A good & thoughtful piece that reminds me a little of something I wrote ages ago about what I called the “those assholes” problem… And should probably rechristen something more genteel, like “The Identity Feedback Loop Problem” gawker.com/culture/identi…
The idea was that polarization, and the fear of either being mistaken for or lending support to the outgroup, undermines self-correction mechanisms that help protect groups from veering into extremism or being exploited by grifters.
So if you’re a decent person who recognizes that racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc are serious problems to be fought, you have very little incentive to speak up about abuses of those values. You don’t want to bolster (or be mistaken for!) “those assholes”...
…who don’t even think those things are problems. But this creates a feedback loop: “those assholes” end up being the only people speaking up when someone invokes those values disingenuously or mistakenly, & you REALLY don’t want to be the outlier allying yourself with them...
Obviously you see the same dynamic on the right. If you break ranks, you’re helping the Left (and maybe even a secret Leftist, or at least angling for invites to semi-mythical Georgetown cocktail parties). Which is why a lot of people who manifestly knew better in 2016...
…ended up ultimately lining up behind Trump & being totally unwilling to critique the grifters in his orbit, even when they’re shamelessly fleecing other conservatives.
Everyone is very good at spotting this dynamic on the other side, but most of us are reluctant to acknowledge that every really large group—however good & right—is going to attract grifters & people who go off the rails, including yours. And that requires internal correction.
The right’s self-correction mechanisms are at this point so completely broken that it’s probably easier on the left to conclude it’s not a problem here, where they’re at least sort of functional by comparison.
You are an agent of the state whose job is to come in close contact with people who have no real choice in the matter. You are a coward unfit to wear a badge, and the only pity here is that the state will pay you a pension you don’t deserve.
I find these guys so maddening because what they’re saying is: “I am so irrationally fearful that I will refuse to accept even the most negligible personal risk to protect the community I serve, who do not get a choice in whether to interact with me.” And that’s dangerous.
It’s dangerous because it’s exactly the same mindset that gets unarmed people shot in traffic stops. “If I perceive even the slightest risk to me, I’m justified in using lethal force. Better to shoot an innocent person than be the one in a million who gets shot.”
So, I’d vote against this, if I had a vote. But “slave owners shouldn’t be honored, however immense their other contributions” is hardly a crazy position, and I can’t summon any particular apocalyptic dudgeon if that’s what they want to do.
What’s great and merits honor in Jefferson’s life is preserved and widely available on the page whether or nor we erect bronze idols to the man.
Somewhat orthogonally, it occurs to me how rare it is to see public arguments along the lines of “Position X is probably wrong, but any harm is minor and some people feel strongly about it, so we should let proponents have this one.” Though it’s probably applicable a fair amount.
Recently binged a few debates on the historicity of the Gospels between New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman & various apologists, and kept thinking how much less plausible so many key apologist arguments sound in the age of QAnon.
It is, incidentally, a meaningless but grimly amusing coincidence that scholars have long referred to a presumed lost source for the synoptics as “Q” (from the German “Quelle” for “source”).
A lot of apologetics on this front boil down to the idea that it’s wildly implausible that people would spread unfounded stories or sheer fabrications with such speed and conviction, often at substantial personal cost. And yet…
If I understand this correctly, the state ineptly left personal information about employees embedded in the HTML source of publicly accessible pages, and… the governor is now threatening to prosecute the reporters who discovered this for “hacking”?
This is utterly ludicrous. Looking at HTML source is not hacking. Every Web browser has a “view source” button. And… you’ve ALREADY “accessed” the source code of every Web page you look at. That’s what the server sends to your browser!
This does not make any of this any less stupid, and the legal theory here is still absolute nonsense. Apparently the personal information (SSNs) embedded in the page source had to be decoded or translated in some way. But that’s not “hacking” or “unauthorized access.”
This is such an astonishingly self-destructive threat it suggests he’s genuinely living in a total fantasy land where Republicans could somehow magically restore him to the White House if only they clapped hard enough.
I *guess* it could be this? Set a task it’s impossible for them to complete as a show of clout? Or even as a bid to replace electeds he’s shown to be “disloyal” (because they couldn’t impossibly reinstate him) with even more pliable stooges?
Or maybe, since they can’t actually “solve” it, just force them to keep talking up his election fraud lie, since it’s the only way they can attempt to abase themselves, but an explicit demand to merely keep talking about it would sound weak?
Here’s why it’s not going to work. A court’s unlikely to find criminal liability until a judge has disposed of Bannon’s spurious executive privilege claim—as long as he can say, however disingenuously, that he’s prepared to comply once it’s been legally clarified that he must.
So the threat of criminal penalty is unlikely to scare him into preemptive compliance. But litigating the privilege claim would take—extremely optimistically—many months, and quite possibly years. So in practice he’s going to be able to stall out the committee.
Bannon’s lawyer: "We will comply with the directions of the courts, when and if they rule on these claims of both executive and attorney client privileges.”