I understand the concerns about academic fields uncritically adopting boutique progressivist buzzfare. But the dimensions of race and class are absolutely germane to the broader inquiry into “public health.”
Smart “anti-SJW” people should drop people like Lindsay just like smart “SJW” people should drop people like DiAngelo. They are enemies of nuance. The world is too complex for them.
Like you, but at a far lower level of recognition, I'm a discourse curator. I have a newsletter I'm about to relaunch on this very theme. I run a site in which I try to sift good commentary from bad.
Something I haven't touted as much, though I want to now, is @ArcDigi's commitment to publishing *historical* columns. Our main focus is on current events. But this world did not poof into existence five minutes ago—so history will continue to be a key offering in Arc's lineup.
Here's a piece we just published by @NathGAlexander on the controversy surrounding a work called "Black Athena," which takes us to ancient Greece, Africa, and to investigating whether retrofitting our concepts of race represents unjustified anachronism.
Here's a piece we published a few days ago by @LDBurnett on the effects that a shift in publishing models in earlier centuries had on the world of literature, and on the fortunes of writers. She then ties it in to a shift we might be seeing today.
Hope the history books record that, after the vaccine announcements, the president was radiating with fully earned acclaim for his heroic efforts to just exist as scientists independently saved our tails.
Also, I'm sure the "historians" will waste no time crediting Trump now that he's warmly suggested they're not true chroniclers of the past by putting their research field in quote marks.
Trumpism's ongoing viability is dependent on the enduring quality of his "He Fights"-ness. To set themselves up for success in 2022 and 2024, the movement has to plausibly make the case that they'll never cede an inch to the left on *anything*, including the election results.
This was evident on election night and in the days that followed, when MAGALAND was indignant with the institutional elements of the GOP more with Biden and the Democrats. They wanted to see more fight from them, which translated into echoing Trump's baseless claims of fraud.
It's precisely the bizarre demand for an "explanation" as to why the vote went Biden's way, along with attendant claims of electoral fraud, that is itself causing a crisis of legitimacy. The crisis will stop the moment chuds like this stop their cranklore tin-foilery.
The burden of proof is on Trump's election truthers to provide justification for their claims. So far they haven't. They're all sharing the same instantaneously debunkable hoax clips and claiming that Barr should be jailing election workers. *This* is what is causing our crisis.
If you would like to read a thread that is almost impossibly pretentious, a thread that pushes the boundaries of what you thought unearned self-importance could look like, Eric Weinstein has you covered.
This is a particular vulnerability for me. I am continually beset by the cosmically unjust phenomenon of manifestly unworthy discourse participants grifting their way to massive platforms.
They don't deserve them. And it kills me.
So, the major way I counteract that is I run a media organization committed to producing content that I can be proud of. Blah blah blah I'm cocky, I know. But that's the main way I handle my natural inclination toward being critical.
What a culture minimally needs in order to be truth-friendly is an evaluative environment where its inhabitants can assess the truth or falsity of claims primarily according to their semantic content. That’s not possible in politics.
Yet when you've got an epistemic environment organized around political victory as its highest good, the devaluing of truth is ensured.
In such a system, claims aren't accepted on the basis of their truth status but rather on the basis of their usefulness to the political cause.
I’ve been thinking about the Portland event yesterday. The one being “documented" by the thirstiest people in new media. The one serving up delicious Patreon bait. The one offering itself as a propagandizable atrocity exhibition—a “shape-as-you-wish” template for partisan rancor.
My conclusion, as someone who occupies a portion of the new media space, and as someone who tries hard to be guided by argument and evidence rather than tribal commitments, is that there are more bad actors in new media than I previously thought possible. And they're multiplying.
The main reason for this is simple. It pays to be a hyperpartisan goon. The masses clamor for their antecedently held views to be fed back to them, and they are willing to pay—in money and follows—for that sweet, sweet supply.
The NBA is a competitive market, with agreed-upon success conditions (team success brings higher revenue), whereas the US is a liberal society, which in addition to success conditions (economic growth, intl. educational rank, etc.) has institutional constraints to strive for.
Some of these institutional constraints include matters like distributive fairness, equality under the law, etc. Even if doing so is not "efficient," we should make sure that members of races have equal access to, say, police security.
Social contract theory is a political-philosophical framework, rather than an in-person negotiating event, and so doesn't require an actual contract. I didn’t say anything about the Founders, nor about any classical liberals in U.S. history.
Think of it as the norms, de jure and de facto, that if overturned would turn America into something else. For example, we could not ditch democracy and remain America (even though, historically, America has been rapaciously undemocratic).
My argument is that from this point on we cannot understand our guiding ideals to be race- or ethnicity-privileging.
Came across two descriptions of nationalism, from two liberal columnists, and I wanted to highlight a key difference. I’m extremely not a nationalist, but my antennae are up when we're characterizing mainstream views and positions we’re already predisposed to strongly detest.
The first is from @zackbeauchamp. In a piece that I think gets a lot right, and is a far fairer treatment than some corners are suggesting, I think Beauchamp mischaracterizes nationalism in a worrisome way. vox.com/2019/7/17/2069…
@zackbeauchamp Beauchamp repeatedly makes the point that a high-minded nationalism always mutates, when it gets activated at the political level, into rank racism and ethnohierarchism. The sort of views Trump displayed in his recent tweets targeting the four progressive congresswomen.