Just another Twitter refugee looking for what we had there once upon a time. It's not going to be Mastodon or Post.News and probably not Threads, so let's see if we can't make this our home.
316 followers 64 following 2,268 posts
view profile on Bluesky 
Not going to stop thinking about the comment that Trump is sending Confederate armies to occupy Northern cities. How much more is there to say? That’s not a “distraction.” It’s what the white supremacists who tried to secede have wanted for over a century. It’s not a distraction to them at all.
COVID was Dems' fault because they acknowledged it. Any societal disruption could've been avoided if only we pretended. First time US media and voting public didn't hold the president responsible for a bad thing on his watch. Even as he messed it up on live TV. Nothing I can think of comes close.
Yeah, ok, but the private property verse stays in.
And replace The Star Spangled Banner with the Battle Hymn of the Republic as the national anthem.
And this of course speaks a lot to solutions as well. “If you attempt to deplatform, stifle or suppress this stuff you will only draw more attention to it and add to their numbers.” Nah man, pretty sure it will go back to like it was before when being an open Nazi was socially toxic.
That’s why having a realistic, pragmatic view somewhere between “if we fight hard enough and scream loud enough (and give just one more dollar) we can stop it all, and Dems are doing everything they can” and “all is lost, it’s pointless.” Anyway, that’s my very lukewarm take.
That’s an important distinction, IMHO, and it’s not just stylistic. Understanding these differences helps us understand where to obstruct, where to protest, where to call our congressional representatives, etc. It informs strategy, tactics, allocation of limited resources, etc.
With the voting stuff, none of the moves have been made yet except a shitpost. Conceding defeat now is truly doomer. With the IEEPA tariffs all the action is in the rearview mirror other than some mechanical details, none of which affect the valence of the outcome, which is a foregone conclusion.
There’s a broad array of possibilities and outcomes vs. “SCOTUS takes up / does not take up appellate ruling, issues / does not issue decision affirming / overturning appellate decision on the shadow / normal docket.” That’s a very narrow gamespace, and we all know substantively where it’s headed.
This (related to Trump’s impending order on mail voting) is an important limit to the point I’m making here, and here, Bouie is right. The difference is that there’s a lot of gamespace left. Trump could ultimately not attempt intervention, states could ignore his attempts, courts can rule, etc.
Not to belabor the point but: I am not the weird one for being this mad at the Democratic Party and its leaders. Look at polls of your average rank and file Dem voters and how they feel about the party now. It is YOU who are out of touch if you’re asking why people are being mean to Dem politicians
this point—that this era is not forever and accountability can come in many forms—has for some reason proved bizarrely elusive for democrats
One of the best signs I've ever seen Enjoy your Labor Day Weekend
All right everyone, it was fun, but let’s pack it in.
1. They are certain SCOTUS will overturn them. 2. They want to make SCOTUS actually do it. 3. They realize the disruption of going back and forth is worse than the face lost by this ridiculous combination of adverse ruling and months-long stay. Given that context, it makes a lot of sense.
That’s the one.
Not an expert, will take your word for it.
I’m all for celebrating victories, no matter how small, and boosting / patting Dems on the back on the rare occasions that they do a good job. This is my last repost. But war whoops that we finally got her to cave because Lucy is setting up the football for Charlie are just silly.
Ok, I get the doomer schtick gets old, but the premature victory laps every time someone erects the tiniest roadblock that will be immediately stayed and rapidly overturned by a feral SCOTUS is at least as annoying.
Leader Schumer is calling for RFK Jr. to be fired. "By keeping Robert Kennedy in charge of HHS, Trump is doubling down on his own failure. President Trump must admit his mistake and remove Kennedy now."
ATL—>ORD
Appreciate it!
Though of course part of that political failure was an unwillingness/inability to hold Trump and his ringleaders accountable, which allowed them to rise again.
Sure, but we got sufficient low level convictions there to act as a deterrent, which is *really* the part that I’m interested in, at the low level. The failure on the 1/6 trials (again, up to perhaps Tarrio; above him is different) was political, i.e. losing the 2024 election so Trump could pardon.
