Great example of how right-wing media has become like superfans of a fictional universe, where people speak in references that only others like them get.
In this case, you need to know Biden set July 4 as a target for mostly normal life, and you need to know why that’s oppressive
It’s not. Not in reality, anyway.
But in the Fox News Cinematic Universe, Biden expressing cautious optimism that people can safely gather on July 4 turned into something about the president somehow banning people from gathering then, which is un-Americanly anti-freedom.
This fan-like communication style doesn’t win new converts, and doesn’t really work with casual fans either.
When Star Wars or comics fans speak in references, they’re being exclusionary. Like people telling inside jokes, it doesn’t work unless you come with background knowledge.
"We're aggrieved but defiant" is a good way to put the message they're going for. It's just that in this case the thing they're aggrieved about is the president expressing hope & cautious optimism that the pandemic will be mostly under control by July 4th.
I'm not a conservative, but I find parts of conservatism appealing. @BillKristol in @BulwarkOnline emphasizes "liberty, justice, good government, democracy, stability" and follows them to their natural conclusion: prioritizing US Constitutional democracy. thebulwark.com/the-facts-of-l…
Kristol recognizes something many conservatives prefer to deny: America has a two party system, and today, on the question of US Constitutional democracy, one party is pro- and one is anti-.
That's new, and nothing is more important to conserve than US Constitutional democracy.
I know why many US conservatives don't like Kristol's clear-eyed point. Partisan identity is powerful, policy preferences matter, and both say to oppose Dems.
I got negative reactions when I made a similar argument about NeverTrump conservatives in 2017. arcdigital.media/the-republican…
"Mean tweets" is an interesting moment for "Twitter is not real life." Because in the real world, if a bunch of people you'll have to work with think you're a jerk due to past interactions, that's a normal reason not to hire you, esp. when there are other qualified candidates.
Some Twitter users presume it's not "real life," which means interactions on the platform don't count, so you can be as abrasive as you want and if anyone holds it against you offline they're wrong.
But in the Information Age, public parts of the internet very much are real life
As with the things I've written about cancel culture, I think the "mean tweets" thing is complicated, with the exact line hard to determine. How far is too far, and what should people let slide?
Either way, I disagree with those who argue from the position that any line is wrong.
US going after Oath Keepers:
-Shows the govt's taking Capitol attack seriously
-Reduces threat from these violent right-wing extremists who've demonstrated they'll attack America
-Shows no new domestic terrorism law needed; existing capabilities sufficient nytimes.com/interactive/20…
All of these members of one militia getting charged with conspiracy highlights how the Capitol attack was, at least to some extent, pre-planned.
Every rationale for punishment applies: Balance a wrong, take violent people "off the streets," deter others from similar lawbreaking.
The Oath Keepers are especially concerning because they target military and law enforcement for recruitment, warping the concept of the oath to protect the public.
This makes them more dangerous than, say, the Proud Boys (not that the Proud Boys aren't dangerous; it's relative).
This story of a librarian resigning from Smith College has gone viral, with many strong reactions. I'll once again caution everyone against taking a partial account and plugging it into preconceived culture war narratives, and otherwise offer no opinion.
Except for one thing. 1/x
If you have a positive or negative opinion about librarian Jodi Shaw's letter, racial sensitivity training, the way @bariweiss presented the story, etc., up to you.
But one thing stood out to me: the focus on Shaw wanting to rap in a presentation for students & being told no.
2/x
Making jokes that imagine a librarian awkwardly rapping? By all means.
But I've seen quite a few claims that Shaw rapping would be racist because she's white.
Really? It's 2021! Black Americans originated hip hop, but it's long since become a global artform. It's music!
3/x
This is such a shallow take about the Middle East.
The US is deeply embedded in the region, whether we want it to be or not. The US has partners, military bases, security interests, business interests, more. It's built up over decades. Could change course, but a lot is locked in.
It might be satisfying, in an internet takester way, to say to the Middle East "go to hell, you're on your own, we're out," but that's a very stupid way to conduct foreign policy.
The US has been in for a long time, The world is too connected. Power vacuums can be very dangerous.
This doesn't mean the US can't change it's approach to the Middle East at all. Of course it can (and in some ways, I'd say should).
But if you think the US can just give Israel, Egypt, KSA, UAE, Bahrain, Jordan etc. the finger and it'll work out fine, you're not a serious person.
Does anyone feel they can "speak freely" at work?
Maybe I'm weird, but I've always operated under the assumption that close friends and family are the people you speak freely around.
Do all of you love every boss you've ever had? And if not, did you regularly tell them they suck?
Charitable interpretation is for arguments, not surveys.
If different respondents interpret "speak freely" in different ways, then it's not a good question.
As a result, many of those commenting on this survey are primarily asserting their preconceptions.
Consider this:
In one org, everyone's a Shia Muslim with similar levels of religiosity. At another, there's people of various religions.
When religion comes up, people at the first org speak more freely.
But are they freer? Or just in a more homogenous environment? Is one better?