It is certainly possible that, somewhere, a teacher told a 6-year old she is evil because she white. A more common problem, I'll wager, is that teachers are being told they are a racist, evil mafia. 1/
Also: parents like this have probably gotten worked up to the point of teaching their own kids their teachers are teaching them they are evil because they are white. If a kid lhears 'racism' in school, they go home and mom tells them teacher taught them they are born evil. 2/
Because Tucker teaches mom to think this must be what teacher is teaching her tot, basically. 3/
Shouldn't this be obvious? If it's possible there is a racist, evil mafia of teachers, isn't it also possible there is such a thing as systemic racism?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Sigh. The loss of privilege is experienced as oppression, chapter seventy bazillion. One may debate whether vaccine mandates are wise. But grant they are reasonable public health measures; it follows exemptions from them, for a few, is privilege. 1/ theamericanconservative.com/dreher/covid-h…
Dreher's writer: the 'lackeys' in HR should defer to the privileges of the rightful elite (religious believers) without asking impertinent questions! Even when the questions are pertinent. Any departure from this norm triggers a bout of ketman kayfabe complaint. 2/
The problem really is the standard of 'sincerity'. If you get special privilege/exemption for being 'sincere' - but only about religion - then there are going to be tests for sincerity ... and temptations to fake it. 3/
As one does, I was studying conventions for quotation mark placement around titles in old WPA-era posters ... You see the issue. Obviously the right answer would be to NOT include them on the grounds that the title IS the title. Duh. But that is regarded as unworkable. Hence: 1/
There is strong, evolutionary pressure on quotation marks to evolve into superior umlauts, or devolve into vestigial ligatures, to avoid wasting space. But, pondering this truth, I got distracted. 2/
Take the case of "The Amazing Dr. Clitterhouse", by Barré Lyndon. Did it occur to no one that the title is a bit ... well ... But, no. Everyone was too busy wrangling quotation marks to know about sex. (Here we see further tactics for growth, diminution, placement.) 3/
No force on earth can induce philosophical Burkeans to be Burkeans about philosophy itself. They have to fly off the handle about philosophical threats. For one touch of common sense and the gig is up. 1/
This paradox, back to Burke, is a steady feature of the rhetoric of reaction & we see it today in all the 'Woke' and CRT panic. Leftist, 'progressive' philosophy must be depicted luridly as implacably efficient, causally, yet inhuman, despite the unlikelihood this is true. 2/
James Lindsay is not getting any saner. But he really isn't SO much wilder than old Edmund Burke, back in the day. There is a conspicuous lack of interest in discerning likely motives on the other side. 3/
Thank goodness there's a good chance Weinstein's preferred candidate, Trump, will be returned to office in 2024 and deploy his signature brand of MAQA (Make America Quixotic Again) windmill tilts and Xi-praise to halt the anti-science, pro-China slide. 1/ washingtonpost.com/politics/trump…
But seriously: what even? I don't just mean to 'gotcha!' Yes, it's hypocritical to object to madness and self-harm, by and for the US, and be an apologist for Trump. But why be hypocritical this way? Weinstein will reply he doesn't really like the nutty side of Trump. 2/
But once you are reasoning that maybe the least-bad option for the republic is an orange Quixote, it ceases to be clear what you are objecting to if the other side is, as well, eccentric at times. (Let it be so. Why should that be bad not good, if what we need is nuts?) 3/
So we now know that there was a more serious attempted coup, by Trump, in late 2020, that went far beyond the legally ineffectual flailings that went on on publicly, leading up to 1/6. 1/ msnbc.com/all-in/watch/h…
The Jeffrey Clark revelations have been out there a few days now, with no significant pushback from the usual legal eagle anti-anti-Trump suspects. You don't see Andy McCarthy or Dan McLaughlin saying it didn't happen. You don't see the Federalist defending Clark. 2/
That's partisanship. Still: the GOP is Trump's party. Trump tried to overturn lawful election results and the constitutional order to install himself, for a second term, by a mix of force and fraud. 3/
OK, one thought about all this and I've got work to do. The argument from the right about why we need to overthrow liberalism, the election, the constitutional order, install an American Orban, whatever, is that 'Wokeness' is an existential threat to Western Civilization.
But what is the threat from Wokeness supposed to amount to? A lot of it is 'cancel culture' stuff that really bothers conservatives: the Covington teens; people were mean to Brett Kavanaugh; Dr. Seuss; that guy who got fired from Google; de-platforming; statues coming down.
Some of it is cultural stuff that conservatives would themselves like to cancel: "Blues Clues" and the Muppets going all trans-friendly. L'il Nax X. Too many pronouns; the 1619 project; CRT.