Most. Cursed. Podcast. Episode. Ever. Helen Andrews and Sohrab Ahmari on not-badness of Jan 6 and the badness of Reconstruction. 'Darn those carpetbaggers! And, oh, why can't we have conversations!' theamericanconservative.com/prufrock/j6-te…
You ask what sophistry they perpetrate? The Jan 6 stuff is too dull & obvious to rehearse. Just imagine the most obvious ways of dodging the question. That's it. The Reconstruction stuff is a strawman: pretend the issue is whether that era was a 'Golden Age'. Um, nope.
The only maybe interesting thing is Andrews insistence that those in charge of Reconstruction were the 'most leftwing people around at the time'. Reconstruction was a time when 'the most leftwing people had complete free rein'. That's a notably ... simple take.
Time was when GOP'ers were proud of their abolitionist heritage and didn't want to just foist all that off on the Democrats.
It's worth noting as well that the more-in-sorrow-than-anger 'why can't we have conversations?' is the sum total of the response to @EricLevitz' article. Sad, really, the depths to which leftists can sink, darn it. nymag.com/intelligencer/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
(Sigh.) Religious liberty is a liberal value. It is not imperiled by liberals ceasing to be religious. Atheists have no problem supporting religious liberty. Religious liberty IS imperiled - but by religious believers like Dreher ceasing to be liberal. 1/
Religious liberty, in a negative liberty sense - freedom from coercion regarding religious beliefs, attitudes, observance, expression - has never been more generously and strongly protected in the US. Legally, it's seen an unbroken string of victories. 2/
What IS imperiled in the US is, as it were, Christian hegemony, the right or privilege to dominate the culture. You can call it 'positive liberty', the freedom to dominate, modestly but firmly, without being dominated. That is clearly not a right that can be extended to ALL. 3/
I'm writing a thing for purposes of which I need examples of both sides (left & right) accusing the other of 'denying the science', or 'denying the obvious facts', succumbing to groupthink insanity and/or engaging in mass gaslighting. 1/
Now & then I see purported charge sheets. From the left the Big Lie tops it followed by forms of Covid-related or Q-crankery. From the right, lefty denial of biological reality of sex, 2020 was stolen, stupidity of mask-vax mandates, Russia-Russia-Russia, rising crime & riots. 2/
Also, the 1619 Project is waved like a bloody shirt - from the right. It is such an embarrassment to scholarship its existence is proof the left has slipped its epistemic hawser. Related: CRT, 'systemic racism' and Smollett. Rittenhouse case a case in point for both sides. 3/
The Kant thing is boring because the guy hasn't read Kant and is, therefore, making stuff up. But it's interesting that a grown man, who doesn't have a college paper due, would straight up pretend to have read any Kant. Like, any. 1/
The interesting thing, for those who care about Kant, is the way in which Kant's own career started with a similar, spun-up 'I haven't read it but I'm talking about it' episode. (I have been harping on this, intellectually & graphically in recent months, but it's interesting!) 2/
The Pantheism controversy, in German ideas & letters, starts when the philosopher Jacobi tells the philosopher Mendelssohn the playwright Lessing confessed to him to having been a closet Spinozist. 3/
Will see it when it comes out here & love it to death. I find Anderson unenthusiasm - nevermind dislike - completely ungrokkable. If you are the sort of person who might be able to get jokes about the New Yorker (or the mythos of the New Yorker) how can you not love it? 1/
It's like not liking Edward Gorey's "The Doubtful Guest" or "Unstrung Harp". Some people are not going to get this kind of joke. But if you can get this kind of joke, then how can you not like it - or even wish it were something else? 2/
Anything else would have 1) left a Gorey-shaped hole in the world - how sad; and 2) it's too obvious Gorey was unsuited to do anything else. No one feels Gorey was 'wasting his talents', better spent aiming higher. It was "The Doubtful Guest" or nothing! 3/
This level of un-self-critical unsophistication is really toxic. Vance is trying desperately to be worse than Mandel, in hopes of winning an R Senate seat. Good luck winning a race to the bottom against Mandel. He's cynical. But Dreher? He believes it. 1/ theamericanconservative.com/dreher/free-ky…
Dreher should know better. He's not a baby. Dreher should be able to step back from his own view and see the shape of it and see why that's unacceptable in a free society. What is he asking for? 2/
He's asking that we just recognize the 'good people' (people like Kyle) and the 'bad people' (on the other side) and we use the law to shield the 'good people' - don't put THEM on trial! they are good guys! - from the 'bad' - who get no such legal protection if shot dead. 3/
In related news, a 'Schleppicurean' is someone who tastefully, with refined delectation, carries large and/or heavy, typically ungainly items from point A to point B, with effort.