1/ Putin is attacking now because he knows Biden is weak. The chaotic way Biden pulled out of Afghanistian showed the weakness and incompetence of his administration
2/ That does not mean America should intervene. It means if Biden had not dropped the ball, and if the competence of American institutions had not been eroded we would not be here. Like it or not a lot of Republicans warned about what happens when guys like Putin see weakness.
3/ Those people were rightin saying that projecting American weakness (by doing things like leaving afghanistan in the most incompetent way ever, or letting China get away with hacking the office of personel management with no consequences) invites aggression from bad actors...
4/ Again...I AM NOT SAYING AMERICA SHOULD INTERVENE.
I am only arguing that Russia and China no longer fear American reprisal, and see America as weak and incompetent.
Make of that what you will, but it is a fact, and lots of people, Most notably @MittRomney, saw it coming.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Let's discuss woke double standards 🧵
IE: Kristin Du Mez wants her book judged on the merits but she endorses the idea conservative Wayne Grudem is a best seller because publishing/distribution networks supported by white patriarchial power structures protect their interests
2/ Woke authors (like Kristin) wants their books judged on the merits of the book, but when it comes to conservstives they switch the standard. Instead of looking at the merits of what a conservative book says they look at "whose interests does the book serve and who benefits?"
3/ Woke writers want their books to be judged fairly using the standard of merit and truth, but she wants conservative authors to be judged cynically according by the standard "whose interests are served and who benefits?"
Kristin Du Mez explicitly mentions blurbing each others books in disscussing the ways various people legitimize each others work, it's perfectly legitimate to say to Kristin "who are you legitimizing, and who legitimizes you."
The game being played by Du Mez, Barr, etc, is to see positive reviews of their own work as rigorous engagement with scholarship, but to regard positive reviews of scholarship they don't like as a social process of legitimization meant to platform and elevate.
That's the move...
"When *YOUR* work is reviewed by people who are politically close to *YOU* it is because you want to legitimize each other and increase your power. But when *OUR* work is reviewed by people who are politically close to *US* it is because we are just doing rigorus scholarship...
1/ Let's talk about why Putin is doing what he's doing.
To understand Putin, we need to understand how Putin sees the world, how he was trained, and what drives him.
To do that we need to unpack a some history so we can put Putin in the context that allows us to understand him.
2/ First off, Putin was a KGB agent. For those of you that don't know the KGB was the Main security agency in Soviet Union. It dealt with internal security, intelligence and secret police functions.
It's isn't exactly this, but imagine combining the FBI and CIA...that's the KGB
3/ The KGB did intelligence work at home and abroad. Internally the KGB would MONITOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPINION, internal subversion, and any revolutionary plots in the Soviet Bloc. The KGB would spy on Soviet citizens and was in charge of stomping out dissent within the USSR...
1/ This person resigned from a journal over a "transphobic" article.
The article says discussing the effects of biological sex out weighs any harm trans-people might feel hearing about biological sex
She calls the article, I kid you not, "injurious scholarship"
2/ She claims the article harmed trans people because the it said the harm of not discussing and accounting for biological sex outweighs any harm trans people might incur from hearing about biological sex.
THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE ARTICLE IS THAT THE WOMAN WHO RESIGNED IS WRONG
3/ How in the hell is anyone supposed to challenge this womans views, or test her hypothosis, or critique her reasoning.... WHEN SHE DEMANDS THAT ANYONE WHO CHALLENGES HER VIEWS MUST NOT BE PUBLISHED.
2/ While I think ending tenure is a very bad idea, I am also stunned at the fact that UT, which is a public University, has implemented a left wing political litmust test for promotion and advancement.
This is a blatant 1st amendment violation....
3/ Richard Lowry, a Professor in the department of finance at UT argues that the DEI policy (diversity equity, and inclusion) passed by the UT is a violation of academic freedom.
Even a cursory reading of thebpolicy demonstrates thst professor Lowery is correct
Luke, if you want to ignore the real claim being made here, that is fine and dandy. But I think I'll tell everyone the whole context whether you agree to that or not.
What David French was talking about was not what was going on here...
What James and Glenn are talking about here, and it's clear from the context, is the idea that the financial system can be weaponized and used a method of controlling people and undermining democracy by using financial control that is not accountable to democratic oversight...
For example, in Canada, where I live, Justin Trudeau has just announced a state of emergency and has claimed that he can freeze the assets of truck protestors, ***and anyone the think donates to the truckers***, without the need for a warrant or any due process.