This thread—which reaches its riotously discrediting climax by describing Bernie-supporting, Vox-podcasting @mattyglesias as a "fancy Rush Limbaugh"—is one of the dumbest things you'll ever read on this site.
Basically what's happening is that you have a Twitter subculture incapable of interpreting disagreement with progressive identitarian conceptions of race as anything other than red-pilled reactionary Limbaughism.
This group has lost the capacity to intelligently discriminate among the various forms of dissent they come across online. You've reached galactic levels of absurdity when your grand theory is that Matt Yglesias is Rush Limbaugh with a smile.
The author egregiously begs the question, and tips his hand, by equating the manifestly justified belief that today's political correctness strictures are a bit heavy-handed with the obviously morally horrifying view that "a little racism and homophobia are okay."
Roundabout way of saying, "Think political correctness is a problem? Think cancel culture is real? Why are you basically Tucker Carlson?"
"Oh, '#AbolishPrisons' sounds 'unworkable' to you? You think 'looting' is morally problematic, do you? I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was having a conversation with SEAN PATRICK HANNITY!"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Gary Neville is a hysterical nut case. I don’t think anyone was this worked up about Hitler bombing London. He’s offered no real argument for why the Super League would be bad. Just that it would be a “monopoly,” which isn’t the case.
Getting a lot of good pushback on this. So I want to explain my reasons for thinking this is a good development.
First, an uncontroversial metric of soccer enjoyment is being able to see the biggest matches and best players. We all circle the big games on the calendar; we all tune in for the most exciting players.
This first argument is simple: The SL reliably gives us more of these games.
Am I going to run a correction to a *tweet* in which I blast Greenwald for boosting Revolver News without qualifying it as a cess pit of conspiratorial chuddery?
No, I don’t think I will.
I do lament the fact that, in conversation with one of my own editors, I was too dismissive of the possibility that the death wasn’t connected to Jan 6.
Greenwald was accidentally right. For a lot of people following the coverage, there was little reason to doubt the official narrative. Aside from just, you know, having a dorm room skepticism to “official narratives” to begin with.
Without minimizing the genuine hardships many people have endured in recent times, I would put some pressure on the conceptual link here between "living through" something and metrics of personal growth like becoming tougher or becoming more resilient.
I agree with idea that a lot of mainstream media underserves “unwoke readers.”
My hot take is that, by being that way, they also underserve “woke readers”—because a robust and effective presentation of left identitarianism is enhanced by sharing space with heterodox dissidents.