THREAD. I'm continually surprised at how many people I meet in elite spaces like journalism and academia who have formed very confident views about the world without 1) studying left texts or 2) participating in any kind of real struggle against power.
For example, it's rare to meet a journalist or scholar who has actually engaged with radical texts but who isn't a leftist, and even more rare, e.g., to meet a journalist or scholar who has engaged in any kind of struggle against power and who supports more money for cops.
I could be wrong about it, but many well-meaning people seem to be basically unaware of the transformative power of exposing yourself to radical ideas and working in struggle with people being targeted by power. They don't get how such experiences might undermine their certainty.
This lack of humility distinguishes (often well meaning) progressives from most people working in social movements. The latter engage with liberal ideas/institutions b/c they're all around us. But their understanding of power and strategy is deeper b/c they have done *more.*
It's rare to meet a liberal/progressive elite person who criticizes the left but who even realizes this information asymmetry: they mostly haven't even bothered to engage with the theoretical ideas that they criticize.
Ironically, it's often progressive/liberal elites who (I think b/c of a concept similar to David Graeber's idea of "moral envy") accuse "activists" of lacking "humility." This is backward: it takes humility to expose yourself to ideas that explode your worldview.
And it takes even greater humility and courage to actually put something on the line to stand with the most vulnerable people who are trying to build power to fight against the institutions targeting them with state violence.
So, to be concrete with one example, when a well-meaning elite progressive person criticizes "defunding police" or reducing police budgets or any other demand of a radical social movement, ask them a few questions:
-What radical texts have you engaged with on theory and history of police/prisons?
-Which texts by people targeted by state violence?
-What struggle for liberation have you engaged with, what forms of mutual aid do you practice?
-What have you meaningfully put on the line?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD. There has been another deeply harmful New York Times story about police. I try my best to walk through what happened because the stakes are so high and because the level of right-wing copaganda being pushed by the New York Times is increasingly alarming.
Yesterday, NYT published another in a long line of pro-police articles. It appears to have been pitched by PR for a group of right-wing police leaders to undermine even the embarrassingly meaningless Executive Order on policing that Biden is considering. nytimes.com/2022/02/02/us/…
As I’ve done with many New York Times stories, the place to start is to look at the sources in the article. Just look at the range of sources, in chronological order, that the paper thinks is sufficient to tell you this story. Tell me what you notice:
THREAD. I've been thinking about this New York Times headline that permits a powerful politician to spread false information. It surfaces several important flaws that people should know about a lot of recent news coverage.
A first major flaw: there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that little tweaks to bail laws or policing strategies or prosecutor charging policies could even possibly have significant effects on "crime." At most, these things would be extremely marginal.
The root causes of crime are big things! Like inequality, trauma, toxic masculinity, addiction, housing, health care, mental illness, unemployment, social unrest and alienation, lots of guns, etc. It's false to suggest that tiny changes punishment bureaucrats make matter a lot.
This is a devastating, sober, measured criticism of New York Times's new The Morning columnist by a rigorous media watchdog. It's just brutal. Many people were alarmed when NYT hired someone with such a track record of pro-cop incompetence and dishonesty. fair.org/home/nyt-twist…
As @FAIRmediawatch shows, one side effect of hiring reporters with known bias is it cheapens the work of other rigorous NYT journalists and reduces the extent to which people trust them. A monumental failure for the NYT and for all people who care about reasoned public debate.
This is really important work by @HollarJulie that adds a great deal to the public’s understanding of what is going on here.
Big news: A federal judge has just ruled against New York officials in their effort to keep sealed from the public threats that New York City lawyers and the Queens District Attorney made against prominent law professors. The story is strange and interesting.
As I wrote about before, our organization @CivRightsCorps has been supporting a courageous group of professors who are trying, against long odds, to inform the public about rampant prosecutor misconduct in NY and about the culture of secrecy around it.
After the professors and @CivRightsCorps published complaints against prosecutors on a website, instead of launching a meaningful inquiry into potential misconduct (including felony crimes) by prosecutors, NYC lawyers and Queens DA Melinda Katz threatened the professors.
THREAD: Today you will hear a lot of glowing discussion about Justice Breyer. This is a different story--one about how a fraud by Breyer led to one of the greatest increases in human caging in modern world history. What he did to so many families is important to know.
In the 1980s Justice Breyer was a main architect of the federal Sentencing Guidelines, one of the great scandals of mass human caging. But even in legal circles, many people don't understand what Breyer and his co-conspirators did.
There were two main (and many more) frauds perpetrated by bureaucrats who designed the Sentencing Guidelines. Hundreds of thousands of poor people and people of color were consigned to millions of extra years in cages as a result of choices Breyer and his group made.
On Saturday, I wrote a long thread on how major news outlets all used same corporate and police sources, turns of phrase, and baseless claims to push a hysteria of out-of-control homeless railroad thieves. The response of New York Times editor to my thread is important to see:
As background, here was my thread documenting the news coverage, the hysteria that led politicians to quickly increase funding for cops/prosecutions, and how the story planted by corporate/police PR departments fell apart after they got the $$ they wanted.