There's controversy around Christian Smalls going on Tucker Carlson to talk about the Amazon Labor Union...

But if you watch the segment, it's pretty clear that *Smalls* is getting more out of it than Carlson. /1 This dismissive kind of tweet with a screenshot doesn't actually capture the dynamic of what's happening. /2

https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1514766894120652810

Left: Colin Powell threatened to resign over homosexuals serving in the military.

Right: Colin Powell telling a journalist that despite misgivings he "didn't have any choice" but to support Bush in the case for invading Iraq, a decision he never threatened to resign over. Sources:

newrepublic.com/article/60794/…

nytimes.com/2020/07/16/mag…

This quote from AOC here on why she was crying after her Iron Dome vote is confusing:

“What we saw is a disappointment of just a willingness to rip our communities apart and put member safety at risk,” Ms Ocasio-Cortez told The Independent.

independent.co.uk/news/world/ame… I'm assuming she's referring to the idea that accusations of antisemitism flying around endangers members of Congress criticizing Israel? That seems unpersuasive, and I'm unclear on whether the implication is that that played a role in her switching her vote?

I think the proximate cause for vaccine hesitancy isn't anti-science sentiment as much as it is lack of trust in authority. The reality is that the actual way people are making decisions about getting the vaccine isn't reading up on the efficacy of mRNA tech, it's making judgment calls on the credibility of institutions like the CDC, CNN, the presidency, local community consensus, public health orgs.

Nicki's about to join the Greenwald crew. This is what happens when you dunk too hard on someone!! Bad things happen!!

https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/1438248319650656256

I am of the belief that dog-piling and dunking are not persecution or censorship or a dire threat to society, but they *are* the opposite of persuasive discourse, and help spawn really toxic contrarianism.

This Thomas Friedman column is absolutely breathtaking, & deserves serious scrutiny.

Unhumbled by the failures and atrocities of the war on terror (which he encouraged), he suggests the US has become infected by the "the Middle East variant" of tribalism. nytimes.com/2021/09/14/opi… Friedman offers the that there is a "core philosophy" that unites the Arab world and Afghanistan and then suggests that the US has adopted it in its latest authoritarian turn. He does not substantiate or illustrate any of his claims. He just wants to find a source of barbarism.

AOC's response to criticism over her dress / attending the Met Gala, posted on her Instagram stories. Her response foregrounds accusations of gendered criticism in a way that I think dodges the central critiques directed her way — that it's not possible to subvert a gala by wearing a designer dress saying "tax the rich."

Survivors and neighbors say the US's drone strike on Sunday killed 10 people, including 7 children.

“At first I thought it was the Taliban,” [Samia] said. “But the Americans themselves did it.” nytimes.com/live/2021/08/3… Clearly those children were up to no good for showing up within the blast radius.

https://twitter.com/MitchellLlama/status/1432329322128461825

4 points on the situation in Afghanistan, and why narratives that the U.S. should've stayed longer are mistaken.

(Thread) 1. The reason Taliban fighters are succeeding is not because they're crushing Afghan security forces. It's because the security forces are not fighting. Why?

I spoke to several experts about the Taliban's astonishingly swift recapturing of territory in Afghanistan.

It's clear that the precise way in which they're taking the country back provides a window into the US's failed venture there for two decades. 🧵

msnbc.com/opinion/americ… The issue, as @AdamNoahWho says, is not that the Afghan security forces are fighting poorly. It's that they're not fighting very much at all: “They worry if they put up a strong resistance, the central government won’t have their back.”

I wrote about why I think "Tucker Carlson does Budapest" week is spooky: he's inviting arguably the largest audience in cable news to contemplate Hungary's nationalist-authoritarian model as a north star.

msnbc.com/opinion/why-tu… As @hannahgais reminds us, this is a major mainstreaming opportunity for extreme right-wing populism and allows Carlson to pivot from talking about Orbán's "pro-natalist" policies to a wider embrace of his authoritarian style.

msnbc.com/opinion/why-tu…

Robin DiAngelo (author of White Fragility) has had years to contemplate what should change *structurally* in society to combat white supremacy.

