What many derided as "Sicknick trutherism" -- the idea that Brian Sicknick, the Capitol police officer who died the day after the Jan. 6 riot, wasn't murdered as initially reported -- is now vindicated by the ME's report. I was among many journalists who were wrong.
Does this vindicate Glenn Greenwald's claim that the media deliberately lied about Sicknick's death? Not quite.
And here's how Greenwald distorts a New York Times story on Sicknick's death. ("Struck with a fire extinguisher" becomes "skull savagely bashed in.")
Meanwhile Greenwald is still praising Revolver News for its Sicknick reportage, without acknowledging its ludicrously sanitized portrayal of the riot.
Incidentally, Tucker Carlson, on whose show Greenwald has appeared to discuss the Sicknick story, is also pushing full-on Jan. 6 apologism, ignoring ample evidence of serious mob violence and injuries to nearly 140 cops.
Has there been bad rhetoric and hypocrisy on this from Democrats and progressives? Sure. That doesn't excuse bad rhetoric and hypocrisy on the right or the maverick left.
(For more, please subscribe to @ArcDigi!)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I don't want to debate whether this is "cancel culture" (thankfully, Orman is not in a position to be hurt by these loons), but it's absolutely effing nuts.
First, note the assumption that the org. cannot tolerate a speech that dissents from current political dogma. Discussing personal obstacles to wealth doesn't negate "systemic barriers." But no, *every speaker* has to follow the party line. This is a totalitarian mentality.
Second, note the knee-jerk "marginalized groups" talking points. Asians, on average, are higher-income than other groups. Gays, on average, earn more than straight people.
It's terrible and white supremacist to try to drum up sympathy for perps of anti-Asian violence theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
... oh wait this was before the Atlanta shootings and this person was talking about "the optics of a Black or brown person assaulting or attacking" Asians
Honestly, I don't want to be flippant about this issue but this article is such a stark demonstration of how toxic the Current Moment is
What a blinkered piece by @GiniaNYT on #WoodyAllen & "Manhattan." nytimes.com/2021/03/05/nyr…
It's not true no one in the film questions Isaac's relationship w/a 17-y-o. Mary (Diane Keaton) suggests, plausibly, that it's his escape from feeling threatened by the power of grown women.
Isaac is also *not* shown as a man of "unimpeachable moral character." He's shown as narcissistic, egotistical and often dishonest. He's frequently made to look ridiculous. He's also ultimately a sexual loser, like many other Allen alter egos.
Also, the idea that many women in the '70s didn't object to age-disparate relationships was b/c they didn't feel empowered is remarkably agency-denying.
The other day someone questioned whether the 2019 Katie Ishizuka/Ramon Stephens study exposing alleged racism in "Dr. Seuss" was related to the anti-#DrSeuss push. Why, yes it is. (It began in 2017 when Ishizuka's first version of the paper appeared.)
The Ishizuka paper is not only a paranoid exercise in decoding "harmful" tropes everywhere, it's also wildly fraudulent. Here, for instance, is a passage about the racist symbolism of ink stains in a Cat in the Hat sequel... which forgets to mention that the ink is PINK.
Am I concerned about what a rights holder does with some mostly minor works? Maybe not, but I'm certainly concerned when a classic author is targeted for a takedown that peddles lies and omits important details such as Dr Seuss's anti-racist work.
This piece is a good example of how crazy, paranoid & potentially authoritarian social justice discourse about "embedded" or subtly "inscribed" racist images/tropes can be.
Let's say that the Cat in the Hat really was partly based on images from black minstrelsy. (Dr. Seuss, apparently, said he was based partly on a real-life, black elevator operator, Annie, who wore gloves & had a mischievous smile.)
So what? How does this make the book "harmful"?
1. It's very unlikely that anyone would associate the Cat in the Hat with black people. 2. Even if they did, the Cat is a *positive* figure. (He's only there to entertain/inspire two white kids? Yeah, so are a lot of other magical figures in kid lit who are clearly white.)
I decided to investigate. Here's the passage from the review.
Intrigued even more, I got the book on Kindle. Here are the offending passages.
Oh, and McNeil's comment about his "attraction" to women in a Zika seminar in Puerto Rico? He describes the seminar leader as "an attractive young woman." STRING HIM UP!