What is odd is the appeal to academic authority by someone who routinely attacks academia, best summed up by the claim that he spends 16 hours a day studying the relevant academic literature, when he really means he spends 16 hours a day trolling academics & others
The meta-narrative of the Sokal Squared folks is that people in some areas of academia were making ideological claims while wearing the credibility of expertise that their academic status provided them. But Lindsay et al do the same: they are activists pretending to be experts.
James Lindsay, PhD in mathematics, when testifying about whether the state should censor "divisive" concepts: My name is *Doctor* Lindsay if you don't mind.
Also James Lindsay:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Not sure about this framing. Have not seen any Biden supporters argue that low refugees numbers is an enlightened policy now that Biden is doing it: indeed, most of the pushback on this policy I’ve seen is coming from liberals who presumably voted for him
There are aspects of the immigration discussion where Biden has probably been unfairly treated e.g. the very real problem of what to do with unaccompanied minors. But the refugee cap does not fall into that category as best as I can tell. (but correct me if I'm wrong).
This is really insightful piece about the abuse of language on the right. What does language like "cancel culture" do in these cases? 1. As @ParkerMolloy identifies, it provides easy talking points - "rhetorical empty calories" mediamatters.org/fox-news/woke-…
2. Use of terms like "cancel culture" connects and makes sense of disparate events into coherent themes for people, reducing cognitive demands on the audience. 3. It prioritizes certain topics as more worthy of your attention, and gives them a specific framing.
4. As a result terms "cancel culture" or "woke" or "critical race theory" creates a cognitive bias - don't think about it, or look at the details, just turn to a pre-programmed emotional response (usually anger).
Ron DeSantis wants to impose signature matches on absentee ballots. This will predictably result in lots of eligible voters losing their voting rights. The variance in DeSantis own signature over time illustrates why it is such a bad idea. tampabay.com/news/florida-p…
There is no evidence that signature matches reduce fraud, and plenty of evidence that they result in legitimate votes being tossed, esp. by younger, immigrant & minority voters more. nytimes.com/interactive/20…
Signatures are collected in really varying conditions. Your vote could be rejected if the signature you made w an electronic stylus at the DMV is different from one you did at home with a pen on paper.
Academia is the most prominent institution where (some) members won’t get fired for their words. This is the problem they are trying to fix, and their chatter about valuing free speech is worthless.
We are in this weird space where public educational institutions have first amendment protections but are also under ideological pressure to curb speech protections. See e.g. from Florida:
Private institutions with strong academic reputations are better able to weather populist demands to curb academic speech, but have weaker first amendment protections. And some private institutions are vulnerable to market pressures, and therefore worry abt outrage mobs.
"God forbid we do something" like violate the constitution and the sort of basic free speech principles that separate us from authoritarian political systems.
Pummeling David French is now a rite of passage for a certain class of the far right.
Why?
It is *because* French retained his conservative beliefs, rather than abandon them in the face of Trumpism, b/c he opposes an authoritarian state for cultural ends. newyorker.com/news/the-polit…
We should be very concerned with people running for election who use populist rhetoric to propose unconstitutional actions, and when told so, respond by doubling down.
This is what Vance was responding to which is both fair and accurate!
No conservative in America has been as showered by mainstream accolades as Vance. But he made a decision that his path to being a Senator is to run I the Trump/Carlson lane of the GOP *because that is the dominant lane.*
The most ambitious Republicans populists - Hawley, Cruz, Cotton - are the products of elite institutions like Stanford, Princeton, Harvard and Yale.
Not blaming those institutions, but the idea that our current moment is the result of *excluding* conservatives is bizarre.