If you provoke engagement, but changing your mind or admitting error are fundamentally alien to your job description and reputation, you may be a good lawyer, apologist, or grifter, but you are NOT an academic, nor, perhaps most importantly, worth an academic's time engaging.
Academics don't perfectly embody this. We all have biases along w/professional & social pressures. But ideally, at the end of the day, scholars proceed under the bedrock assumption that we could be wrong & want to learn. Not so w/folks whose job/status demands they NEVER lose.
Good way to see if this applies to you: ask yourself "If I publicly reversed my argument tomorrow, would I lose my job or reputation?" As an academic, I'm ideally free to follow data. But a lawyer or apologist? Toast.
(So why engage w/folks who must NEVER change no matter what?)
And no offense meant to lawyers, BTW. Just using lawyers as an example of someone whose job depends on them only arguing one side of a case. Expecting a defense attorney to start arguing the defendant is guilty in light of new evidence would be silly. My only point there.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵 Thinking about the SCOTUS abortion case. There are many reasons folks oppose abortion. BUT the "sanctity of life" rhetoric always bothers me cuz folks who want to restrict abortion are also *more likely to be* folks who disregard life (or nonviolence, mercy) the most. Data: 1/
The 2018 GSS asked if adults thought state abortion laws should be easier or harder. Note that those who want to make abortion harder are more likely to favor death penalty, want courts to be harsher, oppose gun permits, & would approve of police hitting mouthy citizens. 2/
Conservs. can argue first 2 (death penalty, harsher courts) are "pro-life" in that being harsh w/criminals may preserve innocent life.
Harder to make that argument w/the other 2 questions, suggesting folks who wanna make abortion harder are just more pro-guns & authoritarian. 3/
Visiting the Civil Rights Museum with my kiddos on the way through Memphis. Struck by how little has changed in terms of how many white Americans view the law when they feel threatened.
We propose #ChristianNationalism operates (1) as an "epistemology of ignorance" for whites that allows them to rewrite history as "Christian" & "good" & ignore past & present injustices. But (2) it also builds on the fact that "Christian nation" language is racially-coded. 2/
Examining various outcomes, we show the more whites affirm our "race neutral" #ChristianNationalism measures, the more they deny anti-Black injustice & the more they think whites are unfairly targeted. But Blacks' views on racial injustice don't change as CN increases. Why? 3/
You see other explicit examples like this one from the Christian post. Here the author uses “white America” to refer to all biblical Christians. Why? Cuz in her mind, and those of her readers, they’re the same. google.com/amp/s/www.chri…
Or here’s one from Eric Metaxas a few years back. Does this guy really think Jesus was “white” like him? Maybe. But more likely he means “Jesus was one of us. He’s on our side.”
Again, “Christian” just becomes code for “white people like us.”
I DO NOT speak for Pew in ANY capacity. But I’m happy to offer thoughts on findings for media. Here are some highlights: 1/8 pewforum.org/2021/10/28/in-…
First, what’s with different numbers? These are not the questions we’ve used. Pew used different wording & MOST importantly, different response options (they discuss this in the report). They’re gonna get somewhat different results. So not strictly comparable to our findings. 2/8
Do percentages seem low? Again, different measures. Further, we already found declining CN between 2007-2017, so lower was expected. AND CN has been on blast for a year+. I’d be SHOCKED if social desirability wasn’t curbing affirmative CN responses by March 2021 (post Jan 6). 3/8
THREAD: Check this out. Something I didn't include in this article due to space limitations. In the JAAR study I argued that the ESV systematically removed "slave" language over time, likely for PR reasons.
But could it ever be strategic to INTRODUCE slave language? YEP! ⬇️ 1/6
The fact that the NT never formally condemns slavery is an apologetics problem, especially when there's so much in there about slaves obeying masters & even Christians *being masters* (1 Tim 6:2; Eph 6:9; Philemon).
But wouldn't it be so great if Paul DID condemn slavery??? 2/6
In 1 Tim 1:10, Paul lists a group of "lawbreakers" including "andrapodistes." Most literal NT translations rendered this "kidnappers" or "menstealers." But note how this has been revised in recent years. ESV & LSV go with "enslavers" & NRSV, NASB, CSB go with "slave traders." 3/6