Recent searches
Search options
@phillmv @adamserwer Most definitely. Also note where and by whom it is published.
Lind is… complicated at best. And compactmag...
Nevertheless I thought this a notable piece, perhaps all the moreso for its provenance.
@interfluidity @adamserwer ah ha i mistook the nature of the publication. an anti liberal pro social democracy rag run by conservatives? seems like a very fine needle they’re threading
@phillmv @interfluidity @adamserwer (Not actually pro-social democracy, of course. But they think they need to act like they care.)
@Alon @phillmv @adamserwer cf https://a.co/d/cVomaML blurbed by Lind
these are people with a lot of bad history suddenly conceding some important points. it's hard to know how much to rely upon the scorpion/frog fable vs the strange bedfellows maxim.
@interfluidity @Alon @adamserwer imho the false equivalency is a tell; if the author is willing to jettison queers just to signal seriousness to a non-virulently racist audience, then their commitment to a *broad*, egalitarian social democracy can be safely assumed to be insincere
on a related note, what purpose does it serve for a non-hegemonic (ie not the NYT) publication to publish views its editors don’t necessarily agree with?
@phillmv @Alon @adamserwer (i think lots of editors like the idea of supporting a vigorous debate within the contours of their tent, however broadly or narrowly defined. i don't have any idea what the editors of compactmag actually think or don't think, and don't lend much credence in these avowedly post-liberal, sometimes openly theocratic, editors' commitment to liberal free debate norms however much they might (or might not) claim them.)
@phillmv @interfluidity @adamserwer I don't think it is? I think of it in terms of "what is the persuasive content of the piece?", after having read way too much "I'm pro-immigration, but" takes from libertarians, and anything by rationalists.
Here, I think his persuasive content is anti-racist, unlike a lot of "yes, but" shit from, say, Tyler Cowen on immigration. (1/2)
@phillmv @interfluidity @adamserwer 1. The main of the piece opposes biological racism.
2. The "liberals are bad too" bit is segregated away: it attacks people who are unnamed and not connected to leftists he cites positively, like Wilson.
3. He doesn't portray himself as "I'm a liberal, but," but as "I'm a conservative, but."
4. He cites Chua and Sowell to reinforce the "serious conservatives oppose biological racism" point, and avoids mentioning that Sowell and Murray both hate welfare. (2/2)