I am thrilled to debut Point/Counterpoint—a new @ArcDigi subsection.
This is a corner of the site that will feature contrasting perspectives on one and the same topic. The pieces won't necessarily engage each other directly, but they will argue for different conclusions.
We kick things off with a point/counterpoint on the Liz Cheney episode, which, as I wrote in a recent DiscRep entry, has transcended being about an individual legislator and has become about the future of the Republican Party.
We decided to ask two conservatives to weigh in. Since this is largely an intra-conservative dispute about what should remain in bounds for GOP leaders to do and say, we asked @SouthernKeeks and @varadmehta to give their perspectives.
The worst thing about dipshits like this is they get lots of mileage and followers and subscriptions LARPing as "not-part-of-your-system" freethinkers when in reality their accounts are absolute shrines to motivated reasoning.
What's funny is how easily this transparent attempt at MAGA apologia can be disproven. We actually have polls that specifically insert language about *electoral* fraud as opposed to some vague sense that the election wasn't fair.
Here's one from December and then April.
Michael "MAGA Whisperer" Tracey wants you to believe that the poll question about whether there was "widespread voter fraud" really just means, and gets interpreted by Trump supporters as, "Does CNN portray Trump fairly?"
Hawley's thesis is that Big Tech is superimposing on its users fealty to progressivism in an ominously heavy-handed way. But his own success on Big Tech performatively undermines that argument.
What's funny about this grift is the glaring internal contradiction at its core.
Hawley's massive reach and book sales suggest that, even if he's right, Big Tech appears to be so incompetent that they're not worth worrying about. In which case, don't bother reading his book.
Lots of publications style themselves as being pluralist. But you're not really pluralist unless you're regularly eliciting this sort of reaction from readers.
Being genuinely pluralist is hard, because you risk repulsing people who say they want to be challenged but actually don't want that at all.
I don't want other publications to force themselves into doing things this way! That's not my point! I think it would be a terrible thing if we didn't have commentary pages from specific perspectives.
It’s important to point out here that “stabbed them in the back again and again” refers to Cheney publicly dissenting from Trump’s unhinged insistence that Biden stole the election.
Similarly, when Dan recommends that Cheney "move off this topic," it's critical to recognize that "this topic" refers to Cheney publicly denouncing the insurrection-fomenting misinformation that Biden fraudulently hacked our electoral system.
I appreciate that Dan called Cheney's position "admirable"—I genuinely do.
But the rest of the thread provides a conception of leadership that is seriously backwards, and adopting it would reduce, rather than enhance, the effectiveness of Cheney's "admirable stance."
Making peace with a brutally repressive communist surveillance state engaged in tirelessly violent social engineering because Drag Queen Story Hour is EVEN WORSE
After picking it, I remembered that the rascals at Vox had a blog by that name (it's actually a fantastic blog). But I didn't care. As I said, I love the Dahl book and the name's got "arc" in it, so 🤷♂️
Earlier this week, we also debuted another section: Arc Conversations. Read the first entry here.