Quick thread. Cut through all Dinesh's mockery (which is not an argument), and he makes my point for me. He exaggerates the national divide and ignores the empirical, well-documented evidence that Americans do have deeply mistaken beliefs about each other. /1
He also doubles down on his Tiananmen Square/January 6th analogy (though conceding that not as many people died on 1/6) and decries a government crackdown and "mass censorship," even as he tweets, unironically, to almost two million followers. /2
My core point in my piece was that people like Dinesh use hyperbole to exaggerate divisions, which increases American anxiety and anger. He in fact does precisely that in this clip. But my point that Americans hold mistaken beliefs about each other is documented and true. /3
For example, a Beyond Conflict study found that "Americans incorrectly believe that members of the other party dehumanize, dislike, and disagree with them about twice as much as they actually do." /4 beyondconflictint.org/americas-divid…
To take another example, a More in Common study found that "Overall, Democrats and Republicans imagine almost twice as many of their political opponents as reality hold views they consider 'extreme'". /5 perceptiongap.us
Of course there are serious differences between the parties (as I said in my piece), but there is ALSO a giant media market for exaggeration and fear. Dinesh is a key participant in that market, as he demonstrates in the clip above. Here's my piece: /end frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/a-whiff-of-c…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with David French

David French Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DavidAFrench

10 Sep
I'm not seeing a lot of threads diving into the constitutionality of the proposed Biden OSHA vaccine mandate. So here's a general overview (it's Twitter, so it will be basic-more details upcoming in podcasts and in print). /1
Vaccine mandates are both common and constitutional, when implemented by proper authorities. There is SCOTUS authority on this dating back more than 100 years, and that same authority has been cited to support COVID restrictions during this pandemic. /2
However, the authority issue is key. As we've seen from the start of the pandemic, governors/state legislatures possess far more power to order lockdowns/masking/vaccines than the federal government. I explained why all the way back in March 2020 /3 thedispatch.com/p/the-police-p…
Read 11 tweets
9 Jul
You want more discussion of CRT laws? Well, you'll get more discussion of CRT laws. My oped Sunday with @kmele, @thomaschattwill, and @jasonintrator generated a lot of critique, but then I noticed something. See if you notice it also /1 frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/even-the-def…
In his thoughtful critique of the oped, Stanley Kurtz says this about the TX law: "This phrasing could potentially prevent even discussion of the various concepts, which would indeed run afoul of our culture of free expression, despite being legally permissible." /2
In his critique, my friend Rich Lowry also says the same Texas law is allegedly “going to get a scrub in the Texas special session” and says “it’s totally legitimate to worry about the wording of the laws." /3
Read 11 tweets
13 Jun
It’s wrong to frame the Baptist battle as a fight between “true conservatives” versus the “woke.” The battle isn’t left versus right. Instead, it’s over much more elemental concerns, including truth, transparency, corruption, and—ultimately—character.  frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/character-is…
For example, there are good-faith arguments to be had about the best institutional methods of dealing with sex abuse. Calling victims “whores” or “crazy” is not among those methods. Nor is describing victim advocates as instruments of a “Satanic scheme.”
When leaders lament, however, that the wrong side won the Civil War or claim that only armed citizens will save cities from “black people,” they do not assure America that the nation’s largest, most powerful denomination has decisively rejected a shameful past.
Read 4 tweets
11 Jun
A thread on the folly of the anti-CRT bills and the danger of banning ideas. First, let's get one thing perfectly straight. Not one of the anti-CRT bills I've read bans Critical Race Theory. Not one. So right from the start the public is sold a bill of goods. /1
The bills are typically crafted in such a way that they're both over-inclusive and under-inclusive. For example, is this TN provision "banning CRT"? Nope. It's prohibition would sweep up even a teacher critiquing communism (a "creed"). /2
Moreover, because the language of the statutes is so broad and vague, it will leave teachers, parents, and students deeply confused about their scope. Prepare for complaints whenever parents/students simply feel offended or uncomfortable. /3
Read 10 tweets
15 May
Quick law of war thread: The use of an otherwise-civilian building for military purposes converts it into a military target. This is a basic aspect of the law of war. The blame for the attack on the target thus rests with the entity that converted it into a military target. /1
This was a constant problem for us in Iraq—particularly the use of mosques for military purposes. Al Qaeda would use the mosques to plan ops, they’d sometimes place snipers in mosques. Sometimes they’d trigger ambushes from mosques. /2
The goal was to create a win/win. If we used restraint, they had a safe haven. If we raided the location, they’d claim we were persecuting Islam and would try to use it as a recruiting tool. In response we’d often let Iraqi troops take the lead in mosque operations. /3
Read 8 tweets
29 Apr
There's lots of confusion about the Angry Cheerleader (A.C.) case argued yesterday. It echoes the 1A confusion you often see on this site.

Does the fact that A.C. doesn't have a "right" to be a cheerleader mean discipline for off-campus speech is appropriate? No. Here's why: /1
Even if a student doesn't have a right to play sports or to participate in any selective extracurricular activity, they still may not be denied access to the activity for unlawful reasons. Easy example, you can't say cheer is for "whites only." /2
Or to take an easier free speech example than A.C.'s profane outburst. Would you see the case the same way if A.C. filmed herself at a Trump rally or wearing Biden swag? The state can't say cheer is for red or blue only. /3
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(