I usually try to avoid the “it’s all a Russian plot!” mess, because it’s not.
However, seeing Republicans say that Putin’s correct that Jan 6 was just “dissidents protesting” and suggesting that the woman who was shot was an ordered assassination...
Crosses a line.
Gonna have to disagree with some of the people responding. But that’s OK.
It’s mainly just plain old American white supremacy. Other actors just poke the bear to wake it up now and then.
Propagandists work on existing bigotries to get people fired up. That’s what they do. It’s the whole job. Putin is a propagandist, but we have a lot of our own skilled propagandists right here at home.
The US built a country based on bigotry. Hoisted on own petard.
I asked a question that a lot of people misunderstood. The number of misunderstandings leads me to ascribe the problem to my wording in the original.
So I tried to clarify, both under the original post, and in response to individual replies. 2/
I asked the question for a specific reason. A lot of the argumentation about pedagogy and about racism has to do with evidence. For instance, when one of Michelle Obama’s secret service team reported that they experienced a high amount of verbal racism aimed at M Obama 3/
Stop talking about what CRT really is and start talking about what those using it as a bogeyman are really trying to do: force schools to teach that the US is a racism-free meritocracy.
In the interview with @rpatrickdelaney in the Little Fires Episode of this podcast, he talks about what is happening on the ground. To white parents, it’s about making their kids “feel bad”. To the GOP it’s about controlling education.
For all you millions of people who want to ‘splain to me that “they’re already not teaching this. They can’t take it out.” 1. My whole goddamn account is about how US history as taught in primary/secondary ed is mythology.
Thesis: a lot of (white mostly) Democrats process the CRT whoop-de-doo as simply an electoral herding ploy. It is not.
It is a deeper policy ploy to maintain the entrenchment of white supremacy not simply through politics but through education.
The right/GOP has been on this project for decades; the 1619 project was a threat but they also saw an opportunity to weaponize scary *critical 😳* *race 😱* *theory👻* to push back and strengthen their long-term effort to ward off the educating of the public.
Anyway, I’m collecting threads and articles about CRT uproar in the hope i’ll get into a quiet enough headspace - which is extraordinarily rare for me these last couple of years - to properly develop my thesis.
The word ‘progressive’, like ‘liberal’, ‘socialist’, and ‘conservative’, is a hot mess.
At some point it got closely associated with Bernie Sanders and his supporters, then went from there to apply to anyone who adheres to a particular set of policy prescriptions and/or has a tight systemic critique on the power of very rich people & their establishment hold.
But it’s *also* used broadly by a lot of political journalists and twitterati to mean “system challenging, generally”.
So an article can list *these* as ‘progressive’ issues.
Most of these are NOT hallmarks of Bernie-style progressives. 3/
I probably disagree with most of you about Merrick Garland. I’m wary of aggressive targeted prosecutorial pursuit generally and was highly critical of the DOJ being used by the Trump admin for heavy-leaning on political pursuits. 1/
What is coming out now, regarding the seizure of communications data of journalists, congressional reps, and their families/staff is a great example of investigators seeming more focused on catching a person than on solving a crime. 2/
(And I think we need to change some laws about the process for this sort of thing because it’s appalling they can seize your data without any notification and apparently without significant evidence that you committed a crime). 3/
Very high-level summary of the law (leaving out exceptions, etc) being argued by DOJ w/regard to Trump/Carroll
1. Inherited common law from UK: sovereign immunity - the government cannot be sued.
2. 1946 Federal Tort Claims Act - US congress passes waiver of sovereign immunity. You CAN sue the US government for torts.
3. 1988 Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988 (known as Westfall Act) - government itself is the defendant when people commit torts *while doing government work* (in most cases. Lots of exceptions).
On the right wing take on Black families and welfare being destructive.
They draw this conclusion by pointing out the coincidence in timing with Johnson‘s War on Poverty and increased single parent Black households.
Their argument is simple: welfare rewards single parents households.
To make this argument, they omit several other big sociological changes that occurred simultaneously, and basic logic. 2/
First the logic:
To say that someone is in a single parent household to get welfare benefits implies that person is a rational economic actor working in a system in which they get more benefit from being a single parent than from being in a dual parent situation. 3/
Someone asked me about AAVE and whether it’s unreasonable to have an expectation that we use “standard American English” in professional settings.
