Theft and property crimes are not a moral failing but the product of poverty & widespread social failures and I’m not “defending” it (whatever that means) I’m criticizing reporters and editors doubling as vigilantes targeting a population that is, by definition, unhoused and poor
The US is BY FAR the most criminalized nation in earth. We make up 5% of the world’s population but 24% of its incarcerated population. If arresting people prevented crimes the US would have the lowest crime rate among rich nations but it has one of the highest.
Maybe, for the love of god, we can think of another way to solve theft and property crime than demanding, as these reporters are, more cops arrest more homeless people? Huh? Maybe? Maybe we can think a little outside the fucking box on this one??
We have exactly one tool in our toolbox to solve social problems and it’s narc to Daddy Police, we dont have the cultural grammar or reference point to envision or articulate any other response. It’s not that it’s the most popular response, in our culture it’s the ONLY response
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is such a smart gambit by Hawley, just the perfect superficially appealing fake bullshit. Here, white rural communities aren’t suffering because private equity firms like the one Hawley used to be a lawyer for gutted jobs, but due to vague moral failings
The problem is a moral one not a material one, its origins are immigrants, academics, feminists, gays, the Chinese & the wokes not the interior rich & petty bourgeois owners who fund Hawley’s campaign & whose interests he serves & who drive down your wages & gut your labor laws
Self help Christian woo woo is smart, it speaks to a genuine human need and fills a real void but offers warmed over MRA dogma mixed with capital-serving victim blaming
Why do people think theyre clever pointing out longterm radical projects are presently unpopular. At the time of his killing MLK had a 75% disapproval rating, including ~50% among AA’s. In 1859 the NYT condemned militant abolitionists & called John Brown “a wild & absurd freak”
For yrs polls showed a majority of black South Africans opposed sanctions on South Africa. By the mid 80s this flipped and a majority supported them. But for over a decade the movement to sanction SA wasn’t supported by most black South Africans. Then they had their minds changed
In the early 1960s lunch counter sit-ins were widely loathed and JFK sent his brother to scold civil rights activists for making democrats look bad and instigating southern whites and, you guessed it, costing them votes
From the astute school of political analysis that brought you “poll taxes are just about govt revenue”, “the southern strategy is really about states rights”, and “the Tea Party was just worried about high taxes” comes “CRT is just about being aspirational and postracial”
Man, that semester of journalism school where they teach reporters to have the most generous, literal-minded and ahistoric reading of obviously bullshit right wing dog whistles needs to be abolished & replaced w/ literally anything else, 12 hrs a week of staring at an empty wall
I often wonder, when people like Nate go over to their friend’s house and they open their fridge & their friend says “have whatever you like” if they grab the ice cube trays & walk out because they are apparently pathologically incapable of grasping that words have social context
hi it's me again, "two ideas can exist in my head at once" man. The democratic establishment offers boring corporate suit candidates captured by big donors, routinely blocking material benefits to the working class AND CRT is a well-funded racist moral panic. both are happening
Look, a certain brand of rich liberal consultant will always blame racism for why their shitty candidates lose, as if it's a fixed and insuperable law of nature. This is a convenient way to never change. But this doesn't mean racist appeals aren't a primary driver of GOP turnout
That the Republican Party runs minorities who affirm these racist panics does not make them any less racist than Democrats putting minority faces on their policies of violent border enforcement and Tough on Crime policies. These aren't original tactics.
In 2008, the year this study was published, RAND was funded by Pharma lobbying group National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnson. I'm genuinely curious if you think it was possible for RAND to come up with any other conclusion.
are we supposed to believe that the RAND corporation––a decades old workshop for US empire and industry––is going to review the data and conclude price controls on drugs is wise and prudent? I have no idea how people can be credulous.
any time activist groups or left govts threaten Pharma's bottom line, Pharma and their well funded propaganda organ think tanks cry "it will stifle innovation!!" make no mistake what they're doing is threatening capital strike, they are not worried about a loss of "innovation"