Thread by @thomaschattwill

Yesterday a lot of people were dissatisfied with a distinction I drew between the work of an activist and that of a writer. Quick thread for those who weren't instigating but were genuinely asking, and for whom my responses to Rufo seemed unnecessarily dismissive. /1

I appreciate the people here who are, as I wish to be, seeking clarity. I owe you a fuller answer.

The distinction between writer and activist is important to insist on. The activist (or ideologue) is married to a position, which may or may not be correct on a given subject. /2

By definition the activist’s mission is not to allow doubt or ambiguity to undermine their priors. That's antithetical to the mission of the serious writer, who's there to raise questions and complicate issues—to allow the possibility that new information will change her mind. /3

For example, a prior of mine is: “CRT” is overwhelmingly counterproductive. If I were an activist this would be sufficient. By any means necessary we must stop it. As a writer, I need to ask if there are other deeper values that might be compromised by heavy-handed responses. /4

The activist or ideologue, whether an Ibram Kendi or a Chris Rufo, never does this, never stops to wonder whether in their pursuit of Pyrrhic victories they are actually lighting wildfires that will burn everything down, even the structures and institutions we all depend on /Fin

*In addition to institutions, the activist or ideologue also breaks norms and often basks in intense support by the already converted. Just look at Kendi's or Rufo's posts, they always perform exceedingly well, but I'd be surprised if they persuade many who don't already believe.

**Finally, I wear it as a badge of honor that I get attacked from both extremes, by both Kendi and Rufo (and their most fervid followers). A young Marxist at Yale once said this is evidence of incoherence, but I'd just say it's evidence of trying my best not to be an ideologue.