Yeah, this is where I’d ask Petain/Nuremberg/SA Truth and Reconciliation experts to step in and talk about how that can be done. It’s not like if you’d left the Nazis to Nazi courts and Nazi judges you’d have gotten anywhere. But I genuinely don’t know a lot about how that worked.
Sure, but I also think the lower on the totem poll that the accused resides the more likely it is that the civilian system can be used. Sam Alito isn’t going to dive in to every assault case - it would overwhelm the system. The risk is with the top folks, who are most important to bring to justice.
Right - the intent here isn’t a kangaroo court with a predetermined outcome. Everyone deserves a fair trial. It’s just an acknowledgment that a fair trial isn’t possible in a system where Aileen Cannon and Sam Alito can intervene, which disqualifies every civilian U.S. court system.
Contra Garland and Biden, however, this does NOT absolve us of our solemn obligation to seek and deliver justice for these crimes. Trials are the bad faith window dressing. Tribunals are the moderate position. Let’s not even gesture at the alternatives. 2/2
Emphasis on TRIBUNALS. The 2021-2024 interregnum thoroughly demonstrated that in its current state, the judiciary is so utterly captured by right-wing factionalism that there is no possible evidence or fact pattern which could be used to obtain and sustain a conviction for any of these crimes. 1/2
Need this guy in the senate asap
I’m just saying there’s nothing wrong (and lots right) with gatekeeping out folks who operate in a manner orthogonal to the purpose of the project in which they’re trying to engage.
Now, to be clear, I’m not saying “these are bad people and they should be denied income.” A child molester can fight fires. A charlatan can be a cop. Any of those four can enjoy a lucrative career as a tech executive or an investment banker, and in fact many do.
Sure. I’m fine with child molesters being blacklisted from teaching, career criminals from being cops, arsonists from being firefighters, and charlatans from being public intellectuals.
Underrated post.
.
So yeah, I absolutely believe in cancel culture, in stigma, in social consequences for speech that violates the sensibilities of the vast majority, as a way of building societal immunity to viral, pathogenic speech, and think they knew what they were doing when they went after that first. <>
Yeah, of course this can go overboard. It can turn into the Red Scare, though again, without Army-McCarthy (government) that’s not quite the same. But we’re living in a world where we took the other extreme, where race realism is now considered a legitimate view, and that isn’t great either. 12/
But as we can see as the anti-vaxxer and race realist lunatics storm the gates and sack the city, we can’t just engage with it like they might have a point. And if we don’t want government getting involved (and we don’t) then social stigma, shame, and mockery are our only defense. 11/
Cancellation in this sense is the tool we have in our arsenal to combat the Chris Rufos of the world, because as Sartre explained long ago, this isn’t the kind of speech that can be defeated by more, better speech, because it’s barely even speech in a traditional sense but juvenile provocation. 10/
Rufo has been very transparent about the bad faith instrumentality of his use of free speech, and while I don’t think the government should punish him for it, I disagree with the Harper’s Letter authors that because other assholes cheer it on the rest of us are somehow obligated to platform it. 9/
Chris Rufo doesn’t have a right to column inches on the NYT opinion page nor a seat on the Sunday morning shows, & denying him those things because he’s a toxic, lying, bad faith asshole is not a violation of his rights. It’s funny how little Team Personal Responsibility understands consequences. 8/
My freedom of speech allows me to cross the street, stand on a soapbox, and address the grass and anyone in Centennial Park who will listen. But because the IOA has freedom of association, they can’t possibly curb my rights by exercising theirs. Thinking they could is really pretty silly. 7/
This wouldn’t have been a violation, or restriction, or hindrance of my free speech. It’s perfectly in line with the editorial philosophy our former peer-reviewed journal EIC discussed during his presentation earlier today. It turns out I don’t have a “right” to address the IOA World Congress. 6/
Now, if on the other hand I’d presented some quackery about influencing the emotional state of water with heavy metal music, or worse, gone on an extended diatribe about which breed of dogs I think are the best lay, I probably would have been told in no uncertain terms that I wasn’t welcome back. 5/
