As many folks have said, the striking thing here is less the initial misperception than the dogged refusal to acknowledge a pretty clear-cut mistake. Beyond the general aversion to admitting error, I think part of what’s going on here is specific cases take on symbolic weight.
You see this in a bunch of situations where a particular incident gets cast as a stand in for a bigger Social Problem. Starting from the perception the guy was making white power shadow puppets, any counterargument is Minimizing the Problem of White Supremacy in American Culture.
I’m thinking, e.g., of that Rolling Stone story from a few years back about the confabulated frat house gang rape at UVA. The first folks pointing out problems with the story took a ton of heat, because in some sense it wasn’t really about whether the particular event happened.
The particular event had become an illustration of the problem of rape culture on campuses, and for some folks “did this actually happen?” seemed equivalent to “is this a serious problem?”
Almost definitionally, once it’s a national news story it’s not really about the specifics of the case. Whether this particular dude is a racist, after all, is not really of that much interest to people other than his acquaintances & coworkers.
What IS of general interest is whether white supremacist ideologies are having a disturbing resurgence & finding increasing mainstream expression. Drawing attention to the broader issue is the only reason anyone really cares about the particular guy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Wow. Unless there’s an extraordinarily clear threat justifying an investigation, this is outrageous. Bad enough Nunes abuses the civil courts to mount frivolous lawsuits against online critics—now it seems he had DOJ doing his dirty work as well.
There really need to be hearings about this, and if it is indeed what it looks like, heads should roll at DOJ.
It also seems telling that DOJ was unwilling to show Twitter the supposed threatening communication, which presumably would have induced them to comply if it were real.
Totally bizarre. Apparently people are positively enthusiastic about the idea of compelling people to get vaccinated, but super opposed to any sort of immunization credentialing.
So it’s an unconscionable infringement on liberty if a business wants to see a vaccine card… but if the government just compels everyone to get a shot, that’s cool? I want a follow-up study on that combination of views.
The level of across-the-board support for compulsion here is genuinely a little scary, especially compared with the high opposition even to explicitly voluntary credentials.
A cynical explanation occurs to me: If you make your money providing expensive trainings that generate little or no real value for an organization, what would it be useful to make people believe so you nevertheless keep getting paid? slowboring.com/p/tema-okun
You can extend the life of the grift via the old Emperor’s New Clothes con. Any attempt to quantify the value of the trainings, or demand arguments for their broad & confident claims, is itself a symptom of white supremacy. The glorious raiments are invisible to the unqualified.
I mean, it’s sort of genius. Any attempt within the organization to say “hey, are these trainings maybe BS and a waste of time and money?” is itself going to be condemned by the trainings. Yikes! Better shut up and keep paying that consulting fee.
This has the makings of a legal sorîtes problem where the legal rule we converge on ends up being a semi-arbitrary function of the case details & whether we’re approaching from the heap-side or the grain-side.
When a legal sorîtes problem involves constitutional questions, btw, there’s a sort of structural bias in favor of governments, because they can sequence their appeals strategically in a way that’s unrealistic for dispersed criminal defendants.
There are, of course, activist litigation shops like EFF and ACLU that can be a little strategic in the selection of test cases, but on net I’m betting states have the advantage.
Do you really think this is how many progressives would describe what they think ought to be taught? I don’t.
“Only ten perecent of respondents thought White toddlers should be shrieked at by peers & teachers in Maoist struggle sessions where they’re told they’re literally slaveholders. I conclude Democrats are vulnerable on education issues.”
Vital and long overdue. This firm’s nonsense analysis has been critical to persuading both tech-illiterate elites & ordinary voters that there’s some credible evidence of electronic vote fraud. It’s a bad joke, but the technobabble sounds impressive. washingtonpost.com/investigations…
Some of this stuff requires no real technical background to see through. Ramsland, for instance, has been obsessed with the Spanish firm Scytl, which provides public-facing web applications for reporting vote tallies. They make the state election website look pretty, basically.
Scytl does not, needless to say, count votes. That’s done domestically, by local governments. Yet Ramsland has insistently peddled incoherent claims about Scytl somehow being involved in vote fraud (via nonexistent German servers, no less).