Here’s what I’m trying to get at about the new polyamory discourse: I’m not interested in whether polyamory is “ethical.” I *do* think that the normalization of polyamory that is currently underway isn’t a threat to, but is the ultimate expression of, bourgeois individualism 1/
The point isn’t that polyamory is/isn’t immoral. Rather, polyamory is a *symptom.* It’s downstream from a culture that is allergic to limits and personal sacrifice and that embraces the idea that human beings are fungible commodities to whom no permanent attachment is owed 2/
Polyamory is the terminal cul-de-sac into which the culture of capital has always been rushing headlong. The self is a continual project of improvement. Other people are accessories to that project, onboarded only to be discarded when they no longer fit our sense of self. 3/
Then there’s the bleating about polyamory as a challenge to the repressive “nuclear family.” Yet no one seems to notice that the supposedly “bourgeois” and “conservative” vision of the nuclear family is precisely what capital is making impossible for large swaths of Americans! 4/
Isn’t it at least a little suspicious that polyamory — which is supposedly a “liberatory” corrective to repressive family structures — happens to be exactly compatible with a mode of economic life that has made both traditional marriage and parenthood completely unaffordable? 5/
Isn’t it the least bit odd that all of the trendy progressive developments of recent years — antiracism, polyamory, whatever — conveniently pose zero challenge to the economic status quo? And in fact are tailor-made for a world of soaring inequality and collapsing safety nets? 6/
The right and the progressive left have both installed personal freedom as the last god standing. They’ve just chosen different fetish objects. Both are a product of a Balkanizing culture that makes it impossible to imagine spending our lives in one place or now with one person.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What is spiritually derelict about the Doordashification of Everything is not laziness, but that it’s a symptom of a technological culture organized around obviating human contact to such an extent that many people greet the very idea of social interaction as an abyssal horror.
The entire cultural and economic logic of Big Tech boils down to finding new ways to not simply disintermediate the human element, but to acculturate us to viewing human-to-human contact as inefficient at best, and something to actively recoil from in fear or disgust at worst.
And ostensible “progressives” all too often implicitly side with these Big Tech vampires because Silicon Valley is very good at convincing the gullible—or those desperate to align with “progress”—that their products increase “inclusion” and that it is bigoted to oppose them.
Left-liberals have (understandably) taken an emergency posture since 2017: the threat of Trump has been used over and over to shut down intra-party criticism. And this terror of self-criticism created a doom loop—culminating in the Biden mess—that handed Trump the White House.
My big concern coming out of the Biden fiasco is that left-liberals have STILL not learned that self-criticism is healthy: a lot of folks are saying “let’s not dwell on our mistakes, we have to focus on Trump.” It’s the same attitude—“now isn’t the time”—that got us in this mess.
This state-of-emergency political psychology has been profoundly damaging for left-liberal institutions, from the Democratic Party to universities. So much focus is on the emergency that there’s little time spent on reckoning with how we got into an emergency in the first place.
I wrote about Biden and the new book. As the reporting in "Original Sin" makes clear: this story is bigger than just the 2024 campaign. It was more than a year or two of decline. We need to confront the truth: Joe Biden never should have been president of the United States. 🧵
So far, most discussion of the book has focused on incidents from later in Biden’s term and 2024 campaign: not recognizing Clooney, calling Sullivan “Steve.” But arguably the most damning new reveal came much earlier, during the 2020 campaign, when Biden was not yet president. 2/
The authors report that in 2020, Biden's staffers tried to get videos of him speaking with voters about key issues on Zoom for campaign content. But “he couldn’t follow the conversation at all.” A special team was tasked with editing *hours of footage* into usable *minutes*. 3/
It can’t be emphasized enough: wide swaths of the academy have given up re ChatGPT. Colleges have had since 2022 to figure something out and have done less than nothing. Haven’t even tried. Or tried to try. The administrative class has mostly collaborated with the LLM takeover.
Hardly anyone in this country believes in higher ed, especially the institutions themselves which cannot be mustered to do anything in their own defense. Faced with an existential threat, they can’t be bothered to cry, yawn, or even bury their head in the sand, let alone resist.
It would actually be more respectable if they were in denial, but the pervading sentiment is “well, we had a good run.” They don’t even have the dignity of being delusional. It’s shocking. Three years in and how many universities can you point to that have tried anything really?
I spent years tutoring admissions; the ugly reality is that 4.0/1500+ SAT strivers are a dime a dozen. Elite admissions are like a nuclear arms race: a mindless fever to produce more and better products (whether bombs or elite students) knowing you can't possibly use them all.
Higher ed simultaneously stokes this sick arms race (more extracurriculars! another 10 points on the SAT! another sport!) while perpetuating the fantasy that if you work hard you'll earn a spot. Then they turn around and brag "we could fill 6 class sizes of 1500+ SAT applicants!"
A lot of conservatives and moderates fantasize that this is all because of secret affirmative action, but the reality is that *even if* you applied a ruthless purely quantitative criteria to elite admissions you would STILL have too many 4.0/mega SAT kids for the spots available.
The movements/ideas that have been wildly successful in recent years provide a rubric for how to live your life. They offer rules for a chaotic world: wokeness, right-wing wellness, tech optimization culture all do this. That’s what the “we need a left Rogan” discourse misses.🧵
A huge part of the appeal of Rogan and the Rogan Extended Universe is all the motivational stuff and telling you what kind of man to be: watch sports, go to the gym, be curious, eat healthy, etc. It’s quietly about how to live. The show opener is literally “train by day…” 2/
No shade to this person but this tweet was so funny: yes these podcasts are only political some of the time. That’s the point! They create a culture: with ideals, rules, advice, favored hobbies, etc. They are politically successful because they’re about more than politics. 3/