Man, to think that everyone just spent days shouting at me for saying that Matt Yglesias and other 'contrarian' white guy writers are increasingly pandering to white dudes who see themselves as liberals but also have vaguely reactionary cultural resentments
"Will, it's completely unfair for you to suggest that these types of writers are receiving too much positive reinforcement from each other and that it might be encouraging them to indulge in a distinctly white, male set of prejudices and grievances"
A take that would be perfectly at home on a far-right reddit or Breitbart
Someone is going to say "he's just making an observation!" and I guess that's true, in the same way the stuff in Breitbart's under "black crime" tag was just totally innocent reporting on crimes committed by black people and definitely not catering to any particular audience
This tweet is meant as an attack on a certain set of ideas. It's worth thinking about who this tweet attacks and why attacking those people feels so satisfying to Matt and so many of his fans.
I am getting lots of replies telling me Matt's tweet is meant as a defense of BLM, and I gotta say, some of you are real suckers
basically what's happening is that you have a bunch of ideas that have always appealed to comfortable people at the top of society - mostly white dudes - about how you should be allowed to be a little racist and homophobic and political correctness is out of control and whatnot
but over the last few years the people who became most associated with those ideas became intrinsically rather toxic among the educated set. like you can't admit to listening to ben shapiro and jordan peterson and expect to be taken seriously
so what's happening is that a bunch of moderates and liberals - who just so happen to be white dudes themselves - have started advancing suspiciously similar arguments with a liberal gloss. "this is just an argument about politics, it's not like I don't believe in racism"
Here’s a piece that defends the effort to eliminate and replace the Minnesota education clause, and seems to attempt to rebut my criticisms of that effort.
First off, it's rarely a good sign when the thing you're supposedly defending isn't even mentioned until the 11th paragraph, halfway through the piece.
The author admits that "quality education" is a legally undefined term. This is a key problem with the proposed amendment: you're replacing a guarantee of "adequate education," with the force of precedent behind it, with an undefined generality.
The primary reason is the process of suburban demographic change, and the eventual resegregation that results. Most American suburbs are currently moving across a spectrum from fully white segregated to fully nonwhite segregated.
At present, many suburbs are in fact racially integrated, but it's not a stable state of affairs - the integration is a side effect of the demographic move towards nonwhite segregation, and will collapse eventually if steps are not taken to preserve it.
Here's the thing: Dems definitely CAN win the culture war! Their positions on race, immigration, etc. are generally the majority view!
The problem is that the party lives under a cloud of fear on culture issues, created by decades of white moderates warning darkly against the overwhelming backlash that will come for anyone so reckless as to advance a progressive position on, especially, race.
It was completely predictable that conservatives would turn against lockdowns and public health measures, because these things require public sacrifice for the greater good. Indeed I predicted it over a year ago
Also the reason Donald Trump always, always lands on the wrong side of every issue is because he cannot abide forming common cause with people who have criticized him, which pushes him towards positions that no one reasonable could actually hold
You know, I'm not a revolutionary by nature, but if people keep spending this much money on NFTs, it may be time to break out the guillotines cnbc.com/2021/03/11/bee…
Someone spent $70,000,000 on what is literally the equivalent of a piece of paper saying they own a png that anyone else is also free to download
can someone explain to me how selling someone a NFT for a piece of digital media is any different than selling someone a piece of paper saying they own the brooklyn bridge