Mangy Jay Profile picture
16 Dec, 7 tweets, 2 min read
"The day after the ex-cop allegedly held the terrified repairman at gunpoint, convinced of a massive election conspiracy that did not exist, he received a wire transfer for $211,400. . .The money came from a conservative group that’s pumped up election fraud conspiracy theories"
One thing I keep thinking about is how a range of people, from conservatives to general twitter contrarians, mocked liberals for having fears re: political violence. A lot of this violence is actually occurring, but we're just not loudly talking about it & connecting all the dots
Just to cite a few examples: a plot to kidnap & execute a governor, threats of physical violence against Biden, Harris, MI health officials, MI legislators, GA election officials & their spouses (incl. sexual threats in some cases, as well as 1 lynching threat in MI). . . .
And, of course, the multiple vandalizations of Black churches in DC, including burning signs declaring "Black Lives Matter" (hate crimes, imo), as well as harassing/harming civilians in the DC area.

I'm sure I'm missing something, but there's been plenty of violence.
I've never been of the opinion that we were on the verge of a new Civil War, but that there would be pockets of violence/threats that would be destructive to individuals, groups (e.g. hate crimes that target Black people), as well as to democracy itself. That is all occurring.
And the intentional targeting of Black places of worship in DC *really* didn't get enough attention, imo. Hate crimes are designated as such b/c they can hurt both individuals *and* the broader communities to which those individuals belong.
In this sense, Trump supporters were intentionally sending a very clear message to Black people in DC & elsewhere that they are under specific threat. That's a big deal, esp. when coupled w/ Trump's targeted dehumanization of Black voters. Yet a lot of folks just snoozed thru it.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Mangy Jay

Mangy Jay 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 @magi_jay

16 Dec
About House Leadership:

I don't think all progressives completely realize this, but they're unlikely to get someone better for their interests than Pelosi as Speaker. She is both personally quite progressive compared to the caucus as a whole, as well as politically effective.
I have no idea what the problem with Clyburn is other than that he's older. Is he bad at whipping votes? Does he shut down prog ideas? I haven't seen any of this. In the absence of actual criticism, I find something distasteful about arguing a Civil rights leader should step down
I have less strong feelings about Hoyer. I think he can be off in messaging (not aggressive enough). The Dem House caucus was held together quite effectively during the past 2 yrs, but how much this is attributable to Hoyer, I don't know.
Read 6 tweets
16 Dec
Again, journalists could serve the public better in the next four years if they learned a bit more about about stuttering. Otherwise, we're in for a long haul of hyper-focus on minor errors that both drags down political discourse + further stigmatizes stuttering.
I know it's not *entirely* easy, but it does present a good challenge for journalists: how do you report on a politician who has atypical speech/language? We're used to hearing about errors from politicians, so how should this be different?
I think one simple rule might be to learn about stuttering patterns, which include word/name substitutions. Do you need to exhaustively report on each one of these instances? I don't think that you do.
Read 6 tweets
15 Dec
There are a lot of issues here (minimizing sexism being a big one), but I would like to note that this claim about working class voters is entirely evidence-free, as far as I know. And if white people are going to talk about the votes of POC, they better have some evidence. Image
I think it will likely be the case that Dems lost % ground w/ working class Latino voters, but that this effect is moderated by gender, region, & country-of-ancestry. It's possible we might see a much smaller effect of the same type w/ Black men, but I see no evidence of that rn.
In any case, what is *possible* is different than what we have evidence for. And given how atrocious we are generally at analyzing subtrends in minority voters, you better have some evidence before you start bloviating.
Read 5 tweets
15 Dec
It's an unfortunate set of affairs, but Democrats must have a more vested interest in bipartisanship than Republicans due to a variety of factors including, but not limited to: desire to help people, caring if people suffer, & commitment to a functioning government
It's also broadly true that--even in their most idealized senses (rather than concrete manifestations in political parties)--progressivism presents greater challenges than conservatism, given change can be more difficult to enact than preserving the status quo (or regressivism)
So, in this sense, left-wing/center-left parties can typically face greater hurdles in implementing their policies than conservative parties.
Read 7 tweets
14 Dec
The Sanders/Tanden stuff is only a small part of this article, but of course it gets highlighted in the tweet b/c nothing is better for clicks than bizarre twitter battles that are wholly disconnected from reality.
The aspect of the article that would be concerning is whether or not Civil rights leaders were frustrated by Biden's picks & whether the cabinet was not diverse. However, the article doesn't actually cite Civil rights leaders + notes the cabinet is diverse just apparently too old
As far as I know, the chief criticism of Biden from Civil rights leaders thus far has involve Vilsak at Agriculture, rather than Fudge. This makes total sense to me (not that it matters what my opinion is), but isn't discussed in a meaningful way in the article.
Read 4 tweets
14 Dec
The comparisons between Stacey Abrams' actions/words after the 2018 gubernatorial election and Donald Trump's actions/words following the 2020 presidential election are reflective of both intellectual flaccidity & racial blindspots in how we analyze our democracy.
Abrams was not trying to undermine democratic processes, but was rather pointing to anti-democratic actions such as voter suppression. She wanted every vote counted + cast. Trump, otoh, is actively trying to undermine the election by arguing millions of votes are invalid.
While Abrams was trying to combat voter suppression while identifying racism in the system, Trump is trying to advance voter suppression through exploiting racism.
Read 6 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

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!