ModocForever
11.9K posts
1. Rufo is so lucky in his enemies. How do you look at the institutional left over the last decade and decide that the priority must be not reducing their discretion on the grounds that it will "polarize" them?
This is not Rufo just aimlessly trying to be a dick. he is attempting to show that the methods of the Elizabeth Corey types have failed because they don't understand that the problem is not a matter of communication or persuasion. The right is having power politics done to them by the left, and Rufo's point is that you can't fight power politics with persuasion. It is impossible to reason with power politics for the exact same reason that it is impossible to reason with a punch in the face. You cannot appeal to the better nature and intellectual honesty of a person who thinks that all intellectual engagement is merely masks for power and all justifications are merely rhetorical moves in a discursive struggle for political position. Again, academics simply refuse to engage with Rufo's theory of change, what he is trying to do intellectually and politically, or his normative and strategic justifications for doing so. If academics want understanding, perhaps they could, you know, ask him (or me! we worked and work together!) about what is being done, why it is being done, and what the normative and strategic justifications for doing so are.
This is not Rufo just aimlessly trying to be a dick. he is attempting to show that the methods of the Elizabeth Corey types have failed because they don't understand that the problem is not a matter of communication or persuasion. The right is having power politics done to them by the left, and Rufo's point is that you can't fight power politics with persuasion. It is impossible to reason with power politics for the exact same reason that it is impossible to reason with a punch in the face. You cannot appeal to the better nature and intellectual honesty of a person who thinks that all intellectual engagement is merely masks for power and all justifications are merely rhetorical moves in a discursive struggle for political position. Again, academics simply refuse to engage with Rufo's theory of change, what he is trying to do intellectually and politically, or his normative and strategic justifications for doing so. If academics want understanding, perhaps they could, you know, ask him (or me! we worked and work together!) about what is being done, why it is being done, and what the normative and strategic justifications for doing so are.
HATE HOAX: The SPLC once bankrupted the KKK but eventually it realized that to raise donor money it would need to fund the very organization it was founded to fight. The demand for racism exceeded supply so they manufactured it.
The DOJ's indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center is a chilling attack on civil rights advocacy. "Trump's DOJ has been weaponized by dangerous forces. Every organization and individual engaged in social justice should be alarmed. What we are seeing in real time is an administration seeking to leverage its position to target individuals and organizations that do not agree with its political thought." — NAACP President and CEO @DerrickNAACP Stand with us. We're urging every advocate to speak out and encouraging every voter to make their voices heard loud and clear in November during the midterm elections. naacp.org/articles/weapo…
Yes, I’ve polarized the public against critical race theory, anti-white discrimination, academic corruption, and fraud against the state—all of which destroy the common good and are *deserving of distrust.* Imagine calling yourself a “political philosopher” and being this dense.
@wesyang Yes, and I’ve explained to people that this is precisely how I see my role: I try to enact structural changes through bare-knuckled politics so they can study poetry, history, philosophy, and art. Baffling that some don’t see how this is necessary as a matter of principle.
