"If Richard Spencer was marching for women’s rights, I’d have no issue marching next to him."
Fascists feast upon weak mentalities to harm their victims.
No, you absolutely never need to think it's a good idea to march with Nazis.
This isn't even such a foreign discussion, as eugenicists were complaining in Quillette that if we support women's rights to choose, we should stop opposing their own eugenic ideology so strongly.
If it's your march and a Nazi shows up to march with you, you should make it clear you don't want to associate with Nazis.
It doesn't seem complicated, for most people.
If it was me, I would just never want to be on the same org's board as Andrew Sullivan, especially when the topic is race and racism.
But I'm glad to see the people who think differently make it clear they embrace such associations.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In almost every phase of civil rights struggles, for over a century now, Jews are blamed for planting ideas in the heads of black folks who apparently can't think.
It was a theme during segregation and you see it today still with the (((Soros))) stuff.
Anti-Semitism and anti-black racism almost always goes hand in hand in America. White supremacists will make common cause with one against the other when convenient, but that alliance will always be conditional on it not yet being your turn.
Genetics certainly plays a role in who you are as an individual. What that means in the society you live in is completely dependent on the way people choose to structure that society.
In other words, your individual genetics don't *cause* your social outcomes. The society you live in and how it's structured does.
We can take a Polygenic Risk Score that predicts being a teacher even with high accuracy and restructure society such that those with the highest scores never become teachers.
Acknowledge genes, but let's not get carried away with claims about genetic causality.
For those who don't get me, my point is the two things have nothing to do with each other, and condemning college students in order to condemn Republicans is not logical, but clearly ideological.
It's as silly as those who blamed "wokeness" for the Taliban retaking Afghanistan.
A good thread on what many people were seeing and how this often works.
On moral issues, "neutrality" is a strange choice. Either one doesn't believe the issue significant enough to care, or one has chosen the side that's currently dominant.
I definitely accept that there are moral issues I'm complicit on in terms of not being active behind my stance. But taking a clear stance in terms of words is easy, and is the least that should be expected.
Those who can't so much as lend their voice to a moral cause when prompted, have instead used their silence to speak loudly in the other direction.
So much of the conversations on Twitter are driven by subtext, unstated implications that people some will pick up on, but always leaving room for deniability.
I notice this a lot on the center and right. I've seen people say "the science says...", then when you ask them questions directly derived from that position, they go mum or evasive. It's a weird form of political correctness often from people who state they aren't PC.
This dependence on subtext happens a lot around topics of race and racism, because people accept that certain things aren't socially acceptable to say around race, but they believe it, so they hint.
Things like "increasing the number of black students reduces school quality"