In her Q&A with @IChotiner she gives a strikingly abstract answer that sounds like cabinet/boardroom diversity. newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/r… Her concern with ending "homogeneity at the top" can be pursued without changing anything structurally or challenging elite ideology! It is possible for political, business, & cultural elites to find more POC to replace current elites & preserve institutions! We're seeing it!

The negative responses to @ebruenig's article are a prime example of what I call "disinterpretation." In the comments section and on Twitter, people are attacking a position Bruenig never even comes close to taking, but it's great culture war fodder.

nytimes.com/2021/05/07/opi… A subtle, personal account reflecting on what it means to be prepared for parenthood is being strawmanned into advocacy for young parenthood and anti-feminist propaganda. Some of these people haven't read the article. Some of them literally don't care what it actually argues.

Why does it seem impossible to engage in good faith debate online?

I think a phenomenon I call "disinterpretation" can help us understand why that's the case.

(Thread) A couple examples:

During the DNC last summer, I thought Julia Louis-Dreyfus's hosting one night, which tried to be both edgy and family friendly, was kind of awkward. So I tweeted, "Let's be honest, this is the low point of Julia Louis-Dreyfus's career.”

I don't know who needs to hear this, but the current state of the vote counting process unequivocally validates MY personal ideological preferences and pet projects and I secretly knew that this somewhat unexpected outcome would happen all along. 2/ I'm not picking on Fang's tweet, this is just one example I'm seeing across the ideological spectrum. But I want to point out that even in cases where people have actual data to work with, there's little actual interest in it. There's a total incuriosity about the world.

The big news here: Trump concedes there won't be a vaccine out by Election Day & is pivoting 100% to selling a therapeutic treatment he received as a "cure" for Covid. He's also pledging that this treatment will soon be free & accessible to all, which is a galling lie.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313959702104023047

One of the most disturbing aspects of Trump's presidency is knowing that millions have failed to understand that we're dealing with a used care salesman who wants to sell us a car that has no brakes or air bags. Just a modicum of emotional intelligence is needed to spot this.

Do riots help Trump? [A thread]

Every time there's a wave of riots, there's a corresponding wave of liberal hand-wringing over whether they'll empower the opposition.

I spoke to experts about the possible electoral effects of riots in Kenosha and the answer was ... ...it's complicated. Riots can alienate voters and strengthen the opposition, but they can also mobilize sympathizers & inspire nonviolent amplifying actions that shift focus away from the potentially polarizing effects of riots.

A *lot* of this is shaped by media narratives.

A lot of people are deeply concerned about how Trump could use his assault on the Postal Service to steal the election.

But what may be under-appreciated is that Trump does NOT have to succeed at giving GOP ballots a numerical advantage to do irreversible damage or win. /Thread When I spoke with Lawrence Douglas, a legal scholar at Amherst College, he made a convincing case that there are scenarios in which Trump only has to succeed at creating *delays* to create politically advantageous chaos or trigger a "system meltdown."

zeeshanaleem.substack.com/p/just-how-dan…

Today I'm on the @nytimes' "The Daily" podcast talking with @Jonesieman about my personal brush with "cancel culture."

Here's a thread on the surreal story of the attempted "triple cancellation" I witnessed — and why I don't use the term "cancel culture" anymore. So this whole episode went down in July, when I saw someone rallying a pack of online vigilantes to identify and pressure the employer of the infamous Florida Costco customer who went viral for yelling at a customer asking him to wear a mask.

This successful campaign by @khoaphan to swiftly get someone fired for being an asshole in a grocery store is a good example of concerns that some of us — across the political spectrum — have about mob justice and so-called cancel culture.

I think targeting jobs is a bad idea. There is no doubt that this guy was unhinged and behaved in a socially unacceptable manner. By all means, criticize the person, shame them on social media. But targeting someone's job when we live in an anarcho-capitalist dystopia with no social safety net is wild. /2

I think left intellectual discourse is going to fail in a very, very serious way if it deems research as "bad" because it opens up a line of inquiry that might not jell with perceived political priorities. /1

currentaffairs.org/2020/06/has-th… A study into the effects of rioting on voter perception might be *used* to blame rioters, but the study itself is not doing that. It's asking a social scientific question about its effects. A politico-intellectual scene that fears asking and answering these Qs cannot be robust./2