We must be honest about this:
We've endured yrs of escalating polarization and political violence. Full Stop.
Past 4 Years: Mass shootings targeting lawmakers. Scores dead amid waves of mass demonstrations + riots. Municipal bldgs torched. Fed outposts under months-long siege...
Appropriate to highlight Trump's degeneracy, but it mustn't come at the expense of acknowledging the dangerous context we need to be grappling with.
"Escalating crescendo" is redundant, confusing, and misleading. How can anyone be confident we're on the other side of ALL THIS!?
I'm afraid I see myopia + euphemism debasing media coverage in systematic ways.
Highlighting the virtue or deviance of different actors engaged in political violence. Taking great pains to frame one circumstance as 'mostly peaceful,' offering sweeping denunciations in another.
Something is dreadfully wrong with this situation. I hope things improve, and quickly, but I'm increasingly nervous about what comes next.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Our past is one of slavery, racism, and injustice. Our systems were built to oppress people of color."
The history of humankind is a dense catalog of inhumanity, subjugation. The American project isn't the apogee of that awfulness; it's part of a sharp deviation from the mean.
Only a deep, lamentable ignorance explains @GavinNewsom's myopia.
America had a host of imperfections at her founding. Vestiges of what preceded it, not cruel innovations of the framers. In fact, it's the American vantage point that helps bring those defects into focus at all.
America's founding helped provide for the innovation + steady improvement of human liberty everywhere. A constitution that: limits govt, imperfectly balanced power among its parts, established a baseline for safeguarding minority rights, allows for its own 'perfecting' over time.
Trump talks like he has marbles in his mouth. It's not good.
Still, much easier for me to believe he's (inelegantly + inarticulately) saying the first (less insane) thing; especially since he's made nearly this same claim on many occasions.
But the frenzy is in full bloom...
Could also mean: “More mail-in-ballots are gonna be a problem. I keep warning you about this [rightly or wrongly]. We must encourage people to vote in person.”
Trump’s word salad is genuinely hard to parse. Journalists kinda have to form narrower questions + ask him to clarify.
It’s been months. Why can’t a primetime anchor + team get the facts right?
Was Taylor killed in her bed? Did cops storm in + just start shooting? They were not looking for *someone else*. No civilian was prosecuted for defending themselves.
First: Conclusions absent facts — this isn’t justice. The Blake investigation is ongoing.
Second: There will NEVER be another Emmett Till.
To say otherwise diminishes the importance of Till’s death. The immense progress made since. And the enormous sum paid to get HERE... (2/6)
Imperfect though it may be, we live in a far more equitable + just world than any of our predecessors. We owe that privilege to legions of activist + martyrs of every color & creed. King, Lovejoy, Till, Liuzzo...
"It" -- An ostensibly well-intentioned sentiment, muddied by *racial essentialism* and a *directive that I MUST perform some ambiguously defined action(s), because -- you say so?
This seems philosophically sloppy, opportunistic. It seems like a crass attempt to glom onto a meme w/ pernicious, established imputations -- in hopes it *maybe* produces a political advantage.
Could this gambit work? And Is it a betrayal of principle?
We get access to these sites; it usually costs us nothing. If that weren't valuable, we'd never log on. Yes, our attention is a commodity for tech firms, but tailored ads are also a benefit we receive. "Wow, I was looking for that!"
The claim that tech firms pay no taxes isn't new; it's also never been entirely accurate. And even if a firm's tax bill is near zero (perhaps they're reinvesting* profits), tax is paid on wages + purchases.
@AndrewYang wants them to pay more? Fine -- make that case.
As with UBI, the cost + downside risk of this proposal are hard to tease out. "Pay People for Their Data," could well mean:
- Less Innovation Overall
- Fewer Free Services
- More Expensive Subscription Fees
- Bigger Market Advantage for Huge Tech Companies i.e., Facebook, Google