I suppose that’s why the abstract was accepted, & why I was invited to present, and while there were some pointed methodological questions (aren’t there always) no one seemed offended and I certainly wasn’t told or had it implied to me that I wouldn’t be welcomed back if I wanted to speak again. 4/
The gist of it was about the use of computational fluid dynamics modeling to optimize the design of an ozone dissolution system with unusually high hydraulic turndown in a harmful algal bloom application in the Pacific Northwest, which is a pretty typical paper for this kind of conference. 3/
I’ve spent the last four days in Atlanta at the International Ozone Association World Congress, meeting with colleagues, attending papers, & doing the things one does at these kinds of gatherings. I wasn’t a speaker this year, but did present a paper at last year’s conference. 2/
So, this is a response to a discussion about stigma, shame, and cancel culture, with the “restrictions” here being informal and basically amounting to social consequences for broadly offensive speech. Anyway, a good time to lay out my thoughts on this subject. 🧵
Sure, but blacklisting (laudatory) not blacklisting (derogatory). Like if I invite a parent to speak to the kids at Career Day and instead of talking about firefighting he exposes himself to the class, not inviting him back may be “blacklisting” him, but it ain’t the Red Scare.
Put another way - on a spectrum of “socially constructed” to “genuinely different,” how far away are rural and urban Americans from Hutus and Tutsis, and how much impact can Hutu Power FM have on moving this position?
Wholeheartedly agree that the U.S. military as it currently exists cannot be used for this purpose because of the broader definition of coethnicity that defines its composition. The right-wing seems to understand this too, hence the attempt to constitute alternatives both nationally and locally.
The Jewish people are already variably coethnic or non-coethnic to the rest of white America depending on the observer and the specific needs of the right-wing at any given moment, and it’s an untested assumption that this is for historical rather than instrumental reasons.
I guess the open question is (and I tend to be more on your side than the other, but am less confident) whether the consolidated effort by the right-wing to other urban residents as “not Real Americans” and therefore non-coethnics can succeed despite shared language, heritage, etc.
The treatlers were the most useful and most idiotic of all useful idiots.
Not trying to be fancy - if there’s a more normal word than this for this I’m all for it!
I’d say you can even have those views, and talk about them with a small group of trusted friends who agree with you! It’s the “free speech means no consequences whatsoever, even natural ones, for loudly, proudly, and widely disseminating false, atrocious views” train I can’t get onboard.
No, more like an informal social credit system that limits people’s access to the New York Times opinion page and Sunday show panel discussions.
No, more like treating racist assholes like Chris Rufo as racist assholes rather than patting ourselves on the back for being open minded by elevating them, and by extension, their views. Speech remains free - no one is going to jail. But acting like an asshole should have social consequences.
Just a heads up. I was able to schedule my COVID vaccine appointment. Online it will ask “do you have a condition that puts you at high risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19 virus.” Click yes and it will allow you to schedule an appointment. No questions asked. No proof required. Pass it on.
To maintain a healthy biome we need to employ artificial selection, and if you don’t want the government doing that (and you don’t) stigma and shame are the tools in the kit we have at our disposal. They were the first thing that needed to go to get us to where we are today.
You can’t rely on the marketplace of ideas to elevate good ones and stigmatize bad ones, because it selects for virality, not quality, and virality is often self-gratifying: - “your lack of success isn’t you, it’s DEI.” - “masking isn’t helpful, they just want to control you.”
This thread is good, but I want to add: 1. This is why they battled so hard and so early to take “cancel culture” off the table. 2. This is why it’s so critical to preserve “cancel culture” as a tool for shaping the noösphere.
So the sandwich guy ... beat the wrap
This is quite good.
Sounds about right, as it’s 3 years early and only half the permission structure has been built. When the time comes approximately 100% (or close enough that the distinction becomes meaningless) will support this, should that be his will.
