Thread by @LatinxPutler

JBP and similar attacking anonymity because they want people "to stand by their beliefs," makes no sense. Why would he care if you do? His motivation like that of most facelords is to insinuate himself into a moment he had no part in making and try to take credit for it (thred)/

https://twitter.com/LatinxPutler/status/1472095145893969925

Most frogs wouldn't care if a facelord, even a shameless grifter, came along and tried to take credit while genuinely and fervently pushing our ideas. But that's not what JBP or IDW types are doing. They promote the failed liberalism of 1988 as if it was a brave thing

I don't concede any bravery to this type of facelord. Good example is Christakis, whose IDW career is representative: he and his wife weren't brave during a controversy, they did the bare minimum to be expected, failed, apologized and acted in an abject manner in front of mob

"Appropriation" was about white students getting racially targeted, which these professors have allowed in their universities and admissions for decades. In this case it predictably went "kinetic," but instead of calling it out Christakis pretended it was about freedom of speech

It's good maybe he and his wife did anything at all, it's more than what other spineless professors did. But it's not brave and was ineffectual.

Following their predictable apologies and firings, they realized there was an "audience" for "dissidents" that could provide a landing

There's nothing as such wrong with that. If they had committed to speaking the truth--to arguing with fire, and fighting (see Zemmour). But that's not what they did. They believed their positions as academic "public figures" and "Dr" entitled them to leadership, direction

So instead of riding wave of popular uprising and truly embracing the heretical speaking of truth, they started instead to lecture to anons, to frogs, to populists, to "gatekeep," to engage in all kinds of performative feints before tribunal of the left that "they're not rayciss"

This career path is typical of all in this world--Lehmann, Lindsay, and also JBP. They think it's about them, their public image; this is problem of facelord and why they're plague: because they think it's about them, truth suffers; it becomes another performance for left-media!

I made twet quoted about "Mongol attitude" because--look at them. They have their own audiences independently, and in case of JBP he has fuqqyou money. But they're still trying to appear "reasonable" "nonracist," doing a minstrel show for the left. Acting supine to journalists

There is no bravery in any of this and JBP et al have career, financial and vanity reason to want to ban anons: to erase historical record so they can take credit, but, more important, to get rid of embarrassing "raycissm"; and to obscure the pedestrian quality of their insights