Please recall that our society has always "cancelled" people &, in the past, this cancellation was often for bad reasons. Rupert Everett famously said that coming out ruined his career. Being openly LGBTQ is still perilous for actors. "The Chix" were cancelled for being anti-war.
I'll repeat what I've said before: that "cancel culture" is an amorphous euphemism that encompasses all kinds of disparate phenomena. In the case of companies "canceling" a creator, conservatives have always been fine w/ it when this "cancellation" fit their ideology.
One interesting thing about pieces on this issue is that they rarely mention whether the Iraqi government was consulted about the U.S. strikes & whether that would change anyone's calculus about justification. The government certainly wasn't happy about the militia strike
The Middle E. is really hard to talk about & one could take a maximalist position that the U.S. should just leave entirely. However, there are also positions requiring we address how to best fulfill our responsibilities to Iraq, given how we ravaged the country & region
However, regardless of which position one is inclined to take, it seems curious to me that we argue a lot about what the U.S. should do that would be best for Iraq while rarely discussing what the Iraq government thinks about the same issue & whether that informs our position
There are a number of legitimate debates to be had re: the recent airstrike, w/ various possible left-leaning positions to take, yet so many have landed on a "say their names" approach to militias, as well as a conflation between these militias & the civilians they terrorized.
It sounds a bit tinny to my ear to hear, over and over, "Biden bombed Syrians," when actually the U.S. struck 22 Iranian militia members. Whether or not you think the strike was justified, Iranian militia members are not the same as Syrian civilians.
In any case, there are legitimate debates to be had here, like I said. These include, but are not limited to: executive strike authorities & restrictions that should be placed on them, whether there can be exceptions, proportional response, LOTS of sovereignty considerations, etc
In the next sentence the staffer told the Post, “I object to this invasion of my privacy with the use of personal texts. . . These statements are taken out of context and completely misconstrue my relationship with Neera. We had a very close working relationship.”
It's an interesting choice by the @washingtonpost to first publish the texts against the best wishes of one of the participants' & to then go on to promote those same texts w/out citing her objections on social media
What would a journalistic ethics class have to say about this?
We're not talking about a national security issue here. We're talking about a leaked text message from an employee about her boss. A text message she said she didn't want published. A text message that has since been promoted by @washingtonpost reporters w/out that context.
I'm willing to believe that stage was a mistake (or not), but y'all can't support politicians who believe Jewish people are running a global child-murdering cabal then turn around & clutch your chests & proclaim, "Nazi symbols? Us? Impossible!" You lost your plausible deniability
If the Nazi insignia had occurred at a beauty pageant or awards show, wondering about its significance would be conspiratorial. It's not actually conspiratorial to ask questions when we're talking about people who "stumble" upon this imagery while supporting politicians like this
"How dare liberals question whether we used Nazi insignia?! Now let me recommence tweeting about how a Jewish man masterminded & funded all of our political opposition in a grand scheme to destroy 'society,' which bears no resemblance whatsoever to 1930's Nazi propaganda."
If he's gonna wait for an investigation, ok. But I don't see how an investigation is going to show something different than we've already seen. There are contemporaneous text messages about his behavior.
Look, I liked Cuomo during the initial stages of the pandemic too, though it looks like he mishandled several things (nursing homes) in retrospect. But my primary concern here is to principles re: sexual misconduct + the fact that I don't want the Dem party to have this baggage.
I don't know if the CPAC stage being an exact replica of SS insignia was a mistake, but I would like to say: 1. they should explain it & 2. they lost their plausible deniability card a while ago. We're talking about people who made the "ok" sign into a white power symbol
Again, could it be a mistake? Even with the exact same serifs? Sure. But I don't want to hear one peep about "liberals see racism in everything!" from the folks who adore a guy who literally said, "Some of them are good people" about men who shouted, "Jews will not replace us."
