It's hardly surprising to see something thoughtless and outrageous from Greenwald & Dore, but I want to discuss one particular undercurrent of misogyny here, because it's widespread.

That is: if a woman is impolite to a man, the man is absolved of all responsibility.

/1
Let's assume Ted Cruz, a champion of deregulation who voted to rollback much of Dodd-Frank and is married to a managing director at Goldman Sachs, was sincere. 🙄

Is there a valid reason why Cruz's support for an investigation should depend on AOC's response? Of course not.

/2
For comparison, many members of the Obama admin had a hostile relationship with Warren over the CFPB's formation.

It would've been weird, gross, and pathetic if Obama had withdrawn support over that. But he's a grown man, so the work continued.

/3

Greenwald claims this stopped a "moment" for financial reform.

Assume Cruz was sincere (no) and it was improper for AOC to tweet this (it wasn't). Why would these tweets absolve Cruz from doing his job?

The answer is misogyny. The premise is she owed him polite recognition.

/4
This is weaponized civility. Here's a good intro from @karenbates about how it's used to silence minorities.

Unsurprisingly, the expectation of "civility" almost always runs just one way: towards power, towards white, wealthy, and male.

/5

npr.org/sections/codes…
Greenwald & Dore are one-note losers doing their shtick. I don't raise this to discuss them. I raise weaponized civility because, once you look for it, you'll see it in a lot of places, in government, courtrooms, boardrooms, academia, and elsewhere.

We need to work on that.
/end

• • •

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

Keep Current with Max Kennerly

Max Kennerly 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 @MaxKennerly

19 Jan
Yeah. The "power-sharing" is more "procedure-clarification" in lieu of a week pointlessly voting 50/50->Harris tie-breaker on each piece. Senate Dems still hold committee chairs, set calendars, and won't have bills blocked from the floor—which was McConnell's primary weapon.
An *excellent* question. McConnell would not do it in this document. He would do it later by violating a rule, getting rejected by the presiding officer, then appealing the ruling to the full Senate, which would vote his way, 50-50 plus VP tie-breaker.
If this sounds ridiculous—huh? McConnell agrees to Senate rules that he then reinterprets???—it's *exactly* what he did in April 2017 to eliminate filibusters for nominees, to move Gorsuch through: fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R…

This time around, however, the deciding vote would be...
Read 4 tweets
14 Jan
Hawley's argument is: starting in 1937, Pennsylvania has repeatedly violated its state constitution—including with an October 2019 bill supported by 132 out of 137 Republican state legislators that not one person claimed was unconstitutional until after Biden won.

Seriously.
/1
PA Constitution, Article VII: legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/…

§ 4, from 1901, says voting "methods" other than ballot are as "prescribed by law," i.e. legislature can alter. § 14 says what absentee ballots must be allowed. They've expanded that a couple times, 1957, 1967, 1985, 1997.
/2
Beginning in 1937, the Pennsylvania has had its own qualifications for absentee ballots, broadening eligibility beyond Art VII, § 14 of the PA Constitution. This, too, has been amended a bunch of times: 1963, 1968, 1980, 1998, 2006, 2012.
/3 legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/L…
Read 8 tweets
2 Jan
The Senators falsely claim the courts ignored the Trump campaign's challenges, and say there's a need for "resolution of the multiple allegations of serious voter fraud."

So let's talk about the actual lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign.

Spoiler: there was no voter fraud.

/1
Pennsylvania: the Trump campaign filed suit in federal court, presented evidence to a federal district court, and got an expedited appeal. The court asked them about voter fraud. Trump's campaign said "this is not a fraud case."

/2
Wisconsin: the Trump campaign sued in federal court, got an evidentiary hearing and an expedited appeal. They did not allege any instances of voter fraud, they "objected only to the administration of the election," with arguments they should've raised before the election.

/3
Read 7 tweets
4 Dec 20
In honor of conservatives freaking out about @AOC's $58 made-in-USA, union-printed, 100% cotton "tax the rich," political fundraiser sweater, let's take a stroll through some of the crap they buy.
1. Official MAGA hat. Unknown materials. "Plastic snap closure." Excessively large font. American flag with 50-ish blobs connected by cheap stitch. Not union-made.

$30.
2. White House Gift Shop "TRUMP DEFEATS COVID" commemorative coin. "Features superhero motifs." "President Trump's defeat of COVID is heroic."

Says "Available and Now Shipping," but also "Pre-Order Ships Nov 14, 2020," and also "photo coming soon."

$100.
Read 6 tweets
28 Nov 20
As predicted, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated that strange Commonwealth Court opinion that purported to issue an injunction against the certified election results. Another loss for the Trump Team, and a reminder to vote in state court elections!
If you're celebrating the PA Supreme Court decision, take note: PA Republicans are also pushing a ballot measure to amend PA's Constitution so that appellate courts, including its Supreme Court, is no longer elected state-wide, but instead via gerrymandered districts. /2
For a PA constitutional amendment to go on the ballot, it must pass the legislature twice. HB 196 passed this July. It'll pass again next year and then go on the ballot.

Obviously, control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has national implications. /3
Read 5 tweets
26 Nov 20
For anyone wondering about the details in the new Supreme Court COVID case, I am tapping the sign. ImageImageImageImage
The AMA's amicus brief, which Sotomayor cited, is worth the read, not least to understand just how egregious the Supreme Court's decision was. Changing a bike tire doesn't mean 10+ people congregating indoors for a prolonged period while talking loudly: supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2… ImageImageImageImage
I suspect the answer to #2 is: it's a PR stunt. Yesterday's opinion was "per curiam" and not "Justice Barrett" because they want to conceal how this decision was solely the result of shifting the partisan balance of the Court farther to the extreme right.
Read 4 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!