As a thought experiment, I wonder what would happen if we took all the arguments around how "cancel culture doesn't exist" or that "concerns over it a moral panic because nobody lost their job," & applied them to the media climate of the post-9/11 run-up to the Iraq war?
It's widely agreed that the media was in the grip of war fever & pro-war groupthink, & that this was ruthlessly enforced somehow. But did any media anti-war voices lose their jobs? Couldn't we say the efforts to shut down anti-war voices were just a few isolated incidents?
How many people in the media or elsewhere really suffered lasting career damage for opposing the war? Isn't the absolute number of incidents here quite small? Why does anyone care about that, then? Why not say there was no groupthink or pressure?
Ward Churchill is probably the poster child for being canceled for being anti-war, and yet he retained his job! By the logic of "cancel culture isn't real," Churchill had nothing to complain about & pro-war mania wasn't real, no?
I'm pretty sure you can take any argument that cancel culture isn't real, and use it without modification to argue that there was no uniformly pro-war groupthink post-9/11. Maybe not. I am spitballing here. There could be some angle I haven't thought of.
Yes! Why, clearly the Dixie Chicks were not subject to unfair, censorious treatment, since they are all still rich & successful & have won many awards since then. Obviously they were not canceled by country radio.
Going by "cancel culture isn't real" logic, this article lays out a few isolated incidents. Just a bare handful of low-stakes anecdotes. Why should anyone care what happened to Donahue's show? He is but one old guy.
Donahue was an old white guy who has no right to be on TV. His (anti-war) speech was not silenced. He has no right to a platform on network TV. He retired very wealthy. Why would anyone look at this incident & think there was a pro-war groupthink crisis? 🤡
.@NGrossman81 what say you? Was there a real pro-war groupthink crisis in the media post-9/11, or was this just a handful of low-stakes anecdotes about a few isolated job losses & some silly protests (i.e. agains the Dixie Chicks), & not much else?
So to drop the bit for a moment, I was in media during that time, & yes there was a pro-war groupthink crisis & I was in "hysterics" about it. I have faced all these arguments before. Not my 1st rodeo with, "there's no groupthink here... everyone is free to say whatever."
People claiming that there was some kind of post-9/11 patriotic fervor chilling effect on media & academic discourse were told they were imagining things & overreacting.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The more internet satellites go up, the more of a definite "yes" that is for pretty much all forms of disaster no matter how widespread. If the world totally collapses into grid-down chaos in, say, 2030, we'll still be on various decentralized services via solar + satellites.
Ok, I'll cop to having a weird feed. I guess not everyone regularly sees commentary on the "incredible drip" of this or that insurgent or street fighter from a series of crumbling cities, thanks to their choice of sneakers, watches, etc.
I don't think people grasp the degree to which Biden dangerously mangled a critical issue at a critical time. The US has a doctrine of "strategic ambiguity" with respect to whether we will or won't invade Taiwan. Our legal cmtmnt to come to their defense expired decades ago
In this interview, though, Biden said that of course we were committed to coming to their Taiwan's, and seemed to suggest an Article 5 obligation to them. This is a really big blunder on major, live issue.
Biden is really slipping, and has been since before he even started campaigning. A lot of people are in denial about this, but it matters. He's slipping, and his confusion here on this basic point was kind of a big deal.
Just unprecedented demand for *zooms in on pic* french fried onions. People are just spending their stimulus money & buying these french fried onions in bulk. Definition nothing else weird going on!
If this bit annoys you, you should unfollow or mute me, because I'm gonna keep doing "people just so HUNGRY... unprecedented surge in demand for $FOODSTUFFS right now... such a healthy, healthy economy, like a young athlete!" for the next 2 months.
To clarify why whether you're Mayor Pete or a right-wing inflation hawk, your demand-side explanation for all the shortages is simplistic, here are some things that've happened:
- Factory closures in Asia due to flooding, blackouts, COVID
- Shipping capacity offline due to COVID
This IMO is actually the most likely scenario. Not that I know anything, I am but a simple dude on Twitter etc.
But I could see this scenario: soon a short naval conflict => we lose => internal division & collapse due to recriminations, festering issues, wrecked supply chains.
We very foolishly outsourced most of our manufacturing to our main rival, under the unbelievable theory that if we let them make all our stuff in exchange for our dollars, they would never go to war with us because we owe them too much money.
"China won't go to war with its #1 customer who has paid them in IOUs." This now sounds as idiotic as it in fact is, but it really was the Rubinite case for hollowing out US manufacturing & civilian maritime infrastructure, & having the economy shift to services.
Surely, this is a sign of incredible market demand for this $19 polishing cloth, & not of supply chain problems. It is such a strong economy that causes so many people to want such a $19 polishing cloth. Supply chains are fine!
Do the proponents of the theory that the reason goods are scarce is a surge in demand never stop to consider that a supply chain that cannot handle demand is a supply chain that is not functioning properly, ipso facto? 🤯
It's like the people saying calm down b/c supply chains are broken because of big shocks from corona & weather. Well yes, but supply chains that cannot handle big shocks are craptastic, are they not? Because the fact that big shocks of some kind will come is surely predictable.
As someone who has a religion & takes it seriously -- a religion with its own metaphysics around sex, gender, & identity -- I'm amazed that people don't see this as a violation of the Establishment Clause. This is 100% religious. Religion is a great thing! But from @StateDept?
Whatever metaphysical commitments people have to the idea of an inner, "felt" gender essence that they need to express outwardly are fine with me. As a fellow haver of metaphysical commitments many find ridiculous, I love that for them. 🤝
I don't love it from my government.
You have your gender, I have my Holy Spirit, this other person has her reincarnation -- everyone gets to have a thing. Some people have many such things all at once, which is great. I am big on religious pluralism. Pluralism is good. Secularism is good.