Ha ha, inevitable: reactionaries are now telling educators in Texas that books about the Holocaust must be "balanced" by "opposing views."
All you fuckwits who went along with the "illiberal college students" nonsense own this. nbcnews.com/news/us-news/s…
It is reactionaries who want to control thought, speech, & behavior, to preserve status quo social arrangements & prevent the emergence of progress or alternatives. It is true today; it was always true throughout history; pretending otherwise has only empowered bad actors.
OK, on the original post in this thread, if you listen to the audio, it seems the school administrator is just trying to game out the consequences of TX's terrible new bill. She's not *endorsing* the practice. The reactionary TX pols are the problem.
Also worth listening to this audio to hear plain old professional teachers *terrified* that they will face serious legal consequences simply for doing their job.
I wish the academic-freedom-defenders would f'ing focus.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One thing I think is worth keeping in mind around the "popularism" debate is that, in an actual democracy, where each voter counted equally & majority voter preferences carried the day, *Democrats would already be winning*. That's not much practical help, but it's true.
I think often about the Waxman-Markey climate bill. Dems assembled support from:
* a majority of the public
* a majority of the biz community
* a majority of House reps
* a majority of senators
* the president
And the whole thing is now remembered as ... a pathetic failure.
It's true that Dems have to deal with the system as it exists -- they have to overcome large & wildly unfair barriers. Gotta be realistic. But it's easy to get too down on them. They're doing well enough that, in a sane political system, they'd be winning.
@sambrodey has a great reported piece on how Sinema has basically ghosted the entire network of Democratic supporters that helped her get elected. Lots of personal friendships nuked. thedailybeast.com/kyrsten-sinema…
Has anyone written a good account of why Peter Thiel is so reliably The Fucking Worst? Where did he come from? Why is he the way he is? politico.com/news/2021/10/1…
As usual, my followers -- the best looking & most charismatic group on Twitter -- have come through. Here's a review of the new book on Thiel: nytimes.com/2021/09/13/boo…
The attempt to force a "nuclear renaissance" in South Carolina devolved into a festival of waste, corruption, & criminal charges ... and no nuclear plants. Clearly this is all the fault of greens saying mean things about nuclear. thebulletin.org/2021/08/us-att…
All the mean things greens said about nuclear made a Westinghouse executive feel so bad that he committed "sixteen felony counts including conspiracy, wire fraud, securities fraud, and causing a publicly-traded company to keep a false record."
The pain of green criticism pushed another Westinghouse executive into "making false statements to the FBI," another into committing felony fraud, and another into committing mail and wire fraud.
This thread has gotten some traction (read it!), but I wanted to add one important point. Lots of the responses are some version of, "exactly, Democrats are terrible at messaging & framing!"
But that's NOT what I'm saying. This is an important distinction. (mini-thread)
We talk all the time about "messaging" but tend to conflate two meanings. On one hand, messaging is *choosing messages*, ie, crafting words & soundbites & images that effectively convey your points/positions. The educated, word-loving left fairly obsesses over this aspect.
But the other, arguably more important meaning of "messaging" is ***the ability to deliver messages to the intended recipients***. Unlike the first meaning, this one has very little to do with cleverness & facility with words & everything to do with *power & money*.