Please do not search for the original convo to pile on the person who asked, who I believe was a in good faith.
You can scan this article to see a list of English language dialects.
I’ve known Irish people that I cannot understand a word they are saying when they speak rapidly to each other. 2/ en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_d…
And when I’ve worked with people with dialects very different from mine, we’ve all modulated our own to be mutually understood. This is fine.
A man who feels compelled to jump into Dylan Farrow’s mentions with Woody Allen’s “side” is a man who does not know the most common boundaries of decency which might be part of why he feels committed to Woody Allen’s “side” in the first place.
why would you need to jump into her mentions about it? *even* *if* her memory is faulty (which I am not asserting as anything but a hypothetical) you getting in her face is not going to benefit anyone but is going to upset her (if she noticed). 1/
*if* this were a case of a faulty memory, you being an ass in her twitter mentions is not going to have an impact of clearing up what would be, in that hypothetical case, a complex and still delicate psychological issue. 2/
I feel like it should be axiomatic that ruthless power is never in favor or the marginalized.
I don’t understand thinking otherwise.
Possible corollary: people who think ruthless power would be in favor of the marginalized are people who expect to be in the hegemony of that ruthless power and think they would be more beneficent power-mongers.
But power-mongering by definition marginalizes those without power, does it not?
One more try:
the US has a structure that pushes dichotomy. If we had a multiparty structure we might not be where we are. But we don’t, so here we are.
My premise - which you may or may not agree with, but in that’s a *separate* discussion - is that one of the two dichotomous powers has given up any and all boundaries in its quest for power. 2/
They have gotten to a degree in which they will use any means they can to keep people from voting, if they think those people will vote against them.
And to a degree that they will actively and openly oust members that oppose their naked zero-sum, zero-rules approach. 3/
-for Jewish people, it may be upsetting because it will be positing a very negative scenario - in which the Nazis did not lose WWII - so just a heads up.
Let’s say they didn’t. Somehow the war ended with an expanded Germany. A treaty was made with the US, Britain, and the USSR that ended the war with Germany maintaining their contemporary borders at that moment.
The Nazis retain the government and with time the government ‘evolves’ to no longer be committing genocide and Germany even ‘evolves’ without a sharp shift in government to a reasonably open society. 3/
When I was in 9th grade, my geometry teacher was late one day. We kidz started comparing our homework. One problem 16 kids got one answer. I and 4 other kids got different answers. The other 4 changed their answers to the norm. 1/
I wouldn’t and tried to explain why my answer was correct. I got mocked and called arrogant for thinking I was right and everyone else was wrong.
Turned out I was right.
Point being not that I’m good at math (I am) but that people want to agree with the crowd more than they want to be careful about whether what they believe is true.
And we see this not only with disinformation. 3/
I have some communist and socialist friends #onhere who are real thinkers that care about justice and recognize the challenges of racism/anti-human bigotries. I’ve looked at their tweets, had DM convos, listened to them on podcasts, watched their class lectures online.
I want to say a few things. 1. I definitely have some gaps with them on practical US politics. 2. I probably have some *much more narrow* gaps with them on the end-goal.
^oops. That should be numbered 2.
But, I have FULL RESPECT for 1. Their ability to talk and think outside of received wisdom 2. Their will to examine from multiple angles in an effort to find a route to justice for all
A little thread about what I think has been and will be the most intractable driver of race-based inequality since at least the 1960s: de facto segregated housing and the unequal public education that goes with it.
Check this quote and the book cited in the tweet above it for a good background. 2/
We all know the legal background of segregation in housing and public education. We know about ‘white flight’ when Black people moved into cities, taking the tax base with them, leaving city school districts under-funded. 3/
I just had an interesting exchange.
Domenich: Biden so radical
Person A: Yeah. Affirming roe v wade
Me: affirming a 50 year legal standard is by definition not radical
Person B: but they are very anti-abortion so they think it is
Me: 50 years
B: but they thing the court has been extreme liberal all that time.
Me: OK but it’s still the status quo. affirming the status quo, even if the status quo were “extreme liberal” is by definition not radical. Wanting to overthrow the status quo is.
-Here’s the kicker
B: they don’t see it that way. They see themselves as the status quo
AND THIS IS EXACTLY IT.
The right-wing evangelical white world view is considered by right-wing evangelical white people to be status quo at all times.