Re the “outrage” over @benshapiro writing for Politico: It’s crazy how proprietary progressives are about these outlets they think ”belong” to them. When I wrote for the Atlantic, an enormous amount of the outrage was about how a pro-life writer got a platform in “their” space.
The subject matter or views we choose to share are essentially irrelevant. Critics entirely sidelined my argument in favor of “but why does *she* get to write for this place that belongs to *me* and people who agree with me?”
Ben Shapiro is not a racist. He’s not alt-right. He’s not a white supremacist or any other nasty label you want to slap on him. The truth is, you want him gone because he holds views that you want to effectively eliminate by excluding them from spaces you think belong to you.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Alexandra DeSanctis

Alexandra DeSanctis 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 @xan_desanctis

15 Dec 20
Trying to do some casual reading about saffron tonight only to discover that @TheBabylonBee seems to have taken over @bonappetit’s editorial staff Image
@TheBabylonBee @bonappetit Not even the history of spices can be free of the toxic nonsense of identity politics and related guilt-mongering, apparently
And in case anyone was worried, there are an additional two paragraphs in the editor’s note explaining at great length how the U.S. sanctions against Iran have ruined saffron, possibly forever
Read 4 tweets
12 Oct 20
This is not unlike how Harris tried to redefine court-packing during the debate as having too few African Americans on the circuit courts. Democrats are so far off the deep end that they have to redefine terms on the fly to justify their radicalism.
Chris Coons literally said in an interview with a totally straight face that voting to confirm a president’s nominee to the Supreme Court is court-packing. That’s where we are at the moment.
If I were Chris Wallace I would’ve been like, “Senator, just how dumb, exactly, do you think the American people are?”
Read 4 tweets
26 Sep 20
For all those who continue insisting that no one is attacking Catholic judicial nominees for their faith, a thread, which will be updated as needed (and I expect much more often than I’d like): 1/x
The initial headline of a @Reuters piece that was later stealth edited several times to remove inaccuracies and soften the outrageous headline
Here is a former U.S. representative who believes that Catholicism “insists women be subservient”
Read 8 tweets
23 Sep 20
Wild how many people pretend they’re incapable of understanding that a religious person can be a judge without “imposing their views” on the country as soon as they suspect the religious person in question is against abortion
The Christian faith teaches that fraud, murder, and theft are wrong. Is it “imposing their religious views” for a Christian judge to uphold laws forbidding these things? Of course not.
If you can illustrate that someone has actually said “I belong to X religion and I want to use my role as judge to ensure that all of America abides by my religious principles” that’s one thing. But of course, that’s almost never the case, and in fact they say the opposite.
Read 4 tweets
22 Sep 20
This is what it’s all about, folks. The attacks we’re already seeing on Barrett’s Catholic faith are just a bigoted way of disguising the real endgame: keeping judicially mandated abortion on demand in place at all costs.
Plus, this is predicated on the obviously false notion that opposition to Roe could only stem from one’s religious views and a desire to impose them on the country. You don’t need to be religious to understand that Roe was anti-constitutional garbage or that abortion is killing.
This is what defenders of legal abortion do. Instead of actually defending Roe itself or the supposed constitutionality of abortion, they fall back on calling it “long-standing precedent” and insisting that only religious zealots would oppose it.
Read 5 tweets
22 Sep 20
The controversy over “Cuties” reminds us that younger generations are growing up with omnipresent technology and access to a nearly unlimited universe of addictive, damaging, and sometimes dangerous content. My latest for @CatholicHerald’s Chapter House: catholicherald.co.uk/ch/the-trouble…
Some troubling stats that prompted me to think about “Cuties” from this perspective:
-95% of U.S. teenagers own or regularly access a smartphone
-45% use the Internet “almost constantly”
-50% say they feel addicted to their phones
-nearly 80% check their devices at least hourly
Even more frightening:
-As of 2012, about 60% of U.S. children ages 8-12 had a cellphones, and that percentage has almost certainly increased over the last decade
-social media use among minors has been linked to a greater risk for depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicidality
Read 5 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!