I suspect this tweet particularly disturbs establishment-right types because of the uncomfortable questions it raises about immigration and fit in American political culture. 🧵
Many presume that immigrants—especially refugees, and certainly those who achieve the “American dream”—tend to be model Americans, and base many policies on this idealistic assumption.
Yet when people like Nguyen, who arrived as a refugee and achieved great professional success, express scorn for so much of American culture and values, it publicly throws that presumption into question.
A single example does not prove a pattern. But so much of the “acceptable” immigration discussion requires that such questions not even be raised—that we not even ask about the desirability of the values immigrants might bring.
Even a single prominent case can discredit this.
While leftists appreciate perspectives like Nguyen’s, establishment-right types are the most wedded to idealistic assumptions about immigrants and American values. These questions thus most threaten them, highlighting a sharp divide with their own base on the immigration issue.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I’ve noticed a curious linguistic pattern over the past few years. A sort of person—typically in educated/credentialed circles—who usually goes out of his way to sound circumspect likes to emphasize the word “lie” to describe statements by Trump. 🧵 1/11
This by itself would not be striking, except that such people almost never use that word (or similarly strong language) to describe *anything* else. A pretense of quasi-elite society today is to maintain a tone of “neutrality” marked by extreme circumspection; 2/11
...in a world where nearly everything is subjective—from morality to history to gender identity—this means the strongest claim such people typically make is that something is the best argument or “most reasonable position.” 3/11
The digital age has disrupted legacy media models. As mainstream advertisers become more politicized and censorious, any "dissident" views are increasingly punished.
Yet such media projects can be more valuable than ever. 1/11
The suppression of such views—any outside the ever-narrower bounds of woke political correctness—is not limited to mainstream media. These views are increasingly self-censored or punished in workplaces, schools, and social settings. 2/11
Institutions and activities that once connected people no longer suffice for projects where alignment around an independent point of view (POV) matters. Without alternatives, the connections that predicate such projects simply will not occur. 3/11
If an English prof with a large following doesn’t understand something in another field, she should consider what those in that space recognize, instead of jumping to a naive conclusion and sharing it with the world.
But it should not be a surprise such people are often given a platform in the Atlantic or favorable New Yorker profiles: the point is not to elevate the most thoughtful evangelical voices, but the people who can be counted on to tell us the right things.
Though @bpopken compares Musk unfavorably with Rockefeller and Carnegie for supposedly delaying serious giving, the bulk of Carnegie’s philanthropy began around age 65, and Rockefeller’s was also concentrated after age 60. Musk is 49.
2/6
Rockefeller and Carnegie had businesses generating significant cash flow for years by that point.
As recently as 2019 Musk was risking Tesla’s survival to bring out a lower-cost electric car (which could do more than billions of dollars of gifts to reduce emissions).
3/6
Given this record, shouldn't we reconsider the assumption that political "interference" is necessarily bad?
'"Yes, they were interfered with politically," said Lawrence Gostin... "But that’s not the only reason CDC didn’t perform optimally during COVID-19."'
A competent administration—one strong on common sense and a savvy understanding of risk—should exercise firm oversight over bureaucracies, recognizing their institutional biases and blind spots and treating their recommendations as only one of many factors.
By helping spare elite proponents of mob-inciting ideology such pain, we only prolong a trend that harms many ordinary people, such as this utility worker, who can less afford the cost and have fewer blue-checks rushing to their defense. ... nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdg…
The tide may actually turn—to a full rejection of this mob-inciting ideology, not just isolated forgiveness—when its elite proponents see their own friends destroyed by such mobs and personally feel the risk.