The only way to stop this is to prevent them, prevent *anyone* from having “buy your way out of consequences” money. That’s not socialism - I’ve repeatedly said I’m fine burning the money instead of spending it. But no one can have that kind of power and at a certain level money = power.
Correct. The default Dem position has to be, "I will fire everyone Trump appointed, and everyone hired by anyone Trump appointed, regardless of what any statute or court says." Anything less is a ratification of Trump's actions that leaves the government broken and filled with saboteurs.
The most respected country in the world, I’m told.
Remember that most of the people in the National Guard want nothing to do with this and are, in fact, probably pretty pissed off that their governor ripped them away from their normal lives to do security theater miles away from home.
Yeah, Brennan authored that decision. I’m not even sure KBJ is as far left as he was. I’m pretty sure Roberts wouldn’t overturn that decision, but that just means it comes down to Gorsuch/Barrett, as Kav/Alito/Thomas are a lock.
Oh, it's simple, the Boomers got their $10k college education and their $60k home then decided to pull up the ladders and rip up the roots of the American dream by putting in charge the worst people they could find, such as Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump.
They really are the mirror image of the people they hate the most (not Republicans).
Perfect. 10/10. No notes. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/bill-maher-sounds-alarm-trump-152248238.html
Although he has become a shitty person, I think Fetterman provided a solid blueprint for how to run against the modern GOP in his campaign against Mehmet Oz: a potent combination of ridicule and disdain. I would love to see this strategy implemented on a national level.
the right has long labored under the misconception that ordinary liberals have always hated them and their way of life with a burning passion, something which is only just now becoming true
You have to actually believe that certain combinations of words have magical properties in order to believe one of these nearly identical messages is a slam dunk and the other is radioactive.
If Shor and Blue Rose were a GOP plant intended to surreptitiously undermine Democratic messaging, what would they be doing differently?
I used to hear a lot about “Munich” and appeasement, as recently as the 2012 Romney/Ryan campaign in regard to Putin specifically. Funny how that went away not only as a GOP talking point but also the predominant “view from nowhere” mainstream media position.
Really funny to imagine the reaction if a Democrat said this. “What kind of pussy, surrender-monkey shit is this? Wars end when we defeat our enemies and they beg for mercy.”
Words/phrases Democrats should never use: * bipartisan * my Republican friends * real, valid, legitimate, serious, important (to describe issue raised by Republicans) * yea (when voting on Republican bills) * distraction (to describe bad thing Republicans did) * woke (in derogatory sense)
.
It’s why I’m always trying to force Yggy & Co. out of the Democratic Party so they can become Rockefeller Republicans and publish endless think pieces on how the GOP can win back voters, speak at their conferences, etc. They command approximately 10 votes, and 99.9% of airtime and column inches.
It has the benefit of being true!
This is a key component of what I’m always talking about RE: Dems needing to redirect the current vengeful zeitgeist rather than trying to bipartisan it away. Americans want someone who will hurt their enemies - you can’t change that, but you can convince them our enemies are theirs too.
Dems should make a bigger stink about consumer contract abuse. Big businesses write their own rules, break them at will, make it impossible to negotiate or even talk to them, disregard any limits on their own power over consumers, force arbitration, and nobody can afford civil litigation anyway
Always fun to see what *doesn’t* count as a “distraction.”
Yeah, I’m not there anymore but enough people post his stuff over here that his…er…journey is transparent. And horrifying.
“Fuck you, I don’t owe you an explanation.”
The New York Times isn’t a newspaper. There’s no obligation for any Democrat to talk to them or for the next Democratic president to give them a seat in the briefing room. They differ from NewsMax in degree, not kind.
Fair.
Andrew Sullivan is one of my favorite examples of this. He was a fierce and effective advocate of gay rights *right* up to the line demarcating the specific kind of gay he is, and is now a fierce critic of anything past that line. Impossible to conceive of possessing that little self-awareness.
Definitely on the philosophical side, but worth your time.
Yeah, and honestly I’m not sure what the Baileys think about all this either.
OBAMNA FROM THE TOP ROPE
Good addendum - few jobs are more indecent.