If liberals see racism & anti-semitism in everything the GOP does it's b/c much of what they do is racist & anti-semitic. You can't be like, "Oh, soooo hysterical" when you elect people to Congress who believe Jewish people are directing a global cabal whose members eat babies
Collins, Murkowski, Manchin & Sinema occupy the political center, but I think there's a distinction btwn their motivations. Collins & Murkowski feel pressure to demonstrate allegiance to the GOP, whereas Manchin & Sinema feel they must demonstrate independence from their party
This results in a situation where any 1 of these 4 is a potential swing vote. But, in the case of Collins & Murkowski, we have to convince them that it's worth it to break w/ their party, whereas, in the case of Manchin & Sinema, we have to convince them it's worth staying united
In the case of Manchin & Sinema, I think in some cases they are responding to real external pressure (voters in tough states) &, in many other cases, I think they're acting on manufactured pressure they've either imagined or has been inflated by conservatives and/or the press.
The structure of the Senate gives disproportionate power to a minority of the population. This minority happens to be represented by economically & socially regressive people. There is no reason to preserve Senate rules that further exacerbate this power imbalance (filibuster).
That said, Manchin & Sinema won't support abolishing the filibuster (though perhaps they could support "reform?"). Hopefully they can be convinced to change their minds, but they're not there yet. So, the only option Dems have *right now* for COVID relief is reconciliation.
reconciliation requires that provisions in a bill meet the Byrd rule. Democrats did the right thing in trying to get the minimum wage through, though it was always a strong possibility the parlimentarian would rule it didn't meet the rules.
HIV/AIDS didn't just decimate the LGBTQ community in terms of mass death. The bigoted stigma attached to it-in addition to generalized bigotry-made it almost impossible to come out. I am an older millennial & I remember being taught that it was ok to share air w/ an HIV+ person
I don't think that cishet people reflect enough on just what that meant for all LGBTQ people. First, one was already considered as deviant or a sinner by the dominant culture. Abused by parents & employers. It was nearly impossible to be fully "out." And then came HIV/AIDS.
I remember as a kid in the 90's, there was a deep, bigoted entanglement between being gay & AIDS in US culture. There was little compassion &, if it occurred, it was in whispers. There was also a distinction btwn AIDS victims who "deserved" it (gay men) vs. others (hemophiliacs)
1. This table shows a trend in which more people in younger generations self-id as "lesbian" or "trans" than in previous generations 2. The categories of "trans" and "lesbian" are not mutually exclusive & should not be compared as such, either by @GallupNews or by other analysts
A seemingly minor quibble but one which I think is important: Greenwald's description of these data makes them sound longitudinal, when they are in fact cross-sectional. The sample is from diff generations w/in a single moment of time, which is diff from showing change over time
If you accurately describe the cross-sectional data, you would say you saw a btwn-generation diff in self-id, such that more people id'd as "Lesbian" or "trans" in younger generations. Again, tho, we need to know if @GallupNews inaccurately treated "trans" as sexual orientation
I agree with taking this conversation in this direction. We really need to be honest about the options & how to do the best possible job by unaccompanied minors. We can all agree, I think, that no child should be deported. So what's the next step to ensure they are safe & fed?
I think that, between letting them be homeless or being placed in a government facility while awaiting a guardian, the latter is the more humane option. But are there other options? Beefing up the potential for foster care, for example? Or would that be more problematic?
Another thing I think we should discuss is, even if we agree placing them in gov't care is the best option (out of several bad ones), how can we provide for them in the safest way possible and reduce aspects of "detention" while maximizing aspects of "care?"
This is frustrating and it goes beyond whether or not Tanden gets the OMB vote. The "mean tweets" we hear about don't exist. The "bots" who defend Neera are real people who don't like harassment. This comes down to people not wanting a woman to stand up for herself
I love how this whole debacle involves some so-called leftists uniting w/ conservatives on the one hand and, on the other, pretending to not understand how social media works. Yeah, Neera has friends on here. So does everyone.
But, seriously, again: show me the "mean tweets." As far as I can tell they don't exist and what's happening right now is people advancing a conservative narrative in order to take down a liberal woman. It's gross.
Listen geniuses, do you want state & local governments to mandate businesses check vaccine cards or not? Cause until we have something approaching herd immunity our options are 1. universal mask wearing or 2. mandating masks based on whether you can prove you've been vaccinated.
There are, of course, the unanswered questions of just how much a vaccinated person could transmit the virus to others. But the incidence of such transmission--if it occurs--will decrease exponentially w/ the onset of herd immunity.
