Note that the "both sides" narrative here doesn't even hold up for an entire paragraph. The Utah "ban" on the Bible was a single complaint by a parent trolling conservatives.
If your own article can't support your thesis maybe write a different article!
Republicans banning books, office workers using ChatGPT and fewer college students majoring in English are not remotely the same trend! You cannot put all of these in the same article and call it a "crisis of reading" what the fuck is wrong with you
I have become obsessed with this, the takeover of our culture by toddler-level observations masquerading as intelligence. It is *not smart* to point out a bunch of trends tangentially related to books and go, wow reading is really in trouble. That's not what analysis is!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"While correct on the merits, these gay people made me uncomfortable."
Fuck off David, LGBTQ rights did not advance because we were polite.
Flaming sewage of an argument. "Culture war" topics like gayness ruin the purity of professional baseball and insult religious bigots who object to our existence.
Indefensible that the Supreme Court isn't bound by ethics rules but if that's how it's going to work, then justices need to be impeached for showing judgement this bad.
Either he knew what he was doing or he's a total rube. Both scenarios make him unfit for the job.
It seems he's going with the "I'm a dumbass" defense.
Even if the facts he lays out here are true (lol), making a blunder this bad and refusing to admit it should be disqualifying.
https://t.co/SUob4PuXiRwsj.com/articles/propu…
The core problem with centrist punditry on this issue is that they insist on debating trans rights in the abstract.
Are liberal news outlets responsible for reactionary backlash every time they're cited by right-wing politicians? Of course not.
In *this specific case* however, the Times is entrenching a moral panic FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. All of its feature stories derive from the premise that too many kids are transitioning too fast.
This isn't true! And it's exactly the narrative driving right-wing backlash.
Not saying this isn't a real trend but whenever you see a year-on-year change that big your first question should be about the quality of the data. The GSS is notoriously noisy, especially when it comes to population subgroups.
It definitely *feels* like young men are becoming more conservative and it's something I'm really worried about, but if this is a real trend we should be able to find other quantitative indicators.
This is the same data set that got us years of "young men aren't having sex anymore!" takes based on surveys that showed sexlessness going from 10% to almost 30% in a single year, then back to 10% two years later.
This piece notes that 77% of schools already ban phones in classrooms. As usual, it's unclear what Haidt wants other than to continue whipping up a moral panic about social media and mental health among kids.
"Kids shouldn't be on their phones during class" is such an obvious statement that you'd struggle to find anyone who disagrees with it. At various points Haidt implies that states should ban cellphones in schools by law, which seems like a wild overreach.
This is an absurd rebuttal to parental concerns about their kids being out of contact for the entire day: "Stop coddling them!"
I dunno, I'm fine with leaving this one up to schools and teachers, any attempt to codify a cellphone ban would create more problems than it solves.
This is a (very technical) opinion article from 2022 that simply says COVID spike proteins contain "prion-like regions." Maybe this will become relevant in the future but for now it's not cause for alarm.