Like Andrew Sullivan, I don't want to see some voices elevated while I do want to see other voices elevated.
Unlike Andrew Sullivan, the voices I want elevated are diverse, vital, and challenging to existing hegemony, while the voices I don't want elevated are toxic and bigoted.
Also unlike Andrew Sullivan and the rest of these "anti-woke" "cancel culture" substack social injustice warriors, I'm honest about my position.
If you pay even the slightest attention, you'll see clearly, every one of these right-wing alleged free speech defenders actually believes that what they call "cancel culture" is excellent and valid and good. They just want it to stay as it always has: targeted at others.
They've got no interest in diversity of thought. They don't want new ideas. They don't want an exchange. They just want to be able to speak their vapid minds in a world where everyone else knows challenging or criticizing their boring noxious worldviews will carry penalties.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Don’t scale it back to placate. Double it to show them you mean business and ram it the fuck through, and then send through another one that’s THREE times bigger to teach them not to fuck with you. People want a real solution, nobody cares that Lisa Murkowski didn’t vote for it.
Name the bill the “Republicans are insurrectionist traitors act” and then make unblinking eye contact with them as you vote for it.
To be clear: a rapist of young girls is a selling point for mainstream Republicanism this point. That’s not hyperbole. That’s simply a clearly observable pattern. It’s an Abuse Party.
White conservative Christians have weaponized the concept of “forgiveness” to mean “a transactional status restoration between unrepentant abusers on one hand, and on the other unharmed third parties who have without consent appointed themselves proxies for victims.”
Republicans really are going to try to pretend things were better this time last year like they think we all have memories as selective as their voters, or goldfish, extraordinary.
Just going to flat lie as if we don’t remember the time everyone lost their jobs and the economy needed trillions in stimulus just to keep the lights on, amazing cynicism here.
Just extraordinary. They can say anything, fully confident their followers will believe it: as if memories don't exist, as if there isn't video, as if we didn't all experience it. Amazing. Tens of millions of people eager to instantly metabolize lies.
Such a weird formulation: to acknowledge what’s happening is needed and right, but too much and too fast? When has any government ever done anything good that was “too much, too fast?” Is that real?
Isn’t the actual danger the opposite formulation — “too little, too late?”
Trying to think of all history’s warning lessons of civilizations that failed because they adapted to changing realities and addressed systemic problems too efficiently and completely.
“Too much too fast” for ... whom?
“Slower and less” for what reason? To whose benefit? Towards what goals? It never seems to be specified. It almost—almost—seems like a nonsense phrase, designed to stop progress, camouflaged as prudence.
"Behind closed doors" is the *obvious* answer to this question. When throughout history when Nazis and their like felt emboldened to proclaim their views in public and as a neutral intellectual exercise has it ever been a *good* sign for things to come?
I hate how this saying is used.
People shouldn't be arrested by the state for expressing backward, toxic even hateful speech (so long as it doesn't incite), but there is *absolutely no justification* to give it exposure, and certainly no reason to *fight* in order to do so.
People of bad intent aren't trying to have an exchange of ideas. They're not trying to win a debate. They're trying to use debate in order to enact their intentions.
They want a world in which their bad intentions are up for debate.