1. Privately, PMC-liberals are about 30% more sane than you'd think given The Discourse, but one exception is the belief that violence on behalf of left causes or against outgroup targets carries a steep moral discount and should *generally* carry a substantial penalty discount.
2. They sincerely believe that firebombing a building and roasting a man alive in the ensuing flames during a BLM riot is *less bad* than doing it out of pyromania. That's not a hypothetical. It was the actual position of the Biden Justice Department.
3. That doesn't mean they want *no* punishment. Oh no, that would be crazy. But they do believe that leftwing political violence mitigates the underlying crime in the same way they believe is an aggravating factor.
4. Leftwing violence is the "voice of the unheard." Rightwing violence is a threat to Our Democracy. It all becomes obvious when you get your mind right.
5. Just as sincerely, PMC-liberals believe that open displays of political opposition constitute a kind of rolling provocation. Words they disagree with are fighting words. They don't quite justify violence against the target, but they (at minimum) mitigate the moral violation.
6. These attitudes probably aren't universal and are as much honored by a wink and a nudge and selective outrage rather than avowed (as by the Biden administration), but they are widespread and they are seldom-to-never openly criticized from within the liberal-PMC ingroup.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. In theory, it shouldn't be that difficult for Democrats to neutralize the crime issue. Bill Clinton had a handbook. The obstacle is that being open about implementing that playbook runs against the current party's approach to hierarchy. Let me explain:
2. Clinton's approach was: A lot of crime is committed by a small group of recidivists and a lot was committed by a larger group of bored but basically good kids growing up in tough situations. So lock up the former while keeping the latter busy and connected to opportunity.
3. The problem is that, since then, intersectionality thinking has become endemic to PMC liberal thinking and the smaller group of hyperrecidivist criminals have attained a higher place in the hierarchy than their victims.
1. That it's fake is obviously wrong in a way that is rhetorical and obviously obnoxious for political reasons but I'd like to steelman why they think they are in a lying competition with liars. Please wait until the end of the thead.
2. First, they have been hearing about the near-term (10-15 years), catastrophic costs of climate change for 30 years - polar ice caps gone, sea levels rising by multiple feet - and the actual changes have been more gradual than the threatened catastrophes.
3. So the catastrophe arguments are no longer credible with them. Maybe that's wrong, but the lesson of the Boy Who Cried Wolk is neither that there are no wolves nor that the boy was a hero but just a little early.
1. I think that both Brown Jackson's dissent and ACB's criticism of her dissent should be taken *seriously*. Brown Jackson's dissent represents an important stream of thought among out elite with fewer obfuscations than usual (though not zero obfuscation.)
2. The only-barely-Straussian theme of Brown Jackson's dissent is that *Trump must be stopped*, that the legal niceties only matter as pretexts for institutions to stop him when he gets out of line, and that the niceties should not get in the way of stopping him.
3. This is a familiar Resistance line of thought over the last 8 years. Those fighting Trump are exempt from having to follow the values they are claiming to save if that's what it takes to stop Trump.
1. It's the misalignment of means and ends that is so odd here. What is the goal. If it is: Russia returns to the 2021 borders + sanctions stay on + the Russian regime are effectively wanted criminals in the West, what does it take to get there and who pays for it?
2. Trump's a jerk and his public posture toward Ukraine is more harsh than i would prefer and his posture toward Putin more concilliatory, but what is an acceptable outcome for *us* give what we are able and willing to pay?
3. It's been 3 years. Neither the US nor (especially) the Europeans have, in that time, been willing to make the kinds of military investments that would justify a pure *we win, they lose* posture.
1. One way to understand is that, while millennials in general entered a job market damaged by the Great Recession, millennials who wanted to get into journalism entered into an apocalypse that encouraged them to embrace what was worst in their educations.
2. Journalism - especially newspaper journalism - had a lot of jobs in a lot of places. Those jobs created real social value covering city council meeting, murders, local and regional corruption.
Millennials were never gonna get those jobs at a living wage.
3. Instead, you had a relatively small number of jobs that offered a career at a relatively small number of outlets in a relatively small number of cities and a larger number of marginal jobs producing clickbait.
1. So I've been thinking about the ceasefire deal and, while it's a disappointment, it does have some vindication of Trump's overall approach. And the center-left and left interpretation is *very* wrong.
2. Firstly, this is basically the Biden proposal that Israel had already accepted and Hamas had rejected. It wasn't *Israel* that moved. And that shows how the incentives changed with the incoming administration.
3. With Biden, if Hamas rejected a proposal, Biden would then unveil a new proposal that was more favorable to Hamas. This is what is called being a foreign policy genius.