So public health has 3 options:
1.remove restrictions; allow uncontrolled spread
2.lift restrictions; monitor unvaccinated people & prevent them from participating in society whereas vaccinated ppl are allowed to
3.Ask people to continue to put a tiny piece of cloth on their face
What even *is* the "Bernie wing of the party"? Are we talking about an online group of people who thrive on mass harassment or are we talking about progressives more generally? If it's the former, sure they hate Tanden. If it's the latter, there's not an issue here.
I keep hearing about the "Bernie wing" having some massive beef with Tanden, and, yet, Robert Reich, Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Barbara Lee, & many others--including several progressive economists--cheered her nomination to OMB.
So is the "Bernie wing" actually just the progressive wing or is it just a collection of anonymous trolls, podcasters, & Bernie's problematic ex-Comms staff? The latter collection of folks sure do hate Tanden, but. . . .
One of my favorite things about this is that it still would have been a dick move for the Cruzes to fly to Boston (cold, but with electricity), but the headlines would not have been nearly as sticky as WTF CANCUN?! "They went to BOSTON" just doesn't have the same punch.
The Cruzes could have picked nearly any place in the U.S. and they may have gotten criticized for it but the story would have faded. Instead they had to pick Cancun of all places & thus officially entered "Once he tied his dog on top of his car" territory.
republicans do monstrous things all the time and fly under the radar but every once in a while there's the one story that sticks. Typically unrelated to policy, but more to obvious character traits where people will almost universally be appalled or at least afflicted w/ side eye
I deleted a thread about Yglesias's "One Billion Americans." From the excerpts I read, I believed that Yglesias was arguing for mass immigration regardless of country of origin &/or ed background. I have now learned he uses the phrase "better immigrants," which is indefensible.
My view: more immigration is good, as is expansion of the safety net. Immigration should not be based on educational background, language, or country of origin. Lots of immigration=good. Any argument that invokes "good" immigrants=bad.
I apologize for having defended a book that uses the term "better immigrants." This terminology is contrary to my understanding of the arguments based on excerpts I read. I regret having defended a work that uses this terminology, which I find very offensive.
This isn't a plausible characterization at all, on multiple levels. It's not a good description of Clinton's campaign and, perhaps more importantly, it's not well supported by data indicating much of Sanders' 2016 support was less ideologically leftist & more anti-Clinton.
I don't know how you can look at how Sanders lost support in Iowa, MI, New Hampshire, & even Vermont in 2020 and come to the conclusion that he was specifically harmed by some kind of "identity politics" campaign in 2016.
If anything, the more reasonable conclusion is that HrC was harmed by "identity politics" (if we must use that term), such that misogyny seemed to help her male challenger. I'm not saying that all Bernie supporters are misogynists, but it's pretty clear that was a factor for some
Daily reminder that "Europe" is not one place. Also: racism exists in all European countries, though the nature of racism & how specific groups are targeted converges in some areas and diverges in others.
Typically, when people say "Europe," I think they mean Western Europe. Or, when they're talking about healthcare, they might mean Northern Europe. They rarely mean Eastern Europe. regardless, even though there are w/in region correlations, countries are still quite distinct.
Such that, for example, political dynamics in France may correlate more w/ other Western EU countries than w/ Poland or Hungary, but French political/social dynamics are still in many ways distinct from political/social dynamics in Germany or Italy.
I'm not sure what "racialized worldview" means in this context, but it doesn't really matter. What we're talking about here is what is empirically true vs. false. Class realignment is occurring *w/in* white voters as a group. Working class POC vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
If you count POC w/in the working class (& I don't know why you wouldn't, unless you have some other agenda), working class voters, as a group, vote for Dems. cnn.com/election/2020/…
(These are 2020 exit polls, so the typical caveats apply. They paint a broad brush, so should be viewed carefully. That said, these exits line up with the broader empirical trend we saw both in 2020 & longitudinally)
There are a lot of things that are wrong with this piece, but to name a few:
WWC voters leaving the Dem party is not a new phenomenon but part of a longer trend that was briefly interrupted by 2008. The trend restarted in 2012, which was why Dems were freaked out about PA.
A lot of this is about "culture" (ahem, racism; abortion) which should be blatantly obvious given the WWC hemorrhage began in the post Civil rights era. What is relatively new is that higher ed voters are re-aligning at a faster pace than they were previously.