Share this page!

Mangy Jay Profile picture
Twitter logo
20 Mar, 5 tweets, 1 min read
Excuse me what now?
If you read the article, there is some ok info, but a lot of poor framing. Either way, violent misogyny should not be descried as "sexual anguish." There are many men who experience a difficult relationship w/ sex who never act in violent/misogynistic ways nytimes.com/2021/03/20/us/…
Also, "anguish" has connotations of torment or despair. Someone who anguishes is someone who suffers. Maybe the shooter did suffer in life. Seems possible. But why do we need to so explicitly relate such "suffering" to the decision to massacre Asian women?
Lots of people suffer. Probably most murderers have in some way or another. You can mention such a background in a profile, but **causally** relating it to the motivation for racist/misogynistic murder in a way that softens the perpetrator ain't the way to do it.
*described.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Mangy Jay

Mangy Jay 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 @magi_jay

Mangy Jay Profile picture
21 Mar
From my memory: the anti-war movement was unfortunately small. W/in that movement there was skepticism about the proof of WMDs, as well as outright rejection of the 9/11 connection. However, the best argument against the war was always that preventative war=illegal & unjustified.
I was certainly dubious about the existence of WMDs. The admin's evidence was clearly weak & the UN was not allowed to finish their work. However, "WMDs: Yes or No?" can lead us down a garden path. We shouldn't have invaded even if they had existed. Preventative war is illegal.
I say "preventative" b/c "pre-emptive" is a misnomer when it comes to Iraq. Pre-emptive implies some mitigation of future weapons-use. All the Bush admin had was some flimsy evidence that weapons might exist. That justification is much weaker than cases where a strike is possible
Read 5 tweets
Mangy Jay Profile picture
21 Mar
In 2018, the GOP created fear about a "caravan" of violent immigrants coming to the U.S. A white supremacist cited the caravan as a justification for the mass murder of Jews. The caravan never came &, after the midterms, the GOP dropped the subject.

Have we learned nothing?
The media does not have to uncritically amplify the framing of a group of people who have used immigration to fuel white supremacy & advance cruel policies that involved the torture of children. And, yet, here we are.
The MSM should challenge the framing by
1. acknowledging the bottleneck Trump created
2. humanizing migrants as people often fleeing violence, not a faceless hoard overwhelming the U.S.
3. identifying that many of those seeking refuge are unaccompanied minors under the age of 10
Read 5 tweets
Mangy Jay Profile picture
21 Mar
I'm frustrated that the difficulties associated w/ more humane policies are framed as bumbling chaos, whereas the real human cost of cruel policies was so often ignored. This story could just as easily be framed as: Trump, through his cruelty, created a bottleneck in Mexico.
The situation that we're seeing now didn't arise out of thin air on January 20th. The preceding events contributed to it. And, yes, humane approaches to refugee crises likely do lead to more logistical issues.
I don't wish to say that journalists need to say Biden's actions are perfect or that they even need to editorialize at all. But the fact that they are largely ignoring how Trump contributed to this situation &, at times, tacitly endorsing his approach, is distorting a lot.
Read 7 tweets
Mangy Jay Profile picture
19 Mar
An irritating aspect of the "cancel culture" narrative is how it treats the phenomenon of "canceling" as somehow in opposition to forgiveness. Many people who are ostensibly "cancelled" don't just want forgiveness. They want to continue to advance bigotry w/out consequences. Image
I'm a white cishet woman & I'm not going to comment on how POC or LGBTQ people *should* approach forgiveness. I will, however, comment on my observations about what actually occurs: many in marginalized groups appreciate a recognition of wrongdoing & a commitment to change.
If JK rowling were to retract her bigoted statements about trans women & show a commitment to trans justice, I am sure there would be a diversity of opinions among trans people about how to proceed. It wouldn't be just one strain of "cancel her forever." There would be a convo.
Read 5 tweets
Mangy Jay Profile picture
19 Mar
Public health officials are not your personal physician. When they issue guidance, they are not just looking out for you as an individual, but are primarily trying to protect the community as a whole in the presence of a deadly virus that can use any human body as a vector.
There are many cultures w/ a strong tendency towards individualism, but the U.S. takes this to extreme level, such that, in the COVID-19 era, almost all criticism of public health advice has centered individual risk, rather than community risk.
And this flaw in reasoning isn't just true of conservatives--though it is most pervasive there--it exists across the spectrum. For example, you see people endlessly complaining about having to wear a mask in public even if they're vaccinated.
Read 4 tweets
Mangy Jay Profile picture
19 Mar
This article is unfortunately poorly reasoned. There are ways to weigh the costs of isolation to children against the risks of COVID-19 that don't involve the false assertion that children are basically immune. There is also no mention of differential risk across demographics
-Children of color are at higher risk of disease than white children. As are children w/ pre-ex conditions
-The data are out on longterm effects in children generally. There's no reason to believe, at this time, that children are at high risk, but, still, some caution is merited
Additionally, the article relies on reasoning errors that are all too common when discussing public health, such that the focus is spuriously trained only on individual risk, rather than on individual risk *coupled with* community risk.
Read 12 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!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @magi_jay has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @magi_jay!

Read all threads by @magi_jay