I regret to inform you that he is right. Obviously it's great that Trump is off Twitter, but watching multiple platforms flex their muscle in unison like this is terrifying and will absolutely be used to crush someone or something you care about.
I am not on board for this. I really want to be, but this feels like a terrible development, one that will absolutely be used someday against those trying to unionize Big Tech, expose industry wrongdoing, or threaten its political interests.
But dammit. Look at this. This is why we're in the position that we need private governments to solve the problem: because our public one was either unwilling or unable to act on its own.
They spent a generation infecting the body politic, ignored every opportunity these last four years to treat the disease, and now are scandalized that the gangrenous limb might need to be removed. What did they expect?
So zero sympathy and plenty of anger. But still, what's happening now is terrible and I'm very, very alarmed. Those shrugging it off with "Oh, they're just private businesses choosing to deny certain customers a service" are not on the level. I am not reassured.
And don't get me started on this. Have we learned nothing since 9/11? No, not a second time. Everyone needs to take a big breath. We are not going down this road again.
Every time I post a new study showing that university indoctrination does not happen (and there's usually one every 2-3 months), I get the same stubbornly dismissive range of responses. People just don't want to believe it. They refuse.
I don't have a long thread on this. I'm just very frustrated by the phenomenon, especially since it typically comes from people who've built their online personas around being fact-driven, hyper rational skeptics.
Most of them just say "Well, that wasn't my experience," or "Oh, academic proves academics are great, how persuasive! HAHA", which I get. A few also make vague science-esque sounds about sample size, constructs, control groups, etc. But there's never any substance to it.
New from me: Drawing on a survey of 20K+ students from 55 universities, @RealClearEd and @TheFIREorg have ranked schools according to how healthy the free speech climate is on campus. Unfortunately, its design has a strong anti-liberal bias.
Quick summary: In the survey, students are assigned a Tolerance Score, which is supposed to measure how tolerant they are of controversial speakers. And one of the major findings is that conservatives score much higher on Tolerance than liberals.
But there's a problem.
Here's the question used to measure tolerance. See if you can spot where things go wrong.
The Lincoln Project and the IDW were the two highest profile projects launched by centrists during the Trump years. The first tried to rescue conservatism from Trump. The second tried (ostensibly) to tamp down the Culture War. Both have failed. Why?
Lots of reasons, obviously! But for myself, I keep coming back to tribalism. Not as a causal factor, but as an analytic framework. More than any other, tribalism has been the frame used by centrists to make sense of US politics. An atavistic flight from rationality.
I think this frame has served them very poorly, for two reasons. First, it permits them to shift the debate from matters of pressing political concern to one about the right and proper way to talk about those matters of pressing political concern.
2016: Again over the objections of its own justices, the Georgia GOP expands the court from 7 to 9. This represents something of a compromise for state Republicans, as they had previously sought to expand the court to 13.
Basically, it's a story of elite overproduction. The job market for journalists and writers has collapsed, even as J Schools and MFA programs churn out grads at a record clip.
Meanwhile, many of the most important stories of the day require in-depth knowledge of a specialized field (e.g. public health, climate science, global finance) that few have the patience or ability to master.
Lastly, up until quite recently, ours was an extraordinary period of relative peace and prosperity, at least in North America. No Cold War to report, a terrorist threat in retreat. So what's an aspiring journalist to do? What crusade can he join? What mission can he make his own?
There are all sorts of third rails in academic discourse. The kinds of topics where if a prof says the wrong thing, his or her reputation, job, or even physical safety might be at risk.
The police is one of those third rails.
Nathan Jun is a prof at Midwestern State. Shortly after George Floyd's death, Jun changed his Facebook cover photo to a black "Abolish the Police" banner.
Ever since, the death threats have been pouring in.
Local far right activists disseminated Jun's personal information (phone #, address, etc), as well as that of his family. His house has been vandalized four times in the last two months. A swastika and racial epithet were spray painted in his garage.