Isn’t a core concern over “cancel culture” the idea that failure to conform to “woke orthodoxy” carries with it significant professional penalties and is not just a matter of “being called names”?
This tweet either (a) denies this more serious component of cancel culture, in which case we shouldn’t worry so much about it, or (b) is troublingly insensitive to its real costs, which renders it useless as a piece of advice.
I think the advice in the initial tweet is generally good, but I'm poking at it a bit because I'm mounting an internal critique: the advice is somewhat in tension with a view of cancel culture as constituting an intolerable threat to people's livelihoods and reputations.
In other words, basically saying "HEY DUDES, NUT UP" to people that you're simultaneously suggesting are caught in an environment that is deeply structural hostile to any deviation from progressive orthodoxy is a bit harsh, no?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Seeing a lot of hot takes on this. Mine is lukewarm by comparison.
I think content that is packaged in the garb of, and aiming for, *persuasion* should be very careful not to take its rhetorical cues from academic/activist spaces.
A lot of what this says about society's structural racial dynamics is correct and innocuously so. The idea that whites—their customs, prerogatives—have functioned like a kind of default in society, and unwittingly perpetuating this impedes and even harm nonwhites, is easy to get.
The problem with offerings like this is they operate with a braindead incapacity to grasp how the presentational decision to build out this message via the frame of demonizing "whiteness" is hugely inimical to the very cause being championed.
I think this column, which uses the death of Biden’s dog to muse on the death of Biden’s son, is in really bad taste. nationalreview.com/corner/the-sha…
The casual cruelty here is appalling. The man’s dog just died. What part of your galactic-level brain is telling you, ‘hey, it might be a good idea to use this tragedy to suggest that, for Biden, the *wrong son* got to live.”
I don’t know if Dan would put it this way, but the tweet/article strike me as suggesting that the tragedy of Biden losing his *good* dog while the *bad* one gets to live is kind of like the “tragedy” of how his good son died while the bad son is the one that got to keep going.
Whether you are privately a conservative or not is immaterial.
If someone wanted to build an online conservative persona monomaniacally obsessed with, and fanatically antagonistic toward, all things progressivism, it would look indistinguishable from your Twitter account.
This is not a knock against conservatism. It's a plea for being forthright about what our discourse commitments are. MFer tells us he's an independent when it's been literal years since he's taken a single position that any Democrat would take.
You want to know what's it's like to be an independent? To be an antitribalist? It means a followership that likes every *other* tweet of yours, or every third tweet of yours, because in the in-between ones inexorably offend or bother them.