your job you may end up radioactive on the job market for months or years. /3
I think left intellectual discourse is going to fail in a very, very serious way if it deems research as "bad" because it opens up a line of inquiry that might not jell with perceived political priorities. /1
A study into the effects of rioting on voter perception might be *used* to blame rioters, but the study itself is not doing that. It's asking a social scientific question about its effects. A politico-intellectual scene that fears asking and answering these Qs cannot be robust./2
Any serious intellectual scene should be able to disentangle the ethics of rioting from the efficacy of rioting. They are separate things! /3