The move to allow podcasters and bloggers into the Press Corps is part of a broader shift on the Right, that really starts with @elonmusk's acquisition of X. Before that, when conservatives complained about bias and censorship on social media, the left/lib response 1/
was "well go ahead and build your own social media site." Which everyone knew was very difficult. And then there would be moves to get whoever hosted the new site to refuse to host it and the response would be "well build your own hosting platform" and so forth. 2/
Musk's acquisition of Twitter/X really looks increasingly like an important turning point in the conservative approach, which in the face of this became "well what can you do?" It was a realization "no, actually we can take these institutions and make them ours." 3/
And what you're increasingly seeing is a frontal assault on the institutions that buttress the left. So in Trump's first term, using a (pretty shaky, imo) interpretation of the 1st Amendment, we established you can't kick a reporter out for his bias. 4/
The Right's response now is "ok, fine, we'll just flood the press corps with new right-of-center podcasters and bloggers. Give your statue of liberty speech in a room full of Alex Berensons and catturds and see how it goes over." 5/
You saw trickles of it with academia with moves on tenure in WI, but it's a war in FL. "You won't voluntarily diversify your faculty ideologically? We'll do it for you, and in a far more severe way in the other direction." 6/
"And the diversity apparatus that we think is a cloak for hiring a bunch of far-left professors? That's simply gone." 7/
"We can't fire unfriendly civil servants? Fine, but we're not going to roll over either. We're going to make life as miserable for them as possible and give them every possible incentive to leave." 8/
In other words, there's just a monumental shift in attitude in dealing with unfriendly institutions on the Right, and I think in all the trees sprouting up everywhere it's really easy to lose sight of the forest being built. 9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
To understand the Right re J6: They believe that the reason the dividing line between J6 getting prosecuted and, say, Portland rioters not is because norms are set by liberals to protect liberal ingroups while allowing the prosecution of outgroups. 1/
This is also the dividing line between Trumpy populists and GOP establishment types; the latter says "well we should prosecute the goons in OR too" while the former says that is hopelessly naive bc, again, the lines are set by liberals to protect their ingroups. 2/
This isn't a defense of the populists at all. This is just to explain the "burn it down" mindset: "it" is a rigged game with rules set by liberals. If this sounds like left critiques of the past decade, well, it's why we're getting this horseshoe effect of, say, RFK & Trump. 3/3
So there's been a lot of talk about Justice Barrett and Supreme Court ideology in general, which happened to occur as I'm getting a paper on Supreme Court ideology ready for publishing. The answer, unsurprisingly, is Justice Barrett is no Souter (much less Stevens). 1/
This relies on a computer program that looks at the frequency with which justices vote with which other. It then uses these pairs to rank Justices by ideology and to estimate where the ideological fissures on the Court are. Here's where things stood in 2016-18. 2/
This should be familiar to anyone with a passing acquaintance with the Court. You have the four libs, with a divide between Ginsburg/Sotomayor and Kagan/Breyer, a BIG divide, and then the conservative justices. Note that I pool terms together to smooth out noise. 3/
Since we're doing the autism anecdote thing, I'll share some. During law school I coached high school debate at Chapel Hill High School and Durham Academy (my star student, one @JeffJacksonNC, who I won't embarrass with stories). There was a student, John, diagnosed w/ ADHD. 1
(not his real name btw). John was...strange. He sort of mumbled his speech, had weird facial expressions, had trouble writing in straight lines, and would say bizarre things. Once on a trip he just busted out "once I found a CD in the snow. It had no scratches, except Track 1."
Then complete silence. I just thought John was weird, as did the kids, and that debate wasn't for him, but his doctor had suggested doing speech activities to overcome his difficulties so whatever. Anyway, I was talking with my sister,who was getting a Master's in Special Ed. 3/
One of the lessons from the past month or so is that people don’t understand the podcastverse, its ideological ecosystem, and/or how men/boys < 30 get their information/news these days.
Like seriously there is an entire genre of podcasters dedicated to this dude’s worldview. The whole loosely interrelated UFC/Rogan/manosphere/plant medicine genre/genres don’t map onto modern politics in any way that seem obvious to people over 30 but make perfect sense to youngz
If you have teen kids, particularly boys, you really need to pay attention to their tik-tok/podcast consumption (a) because there are some deeply disturbing worldviews promoted there but also
So to explain something I posted about the Southern realignment yesterday, obviously 64 is an important year and was a breakthrough for the GOP. But the overall remaking of the South was a gradual, complex 70+-year process (long-ish 🧵). It can be thought of as 4 realignments 1/
The first was in the 1860s, when the GOP won in the mountain areas. A lot of the eastern-TN/western VA seats have mostly elected Rs since the Civil War. These voters didn't own slaves, and needed the roads and internal improvements that the GOP used to win over Whig voters. 2/
There were other historically Republican areas in the South (the Hill Country in TX sent a Republican to Congress for most of the 20s), but even in years like 1932 the mountains were Republican. 3/
🧵 I know peak Ozempic discourse was earlier in the year, but I did want to talk about some things that I think get overlooked amidst the "miracle drug" talk and contribute to the backlash. First the good: I lost 50 pounds on it in 10 months. There are the typical side-benefits 1/
My knees don't hurt, I get tired less easily, I work out more, my cholesterol and triglycerides are in line, etc. etc. It was 100% worth it. WITH THAT SAID. Ozempic is not some miracle drug that melts off fat while you stick with your old bad habits. 2/
I think that perception, in part created by people who take it, is part of why there's been a backlash. OZEMPIC ONLY WORKS IF YOU EAT LESS/WORK EXERCISE MORE. What Ozempic does is act like a sort of chemical stomach stapling, slowing down digestion so you fill up quicker. 3/