Share this page!

Mangy Jay Profile picture
Twitter logo
26 Apr, 4 tweets, 1 min read
Hi Abigail, since you take issue with my interpretation of the bill, can you, as Senator Hawley's press secretary, offer a justification for tying the benefits to the number of parents, rather than the number of children?
It's an empirical fact that such a provision would disproportionately help white families over families of color. But, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say this is not the intent.

What is the intent then? Why does a single parent get less than a couple?
Oh, and for the record, I called Josh Hawley a racist because he is a racist.
We can take Hawley's well-documented racism out of the equation for a minute, though, if that's what is required to identify the underlying illogic of his plan. Why would a family w/ 2 incomes get more than a family w/ 1 income? What's the rationale here?

I'll wait.

• • •

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
28 Apr
People can do what they want with their bodies, but "my body, my choice" does not apply when your body is a vector for an infectious disease that has the capacity to collapse hospital systems. If that were the case we'd be riddled with measles and tuberculosis.
When we're talking about an infectious disease, it's not just your body.
Frankly, as a TB survivor, I find this hilarious. The minute I was diagnosed, I was placed in the hands of public health & was required by law to do everything they said. Including taking drugs for 9 months that impaired my liver function & gave me serotonin poisoning.
Read 6 tweets
Mangy Jay Profile picture
27 Apr
It's good to talk about politically effective language. It's also important to not dismiss POC and/or LGBTQ scholars' paradigm-shifting approach to language. If it were just white cishet scholars suggesting new terms, that would be one thing, but that's not what's happening
For example, I personally wouldn't define the efforts of scholars of color to change certain linguistic frames as "exclusionary language adopted by an insular set of hyper-educated people." They're working on reframing academic fields traditionally dominated by whiteness.
Does that mean that every expression gaining traction in academia will have equal success in general political discourse? No. But this has never been the case. And this doesn't just apply to socio-cultural terminology, but to all academic terminology.
Read 7 tweets
Mangy Jay Profile picture
27 Apr
I don't want to give this racist the time of day, but I will use this opportunity to say a couple of things. People's regional dialects often get "stronger" when they are in the region of their native dialect. AAVE speakers also often code-switch between *multiple* dimensions 1/
So, a white New Yorker might sound way more "New York" in NYC than they do in their new home of CA. Speakers of AAVE doesn't just switch regionally, though. They often switch between broad AAE/AAVE, regionally-specific AAVE, as well as varieties of "Standard American." 2/
AAE/AAVE originated in the South & has then developed different regional varieties after diaspora. However, the rich oratorical tradition of AAE/AAVE carries a lot of the Southern tradition, such that an orator from Illinois might sound more "Southern" when giving a speech. 3/
Read 6 tweets
Mangy Jay Profile picture
27 Apr
The correct way for an analytic philosopher to answer the question, "Why do you cite primarily white men?" is that the field has been, due to discrimination, dominated by white men. However, that has thankfully been changing and they now seek out female scholars/scholars of color
If you're only working on analytic philosophy up to a certain point in time, there will be mostly only white men to cite. This historical trend is worse in analytic philosophy than other fields, like continental philosophy, history, & English. However, again, it is now changing
There are plenty of female scholars/scholars of color in the fields of bioethics or climate ethics or ethics more broadly. Many have been game-changers. There's really no excuse to not seek them out.
Read 7 tweets
Mangy Jay Profile picture
26 Apr
I'm seeing some people praising Hawley for this. Please note that the payments are based on the # of parents, not the # of children. Given Hawley is a well-known racist, your next question should be: will this plan disproportionately help white people?
businessinsider.com/josh-hawley-ch…
What could possibly motivate a person to base payments on the number of parents, rather than the number of children? I wonder if it has anything to do w/ the fact that a white couple w/ 1 child will get twice as much as a Black single mom w/ 3 kids?
Note, too, that there are some correlates between socioeconomic status & number of children, as well as single parenthood. Basing the payment on number of parents is a sneaky way of increasing the interaction effect between race and economic inequality.
Read 5 tweets
Mangy Jay Profile picture
26 Apr
People are reading this and assuming Gates is making a profit-based argument. He's not. He's arguing that sharing formulas would compromise safety. I don't think I agree with his cost-benefit analysis. But we should critique his actual argument, not the morally monstrous strawman
And before anyone comes at me and accuses me of defending a billionaire: I'm not. I'm saying it's of extreme import to criticize the actual argument. I think there's some misplaced paternalism here, as well as a misguided cost-benefit conclusion.
I also assume, given Gates' long history w/ global health, that he is making this potentially flawed argument in good faith. We can criticize him for all kinds of practices, but I don't think his public health efforts have been driven by rapacious capitalism.
Read 7 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